Guide to Oil Spill Response in the SB Channel December 2011

8/13/2019 Guide to Oil Spill Response in the SB Channel December 2011

1/54

906 Garden Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone (805) 963-1622 FAX (805) 962-3152

www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org

Guide to Oil Spill Response in the Santa Barbara ChannelDecember 2011

Oil spill response planning requires cooperative efforts between agencies on federal,regional, state, and local levels, creating a somewhat complicated web of authority anddecision-making procedures. This guide is intended to serve as a quick reference guidefor information pertaining to oil spill contingency planning for the Santa BarbaraChannel area. Excerpts from the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) NationalContingency Plan, Regional Contingency Plan, and Santa Barbara Oil Spill ContingencyPlan are included. Other important documents include a Memorandum of

Understanding between the California Department of Fish and Game Office of Oil SpillPrevention and Response (CDFG-OSPR) and the County of Santa Barbara establishing thecoordination of planning efforts. Local emergency planners have worked in conjunctionwith many agencies on state and federal levels to develop a focused plan for oil spillresponse.


2/54

These plans include guidelines on the use of dispersant agents and other spill responsetechniques. This guide includes a brief overview of these guidelines as well as asummary of the potential adverse effects of dispersal use. Finally, this guide includes acollection of frequently asked questions regarding dispersant use and oil spills and

relevant contact information.

Table of Contents

EDC Memo re: Oil Spill Response & Dispersants (December 2011)Santa Barbara Operation Area Oil Spill Contingency Plan, MOU (Draft excerpts,

November 2010)U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan, Subpart J Use of Dispersants and Other ChemicalsFederal Region IX - Regional Contingency Plan - Appendix XII and XIII excerpts re

California Dispersant Plan, In-situ burningOil Spill Dispersants: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (CA Dispersant Plan, Appendix

F, October 2008)Wildlife Issues During Oil Spill Response in California: Frequently Asked QuestionsContact Information


3/54

OIL SPILL RESPONSE & DISPERSANTS:LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS IN THE

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

By: Katherine Smith, Internand Evan Rosenberg, Intern

December 2011

Introduction

The events following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill have drawn attention to the effectiveness,impacts, and safety of oil spill prevention and response standards. Particular attention wasfocused on the use of oil dispersants. Dispersants, one of three primary methods of spilled oilrecovery, are used to break up oil into smaller droplets and enhance oil dissolving rates withinthe water column. This process exposes both benthic species and species within the watercolumn to the potential toxic effects of dispersants that would otherwise remain unexposed tosurface spills.

Nearly 800,000 gallons of dispersant were injected into the plumes of oil and gas which were

rushing from the Deepwater Horizon underwater well in 2010, and recent studies indicate acomponent of this dispersant has yet to degrade in the ocean. For example, it has been found thatthe dispersant DOSS (dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate), which comprised 10% of the dispersantsused at Deepwater Horizon, still had not degraded three months after it was applied. 1 Thesestudies yield results that seem somewhat surprising; however, little research has been performedconcerning the fate of oil dispersants in the deep ocean. As a result of the Deepwater Horizonincident, however, the long-term effects of large amounts of dispersant and dispersant-oil mixare being studied. Nevertheless, interest surrounding dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico israising concern for oil spill response standards within state waters, particularly in resource richregions like the Santa Barbara Channel.

In the event of an oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, the application of dispersants shouldrequire an assessment of the type of oil spilled and characteristics of the region in which the spillhas occurred. Physical characteristics of the oil which determine its behavior in the event of aspill should be assessed (i.e. does it spread rapidly, sink, or float) and how quickly it may berecovered. In many laboratory tests, dispersants display low effectiveness given the high

1 Gulf Spill: Undersea Dispersant Lingered in Deepwater Plume study (1/27/2011), Paul Voosen.


4/54

December 2011Oil Spill Response & DispersantsEnvironmental Defense CenterPage 2 of 11

viscosity of local crude. 2 Environmental characteristics of the region should be taken intoaccount as well, including winds, currents, and other physical conditions which may determinethe fate of spilled oil and whether cleanup efforts will prove effective in response. For instance,the effectiveness of dispersants would be reduced during periods of calm conditions.

The Santa Barbara Channel is rich in marine resources and biodiversity, and dispersantapplication should be conducive to its conservation. Characteristics of the local marineenvironment (currents, climate, present/ vulnerable biota, etc.) should be assessed prior tocontingency planning in order to optimize preparedness and minimize response time in the eventof an oil spill. Before dispersants are proposed for use locally, the aquatic toxicities, microbialdegradation rates, marine environmental fate, as well as effectiveness, should all be fullyanalyzed in order to prevent unforeseen impacts to the marine environment. Dispersants selectedfor use should not only demonstrate effectiveness, but also minimal aquatic toxicity and rapiddegradation rates in the Ch annels waters so as not to jeopardize its unique cultural and

biological resources.

This memo will discuss the potential impacts caused by the use of oil dispersants, as well as thelaws and regulations governing oil spill response in general and the use of dispersants in

particular. We also note potential future opportunities to further address this issue in our area.

Potential Impacts from the Use of Oil Dispersants

Since certain dispersants (like those used at Deepwater Horizon) are resistant to microbialdegradation, it is apparent that these chemicals have ample time to interact with marine life andelicit physiological responses. Aquatic toxicity of oil dispersants is an issue which requires morein depth research prior to application of such chemicals. Evidence shows that some dispersantscontain compounds which readily degrade into a compound known to be an endocrine disruptor. 3 Another study demonstrates a significant increase in toxicity of chemically dispersed oil in the

presence of sunlight in comparison to oil alone in herring eggs and larvae. 4 This indicates thatorganisms inhabiting the euphotic zone may be more vulnerable to these phototoxic mixtures ofoil and dispersant. Oil dispersant application may have dangerous implications for vulnerabletropical marine ecosystems as well. A study on impacts of oil dispersants to hard and soft coralspecies shows dispersants and oil-dispersant mixtures to harm corals at early life stages. In

2 See also B.K. Trudel and R.C. Belore, et al., Determining the Viscosity Limits for Effective Chemical Dispersion:Relating Ohmsett Results to Those from Tests At-Sea (2005).

3 Judson, R.S., et al. 2010. Analysis of Eight Oil Dispersants Using Rapid, In Vitro Tests for Endocrine and otherBiological Activity. Environmental Science and Technology . 44(15): 5979.4 Barron, M.G., Carls, M.G., Short, J.W., & Rice, S. D. 2002. Photoenhanced Toxicity of Aqueous Phase andChemically Dispersed Weathered Alaska North Slope Crude Oil to Pacific Herring Eggs and Larvae . EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry. 22(3): 650.


5/54


addition, laboratory assays showed the manufactu rers recommended application concentrationto be highly toxic to corals. 5

Research on oil dispersants used in the Gulf of Mexico is raising concern for oil spill responsestandards within state waters, particularly in resource rich regions like the Santa BarbaraChannel. According to the report prepared by the National Commission on the BP DeepwaterHorizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, dispersants may provide certain benefits but also pose

potential threats. Less oil on the surface means more in the water column, spread over a widerarea, potentially increasing exposure for marine life. Chemically dispersed oil can be toxic in

both the short and long-term. Moreover, some studies have found that dispersants do not increase biodegradation rates or m ay even inhibit biodegradation. 6 The authors of the report concludedthat [p]rior to the Deepwater Horizon incident, the federal government had not adequately

planned for the use of dispersants to address such a large and sustained oil spill, and did nothave sufficient research on the long-term effects of dispersants and dispersed oil to guide itsdecision- making. 7

Federal Regulations Regarding the Use of Oil Dispersants

The Clean Water Act is currently the only federal law regulating the use of oil dispersants in theevent of an oil spill. Under this law, the EPA is required to prepare the National ContingencyPlan (NCP) which governs the response to the discharge of oil and hazardous substances. 8 Section 311 (d)(2) of the Clean Water Act requires the NCP to provide effective action whichminimizes the environmental damage from the oil/hazardous substance discharge as well asminimize damage from the specified removal and containment practices. According to 33U.S.C. Sec. 1321(d)(2)(G), the NCP includes a product schedule which specifies (1) whichdispersants and other chemicals may be used in carrying out the NCP, (2) in which waters suchdispersants and other chemicals may be used, and (3) the quantities of such chemicals anddispersants which may be used safely in such waters.

Subpart J of the NCP states that dispersants must meet a minimum effectiveness level of 45% inorder to be placed on the Product Schedule (manufacturers use the Swirling Flask DispersantEffectiveness Test), while the listing of non-dispersant chemicals requires no demonstration ofeffectiveness. Toxicity testing is only performed on dispersants after demonstrating theminimum effectiveness level, and documentation that certain toxicity tests were performed isrequired. 40 C.F.R. 300.915(a)(7), (8). While regulations require the disclosure of theconcentrations of toxicants such as heavy metals, cyanide, and chlorinated hydrocarbons in

5 Shafir, S., Van Rijn, J., & Rinkevich, B. 2007. Short and Long Term Toxicity of Crude Oil and Oil Dispersants to twoRepresentative Coral Species. Environmental Science and Technology . 41(15): 5571.6 DEEP WATER: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, NationalCommission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, January 2011, p. 143.7 Id, p. 270.8 Guidance Document for the Exemption, License, & Renewal of Oil Spill Cleanup Agents: quote from Appendix II:Federal Regulations governing the development of a schedule of dispersants and other cleanup agents: 40 CFRPart, 300 Subpart J.


6/54


dispersants, they do not set a specific toxicity limit or upper limit for toxicant concentrations. 40C.F.R. 300.915(a)(9)(V)(11).

The manufacturers are also required to disclose technical product data to get their product onthe NCP product schedule. 40 C.F.R. 300.915(a)(9). The listing of dispersants requiresdisclosure of the manufacturer, vendor, primary distributor, shelf life, conditions for use (basedon water temperature, salinity, recommended application procedures, etc.), and components.While the disclosure of a dispersants components should include the list of its chemicalconstituents and their respective percentages by weight, manufacturers may withhold thisinformation and assert it to be confidential business information. 40 C.F.R. 300.915(a)(10),300.929(c).

Since the NCP lacks strict toxicity criteria, a dispersant listed on the NCP Product Schedule may be authorized for use without further toxicity testing requiring specific standards. Subpart Jstates that Area Committees and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) must designpreauthorization plans which sp ecify the circumstances under which products on the Scheduleshould and should not be used. 40 C.F.R. 300.910(a). For spill events that are not accountedfor by preauthorization plans, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) must reach concurrencewith the RRT representatives from states that have jurisdiction over the affected waters and withthe EPA representative to the RRT before any chemical on the Product Schedule is authorizedfor use. 40 C.F.R. 300.910(b). Under circumstances in which there exists a threat to humanlife, products not listed on the Schedule may be used. 40 C.F.R. 300.910(d).

The events following the Deepwater Horizon spill have shed attention on the regulations on theuse of oil dispersants. In October 2010, a citizen s petition was filed under the Clean Water Act,asking the EPA to establish toxicity criteria and require toxicity testing and public disclosure ofingredients for products listed on the NCP Product Schedule. The petition was filed bynumerous non-profit community based, statewide, and national environmental groups fromaround the nation. 9 As a result of the petition, the EPA is reviewing its scheduling process anddisclosure requirements.

The fallout after Deepwater Horizon has also inspired new legislation aimed at improving oilspill response and providing specific guidelines for the listing of products on the NCP ProductSchedule. In July, 2010, and September, 2010, The Safe Dispersants Act was introduced into theSenate and House of Representatives, respectively. Both bills would amend the Clean Water Act

by setting more stringent guidelines for adding products to the NCP Product Schedule. Suchguidelines include a maximum allowable toxicity and a requirement that the adverse impact ofthe dispersed oil be less than what would result from natural dispersal processes or any otherfeasible physical removal process. In assessing the adverse impacts of the use of a chemicaldispersant, the long and short term environmental and health impacts, as well as persistence,

bioaccumulation potential, and additive/ synergistic dispersant effects in the presence of oil or

9 Petition under the Clean Water Act to Establish Toxicity Criteria and Require Toxicity Testing and Public Disclosureof Ingredients for Products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule: Earth Justice, Marianne EngelmanLado & Hannah Chang, Counsel for Petitioners, 2010.


7/54


other hazardous substances. The bills also direct the Administrator to determine if revision ofSubpart J of the NCP is necessary to ensure the safety of dispersants. 10 Further action on these

bills has yet to be taken.

California State Law and Regulations Regarding Use of Oil Dispersants

The Lempert-Keene Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Cal.Govt. Code 8574.1et seq .) addresses the use of oil dispersants in the event of an oil spill within state waters(between the mean high tide line and three miles offshore). All oil spill cleanup agents (OSCAs)must be licensed by the Administrator (chief deputy director of Department of Fish and Game)

before being selected for use. Cal. Govt. Code 8670.13.1(a). Unlike the federal regulations, thestate regulations are designed such that licensing criteria are established based on specifictoxicity standards, and protocol for their use is based on sensitivity of the habitat in which theOSCA will be used.

The Administrator is required to study the effectiveness and toxicity of dispersants and updatethese studies as needed periodically to ensure Best Achievable Protection (BAP). Cal. Govt.Code 8670.12(a). These studies should evaluate the adverse impacts of the chemical on publichealth and the environment (fisheries, water quality, wildlife, etc.) and the potential forsynergistic effects and bioaccumulation. Cal. Govt. Code 8670.12(b)(2). OSCAs should only

be used in situations where the Administrator determines them to be used safely and effectively,and recommendations regarding appropriate use/limitations on use should be made to ensure thisis achieved. Cal. Govt. Code 8670.12(b)(3).

Owners and operators of vessels, tankers, and other facilities must create their own oil spillcontingency plans prior to operating where a spill may impact marine waters. Cal. Govt. Code8670.29(a). These plans must ensure the prompt and adequate response and cleanup of spilledoil, may not conflict with the NCP, and must be consistent with California oil spill contingency

planning. Cal. Govt. Code 8670.29(a).

The Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) within the California Department of Fishand Game directs all oil spill response and clean-up activities. 11 The OSPR Administratoradministers all OSCA licenses, which are circumstantially approved as determined appropriate

by the Incident Commander/Unified Command. 12 The use of an OSCA must be approved by theRRT. The listing of OSCAs on the federal NCP does not imply licensing by the state; however,

products used within the state of California must be licensed by the state and be listed on the NCP. The OSPR also directs local response planning by establishing standards that localemergency planners must meet.

10 For more information on The Safe Dispersants Act and its progress through the House and Senate respectively,see http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h6119/show and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3661/show.11 For more information on OSPR seehttp://www.crrc.unh.edu/human_dimensions/reading_materials/ospr_information.pdf12 DFG: Guidance Document for the Exemption, License, & Renewal of Oil Spill Cleanup Agents-GeneralInformation


8/54


Specific criteria must be met for an OSCA to obtain a license. If 10% of the agent -plus- oilsinks, then the product is considered a sinking agent and may not be licensed by the state. 13 Products are required to have labels revealing: product/brand name, manufacturer/importer/vendor name and address, handling and storage safety precautions, flash and freezing point of the

product, recommended application procedures with regard to oil type and water conditions, andshelf life and expiration date. 14 CCR 885.8. Disclosure of the OSCAs chemical componentsand percent composition are required. When the product is applied to the water surface it mustmaintain a pH within the range of 6.5-8.5. 14 CCR 885.6 (b). Specific limits are establishedfor the concentrations of heavy metals (i.e. cadmium, mercury, lead) and chlorinatedhydrocarbons since they are known to pose hazards to human health and accumulate withintissues of fish. 14 CCR 885.6 (c).

Regulations require specific tests for the assessment of all OSCAs toxicity, degradation, and anytoxicity resulting from the products degradation. In laboratory tests, dispersants must display anaverage EC50 (concentrations at which 50% of test organisms display effects) value of less than10mg/l. 14 CCR 885.6 (h).

State regulations also provide specific guidelines for the type of body of water in which anOSCA may be used. In the case that an OSCA must be applied to a domestic water supply, theState Department of Health services must be notified as well as the appropriate local healthagency with jurisdiction over water quality. 14 CCR 886.1 (c). The application of the OSCA issubject to recommendations by either of the state and local health agencies. 14 CCR 886.1(c)(2). Before an OSCA is applied to any reservoir, lake, or surface stream, the local RegionalWater Quality Control Board must be notified. 14 CCR 886.1 (d). Dispersants may only beapplied to lakes or reservoirs if wildlife resources and associated habitat, recreational

beaches, marinas or shore facilities are threatened and other mitigation methods are deemedinappropriate by the Administrator. 14 CCR 886.1 (e)(1)(B)(3). Oil dispersants may not in anycase by applied to the shorelines of these bodies of water. 14 CCR 886.1 (e)(1)(B)(2).

Dispersing agents are not permitted in surface streams. 14 CCR 886.1 (e)(2)(B). In bays,estuaries, and open ocean waters the application of dispersing agents is severely restricted andmay only be used in accordance with guidelines set forth in Quick Approval Process forDispersant use in Waters off California by the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration and California DFG. 14 CCR 886.1 (e)(3)(B)(2). Dispersants may not beapplied to the shorelines, including areas exposed during the tidal cycle. 14

The Administrator may authorize the expedited use or testing of an unlicensed OSCA in somecases when harmful effects of an oil spill threaten state waters and other OSCAs/cleanupmethods may not be appropriate or as effective as the unlicensed product. 14 CCR 885.1 (c).

13 DFG: Guidance Document for the Exemption, License, & Renewal of Oil Spill Cleanup Agents- Instructions forLicensing Application14 Guidance Document for the Exemption, License, & Renewal of Oil Spill Cleanup Agents, quote from Appendix II:California State Regulations governing the Licensing and Use of Oil Spill Cleanup Agents (OSCAs).


9/54


The expedited use must be in compliance with criteria established for the particular body ofwater, consistent with the NCP, and consultation with applicable federal agencies may berequired. 14 CCR 885.1 (c)(2). The OSCA must not be more toxic to the environment incomparison with the oil on which it is applied. 14 CCR 885.1 (c)(3)(C). In the event of an oilspill, the use or expedited testing of an OSCA may be permitted without approval of the RRT ifthe OSCA is listed in the preauthorization plan within the relevant ACP. 14 CCR 886.1 (a).

Regional, State, and Local Spill Response Structure

Dispersant use is only one of three spill response techniques utilized today. Mechanical recoveryis the primary method, but many factors determine the efficacy of each method. In waters wheremechanical recovery would be ineffective, responders may use in-situ burning to remove the oilfrom the water or apply dispersants. The following sections describe when and how spillresponders may use dispersants and in-situ burning as response techniques in the case of a majoroil spill.

As previously stated, the NCP provides organizational structure and procedures for preparing forand responding to discharges of oil. The NCP lays out a framework for contingency planningwithin individual regions by way of each RRT. According to the NCP, the RRT is theappropriate regional mechanism for development and coordination of preparedness activities

before a response action is taken. The role of the standing RRT is to evaluate the preparedness of participating agencies. This may include reviewing and commenting on local emergency plans,conducting or participating in regional training exercises, and encouraging state and localcommunities to improve spill response preparedness.

RRTs not only serve as advisory groups before a spill, but they also assist and advise the FOSCduring an incident. The RRT has members from federal agencies such as the Department OfDefense, Department Of Energy, US Coast Guard (USCG), and EPA, as well as representativesappointed by the governor of each state within the region. Each incident-specific RRT is formedfrom the standing team when the RRT is activated for a response, and consists of representativesof local governments, and the appropriate state and federal agencies. An incident-specific RRTmay be activated upon request from the FOSC, or from any RRT representative, to the Co-Chairof the RRT, when a discharge or release:

Exceeds the response capabilities available to the FOSC in the place where itoccurs;

Transects State, Regional and/or international boundaries; or Poses a substantial thre at to public health, welfare, or to the environment, or to

regionally significant amounts of property. 15

The California Dispersant Plan (CDP) is an appendix of the Federal Region 9 Contingency Plan.The CDP assumes that an oil spill has occurred and that under the Incident Command System,dispersant use is actively under consideration by the FOSC. The CDP takes over from there,

15 Federal Region IX Contingency Plan California Dispersant Plan. Appendix VII, (II), p. II-4.


10/54


offering tools to the FOSC to guide that decision. The CDP primarily focuses on the federaloffshore waters that have been designa ted as pre -approved for dispersant use; however, theCDP also addresses waters closer than 3 miles from shore or within a National MarineSanctuary. These multi-level contingency plans as well as regulations regarding the use ofdispersants as a response tool will be discussed in the following sections.

Dispersants in the Santa Barbara Channel

The LA/Long Beach Spill Contingency Plan or Area Contingency Plan (ACP) guides local oilspill response for the Santa Barbara area. Sub-section 3270 of the Operations section of this Plandiscusses dispersant use as follows. The Plan combines the Quick Approval Zone (QAZ) policywith the States draft guidelines for oil dispersant use in state waters. The QAZ Plan wasdesigned by members of the RRT in 1994 in order to provide for expedited response to oil spillsin offshore waters (west from a line 15 nautical miles from land out to the limits of the nationalExclusive Economic Zone) to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The State has identifiedenvironm entally sensitive areas as the near shore, surface waters, including those surroundingthe offshore islands of the state, where endangered marine mammals and thousands to hundredsof thousands of sea birds may exist at any one time and the highly productive tidal inlets andintertidal regions of the mainland and offshore islands. 16 The QAZ Plan was designed as adispersant use checklist that would require RRT permission or denial within one to two hours ofa dispersant use request. In 1995 OSPR finalized a draft of Dispersant Use Decision Process(DUDP) which aims to provide guidelines regarding dispersant use and requires theconsideration of dispersant efficacy and vulnerable biological resources in the decision making

process.

Santa Barbara County Oil Spill Contingency Plan

The Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has written an Oil SpillContingency Plan that meets the standards established by OSPR. The purpose of the C ountys

plan is to ensure inclusion of OEM in the Unified Command, thus providing logistical support toa spill response. This is accomplished through an agreement made by the County and OSPRwhere the County designates a Local On-Scene Coordinator (LOSC) to participate in the UnifiedCommand and subsequent decision making during an oil spill emergency. 14 CCR 852.60.4(d). The Plan is currently being updated as is required every 5 years.

OEM acts as both a coordinator for County oil spill contingency planning and as an operationsarea in the event of a spill. County officials attend quarterly ACP meetings and contribute toupdating site surveys. The County is instrumental in updating the Area Plans by garnering

participation from those involved in spill response including the USCG, City of Santa Barbara,County Fire Department, Harbor Patrol, and environmental specialists. This level of cooperation

16 Quoted from Sub-section 3270 of the operations section of the LA/ Long Beach Spill Contingency Plan,http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15996


11/54


is by no means the status quo of spill contingency planning throughout the nation, and especiallynot in the Gulf pre-Deepwater. For example, the site surveys for the Santa Barbara coastlineincluded in the ACP are far more comprehensive than any other area within the region, in part byCounty influence and cooperation. Listed coastal access points are mapped in detail andenvironmentally sensitive sites are thoroughly described. Maintaining this cooperation isessential to protecting the Santa Barbara Channel and associated coastlines in the event of a spill.

In-Situ Burning

The use of in-situ burning is recognized as one of three types of recovery methods. Although burning can remove large amounts of oil rapidly, there is a tradeoff between effectiveness ofremoving oil and the potential human health and ecological impacts resulting from burn by-

products. Subpart J of the NCP authorizes the use of in-situ burning given certain conditions (40CFR 300.120). The FOSC must get approval from the RRT unless human life is threatened inthe event of a spill, or the following criteria are met: in-situ burning is a viable option forremoving oil, any resulting plume will not cause significant adverse health effects to human

populations, and the impact of the plume or heat is less than the impact from the spilled oil.

The use of in-situ burning as a method for recovering oil spilled in the Santa Barbara Channel isunlikely due to the potential risks to human health from the resulting plume. Other factorsdetailed in the RCP may prohibit the use of burning: necessity for fire boom, oil thickness andtype, wind speed, and time. Further, a spill that takes place in the Channel is not within the pre-approval zone (at least 35 miles offshore), so case-by-case approval from both the EPArepresentative to the RRT and the representative from CDFG must be sought by the FOSC inorder to get permission to burn.

Looking Ahead

Compared to other parts of the country, including the Gulf of Mexico, California benefits fromstronger laws relating to oil spill response generally and use of dispersants specifically. Inaddition, the County of Santa Barbara has developed its own Oil Spill Contingency Plan andsecured a role in the Unified Command. Despite these advancements, the Deepwater Horizontragedy has highlighted the ways in which California state law and regulations may bestrengthened even more to improve the response to a future oil spill. The state is already

planning to update the California Dispersant Plan to include limits on dispersant use in the eventof subsurface spills, and to establish limits on the quantity of oil dispersants that may be appliedwithin a specific period of time. 17 Setting specific limits on the quantity of these chemicals thatmay be released into aquatic environments may minimize adverse environmental impacts and

provide protection to the states valuable marine resources.

17 See http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/fed_region_9.aspx for the current 2008 California Dispersant Plan.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/fed_region_9.aspxhttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/fed_region_9.aspxhttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/fed_region_9.aspxhttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/fed_region_9.aspx


12/54


The National Response Team has also identified elements that should be considered in updates tonational, state, and local plans. These included Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA),Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultations, and improved monitoring equipment. 18 The California Dispersant Plan already includes these provisions, and is currently being updatedto stipulate that subsea use of dispersants and dispersant use on the surface that extends beyond5-7 days will not be considered pre-approved uses. The robustness of the California plan meansthat the processes for both the pre-approval and subsequent use of dispersants in the case of aspill are more stringent and thorough than the current NCP product schedule. This heightenedawareness and planning is due in part to multi-agency cooperation on federal, state, and locallevels, the inclusion of local stakeholders in the planning process, and the multi-levelcontingency plans. Maintaining this cooperation and keeping ACPs up-to-date is essential toSanta Barbaras prep aredness in the event of an oil spill.

In September, 2011, the USCG conducted a three day oil spill exercise near the Santa BarbaraChannel Islands that included 12 agencies and over 200 people. During the exercise, newtechnologies and ideas were tested, including unmanned, aerial vehicles that provide real-timeimaging of the spill. Resulting proposed changes to the ACP include updating communicationlogistics and reviewing policies for contracting cleanup organizations. Another proposal, tochange the pre-approval zone to include the outer three miles of the Channel Islands NationalMarine Sanctuary, means that dispersants could be authorized without approval from the RRT.According to the proposal, the Sanctuary Superintendent would work with the FOSC todetermine if dispersants shall be used. Any changes to the ACP would be subject to a full public

process. This section of our report will be updated as timelines for addressing each proposedchange become available.

With respect to contingency planning, the use of dispersants should receive special attention andcaution. The long-term effects of dispersants and dispersant-oil mixtures are not fully known. Asfurther consequences from dispersant use in the Gulf materialize, agencies will continue toutilize NEBA as part of the decision-making process. Additionally, changes to conditions inwhich dispersants can be used or pre-approved will reflect this new evidence. Updates to spillcontingency plans should reflect the increased knowledge of long-term effects of dispersants asthey are studied. In the event of a spill, mechanical recovery is the primary option withdispersants being considered secondary. In the case that dispersants will be determined to bemore effective, of course, the United Command may choose to go with that option. There issome uncertainty as to whether agencies involved in the contingency planning can formallyreject a decision to use dispersants. While agencies like the California Coastal Commissionwould be consulted, they have no explicit decision-making authority within the UnifiedCommand. Furthermore, if the Unified Command cannot reach a consensus, the LOSC mustrecognize the paramount authority of the FOSC. Given that the decision to go-ahead withdispersant use must be made rapidly, there is potential for disagreement between local authoritiesand Unified Command. This was noted during the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, during whichofficials from Louisiana were not authorized to make decisions within the Unified Command.

18 Use of Dispersants on Oil Spills - Interim Actions National Response Team Memo December 16, 2010.


13/54


Meanwhile, the state, faced with growing public unrest over the seemingly ineffective response,made its own plans which may have circumvented or at least complicated the overall spillresponse. 19 For the Santa Barbara Channel, emergency responders have a much clearer idea ofthe response structure and their roles within the Unified Command due in part to their influencein formulating the plans themselves.

The thoroughness and pre-meditative efforts of emergency planners is critical to minimize the potential adverse effects of both oil spills and the spill response. More work can be done at thenational level to encourage testing and disclosure of dispersant ingredients. Continuedcooperation between national, state, and local agencies will help ensure that in the unfortunateevent of an oil spill, response strategies have been tested and response organization is sound.

Acknowledgements

EDC extends its gratitude to UCSB interns Katherine Smith and Evan Rosenberg, whoconducted the research and drafted the contents of this report. We would also like to thank all ofthe agency staff who patiently responded to our questions and requests for information. Most ofall, we would like to acknowledge the following agency staff members: Ellen Faurot-Daniels,California Department of Fish and Game-Office of Spill Prevention and Response; RobinBlanchfield, California Coastal Commission; and Elsa Arndt, Santa Barbara County Office ofEmergency Services

19 DEEP WATER, supra , p. 139.


14/54


15/54


16/54


17/54


18/54


19/54


20/54


21/54


22/54


23/54


24/54


25/54


26/54


27/54


28/54


29/54


30/54


31/54


32/54


33/54


34/54


35/54


36/54


37/54


38/54


39/54


40/54


41/54


42/54


43/54


44/54


45/54


46/54


47/54


48/54


49/54


50/54


51/54


52/54


53/54


54/54

Guide to Oil Spill Response in the SB Channel December 2011

Documents

Transcript of Guide to Oil Spill Response in the SB Channel December 2011