UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 WASHINGTON D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

September 29, 2011

EPA-SAB-11-016

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Subject: Review of EPA’s Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy

Dear Administrator Jackson:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Oil Spill Research Program conducts research under the 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The response efforts to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill highlighted the need 

for additional research to prevent spills, evaluate new spill response technologies, investigate the human 

health and ecological implications of deepwater oil spills, assess the use of dispersants, and estimate the 

acute and chronic health risks for spill response workers and the public from oil spills and spill 

mitigation. 

To respond to these research issues, the EPA developed the Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy for FY12 

through FY15 to present a research approach on potential human and environmental risks from oil spills 

and the application of dispersants, surface washing agents, bioremediation agents and other mitigation 

measures. The goal of the research outlined in the Strategy is to provide environmental managers with 

the tools, models and methods needed to mitigate the effects of oil spills in terrestrial and aquatic 

systems in coastal, inland, and marine environments. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) requested the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review and provide advice on the proposed 

research initiatives, as described in the EPA Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy. The SAB Staff Office 

formed an ad hoc panel, the Oil Spill Research Strategy Review Panel, to conduct this review. The 

charge to the SAB included questions about the proposed science questions, research activities and

research outcomes outlined in the Strategy.

The SAB acknowledges the thoughtful effort made by the EPA to identify research needs for the Oil 

Spill Program. However, much work remains. The Strategy proposes EPA activities and identifies 

possible interagency research activities and collaboration, however, the Strategy is not clear on which 

agency will have primary responsibility for key research activities and how coordination will occur. In 

addition, it is not clear how the Strategy will be incorporated into ORD’s new Integrated Transdisciplinary Research approach. The EPA should incorporate this research into ORD’s new approach 

and more clearly define its role and responsibilities for research that supports oil spill prevention, 
remediation and restoration as well as its mechanisms for coordination with other agencies. The SAB 

concludes the EPA needs to communicate effectively among the interagency partners, collaborators and

oil spill decision makers to develop the needed research. The lack of clarity about which agency is in the 

lead for a research area, what roles collaborators have and the scope and goals of the research creates an 

uncertainty in whether the EPA will have the research results it needs to support decision makers during 

an oil spill response effort. The SAB recommends that the EPA should also identify priority research 

needs and distinguish between short- or long-term research activities. 

The Strategy briefly outlines four research themes (dispersants, ecosystem impacts, innovative processes 

and technologies and human health impacts). The research on dispersants needs to more 

comprehensively define the efficacy of a dispersant and the ecological and toxicological endpoints that 

are being evaluated. In addition, dispersants and oil mixtures should be considered as a system 

recognizing that dispersants and other agents will perform differently in different environments and 

when reacting with different oil types. Finally, novel mechanical methods and chemical treatment agents 

(CTAs) for alcohol biofuel and alcohol-blended fuel spills merit attention because of the pronounced 

chemical differences from extant hydrocarbon fuels. The growing trends in production and large-scale 

transport of alcohol biofuels will increase the need for research in this subject. 

Assessing the ecological effects of oil spills on shorelines, coastal and inland ecosystems requires a 

baseline characterization of ecosystem functions. Without baseline monitoring data and information the 

remediation and restoration efforts are difficult to assess and difficult to quantify. The Strategy should 

include a plan for baseline data collection, documentation, storage and easy retrieval by the EPA or 

other agencies. This baseline should include the identification of prototypical terrestrial, freshwater, 

coastal and marine ecosystems, and the development of indicators that can be used to evaluate post-spill

ecosystem response and recovery.

The Strategy should further articulate the research for the key exposure pathways, (i.e., water, food and

sediment) for human and ecological exposures. Exposure duration and pathways will vary depending on 

the exposed population under consideration. Human exposure will vary between oil spill response 

workers and residents of adjacent communities. Ecological populations and communities, as well as 

human populations, will also have different exposure scenarios and pathways that should be considered 

depending on site of the release and ecological community. 

Environmental justice is implied in several of the Strategy’s research themes. The SAB recommends 

explicit inclusion of environmental justice considerations in the Strategy. The Agency should identify 

the decision context(s) and key scientific questions for consideration within the Strategy’s research 

themes and develop appropriate research topics.

Oil spill prevention is not discussed in the Strategy, presumably because this prevention research will be 

managed by other agencies. Nevertheless, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes prevention as 

the nation’s primary pollution management strategy. The Strategy should explicitly recognize the 

importance of prevention, even if the research on prevention is to be managed by other agencies.

Finally, the SAB recognizes that these themes are complex and inter-related. The SAB recommends that 

the Strategy develop approaches for integration of the research themes and develop mechanisms for 

adapting and updating the Strategy as lessons are learned from on-going oil spill responses.
In closing, the SAB encourages the EPA to continue efforts to identify and prioritize oil spill research 

and collaborate with its interagency partners to develop the best available science to support oil spill 

prevention, response, remediation and restoration efforts. We appreciate the opportunity to provide 

advice on this important research and look forward to your response. 

Sincerely,

/Signed/ /Signed/

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Chair Dr. David T. Allen, Chair

Science Advisory Board SAB Oil Spill Research Strategy 

Review Panel
i

NOTICE

This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), a public 

advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator and other 

officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The SAB is structured to provide balanced, expert 

assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been 

reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent 

the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive 

Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute a 

recommendation for use. Reports of the SAB are posted on the EPA Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/sab.
ii

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Science Advisory Board

Oil Spill Research Strategy Review Panel

CHAIR

Dr. David T. Allen, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX

Ms. Yvonne Addassi, Senior Environmental Scientist, California Office of Spill Prevention and 

Response, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA,

Dr. Kevin Brown, Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, 

La Jolla, CA

Dr. G. Allen Burton, Professor and Director, Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems 

Research, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Dr. Richard Camilli, Associate Scientist, Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering, Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

Dr. James Clark, Independent Consultant, Edmonds, WA

Dr. Christine Ehlig-Economides, Professor, Petroleum Engineering, College of Engineering, Texas 

A&M University, College Station, TX

Dr. Thomas Frazer, Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resource 

Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Dr. James R. Mihelcic, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, 

Tampa, FL

Dr. Eileen Murphy, Grants Facilitator, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, 

Piscataway, NJ

Dr. Stephen M. Roberts, Professor, Department of Physiological Sciences, Director, Center for 

Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Dr. James Sanders, Director and Professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, GA

Dr. Kathrine Springman, Associate Professor, Chemistry Department, Portland State University, 

Portland, OR
iii

Dr. Ronald Tjeerdema, Professor and Chair, Environmental Toxicology, College of Agricultural and

Environmental Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF

Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science 

Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-564-4885,

(carpenter.thomas@epa.gov)
iv

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Science Advisory Board

CHAIR

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Professor and Charles M. Denny, Jr. Chair in Science, Technology and 

Public Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Co-Director of the Water Resources 

Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

SAB MEMBERS

Dr. David T. Allen, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX

Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson, Full Professor and Director of the Marine Science Program, Department 

of Earth and Ocean Sciences , University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Dr. Timothy J. Buckley, Associate Professor and Chair, Division of Environmental Health Sciences, 

College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Dr. Patricia Buffler, Professor of Epidemiology and Dean Emerita, Department of Epidemiology, 

School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA

Dr. Ingrid Burke, Director, Haub School and Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural 

Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

Dr. Thomas Burke, Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins 

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

Dr. Terry Daniel, Professor of Psychology and Natural Resources, Department of Psychology, School 

of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Dr. George Daston, Victor Mills Society Research Fellow, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs, 

Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH

Dr. Costel Denson, Managing Member, Costech Technologies, LLC, Newark, DE

Dr. Otto C. Doering III, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W. 

Lafayette, IN

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Walter J. Blenko, Sr. Professor of Environmental Engineering , Department of 

Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 

PA

Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Vice President for Research, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas 

Tech University, Lubbock, TX

Dr. Elaine Faustman, Professor and Director, Institute for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication, 

School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
v

Dr. John P. Giesy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Veterinary Biomedical Sciences and 

Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Dr. Jeffrey K. Griffiths, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, 

School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA

Dr. James K. Hammitt, Professor, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University, Boston, MA

Dr. Bernd Kahn, Professor Emeritus and Associate Director, Environmental Radiation Center, Georgia 

Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Agnes Kane, Professor and Chair, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Brown 

University, Providence, RI

Dr. Madhu Khanna, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL

Dr. Nancy K. Kim, Senior Executive, Health Research, Inc., Troy, NY

Dr. Catherine Kling, Professor, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Dr. Kai Lee, Program Officer, Conservation and Science Program, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, 

Los Altos, CA

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, President, Cecil Lue-Hing & Assoc. Inc., Burr Ridge, IL

Dr. Floyd Malveaux, Executive Director, Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc., Washington, DC

Dr. Lee D. McMullen, Water Resources Practice Leader, Snyder & Associates, Inc., Ankeny, IA

Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Professor Emeritus, Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Lopez 

Island, WA

Dr. James R. Mihelcic, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, 

Tampa, FL

Dr. Jana Milford, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, 

CO

Dr. Christine Moe, Eugene J. Gangarosa Professor, Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins 

School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Horace Moo-Young, Dean and Professor, College of Engineering, Computer Science and

Technology, California State University, Los Angeles, CA

Dr. Eileen Murphy, Grants Facilitator, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, 

Piscataway, NJ
vi

Dr. Duncan Patten, Research Professor, Hydroecology Research Program , Department of Land 

Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

Dr. Stephen Polasky, Fesler-Lampert Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics, Department 

of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Dr. Arden Pope, Professor, Department of Economics, Brigham Young University , Provo, UT

Dr. Stephen M. Roberts, Professor, Department of Physiological Sciences, Director, Center for 

Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Dr. Amanda Rodewald, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Professor and Flora L. Thornton Chair, Department of Preventive Medicine, 

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

Dr. James Sanders, Director and Professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, GA

Dr. Jerald Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, University of Iowa, 

Iowa City, IA

Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Philip E. Austin Professor of Economics , Department of Economics, 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Dr. Herman Taylor, Director, Principal Investigator, Jackson Heart Study, University of Mississippi 

Medical Center, Jackson, MS

Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr., Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law at the 

Stanford Law School and Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford 

University, Stanford, CA

Dr. Paige Tolbert, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public 

Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Dr. John Vena, Professor and Department Head, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 

College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Dr. Thomas S. Wallsten, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, 

College Park, MD

Dr. Robert Watts, Professor of Mechanical Engineering Emeritus, Tulane University, Annapolis, MD
vii

Dr. R. Thomas Zoeller, Professor, Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF

Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science 

Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-564-2218,

Fax: 202-565-2098, (nugent.angela@epa.gov)
viii

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................................................................................................ix

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................1

2. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................6

3. Response to Charge Questions.............................................................................................................8

3.1. Current and Future Research Needs Identified in the Strategy.................................... 8

3.1.1. Consideration of Environmental Justice to Overburdened Communities 

and Behavioral Sciences Research..............................................................................................9

3.1.2. Greener Alternatives: Chemistry and Engineering.............................................................. 10

3.2. Comprehensive Organization to Foster Collaboration .............................................. 11

3.3. Specific Comments on the Research Themes and Projects....................................... 12

3.3.1. Dispersants...................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.2. Shoreline, Coastal and Inland Effects Research to Inform Oil Spill 

Decision-Making........................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.3. Innovative Processes and Technologies Development....................................................... 20

3.3.4. Human Health Impacts................................................................................................................ 23

4. References..........................................................................................................................................28

APPENDIX A: EPA’s Charge for the Oil Spill Research Strategy Review..........................................A-1

APPENDIX B: An Example of a Staged Event Management Based Strategy Using 

a NEBA Approach .................................................................................................................................B-1
ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CTA Chemical treatment agents

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DMF Decision management framework 

DOI Department of the Interior

DWH Deepwater Horizon 

EBRS Event-based Research Strategy 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

ICCOPR Interagency Coordinating Committee for Oil Pollution Research 

ITR Integrated trans-disciplinary research 

NCP National Contingency Plan 

NEBA Net environmental benefit analysis 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council 

NTP National Toxicology Program

OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

ORD EPA Office of Research and Development

PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

SAB Science Advisory Board

SAMSHA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

SPCC Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures

USCG United States Coast Guard
1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Oil Spill Research Program has conducted research 

since its authorization under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The three primary agencies with 

which the EPA collaborates on oil spill-related research are the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). Each of these 

agencies has specific roles and responsibilities defined under OPA. 

The EPA has regulatory authority over onshore and offshore non-transportation related facilities and 

requires them to have to have spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans and facility 

response plans. The Agency sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use products on 

oil spills as defined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final 

Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900). The National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) lists dispersants, surface washing agents, bioremediation agents, surface 

collecting agents and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on 

land and on or near waters of the U.S., depending on the product and its proper application. 

OPA also established the Interagency Coordinating Committee for Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) to 

coordinate oil spill prevention and response research. ICCOPR fosters cost-effective research with 

mechanisms that include the joint funding of the research and submission of a biennial report to 

Congress on activities carried out in the preceding two fiscal years and on activities proposed to be 

carried out in the current two fiscal year period. 

The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) spill highlighted the need for additional research for spill prevention 

and response technologies. It raised questions relative to the use of dispersants in oil spill remediation, 

acute and chronic health effects for spill response workers and the public, whether new innovative 

technologies were available, and what are the most effective steps to restore coastal, shoreline and

inland areas impacted by spills. 

To respond to these research issues, the EPA developed a research strategy on potential human and 

environmental risks from oil spills and the application of dispersants, surface washing agents, 

bioremediation agents and other mitigation measures for FY12 through FY15. The Draft Oil Spill 

Research Strategy, hereafter referred to as the “Strategy,” addresses four research themes: dispersants; 

ecological effects; innovative processes and technologies; and human health effects. The goal of the 

research is to provide environmental managers with the tools, models and methods needed to mitigate 

the effects of oil spills on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in inland, coastal, and marine environments. 

The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) requested the Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

to review and provide advice on the proposed research initiatives, as described in the Strategy. The SAB 

Staff Office formed an ad hoc panel, the Oil Spill Research Strategy Review Panel, to conduct this 

review.

The Panel held a public teleconference to review the Strategy on April 11 - 12, 2011 and a follow-up 

public teleconference on June 9, 2011. The final report was reviewed by the chartered SAB on July 28, 

2011.

The SAB responded to three charge questions in its deliberations. Charge questions 1 and 2 are closely 

related and the responses are provided below in an integrated summary.
2

1. Does the draft Oil Spill Research Strategy encompass the most important research needed to 

enable EPA to better carry out its mission to prepare for and respond to oil spills, including 

future challenges such as biofuels discharges? Does the draft strategy appropriately address 

greener alternatives and innovation? 

2. Is the research strategy organized appropriately to frame the questions in a comprehensible 

manner and to foster collaboration with outside entities as appropriate? If not, how can it be 

better organized?

The SAB acknowledges the thoughtful effort that already has been made by the EPA to identify the 

research needs for the Oil Spill Program. However, much work remains. The Strategy, presents 

interagency research activities and possible collaboration, but is unclear what research will be conducted 

by which agency and how the Strategy will be incorporated into the Office of Research and 

Development’s (ORD) new Integrated Trans-disciplinary Research (ITR) approach. The EPA should 

incorporate the oil spill research into the new approach and more clearly define its roles and 

responsibilities for research that supports oil spill prevention, remediation and restoration and the 

mechanisms for coordination with other agencies. The EPA needs to communicate effectively among 

the interagency partners, collaborators and oil spill decision makers. The lack of clarity about which 

agency is the lead, the roles of collaborators and the scope and goals of the research creates an 

uncertainty in whether the EPA will have the research results it needs to support decision makers during 

an oil spill response effort. The EPA should also identify which research needs are priorities and which 

are short- or long-term research activities. 

Although the Strategy is organized by research theme (dispersants, ecosystem impacts, innovative 

processes and technologies and human health impacts) the SAB recognizes that these themes are 

complex and inter-related. The SAB recommends that the Strategy develop approaches for integration of 

the themes and that the integration be a distinct element of the Strategy. 

The Strategy’s inclusion of green alternatives and innovation in oil spill responses serves as a potential 

strength of the report. However, the focus on greener alternatives and innovation is primarily focused on 

use of green chemistry to develop greener dispersants. The SAB recommends that the Agency consider 

green alternatives in a broader – and more appropriate – context that considers issues of sustainability 

beyond simply the ecological impact associated with deployment of dispersants. 

The Strategy does not specifically mention environmental justice though it is implied in several of the 

research themes. The SAB concludes it is appropriate to include environmental justice consideration in 

the Strategy within the Strategy. The Agency should consider environmental justice in the decision 

context and key scientific questions for “Ecological Ecosystem Services, Health and Well-Being in Gulf 

Coast Communities.” Furthermore, using a systems approach that integrates decision making 

frameworks and social and behavioral decision science research with research on the impact oil spills 

potentially have on ecosystems would also address issues of environmental justice.

The SAB acknowledges that there is a great deal of data and information on past oil spill response and 

remediation. However, changing practices (i.e., increased off shore drilling, extreme conditions under 

which the hydrocarbon industry is exploring and drilling and the increased use and availability of 

biofuels) will create new information needs. The EPA and its research collaborators will need to be 

adaptive in approaches to collect, develop and disseminate the best science to oil spill responders 

making decisions and answering complex questions, such as whether or not mitigate the release or rely 

on natural attenuation of the oil spill.
3

Charge question 3 is comprised of three components and the EPA requested that each of the four 

research themes outlined in the Strategy be examined (dispersants, ecosystem impacts, innovative 

processes and technologies and human health impacts). The SAB’s recommendations on each research 

theme are summarized below. 

3. Within each theme:

a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention 

and response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science 

questions that should be addressed.

b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, 

low impact on decision-making, or for other reasons? 

c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to 

achieve the anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be 

refined or important project areas that should be added.

Dispersants

The research on dispersants needs to clearly define the efficacy of a dispersant and the endpoints that are 

being evaluated. Dispersants and other agents will perform differently in different environments and 

when reacting with different oil types. Dispersants are intended to simply change transport and eventual 

fate, essentially selecting between surface and shoreline ecological impacts or those in the water column 

and benthos. In certain cases, the use of dispersants is an irreversible option that may restrict other 

cleanup options (e.g., containment, burning, mechanical recovery). Without a clear understanding of the 

trade-offs and consequence of dispersant use a rational decision context is unavailable. The research 

projects described in the Strategy should also recognize and address the complexity of chemical 

treatment agent (CTA) and oil mixtures.

Toxicological studies of sub-chronic and chronic exposures to the variable complex dispersant mixtures 

are necessary. These studies should include naturally dispersed oil, CTAs alone and oil mixed with 

CTAs for a comparison of actions, effects and impacts. Weathered and fresh oils should be employed for 

all studies, including toxicity studies. Impact areas, such as benthos and shoreline, should be assessed 

separately. Considering key population-level effects for human and ecological populations such as those 

affecting sensitive subpopulations, reproductive success or developmental progress merits incorporation.

Transport and fate studies should include the CTAs in conjunction with the particular oils with which 

they would most likely be used. Given trends in offshore oil production, specific environments that 

should be addressed immediately include cold, high-pressure conditions to model cold/under-ice as well 

as deep-sea (such as what occurred with the DWH blowout) applications. 

Alcohol-based biofuel spills are an emerging research priority that should be included because of their 

qualitatively different environmental transport modes and fate characteristics and the increased 

utilization of these fuels throughout the U.S. Although dispersants are unlikely to be useful in the case of 

a pure alcohol spill, because of the high water solubility of alcohols, the utility of dispersants for 

blended alcohol-hydrocarbon fuel spills are not well characterized. Furthermore, the intense biological 

oxygen demand that can result from an alcohol spill requires that new types of mechanical recovery and 

CTAs be developed for effective response. 
4

Shoreline, Coastal and Inland Effects Research to Inform Oil Spill Decision-Making

Research on the ecological effects of shoreline, coastal and inland oil spills requires baseline data to 

enable comparisons. Effective long-term monitoring of the general health and changing conditions in 

hydrocarbon extraction, processing, and transportation regions (e.g., the U.S. Gulf Coast) should be 

improved and emphasized. The Gulf and other extraction regions are affected by numerous natural and 

anthropogenic disturbances other than oil spills and it is difficult to clearly assign a putative cause to a 

particular disturbance. Developing baseline data will require a long-term, sustained commitment to 

coordinated integrated natural system research at a variety of spatial scales and will require the 

development of a broad suite of indicators that can be used to evaluate an ecosystem’s response and 

recovery. 

Among the needs for improved shoreline, coastal and inland effects research are more thoroughly 

described exposure conditions (including spatial and temporal dynamics) and robust connections 

between exposure and ecological effects. To characterize risks from specific spill incidents adequately, 

these linkages should include baseline and background environmental conditions and stresses. Risk 

assessments building on key exposure-response relationships from laboratory tests where conditions 

reflect ambient exposures will better inform risk managers regarding the trade-offs following various 

response and restoration actions. 

The research issues associated with shorelines, coastal and inland spill impacts should include 

population and community perspectives, using an associated decision management framework (DMF) 

that considers the existing and potential conditions for the region and its biota. This DMF should 

consider existing contamination, knowledge of local and regional food webs and the recruitment and 

refugia potential for local habitats. The DMF should also integrate an understanding of population, 

community and ecosystem recovery capacity. It will be important to link broad toxicology studies 

outlined in the dispersant section of the Strategy to endpoints that support impact and risk assessments at 

these higher levels of ecological organization. Single species toxicity studies should provide endpoints 

to assess population effects and help risk-based decision-making during an event and as part of 

restoration efforts. 

Innovative Processes and Technologies Development

The SAB finds that innovative processes and technologies research should be focused on the EPA’s 

regulatory role in certifying or approving various new approaches. the EPA should engage federal 

agencies, states and industry in their efforts. If the EPA wishes to encourage the development of new or 

improved technologies such as better booms, skimmers, absorbent materials, underwater collection 

methods and surface destruction methods, then specific operational criteria regarding toxicity, 

biodegradation and discharges should be clearly developed and made a part of the review and evaluation 

process.

The clarity of the technological development section could be improved by restructuring the text into a 

more sequenced net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) type approach. A NEBA is specifically 

designed to address the environmental trade-offs associated with decisions during all stages of an oil 

spill response. It should be possible to define the potential regulatory and environmental of positive and

negative consequences of different technologies. The agency should develop analyses and 

methodologies for what may be a limited number of standardized generic environments or incident 

types. This could also be in the form of a separate implementation plan. A NEBA analysis would help 

develop a clearer total life-cycle management ethos. This analysis could include the choice of greener 
5

clean-up materials and methods, their protocol of utilization and their subsequent greener active disposal 

by humans or passive degradation in the environment if not fully recovered.

Prevention is not discussed in the Strategy, presumably because this research will be managed by other 

agencies. Nevertheless, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes prevention as the nation’s 

primary pollution management strategy and the EPA has responsibility for prevention for inland spills. 

The Strategy should explicitly recognize the importance of prevention, even if the majority of the 

research on prevention is to be managed by other agencies.

Human Health Impacts

It appears from the document that much of the human health research regarding the Gulf Oil Spill will 

be conducted by federal agencies other than the EPA. The SAB found it difficult to determine from the 

document which federal agency is charged with conducting the research in specific target areas, as well 

as the level of commitment of federal partners to complete their portions of the research. While this lack 

of information regarding interagency coordination was pervasive in the Strategy, its absence was 

particularly problematic for evaluating whether the research agenda on Human Health Impacts is likely 

to be successful in meeting the EPA’s information needs. 

Several key issues are missing from the research strategy. Spills in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

should include potential human health impacts such as freshwater spills impairing drinking water 

sources and research to communicate the possible risks. For example, this includes research to develop 

methods for assessing risk from short-term or intermittent exposure to chemicals, including short 

duration dermal contact with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Additional research to support 

exposure assessment for oil spills is needed, including improved methods to estimate dermal absorption 

of PAHs, exposure information related to scenarios involving contact with water and beach 

sand/sediment and consumption of seafood from areas potentially impacted by oil spills. 

The strategy describes the need for better communication, but does not include any risk communication 

research. New research in this area should be a priority. The research strategy should also address 

questions relating to environmental justice. Description of the proposed research projects is sufficiently 

vague that their potential contribution to evaluation of human health impacts is difficult to determine.
6

2. INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Oil Spill Research Strategy Review 

Panel in response to a request by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to review the 

Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy, hereafter referred to as the Strategy. 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 1990; 33USC2701-2761) establishes liability for oil releases and a 

fund for responding to oil releases as well as restoring natural resources. Section 2761 of OPA 1990 

authorizes research and development in multiple federal agencies, including the EPA and establishes the 

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR; www.iccopr.uscg.gov). 

Research needed to implement OPA is delegated to several federal agencies. The EPA is responsible for 

non-transportation-related onshore facilities and incidents in the inland zone. The United States Coast 

Guard (USCG) has responsibility for marine transportation-related facilities and incidents in the coastal 

zone. The Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety oversees onshore transportationrelated facilities. The Department of Interior has responsibility for offshore fixed facilities beyond the 

coastline. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for natural 

resource damage assessments relating to oil discharges.

The EPA responsibility includes requiring onshore and offshore non-transportation related facilities to 

have spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans and facility response plans, where 

applicable. The EPA sets policy and guidance authorizing the proper use of products on the National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900). The NCP lists dispersants, surface washing agents, 

bioremediation agents, surface collecting agents and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be 

used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the U.S. depending on the product and its 

proper application (U.S. EPA 2010a). 

The OPA authorizes Congress to appropriate up to $22 million per year among all the responsible 

federal agencies. ICCOPR published multi-agency research and technology plans in 1992 and 1997 and 

is presently developing a third update. The research focus of each agency in the 1997 plan generally 

aligns with its legal and regulatory authorities.

Prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico and its aftermath, the EPA developed a 

draft research strategy that would address the scientific and technical questions that could enhance the 

agency’s ability to carry out its mission with respect to oil spills both in the short- and longer-term. The 

draft Strategy is framed to identify (1) anticipated decisions that spill responders and policy developers 

will be required to make; (2) science questions within those identified decisions; (3) research that would 

address the science questions; and (4) research outcomes that can be used to inform future decisions 

(U.S. EPA 2011a). The draft Strategy addresses four themes: dispersants; ecological effects; innovative 

processes and technologies; and human health effects. Research priorities that are principally the 

responsibility of other agencies are not included in this draft strategy, but will be considered in ICCOPR 

planning (see Figure 1-2 in the draft strategy).

The draft Strategy is deliberately not constrained by resource levels. ORD’s intent was to develop a 

strategy that would address the scientific and technical questions that are central to the EPA’s mission, 

recognizing that the research could be conducted by various members of the ICCOPR and others. 
7

Implementation of the Strategy would entail coordination with those entities to ensure appropriate 

collaboration and leveraging.

ORD requested the SAB to comment on the scope, proposed science questions, research activities and 

research outcomes outlined in the Strategy. The Charge to the SAB is provided as Appendix A. The 

SAB Staff Office formed an ad hoc panel, the Oil Spill Research Strategy Review Panel, to conduct this 

review. The Panel held a public teleconference to review the Strategy on April 11 - 12, 2011 and a 

follow-up public teleconference on June 9, 2011. The final report was reviewed by the chartered SAB on 

July 28, 2011.
8

3. RESPONSE TO CHARGE QUESTIONS

The SAB’s responses to the charge questions are provided below. Each Charge question is provided at 

the beginning of the response. Charge questions 1 and 2 focused on the scope of the Strategy in its 

entirety and whether the Strategy addressed and discussed the research and science that will be needed 

to support the agency’s future challenges. Question 3 focused on each of the four research themes and 

sought SAB advice on whether the project areas under each research theme addressed the key issues, if 

there are science questions that should be added or deleted from the Strategy and if the proposed project 

areas are adequately described. For this question, the SAB responses are organized under each of the 

charge questions and research themes.

3.1.

Does the draft Oil Spill Research Strategy encompass the most important research needed to enable 

EPA to better carry out its mission to prepare for and respond to oil spills, including future 

challenges such as biofuels discharges? Does the draft strategy appropriately address greener 

alternatives and innovation? 

The SAB generally agrees that the Strategy encompasses the important research needed to enable the 

EPA to better carry out its mission. The four research themes presented in the Strategy address 

important research, however, many of the project areas and associated questions under each of the 

research themes are rather general and it is unclear how the studies will be designed to enable the EPA

to carry out its mission. The Strategy needs to specify a plan to integrate data to understand the impacts 

from previous spills, such as DWH, as information becomes available and focus on broader spill 

response issues in new potential drilling environments. The SAB concludes it will be difficult for the 

EPA to assess where the priority research needs exist without a more detailed review and evaluation of 

current findings from previous, major oil spill studies and assessments of new information generated 

during the DWH incident. The SAB has identified specific examples of future challenges and additional 

research needs included these under each of the research themes of the Strategy. The SAB noted that 

environmental justice and behavioral science research have limited discussion in the Strategy’s research 

themes.

Current and Future Research Needs Identified in the Strategy 

Although bio-diesels are qualitatively similar to petrogenic diesels other non-hydrocarbon biofuels, such 

as alcohols, present new challenges for spill preparedness and response. An aquatic spill of alcohol is 

unlike that of typical petroleum spills because alcohols are readily miscible with water, do not create a 

surface slick and do not tend to evaporate into the atmosphere. Standard response techniques such as 

mechanical recovery, dispersion, or in-situ burning would thus be inappropriate. Focused research to 

accurately characterize the transport and fate of these contaminants is needed to develop response 

technologies that mitigate and remediate these types of spills. The processing and transport of biofuels 

will take place in terrestrial and aquatic environments that span from inland systems, across coastal 

regions, and possibly into marine environments. Research to address future spills will need to account 

for these different scenarios.

Alcohols can be readily metabolized by aquatic microbes. Respiration of these contaminants can lead to 

heightened biological oxygen demand. In the case of a large release, or in sensitive areas such as coastal 

waters and wetlands stressed by eutrophication, rapid microbial metabolism following an alcohol spill 

can utilize dissolved oxygen faster than it is replenished by photosynthetic activity or atmospheric 

ventilation leading to water column hypoxia. In this situation the spill may indirectly lead to mass die off 
9

of fish and other aquatic fauna as hypoxic ‘dead zones’ rapidly develop within the water column. 

Furthermore, alcohol biofuels (e.g. methanol, ethanol) have varying degrees of toxicity to humans and 

aquatic fauna. 

3.1.1. Consideration of Environmental Justice to Overburdened Communities and Behavioral 

Sciences Research

The EPA defines Environmental Justice as, “...the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies” (U.S. EPA 2011b).

While oil spills impact surrounding communities regardless of race, color, or income, there may be 

special conditions and more radical impacts to those communities who are dependent upon fishing for 

food or economic livelihood or other activity potentially impacted by oil spills. 

The Strategy does not specifically mention environmental justice though it is implied in several of the 

research themes. The SAB concludes it is appropriate to include environmental justice consideration in 

the Strategy within the Shoreline, Coastal and Inland Effects and Human Health Impacts research 

themes. For example, on page 34 of the Strategy, a table addresses the decision context and key 

scientific questions for “Ecological Ecosystem Services, Health and Well-Being in Gulf Coast 

Communities.” The well-being in Gulf Coast communities would address issues of environmental 

justice, but there are no key scientific questions listed here related to environmental justice. Some key 

scientific questions would include assessment of the effects of oil contamination on subsistence 

communities near oil spills. In 2004, the agency awarded a STAR grant to examine the potential Effects 

of Oil Contamination on Subsistence Lifestyles, Health and Nutrition in an Alaskan EJ community (due 

to the Exxon Valdez oil spill). Likewise, some research is needed to examine the effect of the oil spills 

on subsistence communities in impacted areas – effects on health, nutrition, lifestyle and economy. Do 

effects (particularly human health effects) differ in subsistence communities versus other impacted 

communities? Are these subsistence communities more likely to suffer the adverse impacts of oil spills 

than other communities? Are there alternatives that these communities can utilize to decrease reliance 

upon food species that might be contaminated and therefore impact their health? Research could address 

these questions. The Strategy should document existing outreach to and research on Gulf Region coastal 

communities to evaluate and describe strategies for enhancing these efforts. 

Research on risk perception and communication related to oil spills is also inextricably related to 

environmental justice research. Educational materials and advice is needed for all communities impacted 

by oil spills, but there may be particular needs in subsistence communities. Research on perceptions of 

populations in these communities is needed in order to better design effective communication strategies. 

The draft Strategy is also weak on behavioral and social science research. In the recent review of the 

2012 the EPA research budget, the SAB advised the EPA to bring the decision sciences back into ORD 

and expand its mandate to include the behavioral and social sciences more broadly as an explicit 

research enterprise. The EPA should carefully consider how the behavioral and social sciences can be 

added to their research agenda. These research communities are especially pertinent when a particular 

research question encompasses decision analysis/structuring, risk communication and behavior change.

Furthermore, using a systems approach that integrates decision making frameworks, social and 

behavioral decision science research and research on the impact oil spills potentially have on ecosystems 

would also address issues of environmental justice.
10

The SAB notes that in 2006 the Coastal Response Research Center held a workshop that 

included spill response practitioners and researchers from the social sciences in a discussion of 

risk communication, coordination in spill response and restoration, environmental ethics, valuing 

natural resources and the social impacts of spills on communities and subsistence peoples 

(Kinner and Merten 2006). 

3.1.2. Greener Alternatives: Chemistry and Engineering

The SAB recognizes the Strategy’s focus on greener alternatives and innovation as a potential strength 

of the report. However, the focus on greener alternatives and innovation is primarily based on use of 

green chemistry to develop greener dispersants. The Strategy makes a particular emphasis in several 

locations that “application of green chemistry principles will provide effective and sustainable products 

while reducing their toxicity and persistence in the environment.” The Strategy thus appears to view 

green chemistry primarily as developing degradable dispersants that have lessened ecological effect. The 

SAB recommends the agency should consider green alternatives in a broader (and more appropriate) 

context that considers issues of sustainability beyond simply the ecological impact associated with 

deployment of dispersants. 

In green chemistry, risk is minimized over the whole life cycle by reducing or eliminating the hazard. 

The design of greener dispersants should ensure that material and energy inputs and process outputs are 

as inherently non-hazardous as possible farther upstream in the dispersant’s life cycle. For example, the 

material extraction, material processing and material manufacturing life stages are the upstream life 

cycle components that should be considered as well as application of dispersants. This better integrates 

with the EPA’s definition of green chemistry: the design of products and processes that reduce or 

eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. 

The SAB also recommends that the EPA consider expanding the Strategy to include relevant principles 

of green engineering. The SAB recognizes that this is a relatively new approach and we commend the 

EPA for providing particular care on this topic. Green engineering is the “design, discovery and

implementation of engineering solutions with an awareness of potential benefits and problems in terms 

of the environment, the economy and society throughout the lifetime of the design.” (Mihelcic and 

Zimmerman 2010). 

Green engineering focuses on avoiding waste wherever practicable and eliminating the waste wherever 

possible. Accordingly, the SAB recommends that the EPA, even when developing an oil spill response 

strategy, remain focused as an Agency that it is always a preferred strategy to prevent spills rather than 

treating or cleaning up spills after they occur. Furthermore, in green engineering, any separation and 

purification operations that are proposed while responding to a spill should be designed to minimize 

energy consumption and materials use. End-of-life issues should be considered when developing spill 

strategies that simply transfer a pollutant to another media that perhaps then requires disposal. In 

addition, design of oil spill response strategies should ensure that all materials and energy inputs and 

outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible and any material and energy inputs should be 

renewable rather than depleting. 
11

3.2.

Is the research strategy organized appropriately to frame the questions in a comprehensible 

manner and to foster collaboration with outside entities as appropriate? If not, how can it be better 

organized?

In some areas, the Strategy is very clear regarding which agency is performing which research (when 

discussing funded or planned studies). The Strategy is less clear when the discussion focuses on priority 

research for which no definitive funding mechanism is identified – and inconsistently identifies which 

agencies are conducting the research. There is need throughout this document for the EPA to clearly 

define its role and needs as they relate to that role. In so doing, the Agency will facilitate interactions 

and collaborations with their partners through ICCOPR.

The EPA states that the strategy is framed to identify (1) anticipated decisions that spill responders and 

policy developers will be required to make; (2) science questions within those identified decisions; (3) 

research that would address the science questions; and (4) research outcomes that can be used to inform 

future decisions. 

The research is driven by the decision-making needed to prepare for a response to a release. The SAB 

notes this driver neglects prevention of a release. Perhaps section 1 of the report should provide more 

detailed information on whom within the federal government or industry is conducting research to 

prevent the release of oil. Table 1-1 on page 5 states the Department of Transportation has 

responsibilities to develop regulations for pipeline spill prevention and supporting the maritime industry 

with guidance and technology in implementing equipment, systems and operations to prevent spills. The 

Strategy does not present any other agency involved in research specifically on how to prevent spills. 

Including this discussion in context of the research’s focus on response to a release, would make the 

document stronger in terms of how it integrates principles of green chemistry and engineering into the 

document. 

The draft Strategy is structured to address four themes: dispersants; shoreline, coastal and inland effects; 

innovative processes and technologies; and human health effects. While the SAB found the document 

generally well organized along these themes, questions were raised about how the Strategy will be 

implemented within the new Integrated Trans-disciplinary Research approach under development. The

EPA ORD reorganized its research from project-areas, defined by specific problems and media-type, 

into integrated programs that encompass: 1) Air, Climate and Energy; 2) Safe and Sustainable Water 

Resources ; 3) Sustainable and Healthy Communities; 4) Chemical Safety for Sustainability; 5) Human 

Health Risk Assessment; and 6) Homeland Security Research The SAB recommends that EPA 

incorporate the Strategy into the integrated research approach. For example, in Section 1, a visual 

graphic could be added that shows how the four research themes of the Strategy fit within the programs 

identified in ORD’s new organization.

Comprehensive Organization to Foster Collaboration 
12

3.3.

Charge Question 3 addresses science questions and projects described in each of the four research 

themes. This advisory report provides responses to the three specific questions under each the of the four 

research themes; dispersants, ecosystem impacts, innovative processes and technologies and human 

health impacts).

Within each theme:

a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention 

and response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science 

questions that should be addressed.

b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, 

low impact on decision-making, or for other reasons? 

c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to 

achieve the anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be 

refined or important project areas that should be added.

Specific Comments on the Research Themes and Projects

3.3.1. Dispersants

3a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention and 

response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science questions that should be 

addressed.

The science questions presented address key issues that can improve future oil spill response activities.

However, several high priority science questions are missing from this section. The research on 

dispersants needs to clearly define the efficacy of a dispersant and the endpoints that are being 

evaluated. Toxicological studies of sub-chronic and chronic exposures to the variable complex 

dispersant mixtures are necessary. Transport and fate studies should include the CTAs in conjunction 

with the particular oils with which they would most likely be used. The SAB elaborates on these 

additional areas below.

Breadth of Coverage

With improvements in technology, the range of CTAs has increased. Research in this area needs to 

include a broad range of formulations and examine their interactive effects in conjunction with oils, 

conditions, and environments (i.e., terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine) as appropriate. Transport, 

fate, effect and toxicity studies need to include these agents alone, the oil(s) alone and the resulting 

complex mixtures. Studies may need to include CTAs with proprietary compositions. While the number 

of permutations may become an issue, modeling could provide an overview while information that is 

more conclusive would result from follow-up studies. 
13

Efficacy

Unlike other oil spill response actions, dispersants do not reduce the amount of oil in the environment. 

Instead, dispersants are intended to simply change the transport and eventual fate of the oil, essentially 

trading off surface and shoreline ecological impacts for those in water column and benthic

environments. In certain cases, the use of dispersants is an irreversible option that may restrict other 

cleanup options (e.g., containment, burning, mechanical recovery). Without clear understanding of the

trade-offs and consequence of dispersant use, a rational decision context is unavailable. 

Since use of dispersants does not reduce emissions, the definition of the efficacy of dispersants needs to 

be clearly articulated. A somewhat trivial definition of efficacy is the degree to which additional oil is 

dispersed into the subsurface by the use of the CTA relative to the non-application. A more 

comprehensive definition is needed that satisfactorily considers the net ecological and toxicological 

trade-offs such that overall threat to public health and environmental and natural resource impact can be 

minimized and the post-spill ecological recovery rate of an affected area is maximized. This more 

comprehensive definition requires that, among other things: 

• response priorities are clearly defined and articulated in advance of a spill; 

• a baseline understanding of the pre-spill environment is available;

• oil/dispersant transport, fate and eco-toxicity forecast models are available and appropriately 

matched for a given spill event to predict chemical effectiveness, operational effectiveness and

ecological consequences;

• adequately resolved spatial and temporal monitoring is undertaken; and

• scientifically verifiable assessment methods are used. 

A net environmental benefit definition of efficacy requires that non-commensurate factors (e.g., 

hydrocarbon chemical composition, life stage sensitivity of particular organisms, temperature, spill size, 

etc.) be examined within a context that allows decision makers a clear understanding of the critical vs. 

non-critical factors and how these factors influence each other. 

An approach that considers ecological and toxicological trade-offs is highly interdependent and 

complex. Moreover, the response window for dispersant application is often time sensitive, requiring 

real-time decision making. These situations are often fraught with externalities such as jurisdictional 

considerations, inadequate information, limited response equipment and regulatory requirements.

Pre-authorization is often now granted to a federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) without the 

requirement for further approval, enabling them to make dispersant use decisions in real-time. This 

effectively forces the FOSC to make dispersant use decisions without adequate a-priori information. 

Response teams need information on the various combinations and resulting scenarios, otherwise 

tactical responses can take precedence over more important strategic goals. 

To better evaluate dispersant efficacy, research on simulated spill scenarios can be used to explore likely 

outcomes as a result of different combinations of events, resources and other factors. A research effort 

could be undertaken to develop a honed decision tree that identifies specific factors and variables (e.g., 

surface release vs. subsurface release, deep sea vs. coastal/littoral sites). This decision process should 

provide an assimilative mechanism to integrate new information as it becomes available so that it 

provides a more complete picture of the remediation approaches and gaps where information is needed. 

These data and information should be aligned into categories that correspond to oil spill types and 

circumstances. The decision tree should assist in predicting the environmental and public health 

outcomes of specific remediation and restoration decisions. These simplifying assumptions will enable 

the EPA to define the categories in which to align the research results for use by decision makers. These 

assumptions should include but are not limited to:
14

• seasonal consideration ( e.g., anadromous fish migrations),

• temporal fluctuations (temperature, weather patterns),

• geospatial considerations,

• geology,

• ecoregions/ecosystems (e.g., salt marsh vs. mangrove, vs. forested swamp),

• oil types ( North slope vs. Gulf sweet crude vs. refined products),

• type of release (e.g., benthic, surface, inland pipeline),

• ecosystem recovery, and

• potential consequences of remediation choice

Given the complexity of dispersant efficacy, the dispersant research program should be constructed in a 

manner that works backward from the endpoint, starting first by defining the metrics by which efficacy 

is judged. Based on this definition, a critical path for research should be defined that identifies 

knowledge gaps within the various focus areas and ranks them according to importance. These research 

topics should then be funded at levels proportional to their usefulness. This process can be iterated 

repeatedly so that as existing questions are answered other new ones can be examined. Furthermore, this 

approach should enable responders to efficiently assimilate ongoing scientific research without having to 

wait for all of the answers. 

Transport and Fate

Transport and fate studies should include the CTAs in conjunction with the particular oils with which 

they would most likely be used. Given the trends in offshore oil production, specific environments that 

should be addressed immediately include cold, high-pressure conditions to model deep sea applications 

(such as what occurred with the DWH blowout) as well as cold or under ice applications in or near polar 

regions. 

The conditions of ultra-deep water releases are difficult and costly to reproduce experimentally. 

Furthermore, the presumably unique interactions of a particular type of oil with a given dispersant would 

require large permutations of experiments under various environmental conditions. In lieu of an 

experimental program, an analytical approach involving modeling of molecular interactions can be used 

to predict dispersant behavior for a given oil type and set of environmental conditions. This can provide 

a theoretical basis for calculating dispersant-oil dosage control and predicting transport and fate of 

specific hydrocarbon toxins in subsurface marine environments, instead of just bulk transport models or 

wave tank experiments.

Currently available spill models such as Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills (ADIOS and ADIOS2) 

are good for surface releases and 2D trajectory modeling, but inadequate for subsurface 3D and 4D 

transport modeling of dispersed fractions (NOAA 2006). New research programs should be undertaken 

to develop 3D and 4D deepwater and under ice transport and fate modeling.

Toxicity 

Studies of sublethal, both chronic and subchronic, exposures to the variable complex mixtures 

encountered in oil spills are necessary. These studies should include naturally dispersed oil, CTAs alone 

and oil mixed with CTAs for a comparison of actions, effects and impacts. Weathered and fresh oils 

should be employed for all studies, including toxicity studies. Indirect toxic effects should also be 

considered as should effects resulting from the ethology of native species. Weathered and fresh oils 

should be used with relevant environmental variables (e.g. UV light, temperature, salinity, energy) that 

can affect the toxicity and component profile of the complex mixture under consideration. How CTAs

affect the bioavailability and subsequent toxicity of these complex mixtures should be included in 
15

research designs. Sensitive life stages of both standard test species and native species have been used in 

the past and their selection in future studies will be an important consideration. Impact areas, such as 

benthos and shore, should be assessed separately. Adding key population-level effects such as those 

affecting reproductive success also merit incorporation. 

Many biochemical pathways are similar in vertebrates. The information obtained in this testing should 

be used in conjunction with epidemiology to design human health studies and assess the public health 

impacts of oil in conjunction with CTAs. Comparing results obtained in these studies to the status of 

affected areas prior to the spill underscores the value of acquiring baseline data.

Detailed descriptions of the proposed studies of chronic and subchronic exposures need to include the 

time frames used in the proposed research. Shorter time frames (i.e. day, week, month and year) may be 

more manageable, but the DWH event led to continuous applications of dispersants for over 2 months. 

There is a need for a more detailed plan to systematically examine the range of exposures that can be 

expected from a variable complex mixture of oil and CTAs reflecting both the duration of application 

and resulting effects. 

3b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, low impact on 

decision-making, or for other reasons? 

Answering the previous Charge questions, the SAB identified new issues and contexts surrounding the 

dispersant research areas presented in the Strategy. Given the expansion of oil exploration in extreme 

conditions and the uncertainty of how dispersants and other CTAs perform in those conditions, the SAB 

did not identify any science questions that should be deleted at this time. The SAB recommends that the 

EPA develop criteria to periodically evaluate and prioritize research needs. Further, the EPA should

update its evaluation and prioritization possibly using an event-based approach discussed in the response 

to question 3c. 

3c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to achieve the 

anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be refined or important project 

areas that should be added.

Event-based Research Strategy

There are notable data gaps regarding the impacts of the use of dispersants and other CTAs. Much of the 

research described in the Strategy is designed to assist response personnel in deciding if agents should 

be used and if so, what would be the likely outcomes. To that end, the SAB suggests that the Agency 

develop an event-based research Strategy (EBRS). This approach allows the agency to organize the 

knowledge available intramurally as well as that from other agencies as it prioritizes research for those 

areas in which important information is truly lacking. By including milestones, the questions do not 

need to be answered simultaneously, but coordinated, integrated research can be conducted that focuses 

on the needs of the Agency as well as other agencies involved during and in the aftermath of a spill. 

In the National Research Council (NRC) report, Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and 

Effects (2005) provides an excellent foundation for establishing this research framework. Among the 

recommendations articulated in this report is the need to “establish an integrated research plan which 

focuses on collection and disseminating peer-reviewed information about key aspects of dispersant use 

in a scientifically robust, but environmentally meaningful context.” The report further recommends that 

this research should: 
16

“further improve understanding of dispersant effectiveness and the potential impact of 

dispersed oil at meaningful scales to support decision making in a broader array of spill 

scenarios, especially those scenarios where potential impacts on one portion of the 

ecosystem (e.g., water column) must be weighed against benefits associated with 

reducing potential impact on another (e.g., coastal wetland).”

An event-based dispersant research strategy can be structured according to the basic information that is 

needed to support response decisions. Along with the basic question of the size of the release, the NRC 

report suggests the following questions:

• Will a mechanical response be sufficient?

• Is the spilled oil or refined product known to be dispersible? In addition, how long before it 

becomes non-dispersible?

• Are sufficient chemical response assets available to treat the spill?

• Are the environmental conditions conducive to the successful application of dispersant and its 

effectiveness?

• Will the effective use of dispersants reduce the impacts of the spill to shoreline and water surface 

resources without significantly increasing impacts to water-column and benthic resources? 

The DWH spill provides a case study of the types of information gaps that could be encountered in 

responding to an ongoing deep subsurface release in open water. During the spill the answer to each of 

these questions was generally either ‘no’, or ‘unknown.’ Other scenarios such as spills occurring in ice 

covered conditions, or of biofuels may present similar knowledge gaps. 

Another reason for the development of an EBRS is that it facilitates integrated information applications 

and research priorities within a section of the Agency. With the concurrent generation of these plans, 

points of integration and overlap could emerge more often. The EPA should review the EBRS approach 

to develop a list of research areas and prioritize them for research purposes. This prioritization could be 

a weighting of needs based on the response application, the applications and potential uses and

opportunities to integrate overlapping research needs for dispersants and other research areas in the 

Strategy.

3.3.2. Shoreline, Coastal and Inland Effects Research to Inform Oil Spill Decision-Making 

3a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention and 

response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science questions that should be 

addressed.

To achieve better balance, the focus of the research needs to address combination of issues identified

during the DWH and those issues non-DWH scenarios. The strategy should clearly articulate the need 

for terrestrial and inland research in light of pipeline and transportation spills, ( i.e., Enbridge and 

Yellowstone spills) and work with both short-term and long-term research goals for inland, coastal, and 

marine spill scenarios. The research strategy needs to integrate new data and resulting understanding of 

impacts to ecosystem processes from the DWH incident as it becomes available and focus on broader 

spill response issues as well. It is difficult for the SAB to assess where the priority research needs exist 

without a more detailed review and evaluation of current findings from previous, major oil spill studies 

and assessments of new information generated during the DWH incident. Completion of reports and 

publication of studies initiated during and in the immediate aftermath of the DWH incident and response 
17

could alter scientific perceptions of research priorities over the next few years. The EPA research 

strategy should be flexible enough to incorporate new findings and re-focus as needed. 

Although some DWH focus is necessary and justified, the Agency is cautioned not to over-invest in 

studying a single incident. History suggests that a DWH scenario is a relatively rare event, once in 30 to 

40 year scenario, whereas dispersant use in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has been a once in 3-5 year event. 

Those oil spill precedents were finite volume spills, 2-5 day local events with the same pressing 

environmental and response issues as the DWH spill, but at a different scale. It is likely the next 

catastrophic spill event will be with a different oil type, different oceanographic and ecological settings 

and a different set of operational and logistical constraints brought into play. The EPA should learn what 

it can from DWH and then be prepared to apply that knowledge in a more generic way.

In addition, the EPA needs to remain flexible and able to pursue new avenues of research that may only 

become apparent after the work has begun. Research teams need to be able to adjust their work plans in 

out years to follow up on unexpected results or new ideas that stem from earlier study.

The EPA is the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) and agency responsible for inland spill responses and this 

role may drive assessment activities and other types of research may be needed. The EPA OSCs are 

responsible for leading response and initial restoration activities for any number of petroleum products, 

non-petroleum oils, biofuels, alcohols and other liquids transported in bulk by vessel, pipeline, or rail. 

Spill sites may be terrestrial or aquatic. Research to support these responsibilities will likely require 

outcomes and results that have broader applicability, as it is not possible to cover all combinations of 

inland habitats and potential spill products. Research should yield generally applicable results that can 

be used to characterize diverse environmental fate processes, exposure-response relationships, or 

environmental transport modes. The EPA is encouraged to think broadly when developing research 

programs to support the range of activities that might be needed in this area and to work closely with 

other state and federal agencies in identifying key areas of uncertainty or knowledge gaps that provide 

the greatest benefit for the investment.

Address a Variety of Constituents and Response Options

Oil spills, particularly blowouts like the DWH spill, contain much more than oil. Other constituents 

found in formation liquids and gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, are present in these releases. 

The Strategy briefly touches on non-oil components, but these can be a significant aspect of a blowout 

scenario. Attention should be given to potential environmental impacts of these other constituents as part 

of an overall research strategy. In addition, the Strategy should include investigation of potential impacts 

on inland, shoreline and coastal communities for the diverse response strategies identified as worthy of 

consideration (e.g., solidifiers, sorbents, burning, bioremediation treatments), with the same depth of 

effort as was outlined for dispersants. Acute and chronic toxicity, population and community impacts, 

fate and transport, biodegradation and bioaccumulation will all be important considerations for any 

response technology used to prevent oil from reaching an area or as part of a clean-up strategy. The 

impacts of any spill treatment that is not fully recovered after application will be questioned before and 

after its use, so the EPA should be proactive in gaining the same level of detail environmental fate and 

effects for all response technology options as was outlined for dispersants.

Population, Community and Ecosystem Effects Assessments

The inland, shoreline and coastal areas most susceptible to spill impacts support complicated and diverse 

communities. Understanding of oil fate and effects will require effort at the population level and above

— preferably community and ecosystem effects. It will be important to link the broad toxicology studies 

outlined in the dispersant section of the Strategy with indicators and endpoints that can support impact 
18

assessments and risk assessments at these higher levels of ecological organization. The research issues 

associated with shorelines, coastal and inland spill impacts need to be cast in a population and 

community perspective, within an associated decision management framework (DMF). The DMF 

should support endpoints to assess population effects and help risk-based decision-making during an 

event and as part of restoration efforts. It should consider background conditions, existing 

contamination, knowledge of local and regional food webs and an understanding of the recruitment and 

refugia potential for local habitats. The DMF should provide an understanding of population, 

community and ecosystem recovery capacity. This must be coupled with exposure characterizations that 

take into account oil type, dispersant type, loading and hydrology; and broader principles that facilitate 

assessments from diverse spill situations. New research should support assessments of rates of 

population and community recovery from various chemical exposures to assess spill response, clean-up 

and restoration trade-offs. These types of considerations will take the EPA in a different –and much 

needed– direction compared to agency efforts during recent spill events such as the DWH in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Enbridge pipeline spill in the Great Lakes basin. The EPA responsibilities and capabilities 

should go beyond a focus on dispersants or single species lab tests for oil toxicity and not rely 

exclusively on NOAA and trustee agencies for assessments of population and ecological issues. There is 

a research need and an agency need to enhance scientific capabilities to go beyond simple toxicity 

benchmark assessments and make risk management and response clean-up decisions based on endpoints 

of ecological significance. 

The Strategy refers to assessing impacts at the ecosystem services level of organization. However this 

topic needs greater elaboration, defining more specifically the EPA goals for research conducted in this 

area and the types of work that would be sponsored. The discussion of “ecosystem services” is limited 

and tenuous. The SAB recommends that the EPA further integrate the Strategy with the ecosystems 

services components within ORD’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. For 

example, use of population density as an ecosystem service predictor is a weak endpoint for many 

organisms and ecosystem functions. Wetland function and coastal and inland habitat effects are 

mentioned as a pressing research need, where efforts could generate data consistent with risk-based 

decision-making. However, greater detail is needed to assess the direction and value of these research 

areas. 

3b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, low impact 

on decision-making, or for other reasons? 

The SAB identified new issues and contexts surrounding the potential environmental impacts research 

the EPA included in the Shoreline, Coastal and Inland Effects Research to Inform Oil Spill DecisionMaking research area presented in the Strategy. Given the expansion of oil exploration in extreme 

conditions, issues identified in the other three research areas and the recommendation for better 

coordination and transparency across the research areas the SAB did not identify any science questions 

that should be removed from consideration at this time. The SAB recommends that research included in 

the Strategy needs to be evaluated and prioritized with periodic updating of the evaluation and 

prioritization. 

3c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to achieve the 

anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be refined or important project 

areas that should be added.

The SAB recognizes that not all research responsibilities across federal agencies are tasked to specific 

agencies. The Strategy is thus limited to identifying key research needs and identifying high priority 
19

areas through a rigorous and transparent science integration effort involving all agencies. Identifying 

research needs is only a start. It is the extent of coordination and leveraging with other research 

organizations that will lead to efficient and effective use of research funding. Until the details of 

implementation and coordination are resolved, identification of key research needs remains tentative. 

Interactions with Other Agencies

The SAB finds that interaction and integration with other research agencies and institutions that is 

carefully thought out, transparently leveraged and coordinated, and built on the expertise and 

capabilities of each party is critical to the success of the EPA research and development program. 

Details on these planned interactions and collaboration are important in order for others to understand 

this research strategy. Oil spill sites usually do not have clearly delineated boundaries—what occurs in 

estuarine and intertidal areas is directly connected to nearshore, coastal waters and all are connected to 

the open ocean. It will be important that ecosystem studies reflect this connectivity and address it 

through cooperation and coordination among the agencies and institutions working in these areas. Such 

multi-agency interactions are especially important for this section of the research strategy, where details 

on collaboration and leveraging are key to understanding how the EPA investments and activities will 

advance the diverse uncertainties associated with complex ecological issues. 

Better Characterize Exposure and Effects Linkages

Shoreline, coastal and inland effects research should better define exposure conditions (spatial and 

temporal dynamics) and link exposure to ecological effects. In many cases, these linkages will need to 

take into account baseline and background environmental conditions and stresses in order to adequately 

characterize risks from specific spill incidents. Building on key exposure-response relationships from 

laboratory tests where conditions reflect real world exposures, risk assessments will be better able to 

inform risk managers regarding true trade-offs imposed by various response and restoration actions. The 

exposure response data need to be linked to environmental models such as NOAA fate models and 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) fish population dynamic models. Other examples of food 

web and ecological energetics models and tools used by response and restoration authorities to 

implement plans include Atlantis (Brand et al. 2007) and EcoSim (Ecopath 2011). The EPA needs 

diverse and integrated models and scenarios for differing ecosystem types and their unique food webs to 

support rapid to mid-term response decisions. The assessments need to support scenarios with differing 

types of oils, dispersants and chemical response or clean up agents. Within each scenario, the models 

should take into account expected background or reference site conditions and a means to understand 

likely interactions with other common and pervasive stressors (e.g., toxics, nutrients, anoxia; severe 

events (i.e., hurricanes); invasive species). These efforts can build upon resources such as existing 

sediment resuspension models for better risk prediction or models of groundwater-surface interactions in 

coastal areas (e.g., potential contamination of aquifers).

Improved Risk Characterization and Communication

The EPA should support development of risk-based decision-making strategies for spill response, 

identifying and assimilating necessary risk-characterization data to meet the requirements of the 

resource managers and then enhance the risk assessment and risk communication process with more 

efficient and effective processes. This will require some research in the area of best processes for risk 

assessment and risk communication, as well as enhancing the approaches and tools utilized in risk-based 

decision-making. The risk decisions outlined in Table 3-1 of the Strategy are policy driven, which is a 

needed area of emphasis, but this research strategy needs to articulate areas such as the DMF and 
20

associated “delisting” criteria and the science needed to fill the gaps for those decisions. Perhaps 

concepts used in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (International Joint Commission, 1988) such 

as Areas of Concern and Beneficial Use Impairments would be a useful template.

Proposed research on risk communication and trade-offs will require input from trustee agencies such as 

NOAA and NMFS as well as work with States. EPA is not a natural resource trustee, but has a role in 

response technologies and response planning to reduce impacts on environmental resources deemed 

priorities by resource trustees. The goal would be to avoid excessive and intrusive clean-up efforts in 

order to achieve the most robust and quick recovery. For example, clean-ups from some historic spills 

have been driven by visible sheen originating from shoreline oiling in habitats where there may be little 

support for intrusive clean-up based on habitat destruction, food web contamination and local 

population’s inherent recovery potential from sheen exposures. 

Risk characterization is a key area of expertise within the EPA. Research on how to bring together and 

quantitatively express environmental fate and effects data, generalized and site-specific modeling, 

exposure and transport assessments to set meaningful and realistic restoration and recovery goals could 

greatly enhance the EPA’s leadership and credibility in this area. It will be important to work with other 

federal agencies with expertise in modeling, fate and transport, offshore oceanography and other areas to 

ensure needed and relevant data are available to support risk characterization efforts. the EPA has the 

experience base and leadership role in pulling the relevant information together and generating 

meaningful and relevant risk characterizations that could serve as the underpinning of multi-agency risk 

assessments and risk management decisions during and after spill events. 

3.3.3. Innovative Processes and Technologies Development

3a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention and 

response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science questions that should be 

addressed.

The SAB finds that innovative processes and technologies research should be better focused on the 

EPA’s regulatory role in certifying or approving various new approaches. ORD needs better ways to 

keep management and policy makers informed of state of the science and to actively work with the oil 

spill community in the intervals between major spill events. The EPA should engage federal agencies, 

states and industry to identify criteria applicable to evaluating technologies. If the EPA wishes to 

encourage the development of new or improved technologies (such as better booms, skimmers, 

absorbent materials, dispersants and underwater collection methods), then areas of specific interest and 

required operational criteria (regarding toxicity, biodegrading, discharges, etc.) should be clearly defined 

and made a part of the review and evaluation process. In this way, companies and inventors can begin to 

meet specified defined goals or regulatory mandates. This could be partially achieved through the 

development of a database that more explicitly defines “effectiveness” of existing and new, or 

developing methodologies and specific areas where improvements need to be made. An example of this 

would be a new technology for water and oil separation that allows highly efficient large or small scale 

skimming operations. Specific areas of consideration include operation at very low oil to water ratios,

low hydrocarbon residuals in the wastewater and ability to operate over a very wide range of sea states 

and wave sizes. 

An example of the utility of having an information resource defining effectiveness is provided by the 

experience of the surface oil skimmer termed “the A Whale” during the DWH incident. The skimmer is

a refitted and converted oil tanker designed to capture and separate 300,000 to 500,000 US gallons of oil 
21

per day (the vessel stores the captured crude and returns the processed seawater to the sea) and was 

tested and evaluated but not used during the DWH response for a variety of reasons. Primary amongst 

them was that the technology did not work very well as a skimmer, due mostly to encounter rate 

resulting in recovery of mostly water with little oil proportionally. The discharge of the separated water 

also did not meet the EPA criteria discharge criteria. Other skimmers also failed to work well or worked 

only on the densest portions of the spill but even then had to suspend operations or return to port in 

slightly rough sea conditions. 

There are questions concerning technologies designed to enhance worker safety during cleanup 

operations. Materials applied by spray equipment to stop oil spreading and reduce vapors are available 

today. Their use has been hindered by lack of comprehensive fate and effects data required to meet 

approvals. The EPA should not restrict comprehensive testing to dispersants and the fate of the dispersed 

oil. It should include other technologies such as solidifiers, spreaders and sorbents in its comprehensive 

testing.

3b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, low impact 

on decision-making, or for other reasons? 

The Strategy references the value of the baffled flask efficacy test on (Page 23). EPA presented this new 

test and justification for why it is better than the swirling flask test at a spill conference in 2001. 

However, the agency has not yet adopted this as policy. If the new research and development strategy 

takes 10 years to impact policy and management decisions after the research has been completed, the 

EPA will not be seen as a significant source of new science and technology. 

In developing "efficacy tests," as well as "toxicity tests," it is important to remember that the focus of 

the testing schemes determines the outcomes for these tests. Some efficacy tests are used to better mimic 

what happens in the environment; some are designed to determine how well a product works under low 

energy conditions, while other tests are designed to see how products will work under high-energy 

conditions. There is not always a good ability to predict how a product will work under real-world spill 

conditions based on how the same product worked under a variety of bench test regimes. Whatever

protocols or approaches the EPA decides to adopt for efficacy testing, it should make clear the specific 

parameters of the testing regime and why this regime was adopted by the EPA, whether it be for 

dispersants (as with the baffled flask and swirling flask tests) or testing protocols developed for other 

chemical countermeasures.

3c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to achieve the 

anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be refined or important project 

areas that should be added

The project area descriptions section of the Strategy are disjointed and could be improved by 

restructuring the text into a more sequenced net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) type approach to 

identify the type of incident and the technological improvements that are required to meet this 

philosophy. This could also be in the form of a separate implementation plan or NEBA-guideline that 

minimizes both the spread of the pollution and the deleterious impacts and cost of the clean-up efforts 

(i.e. a NEBA-type plan). 

The Strategy tends to frame various studies (i.e., bioremediation, in-situ burning and thermal treatments) 

in the negative, assessing the potential impacts or downsides of the approaches. Research should assess 

both positive and negative trade-offs of technologies to provide oil spill responders with information to 
22

support the choice of a correct remediation technology under particular conditions. It should be possible 

to define the potential regulatory and environmental consequences of different technologies and 

methodologies for what may be a limited number of “standardized generic environments or incident 

types.” Such a NEBA type process should be developed and explicitly implemented in the evaluation of 

all old, new and improved technologies and methods and their combinations.

A NEBA is specifically designed to address the environmental trade-offs associated with decisions

during oil spill response, including the use of alternative response technologies such as dispersants or insitu burning. It was originally developed by Aurand and was focused on assisting oil spill responders 

and trustee agencies in policy development and planning regarding response options (1995, Aurand et al. 

2000). The process was modified from the more quantitative ecological risk assessment model used by 

the EPA for long-term remediation and cleanup sites. The Strategy states that the EPA will conduct a 

lifecycle assessment to evaluate physical and chemical treatment approaches including the materials, 

effectiveness of treatment, by-product management and ultimate disposition. NEBA analysis would 

develop a clearer total “life-cycle management” ethos. This could include the choice of greener clean up 

materials and methods, their guidance of utilization (i.e. some materials and methods may be better 

choices for different types of hydrocarbons or situations than others) and their subsequent greener active 

disposal by humans or passive degradation in the environment if not fully recovered. This modified 

NEBA-type life cycle assessment should also look at ecosystem impact during all phases of production, 

use and end of life or disposal. In the event that public health and safety needs to be addressed as part of 

a new technology, a mechanism by which these potential risks can be assigned and evaluated for both 

planning and development and the response to a spill should be developed. 

Research on alternative or other innovative response approaches could be reworked and refocused to 

address many of the research themes identified for dispersants ( i.e., toxicity, biodegradation and

bioaccumulation) and other CTAs. Data are needed for chemical agents used in solidifiers, 

bioremediation, herding and surface washing. Fate and transport studies and modeling for these diverse 

agents are also needed. Dispersants need not be singled out when the EPA may be able to promote more 

comprehensive assessments of a much broader range of spill response technologies. The impacts of any 

spill treatment that is not fully recovered after application will be questioned before and after its use. 

The State of California (California 2010) requires data on fate and effects in the environment of 

technologies as a part of their oil spill cleanup agent licensing process to begin to address such concerns. 

The EPA should be proactive in gaining the same level of detail on all response technology options.

A NEBA analysis may conclude that greatly improved on-water spill tracking and mechanical 

containment and removal technologies would generate a greater net benefit in the long run when 

compared to wide spread application of dispersants. This may be particularly so in response to large 

events and the generation of oil dispersant complexes where long-term fate and toxicity is not well 

understood. Examples of choices for mechanically recoverable systems could include the following

examples:

• Better materials or systems that can be easily cleaned in environmentally sensitive way and then 

reused in a later incident may be more effective. The separated hydrocarbons could be recycled or 

sent to a suitable power station for disposal. This would include the development of better booms 

and skimmers that work under a wide range of sea states.

• Technologies made of easily recyclable or reusable materials. Boom materials made of soft 

recyclable absorbent poly-carbonate plastics in the DWH Gulf oil spill were removed and 

separated from hard booms. The soft materials where centrifuged clean for re-use and the 

hydrocarbon waste then handled separately. Hard materials like, the plastic, was melted and 

densified to be used as plastic components in appropriate manufacturing processes. 
23

• Environmentally low impact absorbent materials, such as peat moss or other natural absorbents, 

could be used and then disposed of in such a way as to not further impact the environment such as 

would occur if partially hydrocarbon contaminated materials were either land-filled, openly burnt, 

or even incinerated. Purposefully (applied absorbents) and accidentally (wetland derived 

materials) contaminated natural materials may be mostly centrifuged clean, the hydrocarbons 

recovered and then all the materials either recycled or burnt in a power station with an advanced 

scrubber system thus generating some power while being disposed. 

It should be recognized that the best application of mechanical cleanup methods cannot be 100% 

effective or feasible under all circumstances so the utilization of dispersants cannot be ruled out as part 

of a sequence of responses. In areas that are considerably more remote than the U.S. Gulf coast, rapid 

response or effective waste disposal may be impossible or sea ice may block the deployments of booms 

or mechanical skimmers. Under these conditions the wide spread use of dispersants and burning may be 

the only practical NEBA option other than the primary defense of prevention and containing the 

pollution source at or near the well utilizing subsea collector systems. 

Concerns were raised about research needs on the potential catastrophic effects that biofuel spills can 

have on partially enclosed systems such as lagoons, lakes and river systems. Water-soluble ethanol type 

fuel additives are particularly hazardous in that they do not evaporate and could lead to devastating 

effects as eutrophication and anoxia on their break down. Air sparging and other as yet to be developed 

technologies or methods may be an option under these circumstances.

As part of a NEBA assessment, there could be an assessment of the relative impact of the clean up 

method over simply leaving the natural system to recover on its own. One example of this would be the 

positive and negative consequences of wide spread habitat destruction of wetlands to remove small 

amounts of hydrocarbon contamination in contrast to just letting nature deal with it over a period time. 

NEBA-type studies have already been completed by federal and state agencies. The federal Selection 

Guide (US Coast Guard 2003) outlines the trade-offs associated with many response options. One of the 

tools that accompanies the Selection Guide is the Alternative Response Tool Evaluation System 

(ARTES) (NOAA 2010). Several of the Regional Response Teams have modified the Selection Guide to 

address specific policy use within their regions. California has also completed several NEBAs 

evaluating the use of dispersants from 3 - 200 miles off the coast of the state. The EPA should, thus, take 

a look at the work that has been done and see if there are any outstanding areas of need that the agency 

could/should address.

A Possible Event Management Based Strategy 

An example of a staged event management scenario based NEBA approach is provided in Appendix B. 

This example describes five stages of oil spill response, the integration among agencies and spill

response questions that should be considered in each stage.

3.3.4. Human Health Impacts

The Strategy suggests that much of the human health-related oil spill research will be conducted by 

federal agencies other than the EPA. The Strategy principally identifies National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Toxicology Program (NTP), but also National 

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMSHA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Coordination of 

research with federal partners is strongly encouraged by the SAB as a means for the EPA to access a 
24

broad array of expertise and share costs to mutual benefit. However, the way that the collaboration is 

addressed in the Strategy makes review of the Strategy challenging. As written, it is often difficult to 

determine which federal agency is charged with conducting the research in each of the described areas, 

as well as the level of commitment of the federal partners to complete their portions of the research. 

Language such as “The NTP is considering further toxicology studies in three main areas ...” and “NTP 

will likely lead research on oil, dispersants, oil-dispersant mixtures and combustions from oil burning.” 

contributes to an ambiguity that is pervasive in this entire section. The EPA has definitive information 

needs in all of the research areas presented. However, it is not clear whether the research objectives of 

the EPA and its federal research partners are entirely congruous and as a result, whether research by the 

partners, even if completed, will fully satisfy the EPA’s needs. It is also unclear in the document what 

would happen if partners decided not to pursue some or their entire portion of described research, for 

example, due to changing budget priorities within their agency. Would the EPA assume responsibility 

for that research or would it be dropped from the research strategy?

These problems could be largely eliminated if the document narrative focused first and foremost on 

human health impact research needs from the EPA perspective, expanding upon the key questions posed 

in the summary tables derived from the process depicted in Figure 5-1. This should result in a clearer, 

more coherent description of the research strategy in this area. Planned collaborative research by partner 

agencies that could meet some of the EPA research objectives is certainly worth mentioning, but as a 

secondary point at the end of the discussion of each research topic, as appropriate. 

3a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention and 

response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science questions that should be 

addressed.

The science questions presented address key issues that can improve future oil spill response activities. 

Several high priority science questions are missing from this section including estimating cancer risk, 

exposure assessment, risk communication, and environmental justice issues.

Estimating Cancer Risk

Oil spills contain carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and many of the 

decisions about acceptable limits of exposure the EPA needs to make regarding oil spill contaminants 

are based upon estimation of cancer risk. The cancer risk model used currently by the EPA was 

developed primarily to assess excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. As a matter of expediency, 

cancer risks in situations of short-term or intermittent exposure are assumed to be reduced proportionally 

to the fraction of lifetime exposed, even though experimental evidence suggests that this may be not 

valid for most carcinogens (Halmes et al. 2000). Oil spill exposure scenarios typically involve short or 

intermittent exposure periods. For example, the scenario contemplated by the EPA in developing their 

risk-based criteria for oil exposure on Gulf beaches assumes a total exposure duration of 90 hours for a 

child (U.S. EPA 2010b). In situations such as this, reliability of cancer risk estimates using the current 

risk model is questionable. The SAB notes that this issue is not unique to oil spills, and the EPA is 

confronted with a variety of situations in which cancer risks must be estimated for individuals with lessthan-lifetime exposure. Development of cancer risk models that effectively address these scenarios 

should be a high priority.

The most extreme case of short-term exposure is a single event. Although there is a general reluctance to 

consider, let alone quantify, cancer risk arising from a single event, there is a substantial literature 

demonstrating the production of skin cancer in mice from a single application of a PAH (Calabrese and 

Blain 1999), raising the question of whether there are some limited duration, high-exposure scenarios 
25

associated with oil spills that might lead to elevated skin cancer risk. In order to answer that question, 

sound potency estimates for skin cancer specifically from short duration dermal contact with PAHs are 

needed.

Other issues associated with estimating cancer risks from PAHs specifically have been discussed in the 

SAB review of EPA’s “Development of a Relative Potency Factor (RPF) Approach for Polycyclic 

Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Mixtures (SAB 2010).

Exposure Assessment

The only well-defined area of research related to exposure in this section relates to improvements in 

monitoring air pollutants related to the DWH spill. Other key questions are missing. With respect to 

water exposure, for a swimmer, the “risk driver” is most likely to be cancer risk from dermal contact 

with PAHs. The current EPA model for dermal absorption of chemicals has difficulty with PAHs 

because they lie outside the “effective prediction domain.” (U.S. EPA, 2004). As a result, the agency has 

been thus far unable to develop risk-based criteria for PAHs for swimmers and human health 

benchmarks for PAHs remain “under development” (www.epa.gov/bpspill/health-benchmarks.html). 

There is brief mention of dermal bioavailability research to be conducted by NTP, but specifics, or even 

mention of which chemicals from oil would be addressed are missing, so it is impossible to determine 

from the strategy whether planned research would address this key issue.

A related issue with respect to swimming and other potential recreational contact with water is that 

exposure assumptions such as frequency and duration, as well as incidental ingestion rate of water, are 

largely guesswork. Exposure assumptions currently are based upon professional judgment rather than 

data. A similar observation can be made for exposure assessment as it pertains to beach sand and

sediment. Population data on exposure frequency and duration for Gulf Coast visitors and residents and

measurements of dermal contact and incidental ingestion rates are absent, yet needed to derive riskbased criteria for protection of human health.

Consumption of Gulf seafood is another logical potential pathway of exposure. Current information 

regarding seafood consumption patterns, particularly by Gulf Coast communities with high or 

subsistence consumption rates is needed.

Risk Communication

This area is ostensibly included, but is not. There is a section on risk communication in the human health 

section, but it describes the need for better communication rather than actual risk communication 

research. Research in this area should be considered a priority, because how the information is presented 

may have effects on how communities perceive their risk. There has been research conducted in risk 

communication by Department of Homeland Security (not specifically on oil spills but on how to handle 

communication during a crisis). The EPA should explore the efforts of Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) in this area and select components that may be useful here.

Environmental Justice

Similarly, the issue of environmental justice is not mentioned at all, though many communities affected 

by oil spills in the past, including those affected by the DWH spill, are environmental justice 

communities. There are two large social and behavioral studies being conducted by CDC and SAMHSA 

(as described on page 53). While there is not a lot of detail provided about these two interesting studies, 

it would appear that, some aspects of environmental justice could be incorporated, depending upon the 

populations being targeted here. It is good to see social and behavioral research included in this 
26

document. Some effort should be made to ensure that environmental justice topics are covered within 

both studies.

3b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, low impact 

on decision-making, or for other reasons?

The section on risk communication as an activity should be deleted and the section should be re-focused 

on risk communication research (as discussed above). The problem formulation section discusses three 

objectives of the EPA research grants program. Presumably, this is referring to the current Science to 

Achieve Results Request for Proposals. The three objectives are: 1) development of innovative 

mitigation technologies; 2) development of effective chemical dispersants and 3) understanding 

ecosystem impacts. These are important research objectives, but are not germane to the human health 

impacts section. They should be moved elsewhere in the document.

3c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to achieve the 

anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be refined or important project 

areas that should be added.

Many of the key science questions and associated questions are rather general and it is unclear how 

studies might be designed to address them. For example, one of the key science questions is “What 

model toxicology systems should be used to evaluate oil spill dispersion?” and the corresponding 

anticipated outcome is “Identification of the key health effects of these mixtures in model systems will 

provide information on what health effects such mixtures might cause in humans.” The accompanying 

narrative text is not particularly helpful in describing how projects could be created to answer the 

specific question – what model systems should be used for toxicology studies of oil and dispersants?

Further, description of proposed research projects is sufficiently vague that their potential contribution to 

evaluation of human health impacts is difficult to judge. For example, CDC and SAMHSA received $13

million from BP to conduct behavioral health studies (p. 53). Is it all for workers (CDC is specifically 

for workers but does not indicate population for SAMHSA study)? Another example is on page 55. Is 

there a research project designed to look at children and fetuses? This is the first mention of these 

vulnerable populations. No agency is identified. Is this a project or an idea being considered or 

developed? In general, the topics of community epidemiological studies and susceptible populations are 

mentioned but there do not appear to be any definitive efforts planned to study them. 

Several important project areas could be added (see also response to 3a. in this section). Risk 

communication research is particularly important. It is stated in the document that more risk 

communication research is needed, but that is not what is described in this section on pages 60-61. 

While is important to conduct better risk communication, the means of determining what is “better” is 

through research. As mentioned earlier, considering what other agencies have done in this area – DHS in 

communicating risk during a crisis – would be helpful. A description of the DHS work and any 

additional work being planned or considered by the EPA should be included. The nine grants that the 

EPA recently awarded to non-profit community-based organizations located in the Gulf Region coastal 

communities should be mentioned in the document, as these awards represent action on the part of the 

EPA toward addressing environmental justice community needs. They are not research projects per se, 

but information generated from these outreach projects might be useful to researchers working on risk

perception and communication issues. The objectives of the projects range from translating multi-media 

scientific data (including air, water and sediment and fish tissue) into plain language to developing 
27

training and educational materials about how data are collected, analyzed and interpreted. 

Complementary research investigating methods for effective communication and measuring perceptions 

pre- and post- communication would be useful as well. 

The section describes developing an effective communication plan, which is important and the projects 

described above are focused on communication and training, but that is different from conducting 

research in risk communication. In defining “risk communication,” topics in risk perception and 

behavior should be included. For instance, what are some barriers preventing communities from trusting 

government agencies in these instances? Given these barriers, what types of strategies are most effective 

in building up trust? Some of these issues may be incorporated into the discussion of the 

social/behavioral studies being conducted by CDC and SAMHSA as discussed on page 52 of the 

Strategy. 

Research on risk perception and communication related to oil spills is inextricably related to 

environmental justice research. Educational materials and advice is needed for all communities impacted 

by oil spills, but there may be particular needs in subsistence communities. Research on perceptions of 

populations in these communities is needed in order to better design effective communication strategies.
28

4. REFERENCES

Aurand, D. 1995. The application of ecological risk assessment principles to dispersant use planning. 

Spill Science and Technology Bulletin, 2:4, 241-247. ISSN:1353-2561. DOI:10.1016/S1353-

2561(96)00005-9. 

Aurand, D., Walko, L., Pond, R. 2000. Developing Consensus Ecological Risk Assessments: 

Environmental Protection in Oil Spill Response Planning: A Guidebook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Coast Guard.

Brand, E. J., I. C. Kaplan. C. J. Harvey, P. S. Levin, E.A . Fulton, A. J. Hermann, and J. C. Field. 2007. 

A spatially explicit ecosystem model of the California Current’s food web and oceanography. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-84, 145p. 

Accessed June 17, 2011. http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/ecosystem-modeling/chesapeakeatlantis-modelCalabrese, E.J. and R.B. Blain. 1999. The single exposure carcinogen database: Assessing the 

circumstances under which a single exposure to a carcinogen can cause cancer. Toxicol. Sci. 

50:169-185.

California, 2010. California State Oil Spill Contingency Plan Office of Spill Prevention and Response, 

Department of Fish and Game State of California, 1700 K Street, Suite 250, Sacramento, 

California 95811

http://www.bing.com/search?q=california+oil+spill+technology+requirements&FORM=AWRE

1. Accessed on June 21, 2011

Ecopath. 2011. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) Software. http://www.ecopath.org/. . Accessed July 6, 

2011.

Halmes, N.C., S.M Roberts, J.K. Tolson and C. J. Portier. 2000. Reevaluating Cancer Risk Estimates for 

Short-Term Exposure Scenarios. Toxicol. Sci. 58:32-42

International Joint Commission. 1988. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as 

amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987. Consolidated by the International Joint 

Commission, United States and Canada. http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html#ann2

Accessed July 7, 2011

Kinner and Merten. 2006. Research & Development Needs For Addressing the Human Dimensions of 

Oil Spills Coastal Response Research Center, Durham, New Hampshire. June 13-15, 2006 

http://www.crrc.unh.edu/publications/human_dimensions_report.pdf. Coastal Response Research 

Center: http://www.crrc.unh.edu/human_dimensions_workshop.htm. Accessed May 20, 2011

Mihelcic, J.R., J.B. Zimmerman. 2010. Environmental Engineering: Fundamentals, Sustainability, 

Design, John Wiley & Sons, 

NOAA. 2006. Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills (ADIOS2) Fact Sheet. . Office of Response and 

Restoration . Available online. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/538_adios.pdf. . 

Accessed June 17, 2011

NOAA. 2010. Alternative Response Tool Evaluation System (ARTES). Available on line:

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtop
29

ic_topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=273&subtopic_id(e

ntry_subtopic_topic)=8&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=1

SAB. 2009. Science Advisory Board Consultation on EPA’s Implementation of the Ecosystem Services 

Research Program. EPA-SAB-09-016. September 30, 2009. Available online.

Accessed July 1, 2011, 

NRC. 2005. Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects Committee on Understanding Oil 

Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects, National Research Council. Washington, DC. 

ISBN:03-09-54793-8. 396 pages.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Ecological%20Services%20Resear

ch?OpenDocument

SAB. 2010. Science Advisory Board Review of EPA’s “Development of a Relative Potency Factor 

(RPF) Approach for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Mixtures (February 2010 Draft). 

EPA-SAB-11-004. March 17, 2011. Available online. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/F24FBBBAC

A6EEABA852578570040C547/$File/EPA-SAB-11-004-unsigned.pdf Accessed July 28, 2011

U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. Authors: Ann Hayward Walker, Jacqueline Michel, Brad Benggio, Brad 

McKetrick, Debra Scholz, John Boyd, William Walker , Scientific and Environmental 

Associates, Incorporated and the Members of the 2002 Selection Guide Development 

Committee. . http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/671_intro.pdf. . Accessed June 27, 

2010

U.S. EPA. 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual 

(Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). EPA/540/R/99/005. 

U.S. EPA. 2010a,. National Contingency Plan Subpart J., from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/index.htm#testing. Accessed May 20, 2010.

U.S. EPA. 2010b. EPA Response to BP Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. www.epa.gov/bpspill/healthbenchmarks.html. Accessed May 24, 2011.

U.S. EPA. 2011a. Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy. Available on line. U.S. EPA. 2011b.

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/. Accessed June 17, 2011
A-1

APPENDIX A: EPA’s Charge for the Oil Spill Research Strategy Review

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

March 25, 2011

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 1990; 33USC2701-2761) was passed in the wake of the Exxon 

Valdez spill to establish, among other things, liability for releases and a fund for responding to oil 

releases as well as restoring natural resources. Section 2761 of OPA 1990 authorizes research and 

development (R&D) in multiple federal agencies, establishes the Interagency Coordinating Committee 

on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR; 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Request for review of the Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy

FROM: Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, ORD Coordinator for the BP Spill, 

Deputy Director for Management /Signed/

National Homeland Security Research Center

TO: Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer

EPA Science Advisory Board Staff (1400R)

This memorandum requests that the Science Advisory Board (SAB) review and comment on the 

EPA Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy dated January 12, 

2011. The purpose of the draft strategy is to describe a comprehensive research program that would 

enable EPA to continually improve in meeting its mission to prepare for and respond to oil spills.

Background

EPA has authority and regulatory responsibility for multiple aspects of preparing for, preventing and

responding to spills of petroleum and other oils under several laws and regulations. One major EPA 

responsibility is stipulated in the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations (40 CFR part 112), requiring 

onshore and offshore non-transportation related facilities to have spill prevention, control and

countermeasure (SPCC) plans and facility response plans, where applicable. Another major regulation, 

the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300), covers 

responses to oil releases and assigns primary response roles to EPA (generally for inland zone 

discharges) and the Coast Guard (generally for coastal zone discharges). The Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE, formerly Minerals Management Service) is 

generally responsible for operations on the outer continental shelf.

www.iccopr.uscg.gov) and authorizes up to $22 million per year 

among the federal agencies subject to appropriation. ICCOPR published multi-agency research and 

technology plans in 1992 and 1997 and is presently developing a third update. The research focus of 

each agency in the 1997 plan generally aligns with its legal and regulatory authorities, although in some 

cases, OPA 1990 assigns particular R&D roles to specific agencies.
A-2

Prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico and its aftermath, ORD assembled a 

team to develop a draft research strategy that would comprehensively address the scientific and technical 

questions that could enhance EPA’s ability to carry out its mission with respect to oil spills both in the 

short- and longer-term. The draft strategy is framed to identify (1) anticipated decisions that spill 

responders and policy developers will be required to make; (2) science questions within those identified 

decisions; (3) research that would address the science questions; and (4) research outcomes that can be 

used to inform future decisions. The draft strategy is structured to address four themes: dispersants; 

ecological effects; innovative processes and technologies; and human health effects. Research priorities 

that are principally the responsibility of other agencies are not included in this draft strategy, but will be 

fully considered in ICCOPR planning (see Figure 1-2 in the draft strategy).

The draft strategy is deliberately not constrained by resource levels. Our intent was to develop a strategy 

that would address the scientific and technical questions that are central to EPA’s mission, recognizing 

that the research could be conducted by various members of the ICCOPR, researchers funded by BP, 

and others. Implementation of the strategy would entail coordination with those entities to ensure 

appropriate collaboration and leveraging.

Specific Request 

ORD requests that the SAB comment on the scope, proposed science questions, research activities, and 

research outcomes outlined in the Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy. Comments from the SAB will be 

considered during the development of the final strategy document.

We appreciate the efforts of the SAB to prepare for the upcoming review of the Draft Oil Spill Research 

Strategy, and we look forward to discussing the plan in detail on April 11-12, 2011. Questions regarding 

the enclosed materials should be directed to Patricia Erickson at erickson.patricia@epa.gov or 513-569-

7406.

Charge Questions

1. Does the draft Oil Spill Research Strategy encompass the most important research needed to 

enable EPA to better carry out its mission to prepare for and respond to oil spills, including 

future challenges such as biofuels discharges? Does the draft strategy appropriately address 

greener alternatives and innovation? 

2. Is the research strategy organized appropriately to frame the questions in a comprehensible 

manner and to foster collaboration with outside entities as appropriate? If not, how can it be 

better organized?

3. Within each of the research themes:

a. Do the science questions address key issues that can improve future oil spill prevention 

and response activities? Please identify additional high priority issues or science 

questions that should be addressed.

b. Should any of the science questions be deleted based on sufficient existing knowledge, 

low impact on decision-making, or for other reasons?

c. Are the proposed project areas described adequately to design research projects to 

achieve the anticipated outcomes? Please identify any project areas that should be refined 

or important project areas that should be added.
B-1

APPENDIX B: An Example of a Staged Event Management Based Strategy

Using a NEBA Approach

Portions of the Strategy, especially the Technology section, could be improved by the inclusion of a net 

environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) for a series of scenarios involving generic environments. It is 

anticipated that this process would result in a guidance document that would describe several stages with 

different lead agencies for the various stages. The limited example given here would be most relevant to a 

Gulf Coast DWH Scenario. 

Stage 1- Primary Close to Source Containment and Mitigation. For deep-water blowouts, the primary 

and most cost effective defense is preventing and containing the sources of the trouble before the 

hydrocarbons disperse and cover large areas of open ocean and coastline. Under ice, this may be the only 

practical way to mitigate problems. While beyond the mandate of the EPA (i.e. presumably a Bureau of 

Ocean Energy management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) concern) it seems clear that, 

excellent well management practices need to be followed and regulated, the blow out preventer (BOP) 

operation must be greatly improved under all likely adverse conditions and their correct installation 

monitored and that the BOP and sub-sea collector systems over the well or other surrounding blow-out 

regions should be coupled to facilitate rapid deployment. Can, for example, the BOPs be designed so the 

well can be temporally or permanently capped, the hydrocarbon plume be physically contained, collected

and processed in an environmentally and economically sensitive way within days of the initial event? 

It is also possible that the immediate problem will spread beyond the local wellhead area. As one worst

case example, what happens if the blowout breaks the geological formations around the well, resulting in 

a totally unconstrained blow out and a long-term distributed leak system over several square kilometers 

of seabed? The oil may become heavier than seawater or quickly becomes heavier than seawater through 

association with sediments. In such an event, a successful relief well would presumably eventually stop 

the blow out. Usually this works with one relief well, but the process can take months. 

Stage 2- Near Event Containment and Mechanical Skimming- This would presumably be coordinated

by USCG and NOAA but physical materials and dispersant life cycle issues would be of direct relevance 

to the EPA interests. Very large regions of ocean surface (100’s km2

) and ultimately shoreline became 

contaminated during the DWH event. If primary subsea containment at the wellhead is not immediately 

effective, can secondary physical containment and physical removal at the surface be made more 

effective to minimize contaminant spread? For example, if boom placement or operation was not optimal, 

why not? How much oil reached the surface outside the booms? Was the issue not enough booms 

available in a timely manner, or plenty of booms but not good information where to put them? Could a 

combination of oceanographic and contaminant plume monitoring and modeling allow the initial ocean 

surface impact region (initially probably only in the region of a few10s km2 or less) to be predicted based 

on ocean current and weather conditions and then more effectively physically contained? Is this, when 

combined with improved physical skimming resulting in almost total removal of the oil, the most cost 

effective and environmentally safe methods when compared to the utilization of dispersants?

In addition, how much oil that reached the water surface went through or under booms? Were there gaps 

in booms through which surface oil escaped? Did oil go under or around booms placed on the surface? 

Currently boom technology is designed to address oil that is on the water surface; perhaps containment 

technology should be developed specifically to more efficiently capture oil that is coming from below the 

water surface. Additionally, boom failure, through entrainment and other physical forces, is a reality of 
B-2

oil spill response. Perhaps boom designs can be modified to make them more effective, reducing the 

forces of entrainment and addressing other mechanisms of boom failure, even under poor sea state and 

weather conditions. 

How dangerous are deep-water plumes and are they associated with the generation of oxygen depleted 

dead zones? – A subsurface deep-water plume of certain volatile components seems to have existed in the 

DWH incident but do they need special attention, monitoring and mitigation? How are they generated 

(i.e. are solubility effects or are dispersants involved?)? Are they a result of dispersant use? Without

applying dispersants, do more pollutants that are volatile make it to the water surface where they can be

dealt with or naturally broken down? How are deep-water plumes to be dealt with if they are dangerous 

and not generated by dispersants? Dead zones already occur in the U.S. Gulf due to other factors such as 

eutrophication and resulting anoxia. Would adding oxygen and further nutrients to a Gulf type system 

help or make things worse? Again, this presumably would be a multi-agency endeavor (i.e., EPA, 

NOAA, USCG).

Stage 3 –Poorly confined hydrocarbon open water mitigation of hydrocarbons (i.e. dispersants,

skimmers, absorptive materials etc.). In the unlikely event that open water and near shore containment 

strategies are 100% successful then existing and improved technologies will have to be applied over large 

open regions of water before the pollution hits the coastline regions. Once again, improved monitoring 

(sea, air and space based), can play a role in managing and observing the pollutants distribution and the 

efficacy of the different mitigation methods such as the application of dispersants. Can advanced 

techniques such as spectral analysis for surface hydrocarbon distributions and composition play a role? 

Under these conditions, there may, for example, be an important trade-off between improving aerial 

coverage and effectiveness for mechanical skimmers and the utilization of safer dispersants.

Stage 4 – Shore, wetland and estuary and clean up strategies. This is largely addressed in Section 3.3.2 

(Shoreline, Coastal and Inland Effects Research to Inform Oil Spill Decision-Making). A clearer 

description of the current methods and potential areas where the most improvements are thought to be 

easily made would be helpful. Is it just the utilization of low impact green materials that is the main areas 

of improvement? In lagoons and estuaries is there a problem with partially degraded oil deposits on the 

seabed or is it just removal from beaches and wetlands that needs to be addressed? Would adding 

nutrients to a U.S. Gulf type coastal system help or harm a system already suffering from eutrophication 

and anoxia.

Are booms effective enough in near shore environments and if not can they be made more effective? Is 

the building of temporary sand berms to exclude oil from wetlands an effective and environmentally 

sensitive method? Generally sorbents and solidifiers relying on “natural materials” sounds good but 

historical issues regarding preferential rates of biodegradation and oxygen consumption reduce the 

practicality of these resources (applies to open water as well as coastal applications). Additionally, it is 

important to keep in mind the “natural materials” being used as sorbents, human hair, hay, corn cobs, saw 

dust absorb water as well as oil. Some products preferentially absorbed water, making these products 

more akin to “sinking agents” which is not allowed by the EPA requirements (although sorbents are 

exempted from NCP listing requirements). Additionally, products like peat moss are acidic and can 

change the pH of the systems, if there is not sufficient flushing. 

Is the physical/chemical removal of oil from solids/equipment (perhaps even soils?) a way to go? It is 

possible to utilize steam or supercritical water to clean things very well but it gets expensive. Could you 

centrifuge soils, sand and wetland materials to get the hydrocarbons out and then replace the materials 
B-3

back where they came from? Thermal sorption technology, sand cleaning technologies utilizing hot 

water/steam in closed systems (such as the technologies used at Grand Isle in the Gulf Spill) can be 

effective. Sometimes a deflocculant is needed if there are fines in the soils.

Questions were also raised about the potential catastrophic effects that biofuel spills can have on partially 

enclosed systems such as lagoons, lakes and river systems. Water-soluble ethanol type fuel additives are 

particularly hazardous in that they do not evaporate and could lead to devastation such as eutrophication 

and anoxia on their break down. Air sparging and other yet to be developed methods may be option under 

these circumstances.

Stage 5 – Post-event natural system restoration and recovery strategies and associated monitoring. 

This is a highly complex area in itself but certainly, the US Gulf has suffered both physically over the 

years with coastal wetland destruction (partially associated with sediment supply issues) as well as 

biological network destruction/degradation on and offshore. Restoration is going to have to focus on the 

system as a whole in an integrated way and efficient monitoring will have to be in place to evaluate the 

effectiveness of such efforts.

In addition, could relatively energy efficient methods such as increasing sediment supply from the 

Mississippi River (which due to canalization now ends up in deep water) help rebuild wetland and marsh 

habitats with little human intervention other than sediment diversion in the delta region?