Oct 19, 2016 - Clarify the definition of âstorageâ status for tankers on the water.1 d. Analyze the ...... primary s
Salish Sea Workshop Participant Handbook October 18‐19, 2016 Bellingham, Washington
1
Table of Contents
1. Workshop Agenda…………………………………………………………….……………….. 3 2. Workshop Background, Goal, and Scope…………………………………………….. 7
3. Introduction to Prevention Risk Mitigation Measure Table………………....8 4. Prevention Risk Mitigation Measure Table …………………………………….…...9 5. Puget Sound 2015 Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment (VTRA) ……..………….16 6. List of Invited Participants …………………………………………………………………17 7. List of Speakers ………………………………………………………………………………...20 8. Actionable Recommendation Implementation Template …………….……21 9. Background Information a. US/Canadian Safety Comparison Table …………………………………....22 b. Traffic Separation Lanes and Salish Sea Traffic Network…………… 23 c. NOAA Charts 18400 and 18440………………………………….….………….25 d. Existing Mitigation Measures ……………………………………….………..…27 e. Ecology Oil Movement Map ……………………………………………………. 29 f. January 2015 Handbook ……………………………………………………………30 10.
Appendix 1: Non‐ Prevention Risk Mitigation Measure Table….…31
2
SALISH SEA RISK MITIGATION WORKSHOP
Whatcom County Emergency Coordination Center 3888 Sound Way Bellingham, WA 98226
October 18‐19, 2016 8 am to 5:30 pm (Oct 18) 8 am to 4:30 pm (Oct 19)
Workshop Goal Develop and agree upon specific actionable recommendations and associated implementation strategies to address the 5‐10 highest priority prevention‐focused risk mitigation measures for reducing and further preventing oil spills from vessel traffic in the Salish Sea.
Workshop Objectives
1. Develop a common understanding of any changes in risk related to changes in vessel traffic since the January 2015 workshop, (e.g. VTRA 2015 results and impact on vessel traffic from the export ban lift, changes in crude by rail, and new pipeline projects, etc.). 2. Review, revise and agree to potential prevention‐focused risk mitigation measures. 3. Evaluate and prioritize risk mitigation measures. 4. For the 5‐10 highest priority mitigation measures, develop detailed “actionable” recommendations. 5. Get participant commitment to: a. Support the results of the workshop. b. Participate in the next step of the implementation process. c. Identify champions to move recommendations forward. d. Advocate for the workshop recommendations in their daily work.
DAY 1
8:00 WELCOME ‐ Lummi Nation 8:30 SAFETY BRIEFING AND ECOLOGY WELCOME – Dale Jensen, Program Manager, WA State Dept. of Ecology Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program 8:40 WORKSHOP OVERVIEW – Lisa Dally Wilson, Dally Environmental, and Hilary Wilkinson, Veda Environmental, Workshop Facilitators Workshop goals and objectives
3
Agenda Review Meeting ground rules, sideboards, and decision making approach
8:50 TRIBAL AND FIRST NATIONS VIEWS ON WATERWAY RISK 9:15 CURRENT STATE OF THE WATERWAY: THE EXISTING RISK/SAFETY PICTURE AND HOW IT IS BEING ADDRESSED (Where are we now) US Coast Guard –Captain M. W. (Joe) Raymond, USCG, Sector Commander, Sector Puget Sound Transport Canada – Michael Wallace, Transport Canada BC Coast Pilots – Brian Young or Representative, Pacific Pilotage Authority Puget Sound Pilots – Captain David Grobschmit or Representative, Puget Sound Pilots WA State – Scott Ferguson, Prevention Section Manager, WA State Dept. of Ecology Spill Program 10:30 BREAK 10:45 FUTURE STATE OF THE WATERWAY: WHAT IS THE PROJECTED RISK/SAFETY PICTURE (Where are we headed) Key findings from 2015 Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment (VTRA), Scott Ferguson, Spill Prevention Manager, and Brian Kirk, Marine Risk Management Lead, WA Dept. of Ecology Current trends in vessel traffic, Captain Mike Moore, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), Bonnie Gee, Vice President, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia Facilitated Discussion and Q/A 12:15 WORKING LUNCH 12:45 RISK MITIGATION MEASURES: Background, Context, Overview Key outcomes and findings from Jan. 2015 Salish Sea Risk Mitigation Workshop – Scott Ferguson, Spills Prevention Manager, WA Dept. of Ecology Overview – Process/Methodology/Approach for Identifying Risk Mitigation Measures (RMMs), Sarah Brace, Veda Environmental RMM prioritization process for workshop participants, Lisa Dally Wilson, Dally Environmental and Hilary Wilkinson, Veda Environmental Q/A 1:30 RISK MITIGATION MEASURE (RMM) PRIORITIZATION Participants self‐select to breakout groups by RMM topic area including:
4
1. Anchorage o Anchorage for Laden Tankers o Tankers as Floating Storage o Anchorage Locations 2. Bunker/Oil Transfer o Bunker Standards of Care o Bunker Practices o Advance Notice of Transfer 3. General Waterways Management o Designated Fishing Areas o Other Waterways Management o Pier Design and Operations o Equipment and Construction Standards o Aids to Navigation o Pending Risk Reduction Measures o Pilotage Standards 4. Vessel Movement o Vessel Speed o Future Waterway Planning o Vessel Tracking and Routing o 125K DWT Restriction in Puget Sound o Watch Operations 5. Tug/Escort o Escort Requirements o Cross‐border response tug 6. Coordination and Information Sharing o Transboundary Coordination o Data Sharing and Management o Education and Outreach Breakout group assignment: Review/discuss RMMs, clarify, revise Prioritize RMMs 3:15 BREAK 3:45 BREAKOUT GROUPS REPORT BACK AND LARGE GROUP Q&A Major changes to list of RMMs Prioritization results 5:15 OVERVIEW OF DAY TWO
5
5:30 ADJOURN
DAY 2
8:00 WELCOME – ANNOUNCEMENTS AND AGENDA OVERVIEW 8:15 REVIEW DAY ONE OUTCOMES Review High Priority RMMs by Category Resulting from Day 1 Breakout Sessions Large Group Discussion Q&A 9:00 PRIORITIZE HIGH PRIORITY RMMs ACROSS ALL RMM CATEGORIES Large group exercise 10:00 BREAK 10:15 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND BREAKOUT GROUPS BY HIGH PRIORITY RISK MITIGATION MEASURE Participants self‐select to breakout groups for each of the 5‐10 top ranking RMMs based on expertise and interest Breakout group assignment: Clarify RMM and define as a recommendation(s) Discuss strategies to implement the RMM recommendation(s) Complete Implementation Worksheet for the RMM recommendation(s) 12:15 NETWORKING LUNCH 1:15 BREAKOUT GROUPS REPORT BACK AND LARGE GROUP DISCUSSION 3:15 BREAK 3:30 SUMMARIZE RESULTS OF WORKSHOP 4:00 NEXT STEPS AND FOLLOWUP (Ecology) 4:30 ADJOURN
6
Workshop Background, Goal and Scope
Background: In January, 2015, Ecology held a workshop in which stakeholders identified seven categories of risk for oil spills associated with vessel traffic patterns in the Salish Sea. Within each category, participants identified specific risk factors and began the process of identifying mitigation measures to address each risk factor. The 2016 workshop will build and expand upon the 2015 effort, incorporating new recommendations from studies and efforts that have occurred in the nearly two years that have passed since January 2015. The workshop is being held in the Whatcom County Emergency Operations Center. Attendance will include representatives from a broad spectrum of governmental organizations from Washington State, the United States, British Columbia, Canada, Tribal Nations, First Nations, and from the marine industry, environmental advocacy groups, and other interested stakeholders.
Workshop Goal: Develop and agree upon specific actionable recommendations and associated implementation strategies to address the 5‐10 highest priority prevention‐focused risk mitigation measures for reducing and further preventing oil spills from vessel traffic in the Salish Sea.
Workshop Scope: This workshop will concentrate on prevention‐focused risk mitigation measures that will help reduce the risk of oil spills from vessel traffic in the Salish Sea. Examples of risk mitigation measure topics that will be addressed in this workshop include: anchorages, bunkering and oil transfers, general waterways management, vessel movement, tug escorts, and collaboration and information sharing. While recognizing their importance to the overall issue of vessel risk in the Salish Sea, this particular workshop will not address the following topics: Acceptability of vessel‐related risk. Permitting, environmental impact statement/environmental assessment processes, or acceptability of existing and proposed facility projects. Spill response capability, preparedness, and planning. Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of vessel‐related spills. Limiting the scope of the workshop agenda will allow participants to focus on developing actionable prevention‐focused recommendations for reducing and further preventing oil spills from vessel traffic in the Salish Sea.
7
Introduction to the Prevention Risk Mitigation Measure Table The following table contains over 75 Risk Mitigation Measures (RMMs) for the prevention of oil spills from vessels. The RMMs were compiled from prevention recommendations provided in 15 sources including reports, environmental impact studies, risk assessments, and workshops. A complete list of RMM sources reviewed is provided at the end of the table. Within the table, each RMM is sorted into one of six broad categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Anchorage Bunker/Oil Transfer General Waterways Management Vessel Movement Tug/escort Coordination and Information Sharing
For each category, a specific subcategory of this activity is provided (see underlined text) and includes a bulleted list of discrete recommendations that address the specific subcategory. These recommendations were pulled directly from the resources reviewed; the resources are referenced in the Prevention RMM table to provide insight into the genesis of each specific recommendation. The prevention RMMs in this table will be the focus of the 2016 Salish Sea workshop on October 18 and 19th. A second table of RMMs addressing non‐prevention recommendations (preparedness and response) is provided in Appendix 1. These RMMs will not be included in the 2016 Salish Sea Workshop discussion and are provided in this handbook for reference only.
8
Salish Sea Workshop 2016 –Risk Mitigation Measures for Oil Spill
Prevention
RMM Category # 1
1
1
2
2
2
RMM Category
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Bunker/Oil Transfer
Bunker/Oil Transfer
Bunker/Oil Transfer
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures Anchorage for Laden Tankers: a. Require tankers to specify when they are laden when making an anchorage reservation with VTS and track this information for reference and use in future risk assessments.1 Tankers as floating storage: b. Analyze data to characterize anchorage usage with regard to tanker storage and other use. 1 c. Clarify the definition of “storage” status for tankers on the water. 1 d. Analyze the risk from the practices of multiple berthing, partial discharging, and anchoring of tankers carrying oil. Consider whether these practices should be eliminated with the exception of case‐by‐case situations, such as when facility operations require floating storage or partial discharges or when sailing offshore would increase the risk of a spill. 2 Anchorage Locations: e. Consider establishing more anchorages to reduce congestion (away from ferry lanes). 1 f. Require vessels to avoid anchoring and conducting vessel operations in particularly sensitive environmental and culturally important areas. The Harbor Safety Committee's Anchoring Standard of Care can be referenced when developing this requirement. 1 Bunker Standards of Care: a. Ensure that the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Plan Bunkering Standard of Care is regularly updated. 1 Bunker practices: b. Investigate ways to minimize transits between bunkering locations and final locations. 1 c. Evaluate limiting or moving bunkering activities to locations where enhanced prevention and preparedness capabilities exist or could be established. 2 Advance Notice of Transfer: d. Expand Advance Notice of Transfer (ANT) reporting requirements to include:4 1. Type of crude oil being transferred. 2. Name of tug towing barge, and if it is laden. 3. Destination of outbound crude.
9
RMM Category # 3
RMM Category General Waterways Management
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures Designated Fishing Areas: a. Designate areas for fishing between shipping lanes and piers. 1
3
General Waterways Management
Other Waterways Management b. Encourage ship owners to provide redundancy in the design of their vessels. 5,6 c. Expand government patrol vessels to police safety in narrow shipping lanes. 7 d. Employ moving safety zones around tankers, particularly if implemented in conjunction with mandatory AIS. 7
3
General Waterways Management
Pier design and operations: e. Examine pier design adequacy for larger vessels. 1 f. Examine adequacy of dock/transfer mechanism, and bollards for use with larger vessels. 1
3
General Waterways Management
3
General Waterways Management
3
General Waterways Management
Equipment and construction standards: g. Require that newly constructed and expanded facilities implement ship vetting procedures or contractual agreements with shippers calling at their docks. This could occur through a process such as the project permitting process. This vetting could include a check on compliance with IMO Oil Fuel Tank Protection requirements for independent fuel tanks. 2 h. Require inert gas systems on barges carrying volatile oil as is required for oil tankers to prevent explosions. 4 Aids to navigation: i. Install lighted ranges in key locations to indicate if a ship is travelling on a safe course over ground, or staying within the appropriate traffic lane. Each range would consist of a pair of fixed lights onshore, that, when visually aligned, indicate a preferred line of approach. More specifically, optimal course headings to and from terminals in the Cherry Point area and the Southern Strait of Georgia using Rosario Strait could be marked by: 3 1. Range lights placed on Blakely Island and Lummi Island for the leg from Buoy “C” to Lydia Shoal. 2. Range lights on Orcas Island for the leg between Lydia Shoal and Cape St. Mary. 3. Range lights on Burrows Island for the leg from Cape St. Mary to Davidson Rock. j. Install additional traffic separation buoys in mid‐channel to divide inbound and outbound traffic. 3 k. Place additional aids to navigation in Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and Rosario Strait to enhance vessel safety in the area. 3 l. Assess Duncan/Duntze Rock nav. aid(s). 3 Pending Risk Reduction Measures m. Model pending IMO/USCG enhancements, including increased AIS Carriage, VTS upgrades (PAWSS), protected fuel tanks, 46 CFR Subchapter M impacts, fishing vessel inspections. 14
10
RMM Category #
RMM Category
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures Pilotage Standards: n. Ensure robust pilotage recruitment. 1 o. Coordinate cross‐border standards for piloting. 1 p. Require vessels to provide pilots with bollard pull certifications, see BC pilot requirements as an example. 1 q. Two pilots should be assigned to all loaded tankers and maintain a combined oversight of the vessel's bridge and her movements. r. Ensure ships should have adequate towing capability in an emergency.
3
General Waterways Management
4
Vessel speed: a. Consider requiring a reduction in speed for larger container ships, potentially to a max speed of 17 knots. 1,5,6,10 b. Analyze the impact of restricting speed for containerships (and other large vessels), to reduce the likelihood of collisions in congested areas. 2 Vessel Movement c. Employ a voluntary speed reduction program in Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and Rosario Strait. 3 d. Require vessel speed reductions to reduce noise exposure to Southern Resident Killer whales, particularly in their critical habitat. e. Require tank vessel wind restriction. 10
4
Future Waterway Planning: f. Establish a long‐term waterways management plan to accommodate increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea. 2 Vessel Movement g. Establish an appropriate vessel traffic service for the waterways of Grays Harbor, Columbia River, and the outer coast. 2
4
Vessel Tracking and Routing: h. Develop Preliminary Area Transit (PAT) Plans to provide VTS with a rudimentary plan for transiting the area using real‐time traffic information. VTS would not approve or reject submitted plans, but would use the information to compare a vessel’s intended transit with the intended transits of other vessels, thereby enabling VTS to identify potential traffic conflicts well in advance of their development in reality. 3 i. Continue VTS Puget Sound software upgrade to the Port and Waterways Safety Vessel Movement System (PAWSS) 2.2. j. Consider one way traffic management practices for Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, portions of Georgia Strait, and Rosario Strait for vessel types to include oil barge towing operations. k. Consider one way traffic management practices for ATBs in Rosario. 5 l. Require that all vessels have AIS Transponders. 7 m. Require tugs to update their AIS signal to indicate whether they are towing a barge and if it is laden. 4
11
RMM Category #
RMM Category
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures 125,000 DWT Restriction
n. Remove 125,000 DWT restriction in Puget Sound. 14 4
Vessel Movement
4
Watch operations: o. Require two‐person lookout during RNA or reduced visibility operations. 1 Vessel Movement p. Double oil barge watch. 5
5
Tug/escort
Escort Requirements: a. Require tug escorts for specific classes of vessels or locations such as: 1. All vessels > 40,000 DWT with tethering. 5 2. Articulated Tug Barges (ATBs) over 40,000 DWT with tethering. 1 3. Vessels Panamax and larger in Puget Sound. 3 4. Cape Class bulk carriers on Haro and Rosario routes. 5,6 5. Cape Class bulk carriers, laden tankers, & ATB in Rosario. 5,6 6. All vessels (tankers, barges, ATBs) carrying toxic cargo (e.g., toluene, diluents, diluted bitumen). 1,3 7. Priority 1 Transits as rated by the USCG Port State Control. 11 b. Require double tug escorts for specific classes of vessels or locations such as: 1. Laden tankers. 5,6 2. All liquid bulk carriers, regardless of commodity. 1 3. Vessels in Boundary Pass/Haro Strait/ Strait of Georgia/East Point. 5 c. Identify high risk vessels (tanker > 40,000 DWT, non‐protected bunker tanks…) and develop tethered tug escort requirements and standards for “high risk” vessels, based on the probability of human error or mechanical failure. 1 d. Analyze the effectiveness of a pre‐positioned ERTV(s), stationed in the vicinity of Turn Point at the junction of Haro Strait and Boundary Pass, near the entrance to Grays Harbor, and the mouth of the Columbia River. 2 e. Escort towed oil barges and ATBs carrying greater than 5,000 long tons of oil as cargo, throughout entire Puget Sound east of Port Angeles. 14 f. Escort Kinder Morgan tankers to Buoy J. 14
12
RMM Category #
5
6
6
RMM Category
Tug/escort
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures Cross‐border response tug: g. Pre‐position a cross‐border rescue tug for Haro Strait/Boundary Pass. 1,3, 14 h. Review and edit escort requirements so that they are consistent across the Canadian/US border for Boundary Pass/Haro Strait/ Strait of Georgia/East Point and coordinate US/Canadian bilateral standards for tug escorts (tethered vs. non‐ tethered). 1 i. Evaluate cross‐border response tug constraints. 1 j. Station an Emergency Response Towing Vessel in the San Juan Islands to prevent spills, especially of diluted bitumen, that is sufficiently sized to prevent a vessel from drift grounding. 3,7 k. Equip potential towing vessels with equipment necessary to perform free‐oil recovery. 10 l. Designate tug loitering areas. 1
Coordination and Information sharing
Transboundary Coordination: a. Establish a Transboundary Harbor Safety Committee. 8,12 b. Locate a funding source for cross‐border meetings about risk analysis. 1 c. Re‐establish the Sea Use Council, created in 1969, to facilitate dialogue on marine issues between the United States and Canada in the Northwest. 4 d. Use the United States /Canada International Joint Commission (IJC; www.ijc.org) to deal with United States / Canadian transboundary topics. 8 e. Develop method for United States /Canada sharing of bunkering best practices. 1 f. Require consistent classification of commercial vessel types datasets created by the Coast Guard in the United States and Canada to facilitate future analysis.
Coordination and Information sharing
Data sharing and management: g. Ensure that incident data distinguishes between bunkering vessels and towing vessels. 1 h. Standardize the definitions of vessel incidents in the Salish Sea to help facilitate USCG and CCG marine casualty information sharing and data compatibility. 1 i. Increase transparency and sharing of waterway incident data between the United States and Canada. 1 j. Apply collaboration lesson learned from the ship rider program to the spill prevention mission. 1 k. Share advanced notice of transfer (ANT) information with all areas. 1 l. Develop an electronic cross‐boundary data system for vessel traffic information in which vessel type is consistently defined and verified. This data system should also include information about cargo type and volume. 15
13
RMM Category #
6
RMM Category
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures
Coordination and Information sharing
Education and outreach m. Notify the US Coast Guard Captain of the Port when and where there are fishery openings (examine possibility of making notifications earlier than current practice). 1 n. Notify ferries of the locations of fishing nets. 1 o. Educate fishermen on maneuverability/visibility of large vessels, including ferries.1 p. Require/encourage fisherman to use radar reflectors and participate in AIS. 1 q. Require training and certification of watch keepers on fishing vessels. 1 r. Enhance Rule 9 and 10 compliance by balancing with tribal treaty rights, considering AIS requirement for all vessels, and continuing strong Harbor Safety Committee commitment to encouraging compliance. 1 s. Engage local government, tribes, and citizens to establish a forum to engage and involve those interested in oil spill prevention and response planning. 10 t. Encourage local government, tribes, and interested citizens to participate in Harbor Safety Committee and Area Committee meetings. 10
14
Prevention Risk Mitigation Measure Resources Below is a list of the resources reviewed in the development of the Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures Table. The superscript numbers adjacent to the RMMs in the table indicate the resource from which they originated. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. 13.
14. 15.
Salish Sea Workshop: Vessel Oil Spill Risk Assessment & Management Summary, 2015 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1508010.pdf Pages 532‐570 Washington State Department of Ecology, 2015, Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1508010.pdf Glosten Associates, 2014, Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) Vessel Traffic and Risk Assessment Study. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/gatewaypacific/20141104‐GPT‐VesselTrafficRiskAssessment‐Glosten.pdf Felleman, Fred, 2016, Tar Sands/Dilbit Crude Oil Movements Within the Salish Sea. https://www.scribd.com/doc/310599877/Tar‐Sands‐Dilbit‐CRUDE‐OIL‐Movments‐Within‐the‐SALISH‐SEA‐Tar‐Sands‐Report Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment Study, 2010 (“VTRA 2013 Tiered” and “VTRA 2013 Vote” RMMs) http://www.psp.wa.gov/oilspills.php Det Norske Veritas, 2013, General Risk Analysis and Intended Methods of Reducing Risks, Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project. Badger, Chris, 2014, Report on the findings of the Pilotage Risk Management Methodology (PRMM) to assess the Use of Escort Tugs in Haro St and Boundary Pass for Liquid Bulk Vessels, In Product, less than 40,000 SDWT, Project No: PPA2013‐0 Gaydos J.K., Thixton S., and Donatuto J., 2015, Evaluating Threats in Multinational Marine Ecosystems: A Coast Salish First Nations and Tribal Perspective. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0144861. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144861 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144861 Committee on the Effects of Diluted Bitumen on the Environment, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, and National Academies of Science , Engineering, and Medicine, 2016, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21834/spills‐of‐diluted‐bitumen‐from‐pipelines‐a‐comparative‐study‐of Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC, 2015, San Juan County Oil Spill Response Capacity Evaluation. Report to San Juan County. http://nukaresearch.com/images/150630_SJC_Oil_Spill_Evaluation_FINAL_w_APPENDICES.pdf National Center Associates, 2000, North Puget Sound Long‐Term Oil Spill Risk Management Panel Final Report and Recommendations. Publication NO. 00‐08‐21 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0008024.pdf Department of Ecology, 2011, Improving Spill Prevention and Response in Washington State. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/studies_reports/ecypspreview‐dwhcommissionreport.html Houghton J, Holt MM, Giles DA, Hanson MB, Emmons CK, Hogan JT, et al. ,2015, The Relationship between Vessel Traffic and Noise Levels Received by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). PLoS ONE 10(12): e0140119. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140119 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140119 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment Study, 2015. Van Dorp, Johan Rene and Jason Merrick, 2014, VTRA 2010 Final Report – Preventing Oil Spills from Large Ships and Barges in Northern Puget Sound & Strait of Juan de Fuca. https://www.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/VTRA/PSP/FINAL%20REPORT/PSP%20FINAL%20REPORT%20033114%20‐ %20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY%20‐%20%20WITH%20LABEL%20CORRECTION%20‐%20REDUCED.pdf
15
Puget Sound 2015 Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment (VTRA)
The Puget Sound 2015 VTRA updates the 2010 VTRA study, which was conducted by George Washington University/Virginia Commonwealth University (GWU/VCU) for the Makah Tribe and Puget Sound Partnership (see Prevention RMM Resource 15). The 2015 VTRA is sponsored by Washington Department of Ecology, and is being performed by GWU/VCU. The purpose of the 2015 VTRA is to maintain the usefulness of the VTRA model, and to inform recommendations and actions by federal, state, tribal, and local governments; industry; environmental groups; and the public to reduce the potential for oil spills in the Puget Sound. The study began in March, 2016, and the final report will be complete by December, 2016. A workgroup consisting of members of the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee has met regularly throughout the study period to provide tribal and stakeholder input. The study process included creating a “base case” of 2015 vessel traffic; updating potential future scenarios from the 2010 VTRA; defining new potential future scenarios to examine the possible impact of vessel traffic increases; and defining risk mitigation measures to gain insight about how the risk of oil spills might be reduced. The 2015 base case used Automatic Identification System (AIS) data from the Marine Exchange of Puget Sound to establish current traffic levels. The 2015 VTRA workgroup agreed on a suite of proposed terminal projects in the US and Canada to include in the model, resulting in an assumed increase of 1,600 “focus vessels” (tankers and cargo ships). The 2015 VTRA workgroup met in August to define risk mitigation measures, and reached consensus on a portfolio of four measures for GWU to model. Ecology modified one of the RMMs and added a fifth RMM to gain additional analysis. While conducting the modeling runs, GWU/VCU created a separate portfolio of three RMMs that they selected. The RMMs modeled in the 2015 VTRA are shown below. Five RMM Portfolio: Combination of International Maritime Organization and USCG improvements to vessel safety and vessel traffic management (protected fuel tanks for cargo vessels, 46 CFR Subchapter M) Rescue tug for Haro Strait/Boundary Pass Hypothetical removal of the 125,000 deadweight ton restriction on tankers in Puget Sound Tug escort requirement for towed oil barges east of Port Angeles (modified to include escort of Articulated Tug Barges) Escort of laden tankers from the Westridge Terminal to the Strait of Juan de Fuca entrance Three RMM Portfolio: Protected fuel tanks for cargo vessels 17 knot speed restriction for container vessels Two rescue tugs for Haro Strait/Boundary Pass GWU/VCU are completing analysis of RMMs and drafting the 2015 VTRA report. Preliminary results of the RMM analysis will be discussed during the workshop.
16
Invited Participants
Participation in the Salish Sea Workshop was by invitation. The aim was to get a broad representation of technical experts on vessel oil spill risk assessment and management on a multi‐national basis. Invitations were sent to representatives from Tribal and First Nation governments, US and Canadian government officials, Washington State and BC officials, industry, and non‐governmental organizations involved in environmental advocacy. The invited participants are shown in the table below. Participants Invited to the 2016 Salish Sea Workshop Entity Type US Duwamish Hoh River Jamestown S’Klallam Lower Elwa Klallam Lummi Makah Muckleshoot Nisqually Nooksack Northwest Indian College Northwest Indian Fisheries Comm. Point No Point Treaty Council Port Gamble S’Klallam Puyallup Tribal/First Nations Quileute Governments Quinault Samish Sauk‐Suiattle Skokomish Snohomish Snoqualmie Squaxin Steilacoom Stillaguamish Suquamish Swinomish Tulalip Upper Skagit Yakama
Canada
Beecher Bay Cowichan Ditidaht Esquimalt Haida Malahat Pacheedaht Tsawout Tsleil‐Waututh
17
Participants Invited to the 2016 Salish Sea Workshop Entity Type US Alaska Ferries City of Bellingham City of Seattle Kitsap County NOAA Emergency Response NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Puget Sound Partnership San Juan County Council Government Senator Cantwell’s Office Agencies Skagit County US Army Corps of Engineers US Coast Guard Utilities & Transportation Comm. WA Department of Ecology WA Department of Natural Resources WA Department of Transportation Washington State Ferries Whatcom County Citizens for a Healthy Bay Evergreen Islands Friends of the Earth Friends of the San Juans Georgia Strait Alliance Green Marine LIO representatives from: Non‐Governmental Organizations
Island County South Central Area West Central Sound Whatcom County Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Canada
BC Ministry of Environment Canadian Coast Guard Canadian Consulate City of Vancouver City of Victoria Environment Canada National Energy Board Transport Canada
Clear Seas Center for Responsible Marine Shipping Islands Trust
Northwest Straits Commission Pacific States/BC Task Force Pipeline Safety Trust Puget Sound Keepers Alliance The Nature Conservancy Washington Environmental Council
18
Participants Invited to the 2016 Salish Sea Workshop Entity Type US Alaska Tanker Company American Waterways Operators BNSF BP Cherry Point BP Shipping Chevron Crowley Petroleum ExxonMobil Foss Maritime Global Diving and Salvage Harley Marine Services Holland America Maritime Fire & Safety Association Moran Shipping Agencies Northwest Seaport Alliance Olympic Tug & Barge Pacific Merchant Shipping Assoc. Polar Tankers Port of: Industry
Bellingham Everett Anacortes Grays Harbor Olympia Port Angeles Seattle Tacoma
Canada
Pacific Pilotage Authority BC Chamber of Shipping Council of Marine Carriers Island Tug & Barge Kinder Morgan Port of Metro Vancouver Seaspan Smit Marine Suncor Western Canada Marine Response Corp
Puget Sound Marine Exchange Puget Sound Pilots SeaRiver Maritime Shell Puget Sound Refinery Shell Shipping SSA Marine/Gateway Pacific Term. Targa Tesoro US Oil WA State Maritime Cooperative Washington Public Ports Assoc. WA State Petroleum Assoc. Witt O’Briens
19
List of Invited Speakers
Agenda Item Welcome
Speakers Lummi Nation Dale Jensen, WA State Dept. of Ecology
Current State Of The Waterway: The Existing Risk/Safety Picture And How It Is Being Addressed
Captain M. W. (Joe) Raymond, USCG Sector Puget Sound Michael Wallace, Transport Canada Brian Young, Pacific Pilotage Authority David Grobschmit, Puget Sound Pilots Scott Ferguson, WA State Dept. of Ecology
Future State Of The Waterway: What Is The Projected Risk/Safety Picture
Mike Moore, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Bonnie Gee, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
20
Actionable Recommendation Implementation Template
Recommendation Title:
Description of Recommendation:
Intent of Recommendation:
Implementing Process (e.g., Harbor Safety Committee, Area Committee Task Force, CVTS JCG)
Applicable Geographic Area:
Expected Timeline to Implement:
Recommended Implementation Strategies: o o o o
Next Steps to Implementation: o o o o o
Recommendation Champion (Name and Organization):
21
Background Information ‐US/Canadian Safety System Comparison (Excerpt from Marine and Rail Study Page 529) U.S. /Washington State Tug escorts for all loaded tankers inbound and outbound Tug escorts required by State and federal law, enforced by USCG and state; Rules leave it up to master/pilot to decide when to tether the tug and ship; All escorts must be in position for timely, effective response. When deemed appropriate by master/pilot to tether, geographic areas include but not limited to: Rosario Strait, Guemes Channel, Turn Point of Haro Strait/Boundary Pass, between Saddlebag and Huckleberry I. One pilot required on all ships transiting east of Port Angeles USCG/STCW3 Safe Manning: Two licensed officers and two AB seamen Tanker speed 11 knots in congested waters, cannot exceed tugs
Canada Tug escorts only for loaded crude oil tankers (outbound)1
Gap In Canada, product tankers do not require a tug escort
Tug escorts through negotiated voluntary standards, enforced by BC pilots
Essentially none. Rules imposed by Canada’s Pacific Pilotage Authority,2 but no specific Canadian law; Canadian government agency
Two pilots required east of Victoria for loaded tankers STCW Safe Manning: Two licensed officers and two AB seamen Tanker speed 10 knots
Tanker size limited to 125,000 DWT east of Port Angeles; larger tankers accepted if not loaded beyond 125,000 MT
No tanker size limitation
Oil handling operations require booming prior to transfer (“pre‐booming”)
Pre‐booming not required
Vessel Traffic Service & Special Operating Areas
Vessel Traffic Service & Special Operating Areas
Standby response tug required
No response tug required
Tankers double‐hulled
Tankers double‐hulled
None None None Larger capacity tankers may transit Canadian waters, though there is no current or planned terminal capacity to accommodate larger tankers Oil transfers in Canada not mandated to be boomed, though it is terminal requirement None. Jointly operated by U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards Canada has no response tug requirement None
1
Note that a tethered-tug is required between 2 nm north of East Point and Broche Pacific Pilotage Authority is a Canadian federal government agency. 3 Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping. The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (or STCW), 1978 sets qualification standards for masters, officers and watch personnel on seagoing merchant ships. STCW was adopted in 1978 by conference at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, and entered into force in 1984. The Convention was significantly amended in 1995. 2
22
Background Information – Salish Sea Traffic Network (Excerpt from Marine and Rail Study Page 527)
Vessel Traffic Separation Lanes
23
Background Information – Salish Sea Traffic Network (Excerpt from Marine and Rail Study Page 528)
Salish Sea Traffic Network
24
Background Information – NOAA Chart 18400
25
Background Information – NOAA Chart 18440
26
Background Information ‐ Existing mitigation measures in the Salish Sea (Excerpt from Marine and Rail Study Page 498‐499, Adapted from Cardno Entrix 2014.) It is important to understand existing measures to prevent marine accidents in the Salish Sea when discussing further protections that should be implemented. Existing protections include: Vessel certification by U.S. Coast Guard.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90) requirements: o Double hulls on tankers. o Oil spill contingency and response plan with response‐trained crew on board. o Financial liability. Limitations on tankers of greater than 125,000 Deadweight Ton (DWT), a measure of how much weight a ship is carrying, in the U.S. waters of the greater Puget Sound: o U.S. ‐flagged vessels of greater than 125,000 DWT may enter Puget Sound and transit into Puget Sound if an additional load line had been established on the vessel’s hull indicating the waterline with a loaded cargo of up to 125,000 DWT. Certified pilotage requirements for transits through U.S. and Canadian waters in greater Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia: o Beginning in October 2013, two pilots are required for tank vessels greater than 40,000 DWT in Boundary Pass and Haro Strait transiting to/from Canadian ports. U.S. Captain of the Port authority in enforcing regulations (Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee established under this authority). Vessel traffic management: o Puget Sound and Cooperative Vessel Traffic Systems. Designated traffic lanes: o Separation zone. o Smaller vessel lanes adjacent to primary lanes to separate larger faster traffic from slower traffic. o Intersections with precautionary areas for turning or crossing traffic. Additional operating rules at Special Operating Areas: o Turn Point Special Operating Area (northern segment of Haro Strait) – restriction of multiple vessels of 100 meters (325 feet) from transiting area at the same time unless moving in same direction. o Eastern San Juan Island Archipelago Vessel Traffic Service Special Area – restriction to one‐ way traffic for vessel greater than 100 meters (325 feet) and 40,000 DWT and higher. Tank ship security zone of 1,500 feet.
27
Background Information ‐ Existing mitigation measures in the Salish Sea continued (Excerpt from Marine and Rail Study Page 498‐499, Adapted from Cardno Entrix 2014.)
Tug escort assist requirements. o Laden tankers 40,000 DWT or greater in Puget Sound east of line from Discovery Island to New Dungeness Light. o Escort tug and two pilots for 40,000 DWT vessels transiting Haro Strait and Boundary Pass to Canadian ports. o Tankers with/without redundant propulsion and steering are required to have tethered tug(s) when transiting Rosario Strait, Haro Strait, and Boundary Pass. o Emergency response towing vessel (ERTV) or ocean‐going tug stationed at Neah Bay to assist vessels in distress in Washington coastal waters and western reach of Strait of Juan de Fuca. Limitation of vessel speed: o Whenever vessel accompanied by required escort, vessel speed may not exceed speed service of escort. o Vessel speed restricted to 10 knots in Rosario Strait. o Vessels escorted under Canadian Pacific Pilotage Authority may not exceed 10 knots (primarily Haro Strait and Boundary Pass). Vessels entering U.S. waters must meet standards of crewing, equipment, and contingency planning required by the U.S. Coast Guard. When vessels are bound for U.S. ports (e.g., BP Cherry Point) they must meet standards to be permitted to moor and discharge or load cargo through 96‐ hour Advanced Notice of Vessel Arrival (describes vessel, registration, type and amount of cargo, five previous ports of call, individual crew members, security status, and contact information), which determines whether vessel will be allowed to enter and whether the USCG should inspect the vessel prior to entering. Puget Sound Harbor Safety Plan, which includes set of Standards of Care (SOCs) or operating procedures that all members of the industry have agreed to abide by when operating in Puget Sound, including procedures for: o Anchoring, Bridge management, Equipment failures, Heavy weather, Hot work, Lightering, Line handling, Propulsion loss prevention, Restricted visibility, Tanker escort, Towing, Under‐keel clearance. o Bunkering including: Advanced notification of oil transfer, Limits on weather conditions, Specific manning responsibilities, Tug availability in certain weather conditions, Pre‐ booming or boom availability requirements, Vessel Response Plan and certain response equipment for spills, Flow rate criteria.
* Additional information about existing risk reduction measures be found in the Puget Sound Pilots General Guidelines for Vessels Transiting Restricted Waterways or Ports, available at: http://pspilots.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/01/Guidelines‐Jan‐27‐2015.pdf
28
Background Information – Ecology Oil Movement Map http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/OilMovement/OilMovementConceptualModel.png
29
Background Information – Link to 2015 Workshop Handbook
The 2015 Workshop Handbook can be found on pages 489‐ 531 of the Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/docu ments/1508010.pdf 30
APPENDIX 1: Salish Sea Workshop 2016 – Non‐Prevention Risk Mitigation Measures
These RMM are provided for reference only and will not be part of the workshop discussion. These RMMs are more Preparedness (Planning) and Response oriented in nature and were captured during the January 2015 workshop or through our research in preparing for the 2016 workshop.
Number
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Resource
Response
Dispersants
12
Response
Dispersants
12
Response
Funding
12
Response
Funding
12
Response Evaluate the adequacy of the current $9 million ceiling on the state Oil Spill Response Account and if necessary propose an increased ceiling that will protect Washington’s public health, environment and economy. Add additional language to the state’s current rule to Response address the claims processes in contingency plans and also require the responsible party to establish a third party damage claims process during drills.
Funding
12
Funding
12
7
Support the federal government’s efforts to increase the ceiling in the OSLTF.
Response
Funding
12
8
Modify or demonstrate planning assumptions to better reflect the complexity of spill response and real‐world conditions.
Response
Planning
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
Request EPA to update their dispersant product testing protocols and require more comprehensive testing prior to listing or pre‐approving dispersant products for specific environments and oil types. State policy should require industry to disclose the chemical properties and proportion of each chemical ingredient of the dispersants products in order to allow communities to set policies on dispersant usage. Ecology should adopt a rule establishing financial responsibility requirements for regulated facilities, and establish a formal Financial Responsibility Certification Program to certify that vessels, oil handling facilities, and pipelines have adequate financial coverage. Ecology should support efforts by the federal government to increase the current limits for which a spiller is responsible to compensate for damages.
31
Number
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Resource
9
Establish planning standards based on estimated system recovery potential, not Estimated Daily Recovery Capacity.
Response
Planning
10
10
Apply best available technology and best achievable protection to the contingency plan portion of the statute. Create incentives for industry to invest in developing and prepositioning advanced oil recovery systems suitable prevailing conditions in the state’s diverse marine environments. Periodically revise regulatory standards that define and keep up with changing technologies, risk analysis, standards of care, and best achievable practices. Following full implementation of the Bakken Crude Oil Conditioning Standard on April 1, 2015, the Northwest Area Committee should conduct sampling of Bakken crude oil transported through Washington and perform analysis to characterize the hazards presented to first responders. The results and potential health/environmental threats should be communicated to Washington response organizations. USEPA, USCG, and state and local agencies should adopt the use of industry‐standard names for crude oils, including diluted bitumen, in their oversight of oil spill response planning. USEPA, USCG, PHMSA, and state and local agencies should increase coordination and share lessons learned to improve the area contingency planning process and to strengthen preparedness for spills of diluted bitumen. These agencies should jointly conduct announced and unannounced exercises for spills of diluted bitumen. Develop a standard for quantifying and reporting adhesion because it is a key property of fresh and weathered diluted bitumen. The procedure should be compatible with the quantity of the custodial sample collected by pipeline operators. Consider the need for concurrent response operations, particularly shoreline protection and the movement of personnel and supplies, and ensure that sufficient resources are available to fully implement all aspects of a response, in addition to on‐water recovery.
Response
Planning
12
Response
Product info
2
Response
Product Information
9
Response
Product Information
9
Response
Product Information
9
Response
Response Capability
10
11
12
13
14
15
32
Number
16
17
18
19
20
21 22
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Continue to develop the technology to locate and track oil slicks in darkness and direct large spill response assets in darkness, then demonstrate the ability to effectively recover an oil spill during darkness in the San Juan Islands is proven. Engage Canadian agencies and the Western Canadian Marine Response Corporation to evaluate Canadian response resources and their availability and willingness to respond to a large marine oil spill in San Juan County. Further enhance the ability to respond to oil spills in the San Juan Islands by dedicating additional assets in the region tailored to the conditions that there. Evaluate the potential to station one to three BAT strike teams in San Juan County for rapid deployment of a free‐oil recovery capability in the adjacent waters. These BAT strike teams are particularly suited for the conditions in the San Juan Islands. The evaluation should assess the interest and availability of vessels of opportunity operators to be trained, maintain proficiency, and be on‐call to respond on short notice. If it is determined that these resources cannot be deployed by vessels of opportunity, one strike team with dedicated resources could be stationed each in Ferndale, Anacortes, and Port Angeles. Ten small barges with a capacity of 10,000 gallons should be procured and staged within San Juan County to supplement oil storage for these skimming systems. Many of the oil spill response vessels listed in the WRRL as being available in the region have limited primary oil storage. Ensure Marine firefighting resources are available for rapid deployment Develop a regulatory methodology to rate best achievable equipment. This would encourage its acquisition and caching for immediate use in responding to spills. This includes the combined containment, recovery and storage equipment.
Preparedness, Response, or Other Response
Topic
Response Capability
Resource
10
Response
Response Capability
10
Response
Response Capability
10
Response
Response Capability
10
Response
Response Capability
10
Response
Response Capability
16
Response
Response Capability
12
33
Number
23
24
25
26
27
28
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Encourage professional spill response contractors to maximize the efficiency of enhanced skimming systems through regular training, as well as practicing techniques collaboratively with other response contractors. These technologies maximize encounter rates, and provide an opportunity for continuous skimming operations. Document lessons learned in deploying the new technology through drill evaluations. Ensure remote sensing, and vessel operation and recovery systems are capable of safely and effectively performing 24‐hour spill assessment and oil recovery operations. Ecology should evaluate existing coverage to determine if they are adequate for worst case spills. If not, the coverage amount should be increased. Require that PHMSA consult with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to obtain their input on whether response plans are adequate for spills of diluted bitumen. Continue to work to resolve the jurisdictional and trans‐boundary issues associated with oil spills that have the potential to cross international borders. Advocate for changes in Canadian laws that would release U.S.‐based responders from liability if they operate in Canadian waters. Develop mutually acceptable procedures to allow Canadian response systems to respond to spills near the border. Continue to research the weathering behavior of the variety of diluted bitumen that is shipped from Canada through Haro Strait and Boundary Pass under the conditions present there. (This recommendation is supported by the U.S. Coast Guard’s report to Congress in 2014; USCG, 2014). If research shows that diluted bitumen may submerge, then capacity to track and recover submerged oil should be developed and deployed. Planning should also be implemented for personnel safety if toxic components of the diluent evaporate.
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Resource
Response
Response Capability
12
Response
Response Capability
12
Response
Response Capability
12
Response
Response Plan Adequacy
9
Response
Response Policy
10
Response
Study Recommendation
10
34
Number
29
30
31
32 33
34
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
U.S. government should enact legislation that allows the establishment of a credible, comprehensive and publicly available international "near‐miss" marine reporting system, inclusive of liability and anonymity protections together with adequate funding for program start‐up and maintenance. Additionally the U.S. government should actively seek the participation of the Canadian government to ensure the efficacy of this system. Require that response plans describe in sufficient detail response activities and resources to mitigate the impacts of spills of diluted bitumen, including capabilities for detection, containment, and recovery of submerged and sunken oil. Expand vessel inspection activities of regulated fishing vessels and ensure non‐regulated fishing vessels receive voluntary pollution control technical assistance. Require Bustar type boom on standby if the S&E threshold is exceeded. Update the Washington State Contingency Plan to address the unique challenges of responding to a dilbit crude oil spill documented by the National Academy of Sciences. This should include: a. Faster response requirements enabling oil spill responders to recover dilbit crude oil spills prior to sinking. b. Stockpile specialized equipment in Rosario and Haro Straits. c. Conduct no‐notice, equipment deployment drills to verify response capacity and make results available to the public. Ensure that the existing response system is capable of a rapid large‐scale mobilization of response resources similar to those modeled in this study in order to realize the full potential capacity of the existing system.
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Resource
Response
Waterways management
11
Response
Response Capability
9
Prevention
Program Policy
12
Preparedness and Response
Bunker Operations
1
Preparedness and Response
Product info
4
Preparedness and Response
Response Capability
10
35
Number
35
36
37
38
39
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Establish standard configurations for strike teams that would be assembled and dispatched to San Juan County for a worse case discharge, including combining resources from different contractors. Each strike team should be modeled and optimized to achieve maximum potential recovery capacity. (While these configurations would not be mandatory during a response, they should be utilized for planning purposes and would facilitate the speed of such a response should one be needed). Each strike team identified above should train and demonstrate proficiency in the implementation of free‐oil recovery tactics in San Juan County (particularly in high current areas). Through drills, exercises, and audits, ensure and demonstrate the critical response elements that were not able to be validated for this study: Adequate trained personnel are available to crew the strike teams identified above, including for 24‐hour operations. Sufficient workboats with trained crews are available to deploy the strike teams noted above. Consider the safe mobilization of these workboats to potential spill sites in the San Juan Islands. Where workboats are non‐dedicated vessels of opportunity, anticipate the need for an addition 50% of boats to account for those that may be unavailable at any given time. The systems, procedures, equipment, and trained personnel are in place to rapidly unload multiple primary storage devices to secondary storage in a manner that will not impede the response. Adequate planning and resources are in place to provide logistical support for a major spill response in San Juan County. Conduct unannounced drills for each strike team designated above to validate mobilization times and capability to deploy in San Juan County. This should include mobilizing response resources across the open waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Establishment of a securely funded, adequately staffed Regional Citizens Advisory Committee (RCAC), similar to the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, be established in Puget Sound.
Preparedness and Response
Response Capability
10
Preparedness and Response
Response Capability
10
Preparedness and Response
Response Capability
10
Preparedness and Response
Unannounced drills
10
Preparedness Waterways management
Resource
11
36
Number
40
41
42
43 44
45
46
47
48
49
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Resource
Continue to seek opportunities to influence federal standards relating to these risk factors. Seek formal or informal delegation from the USCG of some activities where the agencies have concurrent jurisdiction and program missions. Require crude‐by‐rail facility permit applicants to conduct a thorough evaluation of specific locations of risk for train and/or vessel incidents related to the proposal. This should include inland and coastal areas, as determined by the lead agency. Adjust Emergency Response Plans that are already developed and in place for current operations at Westridge terminal to account for increased future activities. Identify Potential places of refuge are identified in advance Ecology will adopt the methodology and process for making decisions on equipment movement during SONS into the Northwest Area Plan as a best management practice. The federal government should develop an alternative process to ensure rapid cascading of equipment other than the emergency rule standard used in the Gulf SONS. The federal government should develop a SONS process mechanism to engage in Tribal Consultation when tribal resources are impacted by a SONS designation. The Northwest Area Contingency Plan policy should be re‐visited to consider changes relating to duration of use, spatial reach, volume and establish a specific policy on under what circumstances subsea application should be considered in the Northwest. Establish a NWAC task force to analyze the type and volume of Group V oils moved into the region and focus planning efforts on improving response to sinking oil. Require operators to identify all of the transported crude oils using industry‐standard names, such as Cold Lake Blend, and to include Safety Data Sheets for each of the named crude oils. Both the plan and the associated Safety Data Sheets should include spill‐relevant properties and considerations.
Preparedness
Federal funding
12
Preparedness
Permitting
2
Preparedness
Planning
3
Preparedness
Planning
16
Preparedness
Planning
12
Preparedness
Planning
12
Preparedness
Planning
12
Preparedness
Planning
12
Preparedness
Product info
2
Preparedness
Product Information
9
37
Number
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Topic
Resource
50
Require that plans adequately describe the areas most sensitive to the effects of a diluted bitumen spill, including the water bodies potentially at risk.
Preparedness
Product Information
9
51
Review statewide regulatory planning standards (WAC 173‐ 182) to determine whether the equipment standards are adequate for the potential increase in crude‐by‐rail facilities and associated tank vessel traffic, particularly in Grays Harbor and on the Columbia River. Ensure emergency towing resources are available for rapid deployment The Joint Response Teams should work quickly to resolve gaps in coordination mechanisms and adopt consistent policies and processes to manage cross border spills. U.S. Congress should clarify that the revenues for the trust fund include oil sands oils. Fund enhanced and continuous oil spill response equipment and a local first responder firefighting equipment grant program. Ecology should work with local responders to develop rules for the administration of the grant program. Ecology should work with representatives from the local first response community to scope out additional equipment and training needs, such as fire foam and exposure monitoring equipment. Ongoing funding and staffing should be provided to administer the program, maintain existing equipment, and provide periodic training to first responders. Consider funding options to adequately fund Washington’s Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program. Petition Congress to seek clarification from the U.S. Coast Guard if vessels bound to Canada are subject to U.S. regulations or if they are granted “innocent passage.”
Preparedness
Regulations
2
Preparedness
Response Capability Transboundary Coordination
16
52 53
54 55
56
57
Preparedness
12
Other
Funding
2
Other
Funding
2
Other
Funding
2
Other
Innocent Passage
4
38
Number
58
59
60
Non‐ Prevention RMM Description
Preparedness, Response, or Other
Other Maritime Safety Programs ‐ situational awareness: Ecology, the Washington Pilotage Commission, and the Oregon Board of Maritime Pilots should continue to support the extensive maritime safety programs in place at the international, federal, state, and industry levels. Advocate for implementation of proposed rulemaking on barge inspection and crew work hours. Specifically: Continue to develop marine safety, industry oversight, and inspection criteria to reduce human error and increase situational awareness by advocating the implementation and monitoring of the proposed USCG rulemaking on barge inspections and crew working hours. Continue to develop marine safety, industry oversight, and inspection criteria to reduce human error and increase situational awareness by advocating analysis of a situational awareness, to include staffing levels on all classes of vessels including commercial fishing and towing vessels. Other Amend definitions of oil at Chapters 88.40, 88.46, 90.46 and 90.56 RCW to read as follows: “Oil” or “oils” means oil of any kind that is liquid at 25°C and one atmosphere of pressure, and any fractionation thereof, including, but not limited to, crude oil, bitumen, synthetic crude oil, natural gas well condensate, petroleum, gasoline, fuel oil, diesel oil, biological oils and blends, oil sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. Oil does not include any substance listed as of March 1, 2003, in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302 adopted under section 102(a) of the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1990, as amended by PL 99‐499. Other Repeat this study [Felleman, Fred, 2016, Tar Sands/Dilbit Crude Oil Movements Within the Salish Sea.] on a regular basis to evaluate how variations in the price of oil affect the way in which oil is moved through the region.
Topic
Resource
Program Support
2
Regulations
2
Study Recommendation
4
39
Non‐Prevention RMM Resources 1. Salish Sea Workshop: Vessel Oil Spill Risk Assessment & Management, 2015 2. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2015, Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study. 3. Glosten Associates, 2014, Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) Vessel Traffic and Risk Assessment Study. 4. Felleman, Fred, 2016, Tar Sands/Dilbit Crude Oil Movements Within the Salish Sea. 5. Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment Study, 2010 (“VTRA 2013 Tiered” and “VTRA 2013 Vote” RMMs) 6. Det Norske Veritas, 2013, General Risk Analysis and Intended Methods of Reducing Risks, Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project. 7. Badger, Chris, 2014, Report on the findings of the Pilotage Risk Management Methodology (PRMM) to assess the Use of Escort Tugs in Haro St and Boundary Pass for Liquid Bulk Vessels, In Product, less than 40,000 SDWT, Project No: PPA2013‐0 8. Gaydos J.K., Thixton S.,and Donatuto J., 2015, Evaluating Threats in Multinational Marine Ecosystems: A Coast Salish First Nations and Tribal Perspective. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0144861. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144861 9. Committee on the Effects of Diluted Bitumen on the Environment, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, and National Academies of Science , Engineering, and Medicine, 2016, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 10. Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC, 2015, San Juan County Oil Spill Response Capacity Evaluation. Report to San Juan County. 11. National Center Associates, 2000, North Puget Sound Long‐Term Oil Spill Risk Management Panel Final Report and Recommendations. Publication NO. 00‐08‐21 12. Department of Ecology, 2011, Improving Spill Prevention and Response in Washington State. 13. Houghton J, Holt MM, Giles DA, Hanson MB, Emmons CK, Hogan JT, et al. (2015) The Relationship between Vessel Traffic and Noise Levels Received by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). PLoS ONE 10(12): e0140119. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140119 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140119 14. Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment Study, 2015. 15. Van Dorp, Johan Rene and Jason Merrick, 2014, VTRA 2010 Final Report – Preventing Oil Spills from Large Ships and Barges in Northern Puget Sound & Strait of Juan de Fuca. 16. Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC. (2013). West Coast Spill Response Study, Volume 3: World‐Class Spill Prevention, Preparedness, Response & Recovery System. Report to the British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
40
