PLANS FOR INTEGRATING DISPERSANT USE IN CALIFORNIA

1985 ◽  
Vol 1985 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Pavia ◽  
Lindon A. Onstad
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Large Body ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Oil Spill Dispersants ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Spill Control ◽  
Effective Use

ABSTRACT Since the early 1970s both the effectiveness and efficiency of oil spill dispersants have been improved while the toxicity of these chemicals has been reduced. Although a large body of research has been published in the last five years which supports these claims, there has been little experience with the use of dispersants in the United States. This lack of experience has been created, in part, by a cumbersome dispersant approval process and the reluctance of spill responders to invest in dispersants and related application equipment. The Region IX Regional Response Team has identified four prerequisites for effective use of dispersants: informed decision-makers; a functional decision-making process; coordinated contingency plans; and effective, region-specific application capabilities. This paper explores the approach taken by government and industry to fulfill these prerequisites. The goal of these efforts, which include sponsoring workshops, implementing a dispersant application test program, and requiring specific dispersant contingency planning efforts, is to fully integrate dispersants into the oil spill control efforts of the region.

JOINT MEXICO-UNITED STATES OIL SPILL RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS TRAINING ACTIVITIES

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 711-714
Author(s):  
Heather A. Parker-Hall ◽  
Timothy P. Holmes ◽  
Norma A. Hernandez Ramirez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Joint Training ◽  
Response Team ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Exercise and evaluation of the Pacific Annex of the Joint Contingency Plan Between the United Mexican States and the United States of America Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons or Other Hazardous Substances (MEXUSPLAN) uncovered a significant need for joint training between spill responders, planners, decision-makers and stakeholders on both sides of our border. Sponsored by U.S. Coast Guard District 11 (USCG Dll) and the Second Mexican Naval Zone (ZN2), a series of training sessions were held for Mexican officials from the Northern Baja California region and Mexico City in early 2003. The first of these well-attended sessions was held in two locations: San Diego, CA and Ensenada, Mexico in February 2003. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hazmat facilitated the first session, the Joint Mexico-United States Oil Spill Science Forum. It provided a scientific view of oil spills. The following joint session facilitated by USCG Dll and held in Ensenada was a tabletop exercise designed in preparation for the signing of the MEXUSPAC Annex. Through the use of a spill drill scenario, this session included instruction and dialogue about the roles and responsibilities of both U.S. and Mexican spill responders. Both sessions included presentations from several agencies of the Regional Response Team IX/Joint Response Team: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Dept. of the Interior and California's Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Industry partners also contributed topics of discussion, further complementing the U.S. response landscape. Mexican response agencies, including PEMEX, SAGARPA, SEMARNAT and PROFEPA, provided valuable input ensuring dialogue helping to identify additional joint response gaps. Upon the most significant gaps brought to light was the need for additional information regarding dispersant use by Mexican agencies, particularly in light of the approaching international SONS Exercise in April 2004. To this end, USCG Dll and NOAA HAZMAT developed and presented a modified Ecological Risk Assessment for their Mexican counterparts. Hosted by ZN2 in October 2003, this highly successful workshop brought together many key decision makers, planners and stakeholders from both sides of the border to discuss tradeoffs inherent in the use of existing spill response tools, including dispersants. Joint training and discussion sessions such as these are key to ensuring any measure of success in a joint spill response. Several additional training and discussion topics designed for the Mexican-U.S. joint response forum have been identified with many in the planning phase. Acknowledging the similarities as well as differences in response systems of our two nations' is essential to the success of these joint collaborations. Such continued efforts will help bridge existing gaps.

Using the Pieces to Solve the Puzzle: A Framework for Making Decisions About Applied Response Technologies

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Hayward Walker ◽  
Debra Scholz ◽  
John N. Boyd ◽  
Ed Levine ◽  
Eric Moser
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
The United States ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Chemical Additives ◽  
Regulatory Requirement ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

ABSTRACT The National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule, the Applied Response Tool Evaluation System (ARTES), and the Selection Guide for Oil Spill Applied Technologies (Selection Guide) are information and evaluation resources that, used together, provide spill response decision makers with a comprehensive framework to assess the potential uses and effects of applied response technologies either during an oil spill emergency or in advance. The applied response technologies addressed by these response tools include fastwater booming strategies, nonfloating oil strategies, water-intake monitoring, alternative sorbents, bioremediation agents, dispersants, elasticity modifiers, emulsion treating agents, firefighting foams, in situ burning on land and inland waters, solidifiers, surface-collecting agents, surface-washing agents, and shoreline pretreatment agents. The U.S. NCP regulates the use of any chemical/biological product as a spill response tool. In most instances, decision makers are aware of these information resources, but many government and industry users are unclear on the relationship among the three, that is, what does each do, how are they similar and/or different, and how can each be used in relation to the others. To make a well-reasoned decision, decision makers need to understand the functions of each. This paper provides an overview of the NCP Product Schedule, which is a regulatory requirement for considering the use of biological and chemical additives on oil spills in the United States, and how the Product Schedule can be used in conjunction with decision aids, like ARTES and the Selection Guide, to select the proper response products and strategies for oil spills. The paper reviews the functions, limitations, and flexibility of each component in this decision framework and discusses ways to use all three information resources to reason through when the use of applied response tools might be ecologically appropriate.

COAST GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL MISSION FULFILLED BY NAVY SALVAGE, FRENCH FRIGATE SHOALS

1981 ◽  
Vol 1981 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-241
Author(s):  
Bobby Burns ◽  
A. G. Campbell ◽  
Charles J. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Weather Conditions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Quick Response ◽  
Safety Committee ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Planning Methodology ◽  
White Clay

ABSTRACT Quick response to the stranding of a large freighter on French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Navy salvage forces prevented a major oil spill with probably significant environmental damage and saved a valuable ship and cargo. The authority, funding, and contacts that allowed the use of navy salvage forces on a timely basis were key elements in the USCG On-Scene Coordinator and the Region IX (Oceana) Response Team actions. The incident particulars, including authority, funding, assets deployed, logistics problems, salvage efforts, planning, methodology, and operational problems are discussed. It was determined that efforts to mitigate possible oil spill damage, such as deployment of booms, would be impractical and probably totally ineffective in the shoal and sand spits subject to open-ocean weather conditions. Lightering of fuel and cargo was judged to be dangerous and difficult. Salvage of the intact ship was found to be the most practical means to prevent significant environmental damage. Jettisoning of 2,100 tons of nontoxic fine white clay cargo was necessary for the salvage. Logistic limitations and evaluation of tide and currents to minimize environmental impact were major concerns that limited amounts and times of discharge. The post-incident survey indicates minimal environmental damage. The incident points to the need for the creation of an “area to be avoided” within a 50-mile radius as is currently proposed by the United States to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) Maritime Safety Committee for the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.

OIL SPILL LEGISLATION IN THE COASTAL UNITED STATES SINCE THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 643-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M. Stolls
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Financial Responsibility ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Wait And See ◽  
Laws And Regulations

ABSTRACT Because the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) allows state preemption, vessel and facility owners that operate in the United States know that simply complying with federal laws and regulations is not enough. Though some states have enacted legislation similar to OPA 90 and have taken a wait-and-see approach to the promulgation of regulations, many others did not wait for federal agencies to resolve certain issues. This paper reviews new state oil spill laws and regulations in the coastal United States and compares their approaches to contingency planning, prevention, responder immunity, financial responsibility, liability, and other key issues.

REVIEW OF DISPERSANT USE IN U.S. GULF OF MEXICO WATERS SINCE THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 439-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie Henry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Monitoring Plan ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT Since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), dispersants have been used as part of a combined response to mitigate seven oil spills in United States Gulf of Mexico (GOM) waters. Of the dispersant operations reported, four utilized the Regional Response Team VI pre-approval authority to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) that requires a monitoring plan. The successful integration of dispersant pre-authorization along with a fully funded ready response delivery system maintained by industry contributed to the successful use of dispersants to aid in mitigating spilled oil. A key element to gaining the original pre-approval authority was a functional operational monitoring plan. While each response was considered a successful dispersant operation, each incident provided valuable lessons learned that have been integrated into subsequent contingency planning and modifications to existing pre-authorization requirements in the GOM. This paper provides a chronological review of oil spill responses where dispersants were applied in the GOM since OPA 90.

POTENTIAL PLACES OF REFUGE FOR SHIPS IN DISTRESS–THE CALIFORNIA APPROACH TO DEVELOPING DATA CAPTURE AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1067-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Faurot-Daniels ◽  
Kelly Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Unified Command

ABSTRACT California'S coastal Area Contingency Planning Committees began the process to develop “California Distressed Vessel/Potential Places of Refuge (PPOR)” data-gathering and decision-making tools in July 2006. The first step in this process was for members of California'S statewide Area Contingency Plan (ACP) Committee to be open to the possibility they may allow a distressed vessels into their backyard. Next, they were challenged with representing non-situational data in a common data collection format for use by all six California coastal Area Committees. Modeled largely on the PPOR products developed in Alaska, the committee relied on the Regional Response Team IX Guidelines, and the Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 16451.9 U.S. Coast Guard Places of Refuge Policy Enclosure (2) (POR Job Aid) resources. Stakeholder involvement throughout this process helps to establish realistic expectations in advance and build trust between stakeholders and decision makers. The populated databases, located in the ACPs, will support incident-specific decision-making and risk assessment anywhere in California by any California Federal On-Scene Coordinator or Unified Command during an actual Places of Refuge (POR) event.

Taking a Step Back. Exercises as Training Opportunities.

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 1055-1058
Author(s):  
Joseph Gleason
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Personnel Turnover ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Exercise

ABSTRACT Historically, many response exercises conducted by the United States Coast Guard and other oil spill response stakeholders have been conducted as functional or full-scale exercises. With the increased demands placed on many U.S. agencies as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11’ 2001, there is a greater need than ever to ensure that time spent in training and exercises produces positive and tangible results for the participants. In preparation for the joint US/Canadian response exercise, CANUSLANT 2002, the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards decided to take a step back and look at the lessons learned from previous exercises. Based on this review, the Joint Response Team (JRT) decided to focus CANUSLANT 2002 as a training opportunity and to work on the lessons learned that were repeatedly identified in earlier CANUSLANT exercises. Perhaps the most common exercise conducted in oil spill response is the functional “command post” exercise where exercise participants are assigned to ICS (Incident Command System) staff elements. Participants then respond to an exercise scenario and prescripted injects that are provided to drive participant actions. With personnel turnover, transfers, and increased operational demands, many exercise participants struggle through the crisis phase of an incident scenario and never have the opportunity to learn what it is they are supposed to be doing. When all is said and done, many exercise participants are often simply go home happy that the exercise is over and done with. The goal for CANUSLANT 2002 was to produce an exercise where the participants accomplished something tangible; that long pending issues would be discussed and perhaps even resolved. The Exercise Design Team hoped that the participants walked away from the exercise saying that it was time well spent and not simply thankful that the exercise was over. This paper outlines the factors that led to the success of the CANUSLANT 2002 cross border response exercise. This paper also highlights some of the fundamentals for varying your approach to exercises to achieve tangible results while providing personnel the skills and training required to respond in the event of a real disaster.

Spill Response Decision-Making in Relation to Wildlife Resources and Oil Spill Applied Technologies

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 311-318
Author(s):  
Debra Scholz ◽  
Steven R. Warren ◽  
Heidi Stout ◽  
Gregory Hogue ◽  
Ann Hayward Walker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Limited Experience ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Us ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT During a response to spilled oil or hazardous material, the protection, retrieval, and rehabilitation of affected wildlife is the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the US Department of Interior (DOI), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the affected state resource trustees. Only permitted and trained individuals (Qualified Wildlife Responders - QWR) are allowed to directly handle the affected wildlife. QWRs are familiar with a wide range of actions that can be taken to minimize the adverse effects of spilled oil on fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. However, decision-makers and QWRs are not always familiar with the effects that various oil spill products and technologies may have on different wildlife resources. Applied oil spill products and technologies are listed under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule (40 CFR § 300.317) and are the focus of the Selection Guide for Oil Spill Applied Technologies. These applied oil spill products and technologies are relatively unknown and most decision-makers have limited experience in their use. To facilitate greater understanding of these products and technologies, the Selection Guide assists the decision-maker to evaluate the various spill response products and technologies for potential or suspected impacts to the environment, workers, and natural resources. Of particular interest is the evaluation of the use of various oil spill response

LOGISTIC PLANNING FOR OIL SPILL CHEMICAL USE

1979 ◽  
Vol 1979 (1) ◽  
pp. 453-458
Author(s):  
Gordon P. Lindblom
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Unit Area ◽  
Equipment Design ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Chemical Agents ◽  
Trained Personnel ◽  
Near Shore ◽  
Spill Control ◽  
Logistic Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup

ABSTRACT The use of chemical agents in oil spill cleanup should be rapid, but not haphazard. As with mechanical measures, both proper equipment and trained personnel must be available in order to employ chemicals most efficiently. This paper reviews those subjects which are particularly important to successful chemical applications, and which must be carefully considered in contingency planning. These are chemical types and their modes of action, design and operation of the equipment required, regulation of chemical dose per unit area, and the limitations (to both boats and aircraft) of a distant operations base. Various kinds of oil spill control chemicals are likely to be used during a spill incident. Therefore, planning must also provide for flexibility in application equipment design in order to obtain the maximum service per unit. The design and construction of a portable chemical spraying system (which can be used on work boats, tugs, or other vessels of opportunity) is discussed. The adequacy of aerial spray systems is also examined in terms of required pump rates, chemical and equipment load, nozzle types and capacity, spraying time on-site, and volume of chemical delivered. It is shown that small aircraft are only useful near shore, and that (as the spill area increases) several large airplanes will be required.

The Oil Spill Response Fund – Four Decades of Success

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 2146-2158
Author(s):  
Allen R. Thuring
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Trust Fund ◽  
Us Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT This paper examines the oil pollution response fund created by Section 311(k) of the 1972 CWA and then modified, culminating with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) established by OPA. Could the CWA have been successful absent the provision for a federal fund? This Fund is now four decades old. Has it passed the “test of time”? Did it meet the goals set at its birth? Is it still relevant? Should it continue? CWA Section 311 and later OPA created a range of response tools to deal with oil and hazmat spills on the waters of the US. They established a public/private solution to spill response. Key components:An expectation that the spiller was responsible and liable to clean up the spill;The National Contingency Plan and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator/FOSC;Establishing expertise on “special teams”: the CG's National Strike Force and EPA's Emergency Response Team;An up-front trust fund available only to the FOSC that pays for removals if the responsible party (RP) does not step forward. The fund exists to:Pre-empt the RP from using delay as a response option, despite the law.Give the FOSC money to quickly hire private response companies, if the RP does not act or if the spill's origin is a mystery. Equally important, the CWA and OPA did NOT designate a government agency to “clean up” oil spills. Rather, the law envisioned private companies performing that role, paid for by the spillers/RP or the 311(k)/OSLTF Fund, under the oversight of the USCG or the EPA. It tasked the USCG with managing this Fund. The Fund achieved its results. The US has a robust private oil spill removal sector that responsible parties hire when needed. If an RP does not act, the CG and EPA FOSCs use the Fund to mobilize those same companies to remove oil spills on US waters. The US economy has grown, as has the number of oil spills reported. Cases each year requiring Fund use have not increased proportionally. Responsible parties continue to clean up their spills, as the CWA envisioned. The Fund retains its ability to respond simultaneously to major spills, even during Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. In forty two years, the Fund has always been available for an FOSC directed removal. The opinions stated in this paper are the author's alone, and do not reflect the official policies of the United States Coast Guard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document