MEXUSPAC: MEXICO/U.S. PACIFIC REGIONAL RESPONSE COORDINATION TEAM1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 959-960
Author(s):  
Daniel Whiting
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mexico City ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Marine Safety ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The Agreement of Cooperation Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and other Hazardous Substances, signed in Mexico City in 1980, provides a framework for cooperation in response to pollution incidents that pose a threat to the waters of both countries. Under this agreement, MEXUSPAC organizes Mexican and U.S. response agencies to plan for and respond to pollution emergencies in the marine environment. The MEXUSPAC contingency plan designates the commandant of the Mexican Second Naval Zone and the chief of the U.S. Coast Guard 11th District Marine Safety Division as the MEXUSPAC Cochairmen, and defines on-scene commanders, joint operations centers, and communications protocols that would be needed to coordinate the response to pollution incidents affecting both countries.

MEXUS PLAN: MEXICO/UNITED STATES BILATERAL RESPONSE PLAN

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 967-968
Author(s):  
Daniel Whiting
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mexico City ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Joint Operations ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Response Plan

ABSTRACT The Agreement of Cooperation Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and Other Hazardous Substances, signed in Mexico City in 1980, provides the foundation for cooperation in response to pollution incidents that pose a threat to the waters of both countries. Under the 1980 agreement, the MEXUS Plan identifies the joint response team, defines the role of the on-scene coordinator, provides a mechanism for rapid incident notification, designates joint operations centers, and lists communications protocols that would be needed to coordinate the response to pollution incidents affecting both countries.

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.

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.

THE NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD

1979 ◽  
Vol 1979 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-122
Author(s):  
James C. Clow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Quality ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Telephone Number ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
National Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The National Response Center (NRC) was established at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, and is an arm of the Council on Environmental Quality. It is a 24-hour center, providing a toll-free telephone number from any point in the continental United States for reports of oil discharges and discharges of other polluting substances. These reports, which may come from individual citizens, federal, state, or local authorities, or others, are relayed to the appropriate on-scene coordinator (OSC—who may be from any appropriate federal agency) for action under the relevant U.S. Government laws and regulations. The NRC also provides a number of other services and functions related to polluting incidents.

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.

The Analysis of Marine Casualties

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. 241-246
Author(s):  
William C. Foster
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Material Damage ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Or Efficiency ◽  
Loss Of Life ◽  
Marine Safety ◽  
The U.S

The Coast Guard is the leading agency in the United States for analysing collision statistics and generally preventing marine casualties. In this paper, which was presented at an Institute meeting held in London on 30 November 1966, Captain William C. Foster, Chief of the Merchant Vessel Inspection Division, Office of Merchant Marine Safety of the U.S. Coast Guard in Washington, describes the manner in which accidents of all kinds are investigated. The lecture was illustrated with examples of some of the extremely detailed forms which those involved in marine casualties are required to complete and of the statistical casualty returns; these are not reproduced here.Marine casualties and accidents, whether or not loss of life is involved, are investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard for the purpose of determining the cause of the casualty and the persons, if any, who are responsible and to obtain information for the prevention of similar casualties. The Coast Guard regulations require the owner, agent, Master, or person in charge of the vessel involved in a marine casualty to notify the nearest marine inspection officer whenever a casualty results which causes physical damage to property in excess of $1500, material damage affecting the seaworthiness or efficiency of the vessel, any stranding or grounding, any loss of life, or injury incapacitating a person for a period in excess of 72 hours. When a casualty occurs in international or foreign waters, this notice is frequently given upon the American vessel's arrival in the continental limits of the United States on forms CG-2692 (Report of Vessel Casualty or Accident) and CG-924E (Report of Personal Injury or Loss of Life).

scholarly journals Planetarium commute accessibility in the United States of America

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander A. Kaurov ◽  
Vyacheslav Bazhenov ◽  
Mark SubbaRao
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Commute Time ◽  
Pandemic Response ◽  
Zip Code ◽  
The U.S

The COVID-19 global pandemic unprecedently disturbed the education system in the United States and lead to the closure of all planetariums that were providing immersive science communication. This situation motivates us to examine how accessible the planetarium facilities were before the pandemic. We investigate the most important socioeconomic and geographical factors that affect the planetarium accessibility using the U.S. Census Bureau data and the commute time to the nearest planetarium for each ZIP Code Tabulated Area. We show the magnitude of the effect of permanent closure of a fraction of planetariums. Our study can be informative for strategizing the pandemic response.

scholarly journals Performing Nordic White Femininity

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-70
Author(s):  
Hélène Ohlsson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
White Femininity ◽  
The U.S

This study is an intersectional investigation of how the first two international Swedish superstars, Jenny Lind (1820–1887) and Christina Nilsson (1843–1921), performed gender, race, nationalism, and class during their respective tours of the United States of America in 1850–1852 and 1870–1872. The purpose is to chart early transatlantic performances of Nordic white femininity and Swedishness as well as to discuss the symbolical values and associations that it signaled. I will argue that Lind and Nilsson set out a template of idealized Nordic white femininity in the U.S. and that they contributed to the growing identity and self-awareness of Swedish-Americans.

American Bureau of Shipping Activities on Behalf of the United States Coast Guard

1984 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 262-269
Author(s):  
John W. Reiter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Working Relationship ◽  
United States Coast Guard ◽  
Long Period ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

The American Bureau of Shipping and the U.S. Coast Guard have enjoyed an excellent working relationship for a long period of time. This paper gives a brief description of both organizations, describes some of the past cooperative arrangements, and details the latest agreement concerning commercial vessel plan review and inspection.

Highlights of the Load Line Conference, 1966

1966 ◽  
Vol 3 (03) ◽  
pp. 271-272
Author(s):  
David B. Bannerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Load Line ◽  
Marine Industry ◽  
The U.S

When it had been decided that a Load Line Conference would be held in 1966, the United States drafted a complete proposed Convention which was based on the work of the United States Load Line Committee, a group sponsored by the Coast Guard, consisting of representatives of both government and the marine industry. This draft was circulated by Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization to all governments in early 1964. Other governments then sent their comments on the U.S. proposal, and all comments were circulated together with the U.S. draft; the USSR prepared a complete draft also, and these were the two basic conference documents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document