Jump to main content.

Session Topics and Abstracts

Freshwater Spills Symposium 2009 Session Topics and Abstracts

Please click on the Session Topic link below to view Freshwater Spills Symposium abstracts for that session.

Session Topics:

A Comparison of Public Information Management at the Cosco Busan and DM 932 Spills, SONS 07 Exercise, and Hurricane Ike (a Public Information Officer/Joint Information Officer overview)

How to Plan, Execute and Communicate the Importance of Crisis Communication within Your Own Organization Before Disaster Strikes and Using the Exercise Tools During a Real Disaster

Presenters: Ginny Narsete (EPA Region 5) and Vicki Rosen (Region 9)

In 2007, over 150 Public Information Officers (PIOs) from industry, state, local and federal agencies pooled together resources and expertise to form 15 Joint Information Centers in an 11 state area during the Spill of National Significance (SONS). The team planned and executed how PIOs would respond to an earthquake that affected the environment and human health. Throughout the 3-day exercise, PIOs communicated one message, created several good news stories, and participated in the exercise play. They also played a significant role in designing the PIO functions and elements of the exercise. This exercise helped transition and prepare the PIOs for a real disaster.

In 2008, Hurricane Ike was a real disaster. During this time a Joint Information System was designed by EPA's Region 6. Throughout Texas, over 20 different PIOs responded and deployed to 3 different area commands, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Joint Field Office (JFO) and the Incident Command Post (ICP). During this time, there were multiple stories reported, hundreds of thousands of flyers were distributed in coordination with FEMA, state, and local agencies.

While most people know that safety measures are most important, industry and government agencies need to be prepared internally before communicating any information to the public. In this session, you will not only gain understanding of how to communicate a disaster to the public, but how to communicate internally in preparation of crisis management, such as:

This session will also provide a walk through of how you can be part of the exercise planning team by:

A Comparison of Public Information Management at the Cosco Busan and DM 932 Oil Spills

Presenter: Chief Warrant Officer Brandon Brewer (USCG)

How public information is managed in the first few days of an oil spill response can severely impact media coverage for the remainder of the response. The flow of public information in the first few days during the Cosco Busan spill of November 2007, in San Francisco, and the DM 932 spill of July 2008, in New Orleans bear comparison in this regard. After the Cosco Busan spilled more than 53,000 gallons of oil in the San Francisco Bay, the government's response and initial recovery efforts received notoriously negative media attention and heavy political scrutiny. Yet by typical response standards, the recovery was a great success with almost 45 percent of the oil being recovered during the first two weeks of the response. Conversely, the barge DM 932 spilled some 282,000 gallons of oil, impacting 100 miles of the Mississippi River, yet the response received fair media coverage, which moderated public and political interest. Both responses used the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Integrated Command System (ICS)-based National Response Team Joint Information Center model to widely different results.

Several factors impacted the coverage by the media during the first few days of each response, and set the tone of the coverage for their remainders: 1) the immediate establishment of credibility through accuracy; 2) media markets in which the spills occurred; 3) tasking priorities in the Joint Information Center; 4) early definition of the type of information members of the response organization would discuss; and 5) an empowered public information officer.

Top of page

Area Planning

Response Strategies for the Mississippi River in the Greater St. Louis Area

Presenters: Dave Hokanson (UMRBA), Mark Ellis (UMRBA), Aleshia Kenney (USFWS), and Jim Silver (EPA Region 7)

The Mississippi River in the greater St. Louis area presents a compelling and challenging setting for the development of spill response strategies. This section of the River hosts a concentration of hazardous material sites, petroleum storage and transmission infrastructure, sensitive habitats and species (including the endangered pallid sturgeon), drinking water intakes, and recreational areas. In addition, response planning in this area must take into consideration swift currents, the influence of the Missouri River, shipping traffic, lock operations, and inter-jurisdictional coordination. With these considerations in mind, and in response to insights from Spills of National Significance (SONS) 2007, an interagency effort took place in 2008 to update and improve response strategies for a 60-mile stretch of the Mississippi River in the St. Louis area. This effort also occurred within the context of Greater St. Louis Sub-area planning and with support from EPA.

This presentation will summarize the process by which strategies were developed, and will present the strategies themselves via an interactive compact disc designed specifically for the St. Louis area. The presentation is also envisioned as an opportunity to "roll out" the strategies to parties in the St. Louis area (and beyond) who were not directly engaged in their development. Additionally, the presentation seeks to use the St. Louis effort to initiate discussion on: 1) next steps/improvements in St. Louis response strategies; 2) on-water response technique innovations; 3) options for action when on-water strategies are not viable or limited in effectiveness; and 4) formats for documenting and communicating response strategies once they are developed.

Developing Dam Specific Spill Plans Using the Spokane River Response Group and Geographic Response Plan

Presenters: Rebecca Post (WA State Department of Ecology), Mark Layman (WA State Department of Ecology), and Calvin Terada (EPA Region 10)

Rivers are crossed by petroleum every day through rail lines, highways, and pipelines. Dams used for hydropower, irrigation water, or flood abatement also cross rivers. There is a potential for a petroleum spill to impact the safety of the dam crew, which in turn impacts dam operations. Dam operations have the potential to impact citizen safety and property both upstream and downstream of the dam. State and federal response partners can aid local planning efforts to get past finger pointing and develop realistic plans that spell out concrete actions for dam operators to take during a spill.

Such is the case on the Spokane River in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology and EPA, in conjunction with local fire department and utilities, have spearheaded an effort to develop a spill response group that can help in the development of response plans for natural resources and the development of operations plans for dam specific responses to petroleum in the water. This talk will briefly discuss the use of the Spokane River Geographic Plan as a tool for the Spokane River Spill Response Group to develop dam-specific response plans that outline the actions of dam operations during a spill event.

Developing Minimum Standards for Response Strategy Data and Documentation

Presenters: Mark Ellis (WA State Department of Ecology), Ann Whelan (EPA Region 5), Josie Clark (EPA Region 10), and Bill Robberson (EPA Region 9)

Spill response strategies, also known as Geographic Response Plans (GRPs), are site-specific strategies for the initial response to an oil spill or oil products on water. A GRP provides responders with essential information about the site, the equipment needed to carry out an effective response, access details, and other information. The goal of a GRP is to ensure that the response to a spill is fast and effective, and that sensitive resources are protected.

The value of GRPs has been widely recognized and the development of these response strategies has proceeded in a number of regions throughout the United States. In each of these regions, GRPs have been developed in light of relevant environmental, industrial, and organizational contexts present in a region. While regional variation is expected and appropriate, there is also value in identifying common, minimum standards for GRPs - particularly in underlying data structures - that can aid in the transferability and reproducibility of response strategies.

This presentation will lay out various regional approaches to GRPs, compare each approach, summarize common elements, and propose a minimum set of data to be included in response strategies. It will also suggest how data structures underlying regional approaches might be standardized. The intent of the presentation is to catalyze further efforts to examine opportunities for common components and approaches in GRP development.

Top of page

Biofuels: Research, Regulations and Response

Biofuels in the Environment: A Review of Behaviors, Fates, Effects and Possible Remediation Techniques

Presenter: Bruce Hollebone (Environment Canada)

Government and industry are actively promoting the use of ethanol-blended gasoline and biodiesel in the transportation sector to diversify energy sources and reduce greenhouse gases. While these biofuels have great potential benefits, the effects biofuels have on humans and the environment when spilled are unknown, as are the best practices for effective spill response and remediation. How do large spills of biofuels behave in the environment? How long do they persist? What risks do biofuels pose to ecosystems, aquatic life, wildlife, and humans?

Well-developed spill response and remediation technologies for biofuels will be critical to support the development and promotion of the biofuel industry. This work discusses the current state of the art and existing knowledge gaps in biofuel chemical composition, fate, behavior, and toxicity in the environment and in spill response and remediation technologies. Preliminary studies have shown that dispersion exposure routes can lead to significant acute toxicities in some species. Vegetable oil spills have had significant wildlife impacts. The interactions of biological and petroleum fuels in the environment, however, are not yet well characterized. Existing techniques for short-term spill cleanup and long-term contaminated site remediation remain to be extensively evaluated for use on large-scale releases of biofuels and biofuel-petrofuel blends. Spill response operations considered include mechanical recovery and sorbent use. Site cleanup and remediation options are somewhat better understood and possibly include land-farming, multi-phase extraction, and in-situ chemical oxidation.

New Challenges Facing EPA Emergency Response Programs

Presenter: Greg Wilson (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

Congress recently passed energy legislation to increase the usage of transportation-related biofuels. The mandated goal of reaching 36 billion U.S. gallons by 2022 has prompted a phenomenal growth in the number of facilities that generate and distribute biofuels. Growth in the development of two types of biofuels, biodiesel and ethanol, is raising a number of questions regarding implications for emergency prevention, preparedness, and response. This presentation provides an overview of the novel issues facing EPA's emergency preparedness and response programs, particularly when planning responses to discharges of biodiesel and/or fuel ethanol blends. For example, the refining and distribution infrastructure used for renewable fuels has similarities and differences from that used for conventional petroleum fuels. Consequently, expansion of the biofuel sector may require new response capabilities or positioning existing capabilities differently. While the attention has so far been focused primarily on some of the environmental benefits of expanding use of renewable fuels, there needs to also be greater clarity on how existing preparedness and response capabilities apply to these fuels.

Biofuels and Emerging Issues for Emergency Responders

Presenter: Jeff Kimble (EPA Region 5)

There are a multitude of issues emerging as our country attempts to utilize an increased amount of biofuels in an attempt to curb dependency on foreign oil and to capitalize on new business opportunities. This increase of alternative fuel production and use has led to a changing of the status quo for first responders and EPA emergency responders when dealing with fuel spills.

The production of these alternative fuels, presented widely in the public as a safe, renewable production method, presents hazards that are not typical of standard fuels and fuel blends. Also associated with biofuels production are byproducts and alternative products that are not normally discussed or planned for during an emergency response.

These hazards can range from a major spill of hexane at a biodiesel facility to the potential explosion hazard of ethanol at a primary holding facility. This presentation will attempt to cover many of these emerging issues with biodiesel and ethanol production, and reinforce this material with real world case studies from the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) perspective.

This presentation will also profile some recent job aides and response guides, which have been produced in an effort to bring the response community up to speed with this emerging and misunderstood industry. These response guides are for emergency responders and constructive criticism/further input on them is encouraged.

Biodiesel Spill Involving a Train Derailment in Belle Fountain Ditch, Dunklin Country Missouri, Which Resulted in a Large Fish Kill

Presenter: Josh Wilkerson (Missouri Department of Natural Resources)

On September 30, 2007, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Emergency Response Section, discovered a massive fish kill on Belle Fountain Ditch in Dunklin County Missouri. It is estimated that upwards of 25,000 fish and nearly 1,000 freshwater mussels died as a result of this and subsequent-related kills. Belle Fountain Ditch, a stream channelized during the draining of Missouri Bootheel swampland near the turn of the 20th century, is home to various freshwater fish and invertebrate species including the federally endangered Fat Pocketbook Mussel, Potamilus capax.

The cause of this fish kill was traced to illicit dumping of crude glycerin and other biodiesel production byproducts from the nearby Natural Biodiesel Plant, LLC biodiesel production facility. In the face of rising glycerin disposal costs, the facility's operators had first chosen to apply this contaminant to agricultural fields adjacent to the stream and then later, to dump truckloads of the material into a drainage ditch tributary to Belle Fountain Ditch.

Following the detection of the fish kill and the determination of the responsible party, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, along with several state and federal agencies, took action to require cleanup of the contaminants, assess natural resource damages, and restore the stream to its original condition; all requiring multiagency coordination and support from the biodiesel industry. This case study, presented by representatives of several of the agencies involved in the response, will provide those attending with an opportunity to learn about the effects of and response to a biodiesel-related spill on inland waters.

Top of page

Chemical and Biological Countermeasures

The United States Environmental Protection Agency: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 CFR §300.900)

Presenter: William J. Nichols (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

EPA manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 300.900). The Product Schedule lists dispersants, surface washing agents, 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 due to errors in testing procedures or data reporting.

This presentation 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 previously managed the Product Schedule f and has nearly 10 years of experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, surface washing agents, 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. Participants will gain a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and the authority to use them based on EPA policy.

Summary of the Literature on the Use of Commercial Bioremediation Agents for Cleanup of Oil-Contaminated Environments

Presenter: William J. Nichols (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

Bioremediation has emerged as a promising technology, particularly as a secondary treatment option for oil cleanup. Bioremediation has been defined as "the act of adding materials to contaminated environments to cause an acceleration of the natural biodegradation processes" (OTA, 1991). This technology is based on the premise that a large percentage of oil components are readily biodegradable in nature (Atlas, 1984, 1981; Prince, 1993). Bioremediation has several potential advantages over conventional technologies, such as being less costly, less intrusive to the contaminated site, and more environmentally benign in terms of its end products.

The success of oil spill bioremediation depends on one's ability to establish and maintain conditions that favor enhanced oil biodegradation rates in the contaminated environment. Numerous scientific review articles have covered various factors that influence the rate of oil biodegradation. There are two main approaches to oil spill bioremediation: 1) Bioaugmentation, in which known oil-degrading bacteria are added to supplement the existing microbial population, and 2) Biostimulation, in which the growth of indigenous oil degraders is stimulated by the addition of nutrients or other growth-limiting co-substrates.

The objective of this document is to thoroughly assess bioremediation products by conducting a comprehensive review of the actual use of bioremediation in real world cases. Literature assessed includes peer-reviewed articles, company reports, government reports, and actual reports by cleanup contractors engaged in responses to spills in inland, estuarine, and marine environments. This review will be useful for oil spill responders (e.g., on-scene coordinators and response contractors) to better understand the feasibility of bioremediation technology and as an aid in selecting bioremediation products.

Testing and Validation of Regional Response Team V Protocol for the Approval of Shoreline Surface Washing Agents in Freshwater Environments

Presenters: Sankaran KrishnaRaj (Environment Canada), Russ Proctor (USCG), Jon Gulch (EPA Region 5), Mike Gerber (OH EPA), Timothy Murphy (City of Toledo DES)

The use of shoreline surface washing agents as a viable oil removal technique for freshwater environments is limited due to the lack of data on their in situ effectiveness and toxicity. In January 2000, the Region V Regional Response Team (RRT V) chartered a subcommittee of international, federal, state, and industry representatives and developed a protocol to guide the user in assessing the physical criteria, constraints, and special considerations needed to determine if the use of surface washing agents was an appropriate freshwater oil spill response technique. The "Shoreline Surface Washing Agent Test and Evaluation Protocol for Freshwater Use in the Great Lakes" (Protocol) includes procedures for test preparation/application; provides effectiveness, water quality, and toxicity monitoring guidelines; as well as data collection, booming and oil recovery procedures.

In October 2005, the Western Lake Erie Area Committee, at the request of the RRT V, tested and validated the Protocol at the Toledo Sports Arena oil spill to the Maumee River. The RRT V designated a segment of the impacted shoreline as a spill of opportunity and provided conditional approval to incorporate the testing of COREXIT® 9580 (EC9580A) Shoreline and Equipment Cleaner. The Western Lake Erie Area Committee study team developed the site-specific application/sampling procedures to execute the Protocol and perform the in situ tests on the effectiveness and toxicity of COREXIT 9580 and its utility as a response tool. The Protocol successfully tested and documented the use of COREXIT 9580 on two different man-made shorelines (rip-rap and sea wall) test sites.

This presentation will summarize the Western Lake Erie Committee's report to RRT V on the Protocol validation process through photo/video-documentation and extensive analytical (water, sediment)/toxicity test results.

Top of page

Cold Water Response (3 hour session)

Presenter: Carl J. Oskins (DOWCAR)

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) states that when designing a Facility Response Plan (FRP), it should be based on a "Worst Case Oil Spill in the Most Adverse Weather Conditions." In many parts of the United States, "Extreme Cold Weather" qualifies as the "Most Adverse Conditions."

The logistics of cleaning up spilled oil in extreme cold weather conditions (e.g., ice and snow), differ from those logistics involved in cleaning up a warm water oil spill. The cleanup is complicated by climatic conditions, the presence of various forms and thickness of ice and snow and the changes that take place in the oil itself in response to extreme cold weather temperatures.

The physical constraints on the cleanup of an extreme cold weather oil spill include that during winter months, it is often too cold to work and daylight hours become a premium. The issues of hypothermia and frost bite become a reality for all first responders.

Almost every aspect of oil spill response is affected by extreme cold weather temperatures. The spill response equipment changes from oil spill containment booms to ice augers, chainsaws, ice saws, hoists, pry bars, etc.

Personal protective equipment worn by first responders in extreme weather conditions changes drastically, from the wearing of insulated overalls, insulated hard hat liners, foot and hand insulated liners and gloves, face protection from extreme cold weather winds and temperatures, harnesses and tether lines that will allow the first responder to work in temperatures from Zero to minus 65 degrees and over open freezing water.

New procedures for conducting decontamination exercises in extreme cold weather environments and improved and new techniques based upon ice slotting to contain and recover oil under ice up 36" thick have been developed. These techniques and procedures include:

The recovery of oil in extreme cold weather environments can be done successfully, but it requires a different approach than standard warm weather spill response techniques. The challenge of "extreme" Cold Weather Oil Spill Response involves planning, practice and completely different spill response equipment from chainsaws to ice augers, insulated clothing to dealing in real time with hypothermia and frostbite. And then add to that, how do you decontaminate the responders in below zero temperatures?

Top of page

Drills and Exercises

Designing Full Scale Exercises Based on Lessons Learned, Artificialities and Realism

Presenter: Dennis Cashman (USCG)

In order to maximize the preparedness experience and multi-agency player interaction within your response community during a full-scale exercise (FSE), several ideas are recommended prior to and during the design of the exercise. Emphasis is on the proper pre-exercise solicitation of your response community stakeholder's participation, pre-exercise training, seminars, table tops, and drills that should address the needs of your response community. Some pre-exercise artificiality, such as when to start the exercise, identifying and setting up a command post, and developing an organization chart are discussed. During the exercise, do not set your players up for frustration and failure by expecting them to develop an Incident Action Plan within a normal business day. Use Spill Management Team personnel at key Incident Command System (ICS) positions or as coaches and mentors who are experienced and familiar with the ICS processes, products, and meetings, to assist and guide the players throughout the complex operational planning cycle. Based on these exercise design recommendations you are optimizing time for:

Spill of National Significance Exercise (SONS)

Presenter: Ann E. Whelan (EPA Region 5)

The Spill of National Significance 2007 Exercise (herein referred to as SONS07) focused on issues pertaining to oil and hazardous substance releases triggered by a major New Madrid earthquake as well as separate oil and hazardous substance releases in the Great Lakes as a result of a tornado. SONS07 consisted of a 3-day full-scale exercise (FSE), and associated tabletops (TTXs). SONS07 focused on responses to oil and hazardous substance releases as it related to the coordination between EPA, USCG, and other agencies of the National Response Team/Regional Response Teams (NRTs/RRTs), other national level coordinating bodies and affected state, local, and private sector jurisdictions as they pertain to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) in alignment with the National Response Plan (NRP). The purpose of SONS07 was to:

Department of Defense Oil Spill Response Training and Exercises in Asia

Presenter: Thomas Rayburn (EnSafe, Inc.)

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) maintains numerous facilities in Asia to support readiness activities. Fuel and infrastructure for these facilities is supplied and maintained by DoD's Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). DESC provides training, exercise, and planning documents for these Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force installations. Environmental compliance is set by governing standards arranged with the host country and in compliance with U.S. law, DoD requirements, and host country laws and regulations.

This presentation will provide detail on DESC's spill programs as it relates to inland preparedness activities and the potential impacts to host national culture, environment, and economics.

Top of page

Emergency Preparedness and Planning

U.S. EPA Implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)

Presenter: Roberta Runge (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5 required implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) in 2003. This requirement created a significant shift in the manner in which EPA conducted emergency response operations. Prior to even establishing an Agency-wide implementation plan, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the southern coast. Over 1600 EPA personnel responded. The first EPA personnel headed to the affected area had received Incident Command System (ICS) training. As more personnel were needed to support the response, EPA provided ICS training at EPA Headquarters, regional offices and at staging areas. At EPA Incident Command Posts, U.S. Forest Service, Type I, Incident Commanders were brought in to provide "coaching" for Command and General Staff positions. While the cleanup from the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season continued, EPA held a Symposium to make sure lessons learned, using the ICS, were incorporated into training and supporting documents. Three years later, EPA has agency specific ICS training courses, an Incident Management Handbook, position specific job aids, a Command and General Staff qualification system, Type III Incident Management Teams in each of the 10 EPA regions, and a cadre of over 2090 ICS trained, and response ready, personnel. This presentation outlines the steps that EPA took to come into compliance with HSPD-5 and the current status of the EPA NIMS implementation program. It wasn't easy!

Top of page

Flooding and Oil Spill Response

Area Planning Efforts: Midwest Flood Response 2008

Presenter: Joe Davis (EPA Region 7)

Area planning, a significant component of oil spill preparedness, yielded enormous benefits during EPA's hazardous material recovery mission in the Midwest flooding of 2008. The widespread flooding, which impacted several states, was described by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local emergency management officials as one of the most devastating disasters to hit the Midwest in decades. Enhanced by area planning and local outreach efforts in previous years, EPA Region 7 personnel coordinated closely with local, state, and federal agencies, successfully developing a unified command structure that executed mission objectives efficiently, minimized duplicity, and reduced costs. EPA implemented and continuously modified an Incident Management Team structure based strictly on field needs-functional units were only added when needed to support the field mission assignments. EPA's efforts to work closely with state and local authorities provided extraordinary leverage in the response. For example, local jurisdictions set up and managed satellite hazmat collection areas that fed into EPA-led staging areas; flood water and sediment sampling conducted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources was used to prepare coordinated health advisories; and Civil Support Teams, volunteer organizations, and many others provided manpower and other assets. The benefits of pre-disaster area planning and pre-disaster exercising/training with local emergency management officials contributed significantly to the outstanding hazardous material recovery mission during these 2008 Midwest floods.

Coffeyville Resources Site

Presenter: Jhana Enders (EPA Region 6)

Coffeyville Resources is located in Coffeyville, Kansas near the northeast Oklahoma border. In late June 2007, strong storms across south central and southeast Kansas produced substantial flooding in the area. Approximately 1800 barrels of crude oil was released to areas outside the refinery and impacted the Verdigris River, which flows from southeast Kansas into northeast Oklahoma and downstream into Lake Oologah. EPA Region 6 was onsite from July 2, 2007, to August 31, 2007, and participated in Unified Command with local and state representatives, EPA Region 7, and Coffeyville Resources. Response operations included oversight of Coffeyville Resources cleanup along approximately 118 miles of river shoreline; placement of 900 feet of boom to protect Lake Oologah drinking water intakes; and collection of water samples along the Verdigris River and in Lake Oologah. On July 10, 2007, an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) was signed by the Region 7 Regional Administrator and Coffeyville Resources for cleanup activities in Kansas and Oklahoma. As of July 27, 2007, Region 7 began conducting oversight of soil sampling activities conducted by the Coffeyville Resources contractor in both Kansas and Oklahoma.

Challenges of a Medium Crude Oil Spill in Spring Runoff Conditions

Presenter: Kevin Oscar (SWAT Consulting)

This project encompasses advanced spill response strategies, equipment utilization, and challenges in a northern climate of Alberta, Canada; during a one in ten-year flood.

In early October 2006, approximately 1250 cubic meters of medium crude oil was released into a small creek, with product movement of 2.2 kilometers and impacting three large diameter beaver dams.

During the fall of 2006, approximately 1215 cubic meters of crude oil was recovered and accounted for using conventional recovery techniques, such as pumps, skimmers, vacuum units and absorbents, or remained at the break site. A small volume (35 m3) of free product remained under the ice as the water froze. The site was secured for the winter utilizing six soil constructed inverted weirs within the creek system and beaver dams and monitored throughout the winter.

Spring run off and heavy precipitation resulted in a one in ten-year flood. During the flood the challenges of containing the residual hydrocarbons consisted of site safety, maintaining water levels, ensuring the structural integrity of the weirs and access roads, maintaining surface containment, and managing woody debris.

Post flood operations consisted of the treatment of shoreline impact, impacted soil removal, and reclamation.

Top of page

Freshwater Response Using Airboats (1.5 hour session)

Fresh Water Response with Airboats

Presenters: Chester T. Karella (Alaska Clean Seas) and Ken Linderman (Alaska Clean Seas)

This presentation will cover the concerns of using airboats in a response scenario including the importance of the development by responsible parties of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), detailed training program and operator qualification guidelines; an overview of the theory of operation, features, and unique abilities of airboats in a response; review of the different types of airboats currently in use and their operational capabilities and limitations; overview of airboat operations including inspections, pre-launch crew briefings, float plans, launching and vessel maneuvering; discuss the steps required to conduct task specific maneuvers including boom towing, boom and equipment deployment, anchor setting, adjustment and retrieval; and how to deal with vessel emergencies including fire, grounding, swamping, loss of power, and man overboard. The presentation will conclude with the discussion of several case studies on recent airboat incidents that will highlight the importance of increased operator awareness and skills training.

Top of page

The Future of Area Planning and its Vital Role in Response

The Brave New 'Digital' World of Area Planning - EPA Tools and Resources

Presenter: CDR. Bill Robberson (EPA Region 9)

This session will describe how EPA is incorporating data and imagery in Area Plans, as well as the tools and applications used today to collect, publish, and share information with responders and stakeholders.

This session will focus on the different mindset of today - in the past a text-centric area plan would include lots of redundant and easily out-of-date reference material, contact names, etc. Today we are using databases making it easier to keep information up to date, linking databases to other items and documents, and treating data as both layers and as background data. The plan of today takes data and puts it into relationship with other information, thus creating greater intelligence.

With this digital approach, what-if scenarios are more easily created and visualized, and more potential outcomes are explored. During a response, the plan morphs into a decision support tool. In summary, information flows more easily into the response creating more informed and timely decisions.

Templates for Contingencies: The Underworld of Area Planning

Presenter: Ann E. Whelan (EPA Region 5)

Because the term "baseline planning data" immediately puts one to sleep, this session will provide tips and tricks that will make any planning session a "hot" one!

This session will address the use of multiple layers, common structures and linkages that provide added awareness...which may not be immediately intuitive. It will identify templates, and those components of the template that are essential to determining what needs to be protected, how to go about protecting it, and who will respond. Environmental sensitivities, human vulnerabilities and potential spill sources are included. The session will also cover potential spill sources, response assets including equipment and some approaches for waterway protection where there are many stakeholders and again where there are few stakeholders.

This session will address those components of a plan that are not often easily found and those that often require manipulation by highly technical specialists before they can be used. With some directed effort ahead of time, information can be appropriately acquired, organized and made available to the average responder for a variety of response needs. This session will suggest ways to further the planning efforts that have already been made.

Spill Planning and Response on the Upper Mississippi River: Tools, Techniques, and Lessons Learned

Presenter: Dave Hokanson (Upper Mississippi River Basin Authority -UMRBA)

The Upper Mississippi River (UMR), running from its headwaters in Minnesota to its confluence with the Ohio River, is a large inter-jurisdictional system that is home to many sensitive environmental resources, as well as cities, industries, and shipping traffic. It also provides an essential drinking water supply and valued recreational resource for thousands of individuals living along its course. Additionally, the physical structure, flow volume, and velocity of the UMR - as well as the presence of locks and dams - provide a unique hydraulic setting. UMR spill response must be carefully planned and executed to take into account all of these factors.

In recognition of the need for UMR-specific planning and response, a number of tools and forums tailored to the UMR have been created. These include: UMR Spill Response Plan and Resource Manual, UMR Emergency Action Field Guide, sub area plans and response strategies for metropolitan areas on the UMR, UMR Hazardous Spills Coordination Group, UMR response training courses, and a UMR DVD including relevant plans and sensitivity maps. Moreover, through exercises and response events, lessons have been learned about techniques and tactics that may work best for a large river such as the UMR, including barges as boom, boom vane, and boom deflectors.

This presentation will summarize tools and plans developed for the UMR, and share knowledge gained from lessons learned in spill response on the UMR. It also intends to spur discussion to further improve UMR spill planning and response.

Strong Area Planning = Excellent Response Support

Presenter: John Gulch (EPA Region 5)

This session will address lessons learned and best practices in the application of Contingency Planning Information for Initial Response efforts. Through use of a case study, it will highlight the ways in which thorough Area Contingency Planning is the vital key to successful emergency response. Learn how an area plan can become an essential decision support tool, and provide a template for a more comprehensive approach to initial response and simplify the complexity and conflict of those first several days.

Using GPS and GIS for Hawaii Inland Area Contingency Planning

Presenter: Shelly Lam (Tetra Tech, Inc.)

EPA Region 9 and the Environmental Response Team (ERT) are preparing an Inland Area Contingency Plan for responding to releases of oil and hazardous materials in the state of Hawaii. Protection of public health and the environment is an effort that is inherently geographic in nature. An informed understanding of the complex spatial relationships among natural resources, human beings, and potential or known pollution sources is critical to successfully accomplishing the mission of incident preparedness and response.

The project has included creating a geodatabase and Geographic Information System (GIS) to store and manage the geographic data, such as hydrography, infrastructure, and jurisdictional boundaries; sensitive resources, such as sensitive species and natural communities, managed areas, and cultural resources; and potential spill sources such as fixed storage facilities, pipelines, and indirect sources.

Field data, such as facility locations, have been collected and/or updated using Global Positioning System (GPS). The project has included combining GPS and GIS at the field-level using ArcPad for seamless integration into the project's geodatabase.

Interactive maps for the project are distributed to stakeholders on DVD and can be viewed using the free ArcReader program. Because the maps are supported by the project's geodatabase, stakeholders are able to query and locate attribute data. For example, users are able to search for a facility by name, address, or other features. Users can then expand the attribute data associated with that facility to find contact information, chemical storage data, and applicable regulatory programs.

The Future of Area Planning

Presenter: Ann E. Whelan (EPA Region 5)

This session will highlight the products of the future for contingency and area plans. These products include, but are not limited to, response and protection strategies for particular rivers that are linked to real time monitors and other response information, data that will take the guess work out of reconnaissance, and tools that will simplify assessment practices and readily incorporate monitoring and sampling data with the area planning data. These tools are starting to be available now. With the vision and hard work of the response and preparedness communities, they will be vital components of the Area Plans of the future.

Top of page

Inland In-Situ Burning

An Overview of Inland In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills Policy, Regulations, and Authorizations in the United States

Presenter: Leigh DeHaven (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

Inland In-Situ Burning (ISB) of oil spills has been a response tool for many years, but it is not widely used and documented throughout the United States. In contrast, Inland ISB of oil spills has some definite differences from marine in-situ burning, including but not limited to: vegetation, topography and weather. Before conducting an Inland ISB of an oil spill, one must have a strong understanding of all federal, regional, state, and local regulations involved with oil spills and burning. It is important for federal and state on-scene coordinators to develop a strong working knowledge of the varying policies in their region and state(s).

At a recent Inland ISB Workshop for Inland ISB practitioners held in Houston, Texas in December 2008; national training and developments for possible revised national Inland ISB policy were discussed between government oil spill response agencies (EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), National Wildland Fire Coordination Group from the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture, non-government organizations, and industry representatives. This presentation was used to give a background of current federal, regional, and state regulations and policy for Inland ISB of Oil Spills and will also cover a brief review of a sample of Inland ISB decision making tools.

Summary of Recent API Coordinated In-Situ Burn Practitioners Workshop

Presenters: Thomas Coolbaugh (ExxonMobil) and Marc Hodges (American Petroleum Institute)

On December 9 - 11, 2008 in Houston, Texas, a ground breaking In-Situ Burn (ISB) Practitioners Workshop was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute (API). The workshop brought together for the first time wildland fire management specialists, federal trustees, researchers, industry members, and a representative from The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The workshop focused on providing field practitioners with an opportunity to share their expertise, define best practices and lessons learned, and develop a forward looking plan to advance ISB policy, research, and training.

The initial goals for the workshop were to:

  1. Network and build relationships between key stakeholders, including the oil spill community and federal fire management agencies.
  2. Identify and prioritize the relevant elements to be included in future ISB training programs.
  3. Develop an action plan to advance ISB training and research in 2009 and beyond.

The first day of the workshop speakers provided an overview of ISB and wild land fire management, and presented various case studies. They shared their views on:

The second day of the workshop also focused on speakers and presentations, providing information on:

The final day of the workshop included presentations from the U.S., Forest Service's Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory on research findings related to soil effects and greenhouse gas emissions from ISBs, as well as presentations on implementation strategies and techniques and smoke management.

The final outcome of the workshop included the following:

  1. Creation of an ISB issues white paper to inform policy makers.
  2. Develop a 2.5 day training program for management policy, incident management and technical personnel to be held by the spring of 2010.
  3. Continue research and development efforts with a short-term focus on synthesizing prescribed and wildfire burn studies applicable to ISB and formalizing risk analysis and decision making.

This presentation will review key elements of the ISB workshop.

Top of page

International Case Studies: Spill Response in Desert/Arid Terrain

Oil Spills in Wadis: Access, Risk Assessments, and Cleanup Techniques

Presenter: Aaron Montgomery (Oil Spill Response Limited - OSRL)

On the August 23, 2008, Oil Spill Response received a call from a major oil company requesting response to an oil spill which occurred within a wadi (watercourse). The oil spill incident occurred on August 20, 2008, when a vacuum truck mistakenly pumped its contents of used engine oil, water, and sludge in to a wadi and at a second location approximately three miles west. Due to the challenging nature of the environment and the recent successful response to an oil spill within a different wadi located nearby, the client asked for a responder with previous experience of dealing with spills in this area.

Oil Spill Response sent out a responder and highlighted the importance of completing thorough risk assessments due to the challenging terrain experience during the previous spill. The responder assessed the two separate sites, quantifying a total of 4700 liters of spilt oil. Strategies and risk assessments were developed for both sites with one site eventually being deemed unsafe for response. Work commenced at the second site using a proven technique of sand abrasion and skimming of sediment to remove the oil.

This presentation aims to explore the difficulties of completing risk assessments while developing a response strategy to an oil spill within a wadi, which supports a number of local Bedouin people.

Response to an Oil Spill Incident in Desert Terrain: Wasteland or Oasis?

Presenter: Steve Storey (Oil Spill Response Limited - OSRL)

Kharir 127 oil field lays southwest of the Bedouin settlement of Shibam, Yemen. The site is at the head of the Wadi Dema'a, a desert oasis that is a very important resting, grazing, and watering area for the local tribes and their animals. Beyond the wadi, there are two process pits, and after a heavy rainfall these pits overflowed and a large quantity of oily water flowed through the wadi causing natural collection ponds to be heavily contaminated and vegetation to be destroyed.

The contaminated wadi, covering some 23 kilometres and ranging from 3 meters to 50 meters deep and of sheer face, caused its own problems for access and the safety of all labor in case of evacuation. A full evacuation drill was carried out in conjunction with the client's response team with great success. The clean up followed a variety of methods including: 1) Manual through the use of sorbents, sand from the wadi floor, and toilet brushes to agitate the oil from rocks, 2) High volume, low pressure flushing with bowsers (water tankers), or 3) Running fire hoses to water tanks on the cliff top using the pressure gained from the height of the bowsers, with the waste then staged pumped to vacuum trucks.

In-situ burning was a waste strategy used in Wadi Ben Ali. Rock hearth surrounds were constructed and waste vegetation was burned, after several months of cleanup operations it was finally decided that natural restoration would complete the task. This presentation will detail some of the key operational issues and strategies involved in the response, which included severe access problems, security, and coordinating local contract staff.

Challenges of Responding to an Oil Spill Incident in the Desert Yemen Spill

Presenter: Alam Syah (Oil Spill Response Limited - OSRL)

The opportunity to respond to an oil spill in a desert is rare and very different to what is normally experienced when responding to marine oil spills. The challenges faced are unique and require additional skills and a high level of fitness.

In June 2008, the Tier 3 Centre, Oil Spill Response was activated to respond to an oil spill in Yemen. A large volume of oil contained within a pit had overflowed into a channel of a watercourse or a "wadi," during a sudden downpour. The contaminated area had spread throughout the wadi, spanning about 20km in length.

The main issue experienced during the cleanup and the mitigation methods were due to the fact that the oily water was heading towards the town of Shibam, which has a population of about 7000. Fortunately, the wadi dried up rapidly, which spared the town from potential contamination. However, the oily water got trapped in natural collection ponds, thus damaging vast areas of vegetation. This proved to be problematic to Bedouin settlers who depend on these natural collection ponds for food and water.

The cleanup in the desert presented a variety of challenges. In addition to contending with the desert heat, the responders also had to work under adverse conditions specific to the desert in Yemen.

This presentation aims to share this case study and the lessons learned. The issues such as the challenges, hazards, and risks involved will present the uniqueness of the oil spill response in the Yemen desert.

Top of page

National Response Team (NRT) Updates on Emerging Issues in Oil and Hazardous Material Response: Use of Volunteers during NCP Responses

Presenters: Mike Faulkner (NRT Executive Director, EPA Headquarters Office of Emergency Management) and LT Latarsha McQueen (USCG Headquarters Office of Incident Management and Preparedness, Oil and Hazmat Division)

The National Response Team (NRT) for oil and hazardous materials (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300)) will provide information concerning the use of convergent volunteers during incidents covered by the NCP. Participants will review and discuss statutory regulations, updating Area Contingency Plans (ACPs), Incident Command/Unified Command considerations, volunteer coordinator integration, and draft guidance being developed by member agencies.

The January 11, 2008, U.S. Coast Guard Incident Specific Preparedness Review (ISPR) Report on the initial response phase of the M/V Cosco Busan incident noted that "A lack of planning for a convergent volunteer program, and a general lack of attention to convergent volunteers, resulted in long and frustrating delays that impacted the response overall..." The ISPR recommended that the NRT develop generic guidance for Area Committees to develop convergent volunteer sections in ACPs.

The use of volunteers is addressed in the NCP 40 CFR Part 300.185 states that "ACPs shall establish procedures to allow for well organized, worthwhile, and safe use of volunteers, including compliance with § 300.150...ACPs should provide for the direction of volunteers by the OSC/RPM [On-Scene Coordinator/Remedial Project Manager] or by other federal, state, or local officials knowledgeable in contingency operations and capable of providing leadership. ACPs also should identify specific areas in which volunteers can be used, such as beach surveillance, logistical support, and bird and wildlife treatment. Unless specifically requested by the OSC/RPM, volunteers generally should not be used for physical removal or remedial activities. If, in the judgment of the OSC/ RPM, dangerous conditions exist, volunteers shall be restricted from on-scene operations."

Top of page

Natural Resource Management and Oil Spills

Emergency Consultation under the ESA between the FWS and EPA for Oil Spill Response

Presenter: Suzanne Dudding (USFWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), EPA, and EPA Regions 2 and 6 underwent the first emergency formal consultation in EPA Region 6 for an oil spill covered under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) in January of 2008. A release of 1075 barrels of gasoline necessitated response activities that resulted in the take of the federally listed American burying beetle (ABB) Nicrophorus americanus. EPA was identified as lead agency because they conducted oversight of the spill response. Typically during emergency consultation, the Service would provide recommendations for EPA and the responsible party (RP) to avoid or minimize impacts to the ABB. However, the life history of this particular species did not allow for such measures. Consequently, the RP in consultation with EPA has agreed to make a donation to the ABB fund held by the Oklahoma Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) as a conservation measure for the ABB to be included as a part of the Federal action.

Natural Resource Trustee or Natural Resource Manager

Presenter: Gregory Hogue (DOI)

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) states the On Scene Coordinator (OSC) "shall ensure that the trustees for natural resources are promptly notified of discharges or releases." It further states the OSC shall coordinate response activities with the trustees and for discharges of oil the "OSC shall consult with the affected trustees on the appropriate removal action to be taken." The OSC knows the trustee (or representative) must be notified and consulted, but who is that individual?

Depending on where an oil spill occurs and how proactive or responsive an office or bureau within the Department of the Interior is, some confusion may exist as to who the trustee is or is not. An oil spill may affect lands in units managed pursuant to different authorities and all claim to be the "natural resource trustee." Most likely they are the resource manager that can, and often does, provide technical assistance to the OSC. Although the trustee and resource manager have similar responsibilities and authorities, there are distinct authorities that are given to one and not the other. This presentation will explain the differences, and similarities, between a natural resource trustee and a natural resource manager for the Department of the Interior.

Aquatic Nuisance Species releases during emergency response: more permanent harm then the original spill?

Presenter: Phyllis Green (Isle Royale National Park Service)

Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) introductions have resulted in billions of dollars of damages and immeasurable biological devastation within the Great Lakes. National Park Service managers are working with United States Geological Survey scientists to develop and refine emergency response options for ballast from high risk ships. Ballast may require treatment during an emergency response. There are over 800 groundings a year and grounded ballasted ships may have visited ports infested with potentially high-risk ANS. Thus it is imperative that procedures are developed to: 1) assess whether the ballast is high risk; and 2) be managed as part of the incident. This paper will present a review of risk assessment, methods previously used to treat ballast, and a summary of future work designed to address this critical need. A case study of the grounding of the Igloo Moon in 1996 will be reviewed and lessons learned discussed.

Top of page

Oil Fingerprinting and Oil Monitoring

Forensic Fingerprinting and Source Identification of the Lake Temiskaming (Quebec) Mystery Oil Spill (2008)

Presenters: Zhendi Wang, Chun Yang, Bruce Hollebone, Carl Brown, Mike Landriault, J. Sun, Zeyu Yang, and S. Atkinson (1Environment Canada, Transport Canada)

This presentation will introduce a case study in which integrated forensic oil fingerprinting and data interpretation techniques were used to characterize the chemical compositions and determine the source of the Lake Temiskaming (Quebec) mystery oil spill (2008). The diagnostic oil fingerprinting techniques include determination of hydrocarbon groups and semi-quantitative product-type screening via GC, analysis of oil-characteristic biomarkers and the extended suite of parent and alkylated PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) homologous series via GC-MS, determination and comparison of a variety of diagnostic ratios of "source-specific marker" compounds, and determination of the weathering degree of the spilled oil and whether the spilled oil hydrocarbons have been mixed with any "background" chemicals (biogenic and/or pyrogenic hydrocarbons) that may have been present before the spill. The detailed chemical fingerprinting data and results reveal the following:

  1. Water samples 1296, 1297 and the soil sample 1299 were contaminated by a heavier diesel type fuel. The oil hydrocarbon fingerprints match each other for these three samples and the minor differences in their fingerprints can be explained by weathering effects and input of "background" pyrogenic PAHs. The hydrocarbons in these 3 oil-contaminated samples were most probably from the same source.
  2. The oil in the steering flat sample 1298 is a mixture of a heavier diesel fuel and a lube oil; while the oil in the sewage sample 1300 is largely from a heavier diesel fuel with smaller contribution of a lube oil.
  3. The hydrocarbons in water samples 1296 and 1297 were more weathered than samples 1298, 1299 and 1300, evidenced by more loss of lower molecular weight n-alkanes (C9-C13) and by more loss of the lower alkylated naphthalene series and development of the relative distribution of C0-N < C1-N < C2-N < C3-N < C4-N.
  4. In addition to petrogenic PAHs, the soil sample 1299 also contains small portion of "background" pyrogenic hydrocarbons. These "background" PAHs were most probably generated by some pyrogenic (such as combustion) processes.

Application of Bicyclic Sesquiterpanes in Forensic Identification of Light Petroleum Products Spilled on Water

Presenters: Chun Yang1, Zhendi Wang1, Bruce Hollebone1, Carl Brown1, Mike Landriault1, and Zeyu Yang2 (1Environment Canada, 2Transport Canada)

Bicyclic sesquiterpanes are ubiquitous components of crude oils and ancient sediments, and are also widely found in intermediate petroleum distillates and finished petroleum products. These naturally occurring compounds are resistant to biodegradation and slight or medium evaporation weathering, and therefore it is potential to utilize them in oil-source correlation and differentiation for those cases where the traditional biomarkers are absent. This work used the unique sesquiterpanes for fingerprinting and identifying of oils spilled on water. GC/FID analysis and the distribution profiles of PAHs and biomarkers suggest that the spilled oils are mixtures of mainly gasoline and light diesel type fuels. Because source oils were not available, and the hydrocarbons in gasoline and diesel co-eluted in chromatographic analysis, it is a challenge to quantify the gasoline and diesel in the oil samples. Upon our analysis, the bulk concentrations of C14 to C16 sesquiterpanes are in the range of approximately 7,000 to 9,000 g/g in many light diesel fuels, little or no sesquiterpanes were detected in gasoline, light kerosene and heavy-end lubricating oils. The target sesquiterpanes in the oil samples were determined in high abundance with bulk concentrations of about 4,000 µg/g. Therefore, we estimated that these oil samples consist of approximately half gasoline and half light diesel. To verify our estimation, we simulated the spilled samples by mixing a fresh gasoline and a No. 2 diesel with a similar carbon range as the spilled oils. By comparing the GC/FID chromatograms of the spilled and simulated spilled oils, we obtained similar results to the sesquiterpane analysis.

Upper Mississippi River Water Quality Monitoring Network

Presenters: H. Joel Allen (EPA ORD), William Franz (EPA Region 5), Dave Hokanson (UMRBA), and Srinivas Panguluri (Shaw Group)

In collaboration with EPA Region 5, water utilities, state agencies, and universities EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has initiated the deployment of water quality monitoring stations at selected sites on the upper Mississippi River (UMR). A novel approach has been employed utilizing online toxicity monitors (OTMs) providing continuous, time-relevant monitoring of toxicity and physical/chemical parameters. Such a network of water quality monitoring stations has been of longstanding interest to state response and environmental quality agencies, water utilities, and other entities with river responsibilities for detection of accidental and intentional contamination events. To date, three stations have been deployed at three locations on the UMR with three more scheduled for deployment over the next two years.

EPA ORD has been conducting research to develop OTMs for use as contamination warning systems. OTMs use an effects-based approach to assess the toxicity of water samples by monitoring responses of living organisms in a continuous, time-relevant manner. The work described here couples OTMs with basic physical/chemical and advanced spectroscopy methods to provide a relatively comprehensive water quality data set. Conventional water quality monitoring approaches have generally relied on the collection of grab samples followed by expensive and time consuming laboratory analysis regardless of the probability of existence of compounds in toxic concentrations. This provides a snapshot of the concentrations of analyzed chemicals at a single point in time and space giving little indication of the sample's toxicity due to single or multiple contaminants.

This presentation will summarize experiences gained from deployment at the first three sites. Details of the instrumentation deployed at each water quality monitoring location will be presented along with examples of data collected.

Top of page

Oil Spill Case Studies: Rivers and Creeks

Response to Light Crude Spills in Transitioning Seasonal Environments

Presenter: Kevin Oscar (SWAT Consulting)

This presentation encompasses advanced spill response strategies and equipment utilization in the northern climate of Alberta, Canada, during the transitions of late fall to winter and through early spring.

In early October 2007, approximately 34 cubic meters of light crude was released into a small creek, with product movement of 1.8 kilometers. The initial phase of the release was handled by the releaser and local labor and consisted of basic containment and recovery.

The second phase of the release conducted by SWAT included an initial assessment, the building of a temporary access road along the creek, installation of upgraded containment, a shoreline assessment, removal of impacted vegetation and woody debris, and recovery of bulk product. During this phase a severe snow storm and temperature drop occurred. Winter containment was installed including SWAT's newly designed low disturbance prefabricated underflow weir system.

Phase three consisted of monitoring and maintenance of weirs with the primary objective of keeping weirs flowing and free of ice.

Phase four began in May of 2008, which included management of runoff, maintenance of containment, further removal of free product, impacted vegetation and woody debris, spot treatment of impacted shoreline and final shore line assessment.

The final phase began in August of 2008, which included removal of weirs and other remaining equipment, reclamation of the work area and access, and a final inspection was completed for site closure.

DM 932 Spill on the Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA

Presenter: Robert Simmons (Environmental Science Services, Inc.)

In the early morning hours of July 23, 2008, a collision occurred between the tank ship Tintomara and the tank barge DM 932 in the Mississippi River near New Orleans. The collision resulted in catastrophic damage to the DM 932 and the near instantaneous release of approximately 6000 bbls of the barge's 10,000 bbl cargo of No. 6 fuel oil. The resulting spill and associated response necessitated the closure of the river to vessel traffic for 6 days, and restricted traffic in a designated safety zone for several weeks thereafter. The area of concern and resources at risk resulting from the spill included 99 river miles and the corresponding 198 miles of shoreline, multiple municipal water intakes, freshwater diversion sites, ferry landings, lock facilities, and a National Wildlife refuge. The peak response resource level included approximately 130,000 feet of containment boom, a large number of skimmers, huge amounts of sorbent materials, and over 2000 response personnel.

This presentation will focus on the fate and behavior of the spilled oil and particularly the role of the Environmental Unit during the response relative to the SCAT process, shoreline segmentation and the mapping products developed, sensitive site delineation, shoreline cleanup endpoint criteria development and monitoring, shoreline cleanup methodology in various habitats and vegetation, and the Unified Command's cleanup assessment and signoff process.

Top of page

Oil Spill Drills and Exercises under the Facility Response Plan (FRP) Regulation (40 CFR part 112) (1.5 Hour Session)

Oil Spill Response Drills and Exercises under the Facility Response Plan (FRP) Regulation (40 CFR part 112)

Presenters: Troy Swackhammer (EPA Office of Emergency Management), Mia Pasquerella (EPA Region 1), and Arlene Anderson (EPA Region 2)

The Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulation requires certain facilities that have the potential to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines to prepare plans to respond to a worst case discharge of oil. There are currently over 4,100 FRP planholders nationally, including petroleum storage terminals, refineries, electric utility plants, manufacturing plants, and oil production facilities. FRP planholders must ensure the availability of resources, either by contract or other means, to respond to a small, medium, and worst-case discharge of oil. They must also implement facility response training and a drill/exercise program following the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines or an equivalent program. EPA verifies the planholders preparedness through government-initiated unannounced exercises (GIUEs).

Top of page

Oiled Wildlife Issues

Recruitment and Use of Volunteers in an Urban Wildlife Response

Presenter: Rebecca Dunne (Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research, Inc.)

In July 2008, several thousand gallons of non-PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) dielectric oil was released into the Muddy River in Brookline, Massachusetts. The waterfowl contaminated by the product were highly visible to citizens frequenting the parks on the river. The wildlife response to this incident involved cooperation between the qualified wildlife responder, the responsible party, and local citizens. Volunteers were recruited from local animal care organizations and were already aware of the hazards involved in handling distressed animals. Selective recruitment allowed volunteer training to focus on safety issues specific to this response. This presentation will discuss the recruitment, training and management of volunteers that created a safe and positive working environment for volunteers and staff.

Management of Oil Field Wastewater Disposal Facilities to Minimize Threats to Migratory Birds

Presenter: Pedro Ramirez, Jr. (USFWS)

Oilfield wastewater facilities are used in the western United States for the disposal of formation water produced from oil and gas wells. In Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah large evaporation ponds are used in commercial and centralized oilfield wastewater disposal facilities (COWDFs) to dispose of the wastewater. The large evaporation ponds attract birds and other wildlife. If not managed properly, COWDFs can cause wildlife mortality. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), along with state and federal regulatory partners, conducted 123 field inspections of 21 COWDFs in Wyoming from March 1998 through November 2007, and documented mortality of migratory birds and other wildlife in 11 (52 %) COWDFs. Grebes (Family Podicipedidae) and waterfowl (Anseriformes) were the most frequent casualties out of 223 migratory bird carcasses recovered from COWDFs. Most mortality was attributed to oil on evaporation ponds, but sodium toxicity and surfactants were the suspected causes of mortality at three facilities. Although the oil industry and state and federal regulators have made much progress in reducing migratory bird mortality in oil and gas production facilities, significant mortality incidents continue in COWDFs, particularly older facilities permitted in the early 1980's. Operational and management failures in these facilities generally result in the discharge of oil into the evaporation ponds, which poses a risk for migratory birds and other wildlife.

Oiled Wildlife Rescue: Update on New Reconnaissance and Capture Techniques

Presenters: Buddy Goatcher (USFWS), Anthony Velasco (USFWS), and Dwight LeBlanc (USDA)

Wildlife oil spill response personnel in the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have combined efforts with Wildlife Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to share expertise and resources in responding to oil spills to minimize wildlife impacts through improved capture success. Freshwater oil spill wildlife responses in Louisiana will be used to illustrate this synergy.

Top of page

Pipelines

An Innovative Approach to Emergency Response for a New Crude Oil Pipeline Project

Presenter: John W. Hayes (Keystone Pipeline Project)

TransCanada Pipelines is currently constructing the new Keystone Pipeline (KP), which starts in Hardisty, Alberta, Canada where a new crude oil storage facility will be located. KP shall be 2969 km (1,845 miles) in length and terminate at the existing client terminals located at Wood River and Patoka, Illinois, USA. The purpose of this presentation will be to describe innovative approaches to plan and prepare an Emergency Preparedness Program (EPP) for KP.

EPP involves four major components: 1) the "plan", 2) equipment, 3) training, and 4) continuous improvement. Each is an integral part of successfully developing the EPP. For this new project, a unique opportunity existed to incorporate new and innovative approaches in emergency response planning and preparedness.

In considering the development of the "plan", KP solicited proposals from outside vendors. The proposals were evaluated and a contract was awarded to Response Management Associates headquartered in Houston, Texas. The "plan" was going to incorporate best practices and needed to meet both Canadian and United States regulatory requirements. The unique feature of the "plan" was to develop and implement an electronic version using proprietary software. This has several strategic advantages and provides a comprehensive and quality controlled solution given today's stringent planning requirements associated with emergencies. In addition, the "plan "was customized to address all aspects of the pipeline system requirements including terminals, remote valves, and pumping stations.

The equipment strategy had to be commensurate with staffing allocations along the pipeline and be linked closely to tactical plans and worse case discharge scenarios. In addition it had to meet all applicable regulatory standards across the system. A mobile response unit approach with specialized equipment was implemented to address this requirement and will be supplemented by contract resources. Unique features of the equipment included decisions based on the diverse geographic and climatic scenarios, such as cold weather conditions.

In developing a training protocol it was challenging because the employee base has no experience or exposure to emergency response for crude oil pipelines. Courses were developed to address the basics escalating to fully engaged Incident Command training for Tier 3 responses. In addition, staff had to acquire all necessary regulatory training and commitments made during permit approval processes.

Finally, KP is developing a process to review and improve emergency response capabilities. This will include implementation of committees and evaluations to continuously improve the EPP.

KP has a unique opportunity to start the EPP from the conception of the project. There were no preconceived ideas on how to prepare the EPP. Through the regulatory process and the need to meet Canadian and U.S. requirements KP was able to develop a successful program. The KP has taken unique approach to ensure that this large crude oil pipeline system in completely prepared to respond to emergencies along the system.

Marathon Pipeline Albion Release Albion, Wayne County, IL

Presenters: Lori B. Muller (EPA Region 5) and Michael J. Coffey (USFWS)

In the early morning of August 10, 2008, a failure in a 36-inch high pressure Marathon Oil Pipeline occurred causing the release of nearly 250,000 gallons of crude oil to the surface and nearby Elm Creek. The area affected included rural agricultural fields and at least 5,000 linear feet of bottomland sloughs.

An effective multi-agency response ensued that included coordinating efforts between Marathon, EPA, USFWS, and several other agencies. While the project operated in emergency response mode, a team simultaneously identified long-term remediation goals and all players worked to have actions supporting these goals incorporated into daily working objectives.

Remediation and restoration continue at the site under the guidance of federal and state natural resource trustees.

Top of page

Plan Requirements for Oil Facilities Covered by EPA's Facility Response Plan (FRP) Regulation (1.5 Hour Session)

Plan Requirements for Facilities Covered by EPA's Facility Response Plan (FRP) Regulation

Presenters: Troy Swackhammer and Patricia Gioffre (EPA OEM), Arlene R. Anderson (EPA Region 2), and Mia Pasquerella (EPA Region 1)

In 1994, EPA finalized the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulation at 40 CFR part 112.20 and 112.21. Promulgated under the authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the regulation requires certain facilities that pose the risk of substantial harm to the environment to prepare plans to respond to a worst case discharge of oil. FRP-regulated facilities must develop and submit a plan to their EPA Regional Administrator. EPA reviews and approves FRPs for certain facilities that have the potential to cause significant and substantial harm. There are over 4,200 FRP planholders in the Unites States.

This presentation describes the requirements and expectations for the FRP planholders.

This presentation will cover:

Top of page

Regional Response: Strategies and Case Studies

Shallow Water Boom Deployment and Spill Containment Training in Central Nebraska

Presenter: Todd A. Campbell (EPA Region 7)

In August 2008, EPA Region 7 On-scene Coordinators (OSC), in conjunction with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) personnel, conducted a shallow water boom deployment training on the South Platte River near Wood River, Nebraska. The training consisted of one-half day of classroom lecture, followed by a full day of field deployment exercises. Land-based field training was held in the morning and consisted of three work stations: 1) underflow dam construction, 2) weir construction, and 3) deployment and operation of oil skimmers. In the afternoon, three additional booming exercises were conducted and consisted of 1) deploying deflection, 2) exclusion, and 3) containment boom. The training was attended by personnel from EPA, USFWS, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Nebraska Wildlife and Parks, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust, local county emergency managers, local fire departments, and members of the regulated community. This presentation provides an opportunity to see some of the challenges encountered when conducting spill containment and boom deployment in shallow, braided streams with shifting sand substrates, as well as learn one approach used to unite multiple stakeholders in the pursuit of a common goal - protecting a critical habitat for crane migration.

Magellan Mid-Stream Partners Tank Fire

Presenter: Katy Miley (EPA Region 7)

At approximately 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, lightning struck on or near a petroleum tank at the Magellan Midstream Partners distribution terminal in Kansas City, Kansas. The tank, containing approximately 1.2 million gallons of unleaded gasoline, caught fire and burned for over 48 hours, sending a large plume of smoke across portions of the greater Kansas City metro area. One EPA OSC was deployed to the incident and joined in Unified Command with the Kansas City, Kansas Fire Department, Magellan Midstream Partners, and the Fairfax Drainage District. Additional OSCs were deployed to the field to conduct air monitoring with START Team Members. The initial air monitoring activities were conducted by EPA and Magellan on June 3, 2008. On June 4-5, air sampling and monitoring activities were conducted by a response contractor hired by Magellan. All data generated during the fire response was submitted to the EPA for review. This fire and the resulting smoke plume generated intense public and media interest. Several live-feed television media press conferences were held during the course of the response, with EPA OSCs providing current monitoring information. Over the course of the response, monitoring and sampling activities were conducted at approximately 60 sites along or near the plume to assess the concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate matter.

This case study presentation will illustrate the integration of EPA personnel with local responders and the coordination of sampling activities with EPA and Magellan contractors, as well as discuss the importance of accurate and timely public information during monitoring activities.

It Isn't Over When the Rains Stop...Partnering to Protect Public Health in the Coffeyville, KS Flood and Oil Spill Response

Presenter: Sue Casteel (ATSDR)

In June 2007, flooding along the Verdigris River caused extensive flooding in Coffeyville, Kansas. As a result of the flooding, the Coffeyville Resources Refinery released approximately 78,000 gallons of crude oil into the flood water in Coffeyville and in the Verdigris River. EPA Region 7 requested the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to deploy to the EPA Regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Area Command Center (AOC) to provide public health support to the local Incident Management Team (IMT). In this role ATSDR partnered with EPA, state, and local health officials to protect public health by:

The Coffeyville Flood and Oil Spill emergency response demonstrated the importance of partnering with federal, state, and local governmental agencies to incorporate public health issues into environmental emergency response activities from the inception of the event to assure protection of public health.

Top of page

Response Strategies: Booming (3 Hour Session)

Oil Spill Response in Fast Water for the Responder

Presenter: Chester Karella (Alaska Clean Seas)

This presentation will cover the challenges of responding to a liquid material release in swift water conditions. Topics covered will include the importance of understanding river dynamics and the selection criteria that should to be considered when establishing an effective containment site or sites; a brief overview of the fate and behavior of various fluid viscosities and densities when released into the waterway; understanding how river dynamics affect boom deployment and placement; identifying boom failures and what options can be used to correct the failures; a discussion of the varies boom deployment strategies, tactics and operational limitations of the various boom sets; use of new technology to maximize collection efficiency including use of boom vanes and boom rudders; demonstration of the various anchoring techniques that can be used mid-stream and on-shore including correct the procedure for safe deployment form vessels; descriptions of the procedures and options available for establishing underflow dams, overflow dams, and culvert plugging along with associated operational concerns and limitations; a review of recovery storage options and associated operational concern; the presentation will conclude with a discussion of safety considerations that need to be considered when deploying containment and recovery equipment in swift water conditions.

Motor Vessel Omaha Booming Strategies

Presenters: Lt. Rob McCaskey (USCG), Lt. Cdr. LaDonn Allen (USCG)

In May 2008, the Motor Vessel Omaha struck a partially submerged wing dike, rupturing the hull, sinking the vessel, and endangering the surrounding areas of the Lower and Upper Mississippi river to damage from the 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel remaining in its tanks. The U.S. Coast Guard, industry, and contractor personnel worked tirelessly for 3 weeks, in rising river conditions, to mitigate the damage and remove spilled product from the water. The primary danger to the environment was the possible release from the recently refilled fuel tanks of the Motor Vessel Omaha. While initial reports indicated that there was only a possible breach of the tanks, first responders noted a 200-yard wide sheen from the accident site extending 3 miles from the Missouri River at mile marker 11.5 to the confluence with the Mississippi River indicating that there was, indeed a breach. Due to heavy rains to the north and in the local area, the Missouri river was rising up to a foot and a half per day, as well as experiencing an increasing amount of debris flowing down river. The current was in excess of 6 knots in the main channel and only reduced slightly in the tributaries, making boom placement extremely challenging. It often took contractors three or four times to successfully place and anchor containment boom in the current.

This presentation will share successful and rare containment boom deployment and maintenance on difficult river conditions over a three week response, including cleanup operations. In addition, the presentation will include maps and pictures from the air and ground perspective to aid the attendee in conceptualizing what is being presented.

Use of Current Buster in a Static Deployment

Presenters: Lance Douglas, Chet Karella, and Ken Linderman (Alaska Clean Seas)

The Endicott oil field, operated by BP Alaska, sits on a man-made causeway extending a few miles out into the Beaufort Sea on the Arctic Ocean. There are three breaches cut through the gravel causeway intended for fish migration and sediment dispersion from the adjoining Sag River delta.

Oil spill scenario modeling from the offshore well pads show large amounts of oil is building up on the shoreline of this causeway, and being siphoned through the breaches by strong coastal currents of 3 to 4 knots.

Spill training exercises in years past have attempted many different booming configurations to capture or divert fast moving oil to facilitate containment and recovery operations. None of these booming configurations proved successful due to the strong currents and shallow waters adjoining the causeway.

Keying on the success of the popular Ocean Buster in recent years, technicians from the Alaska Clean Seas OSRO, installed the shallow draft Current Buster in a static mode between the sheet piling of the bridge breaches. The engineered baffles in the Current Buster unit provided a calm boom apex area to allow the use of a variety of skimmers in their expansive North Slope equipment inventory for recovery operations well within reach of the road system.

Seen as a predominately safe, practical means of managing a spill in this area, BP is purchasing three Current Buster units to beef up its contingency plan for a significant field expansion now under way. These units will be pre-staged in 20 foot shipping containers on the shoreline adjacent to the breaches along with the "funnel" boom sections, attachment lines, and fixed attachment points on the sheet-pile.

Clearly the Current Buster has a variety of applications beyond the conventional dynamic towing method commonly seen.

Permanent Anchors - For Faster Response Times and Minimal Environmental Impact

Presenters: Dee Bradley (DOWCAR) and Chalmer Bitsoi (Navajo Nation Oil and Gas)

The faster a crude oil pipeline company responds to an oil spill emergency response incident, the less adverse environmental impact will occur. But then, consider your Initial Response Team will consist of only 3 to 4 first responders and your pipeline is 100 plus miles long and your worst case oil spill is 19,000 plus barrels. How are you going to improve response boom deployment, containment, and recovery time?

The Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Company (NNOGC) - Running Horse Pipeline (a Native American owned company), which is located in the Four Corners Area in the southwest United States, is such a crude oil pipeline company. Beginning in January 2008, and continuing through 2009, NNOGC - Running Horse Pipeline has attempted to alleviate this problem by placing permanent anchor systems on the San Juan River from Shiprock, New Mexico to Mexican Hat, Utah. A distance of 100 plus miles at eight pre-designated boom deployment, containment and recovery sites on the San Juan River, which crosses New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. The following steps were taken in this project:

  1. Created Geographic Oil Spill Response Plan for the San Juan River, which listed and outlined the eleven pre-designated oil spill response boom, deployment, containment, and recovery sites.
  2. Tested these sites to insure there practicality occurred.
  3. Gathered an Oil Spill Response Boom Deployment team to include a land surveyor, archeologist, NNOGC - Running Horse Pipeline cultural experts and personnel.
  4. Conducted a physical site survey at each site to:
    1. Determine if the boom site is owned by the Navajo Nation.
    2. Verify that the boom site is not located on cultural, historical, and archaeological sites.
    3. Determine what portion of land maps will be utilized for each site.
    4. Determine where, utilizing GPS/Survey, each permanent anchor will be located.
    5. Determine what type of permanent anchors will be located at each site.
    6. Develop contents of presentation for each Navajo Chapter Council to include boom deployment, containment, and recovery site seeking permission to use land for the site.
    7. Consult with the Navajo Nation and EPA for concurrence, after Navajo Nation Chapter has approved usage of site.
    8. Begin process of placing permanent anchors at each site, which is now an ongoing process with 4 of 8 sites completed and the remainder scheduled for completion by 2009 - completed after received all approvals, including Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management.

Placing the permanent anchors will allow the boom deployment process to take place more quickly with less manpower, which is very helpful for pipeline companies.

The Unique Challenges of Booming Fast Rivers

Presenter: Carl J. Oskins (DOWCAR)

Coastal water environments are characterized by ebb and flow whereas rivers provide a constant flow of fast moving water. The techniques that work in coastal environments, lakes, and slow moving rivers do not work in fast flowing rivers. Inexpensive alternative techniques have been developed, tested, and been proven to be effective no matter how fast the inland river is flowing.

Pre-selection of boom deployment containment sites by the facility response plan holder on inland rivers, proper selection of oil spill containment boom, and inexpensive, readily available boom deployment equipment is the success to booming a fast flowing river.

This is one time when "smaller is better." Boom with small diameter flotation (4 to 6 inches) and short skirts (3 to 6 inches) work best because they are lighter and require less manpower and equipment to be deployed. The current is used to divert the oil into the containment area.

When deploying boom in fast flowing inland rivers, the angle of the boom to the current is critical. If too great an angle is attempted, the boom can plane or fill with water. Because of this issue a cascade method is used. The faster the river flows, the greater the need to break the boom into small sections.

Three basic oil spill boom diversionary deployment and containment techniques based upon the Standard Cascade Diversionary Boom Deployment System have been proven to work on fast flowing rivers throughout the United States. These techniques include the following:

  1. Rope Bank to Bank System - Booming from shore to shore using rope to anchor the boom sections
  2. Bridge Anchor System - Booming from one shore to a bridge
  3. Permanent Anchor System (Buoys) - Booming from one shore to pre-deployed buoys

Variations and improvements on these three techniques have been implemented successfully by numerous oil pipeline companies, oil storage facilities, oil spill response cooperatives, Oil Spill Removal Organizations (OSROs), and government emergency response organizations.

Successful booming of fast rivers can be done, but it requires a different approach to spill response than that currently used in coastal environments and slow waters. The challenge of fast rivers involves planning, practicing, and viewing spill response in a new way.

Applying Faster Water Booming Techniques to Coastal Environments
Booming of Bolinas Lagoon Preserve, California

Presenters: Carl J. Oskins (DOWCAR), Dee Bradley (DOWCAR), Dale Stanfield (Bullhead City Fire Department), and John Bradley (H2O Environmental, Inc.)

On November 7, 2007, the container ship, Cosco Busan, struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge and spilt approximately 53,000 - 58,000 gallons of Heavy Fuel Oil. The Heavy Fuel Oil traveled out of San Francisco Bay and turned north, traveling approximately 20 miles and affecting the Bolinas Lagoon Preserve in California. Contractors were called, but found that traditional ocean booming strategies were not successful in the narrow mouth of the lagoon, which can achieve current speeds of over 6 knots.

On December 5, 2007, DOWCAR Environmental Management, Inc. was notified by Marin County Open Spaces regarding the possibility of utilizing Fast Water Boom Techniques in the Bolinas Lagoon Inlet. Bolinas Lagoon is protected from the Pacific Ocean by a long spit of land terminating at the lagoon's, mouth which is the only connection to the sea. On average, three million cubic yards of water are exchanged between the lagoon and the ocean with each tide.

Bolinas Lagoon supports a diversity of habitats including sub-tidal channels and eelgrass beds, rocky and mudflat inter-tidal substrates, salt marsh, and upland marsh. Each habitat is home to a unique set of plants and animals. The lagoon is a nursery for tiny fish, which feed nestling herons and egrets. Harbor seals rest on the mudflats, warm themselves, and give birth. Thousands of wintering shore and water birds, including Brown Pelicans and endangered Snowy Plovers, find bountiful forage and roosting areas. Bolinas Lagoon is a sanctuary for the many species; however, its greatest important because is on a global scale. The lagoon is a crucial link in the chain of wetlands used by millions of water birds migrating along the Pacific Coast.

DOWCAR Environmental Management, Inc. was contracted and conducted a three-day Fast Water Booming Course to educate local residents and local government agencies in techniques utilized in fast water environments. This is the first time that local residents requested expert advice and became actively involved in saving the sensitive environment and their homes in and around Bolinas Lagoon. Over 30 local people participated in the course. DOWCAR and H2O Environmental, Inc., an OSRO, provided seven instructors and two spill response trailers with small fast water boom and ancillary equipment.

Exercises were conducted to locate sites that could be boomed successfully in order to save the delicate marine life of the lagoon. The end result, that will require additional practice, is that a Fast Water Cascade Boom Deployment System at the entrance of Bolinas Lagoon could be successful.

Top of page

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (Multiple sessions)

The 2008 SPCC Rule Revisions

Presenter: Mark W. Howard (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

In late 2008, EPA finalized a significant number of revisions and clarifications to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40 CFR part 112). This final action was in response to feedback from the regulated community and other stakeholders. EPA has provided several new exemptions from the rule requirements and new streamlined rule requirements. The presentation will provide a general overview of the entire final action. In addition, this presentation will be useful to persons developing or implementing SPCC Plans and persons charged with environmental compliance. This overview serves to complement the detailed SPCC presentations targeted to a particular area of interest that are described elsewhere in the 2009 Freshwater Spills Symposium agenda.

Cost Savings Estimates for EPA's Oil Spill Prevention Amendments

Presenter: George Denning (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

EPA has promulgated a series of regulatory amendments to the existing 1973 and 2002 oil spill prevention regulations. The purpose of these amendments is to tailor, streamline, and clarify existing oil spill prevention requirements. These amendments should improve economic efficiency for regulated facilities and for EPA in the administration of the oil spill prevention program. EPA believes that improvement in regulatory efficiency will create significant cost savings to industry and will maintain and potentially improve environmental protection. The Agency estimates that these improvements will contribute more than $300 million annually in cost savings to the regulated industry. This is particularly helpful, given difficult conditions in the global and U.S. economy, and to small business.

Top 10 Misconceptions about SPCC

Presenter: Christopher Ludwa (Booz Allen Hamilton)

At the 2006 Freshwater Spills Symposium, Booz Allen presented the top 10 misconceptions about the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements and Facilities Response Plan (FRP). Since that time, EPA has cleared up several of the misconceptions through regulation and guidance; however, several misconceptions continue to persist. Through operation of EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention Information Center, we are provided a unique perspective in how the regulated community, professional engineers, and other stakeholders view the SPCC requirements. This session, focused exclusively on SPCC, will address the misconceptions that still seem to remain, as well as presenting and dispelling several new misconceptions. Utilizing actual questions posed to the Information Center, we will address common questions about what's in and what's out under the SPCC rule and tell you what you need to know to sort fact from fiction regarding federal SPCC requirements. Though many of the performance-based SPCC requirements are straight-forward and based on existing industry practices, some of the provisions can be more difficult to understand - we will focus primarily on these requirements. Specifically, we will address topics such as applicability; secondary containment; integrity testing; deviations based on environmental equivalence; impracticability; and other confounding issues.

Benefits of Preventing Oil Spills

Presenter: George Denning (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

The purpose of the existing Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations and new amendments is to encourage regulated facilities to change behavior and to take actions to prevent oil spills. "Back of the envelope" calculations indicate that the costs to clean up oil spills are in the range of hundreds of dollars per gallon of oil. Moreover, oil spills may impact public health, the economy, and the environment. With the prevention of oil spills, these adverse impacts may be prevented, with improvement in public health, economic production, and environmental protection. The benefits to prevent oil spills to our economy and environment are enormous. In current and future work, the Agency hopes to more precisely estimate the benefits of oil spills.

The Impact of the 2008 SPCC Rule on Oil Production Facilities

Presenter: Mark W. Howard (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

In late 2008, EPA finalized a significant number of revisions and clarifications to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40 CFR part 112). This final action was in response to feedback from the regulated community and other stakeholders. EPA has provided several new exemptions from the rule requirements and new streamlined rule requirements that are specifically targeted to the upstream oil production sector. The presentation will provide a detailed overview of the rule changes associated with production sector requirements (§112.9) of the SPCC rule. This presentation will be useful to persons developing or implementing SPCC Plans and persons charged with environmental compliance for production facilities. In addition, this presentation is designed to help owners or operators use the new streamlined provisions and tools available to this unique sector in an effort to improve overall compliance.

SPCC Compliance: Design-Build Considerations for Secondary Containment

Presenter: Ronald W. Elder (Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.)

This presentation identifies the steps needed to successfully implement design-build solutions for upgrading or modifying existing containment structures or constructing new secondary containment structures in compliance with Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations per 40 CFR part 112.8. Design-build solutions and considerations will primarily focus on bulk storage tanks with volumes greater than 100,000 gallons and will include discussions on earthen containment dikes, concrete containment dikes, stainless steel wall systems, and combined containment systems. A portion of the discussion will focus on identifying and recognizing potential deficiencies with existing earthen containment systems, including reduction in containment capacity due to erosion, and negative impacts to dike strength over time. The presentation will identify keys to successful design include obtaining sufficient and accurate pre-construction data (including topographic surveys and geotechnical data) and identifying potential limitations to construction, such as space limitations, operational considerations, and utilities. The latter part of the presentation will include a discussion of four or five real examples of SPCC secondary containment projects. These examples will discuss and focus on practical design approaches, challenges faced during construction, and how those challenges were met to satisfy both the facility requirements and SPCC regulations.

SPCC and FRP "Stump the Regulator"

Presenters: Mark W. Howard, Patricia Gioffre, Troy Swackhammer, Greg Wilson (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

This freeform and interactive presentation will consist of a panel of the EPA national experts on the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) and Facilities Response Plan (FRP) rule. The panel will entertain questions from the audience and provide as time permits, a top ten misconceptions about the FRP and SPCC rule presentation. This forum offers an opportunity for the regulated community or other stakeholders to find out the rationale and reasoning behind the rule requirements/guidance in an environment where no question is screened nor too detailed. EPA staff will then present an award to the person judged to have been the best at stumping the regulator.

Self-Certified Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans

Presenter: Patricia Gioffre (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

The SPCC rule (40 CFR part 112) includes an option for owners and operators of "qualified facilities" to self-certify their spill prevention plans (or SPCC Plans) in lieu of certification by a Professional Engineer (PE). This presentation will provide a general overview of the eligibility criteria for these qualified facilities, an overview of the requirements for a self-certified SPCC Plan, and tools that are available for Plan preparers. This session will be beneficial to individuals responsible for the development and/or implementation of SPCC Plans.

40 CFR Part 112 "Jeopardy"

Presenters: Mark W. Howard and Patricia Gioffre (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

This presentation will be an interactive audience participation game show style review of the 40 CFR requirements. The presentation is styled after a poplar TV game show that will be hosted by Mark "Trebeck" and "Vanna" Gioffre. This presentation is a fun way to review some of those boring regulatory requirements associated with 40 CFR part 112 (the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) and Facilities Response Plan (FRP) rule). Valuable prizes await those who answer correctly so long as it is provided in the form of a question.

Top of page

Submerged Oil Research and Response

Submerged Oil, Recent Experiences and Research

Presenter: Kurt A. Hansen (USCG)

For spills of submerged oil, current methods are inadequate to find and recover the oil. Many of the detection approaches are ad hoc and the recovery techniques very labor intensive. Some recent experiences in the Delaware River and Gulf of Mexico will be briefly discussed. During this presentation a project evaluating the use of sonar, laser fluorometry, real-time mass spectrometry, and in-situ fluorometry to locate oil sitting on the bottom will be discussed. Evaluation of proof-of-concept devices was conducted between November 2007 and February 2008. Tests are being conducted in January 2009, using sonar and laser fluorometry and additional work on recovery starting late in 2009. Preliminary data and assessments will be provided.

Two Barge Spill Incidents

Presenter: Andrew Milanes (Environmental Science Services, Inc.)

This presentation will discuss the following two barge incidents:

MM53
At approximately 1400 on January 26, 2006, the M/V Kelly Lee and her three-barge tow strikes the vane dike at the entrance to the McAlpine Locks on the Ohio River near Louisville, Kentucky. The tow consisted of three barges, each containing 798,000 gallons of liquid asphalt, 11,500 gallons of diesel fuel, and 4,000 gallons of thermal heating oil. All three barges broke loose as a result of the collision. Two of the barges were captured without spillage. The third barge, MM53, is pinned between the two piers of the K&I bridge at river mile 607.4. The force of the water flips the MM53 on her side, and remains pinned between the bridge piers. The MM53 remained against the bridge until salvage was complete on May 29, 2006.

This presentation discusses the initial response, shoreline and river-bottom survey, environmental impacts, and unique salvage challenges. The presentation highlights the use of alternate techniques and technology for locating the spilled asphalt, such as dive surveys, pike pole surveys, and multi-beam sonar mapping.

FMT 5004
At approximately 2100 on February 1, 2007, the M/V John Roberts was downriver bound on the Mississippi River when the FMT 5004, one of the four barges under tow, collided with the "Louisiana" pier of the Kansas City Southern Railroad bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi, causing extensive damage to the bow rake and forward cargo tanks. The FMT 5004, loaded with crude oil, explodes and became engulfed in flames spilling burning cargo. The FMT 5004, while continuing to burn and spilling burning cargo, continued downriver and was eventually recovered and secured against the left descending bank approximately 12 miles downriver near mile 423.6.

This presentation discusses the shoreline survey and environmental impacts. The presentation focuses on the use of GPS-referenced photos and GIS mapping for shoreline oiling surveys of approximately 100 miles of river bank.

Top of page

Tank Talk

Liquid Fertilizer Aboveground Storage Tank Collapse

Presenters: Robert Hall, Mary Nikityn, and John B. Vorderbrueggen (U.S. Chemical Safety Board)

On November 12, 2008, shortly after the terminal operator completed filling a 116-foot diameter aboveground storage tank (AST) to a height about three inches below the safe fill height, the AST suddenly collapsed. Two contract workers were struck by the tank shell and seriously injured.

More than 48,000 barrels of urea and ammonium nitrate fertilizer overtopped a containment dike and flooded sections of a nearby residential neighborhood. At least 200,000 gallons of fertilizer could not be accounted for and some reached the nearby Elizabeth River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.

This presentation will summarize the preliminary investigation findings as to the cause of the tank collapse. The presentation will discuss recent tank modifications, out-of-service inspection, and the safe fill height for the AST. The presentation will also discuss the Urgent Safety Recommendations issued by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board on December 8, 2008, and the apparent lack of standards and regulations covering the safety of non-petroleum aboveground storage tanks.

Oil Spill Case Study - Ambès Tank Farm (Gironde, France)

Presenters: Arnaud Guéna, Mikaël Laurent, and Emmanuelle Poupon (Cedre)

On January 12, 2007, the base of a storage tank in an oil depot located on the Gironde estuary in Ambès, France suddenly gave way, spilling 85,000 barrels of crude oil. The release created a huge wave effect causing some 12,580 barrels of oil to overflow out of the retention pool into the drainage system, the settler, and other storage tanks. The oil polluted a surrounding marshland and its creeks, as well as the Garonne River.

Emergency measures were taken to ensure the safety of personnel and installations. Authorities and fire service were immediately alerted, and the storage facility contingency plan was activated.

During the first 5 days, daily surveys allowed assessing the extent of the pollution and establishing response strategies. Tidal currents quickly caused the spill to spread in the Garonne River as well as along the Dordogne and Gironde rivers. Booms were deployed and cofferdams were constructed at all the drainage outflow points. Recovery of oil using weir skimmers was hindered by strong currents and the wide spreading of slicks. Floating oil and debris were, therefore, collected with netting devices. Removal of the bulk oil from the river banks began; those areas were difficult to access and subject to an extensive natural cleanup process. On-river operations were completed by mid February 2007. Subsequent cleanup efforts focused on the marshland and its waterways and vegetation for several months.

The site is the terminal of a pipeline transporting crude oil from a land-based production field located more than 60 miles away. For safety, control and investigation purposes, oil reception was stopped for several weeks, leading to the temporary closure of oil production. Regulations for the oil tank farm were revised in the wake of this incident.

Steel Tank Institute Standards for Inspection and Repair of Tanks

Presenter: Dana Schmidt (Steel Tank Institute)

SP001, Standard for Inspection of Aboveground Storage Tanks, is referenced in EPA's Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule. This presentation will provide details on the use of this standard. Further, the Steel Tank Institute Steel Plate Fabricators Association (STI/SPFA) has recently issued SP031, Standard for the Repair of Shop-Fabricated Aboveground Storage Tanks, and covers the repairs of tanks resulting from problems identified during an SP001 inspection. The addition of SP031 provides the full documents needed for complete tank management.

Top of page

Technology as a Preparedness and Response Tool

Google Earth River Sensitivity Atlas Project

Presenters: Colin Willits (Tetra Tech), Joe Davis (EPA Region 7), and Paul Doherty (EPA Region 7)

EPA Region 7 Emergency Response Program (ERP) is developing a Google Earth-based River Sensitivity Atlas Application (Sensitivity Atlas) as a resource tool for responders in the event of significant man-made and natural disasters. The Sensitivity Atlases, in development for several special-focus areas, consolidate various forms of information into a comprehensive and easy-to-use application in which Google Earth provides the display and mapping component. The Sensitivity Atlas is comprised of mapping components and layers including: response consideration information and photos, river access points (boat ramps), sensitive species information, mile marker locations, Nation Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) information, bridge locations, dike and levee locations, river navigation charts, EPA facility location and information, county boundaries, township and range information and locations, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Each component is organized and grouped in an intuitive layer structure that can be turned on or off in the Google Earth Places pane and is attributed with response pertinent information. Various layers are clickable in the Google Earth viewing pane allowing for display of information such as emergency responder contact information and boom deployment strategies in a customized Place Mark. Although an area Sensitivity Atlas is intended to be a stand alone application it does require a high speed internet connection to gain the full benefit of the Google Earth based application. The Sensitivity Atlases are designed and built using ESRI ArcGIS and standard HTML editing software and is easily updated and enhanced allowing for low cost and efficient maintenance.

U.S. Coast Guard Response Resource Inventory Database (RRI)

Presenter: Lt. Robert Gore (USCG)

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 mandated the creation of a national database of response resources that would be maintained by the National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC) located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. This voluntary equipment locator system known as the Response Resource Inventory (RRI) began being used in 1993. Industry was provided with a DOS-based computerized Data Collection tool to submit their resources to the NSFCC to be incorporated into a database of all resources.

In June of 2007, funding was secured to upgrade the technologically obsolete RRI system to a Web-based application. Significant work has progressed in developing a user-friendly Web-based application. The newly improved application serves as a conduit for not only existing response customers to update their resources, but it allows a wide variety of other oil and chemical response entities to easily list their resources.

The new system has a Data Entry Module that enables Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs) to easily add their resources online. Users seeking an OSRO classification will immediately know what their projected classifications are. The NSFCC will continue to provide formal correspondence when there are changes in classification levels or when a "new" OSRO is classified.

The RRI provides Federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSCs) and OSCs with the ability to query equipment inventories and analyze response capabilities throughout the world. FOSCs and OSCs will be able to see what equipment such as boom, skimmers, temporary storage, and vessels are available and where it is located in proximity to U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) zones.

Data Resources through the US Integrated Earth and Ocean Observing Systems

Presenter: Stuart Eddy (Great Lakes Commission)

The Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) is one of 11 Regional Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (RCOOS) associated with U.S. contributions to the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). GLOS integrates data, analytical and predictive models, and user applications to support research, protection and restoration of ecosystems, public health, national security and maritime operations on the Great Lakes. Raw data from in-situ instruments, remote sensing platforms and analytical models are distributed through the GLOS network to end users, pre-processed for use in models and analysis programs, or analyzed to produce derived information products. Viewers and custom applications on the GLOS website allow users to explore data and information products online using internet-based mapping applications. Planners and responders in and around the Great Lakes can benefit directly from GLOS products. In addition, many GLOS data sources are operated by national or international programs and may be of use outside the region. This presentation will include information about GLOS data and processing resources, demonstrate existing GLOS applications, and invite discussion of possible enhancements to serve the response community.

Top of page

Tribal Environmental Issues

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Tribal Strategy EPA & Tribal Partnership to Preserve and Restore Land

Presenter: William J. Nichols (EPA Office of Emergency Management)

EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is committed to protecting human health and the environment on tribal lands while supporting the tribes' self government, acting consistently with the federal trust responsibility, and strengthening the government-to-government relationships between tribes and EPA. For more than 20 years, EPA has been fulfilling these commitments by providing financial and technical assistance to tribal governments to build capacity in OSWER programs. The OSWER Tribal Strategy provides a basic framework for continuing to fulfill these commitments.

The purpose of OSWER's Tribal Strategy is to communicate a nationwide approach to protecting public health and resources on tribal lands. This Tribal Strategy identifies key OSWER program strategies and activities that EPA believes are particularly important areas of focus and which the Agency intends to support with available technical and financial resources during the next five years.

EPA's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) programs play a key role in protecting the environment through prevention of, preparation for, and response to releases of oil and hazardous substances. Oil and chemical spills endanger public health, imperil drinking water, and can damage natural resources that have cultural or subsistence importance. For these reasons, OEM's priority is to reduce the risk of releases on tribal lands by encouraging tribes to work with Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). Refer to Appendix C for more information on EPCRA - covered facilities and plan for emergencies involving hazardous substances. By implementing EPCRA provisions, tribes may establish and maintain current tribal emergency response planning committees (TERCs) [or participate in a local emergency planning committee (LEPC)] and emergency response plans, and participate in accident prevention and response initiatives, which EPA believes may reduce the risk of chemical releases into tribal communities.

Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Water from Pipelines on the Navajo Nation: Lessons Learned

Presenter: Ronnie Ben (Navajo Nation EPA of the Dine Nation)

Dozens of commercial oil and gas pipelines currently cross through the Navajo Nation and more are being added each year. Before new or repaired lines are brought into use, they are often tested for leaks using hydrostatic test water. This process can require millions of gallons of water that will need to be disposed of after the testing has been completed. On the Navajo Nation, the approval process for this disposal can be very confusing for operators who have to follow federal, state, and tribal regulations. During this presentation, I will present how this approval process works on the Navajo Nation and how it may be improved. I will also provide several recent examples.

Top of page

Unique Inland Response Strategies

Ice Safety Awareness Training for the Responder

Presenter: Chet Karella (Alaska Clean Seas)

The presentation will cover issues of responder safety as it relates to working and responding to an oil spill on ice. Topics covered will include ice safety along with the use of the tools and techniques used to determine safe working limits on ice; a review of tactics used to delineate, contain, and recover oil on, in, and under ice; a discussion of the dynamic wave effect on ice and how to avoid ice failure; and the guidelines for short and long-term loading. The presentation will close with an overview of the tools and techniques for both self rescue and team rescue of personnel that have broken through the ice.

Rapid Response Trailers for Inland Refineries

Presenters: Thomas Coolbaugh and William Lerch (ExxonMobil)

In many environments, Tier 1 spills may become significantly more severe if not responded to in a timely fashion, thus it is imperative that appropriate spill response equipment be available and readily deployable at a moment's notice. With this in mind, this presentation will discuss ExxonMobil's strategy relating to the development and deployment of rapid response trailers for use by inland refineries. A primary goal is to have fully stocked trailers available that may be easily transported to a spill site without need for specialized vehicles. Additionally, the inventory of response equipment has been selected such that no more than two individuals are required to maneuver any of the contents. In this manner, spill response equipment may be transported to the site of any Tier 1 spill, even if it is not readily accessible, and an effective spill response may be undertaken. For larger spills the goal of the response is to assess the situation and safely secure the area until additional help arrives. We will review the types of equipment, manning and deployment strategies, and field decommissioning plans developed to meet corporate response expectations for Tier 1 events.

IBAMA's Prevention Measures for Oil Spills in Inland Areas Along Highways

Presenters: Fernanda Inojosa, Cristiane Oliveira, and Gutemberg Mascarenhas (IBAMA)

Road accidents are not necessarily the most serious, but are the most frequent in Brazil. In 2007, the Federal Highway Police (PRF) reported 908 accidents with hazardous products in federal highways; around 23% of those involved the transport of fuel oil. Gasoline (UN 1203) was the second product in number of accidents, behind coal only (UN 1361). Fuel oil transport (gasoline and diesel), was the major problem in 11 of the 27 states. Considering Brazilian continental dimensions and its rich natural water system, a great part of the oil spills in highways will inevitably reach the soil, potentially contaminating groundwater. Moreover, the liquids are transported by gravity to watercourses nearby, affecting water supply and causing environmental damages. Although not significant when compared to oil plant accidents, the constant minor spills caused by tank trucks can lead to systemic pollution in freshwater. In this context, the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), together with other institutions launched in 2007, a preventive action in Brazilian highways. The program consists of roadblocks and inspections. On the highway the government agents check documents, the truck conditions and the environmental permit to transport hazardous products. When the truck or the drivers are in an illegal situation, IBAMA can impose fines and seize the truck. In addition, IBAMA visits the transport companies liable for those trucks, to inspect the oil storage facilities, besides other legal requirements. In 2008, IBAMA participated in roadblocks held in four states, summing more than $ 500.000,00 in fines.

Top of page

Waters of the United States: SWANCC and Rapanos Decisions

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction: Current Status And Prospects For Restoring Historic Scope Of CWA Protections (1.5 Hour Panel Session)

Presenters: Donna Downing (EPA Office of Water Oceans and Wetlands OWOW), and Cheryl Rose (EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliant Assistance - OECA)

The scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been affected by a multitude of court cases, and especially by the Supreme Court’s rulings in SWANCC (2001) and Rapanos (2006). While both of these cases pertained to wetlands, the decisions affect all aspects of the CWA, including Section 311 spill prevention, preparedness and response programs, because there is a single definition of "Waters of the U.S." under the CWA. This panel session will first provide symposium participants with an understanding of the current jurisdictional scope of CWA protections (including geographic differences associated with Circuit Court decisions) and legislative, regulatory, or policy actions that are contemplated to address current concerns/uncertainties. Next participants will hear how CWA jurisdictional challenges affect the oil spill prevention, preparedness, response, and enforcement programs. Time will be reserved for both panel interaction, and questions from participants.

PART I. Background/Context: National CWA Jurisdiction Overview: Concerns and Potential Actions to Address them (Donna Downing)

PART II. Oil Program Impacts: Program and Enforcement (Oil Manager TBD/Cheryl Rose)

PART III. Panel Interaction and Participant Q&A

Top of page

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.