ASTM F2823-10

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: F2823 − 10
StandardGuide for
In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills in Marshes
This standard is issued under the fixed designation F2823; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 3.2 fresh oil—oil recently spilled that is un-weathered and
un-emulsified.
1.1 This guide addresses in-situ burning as a response tool
3.3 in-situ burning—burning of oil directly on the water or
for oil spills that occur in marshes.
marsh surface.
1.2 In-situ burning, mechanical recovery, treating agent
3.4 marsh—a wetland characterized by grassy surface mats
application, and natural recovery are the usual options avail-
that are frequently interspersed with open water or by a closed
able to an on-scene coordinator for the control and cleanup of
canopy of grasses, sedges, or other herbaceous plants.
spilled oil.
3.5 residue—the material, excluding airborne emissions,
1.3 The purpose of this guide is to provide the user with
remaining after the oil stops burning.
general information on in-situ burning in marshes as a means
of controlling and removing spilled oil. 3.6 wetland—land that has the water table at, near, or above
the land surface, or that is saturated for long enough periods to
1.4 This guide outlines considerations that can be used to
promote hydrophilic vegetation and various kinds of biological
conduct an in-situ burn in marshes.
activity which are adapted to the wet environment.
1.5 In making in-situ burn decisions, appropriate govern-
ment authorities should be consulted.
4. Significance and Use
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as
4.1 This guide is meant to aid spill response teams during
standard. No other units of measurement are included in this
planning, training, spill response, and remediation.
standard.
4.2 In the marsh environment, removal of the oil by in-situ
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the
burning may be the only method available to responders. The
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
soft, soggy soil and presence of water and the potential for
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
ecological damage may inhibit the deployment of conventional
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
oil recovery equipment and personnel, while the shallow water
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
may not allow the deployment and operation of skimmers,
booms, and storage devices.
2. Referenced Documents
5. Background
2.1 ASTM Standards:
F1788 Guide for In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills on Water:
5.1 In-situburningofoilhasbeenconductedsuccessfullyin
Environmental and Operational Considerations
a number of marshes. Within several years, recovery was
F1990 Guide for In-Situ Burning of Spilled Oil: Ignition
nearly complete in areas where water level was sufficient
Devices
(exceeded 2 cm) to provide protection to plant roots. Where
this was not the case, recovery was slower.
3. Terminology
5.2 Ignition equipment for in-situ burning in marshes may
3.1 airborne emissions—compounds or substances that are
be minimal. Ignition devices may be the only specific equip-
emitted into the air as a result of a fire.
ment required. Ignition equipment may include helicopter-
mounted devices or propane torches and fuel-soaked rags
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous
(Guide F1990).
Substances and Oil Spill Response and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee
F20.15 on In-Situ Burning.
6. General Considerations for Making In Situ Burn
Current edition approved April 1, 2010. Published April 2010. DOI 10.1520/
Decisions for Marshes
F2823–10.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
6.1 The decision of whether or not to use in-situ burning in
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
a given spill situation is always one involving trade-offs.
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website. Generalconsiderationssuchassmokeplumegeneratedandthe
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
F2823 − 10
potentialforsecondaryfires,andspecificfactorssuchasmarsh 6.13 Thepresenceofendangeredorthreatenedspeciesmust
type, water level, season, wildlife present, and vegetation be considered before making the decision to burn.
recovery should be considered. The human population, poten-
7. Operational Considerations
tially affected by the smoke plume, should be considered as
noted in Guide F1788. In certain cases, burning of oiled 7.1 Appropriate regulatory agencies and fire departments
vegetation can also be considered. should be consulted prior to conducting a burn.
6.2 Oil floating on water must be at least 2 to 3 mm thick to 7.2 A burn plan should be developed with the help of a
be ignited successfully. Natural containment of spilled oil can marsh and fire ecologist. Air, burn, and plume models should
occur in marshes, providing such layer thickness. Wind may be run to predict the effect of the burn on the area. The burn
alsoconcentratetheoiltothedesiredthickness(GuideF1788). plan and a fire safety plan should include: weather, fire
calculations, plume modeling, and air and fire modeling
6.3 Oil spilled in marshes is less prone to emulsification
protocols, sensitive ecological areas, marsh conditions, sea-
than in higher energy, open water environments. The slower
sonal implications, and oil properties. The area should be
emulsification process provides responders with a wider win-
surveyed for utility lines, pipelines, buildings, and other
dow of opportunity in which to plan and execute in-situ
man-made structures. The risk posed by the burn to these
burning operations.
structures should be assessed.
6.4 In some areas, intentional and controlled burning of
7.3 When a marsh is impacted by an oil spill, all methods of
marshes is a common method of controlling vegetation and
response and cleanup should be considered and assessed for
reducing organic debris, with beneficial results for the marshes
3 tradeoffs, feasibility, and net benefit to the environment.
(1).
7.4 Environmental risk considerations should include the
6.5 Water level has been shown to be a major factor
effects of the plume, soot, heat flux, fire spread and remaining
affecting plant recovery following in-situ burning in marshes
burn residue (Guide F1788).
(2, 3, 4). When the water depth is at least 2 cm, it provides an
insulating layer to plant root and rhizomes, keeping their 7.5 Risks to human health and safety should be considered,
temperature below 60°C and allowing faster recovery. both to personnel conducting the burn, and to the general
public. Monitoring protocols should be implemented in accor-
6.6 Fire spreading needs to be considered. Flattened vegeta-
dance with local regulations, and the monitoring teams should
tion and green, un-oiled vegetation may not provide adequate
be alerted (Guide F1788). Plume, air, and fire modeling results
firebreaks, especially in the presence of strong winds. Wetting
should be considered.
perimeter may be beneficial.
7.6 Prevention or control of secondary fires should be
6.7 In-situ burning in a timely manner will simplify igni-
planned for. Provision should be made for changes in wind
tion, reduce the area affected, and minimize the duration of
direction or speed.
vegetation exposure to the toxic effects of the oil.
7.7 Local aviation, navigation, and highway authorities
6.8 Burning in the winter months may require special
should be notified before the burn is initiated.
considerations because of ice and snow. Cold results in
increasedoilviscosityandreducedspreadingpotential.Several 7.8 The burn should be monitored and recorded, including
burns in ice and snow-covered marshes also proved to be
direction, altitude, and behavior of the smoke plume. Still and
effective and provided for good long-term recovery of the video photography should be used for documentation.
marshes.
7.9 After the burn has been extinguished, the area should be
6.9 In-situ burning of oil may generate a substantial smoke surveyed, and the effectiveness of the burn should be assessed
plume. If human exposure is possible, smoke plume monitor-
and documented. A fire watch should be established to ensure
ing at population centers should be considered as noted in that the fire is completely extinguished.
Guide F1788.
7.10 Residual oil contamination may be ignited, if possible.
6.10 Utility lines, buildings, and other structures need to be
7.11 If possible, burn residues should be collected and
protected from fire.
disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Oil residue
6.11 Smoke may impair visibility and impact air traffic in collectionmaynotalwaysbeadvisable,andshouldbeweighed
the burn area. against the potential damage from people and equipment used
for residue collection.
6.12 The spilled oil will not be consumed completely by the
fire. Residue will be left after the burning has ended. The 7.12 Monitoringofmarshrecoveryandpotentialrestoration
effects of the residue should be considered. A thick and dense should be conducted.
layer of residue will impede revegetation. The effect of the
8. Summary
residue should be weighed against impacts of removing the
residue, and particularly the effects of movement over the 8.1 Oil spills in marshes may present unique challenges for
marsh by people and equipment used to remove the residue.
response personnel. Access may be difficult, and the presence
of water and soft substrate may preclude the use of conven-
tional oil cleanup equipment and personnel. Shallow water
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to a list of references at the end of
this standard. may not allow the use of vessels and successful deployment of
F2823 − 10
booms and skimmers. In-situ burning may provide the most 8.3 Before conducting the burn, an in-situ burning plan and
suitable, and sometimes the only option for removing the fire safety plan should be completed. Appropriate regulatory
spilled oil from the environment. Use of machinery and human agencies and fire departments should be notified, and burn
foot traffic can result in mixing of oil with sediments, which permit sought. Risk to human heath shall be considered.
can have an adverse effect on marshes. Monitoringoftheburnsandsmokeplumeshouldbeconducted
if necessary. When the fire has been extinguished, burn
8.2 The decision to conduct in-situ burning should consider
residues may be collected and disposed of, if advisable.
a variety of factors including marsh type, vegetation recovery,
Monitoring of the marsh should be conducted to follow
water level, presence of wildlife, and secondary fires. Consul-
recovery.
tation with biologists, fire ecologists, and other experts is
essential. For a successful burn to occur, the oil thickness
9. Keywords
should be greater than 2 to 3 mm. A water depth of at least 2
cm will encourage rapid vegetation recovery. 9.1 in situ burning; marsh; oil spills; tradeoffs
APPENDIX
(Nonmandatory Information)
X1. CASE STUDIES
X1.1 Seven case studies are presented to exemplify the use Ruffy Brook, Minnesota, failed and released over 8 m (50
of in-situ burning in marshes (Refs (5-15)). barrels) of medium Bow River crude oil into a marsh fed by
Ruffy Brook. The spill affected approximately 3 acres of fresh
X1.1.1 Copano Bay:
watermarsh,thatwascoveredbywater30to100cmabovethe
(Ref (5))—On January 7, 1992, an underground pipeline
marsh soil surface. Mechanical recovery was deemed difficult
ruptured by Chiltipin Creek near Copano Bay, Texas, spilling
to deploy and potentially damaging to the marsh, so in-situ
460 m (2900 barrels) of South Texas light crude oil into a salt
burning was conducted the same day of the spill. The burn
marsh. Vacuum trucks, skimmer, pumps, and sorbents were
lasted for three hours, and remaining pockets of oil were
broughttothescenebutprovedtobeonlymarginallyeffective.
ignited over a period of three days. No secondary burning
Afterconsideringvariousoptions,adecisionwasmadetoburn
occurred during this operation. It is estimated that 80 % of the
theoil.Theoilwasignitedfourdaysafteritspilled,andburned
oil was consumed during the burn. A significant amount of
for 20 h in various areas. The area was surveyed, and pockets
burn residue (in some places 1 cm thick) was left after the fire
of remaining oil were ignited later.At the time of the burn the
went out. The residue was picked up by hand three days later.
marsh was covered with water from recent heavy rainfall,
There is no evidence that any residue sank. The marsh was
providing protection to plant roots and rhyzomes. A study to
visited a year later, and found to have recovered well, with the
monitor marsh plant recovery over a period of five years
exception of willows, a fire sensitive species. The quick
suggested that plant diversity in the impacted area was re-
response prevented spreading of the oil and thereby minimiz-
duced, but that total plant biomass was similar to the control
ing damage to the marsh.
area after two growth seasons.
X1.1.2 Rockefeller Refuge:
X1.1.4 Bayou Tank Battery:
(Ref (6-8))—On March 13, 1995, approximately 6 m (40
(Ref (11))—On August 17, 2002, a spill occurred at a tank
barrels) of condensate oil (API Gravity 40 to 42) spilled from
batteryintheSabineNationalWildlifeRefugeinSouthwestern
a pipeline in the Rockefeller Refuge, Louisiana, affecting 20
Louisiana. The spill of 24 to 50 m (150 to 300 barrels) crude
ha. (50 acres) of brackish marsh. Mechanical cleanup equip-
oil ran into the adjacent marsh. Salt water spilled together with
ment was brought on scene, but was both ineffective at
the oil, spread the oil over about 1.5 Ha (3.5 acres) of dense
collectingtheoilanddamagingtothemarsh.In-situburningof
marsh. A burn was started on the first day. A survey indicated
marshes is commonly used in that area to reduce organic
that most of the oil had been successfully removed from the
debris, reduce unwanted fires, and enhance marsh growth. At
marsh. The removal of the residue, however, proved to be
the time of the spill the water layer over the marsh soil was 5
difficult and took several days to accomplish using sorbents
to10cmthick.In-situburningoftheoiledmarshwasapproved
and nets. Soil samples were taken in unaffected and burn areas
and conducted four days after the burn, removing the oil from
to assess them for metal content. Analysis of
...