CONSENSUS-BASED, CONSOLIDATED CONTINGENCY PLAN1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 927-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger D. Mowery ◽  
Bill Edgar
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Operational Issues

ABSTRACT The authors of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) viewed the key to effective response to be a contingency plan developed by all stakeholders. OPA 90 laid the groundwork for developing true consensus-based contingency plans. Northwest U.S. state and federal agencies have combined the plans of two U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port zones, one Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) region, and three states into one document that addresses general operational and administrative spill response issues. Operational issues that differ among the participants are covered in comprehensive geographic response plans (GRPs).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Coast Guard Peer Exchange Program1

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 1137-1139
Author(s):  
Jeffrey C. Babb ◽  
Glenn Cekus
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Response Team ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Nationwide, the U.S. Coast Guard (CG) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are both tasked with the implementation of several environmental and safety statutes (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act [CERCLA], Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA 90], Clean Water Act [CWA], international Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships [MARPOL], etc.). They share important leadership roles on the National Response Team (NRT), Regional Response Team (RRT) and several other response planning bodies. Often EPA On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and CG OSC representatives work together in oil and chemical response operations and on various planning and exercise committees. However, the joint efforts of both organizations are often impacted by a mutual lack of understanding of each other's authorities, policies, procedures, internal structures, and leadership roles. Even the response zones for CG and EPA are often based on factors other than geography and often may not be well understood. USCG Marine Safety Office (MSO) Chicago and EPA Region V are bridging this gap in understanding by sponsoring a Peer Exchange Program. Representatives from each agency are spending up to a week with the other agency for hands-on training and education. The program was initiated in April 1996 and has produced excellent results. As a result, joint CGIEPA responses run more smoothly, mutual understanding and accessibility are enhanced, and overall public health and welfare and the environment are better protected.

IDENTIFYING AND INCORPORATING SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR INLAND RESPONSE/CONTINGENCY PLANNING

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 993-995
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Underwood ◽  
Robert Pavia
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Response Contingency ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Fish And Wildlife Service ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) requires the Environmental Protection Agency to have oil storage facilities develop response and contingency plans. One of the purposes of the plans is avoidance and minimization of risk and injury to sensitive environments from a potential discharge of oil at the facility. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are collaborating with the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt and modify NOAA's coastal identification and mapping of sensitive environments protocol for inland areas. This will encourage identification and mapping consistency between the two areas and can be applied to other OPA 90 mandated plans.

The Environmental Protection Agency: 1970–2010

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
James K. Conant ◽  
Peter J. Balint
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Atomic Energy Commission ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
White House ◽  
Attention Model ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Incremental Model ◽  
Current Events

The official birthdate of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is December 2, 1970. On that day the Senate confirmed William Ruckelshaus, President Nixon’s nominee to be the administrator of the new agency, and the “EPA opened for business in a tiny suite of offices at 20th and L Streets in Northwest Washington, DC.” The new agency took over programs and offices related to environmental protection previously operating in the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Food and Drug Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Federal Radiation Council. In this chapter, we examine and attempt to explain what happened to this major regulatory agency over the forty-year period from its birth in 1970 to 2010. In doing so, we test hypotheses that follow from the four categories of theoretical agency life cycle models introduced in Chapter 3. These models differ in their predictions for the trajectories of federal agencies. The biological model predicts that agencies will grow rapidly during their early life before reaching a relatively stable maturity. Over subsequent decades agencies may carry on indefinitely with declining vigor, or be absorbed into other agencies, or die, although scholars debate both the process and probability of agency mortality. The partisan political model predicts a more turbulent life history for agencies in which changing party control of Congress and the White House will buffet government organizations more or less routinely. According to this model, federal agencies will often be caught in the middle of partisan ideological battles over the importance and value of the social functions they were created to address. The incremental model suggests that the best predictor of how agencies will fare in the near future is how they have fared in the recent past. That is, agencies tend to be insulated from external political and economic fluctuations and therefore generally experience relatively minor changes over time to their budgets and operations. The issue-attention model predicts that agencies’ fortunes are tied to the vagaries of current events.

Unannounced Drill Program: Testing Spill Management Team Capability through Vessel & Facility Oil Spill Contingency Plans

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017425
Author(s):  
Cassidee Shinn ◽  
Joe Stewart ◽  
Yvonne Addassi
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Program Testing ◽  
Continued Education ◽  
Contingency Plans

California has approximately >10,000 vessels calling its ports each year, and 200–300 facilities state wide, many of which are required to have a California Oil Spill Contingency Plan (Contingency Plan) on file with Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). Spill Management Teams (SMT), either staffed by Contingency Plan holders' employees or contracted out, and the use of the Incident Command System (ICS) structure must be described in these plans. OSPR introduced an unannounced SMT drill program (Program) in 2012 to ensure that Contingency Plan holders can successfully complete the proper initial notifications, activate their SMT, and use ICS in accordance with their approved Contingency Plan and California Code 820.01, Drills and Exercises. There are multiple goals of this Program, including the enhanced capability of SMTs, OSPR, and other partners. This Program provides continued education and training for Contingency Plan holders and SMTs in an effort to bolster the initial response phase of an actual incident. Through these drills, SMTs must demonstrate that they could make proper notifications and decisions during an actual incident and be staffed with trained personnel in ICS to fill positions before State and Federal representatives respond. Additionally, SMTs should deploy resources listed in their approved Contingency Plans and ensure those resources are up to date, available, and sufficient. Furthermore, drills provide an opportunity for OSPR and SMTs to build relationships through testing these procedures, which should make the initial response more efficient and effective. Lastly, the drills are often conducted with representatives from United States Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency, both of which have their own drill programs. Working in conjunction with federal partners ensures continuity and fewer required drills of SMTs. Since the beginning of the Program, SMTs continue to improve their response capabilities, validated by more successfully completed unannounced drills. OSPR has conducted 30 unannounced drills, all of which were on SMTs for marine facilities and vessels. With the expanded authority of OSPR to regulate facilities statewide in 2015, this Program will continue to grow. Ultimately, a more comprehensive Program should lead to enhanced SMT capability statewide, and therefore better protection of the State's natural resources overall. The goal of this poster will be to describe: 1) the history and purpose of this Program; 2) the lessons learned and improvements of SMTs and Contingency Plans; and 3) the expansion of the Program from marine to statewide.

Coast Guard Requirements for Marine Vapor Control Systems

1991 ◽  
Vol 28 (05) ◽  
pp. 270-275
Author(s):  
Robert H. Fitch ◽  
Gordon D. Marsh
Keyword(s):  
Air Quality ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Control Systems ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Safe Operation ◽  
Air Quality Standards ◽  
The U.S

The paper describes the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts to establish regulations for marine vapor control systems that will maintain the safe operation of tankships, tank barges, and waterfront facilities when the more stringent air-quality standards are implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. The reasons for the new standards are given. Marine vapor control systems are described, along with their attendant hazards. The development and nature of the Coast Guard's regulations are described and, finally, international efforts in the area are briefly reviewed.

APPLYING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT'S (NEPA) FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE DOCTRINE TO THE NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP)

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-110
Author(s):  
Jereme M. Altendorf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Contingency Plan

ABSTRACT NEPA is a policy and procedural statute that makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency and department. NEPA was enacted to establish a framework for public review of the environmental impacts of actions carried out by the federal government. NEPA anticipates that most federal actions are planned in detail and are implemented over the course of months or years. This planning and implementation cycle, allows detailed analysis of specific project impacts. Environmental response actions taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the United States Coast Guard (CG) under the regulatory authorities established by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) are also considered specific federal actions. However, the nature of these specific actions varies greatly depending on the exact nature of each incident; therefore traditional NEPA planning is neither possible nor appropriate. The NCP establishes a mechanism of continuous environmental assessment and review through the network of Regional Response Teams (RRT), local emergency area planning committees, Area Contingency Planning (ACP) Committees, and the availability of local area contingency plans to the public on a contingency basis for review or comment. Federal courts have allowed functional equivalence doctrine to apply exclusively to EPA because of their adherence to “substantive and procedural standards ensuring full and adequate consideration of environmental issues.” These decisions have held up the interpretation that NEPA compliance is unnecessary where the agency is independently required to consider environmental issues. The EPA and the CG share the responsibility of protecting public health, welfare, and environment from discharges or threats of discharges of oil and/or releases or threats of a releases of hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants under the planning, preparedness, and response scheme established by the NCP and carried out by those working within the National Response System (NRS). For this reason any planning, preparedness, and response activities undertaken by EPA and CG personnel to mitigate accidental or intentional discharges of oil or releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants within the purview of the NCP should be interpreted as functionally equivalent to the requirements found within NEPA.

REGULATORY APPROACHES TO OILS UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AND THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 19901

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58
Author(s):  
Walter M. Hunt ◽  
J. Gregory Parks
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Pollution Prevention ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Special Programs ◽  
Executive Agencies

ABSTRACT This paper outlines the harmful effects on marine environments of nonpetroleum and petroleum oil spills. The current regulatory regime, as applied by U.S. government agencies concerned with pollution prevention and response, has evolved over the course of a half century through legislative and administrative actions. Congress has been active in setting the stage by passing numerous federal statutes dealing with water pollution. Executive agencies such as the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) have also acted in this area, promulgating regulations to implement the congressional mandates. This paper focuses on the development of the current regulatory regime by examining water pollution statutes passed by Congress since 1924. It then examines how the Coast Guard, the EPA, and RSPA have interpreted their mandates, especially as they relate to nonpetroleum oils under water pollution prevention statutes in various implementing regulations. This paper is based on a paper prepared by the authors for the Coast Guard's Chief of Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.

THE U.S. EPA 1994 NATIONAL SURVEY OF OIL STORAGE FACILITIES

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 923-924
Author(s):  
Janet LaFiandra Weiner ◽  
Jennie DeVeaux ◽  
Paul Brown
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Pollution Prevention ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Storage Facilities

ABSTRACT In an effort to better characterize the facilities regulated by the agency's oil pollution prevention regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a national survey of oil storage facilities that are potentially subject to 40 CFR Part 112 (the 1994 SPCC Facilities Study).

UTILIZING PRIVATE PASSWORD PROTECTED AND LINKED PUBLIC WEB SITES TO ACCOMPLISH PLANNING GOALS1

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 339-341
Author(s):  
Beth Sheldrake
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Puget Sound ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Response Team

ABSTRACT In the Northwestern United States, spill contingency planning occurs through a very collaborative process. Shortly after the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed, the Region 10 Regional Response Team and three Area Committees (Environmental Protection Agency Inland Area Committee and US Coast Guard Coastal Portland and Puget Sound Area Committees) decided to combine contingency planning documents. The result was the publishing of the Northwest Area Contingency Plan (NWACP) which has also been signed by the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. In the late 1990's, these organizations were further combined to form a single planning and preparedness body, the Regional Response Team (RRT) 10/Northwest Area Committee (RRT10/NWAC). In 2003, the RRT10/NWAC launched a new web site to provide all planning and preparedness information in the northwest (www.rrtlOnwac.com). The web site includes the Northwest Area Contingency Plan, 29 Geographic Response Plans, fact sheets, the RRT10/NWAC Strategic Plan, jurisdictional boundary maps, an Area exercise schedule, equipment availability lists, workgroup charters and action plans, meeting minutes, and the ability to submit comments and join a list serv. As a companion to the public web site, a private password-protected extranet portal web site has also been established. This private web site has become an invaluable planning tool to bring the large number of organizations involved in the planning and preparedness process across three states together. It facilitates the rapid and efficient review and comment on documents and the tracking and responding to comments from stakeholders. It also provides a centralized location to post documents to be shared and allows members given access to the private site to interface directly with the public web site by “publishing” certain items from the private to the public web site without going through a Webmaster. The private site also provides a secure location to make sensitive information such as contact names and phone numbers and specific activation and communications plans available to responders but not the general public.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document