Alaskans are generally pretty aware of the importance of keeping their waters clean. Not surprising when you consider that our 6,640 miles of coastline span an area greater than all the other states combined. Far more than just an economic engine, our oceans are the source of much of our subsistence harvest, a practice that for some is about far more than just storing food for the winter. So it's safe to say Alaskans are by-and-large interested in protecting the water, especially in the rural communities located along the coastline.
But sometimes, the long-term implications of decisions made in office buildings far away can slip by us. Such is the case with the issue of chemical oil dispersants, which were used heavily during the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico but are largely untested in Alaska waters.
A proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outlining how much testing is required before chemicals are used on a spill, and how much information manufacturers of the chemicals must provide to the EPA is now open for a 90-day public review and comment period. While the proposal isn't specific to Alaska, the implications are. Current regulations are somewhat vague, which is not a good thing when you are dealing with an emergency situation like an oil spill. In the Deepwater Horizon disaster, 1.84 million gallons of chemical oil dispersants were released with little knowledge of the long-term effects on the marine ecosystem, not to mention the people living and working near the spill. Some defined guidelines are clearly needed, many say.
The issues with chemical dispersants in Alaska are many. The concept behind dispersants is that they break down oil spills into smaller droplets, allowing them to be more easily biodegraded. In theory, they could be a godsend to coastlines, because they are intended to break up oil slicks before they could coat the coast and all the marine wildlife along with it.
But there are issues, as one might expect, with dumping millions of gallons of chemicals into any body of water. There are few independent studies of these chemicals -- most of the research has been done by the dispersant manufacturers -- and even fewer studies of the long-term impacts on marine ecosystems.
Opponents of the dispersants say the chemicals are more toxic than the oil, and make the oil break down in such a way that it is more toxic to marine life.
The debate over which is worse -- oil or dispersants and oil -- is likely to come front and center during this comment period for any who want to try to educate themselves on the science of marine ecosystems after an oil spill. A lot of studies were done after the Deepwater Horizon spill, and results are, in some cases, only just coming in, so there are likely to be many different versions of what impact these chemicals truly had there. As always, considering the source is a good idea.
But for Alaskans, there is more to consider. The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council has reviewed the issue of using chemical dispersants as much as anyone probably has in Alaska and has opted to oppose their use on many fronts, some of which come from experience. During the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the dispersant Corexit 9527, still one of the main dispersants used in the world, was applied to the oil slick. The operation was plagued with problems, from locating enough dispersant to equipment malfunctions, but in all of the many attempted applications that were overseen by observers, no one reported any visible change in the slick. In one 5,500-gallon drop on a slick eight miles south of Gore Point on April 13, no effect on the target slick was observed, not even a change in color. A sample later taken from the water revealed no effectiveness. Oddly, a control area of the same slick, left untreated for comparison, broke up by itself and dissipated before the end of the observation time, a 2006 report for the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Committee of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council said.
Part of the reason for the dispersant's apparent ineffectiveness may be the qualities of Alaska North Slope crude oil. One effectiveness study showed that on Alaska's oil, the dispersant effectiveness values ranged from 5 to 15 percent. Another issue is the temperature and water salinity in Alaska waters, which is dramatically different than that of the Gulf of Mexico.
"There are too many unanswered questions to accept the argument that use of dispersants would cause no further adverse effects," a council advisory committee position paper said.
Also unstudied to date is the impact such dispersants might have on fish and organisms unique to Alaska waters.
But industry is likely to push for the expanded use of dispersants, which are more economical than all the equipment needed to implement manual cleanup operations, especially in Alaska. What virtually anyone who has studied the issue will say is that more research is needed to make sound choices on what means of response should be allowed in the event of an oil spill in Alaska waters. This proposed rule by the EPA is the most likely avenue for mandating that research be done objectively.
The EPA's release on the proposed rule is available online.
Carey Restino is editor of the Arctic Sounder and Bristol Bay Times/Dutch Harbor Fisherman, where this commentary first appeared.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.