HARMONIZING REQUIREMENTS FOR OILS, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN SPILL PREPAREDNESS REGULATIONS1

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
Gary Yoshioka ◽  
Ellinor Coder ◽  
Isabelle Morin ◽  
Mark Landry ◽  
Barbara Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Maritime Transportation ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Vessel Response ◽  
Require Response ◽  
Response Plan ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) enforces regulations for vessel response plans and marine transportation-related facility response plans for oil. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces similar regulations for response plans for non-transportation-related facilities. Proposed USCG rules would require response plans for hazardous substances designated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Other USCG regulations implement provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL 73/78. Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 addresses petroleum pollution, while Annex II identifies and addresses Noxious Liquid Substances (NLSs). The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 gives the USCG authority to require response plans for NLSs under the CWA. There is some overlap, however, in the substances that are listed as NLSs and those that are categorized as oils or designated as CWA hazardous substances. Adding NLSs to the list of substances requiring a response plan has several implications for spill prevention, preparedness, and response programs. Some facilities currently have response plans for oils and may have response plans for CWA hazardous substances in the future. Some NLSs may be hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and response plans for those NLSs must be consistent with spill notification and response requirements under CERCLA. EPA and USCG On-Scene Coordinators must consider these overlapping listings when deciding on the appropriate removal actions for discharges. Facility owners and operators will need to consider their existing response plans when preparing response plans for NLSs. Under the CWA all response plans must be consistent with the National Contingency Plan and Area Contingency Plans.

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.

Integrated Vessel Response Plan Format

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 635-638
Author(s):  
William C. Rogers ◽  
Jean R. Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
West Coast ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Vessel Response ◽  
Response Plan ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Oil shipping companies operating on the West Coast of the United States are subject to international, federal, and state oil spill prevention and response planning regulations. Many companies wrote separate plans for each jurisdiction with the result that tank vessels carried several different plans on board and parent companies faced an administrative burden in keeping plans current. In June 1996, oil shipping company representatives proposed that the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force work with them to develop a format incorporating West Coast states' and U.S. Coast Guard contingency planning requirements. A workgroup comprised of representatives of the Task Force, industry, and the U.S. Coast Guard, working cooperatively, eventually proposed a voluntary integrated plan format based on the key elements of the U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Response Plan. This format allowed correlation with state planning requirements as well as with the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) required by international regulations. The U.S. Coast Guard, the Canadian Ministry of Transport, and all West Coast states have subsequently documented their agreement to accept vessel plans in this format, to coordinate review as needed, and to allow references to public documents such as Area Plans.

Government Initiated Unannounced Exercises (GIUEs): Developing Response Best Practices to Improve Marine Environmental Response Preparedness

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2879-2894
Author(s):  
Christopher Klarmann ◽  
LCDR Johna Rossetti
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
Vessel Response ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Plan ◽  
Marine Environmental

ABSTRACT ID: 2017-101 – GIUEs: Developing Best Practices to Improve Marine Environmental Response Preparedness The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is authorized by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 to conduct Government Initiated Unannounced Exercises (GIUE), a cornerstone of the oil spill exercise cycle. These exercises are instrumental for USCG Captains of the Port (COTP) to evaluate industry preparedness for oil spill response by specifically testing a facility or vessel on notification procedures, response time, and deployment of facility-owned or Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) equipment. Facility Response Plan holders and Vessel Response Plan holders are subject to these exercises under federal regulations 33 C.F.R. § 154 and § 155. In 2013, the USCG restructured their GIUE policy to provide better guidance for employees. This updated policy detailed how to properly plan and conduct a GIUE as well as established expectations following both satisfactory and unsatisfactory exercises. In this paper we will examine the changes that the USCG has made regarding its policy on planning and conducting GIUEs, describe how USCG field units are implementing the new policy, including how unsatisfactory GIUEs are addressed, and examine what commonalities, are being seen in GIUE unsatisfactory results. Finally, we will discuss how plan holders, OSROs, and regulatory agencies can work together to better prepare for responding to an environmental emergency when it occurs.

Revised PREP Guideline Review: What You Should Know?

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 156-172
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Sobieski ◽  
Kathryn L. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Exercise Program ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Vessel Response ◽  
Remote Assessment ◽  
Qualified Individual ◽  
Response Plan ◽  
New Guidelines

ABSTRACT No. 2017 – 296 On April 11, 2016 the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) released the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines. The new guidelines became effective on June 10, 2016 and replaced the previous guidelines issued in 2002. Established under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), the PREP guidelines were developed to provide a mechanism for compliance with response plan drill and exercise requirements under the Act and implementing regulations. Use of the PREP Guidelines is voluntary, however, compliance with the PREP guidelines will satisfy these requirements. The 2016 PREP Guidelines apply to all OPA 90 response plan holders including USCG regulated vessels and marine transportation-related facilities, EPA non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities, PHMSA-regulated facilities and pipelines, BSEE-regulated offshore facilities and area on-scene coordinator (OSC) exercises. The guidelines specify that, within a three-year cycle, all elements of the Facility Response Plan (FRP) or Vessel Response Plan (VRP), including the 15 core components, should be exercised in a drill, or series of drills, involving the Owner/Operator, Qualified Individual (QI), Oil Spill Removal Organizations (OSRO) and Salvage and Marine Firefighting (SMFF) resource providers. This paper will provide an overview of the PREP requirements, including plan holder initiated exercises, the remote assessment and consultation exercises (RACE) for vessels, shore-based tabletop exercises, response equipment deployment exercises, and Government Initiated Unannounced Exercises (GUIEs). As the QI, O’Brien’s has designed, conducted, played, and or evaluated well over 1,000 PREP related activities. This paper will discuss the implementation of PREP from the QI’s perspective, and the identification of some lessons learned and best practices that may be applicable more broadly to support the regulated industry and response community with the implementation of PREP.

ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THE USE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION DURING SPILL RESPONSE

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 1025-1030
Author(s):  
Matthew P. Bernard ◽  
Russ Strach ◽  
Christina Fahy ◽  
Jeremy Rusin ◽  
Travis C. Coley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Biological Assessment ◽  
Critical Habitat ◽  
Fish And Wildlife Service ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Endangered Species and the use of a Biological Opinion During Spill Response In 2001, six Federal agencies signed an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding Oil Spill Planning and Response Activities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agencies participating in the MOA include the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's—National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and National Ocean Service (NOS). In the MOA, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS determined that oil spill response activities qualify as an emergency action, as defined by regulations implementing the ESA in 50 CFR 402.02. As such, the emergency continues to exist until the removal operations are completed and the case is closed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.320(b). To reduce the burden of processing emergency consultation paperwork during every routine oil spill clean-up action that occurs in the Northwest, the USCG and the EPA initiated formal consultation (pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14(c)) with the Northwest Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries on November 12, 2002, and submitted a programmatic biological assessment (BA). The Aassessed the effects of most response activities on ESA-listed species that may be present in the inland waters of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (salmonids) and the offshore waters out to 200 nautical miles (salmonids, large whales, Steiler sea lion, and sea turtles). On November 6, 2003, NOAA Fisheries completed and signed the nation's first programmatic biological opinion (BO) on oil spill response activities. While NOAA Fisheries determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the agency included reasonable and prudent measures with non-discretionary terms and conditions. The terms and conditions now serve as a “job aid” for oil spill responders in the Northwest and ensure that effects on listed species and their critical habitat are minimized during most response methods that are used. There has been some disagreement regarding the value of conducting formal consultation prior to an actual oil spill event. In addition to the upfront staff time and related costs, there is always the possibility that an incident-specific BA and BO may still have to be done. Moreover, the USCG and EPA have not yet initiated an analogous programmatic consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) so incident-specific consultations are ongoing for ESA-listed species under their jurisdiction. This paper presents the background, process, and outcomes (including pros and cons) in the development of a successful programmatic consultation on oil spill activities.

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.

AN ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY IN MONITORING OIL SPILLS

1979 ◽  
Vol 1979 (1) ◽  
pp. 313-316
Author(s):  
William F. Croswell ◽  
John C. Fedors
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Space Technology ◽  
Bureau Of Land Management ◽  
Space System ◽  
Use Of Space ◽  
The Status ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Congress has directed NASA to conduct an assessment of the potential use of space technology in the monitoring of oil spills and ocean pollution. As a result, laboratory studies, aircraft missions, and spacecraft studies are underway to perform this assessment with the cooperation of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. Primary emphasis in the space system will be directed toward all-weather remote sensing and surveillance in which the space system would provide information to regulatory agencies for closer investigation with aircraft or ships. Laboratory and aircraft missions will be directed toward understanding and obtaining simultaneous microwave and optical imagery of oil spills on the sea with instruments of potential usefulness in the modeling of the movement of spills, along with detection and surveillance image definition. This paper summarizes the status of these efforts as of late 1978. Initial results of the required assessment should be available by the end of 1979.

ESA Section 7: Time for a Refresh in the Pre-Spill Planning Consultation Process

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-192
Author(s):  
Stacey L. Crecy ◽  
Melissa E. Perera ◽  
Elizabeth J. Petras ◽  
John A. Tarpley
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Service Agency ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT #2017-373 Federal agencies involved in oil spill response in the U.S. are required to comply with several environmental compliance laws. Where a Federal agency is operating in a way that may affect endangered species in the area, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the agency to “consult” with the two Federal agencies responsible for protecting those species and habitats – the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, nonprofit organizations filed several lawsuits against the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the “Action Agencies”) for failure to comply with the ESA during oil spill contingency planning. In one case, a settlement required the Action Agencies to consult with the NMFS and USFWS (together, called the “Services”) on the plan to use oil spill dispersants in California waters. Perhaps responding to these developments, several Regional Response Teams across the country initiated or made plans to review the status of their ESA Section 7 consultations. These efforts have varied in cost, scope, composition of agency representatives involved, and success in completing a consultation for a variety of reasons. There have been numerous challenges for USCG and EPA in meeting the ESA Section 7 consultation requirements for oil spill planning. First, the most recent framework for cooperation between the Action Agencies and the Services regarding consulting on oil spill planning and response activities is contained in an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 2001. Although the agreement is still valid, some parts have been identified as outdated or in need of clarification. Secondly, there are no direct funding mechanisms or dedicated personnel assigned to the Action Agencies to work on pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultations. Third, recommendations and consultation outcomes can vary between Service agencies as well as internally within each Service agency due to a high level of regional autonomy. In 2015, the National Response Team (NRT) formed a new, interagency subcommittee to improve the Federal Action Agencies’ ability to comply with environmental laws such as the ESA with respect to oil spill response and pre-spill planning. A workgroup of the NRT Subcommittee was formed to specifically address pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultation processes. The workgroup includes regional and national representatives from the Action Agencies and the Services. In addition to strengthening relationships and understanding among the participating agencies, the workgroup has identified gaps in the 2001 MOA and is in the process of developing tools and templates on how to conduct pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultations to help fill some of the existing gaps. The workgroup ultimately hopes to facilitate the development of updated, complete, efficient, and consistent ESA Section 7 consultations across the nation.

VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS: FORGING BETTER PLANS THROUGH INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT COOPERATION

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 443-446
Author(s):  
Charles Corbett ◽  
Svein Ringbakken
Keyword(s):  
Coast Guard ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
Vessel Response ◽  
Response Plan

ABSTRACT The vessel response plan process of review and the substance of the existing requirements are in need of review and refinement. Both vessel operators and, we believe, the Coast Guard are overwhelmed with a paperwork burden that should be relieved, and can be relieved. Additionally, there are a number of issues that require attention to ensure that all interested parties are reacting to the provisions of the final rule (as amended, we suggest) in a constructive manner. This paper proposes a joint industry/government forum in which dialogue can occur, and it offers examples of why that dialogue is needed.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document