COASTAL ECOSYSTEM STUDIES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO OIL SPILL RESPONSE

1981 ◽  
Vol 1981 (1) ◽  
pp. 311-317
Author(s):  
John W. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Energy Demands ◽  
Ecosystem Studies ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Species Specific

ABSTRACT Because of increased energy demands, the coastal areas of the United States have been subject to rather severe land-use and water-use conflicts. One of the results has been the alteration of coastal habitats that support valuable fish and wildlife resources. Because of threats of further alteration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has conducted several studies about coastal environments and environmental problems. Since 1975, nine coastal ecological studies have been completed; others are being negotiated. Study areas have included the coast of Maine, and central and northern California. Each of these studies provides an information base, a data analysis, and habitat maps. An ecological inventory of the Atlantic Coast has been completed and other inventories are contemplated for the Gulf of Mexico, the West coast of the United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. The ecological inventories mainly are maps showing types of land use and coastal fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. Other more site-specific or species-specific studies also have been published. These various reports about coastal ecology should be useful to national, regional, and field spill response teams for understanding environmental concerns more fully, planning regional oil spill responses, making on-site decisions, and planning post-spill environmental damage studies.

United States Coast Guard (USCG) C-130 Air Dispersant Delivery System (ADDS) capability history, deployment in remote areas, and associated challenges

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017027
Author(s):  
Tim Gunter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Federal State ◽  
United States Coast Guard ◽  
Remote Areas ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
State And Local

Among the variety of oil spill response countermeasures, including mechanical, chemical, in-situ burning and bioremediation, deployment of chemical dispersants has been successfully utilized in numerous oil spills. This paper will review the history of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) C-130 Air Dispersant Delivery System (ADDS) capability, deployment in remote areas, and associated challenges. ADDS consists of a large tank with dispersant(e.g., 51,000 pounds), owned and operated by an industry partner, used aboard USCG C-130 aircraft designed to be ADDS capable as specified in various agreements for marine environmental protection missions. ADDS is a highly complex tool to utilize, requiring extensive training by air crews and industry equipment technicians to safely and properly deploy during an oil spill response. In 2011, the Commandant of the USCG, Admiral Papp reaffirmed the USCG's C-130 ADDS capability during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. The use of ADDS in remote areas creates unique challenges, such as logistical coordination between the USCG and spill response industry partners and maintaining proficiency with personnel. It is critical for federal, state, and local agencies, industry, and academia to understand the history and challenges of ADDS to ensure the successful utilization of this response tool in an actual oil spill incident.

The Exxon Valdez Oil-spill: Ecological and Social Consequences

1992 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Prince William Sound ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Exxon Valdez

Major oil-spills, such as occurred following the grounding of the tanker Exxon Valdez in March 1989 in Prince William Sound, Alaska, account for only a small fraction of the total anthropogenic input of petroleum to the marine environment. Yet major spills can result in significant and even acute impacts, trigger ecological changes requiring decades for recovery, and command considerable public attention. Thus catastrophic oil-spills in general, and the Exxon Valdez spill in particular, differ from other chronic human alterations of coastal marine systems.Estimates of the fate of the 38,000 metric tons of crude oil lost by the Exxon Valdez are imprecise, but perhaps 30–40% evaporated, 10–25% was recovered, and the rest remains in the marine environment. Roughly 1,500 km of coastline were oiled in varying degrees. Much of this coastline consists of gravel beaches into which oil penetrated to depths as great as 1 m.The ecological effects of the spill on the marine environments of Prince William Sound and adjacent coastal areas of the Gulf of Alaska were extensive, but natural recovery, aided by clean-up efforts, is expected. Judging by the consequences of other oil-spills affecting rocky shorelines, as well as previous natural and anthropogenic disturbances to Prince William Sound, it appears likely that most affected biotic communities and ecosystems will recover to approximately their pre-spill functional and structural characteristic within from five to twenty-five years.This oil-spill had major social effects. Many individuals, whether personally present or viewing the spill around the world on television, were saddened by the environmental damage, and felt that an important public trust had been broken. These feelings, together with dissatisfaction with the results of early clean-up efforts, gave rise to popular sentiment in favour of every possible clean-up and mitigation effort — regardless of cost, effectiveness, or possible negative consequences.The response to the Exxon Valdez oil-spill by government and the oil industry revealed serious inadequacies in the plans and institutions for dealing with major marine oilspills in the United States. Attempts to recover spilled oil, and to respond to the spill's environmental consequences, were hampered by a low level of preparedness and lack of clear agreement about the goals of response efforts. Attempts are under way to improve oil-spill prevention and response capabilities in Alaska and the rest of the United States. However, these efforts are not yet complete, and it remains to be seen whether an improved response will be made to the next major oil-spill.

Recent Research and Development Testing Conducted at Ohmsett – The National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test Facility

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1345-1365
Author(s):  
Paul Meyer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Test Facility ◽  
Oil Spill Response

Abstract 2017-321 The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test Facility, Ohmsett, plays a critical role in advancing oil spill response capabilities through research, development, testing, and training. Ohmsett’s 10 million liter (l) saltwater wave tank provides an independent venue to conduct research and development with full-size response equipment using real oil, in realistic, repeatable conditions. This paper will discuss recent research and development conducted at Ohmsett, including: Remote sensing of surface oil by BSEE, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Army, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); using acoustics to measure oil slick thickness; creating large volumes of emulsions for Ohmsett tests; mechanical recovery of chemically treated, undispersed oil; skimmer testing in diminishing slick thickness; a USCG and BSEE test of a skimmer ice management system; and an autonomous skimmer development. This paper will summarize the setup and methodology used during recent testing, training, and research conducted at Ohmsett. Reports of BSEE funded oil spill response research can be found at https://www.bsee.gov/site-page/master-list-of-oil-spill-response-research.

scholarly journals UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY “THEN” AND “NOW”

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 459-461
Author(s):  
Leonard Rich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The intent of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90) is to ensure the U.S. Government is prepared to protect the environment from a catastrophic spill of the magnitude and complexity of the 1989 EXXON VALDEZ oil spill. The OPA90 legislation resulted in an overall restructuring and enhancement of the National Strike Force (NSF), and establishment of District Response Groups who are staffed and equipped with mechanical spill recovery assets and are prepared to take prompt actions to mitigate a worst case discharge scenario. During the early 1990s, over $31 million dollars worth of oil spill response equipment was acquired and placed at 23 locations throughout the United States. Since then, an additional $10 million dollars of environmental emergency response equipment has been added to the USCG'S inventory, and are now located at 16 additional sites. This paper will elaborate on the evolution of the USCG'S environmental emergency response capabilities. In terms of preparedness, it will explain how, where and why the Coast Guard has adjusted its resources and capabilities since the OPA90 legislation. The expanded mission requirements include; redistributing and adjusting the locations of the Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems, expanding functional use of the pre-positioned equipment for dewatering during shipboard fires, designing and implementing an offload pumping system for viscous oil at each NSF Strike Team, revisiting the condition and continued use of OPA90 procured first response “band-aid’ equipment, modifying the basic response equipment systems for fast current spill response, and the implementation of the Spilled Oil Recovery System. These actions reflect policy and mission adjustments influenced by an ever changing environment. The Coast Guard has re-organized from the bottom up to meet increased port security measures, and the capability to respond to all-hazard incidents. We must continue to maintain a high state of readiness in the oil spill response environment and accept the need to incorporate change to the equipment and the way we conduct our support to the American public.

IMPEDIMENTS TO CROSS-BOUNDARY OIL SPILL RESPONSE ALONG UNITED STATES BORDERS

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 801-805
Author(s):  
Jonathan K. Waldron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safety Training ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Response Capability

ABSTRACT The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) promoted a coordinated industry and government enhancement of response resources to combat oil spills effectively in the United States. However, the United States remains vulnerable to oil spills near the borders it shares with Canada, Mexico, and various nations in the Caribbean due to legal and administrative impediments associated with cross-boundary spill response activities. This paper explores cross-boundary related issues that could hinder a response and the relationship and roles of industry and government with regard to such issues, and provides recommendations to enhance improved cooperation between government and industry to facilitate response activities. The international structure that currently exists—globally, regionally, and bilaterally—provides a basic framework that promotes cooperation between nations to respond harmoniously to spills threatening the shores of neighboring countries. However, the existing agreements and understandings only provide a basic umbrella. They require planning and implementation of details and commitment to take the specific actions required to implement these agreements and understandings fully. As a result, the enhanced private response capability that now exists in the United States may not be available in a spill involving cross-boundary operations. Neighboring nations must take action to facilitate cross-boundary activities by responders by providing responder-immunity protection similar to that provided under OPA 90 and by removing potential impediments to response activities: laws and other requirements relating to matters such as customs, immigration, and safety training.

Osros: Will they be There for Inland Environments?

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 483-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dee Bradley ◽  
Mike Crickard ◽  
Carl Oskins ◽  
John Bradley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Near Shore ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Ancillary Equipment

ABSTRACT Oil Spill Removal Organizations (OSROs) provide a necessary service to companies who produce, refine and transport (pipeline and road) oil and refined products and need to be prepared for the Worst Case Oil Spill Response Scenario. Those companies in coastal and near shore areas have virtually all of the classified OSROs to pick from, but such is not the case for oil companies located in the western areas of the United States. This paper looks at this dilemma through the experiences of one potential OSRO opting to target this inland operating area. Issues such as boom size; skimmer applications and ancillary equipment differences; different approaches to river, lake and stream spill response strategies; and the location of Captain of the Ports (COTPs) and Alternate City Classifications (ACCs) present unique challenges to providing inland OSRO support to companies who need it.

Use of Dispersants in the United States: Perception or Reality?

1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 (1) ◽  
pp. 389-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Cunningham ◽  
Karen A. Sahatjian ◽  
Chris Meyers ◽  
Gary Yoshioka ◽  
Julie M. Jordan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Weather Conditions ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Unfavorable Weather

ABSTRACT Dispersants have been a controversial oil spill response technique since their introduction during the Torrey Canyon oil spill off the coast of the United Kingdom in 1967. Despite reductions in the toxicity of dispersants and improvements in their application since then, dispersants have not been used extensively in the United States because of logistical difficulties, unfavorable weather conditions, and a lack of demonstrated effectiveness during actual spill conditions. In addition, there is a widely held perception in the United States that dispersant use has been limited by complex authorization procedures. This paper reviews the dispersant policies of several European nations and Canada and compares them with those of the United States. Recent developments in U. S. dispersant policy are outlined, particularly those designed to expedite decision making. The paper concludes by examining some recent U. S. oil spills in which dispersant use was considered.

U.S. NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL OIL SPILL RESPONSE POLICY1

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1051-1054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Adams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Lead Agency ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
International Engagement ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The United States has several international oil pollution response agreements for which the U.S. Coast Guard serves as lead agency for implementation. However, the United States does not have an integrated plan for implementing these agreements, the criteria to use in determining what level of cooperation is needed, or a strategy for prioritizing which countries with which to engage to forge new agreements. This paper outlines a strategy for international engagement that allows the United States to participate in response-related expertise exchange to ensure appropriate capabilities are available for spills that threaten U.S. interests. Obstacles to developing and implementing the strategy and ways to overcome them also are identified.

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN, SUBPART J PRODUCT SCHEDULE (40 CFR 300.900)

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1479-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900), which lists dispersants, surface-washing agents (SWAs), bioremediation agents, surface-collecting agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the United States, depending on the product and its proper application. Over the last few years, alternative oil spill response methods have been gaining in acceptance and use in the field among first responders, industry, state and federal agencies, Congress, and the entire oil spill response community. EPA sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use these products. Manufacturers and vendors of these products have become more aware of this acceptance evidenced by the frequency that EPA is contacted to provide information on the listing process and EPA policy regarding their use. The number of applications to add new products to the Subpart J Product Schedule has increased over the last year. Subpart J is very prescriptive and specific in directing manufacturers to perform the proper test within the proper protocols, yet many applications are rejected or need modification because of errors in testing procedures or data reporting. This paper will address the data needed to list a product under each category and will clarify issues related to the Product Schedule. It will also address the policies that EPA uses to enforce the Subpart J regulation. The author has managed the Product Schedule for over 3 years, and his experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, SWAs, chemical sorbents, and other technologies have sparked controversy and confusion in all regions and areas of the United States, and in some cases internationally. Many research efforts have added to the baseline knowledge we have about dispersants and bioremediation agents' toxicity, efficacy, and proper use, but conflicts still arise as that data is interpreted and applied in the field. The reader will have a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and describe the authority to use them based on EPA policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document