-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
Oil Spill Response Equipment Caching: A Washington State Case Study
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2009
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Boyle, Sarah E
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
OIL SPILL RESPONSE EQUIPMENT CACHING:
A WASHINGTON STATE CASE STUDY
by
Sarah Eileen Boyle
A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
June 2009
© 2009 by Sarah Eileen Boyle. All rights reserved.
The Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Sarah Eileen Boyle
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________________
Alison Styring, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
_________________________________
June 3, 2009
ABSTRACT
Oil spill response equipment caching:
A Washington State case study
Sarah Eileen Boyle
Oil spill response in the United States has evolved significantly over the
past 50 years. In the past, the federal government oversaw spill response
nationwide. At that time, spill response resources were spread across the nation
and were often too far away to be effectively deployed during an oil spill. Several
significant, large volume spills, such as the Argo Merchant and the Exxon Valdez,
resulted in new environmental legislation that changed the way that oil spills were
managed in the U.S. These laws improved the federal government’s preparedness
and ability to respond to oil spills, as well as delegated authority to state
governments to handle response actions within their jurisdictions.
The Washington State legislature has set a “zero spills” goal for the state,
a mandate that the Department of Ecology Spills Program takes very seriously. In
order to meet this goal, the Spills Program has designed and implemented the Oil
Spill Equipment Caching Grant, a unique, community-based, first responder
program. The grant provided response equipment and training to local
governments and tribes for use during the critical initial hours of a spill. Early
intervention can be the difference between localized, minimal damage and a spill
that severely impacts sensitive environmental, cultural, and economic resources.
The following paper will be a case study of Washington State communitybased equipment caching program. A history of major spills, and the subsequent
legislation, will be explained, as well as Washington State’s role in spill response.
To better understand the strategic planning that influenced the equipment-caching
program, a brief overview of spill response decision-making will be provided,
followed by an in depth examination of Washington’s equipment caching
program. Examples of similar programs in effect in Alaska and Massachusetts
are also included.
Community based spill response is an effective way to deal with initial
response to oil spills and an efficient way to mitigate the negative impacts of a
spill.
Washington State has developed a comprehensive program that
successfully incorporates local knowledge and manpower to protect valuable and
sensitive areas around the state.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………. vii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… viii
Acronyms………………………………………………………………………
ix
INTRODUCTION………………………………………..…………………….. 1
I) BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION…… 2
National Environmental Policy Act…………………………………….
2
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)……………….
3
The Argo Merchant Incident……………………………………………. 4
Carter Directive: Oil Pollution to the Oceans..…………………………. 5
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act…………………………………………………….. 6
The Exxon Valdez Incident……………………………………………… 7
Oil Pollution Act………………………………………………………... 9
II) WASHINGTON STATE ROLE IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE……………... 11
III) OIL SPILL RESPONSE DECISION-MAKING…………………….……. 13
Strategic Level…………………………………………………………. 14
Overview………………………………………………………. 14
Literature review………………………………………………. 15
Tactical Level………………………………………………………….. 17
Overview………………………………………………………. 17
Literature review………………………………………………. 17
Operational level………………………………………………………. 18
IV) WASHINGTON STATE CASE STUDY…………………………………. 20
Introduction……………………………………………………………. 20
Grant Program…………………………………………………………. 21
Overview………………………………………………………. 21
iv
Funding………………………………………………………... 22
Timelines………………………………………………………. 22
Equipment contractor selection………………………………… 23
Applications and Grant Recipients…………………………………….. 23
Recruitment and application…………………………………… 23
Eligibility and selection criteria……………………………….. 24
Awards………………………………………………………… 25
Grant agreements……………………………………………… 26
Equipment……………………………………………………………..
27
Overview………………………………………………………
27
Standard caches………………………………………………..
28
Specialized caches…………………………………………….. 30
Specialized caches without trailers……………………………. 30
Boom vanes……………………………………………………. 31
Washington State Department of Ecology equipment…………. 32
Training………………………………………………………………… 33
Program Maintenance…………………………………………………. 34
Equipment in Action…………………………………………………… 35
City of Gig Harbor……………………………………………... 36
San Juan County……………………………………………….. 37
Conclusions……………………………………………………………. 40
V) STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS BEYOND WASHINGTON……. 42
State of Alaska………………………………………………………… 42
Growth of Alaska’s community spill response program………. 43
Alaska and Washington: Similarities and differences…………. 46
Massachusetts State……………………………………………………. 47
Buzzards Bay and the Bouchard No. 120 spill………………… 48
Massachusetts Oil Spill Act of 2004…………………………... 50
Other States……………………………………………………………. 52
VI) CONCLUSIONS……………………………………….…………………. 55
v
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………… 57
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………. 62
Appendix A. Washington State Department of Ecology oil spill
response equipment grant application form…………… 62
Appendix B. Map of oil spill response equipment cache locations,
grouped by geographic region, in Washington State….. 63
Appendix C. Distribution of oil spill response equipment by
Ecology region………………………………………… 64
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
An 18’ mobile trailer stocked with oil spill response
equipment……………………………………………………...
28
Figure 2.
Anchor systems and navigation stobe lights………………..…
29
Figure 3.
Sorbent materials and additional supplies for spill responders... 29
Figure 4.
Restocking comtainment boom into the rear section of a
mobile spill response trailer during the Douglas County
Public Utility District familiarization training………………… 29
Figure 5.
One-meter boom vane assembled for deployment training
exercise………………………………………………………... 32
Figure 6.
Boom vane deployment in the Columbia River……………….
Figure 7.
Practicing a U-shaped boom deployment during the
32
equipment familiarization training at Pt. Roberts Marina….… 34
Figure 8.
Connecting the end plates of two lengths of hard boom
during familiarization training at Pt. Roberts Marina…………. 34
Figure 9.
Containment boom surrounds a burning vessel during
the Gig Harbor Marina fire, 2005……………………………... 36
Figure 10.
Contractors recover oil and debris that was contained within
hard boom that was deployed by firefighters during the Gig
Harbor Marina Fire, 2005……………………………………..
Figure 11.
36
Island Oil Spill Association members with their new
equipment trailer……………………………………………..... 38
Figure 12.
IOSA members demonstrate techniques for using hard boom
during a training exercise at Deer Harbor, Orcas Island……… 39
Figure 13.
IOSA members practice deploying containment boom
around a boat during a training exercise.................................... 39
Figure 14.
Firefighters begin to deploy containment boom on Moses Lake
to circle a sunken vessel that was releasing oil into the lake….
Figure 15.
40
The author, representing the Washington State Department of
Ecology, at the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference………. 40
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Alison Styring for offering her time and advice, and for sharing her
love for birds.
Thanks to David Byers for the opportunity to manage the equipment-caching
grant, and for supporting my collegiate and volunteer endeavors.
Thanks to Jeff Nelson for his incorrigible patience and tireless housekeeping, and
for helping me get to the other shore.
Thanks to Patrick Boyle for instilling in me the desire to be a good writer, and an
even better editor, and for spending his time helping me to improve this paper.
Thanks to Whitney Bowerman for encouraging me to enroll in the MES program,
and for seeing me through until the end.
Thanks to Mary Ellen Voss for helping me design and print the poster.
viii
ACRONYMS
ADEC
Alaska Department of Conservation
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (1980)
CSRA
Community Spill Response Agreement
CSRP
Community Spill Response Program
CWA
Clean Water Act (1972)
DEM
Department of Emergency Management
Ecology
Washington State Department of Ecology
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Program
FWPCA
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1948)
GRP
Geographic Response Plan
IOSA
Island Oil Spill Association
MassDEP
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MTCA
Model Toxics Control Act (1989)
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NEPA
National Environmental Pollution Act (1970)
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OPA
Oil Pollution Act (1990)
RCW
Revised Code of Washington
SARA
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (1986)
USCG
United States Coast Guard
ix
Introduction
Major maritime oil spills of the past have created concern among
government, industry, and the public about how to effectively respond to a
disastrous spill event. A massive spill occurred in 1967 when the Torrey Canyon
ran aground, causing the tanker’s hull to fracture and spill 36 million gallons of
crude oil into the English Channel (Belardo, Harrald, Wallace, & Ward, 1984).
The grounding of the Argo Merchant in Massachusetts (1976) was a catastrophic
spill that released 7.7 million gallons of heavy crude oil in three separate releases
during one week (Psaraftis & Ziogas, 1985). An uncontrolled blowout from a
Union Oil offshore platform released more than three million gallons of crude oil
into Santa Barbara Bay in 1969, soiling 40 miles of coastline and triggering a
massive public outcry (County of Santa Barbara, 2005). Other significant spills
include the Amoco Cadiz (68.7 million gallons) grounding, France (1978); the
Ixtoc-I (140 million gallons) well blowout, Gulf of Mexico (1979); the Ashland
Oil spill (four million gallons) into the Monongahela River at Floreffe,
Pennsylvania, the nation’s largest inland oil spill (1998); the Exxon Valdez (11
million gallons) grounding, Alaska (1989); and the recent Cosco Busan (58,000
gallons) oil spill into San Francisco Bay (2007). The environmental, economic,
and social ramifications that were felt following these spill events demanded that
emergency actions be taken by the federal and state governments to prevent largescale spill events, to develop effective response strategies, and to mitigate the
resulting damages.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the advantages of pre-positioning
oil spill response equipment by state government to improve overall spill response
capabilities. Washington State will serve as a case study for how to design and
implement a community-based initial response program.
Washington’s
community response program for oil spills serves as a model for other states.
This paper will be divided into the following six chapters: I) Background of
federal environmental legislation; II) Washington State role in oil spill response;
III) Oil spill response decision-making; IV) Washington State case study; V) State
government programs beyond Washington; and VI) Conclusions.
1
I)
Background of Federal Environmental Legislation
Since the 1970s, significant federal legislation has been written to address
the impacts of major environmental emergencies and the ongoing environmental
degradation resulting from industrial, economic, and recreational activities. This
section will introduce the main federal environmental laws that deal with oil
spills, and discuss the significant incidents that led to these laws. These laws give
the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) initial response authority and jurisdiction over oil and hazardous
material events. Since the scope of this paper is on state and local government
response to oil spills, this information is provided to frame the context of spill
response at the national level and provide the reader with a background to
understand the policies that govern Washington State’s decision to base spill
response in local communities.
National Environmental Policy Act
The first comprehensive environmental law was enacted in the United
States when Congress ratified the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). President Nixon signed NEPA into law on January 1, 1970, effectively
establishing national environmental policies (Council of Environmental Quality
[CEQ], 2007). In the same year, Nixon issued an executive order, creating the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the new law.
Prior to the passage of NEPA, environmental regulation was often
complex and detailed. NEPA provided simple, comprehensive regulations that
established a national policy to protect the environment and required decision
makers to consider the long term or confounding environmental impacts that may
result from their decisions (Alm, 1998).
The National Environmental Policy Act integrated environmental values
into federal decision-making by holding the government responsible for
protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the environment (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA], 2009b). This act influenced subsequent legislation by
2
requiring federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations into their
decision-making processes.
In essence, NEPA changed the way the U.S. government handled
environmental issues by making all federal agencies accountable for the
environmental impacts of their decisions and actions.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
While NEPA was the first comprehensive environmental law, it was
informed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), enacted in 1948.
FWPCA was an early effort to eliminate water pollution and to improve water
quality, specifically for increased sanitation in densely populated areas. The
FWPCA prohibited the discharge of hazardous materials, including oil, into the
navigable waters or onto the shoreline of the United States (Smith & Sheldrake,
n.d.).
Multiple amendments have altered the original text of the FWPCA. One
amendment, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, established civil and
criminal penalties for spills and required the development of regulations for
hazardous substances other than oil. This amendment also created the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) to achieve a federally coordinated and efficient response
to oil spills (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [USFW], n.d.). The NCP assigned the
management role of federal on-scene coordinator to the USCG, for spills to
marine and navigable waters, and to the EPA, for inland incidents (Coe, 1995;
Thurston County Emergency Management, n.d.).
The 1972 amendment, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA), significantly expanded and fortified the earlier legislation. The CWA
addressed pollution prevention regulations by developing technology-based
standards to manage non-point and point pollution sources (USFW, n.d).
Additional provisions created the 311(k) Fund, which would later incorporate the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which was designed to collect revenue through
taxes on the petroleum industry (Smith & Sheldrake, n.d.).
The CWA also
established the USCG’s National Response Center as the sole point of contact for
3
reporting all hazardous material discharges into the environment (National
Response Center, 2002).
Subsequent amendments to the FWPCA and the CWA continue to
strengthen the initial intention of the act: to improve overall water quality and to
reduce hazardous pollution discharges into U.S. waters.
The Argo Merchant Incident
Six years after NEPA was enacted, a major spill into American waters
tested response capabilities envisioned in the new law. This was the infamous
Argo Merchant spill in 1976, which taught valuable lessons and led to significant
improvements in oil spill response during challenging incidents in the U.S., and in
related legislation, due to lessons learned.
The Argo Merchant, a Liberian tanker, ran aground on rocks off the
Massachusetts coast, causing a massive oil spill that challenged the response
capabilities of the federal government. According to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (n.d.a) and Psaraftis and Zioga (1985), the
events of the Argo Merchant occurred as follows:
On December 15, 1976, the Argo Merchant ran aground 29 nautical miles
from Nantucket Island, amid ten-foot seas and strong winds. The tanker,
which was carrying 7.7 million gallons, or 183,000 barrels, of heavy crude
oil, began to slowly leak oil into the water.
Over the next several days, the weather worsened, the crew was
evacuated, and attempts to re-float the vessel were unsuccessful.
By
December 20th, nearly two million gallons of crude oil had escaped.
On December 21st, the Argo Merchant broke in two, releasing
approximately three million gallons, or 36,000 barrels, of oil.
The following day, December 22nd, the tanker broke again, releasing the
remaining oil into the sea.
Prevailing winds kept the oil from reaching the shore.
This was a
fortunate turn of events, since shoreline impacts from oil spills are often
technically complicated and ecologically destructive. These winds altered the
4
focus of the response efforts by shifting the attention from potential shoreline
impacts to the impending damage to economically important fishing grounds.
The Argo Merchant grounding, and the subsequent federal response,
received widespread public and media scrutiny. One relevant observation was
that the availability and quantity of response resources near the spill site was
inadequate. Other key criticisms of the response efforts included: 1) failure of the
government to lighter, or transfer, the oil before it escaped to the water; 2) limited
understanding by scientists of spills in general, and of how to interpret specific
spill data; 3) lack of preparedness and coordination between agencies, requiring
the necessity of mounting a full-scale response from scratch; 4) inability to
successfully mitigate the damages through multiple attempts of in-situ burning; 5)
use of limited or inaccurate spill-trajectory modeling software (Belardo et al.,
1984; NOAA, n.d.a; Pollack & Stolzenbach, 1978). It became apparent that
despite government actions, federal agencies were unable to effectively handle the
Argo Merchant oil spill.
Carter Directive: Oil Pollution to the Oceans
In 1977, one year after the Argo Merchant incident, President Carter
called for a study to identify and address the response problems associated with
that oil spill.
The study led Carter to issue a national policy directive for
preventing and responding to oil pollution in the oceans. This directive required
the USCG, the EPA, and NOAA to become sufficiently capable of responding to
a 100,000-ton oil spill anywhere in U.S. waters within six hours (Belardo et al.,
1984; Woolley & Peters, n.d.). The goal was clear, but the directive did not
provide instructions to the agencies on how to achieve the new requirements.
Carter’s instructions regarding the six-hour response period were ambiguous; the
directive did not explain if six hours referred to the time it took to dispatch the
equipment, or for the equipment to reach a staging site, or to initiate the cleanup
activities once the equipment arrived on scene (Belardo et al., 1984; Coe, 1995;
Psaraftis, Tharakan, & Ceder, 1986).
The Coast Guard, as federal on-scene coordinator, was responsible for
determining what resources would be needed to reach the directive’s goal for
5
marine incidents.
Through a contract with the U. S. Department of
Transportation’s Transportation Systems Center, the USCG developed strategic
and tactical response plans and operational goals for oil spill response (Belardo et
al., 1984; Bellantoni, Garlitz, Kodis, O'Brien, & Passera, 1979). These plans
were based primarily on the frequency of spills at specific locations; the optimal
type and quantity of equipment that was needed was based on the corresponding
spill volume (Psaraftis et al., 1986). Based on this study, the initiative was
interpreted as such: all equipment must be staged at a debarkation point near the
spill and be ready to deploy within six hours of notification by the federal onscene coordinator (Belardo et al., 1984, Coe, 1995). The result was a specific prespill plan for siting oil spill response equipment, with the largest stockpile staged
in Philadelphia, capable of responding to a spill of less than 15,000 tons within six
hours of notification (Belardo et al., 1984).
This plan enhanced preparedness along the East Coast, but did little to
address risks in other regions. For instance, this plan provided minimal protection
to the heavily-traveled, semi-enclosed waterways of the Puget Sound, where the
risk of spills, and the opportunity for successful mitigation is relatively high
(Belardo et al., 1984). As a result, Washington State agencies coordinate spill
response with the USCG and the EPA, and have implemented a first-responder
spill response program to manage spill incidents at the community level. This
program will be highlighted later in this paper.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
The next important environmental law was passed in 1980. This law, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, deals with hazardous substances,
pollution and contamination in the environment. CERCLA created the Hazardous
Substances Trust Fund, set at $1.6 billion, through a tax on the petroleum and
chemical industry, to be used for response to actual or potential pollution releases
and during the cleanup of hazardous waste sites (Smith & Sheldrake, n.d.; EPA,
2009a).
6
CERCLA was amended in 1986 by passage of the Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act (SARA).
SARA contributed to the growth of citizen
involvement in spill responses by combining state government expertise with
civilian perspectives during planning and cleanup decision-making. SARA also
increased Congress’s annual appropriation of funds generated by the Superfund
tax to $8.5 billion, and included the Community Right-to-Know Act, which
increased the public’s awareness of chemicals, including petroleum products,
being stored in and transported through their communities (EPA, 2009c; Ramseur,
Reisch, & McCarthy, 2008).
Both CERCLA and SARA were intended to improve spill response
because they required the spillers of hazardous substances to take responsibility
for the spill and pay for the cleanup.
In addition, the federal and state
governments, as trustees of resources, were authorized to recover from
responsible parties costs to repair damages to the environment that occurred as a
result of a release of a hazardous substance (Buzzards Bay National Estuary
Program [BBNEP], n.d.). Despite the importance of CERCLA and the SARA
amendment, this legislation was written to address hazardous substances and did
not include oil-specific hazards. Although the Clean Water Act covered oil, the
omission of oil from CERCLA left a hole in federal policy. This oversight was
addressed four years later in the Oil Pollution Act, following the tragic events of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The Exxon Valdez Incident
On March 24, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William
Sound, creating the largest and most devastating oil spill in U. S. history. The
Exxon Valdez incident is well known and has received tremendous media
attention. The public interest aroused at the time of the spill continued for years
afterwards, as communities and government agencies contemplated the impacts of
the spill and the effectiveness of cleanup actions. The Exxon Valdez incident has
reappeared in recent news reports commemorating the 20th anniversary of the
catastrophic spill. According to NOAA (n.d.b), the events of the first days of the
Exxon Valdez spill are as follows:
7
On March 24, 1989, the tank vessel Exxon Valdez, which was traveling
outside of normal shipping lanes to avoid ice, collided with and
became grounded on Bligh Reef, a remote, biologically diverse region
in Prince William Sound.
The tanker was carrying 53 million gallons of Prudhoe Bay crude, and
within six hours of grounding, nearly 11 million gallons of oil had
been spilled into the surrounding water.
It took 35 hours to completely encircle the vessel with containment
boom.
Once the vessel was surrounded, field-tested and experimental
response techniques were employed to mitigate the spill. Responders
applied dispersants and conducted in-situ burning during the earliest
operational periods, when a storm moved into the region on March
26th, these techniques were no longer effective.
Skimmers were used to recover oil from the water, and a combination
of high-pressure flushing and sorbents were used to remove oil from
the shoreline.
Throughout the spill response and cleanup actions, which continued for
several years, federal and state on-scene coordinators, working in a unified
command, faced numerous logistical challenges. Because the spill occurred in a
remote area, it was necessary for response equipment and personnel to be flown to
Anchorage, transferred to Valdez, and then transported to the spill site. Many of
the affected areas were inaccessible by land, which required equipment and
personnel to be transferred by vessel to isolated locations, and necessitated that
used response materials be removed for disposal following the cleanup of these
sites. Amid the challenge of assembling a large work force in a short period of
time, it became apparent that many of the volunteers that arrived were
inexperienced in spill cleanup and had never received any formal safety training
(NOAA, n.d.b). In addition to having to manage the various response resources,
the unified command also was expected to oversee aerial surveillance, trajectory
8
modeling, shoreline assessments, and natural-resource damage assessments to
continually reassess the scope and extent of the spill.
Spill-response managers faced an unprecedented challenge during the
Exxon Valdez response. Although the federal government had prepared a cadre of
skilled and highly trained spill responders and scientists, their expertise was
overwhelmed by several unexpected factors: 1) the large volume of oil that was
spilled; 2) the broad geographic range to which the oil spread; 3) the severity of
the spill on the biological community; 4) the variety of profession opinions; and
5) the multitude of logistical challenges (NOAA, 2006).
The calamitous response to the Exxon Valdez spill proved that the federal
response agencies were unable to effectively handle a massive spill incident.
Lessons learned from Exxon Valdez led Congress to pass a new law that
ultimately shifted clear responsibility onto state government and local
communities.
Oil Pollution Act
The following year, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990
in reaction to the insufficient response to the catastrophic Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The OPA required that federal and state governments and industry be better
prepared to respond to oil spills, and provided direction for these agencies to
prevent spills, minimize their impacts, and improve the efficiency of cleanup
operations (Iakovou, Ip, Douligeris, & Korde, 1996). A national contingency plan
was prepared, and a national response team was formed, unifying federal agencies
during preparedness planning and disaster response, and further involving state
governments.
In response to the Oil Pollution Act, the USCG formed the Marine
Environment Protection Program, and established a third National Strike Force
Team – two already existed – to expand rapid-response capabilities and to
maintain specialized response equipment nationwide (Iakovou et al., 1996). The
new policy required the Coast Guard to upgrade and expand its spill-response
capability, specifically for offshore incidents, and to supplement spill equipment
provided by industry or the responsible party. In order to meet this directive, the
9
agency pre-positioned spill response equipment at unmanned sites that had limited
commercial or private response resources.
These equipment caches were
intended to provide sufficient equipment for strike teams to rapidly respond to a
100,000-gallon spill within each strike team’s geographical area, and to respond
within six hours to major spills of up to 26 million gallons within 200 miles of
shore, offering protection for the marine environment and minimizing damage
and cleanup costs (Coe, 1995). The positioning of pollution-prevention resources
at stations throughout the U. S. provided a band-aid during the initial response to
a spill, and enabled the USCG to mitigate a worst-case spill scenario.
Before the Oil Pollution Act, the spill response community did not prepare
contingency and response plans intended for mutual aid response actions. The
OPA strengthened requirements for coordinated planning and preparedness by
developing area committees and area contingency plans, and tested the prescribed
response
capabilities
through
mutual
aid
exercises
(Sheldrake,
n.d.).
Additionally, the new legislation imposed strict planning and preparedness
requirements on facilities and vessels that stored or transported large quantities of
oil, including requiring minimum response equipment, emergency-response plans,
and regular training drills. The result of OPA was a national preparedness plan
that focused on managing contingency plans and response resources as a whole,
inclusive of federal, state, and local governments, plus industry (Plourde &
Foresman, 2003).
Ultimately, the OPA improved the overall readiness and capabilities of the
national response system. And more significantly, and as this document will
explain, the law shifted greater responsibility to state government, and ultimately
to local communities.
10
II)
Washington State Role in Oil Spill Response
Under the Oil Pollution Act, designated state agencies, as appointed by the
state’s governor, are responsible for managing spills of oil and hazardous
substances within their borders (U.S. Department of Homeland Security & U.S.
Coast Guard, 2006). In Washington State, the Department of Ecology (hereafter
referred to as Ecology) is designated as a trustee of the state’s natural resources,
and is the agency responsible for oversight of hazardous waste cleanups,
including spills of oil.
If a spill of significant magnitude or impact occurs, the federal
government will support the response actions of the state government by
providing technical assistance, field response, and financial support for response
and cleanup expenses. More frequently, state response programs deal with smallvolume spills that impact the waters of the state. It is in response to these
frequent, small-volume spills that a community-based oil spill response
equipment-caching program is most effective.
In response to the cumbersome and circuitous cleanup requirements
identified under CERCLA, Washington State (hereafter referred to as
Washington) passed the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). This state law
(Washington Administrative Code 173-340-300) was a citizen-mandated toxic
waste cleanup law that was passed in 1988 and went into effect in March 1989.
(Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology], 2005). MTCA differed
from the federal legislation because it did not exclude petroleum, like CERCLA
did, and it also developed a streamlined process with specific benchmarks for
cleaning up oil and hazardous waste sites (D. Byers, personal communication,
March 24, 2009). MTCA mandates a response to remove hazards associated with
a petroleum product spilled onto the ground or to any waters of the state,
including ground water, which was excluded in federal legislation, and marine
waters within three nautical miles of shore (Ecology, 2005). As implemented by
Ecology, MTCA provides straightforward cleanup standards for hazardous waste
sites, to protect human health and the environment, while avoiding the complexity
associated with the federal Superfund program.
11
In 1991, Washington adopted new oil pollution laws to complement the
federal OPA regulations: Title 90.48, water pollution control, and Title 90.56, oil
and hazardous substance spill prevention and response (Washington State
Legislature, 2009). Title 90 legislation was initially written for water resource
management and was later adapted for pollution control (D. Byers, personal
communication, February 22, 2009).
Chapter 56 of Title 90 authorizes Ecology
to implement and maintain an effective oil spill prevention and response program,
and the equipment-caching program supports this objective (Washington State
Legislature, 2009).
The Department of Ecology’s oil spill response equipment-caching grant
was discussed and anticipated for several years before the program was funded by
the state legislature. In order to meet their responsibility as natural resource
trustee, the Department of Ecology worked with industry stakeholders, local
response agencies, tribes, and interested individuals to determine the most
effective means for developing and implementing a community-based response
program. The program, which will be presented in Chapter V, was executed in
2006, and continues to provide resources to local first responders for use during
spill incidents.
Title 90 led to the Department of Ecology’s decision to include communitybased responders into oil spill response, and laid the groundwork for Ecology’s
equipment-caching program, which is the subject of this paper. The following
section deals with the methodology Ecology used to make decisions about how to
design and implement this program.
12
III)
Oil Spill Response Decision-Making
To ensure the health and safety of Washington’s people and natural
resources, Ecology’s Spills Program designed an innovative, community-based oil
spill response program. This program was organized around the three logical
levels of emergency planning: strategic, tactical, and operational. The strategic
level addresses where to pre-stage equipment and personnel that will be needed
for a future spill response. At the tactical level, decisions are made about what
equipment is needed to respond to a specific spill.
The operational level deals
with the response itself. As resources are scarce, this multi-level approach allows
planners and responders to deal with oil spills efficiently and cost effectively. In
establishing its community-based program, Ecology focused primarily on the
strategic level. However, a brief discussion of the multi-level decision-making
process will clarify elements of each of the three levels.
The published studies on this topic approach this system as a problem to
be solved, as it invariably is, and most researchers have developed algorithmic
formulas to tackle the challenges associated with emergency planning and
response (Belardo, et al., 1984; Iakovou, et al., 1996; Psaraftis, et al., 1986;
Psaraftis & Zioga, 1985; Toregas, Swain, ReVelle, & Bergman, 1970; Wilhelm &
Srinivasa, 1997).
This chapter will explain the three levels of the oil spill
response decision-making matrix and review the relevant literature.
Algorithmic formulas used to solve decision-making problems tend to
separate the strategic, tactical and operational levels, developing separate
formulas for siting (strategic), dispatching (tactical) and responding (operational).
This may have resulted from a governmental priority on maintaining tight
accountability of publicly owned resources. While strategic algorithms focus
solely on the locational problem – including type and quantity of equipment and
the issue of optimally siting it – the tactical problem deals with allocating
appropriate resources after a spill has occurred. And operational problems assess
where equipment and personnel are needed once the response is underway. This
separation fails to consider the integrated-management approach of staging and
13
dispatching equipment as a set, which enables an effective response to an oil spill
when early intervention is critical in preventing environmental damage.
The Washington State Department of Ecology solved this problem by prestaging equipment appropriate for an initial response inside of a mobile trailer that
can be dispatched and deployed during the first hours of a spill. An example
would be a response trailer pre-positioned near to a fueling dock at a marina. By
combining the strategic concern for having containment booms and adsorbent
materials readily available with the tactical consideration of when and how
firefighters and other emergency responders will use this equipment, Ecology
planners combined the strategic and tactical levels in a way that greatly
accelerates the response.
The following overview is meant to familiarize the reader with the
decision-making priorities of spill planners and on-scene coordinators. As stated
above, emphasis will be placed on the strategic level of the decision-making
process, because that is the core component of the Washington State equipment
grant program.
Strategic Level
Overview
The strategic aspect of the oil spill problem focuses on preparedness and
contingency planning for future spills. Decisions made during strategic planning
address spills before they occur, typically five to ten years prior to a spill event,
and are based on historic data, probabilistic information, and the potential
consequences of the expected response (Iakovou et al., 1996; Psaraftis et al.,
1986).
Preparedness is the central objective of strategic-level decisions for oil
spill response, dealing primarily with pre-positioning of response resources, either
as individual pieces of equipment or as equipment packages. It falls upon the
strategic planner to determine the optimal location, type, and quantity of
equipment to be stockpiled for future spills.
Additional consideration must be
given to the uncertain and potentially high costs of natural resource damage, as
well as the variable costs of the actual cleanup (Psaraftis & Ziogas, 1985).
14
Considerations for strategic-level decision-making include: where to site
equipment so that responders can easily access these resources; the relationship
between chosen cache location and the risk of spills at these sites; the function
and limitations of specific equipment based on the anticipated type of oil(s) that
may be spilled; possible weather conditions and sea states under which the initial
response and ongoing cleanup will occur; and availability of personnel to respond
with the pre-positioned equipment.
Given these concerns, strategic level
decision-making can impose restrictions on the tactical and operational levels,
specifically regarding where, what, and how many equipment caches are prepositioned for timely response to oil spills.
The following case study of the Ecology’s equipment-caching program is
based on the strategic-level decision-making hierarchy. The process of preparing
for spills into state waters has led Ecology’s Spills Program to determine optimal
locations for pre-positioning equipment with the ultimate goal of reducing the
negative impacts and excessive costs associated with oil spills. An in-depth
exploration of how Ecology addressed this strategic-level spill response problem
and designed a community-based first responder oil spill response program will
be explained in Chapter IV.
Literature review
Deciding where to pre-position adequate response equipment before a spill
occurs is the fundamental priority of the strategic level. Psaraftis, Tharakan, and
Ceder (1986) have developed a practical mathematical programming model to
solve this problem, which addresses the issues of both location and allocation of
response equipment. The authors determine the appropriate types and levels of
cleanup equipment deemed capable of responding to potential spills, and
prescribe storage locations based on likely spill sites. This mixed-integer formula
incorporates historical data, such as frequency of past spills, with probabilistic
information, including variables of spill volume and the expected level of
response, to meet the overall goal of minimizing total costs. This model assumes
that fixed costs, such as acquiring and maintaining equipment, are known, as well
as the ability to predict the damage costs resulting from the spill (Psaraftis, et al.,
15
1986; Wilhelm & Srinivasa, 1997). In order to determine the versatility of their
model, the authors apply the formula to New England to illustrate the model’s
potential.
In two other studies for the United States Coast Guard, Charnes, Cooper,
Harrald, Karwan, and Wallace (1976) and Charnes, Cooper, Karwan, and Wallace
(1979) developed multi-criteria models that would aid federal spill response
planning, specifically with regard to resource allocation for offshore spills. The
objective of the 1976 model is to predict the effectiveness of a future spill
response and the ability to deal with that spill over time, which is dependent on
the strategic management issue of resource siting, including such variables as spill
probability, responder availability, and equipment effectiveness (Belardo et al.,
1984; Charnes et al., 1976).
Although the 1979 model also addresses the
locational aspect of the strategic problem, this model was designed to evaluate the
capacity of response resources on a smaller scale (Charnes et al., 1979). This was
necessary because while the USCG, as federal on-scene coordinator, responds to
significant or large oil spills, many spills are managed at the state level,
demonstrating the need for effective state and local response resources.
Belardo, Harrald, Wallace, and Ward (1984) developed an approach to
siting equipment prior to a spill that allows for the multiple objectives that the
decision maker may need to consider. This partial covering approach is designed
for a single major maritime spill, yet incorporates the probability that pre-staged
equipment may be needed to cover multiple regions, therefore recognizing the
resource-availability constraints that would occur during simultaneous spill
incidents (Belardo et al., 1984; Psaraftis et al., 1986). This model has been
successfully adapted and applied to the multi-objective strategic decision-making
problem associated with determining the appropriate location and allocation of
emergency medical response vehicles. (Daskin & Stern, 1981; Moore & ReVelle,
1982).
Thorough strategic-level planning for spill response is key to executing a
successful initial response and managing resources for ongoing cleanup efforts.
To determine the optimal siting location for spill response resources, researchers
and decision makers combine spill data, such as historical records of spill volume
16
and frequency at specific locations, with knowledge of responder availability and
equipment effectiveness. A comprehensive pre-spill strategic plan that includes
pre-staging of response equipment helps to minimize environmental damages and
costs that accompany an oil spill.
Tactical Level
Overview
The decisions made during strategic planning will come into play during the
tactical level of spill response. Equipment that was pre-staged will be deployed
during response actions, and available personnel identified in the strategic prespill plan will be dispatched to handle the spill incident. The following section
will examine the considerations of spill response decision-making at the tactical
level.
The tactical level of spill response deals with specific spill incidents after
they have occurred. Tactical level decision-making involves a detailed plan about
what types and quantities of resources, including equipment and personnel, are
needed to respond to an existing spill. Other key decision triggers at this level
include: when resources, including personnel, should be dispatched to the staging
area at the spill scene; how specific equipment will be used during the cleanup of
the spill; and how long each piece or set of equipment will remain on the scene
(Psaraftis et al., 1986; Wilhelm & Srinivasa, 1997). The goal of the tactical level
is to oversee an efficient, cost-effective cleanup with regard to the aggregate
actions that must take place during a specific spill event.
Literature review
Psaraftis and Ziogas (1985) have developed an analytical algorithm for the
tactical decision maker. Their methodology proposes the optimal dispatching of
spill-response cleanup equipment and personnel to a specific spill after it has
occurred. This algorithm was designed as a component of a larger computer
program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which enables the on-scene
coordinator to input individual variables about the spill and then analyze the
17
resulting possible cleanup options to minimize response and damage costs
(Psaraftis & Ziogas, 1985; Wilhelm & Srinivasa, 1997). This program can serve
as a valuable tool for the tactical level decision-maker when a timely response to
the spill is the top priority.
To allow for the most effective cleanup possible, Wilhelm and Srinivasa
(1997) have calculated a Tactical Decision Problem with the objective of
minimizing response time between when equipment is dispatched and when it
arrives on scene. The Tactical Decision Problem addresses the issue of allocating
available resources so that all of the equipment needs will be met for each critical
operational period. This goal is achieved by dispatching individual pieces of
response equipment to a staging area, where these components are built into a
functional set and deployed as a response set.
The tactical level of spill response deals with getting the needed personnel and
equipment that was identified during the strategic level to the spill site so that they
may be used during the operational level of response. Effective tactical decisionmaking will ensure that the appropriate resources will be available to be
incorporated into the spill response. Ecology identified the tools and personnel
which are likely to be needed for spill response during strategic planning, and the
decision to activate individual pre-staged caches will be made during the tactical
level.
Operational Level
The actual response to an oil spill occurs during the operational level.
Successfully responding to an incident depends on identifying and dispatching the
right resources during the tactical level.
Response operations will be more
effective if the proper equipment was pre-staged during the strategic level, and of
these resources, the appropriate response equipment and trained staff are readily
available to conduct the response.
The operational level of the oil spill decision-making hierarchy addresses
issues associated with the on-scene response phase of a spill incident. This level
focuses on effective cleanup of a specific spill by incorporating the equipment and
personnel identified during the tactical level (Wilhelm & Srinivasa, 1997). On18
scene operations are detailed action plans designed and agreed upon by the state
or federal on-scene coordinator, or by both working in a unified command. These
plans determine exact response objectives and actions, such as specific boom
deployment configurations or the spatial allocation of response operations in
relation to environmentally or culturally sensitive areas (Psaraftis & Ziogas,
1985). Because much of the equipment used during response operations is highly
specialized and expensive, decision making at the operational level must be
targeted to and appropriate for each individual spill incident.
There is a tremendous amount of literature and discussion on the appropriate
methodology and techniques for on-water spill response (American Petroleum
Institute, NOAA, USCG, & EPA, 2001; Fingas, 2000; Nordvick, 1995).
Decisions made at this level focus on the optimal performance of the response
resources given the actual conditions (Iakovou et al., 1996). Operational decision
making is an important component of the spill response decision hierarchy, but is
not a significant concern of the Washington State equipment grant program, and
therefore beyond the scope of this paper.
19
IV)
Washington State Case Study
Introduction
The Washington State Department of Ecology has designed a unique
program to enhance statewide oil spill response capabilities by pre-staging
equipment at vulnerable locations and by providing equipment for local citizenbased first response. Ecology’s Oil Spill Equipment Caching Grant Program is
unique because it enables local community members to preserve their sensitive
resources during an oil spill, prior to the notification or response efforts by
government, industry, or contractor personnel.
Ecology’s Grant Program is an example of an original approach to rapidresponse mobilization and deployment of equipment by community-based first
responders.
Rapid response better serves the end goal of minimizing
environmental damage, more effectively protecting cultural and economic
resources. In addition, this case study is an important contribution to the spill
prevention and response field by providing a model of a successful equipmentcaching program that can be used in other states and internationally to limit the
potentially catastrophic environmental consequences of an oil spill.
This case study will provide specific details of Ecology’s grant program,
enabling other spill response agencies to design similar community-based
programs. The Washington case study component of this paper is divided into the
following sections:
1) Grant program background
2) Applicants and grant recipients
3) Equipment
4) Training
5) Equipment in action
6) Conclusions
Following the Washington State case study will be an examination of
other state community-response programs. While Washington has pioneered use
20
of the mobile equipment cache, Alaska has long pre-staged equipment due to the
remoteness and isolation of many communities. Since Washington implemented
its equipment program, Ecology has provided this model to other state
governments. Following Washington’s example, Massachusetts has initiated a
comparable program, and California recently hired a spill contractor to create a
similar program. The similarities and differences of the state-level programs will
be addressed in Chapter V.
Grant Program
Overview
Prior to the Oil Spill Equipment Caching Grant Program, few local
governments and tribes in Washington had adequate equipment to protect their
resources in the event that a spill occurred within their jurisdiction. Until this
program was implemented, Ecology responders, private contractors, and
industrial businesses were the primary users of spill response equipment in
Washington State. During the time that elapses while equipment is transported to
and deployed at a spill site, significant damage could occur to local
environmental, cultural, and economic resources. This absence of equipment
among local first responders was the key inspiration for Ecology’s equipmentcaching program.
Ecology was motivated to pursue this grant program for two reasons:
increasing state-wide response equipment supported the objectives of Governor
Christine Gregoire’s Puget Sound Initiative, and the success of a pre-staged
equipment deployment was demonstrated during a fire at the Gig Harbor Marina
in 2005.
The success at Gig Harbor, and subsequent equipment deployments,
will be highlighted in the Equipment in Action section of this case study.
The primary objective of the Spill Equipment Caching Grant Program was to
enhance the availability of oil spill response equipment around the state, and to
enable local governments and tribes who are first responders to protect their
communities and high-priority resources. The grant program was based on the
knowledge that the response that occurs during the first hours of a spill is crucial
to limiting environmental damage. The objective was achieved by providing
21
mobile equipment caches and familiarization training to community-based first
responders. Having proper equipment and trained personnel to respond during a
spill is critical to minimizing the spreading negative impacts from oil spills that
are not cleaned up quickly.
Equipment provided through this grant program was pre-packaged in
mobile trailers.
Having portable caches enables local first responders and
Ecology spill responders to rapidly mobilize and deploy equipment to contain a
spill and protect local resources. Specific details regarding spill equipment will
be provided in the Equipment section of this case study.
Familiarization training was also provided to grant recipients. Specific details
regarding training will be provided in the Training section of this case study.
Funding
In 2006, Ecology approached the Washington State Legislature seeking
$750,000 to fund a program to pre-stage oil spill response equipment throughout
the state. Based on the need for this program, the Legislature and Governor
Gregoire appropriated $1.45 million toward this effort. The funding source for
this grant program was the Local Toxics Control Account. Ecology directed
100% of the funding to grant recipients.
Funding for awards was loosely distributed on a first-come, first-serve
basis.
However, efforts were made to ensure that funding was strategically
allocated throughout the state. Regional multi-agency planning meetings were
held to identify potential applicants, which enabled Ecology to anticipate requests
for, and estimate disbursement of, funding throughout the state. Ultimately, 65%
of funds were distributed to coastal and Puget Sound western Washington
recipients and 35% of funds were distributed to central and eastern Washington
recipients.
Timelines
Prior to the July 1, 2006 start date of the grant program, Ecology issued a
request for supply and training contractors. A formal bid process was conducted
for one month, with appropriate time given for question-and-answer dialogs, bid
22
submissions, and contract negotiation. Specific details regarding selection of the
equipment contractor will be provided in the following sub-section of this paper.
Funds for this grant program were available for one year, starting on July 1,
2006. All project equipment and training approved by Ecology was due by June
30, 2007. Applications for the equipment-caching grant were accepted, reviewed,
and awarded during this twelve-month period.
An additional timetable was established from July 1, 2007 to September 30,
2007. This period was used to analyze the impacts of this project, to provide
follow-up communications with the contractor and the grant recipients, to develop
an internal tracking system and training materials, as well as to conduct final
performance evaluations for each grant.
Equipment contractor selection
As required by state policy, Ecology issued a request to spill response
contractors for qualifications and quotations in order to find a qualified contractor
to deliver the equipment and provide training in its use.
Bid proposals were received by three licensed contractors with a minimum
of five years of demonstrated experience in marine spill response and training in
Washington State.
Bids proposals were evaluated independently by a panel of six response
experts for the design and training criteria outlined in the bid request. Cost was
evaluated using assumed equipment-purchasing estimates (50 trailers, 28,000 feet
of general purpose containment boom, 6,000 feet of swift water river boom, 40
deliveries, etc.). The costs from all three vendors were within approximately 4%
of each other.
The equipment caching grant contract was awarded to Global Diving &
Salvage, Incorporated (hereafter referred to as Global), of Seattle, Washington.
Applications and Grant Recipients
Recruitment and application
Applicants were recruited through Internet postings and by word-ofmouth. Ecology personnel approached potential, eligible applicants, explained
23
the logistics of the program, and encouraged these agencies to apply for the grant
and to share the opportunity with their colleagues.
Applications for the equipment-caching grant were accepted for 12 months,
and were reviewed several times between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.
Applications submitted after the funds had been encumbered, or after June 30,
2007, have been retained in the event that additional funding becomes available.
The grant application was a single-page form available for hard-copy or
electronic submission. Applicants were asked to provide basic agency contact
information and to request a generalized type of equipment cache(s). Types of
caches were pre-determined by Ecology based on anticipated usage and
deployment locations, and included: a trailer with general purpose boom, a trailer
with river boom, a boom vane, or other. Applicants were also asked to respond to
questions regarding equipment storage and deployment. Specifically, applicants
identified where the equipment would be stored, what resources or assets would
be protected, who would deploy the equipment, and what support equipment, such
as boats, would be used for deployment.
Applicants were permitted to request funding for multiple caches.
Appendix A is the application form that recipients submitted to apply for the
oil spill response equipment grant.
Eligibility and selection criteria
In order to qualify to receive state grant funds, applicants had to represent
a public agency or tribe. Eligible non-tribal applicants included city and county
governments, such as public utility districts, port districts, and emergency
management, fire and police departments. Private businesses, as well as state and
federal governments, were not eligible to receive grant funds, associated
equipment or training. However, ineligible agencies were invited to train with the
grant recipients, and Ecology encouraged the development and enhancement of
mutual-aid response relationships.
24
Grants were awarded based on five major criteria:
1) Applicants must have a substantial threat of an oil spill occurring within
their jurisdiction. The threat may be a spill to water or to land, which
includes spills from highway and rail shipping traffic.
2) Applicants must have sensitive environmental, cultural, and economic
resources within or adjacent to their jurisdiction. These resources must be
vulnerable during a spill event and be of significant value to the
applicant’s community.
3) Recipients of response equipment must be able and willing to deploy the
spill response equipment in the event of a spill. Additionally, recipients
must be willing to permit Ecology access to the equipment when not in
use by the recipient.
4) Regional partnerships that will enhance the value of the equipment. Grant
applicants were encouraged to identify inter- or multi-agency mutual aid
relationships that would be formulated or strengthened as a result of
receiving spill response equipment.
5) Proximity of existing nearby response equipment. Awards were granted
based on the geographic distance and accessibility of nearby equipment
that would be available for response by applicants, as well as by Ecology
responders and contractors.
Awards
Ecology received 138 eligible applications for the Spill Caching Grant
Program.
Grant funds were awarded to 60 agencies. Of these recipients, 47 agencies
received a single equipment cache and 13 agencies received two or more
equipment caches. Ninety-nine equipment caches were pre-staged throughout the
state using designated grant funds.
Appendix B is a map of oil spill response equipment cache locations,
grouped by geographic location, in Washington State.
25
Grant agreements
Recipients of grant funding entered into a binding agreement with Ecology.
The purpose of the grant agreement was to provide funding to hire a contractor
(Global) to supply the recipient with an Ecology-specified equipment cache of
spill response equipment and to provide targeted familiarization training.
The following is a simplified list of terms identified in the grant agreement:
1) The recipient is the legal owner of the equipment.
2) The recipient must not re-sell the equipment. If the recipient withdraws
from the program, the equipment must be returned to Ecology.
3) The agreement does not require the recipient to use the equipment during a
spill event.
4) If the equipment is not in use by the recipient, the recipient must allow
Ecology, including agents and contractors, access to the equipment.
Equipment will be returned in the same (or an improved) condition as
when it was borrowed.
5) The recipient is responsible for licensing, care, maintenance, repair and
non-response related replacement of the equipment.
6) Equipment that is used during a reported spill event will be cleaned or
replaced by Ecology at the expense of the responsible party.
7) The recipient must disclose the location of the equipment, and update
Ecology if the equipment is moved.
8) Ecology will select appropriate equipment for individual locations and
order the equipment from Global on behalf of the recipient.
9) The recipient will maintain appropriate records and documentation.
Processing funds for the grant program involved collaboration between
Ecology, Global, and the recipient. The payment process went like this: Global
provided equipment and/or training to the recipient, accompanied by an invoice.
Upon delivery, the recipient submitted a state invoice voucher (form A19-1A) to
Ecology to request funding to pay Global.
Ecology released funds to the
recipient, who then used the funds to pay Global. In several cases, the recipient
26
paid Global prior to receiving funding from Ecology, but this was not standard
procedure.
According to the contractual agreement between Ecology and Global, the
recipient was required to pay for equipment and/or training received within 30
days. Due to the processing time of each agency, most payments were not
received by Global within 30 days. Realistically, most grants agreements were
fully executed within 60 days of equipment and/or training delivery.
Equipment
Overview
A key intention of the grant program was to provide standard equipment
caches and training to all recipients, enabling first responders to respond to a spill
with their equipment or to provide skilled manpower to a neighboring jurisdiction.
The equipment provided through this grant was intended for use during the initial
response to a spill event, therefore spill cleanup equipment used in a later stage,
such as skimmers, was not included.
Caches were designed based on the
containment boom that would used at each location, either standard boom or
swift-water boom.
In addition, a boom vane, which is a relatively new,
sophisticated piece of response equipment, was available for select locations.
During the initial phases of the grant, the majority of equipment was prestaged at waterfront locations along the Puget Sound, where the standard or
general-purpose cache would be most effective during a spill. When Ecology
began to award grants to recipients along the Columbia River, it became
necessary to tailor each cache based on the varying river conditions present at
each pre-staging location. Specialized caches were also designed for recipients
throughout Central and Eastern Washington.
Appendix C provides details regarding the distribution of oil spill response
equipment by Ecology region.
27
Standard caches
The standard cache of equipment was designed to be stored within an 18-foot
mobile trailer. The equipment in the trailer consisted of 800 feet of eight-inch by
twelve-inch general-purpose or swift-water river containment boom, a 30-pound
anchor system, navigation lights, buoys, adsorbent materials (pads, sweep, and
boom), responder personal protective equipment (PPE), and a decontamination
station. Trailers were equipped with a toolbox for boom maintenance, a spare
tire, fire extinguishers, and a first-aid kit, as well as a manual containing spill
documentation and safety forms, Material Safety Data Sheets, job hazard analysis
guides, and Ecology-designed Geographic Response Plans (GRPs).
Standard caches were delivered mostly to Western Washington recipients.
Ecology pre-staged 43 standard caches in the department’s Northwest and
Southwest regions, including two caches containing an additional 400 feet of
boom. Also, Ecology delivered to riverfront recipients three standard caches with
six-inch by six-inch river boom, in place of the eight-inch by twelve-inch swiftwater river boom.
Figure 1. An 18’ mobile trailer stocked with oil spill response equipment.
28
Figure 2. (Left) Anchor systems and navigation stobe lights.
Figure 3. (Right) Sorbent materials and additional supplies for spill responders.
Figure 4. Restocking comtainment boom into the rear section of a mobile trailer
during the Douglas County Public Utility District familiarization training.
29
Specialized caches
Several changes were made to the standard cache of equipment based on the
anticipated deployment and pre-positioning sites.
Containment boom was the most specialized piece of equipment. If eight-inch
by twelve-inch general purpose or river boom was not practical for a location,
because of varying water conditions such as tide, river current, etc., a recipient
received either six-inch by six-inch swift water river boom (as described earlier),
six-inch by twelve-inch inland boom, or four-inch by six-inch marina boom.
Overall, agencies received between 200 feet and 1,200 feet of boom.
The 30-pound anchor system designed for the Puget Sound was not realistic
for deployments along the Columbia River and inland river systems. In these
cases, the 30-pound anchors were replaced with 50-pound anchors. When this
change was made, the floating navigation lights that were used with standard
caches were exchanged for lights that clipped directly to the boom.
Finally, it was recognized that 18-foot trailers would be impractical at certain
inland locations. Ecology swapped out the larger trailer for a ten-foot trailer. On
average, the ten-foot trailers contained 400 feet of boom and all of the remaining
equipment of the standard cache.
Incorporating the smaller, less expensive
trailers into the grant program also allowed Ecology to supply equipment to a
greater number of local governments and tribes.
Specialized caches without trailers
Several caches of equipment were pre-positioned around the state without the
storage trailer. The decision to award a recipient a cache without a storage trailer
was based upon the following: the initial equipment request by the applicant;
available equipment currently owned by the recipient; the recipient’s storage
capabilities; location of nearby equipment delivered through this grant program;
and the ability of the recipient to meet the overall eligibility criteria.
These specialized caches were generally awarded to recipients with limited
storage space, or to supplement their existing spill response resources. Equipment
included in these caches varied by recipient, but ranged from several bags of
sorbent materials to full-size standard caches minus the trailer. The typical small
30
cache included sorbent materials, duct tape, heavy-duty bags, and PPE.
Ecology delivered 32 specialized caches without trailers to nine recipients
throughout the state. Of these nine agencies, only four received a single cache,
while the remaining recipients received multiple caches for storage at several
different locations.
Boom vanes
A boom vane is a revolutionary swift-water spill response device that enables
responders to contain, recover or deflect a spill with or without a vessel and
without an anchor system. The boom vane relies on river currents or vessel
movement for power, and is most effective in currents ranging from one half knot
to five knots. Boom vanes are manufactured in three sizes: one half meter for
shallow water deployments, one meter for standard and/or river deployments, and
two meters for open water ocean deployments.
Responders can deploy the boom vane either from the shore or from an
on-water vessel. For a shoreline deployment: a mooring line attached to the boom
vane is securely anchored on land, then the containment boom is attached to the
boom vane, and finally, the boom vane is placed into the water where it will be
propelled by currents into operational mode. Offshore deployments are similar,
except that the vessel serves to anchor the equipment and propels the boom vane
through the water.
Ecology pre-staged boom vanes at four locations in Washington:
Wenatchee, Bingen, Burbank, and Asotin. Recipients of the boom vanes included
career and volunteer fire departments, as well as members of hazardous materials
response teams. The agencies that received the boom vanes also received a
standard equipment cache plus additional boom vane accessories, including life
jackets, a pike pole, and throw bags.
31
Figure 5. One-meter boom vane assembled for a deployment training exercise.
Figure 6. Boom vane deployment in the Columbia River.
Washington State Department of Ecology equipment
To supplement the department’s existing response equipment, Ecology
purchased equipment from Global through this contract, using unrelated funds.
This equipment increases the quantity of response resources available for use
around the state.
Ecology acquired a standard cache with general-purpose boom, plus an
additional 400 feet of river boom.
Also, two boom vanes, with accompanying
32
accessories, were obtained: a half-meter boom vane and a one-meter boom vane.
The 18-foot trailer is stored near Ecology’s headquarters in Olympia, and the river
boom and both boom vanes are being stored in a pre-existing trailer at the
Vancouver field office.
Additionally, a small cache of equipment containing 200-feet of generalpurpose containment boom and an anchor system were provided for Horsethief
Lake State Park along the Columbia River.
Training
Familiarization training was offered to local government and tribal agencies
that received an equipment trailer. Recipients were asked to host their own
training event so that field exercises could be conducted at their respective
deployment sites, and so mutual-aid response partners could be included in the
training.
The familiarization training was prepared and facilitated by Global. The
training was eight hours in length, divided into two portions: a classroom lecture
and a field exercise.
Material presented during the classroom session included: types and
characteristics of oil, on-scene operations, booming strategies, shoreline clean-up
techniques, responder personal protection, decontamination methods, legal issues
of spills, case studies, and Ecology’s GRPs. Global, Ecology, and the recipients
also used this time as an open forum to discuss logistics of the equipment-caching
program.
The field session included a walk-through of the trailer to provide the
recipients with a familiarization of trailer contents and to discuss the use,
limitations, and maintenance of the equipment. The primary focus of the field
exercise was hands-on training. Recipients practiced deploying boom for various
strategies from the shoreline and on-water with vessels, as well as setting and
retrieving anchors.
Those agencies that received boom vanes practiced
assembling and disassembling the equipment, as well as deploying and
controlling the vane with and without attached booms.
Sixty-one training sessions were held throughout Washington State, providing
33
training for approximately 1,000 individuals. Agencies were encouraged to host
refresher training events and to establish train-the-trainer programs so that all
responders become comfortable with, and knowledgeable about, the equipment
before a spill event occurs.
Figure 7. (Left) Practicing a U-shaped boom deployment during the equipment
familiarization training at Pt. Roberts Marina.
Figure 8. (Right) Connecting the end plates of two lengths of hard boom
during equipment familiarization training at Pt. Roberts Marina.
Program Maintenance
All equipment caches and trainings were delivered by June 2007. Since that
time, Ecology has supported grant recipients in several ways, including: inviting
community-based responders to participate in regional training exercises;
providing technical assistance during response operations; arranging for cleaning
and resupply of response equipment after it has been used; creating how-to
34
instructional materials for spill reporting and equipment deployment; and
maintaining a current database that lists equipment locations and 24-7 contact
numbers for use by spill responders statewide. Ecology continues to work closely
with grant recipients to ensure that each agency is willing and able to safely and
effectively conduct first response actions during a spill.
According to design, Ecology’s grant program was implemented at the local
level and requires minimal oversight by the state government.
As stated
previously, Ecology has no funding to provide refresher training or to support
ongoing maintenance of the spill response equipment.
Unlike other states’
programs, which will be described in Chapter V, there is no dedicated funding
source, such as a barrel tax, to support this program. As a result, the hope for
future funding depends largely on the ability of Ecology’s Spills Program to
document and highlight the successes and benefits of the caching program. At the
close of the 2009 legislative session, no monies were allocated to maintain or
expand the equipment-caching program.
For now, Ecology will continue to
support the response actions of community responders and will address the
funding issue during subsequent legislative sessions.
Equipment in Action
Ecology’s community-based spill response program has proven to be
successful. Once the program was fully executed, response caches have been
staged at 99 key locations around Washington State, including 60 locations in
Puget Sound. The equipment has been used for a variety of spill incidents, from
small spills that required deploying sorbents to clean up a few gallons of oil, to
mounting large-scale responses that required staging several trailers at the spill
scene and deploying hundreds of feet of containment boom. As of April 2009,
response equipment pre-positioned through the grant has been staged or deployed
more than 40 times in Washington State.
The following section will describe some of the successful activation and
deployment responses accomplished by community-based spill responders.
35
City of Gig Harbor
In July 2005, the Gig Harbor Fire Department purchased some
inexpensive oil spill response equipment. At this time, Ecology provided funding
to the fire department to purchase a mobile trailer to store its new containment
boom and adsorbent materials.
Purchasing the equipment and the trailer was a simple preparedness
measure. In doing so, the Gig Harbor Fire Department was a step ahead of most
public agencies when it came to spill readiness. Though it was not realized at the
time, this decision would impact the future of community-based spill response
throughout Washington.
Three weeks later, in August 2005, the Gig Harbor Fire Department
responded to a massive fire at the Gig Harbor Marina. As the fire rapidly spread
among the boats docked there, firefighters quickly deployed the newly purchased
containment boom and adsorbent materials to prevent fuel and oil from entering
the surrounding water.
Having accessible equipment enabled firefighters to
contain the fuel and oil, averting a significant environmental disaster.
Ultimately, the marina fire destroyed 50 boats containing thousands of
gallons of oil and fuel. Ecology estimated that use of the equipment cache
prevented more than $1 million dollars in damage to marine and shore life. This
successful response by the Gig Harbor Fire Department provided the inspiration
for Ecology’s Equipment Caching Grant Program.
The Gig Harbor Fire Department has since used its Ecology-granted spill
response equipment. On February 5, 2007, firefighters responded to a fire aboard
a 46-foot pleasure craft at the Peninsula Yatch Basin.
The vessel had
approximately 200 gallons of diesel fuel on board, which was visible in the water
when firefighters arrived on the scene. Due to the immediate accessibility of the
equipment, coupled with the training and prior experience of the responders, the
firefighters were able to initiate a timely deployment of the spill response
equipment. Firefighters circled the marina with containment boom and lined the
inside of the hard boom with adsorbent materials to soak up the spilled diesel fuel.
The early actions taken by the first responders averted an environmental
catastrophe.
36
Figure 9. Containment boom surrounds a burning vessel during the Gig Harbor
Marina fire, 2005.
Figure 10. Contractors recover oil and debris that was contained within hard
boom that was deployed by firefighters during the Gig Harbor Marina Fire, 2005.
San Juan County
San Juan County represents a unique component of Ecology’s Equipment
Caching Grant Program. Despite being the smallest of Washington’s 39 counties,
San Juan County received five standard equipment caches, which are located on
three of the largest islands: San Juan, Orcas, and Lopez. This arrangement was
possible due to the unique relationship between the local governments and the
37
devoted volunteers at Islands’ Oil Spill Association.
Islands’ Oil Spill Association (IOSA) has been responding to spills throughout
San Juan County and Washington State since 1988. IOSA is a community-based
organization that provides initial assessment, spill containment, and clean-up
services of shorelines and wildlife. Ecology has worked closely with IOSA on
past spill events, and the knowledge and commitment of the group made the
association an ideal partner for the grant program. Since IOSA is a private
organization, and was therefore ineligible to receive equipment based on grant
criteria, local governments were encouraged to apply for the grant in partnership
with IOSA.
The five equipment packages that are pre-staged in San Juan County were
awarded to three local government agencies, one to the Port of Lopez, one to the
Port of Friday Harbor, and three to the San Juan County Department of
Emergency Management (DEM). While the Ports and DEM are the owners of the
equipment, IOSA volunteers participated in the familiarization trainings and have
established agreements with the agencies to access and use the equipment during
an oil spill. The enhanced relationship between the state and local governments
and the citizens of San Juan County truly reflects one positive accomplishment of
the equipment grant.
The equipment in San Juan County has already been successfully used on
several occasions. In addition to the following examples, IOSA and its San Juan
County partners have responded to multiple spill events where the sorbent
materials and PPE contained within the equipment trailers have been used by the
responders.
In November 2006, at the request of the USCG, IOSA mobilized to deploy
2,800 feet of boom for two GRP strategies in response to a tugboat carrying 1,200
gallons of diesel fuel that was sinking in Prevost Harbor near Stuart Island. The
vessel was towed to Roche Harbor, where IOSA, at Ecology’s request,
surrounded the vessel with boom until it was determined that the vessel would not
sink.
In December 2006, the F/V Stanley sank in Fisherman’s Bay near Lopez
Island due to high winds. IOSA responded by deploying boom awarded through
38
the equipment grant onto the water surrounding the vessel, and plugged the source
of the diesel leak. IOSA volunteers continued to monitor the site, and in January
2007, along with the San Juan County Public Works and the Washington
Department of Natural Resources, the F/V Stanley was successfully raised and
towed to Bellingham, at which point the containment boom was cleaned and
repackaged in the trailer for a future spill.
These two examples highlight the achievements of Ecology’s grant program
within San Juan County.
Figure 11. Island Oil Spill Association members with their new equipment trailer.
Figure 12. IOSA members demonstrate techniques for using hard boom during a
training exercise at Deer Harbor, Orcas Island.
39
Figure 13. IOSA members practice deploying containment boom around a boat
during a training exercise.
Conclusions
The Washington State Department of Ecology Spill Response Section has
designed a unique and valuable program with the Oil Spill Caching Grant
Program.
responders
By providing oil spill response equipment and training to first
throughout
the state,
the opportunity to
protect
sensitive
environmental, cultural, and economic resources is greatly increased.
This grant program can serve as a model for other agencies attempting to
enhance their own spill-response programs. Based on the continuing successes of
this grant, Ecology hopes to receive additional funding to expand response
resources in Washington, and to continue to provide ongoing training to grant
recipients.
40
Figure 14. Firefighters begin to deploy containment boom on Moses Lake to
circle a sunken vessel that was releasing oil into the lake.
Figure 15. The author, representing the Washington State Department of
Ecology, at the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference, in Savannah, Georgia.
41
V) State Government Programs Beyond Washington
While the Washington State Department of Ecology developed an
innovative equipment-caching program to provide community responders with a
first line of defense against oil spills, Washington did not invent the concept of
community-based response. Even before Ecology had established Washington’s
equipment-caching program, a similar program was already being utilized in the
State of Alaska, where a citizen-based oil spill response program is necessary due
to the vast size of the state and the remoteness of communities (Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation [ADEC], 2009; Collazi, 1999). If a
spill occurs during a period of bad weather, it could take days to fly responders
and resources to a very remote location. In the time it takes to mount a response,
the spill incident may be over, or may have devastated an isolated village. This
weakness became apparent after the Exxon Valdez spill, and led Alaska to
increase the involvement of local citizens in initial responses to spills. Alaska’s
citizen-based program subsequently influenced the design of Washington’s
program, as will be discussed below in a review of similarities and differences
between the two states’ programs.
State of Alaska
Alaska is well known for the catastrophic grounding and subsequent oil
spill from the supertanker Exxon Valdez that polluted Prince William Sound on
March 24, 1989. For residents living with the environmental degradation from
that massive spill, Exxon Valdez changed the way Alaskan communities rallied
together to manage environmental emergencies.
During the spill response,
citizens had provided state and industry response teams with critical knowledge of
local conditions, such as sea states, tidal fluctuations, weather, and geography
(Nuka Research and Planning Group [Nuka], 2005).
By successfully
incorporating this community-level knowledge into the spill response, and by
recognizing the obvious lack of spill response equipment available for first
responder use, there emerged in Alaska a growing recognition of the need for
42
state-funded programs and response equipment that would be positioned
throughout the state for rapid deployment.
In January 1990, the Alaska Oil Spill Commission issued a report
acknowledging the influential role of the community-based work force following
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This report called for communities to be included in
spill response, and recognized the importance of incorporating local knowledge
and expertise (Collazi, 1999). The report, the Wreck of the Exxon Valdez, states:
“A substantive role should be given to the affected communities in any response
system . . . local interests, local knowledge and experience . . . often made the
community-based work force the most efficient available,” (ADEC, 2009). This
report led to implementation of a Community Spill Response Program as a core
element of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation Prevention and
Emergency Response Program.
Growth of Alaska’s community spill response program
Alaska’s community-based spill response program builds on the
awareness that local residents are usually the first line of defense to deal with the
immediate impacts of an oil spill along the state’s extensive coasts and vast
interior crossed by remote pipelines.
By establishing the Community Spill
Response Program (CSRP), Alaskan officials provide local responders with
equipment and training needed to effectively protect human health and the
environment during a spill event. Goals of the CSRP include: 1) making local
response an integrated part of the state response network; 2) using local
experience and resources to the greatest possible extent; and 3) sustaining initial
spill-response capability and readiness at the local level (ADEC, 2009).
In Alaska, the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is trustee
of the state’s natural resources. The Department of Environmental Conservation
works to fulfill its responsibility by partnering with local residents through
community-response programs. This relationship enables the state government
and the citizens to be better prepared for spills, and to coordinate response efforts
when incidents do occur.
43
Community response in Alaska originated in 1986, when Alaska passed
House Bill 470, the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund,
commonly known as the Response Fund, or the 470 fund (City of Homer, 1997;
Majors, 2001).
At that time, money deposited into the 470 fund came primarily
from two sources: the responsible party, either collected through civil penalties
for discharging oil or by recovering response and cleanup expenses; or from the
federal government, which provided reimbursement to ADEC to recover costs
accrued during state-funded response actions (ADEC, 2007). This bill provided a
funding mechanism for ADEC to pay the expenses incurred during a communitybased oil spill response.
In 1989 – after Exxon Valdez – the Alaska Legislature passed several bills
that increased the funding sources and uses of the Response Fund. Senate Bill
260 established a nickel-per-barrel surcharge, and deposited the tax into the
Response Fund; the barrel tax effectively raised the balance of the 470 fund from
$1 million to $50 million to subsidize response to oil spills, (ADEC, 2007).
Senate Bill 264 established the Depot/Corps Program and assigned the ADEC
director the responsibility of equipping and staffing the emergency response
depots, by means of Response Fund revenues, at locations with a threat of a
significant oil spill (Nuka, 2005). By establishing the Depots/Corps system,
Alaska pioneered community-based spill response.
Senate Bill 215, passed in 1994, significantly altered funding for spill
response activities. SB 215, which renamed the Response Fund as the Oil and
Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund, impacted the use of
the five-cent per barrel tax in two ways: 1) the balance and future revenues were
split between two accounts, with three-cents being deposited into a response
account and two-cents going into a prevention account; and 2) the division of the
Response Fund effectively reduced monies available for response and cleanup
actions by 40 percent (ADEC, 2007). The Depot/Corps Program remains an
integral part of Alaska’s spill-response community, but financial support for the
program is less certain due to the reduction of operational funds designated for
community-based spill response.
44
Response equipment available through the Alaskan CSRP is tailored to meet
the needs of each individual community. Equipment is stored in a stationary
Conex container and the contents are generally uniform throughout the state,
although the quantity of sorbents or type of boom will be adjusted to
accommodate the conditions where the equipment will be deployed (ADEC,
2009).
A typical cache contains these basic components: 1,000 feet of 20”
containment boom plus additional harbor boom, seven over-pack drums, an
anchor system, sorbets, and personal protective equipment. (S. Tiernan, personal
communication, February 18, 2009). This basic equipment package provides
sufficient resources for trained citizens to conduct an initial spill response, and
additional equipment, such as skimmers, which are modified by site, enabling
local communities to conduct a thorough spill cleanup.
In order to participate in the Community Spill Response Program, Alaskan
communities or municipalities must sign a contract with ADEC known as a
Community Spill Response Agreement (CSRA). Agreements negotiated with
each community are tailored to need local needs, and to maximize the response
resources at ADEC’s disposal. The three key aspects of the CSRA are: activation,
reimbursement of costs incurred during a response, and identification of local
resources, such as available manpower, equipment, and other support components
(ADEC, 2009).
In Alaska, community-based spill response is a cornerstone of the state’s spill
response program. The CSRP is a unique community-based program that fulfills
the needs of remote and isolated communities to mitigate the devastating effects
of oil spills. The successful merger of local knowledge and manpower with state
government supplied resources has improved preparedness and response
capabilities statewide.
As of December 2008, 48 communities had signed
response agreements with the state government (Appendix C). These agreements
protect the people and natural resources of Alaska.
In conclusion, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation has created an impressive program to
put response equipment into the hands of the community.
45
Alaska and Washington: Similarities and differences
The concepts behind Alaska’s Community Spill Response Program were
used by Washington State during the development of Ecology’s spill response
equipment grant. Ultimately, Washington and Alaska share the same goal: zero
oil spills. Additionally, both states recognize the benefit of providing resources to
the people immediately impacted by an oil spill by giving them the equipment and
training needed to protect sensitive resources.
The primary difference between Alaska’s and Washington’s grant
agreements is the reimbursement component.
When Alaskan CSRA resources
are activated, the actual expenses that the responding community incurs are
reimbursed by ADEC (ADEC, 2009). These funds are used to resupply and
maintain the equipment caches, and to provide training for the responders. In
contrast, The Department of Ecology has no funding source to compensate local
responders for their time or additional equipment that they use during their
response actions. In Washington, response equipment is replaced when it is used,
but Ecology recovers any costs to pay for cleaning and resupply of the equipment
from the party responsible for the spill.
The recipients of Washington’s
equipment cache maintain the equipment as part of their vehicle fleet, and they
received initial familiarization training, but there is no funding source to pay for
ongoing maintenance or training.
Ongoing funding for community-based response programs is a critical
issue for both states.
The reduction of funds appropriated to sustain the
Depot/Corps Program jeopardizes the long-term operations of community-based
spill response in Alaska. In Washington, there is no dedicated long-term funding
to support the maintenance of the program. The Washington State Department of
Ecology’s grant program was made possible by a one-time grant appropriated by
the 2006 Washington State Legislature. Washington bears the cost of replacing
equipment used during a spill response, restocking trailers but leaving
maintenance and upkeep as the responsibility of the local grant recipient.
Alaska’s Community Spill Response Program is considered an extension or
overlap of its Depots/Corps Program. Based on the same concepts of pre-staging
spill response equipment and training responders how to use it, the primary
46
difference is that Alaska’s CSRP equipment is available mainly to remote and
isolated communities, and not necessarily to those with the greatest spill potential
identified through the Depots/Corps program.
Washington Ecology’s grant
program combined these criteria and considered both location and risk of spill
when determining where to pre-stage response equipment.
Another important difference between spill response in Alaska and Lower 48
coastal states like Washington is that Alaska hires very few contractors for initial
response and cleanup actions. In Washington, a response contractor is usually
hired to control the source of the spill and clean up the spilled product. In
general, Alaska does not rely on contractors for cleanup, but rather depends on the
CSRP as a mechanism for ADEC to extend spill response preparedness and
response capability statewide (S. Teirnan, personal communication, February 18,
2009).
Ultimately, community-based spill response has been successful in Alaska
and Washington. By sharing the framework for how to develop and implement an
effective first responder oil spill response program, both states have advanced
their level of readiness and continue to improve their ability to aggressively
respond to oil spills.
Massachusetts State
Another coastal state that has come to recognize the benefits of
community-based oil
spill
response is
Massachusetts.
Like
Alaska,
Massachusetts has suffered destructive spills along its coast, which highlighted
the need for local citizen response to spills. Lessons learned from these spills, and
from federal assistance in cleaning them up, offered valuable insights into the
advantages of community-based response. But the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts did not at first establish a full-scale community-based response to
oil spills, and subsequently modeled its program on that of Washington State.
Massachusetts, like Washington, is a coastal state with valuable natural
resources that are constantly at risk of damage from an oil spill. Approximately
2,000 oil tankers and barges carry more than three billion gallons of oil past Cape
Cod annually, and nearly two billion gallons of petroleum products are
47
transported through Buzzards Bay each year. (BBNEP, n.d.).
The coastal
communities of Massachusetts have experienced several devastating oil spills that
have led the state government to incorporate local responders into initial spill
response activities. In 1969, the tank barge Florida ran around in Buzzards Bay,
spilling approximately 189,000 gallons of #2 fuel oil, the second largest spill in
the state’s history (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
[MassDEP], 2007). Seven years later – in 1976 – the catastrophic Argo Merchant
spill of 7.7 million gallons occurred in Nantucket Sound (NOAA, n.d.a). For
several years after the infamous Argo Merchant incident, many small-volume
spills occurred in Massachusetts waters (BBNEP, n.d). Then in 2003, the tanker
barge Bouchard No. 120 struck rocks in Buzzards Bay, spilling 98,000 gallons of
#6 fuel oil. This spill significantly impacted the way that local communities and
state government respond to oil spills. The next section will describe the roles of
citizen responders around Buzzards Bay before and during the Bouchard No. 120
oil spill, followed by an explanation of the relevant state oil spill laws that were
developed in response to the Bouchard No. 120 incident.
Buzzards Bay and the Bouchard No. 120 oil spill
Buzzards Bay is an environmentally sensitive body of water in southeastern
Massachusetts. Buzzards Bay connects to Cape Cod Bay via the Cape Cod Canal,
and is bordered by the Elizabeth Islands and the Rhode Island Sound. There are
many communities located along the bay, and residents depend on shellfish and
commercial fishing harvests to support the local economy. Past oil spills have
motivated local citizens and government to get involved to protect their
vulnerable marine environment.
In 1981, five years after the Argo Merchant spill, local authorities, with
support from state and federal agencies, developed a regional oil spill contingency
plan to protect Buzzards Bay from future spills.
This plan compiled local
information on shoreline access points, oil transfer locations, processing and
storage facilities, environmental sensitivity maps, available response equipment
and services, and current contingency plans (BBNEP, n.d).
In 1985, the
Massachusetts Department of Coastal Zone Management established the Buzzards
48
Bay Project to provide support for local towns to develop management plans that
would protect water quality and living resources (Massachusetts Office of Coastal
Zone Management, 2007). Two years later, in 1987, the Buzzards Bay Project
joined the EPA’s newly created National Estuary Program, further integrating
public involvement in the role of preserving Massachusetts’s environment (EPA,
2009d).
Between 1990 and 2000, the Buzzards Bay Project received federal funding to
purchase oil spill response equipment and provide training to local responders
who could initiate response actions to keep oil from reaching the shoreline.
Municipalities that received federal monies used matching funds to purchase
containment boom, storm drain covers, sorbent materials and personal protective
equipment to be used by trained citizen responders during an oil spill (BBNEP,
n.d.). These key municipalities also developed prevention and management plans,
mutual aid agreements, and training drills to prepare first responders for the
intensive initial spill response period (BBNEP, n.d.; Costa, 2003). The federally
supported Buzzards Bay program successfully oriented municipalities and
community members to the challenges associated with spill response.
The Buzzards Bay response community was tested on April 27, 2003 when
the tanker vessel Bouchard No. 120, known as B-120, struck rocks in the bay.
The collision ripped a twelve-foot hole in the hull, spilling 98,000 gallons of #6
fuel oil into Buzzards Bay (BBNEP, n.d.). Many of the towns along 90 miles of
affected coastline established their own command posts and mobilized manpower
to deploy the response equipment (Costa, 2003). The participation of local first
responders during this the B-120 spill had a positive impact by averting damage
from some sensitive locations. Unfortunately, shifting winds cause oil to continue
to wash up on shorelines for more than two weeks.
The result of the Bouchard No. 120 spill was more than 90 miles of oiled
coast; hundred of seabirds were oiled or killed; and 178,000 acres of shellfish
beds and recreational sites were closed for months after the incident (MassDEP,
2007). Although the volume spilled during the Bouchard No. 120 incident was
relatively small compared to the multi-million gallon spill of the Exxon Valdez,
Buzzards Bay is a small body of water with sensitive resources that were heavily
49
damaged by this spill. The damage caused by this spill inspired Massachusetts
legislators to take action to involve local citizens in spill responses.
Massachusetts Oil Spill Act of 2004
Following the April 2003 Bouchard No. 120 barge spill, the Massachusetts
legislature passed the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 2004. The Oil
Spill Act was intended to “strengthen several statutes that govern Massachusetts’
ability to prevent and respond to oil spills in the coastal waters of the
Commonwealth,” (MassDEP, n.d.).
Major provisions of the act include the
establishment of a trust fund collected from a barrel tax, increased manning
requirements for vessels carrying oil as cargo, more stringent insurance coverage,
and use of a tug escort for vessels that are in distress (MassDEP, n.d.).
With passage of the Oil Spill Act, Massachusetts established a trust fund
that receives $0.02 per barrel of oil shipped into Massachusetts (LaPlante, 2005;
MassDEP, 2007). As designated by the act, the fund will be capped at $10
million dollars; the balance of the fund, as of winter 2008, was $4.4 million
dollars (MassDEP, 2008). The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP) oversees the fund, and allocates the money to improve and
enhance spill prevention and response activities. Monies collected by this barrel
tax have been allocated to purchase oil spill response trailers and provided
training to local responders.
Massachusetts’ community-based spill response program has significantly
improved readiness and minimized impacts from marine oil spills. Establishing a
program sponsored by the state government was a natural course of events, given
the history of damaging spills in state waters and the willingness of local citizen
groups to respond to spills. The state program enhances the aging federal citizenbased response program, and expands the geographic area covered by protective
resources.
Based on the long-standing federally funded program then in use by local
municipalities, the Massachusetts DEP had an understanding of how to design a
community-based oil spill response program. In addition, MassDEP officials
contacted David Byers, spill response manager for the Washington State
50
Department of Ecology, who provided his East Coast colleagues with the
blueprints for Ecology’s community-based program.
MassDEP adapted
Ecology’s program to meet its needs, but essentially the concepts are the same
and the ultimate goals of spills prevention and effective immediate response when
spills do occur are shared by both agencies.
Coastal Massachusetts municipalities have received mobile equipment caches,
similar to those used by Ecology, to protect sensitive local resources.
The
equipment cache designed by MassDEP contains the following: a 20-foot trailer
stocked with 800 feet of general purpose boom and 200 feet of marina boom, an
anchor system, sorbent materials, personal protective equipment, a generator to
operate portable lights, and an air compressor (MassDEP, n.d.). The type of
equipment available to Massachusetts responders is slightly more comprehensive
than the equipment available to Washington responders, particularly because
Massachusetts has a designated funding source for initial and ongoing supply of
the caches, while Washington’s program was established with a one-time grant.
Both programs are designed to store standard equipment available inside mobile
trailers so that any responder can easily access and deploy the response equipment
during the critical period when a spill first occurs.
As with Ecology’s program, equipment used during a community-based
response in Massachusetts is re-supplied by the state government, usually through
the cost recovery process. One difference between the two programs is that
MassDEP retains ownership of its trailers, and is responsible for ongoing
maintenance and for stocking consumable materials on an annual basis, whereas
Ecology’s program transfers ownership to local government or tribes, and resupplies materials only when they are used during a reported spill response.
Otherwise, agreements between the state and local municipalities are the same in
both states: equipment must be stored in a state of readiness at a known, secure
location, and the municipality advises state officials when the equipment is used
(MassDEP, n.d.).
Training is conducted with recipients of the response equipment provided by
monies collected in the Oil Spill Act trust fund. The intent of the training is to
bring together responders from different municipalities – such as fire department
51
personnel, harbor masters, and shellfish wardens – to teach the skills necessary to
effectively and safely deploy boom during the earliest period of response.
Training events in Massachusetts also introduce local geographic response plans
to the first responder community, and allow local and state officials to test the
drafted response strategies (MassDEP, n.d.; MassDEP, 2008).
Before the logistics of its current state-sponsored community-based
program were finalized, MassDEP had delivered 14 equipment caches to Buzzard
Bay communities (MassDEP, 2008).
Since then, the equipment package has
been standardized, and caches delivered in the past few years are identical
statewide, for ease of deployment and to simplify training objectives for first
responders. In 2007, 21 communities in Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and
Nantucket received response trailers, and an additional 19 trailers were delivered
to Buzzards Bay communities (MassDEP, 2008).
Equipment deliveries and
training for community-based first-responder programs are slated to continue until
2010, and hopefully will continue as long as there are monies available in the trust
fund (MassDEP, 2007).
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts now has a comprehensive communitybased first responder oil spill program that recognizes the importance of being
prepared for a spill, and provides adequate resources and training to mitigate
negative effects during the first critical hours after a spill occurs. The strategic
location of equipment caches, coupled with the commitment of local responders,
places Massachusetts at the forefront of community-based emergency spill
response.
Other States
The State of Washington’s caching program is an excellent model for a
community-based spill response program. It is effective, uncomplicated, and easy
to emulate. Other state governments wishing to copy Washington’s program may
obtain from this paper an outline of the structure and details necessary to set up a
similar program.
Since implementing Washington’s community-based spill
response program in 2006, Ecology has provided the plans, protocols and
methodologies to environmental agencies of several other coastal states. As
52
discussed above, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
executed a program based on the Ecology’s grant program.
Likewise,
California’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response has designed a communitybased spill program modeled after the Washington State program, and is currently
distributing spill response trailers to coastal communities.
In addition, Ecology has provided technical support to members of the
Pacific States – British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force (BC/States Task Force),
who may be able to advance the concept of citizen spill response along the Pacific
Coast. The BC/States Task Force is comprised of natural resource trustees from
state governments of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and the
Province of British Columbia (Oil Spill Task Force, 2003). British Columbia, and
Canada in general, is way behind in spill response. The Canadian government is
still working out who has the fundamental authority to respond to spills,
according to David Byers, Ecology’s spill response section manager. The issue is
currently managed at the provincial level, and British Columbia, which has no
dedicated spill responders, currently depends on environmental enforcement
officers to respond to oil spills (D. Byers, personal communication, February 22,
2009).
Oregon is another state which currently has only minimal oil spill
response capabilities, and no state-sponsored community-based programs, and
therefore relies heavily on USCG and EPA support during spill events (D. Byers,
personal communication, February 22, 2009). Oregon resources would be better
protected if the state Department of Environmental Quality developed a
community-based response program like the one designed by Washington State.
Ecology has also shared this information with the State of Hawaii, but no
program has been initiated at the time that this paper was written. This may be
due to a fundamental difference between each state’s approach to spill response –
Hawaii allows the use of chemical dispersants during response actions, whereas
Washington depends on the mechanical removal of oil. The need for communitylevel response to oil spills may be reduced by use of chemical dispersants during
response. Since dispersants speed up the emulsification process of oil into the
water column, less oil may be available to reach the shoreline in areas that employ
53
chemical dispersants as a spill response technique.
In conclusion, Washington State has paved the way for expansion of statesponsored community-based oil spill response.
Inspired by the success of
Alaska’s program, and the critical lack of resources for first responder use,
Washington designed a grant program that can be used by other agencies to
enhance spill response readiness nationwide.
54
VI)
Conclusions
Oil spills can cause significant damage to sensitive environmental, economic,
and cultural resources. Ultimately, preventing spills from happening is the most
effective way that government, industry, and citizens can protect these valuable
resources. However, oil spills inevitably will occur, so long as petroleum serves
as the vital energy source that drives our economy and heats our homes and
workplaces. When a spill does occur, early intervention clearly is the most
effective means of mitigating the damages from the spill.
The Washington State Department of Ecology has designed a communitybased program that enables local first responders to take aggressive initial
response actions when oil spills occur. Ecology’s program provides adequate
first-response spill equipment to local governments and tribes, as well as
familiarization training, so that the first people on the scene of a spill can safely
and efficiently protect their community resources.
Washington’s program was influenced by Alaska’s success with the
ADEC Depot/Corps program and the Alaska Community Spill Response
Program. Washington also learned lessons from federally-funded local responses
to major Massachusetts spills, and – after establishing its own community-based
spill response program – Washington contributed to the development and
implementation of Massachusetts’s state-funded community response program.
As discussed above, other states are now joining the effort to shift resources to
local communities and provide training to local responders in an effort to contain
oil spills before the oil significantly damages the surrounding area.
This paper has presented a history of significant oil spills, and subsequent
environmental legislation, to provide the reader with a basic background of spill
response in the United States. The section on spill response decision-making
created a framework to explain Washington State’s community response program.
The case study of Washington State’s community-based spill response program
was very explicitly detailed so that other state governments and response agencies
can draw from Ecology’s program to design a targeted program that can meet
their own response objectives.
55
Spill response continues to be most effective when the source of the spill
can be immediately stopped, and spilled oil can be contained or deflected to a
collection point. Ecology’s grant program to cache response equipment near
likely spill sites makes it possible for trained community members – almost
always the first people on the scene after a spill – to stop the spread of oil and
limit the environmental damages and subsequent cleanup required.
If other
agencies create community-based response programs modeled after the
Washington State program, then the negative impacts and high costs associated
with oil spills will be significantly diminished.
56
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (2009). Community spill
response. Division of Spill Prevention and Response. Prevention and
Emergency Response Program. Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/docs/commun.pdf
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (2007). Oil and hazardous
substance release response fund report: The purpose, background, structure,
and administration of Alaska’s Response Fund, fiscal years 1995-2005.
Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Contaminated Sites Program.
Retrieved April 4, 2009 from
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/rfa/docs/oshrrf_final_sm.pdf
Allen, M. (2000, July 7). Preparing for the Worst: Coordination, communication
key to oil spill clean up. [Electronic version]. The Standard-Times. Retrieved
February 21, 2009 from http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-00/0723-00/a01sr065.htm.
Alm, A. L. (1998). NEPA: Past, present, and future. EPA Journal. (Jan/Feb,
1998). Retrieved January 15, 2009 from
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/nepa/01.htm
American Petroleum Institute, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Coast Guard, & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001).
Characteristics of response strategies: A guide for spill response planning in
marine environments. [Electronic version]. Seattle, WA. Retrieved July 15,
2008 from http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/910_response.pdf
Belardo, S., Harrald, J., Wallace, W. A., & Ward, J. (1984). A partial covering
approach to siting response resources for major maritime oil spills.
Management Science, 30, 1184-1196.
Bellantoni, J., Garlitz, J., Kodis, R., O'Brien, A., & Passera, A. (1979).
Deployment requirements for U.S. Coast Guard pollution response
equipment, Vol. 1, Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Transportation Systems
Center. (NTIS No. ADA 070815)
Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. (n.d.). Information on oil
pollution in Buzzards Bay. Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/oilpollution.htm
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Harrald, J., Karwan, K. R., & Wallace, W. A.
57
(1976). A goal interval programming for resource allocation in a marine
environmental protection program. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 3, 347-362.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Karwan, K. R., & Wallace, W. A. (1979). A
chance constrained goal programming model to evaluate response resources
for maritime pollution disasters. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 3, 244-274.
City of Homer. (1997). Resolution 97-23. Homer, Alaksa. Retrieved March 1,
2009 from http://clerk.ci.homer.ak.us/resolutions/reso9723.pdf
Coe, T. J. (1995). Lessons learned outfitting the U.S. Coast Guard with oil
pollution equipment. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, 2(4), 233-239.
Collazi, E. (1999). Communities are Alaska’s first defense for oil spills. Coastal
Services. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (July/August
1999). Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/magazine/back_issues/julaug99/alaska.html
Costa, J. (2003, May 23). The foot soldiers in oil spill response. [Electronic
version]. The Standard-Times. Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-03/05-23-03/a12op077.htm.
Council of Environmental Quality. (2007). A citizen’s guide to the NEPA:
Having your voice heard. Executive Office of the President of the United
States. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf
County of Santa Barbara. (2005). Brief oil and gas history of Santa Barbara
County. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from
http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/information/history.asp.
Dale, V. H., Lugo, A. E., MacMahon, J. A., & Pickett, S. T. A. (1998).
Ecosystem management in the context of large, infrequent disturbances.
Ecosystems, 1(6), 546-557.
Daskin, M. S. & Stern, E. H. (1981). A hierarchal objective set covering model
for emergency medical service vehicle deployment. Transportation Science.
15, 137-152.
Fingas, M. (2000). The basics of oil spill clean up. (J. Charles, Ed.) (2nd ed.).
Ottawa, Canada: CRC Press.
Iakovou, E., Ip, C. M., Douligeris, C., & Korde, A. (1996).
Optimal location and capacity of emergency cleanup equipment for oil spill
response. European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 72-80.
58
LaPlante, J. R. (2005, Sept. 28). Oil spill response trailer coming from DEP.
The Standard-Times. Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09-05/09-28-05/a05lo515.htm.
Majors, L. (2001). An overview of Alaska Clean Seas’ public outreach program.
Proceedings, International Oil Spill Conference. Tampa, FL. American
Petroleum Institute.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2007). MassDEP
delivers oil spill response equipment to Cape communities. EnviroMatters.
(Summer 2007). Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/publications/0707oils.htm
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2008). Oil spill
response training to continue for Cape and Islands first responders: US
Appeals Court reinstates critical Oil Spill Act protective requirements.
EnviroMatters. (Fall-Winter 2008). Retrieved February 21, 2009 from
http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/publications/0108spill.htm
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. (2007). Buzzards Bay
National Estuary Program. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from
http://www.mass.gov/czm/bb.htm
Moore, G. C. & ReVelle, C. (1982). The hierarchical service location
problem. Management Science, 28(7), 775-780.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.a). Argo Merchant.
Retrieved March 17, 2009 from http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6231/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.b). T/V Exxon Valdez.
Retrieved March 23, 2009 from http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2006). Exxon Valdez oil
spill. Retrieved March 23, 2009 from
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/events/exxonvaldez/welcome.html
National Response Center. (2002). NRC background. Retrieved February 28,
2009 from http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrcback.html.
Nordvick, A. B. (1995). The technology windows-of-opportunity for marine oil
spill response as related to oil weathering and operations. Spill Science and
Technology Bulletin, 2(1), 17-46.
Nuka Research & Planning Group, LLC. (2005). Community Oil Spill
Response Forum Final Report. Report to Prince William Sound Regional
Citizens Advisory Council and Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory
Council. Seldovia, AK: Nuka Research & Planning Group, LLC.
59
Oil Spill Task Force. (2003). The Pacific States – British Columbia oil spill task
force. Retrieved March 22, 2009 from http://www.oilspilltaskforce.org/
Ofiara, D. D. (2002). Natural resource damage assessments in the United States:
rules and procedures for compensation from spills of hazardous substances
and oil in waterways under US jurisdiction. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44,
96-110.
Pearson, G. & Roberts, C. (2000). Community expectations: indigenous
people’s view: A Cape York perspective. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin, 6(1), 27-30.
Plourde, K., & Foresman, L. (2003). Command, control, response and
preparedness – new issues, new problems, proven solutions. Proceedings,
International Oil Spill Conference. Vancouver, Canada. American Petroleum
Institute.
Pollack, A. M. & Stolzencah, K. D. (1978). Crisis science: Investigation in
response to the Argo Merchant oil spill (Report No. MITSG 78-8).
[Electronic version]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sea Grant
Program. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from
http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/mit/mitt78002/mitt78002_intro.pdf
Psaraftis, H. N., Tharakan, G. G., & Ceder, A. (1986). Optimal response to oil
spills: The strategic decision case. Operations Research, 34(2), 203-217.
Psaraftis, H. N. & Ziogas, B. O. (1985) A tactical decision algorithm for the
optimal dispatching of oil spill equipment. Management Science, 1(12),
1475-1491.
Ramseur, J. L., Reisch, M., & McCarthy, J. E. (2008). Superfund taxes or
general revenues: Future funding issues for the Superfund program (Report
code RL31410) [Electronic version]. Congressional Research Service report
for Congress. Retrieved February 28, 2009 from
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL31410.pdf
Robertson, T. (2003). Fostering a grassroots approach to oil spills and
emergency response planning in the Yukon River watershed’s native villages.
Proceedings, International Oil Spill Conference. Vancouver, Canada.
American Petroleum Institute.
Sheldrake, B. (n.d.). Spill Planning, Preparedness, and Response in the
Northwest. PowerPoint presentation at the 2005 Oil Spill Control Course,
Everett, WA.
Smith, M., & Sheldrake, B. (n.d.). Federal pollution and response laws,
authorities, and expectations. PowerPoint presentation at the 2005 Oil Spill
Control Course, Everett, WA.
60
Thurston County Emergency Management. (n.d.). Emergency support
function #10: Hazardous materials. Retrieved March 21, 2009 from
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/em/esfs/esf10.htm
Toregas, C., Swain, R., ReVelle, C., & Bergman, L. (1970). The location of
emergency service facilities. Operations Research, 19(6), 1363-1373.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a). CERCLA overview. Retrieved
February 28, 2009 from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b). National Environmental Policy
Act: Basic information. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009c). Superfund: SARA overview.
Retrieved February 28, 2009 from
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/sara.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009d). National Estuary Program.
Retrieved March 25, 2009 from http://www.epa.gov/nep/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (n.d.) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act). Retrieved February 28, 2009 from
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FWATRPO.HTML
U.S. Department of Homeland Security & U.S. Coast Guard. (2006). Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) funding for oil spills (National Pollution Funds
Center Publication No. 16465.2). Retrieved February 28, 2009 from
http://www.uscg.mil/NPFC/docs/PDFs/OSLTF_Funding_for_Oil_Spills.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2005). Model Toxics
Control Act Chapter 70.105D RCW [Amended 2005] and Cleanup Regulation
173-340 WAC [Amended February 12, 2001) (Publication No. 94-06). Toxics
Cleanup Program. Revised October 2005.
Washington State Legislature. (2009). Oil and hazardous substance spill
prevention and response. Chapter 90.56 RCW. Retrieved March 1, 2009
from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.56
Wilhelm, W. E., & Srinivasa, A. V. (1997). Prescribing tactical response for oil
spill clean up operations. Management Science, 43(3), 386- 402.
Woolley, J. T. & Peters, G. (n.d.). The American Presidency Project.
Retrieved February 28, 2009 from University of California, Gerhard Peters
(database): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7190
61
Appendix A. Washington State Department of Ecology oil spill response
equipment grant application form.
Application Information:
Agency or Tribe Name:
Address:
City:
Contact Name:
Phone No.:
Email:
State:
Alternate No.:
Zip code:
Fax No.:
Equipment Requested
Trailer with General Purpose Boom
Trailer with River Boom
Boom Vane(s)
Other (Specify):
Where Will The Equipment Be Located?
Identify where the equipment will be stored and what resources or assets will be protected.
How Will The Equipment Be Deployed?
Explain who will deploy the equipment and what support equipment (such as boats) will be used.
62
Appendix B. Map of oil spill response equipment cache locations, grouped by
geographic region, in Washington State.
Map courtesy of the Washington State Department of Ecology website:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/response/equipment_caches.htm
63
Appendix C. Distribution of oil spill response equipment by Ecology region.
ECOLOGY REGION
SOUTH
WEST
CONTAINMENT
BOOM ( in feet)
8"x12" standard
8"x12" river
6"x12" inshore
6"x6" river boom
4"x6" marina boom
Total boom
awarded (in feet)
BOOM VANES
18' TRAILERS
10' TRAILERS
CACHES
TRAININGS
NORTH
WEST
TOTALS
CENTRAL
EASTERN
GRANT
EQUIPMENT
INCLUDING
ECOLOGY
EQUIPMENT
12,400
4,800
0
0
0
21,600
800
0
0
200
0
0
400
4,600
1,900
0
0
800
5,900
0
34,000
5,600
1,200
10,500
2,100
35,000
6,000
1,200
10,500
2,100
17,200
22,600
6,900
6,700
53,400
54,800
0
21
0
15
20
0
25
0
8
24
2
5
7
8
9
2
7
1
1
8
4
58
8
32
61
6
59
8
33
61
64
