Development and Implementation of Guidelines for Federal On-Scene Coordinators for Protecting Historic Properties

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 363-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan C. Thorman ◽  
Pamela Bergmann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Historic Preservation ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
National Response ◽  
Response Team

ABSTRACT In 1997, the National Response Team completed a Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic Properties during Emergency Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This agreement, which was drafted by a National Response Team ad hoc committee consisting of representatives of National Response Team member agencies, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, has important ramifications for federal On-Scene Coordinators and responsible parties conducting spill response in the United States. The purpose of the Programmatic Agreement is to ensure that historic properties are appropriately taken into account in planning for and conducting emergency response to oil spills and hazardous substance releases under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The agreement provides a uniform, nationwide approach to considering and protecting historic properties before and during an emergency response. Signatories, which include the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency, agree to implement this Programmatic Agreement or to develop and then implement regional Programmatic Agreements that are consistent with the nationwide Programmatic Agreement and the National Historic Preservation Act. As of September 1998, implementation of the nationwide Programmatic Agreement and development of regional Programmatic Agreements were just beginning by Regional Response Teams and federal On-Scene Coordinators throughout the United States. The Alaska Regional Response Team, whose development of regional cultural resources guidelines in the early 1990s led to the development of the nationwide Programmatic Agreement, had begun preparing a document on implementation of the nationwide Programmatic Agreement in Alaska. The emergency response provisions of the nationwide Programmatic Agreement were implemented for the first time in the November 1997, M/V Kuroshima spill near Dutch Harbor, Alaska. The major lesson learned from this incident with regard to the nationwide Programmatic Agreement is that its provisions are workable and can contribute to the overall success of the response.

Industry and Government Roles in Addressing Historic Properties in Oil Spill Response: Lessons Learned From A Recent Exercise and Incidents

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 693-697
Author(s):  
Tina M. Toriello ◽  
Jan Thorman ◽  
Pamela Bergmann ◽  
Richard Waldbauer
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
National Response ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on industry and government roles for addressing historic properties during oil spill response. In 1997, the National Response Team (NRT) developed a Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic Properties during Emergency Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (PA) (National Response Team, 1997). At the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference (IOSC), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) representatives discussed the development and implementation of the PA, which is intended to ensure that historic properties are appropriately taken into account during the planning for and conducting of emergency response to oil spills and hazardous substance releases. Following the 1999 IOSC, DOI and Chevron representatives began a dialog regarding industry and government roles under the PA. Chevron invited the DOI representatives to participate in an October 1999 large-scale, industry-led spill exercise; a precedent-setting drill that included historic properties protection as a key objective. This 2001 paper focuses on how industry and government have worked together to protect historic properties, government roles in PA implementation, and lessons learned. As an example of what industry can do to support the protection of historic properties during planning and response activities, this paper describes Chevron's Historic Properties Program, a program managed under its emergency spill response environmental functional team (EFT). A discussion of lessons learned focuses on the need for clear definition of industry and government roles, and the benefits of building a foundation of cooperation between industry and government to protect historic properties. Of particular importance is the inclusion of historic properties in all aspects of oil spill preparedness and response, including planning, drills, training, and response organization structure and staffing. Experience from incident response in Alaska has shown that the PA assists Federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSCs) and responsible parties, while also protecting historic properties, when the FOSC is prepared to implement the PA promptly and effectively.

scholarly journals ESA Section 7: Pre-spill Planning Updates and Emergency Consultations

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
LCDR John LaMorte
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Response Team ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service

ABSTRACT In 2001 the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (collectively referred to as Action Agencies) along with the Department of the Interior's (DOI) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the Services) signed the 2001 Inter-agency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)1. The purpose of this 2001 MOA was to “identify and incorporate plans and procedures to protect listed species and designated critical habitat during spill planning and response activities” (USCG, EPA, USFWS, and NMFS, 2001). The procedures outlined in the 2001 MOA are based on the need to meet legal requirements set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300 [40 CFR § 300]), the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.]. The 2001 MOA established procedures to improve the conservation of listed species and the oil spill planning and response procedures delineated in the NCP. Streamlining this process is required by section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. (USCG, 2018). The MOA also coordinates the consultation requirements specified in the ESA regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 402, with pollution response responsibilities outlined in the NCP. It addresses three areas of oil spill response: 1) pre-spill planning activities; 2) spill response event activities; and 3) post-spill activities. (USCG, 2018). Though this document outlined procedures for how the Action Agencies and the Services were to comply with ESA Section 7, there still existed ambiguities and lack of national level guidance on how agencies were to comply with ESA Section 7. More specifically, these concerns pertained to pre-spill, emergency, and post-response operations. To alleviate the demand in the field for further ESA Section 7 guidance the National Response Team (NRT)2 established the NEC Subcommittee which quickly began developing guidance for federal agencies in order to assist these agencies maintain environmental compliance for oil and hazardous substance incident response operations. This paper will provide an update from the 2017 IOSC ESA presentation, discuss what products the NEC is currently developing and how previous NEC products have since been implemented.

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.

DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION GUIDELINES FOR ALASKA'S ON-SCENE COORDINATORS

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 941-942
Author(s):  
Pamela Bergmann
Keyword(s):  
Historic Preservation ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Emergency Procedures ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Require Response ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

ABSTRACT In recognition that oil spills and hazardous substance releases typically require response actions within the first 24 hours, the Alaska Regional Response Team (RRT) has developed draft Cultural Resources Protection Guidelines for Alaska to establish an emergency procedure for taking cultural resources into account during responses and to ensure that response actions comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. The draft guidelines were developed in consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The mechanism for formally establishing the guidelines’ emergency procedures is a programmatic agreement, which will be signed by appropriate federal and state agencies’ historic preservation officials.

National Multiagency Oil And Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency Plan

1969 ◽  
Vol 1969 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Hyland
Keyword(s):  
Pollution Control ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Hazardous Materials ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Counter Measures ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Regional Headquarters ◽  
Response Team

Abstract The National Multiagency Contingency Plan, prepared at the Direction of the President, provides a mechanism for coordinating the Federal response to a spill of oil or other hazardous materials. Agencies signatory to the Plan are: Department of the Interior; Department of Transportation; Department of Defense; Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and Office of Emergency Preparedness. The objectives of this Plan are: to develop appropriate preventive and preparedness measures and effective systems for discovering and reporting the existence of a pollution spill; to institute, promptly, measures to restrict the further spread of the pollutant; to assure that the public health and welfare are provided adequate protection; to apply techniques to cleanup and dispose of the collected pollutants; and to institute actions to recover cleanup costs and to effect enforcement of existing Federal statutes. The Plan is effective for all United States navigable waters and contiguous zone. The President has established the policy that appropriate Federal resources will be used for dealing with the pollution aspects of oil or hazardous substance spill problems and to protect our natural resources from their consequences. A primary thrust of regional plans is to encourage the person responsible for the discharge of oil or other hazardous substances to remove the pollutant or adequately mitigate its effects. The National Response Team (NRT) consists of representatives of the signatory agencies and acts as an emergency response team to be activated in the event of a pollution incident involving oil or other hazardous materials. The Regional Response Center (RRC) is the regional headquarters site for pollution control activities under this Plan. Coordination and direction of Federal pollution control efforts at the scene of a pollution incident is accomplished through an On-Scene Commander (OSC). The OSC is the single executive agent predesignated by the regional plan to coordinate and direct such pollution control activities in each area of the region. The actions taken to respond to a spill or pollution incident can be separated into five relatively distinct phases. For descriptive purposes these are: Phase I. Discovery and Notification; Phase II. Containment and Counter-measures; Phase III. Cleanup and Disposal; Phase IV. Restoration; and Phase V. Recovery of Damages and Enforcement.

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 “ONE PLAN” PROJECT: GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY WORKING TO SIMPLIFY FACILITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-263
Author(s):  
Jim Staves ◽  
Jim Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Environmental Groups ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Response Team ◽  
State And Local

ABSTRACT The current approach to preparedness for oil and hazardous materials spills in the United States is a maze of federal, state, and local programs that often overlap. The National Response Team (NRT), in cooperation with the Region 6 Response Team (RRT), has developed a contingency plan format that simplifies existing federal regulatory requirements into a single integrated contingency plan (ICP). This format, which was developed by a working group chaired by the EPA Region 6, with representatives from government, industry, labor, and environmental groups, can be used as a model for cooperative projects involving the public and private sectors. The purpose of the ICP is to simplify emergency response plans at facilities. A facility using the ICP format would benefit from the reduced costs of maintaining and updating plans and from the simplified training for responders. Use of the ICP format should also reduce confusion about which plan to use during a response and should improve coordination between facilities and state and federal response agencies.

scholarly journals UNITED STATES NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM GUIDELINES FOR PLACES OF REFUGE DECISION-MAKING FOR VESSELS NEEDING ASSISTANCE

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1057-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Bergmann ◽  
Mark DeVries
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
National Response ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Region 10

ABSTRACT The major oil spills that resulted from the T/V ERIKA and M/V PRESTIGE breaking up and sinking off the coasts of France in December 1999 and Spain in November 2002, respectively, underscored the need for regulatory authorities, natural resource trustees, and other stakeholders to conduct pre-incident planning for vessels needing assistance. Both of these incidents provided the impetus for the development of places of refuge guidelines. By the end of 2003, both the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Australian Government had developed guidelines for places of refuges decision-making. By the end of 2006, places of refuge guidelines had also been developed and adopted by a number of entities in North America; including, the Alaska, Region 9, and Region 10 Regional Response Teams (RRTs) and the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force (Pacific States/BC Task Force). In August 2006, the United States (U.S.) National Response Team (NRT) created an NRT Places of Refuge Workgroup (NRT POR Workgroup) to develop nationwide places of refuge guidelines for use throughout the U.S. The resulting NRT Guidelines for Places of Refuge Decision-Making (NRT POR Guidelines), which were approved by the NRT in July 2007, were based on the places of refuge guidelines developed (and adopted) by the Alaska RRT in 2004. This paper provides an overview of the development of the NRT POR Guidelines, a brief overview of key elements of the document, and a discussion of the successful implementation of the concepts included in the NRT POR Guidelines in five incidents in Alaska.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document