Coping with an Oiled Sea

Coping With an Oiled Sea

March 1990

OTA-BP-O-63 NTIS order #PB90-219973 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Coping With An Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies, OTA-BP-O-63 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990).

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

ii Foreword

In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in March, 1989, a myriad of investigations were initiated to evaluate the causes of that accident and to propose reme- dies. The Office of Technology Assessment was asked to study the Nation’s oil spill clean-up capabilities and to assess the technologies for responding to such catastrophic spills in the future. The request for this study came from Senator Ted Stevens, a member of the Technology Assessment Board, and from Congressman Billy Tauzin, Chair- man of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. This background paper presents the results of OTA’s analysis. It discusses the current technologies and capabilities in the United States and abroad and evaluates the prospects for future improvements. Cleaning up a discharge of millions of gallons of oil at sea under even moderate environmental conditions is an extraordinary problem. Current national capabilities to respond effectively to such an accident are marginal at best. OTA’s analysis shows that improvements could be made, and that those offering the greatest benefits would not require technological breakthroughs –just good engineering design and testing, skilled maintenance and training, timely access to and availability of the most appropriate and substantial systems, and the means to make rapid, informed decisions. One must understand, however, that even the best national response system will have inherent practical limitations that will hinder spill response efforts for catastrophic events– sometimes to a major extent. For that reason it is important to pay at least equal attention to preventive measures as to response systems. In this area, the proverbial ounce of prevention is worth many, many pounds of cure.

Director

. . . 111 OTA Oil Spill Study Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

Project Staff Peter A. Johnson, Project Director William E. Westermeyer, Co-Project Director James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences1

Contractors Virgil F. Keith, ECO, Inc. Richard Willis, ECO, Inc.

Administrative Staff Kathleen A. Beil, Administrative Assistant Sally Van Aller, Secretary

I Congressional Research Service, Science Policy Division, Library of Congress.

iv Contents

Chapter 1. Overview ...... 1 Chapter 2. Findings ...... 3 Chapter 3. Oil Spill Response Technologies ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 Mechanical Spill Response Technologies ...... 12 Dispersants ...... 19 Burning, Bioremediation, and Other Techniques ...... 22 Quantity and Distribution of Response Equipment ...... 24 Chapter 4. U.S. Oil Spill Response Issues ...... 27 Introduction ...... 27 Technology: Which Cleanup Method? ...... 27 Decisionmaking: Democratic and Authoritarian Approaches ...... 28 Responsibility: The Polluter or the Government? ...... 28 Logistics: Essential to Quick Response ...... 29 Beach Cleanup: How Much Emphasis? ...... 30 Federal Regulations and Emergency Situations ...... 31 Equipment Testing: How Realistic? How Effective? ...... 32 Personnel, Training, and Drills ...... 33 Research and Development ...... 34 Chapter 5. Selected European Oil Spill Policies ...... 39 Introduction ...... 39 French Oil Spill Policy ...... 39 Dutch Oil Spill Policy ...... 41 United Kingdom Oil Spill Policy ...... 43 Norwegian Oil Spill Policy ...... 44 General Comments ...... 46 Appendix A. Mechanical Containment and Cleanup Technologies ...... 51 Appendix B. Quantity and Distribution of U.S. Equipment ...... 58 Appendix C. Acknowledgments ...... 68 Appendix D. Acronyms ...... 70 Contents

Figures Figure Page 3-1. Spread of an Exxon Valdez-Sized Oil Spill ...... 11 3-2. Vessel-of-Opportunity Skimming System ...... 17 3-3. West German THOR...... 18 3-4. Schematic Drawing of the Navy’s Class V Oil Skimmer ...... 18 A-1. Components of a Boom...... 5I A-2. Weir Skimmer ...... 52 A-3. Floating Suction Skimmer ...... 53 A-4. Schematic Drawing of a Weir Skimmer ...... 53 A-5. Vortex Skimmer ...... 53 A-6. Disc Skimmer ...... 54 A-7. Rope Mop Skimmer...... 55 A-8. Paddle Belt Skimmer ...... 56 A-9. Sorbent Belt Skimmer ...... 56 A-10. Sorbent Lifting Belt Skimmer ...... 56 A-n. Submersion Belt Skimmer ...... 57

Tables Table Page

2-10 Large Oil Spills: A List of 66 Spills Greater Than 2 Million Gallons, 1967 to Present ...... 4 3-1. Equipment Required To Deploy Response Elements ...... 20 4-1. Suggestions Received by the Coast Guard ...... 36 4-2. Selection of Planned R&D Efforts by Federal Agencies and Industry . . . . .38 5-1. Summary of Oil Spill Response Arrangements ...... 47 A-1. Boom Classification According to Freeboard and Draft ...... 52 B-1. Major Types, Quantities, and Location of U.S. Navy Spill Response Equipment ...... 59 B-2. Major National Strike Force Equipment of the U.S. Coast Guard ...... 59 B-3. Major Sources of Skimmers in the United States ...... 60 B-4. Major Sources of Containment Boom in the United States ...... 61 B-5. Major Sources of Offloading Pumps in the United States ...... 62 B-6. Major Sources of Dispersant Delivery Systems in the United States .....63 B-7. Alyeska Response Equipment ...... 64 B-8. Equipment Based at the Oil Spill Response Center, Southampton, U.K...... 64 B-9. Petroleum Industry Response Organization Regional Center Capital Equipment Cost ...... 66 B-10. U.S. Oil Spill Co-Ops ...... 67 Chapter 1 Overview

The March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in unlikely to eliminate oil spills entirely, and a Prince William Sound, Alaska dramatically il- very large spill under adverse conditions luminated the gap between the assumed and could still overwhelm our capacity to respond actual capability of industry and government effectively. Even using the best technology to respond to catastrophic oil spills. There available and assuming a timely and coordi- are many reasons why this gap wasn’t better nated response effort, it is not realistic to ex- appreciated before March 24: elaborate oil pect that a significant amount of oil from a spill contingency plans had been prepared and major offshore spill could be recovered, ex- approved; oil spill equipment had been devel- cept under the most ideal conditions.Histori- oped and stocked; major damaging spills had cally, it has been unusual for more than 10 to occurred infrequently, and almost never in 15 percent of oil to be recovered from a large the United States; and a nebulous faith had spill, where attempts have been made to re- existed that technology and American corpo- cover it. With improvements in technology rate management and know-how could pre- and response capability, it should become fea- vent and/or significantly mitigate the worst sible to do much better, but it is unlikely that disasters. technical improvements will result in recovery of even half the oil from a typical large The Exxon Valdez accident shattered this spill. complacency. In the aftermath of the spill a small army of people has been put to work It is not feasible to be prepared for all con- around the country studying how the United tingencies: each oil spill is unique in terms of States can do a better job preventing spills and location, weather, oceanographic conditions, how it can be better prepared to fight one that time of occurrence, characteristics of the oil, does occur. In this background paper, OTA ex- equipment available, and experience of re- amines the state-of-the-art of oil spill tech- sponse personnel. Accidents are unpredict- nologies and response capabilities. On an able. They may be caused by “acts of God” or encouraging note, it appears that improve- human error, both of which are impossible to ments can be made in oil spill cleanup tech- fully anticipate or control. The ideal condi- nology and, perhaps even more, in the way we tions in which cleanup technology would be organize ourselves to apply the most appro- most effective rarely occur in the real world. priate technologies to fight oil spills. Such The U.S. industry has concentrated its ef- improvements should result in a reduced risk forts in developing technology to fight the nu- of significant damage from a major spill in the merous small spills in harbors and protected future. waters. On the one hand, industry has over- However, the unfortunate reality is that, sold its ability to fight major spills, and the short of eliminating oil transportation at sea government has largely relied on private capa- entirely, there is no perfect solution to off- bilities; on the other, the public’s expectation shore oil spills. It is certain that oil spills will about what can be accomplished once a major occur again. If improvements in prevention spill has occurred has been too high. Preven- technology are made, the frequency of major tion of major spills, although beyond the spills may decrease, but improvements are scope of this study, must be a high priority.2

I For the purP=9 of thi9 report the terms “catastrophic, “ “major)” and “large offshore” spills refer to discharges in excess of 1 million gallons of oil that occur in open waters subject to rough seas, high currents, or other adverse environmental factors. 2For a de~]~ diws5ion of prevention Meawres, see U.S. Conwess, OffIce of T~hno]o~ Assessment, oil ~mn.SpOrtdkm by Tankers: An Analysis of Marine Pollution and Safety Measunx (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, July 1975).

1 —.————

2 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

It is important to put the environmental such as commercial fishing in Alaska. If large impacts of a major oil spill into perspective. amounts of oil reach the shore, the oil may Such a spill is indeed a catastrophe, but oil persist for long periods, even though natural spills are not the worst type of pollution with degradation mechanisms do assist recovery.3 which Federal and State authorities have to deal. In terms of threats to human health and As bad as the Exxon Valdez accident was, it persistence in the environment, spills of haz- could have been far worse: only about one- ardous chemicals or radioactive waste can be fifth of the crude oil the tanker was carrying far larger problems, and accidents involving was released. Fortunately, the rest was off- dangerous materials can cause significant loss loaded. The Amoco Cadiz did spill its entire of life. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem cargo off the coast of France in 1978, a cargo when a large quantity of oil is spilled in a roughly the same size as that carried by the 4 coastal or near-coastal area. The public is par- Exxon Valdez. Significantly, neither the oil ticularly concerned about large spills in sensi- industry, the Federal Government, nor the tive areas because the effects on the local eco- State of Alaska were prepared to deal with a system are acute, often initially devastating spill the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. It was both to biota and economic activities. Oil can fortunate, in a sense, that the spiller in this in- be toxic to organisms that come into contact cident was a major international oil company with it and can cause major problems with capable of marshaling significant resources, recreational or other uses of coastal regions, rather than a small tanker company.

s~ 1974 the supe~ker Me~~ Spi]]ed some 16.2 million gallons of oil ~er grounding in the Strait of Magellan. Essentially, no cleanup occurred and at least half of the oil lost washed onto about 50 miles of shoreline. A study by the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration about 6 years aiter the spill concluded that much of the oil remained in sediments, along beaches, and in marshes. In heavily oiled, sheltered areas, it seems likely that the oil will persist for more than 100 years. 4TheAmoco CacZiz spill released 66.4 million gallons of light crude oil off the Brittany coast in France. Prevailing winds kept the slick near the coast for 1 month, eventually oilingabout 200 miles of coastline. In a 19S5 report, Oil in the Sea, the National Research Council estimated that it would take decades before the environment recovered. Chapter 2 Findings

The Exxon Valdez accident was the largest spill (about 10.8 million gallons or 35,000 tons) in U.S. history. Not since the Santa Bar- bara oil spill 20 years earlier has as much public concern been voiced about the inability of government and industry to respond effectively to large oil spills. Although such spills have occurred worldwide at the rate of 3 to 5 per year since the Torrey Canyon accident off England in 1967, many of these (table 2-1) have escaped U.S. attention. This OTA study %ob cmdt U.S. Coast Guad is not directed at an evaluation of what went wrong with the Exxon Valdez but is focused on The Exxon Valdez, flanked by two tugboats, the response capabilities (or lack thereof) that in Prince William Sound. were brought to bear in the Exxon Valdez spill, as well as in other large offshore spills. curred in U.S. coastal waters in the past 10 to 15 years have mostly escaped public atten- Two factors are important to the question tion, largely because natural events dispersed of why public and private oil spill response ca- or mitigated the impacts. One spill caught pabilities seem so limited today. First, very fire, burning most of the oil; others happened large accidents and catastrophic oil spills have where favorable winds and currents carried not occurred very often in U.S. waters. The and dispersed most of the oil to the open seal last major tanker spill near the United States was the Alvenus spill off the Gulf Coast in Many people have asked how can we be so 1984. It was about one-third the size of the Ex- ill-prepared for massive oil spills in the mod- xon Valdez spill, and, even though a large por- ern world of high technology. Perhaps the tion of the 2.7 million gallon spill was depos- United States has not given attention to devel- ited on Texas beaches, the type of oil and the oping appropriate technology in this arena; local conditions were such that beach cleanup maybe we haven’t made needed investments was reasonably effective. Second, many be- in research; or maybe management of the re- lieved that the responsible industry and gov- sponse was just inept. ernment agencies were prepared. The exhaus- This OTA study addresses the question of tive contingency plans appeared to be technological promises and limitations. The evidence of the preparation and demonstra- technology now available for oil spill cleanup tion of adequate capabilities. in the United States and overseas has many In the light of actual events, the response limitations affecting capabilities in real world capabilities of both government and private situations. This has resulted in only very entities proved inadequate for an Exxon Val- small percentages of actual cleanup for al- dez type of accident. It is also clear that the most all past major ocean spills. Some sources few other large offshore spills that have oc- claim that the most oil that can be recovered

I In the Bumah ~a~e accident off the Gulf Coast in 1979, the oil caught fire and resulted in most of the spill burning up. In theAr@ Merchant spill off New England in 1976, the offshore winds carried almost all of the oil out to sea and it was dissipated in the open ocean. 4 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Table 2-1 -Large Oil Spills: A List of 66 Spills Greater Than 2 Million Gallons, 1967 to Present

Volume (millions No. Date Spill Location of gallons) Ref(s) 1 1979-1980 lxtoc 1, Well Blowout Mexico 139-428* abgh 2 1983 Nowruz Oil Field, Well Blowout(s) Persian Gulf 80-185 ab 3 1983 Castillo de Beliver/Broke, Fire South Africa 50-80’ abe 4 1978 Amoco Cadiz/Grounding France 67-76 abfhm 5 1979 Aegean Captain/Atlantic Empress Off Tobago 49* abl 6 1980-1981 D-103 Libya, Well Blowout Libya 42 a 7 1979 Atlantic EmpresslFire Barbados 41 .5* abl 8 1967 Torrey Canyon/Grounding England 35.7-38.6* bcf 9 1980 Irenes Serenade/Fire Greece 12.3-36.6* am 10 1972 Sea Star/Collision, Fire Gulf of Oman 35.3* bf 11 1981 Kuwait Nat’l Petroleum Tank Kuwait 31.2 a 12 1976 Urquiola/Grounding Spain 27-30.7’ bf 13 1970 Othello/Collision Sweden 18.4 -30.7 bcf 14 1977 Hawaiian Patriot/Fire N Pacific 30.4* bf 15 1979 Independents Turkey 28.9 a 16 1978 No. 126 Well/Pipe Iran 28 17 1975 Jakob Maersk Portugal 25* 18 1985 BP Storage Tank Nigeria 23.9 a 19 1985 Nova/Collision Iran 21.4 a 20 1978 BP, Shell Fuel Dept. Zimbabwe 20 21 1971 Wafra South Africa 19.6* 22 1989 Kharg 5, Explosion Morocco 19 g 23 1974 Metula/Grounding Chile 16 cf 24 1983 Assimi/Fire off Oman 15.8* a 25 1970 Polycommander Spain 3-15.3 c 26 1978 Tohoku Storage Tanks, Earthquake Japan 15 a 27 1978 Andros Patria Spain 14.6 a 28 1983 Pericles GC Qatar 14 a 29 1985 Ranger, TX, Well Blowout Texas 6.3-13.7 bk 30 1968 World Glory/Hull Failure South Africa 13.5 bcf 31 1970 Ennerdale/struck Granite Seychelles 12.6 cf 32 1974 Mizushima Refinery, Tank Rupture Japan 11.3 cdf 33 1973 Napier SE Pacific 11* f 34 1980 Juan A. Lavalleja Algeria 11 a 35 1989 Exxon Valdez/Grounding Alaska 10.8 i 38 1978 Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey 10.7 a 37 1979 Burmah Agate/Collision, Fire Texas 1 .3-10 .7* abc 38 1971 Texaco Oklahoma, 120 mi. offshore North Carolina 9.2-10.7 cf 39 1972 Tinder Mediterranean 10.4 f 40 1976 St. Peter SE Pacific 10.4 f 41 1977 Irene’s Challenge Pacific 10.4 f 42 1972 Golden Drake NW Atlantic 9.5 f 43 1970 Chryssi NW Atlantic 9.5 f 44 1969 Pacocean/Broke in two NW Pacific 9.2 f 45 1977 Caribbean Sea E Pacific 9.2 f 46 1976 Grand Zenith/Disappearance NW Atlantic 8.9 f 47 1976 Cretan star Indian Ocean 8.9 f 48 1969 Keo/Hull failure Massachusetts 8.8 bf 49 1969 Storage Tank New Jersey 8.4 b 50 1977 Ekofisk Bravo, Well Blowout North Sea 4.6-8.2 bf a. A List of the 20..., 1989. f. Butler, 1978. j. Ganten, 1985. n. Tracey, 1988. b. Reuters, 1989. g. Woods and Hannah, 1981. k. Quina et al., 1987. 0. Ocean Industry, 1980. c. Van Gelder-Ottway..., 1976. h. Teal and Howarth, 1984. 1. Horn and Neil, 1981. p. NRC, 1975. d. A Basic Spill..., 1981. i. Caleb Brett, 1989 m. Bao-Kang, 1987. q. Journal of Commerce, 1/4/90. e. Lord et al., 1987.

Tinker spdls from the kan/lraq war were not goneralty available

● Fire burned part of spill SOURCE: Exxon Corp and Of?lca of Technology Aasassment Chapter 2–Findings .5

Table 2-1- Large Oil Spills: A List of 66 Spills Greater Than 2 Million Gallons, 1967 to Present (Continued)

Volume (millions No. Date Spill Location of gallons) Ref(s) 51 1972 Giuseppi Guilietti NE Atlantic 8 f 52 1977 Venpet and Venoil/Collision South Africa 7.4-8 ef 53 1976 Argo Merchant/Grounding Massachusetts 7.7 bfh 54 1967 Humble Oil Pipeline, Offshore Leak Louisiana 67 n 55 1973 Jawacta Baltic Sea 6.1 c 56 1967 R.C. Stoner Wake Island 6 c 57 1970 Marlena Sicily 4.3 c 58 1970 Pipeline Saudi Arabia 4.2 c 59 1971 Oil Well Persian Gulf 4,2 c 60 1980 Tanio/Broke amidships France 4.2 j 61 1988 Ashland Storage Tank, Rupture Pennsylvania 3.8 b 62 1969 Santa Barbara Channel, Well Blowout California 1.4-3,4 dfp 63 1970 Arrow/Grounding Nova Scotia 1.5-3.1 ch 64 1970 Storage Tank Pennsylvania 3 c 65 1984 Alvenus/Grounding Louisiana 2.8 b 66 1970 Offshore Platform, Well Blowout Louisiana 2.7 c

a. A List of the 20..., 1989. f. Butter, 1978. j. Ganten, 1985. n. Tracey, 1988. b. Reuters, 1989. g. Woods and Hannah, 1981 k. Quina et al., 1987. 0. Ocean Industry, 1980. c. Van Gelder-Ottway..., 1976. h. Teal and Howarth, 1984. I. Horn and Neil, 1981. p. NRC, 1975. d. A Basic Spill..., 1981. i. Caleb Brett, 1989 m. Bao-Kang, 1987. q. Journal of Commerce, 1/4/90. e. Lord et al., 1987.

Tanker spills from the Iran/Iraq war were not generally available

● Fire burned part of spill SOURCE: Exxon Corp and Office of Technology Assessment after a major spill is 10 to 15 percent.2 OTA the best conditions seldom occur in the real obtained data from several documented open world.4 ocean large tanker spills that show the actual Many claim that techniques other than me- oil recovered at sea has been less than 10 per- chanical recovery could be used to mitigate cent of oil discharged –usually much less. the effects of a large offshore oil spill without Probably between 6 and 8 percent of the oil actually picking up the oil. These techniques spilled by the Exxon Valdez was recovered at 3 include use of dispersants and burning. In fact sea, although, as of this writing, Exxon is still in the process of developing a recovery esti- these other techniques have seldom been used mate. Under the best conditions, with the best successfully. In some cases public concerns technology, with technology that is immedi- about side effects have prevented their use ately available, and with the ablest organiza- (these include possible toxic effects of dis- tion, cleanup capabilities could be substan- persed oil and air emissions from burning oil). tially improved. However, technical experts In other cases, sea conditions or the condition have widely ranging views on the magnitude of the spilled oil have resulted in poor per- of potential improvements, mainly because formance of these techniques.

ZU.S. ~ner~ Ac~unting o~ce, Ade~a~ of Preparation and Response to Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, October 1989. ow~ter p~ker, ~aska Oi] Spi]] Commission, personal communication, Feb. 12, IW. 4At OTA’S Oil Spill workshop in August 1989, several experts agreed that the high end of recovery capabilities for large ocean spills might hypothetically reach more than 30 percent with the best technology. 6 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

The main question, therefore, is what im- increases in total oil recovered from a provements could be expected if new tech- catastrophic spill. In general, the im- nologies or techniques were employed in the provements that are likely to offer future. This OTA study has concluded that greater effectiveness for large offshore improvements could be made and that the spills involve larger, more costly equip- most obvious improvements would not re- ment, strategically located for quick require any technological breakthroughs-just sponse. good engineering design and testing, good One prospect for reducing the high cost maintenance and training, timely access to of more effective containment and recov- the most appropriate systems, and rapid, in- ery equipment for large spills is to em- formed decisions. The improvements that can ploy dual purpose vessels. Army Corps of be made, however, also have limitations, and Engineers’ dredges, for example, could the inherent practical difficulties of recover- be designed or retrofitted with oil spill ing oil from the ocean will always hinder spill recovery equipment, and be on call to response efforts, sometimes to a major extent. fight spills as needed. Commercial The key findings from this OTA evaluation barges, Coast Guard vessels, and other are summarized below: vessels of opportunity may also be employed. Such an approach may also offer Mechanical containment and recovery is the advantage of keeping more equip- the primary U.S. oil spill response ment in strategic locations. method. The technology currently available for mechanical oil spill cleanup has Dispersants, like mechanical cleanup many limitations, and only very small methods, have their place as an oil spill percentages of oil have been cleaned up countermeasures tool. Greater use of from most major spills. While new de- dispersants has been hampered in part signs have appeared over the years, the by concerns about toxicity and in part by basic technology has not changed in the concerns about effectiveness. Currently past decade. available dispersants are less toxic than the oil they dispersers but dispersed oil Current mechanical containment and re- can be toxic until it breaks down or is di- covery technology (especially that avail- luted sufficiently, and it will impact a able in the United States) is not usually greater fraction of the water column (or effective in waves greater than 6 feet, the sea bottom if used in shallow water) winds greater than 20 knots, and cur- than undispersed oil. Dispersant use rents greater than 1 knot (perpendicular may involve a trade-off between the envi- to a boom). Wind and current conditions ronmental effects of a treated oil slick in U.S. port areas, not to mention off- with the shoreline impacts of an un- shore areas, often exceed these limits, treated one. leaving little margin for the effective use The effectiveness of dispersants is per- of existing mechanical equipment. haps of more concern than their toxicity. Improvements in mechanical recovery A number of experts disagree about the technologies that can be expected from effectiveness of dispersants, and there is stepped-up research and development as yet no reliable method to test effec- efforts are unlikely to result in dramatic tiveness in field operations. Although

5Nation~ mse~ch Counci], Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989), p. 3. Chapter 2-–Findings ● 7

some currently available dispersants Despite the shortcomings of all existing have proved effective in ideal situations, countermeasure approaches, each may ideal conditions rarely exist in the real have applications in certain situations. world. Research to improve dispersant There is no one general solution to an oil effectiveness is continuing and appears spill. Many technologies may be very ef- to be producing some encouraging re- fective in certain applications but com- sults. pletely inappropriate in others. Regard- less of the technique(s) employed, the ● Abroad, some countries rely almost ex- effectiveness of the response will be clusively on mechanical cleanup meth- greatly enhanced if there is a rapid re- ods (e.g., Norway and the Netherlands), sponse by a professional response team while others (e.g., the United Kingdom) that understands which techniques are rely almost exclusively on dispersants. best under which conditions. The speed Some countries have much larger me- of a response is critical and is dependent chanical systems than those currently on rapid decisionmaking, logistics, and available in the United States (e.g., dual training. purpose dredges in the Netherlands) and thus have much greater capacities for Decisionmaking: If important deci- high volume recovery. Different policies sions, such as how to deploy me- regarding the use of mechanical meth- chanical equipment and whether to ods are due largely to different physical use dispersants, are not made within conditions in each country; different the first few hours after a major spill, dispersant policies relate to varying per- the spill may be beyond effective con- ceptions about their effectiveness and trol. Rapid decisionmaking is diffi- toxicity. cult in the United States, in part because oil companies have the re- ● In situ burning of spilled oil appears to sponsibility to clean up major spills have merit in certain spill situations, es- but not the authority to use all pecially if the oil can be contained and means they deem appropriate. Rapid thickened with the use of fireproof decisionmaking could be enhanced if booms. This technique is not currently the government were responsible for an important oil spill countermeasure combating major vessel spills, as is but is being investigated further in the the case inmost European countries; United States. Some experiments have if authority within the government resulted in high burn percentages and were more centralized; and if, thus high removal rates. Nevertheless, through more thorough contingency burning is probably also limited in its ap- planning, a greater number of deci- plications. Igniting and keeping a slick sions could be made without delay. burning may be a problem in some circumstances; in others, burning may — Logistics: Having the right equip- jeopardize the stricken vessel and any oil ment on scene when needed is essen- remaining on board– oil which might tial to a rapid response. Equipment otherwise be off-loaded; and the resul- may either be strategically located or tant visible air pollution (which must, rapidly moved to the spill site, but in however, be balanced against the invis- either case the recovery effort will ible air pollution caused by allowing only be as good as the weakest link in evaporation of the toxic volatile compo- the system. Response system ele- nents of the oil) may be unacceptable. ments such as adequate ships or “ A 8 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

barges to accept recovered oil, tem- about a major increase in U.S. capabili- porary storage sites, and a means to ties when implemented. However, indus- dispose the recovered oil are often try and the appropriate Federal agencies crucial to a successful operation and must work together to devise an effi- are often ignored. cient, integrated approach to fighting – Training: A career track for oil spill major oil spills. The benefits of the re- response professionals does not now gional center approach could be en- exist in the Federal Government. hanced if the specific organization, func- With the Coast Guard rotation sys- tion, and outfitting of each center were tem currently in effect, operational jointly determined. Also, if the govern- expertise is hard to come by, and ment continues to rely on private re- even if developed, maybe lost before sources for spill response, it must care- required. The establishment of a fully monitor the availability and trained professional cadre to fight oil capability of those resources. spills throughout the country (and ● Increased R&D on oil spill response tech- perhaps abroad too) could make a nologies will likely yield incremental significant difference in the govern- benefits. Important problems can be ment’s ability to respond rapidly to spills. To be effective, professional better understood, but technological training must include the conduct of breakthroughs that would result in ma- periodic exercises and contingency jor improvements in mechanical cleanup plan testing. capabilities are unlikely. The most important problems have to do with 1) pro- ● The response to a major spill would be viding technical backup for decisions on more rapid and efficient if certain regula- use of techniques such as dispersants tions could be waived or streamlined. and other chemicals, 2) developing tech- Regulations that are appropriate under nical standards based on full-scale tests normal operating procedures but which of capabilities of specific equipment, and may cause unnecessary delay in emer- 3) sound engineering design and con- gency situations include: 1) Clean Water struction of substantial and reliable sys- Act restrictions that prohibit the decant- tems in enough quantities to meet per- ing of oily water collected during cleanup formance requirements for oil recovery operations, and 2) Jones Act restrictions under real world operating conditions. that restrict the use of available foreign vessels without a waiver. ● One aspect of future technical improve- ● The oil industry, through a new Petro- ments – that of pollution prevention – leum Industry Response Organization may provide significant benefits to the (PIRO), proposes to establish 5 or more overall oil spill problem. While many regional oil spill response centers and have advocated this as an area needing claims it could endow each with the ca- attention, it has not been included in the pability to fight a 30,000-ton (about 9 scope of this OTA study. A 1975 OTA million gallons) spill. In January 1990 study (ref. 2, chapter 1) addresses this is- the PIRO Steering Committee recom- sue and an on-going National Academy mended adoption of this proposal with a of Sciences/National Research Council 5-year budget of almost $400 million and study is investigating the current situ- membership by 20 oil companies. This is ation with regard to the double-bottom, a worthwhile concept and could bring double-hull issue. Chapter 2–Findings . 9

● Given the difficulty of containing and has been effective except under ideal cleaning up a catastrophic spill at sea, weather conditions. Efforts are probably many have advocated more attention to needed, however, to improve capabilities techniques that would protect priority of protective systems and to assure the coastal areas (e.g., booms). OTA hasnot availability of the best equipment. found evidence that shoreline protection Chapter 3 Oil Spill Response Technologies

INTRODUCTION Figure 3-1 -Spread of an Exxon Valdez-Sized Oil Spill The capability to respond effectively to a major offshore oil spill is a combination of three principal factors: 1. the physical conditions at the time of the accident or spill; 2. the suitability, capacity, and availability of the technology deployed to fight the spill; and 3. the skills, training, readiness, and decisionmaking capabilities of the organiza- 12 hours 24 hours 2 days 3 days 4 days tions and people with responsibilities for combating the spill. Note: Assuming no wind or current SOURCE: Engineering Computer Optecnomlcs, Inc (ECO) This OTA study focuses on the second factor while recognizing the major influences of the other two and how they interact. fragment into a number of smaller patches with time, and thus, even larger total surface Adverse physical conditions that may be areas must be covered with any available represent at any spill site always contribute to covery equipment. the difficulty of responding efficiently and effectively. Some of the key conditions that af- Composition of Oil. The viscosity of the oil fect a response effort include: can be a critical factor in the response effort. In addition, oil spills in rough seas quickly be- Spreading of Oil. Oil spilled on the water come emulsions as they mix with water and spreads rapidly. The spreading rate depends form “chocolate mousse, ” a substancewhich on the type of oil, its volume, wind and sea is very difficult to pump. High viscosity oils conditions, and the amount of weathering are more difficult to recover mechanically and that occurs. Figure 3-1 shows the effect of disperse than low viscosity oils. Also, weather- spreading for calm water conditions and uni- ing processes such as evaporation, water take- form slick thickness–not necessarily real up, oxidation, and biodegradation will in- world conditions. It can be seen that, for an crease the viscosity. Certain crude oils (such Exxon Valdez type of spill, the oil can spread as Alaskan crude) become very difficult to over 6 square miles (almost 4,000 acres) dur- pump when temperatures reach about O to 5 ing the first 12 hours.1 The huge area encom- degrees Celsius. In addition, the effectiveness passed by a large spill means substantial of dispersants and the burning process de- amounts of equipment are needed to respond. creases as viscosity and emulsification in- Spreading also enhances evaporation and so- crease. Also, the total volume of oil/water lution of the oil by creating a large active sur- emulsion (mousse) can reach several times face area. In addition, an oil slick tends to the initial oil spill volume.

‘If all of the containment boom in the U.S. Navy inventory could be deployed to this type of spill site within the first 12 hours, it would barely be enough to encircle such a spill. In fact, the U.S. Navy response was not even requested until more than 1 week aller the Exxon Val& accident.

11 —.

12 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Sea Conditions. Most existing mechanical respond to and mitigate major offshore spills equipment becomes much less effective in of the Exxon Valdez type and size (over 10 mil- waves greater than 3 to 6 feet. In addition, lion gallons). small vessels cannot be used, and deployment In the United States, almost all of the exist- of gear in rough seas can be difficult. Currents ing technology in the private sector has been can cause oil to move in unpredictable direc- developed for use in harbors and other pro- tions, and booms become ineffective when tected waters. The Coast Guard and the Navy current velocity exceeds about 1 knot perpendicular to the face of the boom. have equipment in their inventory that was designed for offshore areas in terms of deploy- Weather Conditions. Weather such as ability and ruggedness, but it is limited to snow, fog, heavy rain, high winds, and low moderate sea states, low currents, and moder- temperatures all adversely affect the deploy- ate-size spills. No private U.S. oil spill coop- ment and operation of equipment. erative has the ability to deal with large, cata- Location of Spill. If the spill is near the strophic spills. The few large cooperatives in shoreline and the drift is toward shore, it will the United States have equipment that is be very difficult to prevent beach contamina- more appropriate for platform spills. The tion, no matter how ideal the conditions. The Coast Guard has only minimal equipment of more remote a spill, the more difficult it is to its own and depends, in large part, on private get equipment to the site quickly. industry to supply systems to respond to spills. The Coast Guard has not developed any Logistics. It is critical to be able to move new equipment in recent years, and the num- equipment and personnel to the spill site as ber of strike teams has been reduced from rapidly as possible. Also, all aspects of the three to two. The Navy’s spill response capa- transportation network are important– bility is probably more substantial than that barges and other support vessels are often of any other government agency, but its overlooked or not available. equipment has been designed to be air-trans- Safety. Response to a large spill must in- portable and, thus, is limited in size and ca- clude consideration of fire and explosion po- pacity. tential of the slick under the right tempera- ture and atmospheric conditions. The protection of people aboard the vessel and MECHANICAL SPILL those working on clean-up operations is criti- RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES cal. The safety of the stranded vessel itself is also important, especially if part of the cargo Mechanical recovery of spilled oilcan be ac- can be recovered before it is all spilled. complished by a variety of techniques. A large The above factors affect the ability of any number of different systems have been de- response effort to mitigate the effects of a signed and built over the last 20 years. The large offshore spill. OTA has reviewed three World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products, major categories of existing technologies for for instance, includes hundreds of harbor, oil spill response: mechanical recovery; dis- calm water, and offshore booms and skim- persants; and burning, bioremediation, and mers designed for a variety of spills and condi- other techniques. In general, none of the cur- tions, in addition to hundreds of sorbants that rently available technologies are adequate to soak up oil.2 Oil spill containment and

2FMXM ~hu]ze (d.), world Catalog of Oil Spill Response Pm&cts (Bsltimore, ~: Port city press, 1*7), 470 PP. Chapter 3–Oil Spill Response Technologies .1.3

cleanup technology has improved marginally over the past two decades, but private and Federal research efforts in the United States diminished greatly in the 1980s. Mechanical spill response technologies can be divided into two major categories: containment booms and oil recovery devices. Several containment and cleanup devices are discussed below. More details are included in appendix A.

Booms

Booms range in vertical dimension from under 1 foot for protecting calm water areas to over 7 feet for offshore applications. Smaller booms are less expensive, lighter, and easier to deploy. Large offshore booms require larger boats, heavier equipment, and often specialized equipment to deploy and recover. Most booms, including large offshore booms as well as smaller booms, become ineffective in currents over 1 knot and wave fhoib cmdi~ V7konm Intematimd, Lti. heights over 6 feet. Systems designed for more severe conditions in the Norwegian sector of A weir boom corralling an oil spill. the North Sea are required by the Norwegian government to be effective in waves up to 9 that sections be bolted together are generally feet and currents of 1.5 knots. However, in easier to handle offshore. Future develop- wave heights in the range of 6 to 9 feet, the ef- ments are not likely to be in the direction of ficiency of the equipment decreases as oil es- greater ability to operate in harsher sea condi- capes the boom. In wave heights above 9 feet, tions but more toward ease of operation oil is whipped into the water and splashed within the limits now attained. over the booms, and little recovery is possible. Booms ranging from 18 inches to 80 inches One type of boom, designed for rapid de- were used at the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince ployment, is pumped full of air (in an upper William Sounds According to one spill re- flotation chamber) and water (in a lower bal- sponse supervisor at the spill, the largest last chamber) as it is pulled off a reel. Thus, booms were no better at containing oil than one trade-off is between rapid deployment using continuous air inflation versus slower de- booms in the 32 to 42 inch range, but the ployment but less reliance on continuously larger booms were useful to slow down the operating inflation equipment. Booms that larger boats that could not otherwise tow can be deployed from a reel and do not require slowly enough.4

3En@n&ring Computer Opt=nomics, Inc. (EC! O), “Analysis of Oil Spill Response Tahnologies, ” contractor report PreP~ed for the Ofllce of Technology Assessment, July 1989. 41bid. 14 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

and weir skimmers and skimmers with a moving surface such as a belt, oil-absorbent rope mop, or disks (see appendix A). Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and no single type is best for all situations or types of oil. Even the most effective skimmers have rarely ac- counted for recovery of more than a few percent of oil from large spills. Suction skimmers generally have a fairly high oil recovery rate because of their high pumping capacity, but they do not discrimi- nate well between oil and water and thus have a low recovery efficiency.s They are simple to operate but do not work well in choppy waves. Fhc@ edit Jlm Miako Weir skimmers have the advantages of being simple and reliable, and they have a fairly Heavy-duty boom on reel at the Southampton, U.K. Oil Spill Service Centre. high recovery rate. However, most (especially rigid types) do not work well in waves. Con- Air bubble barriers are another type of conventional weir skimmers also have problems tainment device. If air is pumped into a perfo- in becoming clogged with debris. There are a rated pipe below the water surface, the rising variety of belt skimmers, some with belts of bubbles cause the surface water to flow away absorbent material, some without, and some from the pipe. Air barriers are more effective that can be used either way. Belt skimmers in calm waters and when used at freed installa- with the belt inclined to the water and the up- tions. An air bubble barrier was employed in per surface moving upward can generally han- the 1969 Santa Barbara spill with little suc- dle debris very well. They also can be expected cess. This equipment requires large amounts to have a relatively high oil recovery rate and of compressed air and presents logistical high efficiency. Disk skimmers rely on the ad- problems, which probably would make it un- hesion of oil on rotating disks. Because of the suitable for remote areas. large vertical dimensions of the disks, they are A promising future addition to contain- relatively more effective in waves, and the ment technology may be the high pressure larger skimmers are effective in fairly high sea water jet barrier. The water jet system is de- states. Disk skimmers have a high recovery ef- signed to herd oil, much like a barrier, but un- ficiency, which can be a considerable advan- der a wide variety of operating conditions. It tage if storage volume is limited. Among their can be mounted on and used with oil recovery disadvantages are their vulnerability to be- devices. coming clogged with debris, their ineffective- ness with mousse, and their more compli- Skimmers cated design (which makes them more likely to break down). Rope mop skimmers have a Several basic types of skimmers are avail- long loop of absorbent oleophilic (oil loving) able; some of the more common are suction material that floats on the surface of the water

The oil recovery rate, measured in gallons per minute, is the rate at which pure oil is recovered. Recovery efficiency is the percent oil in the recovered mixture. Robert Schulze (cd.), World Cakdog of Oil Spill Response Products (Baltimore, MD: Port City Press, 1987), p. 213. Chapter 3–Oil Spill Response Technologies ● 15

flow beneath the barrier depends on the current speed (or the relative velocity between the barrier and the water if the barrier is being towed) and properties of the oil itself. Both entrainment and migration of the slick under a barrier become significant problems at current speeds in excess of 1 knot perpendicular to the boom face.6 Badly designed booms may fail below this current speed. The difficulties in handling barriers in open ocean waters are compounded by the fact that ships towing booms must navigate at very slow speeds where it is difficult to maintain steering control. Booms have probably reached their practi- A disk skimmer deployed behind a boom. This model has cal limits in terms of the maximum wind and the capacity to recover about 50 tons of oil per hour. wave conditions in which they can be expected to retain oil. Additional improvement will and is then pulled through a wringer to re- most likely result from advances in ease of de- move oil. These skimmers have a high recov- ployment and possible development of new, ery efficiency, are easy to deploy off the side of lighter weight, durable materials. a vessel, and are relatively easy to maintain. Skimmer performance varies widely depending on the viscosity of the oil being recov- Evaluation of Capabilities ered. Most skimmers have a range of viscosi- ties in which they work best and can be In wind and currents, a boom must be de- roughly grouped according to the oil viscosity signed with proper ballast to remain vertical in which they are most effective. A generalized and to maintain an effective height in the grouping of skimmer performance according water. Other problems of containing oil in a to oil viscosity is shown below. current are related to the hydrodynamics of oil in moving water. As an oil slick increases in Light Oil Weir thickness against the boom, the oil extends Suction deeper into the water. Only about 10 percent Submersion belts rises above the waterline. In other words, an Submersion plane oil slick floats in much the same way as an ice- berg. As current velocity increases, more oil is Medium Oil driven against the barrier. When a critical ve- Disk locity for the depth of the barrier is exceeded, Rope mop oil will migrate down the barrier and escape Sorbent belt underneath. Another problem is entrainment Sorbent lifting belt or dispersion of oil droplets in the water as it Sorbent submersion belt flows past oil held against a barrier. The rate Boom-skimmer at which droplets of oil enter the water and Vortex (continued)

61 hot ew~s 1.2 miles per hour. —

16 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Even under ideal conditions, with equipment and trained personnel nearby and good weather, it is not realistic to expect to recover more than 30 percent of the oil from a major spill. Probably less than half that amount is more likely. The rapid spreading and frag- mentation of oil that occurs after a spill has made cleanup of large percentages of oil exceedingly difficult. Historically, recovery from major spills has amounted to only a few percent, if there was any attempt at recovery at all.

Mechanical Cleanup Enhancers

A number of products have been marketed to assist in the recovery of spilled oil. One chemical that has undergone preliminary testing and appears to offer some promise is a Photo credit: Jim Mhlke nontoxic polymer, polyisobutylene, which A “Foxtail” rope mop skimmer deployed in a comes in the form of a white powder and ren- Norwegian test tank. ders oil visco-elastic. This change makes the oil adhere to recovery surfaces, thereby Heavy Oil greatly increasing the effectiveness of oil Paddle belt skimmers, particularly rotating disk and Sorbent lifting belt disc (large offshore drum types. Rope mop type skimmers do not types only) appear to be well suited to the use of this Rope mop (high viscosity, but not treating agent because the increased visco- Bunker-C) elasticity makes the squeezing of the rope Weir with progressive cavity pump more difficult. This material has also been In general, even the most rugged mechani- shown to be effective at treatment ratios as cal containment “and recovery equipment is low as one part in 1,000.7 It does not appear to limited in effectiveness to waves of less than 6 reduce spreading or increase thickness suffi- feet, winds of less than 20 knots, and currents ciently to assist in situ burning. One potential less than 1 knot. Average wind and current problem may be applying and mixing it with conditions in many U.S. port areas come close oil in large, spread-out spills. to these limits leaving little margin for effective use of mechanical equipment. Thus, it Other chemicals have been developed to would be normal to expect periods when break or prevent emulsions. These products weather conditions would preclude operation have the ability to convert the water-in-oil of mechanical containment and recovery emulsion to two separate phases. The advan- equipment in any U.S. port area. tage of doing this is that the oil can then be

Werv F. Fingas, “Chemical Treatment of Oil Spills,” Alaska Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response Technology Workshop Proceedings, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 762, April 1989, p. 33. Chapter 3– Oil Spill Response Technologies ● 17

recovered more efficiently or dispersed or Figure 3-2-Vessel-of-Opportunity Skimming System burned more successfully. Most of these products are hydrophilic (water-loving) surfac- support vessel tants. The problem with these surfactants is that the surfactant is more soluble in water than in oil and will quickly leave the system if there is sufficient water. One product being tested by Environment Canada is a demous- sifier – a mixture of long-chain polymers that does not have the drawback mentioned above. Although not yet available, laboratory tests show this material will prevent the formation of water-in-oil emulsions at treatment ratios as low as 1:2,000. As with other treating agents, application and mixing in large spills may be difficult. Like dispersants, mechanical cleanup enhancers require certification before they can be considered for use.

Integrated Systems and Deployment Pumping subsystem Oil/water separator

The difficulties encountered in spill re- SOURCE: Engineering Computer Optecnomics, Inc (EIX3) sponses with respect to obtaining and deploying boom and skimmer handling vessels and oil storage vessels have led to the proposition- vessel progresses through the slick (figure ing of chemicals and equipment and develop- 3-2). While these systems have the advantage ment of integrated systems that are equipped of greater mobility, they are limited to the to perform all the functions of the mechanical suitability of vessels in the area. recovery process. Integrated systems fall into three categories: vessel-of-opportunity sys- Specially designed oil spill response ves- tems; single purpose, specially designed oil sels capable of operating in the open ocean spill response vessels; and multiple purpose have been developed by European firms, vessels, of which one of the purposes is oil spill mainly Dutch and German. These are large recovery. These systems use conventional vessels, unlike some of the smaller skimmers skimmer techniques to recover the oil and are described previously. One of the more innova- subject to the efficiencies and shortcomings of those systems. However, they also have the tive is a tank vessel hinged at the stern that advantage of being independent of other sup- operates in a “V” configuration, using its split porting equipment in their recovery process, hulls to form a boom-like collecting system until their storage capacity is exceeded. (figure 3-3). Two of these vessels are in use and a third has been ordered by Mexico. These sys- Vessel-of-opportunity skimming systems tems have the advantage of being complete (VOSS) are systems designed to be deployed systems with significant onboard oil/water from any suitable vessel that maybe available in the area. They incorporate portable skim- separation capability and storage capacity. mers that are not integrated into a dedicated Disadvantages include their high cost and, vessel. The skimmer system is freed to the since they are not air transportable, their side of the vessel, and recovers oil while the more limited range of use. 18 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Figure 3-3-Schematic Drawing of West German Split Vessel THOR

SOURCE: MC Dredge lachnotogy Corp

Figure 34-Schematic Drawing of the Navy’s Class V Oil Skimmer

Hydraulic motor Variable speed positive displacement pump Powered squeeze roller Powered main a

SOURCE: U S Navy —

Chapter 3–Oil Spill Response Technologies .19

Multiple-purpose vessels are an economical ment required to deploy various response approach to large-scale, oil spill response sys- components. tems. The publicity surrounding the use of the Soviet dredge in the Exxon Valdez spill has focused attention on the use of dredges and DISPERSANTS other vessels as platforms for oil spill response systems. The Soviet dredge was de- Perhaps the most controversial issue in the signed from the beginning as a trailing hopper field of oil spill response is the use of chemi- dredge with oil recovery capability. The first cals to disperse the oil. In general a dispersant report of building a dredge with the dual role is sprayed onto a slick to reduce the cohesive- of oil spill response was in 1977 with the de- ness of the slick so that the oil can be broken sign of the Cosmos, a Dutch ship. The great ca- into small droplets by wind, wave, and current pacity of these vessels for storage of viscous action. The oil droplets disperse into the materials and their pumping systems (includ- water column where they become diluted to ing suction hoses up to 24 inches in diameter) low concentrations and are subjected to natu- make them ideal for recovering very viscous ral processes such as biodegradation. weathered oil. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Much of the controversy that has sur- dredges were also used in the Alaskan oil spill, rounded the use of dispersants has arisen but without specific modification. Initial de- from their impact on the environment. While sign modifications would include spark sup- early dispersants were toxic, modern disper- pressing electrical systems, oil/water separa- sants are less toxic than the oil itself.8 Even so, tion equipment, and ventilation systems for the use of dispersants involves making an en- dealing with flammable volatiles. Unmodified dredges would be limited to recovering weath- vironmental trade-off. In essence, this in- ered oil that presents no fire hazard. The ad- volves trading the potential short-term envi- vantages of dual-purpose dredge vessels are ronmental effects of a treated slick against the their usefulness as a dredge during most of possible long-term shoreline impacts and their lifetimes and their large capacity in the other effects of an untreated one. The primary event of a major spill. Both the U.S. Coast impact of a dispersed slick comes from the oil Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers are dispersing into the upper water column. studying the use of multi-purpose vessels. The While it will rapidly become diluted, the in- Coast Guard is studying the feasibility of giv- itial concentrations may exceed the acute tox- ing buoy tender vessels oil spill cleanup capa- icity threshold of organisms in the upper few bilities, and may add this capability to new meters of the water column. In certain sea- buoy tenders as they are built. sons or sensitive areas, this maybe a trade-off that authorities are unwilling to make. Recovery and containment systems cannot be deployed at the site without the provision In an untreated spill, evaporation may be of significant support resources. These sup- responsible for the loss of one-third or more of port resources include material handling the oil in a period of a few hours or a day. equipment such as forklifts and cranes, boom While hydrocarbons dissolved in water also and skimmer handling vessels, storage ves- evaporate, many of the hydrocarbons that dis- sels, surveillance airplanes, and trained per- solve (mainly aromatics) appear to produce sonnel. Table 3-1 shows the minimum equip- the most immediate biological toxicity.9

8Nation~ ~semch Councl], Marine Boat-d, Using Oil Spiil Dispersants on the Sea (Washin@on, DC: National Academy Press, 1989). ‘Ibid., p. 240. . .

20 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Table 3-1--Equipment Required To Deploy Response Elements

Personnel System Staging area To site Onsite (per system) CONTAINMENT Space Vessel with minimum of A-frame/davit/handling equipment with 2 Forklift-4 ton 8’ x 20’ clear deck minimum one ton capacity Crane-4 ton space for each 2000’ Boats capable of tending boom 2 per boat Maintenance of boom — one if boom anchor used facilities – two if no boom anchor used Spares RECOVERY

Skimming space Vessel with minimum of A-frame/davit/handling equipment with 4 to 6 barrier Forklift- I O ton 8’ x 35’ clear deck minimum one ton capacity Crane-10 ton space per system Two boats for maintaining barrier Maintenance opening and shape and capable of facilities operating at low speed-1 to 2 knots Spares Barge for receipt of recovered oil Tug to tend barge or to shuttle barge to onshore storage location Platform for prime power (may be barge) Self-propelled Vessel with minimum of A-frame/davit/handling equipment with 7 to 8 skimmer Forklift-10 ton 12’ x 35’ clear deck minimum one ton capacity Crane-10 ton space per system Two boats for maintaining barrier Maintenance opening and shape facilities Barge for receipt of recovered oil Spares Tug to tend barge or to shuttle barge to onshore storage location Boat with 10-ton crane at 35’ reach deploy and recover Vessel-of- Space Vessel with minimum of A-frame/davit handling equipment 3 to deploy opportunity Forklift-10 ton 8’ x 24’ clear deck minimum one ton capability for 2 to operate skimmer Crane-10 ton space per system deployment and recovery Maintenance Barge for receipt of recovered oil facilities Tug to tend barge or to shuttle Spares barge to onshore storage location DISPERSANT APPLICATION Air deliverable Pumps to See onsite requirements Surveillance aircraft for spotting 2 transfer from Aircraft equipped to spray dispersant barrels to tank truck Tank truck Ground personnel vessel Space Vessel with 8’ x 24’ clear Surveillance aircraft for spotting 2 to 3 to deliverable Forklift-8 ton deck space Vessel capable of accepting deploy Crane-8 ton vessel system 2 to operate Maintenance facilities Spares TRANSFER PUMPS Space Vessel with approximate Barge for receipt of off-loaded oil Forklift-2 ton 8’ x 24’ clear deck Tug to tend barge or to shuttle Maintenance space barge to onshore storage location facilities Helicopter with l-ton Hoses and couplings Spares lift capacity Fenders

SOURCE: Engineering timputer Optecnomics, Inc (ECO), “Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies,” contractor repotl prepared for the Office of Technology Assess- ment, July 19SS —— — .——-——

Chapter 3– Oil Spill Response Technologies .21

The immediate ecological impacts of dispersed oil vary. In open waters, organisms on the surface will be less affected by dispersed oil than by an oil slick, but organisms in the water column will receive greater exposure from dispersed oil. In shallow areas, less water is available to dilute the dispersed oil to less than lethal concentrations, so organisms will be more severely impacted by dispersed oil. Consequently, dispersant use is generally limited to deeper water. Although some immediate biological effects of dispersed oil may be greater than for untreated oil, long-term effects on most habitats, such as salt marshes, sea grasses, and mangroves, are less, and these habitats recover faster if oil is dispersed before it reaches these areas.10 Thus, the primary biological benefits of dispersant use are Pbb CKWI1: J/m Mm/kc to reduce the hazard to birds (unless the dispersant is sprayed directly on them) and to Airborne Dispersant Delivery System, or ADDS pack, seen prevent oil from stranding on shorelines. mounted on a flatbed for easy transport to a C-130 airplane. Sometimes, it may be more the aesthetic value that is protected, particularly if ing the dispersant is to achieve a relatively stranded oil is removed from beaches and uniform application on the oil without undue rocky shorelines by high-pressure hot water wind drift loss. Most dispersants require an at the sacrifice of the local biological commu- application of dispersant to oil in a ratio of nities. about 1:10 to 1:20. As with mechanical equip- Further advantages of using dispersants in ment, prepositioning of dispersants is neces- combating a large oil spill are that they can be sary to achieve an early and effective response. rapidly deployed (by aircraft) over a large In a major study published in 1989, the Na- area, may be used when sea conditions pre- tional Research Council generally approved clude mechanical response, and, if successful, the use of dispersants and recommended that can be a very cost-effective oil spill counter- they be considered as a potential first re- measure. Dispersants can be applied by either sponse option along With mechanical clean- fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, or systems in- 11 up. Mechanical cleanup has the advantage of stalled on a vessel. The most efficient system for large spills is the Airborne Dispersant De- removing oil from the marine environment livery System, a portable unit developed for (although, thereby, creating a waste disposal use on any available C-130. Dispersants are problem onshore) but is generally limited by most effective when they are applied early, be- inability to cover a large slick area in a reason- cause the oil becomes less dispersible as its able period of time. Dispersants are one of the viscosity increases. However, dispersants that few countermeasures that can be applied to a are effective on higher viscosity oils are being large area in a timely manner. One other ques- developed. The major consideration in apply- tion surrounding dispersants, however, is the

‘“Ibid., p. 4. ‘ ‘Ibid. ——

22 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

lack of hard data about their effectiveness in cies of over 90 percent can be obtained, par- actual spill conditions. The National Research ticularly if the oil is confined with booms or Council recommended further research in other means to keep the oil layer as thick as this area. One difficulty, in particular, is in es- possible. Since less evaporation takes place in tablishing a methodology for determining dis- cold regions, in situ burning maybe more suc- persant effectiveness at sea. cessful in these areas. How well dispersants work depends on sea Several techniques have been devised for ig- conditions and application techniques as well niting oil spills. Devices used include floating as on the chemical nature of both the disper- igniters that can be deployed by air and the sants and the oil. A certain amount of wave en- helitorch igniter, which is a tank system con- ergy is desirable to achieve mixing, whereas a taining gelled gasoline suspended on cables calm sea reduces the immediate effectiveness below a helicopter. One device under design is of dispersants. Improvements have been a laser ignition system using two coupled la- made in application techniques, but they still sers from a helicopter to heat and ignite oil appear short of being routinely optimal. Fur- spills. ther gains could be made from research in this Burning has been used in response to acci- area. dental oil spills with varying success. The use of burning to remove oil from the water pro- BURNING, duces a trade-off that must be evaluated by local authorities. The trade-off is between re- BIOREMEDIATION, AND moving oil from the water and releasing the OTHER TECHNIQUES products of combustion into the atmosphere. Measurements thus far indicate that combus- In Situ Burning tion products released into the atmosphere are no more hazardous than those released by In situ burning is the process of burning an evaporating oil, and that the total environ- oil spill in place either with or without the use mental loading of toxic components remains of fire containment boom. In order to ignite the same or is reduced by the combustion of 12 oil on water, the oil must be relatively fresh, crude oil spills on water. Burning produces and the slick must be at least 3 millimeters black sooty smoke that is a highly visible pol- thick. To ensure thickness and to isolate oil lutant and may raise concerns about human from contact with a stricken vessel or other health effects, whereas oil on the surface of object, fireproof booms may be used. Since the water, while also polluting in terms of the more volatile components of spilled oil volatiles entering the atmosphere, is usually immediately begin to evaporate, there is less perceived by the public to be less threatening to human health. potential for successful in situ burning as the slick ages. Some oil residue (about a 1 milli- The aesthetic trade-off is not only one of meter thick layer) will remain in the water af- ocean v. atmosphere, but also one of time ter burning oil because the flame is always frame, the short-term impact of smoke and quenched by heat losses to the water surface combustion products versus the longer-term when the oil layer gets thin. Such residue is it- impact of an oiled shoreline. The major incen- self a problem to clean up, but burn efficien- tive to burn the oil is not only to remove it

lpDa~d D4 Evms, “In$itu Burning of Oi] spi]]s,” Alaska Arctic Offshore Oi] Spi]] RespOnSe Technolo~ workshop Proc*inW, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 762, April 1989, p. 53. Chapter 3–Oil Spill Response Technologies 23

from the water but to reduce the probability in cleaning up beaches soiled by the Exxon of its becoming stranded on shore. Valdez spill. About 70 miles of shoreline were coated with two kinds of nitrogen- and phos- In some circumstances (e.g., if oil is not iso- phorus-bearing fertilizers to boost indigenous lated from the vessel that spilled it) burning bacterial populations.14 Initial results are in- could put a stricken vessel, its remaining conclusive, but the data are still being evalu- cargo, and any personnel still on board at risk. ated. One difficulty is measuring the effective- The intentional sacrifice of a vessel and its ness of the technique. cargo may ultimately cost less than the total cost of a spill that could not be controlled, but Proponents of bioremediation say it is po- this is rarely obvious at the time a response tentially the least damaging and least costly of decision must be made. The decision to delib- cleanup techniques, particularly for soiled erately set fire to a vessel is one that most peo- beaches. Its use on water, however, would ap- ple would be very reluctant to make, espe- pear to be limited except perhaps as a follow cially if considerable oil remains on board and up to other actions. The major disadvantage of bioremediation is the long time frame in- if there appear to be other response options. volved. On beaches where it could take 5 to 7 In the case of the Exxon Valdez, much more oil years for oil to breakdown under natural con- remained on the ship than was spilled. Most of ditions, bioremediation with fertilizer could this oil was successfully offloaded, thereby reduce that to 2 to 5 years.15 Research needs to averting the greater tragedy that would have be conducted on the effect on local habitat occurred if this oil also had spilled. Even so, from increased microbial populations and nu- Exxon’s total costs to fight this spill greatly trient levels. Efforts to engineer new microor- exceeded the value of the ship and its cargo. ganisms or to identify and cultivate more efficient ones may be promising. Bioremediation Miscellaneous Chemical Agents Bioremediation is the in situ use of microbes to biodegrade and oxidize hydrocarbon Gelling Agents molecules. Biodegradants can be marine bacteria naturally occurring in the spill area, non- Gelling agents change liquid oil into a solid indigenous naturally occurring bacteria, ge- to aid in recovery or are directed toward netically engineered microbes, and nutrients tanker accidents where pollution might be that can be added to enhance biological oxida- avoided or diminished by gelling the oil re- tion. Tests of this technique on water have maining in the tanks. Gelling agents require shown little or no enhancement over the natu- mixing with oil and allowing adequate time rally occurring biodegradation.13 Use of for the gel to set. Some gels set in a matter of bioremediation on impacted shorelines, how- minutes, whereas others, depending on envi- ever, has apparently been successful in some ronmental conditions, require about 8 hours cases. Exxon, in conjunction with the Environ- to form modest strength and several days to mental Protection Agency (EPA), recently form substantial strength. Field tests have conducted a large-scale test of this technique shown that large amounts of gelling agent

- 30 13F~nws, op. cit., footnote 7! p ”

14Mwk cra~ord, ~fE=on ~ts on Bu~ in ~as~ C]eanup,” Sc&nc+E, w)]. 245, Aug. 18, 1989, p. 704. 1‘Ibid. ——

24 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

may be required, up to 40 per cent of the vol- masses to assist in burning, and pyrotechnical ume of the oil itself.16 For these reasons gel- compositions keep the slick burning. Burning ling agents are not generally stocked for use agents are of limited use because of the large by spill responders. amount of material needed for a beneficial effect and by the fact that in situ burning can be accomplished without them. Herding Agents

Herding agents are designed to contract a QUANTITY AND spill and keep it from spreading. Herding agents are limited in effectiveness and are DISTRIBUTION OF more successful in controlling small, thin RESPONSE EQUIPMENT slicks. Tests and actual use of these products showed that utility was limited to very calm Although oil spill response equipment is waters. Due to their limited application and widely distributed around the United States, operating spectrum, there is little remaining the availability of equipment for responding use of herding agents at this time. to major spills is limited. Principal stocks are held by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, Sinking Agents and industry cooperatives. The Navy has two major equipment depots, Sinking agents, such as hydrophobic chalk, one in Williamsburg, Virginia the other in have been used to prevent oil from reaching Stockton, California. A small amount of shore. The French used about 3,000 tons of equipment is located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. powdered chalk to sink an estimated 20,000 The primary mission of Navy resources is to tons of oil following the 1967 Torrey Canyon fight spills from Navy ships and facilities; spill. Very little sunken oil came ashore. How- however, its equipment is considered a na- ever, Canadian tests of several sinking agents tional resource, and, as in the case of theEx- have shown that none were effective in hold- xon Valdez spill (in which equipment from ing oil after the initial sinking and that it both major Navy depots was used), may be slowly leached back to the surface over a few called on in emergencies. The Navy has in- 17 days. Because the sinking mass causes suffo- vested a total of approximately $30 million for cation of bottom life and also exposes many its equipment. Since much of this equipment bottom-dwelling organisms to oil, sinking was purchased in the mid-1970s, its replace- agents are generally forbidden by environment value would be much greater than this mental regulatory agencies. (rough estimates are over $100 million). Navy equipment currently constitutes the largest Combustion Promoters equipment stock available in the United States applicable for fighting large, offshore Burning agents have been developed to as- spills. The principal Navy countermeasures sist in the combustion of oil, but these gener- equipment are 24 Navy-modified belt skim- ally have not functioned well in actual prac- mers, each with a capacity of about 250 gal- tice. Burning agents are of two generic types, lons per minute. These skimmers were used in sorbents and pyrotechnical compositions. the Exxon Valdez spill, but were no match for Sorbents function by collecting oil in thicker the huge volume of oil to be recovered. They

- 29 16Finws, op. cit., footnote 7! p ” “Ibid., p. 31. Chapter 3– Oil Spill Response Technologies .25

PhoitJ cmdt U.S. Cosst Guad

PhoIu cmdt US. Coast Guwd U.S. Navy Marco Class V skimmer deployed in Prince William Sound. Dracone fuel bladder used for temporary storage of recovered oil. are also not capable of effective recovery in rough seas (above sea state 3). The Navy has ing) stricken vessels to minimize the loss of no dispersant capability. A potential con- oil. The Coast Guard has about 20 Air Deliver- straint to efficient operations is that the Navy able Anti-Pollution Transfer Systems for this must depend on outside contractors for off- purpose. Appendix B contains a summary of loading recovered oil, as it has no tank barges Coast Guard stock. of its own. Appendix B contains an inventory of the Navy’s principal resources. Much of the rest of the availabIe oil spill response equipment in the United States is The U.S. Coast Guard also maintains two maintained by industry oil spill cooperatives. important equipment stocks, one at its Atlan- There are approximately 93 of these coopera- tic Strike Team base in Mobile, Alabama, the tives in the United States (see app. B), but vir- second at its Pacific Strike Team base at tually all are designed for fighting spills in Hamilton Air Force Base, California. Three protected harbors, sheltered waters, and in- Strike Teams were maintained until 1987, land areas.18 According to the American Pe- when the Atlantic and Gulf Strike Teams were troleum Institute’s recent Task Force Report consolidated due to budget constraints. Coast on Oil Spills, “no U.S. cooperative has been Guard stocks include a number of Open designed to deal with a catastrophic spill. ”19 Water Oil Containment and Recovery Sys- Moreover, little of the available industry tems, the principal elements of which are equipment would be applicable for more rig- skimming barriers, pumps, and storage blad- orous offshore conditions. Cooperative and ders (dracones). This equipment is not suffi- other equipment that could be suitable off- cient to combat a major spill. The Coast shore is listed in appendix B, as is a listing of Guard relies on private contractors for addi- the Alyeska Cooperative’s recent acquisitions. tional mechanical cleanup equipment. A significant amount of equipment at the two The largest oil spill cooperative in the world Coast Guard Strike Team bases is devoted to is the Oil Spill Response Ltd. (OSR) base in the important mission of off-loading (lighter- Southampton, England. The base is equipped

‘8American Petroleum Institute, “Task Force Report on Oil Spills,” June 14, 1989, p. 10. 1‘Ibid. ——

26 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

with the capability to respond to large off- 30,000-ton (9.2 million-gallon) spills, these shore spills. (Because Exxon is a full member claims have yet to be evaluated by an inde- of this cooperative, it was able to use 50 per- pendent organization. It is thus not certain cent of the equipment on hand at the time to whether response funding will be adequate. fight the Exxon Valdez spill. OSR base equip- The Navy, for instance, estimates that each of ment was among the first out of state equip- its 2 major depots have equipment whose re- ment to arrive in Prince William Sound.) The placement value is about $50 million, and this base has been stocked with the intent to be equipment provided only a limited capability able to respond simultaneously to two to respond to the Exxon Valdez spill. Never- 10,000-ton spills (two 3-million gallon theless, it is difficult to evaluate response cen- spills).20 Whether this capability could be met ter capabilities by comparing equipment costs in practice is difficult to determine. In gen- alone. Variables such as equipment mainte- eral, such estimates of response capacity typi- nance, training, and logistics plans are also cally depend on the manufacturer’s estimates, very important. Proposed regional center and such information may be overstated and capital equipment is presented in appendix B. applicable primarily to ideal conditions. OTA In sum, the only significant stock of oil spill estimates that the capability of the South- response equipment that is readily available, ampton cooperative is roughly equivalent to tested, and maintained for fighting a large off- that of one of the U.S. Navy depots. OSR base shore spill in the United States is that of the equipment is also listed in appendix B. U.S. Navy. In Europe, the large industry coop- The industry has proposed to remedy the erative at Southampton has a significant ca- lack of equipment for fighting major spills by pability roughly equivalent to one of the two establishing five regional oil spill response Navy depots. Other industry capabilities in centers and equipping each with the capabil- the United States are either insignificant or ity to respond to a 30,000-ton spill. Each Pe- not readily available for offshore spills. The troleum Industry Response Organization API/PIRO proposal for establishing new (PIRO) center would contain lightering equip- equipment depots in the United States at stra- ment, booms, skimmers, dispersant equip- tegic locations will significantly improve in- ment, and other ancillary equipment, and dustry capabilities. However, it is still uncer- would be manned by oil spill professionals. tain whether PIRO would be capable of The estimated capital cost for each center recovering significant portions of a large off- would be roughly $24 million in 1990 dollars. shore spill. It also appears that the funds pro- Although PIRO claims that this amount will posed to be allocated by PIRO may be inade- enable its response centers to cope with quate for the goal.

mA ~rop~ has ~n made t. expand the OSR base so that it will be capable ofhandlingtwo30,000-ton sPills. M.D. ~ng,~sis~t Manager, Oil Spill Service Centre, personal communication, Jan. 22, 1990. ———— .

Chapter 4 U.S. Oil Spill Response Policy Issues

INTRODUCTION been the subject of experiments, and some be- lieve it holds promise under certain favorable Prior to the Exxon Valdez spill, few saw U.S. conditions. oil spill policy as wanting. A seemingly sophis- There is no single or perfect solution to the ticated response system had been in place for general problem of dealing with oil on the almost 20 years. Even though there had not water. As noted elsewhere in our report, each been a spill in U.S. waters that aroused similar of several available methods has strengths national attention since the 1969 Santa Bar- and weaknesses. Each oil spill is unique, and bara well blowout, the system seemed to work the approach that works well or at least rea- well. On previous pages we have addressed sonably well in one situation may work poorly some of the technology issues associated with in another. Participants in OTA’s oil spill responding to spills. However, use of better workshop generally agreed that for the most technology alone will not solve U.S. response effective response, all approaches must be problems. On the following pages we consider available to those fighting the spill. This pro- several aspects of U.S. oil spill response policy, vides the ability to use whatever technique(s) identify some of the problem areas, and sug- are most appropriate in each case. In particu- gest some potential solutions. The section af- lar, better understanding of the conditions ter this investigates how several European and locations under which dispersant use and countries are organized to fight major spills. burning would be appropriate and/or preferable to mechanical equipment is needed. TECHNOLOGY: WHICH Related to this, a systematic approach is es- CLEANUP METHOD? sential. It makes little sense to have skimmers and booms available but inadequate space for Currently, the most likely oil spill counter- temporary storage of recovered oil or no plan measures approach to be used in the United for permanently disposing the oil. Hence, States for spills at sea is to rely on mechanical barges or other storage vessels, for example, containment and cleanup methods, i.e., are as important to the recovery system as booms and skimmers. Even though available skimmers. Similarly, it makes no sense to booms and skimmers are limited in capacity stock dispersants without an immediately and capability, they can be deployed in almost available delivery system. One cannot neglect any region without concern about additional any element of a comprehensive plan and ex- environmental damage. Such is not the case pect to mount effective oil spill countermea- for dispersants, however, where some limits sures. Undoubtedly, the performance of an in- on their use are usually considered. Modern dividual piece of equipment is less important dispersants are considered safe for many off- than the overall performance of the system. shore regions, but up to now they have been Moreover, since all spills are different and seldom used. Questions about dispersant tox- since resources are usually limited, an inte- icity largely have been laid to rest by new for- grated system that works reasonably well for mulations, but they do not remove the oil it- several different types of spills (e.g., for vis- self and thus many oppose their use. In cous oil and for low viscosity oil) and as the addition, important questions about the effec- physical properties of the spill change with tiveness of dispersants have not been settled. time is preferable to one that works well in Burning as a countermeasures approach has one situation but poorly in another.

27 28 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

DECISIONMAKING: one who has the unquestioned authority to act DEMOCRATIC AND quickly. Greater authority for U.S. on-scene coordinators could be coupled with a greater AUTHORITARIAN effort by all involved to determine, before a APPROACHES spill, what decisions will be made if a particular event occurs–what type response is ac- The current U.S. approach to fighting ma- ceptable, what is not, and when and where a jor oil spills, unlike the approach of some particular response is acceptable. Agreement European countries, is more democratic than should be reached before theevent, for exam- authoritarian. Democratic decisionmaking, ple, about the circumstances under which dis- however, may not be as appropriate for mak- persants may be used. Once the spill occurs, ing decisions in emergency situations where some decisions could be almost automatic. speed is essential. Planning of this nature should be addressed before spills in Regional Contingency Plans Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard provides and in Federal Local Contingency Plans. anon-scene coordinator (OSC) for most major spill responses in coastal waters and along ad- jacent shorelines. The OSC’s initial responsi- RESPONSIBILITY: THE bility is to determine whether the polluter can POLLUTER OR THE cope with the spill. If not, the OSC is empow- GOVERNMENT? ered to take control of the spill response. In practice, however, his decisions are subject to The current practice in the United States is the oversight of numerous interested parties. that the polluter is responsible unless he can- For example, a Regional Response Team, con- not cope with the situation, at which point the sisting of regional representatives of various Federal Government – the Coast Guard in the Federal agencies, has considerable sway over case of offshore spills– will take charge.1 Al- the OSC’s decisions. The OSC must also be though a rather detailed organization – in- mindful of legitimate State and local con- cluding a National Response Team, Regional cerns. The interests of these groups maybe in Response Teams, on-scene coordinators, and conflict. It is thus difficult, if not impossible, a National Strike Force– has been estab- for the OSC to act quickly. Unfortunately, lished to support the Coast Guard, there are large spills not rapidly contained will soon be several problems with this approach, as illus- out of control. trated by the Exxon Valdez spill. First, given It maybe possible to devise a spill response the necessity of acting quickly, by the time the policy that would enable decisions to be made Coast Guard determines that the polluter is quickly and effectively. It would have to mini- incapable of dealing with a spill, it may well be mize unnecessary and counterproductive in- too late for anyone to mount a successful terference by others, but at the same time countermeasures effort. Second, the Coast take account of the legitimate concerns of Guard does not now have the resources to those affected. In many European countries, mount an effective response to a catastrophic it appears that the on-scene coordinatoris in spill, especially one that has not been quickly effect an on-scene commander, that is, some- contained.

‘The National Response Team, “A Report on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Response System, ’’Annual Report, March 19s9, pp. &7. Chapter 4– U.S. Oil Spill Response Policy Issues .29

Several critics of current U.S. response pol- LOGISTICS: ESSENTIAL TO 2 icy have pointed out that although the pol- QUICK RESPONSE luter is initially responsible for the cleanup, he lacks the authority to respond as he thinks appropriate. The oil industry, and in particu- A rapid response is essential for effective lar, the new Petroleum Industry Response spill cleanup, so one must either have re- Organization (PIRO), although willing to pro- sponse equipment near a spill site or have the vide equipment and personnel to respond to a capability to get to a spill quickly. In a country spill, argue that large spills should automati- the size of the United States, it is impractical cally be managed by the Federal Govern- to station equipment for fighting catastrophic ment.3 Such an action would place both re- spills every few miles along the coast. Clearly, sponsibility and authority for cleaning up a it is also the case that the risk of oil spills is spill in the same hands and, theoretically, en- much greater in some areas than others— able a clear and unambiguous command areas such as busy tanker lanes and ports. structure. Small spills which do not create An oil industry proposal indicates that it will special cleanup problems could still be han- establish, through its new Petroleum Indus- dled with local spill resources. try Response Organization, five major re- As noted elsewhere in our report, virtually gional oil spill response depots and a number all European governments have assumed re- of small “presaging” bases. The regional cen- sponsibility for responding to major vessel ters would be located in the Northeast, mid- spills. Although operators of fixed installa- SouthAtlantic, Gulf Coast, Pacific Southwest, tions, such as offshore platforms, are gener- and Pacific Northwest.4 This is a more decen- ally still responsible for oil spill cleanup, gov- tralized approach than the Navy’s strategy. ernments have generally concluded that it is The U.S. Navy, a large amount of whose unreasonable to expect the same degree of equipment was used to fight theExxon Valdez preparedness for a vessel spill that might oc- spill, relies mainly on two equipment depots, cur anywhere at sea. The polluter, however, is one on the East Coast and one on the West. All still liable to pay all reasonable costs of the Navy equipment is designed (or modified) and spill. packaged so that it is capable of being trucked In the United States, the Federal Govern- or airlifted anywhere in the United States. ment could adopt a similar approach of as- The U.S. Coast Guard currently has two suming responsibility for large spills regard- Strike Teams, one in Mobile, Alabama and less of the polluter’s capability. That one at Hamilton Air Force Base in California. approach would include a full evaluation of At the present time, the Coast Guard is better current Federal capabilities and abilities to prepared to off-load stricken tankers than to marshal public and private resources quickly. fight major spills. It relies heavily on commer- The Coast Guard, or whatever agency is as- cial contractors for spill responses. signed responsibility for combating major spills, would have to be given the appropriate Both centralized and decentralized logistics resources to do the job. strategies may be effective. However, in either

2For ~mp]e, the ~~mation~ Tankers Owners Pollution Federation. %e American Petroleum Institute, “Task Force Report on Oil Spills,” June 14, 1989. p. iv. 4SWnng commit- ~P~ ~d ~mmendations on the Imp]emen~tion of PIRO. J~. 5, 1990, p. 54 ——

30 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

case it is still necessary to have the capability ordinated plans for deploying these resources to get to the spill site quickly, and not just are essential. with the appropriate skimmers and booms or dispersants, as the case may be, but also, as necessary, with barges to hold recovered oil, BEACH CLEANUP: HOW and with the other necessary equipment that MUCH EMPHASIS? would constitute a complete response system. The whole system will be ineffective as long as In many cases, no matter how successful any element is missing. For instance, while the response to a catastrophic oil spill at sea, a dispersants and dispersant application sys- significant fraction of the spilled oil is likely to tems are available, the timely availability of reach shore. The public was appropriately aircraft to apply dispersants has been a prob- outraged when efforts to control the Exxon lem. This problem has been addressed in sev- Valdez spill failed and a significant amount of eral European countries by having contract oil from the spill contaminated hundreds of aircraft on call for emergencies (the U.S. oil miles of Alaska’s coastline. Although hun- industry would like to be able to use govern- dreds of millions of dollars were spent “clean- ment-owned C-130s, e.g., National Guard air- ing” the shoreline, many scientists and oil craft, in the future.) Some European coun- spill professionals have concluded that, ex- tries also have initiated “sleeping contracts” cept for the benefit gained by appearing to be with local vessel owners to ensure that barges, doing something useful, the money spent was towboats, and other ancillary equipment are largely wasted. available in emergencies. While considerable public pressure exists to Much improvement is obviously needed in take immediate action to restore polluted the national capability to deliver response shorelines to prespill conditions, this inher- equipment to the scene of a spill quickly. ently costly, labor intensive undertaking has Some combination of government and private seldom had more than modest success, par- resources will probably always be needed, and ticularly on rocky shorelines. Moreover, in thus clear lines of authority and carefully co- some instances, shoreline cleanup has resulted in more damage than good. Marshes and other wetlands are particularly vulnerable to mechanical cleanup methods, but cleanup of sandy and rocky beaches can also cause additional damage. In some instances, the best course of action, although not a satis- fying one, is to do nothing and let the beach slowly recover naturally. It maybe possible to give greater attention to beach protection and beach cleanup, but the inherent limitations of the available equipment and methods should be made clear to all involved to eliminate false expectations. As noted elsewhere in our report, beach clean- PhoRJ credit U.S. Coast GfJad ing activities in Europe are usually the responsibility of local authorities. Local author- Using hot water to “clean” the beaches of ities in France, for example, have strategically Prince William Sound placed stocks of everything from rakes and shovels and hot water pumps to booms. The —

Chapter 4– U.S. Oil Spill Response Policy Issues .31

Norwegians have gone so far as to require a lo- loaded. This may result in far less oil being re- cal response capability in each of the 52 areas covered, for example, as the skimmer sits idle that comprise the coastal zone. Where not al- and as the oil spreads further, weathers, and ready done, more attention to defensive in general becomes more difficult to skim. Or- booming may require that local and State dinary discharge permits may be granted, but authorities devise detailed plans and pur- may take up to 18 months to obtain. Thus, a chase equipment to protect the most sensitive general permit preapproving discharge of oily and vulnerable areas. water during oil spill emergencies may be useful to consider. Bioremediation--the application of nutrients to speed the degradation of oil – is emerg- Second, several foreign vessels were used in ing as one promising technique for future recovery operations during the Exxon Valdez beach cleaning. Experiments are now being spill. Such vessels may either be on the scene conducted in Alaska, and the results of these and therefore handy for mounting portable tests will be carefully evaluated over the next skimmers or in themselves specialized oil spill year. Nevertheless, effective application of vessels. However, under U.S. law, foreign ves- this technique may also be quite limited. Re- sels cannot automatically be used in emer- search is being conducted on other chemical gency situations as “vessels of opportunity. ” treatments as well. The Jones Act prohibits foreign vessels from engaging in coastwise trade, and this act has been interpreted to apply to vessels that FEDERAL REGULATIONS transport recovered oil from an offshore site AND EMERGENCY to an off-loading terminal on shore.6 Waivers SITUATIONS to this regulation may be obtained only if a national security concern can be demonstrated. The Exxon Valdez spill was considered to fall There may exist some situations where into this category, and waivers were granted what may be appropriate laws or regulations by the U.S. Customs Service without undue for normal situations unnecessarily hinder ef- delay for about a dozen vessels to help in fective cleanup operations during emergency cleanup operations. National security con- situations. Some OTA workshop participants cerns may sometimes be difficult to justify, noted, for instance, that the Federal Clean however, so a general waiver of Jones Act re- Water Act, in prohibiting oily discharges from strictions may be appropriate for oil spill tankers5, makes no exception for the decant- emergencies. ing of water collected with oil during skimming operations. Since a considerable amount Third, U.S. customs regulations require of water may be collected with oil, the capac- that foreign equipment formally pass through ity of whatever storage vessel is used may be customs and that duty be paid. Since customs rapidly reached, unless water that has been or delays are possible, some have suggested that could be separated from the oil can be dis- these regulations could be a potential stum- charged. This may be accomplished with very bling block to efficient cleanup operations. little oil reentering the sea. If not done, once This concern appears to have little merit, as storage capacity is reached, skimming opera- the Secretary of the Treasury has the author- tions must cease until oil and water can be off- ity to waive the regulation in connection with

5The ~t~h~n ~]e~~ ~rohibit~ dixhuws that “cause a fi]m or sheen u~n or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines... ” 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Sees. 110.2, 110.3, and 110.4. epaul He~]md, U.S. customs service, personal communication, NOV. 15, 1989 32 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

emergency situations.7 Waivers are usually testing with oil has been conducted in recent obtained without undue delay. years in U.S. waters. Finally, the ultimate disposal of recovered There are, necessarily, safety limits to how oil and oiled articles from the Exxon Valdez realistic tests can be. Where safety is not a fac- spill proved contentious. The industry wanted tor, however, oil spill researchers would like to incinerate, and, in some instances, openly to be able to conduct occasional controlled off- burn recovered material. It complained be- shore oil spills for scientific and equipment cause it could not get permits to do so quickly testing purposes. Such test spills have been enough. The State of Alaska hesitated in issu- conducted in Canada, Norway, the United ing permits because it wanted to be certain Kingdom, and France, for instance, and have that this method of disposal would not cause provided valuable data. While not strictly pro- an air quality problem. Permits took 2 to 3 hibited in U.S. waters, the “red tape” associ- months to obtain. Decisionmaking about final ated with obtaining permission from the En- disposal of recovered material may not be as vironmental Protection Agency has effectively urgent as many other decisions that must be blocked intentional spills, according to some made, but when large amounts of oil and oily OTA workshop participants. One participant debris are being recovered by numerous re- noted that a minimum of 20,000 gallons (65 covery assets, temporary storage capacity tons) would be needed for a realistic test. Test- may be quickly overwhelmed. In the future it ing at sea, while clearly useful, is also expen- would seem appropriate that contingency sive, perhaps costing up to $1 million every plans include plans for waste disposal, specify- time a test is conducted. ing for instance, what kind of incinerators are As an alternative or supplement to testing to be used and where they are located. equipment offshore with intentionally spilled oil, some have suggested that U.S. Govern- ment personnel take advantage of so-called EQUIPMENT TESTING: HOW “spills of opportunity” for testing equipment REALISTIC? HOW and/or for providing occasions for response EFFECTIVE? personnel to refine skills. The U.S. Govern- ment does have a formal program in place to Equipment testing is an important element take advantage of spills of opportunity to of any research and development program. evaluate equipment, but spills of opportunity Equipment testing in large tanks, such as in do not usually represent ideal test situations. the now closed Oil and Hazardous Materials For one, the control over environmental vari- Simulated Environmental Test Tank (the ables that is needed for scientific purposes is OHMSETT facility), provides useful informa- not possible during these spills. In addition, tion – especially because variable factors such researchers may be perceived as being in the way of the cleanup operation. as wave height can be controlled-but is no substitute for testing at sea under realistic A related testing issue is the measurement conditions. Currently, very little performance of effectiveness. For some types of equipment, data exists on the open ocean, and few labora- e.g., containment booms, a standard test pro- tory effectiveness tests have been correlated tocol has been developed to measure effective- with real field conditions. In particular, no ness.8 It is still very difficult, however, to

719 CFR 10.107. 8Ed ‘l’’ennygon, Mjner~g Management Service, OTA Workshop, Aug. 15, 1989. Chapter 4– U.S. Oil Spill Response Policy Issues ● 33

measure quantitatively the effectiveness of port industry cooperatives, and neither the skimmers and dispersants.9 Lack of an ade- cooperatives nor the contractors have much quate measure of effectiveness has much to do experience dealing with catastrophic spills.11 with the controversy over how effective dis- To remedy this situation, several OTA persants are (and in what situations). workshop participants suggested that the United States create a professional cadre, per- PERSONNEL, TRAINING, haps within the Coast Guard and/or within the private sector, whose entire career is dedi- AND DRILLS cated to dealing with spills around the country. Such a group could be available to re- The availability of skilled personnel for spond to all major U.S. spills as well as to fighting oil spills is possibly more important provide advice and assistance for smaller than having the ideal type of equipment for a spills. Rather than losing experience through particular spill. The objective of maintaining rotation and reassignment, a group of oil spill a work force of oil spill response experts has professionals would retain and build experi- been frustrated on several counts, however, ence. The skills and experience of such a group not least of which is because major oil spills might be enhanced further by giving it the ca- have been rare events in the United States. In pability to advise or participate in responses all, there exist too little knowledge and experi- to major spills elsewhere in the world, as ence among those who may have some respon- needed. Moreover, it may be prudent (al- sibility for fighting major spills. though more expensive at the time) to over- The U.S. Coast Guard, which provides on- respond to certain types of spills. If a spill scene coordinators for spills and, if necessary, turns out to be less severe than initially a strike team, does not have a career track for thought, advantage may still be taken by us- oil spill experts. Both the Captain of the Port, ing the response as a training exercise. (Funds who would be designated on-scene coordina- spent when an overresponse proves not to be tor in a spill, and strike team commanders justified may be more than offset on those occasions when the initial response is justi- rotate to other positions after 2 to 4 year as- signments. Although they receive simulation fied). Oil spill experts must maintain skills and classroom training, few are able to ac- that may not be required for long intervals. quire experience fighting major spills.10 The Notably, the petroleum industry, through its U.S. Navy has contract personnel dedicated to proposed Petroleum Industry Response Or- ganization, has proposed to man each of its re- oil spill response. The Navy may be called to gional response centers with “dedicated, provide equipment and help fight major U.S. trained personnel” and to stress training and oil spills (as in the case of the Exxon Valdez 12 drilling of its personnel. spill]; however, the primary responsibility of its oil spill unit is to support Navy operations Personnel training must include instruc- worldwide. Would-be contractors find it diffi- tion about the capabilities and limitations of a cult to stay in business given the rarity of ma- range of countermeasures techniques and jor spills. Those that do exist largely to sup- equipment. Most of the equipment on the

9Mem Finws, OTA Workshop, Aug. 15) 1989. JoMr. Jim O’Brien, OOPS, Inc., OTA workshop, Aug. 15, 1989.

I IThe ~erim Petro]eum Institute, “Task Force R.ePrt on Oi] Spi]]S,” June 14, 1989. p. 10. 121bid. p. iv. 34 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

market is operator sensitive; hence, the per- ment Service (MMS). Among other things, formance of a given piece of equipment is di- MMS has plans to: rectly related to the operator’s knowledge of finalize offshore equipment test proce- it. Also, contingency plans need occasional dures, testing, preferably full scale testing of the complete containment, cleanup, and disposal continue field verification of in situ burn- system. With few major spills, complacency ing, may easily become a problem unless steps are continue refining airborne oil thickness taken to counteract it. Contingency plan test- sensors, ing should involve State and local authorities who will have some responsibility in the event conduct final testing of the high-speed of a spill, as well as oil spill professionals. water jet barrier boom, The National Forest Service has developed develop beach line cleanup techniques one system for responding to natural disasters that are environmentally acceptable, that may be worth emulating. Its Incident continue to conduct research to improve Command System for forest fire fighting is the effectiveness of chemical treatment based on a complete training program for in- agents, dividuals within various separate organizations who can be called on in the event of a continue developing a remote sensor for large fire. This system creates a management detecting oil in broken ice and darkness, structure for responding to these rare events. finalize standard equipment and tech- This same approach could be applied to large nique test procedures, and oil spills. continue assessing the behavior of heavy oils.13 RESEARCH AND MMS would also like to reopen the Oil and DEVELOPMENT Hazardous Materials Simulated Environ- mental Test Tank– the OHMSETT facility, located in New Jersey. OHMSETT was for- Organizations and Programs merly operated as a cooperative interagency program to evaluate oil spill response equip- Several agencies within the Federal Govern- ment and procedures, but closed when fund- ment are engaged in oil spill countermeasures ing dried up. research and development. The three most important are the Department of the Interior The Department of the Interior has in- (DOI), the Department of Transportation creased funding for oil spill research in re- (DOT), and the Environmental protection sponse to the Exxon Valdez spill. Notably, it has entered into an agreement with the Agency (EPA). American Petroleum Institute to jointly fund Within the DOI, oil spill research is con- some research and development. Each will ducted by the Technology, Assessment, and contribute $1 million per year for the next 3 Research Branch of the Minerals Manage- years. The projects listed above are among

131n@ra~ncy P]mningworkshop on oil spi]] Research and Development, Sep. 26-2’7, 1989,Groten, CT. workshop report prep~ed by Decisions and Designs, Inc., Arlington, VA. Chapter 4–U.S. Oil Spill Response Policy Issues .3.5

those being considered for funding. Some of In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill, the research may be done in cooperation with the Coast Guard R&D center in Groten, Con- other agencies and with parallel Canadian ef- necticut acted as a clearinghouse for propos- forts. als and suggestions concerning cleanup. As table 4-1 indicates, 139 of these proposals were Oil spill research and development in the considered to have immediate applicability Department of Transportation is carried out for combating the Exxon Valdez spill. Al- by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard though a significant number of proposals proposes to spend about $4.1 million in fiscal were rejected as not feasible, a still sizable year 1990 on oil spill response projects and number merit future investigation by govern- about $1.8 million on prevention projects. It is ment and industry researchers. considering allocation of funds for the follow- EPA plans to spend $1 million during 1990 ing oil spill response projects: for oil spill research. This funding will be • spill response information system devel- largely devoted to the continuation of the opment, shoreline bioremediation program started last year in Alaska. EPA and Exxon have Ž spill response training aids development, signed a cooperative agreement to carry out the research. Exxon has provided a total of $3 ● surveillance systems development, million to date for this program. EPA is cur- ● satellite imagery for spill tracking, rently developing a 5-year research plan, which will be implemented if Congress passes ● rapid deployment technology assess- the implementing legislation. ment, Several other agencies are also conducting ● tanker salvage and countermeasures de- important oil spill response research and development, velopment. The Army Corps of Engineers used two dredges to recover some of the oil ● mechanical recovery systems develop- spilled by the Exxon Valdez, and is now inves- ment, tigating how to use its dredges more effec- ● OHMSETT support, tively. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, in conjunction with MMS ● Coast Guard countermeasures/equip- and the American Petroleum Institute, is con- ment development, ducting in situ burning research. And the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- ● chemical countermeasures technology tion is developing electronic communications assessment, for response situations and studying the fate ● in-situ burning development, and behavior of oil. ● short term test and evaluation in Alaska, The Exxon Valdez spill also galvanized oil and industry support for spill research and development. In April of 1989 the American Petro- ● spill response personnel health and leum Institute created an oil spill Task Force safety. 14 to review industry operations in the areas of

l~u.s. coast Gumd ~re]iminW mmine en~ronmen~ prot~lon research ~d deve]oprnent p]an, fitiyear 1990. NOV. 18, 1989. (Draft). —

36 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Table 4-1 -Suggestions Received by the strophic oil spills, PIRO will design and man- Coast Guard age a research and development program. The oil industry has pledged $30 million to $35 category Number million to PIRO during its first five years for Proposals for future government investigation: this purpose and expects to contribute $1 million to $4 million per year thereafter. Six ma- Bioremediation 34 Chemical (dispersant, degreaser) 14 jor subject areas have been identified: Physical (solidification, absorbent, etc.) 19 1. preventing loss of oil from or away from Collection - vessel 17 Collection - mechanical 17 the ship, Skimmer - booms 30 2. on-water oil recovery and treatment, Hull patching 4 Oil movement 3 3. preventing and mitigating shoreline im- Wild-life cleanup 5 pact, Incineration 4 Miscellaneous l3 4. fate and effects of oil in the environment, Total 160 25% of database 5. wildlife preservation, and Proposals forwarded to Exxon: 6. health and safety.15 Bioremediation 2 Chemical (dispersant, degreaser) 24 Among those projects on which PIRO Physical (solidification, absorbent, etc.) 36 would expend the most funds during the in- Collection - vessel 14 itial 5 year period are bioremediation of Collection - mechanical 19 shorelines, development of chemical disper- — Skimmer - booms sants and skimmers for on-water recovery and Hull patching Oil movement — treatment, and development of absorbents Wild-life cleanup — and absorbents for shoreline use.16 In all, Incineration 5 some 38 projects have been considered for Miscellaneous 39 funding. PIRO recognizes a need to coordi- 22% of database Total 139 nate with government agencies to avoid dupli-

Other responses: cation of research.

● Previous research/application indicates method Both Senate and House oil spill bills (S 686 not feasible and HR 1465, respectively) pending as of this ● Letters of general concern writing provide for the establishment and 53% of database funding of oil spill research and development programs. Among the priority research iden- SOURCE: United States Coast Guard, 1990 tified in the Senate bill are on-water oil recovery and treatment, prevention of loss away oil spill prevention and response. As a result of from vessels, and prevention and mitigation the Task Force’s deliberations, the industry of shoreline impacts. The House bill speci- created the Petroleum Industry Response Or- fies – among other things– research, develop- ganization (PIRO). In addition to establishing ment, and demonstration of new or improved the operational capability to respond to cata- systems of mechanical, chemical, biological,

15PIRO 1rnp]ernen~t@ Inc., dral?, statement of PIRO’S proposed R&D program, o~. 10, 1989. ‘EIbid. Chapter 4- U.S. Oil Spill Response Policy Issues .37

and other methods (including the use of dis- has been conducted in the past at the now persants, solvents, and bioremediation) for closed OHMSETT facility. Additional work at the recovery, removal, and disposal of oil. a reopened OHMSETT may be useful, but a Both bills establish coordinating committees bigger payoff would result by testing response to oversee oil pollution research. The House technologies at sea. Although controlled spills bill would establish a minimum of six regional have been allowed in many European coun- research centers at universities or other re- tries (sometimes with U.S. observers present), search institutions to address one or more of it has been more than 10 years since an experi- the research needs identified in the bill. The mental offshore oil spill has been allowed in Senate bill would establish a Prince William the United States. In light of recent events, it Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute to identify would be useful to allow occasional experi- and develop the best technology for dealing mental spills to test equipment. Whatever with spills in arctic and subarctic marine envi- U.S. testing is undertaken should be coordi- ronments. nated with similar efforts in other countries. OTA’s investigations also show that coordi- Discussion nation of R&D efforts within the government, between the government and the private sec- OTA’s investigation of oil spill response tor, and among the many other interests technologies indicates that the country’s abil- worldwide is essential to reaching desired ity to recover oil from large spills is inade- goals with minimum waste of resources. The quate. It can be improved, but a large technol- several Federal agencies with R&D programs ogy research and development effort does not have different purposes and perspectives, but offer the promise of major breakthroughs. Al- there is considerable overlap as well. MMS, though most of the R&D projects proposed by the Coast Guard, and EPA are all concerned government and industry appear to be worth- with acceptable standards and evaluation of while, OTA’s analysis shows that only modest performance of cleanup systems. They must and gradual improvements can be expected work together to agree on final results, but from most mechanical response technology one agency could take the lead in major pro- R&D. And it is important to remember that gram funding for best efficiency. technology is only one of many variables that can affect the recovery of oil from a spill. The It is also vital that the Federal Government benefits likely to result from improvements in coordinate its efforts with those of private in- technology alone may not be noticed in the dustry, especially if a substantial R&D pro- ultimate amount of oil recovered from any gram by PIRO gets underway as planned. This major spill. An R&D program can be justified, is important for several reasons. First, the however, on the basis of the need to maintain industry work may be directed at its own pri- the best capability possible and to understand orities; government priorities could be differ- the most appropriate uses, capabilities, and ent and require additional work in areas not limitations of all the systems that may be covered by industry. Second, the government available in the future. must be completely knowledgeable about new Creation of a program to test oil spill equip- technologies and techniques if it is to fulfill its ment under realistic, at-sea conditions — occa- role as principal coordinator and/or manager sionally using real oil —is particularly desir- of future response efforts. Third, if the indus- able. OTA’s analysis indicates that much try supports good, credible programs in cer- equipment has mechanical deficiencies be- tain areas, it would be wasteful for the govern- cause it has never been field-tested. Testing ment to duplicate the effort. 38 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

An area in which greater collaboration be- group appears to be focusing on deployment tween the United States and other countries systems as a whole (although PIRO has plans on oil spill issues could lead to a sizable payoff to do so). Another potential oversight is the is research and development. The United needed development of more reliable and rug- States and Canada have long cooperated on oil ged components in mechanical recovery spill R&D, and this relationship appears to equipment to handle viscous oils, water emul- have been profitable for both countries. How- sions, debris, etc. ever, aside from the biennial Oil Spill Confer- In general, however, R&D attention by the ence meetings, at which research findings are often presented by foreigners, no formal several groups that have planned programs forum exists for the exchange of information appears to be focused on important problems. between the United States and other coun- If these plans are carried out, if they are well- tries. OTA has observed that there appears to coordinated, and if developments become the be a significant amount of overlap in the re- basis of a major expansion of equipment research of organizations like the French Center sources strategically deployed in high readi- for Documentation, Research, and Experi- ness condition — this would offer needed im- mentation on accidental pollution (CEDRE), provements in national response capability. the British Warren Springs Laboratory, and the Dutch State Waterways Board with oil Table 4-2-Selection of Planned R&D Efforts by spill researchers in the U.S. government. Federal Agencies and Industry Greater coordination and/or collaboration could lead to less duplication, faster dissemi- Research coast MMS nation of research results, faster progress on area PIRO Guard (with API) EPA Surveillance/ problems of mutual concern, and a better use data ...... - H H M of limited R&D funds. Deployment systems ...... – M L- Table 4-2 displays a summary of R&D plans Source for the organizations that OTA has contacted containment . . . . . L H — — and that have current plans for oil spill R&D Mechanical expenditures over the next few years. The recovery ...... L H L planned programs of PIRO, the Coast Guard, Dispersants ...... H L M M — MMS (in cooperation with API), and the EPA Bioremediation . . . . H — H -— are displayed and broken down into several Burning ...... M H H Other/ research areas with notations of high, me- shoreline dium, low, or no priority under each. The total remediation ., ., . . . M — H M planned expenditures are about$10 million to Fate and $15 million per year in the near term. About effects ...... H — H two-thirds will be from industry and one- Health and safety ., ...... L M — third from government. It can be seen that Disposal ...... M — — — there are many areas of multiple interest that Training/ Bio Test could lead to waste if not carefully coordi- testing ... , ...... – H M with Exxon nated. It can also be seen that some areas that ($3 million) seem to offer promise of future improvement Proposed Budgets may be neglected. For example, it appears $ million/yr ...... $7 $3-$4 $2 $1 that the engineering of complete systems for rapid deployment, recovery, handling, stor- NOTE: Hi = High PIRO = Petroleum Industry Response Organization age, and support for large operations— per- M = Medium MMS = Minerals Management Service L = Low API = American Petroleum Instttute haps including vessels of opportunity– is one EPA = Environmental Protection Agency area where additional progress is needed. No SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990 Chapter 5 Selected European Oil Spill Policies

INTRODUCTION authority to use whatever means are deemed most appropriate to fight the spill. Oil that In order to investigate oil spill technologies has reached the shoreline is the responsibility in use abroad and to learn how the United of local authorities. States might benefit from the oil spill experi- For fighting oil spills at sea, the offshore ences and policies of some other countries, area surrounding France has been divided OTA staff visited four countries bordering the into three maritime regions. Oil spill re- North Sea in September, 1989: France, the sponses within each region are directed by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Nor- responsible Maritime Prefect, a senior Navy way. OTA’s trip was coordinated by the Inter- officer who is also responsible for the defense national Petroleum Industry Environmental of the area.1 The Maritime Prefect’s first pri- Conservation Association and included visits ority is to prevent maritime accidents by en- to a number of government and industry or- forcing navigation regulations. Traffic separa- ganizations in these countries. The four coun- tion lanes have been established in some tries selected represent a wide range of tech- areas, and large, ocean-going tugs are used as nologies and countermeasures policies. Below both “watch dogs” and rescue ships. In the are some of the highlights of our findings. event of a spill, the Maritime Prefect functions as onscene commander rather than on- scene coordinator, and hence has considerably FRENCH OIL SPILL POLICY more authority than his U.S. Coast Guard counterpart. (If a similar arrangement were in The French seriously began to consider a effect in the United States, at least 4 “mari- comprehensive approach to fighting oil spills time prefects, ” possibly U.S. Coast Guard offi- in the aftermath of the Torrey Canyon cers, would be required, one each for the East, grounding off England in 1967, but French Gulf, West, and Alaskan coasts). Relatively policy evolved significantly as a consequence minor spills are handled with local equip- of France’s unfortunate experience with the ment. If a spill occurs that is larger than local Amoco Cadiz spill in 1978. This accident, in resources can handle, an offshore marine pol- which approximately 223,000 tons (68 million lution plan, POLMAR MER, is invoked, and gallons) of oil were spilled along the Brittany the Maritime Prefect can then draw on the coast, was about 6.5 times as large as the Ex- equipment and expertise of other regions, xon Valdez spill, making it the fourth largest and, if necessary, of private stocks. in history (table 5-l). Local civil authorities are responsible for Notably, the French have assigned respon- containment and cleanup when an oil spill sibility for fighting oil spills at sea to the reaches or threatens to reach land. Each of French Navy, whose responsibilities are gen- France’s 26 coastal departments (states) pre- erally the equivalent of those of both the U.S. pares its own POLMAR TERRE response Navy and U.S. Coast Guard. Although em- plan, which the prefect (governor) of each de- phasis is placed on spill prevention, once a partment can invoke in the event of a major spill has occurred the French Navy has the threat. The plans identify priority areas to be

‘G. Marchand, G. Bergot, M. Melguen, and G. Peigne, “French Know-How in the Prevention and Fight Against Accidental Oil Spills, ” 1987 Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Apr. &9, 1987, Baltimore, MD, pp. 15-22.

39 40 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

protected and specify how booms will be in- zation to be an impressive element of its oil stalled in these areas, what public and private spill cleanup plans. There is no comparable equipment is available, and where storage emphasis on defensive beach protection sites and treatment centers for recovered measures in the United States. products are located.2 Small spills are handled Stocks of equipment for fighting offshore by commune officials (mainly by fire departments) with local equipment stocks. The spills are maintained at POLMAR centers in Army may be called for major spills and used Brest, Cherbourg, and Toulon, the headquar- to clean beaches with material and equipment ters of each of the three maritime regions, and from the POLMAR stocks. Having experi- also in Le Havre, Lorient, Port de Bouc, and enced major beach pollution and having rec- Ajaccio. Purchase and maintenance of this ognized that a significant proportion of any equipment is the responsibility of the French major spill may reach the coastline no matter Ministry of Defense. Booms for the protection what measures are taken, the French have put of sensitive nearshore and onshore areas are much effort into research and development of located in eight POLMAR centers around the beach cleaning equipment and into planning country, so that no part of the coastline is fur- and training for beach cleanup. OTA found ther than 250 kilometers from a boom storage French beach cleaning technology and organi- center. Equipment for land cleaning opera-

PhoEJ cnxfit Jim Mieh

French sand washing machine.

21bid. Chapter 5–Selected European Oil Spill Policies ● 41

tions (e.g., sand washing equipment and hot water pumps) is stationed at two of these eight centers.3 The Secretary of State for the Sea is responsible for the purchase of equipment for onshore activities. Unlike the three other countries OTA visited, the French do not rely primarily on one countermeasure technique. Both mechanical equipment and dispersants are at their disposal, and the technique or techniques best suited to the circumstances will be employed. While recovery at sea is preferable, the Navy may use dispersants without conferring with others if the spill is seaward of environmen- Ptwfo credit Jim Midke tally sensitive areas (as a rule of thumb, where the water depth is greater than 30 meters). French Egmolap skimmers stockpiled at the POLMAR center in Brest. Egmolap skimmers were used to recover oil French mechanical cleanup equipment is in nearshore areas of Prince William Sound. not radically different from that available in the United States. Some French technology, CEDRE’s missions are spread around various including the Egmolap skimmers successfully U.S. Executive Branch agencies. CEDRE is a used in nearshore operations in Prince Wil- key element in the French oil spill counter- liam Sound, is available in the United States. measures approach. Its existence ensures that Beach cleaning technology (e.g., sand wash- at least some attention is devoted to oil spill ers) is innovative and deserves some attention issues in the sometimes long periods between for use in the United States. Also, the French major spills. have been experimenting with biodegradation accelerating agents. They supplied one of the products (Inipol eap 22) for bioremediation DUTCH OIL SPILL POLICY experiments in Prince William Sound. In the wake of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill the The Dutch rely entirely on mechanical re- French government established CEDRE, the covery for fighting spills as they have no confi- Center for Documentation, Research, and dence in the effectiveness of chemical disper- Experimentation on accidental pollution. sants. The most notable aspect of Dutch Among other things CEDRE advises authori- reliance on mechanical means is their use of ties responsible for pollution control about large dual purpose vessels. Large skimming state-of-the-art techniques, assists and ad- vessels have advantages over small skimmers vises authorities during crises, trains person- because they can simultaneously skim and nel, conducts research to improve existing store much more oil than a small vessel and methods, and tests equipment (including oc- because they can operate in heavier seas. Nev- casional testing in small, deliberate oil spills ertheless, large, dedicated spill vessels are ex- at sea). The organization has a permanent pensive to maintain and operate and slow to staff of 26 and a budget of 10 million francs respond to distant spill sites. The Dutch argue per year. There is no equivalent U.S. organiza- that a large vessel built purely for pollution tion, although counterparts of many of control purposes would be idle for the greater

%entre POLMAR de Brest, “The Fight Against Oil Pollution on the Coastline: Missions and Methods of the POLMAR Centers,” May 1987. ——.

42 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

part of its life and is therefore economically The Dutch system is intended (perhaps op- difficult to justify.4 However, vessels that can timistically) to be able to cope with a 30,000 be put to use in periods between oil spills are cubic meter spill (about the size of the Exxon much more attractive. Hopper dredges are es- Valdez spill) in 3 days. Assuming that about pecially suitable for dual use purposes in the 50 percent of a spill evaporates, mechanical Netherlands: the country is small, has a sandy equipment must be able to recover 15,000 cu- coastline, and has significant dredging needs bic meters. In all, 7 units, each unit containing in important ports and waterways. These 200 meters of boom, 2 sweeping arms, a recov- dredges can be equipped with recovery equip- ery vessel, and an assistant vessel, are avail- ment and can hold sizable amounts of recov- able to meet this goal. ered oil. Dredges normally operate in areas where the risk of oil spills is high– the ap- Dual use dredges could prove useful in the proach channels to ports. Moreover, it takes United States. Although no single approach is only a few minutes for a hopper dredge to dis- likely to be the magic solution for all situ- charge its cargo and to be available for spill ations, major port areas where dredges are op- cleanup duties. erating would be primary candidates for such The Rijkswaterstaat, or State Waterways systems. As with other approaches, support- Board, is responsible for vessel pollution ing equipment and facilities must also be countermeasures at sea, along the coast, and available. The usefulness of oil skimming in the main navigable waterways in ports.5 It dredges in areas far from ports, for which sig- also conducts oil spill research. As in France, nificant time would be required to reach, is although the government takes charge in the less obvious, although in some cases dredges event of vessel spills, the polluter is liable for may be able to steam to a spill site in time to all cleanup costs. Oil companies are expected make a difference in the cleanup effort. The to fight platform spills. In the event of a large Dutch State Waterways Board suggested to tanker spill, one or more dredges may be OTA that 10 to 20 sets of sweeping arms, lo- called into cleanup action. Notably, dredges cated at key ports around the United States, are under contract to the government rather might be adequate coverage. Existing dredges than owned by it. Where the flash point of the either owned or chartered by the Army Corps spilled oil is high enough, any dredge under of Engineers could be converted to accept the contract may be used. If the flash point is be- sweeping arms. IHC estimates that costs to low 140°F, which is occasionally the case, a reconfigure dredges to accept sweeping arms dredge designed to tanker specifications (e.g., would be about $400,000 per vessel, and that the Cosmos) is used. When called, a dredge drops its spoil, proceeds to its base, is fitted the equipment itself– which could be shared with sweeping arms for oil containment and among several vessels–would cost about recovery, and sails to the spill site to begin re- $600,000 per set. At present, the Army Corps covery. The whole process generally takes of Engineers has no responsibilities for oil about four hours, although Dutch dredges are spills, so a change in the basic U.S. approach seldom further than 20 kilometers from their would be required. bases.

d~c D~& T~hno]o~ Corp., “The IHC S]icktrai] and Its Possible Application in the U. S.A.,” Prepared for U.S. Army CorPs of Engineers, Trailing Suction Hopper Workgroup Session, Atlantic City, NJ, June 14-15, 1989. s~~comwative Study Ofpo]lution Contro] Po]iq and Contingency Plans in France and in the Wnn Aflreement Member countries)” paper presented at the Nineteenth Meeting of the Bonn Agreement Working Group on Operational, Technical, and Scientific Ques- tions Concerning Counter Pollution Activities, Renesse: May 3-6, 1989, p. 22. Chapter 5–Selected European Oil Spill Policies ● 43

UNITED KINGDOM ment’s lack of faith in the effectiveness of me- OIL SPILL POLICY chanical equipment in weather conditions and sea states typical of the North Sea and other waters surrounding the United Kingdom and Responsibility for responding to offshore on the view that recent advances in disper- tanker spills in the United Kingdom is ac- sants have improved their effectiveness and cepted by the central government. The government provides the response equipment, di- made them much less toxic. According to the rects the response operation, maintains and MPCU General Information Notes, “The only updates the national contingency plan, and re- operationally proven technique for combating views developments in pollution control oil at sea in the conditions prevalent around 8 equipments This authority has been dele- the coastline is spraying with dispersants.” gated to the Marine Pollution Control Unit Only dispersants which have passed appropri- (MPCU) of the Department of Transport. The ate tests may be used. Immediately after a MPCU is assisted by the Coastguard, whose spill occurs, a determination is made as to primary role with respect to marine pollution whether dispersant use would be safe and ef- is to detect and report pollution incidents. Re- fective. The MPCU consults with the Fisher- sponse to platform spills in the North Sea is ies Department and the Nature Conservancy the responsibility of the operator. Response Council on the appropriateness of dispersant policy for these spills is set by the Department use in sensitive areas and in water less than 1 of Energy, but the MPCU provides advice and mile from shore or less than 20 meters in may help with the cleanup operations if the depth. operator’s resources prove inadequate. Pollu- tion that reaches shore is primarily the re- The MPCU currently has seven airplanes sponsibility of local authorities, but the under contract for applying dispersants. Two MPCU advises and assists as required. In a remote sensing aircraft are available to direct major coastal pollution incident (one beyond the response effort. Aircraft and dispersants the resources of a local authority) the MPCU are strategically positioned at airports around would set up a Joint Response Center and the country. During daylight, aircraft must be would then coordinate and lead the onshore ready to fly within 30 minutes of notification; response to ensure a fully integrated at-sea at night they must be ready within 2 hours. and on-shore cleanup operation.7 Stocks of Hence, the MPCU is able to start spraying dis- specialized beach cleaning equipment are held persants very soon after a spill occurs, an im- by the MPCU to supplement local resources. portant advantage since effectiveness depends Cleanup costs are initially borne by the on early application, and in most cases oil can MPCU, but where the polluter can be identi- no longer be dispersed after about 48 hours. fied, he will be required to refund the costs of The Unit also has dispersant spraying equip- the measures. ment fitted to a number of commercial tugs It is the policy of the British government to located at strategic positions around the U.K. rely on dispersants as a first line of defense for coast; a small amount of mechanical recovery oil spills; mechanical recovery plays a second- equipment to deploy in chartered vessels; a ary role. This policy is based on the govern- stock of cargo transfer equipment for lighter-

GW.H.H. McLeod, “Contro] Ofoi] Po]]ution Response Activities,” The Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks, A.E. KAX@ (cd. ) (London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1989), p. 115. ~partment of Transport, “MPCU General Information Notes. ” ‘Ibid. p. 10. 44 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

ing operations; and stockpiles of beach clean- pany. The full participants are Esso, British ing equipment. Petroleum, Shell, Texaco, and Mobil. These full participants can call on a maximum of 50 During OTA’s visit, two tankers collided off percent of the available equipment to respond the Humber Estuary, resulting in an oil spill to spill emergencies worldwide. Petro Canada of 800 tons. The MPCU determined that the is a lesser participant and, as such, may only oil could be dispersed, and had the spraying use equipment in proportion to its contribu- operation under way within 3.5 hours. In the tion. United States, both the decision to use dispersants and the mobilization of airplanes and The MPCU also funds a research program ships may take much longer. to develop improved techniques for predicting the behavior of spilled oil, dealing with it With available dispersant equipment, the at sea, and predicting its environmental im- MPCU maintains it can treat 5,000 tons of oil pact. This program also covers hazardous at sea in a 48-hour period. Planned upgrades chemicals. in the aircraft fleet will increase this capability to 14,000 tons. The MPCU assumes that in most coastal spills the greater part of the oil NORWEGIAN will come ashore and estimates that with the assistance of MPCU beach cleaning equip- OIL SPILL POLICY ment a local authority can clean up some 6,000 tons of oiled material from beaches Oil pollution control policy in Norway is the every 7 to 10 days. responsibility of the State Pollution Control Authority (SPCA) within the Ministry of the In the event of a very large spill, the MPCU Environment. For major pollution, the SPCA may ask for assistance from neighboring presides over the Government Action Control countries. The United Kingdom and seven Group, which also includes representatives other countries bordering the North Sea have from other government ministries, the oil in- entered the Agreement for Co-operation in dustry, and the scientific community. Respon- Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by sibilities for actual cleanup are divided among Oil, commonly called the Bonn Agreement, to the SPCA, local authorities, and the offshore facilitate the sharing of equipment and the ex- oil companies. In general, the polluter is re- change of information about oil spill counter- sponsible for cleaning up oil spills, but if the measures. The United Kingdom also has bi- polluter is incapable of handling a spill or if lateral oil spill agreements with France (the extra help is required, the SPCA may, at its Manche Plan) and Norway (the Norbrit Plan). discretion, take over the operation.9 In this Although no formal agreement exists between sense, Norwegian oil spill policy is similar to industry and the government, the MPCU may that of the United States. In practice, the oil also ask for assistance from the oil industry’s and gas industry has prepared specifically to oil spill response base, located in South- respond to offshore platform spills, while the ampton, England. The Southampton base SPCA generally expects to respond to spills currently maintains one of the largest stocks from ships– an important difference between of oil spill equipment in the world, valued at U.S. and Norwegian approaches. about 4 million pounds. Exxon is a paying member of this cooperative, and was there- The SPCA has decreed that oil pollution fore able to use about half of the South- will be fought by mechanical means to the ex- ampton stock in the Exxon Valdez spill. The tent possible. Dispersants are used only if me- Southampton Base is a joint venture com- chanical cleanup has proved ineffective and

YI’he Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority, “Oil Pollution Control: Emergency Services in Norway,” February 1983. Chapter 5–Selected European Oil Spill Policies . 45

that make regular shuttles between shore bases and offshore platforms, and, hence, are never far from an equipment depot. These boats have a storage capacity of about 1,000 tons. Local authorities are responsible for fighting spills on and within 3 miles of the coast. Fifty-two municipal and intermunicipal contingency areas have been designated, and within each area an Oil Pollution Control Committee, with direct responsibility for the cleanup effort, has been established. Local resources are used for small spills. The costs of municipal oil spill equipment are shared equally between the central and local governments. Spills that are larger than can be handled lo- cally and/or beyond the capacity of the pol- Photo crwh Jim Mielke luter to handle are in part or totally taken over by the SPCA. The SPCA has established 12 Norwegian Transrec weir skimming system. equipment depots at strategic locations along the coast. Each depot is stocked with about $1 only with approval from the SPCA. The SPCA million (U. S.) worth of equipment, including requires that the offshore oil and gas industry heavy, medium-heavy, and light booms, one be able to recover 8,000 tons of oil per day, large and two smaller skimmers, and a supply that the equipment for doing so be able to op- of beach cleaning equipment. In addition, the erate in significant wave heights of up to 2 me- SPCA has contracted with a number of coastal ters and in currents of up to 1.5 knots, and tankers, tugs, and purse seine fishing vessels. that this equipment beat the spill site within These vessels are on call and maybe used in a 48 hours of a spill. The SPCA has also im- large spill. The purse seiners can be equipped posed requirements on refineries and large with skimmers and operate as both oil recov- terminals. These are required to be able to ery vessels and oil storage vessels. In all, mu- cope with 5,000-ton spills. nicipal, state, and private organizations have To meet offshore requirements, the eleven established a total of 17 oil spill depots along oil and gas companies that operate on the the coast containing about 60 miles of light Norwegian continental shelf have organized and heavy booms and 300 skimmers. Numer- the Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Op- ous storage and boom towing vessels are on erating Companies (NOFO). NOFO main- call. tains a total of 14 oil recovery and transfer Norway has made a strong commitment to (Transrec) systems and 8,750 meters of heavy oil spill response training. The SPCA’s Oil duty boom at 5 strategic locations along the Spill Control Center in Horten offers a series Norwegian coast. The Transrec systems have of courses and exercises in oil spill control. A been designed for operation in rough North most impressive aspect of this program is the Sea conditions and are among the largest wide range of personnel that participate: vir- skimming and transfer systems available any- tually all municipal, state, and private em- where. These systems have been designed to ployees involved in decisionmaking and/or be mounted on the large industry work boats cleanup operations in Norway receive train- 46 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

GENERAL COMMENTS

There exist almost as many approaches to fighting oil spills in Europe as there are Euro- pean countries (table 5-l). The degree of reliance on mechanical cleanup methods is one area, for example, where the full range of possible approaches are exhibited: some countries rely exclusively on mechanical cleanup methods, others on both mechanical methods and dispersants, and still others almost solely on dispersants. No European country, however, relies on burning as an important part of its spill response arsenal. Some other variables include the type of mechanical equipment preferred, the government agency assigned primary authority for oil spill mm Credit Ml W@3smmn!ymf response, the division of authority between local and statewide officials, the amount of oil Large offshore boom on reel, used by the Norwegian Clean for which countermeasures must be prepared Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO). to deal, the role of private industry in cleanup efforts, and the preferred approach to training. The goals of this program are to train per- ing, drills, and equipment testing. sonnel to know their responsibilities in an emergency spill situation and to give them the These differences are based, in part, on cir- knowledge and experience needed to meet cumstances peculiar to each country, e.g., the these responsibilities. As one notable training use of dual purpose dredges seems to make device, the Center has developed an elaborate particularly good sense in the Netherlands, “tactical exercise.” In this exercise accident given the amount of local dredging activity, as situations are simulated and trainees play the does the use of large work boats for counter- roles they would play in a real emergency situ- measures platforms in Norway, given their ation. Such roles may range from state or mu- utility in rough seas and the fact that these nicipal decisionmaker to master of a vessel to vessels regularly shuttle between the offshore a fisherman complaining of damaged gear. In platforms and shore bases. No doubt different addition to simulations, major seagoing exer- approaches are also based on the different ex- cises (which can include experimental, con- periences of each country. In European coun- trolled oil spills) are conducted yearly. A con- tries, as in the United States, progress is sequence of the emphasis on training in made, much of the time, by the pressure of Norway is that those with oil spill cleanup re- events, and revisions in contingency plans sponsibilities at all levels of government and have been made in several countries in the af- industry– an estimated 3,000 people—are termath of major pollution incidents.10 Im- well informed about the decisionmaking proc- portantly, some differences among countries ess and about the types of things that can go seem to be based on different perceptions wrong. Uncertainty about how to respond ap- about the effectiveness of a technique, about pears to have been reduced to a minimum. risk, and/or about costs v. benefits, i.e., on

IoOp. cit., fOOtnOte 5, Pa& 39. Table 5-1 -Summary of Oil Spill Response Arrangements

Central government Responsibility for clean-up departments Country primarily involved At sea On-shore Policy for clean-up at sea Clean-up resources

Belgium Ministry of Defense Navy Coastal munici- Dispersants applied from vessels Limited mainly to dispersants and Ministry of Interior palities; Civil spraying equipment. Defense Corps Denmark Ministry of National Agency National Agency for Containment and recovery Specialized vessels equipped with Environment for Environmental Environmental almost exclusively booms and skimmers. Also equipment Protection Protection; coastal although provision for limited and materials for shore clean-up in local authorities; use of dispersants district stockpiles. Civil Defense Corps France Secretary of State Maritime Prefect Coastal communes: Containment and recovery Extensive stocks of specialized equip for the Sea (Navy) Commissioner of preferred but dispersants ment and materials in regional stockpiles. Ministry of Defense the Department used in designated areas Also strike teams and aircraft for Ministry of Interior dispersant spraying. Federal Ministry of Federal Board of Coastal states Containment and recovery Specialized vessels, booms, skimmers, Republic of Transport Waterways and preferred but dispersants spraying equipment and dispersants. Germany Navigation; also used in North Sea coastal states Netherlands Ministry of Transport North Sea Coastal provincial Containment and recovery Specialized vessels, including combined and Public Works Directorate of and municipal exclusively dredgers/oil combating ships equipped State Waterways states with oil recovery equipment. Other Board vessels for deploying booms. Other equipment held by salvage and private contractors. Norway Ministry of State Pollution Coastal community Containment and recovery almost Extensive stocks of specialized equip- Environment Control and intercommunity exclusively, but will consider ment and trained response teams at 12 Authority/Maritime areas dispersants if mechanical means regional centers. Directorate are ineffective Sweden Ministry of Defense Coast Guard Municipal fire Containment and recovery Large fleet of vessels equipped for anti- Service brigades; provincial preferred although dispersant pollution work, Extensive stocks of authorities application permissible under clean-up equipment in some 30 coastal certain conditions sites. United Department of Marine Pollution Marine Pollution Aerial application of dispersants; 7 dedicated spraying aircraft, vessel- Kingdom Transport Control Unit of Control Unit of containment and recovery mounted spray gear and extensive Maritime Maritime where applicable stocks of dispersant. Also containment Directorate Directorate; coastal and recovery equipment and equipment local authorities for shore clean-up in 3 regional stockpiles.

SOURCE: J N Archer and I C white, “Organlsatton to mmbat 011 SpIllS: The Case for Coordmatlon of Government Practice, ” International Tanker Owners Pollutlon Federation, p 5 —

48 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

many of the issues currently being debated in any given country– is assigned responsibility the United States. for vessel spills. It is clear that no single countermeasures Most countries accept that it would be practice will be applicable in all locales and for unrealistic to expect the same level and all types of oil spills. This is especially true in promptness of response if the polluting the United States, a large country with thou- source was a vessel at sea, especially if the sands of miles of coastline. Yet some ap- owner or operator had no presence in the proaches adopted in Europe deserve serious country whose shores were threatened. For consideration for applicable parts of the this reason, in northwest Europe the re- United States. Among these: sponsibility for combating oil pollution from tankers and other vessels is normally equip existing dredges with oil recovery accepted by governments on the under- capabilities (as in the Netherlands) in the standing that the costs of any reasonable U.S. port areas where dredges routinely measures taken will be recoverable from operate, the owner and his insurer.12 expand the use of supply vessels as plat- For these types of spills, unlike the current forms for heavy duty skimmers (as in situation in the United States, both the re- Norway) in such oil production areas as sponsibility and the authority for cleanup are the Gulf of Mexico and Southern Califor- in the hands of the central government. nia, Also, there is a distinction in most Euro- preapprove dispersants for use in non- pean countries between those responsible for sensitive areas using on-call airplanes for combating oil at sea and those responsible for delivery systems (as in the U.K.), dealing with it on the coast.13 On shore, re- expand training and contingency plan- sponsibility for implementing initial cleanup ning exercises (as in Norway). measures usually lies with local authorities, with the central government often providing Despite differences, several generalizations advice and coordination. As the actual or po- about European oil spill response policies tential impact of a spill increases, central gov- may be made. With respect to terminals, re- ernments assume more responsibility, and fineries, offshore platforms, and other fixed are able to provide equipment, logistic sup- facilities, the general rule is that the party causing the pollution should clean it up. Op- port, and technical and financial assistance. erators of these facilities are expected to have Coordination between local onshore responsi- contingency plans and to provide equipment bilities and central government offshore re- and materials in the event of a spill.11 Direct sponsibilities is usually the charge of a single government involvement in the response gen- government department or committee. Sev- erally only takes place if the polluter is unable eral European countries (e.g., France and to cope with the spill. Virtually without excep- Norway) appear to be far better equipped and/ tion, however, the central government– or organized than the United States to re- whether represented by the ministry of de- spond to spills that reach or threaten the fense, environment, transportation, etc. in coast.

I IJ.N. ~cher ~d I.C. mite, “Or~izatiOn to combat oil spills: The Case for Coordination of Government practice, ” The Interna- tional Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd. ‘21bid. p. 3. ‘31bid. p. 4. Chapter 5–Selected European Oil Spill Policies .49

A wide variety of mechanical cleanup tech- throughout Europe that potentially could be nology is used in Europe. Some types of used in the event of a large spill. Also, a num- booms and skimmers in use or under develop- ber of bilateral agreements exist to facilitate ment may offer some marginal advantages to cooperation regarding oil spills occurring on equipment manufactured in the United or near the offshore boundaries. (While help- States; however, OTA found no evidence that ful, these bilateral agreements do not always European technology was dramatically better work to each country’s satisfaction, e.g., when than that available in the United States. Much one country’s policy is to use dispersants and of this technology is, in fact, marketed in the the other’s is to rely on mechanical equip- United States, and those responsible for pur- ment). chasing equipment are (or are becoming) fa- All European countries OTA visited as- miliar with it. Some European equipment was sured us that they were prepared for major oil used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. French Eg- spills. We suspect that had we toured U.S. fa- molap skimmers used in beach cleaning were cilities before the Exxon Valdez accident, we reportedly particularly successful. would have received similar assurances, so OTA was impressed with the total amount European confidence is at least somewhat of equipment available in Europe. In the event questionable. On the whole, however, Euro- of a major spill, countries have not only their pean countries are better organized than the own local, regional, and national equipment United States, have more resources on which stocks on which to draw, but could also have to draw, and conduct more frequent training access to equipment from other nearby coun- exercises. In part this is due to activity under- tries and from the private sector. Several co- taken in response to unfortunate experiences operative agreements exist. In addition to the with their own major oil spills. As some Euro- Bonn Agreement, already discussed, the Com- peans readily admitted, no country, no matter mission of European Communities (CEC) in how well organized and equipped, would have Brussels has a task force that can provide ex- been able to cope satisfactorily with a spill the pertise to member countries that need advice. size of the Exxon Valdez spill — particularly in The CEC maintains a list of equipment such a remote location. Appendix A Mechanical Containment and Cleanup Technologies

Containment Booms debris or produce vortices that may cause the loss of oil under the boom. Oil spill containment barriers or booms are floating devices generally resembling short curtains that Freeboard restrict an oil slick from spreading beyond the barrier. Several designs have been produced for condi- The freeboard is the vertical height of the boom tions ranging from protected waters to open ocean. above the water. The freeboard prevents oil from Some barriers are designed to be towed, while oth- washing over the top of the boom, but if it is too ers remain stationary. Barriers designed for pro- high, the boom may be pushed over in high winds. tected waters would be less effective in strong cur- The boom must be flexible enough to rise and fall rents or heavy waves but generally are more easily with the waves so that the freeboard is not lost with deployed than offshore booms. Oil spill contain- each passing wave. ment booms generally have five operating components as shown in figure A-1. skirt Float The skirt is the continuous portion of the boom below the floats. The skirt helps to contain the oil. The float is the buoyancy member that keeps the While a deeper skirt is more effective in containing boom riding on the surface of the water. Heavier oil, increasing skirt depth increases the current load booms or booms used in rough seas need more on the tension members of the boom. buoyancy and therefore have a larger volume of float materials. Floats may be rigid or flexible and should be relatively smooth so that they don’t trap Tension Member

Tension members consist of any elements such as cables, chains, lines, or boom fabric that carry the Figure A-1 -Components of a Boom horizontal tension loads on the boom.

Ballast

Weight is applied to the bottom of the skirt to improve boom performance. Ballast is generally a chain (which also serves as a tension member) or a series of weights along the entire length of the boom. There are two basic types of booms in general use today: fence booms and curtain booms. Fence booms have a rigid or semirigid material as a containment screen for oil floating on the water. Cur- tain booms have a flexible skirt held down by ballast weights or a tension chain or cable. Their major difference is the way in which they respond to waves, current, and wind. If current and wind roll a fence boom away from the vertical, there is a loss of freeboard and draft. A curtain boom has a flexible Ballast weight/ft skirt that is free to move independently of the free- total boom weight/ft board and flotation, thus movement of the skirt

SOURCE: World Catalog of 011 Spill Response Products away from vertical does not necessarily mean loss of

51 52 ● Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

freeboard. Other booms, not necessarily of differ- Mechanical Recovery Devices ent types, are designed for special purposes. These include fireproof booms, ice booms designed for Several devices have been developed to collect oil spills in ice-filled water, and sorbant booms used to from surface waters. Since the efficiency of an oil re- contain and absorb small amounts of oil in rela- covery device is improved by increasing the thick- tively calm waters. ness or depth of an oil slick, these devices are fre- Booms are classified according to their physical quently used in combination with containment characteristics, which include freeboard, draft, re- barriers. Oil spill recovery skimmers are generally serve buoyancy to weight ratio, total tensile separated into categories according to the way in strength, skirt fabric tensile strength, and skirt fab- which they pick up oil. Fourteen categories and sub- ric tear strength. Although all of these characteris- categories can be identified. These are defined as tics are important, only the freeboard and draft will follows: be mentioned hereto convey an idea of the overall Weir – A skimmer that has an interior basin size of booms that are used for various applications with a slightly submerged lip over which the oil (table A-l). floats and is collected by gravity (figure A-2). The In the above classification, based on that used in weir is generally a floating skimming head used the World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products, with a pump to continuously empty the collecting calm water is defined to have a significant wave basin. These skimmers work best if the edge of the height of less than 1 foot, harbors less than 3 feet, weir is right at the oil/water interface, but in prac- and offshore less than 6 feet. The significant wave tice, this adjustment is difficult to achieve and height is the maximum wave height for which maintain. Weir skimmers have the advantages of booms in that category are likely to be effective. being simple, reliable, and commonly available. In The table shows that booms recommended for har- thick layers of oil (25 mm or more), weir skimmers bors and offshore are quite large. A boom recom- have high recovery rates with a recovery efficiency mended for harbors would have a vertical dimen- of around 50 per cent. In thinner slicks (1 to 8 mm), sion (freeboard plus draft) of 22 to 42 inches and a the recovery efficiency drops to 10 per cent. Con- boom recommended for offshore use would have a ventional floating weir skimmers have problems in vertical dimension of more than 42 inches. becoming clogged with debris and do not work well in waves. Archimedes screw devices have been in- These classifications should be used with some corporated in some weir skimmers to grind up de- flexibility. For example, offshore booms typically bris. have long skirts. However, in offshore areas of fast currents a shorter skirt may be more effective. In suction – A suction skimmer is a simple suction this case, a boom classified as a harbor boom maybe head acting somewhat like a weir used on a floating more suitable than an offshore boom. hose from a vacuum truck or portable suction pump (figure A-3). Pump suction draws the oil to the

Figure A-2 - Weir Skimmer

Table A-1 - Boom Classification According to Freeboard and Draft

Freeboard Draft Oil Service (inches) (inches) k

Calm water 4-1o 6-12 Harbor 10-18 12-24 Offshore >18 >24

SOURCE: Office of Technology Aaaessment, 1990

SOURCE: World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products. Appendix A-Mechanical Containment and Cleanup Technologies ● 53

skimmer head. This also is the same principle used tages of being expensive, complicated, more likely when a suction hopper dredge is converted to oil to break down, and vulnerable to becoming clogged spill recovery. The advantages of suction skimmers are that they are simple to operate, shallow draft, Figure A-3– Floating Suction Skimmer and can be used nearly everywhere, even under piers. They are likely to have a fairly high pumping T Suction hose rate but with a low recovery efficiency, particularly in a thin slick. They are not effective, however, if there is any appreciable water movement such as choppy waves. Boom Skimmer – A boom skimmer is a recovery system with one or more skimmers mounted in the face of a spill containment boom, regardless of the skimmer type, although the recovery device is generally a weir (figure A-4). Weirs installed on booms that can follow the wave surface reasonably well are kept near the surface of the water and therefore able to maintain a high rate of recovery. In general, SOURCE: World Catalog of 011 Spill Response Products boom skimmers have a high rate of recovery and are designed for dealing with large spills at sea. Since Figure A-4-Schematic Drawing of a Weir Skimmer the weir is employed in the collection pocket of the boom, recovery efficiency is increased. Boom skimmers are large pieces of equipment with many Air tube —— working parts needing maintenance. They are ad- 1 versely affected by the same debris problems as other weirs. Vortex – A vortex skimmer draws oil and water into a collection chamber and separates it by centrifugal force (figure A-5). This centrifugal action Vane pump \ discharges the water out of the bottom and concen- Oil discharge tube trates the oil so that it can be pumped off through a hose to storage. This principle is sometimes com-

bined with a weir serving as the collection chamber. SOURCE: Vikoma International Vortex skimmers can achieve a reasonable recovery rate in medium to heavy oils, but generally have a fairly low efficiency. Figure A-5-Vortex Moving Surface – Moving surface skimmers uti- lize a moving material that absorbs or causes oil to adhere to it in preference to water. The oilcoated material then passes over a scraper, squeezer, or other device to remove and recover the oil in a sump. There are several varieties of moving surface skimmers including, disk/drum, brush, rope mop, and belt types as follows: Disk/Drum– Any disk or drum devices that rely out on the adhesion of oil to a solid surface (figure A-6). Disk type devices have a series of vertical disks that are rotated through the oil surface. Drum skimmers have a horizontal drum that rotates through the slick. Many small disk skimmers have the disadvan- SOURCE: World Catalog of 011 Spill Rasponse Products 54 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Figure A-6- Disc Skimmer 1. Paddle Belts – Paddles are attached to the belt to lift oil out of the water (figure A-8). A typical paddle belt skimmer pulls oil up a ramp using four or more paddles. Paddle belt skimmers have a high recovery rate and operate best in medium to high viscosity oils, but are likely to have problems in short period waves.1 They also handle debris very well. 2. Sorbent Belts – A sorbent belt skimmer is one that has a continuous, flat belt that moves horizon- tally over the water in the well of the collection vessel (figure A-9). High recovery rates can be expected and debris handling is excellent. This skimmer was developed for the U.S. Coast Guard as a zero rela- SOURCE: World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products tive velocity skimmer with the belt moving as fast as the vessel is traveling forward (or current moving with debris. On the other hand, they have high re- aft). Apparently, while technically feasible, it has covery efficiency which can be a considerable ad- not been very practical operationally and has never vantage if storage volume is limited. Large disk been commercially produced. Perhaps further de- skimmers are likely to be more durable and some velopment could prove useful. disk skimmers have vanes or screens to keep out de- 3. Sorbent Lifting Belts – A sorbent belt skim- bris. Because of the vertical dimensions of the disk, mer that has a belt inclined to the water’s surface disk skimmers are effective in waves. Some large and lifts the oil out of the water (figure A-10). Sor- floating disk skimmers are effective in fairly high bent lifting belts are made of porous oleophilic ma- sea states. terial that allows water to pass through. The belt Brush – Skimmer with a horizontal brush that passes through a set of rollers where the oil is rotates through the oil and past a scraper which re- scraped and wrung out of the belt. Sorbent lifting moves the oil into a sump. This skimmer is designed belt skimmers are often mounted on fairly large for recovering highly viscous oil and oil on ice. vessels and are intended for use in harbors and offshore. They can be expected to have a high recovery Rope Mop – Rope mop skimmers employ along, rate and high efficiency. continuous loop of absorbent oleophilic (oil loving) material that floats on the surface of the water and 4. Brush Lifting Belts – These skimmers have a is then led through a combination scraper-wringer chain of brushes that lift the oil from the water. that removes the oil along with some water (figure Cleaning devices remove oil from the brushes at the A-7). Rope mops can be deployed from shore and top of the ramp. These would be particularly useful the rope guided around a pulley that has been se- in large spills of highly viscous oil. cured offshore or can be operated from boats. Rope 5. Submersion Belts – The operating principle of mop skimmers generally have a high recovery effi- submersion belt skimmers is the opposite of lifting ciency and are most effective in medium viscosity belt skimmers (figure A-n). Instead of carrying the oils. Rope mops can operate in shallow water, water oil up out of the water, the submersion belt moves filled with debris, water mixed with ice, and under along a plane forcing the oil under water. The oil ice. They are relatively easy to maintain. then surfaces in a collection sump. Submersion belt Belt – Belt skimmers are identical in that they skimmers work best in low viscosity oils and thin all employ a moving belt which mayor may not be of slicks, in contrast to most other skimmers that re- absorbent material. Six types of belt skimmers can quire thick accumulations of oil for most effective be identified. operation.

‘World Catalog, p. 226. Appendix A - Mechanical Containment and Cleanup Technologies • 55

Figure A·7 - Rope Mop Skimmer

SOURCE: World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products

6. Sorbent Submersion Belts - These skimmers Submersion Plane - The submersion plane have a submersion belt that also acts as a sorbent. skimmer has a fIXed plane which is advanced The belt passes through a set of rollers that remove through the oil, submerging it and directing it into a the oil. Oil that is not absorbed is carried beneath collection area aft. It is similar to the submersion the belt and rises in a collection chamber located aft belt skimmer except that it does not have any mov of the belt. These skimmers are effective in light to ing parts. Submersion plane skimmers work best in heavy oils in thicknesses of several millimeters and light to medium viscosity oils. work best in calm seas or moderate seas with a swell up to 3 feet. 56 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Figure A-8-Paddle Belt Skimmer Figure A-9- Sorbent Belt Skimmer

Paddles h Transfer pump

Twin I

SOURCE: World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products

SOURCE: World Catalog of Oil Spill Responaa Products

Figure A-10--Sorbent Lifting Belt Skimmer

Direction for skimming

t 1

SOURCE: Wortd Catalog of Oil Spill Response Prcducts Appendix A-Mechanical Containment and Cleanup Technologies ● 57

Figure A-n –Submersion Belt Skimmer

Collected floatage I # I

SOURCE: World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products Appendix B Quantity and Distribution of U.S. Equipment

The following tables provide information on the tive following the Exxon Valdez spill are identified.

tree, quantity, and location of major oil spill re- Next, we list the equipment based at the Oil Spill sponse equipment within the continental United Service Centre in Southampton England, about States. The first two tables identify U.S. Navy and half of which was used in the Exxon Valdez spill. Fi- U.S. Coast Guard equipment. The following four ta- nally, the equipment proposed to be purchased for bles list skimmers, booms, dispersant delivery sys- each regional oil spill response center to be estab- tems, and off-loading pumps that could be applica- lished by the Petroleum Industry Response Organi- ble for offshore spills. Except for the Navy equipment maintained at Williamsburg, Virginia zation is presented. A caveat: response capability and Stockton, California and the Coast Guard depends on much more than the type of equipment equipment in Mobile, Alabama and Hamilton Air on hand, including such variables as maintenance, Force Base, California, this equipment is held by in- training, and logistics, so conclusions about the dustry oil spill cooperatives. The 93 cooperatives capabilities of the organizations presented here are listed in the next table, and, following this, the based solely on examining equipment are likely to new equipment acquisitions of the Alyeska coopera- be inaccurate. —

Appendix B–Quantity and Distribution of U.S. Equipment .59

Table B-1 -Major Types, Quantities, and Location Table B-2– Major National Strike Force of U.S. Navy Spill Response Equipment Equipment of the U.S. Coast Guard

Quantities/location Atlantic Pacific Pearl team team Williamsburg, Stockton, Harbor, Spilled oil recovery equipment: Equipment description Virginia California Hawaii Open Water Oil Containment and Spilled oil recovery equipment: Recovery Systems: Skimmer vessel system Skimming barriers ...... 5 19 (36’ aluminum hull) ...... Fast surface delivery systems ...... 11 11 Skimming system Pumping subsystem ...... 7 17 (sorbent belt voss) ...... Dracone barges (various sizes) ...... 8 4 Skimming system (screw pump voss) ...... Expandi harbor boom (1,600 feet) 1 0 Skimmer, sorbent Pumping equipment: rope mop (36”) ...... Boom vans Air Deliverable Anti-Pollution (42” x 1980’ boom) ...... Transfer Systems (ADAPTS): Boom mooring system Prime movers ...... , . . . . 7 13 Boom handling boat Submersible pumps ...... 11 15 (24’ 260 hp) ...... Boom tending boats Hydraulic hose (5,000 feet) ...... 1 1 (19’ x 23’ inflatable) ...... Discharge hose (4,000 feet) . . ., 1 1 Boom tending boats Fuel bladders ...... ? 8 (18’ rigid hull) ...... Viscous oil pumping systems 136,000 gal oil Prime movers ...... 2 1 storage bladder . 26,000 gal oil Submersible pumps ...... , ? 8 storage bladder ...... Chemical transfer systems ...... 2 7 Pumping equipment: Nonsubmersible pumps ...... 9 16 Pump, 6“ submersible Ancillary equipment: Floating hose (6” x 100’) Hot tap system . ., Command Posts ...... 3 2 Boarding kit...... Tractors ...... 4 2 Firefighting system ., ., . . Boats (various small boats) ...... 10 6 Ancillary equipment: All purpose vehicles ...... 7 5 Command trailer Trailers ...... 3 12 (40’ communications Radios ...... , 42 36 and command center) Computers ...... 3 7 Command van (20’ communications Monitoring equipment ...... ? Y and command center) Testing equipment . . . ., . . ? ‘f Fender system (8’ x 12’ foam) ...... Fender system SOURCE: U S Coast Guard, 1989 (14’ x 60’ Ip air) . . Fender system (10’ x 50’ Ip air) ...... Shop vans ...... Rigging vans ...... Personnel bunk van ...... 2 0 Beach transfer system (4-wheel drive veh.) . . 1 Communication system (SAT phone, land) ...... 1 0 Communication system (SAT phone, ship) ...... 1 Oil/water separator (parallel plate 100 gal/rein) ...... 2 Cleaning system van ...... 1

SOURCE: U S Navy, 1989 Table B-3--Major Sources of Skimmers in the United States

Storage Performance c 7 sea state Expected d Region Location service type No.a Type a 23 Viscosity Debris availability East cost Davisville, RI Weir B N 1,700 1,000 G G-F F G F B Williamsburg, VA Sorbent lifting G F G A belt Davisville, RI Weir 120 G G F Davisville, RI Weir 120 F G F Gulf coast Mobile, AL Weir 1,000 G G-F F G F Venice, LA Weir G FP G F Venice, LA Weir G G F Venice, LA Weir G G F Intercostal, IA Weir G G F Cameron, IA Weir G G F Cameron, LA Weir G G F Houma, IA Weir G G F Grand Isle, IA Weir G G F Geand isle, LA Weir Rockport, TX Weir G G F Galveston, TX Weir G G F west coast Stockton, Ca Sorbent lifting belt G F G A Port San Luis, CA Weir c Port San Luis, CA Weir c Santa Barbara, CA Weir G c Santa Barbara, CA Weir F c Hdamilton AFB, CA Weir G A Concord, CA Weir F c San Pedro, CA Weir F c San Pedro, CA Weir F c San Pedro, CA Weir G c Seattle, WA Submersion G c belt Alaska Valdez Weir G c Valdez Weir Y G c Dutch Hahrbor Weir N G B Dutch Harbor Weir N 120 G Deadhorse Weir Y G Dutch Harbor Weir G Voo . N. o 120 G B/C

a B = Barrier Skimmer SC = Seif-pmpeliadhsif-contahwd skimmer VOO = Skimmer system operatad from a “Vessel of Opportunity” b Y = %if-~O@Sd N = Requires external rfmwwceoftheeystem aaawhoie, including barriers. support, arc Where poaawible, information on the performance characteristics (P = poor, F = farr, and G = good) of the equipment m ions decated 2 sea state perforrnacne, and (3) composrhon of the oil encountered In addition, a sense of the ready availability of the resources IS provided as not all assets can be Utilized m a m :j!&!:g$:!Ij!j?:;&:mzk., 1S4662, “Oil Poilutbn Response Planning Guide for Extreme Weather A = Readiiyavailabia in moat cases. ent is mainly government resources of the U.S @asf Guard and the U S Navy Coaat Guard equiopment is baaed at Mobiie, ALand Hamitton Air Force Base, CA Navy equipment is primarily based at ‘isW%!wg,Willi VA and Stockton, CA B = Equipmentwhkh maykeavailabiedependingon apecificequipment needs andcircustances existing atthetimeof need These aaaetsare mainly held by cooperativesfor the convenience of its membership within adefhed area dtheras amatterofoperating or economic necesa ity. in the case of the former (such as offshore lease equipments), warvere from govemrnentaientitres may have to reobtained, oragraement may be required among the members 10 cease or reduce operations C = Resources that maybe made avaiiabie but only within a specified area Equipment that is permanently Inatalied on a vessel would, for instance, only be available within that vessel’s areai limitation

SOURCE: Engineering Cornpuater Optecnomics, inc (ECO), “Anatyais of Oii SpIii Reaponse Technoiogksa,- contractor reporl prepared for the Office of Technology Asaessmnt, July 19S9 Table 54- Major Sources of Containment Boom in the United States

Sea state Total Free Unlit Tensile a length board Draft weight strength performance Expected c Region Location (feet) (inches) (inches) (per 100’) (Ibs) 1 2 3 Maximum availability East coast Davisville, RI Davisville, RI Davisville, RI Williamsburg, VA Gulf coast Mobile, AL Mobile, AL Grand Isle, LA Venice, LA Venice, LA Intracoastal, TX Galveston, IX Rockport, TX West coast Concord, CA Concord, CA San Pedro, CA San Pedro, CA San Pedro, CA San Pedro, CA San Pedro, CA San Pedro, CA 23 San Pedro, CA 27 Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA c Santa Barbara, CA B/C Santa Barbara, CA B/C Stockton, CA Hamilton AFB, CA Seattle, WA Seattle, WA Alaska Valdez Valdez Valdez Deadhorse Deadhorse B/C Deadhorse B/C Dutch Harbor Anchorage

a Rating indicat~ ~tlmated performance of the s~tem ss a whole, including barriers, support, etc Where possible, information on the performance characteristics (P = poor, F = fair, and G = good) of the equlPment Is given In terms of ( 1 ) gallons affected, (2) sea state performance, and (3) mmposrtlon of the 011 encountered In addmon, a sense of the ready avmlatxhty of the resources IS provrded as not all assets can be uhhzed m a direct manner SOURCE: COMDTINST M164662, “OIl Pollutlon Resopnse Planning Guide for Extreme Weather” bMeasured m feet

c AvsulabllKy IS mdlcaled as follows: A= Readdy available m most cases This equipment is mamfy government resources of the U S Coast Guard and the U S Navy Coast Guard equipment IS based at Mobile, AL and HamlRon Air Force Base, CA Navy equipment is primarily based at Wilhemsburg, VA and Stockton, CA B. Equipment which may be available depending on specfic equipment needs and cwcumstances exlstmg at the time of need These assets are mamly held by cooperatives for the convenience of its membership wrfhm a defined area either as a matter of operating or ecorromlc necesslfy In the case of the former (Such as offshore lease requirements), warvers from governmental entttms may have to be obtained, or agreement may be reqwred among the members to cease or reduce operations c= Resources tfrat maybe made avatlable but onfy wrthin a specrfied area Equipment that IS permarrentty installed on a vessel would, for instance, only be avarlable within that vessel’s areal hrnltatlon SOURCE: Engmeermg Computer Optecnomics, Inc (ECO), “Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies, - contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, July 19S9 Table B-5-Major Sources of Offloading Pumps in the United States

Performance characteristics Viscosity Debris tolerance Units capacity Emulsify Expected Region Type city (gal/min) Light Heavy Silt Gravel Seaweed liquids availability b

East coast Destroil Williamsburg, VA 2 310 G P G G F G A Thune-Eureka Williamsburg, VA 10 2000 F G G G P P A Viscous Oil Elizabeth City, NC 12000 F G G G P P A Gulf coast Adapts Mobile, AL 12 1000 P G G G P P A Viscous Oil Mobile, AL 12000 F G G G P P A west coast Adapts Hamilton AFB, CA 12 1000 P G G G P P A Viscous Oil Hamilton AFB, CA 22000 F G G G P P A Thune-Eureka Stockton, CA 11 2000 F G G G P P A Destroil Stockton, CA 2 310 G P G G F G A Adapts Concord, CA 1 1000 P G G G P P B Adapts Concord, CA 1 1000 P G G G P P B

Alaska Destroil Anchorage, AK 1 310 G P G G F G B stops Valdez, AK 2 1000 G G G G P P B Other Thune-Eureka Detroit, Ml 52000 F G G G P P A Adapts Detroit, Ml 2 1000 P G G G P P A

a P = pcor, F = tier, G = good bAvailability is indicated as follows: A= Readily available in moat cases This equipment is mainly government resources of the U S Coast Guard and the U S Navy Coast Guard equipment is baaed at Mobile, AL and Harmlton Air Force Base, CA Navy equipment is primarily based at Williamsburg, VA and Stockton, CA.

B= Equipment which may be available depending on specific equipment needs and circumstances exmtmg at the time of need These assets are mainly held by cooperatives for the convemence of its membership within a defined area erther as a matter of operating or economjc names ity In the case of the former (Such as offshore lease requuements), waivers from governmental entities may have to be obtained, or agreement may be required among the members to cease or reduce operations

SOURCE: Engineering Computer Optecnomics, Inc (ECO), “Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technoi~y Aeeasement, July 19S9. Appendix B–Quantity and Distribution of U.S. Equipment .63

Table B-6- Major Sources of Dispersant Delivery Systems in the United States

Oil treatment a Storage rate comparison capacity Expected Location Platform (gal/rein) (gallons) availability

East Coast Davisville, RI Boat B

Gulf Coast Grand Isle, LA Boat 500 500 B Houma, IA Boat 500 500 B Rockport, TX Boat 500 B Galveston, TX Boat 500 B Chandler, AR DC-4 Less than 8000 B Chandler, AR ADDS/C-130 Less than 8000 2500 A Mesa, AR DC-4 Less than 8000 2500 B West Coast San Pedro, CA Boat 4a Drums B San Pedro, CA Boat c 4a Drums c Santa Barbara, CA Boat c 4a Drums c Santa Barbara, CA Boat c 48 Drums c Santa Barbara, CA Boat 48 Drums B Alaska Anchorage, AK Boat 500 Drums B Anchorage, AK Helicopter 1600 Drums B

a ~URcE: COMDTINST Ml ~ 2, C,OII ~llution Response plannlng Guide for Extreme Weather,”’ Rating mdlcates estimated Performance of the system as a whole, including barriem, support, etc

b Av~lablli~ is mdcatecf ss follows:

A = Readily avatlable m most cases This equipment is mainly government resources of the U S Coast Guard and the U S Navy Coast Guard equipment IS based at Mobile, AL and Hamilton Air Force Base, CA Navy equipment is prlmarlly based at Wllllamsburg, VA and Stockton, CA

B = Equipment which maybe available depending on specific equipment needs and circumstances exlstmg at the time of need These assets are mainly held by cooperatives for the convenience of Its membership wrthln a defined area edher as a matter of opera!lng or economic necessity In the case of the former (Such as offshore lease requirements), waivers from governmental enttttes may have to be obtained, or agreement may be required among the members to cease or reduce operations

C = Resources that may be made available but only within a specified area Equipment that IS permanently installed on a vessel would, for Instance, only be available wtthm that vessel’s areal limitation

c Installed on response vessel

SOURCE: Engmeenng Computer Optecnomlcs, Inc (ECO), “Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assess- ment, July 1989 64 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Table B-7- Alyeska Response Equipment

Since the Exxon Valdez spill incident, Alyeska has substantiality increased the amount of spill response equipment that it has on hand to respond to any future spills. The equipment obtained is listed below. 3 ERVs Escort Response Vessels – ERVs are 210- 1 Lightening Vessel – A 140,000 bbl integrated (Ship Escort) foot converted ocean going, ice (Knowles Head) tug/barge equipped with: strengthened tugs. These vessels have . Fenders twin variable pitch propellers and bow ● 3 Framo salvage pumps thrusters for increased maneuverability. ● Ancillary salvage equipment (hoses, etc.) Each ERV is equipped with: ● Moorings. ● 2 Vikoma Seaskimmer 50’s 2 Storage Barges – (73,000 bbl and 63,000 (nameplate 385 bbl/hr each) (Valdez) bbl). Each equipped with an assortment of: ● 1,600 ft. RoBoom Ocean 2000 on deck reels ● Spill containment booms including ● 3,000 ft. Expandi 4300 Boom Vikoma HI 950 Boom, Scot Boom, Arctic (self inflating) ● 4,000 bbl recovered oil storage capacity. Harbor Boom (total approximately 16,000 ft.) Weir Boom Response Vessel – equipped ● Supersucker pump/skimming systems with: ● Absorbent materials. ● 2 Framo Transec boom/skimmer systems 2 Ship Assist Tugs – Two tugs available for (initially 1 Vikoma weir boom skimming (Valdez)\ r pollution response duties. system - nameplate 4200 bbl/hr) ● 20-foot work boat. Other Resources Available for Spill Response ● 62,000 gallons of dispersant A 180,000 bbl Dynamic Skimming System - ● 2 aerial dispersant applicators (ADDS PACKS) equipped with: ● Dispersant application systems mounted ● 2 Marflex Sweep Arms (nameplate on escort vessels 2100 bbl/hr). ● Fire boon, igniters, and other burning

● A portable communications module ● Reconnaissance aircraft

SOURCE: Aiyeska 1990

Table B-8-Equipment Based at the Oil Spill Response Center, Southampton, U.K.

SOURCE: Oil Spill Responae Cantre, Southampton, Unltad Kngdom, 1969 Appendix B–Quantity and Distribution of U.S. Equipment .65

Table B-8- Equipment Based at the Oil Spill Response Center, Southampton, U.K. (Continued)

Item Quantity Item Quantity 2. Skimmers (continued) 6. Egmolap, heavy oil belt skimmer 1 Sailor VHF Radio Type RT 144,61 channels 3 Clam Shell Skimmer 3 Motorola VHF Radio Type HT 200, 6 channels 6 Heavy Fuel Oil Skimmers, toothed disk Motorola VHF Radio Type MX 300S, 24 channels 6 skimmers 2 Stomo VHF Radio Type 500, 3 channels 2 Heavy Oil Skimmers (medium) 2 Aquastar Radio Telephone Type WP/1, 24 Heavy Oil Skimmer (small) 1 channels 1 Lafayette VHF Scanning Monitor, 7 channels 3 Telescopic Masts, 9m 3 HIAB Jib with power pack 4 Vacuum Box for use with BP Vacuum Head 3 7. 3. Floodlights 2 Zodiac 16 ft. inflatable boat 1 Dunlop Dracone 1D5, capacity 100 tons 1 Avon 12 ft. inflatable boat 1 Dunlop Dracone 1E, capacity 30 tons 1 Alvis Stalwart Amphibious Vehicle 1 Leigh Flexible Pillow Tanks, capacity 25 tons 10 High pressure hot water cleaners 5 Leigh Flexible Pillow Tanks, capacity 12 tons 10 Hipower multipurpose power packs 7 Fastank Storage Unit with liners, capacity 7 tons 17 Bauer Compressor Type 1C40 1 Hoyle P/U Storage Tank, capacity 25 tons 2 Rollalong Mobile Command Center 1 Skimmex Storage Tank, capacity 6 to 7 tons 1 Mini Power Pack, diesel power pack on wheels 5 Skimmex Storage Tank, capacity 2.5 tons 1 Vikoma Pillow Tank, capacity 30,000 liters 2 8. Avon Storage Tank, capacity 25,000 liters 1 45 ft. work boat 1 4. Fast personnel carrier 1 28m training/operation vessel 1 Thune Eureka CCN 100 Pump 2 Air transportable work boat 1 Spate Pump 3B 5 Putzmeister Concrete Pump, screw and ram 9. pump 1 Vikoma Emergency Air Blower for boom Desmi/Destroil Screw Pump 4 inflation 5 Godiva Fire Pump 1 Small air blowers 13 5. Vulcanisers for on-sits boom repair 5 Boom cleaner, Ro-Clean system 1 11 WSL Offshore Spray Unit Mooring buoys, anchors, chains 1 Biggs Wall Wide Spray Unit Rotary hand pump for filling knapsack Rototech TC3 Spray Module 2 dispersant sprayers 2 WSL Inshore Spray Unit 7 Hand pump for liquid transfer 1 Seaguard Pack Super Dispersant Spray Unit 1 Atlas Copco Air Compressor 1 17 Backpack sprayers– Falcon 2 gallons Welding units 3 Falcon 3 gallons 5 Road trailers 3 Gell set unit 1 Fork lift trucks 3 Beach Pump AR-30 2 Ford tractor 1 Beach Pump AR-15 2 Foam generator 1 Additional hose – 70m on reel 11 Video camera/recorder 1 50m on reel 6 Camera and accessories 1 Pillow Tanks, capacity 300 gallons 3 Absorbants, booms, pillows, pads, etc. Aerial Dispersant Delivery System 1

SOURCE: Oil Spill Response Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom, 1989 66 . Coping With an Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies

Table B-9-Petroleum Industry Response Organization: Proposed Capital Equipment for Each of Five Regional Centers Current number Current Item estimated $ estimate

Lightening: Pumps 4 $851,524 Fenders 8 $240,000 Dracones 8 $1,000,000

$1,891,524 Containment boom (ft): Offshore 30,000 $3,974,580 Medium 30,000 $1,917,900 Lightweight 10,000 Skimming barrier 4,000

$5,892,480 Skimmers: Skimming barrier 4 $1,870,000 Other skimmers 14 $2,770,382 Power packs 0 (Included in skimmer cost)

$4,840,382 Dispersant equipment: Adds pack 1 $500,000 Helicopter system 4 $121,080 Dispersant chemical 50,000 $800,000 $1,221,080 Major equipment subtotal $13,845,448 Other: vessels $4,000,000 Office equipment & computers $130,000 ab Bird cleaning $20,000 a Protective boom (lightweight boom) $587,300 Temporary oil storage (Dracones) $1,750,000 Forklifts, compressors, etc. $500,000 a Trailers/cargo containers $380,000 Maintenance shop equipment $25,000 a Vehicles, 4-wheel drive $120,000 a Tractors for trailers $540,000 Pre-stages barges 1,750,000 Other equipment $200,000 Spare parts $800,000

$10,582,300 Other subtotal $10,582,300 Equipment total for one regional center: $24,207,746 Equipment total for five regional centers: $121,038,731 Headquarters office equipment and computers: $130,000 Total capital equipment $121,188,731

a Indicates data not available to allow reprojection of costs b Pll estimate for non-mainframe computers = $2.0 million/regional center SOURCE: Petroleum Industry Response Organization (PIRO), 1990. Appendix B–Quantity and Distribution of U.S. Equipment .67

Table B-10– U.S. Oil Spill Co-Ops

Alaska Clean Seas Clean Islands Council Middletown-Portland Cooperative Pt. Everglades Spillage Cleanup Anchorage, AL Honolulu, HI Portland, CT Ft Lauderdale, FL Altoona Area Industry Clean Seas Miss-Ota-Croix Oil Control Roanoke Valley Mutual Aid Association Carpinteria, CA Coordination Committee Association Altoona, PA St Paul, MN Roanoke, VA Clean Sound Cooperative Arco-Total Cooperative Seattle, WA Montana-Wyoming Oil Control Savannah River Oil Control Traverse City, Ml Coordination Committee Coordinating committee Continental Shelf Associates Laurel, MT Savannah, GA Atlanta Area Terminals Oil Jupiter, FL Doraville, GA Muskegon Tri-Cities Mutual Southeast Wyoming Oil Spill Connecticut River Pollution Assistance Association Cooperative Bi-State Metropolitan Oil Control Committee North Muskegon, Ml Casper, WY Bettendorf, IA Hartford, CT Mutual Assistance Pact-Wichita Stamford West Branch Harbor Boston Harbor Oil Spill Cook Inlet Response Tulsa, OK Association Cooperative Organization Stamford, CT East Boston, MA Nikiski, AK Nashville Mutual Assistance Association Tampa Port Committee for Bridgeport Harbor Pollution Corpus Christi Area Oil Nashville, TN Spillage Control, Inc Abatement Committee Spill control Association Tampa FL Bridgeport, CT Corpus Christi, TX National Fire Protection Association Texas City Harbor Oil Spillage Buffalo River & Harbor Oil Delaware Bay & River Quincy, MA Contingency Program Spill Cooperative Cooperate Texas City, TX Buffalo, NY Lewes, DE Neches River Oil Control committee Thames River petroleum Burlington Harbor Pollution Delaware River Co-Operative Beaumont, TX Cooperative Abatement Committee Philadelphia PA Norwich, CT Montpelier, VT New Haven Harbor Petroleum Detroit Area Industrial Cooperative The Port of Mobile Oil Spill Central New York Oil Spill Mutual Aid New Haven, CT cooperative Cooperative Detroit, Ml Mobile, AL Rochester, NY Norwalk Abatement Committee Evansville Mutual Assistance Norwalk, CT Toledo Harbor Spill Control Central New York Oil Spill Association Committee Containment Evansville, IN Oil City Petroleum Co-op Toledo, OH Rochester, NY Committee Fairfax City Petroleum Oceanside, NY Tri-City Industrial Charleston Industry Liquid Terminals Air & Water Anti-Pollution Committee Spillage Control Conservation & Safety Pensacola Spillage Braintree, MA Committee, Inc Organization Control, Inc North Charleston, SC Fairfax, VA Pensacola, FL Tri-State Pollution Prevention and Cleanup Committee Clean Atlantic Associates Four Corners Area Oil Control Peoria-Tazewell Conservation Charleston, WV New Orleans, LA Coordination Committee Committee Cortez, CO Pekin, IL Tulsa Area Oil Control Committee Clean Bay Tulsa OK Concord, CA Greater Caribbean Energy and Petroleum Committee of Environmental Foundation Sioux Falls for Environmental Ulster/Greene Counties Harbor Clean Caribbean Cooperative Miami, FL Protection Pollution Control Cooperative East Boston, MA Yankton, SD Port Ewen, NY Greater Cincinnati Hazardous Clean Channel Association Material Control Committee Plattsburg-Lake Champlain Oil Utica-Rome Oil Pollution Control Mont Belvieu, TX Cincinnati, OH Spill Control Committee Committee Plattsburgh, NY Marcy, NY Clean Coastal Waters Green Bay Oil Men’s Clean Long Beach, CA Waters Control Board Port of Miami Spillage Vicksburg Association for Clean Cleanup Committee Port & River Clean Gulf Associates Green Bay, WI Miami, FL Vicksburg, MS New Orleans, LA Humboldt Bay Oil Spill Port Manatee Environmental Will-Grundy Industrial Clean Harbors Cooperative Cooperative Protection Association Conservation Committee Perth Amboy, NJ Eureka CA Palmetto, FL Lockport, IL Clean Islands Council Jacksonville Spillage Port of Palm Beach Environmental Honolulu, HI Control, Inc Jacksonville, FL Protection Committee Clean Land & Harbor, Inc Riviera Beach, FL Wilmington, NC Marine Industry Group Gretna LA Port Canaveral/Brevard County Clean Rivers Association Spillage Cleanup Committee, Inc Convent, IA Massachusetts Petroleum Council Cape Canaveral, FL Boston, MA Clean Rivers Cooperative Port Everglades Spillage Portland, OR Memphis Area Petroleum Committee Assistance Association Ft. Lauderdale, FL Clean Rivers/Coos Bay Memphis, TN cooperative Portsmouth Harbor Oil Spill Coos Bay, OR Metro-Milwaukee Petroleum Committee Operations Group Concord, NH Milwaukee, WI

SOURCE: Robert .%hulze, op clt, footnote 5 Appendix C Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many individuals and or- John Teal ganizations in the United States and abroad who Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution shared their special knowledge, expertise, and information with us in the preparation of this study. Peter A. Tebeau We are especially indebted to those who partici- U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development pated in our oil spill countermeasures workshop Center and to those who critiqued our first draft. Ed Tennyson Special thanks go to John S. Lemlin of the Inter- Minerals Management Service national Petroleum Industry Environmental Con- William Walker servation Organization in London, who organized a Naval Sea Systems Command comprehensive series of meetings for us with government and industry organizations responsible for Richard Willis combating oil spills in Europe, and to our gracious Engineering Computer Optecnomics, Inc. hosts in the United Kingdom, France, the Nether- lands, and Norway. Donald B. Wood Exxon Production Research Co. Participants, OTA Workshop on Oil Spill Countermeasures Technology, Other Contributors August 15, 1989 Winy Anderson State Pollution Control Authority (Norway) David Evans National Institute of Standards and James Caldwell Technology RBI, Inc. Mervin Fingas Wayne Becker Environment Canada U.S. Coast Guard Jack R. Gould Ken Blower American Petroleum Institute British Petroleum International, Ltd. Gerald Greener (London, U. K.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Simon Bommelje Stuart A. Horn Texaco Petroleum (Netherlands) Mobil Oil Corp. Charles Bookman Don Kash National Research Council University of Oklahoma “ Larry Coker Virgil Keith Exxon Chemical Co. Engineering Computer Optecnomics, Inc. John D. Costello James T. Leigh PIRO Implementation, Inc. Delaware Bay & River Cooperative Jack Mortenson David Creole Clean Bay, Concord, California U.S. Coast Guard Jim O’Brien Brian Dicks OOPS, Inc. ITOPF, Ltd. (London, U. K.) M. Ruud Ouwerkerk Dennis Dooley IHC Dredge Technology Corp. Alaska Oil Spill Commission

68 Appendix C–Acknowledgments .69

Mike Emge Marthe Melguen U.S. Coast Guard CEDRE (France) Tony Greenwood T.H. Moller Esso U.K. (London, U. K.) ITOPF, Ltd. (London, U. K.) John Gregory Alan Molyneux Minerals Management Service Texaco (Belgium) Amy R. Hammer Hugh Parker Exxon Corp. ITOPF, Ltd. (London, U. K.) Biff Holt Walter Parker U.S. Coast Guard Alaska Oil Spill Commission Steve Hobkinson Georges Peigne Vikoma International, Ltd. (Cowes, U. K.) CEDRE (France) Kurt Jakobson Tormod Petterson Esso Norge as. (Norway) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brent Pyburn Donald S. Jensen BP International Ltd. (Southampton, U. K.) U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center Keith C. Reynolds Vikoma International Ltd. (Cowes, U. K.) Jan Lane U.S. Department of Energy Nabil Saad Exxon Chemical Co. Capt. R.M. Larrabee U.S. Coast Guard Daniel F. Sheehan U.S. Coast Guard Martin Lee Congressional Research Service Lisa Speer Natural Resources Defense Council John S. Lemlin International Petroleum Industry Robert Steele Environmental Conservation Association Exxon Production Research Co. (London, U. K.) Widar Skogly Doug Lentsch Norsk Oljevernforening For Operatorselskap U.S. Coast Guard (Norway) D.W. Lerch Joseph Stahovec MARCO Pollution Control Naval Sea Systems Command M.D. Long Jan Thorman Oil Spill Service Centre (Southampton, U. K.) Minerals Management Service Ottar Longva Bernard Tramier State Pollution Control Authority (Norway) Elf Aquitaine (France) Ron Maccaroni Marjorie Walsh U.S. General Accounting Office Exxon Chemical Co. Hamish McLeod Robert Williams Department of Transport (London, U. K.) Novatec, Inc. Jim Makris Ian C. White U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ITOPF, Ltd. (London, U. K.) Appendix D Acronyms

API American Petroleum Institute OHMSETT Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test CEC Commission of European Communities Tank CEDRE Center for Documentation, OSR Oil Spill Response Ltd. Research, and Experimentation on (Southampton, U. K.) Accidental Pollution (France) OSC On-Scene Coordinator DOT Department of Transportation PIRO Petroleum Industry Response DOI Department of the Interior Organization EPA Environmental Protection Agency USCG United States Coast Guard MPCU Marine Pollution Control Unit SPCA State Pollution Control Authority (United Kingdom) (Norway) MMS Minerals Management Service VOSS Vessel-of-Opportunity Skimming NOFO Norwegian Clean Seas Association Systems for Operating Companies (Norway)