Environmental Impact Assessment of a Wharf Oil Spill Emergency on a River Water Source
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Risk Identification
2.3. Overview of the Forecast Method
- (1)
- Goal:
- (2)
- Scope of the prediction:
- (3)
- Details:
2.4. Methods of Forecast
2.4.1. Two-Dimensional Tidal Current Mathematical Model
- (1)
- Hydrodynamic model
- (2)
- Definite condition
- (i)
- Boundary conditions:
- (ii)
- Initial conditions:
- (3)
- Parameter selection
2.4.2. Oil slick Drift Extension Model
2.4.3. Calculation Condition Selection
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Calculation and Analysis of the Tidal Field
3.2. Oil Spill Diffusion Results
3.3. Oil Spill Risk Assessment of Terminal Accidents
3.3.1. Determination of the Risk Indicator System
- (1)
- Leakage location: The closer the location of the oil spill accident is to the sensitive area, the higher the urgency of the accident.
- (2)
- Nature of oil leakage: The toxicity, persistence, flammability, and other physical and chemical properties of spilled oil will have a direct impact on the degree of harm caused by the incident.
- (3)
- Oil spillage: The total amount of oil leakage and leakage concentration will have an impact on the urgency and hazard of the accident.
- (4)
- Leakage material form: The state (solid, liquid, or gaseous) of the leaked oil when it leaks has an impact on its diffusion and migration.
- (5)
- Time of the incident: When the incident occurs—either during the day or night or during normal working hours or non-working hours, etc.—has an impact on the timeliness of the emergency response after the incident.
- (6)
- Accident form: Different accident forms (cabin explosion, breakage, tipping, etc.) will lead to differences in the mode of pollution (continuous leakage or instantaneous leakage), which will affect the scope and intensity of oil pollution in the water body.
- (7)
- Hydrological conditions: The flow rate and flow of the water body at the time of the incident play a decisive role in the diffusion and migration rates of oil products, and the flow direction has a direct impact on the diffusion and migration directions of oil products.
- (8)
- Weather conditions: The wind speed and direction at the time of the incident have an impact on the drift speed and direction of pollutants in the water, and the temperature plays a role in chemical changes such as volatilization and degradation of pollutants. Visibility will also have an impact on emergency response actions.
3.3.2. Establishment of the Risk Evaluation Index System
3.3.3. Classification of Early Warning Thresholds for Key Risk Indicators
- (1)
- Risk sources
- (i)
- Oil properties: toxicity and durability of oil spills
- (ii)
- Oil spillage
- (2)
- Control mechanism
- (i)
- Oil slick arrival time
- (ii)
- Accident emergency response capability
- (3)
- Receptor sensitivity
3.3.4. Indicator Weight
3.4. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Calculation and Grading of Consequences
3.4.1. Calculation of Consequences
3.4.2. Comprehensive Evaluation Index Grading
- (1)
- Risk level I is extremely low. Oil spills have fewer oil substances leaked, which do not pose a threat to the normal intake of water and the water supply.
- (2)
- Risk level II is low risk. The location of the oil spill accident is a certain distance from the water body or occurs near the water, but the oil pollution has not yet reached the entire water body or only a small part of it, and the degree of harm is not large. By strengthening conventional processes and emergency treatment technical measures, the production of the water plant is not reduced or moderately reduced.
- (3)
- Risk level III is medium risk. That is, a large amount of oil pollution has leaked partially or completely into the body of water, and the degree of harm is relatively large. By strengthening the conventional processes, the water supply of the water plant can be kept at 70–80%.
- (4)
- Risk level IV is medium to high risk. A large amount of oil pollution has entered the water body as a whole, and the degree of harm is large. By strengthening conventional processes and taking emergency treatment technical measures, the water supply of the water plant can be kept at 50–60%.
- (5)
- Risk level V is high risk. That is, the amount of pollutants is large and has entered the water body and spread, posing a direct threat to the safety of the water intake. By strengthening conventional processes and emergency treatment technical measures, the water supply of the water plant is reduced to 50%, and if the pollutant indicators in the source water seriously exceed the standard and the emergency treatment technical measures are still difficult to deal with, measures to suspend the production and supply of tap water should be taken after consulting the local government. If water pollution occurs near the water source of the downstream waterworks, countermeasures will be taken to reduce the water supply of the downstream water plant and increase the water supply of the upstream water plant.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, K.; Chang, S.; Fu, Q.; Sun, X.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, M.; Tu, X.; Qadeer, A. Occurrence and risk assessment of volatile organic compounds in multiple drinking water sources in the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 225, 112741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Feng, M.; Wang, B.; Zhao, X.; Guo, R.; Bu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. Distribution and potential risk assessment of antibiotic pollution in the main drinking water sources of Nanjing, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21429–21441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Chen, C.; Lin, P.; Hou, A.; Niu, Z.; Wang, J. Emergency Drinking Water Treatment during Source Water Pollution Accidents in China: Origin Analysis, Framework and Technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Q. Environmental Risk Assessment of the Zhengrunzhou Water Source under the Influence of Oil Spill Accidents at the Wharf Group. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nawab, J.; Khan, S.; Ali, S.; Sher, H.; Rahman, Z.; Khan, K.; Tang, J.; Ahmad, A. Health risk assessment of heavy metals and bacterial contamination in drinking water sources: A case study of Malakand Agency, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, A.A.; Zarei, A.; Majidi, S.; Ghaderpoury, A.; Hashempour, Y.; Saghi, M.H.; Alinejad, A.; Yousefi, M.; Hosseingholizadeh, N.; Ghaderpoori, M. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk assessment of heavy metals in drinking water of Khorramabad, Iran. MethodsX 2019, 6, 1642–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houtman, C.J.; Kroesbergen, J.; Lekkerkerker-Teunissen, K.; van der Hoek, J.P. Human health risk assessment of the mixture of pharmaceuticals in Dutch drinking water and its sources based on frequent monitoring data. Sci. Total. Environ. 2014, 496, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, L.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Yu, Y.; Feng, L.; Zhang, S.; Xu, L. Distribution and human health risk assessment of antibiotic residues in large-scale drinking water sources in Chongqing area of the Yangtze River. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delvigne, G.A.L. Laboratory experiments on oil spill protection of a water intake. In Oil in Freshwater: Chemistry, Biology, Countermeasure Technology; Vandermeulen, J.H., Hrudey, S.E., Eds.; Pergamon: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1987; pp. 446–458. [Google Scholar]
- Etkin, D.S.; Nedwed, T.J. Effectiveness of mechanical recovery for large offshore oil spills. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 163, 111848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, P.; Cai, Q.; Lin, W.; Chen, B.; Zhang, B. Offshore oil spill response practices and emerging challenges. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 110, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, W. Development of a statistical oil spill model for risk assessment. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 230, 945–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Lei, X.; Long, Y.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Hou, X.; Shi, M.; Wang, P.; Zhang, C.; et al. A novel comprehensive risk assessment method for sudden water accidents in the Middle Route of the South–North Water Transfer Project (China). Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 698, 134167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, B.; Jiang, J.; Liu, R.; Khan, A.U.; Wang, P. Engineering risk assessment for emergency disposal projects of sudden water pollution incidents. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 14819–14833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, D.; Ge, X.; Huang, P.; Zhang, G.; Loáiciga, H. A real-time, dynamic early-warning model based on uncertainty analysis and risk assessment for sudden water pollution accidents. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 8878–8892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kankara, R.S.; Subramanian, B.R. Oil Spill Sensitivity Analysis and Risk Assessment for Gulf of Kachchh, India, using Integrated Modeling. J. Coastal Res. 2007, 23, 1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, Y.; Song, R.; Zhang, F.; Zhou, C.; Yi, W.; Sui, Z. Site Selection Model and Algorithm for Oil Spill Emergency Rescue Point on the Yangtze River Trunk Line. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), Liverpool, UK, 14–17 July 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 759–764. [Google Scholar]
- Lehr, W.; Jones, R.; Evans, M.; Simecek-Beatty, D.; Overstreet, R. Revisions of the ADIOS oil spill model. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2002, 17, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, C.H.; Anderson, S.S.; Cherr, G.N.; Ambrose, R.F.; Anghera, S.; Bay, S.; Blum, M.; Condon, R.; Dean, T.A.; Graham, M.; et al. A Tale of Two Spills: Novel Science and Policy Implications of an Emerging New Oil Spill Model. Bioscience 2012, 62, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barker, C.H.; Kourafalou, V.H.; Beegle-Krause, C.J.; Boufadel, M.; Bourassa, M.A.; Buschang, S.G.; Androulidakis, Y.; Chassignet, E.P.; Dagestad, K.; Danmeier, D.G.; et al. Progress in Operational Modeling in Support of Oil Spill Response. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spaulding, M.L. State of the art review and future directions in oil spill modeling. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 115, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Mei, Q. Numerical Simulation Study on the Effects of Oil Spill Diffusion in The Qitou Sea Area. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 233, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; He, Y.; Tang, M.; Min, X.; Sheng, Y.; Chen, P. Numerical simulation of the environmental impact of oil spill in the Liuheng Island of Zhoushan City. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 601, 12044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, C.; Cai, B.; Liu, Y. Research on transport and weathering of oil spills in Jiaozhou Bight, China. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2022, 51, 102197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yan, D. Study on the theories and methods of ecological flow guarantee rate index under different time scales. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 771, 145378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, A.K.; Kumar, G.S. Weathering of Oil Spill: Modeling and Analysis. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, I.; Jeon, E.; Kim, S.; Hwang, S.; Seo, J. Oil spill fingerprint of low sulfur fuel oil in South Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 171, 112721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, C.B.; Oleinik, P.H.; Lopes, B.V.; Leal, T.F.; Möller Junior, O.O.; Marques, W.C. Oil Spill Simulations and Susceptibility in Coastal and Estuarine Areas. Defect Diffus. Forum 2019, 396, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balogun, A.; Yekeen, S.T.; Pradhan, B.; Wan Yusof, K.B. Oil spill trajectory modelling and environmental vulnerability mapping using GNOME model and GIS. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, Z.; Li, D.; Li, Y.; Chen, S.; Bu, S. Trajectory and weathering of oil spill in Daya bay, the South China sea. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ülker, D.; Burak, S.; Balas, L.; Çağlar, N. Mathematical modelling of oil spill weathering processes for contingency planning in Izmit Bay. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2022, 50, 102155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Wang, S.; Zhu, Z.; Jin, L. Prediction model and consequence analysis for riverine oil spills. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daham, M.H.; Abed, B.S. One and Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Simulation of a Reach in Al-Gharraf River. J. Eng. 2020, 26, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, F.; Lai, Q.; Ma, J.; Wei, G.; Li, W. Numerical Simulations of Sudden Oil Spills in Typical Cross-Border Rivers in the Yangtze River Delta Region. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 13029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y. Development of an oil spill model adaptable to exposure and submergence conversion of tidal flats: A case study in the Changjiang Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 171, 112715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Mu, L.; Ha, S.; Wang, S.; Zhao, E. An innovative coupling technique for integrating oil spill prediction model with finite volume method-based ocean model. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 185, 114242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Huang, W.; Lyu, X.; Liu, S.; Zhao, Z.; Ren, P. An adversarial learning approach to forecasted wind field correction with an application to oil spill drift prediction. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. 2022, 112, 102924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, J.; Pang, L. Application of marine oil spill model based on Monte Carlo method in Laoshan Bay. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 371, 42003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arzaghi, E.; Abbassi, R.; Garaniya, V.; Binns, J.; Khan, F. An ecological risk assessment model for Arctic oil spills from a subsea pipeline. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 1117–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Shami, A.; Harik, G.; Alameddine, I.; Bruschi, D.; Garcia, D.A.; El-Fadel, M. Risk assessment of oil spills along the Mediterranean coast: A sensitivity analysis of the choice of hazard quantification. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 574, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daly, K.L.; Passow, U.; Chanton, J.; Hollander, D. Assessing the impacts of oil-associated marine snow formation and sedimentation during and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Anthropocene 2016, 13, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kvočka, D.; Žagar, D.; Banovec, P. A Review of River Oil Spill Modeling. Water 2021, 13, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polinov, S.; Bookman, R.; Levin, N. Spatial and temporal assessment of oil spills in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reddy, C.M.; Nelson, R.K.; Hanke, U.M.; Cui, X.; Summons, R.E.; Valentine, D.L.; Rodgers, R.P.; Chacón-Patiño, M.L.; Niles, S.F.; Teixeira, C.E.P.; et al. Synergy of Analytical Approaches Enables a Robust Assessment of the Brazil Mystery Oil Spill. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 13688–13704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ron, G. Overview and Characteristics of Some Occupational Exposures and Health Risks on Offshore Oil and Gas Installations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2003, 47, 201–210. [Google Scholar]
Number | Water Condition | Discharge Conditions | Pollution Emissions | Predictors |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Design flow of 90% low water | Accident emissions | 10 t | Petroleum |
Conditions | Arrival Time | Departure Time |
---|---|---|
1. Northeast wind, 2.6m/s | 40 min | 49 min |
2. Southwest wind, 2.6 m/s | 42 min | 51 min |
3. Southwest wind, 5.0 m/s | 46 min | 66 min |
Oil Hazards | Metric Score |
---|---|
Highly toxic and persistent (certain crude oils, etc.) | 5 |
Toxic and persistent (general fuel oil, etc.) | 4 |
Highly toxic and prominent (gasoline, light kerosene, and other oils containing more aromatics) | 3 |
Toxic and generally volatile (heavy oil with less aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.) | 2 |
Low toxicity (almost insoluble in water, heavy oils without aromatics, etc.) | 1 |
Oil Spill (t) | >100 | 100~10 | 10~1 | 1~0.1 | <0.1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metric score | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Arrival Time (h) | <0.5 | 0.5~1.0 | 1.0~6 | 6~12 | >12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metric score | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Ability | Weaker | Weak | Ordinary | Good | Better |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metric score | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Water Quality | I | II | III | IV | V |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metric score | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
A | B | A-B Weight | C | B-C Weight | A-C Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Evaluation Composite Index | Risk sources | 0.491 | Oil properties | 0.29 | 0.142 |
Oil spillage | 0.71 | 0.349 | |||
Control mechanism | 0.358 | Oil slick arrival time | 0.68 | 0.243 | |
Emergency response measures | 0.32 | 0.115 | |||
Receptor | 0.151 | Sensitivity | 1 | 0.151 |
I Value | >3.51 | 3.51~3.26 | 3.26~3.01 | 3.01~2.53 | <2.53 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Warning level | V | IV | Ⅲ | II | I |
Incident Information Item | Content |
---|---|
Place | Dock |
Time | Low tide period |
Risk receptors | Water intakes at the source of drinking water |
Oil | Light diesel |
Oil spillage | 10 t |
Evaluate Metrics | Accident Records | Metric Score | |
---|---|---|---|
Oil properties | diesel oil | 1 | |
Oil spillage | 10 t | 3 | |
Arrival time | Drinking water sources | 46 min | 4 |
Emergency response measures | Dock | weak | 4 |
Receptor | Drinking water sources | I | 4 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
He, F.; Ma, J.; Lai, Q.; Shui, J.; Li, W. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Wharf Oil Spill Emergency on a River Water Source. Water 2023, 15, 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020346
He F, Ma J, Lai Q, Shui J, Li W. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Wharf Oil Spill Emergency on a River Water Source. Water. 2023; 15(2):346. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020346
Chicago/Turabian StyleHe, Fei, Jie Ma, Qiuying Lai, Jian Shui, and Weixin Li. 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of a Wharf Oil Spill Emergency on a River Water Source" Water 15, no. 2: 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020346
APA StyleHe, F., Ma, J., Lai, Q., Shui, J., & Li, W. (2023). Environmental Impact Assessment of a Wharf Oil Spill Emergency on a River Water Source. Water, 15(2), 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020346