scholarly journals THE APPLICATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM DURING A MARINE OIL SPILL RESPONSE

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-101
Author(s):  
Richard F. Packard ◽  
Richard J. Wozmak ◽  
Kevin D. Trainer
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fuel Oil ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Unified Command

ABSTRACT The response to a marine oil spill incident in the United States involves mobilization of Federal, State, Local, and Responsible Party (RP)-contracted resources, using the National Incident Management System, Incident Command System (NIMS-ICS). The NIMS-ICS utilizing a Unified Command structure provides a mechanism for responding agencies to establish response priorities and implement cleanup strategies. A recent marine oil spill response in Massachusetts demonstrated that the incorporation of specific state environmental regulatory programs within the NIMS Unified Command system could be a challenging, but advantageous element in the successful cleanup of a marine oil spill. On April 27, 2003, a tank barge grounded in Buzzards Bay, spilling approximately 98,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil. Early in the response, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), also the State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC), recognized the importance of utilizing the State'S Licensed Site Professional (LSP) program to assess cleanup effectiveness, characterize residual impacts, and identify clean up endpoints. Massachusetts established the LSP program in 1993 to place greater responsibility for cleaning up sites on the private sector, reduce the burden of approvals on the MassDEP, and to accelerate the cleanup of hazardous wastes sites. The 2003 Buzzards Bay spill was the first time that MassDEP integrated the LSP program into the early stages of a marine oil spill response and the NIMS Unified Command Structure. Including the LSP early in the process also facilitated the transition for conducting LSP-directed clean up after the NIMS Unified Command structure was deactivated. This paper describes the challenges and advantages associated with incorporating a privatized regulatory entity into this well-established and complex organizational matrix. The Massachusetts regulatory structure behind the LSP program is discussed, and recommendations are made for future application of the LSP program in marine oil spill response.

HOW WILL THE NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN AND THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AFFECT OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN THE UNITED STATES1

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 747-753
Author(s):  
Kristy L. Plourde ◽  
LaDonn Hight-Allen ◽  
Denise L. Matthews ◽  
Martin L. Smith ◽  
CDR Jeff Gafkjen
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
National Incident Management System ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Tribal Governments ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Unified Command

ABSTRACT The United States faces a broad range of threats and hazards, both naturally occurring and manmade. Over the past few decades, efforts to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from these varied threats and hazards have evolved into a patchwork collection of special-purpose plans including the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). These plans govern U.S. policy toward hazardous materials releases and oil spill response. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5), Management of Domestic Incidents, mandates the creation of a National Incident Management System (NIMS) and National Response Plan (NRP) to provide a single, comprehensive national approach to incident management. The NRP is intended to integrate the various prevention, preparedness, response and recovery plans into an all-discipline, all-hazard approach. NIMS provides a standard Incident Command System (ICS) for Federal, State, local and tribal government to work together to prepare for and respond to incidents. NIMS ICS includes a core set of concepts, principles, terminology, technologies, multi-agency coordination systems, unified command, training, identification/management of resources, qualification/certification, and the collection, tracking and reporting of incident information and incident resources. Together, the NRP and NIMS provide a standardized framework to ensure that Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations work in partnership to support domestic incident management regardless of cause, size, or complexity of the incident. How does this change what is being done in oil and hazardous materials response? The National Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR 300) notes that “where practicable,” the framework for the response shall use ICS within a Unified Command (UC) system. OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) also require the use of ICS for emergency response. The response community (federal, state, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations) has been using “ICS” in oil spill/HAZMAT response since the early 1990's in the United States. NIMS ICS will be used when responding to oil HAZMAT spills, however, there are differences in ICS implementation between responders in the response community and NIMS ICS will have stricter requirements to improve uniformity in application. These similarities and differences will be discussed at length in this paper.

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO STATE HAS GONE BEFORE1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 761-765
Author(s):  
William Boland ◽  
Pete Bontadelli
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Marine Safety

ABSTRACT The Marine Safety Division of the 11th Coast Guard District and the California Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response are pursuing new avenues to assure that federal, state, and local efforts in California achieve the goals of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1990. Coordination of the seven California area committees, publishing detailed area contingency plans, and the implemention of a memorandum of agreement on oil spill prevention and response highlight recent cooperative successes. In 1994 a joint Coast Guard/state/industry incident command system task force drafted an ICS field operations guide and incident action plan forms that meet National Interagency Incident Management System and fire scope ICS requirements.

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.

Addressing the Uncertainty and Requirements for Oil Spill Response Consultations

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1881-1898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradford Benggio ◽  
Debra Scholz ◽  
Dave Anderson ◽  
Joseph Dillon ◽  
Greg Masson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Planning Stage ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In the United States (U.S.), oil spill response planning, preparedness, and response requirements are dictated primarily by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, a regulation that implements the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Clean Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. At the planning stage, these regulations require the development of national, regional, and local response capabilities and promote overall coordination among responders. During a spill, these capabilities are utilized by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to analyze whether response actions are likely to impact protected resources. The consultation process required under Federal statutes, charges the FOSC to consult with Federal, state, Tribal entities, and other Federal agencies to determine potential effects of response actions during an incident and to develop strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those effects (40 CFR § 300.135(j); § 300.305(e); and § 300.322(a), 1994). Consultations should continue until response operations are concluded and may continue after operations are complete. Four key regulatory mandates that require an FOSC to initiate consultation during a response include:Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended requires consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on federally listed species and designated critical habitats;Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation with NMFS on any action that may affect Essential Fish Habitats;National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended requires Federal agencies to consult with states, federally recognized tribes, and other stakeholders on potential impacts to historic and cultural resources; andTribal Consultations under Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments when federally recognized Indian Tribes and their interests are affected by a response. Consultation is also required under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act when Native American burial sites, human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are identified on Federal or Tribal lands during a response and no pre-consultation plan of action has been developed.1 Consultation requirements are not universally understood, leading to uncertainty and inconsistencies across the response community and Trustees regarding when to initiate and how to conduct the consultations. This paper discusses the Federal consultation requirements and identifies areas of possible uncertainties in the consultation process throughout the pre-spill planning, response, and post-response phases of an incident. This paper will suggest resolutions and recommendations to further enhance the consultation process by the Federal spill response decision-makers and planning bodies.

ICS CONTRIBUTES TO THE NORTH CAPE OIL SPILL RESPONSE1

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 737-742
Author(s):  
LT Tina M. Burke ◽  
LT John P. Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Management System ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Incident Command System ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
The North ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In recent years, the usefulness of the incident command system (ICS) has received much attention. Much of the oil industry and several government agencies involved in all types of emergency response have been using ICS for many years. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard formally adopted the national interagency incident management system (NIIMS) ICS as the response management system of choice in February of 1996. The response to the tank barge North Cape grounding was a complex multiagency effort that brought with it many of the issues and problems responders face when dealing with crisis situations. This paper describes the ICS-based organization that was established to respond to the major North Cape oil spill, analyzes the organization compared to standard ICS, and discusses how the ICS framework and principles contributed to the success of the response. It also explains how closer conformity to standard ICS could have remedied many of the issues that later surfaced as lessons learned, resulting in improved response efficiency. The North Cape response provides a vivid example of how ICS is a helpful management tool that, if rigorously learned and applied in a widespread fashion, can greatly enhance the nation's oil spill response posture.

Taking a Step Back. Exercises as Training Opportunities.

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 1055-1058
Author(s):  
Joseph Gleason
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Personnel Turnover ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Exercise

ABSTRACT Historically, many response exercises conducted by the United States Coast Guard and other oil spill response stakeholders have been conducted as functional or full-scale exercises. With the increased demands placed on many U.S. agencies as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11’ 2001, there is a greater need than ever to ensure that time spent in training and exercises produces positive and tangible results for the participants. In preparation for the joint US/Canadian response exercise, CANUSLANT 2002, the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards decided to take a step back and look at the lessons learned from previous exercises. Based on this review, the Joint Response Team (JRT) decided to focus CANUSLANT 2002 as a training opportunity and to work on the lessons learned that were repeatedly identified in earlier CANUSLANT exercises. Perhaps the most common exercise conducted in oil spill response is the functional “command post” exercise where exercise participants are assigned to ICS (Incident Command System) staff elements. Participants then respond to an exercise scenario and prescripted injects that are provided to drive participant actions. With personnel turnover, transfers, and increased operational demands, many exercise participants struggle through the crisis phase of an incident scenario and never have the opportunity to learn what it is they are supposed to be doing. When all is said and done, many exercise participants are often simply go home happy that the exercise is over and done with. The goal for CANUSLANT 2002 was to produce an exercise where the participants accomplished something tangible; that long pending issues would be discussed and perhaps even resolved. The Exercise Design Team hoped that the participants walked away from the exercise saying that it was time well spent and not simply thankful that the exercise was over. This paper outlines the factors that led to the success of the CANUSLANT 2002 cross border response exercise. This paper also highlights some of the fundamentals for varying your approach to exercises to achieve tangible results while providing personnel the skills and training required to respond in the event of a real disaster.

THE OIL SPILL FIELD OPERATIONS GUIDE (FOG)-NEW AND IMPROVED1

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 987-990
Author(s):  
Kristy Plourde ◽  
Jean R. Cameron ◽  
Vickie Huyck
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Management System ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Petroleum Industry ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
California Department ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The original oil spill Field Operations Guide (FOG) was a product of the Standard Oil Spill Response Management System (STORMS) Task Force comprised of representatives of the U. S. Coast Guard, California Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), other states, the petroleum industry, oil spill response organizations, and local government. The STORMS Task Force produced this first version of the “oilized” Incident Command System (ICS) FOG and Incident Action Plan (IAP) forms in 1994 and made subsequent revisions in 1995 and 1996. With 2 more years of ICS experience and facilitated by the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force, a new group of representatives from federal and state governments, the petroleum industry, and oil spill response professionals met to review and update the 1996 FOG and IAP forms in October 1998. The overall goal was to remain consistent with the National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS) yet reflect the experience gained using ICS at actual oil spills and drills. The group met quarterly over an 18-month period, working collaboratively to reach a consensus on numerous changes. Some of the changes included adding an Environmental Unit to the Planning Section, revising the planning cycle diagram for the oil spill IAP process, and revising the IAP forms as appropriate to reflect the way oil spills are managed. All significant revisions/improvements will be highlighted in this paper and poster.

Optimizing the value of near misses in wildlife response preparedness: The Kulluk Incident

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 2288-2294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curt Clumpner ◽  
Barbara Callahan
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Exercise Program ◽  
Near Miss ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Near Misses ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Specific Incident ◽  
Unified Command ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Mitigating the impact of an oil spill on wildlife is one of the stated priorities in nearly every oil spill. Wildlife in some way is regularly included in drills and exercises in many places around the world. While planning, training, and exercising are critical to wildlife preparedness, responders know that nothing compares to real world experience. In many spills and near miss situations, the Wildlife Branch is not activated until after there are documented wildlife impacts. Most incident management teams will only bring in professional oiled wildlife responders when oiling of wildlife has occurred or is imminent. During the December 2013 response to the Kulluk Tow Incident, a small Wildlife Branch was activated as an integral part of the Incident Command structure put in place. The Wildlife Branch proceeded to provide a detailed plan for an active response, if one was needed. Over the next week, while the rig grounded, refloated and finally towed to a place of refuge, the Wildlife Branch, working with the Environmental Unit, developed a wildlife plan that identified the resources at risk, the wildlife response options and the personnel, equipment and facilities that would be needed if oil were to be released. The Alaska Wildlife Response Center was prepared for activation, wildlife responder's availability, and travel time was documented and incident specific equipment gaps were identified and sourced. Additionally, specific incident plans were developed for hazing (bird deterrence), solid waste and wastewater that stood ready for implementation. While Alaska has a robust preparedness and exercise program, the quick decision by Shell and the Unified Command to ensure wildlife response was in place, if needed, provided a real test of the oiled wildlife response system with all the problems, challenges and changing parameters of a real event. It added real value by showing the public and trustees the importance that was placed on wildlife protection as well as by increasing integration, confidence and teamwork in the Alaskan response community.

INTEGRATED RESPONSE PLANNING FOR OILED WILDLIFE

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 973-976
Author(s):  
Barbara Callahan
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Management Team ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Trained Personnel ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Plan

ABSTRACT Expanding oil development and global transportation of oil has greatly increased the potential for impact on wildlife. This paper will focus on key elements for developing a wildlife response plan as an integral part of an overall spill response plan and will delineate how a well planned and organized wildlife response can be cost effective, can substantially increase the likelihood of saving animals, and can increase regional response capacity. A Wildlife Response Plan as an integral component of an overall spill plan includes professional oiled wildlife responders; current and effective oiled wildlife protocols; knowledge and understanding of standard oil spill response plans, wildlife risk assessments, background information on both the geographic area the plan covers and baseline data on wildlife in the area; and promotes a clear strategy with realistic goals for wildlife response. Just as with an overall spill response plan, a wildlife plan must incorporate safety as an overarching theme and have an action plan including notification systems and action cards showing an overview of each positions responsibilities and decision-making keys. The incorporation of the wildlife response team under the Incident Management (whether an Incident Command System is being used or some other management structure) is critical to the success of any wildlife response because it increases information and resources available to the wildlife group and provides for increased communications between the management team and the wildlife group. In addition, pre-planning for an animal event allows for equipment and other resource procurement prior to spill time. Having a plan that calls for activation and integration of a professional, trained and experienced animal care team into response objectives and activities provides for the care of impacted animals and allows for the most efficient and effective response without the duplication of effort and wasted resources. A professional animal management team with experience in triage and emergency management can make time critical decisions which will allow for the best care for the most animals, thus limiting net wildlife impacts from a spill. Once a wildlife response plan is developed, training to the plan and participating in regular exercises is critical to the success of the plan, just as with all other areas of spill response specialization. Pre-planning for oiled wildlife response - including the use of knowledgeable and trained professionals - greatly increases the likelihood of success of this increasingly visible aspect of oil spill response. Outside of the United States and a few other countries, oiled wildlife has historically not been included as part of spill response for many reasons. Some of those reasons include financial constraints, lack of experienced and trained personnel, and relative unlikelihood of success. In the past, with little pre-planning, few resources for oiled wildlife response, and no clear mandate to respond, oiled wildlife have ended up being at the mercy of well-meaning but often misguided attempts by volunteers and others to treat them. Too often, these efforts have resulted in failure and, ultimately, merely prolonged the suffering of the impacted animals. As with any part of spill response operations, wildlife response can only be successful when properly planned for and resourced. In recent years, it has become evident that with strong preplanning, trained personnel, equipment and other resources, oiled wildlife response can be successful, cost effective, and can pave the way for saving world populations of threatened or endangered animals. Today, there are excellent examples of oiled wildlife response plans which are integral components of overall oil spill plans and include wildlife risk assessments, management structures, access to trained personnel and equipment stockpiles, as well as familiarity with current and effective protocols for treating animals. These plans are dynamic and integrated into the safety and work culture of the plan holders and allow for on-going training of personnel to the plan. Additionally, a strong wildlife response plan will provide for pro-active and immediate action with regard to oiled wildlife which results in greatly increased overall spill response success.

TERRORISM AND OIL SPILLS: WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW AND HOW WE SHOULD RESPOND1

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 743-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael de Bettencourt
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Incident Command

ABSTRACT An act of terrorism resulting in an oil spill triggers a unique set of response considerations that bring diverse agencies together under crisis conditions. To manage such incidents effectively, a systematic approach is needed to standardize incident response, command, and control methods and to better define the planning process for these demanding scenarios. The National Interagency Incident Management System-Incident Command System (NIIMS-ICS) is the common denominator that has been adopted by the United States Coast Guard for oil spill response. This paper highlights recommendations to adopt the NIIMS-ICS nationally for combined law enforcement and environmental response incidents to ensure efficient and effective response methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document