The Refugio Oil Spill Response: Case Study and Lessons’ Learned/Best Practices for the Future

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-123
Author(s):  
Yvonne Najah Addassi ◽  
Julie Yamamoto ◽  
Thomas M. Cullen
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Santa Barbara ◽  
California Department ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Santa Barbara County ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The Refugio Oil Spill occurred on May 19, 2015, due to the failure of an underground pipeline, owned and operated by a subsidiary of Plains All-American Pipeline near Highway 101 in Santa Barbara County. The Responsible Party initially estimated the amount of crude oil released at about 104,000 gallons, with 21,000 gallons reaching the ocean. A Unified Command (UC) was established consisting of Incident Commanders from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), Santa Barbara County, and Plains Pipeline with additional participation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California State Parks. Within hours, the CDFW closed fisheries and the following day Governor Brown declared a state of emergency for Santa Barbara County. The released oil caused heavy oiling of both on and offshore areas at Refugio State Beach and impacted other areas of Santa Barbara and Ventura. A number of factors created unique challenges for the management of this response. In addition to direct natural resource impacts, the closure of beaches and fisheries occurred days before the Memorial Day weekend resulting in losses for local businesses and lost opportunities for the public. The Santa Barbara community, with its history with oil spills and environmental activism, was extremely concerned and interested in involvement, including the use of volunteers on beaches. Also this area of the coast has significant tribal and archeologic resources that required sensitive handling and coordination. Finally, this area of California’s coast is a known natural seep area which created the need to distinguish spilled from ‘naturally occurring’ oil. Most emergency responses, including oil spills, follow a similar pattern of command establishment, response and cleanup phases, followed by non-response phase monitoring, cleanup and restoration. This paper will analyze the Refugio oil spill response in three primary focus areas: 1) identify the ways in which this spill response was unique and required innovative and novel solutions; 2) identify the ways in which this response benefited from the ‘lessons’ learned from both the Deepwater Horizon and Cosco Busan oil spills; and 3) provide a summary of OSPR’s response evaluation report for Refugio, with specific focus on how the lessons learned and best practices will inform future planning efforts within California.

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.

scholarly journals Examination of Current BSEE Oil Spill Response Research Efforts

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen N. Stone ◽  
Jay J. Cho ◽  
Kristi J. McKinney
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Naval Research ◽  
Development Effort ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

Abstract No.:1141265 In the decade following the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, considerable research and development has been accomplished to address known research gaps to respond to offshore oil spills; however, opportunities to enhance spill response capabilities remain. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is the lead agency in the U.S. regulating energy production on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. BSEE's Oil Spill Response Research (OSRR) program is the principal federal source of oil spill response research to improve the detection, containment, treatment/cleanup of oil spills and strives to provide the best available information, science, research, and technology development to key decision makers, industry, and the oil spill response community. The paper will highlight several key collaborative projects with federal and industry stakeholders including System and Algorithm Development to Estimate Oil Thickness and Emulsification through an UAS Platform and Methods to Enhance Mechanical Recovery in Arctic Environments. Additionally, the paper will provide an update on the Development of a Low-emission Spray Combustion Burner to Cleanly Burn Emulsions where we partnered the Naval Research Laboratory and met with industry representatives to incorporate their needs in the final phases of the development effort.

scholarly journals Evolution of Contingency Planning in California – a Federal and State Coordinated Effort

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassidee Shinn ◽  
Anna Burkholder
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
California Department ◽  
Joint Preparation ◽  
New Process ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Sensitive Site

ABSTRACT U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) agreed to the joint preparation of oil spill contingency plans following the enactment of California and federal laws in 1990. With little guidance initially, six Area Committees embarked on a new process to create the first coastal Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) in 1992. In 2015, when emergency regulations to expand OSPR's jurisdiction statewide became effective, developing inland Geographic Response Plans (GRPs) became a top priority. Over the last 30 years, the ACPs have evolved into robust, nationally recognized planning documents, and response plans have expanded into inland environments. This paper will describe in detail the contributions and advancements in California oil spill contingency planning over 30 years. It will highlight OSPR's approaches for statewide consistency and coverage, interoperability between various state and federal plans, tools (including Geographic Information System (GIS) and various databases), improved sensitive site contacts and management, and lessons learned. It will also cover goals for future improvements in both marine and inland contingency plans.

A Guide to Response Evaluation for Oil Spill Combat in Japan

1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-91
Author(s):  
Ken Matsumoto
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Industry ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Response Evaluation ◽  
Response Elements ◽  
Future Improvement ◽  
The Future ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Overall Performance

ABSTRACT There are many ways to evaluate the overall performance of an oil spill response operation. There is, or there should be, however, a common standpoint for looking at such operations, irrespective of the size of the spill. Lessons learned through an incident, however trivial, can provide valuable clues to the future improvement of the operation in refineries and oil terminals. But the number of incidents at one location is too few to stand the test of analysis. Evaluation by a variety of methods is now possible based on information and data available through the worldwide news and reporting networks. This paper presents a guideline, which is widely accepted by the Japanese oil industry, for evaluating responses to oil spills, and introduces a concise equation based on the rating of many response elements.

MANAGING RISKS OF EXPLOSION DURING OIL RECOVERY, STORAGE, AND TRANSFER OPERATIONS

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 427-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry A. Romberg ◽  
Dennis M. Maguire ◽  
Richard L. Ranger ◽  
Rod Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Additional Risk ◽  
Operational Risks ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT This paper examines explosion hazards while recovering spilled oil utilizing oil spill recovery barges. The risk of static accumulation and discharge is well understood after thorough investigations of several incidents in the 1970s and 1980s involving explosions on tank barges and vessels during petroleum cargo loading and unloading operations. However, those lessons learned only partially apply to oil spill recovery operations due to the differences in liquid properties, crew training, and additional tasks required during an oil spill response. While regulatory standards have been enacted for petroleum tankers and barges involved in commercial transportation of oil and other hazardous materials, the utility of these standards for oil spill response vessels has not been fully considered. Inverviews were conducted with marine transporters and response organizations to understand the wide range of operational risks and mitigation proceedures currently in use. This paper outlines the four basic conditions that must be present to create a static discharge-induced explosion during liquid cargo operations. A review of explosion casualty history was completed for cargo operations and compared to operations that create similar hazards during oil spill recovery operations. Specific processes that create additional risk of static-induced explosions during response operations were studied to review mitigation actions. Finally, recommendations for continued training are provided to help guide the spill response community when preparing for and responding to oil spills.

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.

A WORKSHOP FOR DEFINING THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE

1977 ◽  
Vol 1977 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. H. Putnam
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Petroleum Industry ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Santa Barbara ◽  
California Department ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In 1970, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan was introduced. This plan, which imposed a planning sequence that flowed downward from the federal government, caused considerable confusion at local levels because of its failure to fully explain how local governments were to participate. To amplify the plan and overcome this shortcoming, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Coast Guard and the petroleum industry joined in 1974-75 to sponsor a series of oil spill workshops for local governments. The goal was to define the role of local jurisdictions in the planning process and illustrate through simulated problems how this role was to be carried out. The workshop described in this paper and a subsequent workshop in Santa Barbara dispelled the confusion of local governments over their roles in oil spill action and resulted in enthusiastic acceptance of the plan itself. A similar technique could be used in any other broadscale planning effort that is committed to seeking knowledgeable local participation.

Responding to Oil Spills in Louisiana's Coastal Floating Marshes: Ecology, Oil Impact, and Response Alternatives

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 625-629
Author(s):  
Charlie Henry ◽  
Charles E. Sasser ◽  
Guerry O. Holm ◽  
Kevin Lynn ◽  
John Brolin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Floating Marsh ◽  
Long Term Impact ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT Freshwater marshes cover 4000 square kilometers of the Louisiana coastal zone and are the most abundant marsh habitat type. Many of these marshes actually float as organic mats on underlying water. Some estimates suggest as much as 70% of Louisiana's coastal freshwater marsh are of the floating variety. The slow flow of water characteristic of these environments generally transports very little sediment. As a result, the marsh substrate is composed of primarily live and dead organic matter (peat formation) rather than mineral sediments. Since floating marshes are structurally different than intertidal marsh habitats, many traditional oil spill response options are ineffective or inappropriate. Access to the marsh is often limited since there is no open water ingress and the marsh structure cannot support the weight of equipment. Oil spill response options are further complicated when the source of the oil is a pipeline leak located below the floating marsh mat; spilled oil is free to travel at the interface of the underlying water and mat. Protection booming is impossible. Oil impacts often result in the death of all the living plants that are integral to the formation and sustainability of the habitat. This paper reports on two oil spills in a floating marsh near Paradis, Louisiana that occurred eight years apart. Both spills were spatially close to each other, which provided an excellent comparison for assessing potential long-term impact from oil spills in floating marshes. During both oil spill responses, unique response techniques were developed to recover spilled oil and enhance marsh recovery. An effective technique was to rake away and remove the dead oil-contaminated surface plant debris from the site and employ sorbent recovery. Lessons learned from these responses were used to develop mitigation guidance for future responses.

Environmental Damage Liability Regimes Concerning Oil Spills - A Global Review and Comparison

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 2172-2192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara J. Goldsmith ◽  
Tara K. Waikem ◽  
Tara Franey
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Liability ◽  
Environmental Damages ◽  
The World ◽  
Offshore Oil

ABSTRACT Recently, there have been a number of key developments related to oil spill-related liability worldwide. These developments include: the recent expansion of damages under the European Union Environmental Liability Directive to all marine water; proposed changes to the Canadian offshore oil legislation that would allow for the specific recovery of environmental damages; implementation of US legislation which directs recovered funds from an oil spill to be used in the affected area; and more. This paper will identify and describe the various environmental liability regimes in different regions of the world which contain requirements for the restoration of natural resources affected by these incidents. The paper also will highlight similarities and differences among these regimes, as well as some of the synergies in actual practice. In addition, and to the extent possible, the paper will provide some of the lessons learned and best practices relative to the determining environmental damage liability under the different regimes.

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

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

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document