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.

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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals New Risk-Based Framework for Oil Spill Response Planning Requirements – Ports and Oil Terminals – A Brazilian Study Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cochrane Esteves ◽  
Anna Carolina Pereira ◽  
Rodrigo Zapelini Possobon ◽  
Gustavo Xavier
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Resource Sharing ◽  
Rio De Janeiro ◽  
Task Force ◽  
International Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Capability

Abstract In 2000, Brazil experienced its most relevant oil spill accident until today: 1.3 thousand cubic meters (c.m.) of crude oil were leaked from a pipeline to the waters of Guanabara Bay, in Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, in 2001 the Government implemented a federal legislation requiring oil spill response plans (OSRP) which was strongly inspired in the United States requirement for ports and terminals. In 2016, an interdisciplinary task force was initiated to improve this legislation. Thus, a new risk-based framework was developed in order to better engage some of the environmental and social-economical complexities of Brazil as adequate inputs for the oil spill response planning process. This methodology was expanded from the guidelines published by International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP). First, the concept of sensitive receptors were introduced to describe any valuable element that can be harmed by the spill. These were selected from environmental sensitivities, protection areas, wildlife occurrence, human occupation, tourism and fisheries, among others. These criticalities were categorized in five classes using an oil slick forecast modelling results for different spill volumes such as the minimum time to reach these receptors and oiling probability. After this, they were associated with certain spill volumes, resulting in three possible requirement levels. Consequently, the minimum response capability demand for the facility is calculated, as well as tactical and logistics plans. This new approach not only optimizes the allocation of first response equipment at the highest risk spots, but also regulates the sharing of these capabilities when there is a concentration of these facilities. In this paper, this methodology was applied to a major oil terminal located in a high sensitivity area at Ilha Grande Bay, in Rio de Janeiro. The worst-case scenario was around 6.923 c.m., which allowed the identification of 116 vulnerable receptors. Of these, 02 were identified as having high criticality and, therefore, were prioritized for response planning. The minimum nominal response capability was estimated as being equal to 4.760 m3/day for full deployment condition after the initial 60 hours. This value is about 25% higher than that predicted in facility's existing OSRP. However, with the application of resource sharing rules, the amount of equipment staged on site is equal to only 1298 m3/d, allowing a significant optimization due to logistics processes after the initial 24h.

OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-66
Author(s):  
Sharon K. Christopherson ◽  
Paul M. Slyman
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
River Estuary ◽  
Columbia River ◽  
The United States ◽  
Columbia River Estuary ◽  
Entire Area ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Plan

ABSTRACT The Columbia River Estuary lies along the Washington-Oregon state boundary on the west coast of the United States. The entire area is environmentally very sensitive with numerous large, shallow bays, exposed mud flats, wetland areas, and central channels having maximum currents of three to four knots. These features make the area very difficult to protect from an oil spill. Spill response is further complicated because of the many different state, federal, and local jurisdictions with mandated responsibilities in oil spill response and environmental protection. Under the leadership of the U. S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Portland, Oregon, a steering group was established to guide the development of a response plan for the Columbia River Estuary. A concerted effort was made to include representatives from response organizations, natural resource agencies, and resource users from federal, state, and local governments, and commercial sectors in the planning process. The first draft of an operational response plan was completed the summer of 1992 through a combination of technical workshops, field trips, and small working groups meeting with local communities. The Columbia River Estuary Response Plan prioritizes areas to protect; identifies specific response strategies for protecting these areas; and outlines the logistics needed to implement these strategies, including equipment needs, the location of staging areas, and the identification of pre-designated command posts. The local spill response cooperative and oil transportation industry are using the plan to coordinate the purchase of response equipment and the staging of this equipment at numerous locations along the river. Key to the success of the plan is ensuring that all the groups responding to an event participate in the planning process together. This process has worked well for the Columbia River Estuary and will serve as a model for response planning for other environmentally sensitive areas along the Columbia River and coastal areas of Washington and Oregon.

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN, SUBPART J PRODUCT SCHEDULE (40 CFR 300.900)

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1479-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900), which lists dispersants, surface-washing agents (SWAs), bioremediation agents, surface-collecting agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the United States, depending on the product and its proper application. Over the last few years, alternative oil spill response methods have been gaining in acceptance and use in the field among first responders, industry, state and federal agencies, Congress, and the entire oil spill response community. EPA sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use these products. Manufacturers and vendors of these products have become more aware of this acceptance evidenced by the frequency that EPA is contacted to provide information on the listing process and EPA policy regarding their use. The number of applications to add new products to the Subpart J Product Schedule has increased over the last year. Subpart J is very prescriptive and specific in directing manufacturers to perform the proper test within the proper protocols, yet many applications are rejected or need modification because of errors in testing procedures or data reporting. This paper will address the data needed to list a product under each category and will clarify issues related to the Product Schedule. It will also address the policies that EPA uses to enforce the Subpart J regulation. The author has managed the Product Schedule for over 3 years, and his experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, SWAs, chemical sorbents, and other technologies have sparked controversy and confusion in all regions and areas of the United States, and in some cases internationally. Many research efforts have added to the baseline knowledge we have about dispersants and bioremediation agents' toxicity, efficacy, and proper use, but conflicts still arise as that data is interpreted and applied in the field. The reader will have a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and describe the authority to use them based on EPA policy.

Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Planning: Going Beyond “What” your Going to do

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 603-606
Author(s):  
Jerry A. Hubbard ◽  
William W. Whitson
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Management Team ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Management Planning ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Group

ABSTRACT A review of the law and responsibilities for oil spill response reveals a need for taking oil spill response incident management planning beyond just describing what will be done, to a new level that describes specifically who will do it. Facilitating the development of an effective management team in the first 24–48 hours of a spill is critical to setting the response operations in a positive motion, and ultimate success. The development of a draft Incident Command System (ICS) structure to meet the expectations of a Type II incident and pre-identification of personnel for specific assignments will enable a more cohesive personnel qualification process, training and exercises focused on general incident management, and ultimately a better prepared cadre of response personnel. The vision for Coast Guard District Thirteen is a District Response Group that is organized into a defined and pre-approved ICS structure, with these expectations set. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan requires the Coast Guard to form District Response Groups. By definition, this is all personnel and every asset the Coast Guard has within each District. However, this does not speak to the qualifications of these personnel, or address the tasking some units may receive, both of which are known. In the early hours of a major spill, confusion reigns and calls for help are made. This can be a call for help that is specific, such as the number of beach monitors, OPS Section Chiefs, or Check-in Recorders that are needed, or the more likely request is to send whoever is available. The latter is not likely to enable success if well intentioned but inexperienced management personnel show up. If we know who is available within the Coast Guard district, then we know our strengths. Therefore, we also know our weaknesses, and can identify gaps. By identifying our ICS structure, we can examine our resources, needs, and expectations; and have a plan that works while remaining flexible. There is no need to assemble a management team on the fly in the first 24 hours of a spill.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document