Oil Spill Response Organizations Research Articles

Moving the dial through collaboration – The Global Response Network

ABSTRACT For many years there have been lots of Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs) worldwide. Their organization, concept of operations and skills have to a large extend been tailored to their specific areas of operations, members demand and the OSROs own practice and experience. Collaboration between OSROs has been somewhat limited. During the last decade, the post-Macondo follow up has showed – and strengthened – the necessity of tiered preparedness, hence the importance of collaboration between different oil spill response organizations has raised to another level. One arena which has evolved tremendously during the last decade, has been the Global Response Network – GRN. The dial can surely be said to have moved considerably towards closer collaboration. The Global Response Network (GRN) exists to share information, improve spill response performance and provide centers of expertise in spill preparedness, response and recovery techniques. It is a forum for oil spill response organizations to improve their individual performance and effectiveness by: fostering strong collaborative relationships between Members;establishing functional teams to exchange operating information, response techniques and share good practice; andassisting oil companies and other stakeholders to enhance industry standards for spill response. The GRN will operate under an Executive Committee (EC) framework which purpose is to determine the broad strategic direction of the GRN. The EC is also reviewing and assessing the work of the functional teams operating under the EC, known as the Operational Teams (OTs). During the last decade, the OTs have developed into a global, functional group of experts working across nations and boundaries. The OT's represents the operational expertise within the OSROs and have become the bodies to operationalize and implement the Good Practice Guidelines developed through IPIECA post-Macondo. Having this body – or structure – of experts to support the industry (and IPIECA) has proven important. This presentation will describe how the last decade has made improvements in collaboration between OSROs and different agencies – both regulators, companies, agencies, the public and responder – to make oil spill response more efficient, standardized and created a better understanding of the importance of having a good, well-functioned oil spill response.

Post-Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Planning in Hawaii with a Focus on Science-based Stakeholder Participation and Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Coast Guard (USCG) recognize that use of dispersants is a viable option in conjunction with, or in lieu of, mechanical or other types of recovery. Working with the USCG, EPA initiated two projects in Hawai'i in support of a recently-revised Hawai'i Dispersant Use Plan (the Plan) that addresses the pre-authorized use of dispersants in marine waters offshore of Hawaii. A process to evaluate a response option must balance the restoration of maritime commerce and the minimization of environmental damage of an oil spill with the imperative to (1) remove the maximum amount of oil from the environment (2) as rapidly as possible while (3) producing the minimum environmental collateral damage. The “big tent” approach of Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA), bringing in subject matter experts (SMEs) and stakeholders from various interest groups, i.e., marine industry, environmentalists, oil spill response organizations (OSROs), historic specialists, Native Hawai'i cultural specialists, economic specialists, etc., is critical to getting stakeholder buy in and insuring a proper, scientific rigorous approach to evaluating these critical technologies for use. The process used here for creating and evaluating the Plan by utilizing a NEBA in support of a Biological Evaluation for the Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation, is an efficient and proper way to evaluate dispersants and other “hot button” response technologies for use in an oil spill impacted environment.

Recent Development on Herder Commercialization

Abstract Herders (also known as surface collecting agents) are made of surface active compounds (surfactants). They reduce the surface tension of water and thereby change the spreading behavior of immiscible liquids, such as an oil slick, floating on the surface. Oil slicks that have spread too thin to burn can be re-thickened if herders are sprayed on the water surface around a slick. Once the slick is thickened, it is amenable to in situ burning without the need for fire-resistant boom. Herders are listed as surface collecting agents on the National Contingency Product Schedule administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2019) for use in US waters. Herders are commercially available and oil spill response organizations have the capability to utilize herders. A new joint industry / government agency project was recently initiated to develop a novel herder delivery and ignition system. The initial plan is to develop a remotely operated surface vehicle (RSV) that will deliver herder from an onboard reservoir and a system to ignite herded slicks. The RSV we are developing has 10–12 hours of operation time, a range of 500 miles and can travel at speeds of up to 65 miles/hour. The RSV can be deployed from a helicopter that has a cargo hook, a boat, and potentially a fixed-wing aircraft that has an appropriately sized hatch. The vision is rapid deployed to a remote spill location using a helicopter (or a fixed-wing aircraft) and operated from this platform until a response vessel arrives on the scene. The response vessel can then take over RSV control freeing the aircraft for other duties. This paper will describe the planned development and testing of the RSV and other progress toward herder commercialization.

Cost Anatomy of A Vessel Spill Response

The focus of this paper is to highlight cost issues that have arisen during actual spill responses in the United States including issues related to a Responsible Party's (RP) named Spill Management Team (SMT), its named Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO), the USCG, the National Pollution Fund Center (NPFC), and state/local government agencies. In addition, there will be a brief discussion related to third party claim costs and management. The author's sincere hope is that this paper will generate meaningful discussion concerning the issues raised that, in turn, will lead to reasoned changes resulting in lower, and more palatable response costs. The purpose of this paper is to highlight issues, not to criticize or embarrass individuals or entities. Accordingly, no company or individuals will be identified. This paper is not all inclusive and does not include costs related to Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), fines, or legal fees. In addition, while recognizing that entities other than vessels are covered under OPA 90, this paper, as noted in the title, concerns only spills from vessels. All opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author.

Geographic Response Plans: Preparing for Inland Oil Spills in California Waterways

ABSTRACT #1141189 Emergency regulations governing the development of oil spill contingency plans in California, along with financial responsibility for inland facilities, pipelines, refineries and railroads, became effective in 2015, with final regulations being adopted in January of 2019. With the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) Office of Spill Prevention and Response's (OSPR's) authority for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response being extended to inland waters of the State, the need to develop Geographic Response Plans (GRPs) for priority watersheds with higher risk of an oil spill became a top priority. Given the successful history with developing, implementing, and maintaining the California marine Area Contingency Plans (ACPs), OSPR has implemented a similarly effective GRP program. GRPs are driven primarily by access to sites along river systems and lakes where response activities are feasible. The process of developing GRPs for the State has consisted of: 1) developing a consistent document framework based on recently developed GRPs including the Region 10 Regional Response Team (RRT) and Northwest Area Committee (NWAC) GRPs in the Pacific Northwest, the Feather River GRP developed by Union Pacific Railroad in California, as well as previously developed GRPs by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9 (California, Nevada, Arizona); 2) implementing a Statewide GRP Steering Committee (SGSC) consisting of State, federal and local agencies, industry, oil spill response organizations (OSROs), an environmental Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and a tribal representative; and 3) developing partnerships with industry representatives, and federal, State and local agencies, including first responders [Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and others] to ensure critical local expertise and information is incorporated in each, individual GRP. With the emerging trend of oil by rail transportation; historical spill threats from pipelines, fixed facilities, and truck transportation; and the promulgation of emergency regulations extending OSPR's oil spill preparedness activities to inland waters, the development of GRPs for at-risk watersheds became critical.

Oil Spill Combat Strategy & Lesson Learnt of Balikpapan Spill

Among many discussions on effective response strategies during oil spill response operations at sea, this paper elaborates comprehensive information on oil spill combat strategy and lesson learnt from Balikpapan Spill incident. The author tries to shown the effectiveness of assessment and surveillance prior to oil spill response operation, oil spill response strategies and monitoring after oil spill response operation. The paper point out strategies used by OSCT Indonesia as National Oil Spill Response Organization on responding the oil spill incident. Focusing on taking tactical response according to experience gained from previous oil spill incident, the paper also mentions the importance of unified command between local authorities and company for easier coordination. Other than strategies and effective response, wildlife response become one of the difficulties faced onsite the field due to diverse wildlife and lack of wildlife response knowledge and trained experts. Learn from this recent oil spill experience, may enrich the knowledge on responding to such oil spill incident at similar condition and area.

Designing and Developing Exercises to Enhance Capability - A Meta Analytic View

ABSTRACT A robust preparedness framework is essential to maximize response effectiveness and safeguard success. Exercises are an integral part of oil spill preparedness and emergency management. Exercises enhance the capability of an organization to respond by validating plans and procedures and seeking affirmations on assumptions and stakeholder expectations. Since planning and preparing for exercises can be costly and time consuming, it is important that lessons learned are accurately captured, widely communicated and implemented in a timely manner so that they can lead to measurable improvements in the way we prepare and respond to incidents. On average, international Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSRO) may be involved in thirty to forty oil spill response exercises in a given year, ranging from small scale exercises testing communication between various stakeholders to highly complex, multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional scenarios. Participation in multiple exercises in various capacities ranging from planning, designing and facilitation to participation, performance and capability assurance as an Oil Spill Response Organization, presents varied opportunities to view and analyze exercises from both ends of the spectrum, as a planner as well as a participant. A meta-analysis of these exercises offers a unique opportunity to systematically identify recurring areas for improvement and to examine new avenues to explore and test capabilities with operators who have established robust exercise programs. A key outcome of this would be to translate learnings into important enhancements for industry’s collective response and preparedness capability. This paper presents a meta-analysis view of recent OSRO-industry exercises with a focus on a comparative assessment of specific After Action Reviews (AAR). The purpose is to identify common themes in terms of lessons learned and areas for improvement, especially when designing and planning future exercises. It also considers whether exercises have evolved to incorporate changing response capabilities and realistically testing any increased information requirements of the stakeholder community. Finally, it will also examine how successfully companies have sought out emerging technologies that will positively impact preparedness, response and recovery. It is anticipated that the recommendations put forward from this meta-analysis will assist operators in realizing the full benefits of the time and effort invested in exercise programs.

Development and implementation of a common strategy for operating companies and OSROs

ABSTRACT In times where oil companies are looking for potentials for cutting their costs, oil spill response organizations become subject to budgets restrictions. Norwegian Clean Seas Association For Operating Companies, NOFO, and her members, have developed and approved a common strategy for the next 5 years. The strategy implements the Good Practice Guidance (GPG) made by IOGP/IPIECA post Macondo JIP working groups. The strategy was implemented through a process, breaking the main areas into action items, involving the entire NOFO OSRO into this work. By doing so, NOFO has succeeded in leading on in identifying activities, when to do what and the costs related to activities. As such, severe budget restraints have not been hitting the organization. The process and involvement of this OSRO does have many elements easily applicable to other OSROs. This presentation will describe how the strategy was made, the process from overall goals to aims and objectives to implementation and follow-up by the companies and NOFO, whereby the GPG have been put into effect. Promoting the common strategy, including the GPG from IOGP/IPIECA has proven a valuable part of the industry and OSRO outreach and communication.

Improving Oil Spill Response capability during times of downsizing and budget cuts: A glance at the Norwegian way

ABSTRACT How can we continuously develop and improve large scale emergency preparedness, such as oil spill response, in times of low oil prices, budget cuts and downsizing? NOFO (Norwegian Clean Seas Association For Operating Companies) has found its path, through modernization and cooperation. When there are spills of crude oil from the petroleum industry at the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) NOFO will perform the oil spill response (OSR) on behalf of the owner of the spill, in practical terms becoming the company’s OSR branch during the incident. NOFO was founded in 1978, as a response to the large blowout at the Bravo field the previous year. Focus on offshore OSR technology and combat strategies has been the main motivation during our almost 40 year’s existence. The last decade has included a significant improvement in our competence and training on near-shore and beach OSR, simultaneously maintaining the unique offshore segment. As part of improving NOFO capacity within large scale, and / or long duration spill situations (e.g. Macondo), NOFO have embraced and implemented ICS (Incident Command System), thus improving our capabilities and capacities through the whole range from offshore to shoreline OSR. Through 2015 and 2016 ICS training and ICS adaptions of previous organizational systems has been prioritized, and new ones have been developed. NOFO personnel have participated in numerous training sessions and exercises with our member companies (operators on the Norwegian continental shelf) nationally and internationally. Through strategic choices of planning and collaboration both internally in NOFO and between NOFO and the Norwegian Coastal Administration (NCA), Global Response Network (GRN), other oil spill Response Organizations (OSROs) and cooperating partners, the number of exercises has increased, the value and output of exercises is improved, and thus the capacity and capability of NOFOs whole range OSR in improved. At the same time, on behalf of our members, NOFO have consumed less money year after year. NOFO is developing and improving our proven OSR capacity and competence, from offshore to shoreline, through increased efficiency, high focus on exercise training, and cooperation with other OSR agencies.

Development of API Selection and Training Guidelines for in situ Burning Personnel

ABSTRACT Guidance for in situ burning of oil spills has been developed under the auspices of the Joint Industry Oil Spill Preparedness and Response (OSPR) Task Force (JITF) and the American Petroleum Institute (API), Oil Spill, Emergency Preparedness & Response Subcommittee (OSEPR). These groups convened to evaluate the procedures and lessons learned during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. The initial focus was to identify potential opportunities for improvement to the oil spill response system. One of the categories addressed by the JITF and OSEPR was in situ burning of spilled oil. Within this category a number of projects were identified to be worked on by individual project teams. One of those projects was to develop selection and training guidance for oil spill responders to in situ burns. Consequently, a project team was formed of volunteers representing the oil and gas industry, federal and state government, subject matter experts, oil spill response organizations and manufacturers of relevant equipment.

CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON REVISITED

Abstract number: 2017-102The Salish Sea comprises the North American inland marine waters of Washington State and British Columbia; an international border between Canada and the United States intersects it. Planning for oil spills that threaten to cross the international border is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) as described in the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan. As Canadian companies gain approval to construct new pipelines to move oil-sands-derived crude oil from the landlocked province of Alberta to the tidewater province of British Columbia, governments, agencies and citizens are publicly questioning whether current levels of oil spill preparedness and response equipment will be adequate for the increased tanker traffic from Canadian ports. These stakeholders may likewise be unaware of forthcoming spill prevention and response enhancements, by the Canadian government and industry, associated with new energy infrastructure projects.This paper will expand on a 2014 IOSC paper entitled CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON,1 which was a snapshot of regulations, actual inventories and philosophies that made up the 2014 response picture for the south Salish Sea shared between Canada and the United States. In order to see the entire picture, the reader is encouraged to have both documents at hand.2 The updated paper reviews changes to American Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) and Canadian Response organization (RO) equipment inventories, changes to the Canada Shipping Act 2001, Canada's new Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), United States newly implemented non-floating oil ORSO classification, Washington State's oil spill contingency plans and the future buildup of response equipment and personnel.

Large Scale Dispersant Stockpiles – Product Selection Considerations and Inventory Management

Dispersant use can be a critical component of an effective response to larger offshore oil spills. When used appropriately, dispersants can reduce the potential for long term environmental damage by preventing oil slicks from entering sensitive near shore environments or stranding on shorelines. Preparedness is essential for successful dispersant application – product selection and inventory management are critical elements for ensuring global dispersant stockpiles are response ready. Product Selection: A number of factors need to be carefully considered while selecting specific dispersants, especially in the case of large scale response-related inventories. These include: Breadth of Approvals: The existing global landscape of dispersant approvals is varied and needs to be understood in order to support international response readiness. Availability/Diversity of data demonstrating effectiveness: It is important to have credible data relating to effectiveness on a wide diversity of oils (light to heavy, crudes to refined products) and how performance may be affected as oils weather. Performance data should be available that show how well products work at different temperatures and different dispersant to oil ratios. In general, it is important to ensure that selected products have the broadest applicability for the variety of circumstances that may arise. Availability/Diversity of data on responder safety and potential toxicity to marine life: It is important to have as much credible data as possible with respect to any health concerns for response personnel and/or toxicity concerns regarding marine life. Availability of this information from reliable sources, e.g., peer reviewed journals and publications, is needed for regulatory approval and support of dispersant use decisions. Stockpile Maintenance: A robust maintenance program is required to ensure the structural integrity and chemical quality/effectiveness of dispersant stockpiles. Visual Inspection: Aligned with routine equipment maintenance programs, visual inspection focuses on storage conditions, identification labeling, container defects/damage, leaks and changes to colour and clarity over time. Effectiveness Testing: A simple and repeatable sampling and chemical analysis protocol for dispersant effectiveness is necessary. Two global Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs) with large scale dispersant stockpiles (i.e. Tier III Inventories) have collaboratively developed a large scale dispersant inventory management regime in consultation with the Oil and Gas Industry. This paper will describe the development and implementation of the regime and highlight some of the challenges including dispersant shelf-life, validity of testing data and regulatory approval.

Coast Guard Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS), Past, Present and Future of meeting Service spill response needs (containment, skimming, and pumping)

The Coast Guard Vessel of Opportunity Skimming (VOSS) has recently gone through a consolidation of pollution response equipment to modernize its spill equipment capability for oil spill (containment, skimming, and pumping) to meet the response needs of the future. This paper will review the history of Coast Guard VOSS implementation, deployment during Deep Water Horizon, VOSS consolidation of 15 sites in 2014–2015, and challenges facing Coast Guard VOSS capability gaps in the future. In the aftermath of the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill in 1989, the Coast Guard assessed gaps and deficiencies in the ability of government and private sector resources to fully and adequately respond to major oil spill events. At the time, major gaps were found in the private sector's ability to deliver emergency first response equipment in major port areas. These gaps were addressed by Coast Guard acquisition, pre-positioning and on-going maintenance of VOSS systems & other equipment. Regulatory regimes were created and the Coast Guard created a system for determining the ability of the private sector to respond to a worst case discharge (WCD) including Title 33 CFR Parts 154 and 155 requiring facility and vessel response plan holders to have plans and contracts for privately owned pollution response equipment sufficient to respond to a WCD. The regulations have resulted in the increased capacity of Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) in the coastal areas of the continental United States. The Deepwater Horizon response in 2010 was the largest pollution response equipment deployment by private and government resources in the nation's history. Most Coast Guard VOSS systems were deployed in response to Deepwater Horizon. The growth of spill response equipment by the private sector and lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon VOSS spill deployment were utilized to support the consolidation of VOSS equipment in the continental United States while maintaining VOSS capacity in remote areas.

A State's Response to Oil Spill Preparedness How the Texas General Land Office built and maintains one of the premier oil spill response organizations

Texas produces nearly twice and much oil as the next highest producing U.S. state and has approximately 3300 miles of sensitive jurisdictional shoreline boarding the second highest area of our nation's oil production, the Gulf of Mexico. It is home to over 27 operating refineries and hosts 3 of the top 10 busiest ports in the nation. Since 1991, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) has built an oil spill prevention and response program that is arguably the premier state oil spill program in the nation; one that responds 24/7 to over 600 reported spills per year, certifies, audits and inspects over 600 oil handling facilities, administers an abandoned vessel removal program, an oily bilge facility program, and has an ongoing oil spill R&D program and its own state Scientific Support Coordinator, ensuring that prevention, planning and response activities are state of the science. The TGLO produces the Texas Oil Spill Toolkit, now in its 17th edition, which is a spill planning and response resource for the western Gulf of Mexico, and houses a collection of plans and documents in a single, easy to use online/off-line .html format. Plans include up-to-date Area Committee Plans (ACP) and pre-planning documents, all aligned with the National Response Framework (NRF). Included are Regional Response Team VI (RRT) documents and guidance, pre-authorization plans and mapping for alternative spill response, Priority Protection Areas (PPA), Environmental Sensitivity Index Maps (ESI), and site specific Geographic Response Plans (GRP). This paper describes the conception, history and evolution of the building and operation of a state response organization in an era of “less government”.

A Capabilities-Based Framework for Disaster Response Exercise Design and Evaluation: Findings from Oil Spill Response Exercises

Abstract The responder community must be ready to respond quickly and effectively in the event of a disaster. In order to maintain readiness, many disaster response communities exercise their response capabilities on a regular basis. The critical challenge is to design, conduct, and evaluate exercises in a manner that effectively tests responders’ readiness and generates lessons that can improve readiness. This paper describes a framework to enable assessment of response readiness through evaluation of critical capabilities in exercises. It was developed for oil spill response based on the observation and analysis of four response exercises. The framework (1) identifies critical capabilities that lead to readiness for spill response, and maps them to (2) exercise design components that test each capability and (3) evaluation measures to evaluate each capability within an exercise. The framework enables continuous improvement by linking the evaluation of exercises to the critical capabilities required of an oil spill response organization; by evaluating the performance of specific capabilities, areas for improvement are clearly identified and can be re-tested in a future exercise. While the findings are necessarily specific to oil spill response, the principles apply to any disaster response context.

Dynamic resource allocation to support oil spill response planning for energy exploration in the Arctic

A mixed-integer linear program is proposed to model the dynamic network expansion problem of improving oil spill response capabilities to support energy exploration in the Arctic. Oil spill response operations in this region can be hampered by a lack of existing infrastructure, limited pre-positioned response equipment, and the possibility that response equipment might not arrive in time to mitigate the impact of a spill because of distance and infrastructure limitations. These considerations are modeled by two inter-related constraint sets with the objective of minimized total weighted response time for a set of potential oil spill incidents. One constraint set determines how to dynamically allocate response equipment and improve the infrastructures necessary to stockpile them within a network of response sites. The other set determines how to utilize this stockpile to respond to each task necessary for an incident by scheduling the equipment to complete tasks. These task completion times are subject to deadlines which, if not met, can, instead, require costlier follow-on tasks to be scheduled. The model, its assumptions, and data requirements were assessed by subject matter experts in the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard and a major Oil Spill Response Organization in the context of oil spill response logistics to support energy exploration initiatives in the U.S. Arctic.

State-Corporate Environmental Cover-Up: The Response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

Developing the concept of state-corporate environmental crime, this article examines the government and corporate response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. US federal responders functioned in coordination with BP and an extensive array of privately contracted oil spill response organizations to systematically conceal the environmental damage caused by the spill through various means. State-corporate responders applied unprecedented amounts of toxic chemical dispersants in an effort to hide the oil, blocked public and media access to response operations, and relied upon a network of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies alongside private security firms to enforce the ban. In combination, these efforts constitute a state-corporate cover-up of environmental crimes in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Wildlife Response Management during a Federal Incident

The last days of August 2012 brought Hurricane Isaac's wind and water energy to south Louisiana impacting many parishes with destruction of property and leaving behind severe flooding, making response difficult in some locations. After search and rescue efforts ensuring safety of the people in the areas had been completed, surveys by boat and aircraft began to reveal impacts to wildlife from petroleum product of unknown origin. As in past natural disaster response activations, wildlife professionals expected oil impacted animal cases to remain minimal; however, there was confirmation from some response crews on site that there were in fact affected animals. Given that there was no named Responsible Parties, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), took the lead in activation of the Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs) and the wildlife personnel to conduct recovery and rehabilitation efforts in coordination with the State of Louisiana. All costs associated with these activities were covered by the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), which is managed by the USCG as promulgated under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). Wildlife Response Services, Inc. (WRS) supported by Matrix New World Engineering, Inc. (Matrix), was mobilized on September 2, 2012 to set up a Wildlife Rehabilitation Center (Center) in Belle Chase, Louisiana. The Center was set up in the Bricor Trucking Warehouse and the team had the Center operational the morning of September 3, 2013and received its first animal in the afternoon of that same day. During the response the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) was responsible for oiled wildlife recovery and transport to the Center. Over the course of the response 7 live animals were cared for, most of which were cleaned and eventually released back into the wild. The Hurricane Isaac response demonstrated the leadership of the USCG in organizing oiled wildlife recovery and rehabilitation jointly with LDWF and WRS, as well as with the OSROs. This is a model for responses to future natural disasters.

ALASKA'S APPROACH TO DETERMINING OIL RECOVERY RATES AND EFFICIENCIES

ABSTRACT The determination of effective daily recovery capacities for oil skimmers and pumps has been controversial and increasingly critical in recent years. Oil discharge events around the world have highlighted the importance of having effective oil spill response plans, equipment, and procedures in place and available for immediate activation. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has determined that the standard practice of using an effective oil recovery capacity equal to 20 percent of the equipment manufacturer's rated throughput capacity over a 24-hour period is not always realistic for predicting recovery capabilities during an oil spill response. Additionally, always using 20 percent does not give equipment manufacturers incentives to develop improved equipment, nor are plan holders motivated to use best available technology in their response systems. The development of ASTM International (ASTM) “F 2709–08 Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary Oil Skimmer Systems” (hereafter called ASTM 2709–08) provided a starting point for the assessment of realistic oil recovery rates (ORR) and oil recovery efficiencies (ORE). The standard states, “This test method defines a method and measurement criteria to quantify the nameplate recovery rate (capacity) of a stationary skimmer system in ideal conditions.” The ADEC has worked with plan holders, oil spill response organizations, and oil shipping industry representatives to use the results of testing under ASTM 2709–08 (ideal conditions) as a baseline for determining ORR and ORE in realistic field conditions. This work has been based on a “systems approach” which takes into consideration the operating environments in which the skimmer will be used and the booms which will be used to concentrate and contain oil for skimming. The resulting “Request for Assessment of Skimmer System Efficiency” provides a means for plan holders to convey information which the ADEC can use to make a determination about the skimming system's recovery capabilities.

A Field Evaluation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT A key component of any oil spill response operation is the ability to identify and describe the characteristics of the spill and ultimately direct the resources necessary for clean up. Currently, this task is primarily performed by trained personnel in manned aircraft. With the recent advances in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) it may be possible to obtain the same high quality field reports and provide detailed guidance for surface assets without the high cost and risk associated with manned flight. In early March 2013 a group of interested parties convened in Astoria, Oregon to evaluate the feasibility of using a UAS as an observation, documentation, and control platform in an oil spill response environment. The test was conducted over three days and included participants from Chevron Shipping, AeroVironment, University of Alaska, and a wide variety of Oil Spill Response organizations. Operations were based out of the Clatsop Community College MERTS campus near Astoria, Oregon with flight operations conducted from a 34 ft vessel near Rice Island and Grassy Island on the lower Columbia River. The investigative team included a trained oil spill Aerial Observer, a UAS Technical Team, and an Oil Industry Environmental Compliance Manager. The primary goal of the test was to evaluate the feasibility of UAS technology as an oil spill response tool. The exercise not only provided an opportunity for the Oil Spill Response community to evaluate first-hand the technical and operational capabilities of the Unmanned Aircraft System, but it also helped introduce the UAS industry to the requirements and expectations of the Oil Spill Response community.