Marine Environmental Pollution, 1Hydrocarbons

587 Pages·1980·15.059 MB·iii-xiv, 1-591\587

by  Richard A. Geyer (Eds.)

Elsevier Oceanography Series, 27A
Environmental
Pollution, 1
Hydrocarbons
Edited by
RICHARD A. GEYER
Department of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843, U.S.A.
ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY
Amsterdam4xford-New Y ork 1980
ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY
335 Jan van Galenstraat
P.O. Box 211,1000 AJI Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Distributors for the United States and Canada:
ELSEVIERmORTH-HOLLAND INC.
52, Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
(with 186 figures; 104 tables; and 795 references)
Llbrary d Congma Cataloging In Pabllcetlon Data
Main entry under title:
Marine environmental pollution.
(Elsevier oceanography series ; v. 27A- 1
Bibliography: v. 1, p.
Includes index.
CONTENTS: v. 1. Hydrocarbons.
1. Marine pollution. I. Geyer Richard A.
GCl085. w85 574.5'2636 80-14362
ISBN 0-444-41847-4 (Elsevier/North-Holland : v. 1)
0 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 198G
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopy-
ing, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, P.O. Box 330, 1000 AH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Printed in The Netherlands
To Anne,
For all the valid reasons
of which she is aware.
PREFACE
The definition of pollution with its many connotations can be found
readily in any dictionary. In addition, each person has his or her own in-
terpretation of the meaning of this many-faceted word. But, in general, the
majority of these individual interpretations is based primarily on subjective
and emotional, rather than objective criteria and facts. In addition, the defi-
nitions generally carry negative connotations. However, there are certain
environmental conditions which can be categorized as pollution in the
strictest sense, but still the results, if pragmatic criteria are applied, can be
demonstrated to be beneficial rather that deleterious. For example, cooling
water necessary for the successful operation of a power plant is usually
warmer than the ambient temperature of the body of water into which it is
being discharged. In tropical areas and in the summer, in a portion of the
temperate zones, this process might raise the temperature to the point where
it exceeded optimum tolerance levels for a variety of marine organisms, in-
digenous to the area. On the other hand, the polar regions and during the
winter seasons in the temperate zones it would still increase the temperature
of the water body such as an estuary or a lagoon above ambient. But, this
action would actually be beneficial by increasing the rate of growth of the
marine organisms. This is especially important economically for those species
having commercial value, or are an important link in the food chain.
Another difficulty with the use of the word pollution to descibe a specific
environmental situation is that the question of the degree of pollution is
always not immediately evident or defined. If it were to be defined as: “an
anomalous concentration of any constituent comprising a given environ-
mental system”, then the value of the ambient level must be known or agreed
upon, before the term “anomalous” in the definition can have any significant
meaning. To carry this concept one step further requires that valid baseline
data for the concentration of each component must already be known and
agreed upon, - “agreed upon”, by whom? - and for how long a period of
time must these data be obtained to be significant? Still another constraint
may be found in reaching a concensus as to the accuracy and repeatability
with which an individual parameter must be observed.
Further, there is still the important dimension of the gradient, or rate of
change with time, in this concentration of a particular constituent. The actual
quantitative difference between a “normal” and an “anomalous level” may
not be as critical to the well-being of a marine organism, as the time required
to get from an accepted baseline, or ambient level value, to one which can be
agreed upon as being at a harmful level. Then again, - who and what are the
...
Vlll
qualifications of those who decide; and -whose decisions will, in turn, be
accepted by whom? It is evident from this line of reasoning that many
questions are raised and must be answered. Even more important, those
answers must be generally accepted; and the problem involved in an actual
or potential pollution situation be defined; and in turn must be solved to the
satisfaction of a variety of persons and regulatory agencies.
It should be emphasized however, that the difficulties described primarily
involve the socalled “gray areas” .of the total pollution spectrum. These lie
between conditions where most reasonably minded persons would agree
that a state of pollution exists, in the generally accepted use of the term, in
a given situation; to one where the concensus of the same group would be
equally adamant that it does not exist. Again it is these gray areas in between,
where subjectivity, rather than objectivity usually prevails in reaching a
“valid” conclusion.
It is with these difficulties and constraints in mind that criteria were
established to bring together yet another series of chapters on the broad and
provocative subject of pollution. Heretofore, most books on the subject
emphasize the effects of certain types of pollutants in a given geographic
area, or comprise the proceedings of a particular workshop or seminar. The
latter is generally concerned with a specific pollutant and sponsored by a
pertinent investigative or governmental regulatory agency, or an academic
institution specializing in research areas, germaine to the problem. Rarely
is a book available in which the information includes the results of an in-
dustrial or group of industrial organizations. Therefore, it is the purpose of
this book and its companion volume to bring together in a coordinated and
thematic fashion the results of research of academic, governmental and
industrial groups. The chapters in the two volumes describe research con-
ducted over a broad and representative group of actual and potential pol-
lutants which can or could have significant effects on life in the marine
environment.
It is important to gain a more definitive and at the same time objective
understanding of the effects of a given pollutant on a marine ecological
system; and to be made aware of this problem from as many perspectives
as possible. Hence, after selecting the diverse types of representative pol-
lutants to be discussed, efforts were made to obtain contributions from each
of the three groups describing the results of their research efforts. It was not
possible in every case to achieve this objective. However, the response was
so great that it soon became apparent that it would be necessary to add a
second volume for two reasons, if the chapters were to be presented in one
book, it would become rather unwieldy, but for an even more important
reason. The interest in hydrocarbons apparently is so great that there are
sufficient chapters available to constitute a separate volume. It was, there-
fore, decided to devote one volume to this subject, and the second one to
the other categories of major types of potential and actual pollutants. These
ix
include a wide variety of materials associated with such diverse processes
and activities as heavy metals, sewage, particulate matter, chlorinated hydro-
carbons, thermal and other industrial effluents, as well as radioactivity and
even cannery wastes.
When the terns pollutant or pollution are used, it almost always carries
the connotation of some material or process caused by the activities of man-
kind, rather than by nature. This is indeed extremely unfortunate because
the effects of pollution in the broadest sense caused by nature is generally
many orders of magnitude greater. A very recent example of a major nat-
urally occumng oil seep is described in Science, Vol. 205, 7 September 1979,
pp. 999-1001 (G. R. Harvey et al.). It was discovered in the form of a
weathered crude oil-rich layer of water about 1.5km wide extending for
hundreds of kilometers. It was conservatively estimated to have involved a
total of more than one megaton of hydrocarbons. This material was found
at a depth of about 100m beneath the surface, with a thickness of over
100 m, starting in the eastern Caribbean, near Trinidad, and extending into
the South Atlantic. It should be emphasized that this one event represents
almost twice the value of 6*105t ons proposed by a Special Committee of
the U. S. National Academy of Sciences for the total amount of naturally
occumng petroleum hydrocarbons seeping into the world oceans each year.
This is the reason for having two sections to Volume 1, one describing
petroleum hydrocarbon pollution caused by nature, and the other by man-
kind. For example, the role of nature in polluting the ocean with petroleum
hydrocarbons has been a most active one extending throughout much of
geologic time; and yet the oceans literally teem with all types of botanical
and zoological forms of life. These have obviously adapted successfully in
a wide variety of ways to the presence of these hydrocarbons, of Volume 1
as demonstrated in the chapters comprising Section A. Yet, the scientific
literature on pollution is filled with terms such as “chronic,” “sub-lethal”
and “cummulative.” These are used to justify the need for extensive long-
term research to determine the effects of potential pollutants on various
components of an ecological system. This is an example of the subjective and
emotional reactions to the effects of possible pollution by a variety of
substances.
The emotional reactions can be demonstrated by a similar demand to
study in great detail over a long period of time the effects not only of mud
used in drilling offshore oil wells, but of various constituents of these muds.
The mineral barite is an example. It also is given internally in large quantities
every day to countless humans as a part of an accepted routine, medical,
diagnostic method. In addition, the acceptable concentrations of barium
(lppm) in drinking water approved by U.S. Public Health officials for
human consumption is 30 times more than that found in drilling muds
(0.03 ppm at 25O C)! Why is there not a comparable hue and cry by en-
vironmentalists to reduce the amount of barium in drinking water consumed
X
by people to at least, if not less, than that which mollusks, corals, benthic and
other forms of life in the ocean might be subjected to from drilling muds.
Similarly, there has been much concern about the effects on the ecology
of the floor of the ocean from mining manganese modules. Yet, it can be
readily demonstrated that the effect on the bottom sediments and benthic
organisms from a single turbidity current active only for a few hours is
equivalent to about one hundred years of manganese mining in a given area.
Extensive research at considerable expense also has been conducted on the
effects of manganese mining on the possible generation of a “red-tide” and
accompanying mass-mortality, became of possibly bringing to the surface
excessive amount of nutrients. This remains to be demonstrated and again
the volume of ocean water and sediments involved in manganese mining is
miniscule in comparison. But, incidences of “red-tide” have resulted in the
destruction of fish and and other types of marine life in amounts representing
many number of orders of magnitude greater than the varied types of pol-
lution that can be attributed to man. Similarly, the solids, liquids and gases,
of which some have high radioactive levels, emanating from volcanic eruptions
in and beneath the sea contribute tremendous amounts of pollutants of all
types.
These are but a few of the examples that could be cited to illustrate the
fact that all too often reactions to pollution on the part of many people
have been one of subjectivity rather than objectivity; and emotionalism over-
coming logic to severely cloud reasonable perspectives in evaluating a given
pollution situation. Hopefully, Volume 1 will help to put into better per-
spective the respective roles of nature and man in the effects of petroleum
hydrocarbons in marine environmental pollution; and the companion volume
will accomplish the same purpose for those potential pollutants discussed
therein.
RICHARD A. GEYER
GLOSSARY
List of units used in this volume (effort has been made to use S.I. units except in those
cases where units are strongly associated with the particular field of science discipline; to
assist, the relations for converting to S.I. units are listed here)
Area 4047 m2
Biological (colony forming units
activity per liter)
Concentration gAt. 1-' (gram atom per liter)
M (molarity)
N (normality)
ppb (parts per billion)
ppm (parts per million)
PPt (parts per thousand)
vol. % (per cent by volume)
wt. % (per cent by weight)
Energy cal . (calorie) 4.184 J (joule)
eV (electron volt) 1.602*10-'9 J
Length in. (inch) 0.02452 m (meter)
ft. (foot) 0.3048 m
Yd. (yard) 0.9144 m
mi. (mile) 1609 m
fathom (nautical fathom) 1.8288 m
n.m. (nautical mile) 1852 m
mol (mole)
lb. (pound avoirdubois) 453.6 g (gram)
t (metric ton) lo6 g
ton (long ton) 1.016*106 g
Pressure atm. (atmosphere ) 1.013.105 Pa (pascal)
bar lo5 Pa
lb. in-' (pound-force per 6.295*103 Pa
square inch)
Radioactivity Ci (curie)
Temperature OC (degree Celsius) K (kelvin)
O F (degree Fahrenheit) T('F) = 1.8T('C) -k 32
Time min. (minute) 60 s (second)
hr. (hour) 3600 s
day 86,400 s
Yr. 3.16*107s
Velocity kt. 0.5015 m s-l
xii
Volume bbl (barrel) 0.1590 m3
gal. (gallon) 0.003785 m3
I (liter) m3
S.I. unit prefixes
n (nano) 10 -9
P (micro) 10 -6
m (milli) 10 -3
C (centi ) 10 -2
k (kilo) lo3
M (mega 1 lo6
C (&a 1 lo9
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS VOLUME
Dr. Bernie B. Bernard Dr. Richard A. Geyer
School of Geology and Geophysics Department of Oceanography
University of Oklahoma Texas A & M University
Norman, OK 73069, U.S.A. College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Dr. Thomas J. Bright Dr. Charles P. Giammona
Department of Oceanography New Jersey Marine Sciences
Texas A & M University Consortium
College Station. TX 77843, USA. Sandy Hook Field Station
Fort Hancock, NJ 07732, U.S.A.
Dr. Lewis R. Brown
Mississippi State University Dr. Howard R. Gould
Mississippi State, MS 39762, U.S.A. Exxon Production Research
Company
P.O. Box 2189
Dr. Paul H. Davis
Houston, TX 77001, USA.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
University of California
Dr. J. Harold Hudson
P.O. Box 808
US. Geological Survey
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Fisher Island Station
Miami Beach, FL 33139, U.S.A.
Larry Day
Marine Sciences Institute Dr. Lela Jeffrey
University of Texas Department of Oceanography
P.O. Box 368 Texas A & M University
Port Aransas, TX 75373, U.S.A. College Station, TX 77843, U.S.A.
Catherine Duncan Dr. C. B. Koons
Marine Sciences Institute Exxon Production Research
University of Texas Company
P.O. Box 368 P.O. Box 2189
Port Aransas, TX 75373, U.S.A. Houston, TX 77001, U.S.A.
Dr. Ibavid A. Gettleson Carol K. Lee
Continental Shelf Associates Inc. U.S. Geological Survey
P.O. Box 3609 Fisher Island Station
Tequesta, FL 33458, USA. Miami Beach, FL 33139, USA.