Oil Dispersants: Additional Research Needed, Particularly on Subsurface and Arctic Applications
Published: 2012-05-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In April 2010, an explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to a release of approximately 206 million gallons of oil. When an oil spill occurs, responders have several options for managing the environmental impacts, including using chemical dispersants to break the oil into smaller droplets, which can promote biodegradation and help prevent oil from coming on shore. GAO was asked to review (1) what is known about the use of chemical dispersants and their effects, and any knowledge gaps or limitations; (2) the extent to which federal agencies and other entities have taken steps to enhance knowledge on dispersant use and its effects; and (3) challenges, if any, that researchers and federal agencies face in their attempts to enhance knowledge. GAO collaborated with the National Academy of Sciences to identify and recruit experts on dispersant use and conducted interviews with these experts, agency officials, and other specialists, and reviewed key documents and reports.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: According to experts, agency officials, and specialists, much is known about the use of chemical dispersants on the surface of the water, but gaps remain in several research areas. For example, experts generally agreed that there is a basic understanding of the processes that influence where and how oil travels through the water, but that more research was needed to quantify the actual rate at which dispersants biodegrade. In addition, all the experts GAO spoke with said that little is known about the application and effects of dispersants applied subsurface, noting that specific environmental conditions, such as higher pressures, may influence dispersants effectiveness. Knowledge about the use and effectiveness of dispersants in the Arctic is also limited, with less research conducted on dispersant use there than in temperate or tropical climates. For example, one expert noted that more research is needed on biodegradation rates for oil in the Arctic because the cold temperature may slow the process down.
Federal agencies have funded over $15.5 million of dispersant-related research since fiscal year 2000, with more than half of the total funding occurring since the Deepwater Horizon incident. Most of these 106 projects were funded by the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over 40 percent of the research projects were focused at least in part on testing dispersant effectiveness. For example, BSEE funded 28 projects on the efficacy of dispersants on different types of oil and under different ocean conditions. In contrast, relatively few projects were focused on applying dispersants subsurface or in the Arctic. Specifically, NSF funded three projects looking at the use and effects of subsurface dispersant application, and BSEE and EPA funded the eight projects related to the use of chemical dispersants in Arctic or cold water environments.
Researchers face resource, scientific, and communication challenges related to dispersant research. Agency officials, experts, and specialists identified inconsistent and limited levels of funding as a challenge to developing research on the use and effects of chemical dispersants. For example, because support for dispersant research fluctuates, with temporary increases following a major spill, it is difficult for federal agencies to fund longer term studies, such as those needed to understand chronic toxicological effects of dispersants. In addition, researchers face scientific challenges with respect to dispersants, including being able to conduct research that replicates realistic oil spill conditions. Conducting research in the open ocean faces several logistical barriers, and laboratory experiments are unable to fully approximate the scale and complexity of ocean conditions. Lastly, agency officials, experts, and specialists told GAO that it can be a challenge to communicate and track research. Although some organizations have attempted to compile lists of dispersant-related research, currently there is no mechanism that tracks dispersant research across all sources and highlights past and ongoing research projects. For example, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Researcha multi-agency committee chaired by the Coast Guardmaintains a list of federally sponsored oil spill related research, but does not track or cross-reference related research that has been funded solely by industry or nongovernmental sources.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among other things, that the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research periodically provide updated information on key dispersant research by nonfederal sources. Also, the Interagency Committee should ensure that subsurface and Arctic applications are among the future priority research areas. The Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Homeland Security, and the EPA generally concurred with the recommendations made to them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire onboard the Deepwater Horizon  drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the largest oil spill in U.S. history,  releasing approximately 206 million gallons of oil into the Gulf over a  period of nearly 3 months. When an oil spill occurs in coastal waters of  the United States, responders have several options for managing the  environmental impacts of the spill, including the use of chemical  dispersants. Dispersants do not reduce the total amount of oil entering  the environment; rather, they help break down oil into small droplets that  can more easily mix into the water below the surface, increasing  biodegradation rates and potentially decreasing the impact of spilled oil  on the shoreline. However, because chemical dispersants promote the  movement of oil below the surface, their use exposes the underwater  environment and the ocean floor to more of the spilled oil, where it may  also have harmful effects. Therefore, decisions about whether to use  dispersants involve trade-offs between the risks that untreated oil poses  to the water surface and shoreline habitats and the risks that chemically  dispersed oil poses to underwater environments, as well as the feasibility  and limitations of alternative response options.
To help inform oil spill response efforts and decision making, government,  industry, and academic scientists have conducted research on the use  and effects of chemical dispersants. Research on dispersants involves a  range of interdisciplinary areas, including the effectiveness of such  chemicals in dispersing oil; the fate and transport of dispersants and  chemically dispersed oil––that is, where they ultimately go and how they  travel with the water; aquatic toxicity and other environmental effects of  dispersants and chemically dispersed oil; the modeling and monitoring of  dispersant use; and human health effects.
Oil spill responders have been using chemical dispersants since the  1960s. No entity precisely tracks dispersant use, but according to federal  officials, dispersants have been used about 11 times in response to spill  events in U.S. waters. According to a study from the 2008 International  Oil Spill Conference, dispersants were applied over 200 times globally  from 1968 through 2007, though many of these applications involved  small amounts of dispersant. During the Deepwater Horizon incident,  responders applied over 1.8 million gallons of chemical dispersants to the  spilled oil––an unprecedented volume in the United States.  Approximately 42 percent of this total was applied directly at the wellhead  more than 5,000 feet below the ocean’s surface—a method that had not  previously been used or planned. According to a presidential commission  that investigated the Deepwater Horizon incident, the future of domestic  oil production relies to a substantial extent on producing oil from current  offshore wells and expanding development into progressively deeper,  more distant waters, perhaps including challenging environments such as  the Alaskan Arctic, which will require response options that are viable in  such conditions.
In this context, you asked us to review chemical dispersant use and  research. Specifically, our objectives were to examine (1) what is known  about the use of chemical dispersants and their effects, and knowledge  gaps about or limitations to their use, if any; (2) the extent to which  federal agencies and other entities have taken steps to enhance  knowledge on chemical dispersant use and its effects; and (3) challenges,  if any, that researchers and federal agencies face in their attempts to  enhance knowledge on chemical dispersant use and its effects.
To determine what is known about the use and effects of chemical  dispersants and identify any knowledge gaps or limitations, we reviewed  documents and literature, including federal regulations, government oil  spill planning documents, scientific studies, and key reports on dispersant  use to determine areas of research that inform planning and decision  making regarding the use of chemical dispersants. In addition, we  collaborated with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to identify 11  academic, industry, and other researchers recognized as experts in their  respective scientific fields and capable of advising us on chemical  dispersant use and research; hereafter, these scientists and researchers  will be referred to as “experts.” A list of these experts can be found in  appendix II. NAS staff selected these experts based on their knowledge  of one or more of the following topic areas: dispersant effectiveness,  toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil, fate and transport of dispersants  and dispersed oil, and monitoring actual dispersant use, among others.  We conducted semi-structured interviews with these experts to discuss  the state of knowledge, including gaps, regarding dispersant research.  We supplemented our semi-structured expert interviews with interviews of  federal officials and other oil spill or dispersant specialists, including state  officials who have been involved in past response actions, human health  researchers, oil spill response organizations with expertise in applying  chemical dispersants, industry representatives with experience in  researching oil dispersants and responding to oil spills, and other relevant  non-governmental organizations, such as a regional advisory group  focused on environmental protection as it relates to oil production and  transportation. Statements from these groups will be identified as being  from “specialists.”
To determine the extent to which federal agencies and other entities have  taken steps to enhance knowledge on chemical dispersant use and its  effects, and what challenges, if any, researchers have faced, we analyzed  information supplied by and conducted interviews with officials from  federal agencies conducting research on dispersant use and effects: the  Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental  Enforcement (BSEE), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)  United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS)  National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention (CDC), the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science  Foundation (NSF). We also analyzed information supplied by and  conducted interviews with specialists, as identified above. In addition, we  attended a NOAA-funded workshop on the future of dispersant use to  gather information on both the state of knowledge and ongoing research  and an industry-funded workshop of key federal, state, and local  responders, academic researchers, and other stakeholders who could  potentially be affected by an accidental offshore oil spill along the Eastern  seaboard of the United States. Appendix I provides a more detailed  description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 through May  2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Crude oil is a naturally occurring substance generated by geological and  geochemical processes. A variety of petroleum products, such as  gasoline, diesel fuel, and heavy fuel oil are derived from this natural  resource. Crude oil and petroleum products can vary greatly depending  on where and how they were extracted and refined, and their unique  characteristics influence how they will behave when released into water  and how they will affect animals, plants, and their habitats. Because oil is  typically less dense than water, oil spills on or near the surface of water  will float and form slicks. An untreated slick will remain at the surface until  it evaporates, disperses naturally into the water column, washes onto the  shoreline, breaks up into smaller collections of oil—known as tarballs—or  is recovered or removed from the water.
Oil or petroleum products spilled on water undergo a series of physical  and chemical processes that may cause the oil to change––known as  weathering––or migrate. Some processes cause oil to be removed from  the water’s surface, while others change its form on the surface. Figure 1  depicts these processes, which are further described and defined in   table 1.
Regardless of their physical and chemical properties, all oils will weather  once spilled. The rate of weathering depends on the conditions at the  time of the spill and the nature of the spilled oil. Most weathering  processes are highly temperature dependent, however, and will often  slow considerably as the temperature approaches freezing  temperatures.
A blowout is an uncontrolled release of oil or gas from a well. less dense than water, it will float toward the surface. The speed at which  it rises is based on the oil’s droplet size—the larger the droplet the faster  the oil rises. Once it reaches the surface, the oil forms a slick thinner than  those that result from surface spills, in part because of the diffusion and  dispersal of oil droplets as they rise.
When an oil spill occurs, responders have several techniques for  responding, including the following:
Chemical dispersants—applying chemicals to help break up the oil  into smaller droplets to facilitate the movement of the oil off the  surface and into the water column and enhance microbial breakdown  of the oil.
Mechanical containment and recovery—using booms, skimmers,  sorbents, and other techniques to trap and remove the oil.
In-situ burning—burning spilled oil on the surface of the water.
Shoreline clean-up—physically picking up oil and washing or  chemically treating shorelines, or deploying bioremediation, which  involves the addition of nutrients to enhance the ability of  microorganisms to degrade the oil more rapidly.
No action—taking no active response to the spill.
Each response technique has its own operational requirements, benefits,  limitations, and potential adverse impacts. Responders must evaluate  which method or combination of methods to use depending on the  circumstances and conditions of the oil spill, such as the weather, sea  state, type and amount of oil spilled, distance of spill from shore, and  potentially affected natural resources. In the United States, mechanical  containment and recovery is the primary response option, since it  physically removes oil from the environment. However, experience has  shown that mechanical containment and recovery in open waters can be  limited depending on sea conditions. Specifically, for such operations to  be conducted most effectively, seas need to be relatively calm, with  waves under about 3 feet, according to documents we reviewed and  specialists with whom we spoke.
Oil spills inevitably have environmental impacts, and response actions  may only reduce these impacts or shift them. In determining which  response options are best for an individual spill, agency officials said that  decision makers weigh the ecological risks and consequences with the  goal of minimizing adverse effects as much as possible. For example,  when considering the use of chemical dispersants as a response option,  the essential question asked is whether dispersing the oil into the water  column offers more benefits (i.e., causes less harm) than leaving the oil  on the surface if it cannot be adequately removed by mechanical means  or burned. Decision makers would collect as much information as  possible to assess, for example, whether the potential harm to wetlands  or waterfowl that could occur if dispersants were not applied is greater  than the potential harm to marine species from chemically dispersed oil  entering the water column. This evaluation of these trade-offs is  sometimes called a net environmental benefit analysis.
Chemical dispersants function by reducing the surface tension between  oil and water—similar to the way that dish detergents break up cooking oil  on a skillet—and enhancing the natural process of dispersion by  generating larger numbers of small droplets of oil that are mixed into the  water column by wave energy. Thus, rather than having a surface slick of  oil, one will have an underwater plume of chemically dispersed oil.  Throughout this report we use the term “chemically dispersed oil” to  discuss the mixture that results when chemical dispersants are applied to  oil and facilitate the formation of oil droplets. A typical commercial  dispersant contains a mixture of three types of chemicals: surfactants,  solvents, and additives. Surfactants are the active agents that reduce oil- water surface tension. Surfactant compounds contain both oil-compatible  and water-compatible groups on the same molecule, with the oil- compatible group interacting with oil and the water-compatible group  interacting with water to make the interaction between the two easier.  Solvents are added to promote the dissolution of the surfactants and  additives into the dispersant mixture and then, during application, into the  oil slick. Additives may be present for a number of purposes, such as  improving the dissolution of the surfactants and increasing the long term  stability of the dispersant formulation.
Federal statutes required the development of a National Oil and  Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan that, among other  things, delineates the procedures for preparing for and responding to oil  spills and details the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies and  others involved in dispersant decision making. Specifically, the National  Contingency Plan is based on a framework that brings together the  functions of the federal government, the affected state governments, and  the party responsible for a spill under a unified command to achieve an  effective and efficient response. In response to an oil spill, the National  Contingency Plan calls for a Federal On-Scene Coordinator to direct and  coordinate response efforts. In the case of oil spills in the coastal zone,such as in the Deepwater Horizon incident, a representative from the  Coast Guard serves as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator. EPA provides  the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for spills occurring in the inland zone,  and the designation of these zones is documented in the Regional  Contingency Plans.
As part of the National Contingency Plan, EPA maintains the National Oil  and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Product  Schedule, which lists chemical dispersants that may be authorized for use  on oil discharges. Inclusion on the Product Schedule does not mean  that EPA recommends the product for use; rather, it only means that  certain data have been submitted to EPA and that the dispersant has a  certain effectiveness. The data that a manufacturer must submit to EPA  includes effectiveness and toxicity data, special handling and worker  precautions for storage and application, recommended application  procedures and conditions for use, and shelf life. An appendix to the  regulations implementing the National Contingency Plan describes the  test methods a manufacturer is to follow for measuring effectiveness and  toxicity of dispersants. In terms of effectiveness, the manufacturer must  demonstrate that the dispersant can disperse at least 45 percent of oil in  testing. To assess toxicity, the appendix specifies the standard test for a  chemical dispersant, which involves exposing two species––silverside  fish (Menidia beryllina) and mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia)—to varying  concentrations of the dispersant, oil, and a mixture of the two, to  determine mortality rates at the end of 96 hours for silversides and 48  hours for mysid shrimp. Chemical dispersant manufacturers must submit  the results of effectiveness and toxicity testing to EPA, which may request  further documentation or verify test results in determining whether the  dispersant meets listing criteria. Both the presidential commission that  investigated the Deepwater Horizon incident and the EPA Inspector  General have recommended that EPA update the Product Schedule’s  testing protocols and requirements for listing.Inspector General recommended, among other things, that EPA modify  the Product Schedule and contingency plans to include additional  information learned from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response, such  as subsurface dispersant application in deep water. EPA anticipates  issuing a proposed rule in winter 2012 that would revise the requirements  for listing a product on the Product Schedule and is considering changes  to effectiveness and toxicity testing protocols.
In addition, the EPA  A National Response Team and Regional Response Teams serve as  preparedness and planning organizations prior to a response and may  serve as incident-specific response teams to provide support and advice  to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator during a response. The National  Response Team includes 20 federal departments and agencies  responsible for national response and preparedness planning, for  coordinating regional planning, and for providing policy guidance and  support to Regional Response Teams. Regional Response Teams are  composed of representatives of each National Response Team agency  and representatives from relevant state and local governments (as  agreed upon by the states) and may also include tribal governments.  There are 13 Regional Response Teams corresponding to the 10  standard federal regions, plus separate teams for Alaska, Oceania in the  Pacific, and the Caribbean. The Regional Response Teams develop  Regional Contingency Plans establishing procedures for preparing for  and responding to oil spills in the region. Within the regions, area  committees composed of officials from federal, state, and local agencies  have been designated to develop Area Contingency Plans.
Regional and Area Contingency Plans may address the specific situations  in which chemical dispersants should and should not be used and may  preauthorize their use by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator.  Preauthorization plans may address factors such as the potential sources  and types of oil that might be spilled, the existence and location of  environmentally sensitive resources that could be affected, available  dispersant stockpiles, available equipment and adequately trained  operators, and means to monitor product application and effectiveness.  The details and procedures for preauthorized use vary by region;  however, plans generally preauthorize use of dispersants for areas at  least 3 nautical miles from shore with water at least 10 meters deep, and  the chemical dispersant must be listed on EPA’s Product Schedule. If  dispersants are not preauthorized, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator  may authorize use of dispersants on the Product Schedule with the  concurrence of EPA and appropriate state representatives and in  consultation with the Department of Commerce and Department of the  Interior. The Federal On-Scene Coordinator may authorize the use of any  dispersant, including products not listed on the Product Schedule, without  obtaining concurrence, when, in the judgment of the coordinator, the use  of the product is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce a hazard to  human life. Currently, most Regional Contingency Plans include  preauthorization for application of dispersants on the surface in certain  areas; however, none of the plans include preauthorization for subsurface  application of dispersants in deep water.
During the Deepwater Horizon incident, chemical dispersants were used  with and without preauthorization and were applied at various times  throughout the response by airplane, boat, and deep water, subsurface  injection at the wellhead. The aerial and boat applications were  preauthorized, but subsurface injection of dispersants, which had never  previously been used, was guided by a directive and a series of addenda  to that directive. This directive and its addenda were established jointly by  the Coast Guard and EPA as the spill was occurring, and these  documents placed certain restrictions on dispersant use. Because of  complications and uncertainties related to real time authorization of  chemical dispersant use in this novel manner, the EPA Inspector General  recommended in its 2011 report that EPA develop policies and  procedures to govern subsurface dispersant use and to modify  preauthorization plans to specifically address subsurface application of  dispersants. According to agency officials, the National Response Team  has drafted guidelines for subsurface dispersant monitoring and  application and expects to finalize them by winter 2012.
section_title: Much Is Known about Surface Use of Chemical Dispersants, but Gaps Remain, Particularly about Subsurface and Arctic Use
paragraphs: According to experts we spoke with, there is a significant body of  research on the use of chemical dispersants on the surface of the water,  but some gaps remain in several research areas. Moreover, experts  highlighted two additional areas in which knowledge is limited and more  research is needed—the subsurface application and effects of  dispersants in deep water environments and the use of dispersants in  Arctic and other cold water environments.
subsections: section_title: Surface Use of Dispersants Reflects a Significant Body of Research, but Gaps Remain
paragraphs: According to experts, agency officials, and specialists we spoke with,  much is known about the use of dispersants on the surface of the water;  however, they said that gaps remain in several research areas.  Specifically, experts, agency officials, and specialists described the state  of knowledge and gaps in the following six research areas: effectiveness in dispersing oil,  fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil, aquatic toxicity and environmental effects of chemically dispersed oil, modeling of chemically dispersed oil, monitoring of chemically dispersed oil, and human health effects.
Effectiveness in dispersing oil. Most of the 11 experts we interviewed  agreed that there is a large body of research on the effectiveness of  chemical dispersants, and many said that there is a solid understanding  of the factors that may influence the effectiveness of such dispersants  when used on the surface. For a dispersant to be effective, the oil must  be dispersible, and there must be sufficient mixing energy––the energy  generated by movement of the water from wind and wave action—to  allow formation of smaller oil droplets and to disperse these droplets into  the water column. Whether these two conditions are satisfied relies on a  complex set of factors, including the type of oil spilled, how the long the  oil has been exposed to the environment, and sea and weather  conditions. One of the primary factors in the dispersability of oil is its  viscosity––the resistance of a liquid to flow. Oils that do not flow easily  have a high viscosity and are more difficult to disperse; oils that flow  easily have a low viscosity and tend to be more dispersible. Oil viscosity  is influenced by its type and the amount of change or weathering it has  undergone. For example, many experts stated that chemical dispersants  are more effective in dispersing light to medium crude oils, which have a  lower viscosity, than heavy oils, which have a higher viscosity. In addition,  the longer oil weathers, the more viscous––and thus less dispersible––it  becomes. This means chemical dispersants need to be used quickly after  a spill––typically within hours to 1 to 2 days after a spill, depending on  conditions––before the oil has weathered substantially. At a certain level  of viscosity, dispersants are no longer effective. Many experts also told us  that chemical dispersants are more effective in dispersing oil in  moderately wavy seas than in calm seas because of the mixing energy  such sea states provide, and dispersants would likely not be used in very  stormy, wavy seas because such conditions would disperse the oil  naturally and present operational difficulties. In addition, the effectiveness  of a chemical dispersant depends on the ratio of chemical dispersant to  oil. Planning guidelines generally recommend a ratio of 1 part dispersant  to 20 parts oil. However, some experts and specialists told us that the  minimum effective dispersant-to-oil ratio can also vary greatly based on  the type of oil and degree of weathering. Thus, some light oils, if fresh,  may only require ratios of 1:40 or less, whereas weathered or more  viscous oils may require ratios above 1:20.
While there is a large body of research on the effectiveness of chemical  dispersant use on the surface of the water, experts identified a number of  areas in which they believe additional study is needed. Specifically, some  experts told us that research on effectiveness should more closely  resemble real world conditions, rather than the artificial conditions often  experienced in a laboratory. For example, one expert said that some  laboratory effectiveness tests involve less mixing energy than real world  conditions found in the ocean, and therefore, dispersant effectiveness  rates may be understated. In addition, the properties of oil can vary  greatly depending on the source, and some experts said that more  research should be conducted on the effectiveness of different dispersant  formulations on different types of oil. Because there are hundreds of  types of oil, specific dispersants may work better on certain types of oil  than others. Some experts also said that more research is needed to  better understand the effectiveness of dispersants on heavily weathered  and emulsified oil, noting that dispersants are typically applied on the  surface just once; however, applying dispersants twice may increase their  effectiveness on emulsified oil.
Fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil. Many of the experts we  spoke with indicated that there is a basic understanding of the processes  that influence the fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil, but that  fate and transport of oil are subject to many complex processes, some of  which are better understood than others. Specifically, most experts whom  we spoke with agreed that the use of chemical dispersants increases  biodegradation rates, as dispersants help reduce the size of oil droplets,  making them more accessible to microbes that feed on them. Experts  differed in their views with regard to the extent to which factors such as  evaporation, photo-oxidation, and dissolution influence the fate of  chemically dispersed oil. For example, some experts said that  dissolution—the chemical stabilization of oil components in water— increases with dispersant use; whereas, other experts said that more  research is needed to understand the relationship between dispersant  use and dissolution. Chemically dispersed oil is transported both vertically  and horizontally through the water by wind, waves, and currents. Once  droplets are dispersed vertically into the water column, most oil droplets  will be positively buoyant and will rise toward the surface. The speed at  which the droplets will rise depends on their diameter, with the smallest  droplets rising very slowly. For example, according to a 2005 National  Academy of Sciences report on chemical dispersants, a droplet with a  diameter of 300 micrometers (0.3 millimeters) would take less than 8  minutes to rise 3 meters, while a droplet with the diameter of 30  micrometers (0.03 millimeters) would take over 12 hours to rise the same  distance. Once the oil is dispersed below the surface, subsurface  currents move the location of the oil droplets horizontally. In some cases,  the direction the oil will travel below the surface will be different than it  traveled on the surface because the direction of the currents may be  different than the direction of the wind. When currents are non-uniform,  mixing is produced that further dilutes and disperses oil droplets  throughout the water. Many experts also told us that chemically dispersed  oil, as compared with oil that is naturally dispersed, reduces the likelihood  of oil droplets reforming into slicks because of the smaller droplet size— which allow for greater dispersion and slower rise rates.
The experts we spoke with also identified several research gaps related  to the fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil. For example, most  experts told us that the use of chemical dispersants increases  biodegradation rates, but many told us that more research was needed to  quantify the actual rate at which biodegradation occurs. Additionally,  many experts said that more research is needed to understand the  specifics of transport within the water column and oil droplet size, since  they are important factors for determining whether the chemically  dispersed oil will remain in the water column or float back to the surface.  Many experts also said that more research is needed on chemically  dispersed oil’s interactions with suspended particulate material,  interactions that occur when oil droplets attach to small particles such as  sediment. Such oil-particle combinations could influence fate and  transport in various ways, such as preventing the oil from recoalescing.  Also, some combinations may potentially sink to the bottom, and others  may remain suspended in the water column. According to a 2005  National Academy of Sciences report, gaps related to understanding the  fate of chemically dispersed oil and the interaction of the dispersed oil  with sediments could be addressed through the use of actual spill events  to conduct research and collect data. .
COREXIT®,States. Additionally, most experts said that chemically dispersed oil can  increase oil’s bioavailability—how easily an organism can take up a  particular contaminant from the environment—which can have varying  harmful effects. For example, many experts said that chemical dispersion  will alter the bioavailability of oil. Exposure to shoreline and surface oil  may decrease for wildlife, such as birds or marine mammals, but  exposure may increase for species living in the water column, such as  certain fish or plankton.   which is the most widely stockpiled dispersant in the United  Experts also identified several knowledge gaps and limitations in regard  to information on the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil. In particular,  most experts told us that research on the chronic effects of exposure has  been more limited, and many identified this as an area in which more  research is needed. Lack of research on chronic effects limits the  understanding of how marine communities and populations—including  corals, fish, and marine mammals—are affected by dispersant use over  the long term. In addition, many experts said that more research is  needed to understand the impact of chemically dispersed oil on marine  communities and populations. For example, one expert noted that the  rate of recovery for species is a key aspect for determining the trade-offs  of using chemical dispersants. Furthermore, some experts questioned the  usefulness of some toxicity research, noting that this research was  generally not conducted using consistent methodological approaches,  which limits its comparability. For example, one expert said that early  toxicity research did not include chemical analysis, which limits the  comparability of older studies to more recent ones that contain such  analysis. Additionally, some experts noted that while there are many  studies on COREXIT®, there are few studies on the toxicity of the other  dispersants on the Product Schedule. In addition, some experts and  specialists we spoke with questioned the applicability of the research to  real world spill scenarios. Specifically, one expert said that the  concentrations and durations of exposure to chemically dispersed oil  often used in the laboratory do not reflect oil exposure concentrations and  durations during an actual spill. Many laboratory tests use a constant  exposure level over a period of 96 hours (4 days), while during a  dispersant application on a real spill, the concentration of chemically  dispersed oil could be very high when first applied but will decline quickly  over a matter of hours, particularly in the open ocean. Thus, some  experts noted the need for more studies using realistic exposure  scenarios and consistent methodologies.
Further, many experts said that research should be conducted on a  broader range of species, as the majority of research has been conducted  on a small number of species. For example, one expert said that it is not  always possible to extrapolate from the standard test species––silverside  fish and mysid shrimp—to other species, particularly from different  regions or climates. Another expert noted that since it is not practical to  test every species, those that are tested need to be ones that can be  extrapolated to the key species in each region. In addition, according to  EPA researchers, additional research is needed to better understand  photoenhanced toxicity—the increase in toxic effects resulting from the  synergistic interaction of components of oil accumulated by aquatic  organisms and the ultraviolet radiation in natural sunlight. Recent studies  demonstrate that chemically dispersed oil was substantially more toxic to  early life stages of fish and invertebrates under the light wavelengths and  intensity present in aquatic habitats than under the light systems used to  generate toxicity data in the laboratory, but additional research is needed  according to EPA researchers.
Modeling of chemically dispersed oil. Models that are used to predict how  spilled oil will behave in the environment rely upon a number of inputs,  but according to most experts we spoke with, modeling efforts are limited  by the accuracy of inputs to the model, and the experts said that they  believe that more research is needed to improve these inputs.  Specifically, fate and transport models rely on a variety of inputs,  including dispersant effectiveness, wind speed, and ocean currents.  Some experts we spoke with questioned the accuracy of some of these  inputs, which has implications for the predictive value of the model and  may result in greater uncertainty with regard to the ultimate fate and  transport of the dispersed oil. For example, some experts noted that more  research is needed to more quantitatively measure dispersant  effectiveness, including the amount of oil dispersed below the surface as  droplets and the resulting droplet size distribution.
Monitoring of chemically dispersed oil. Some experts told us the  monitoring protocols currently used are generally sufficient for their  intended purpose of determining whether oil is dispersing. The primary  tool used to monitor this is the Special Monitoring of Applied Response  Technologies (SMART) protocols, which were established by a multi- agency group—including Coast Guard, NOAA, EPA, CDC, and BSEE— and are implemented by the Coast Guard in spill response. These  protocols establish a system for rapid collection of real-time, scientifically  based data to assist in decision making related to whether additional  chemical dispersants should be applied to break up remaining oil on the  surface of the water. These protocols rely heavily on trained personnel to  visually observe dispersed oil, collect water samples, and measure the  amount of oil in the water using a fluorometer—a device that detects the  presence of oil in the water column by measuring the light emitted when  certain oil compounds are exposed to ultraviolet light—which helps  indicate that the dispersant is having its desired effect. Some experts  stated that the fluorometry equipment used for the SMART protocols is  useful for determining the initial effectiveness of dispersants—that is,  whether or not oil is being broken up and distributed through the water  column during an oil spill response. Additionally, one expert said that the  SMART protocols are simple, well defined, and standardized and are able  to quickly provide information to decision makers during emergency  response operations.
Many experts and a NOAA review of SMART protocol implementation  also said that the protocols and the equipment used could be enhanced  to provide some in-depth information to help inform research efforts to  address gaps or to further assess the effectiveness of chemical  dispersants. For example, some experts told us that the protocols do not  provide an analysis of oil composition to determine whether and how long  the dispersant remains present in the water and continues to break up the  oil, making it difficult to assess the true effectiveness. Additionally, the  SMART protocols were focused on providing operational guidance on  dispersant effectiveness and were not designed to monitor the fate,  effects, or impacts of chemically dispersed oil, but many experts said that  research should be conducted to integrate monitoring of fate and effects  into the protocols. Doing so would help inform research efforts to better  address gaps and help spill responders make better decisions. Some  experts also told us that the fluorometry technology used in SMART is  limited in that it only measures a portion of oil components and that the  standardization and calibration of this equipment could be improved.  Many experts also told us SMART could be enhanced with different,  newer equipment, such as particle size analyzers to measure oil droplet  size, which could better monitor chemically dispersed oil. Moreover, a  February 2012 NOAA review of SMART monitoring protocol  implementation during the Deepwater Horizon incident found that the  SMART protocols were not sufficient to determine the effects of the  dispersant and oil on marine life in the water column. In addition, the  report found that for large spills with information needs beyond the  question of whether the oil is dispersing, the protocols need to be  revamped. This review concluded that the SMART monitoring  methodologies used during the Deepwater Horizon incident lacked rigor  and repeatability.
Human health effects. HHS officials and human health specialists we  spoke with noted that toxicity information is available for the individual  ingredients of some dispersants––particularly COREXIT® EC9500A–– and those individual ingredients are generally believed to be not  particularly toxic to humans. Furthermore, HHS officials and human  health specialists we spoke with noted that there is little likelihood that the  general public will be exposed to dispersants or chemically dispersed oil.  Individuals involved in cleanup operations that directly handled  dispersants or worked in the immediate area of application would likely  have greater potential exposure to dispersants and therefore might have  a greater risk of adverse effects. However, during the Deepwater Horizon  incident, a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)  Health Hazard Evaluation looked at the potential exposure of these  highest risk groups and found that indicators of dispersant exposure were  nondetectable or at levels well below applicable occupational exposure  limits. In addition, the Material Safety Data Sheet for COREXIT®  EC9500A—the dispersant most used during the Deepwater Horizon  incident response—states that potential human exposure will be low if  recommended product application procedures and use of personal  protective equipment such as use of hand, skin, and eye  protection are followed. In addition, in laboratory tests following the  Deepwater Horizon incident, NIOSH researchers found no long-term  negative health effects due to short-term dermal or inhalation exposure to  COREXIT® EC9500A. However, adverse effects of longer-term exposure  have not been evaluated, according to HHS officials. With regard to  seafood safety, studies indicate that the dispersants used during the  Deepwater Horizon incident did not accumulate in seafood, and therefore  there is no public health concern from them because of seafood  consumption, according to the FDA. To ensure consumers had  confidence in the safety of seafood being harvested from the Gulf, NOAA  and FDA developed a chemical test for the presence of dispersant in  seafood. Most of the seafood samples tested had no detectible oil or  dispersant residue. For the few samples in which some residue was  detected, the levels were far lower than the amounts that would cause a  health concern, even when seafood is eaten on a daily basis.
Agency officials and human health specialists said that less is known  about the ingredients in several other dispersants listed on the Product  Schedule and that they believe more information is needed on the  ingredients in these dispersants. In addition, toxicity information may be  available on many of the individual ingredients in dispersants, but agency  officials and human health specialists told us that there is very little data  regarding the potential human health effects of the mixture of these  ingredients as found in oil dispersant products. For example, the Material  Safety Data Sheet for COREXIT® EC9500A states that no human health  toxicity studies have been conducted on this product. In addition, agency  officials and human health specialists told us that more research is  needed on whether dispersants can alter the toxicological properties of  the chemicals in the oil, which may increase the ability of oil or some of its  constituents to permeate the skin in the event of dermal exposure to  chemically dispersed oil. Agency officials and human health specialists  also told us that currently there are no good biomarkers for dispersant  exposure, making it difficult for researchers to fully measure the extent of  human exposure and any resulting toxicological effects. In addition,  results from studies based on human samples or populations are needed  to fully inform our understanding of potential health effects, according to  agency officials. For example, in order to determine the likelihood of  meaningful exposures and the potential for health effects to occur, it  would be important to have ongoing environmental and biological  monitoring, such as through the collection of blood or urine samples from  oil spill response workers before and after they encounter dispersants.
section_title: Experts Highlighted Two Emerging Areas in Need of Further Research
paragraphs: Although much is known about the use of dispersants on the surface of  the water, experts highlighted two emerging areas in which additional  research is needed—specifically, the subsurface application and effects  of dispersants in deep water environments and the use of dispersants in  Arctic conditions and other cold water environments. As previously  discussed, and according to many experts we spoke with, it will be  particularly important to gain a better understanding of these  environments since the future of oil production will rely to a substantial  extent on producing oil from deep, offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico  and off the Alaskan Coast.
Subsurface application of dispersants. All of the 11 experts we spoke with  told us that little is known about the use and effects of chemical  dispersants applied subsurface in deep water environments—ocean  depths of over 1,000 feet—noting that conditions there may influence the  effectiveness of dispersants, such as higher pressure, lower water  temperatures, and the presence of gas. Most experts characterized the  subsurface application of chemical dispersants in the deep water during  the Deepwater Horizon incident as surrounded by uncertainties, since it  was the first attempt of its kind. Officials and specialists noted that  monitoring efforts and visual evidence from the spill indicated subsurface  application of dispersants was effective in reducing the amount of oil and  volatile organic compound levels that appeared at the surface.
Experts agreed that the influence of deep water conditions on subsurface  dispersant use requires further research, but they disagreed over the  significance of some of the knowledge gaps. For example, some experts  felt lack of knowledge about the role of high pressure in the deep water  was a big gap, while others felt that, based on the knowledge of chemistry  and other existing knowledge about dispersants, pressure was likely to  have no influence on effectiveness. Specialists told us scientists are  beginning to undertake research to validate the effectiveness of chemical  dispersants applied subsurface in deep water environments and better  understand how to optimize dispersant formulations, dispersant-to-oil  ratios, and application methods for these conditions. Some experts and  specialists told us that since application directly at a spill source in deep  water allows for direct contact with fresh oil and the force of a blowout  creates substantial mixing energy, dispersants designed specifically for  subsurface application could require less or no solvent and be applied at  significantly lower dispersant-to-oil ratios.
Furthermore, with regard to the subsurface use of dispersants, most  experts told us that there are gaps in knowledge related to fate and  transport, toxicity, and monitoring. In terms of the fate and transport of  dispersed oil at depth, while research and models to indicate what  happens to oil released from the ocean floor exist, previous research had  not taken into account the changes the addition of chemical dispersants  could cause. Many experts also cited the need for more research on  issues such as biodegradation, oil droplet size, and interaction with  particulate material in the subsurface, deep water environment. For  example, some experts noted that such research could inform the  adaptation and improvement of models for tracking the fate and transport  of chemically dispersed oil from subsurface dispersant use. One expert  noted a particular need for research on interactions with suspended  particulate material in deep water. This expert noted that there is some  evidence that smaller droplets react differently with suspended particulate  material in deep water and can create a substance, which can entrap  organisms that cannot swim away fast enough.
With regard to toxicity related to the subsurface application of  dispersants, in addition to the gaps in information on chronic effects  discussed above, experts told us that little is known about the species  that reside in deep water environments and how chemically dispersed oil  may affect them. Also, some noted that the difficulties of conducting  toxicity testing on relevant species in realistic exposure scenarios are  amplified for subsurface use of chemical dispersants in deep water  because bringing such species to the surface would likely kill them, and  creating test conditions that would allow them to survive and serve as a  reasonable simulation of that environment would be extremely  challenging. Given the inability in a subsurface, deep water scenario to  implement direct visual observation based monitoring, such as occurs  with the SMART protocols, some experts noted the need for research to  develop scientifically sound monitoring protocols and equipment for deep  water use.
Use of dispersants in Arctic environments. Most experts told us that  knowledge about the use of dispersants in Arctic environments is limited,  and less research has been conducted on dispersant use in the Arctic  and other cold environments than in temperate or tropical climates.  Specifically, some experts stated that additional research is needed to  ensure that dispersant formulations are effective in the Arctic  environment. For example, one expert said that dispersants are currently  designed for temperate or tropical climates, and there is reason to believe  that these formulations will be less effective in the Arctic environment  because of environmental conditions such as cooler temperatures and  the presence of ice. Specifically, sea ice introduces several potential  complicating factors, which require more research. For example, ice  alters the sea’s state, diminishing waves, which could lead to lower  mixing energy. In addition, the presence of ice and broken ice may affect  application methods.
Previously discussed knowledge gaps about fate and transport of  chemically dispersed oil also apply in the Arctic, with one expert noting  that more research is needed on biodegradation rates in the Arctic  because the cold temperatures may slow the process down. Furthermore,  one expert told us that additional research is needed to enhance fate and  transport models for chemically dispersed oil in icy conditions to better  understand the movement of chemically dispersed oil. Some experts also  noted possible differences in the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil for  Arctic species as compared with temperate species. For example, one  expert said that some Arctic species have different metabolism rates than  species in warmer climates, and research is needed to determine how  dispersant use affects Arctic species.
section_title: Federal Agencies, Industry, States, and Other Groups Have Funded Research to Enhance Knowledge on the Use and Effects of Dispersants
paragraphs: Federal agencies and other groups, including industry and states, have  enhanced knowledge on the use of chemical dispersants and its effects  by funding research projects. Specifically, six federal agencies have  funded over $15.5 million of dispersant-related research projects since  fiscal year 2000, with about half of this total federal funding—over $8  million—occurring since the Deepwater Horizon incident. Over 40  percent of all federally funded dispersant research projects have focused  on testing dispersant effectiveness. Appendix III provides a list of  federally sponsored research projects related to dispersants since fiscal  year 2000. In addition, industry has a number of past and ongoing  research projects focused on the use and effects of dispersants, and  states and other groups have also funded dispersant-related research.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Have Funded Over $15.5 Million for Dispersant Research since Fiscal Year 2000, Including Over $8 Million since the Deepwater Horizon Incident
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2000, six federal agencies—BSEE, Coast Guard, EPA,  HHS, NOAA, and NSF—have funded 106 research projects related to  chemical dispersants, at a cost of approximately $15.6 million (see table  2). Roughly half of the total federal funding—approximately $8.5 million— occurred in fiscal years 2010 or 2011, largely in response to the  Deepwater Horizon incident. In general, most of the projects funded by  federal agencies were conducted by nonfederal researchers, including  university researchers and independent laboratories. In addition, the  federal government has a committee—the Interagency Coordinating  Committee on Oil Pollution Research—that helps coordinate research  efforts across federal agencies. This committee was established by the  Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and is currently composed of 14 federal  agencies and chaired by the Coast Guard.
Details on dispersant-related research funded by the six federal agencies  since fiscal year 2000 are as follows:
BSEE has consistently funded dispersant research projects every  fiscal year since 2000, and funding for most individual projects has  ranged from $10,000 to $300,000. According to agency officials,  BSEE has plans to undertake additional projects and has tentatively  planned to fund studies on the impact of dispersant use on worker  safety and studies on subsurface dispersant application. In addition to  jointly funded projects with other federal agencies, BSEE has also  funded projects jointly with industry and other groups to conduct  dispersant research. For example, for one dispersant research  project, BSEE was one of nine partners, including four oil companies  and two oil spill response organizations, as well as Canada’s  Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Texas’ General Land  Office.
NSF has funded the second largest number of projects—29 in all— and all but one of its projects were funded as a result of the  Deepwater Horizon incident. Almost all of NSF’s dispersant research  funding was distributed to researchers through its rapid response  grant program––a grant mechanism developed specifically to respond  to unusual circumstances where a timely response is essential to  achieving research results, such as in the case of the Deepwater  Horizon incident. NSF also had the largest total agency funding, with  individual project funding ranging from $12,878 to $200,000, with an  average funding level of $151,566. Most of this research is still under  way. Absent another oil spill, NSF does not have plans to fund further  dispersant research—other than for projects submitted as individual,  unsolicited proposals—according to agency officials.
EPA, similar to BSEE, has funded at least one project in most years  since fiscal year 2000. EPA’s total annual funding for dispersant- related projects was generally less than $300,000 per year. In fiscal  year 2010, EPA funding increased, and the agency funded six  dispersant research projects at a total of $1.3 million. In addition, EPA  has collaborated with the Canadian government on a wave tank  facility in Canada, which EPA has used to support some of its  dispersant-related research projects. EPA, through its STAR grant  program, also issued a request for proposal on the environmental  impact and mitigation of oil spills, including the application of  dispersants as one of the mitigation measures, after the Deepwater  Horizon incident. This grant program plans to award $2 million to four  projects by April 2012; an agency official told us that one of the  projects will focus on the development of new types of dispersants.
NOAA has funded several projects over the past decade, but has not  consistently funded dispersant-related research on an annual basis. A  significant portion of NOAA’s dispersant funding—$1 million out of  about $3.3 million total—has been for an ongoing project, funded in  fiscal year 2011, and focused on dispersant use during the Deepwater  Horizon incident and lessons learned from that event. NOAA funded  most of its past dispersant research through its partnership with the  University of New Hampshire’s Coastal Response Research Center  (CRRC). CRRC projects represent 10 of the 15 NOAA-funded  dispersant research projects. However, NOAA officials told us that the  agency’s funding for the CRRC ended in 2007.
HHS has funded four research projects, all in fiscal years 2010 or  2011 and has done so as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident,  similar to NSF. Specifically, HHS has funded four research projects,  ranging in costs from $6,000 to $634,000. One of these projects was  a jointly funded project with EPA, at a cost of $77,491 to HHS. HHS  officials told us that the agency currently does not have plans to fund  any dispersant research in the future.
The Coast Guard has the most limited dispersant research program of  the six key agencies, funding two joint projects since fiscal year 2000,  at a total cost of $64,000. One of these co-funded projects was the  2005 National Academy of Sciences report on dispersants. The  Coast Guard also jointly funded a project with BSEE to analyze  SMART protocol monitoring data. Coast Guard officials told us that  the agency has no plans to fund dispersant research projects in the  future and that the agency has no formal effort under way to update  the SMART monitoring protocols. In addition, although the agency has  not funded a large amount of dispersant-related research since fiscal  year 2000, it has focused its research efforts on other response  options, such as in situ burning and mechanical recovery, in  accordance with federal oil pollution research plans, according to  agency officials.
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research’s  purpose is to coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution  research, technology, development, and demonstration among federal  agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, universities,  research institutions, state governments, and other nations as  appropriate, and to foster cost-effective research, including the joint  funding of research. Officials told us that the committee has never  received specific funding to operate as a body. Support for the  Interagency Committee’s activities and responsibilities is currently  subsidized by the budgets of its component member agencies. For  example, the establishment and maintenance of the committee’s website  is being funded by the Coast Guard. The Oil Pollution Act also directed  the committee to develop a comprehensive research and technology plan  to lead federal oil pollution research. Among other things, the plan must  assess the current status of knowledge on oil pollution prevention,  response, and mitigation technologies and effects of oil pollution on the  environment; identify significant oil pollution research gaps; and establish  research priorities. In addition, the chair is required to report every 2  years to Congress on the committee’s past activities and future plans for  oil pollution research. The Interagency Committee first prepared a  research and technology plan in 1992 and subsequently updated it in  1997, but it has not been revised since. According to agency officials, the  plan is currently undergoing revision, and they anticipate releasing the  new plan in 2013; dispersants are to be a focus area in the plan. In  March 2011, we issued a report reviewing the Interagency Committee’s  efforts to facilitate coordination of federal oil pollution research and made  recommendations to improve these efforts. The Department of  Homeland Security concurred with our recommendations and plans to  address them.
section_title: Over 40 Percent of Federally Funded Dispersant Research Has Focused on Effectiveness
paragraphs: Over 40 percent of the 106 federally funded research projects on  dispersants have focused at least in part on effectiveness, with the  remaining projects spread across a broad range of research areas, as  noted in table 3.
Specifically, federally funded dispersant research since fiscal year 2000  has included the following areas of study.
Effectiveness in dispersing oil. Of the 106 research projects on  dispersants, the largest number were focused on assessing the  effectiveness of chemical dispersants, and BSEE and EPA have funded  almost all of these. Specifically, BSEE has funded projects on the  effectiveness of dispersants on different types of oil and under specific  environmental conditions. For example, one such project focused on the  effectiveness of dispersant use on heavy oil, and another examined  dispersant use in calm waters. BSEE has also conducted research to  mimic at-sea conditions by using the Ohmsett wave tank testing facility in  New Jersey to study the effectiveness of dispersants on light to medium  oils when applied at typical application rates. EPA funded several  projects related to dispersant testing protocols that are used to assess  effectiveness, a key criterion required to list dispersants on the Product  Schedule. For example, EPA funded a study to determine the  effectiveness of eight dispersants on its Product Schedule in dispersing  south Louisiana crude oil. In addition, EPA funded research conducted in  a wave tank in Nova Scotia, Canada, that produced quantitative  estimates of the mixing energy necessary for effective chemical  dispersion under various sea states.
Fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil. Half of the federal  agencies we reviewed have funded projects focused on better  understanding the fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil, with over  half of these studies initiated since the Deepwater Horizon incident. In  particular, fate and transport was the focus of nearly half of the NSF grant  projects. For example, one NSF rapid response grantee studied the oil  plume that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon incident using a specially  designed, portable underwater mass spectrometer, which can measure  minute quantities of chemicals in the ocean to determine the movement of  the oil droplets. Other NSF projects focused on the interaction of oil and  dispersed-oil components with sediments collected in regional sediment  traps during the Deepwater Horizon incident, and on determining the  impacts of dispersants on oil interactions with water column particulates  and sedimentation. In addition, EPA has funded four projects that focus at  least in part on the fate and transport of dispersed oil. For example, one  project examined the impact of waves on the movement of dispersed oil  and resulting oil droplet size. EPA also funded several projects focusing  on the biodegradation rates of different types of oil and dispersant  mixtures.
Aquatic toxicity and environmental effects of chemically dispersed oil.  NOAA and NSF are the two primary agencies sponsoring research  projects focused on assessing the toxicity and environmental effects of  chemically dispersed oil—funding 18 of the 23 projects in this area.  Specifically, NOAA has funded projects that focus on both the acute and  chronic effects of chemically dispersed oil on certain marine species. For  example, one project examined the acute and chronic effects of crude oil  and chemically dispersed oil on chinook salmon smolts. In addition, NSF  funded a research project examining the potential toxic effects of  chemically dispersed oil on benthic—or sea floor— environments in the  Gulf of Mexico. Another NSF-funded project is investigating the effects of  oil and dispersants on the larval stages of blue crabs and any subsequent  impact the oil and dispersants may have on population dynamics. All of  NSF’s projects in this area were in response to the Deepwater Horizon  incident. EPA and BSEE also funded projects in this category, although  fewer in number. For example, one EPA project focused on how the  dispersion and weathering of dispersed oil affects the exposure of marine  species to dispersed and non-dispersed oil. In response to the Deepwater  Horizon incident, EPA funded a project focused on the toxic effects of (1)  crude oil alone, (2) eight different dispersants alone, and (3) a mixture of  crude oil and each of the dispersants on two Gulf marine species. In  addition, BSEE funded a project completed in 2005 to examine the effects  of oil and chemically dispersed oil on mussels and amphipods—a type of  crustacean.
Modeling of chemically dispersed oil. Most of the agencies supported  research projects focused on modeling chemically dispersed oil. For  example, NOAA funded a project to model the way that chemically  dispersed oil particles may combine with other particulate material in the  ocean. In addition, four of NSF’s grants were awarded to projects to  model the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon incident and dispersant use,  such as the effects on plankton and other offshore marine organisms, and  BSEE funded a project that involved validating two models developed to  predict the window of opportunity for dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico.  Not specifically focused on modeling chemically dispersed oil, some  projects are under way to improve three-dimensional modeling of ocean  currents, which agency officials told us will be helpful in the event of a  future oil spill.funding related to the Deepwater Horizon incident to improve its modeling  capabilities to better forecast the subsurface movement and distribution of  oil, taking into account the subsurface currents. According to agency  officials, the three-dimensional modeling will be a significant addition to  the more standard two-dimensional modeling of oil along the surface that  has historically been used to track oil trajectories. Similarly, the  Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management  currently has a $989,000 modeling project under way to develop a new  model for ocean currents and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. The  enhanced models that both of these projects are developing may be  applied in the future to model chemically dispersed oil and enhance  decision making regarding its efficacy, fate, and transport.
Specifically, NOAA received $1.3 million in supplemental  Monitoring of chemically dispersed oil. Research in this area has been  more limited, with four projects funded since fiscal year 2000, primarily by  BSEE. One such project focused on SMART protocol monitoring results  and the effectiveness of dispersants. Specifically, this project involved  applying different ratios of dispersants to oil—ranging from ratios known  to be effective at dispersing oil to ratios that were not effective at  dispersing oil—to compare how well the SMART monitoring protocols  were able to monitor the results of each type of application. The Coast  Guard and BSEE also jointly funded a research project focused on  analyzing SMART protocol monitoring data to verify the reliability of the  protocols and to identify ways in which the protocols could be improved;  NOAA and EPA provided assistance, but not funding, to this project. In  addition, NOAA funded a project to evaluate dispersant application and  monitoring techniques by using oil seeps originating naturally at the  bottom of the ocean as a proxy for an oil spill.
Human health. HHS, through NIH and CDC, is the primary agency that  researches possible human health effects because of the use of  dispersants. For example, CDC’s NIOSH conducted laboratory tests  involving short-term inhalation exposure of rats to the dispersant  COREXIT® EC9500A to study the pulmonary, cardiovascular, and  central-nervous-system responses. NIOSH also studied the dermal  effects of dispersant exposure. In addition, the National Institute of  Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has funded an ongoing project  through an NIH initiative called the Deepwater Horizon Research  Consortia that will, among other things, analyze the contaminant profiles  of seafood fished by subsistence and non-subsistence fishermen in the  Gulf of Mexico and will analyze the seafood samples for dispersant  residues. In addition, NIEHS funded a joint NIH research project with  EPA to evaluate the extent of dispersants’ effects, if any, on endocrine  disruption in human cell lines, among other toxicity markers. In addition,  EPA funded one research project that focused on in vitro testing of eight  oil dispersants to assess four human health toxicity markers. Moreover,  NIEHS launched the Gulf Long-term Follow-up (GuLF) Study to  investigate potential short- and long-term human health effects  associated with clean-up activities following the Deepwater Horizon  incident. The GuLF Study is expected to involve at least 40,000 clean- up workers and last for at least 10 years, according to agency officials,  and the first 5 years of the study have been funded at $34 million.  Through its interviews with clean-up workers, the GuLF Study will  examine potential exposures and health effects from a variety of  substances and will also try to assess the extent of exposure to  dispersants.
Research on subsurface application of dispersants. Prior to the  Deepwater Horizon incident, federal agencies had not funded research on  the subsurface application of dispersants in deep water. Since then, NSF  has funded three rapid response grant projects that focus on subsurface  application of dispersants and its effects. For example, one project is  using specialty instruments to detect and quantify oil and dispersed oil in  the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Another NSF project is looking at  the acute toxicity effects of oil and chemically dispersed oil on the benthic  communities in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. The last project is  studying the impact of chemical dispersants on the aggregation of oil into  oil droplets in the deep water. BSEE has tentative plans to fund research  on subsurface application of dispersants in fiscal year 2012. EPA, NOAA,  and the Coast Guard do not have any current research related to  subsurface dispersant use in the deep water, according to agency  officials.
Arctic environment dispersant research. Federal research related to the  use of chemical dispersants in an Arctic or cold water environment has  been somewhat limited, with only eight projects undertaken since fiscal  year 2000. For example, one of BSEE’s six funded projects examined the  effectiveness of dispersants in broken-ice conditions, which are fairly  common many months out of the year off the Alaskan coast. Another  project studied dispersant effectiveness in a low mixing energy  environment, which could be caused by the presence of ice cover in the  Arctic. Similarly, an ongoing project is examining new techniques to apply  dispersants in icy environments in which the waves are smaller because  of the presence of ice and, as a result, less mixing generally occurs. In  addition, EPA funded two studies that focused on the fate and transport of  chemically dispersed oil at different temperatures, including in cold water.  EPA is also collaborating with other members of the National Response  Team and the Alaska Regional Response Team to understand the unique  aspects of potential Arctic oil spills with respect to the authorization and  use of dispersants in order to inform and prioritize research needs.
Alternative dispersant formulations. Prior to the Deepwater Horizon  incident, federal agencies had not funded research on alternatives to the  current blends of chemical dispersants used to disperse oil. Since the  Deepwater Horizon incident, NSF has funded four projects in this area.  Specifically, one project is studying natural and synthetic biological  agents as alternatives to chemical dispersants for application in marine oil  spills. Another study is evaluating the potential usefulness of man-made  nanofiber materials as an alternative to chemical dispersants in marine oil  spills. The third study is examining the difference in efficacy of natural and  synthetic surfactants, which may help with the development of less toxic  dispersants. The final project is focusing on the development of bio- derived, biodegradable oil dispersants.
General. Research in this category includes efforts to synthesize  information and identify broad applications of dispersant knowledge, such  as improving dispersant decision making processes and educational  efforts. For example, three agencies—the Coast Guard, BSEE and  NOAA—provided funding for the 2005 National Academy of Sciences  report. This report provided an expert evaluation of the adequacy of  existing information and ongoing research regarding the effectiveness  and effects of dispersants and recommended steps to be taken to better  support policymakers with dispersant decision making. In addition, BSEE  funded three other general projects, including one that focused on  developing a training package on the use of chemical dispersants for the  Ohmsett wave tank testing facility. Another BSEE project studied the  operational and environmental factors associated with the use of  chemical dispersants to treat oil spills in California waters, with a goal  toward expediting dispersant use decision making and planning for such  spills.
section_title: Industry Has a Number of Research Projects Focused on Dispersant Use and Effects
paragraphs: In addition to federally funded dispersant research, the oil industry has  funded a number of past and ongoing research projects related to the use  and effects of chemical dispersants. These projects have been conducted  collaboratively through industry trade associations or across multiple  companies, by individual companies, and through an independent  research initiative. According to industry representatives, the industry has  committed over $20 million to fund American Petroleum Institute and  International Association of Oil & Gas Producers’ dispersant programs.  These projects generally began in 2011 and are anticipated to end by  2016. Specifically, the American Petroleum Institute is currently leading a  set of dispersant-related projects involving several oil companies and oil  spill response organizations, among others. According to industry  representatives, a significant part of this research will focus on the  subsurface use of dispersants in deep water, ice-free environments. In  addition, the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers is pursuing  two dispersant research initiatives. One initiative—the Oil Spill Response  Joint Industry Project—will focus on the fate and effects of subsurface  dispersant use and the tracking and modeling of dispersed oil, among  other things. A second initiative—the Arctic Oil Spill Response  Technology Joint Industry Programme—includes research on dispersant  use in the Arctic. Specifically, the dispersant portion of this project is  investigating the fate and transport of chemically dispersed oil under ice  and dispersant effectiveness testing in Arctic environments, as well as the  environmental impacts of Arctic spills and options for responding to them.  Shell representatives told us that there are nine oil companies  participating in the Arctic research project, and that this project is building  on earlier Arctic research conducted by a Norwegian research institute  called SINTEF.
Individual oil companies, including ExxonMobil and Shell, have also  invested in dispersant research projects together and separately. For  example, Shell, ExxonMobil, Statoil, British Petroleum, and  ConocoPhillips have funded a project to study the biodegradation of  physically and chemically dispersed oil and its toxicity on Arctic species in  Alaska. According to Shell representatives, this project started in 2009, in  response to concerns from Coast Guard and NOAA officials that the  agencies did not have sufficient information to conduct an assessment of  potential ecological risk for the North Slope of Alaska. The five oil  companies provided funding to NewFields, a private consulting firm, and  the University of Alaska at Fairbanks to conduct the research. Federal  agencies—including NOAA, EPA, and the Coast Guard—are part of a  technical advisory committee overseeing this research project. Shell  representatives told us that this project has been funded at a total cost of  about $2.5 million. Individual oil companies have also funded chemical  dispersant research. For example, industry representatives for Exxon  estimated that the company has funded more than $20 million for  dispersant research since 2000.
In addition to industry-led research efforts, British Petroleum has set up  an independent group, the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, to disburse  $500 million in research funds over 10 years to study the effects of the  Deepwater Horizon incident, as well as other oil spills, on the Gulf of  Mexico. A portion of this funding will be for dispersant research. For  example, Tulane University is leading a consortium of over 40  researchers to conduct a roughly $10 million project to examine the  science and technology of chemical dispersants as relevant to deep water  oil releases.
section_title: States and Others Have Also Funded Dispersant Research
paragraphs: States, organizations, and governments have also funded dispersant  research. States—including California and Texas—have funded  dispersant research on topics including the toxicity of dispersed oil on  certain species, but they are not currently funding such work because of  limited funding or competing research priorities. Specifically, California’s  Office of Spill Prevention and Response funded a number of research  projects from 1993 through 2011 related to the use of chemical  dispersants, at an estimated cost of about $2 million. For example, one  project studied the physical effects on a marine bird or otter diving  through a subsurface plume of chemically dispersed oil. Another funded  research project focused on the acute and chronic toxic effects of  dispersants on salmon larvae, according to agency officials. Texas has  also funded dispersant research projects. According to a state official, the  Texas General Land Office spent several million dollars on dispersant  research from the mid 1990s through the early 2000s. For example, one  project studied the behavior of chemically dispersed oil in a wetland  environment. However, the state official told us that dispersant research  is no longer a priority for Texas because federal agencies, including  BSEE and NOAA, are currently conducting dispersant research and that  his office prefers to spend the state’s limited research funds on other  aspects of oil spill response that need attention, such as improving buoys  to measure waves and ocean currents in order to inform oil spill modeling.
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council is an independent non- profit organization established after the Exxon Valdez spill and works to reduce pollution  from crude oil transportation through Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. of chemical dispersants, including organizing a conference in March 2011  focused on the future of dispersant use, with experts addressing the novel  uses of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition,  Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also funded  dispersant research, such as fish toxicity studies and effectiveness  studies. This department also collaborated with EPA and the Bedford  Institute of Oceanography to build a 32-meter wave tank, which was  completed in 2006. Both countries use this wave tank for research  purposes, such as to measure the biological effects of various oil,  dispersant, and sea water blends by mimicking different ocean conditions  in the lab. Lastly, the United Kingdom has also funded dispersant toxicity  research to establish assessment criteria for dispersant approval.
section_title: Dispersant Research Faces Resource, Scientific, and Communication Challenges
paragraphs: According to federal officials, experts, and specialists we spoke with,  federal agencies and researchers face resource, scientific, and  communication challenges in their attempts to enhance knowledge on  chemical dispersant use and its effects.
Resource challenges. Agency officials, experts, and specialists identified  inconsistent and limited levels of funding as a challenge to developing  research related to the use and effects of chemical dispersants.  Specifically, according to agency officials, experts, and industry  representatives, because support for dispersant research tends to  increase in the immediate aftermath of a major oil spill and decrease in  the years following a spill, it is difficult for federal agencies, states, and  industry to sustain a long term research program. For example, agency  officials told us that while there was an increase in research funding  specifically related to the Deepwater Horizon incident, this funding is not  expected to continue in the future. Some agency officials, as well as  some industry representatives and experts, told us that a similar pattern  occurred after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, with a temporary increase  in research funding following the spill. However, once those initial  research funds were allocated, very little research funding was available  again until after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In addition, some industry  representatives told us that maintaining a long-term focus for dispersant  research can be a challenge for industry groups, as there are many  different oil spill research priorities and responsibilities in addition to  dispersants. According to agency officials and a National Research  Council report, the lack of a consistent research funding stream also  makes it difficult for federal agencies to fund longer term projects. For  example, some agency officials and experts said that to understand the  chronic toxicological effects of dispersants, scientists would need to  design long-term, multiyear studies of the effects of the use of dispersants  on marine species; however, such longer term studies are more  expensive and more complicated to conduct than short-term acute toxicity  tests. Furthermore, although most of the key agencies conducting  research on dispersant use and effects have identified areas in which  additional dispersant-related research would be informative and aid with  decision making, officials from many of these agencies told us their  agencies are unable to fund this research given their limited budgets.  Some state officials we spoke with echoed similar concerns and said that  they have been unable to continue with research in this area.
Scientific challenges. Agency officials, experts, and specialists also  identified scientific challenges, in particular, conducting research that  replicates realistic oil spill conditions and obtaining oil and dispersants for  testing. Every oil spill is different, and the conditions—such as weather,  oil type and volume, currents, and location—surrounding any  unanticipated release of oil into the ocean are highly variable. Given this  variability, no one study can account for all the potential permutations.  Laboratory experiments are useful for determining the chemical  effectiveness of dispersants, but they are unable to approximate ocean  conditions given the difference in scale. Researchers can employ  alternative methods to try to replicate realistic oil spill conditions for the  purposes of conducting dispersant research—use of a wave tank, use of  an existing spill, or the intentional release of oil to create a new spill—but  each of these have their own drawbacks.
Wave tanks. As described earlier, two wave tanks are regularly used  in North America—one in New Jersey and the other in Canada. The  tanks provide an arena in which oil spills can be created in a body of  water without risks to the environment; however, unlike the open  ocean, the size of the tank and presence of walls constrain the  movement of the oil and water and do not fully account for ocean  currents. According to EPA researchers, the tank in Canada is able to  come close in terms of simulating breaking wave action and ocean  currents, and according to BSEE officials, the tank in New Jersey is  able to simulate waves up to 1 meter in height. However, neither of  these wave tanks is equipped to simulate the high pressure and dark  conditions present in the deep water.
Existing spills. An opportunity exists to conduct research on the use of  chemical dispersants during an oil spill and to obtain real world  information that can help address some of the identified research  gaps, but agency officials and experts told us that it is hard to conduct  rigorous scientific research because of the competing needs of oil spill  responders. For example, one expert told us that a research team  may have access to sample and test water in a given spill location but  may later be restricted from sampling from the same area because of  actions being taken to respond to the spill. In addition, some agency  officials told us that it is virtually impossible to conduct scientifically  sound research during an oil spill emergency because there is not  enough time to carefully design and execute research projects.
Intentional discharges. In the absence of an unexpected spill, another  option to conduct dispersant-related research could come through the  intentional discharge of oil for the express purpose of studying how the  oil responds with or without the application of dispersants. However,  agency officials, experts, and industry representatives told us that it is  very difficult to gain approval for an intentional discharge of oil into the  ocean for research purposes. EPA officials told us that states must first  approve such a discharge before any applications for a permit to  discharge come to EPA for review. The few applications attempted did  not receive state approval. These officials also told us that EPA  received and granted only one permit, in 1994, for intentional oil  discharge to a U.S. water for research on a bioremediation agent.  Because open ocean experiments are generally not conducted in the  United States, researchers have traveled abroad, including to Norway  and Canada, to do such testing. According to officials on the  Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research, the  Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee, and the American  Petroleum Institute, there is growing interest in exploring intentional  discharges of oil in controlled settings for research purposes.
Another scientific challenge to conducting dispersant-related research is  the accessibility of oil and dispersant samples for testing. Several agency  officials, specialists, and experts told us that it can be difficult and time  consuming to access oil and dispersants to conduct dispersant research.  For example, one expert told us that she has been waiting for several  months to receive the oil she requested from an oil company for her  research, thus delaying her entire project. An industry representative also  told us that access to oil and dispersants could be a challenge for  researchers because of liability concerns from the companies that  produce them, as these companies do not want to be held responsible for  any liability if a research project goes badly or either substance spills into  the environment.
Communication challenges. Agency officials, experts, and specialists told  us that it can be a challenge to communicate research across the  different groups involved in dispersant use and research, including federal  agencies, industry, and academia. Agency officials and industry  representatives noted that the oil spill response research community is  small and that awareness of each others’ work is based on informal  interactions, such as at workshops, meetings, and conferences. Agency  officials and industry representatives we spoke with told us they are  generally aware of each other’s research, but there is additional research  that may not be readily known, such as research undertaken by  academia. Some officials also noted that research across these different  groups can be hard to track, a task that only gets more difficult following  an event like the Deepwater Horizon incident, when there are many new  studies under way at once because of the increased attention and  funding. In addition, according to agency officials, many oil spill research  projects are reported in conference proceedings, such as the Arctic and  Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar on Environmental  Contamination and Response and the International Oil Spill Conference,but these proceedings are not covered in commonly used search  engines, such as Web of Science.
Some organizations have attempted to develop lists of dispersant-related  research, but there is no comprehensive mechanism or database that  tracks this research across all sources, includes both past and ongoing  research projects, and is regularly updated. For example, the Interagency  Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research maintains a list of  federally sponsored oil spill related research, including research on  dispersants, from which it publishes biennial reports containing short  summaries of the federal research projects completed during the prior 2  years. However, these reports are intended only to summarize federal  research efforts and do not track or cross-reference related research that  has been funded solely by industry or non-governmental sources. Several  other organizations have gathered dispersant research information in  various types of databases or bibliographies, including those maintained by  the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, the Prince William Sound  Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council, and the CRRC, but none of these lists  include the full range of past and current federal, industry, and academic  research on the topic. For example, the Louisiana Universities Marine  Consortium developed a database consisting of citations found in journals,  conference proceedings, and government reports covering published  research on oil spill dispersants from 1960 through June 2008, but the  database has not been updated. In addition, the Prince William Sound  Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council maintains a similar database of  citations of published literature on dispersants; however, this database  does not track ongoing projects. Also, CRRC’s list describes approximately  100 past and current research projects but is limited in that it contains  fewer research projects than the other lists. According to some specialists  we spoke with, a central repository for past and ongoing research would be  helpful to ensure that future research plans will align with current needs  and that new research undertaken will not be duplicative of prior research.  It will also help ensure the transfer of knowledge and experience between  different groups and generations of researchers and responders so that  key lessons and insights do not get lost from one spill to the next,  according to some specialists we spoke with.
Some agency officials, experts, and specialists expressed concerns about  the independence and quality of dispersant research, which can lead to  mistrust and misperception about the results. For example, one expert  told us that industry research may not be fully independent in that industry  groups would not want to publish research results demonstrating that  dispersants are harmful in any way. Moreover, some agency officials told  us there is a concern in the oil spill research community that industry  researchers do not necessarily use the same peer review process for  validating their results as is used by government or academia, raising  concerns about the reliability of the research. Conversely, some  specialists and one expert noted that because of limited experience in  actual spill response, many academic researchers do not design and  conduct studies that reflect realistic spill scenarios, which can skew the  results or make them less helpful for making decisions during a spill. In  addition, as previously mentioned, not all dispersant research is  conducted using consistent methodological approaches, which limits its  comparability and usefulness in drawing broader conclusions.
In addition to communication challenges that may exist among the  different groups involved in dispersant research, some agency officials,  experts, and specialists we spoke with noted challenges in  communicating scientific information to the public. According to  proceedings from a NOAA-sponsored workshop on dispersant use,  communication to the public—as well as to federal, state, and local  agencies—was seen as one of the largest issues during the Deepwater  Horizon incident. For example, a series of local community meetings were  held during the response at which response specialists were on hand to  address specific stakeholder questions. From these sessions, it was clear  to the response specialists that members of the community at these  sessions had many misconceptions about dispersants, specifically with  regard to their degradation, toxicity, and application, as well as ways in  which to monitor them.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Ocean oil spills can have devastating effects on the environment, coating  coastlines and wetlands and killing marine mammals, birds, fish, and  other wildlife. Chemical dispersants are one tool that responders have at  their disposal to try to mitigate the consequences of a spill. Much is  known about the use of dispersants—particularly on the surface of the  water and in temperate climates—and federal agencies, industry, states,  and other groups have taken steps to enhance knowledge on  dispersants. However, gaps remain, and less is known about the  application and effects of dispersants applied subsurface to underwater  spills and to spills in the Arctic or colder environments. Because future  domestic oil production will rely to a substantial extent on developing  additional wells in challenging environments, such as deep waters and  the Arctic Ocean, researching dispersant use in these environments will  be key to improving decision makers’ understanding of the potential  consequences of using dispersants in these situations. Some research  related to application below the surface and in Arctic conditions is under  way, and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution  Research is currently working to revise its research and technology plan  to address some gaps, including those related to dispersant use.
To make decisions about whether to use dispersants, decision makers  need timely and reliable scientific information on the trade-offs between the  risks that untreated oil poses to the water surface and shoreline habitats  and the risks that chemically dispersed oil poses to underwater  environments. This information must be available before a spill happens  and incorporated into response planning, as the decision to use  dispersants must be made quickly, and an emergency situation provides no  time for designing new research. Because years may pass in between spill  events, information on dispersant use must also be available to responders  and researchers who may have limited experience in using and applying  dispersants as a response option. Some groups, including the Interagency  Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research, have developed lists of  past or ongoing federal research projects related to dispersants, but there  currently is no mechanism that tracks dispersant research across all  sources and highlights key recent and ongoing research projects.  Dissemination of such information would help ensure that new federal  research undertaken will not duplicate prior research and that key  knowledge can more easily transfer from one spill or generation of  researchers and responders to the next. Moreover, the Interagency  Committee is in a prime position to request the sharing of such information  from these non-federal sources in the course of fulfilling its mission to  coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution research among  federal agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry,  universities, research institutions, state governments, and other nations.  Up-to-date information on the findings of key research on dispersant use  and its effects is essential to ensuring that federal research priorities, as  articulated in the research and technology plan currently being revised, are  effectively targeting the most important research needs.
Gaining a full understanding of the effectiveness and potential  environmental effects of dispersant use is difficult to accomplish in a  laboratory setting, not to mention during a spill in light of the competing  needs of oil spill responders. However, it is during a spill when the greatest  opportunity exists to gather real world data to help address some of the  identified research gaps. While some information is currently gathered  during response operations, it is primarily limited to whether the oil on the  surface is breaking into small droplets and entering the water column.  Specifically, the SMART monitoring protocols currently used during a spill  response gather information on whether chemical dispersants should  continue to be used, but these protocols do not provide robust scientific  information on dispersant use and effects. Furthermore, these monitoring  protocols are designed for use with surface application of dispersants and  do not monitor dispersed oil resulting from deep water dispersant  application. NOAA recognized such limitations in its recent review of the  SMART data from dispersant monitoring during the Deepwater Horizon  incident and has acknowledged improvements could be made.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure existing and ongoing dispersant research is adequately  captured and broadly available to different groups and generations of  researchers, to ensure that new research undertaken by the federal  government will not duplicate other research efforts, and to ensure that  adequate attention is given to better understanding dispersant use in  deep water and Arctic environments, we recommend that the  Commandant of the Coast Guard direct the Chair of the Interagency  Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to take the following  two actions, in coordination with member agencies:    Ensure that in the course of revising the Interagency Committee’s  research and technology plan, applications of dispersants subsurface  and in Arctic conditions are among the areas prioritized for  subsequent research.    As part of the Interagency Committee’s efforts to help guide federal  research, identify information on key ongoing dispersant-related  research, including research sponsored by state governments,  industry, academia, and other oil pollution research organizations.  This information should be provided in the planned and future  revisions to the research and technology plan. In addition, periodically  update and disseminate this information, for example, as part of the  Interagency Committee’s biennial report to Congress on its activities.
To enhance the knowledge of the effectiveness and potential  environmental effects of chemical dispersants, we recommend that the  Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, the Administrator of EPA, and  the Commandant of the Coast Guard direct their respective agencies,  NOAA, BSEE, EPA, and the Coast Guard, to coordinate and explore  ways to better obtain more scientifically robust information during spills  without hindering response efforts through enhancement of monitoring  protocols and development of new data collection tools.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce, the  Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland  Security, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection  Agency, and the National Science Foundation for review and comment.  DHS concurred with all three recommendations made to it. Commerce and  Interior concurred with the recommendation directing them to explore ways  to better obtain more scientifically robust information during spills. While  EPA did not directly state whether it concurred with that recommendation,  the agency generally agreed, noting that it is committed to exploring ways  to coordinate with other agencies to better obtain more scientifically robust  information during spills, enhance monitoring protocols, and develop new  data collection tools. In addition, Commerce, HHS, Interior, EPA, and NSF  provided us with technical comments, which we have incorporated as  appropriate. See appendixes IV, V, VI, and VII for agency comment letters  from Commerce, DHS, Interior, and EPA, respectively.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretaries of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland  Security, and the Interior; the EPA Administrator; the Director of the  National Science Foundation; the appropriate congressional committees;  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine (1) what is known about the use of  chemical dispersants and their effects, and knowledge gaps about or  limitations to their use, if any; (2) the extent to which federal agencies and  other entities have taken steps to enhance knowledge on chemical  dispersant use and its effects; and (3) challenges, if any, that researchers  and federal agencies face in their attempts to enhance knowledge on  chemical dispersant use and its effects.
To determine what is known about the use and effects of chemical  dispersants and identify any knowledge gaps or limitations, we reviewed  documents and literature, including federal regulations and government  oil spill planning documents, such as the National Contingency Plan,  Regional Contingency Plans, and dispersant guidelines. We also  reviewed scientific studies and key reports on dispersant use, such as the  2005 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on Oil Spill  Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects, the National Commission on the BP  Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling report to the President,  and several Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA) reports on response actions during the Deepwater  Horizon incident. We used these documents to determine areas of  research that inform planning and decision making regarding the use of  chemical dispersants. In addition, we collaborated with the NAS to identify  11 academic, industry, and other researchers recognized as experts in  their respective scientific fields and capable of advising us on chemical  dispersant use and research. In the report, these scientists and  researchers are referred to as “experts.” NAS staff selected these experts  based on their knowledge of one or more of the following topic areas:  dispersant effectiveness, toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil, fate  and transport of dispersants and dispersed oil, monitoring actual  dispersant use, risk assessment of dispersant use, other environmental  effects of dispersant use, and challenges to dispersant research. In  addition, NAS staff sought experts representing a wide range of  viewpoints, including some experts who had experience with the  Deepwater Horizon incident. In developing the list of experts, NAS staff  consulted with NAS Ocean Studies Board members and volunteers from  past and ongoing NAS studies on relevant topics to identify potential  experts. NAS staff also performed literature reviews and targeted Internet  searches based on the topic areas and questions identified by GAO. NAS  staff composed the list of experts by identifying a range of expertise  among prospective experts and then performing short interviews with  them to discuss potential biases and any possible conflicts of interest,  ensure that viewpoints were balanced, and confirm that some of the  experts had experience with the Deepwater Horizon incident.
GAO conducted semi-structured interviews with these experts to discuss  the state of knowledge, including gaps, regarding dispersant research.  We used a standard set of questions, asking the same questions in the  same order to each expert. We carefully documented and analyzed  expert responses to address our objectives and establish common  themes. We used the following categories to quantify the responses of  experts: “some” refers to responses from 2 to 4 experts, “many” refers to  responses from 5 to 7 experts, “most” refers to responses from 8 to 10  experts, and “all” refers to responses from all 11 experts. We  supplemented our semi-structured expert interviews with interviews of  federal officials and other oil spill or dispersant specialists, including state  officials who have been involved in past response actions, human health  researchers, oil spill response organizations with expertise in applying  chemical dispersants, industry representatives with experience in  researching oil dispersants and responding to oil spills, and other relevant  non-governmental organizations, such as a regional advisory group  focused on environmental protection as it relates to oil production and  transportation. Statements from these groups are identified as being from  “specialists.” During the course of our review, we spoke with 37  specialists. For the purposes of our interview analysis, in cases where  multiple specialists were present during one interview but each provided  their own views, we counted each specialist separately. We used the  following categories to quantify the responses of specialists: “some”  refers to responses from 2 to 4 specialists, “several” refers to responses  from 5 to 8 specialists, and “many” refers to responses from 9 or more  specialists.
To determine the extent to which federal agencies and other entities have  taken steps to enhance knowledge on chemical dispersant use and its  effects, and what challenges, if any, researchers have faced, we analyzed  information on federal research efforts since fiscal year 2000 supplied by  the key federal agencies conducting research on dispersant use and  effects: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and  Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the Department of Homeland  Security’s United States Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS)  National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention (CDC), the Department of Commerce’s NOAA, and the  National Science Foundation (NSF). This information included titles,  funding levels, and a brief description of agency research projects. To  assess the reliability of agency-supplied data, we asked the agencies to  describe how they gathered this information, including their data reliability  controls; we also checked the lists that the agencies provided to us  against other publicly available lists of dispersant research projects to  help ensure consistency and completeness. We then categorized each of  the dispersant research projects into one or two research areas and sent  these categorizations back to the agencies for their concurrence. We also  conducted interviews with federal officials from these agencies to obtain  their perspectives on the extent and focus of their research efforts and  what challenges, if any, they have faced. In addition, we analyzed  information supplied by, and conducted interviews with, specialists to  obtain their perspectives on dispersant research efforts and potential  associated challenges. In addition, we attended a NOAA-funded  workshop on the future of dispersant use to gather information on both  the state of knowledge and ongoing research. We also attended an  industry-funded workshop of key federal, state, and local responders,  academic researchers, and other stakeholders who could potentially be  affected by an accidental offshore oil spill along the Eastern seaboard of  the United States. At these workshops we collected written materials,  listened to presentations, and spoke with specialists in attendance.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 through May  2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Experts Selected by the National Academy of Sciences
paragraphs: Michel Boufadel, Temple University  James Clark, Independent Consultant (retired - ExxonMobil Research  and Engineering)
Cortis Cooper, Chevron Energy Technology Company  Sara Edge, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute  Merv Fingas, Independent Consultant (retired - Environment Canada)
Kenneth Lee, Fisheries and Oceans Canada  Judith McDowell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution  Francois Merlin, Centre of Documentation, Research and  Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE)
Jacqueline Michel, Research Planning, Inc.
section_title: Appendix III: Listing of Federally Sponsored Research on Dispersants since Fiscal Year 2000, by Research Category and Agency
paragraphs: The following is a listing of federally sponsored research projects related  to dispersants. The title and initial funding year for each dispersant project  was supplied by the respective agency. We asked for this information  from the following agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of  Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the Department of  Homeland Security’s United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and  Human Services’ (HHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of  Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant  Director), Antoinette Capaccio, Margaret Childs, Cindy Gilbert, Ryan  Gottschall, Rebecca Makar, Alison O’Neill, and Jena Sinkfield made key  contributions to this report.