State Response System–Larry Hartig, Alaska Department of
49
State Response System Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Transcript of State Response System–Larry Hartig, Alaska Department of
State Response System Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Protect public safety, health and the environment through prevention, preparedness and cleanup of
oil and hazardous substances
SPAR Mission
AS 46.03: Water Pollution Control & Waste Disposal
AS 46.04: Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution Control
AS 46.08: Oil and Hazardous Substances Releases AS 46.09: Hazardous Substance Release Control 18 AAC 75: Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution
Control
Statutory & Regulatory Authority
AS 46.03: Water Pollution Control & Waste Disposal Article 7- Prohibited Acts and Penalties
Civil and Criminal Penalties Exxon Valdez $ 1 Billion M/V Kuroshima $ 1 Million BPX D Pad $ 675,000 Unocal Swanson $ 138,000 M/V Selendang Ayu $ 844,707 GC-2 Oil Spill $ 10 Million
Statutory & Regulatory Authority
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A person may not pollute or add to the pollution of the air, land, subsurface land, or water of the state. (AS 46.03.710) The civil penalties for discharge of oil not to exceed per environment (AS 46.03.758(b)(1)) Anadromous stream ($10/gal of oil) Estuarine, intertidal or confined saltwater ($2.5/gal of oil) Unconfined saltwater, public land, or freshwater lacking aquatic resources ($1/gal of oil) Civil penalties for discharge of crude oil (AS 46.03.759(a)) Unpermitted discharge of crude oil in excess of 18,000 gallons. Maximum penalty is $500 million in the amount of $8 per gallon of crude oil discharged for the first 420,000 gallons $12.50 per gallon of crude oil discharged in excess of 420,000 gallons M/V Kuroshima- Civil penalty assessed was $56,000.00; NRDA assessed was $949,000.00; State response cost $621,366.00 M/V Selendang Ayu – total amount of clean-up costs and fees resulted in more than $112 million ($100 M on cleanup cost, $9 M federal criminal penalty, $2.5 M state’s cleanup cost). The accident resulted in the spill of approximately 336,000 gallons of fuel oil, mostly heavy oil. With exception of the Exxon Valdez, the oil spill penalty collected is the largest civil oil spill penalty every recovered by the state of Alaska. GC-2 Oil Spill – Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (federal agency) said the fine is the highest per-barrel penalty every levied for an oil spill. It amounts to about $4,923 per barrel.
AS 46.04: Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Article 1- Oil Pollution Control
Reimbursement for Cleanup Expenses Removal of Oil Discharges Catastrophic Oil Discharges Oil Discharge Cleanup Personnel, Equipment, Expenses
Article 2- Oil & Hazardous Substance Discharge and Prevention Contingency Plans Unified Plan-State Master Plan
Requires ICS (AIMS Guide)
10 Subarea Plans-Regional Master Plans
Statutory & Regulatory Authority
Presenter
Presentation Notes
State can take over cleanup if actions taken by the RP is determine to be inadequate. (AS 46.04.020) Catastrophic Oil Discharge – DEC Commissioner or adjutant general of DMVA may request the governor to determine that an actual or imminent occurrence of a catastrophic oil discharge constitutes a disaster emergency under AS 26.23. Once disaster declaration has been made, DEC and DMVA can take appropriate actions to relieve actual or imminent discharge. (AS 46.04.080) C-plan holders must have available containment, storage, transfer, and cleanup equipment, personnel, and resources to meet the planning standards. (AS 46.04.030(k)) Plan holder must demonstrate that the equipment, personnel, and other resources maintained outside the plan holder’s region of operation are accessible to the plan holder and will be deployed and operating at the discharge site within 72 hours. (AS 46.04.030(k)(3)(C)) Article 2 - The boundaries for the 10 subareas are set under DEC regulation (18AAC75.495)
AS 46.08: Oil & Hazardous Substances Releases Article 1- Prevention & Response Fund
Use of the Response Fund ($50 million Fund) Access based on imminent and substantial threat to public
health and environment State On-Scene Coordinators are authorized to access the
fund for up to $25,000
Reimbursement for Containment & Cleanup Pursue cost recovery from Responsible Party through the
Department of Law
Statutory & Regulatory Authority
AS 46.09: Hazardous Substances Release Control Report of Release Containment &
Cleanup of a Release
Statutory & Regulatory Authority
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Average about 45-50 releases per year. Top five chemicals released in rank order: Ammonia Sulfur Dioxide Chlorine Sulfuric Acid Hydrochloric Acid
18 AAC 75: Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Removal of Oil Discharges
Scope and duration of initial response Initial response actions Oversight of containment & cleanup Determine adequacy of cleanup
Monitor Responsible Party Augment Cleanup Effort Government Takeover of Cleanup
The individual, tribe, native corporation, or business who owns or operates the facility or piece of equipment that caused the spill is responsible
The EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, or ADEC may assist in cleaning up the spill, but will give a bill of payment due to the responsible party
Who is Responsible for a Spill?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
It is important to note that the federal and state agencies will always try and determine the responsible party. The bottom-line is the spiller is always responsible for the cleanup of the spill.
Incident Complexity
Spill Incident
Political Interest Multi-
Jurisdictional Involvement
Media Interest
Cleanup Duration
Environment Economic Concerns
Potential Casualties
Response Staffing
Type of Product
Spill Volume
High Stakes … High Visibility
TAPS 400 Spill - October 4, 2000 M/V Kuroshima - November 26, 1997
M/V Selendang – December 8, 2004 North Slope GC-2 – March 2, 2006
UNIFIED COMMAND RPOSC/IC
FOSC SOSC LOSC
COMMAND STAFF Information Officer
Liaison Officer Legal Officer Safety Officer
PLANNING OPERATION LOGISTICS FINANCE
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is an abbreviated version of the ICS org chart. State and federal role in the ICS is outline in Appendix B of the AIMS Guide, starting on page B-59. There are pre-designated individuals who respond as the representatives for the lead federal and state agencies and are referred to as federal and state on-scene coordinators (FOSC and SOSC). FOSC and SOSC are members of the Unified Command during significant spill events involving multiple jurisdictions. Command relationships are key to an effective response. The federal and state agencies are continually working together with industry to establish a standardized system for spill response in the state of Alaska.
Responsible Party-Led Response Responsible Party Augmented Response Government-Led Response
Three Types of Spill Response
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Within the State of Alaska, three types of responses are generally recognized by the spill response community. RP-Led Response – The RP assumes responsibility and actively engages in response and cleanup activities. The RP (either directly or through a spill cooperative) activates the C-Plan (if the incident involves regulated vessel or facility), and staffs the incident response organization. The federal and state entities assume an oversight role to monitor the adequacy of the RP’s efforts, perform required regulatory functions (investigation, damage assessment, cost recovery, etc.), and jointly develop response objectives. RP Augmented Response – In certain circumstances (e.g. a catastrophic spill event or an RP with limited capabilities), the RP may require additional assistance from the federal and/or state governments to launch an adequate response and sustain a cleanup operation. The lead federal and state agencies may augment the RP’s efforts as necessary, including staffing of the incident response organization and providing additional spill response resources. The federal and state authorities will also continue with their regulatory functions as well. Government-Led Response – In the event of a non-responsive, incapable, or unknown RP, the federal or state government (dependent upon jurisdiction over the incident) will take the lead and manage the response and cleanup operation. In doing so, the government agency(s) will staff the response organization and direct the response and cleanup operation (which may be delegated to federal and/or state response contractors).
State On-Scene Coordinator
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Responsible for directing and coordinating the State’s response to oil and hazardous substance discharges. The term “On-Scene Coordinator” is a legal term for the lead federal and State representatives who direct the response for federal and state governments. The FOSC and the SOSC are members of the Unified Command during significant spill events involving multiple jurisdictions. SOSC are designated by the Commissioner of ADEC. SOSC have been pre-designated for Northern Alaska, Central Alaska, and Southeast Alaska.
Alaska Federal/State Unified Plan Subarea Contingency Plans Geographic Response Strategies Potential Places of Refuge Emergency Towing System
Response Planning
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The oil pollution act of 1990 placed new planning requirements upon industry and the federal government. This act divided the U.S. into regions and, because of its sheer size, the state of Alaska constitutes a region in itself. The Alaska region was further sub-divided into three coastal and two inland zones. The Coast Guard and EPA were tasked with developing plans for their respective coastal and inland zones. Following the Exxon Valdez, the state of Alaska instituted new statutes which required ADEC to develop a state master plan and ten regional master plans. In the fall of 1992, the EPA, Coast Guard, and ADEC received approval from the State Emergency Response Commission and the Alaska Regional Response Team to proceed with a joint planning initiative to create a unified plan and ten subarea contingency plans. Geographic response strategies are a part of the subarea plans, and provide pre-identified, specific tactics for protecting an area such as the mouth of a salmon stream.
Unified and Subarea Plans
Subarea Planning Process
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This slide shows the general subarea planning process. The subarea committee is normally composed of the lead federal agencies (Coast Guard and EPA) and the lead state agency, ADEC. We also strongly encourage community leaders to participate as a subarea committee member, especially in cases such as Kodiak and the North Slope where the jurisdictional boundaries for the borough are the same as the subarea boundaries. The three primary work groups are as follows: Sensitive areas workgroup - sensitive areas section Operations workgroup - response and scenarios section Logistics workgroup - resources section Representation on these work groups may include federal/state/local agencies, oil companies, spill cooperatives and others.
Integrated Response
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall picture of the types of plans that could be employed for a major spill response. At the top and upper right, the Unified Plan and the appropriate Subarea Plan would be activated, along with any agency specific sops or checklists at the bottom. Any existing borough and local emergency response plans may also be activated if the incident occurs in the borough’s or community’s jurisdiction. Depending on who owns the facility or vessel causing the release, the responsible party will also be activating their contingency plan to respond to the incident.
Alaska’s Arctic Subareas
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The slide shows the OCS Lease sale maps for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. North Slope (May 2012) – Change Two (first developed December 1999) Northwest Arctic (January 2012) – Change One (first developed June 2001)
Geographic Response Strategies
Southeast Alaska Prince William Sound Cook Inlet Kodiak Aleutians Bristol Bay Western Alaska Northwest Arctic North Slope Interior Alaska
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Ten subareas Six areas completed (shown in black font) Blank font = GRS developed/Blue font = some GRS developed with GRS candidate locations still needs development/Red font = GRS is yet to be developed. GRS represent another planning initiative. �At present, GRS have not yet been developed for all Subareas. In the listing below of the ten Subareas, those that have GRS in place or those where GRS development is currently in progress are linked to those Subarea plans or sites. Subareas that are shown as plain text do not yet have GRS. These strategies are developed for high priority sensitive areas such as the mouth of a salmon stream. The tactics are pre-developed and provide a good guide for spill responders to use in the event of a spill. They are seasonally focused, i.e., some of these strategies would not necessarily apply throughout the year when a river is frozen, or sea and weather conditions are different. �
Geographic Response Strategies
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Geographical Response Strategies (GRS) are oil spill response plans tailored to protect a specific sensitive area from impacts following a spill. These response plans are map-based strategies that can save time during the critical first few hours of an oil spill response. They show responders where sensitive areas are located and where to place oil spill protection resources. Color Key: Green = GRS is final and adopted into Subarea Contingency Plan Red = Candidate sites that may be selected by the workgroup for GRS development. NOTE: Workgroup includes natural resource agency representatives, oil spill response professionals, and local government representatives. Beaufort Sea: 59 sites identified Chukchi Sea: 22 sites identified As you can see for the Chukchi and Beaufort sea, candidate sites have been identified and are awaiting section and development by the workgroup.
Geographic Response Strategies
East A Zone East B Zone West A Zone West B Zone Pribilof Zone
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Aleutian Subarea has been divided into five zone, of which, only two zones (East A and B) are fully developed. Green= GRS is final and adopted into Subarea Contingency Plan. Yellow= Sites Selected for GRS development; draft GRS may be available for review by workgroup members. Red = Candidate sites that may be selected by the workgroup for GRS development. East A Zone: 22 GRS sites adopted into the subarea plan. East B Zone: 20 GRS sites adopted into the subarea plan. West A Zone: 82 candidate sites for GRS development. The workgroup has developed a preliminary list of two selected sites from candidate sites for GRS development; however, there has been no GRS developed at this time. West B Zone: 43 candidate sites for GRS development Pribilof Islands Zone: 16 candidate sites for GRS development. The workgroup has developed a preliminary list of two selected sites from candidate sites for GRS development; however, there has been no GRS developed at this time.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Example of East A Zone GRS AEA-01 Nelson Lagoon.
Potential Places of Refuge
Photo/U.S. Coast Guard
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Potential Places of Refuge (PPOR) are pre-identified sites that may aid decision-makers in responding to vessels in distress. These plans are tailored to protect sensitive areas from impacts from possible spills and are map-based to save time during the critical first few hours of a vessel response. For the purposes of planning, Alaska has been divided into ten regions, or Subareas. PPOR have been developed for four of the Subareas by workgroups that were formed under the governing Subarea Committee. PPOR workgroup participants included State and Federal resource trustee agencies and local experts. Public involvement was essential to ensure that the places selected reflect the environmental protection priorities of local communities, stakeholders, and resource users. �At present, PPOR have not yet been developed for all Subareas. In the listing below of the ten Subareas, those that have PPOR in place are linked to those Subarea plans or sites. Subareas that are shown as plain text do not yet have PPOR.
Potential Places of Refuge
Spill Tactics for Alaska Responders Provides standardization
and consistency Tactics are non-prescriptive All tactics are flexible to
meet conditions in the field Easy to understand and use Designed for expandability Facilitate meeting regulatory
requirements by C-Plan holders.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Spill Tactics for Alaska Responders (STAR) manual provides a standardized oil spill response tactics manual specific to the State of Alaska. The manual is intended to be a standard tactical reference for oil spill planning and response activities in Alaska. It is available for use by the spill response community, including federal, state, local, industry, and spill response organizations throughout Alaska. The information in this manual bridges the gap between oil spill contingency planning and response by providing standard tactics and terminology that can be easily transferred from Contingency Plan to Incident Action Plan. The standardization will facilitate mutual aid among response organizations and may improve resource ordering and allocation during a response. The manual also has value as a field guide and training aid for oil spill responders. The work group consisted of the following participants: • Alaska Chadux Corporation • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation • Alaska Clean Seas • ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. • Alyeska Pipeline Service Company • U.S. Coast Guard • U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage • Tesoro Alaska Company • Cook Inlet Spill Prevention & Response Inc. • Southeast Alaska Petroleum Resource Organization • BP Exploration Alaska • U.S. Department of the Interior
29
Response Strategies and Tactics
Offshore
Nearshore
Shoreline
Inland
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With offshore exploration, increase in Arctic activities including vessel traffic, the need for additional spill response planning and capability is very obvious. The Response Zones can be broken down into the four areas shown on this map. Each of these zones requires different spill response tactics and strategies.
Goal Protect State Resources
from Impacts of Oil Spills (State Waters extend out to 3 miles from the shoreline)
Objective Develop Specific
Nearshore Operations Response Strategies for each Subarea Plan
Nearshore Response Planning Initiative
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Identify nearshore response zones Develop nearshore response tactics for each zone for open water and broken ice conditions Identify equipment, trained personnel, response resources, staging areas and logistical support Develop the Unified Command and control structure for implementation using the incident command system DEC received (February 2012) supplemental funds of $175,000 as part of the federal Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) which will be used to fund the development of the remaining 40 GRS left to be developed in the NW Arctic Subarea and the development of the Nearshore Operations Response Strategy (NORS) in the Arctic. Nearshore Operations Response Strategy (NORS) being developed to supplement the Spill Tactics for Alaska Responders (STAR) Manual. The work group consists of DEC, Coast Guard, and the Alaska spill cooperatives.
Identify Manageable Response Zones for the subarea
Pre Identify Nearshore Response Tactics (both for open water and broken ice conditions)
Identify Resources and Logistical Support, Command and Control Arrangements
Implement in Conjunction with Developed GRS
Nearshore Operations Response Strategy
Alaska Vessel Rescue System
*AMVER- Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System
Non-Tank Vessel With Loss of Power
Place of Refuge
Vessel of Opportunity
Emergency Towing System
Mooring Buoy
Offshore Vessel Routing
Drift Groundings
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Picture: M/V Kuroshima Grounding (November 26, 1997) OFFSHORE VESSEL ROUTING Voluntary offshore vessel routing has been established on the Pacific west coast through an initiative undertaken by the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force to prevent drift groundings and subsequent oil spills. Offshore distances of approximately 40 miles have been established for marine vessels traveling the Pacific coast. Voluntary compliance with the offshore distances exceeds 90%. The offshore distances were established based on the location of rescue vessels along the coast and the time it would take to intercept a disabled vessel to prevent grounding. Insurers have endorsed the offshore distances as a prudent means for reducing risks from grounding. Offshore distances in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands have been set at 75 miles. WEST COAST VESSEL TRAFFIC REPORT http://www.oilspilltaskforce.org/notesreports/wcovtrm_report.htm This website describes the background work to establish offshore vessel routing as a significant prevention measure to prevent groundings for disabled ships. The offshore routing was established for the Pacific west coast and has been very successful.
Emergency Towing System
Background Selendang AYU grounding in December 2004 Cougar Ace in March 2006 Near grounding in March 2007 ETS Work Group formed Two ETS purchases for Dutch Harbor 2007
ETS Purchases Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak 2008 Adak 2011 Coast Guard Air Station Sitka and Anchorage 2011 (CIAP) Ketchikan and Nome on order for 2013 (CIAP)
ETS History
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Following the near grounding of the Salica Frigo on March 9, 2007, the Mayor of Unalaska convened a Disabled Vessel workgroup to address the possibility of future groundings and to discuss local emergency response solutions. This initial meeting prompted the Emergency Towing System (ETS) workgroup; whose goal was to develop emergency towing capabilities for disabled vessels in the Aleutian Subarea using locally available tugboats in conjunction with ETS equipment stationed in Unalaska The original project identified two Alaskan communities for the receipt of ETS packages. The City of Sitka was selected for one of the ETS, and a deployable system was identified for staging at the Navy Supervisor of Salvage (NAVSUPSALV) warehouse in Anchorage. The final outcome will be pre-positioned ETS packages at strategic locations for rapid deployment to rescue vessels in distress. This pre-planned action minimizes the time involved to initiate emergency tow procedures for the vessel, and consequently minimizes the potential for the vessel to go aground and sustain an oil or hazardous substance spill. The ultimate benefit is the protection of the coastline and critical fish, wildlife, and natural resource habitat.
ETS Locations
Medium ETS -Cold Bay Vessels <50,000 DWT
Medium ETS – Nome Vessels <50,000 DWT
Larger ETS Ketchikan
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Large ETS – for towing vessels greater than 50K DWT Dutch Harbor Adak Sitka Ketchikan NavSupSalv Warehouse (Anchorage) Kodiak Medium ETS – for vessels less than 50K DWT Dutch Harbor NavSupSalv Warehouse (Anchorage) Small ETS – for vessels less than 200 ft (typically fishing vessels) Cold Bay Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) expresses the number of tons of 2,240 pounds that a vessel can transport of cargo, stores, and bunker fuel. It is the difference between the number of tons of water a vessel displaces "light" and the number of tons it displaces when submerged to the "load line." Deadweight tonnage is used interchangeably with deadweight carrying capacity. A vessel’s capacity for weight cargo is less than it’s total deadweight tonnage.�
Community Spill Response
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Map of Community Spill Response Agreements, Response Equipment Containers, and Emergency Towing Packages in Alaska. (Revised January 2013) DEC has negotiated 45 community spill response agreements with boroughs and municipalities across the state. Agreement allows DEC to request local assistance based on the needs. (Activation Reimbursement Identification of local resources) Closest Arctic area Community Spill Response Agreement: Barrow and Kotzebue. With 45 agreements and over 56 state-owned local response containers, additional work is required is updating the agreements, focus on local responder training, and providing maintenance service to already existing containers. On average, approximately 2,000 oil and hazardous substance spills occur across Alaska every year. �Because of the vast size of the state and the remote location of many of its cities and communities, local residents are frequently the first line of defense in responding to oil or hazardous substance releases. In many cases outside responders cannot arrive in time to deal with the immediate impacts. �Recognizing the importance of local involvement, DEC is working with local communities to provide for coordinated and effective response and to expand the network of resources available to protect human health and the environment from the risks associated with oil and hazardous substance spills. By forging partnerships at the local level, both DEC and local residents will be better prepared to respond to these incidents.
Local On-Scene Coordinator
Regional Stakeholder Committee
Local Knowledge Augment the Response
with Trained Workers
Key Roles for Local Responders
North Slope Borough Village Response Team – GC-2 Spill (March 2006)
Local-Hire Worker – Selendang Ayu Spill (April 2005)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Part of our normal operating procedure is to include the local community in the spill response organization, either thru an local on-scene coordinator (LOSC) in the Unified Command or thru a representative in the Regional Stakeholder Committee. Local knowledge provided by local responders is priceless. We also work with the Responsible Party and the spill Co-Ops to ensure local hiring as much as possible for the spill response work force.
Oil Spill Removal Organizations
Presenter
Presentation Notes
There are five main Oil Spill Removal Organizations in Alaska and their capabilities are: Alaska Clean Seas: Off shore, near shore, ocean, inland, river/canal Alaska Chadux: Near shore, inland, river/canal (OSRO also for the North Slope Area) CISPRI: Off shore, near shore, ocean, inland, river/canal SERVS: Off shore, near shore, ocean, and inland (OSRO under Alyeska Pipeline Service) SEAPRO: Off shore, nearshore, ocean, inland, river/canal The OSRO classification program was created in response to new regulatory requirements established by OPA 90. The program is completely voluntary and its purpose is to assist oil-handling facilities and vessels in writing spill response plans. By listing a Coast Guard classified OSRO in a response plan, the plan holder is exempted from providing and updating extensive lists of response resources. This remains the only regulatory benefit that plan holders receive from using a classified OSRO. The program is simply a tool that helps plan holders meet statutory requirements set forth in 33 CFR 154 and 155. An OSRO that does not have a Coast Guard classification may still be employed by a plan holder and may be listed in the plan, but must be listed along with its entire emergency response resource inventory. The OSRO’s primary purpose is to serve as an emergency spill response resource to their customer. And their responsibilities are essentially to respond to emergency situations concerning the release of oil. Primary Response Action Contractor (PRAC) is an organization registered with the State of Alaska that is obligated under a contractual relationship with a contingency plan holder to provide personnel and/or equipment. (Section 46.04.035) Alaska Chadux, SEAPRO, CISPRI, and ACS are registered as PRAC. Alyeska Pipeline Service PRAC is Ahtna.
Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment
180°180° 170°W170°W 160°W160°W 150°W150°W 140°W140°W 130°W130°W 120°W120°W130°E130°E 140°E140°E 150°E150°E 160°E160°E 170°E170°E
180°180° 170°W170°W 160°W160°W 150°W150°W 140°W140°W 130°W130°W 120°W120°W130°E130°E 140°E140°E 150°E150°E 160°E160°E 170°E170°E
70°N70°N
40°N40°N
30°N30°N
20°N20°N
70°N70°N
60°N60°N
50°N50°N
40°N40°N
30°N30°N
20°N20°N
San Francisco
San FranciscoLA/Long Beach
LA/Long BeachPusanPusan Tokyo
Tokyo
PortlandPortland
SeattleSeattle
AleutiansAleutians
Great Circle Route
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The North Pacific Great Circle Route is the primary route for vessels trading between ports on the Pacific coasts of the United States and Canada and the Pacific Ports in East Asia. Common commodities transiting this route include commercial goods, machinery, coal, agricultural products, and automobiles. Analysis of AIS data from the Alaska Marine Exchange showed that 2,219 vessels transited the area from August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2009. Domestic shipping also occurs within the region to support the local communities and economic infrastructure.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Response Account Funded by 1¢ surcharge on each barrel of oil. Surcharge suspended when fund exceeds $50 Million. Suspended as of January 1, 2013 Pays for emergency response activities. Department recovers costs from identified responsible parties. Prevention Account Funded by a 4¢ surcharge on each barrel of oil. Pays for operational costs and readiness activities within the Spill Prevention & Response Division.
Status of the Prevention Account
PREVENTION ACCOUNT - BALANCE PROJECTION 4/12/2013 UPDATE - 4¢ Surcharge
FY 12 YEAR END PREVENTION ACCOUNT BALANCE 9,599.2
FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
REVENUE to PREVENTION ACCOUNT
4¢ Surcharge (Fall 2012 Revenue Sources) 7,558.6 7,000.0 6,800.0 6,600.0 6,400.0 6,100.0 5,600.0 5,400.0 5,000.0 4,700.0
Cost Recovery/Fines/Penalties 976.4 11,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0
Investment Income 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0
Total Projected Annual Revenue 9,735.0 19,700.0 9,500.0 9,300.0 9,100.0 8,800.0 8,300.0 8,100.0 7,700.0 7,400.0
EXPENSES from PREVENTION ACCOUNT
Governor's Operating Budget 15,450.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0
Governor's Capital Budget 750.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Projected Annual Expenses 16,200.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0 15,455.0
Projected Annual Surplus (Deficit) (6,465.0) 4,245.0 (5,955.0) (6,155.0) (6,355.0) (6,655.0) (7,155.0) (7,355.0) (7,755.0) (8,055.0)
PROJECTED YEAR END PREVENTION ACCOUNT BALANCE 3,134.2 7,379.2 1,424.2 (4,730.8) (11,085.8) (17,740.8) (24,895.8) (32,250.8) (40,005.8) (48,060.8)
Status of the Prevention Account
PREVENTION ACCOUNT - BALANCE PROJECTION 4/12/2013 UPDATE - 4¢ Surcharge
3,134.2 7,379.2
1,424.2
(4,730.8)
(11,085.8)
(17,740.8)
(24,895.8)
(32,250.8)
(40,005.8) ($45,000.0)
($35,000.0)
($25,000.0)
($15,000.0)
($5,000.0)
$5,000.0
$15,000.0
FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
Thousands
Fiscal Year End
PREVENTION ACCOUNT BALANCE
Rural Health - Issues Over 6,000 rural Alaska homes lack running water and a flush
toilet. Many more depend on aging and deteriorating piped and haul
systems. Lack of in-home water and sewer service causes severe skin
infections and respiratory illnesses. Children of southwestern Alaska suffer the highest rates of
invasive pneumococcal disease in the world. Funding to build conventional piped systems has declined
severely while construction and operations costs have risen sharply.
The deficit between available funds and needs is over $667 million.
Other DEC Arctic Strategy Issues and Priorities
Some communities in rural Alaska use a household toilet facility known as a "honey bucket.” A plastic bag lined bucket
collects human waste Bags from honey buckets
are disposed in a sewage lagoon.
Existing Conditions
Presenter
Presentation Notes
SHOW VIDEO
Rural Health - Priority Needs Improve the health of rural
Alaska residents Fund repair projects to increase
life of existing systems Develop innovative and more
affordable drinking water and sewer disposal systems for homes in remote Alaska villages
Other DEC Arctic Strategy Issues and Priorities
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Legislature has funded the first step of the “Alaska Water and Sewer Challenge” Brings together teams of engineers, innovators, sociologists, and people with rural Alaska/arctic experience. Fund selected teams to research and develop new and sustainable in-home water and sewer systems. Test promising systems in the lab and in the field. Select successful systems that will be affordable to build, operate and maintain. Results may be useful to other remote areas in Northern climates
Baseline Data and Modeling - Issues Limited baseline environmental data on air, water,
of food sources (particularly aquatic resources) Limited ability to evaluate trends over time that
will help predict environmental changes and Macro level climate change and permafrost models
have limited utility for infrastructure planning
Other DEC Arctic Strategy Issues and Priorities
General Clearing house to make data, research and studies available
Air Contaminants - Western Alaska (including Mercury) Meteorological data
Water Complete coastal baseline surveys using AKPMAP protocols
Beaufort Sea Bering Sea Lower Chukchi Sea
Complete freshwater baseline surveys (AKMAP) in regions with oil and gas development, large mines or urbanization
National Petroleum Reserve (O&G) Cook Inlet basin (urbanization, O&G) Tanana River basin (urbanization) Southeast Alaska (urbanization, mining Bristol Bay basin (mining)
Priority Needs – Monitoring and Research
Water (cont.) Cook Inlet stream temperature monitoring, beginning 2017, for 5 year
period to identify trends “Baseline” 5-year stream temperature monitoring
Southeast Alaska Tanana River Basin Upper Cook Inlet basin (Mat-Su)
Improve remote sensing for wetlands delineation (for regulatory program)
Climate Refine climate change and permafrost models; permafrost mapping;
erosion assessment; coast hazard assessment - improve precision for localized modeling to help focus infrastructure needs/changes
Assess ecosystem vulnerability to ocean acidification, temperature and other climate change parameters
Fish Continue to monitor contaminants in fish and identify trends
Monitoring and Research (cont.)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
QUESTIONS? Larry Hartig
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-5065
