Improving Seafood Safety Management after an Oil Spill

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 1303-1310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Yender
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Seafood Safety ◽  
Polycyclic Aromatic ◽  
State And Local

ABSTRACT Recent experience indicates that promptly providing state and local seafood safety managers with key information and assistance during an oil spill response can help prevent unnecessary restrictions on seafood harvest. Efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) to help facilitate and expedite the decision-making process of seafood safety managers after an oil spill include two recently published guidebooks on seafood testing and risk assessment. Of particular interest is a comparison of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criteria established for seafood at past United States oil spills. Depending on assumptions made in the health risk calculations, criteria for shellfish ranged from 5 to 120 parts per billion (ppb) benzo[a]pyrene equivalents. Nearly all seafood samples analyzed at these spills passed established criteria, indicating oil spills in the United States have not posed significant risk to human health through consumption of PAH-contaminated seafood. Seafood marketability has more often been impacted, due to petroleum taint (off-odor or off-flavor). Evaluation of seafood marketability can be facilitated through employment of standardized sensory testing protocols for detecting petroleum taint, such as those recently published by NOAA.

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.

COMPARISON OF OIL SPILL RATES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 947-949
Author(s):  
Gary Yoshioka ◽  
Brad Kaiman ◽  
Eva Wong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Gulf Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Exposure Variable ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACT Recent studies of oil spills of more than 10,000 gallons examined spill rates in certain East Coast and Gulf Coast regions of the United States. Using oil movement data as the exposure variable, these studies found similar spill rates among the regions and over time. This analysis expands upon these earlier studies by examining the California coastal area and by calculating new spill rates using refining capacity as the exposure variable.

MANAGING MULTIPLE OIL SPILLS FROM A NATURAL DISASTER: THE KATRINA OIL SPILL RESPONSES

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1219-1223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Cantin ◽  
Roger Laferriere ◽  
Larry Hewett ◽  
Charlie Henry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hurricane Katrina ◽  
Natural Disaster ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Response Options ◽  
National Response ◽  
Response Plan

ABSTRACT Every nation faces the possibility of a major natural disaster and few plans are in place to deal with the massive consequences that follow. When Hurricane Katrina reached landfall, the human toll and extent of damage made it the worst natural disaster in American history. The news headlines were filled with the images of desperation and the efforts of the thousands of heroes across the spectrum of government who worked tirelessly to help the citizens of the Gulf Coast of the United States recover. Less visible to the American public was the vast environmental impact caused by millions of gallons of oil released by hundreds of individual oil spills. The total oil volume lost to the environment is estimated at over 8.2 million gallons, making it the second largest oil spill in United States history. Moreover, this spill was the first major environmental disaster managed under the newly published National Response Plan, a plan developed following the tragic events of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This paper will describe how response managers overcame the incredible challenges of managing multiple oil spills in an enormous area devoid of the support infrastructure, human resources and the logistics network normally present in major spills within the United States. The authors will offer a first hand account of the strategies employed by the response management system assembled to combat the spills. They will describe key lessons learned in overcoming competition for critical resources; the importance of combining scientific, legal and other support in determining response options such as burning and debris removal; and the methodology employed in creating a Unified Area Command that included multiple responsible parties. Finally, this paper will provide insights to processes within the Joint Field Office, an element of the National Response Plan, and how well it performed in supporting response efforts.

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.

INFORMATION TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS FROM FRESHWATER OIL SPILLS

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 965-966
Author(s):  
David E. Fritz ◽  
Alexis E. Steen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Work Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Petroleum Institute ◽  
Freshwater Habitats ◽  
Human Health Effects

ABSTRACT The American Petroleum Institute (API) has the only program in the United States dedicated to freshwater oil spill research. In existence since 1990, the API Inland Spills Work Group consists of representatives from industry and government. Projects have included a manual prepared with NOAA that evaluates cleanup techniques in order to minimize environmental impacts of spills in freshwater habitats, a literature review and annotated bibliography of environmental and human health effects of freshwater oil spills, a study of chemical treating agents for use in freshwater applications, and an evaluation of in situ burning of oil spilled in marshes.

NOAA OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RESTORATION'S ROLE DURING OIL SPILLS WHERE MARINE MAMMALS ARE INVOLVED

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 991-994
Author(s):  
Troy L. Baker ◽  
Jim Jeansonne ◽  
Charlie Henry ◽  
John Tarpley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Marine Mammal ◽  
Marine Mammals ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Southeast United States ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Unified Command ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT Providing rapid and humane care for distressed or threatened marine mammals is crucial to the ultimate success of such actions. Recently, in the southeast United States, marine mammals were observed in the vicinity of several oil spills. Proper coordination of marine mammal rescue or recovery actions with the Unified Command (UC) is essential for response personnel safety and increased probability of saving the affected animals. In the event of animal mortalities, effective coordination between the marine mammal resource agencies and the UC helps ensure the preservation of causal evidence. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'S (NOAA'S) Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), generally through the NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC), is able to assist the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and UC in addressing the threat of spilled oil on potentially affected marine mammals. Response actions during recent spills included: documenting the animals’ type and location, notification of the marine mammal agencies and teams responsible for their recovery and care, and coordination between the spill response and the marine mammal response. The actions of responders during recent spills involving marine mammals are summarized and relevant issues discussed, including properly characterizing the threat to marine mammals from spilled oil. The recent oil spill responses involving marine mammals in the southeastern U.S. are applicable to future spills throughout the United States and potentially worldwide. These recent incidents underscore the need to fully understand and plan for high profile wildlife issues during oil spill responses.

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.

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.

COMPREHENSIVE OIL SPILL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

1989 ◽  
Vol 1989 (1) ◽  
pp. 513-514
Author(s):  
Charles R. Corbett ◽  
David M. Bovet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
The Public ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
State Liability

ABSTRACT Comprehensive oil spill liability and compensation legislation has eluded the United States for about 12 years, despite the fact that well-crafted legislation would benefit all interested parties. The public would be better protected from catastrophic effects of oil spills; industry (both oil and shipping) would be provided reasonable limits of liability (or alternative measures); and state governments would become full partners in federally funded oil spill responses. Most of the parties who would be affected by oil spill legislation have made substantial contributions and shown increased flexibility since 1984. Still, one major hurdle must be crossed before legislation can become a reality: state liability law preemption.

CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON REVISITED

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017-102
Author(s):  
Scott Knutson ◽  
Craig Dougans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Sands ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Salish Sea ◽  
Response Organization ◽  
International Border

Abstract number: 2017-102The Salish Sea comprises the North American inland marine waters of Washington State and British Columbia; an international border between Canada and the United States intersects it. Planning for oil spills that threaten to cross the international border is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) as described in the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan. As Canadian companies gain approval to construct new pipelines to move oil-sands-derived crude oil from the landlocked province of Alberta to the tidewater province of British Columbia, governments, agencies and citizens are publicly questioning whether current levels of oil spill preparedness and response equipment will be adequate for the increased tanker traffic from Canadian ports. These stakeholders may likewise be unaware of forthcoming spill prevention and response enhancements, by the Canadian government and industry, associated with new energy infrastructure projects.This paper will expand on a 2014 IOSC paper entitled CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON,1 which was a snapshot of regulations, actual inventories and philosophies that made up the 2014 response picture for the south Salish Sea shared between Canada and the United States. In order to see the entire picture, the reader is encouraged to have both documents at hand.2 The updated paper reviews changes to American Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) and Canadian Response organization (RO) equipment inventories, changes to the Canada Shipping Act 2001, Canada's new Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), United States newly implemented non-floating oil ORSO classification, Washington State's oil spill contingency plans and the future buildup of response equipment and personnel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document