Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River
Hazardous Spills Coordination Group Meeting
October 19-20, 2004
Mark of the Quad Cities
Moline, Illinois
John Whitaker of
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources called the meeting to order at
1:40 p.m. on October 19, 2004. The
following Spills Group members and observers were present:
|
Roger Lauder |
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Day 2) |
|
Rodney Tucker |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John Whitaker |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John Grump |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John
Punkiewicz |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Rock Island District |
|
Rus Jackson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District (Day 1) |
|
Dave Varner |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District (Day 1) |
|
Patrick Cuty |
U.S. Coast
Guard, District 8 New Orleans |
|
Collin Fagan |
U.S. Coast
Guard, MSO St. Louis |
|
Steve Faryan |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Ann Whelan |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Barbi Lee |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (Day 2) |
|
Joe Davis |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
Gary Haden |
McKinzie
Environmental |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Minutes of the April Meeting
The
minutes of the April 20-21, 2004 UMR Spills Group meeting were approved as
written.
Net Environmental Benefits Analysis
Ann
Whelan briefly described three recent Net Environmental Benefits Analysis
(NEBA) workshops focused on freshwater environments, including Isle Royale
(January 2004), UMR Pool 7 (March 2004), and UMR Pool 19 (April 2004). NEBA is a structured way of bringing
responders and resource experts together to examine the ecological consequences
of various response options in a particular area. Whelan noted that NEBA has been employed extensively on the
nation’s coasts, but had not previously been used in the inland zone.
The
scenario for the Pool 7 workshop involved a canola oil spill from a train that affected
the Lake Onalaska area near La Crosse, Wisconsin. The Pool 19 workshop considered the impacts of a pipeline release
of Texas light crude from Fort Madison to Keokuk, Iowa. Both scenarios involved releases during the
autumn, when concentrations of migratory waterfowl would be present. In both UMR workshops, a “no action”
alternative was examined to identify baseline environmental impacts. These were then compared with the
anticipated impacts if mechanical removal or in situ burning were employed.
According
to Whelan, consensus highlights from the two UMR NEBA workshops included the
following:
· There are tremendous ecological resources
at risk on the UMR, including migratory waterfowl, mussels, and other
significant populations.
· The sources of risk on the UMR are quite
diverse, both in terms of type and spatial distribution.
· Response options and capabilities on the
UMR are limited, due to the nature of the river and to the availability of
response equipment in the region.
· The Corps has a limited, but potentially
important, ability to affect river conditions through its operation of the
navigation system. OSCs should
coordinate with the Corps regarding operational changes that could facilitate
response. The UMR Spill Plan includes a
protocol for such coordination.
Whelan
identified several potential next steps for NEBA on the UMR, including an
intent expressed by Illinois DNR to apply NEBA to the Illinois River. While some workshop participants recommended
a NEBA workshop for each pool of the UMR, Whelan said this would not be
feasible. However, she said EPA is very
interested in using NEBA to identify insights applicable to the entire
system. In addition to its use in spill
response planning, Whelan suggested that NEBA holds promise for Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), post-spill restoration, and actual spill
response (in a streamlined application).
A draft report summarizing the two UMR workshops is currently under
review.
Whelan
said EPA, the Coast Guard, and others are also discussing how to proceed with
NEBA in the inland zone. One task will
involved producing some basic information that can be used to support future
NEBA workshops for inland lakes and rivers.
She noted that dispersant use is not considered a viable option in
freshwater environments, eliminating a major source of controversy that has
characterized the coastal NEBAs. This
lack of polarization regarding basic response options allowed participants in the
two UMR workshops to delve further into specific planning needs. Based on these more in depth discussions,
Whelan said needs on the UMR seem to include:
· A bird hazing plan — In discussing the
possibility of such a plan, Spills Group members highlighted a range of issues
that it would need to address, including the target species’ habitat
preferences and behavioral patterns, human health and safety, compatibility
with response operations, anticipated effectiveness, etc.
· Guidelines for in situ burning on big rivers — Whelan said that discussion at the
Pool 19 workshop illustrated the need for such guidelines, explaining that some
participants advocated for burning uncontained product in the main channel of
the river.
· Increased understanding of the Corps’
flexibility in operating the river system — Whelan noted that Bill Koellner of
the Corps’ Rock Island District made an excellent presentation on this topic at
a Spills Group meeting a few years back.
She suggested documenting the information he provided for each pool, and
expanding it as needed to cover the entire system. Dave Varner explained that operations on the Illinois River
differ markedly from those on the UMR, noting that a large part of the Illinois
River is in open river conditions routinely during high water.
Rodney
Tucker said he was impressed at the Pool 19 workshop with the participants’
willingness to work together. He noted
that the resource managers and scientists brought considerable site-specific
knowledge to the table. Barb Naramore
suggested that the diversity of perspectives and expertise among resource
managers should be a lesson to responders — i.e., don’t consult just one
natural resource person on a spill and expect that person to provide a complete
picture regarding potential impacts.
Follow-Up to UMR Spill Plan Review
Emergency Action Field Guide
John
Whitaker recounted that the UMR Spill Plan Review Subcommittee had previously
recommended developing an emergency field action guide. The objective was to have a concise document
that could be broadly distributed to various private and public sector people
working on the river, as well as members of the public. The contents would include basic information
on notification and reporting, as well as special river-related considerations. Barb Naramore further explained that the
full Spills Group endorsed the concept at its April 2004 meeting and asked the
Plan Review Subcommittee to draft the guide.
In response, UMRBA staff developed a draft that the Subcommittee
reviewed during two conference calls.
The draft provided for the Spills Group’s consideration at the current
meeting reflects the input of the Subcommittee members.
Ann
Whelan noted that the Region 5 RRT has a pocket size field guide that might
serve as a useful template. John
Punkiewicz suggested that the emergency action guide could be included in
materials distributed to recreational boaters.
He noted that boating safety classes would be a good distribution
mechanism. Patrick Cuty recommended
trying to incorporate the emergency action field guide information into
existing publications.
Cuty
said the guide should define reportable quantities. Joe Davis agreed.
Naramore responded that this would be difficult to do for the UMR in
such a brief document, given the multiple jurisdictions. Moreover, the document is not really
intended to provide responsible parties with all of the information they need
to comply with the law. Instead, it is
designed to convey basic, awareness-level information to a much broader, more
diverse audience. Naramore also
explained that Eddie McGlasson on the Plan Review Subcommittee had suggested
developing a web page with the basic state and federal reporting requirements
and links to the relevant statutes and regulations. This could be patterned on a page that EPA Region 7 has developed
(http://www.epa.gov/region7/toxics/factsht.htm),
but would include information for all five states as well. Moreover, it would focus exclusively on
requirements related to releases affecting or potentially affecting water. The Region 7 site is multi-media in
scope. After further discussion, Spills
Group members concurred with McGlasson’s suggestion and agreed to provide
Naramore with any suggestions regarding format after reviewing the Region 7
site. Moreover, the state Spills Group
members agreed to forward their reporting requirements and links to Naramore
for use in developing the web page.
Spills
Group members discussed a variety of format and content options for the
emergency action field guide. Format
options included small cards, bookmarks, booklets, posters, and an online
version, as well as the double-sided single page approach reflected in the Subcommittee’s
draft. Naramore emphasized that several
of these format options would require reducing the amount of text in the draft,
but noted that most of the changes recommended during the preceding discussion
would involve adding text. There was
general agreement that multiple formats might allow the broadest distribution
and greatest efficacy. For example, the
online version could include active links.
Members also concurred that using color ink and lamination would result
in more appealing and durable materials.
Steve Faryan offered the services of an EPA graphics person. Cuty said the Coast Guard might be able to
help defray printing costs. Naramore
noted that more formats would mean more initial work and greater subsequent
maintenance effort.
Faryan
asked how the action guide would be distributed. John Grump said fisheries managers and conservation wardens could
be quite helpful in this regard.
Punkiewicz said the Corps’ recreational ramp operators could also
help. Naramore said she envisioned
mailing the guide to operators of river terminals, intakes, storage facilities,
commercial vessels, and marinas. Other
suggestions offered included marina associations, the Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and state boating safety instructors.
Spills
Group members agreed to consider the format options further and provide
Naramore with their input on this question, as well as any further suggestions
on the content of the draft.
UMR Planning and Response CD
Whitaker
reported that the Plan Review Subcommittee has also recommended a special UMR
response CD, which would include the UMR Plan, the three existing sub-area
plans for portions of the UMR (i.e., Twin Cities, Quad Cities, and St. Louis),
and the Inland Sensitivity Atlas PDF maps and tables for the UMR corridor. Only those maps that include the river
itself (i.e., not all maps for the border counties) would be included under
this recommendation. Whelan suggested
also including the Tri-State Hazmat Group’s plan. Grump said he would confer with Lois Ristow about this
possibility. In response to a question
from Whelan, Naramore said that she did not know whether all of the proposed
contents would fit on a single CD. If
the files are too large, alternatives would include a multi-volume CD set, or a
single DVD.
Whelan
advocated also including information on the Corps’ operating flexibility and
constraints. She suggested that this
could be done by documenting the information that Bill Koellner previously
presented to the Spills Group, and supplementing it as needed to ensure
coverage of the entire system. Whelan
and Faryan said they would review the information from Koellner’s presentation
and recommend what to include on the UMR CD.
Grump
asked about plans for maintaining and updating the proposed UMR CD/DVD over
time. He noted that the plans and other
material contained on it will not all be updated on the same schedule. Gary Haden reported that the Quad Cities and
St. Louis plans’ resource lists need updating.
He agreed to provide updated versions of the two plans for inclusion on
the CD/DVD.
After
further discussion, Spills Group members endorsed the Plan Review
Subcommittee’s recommendation to develop a UMR CD/DVD. They also agreed with the Subcommittee’s
recommended contents. Regarding
distribution, Spills Group members concluded that the CD/DVD should be limited
to public and private sector planners and responders. This will include facility operators as well as their
contractors.
UMR Plan Updates
Patrick
Cuty reported that he has started working on a revised response equipment list for
the UMR Plan. He expressed interest in
expanding the range of equipment that is included in the list. Noting the labor involved in updating the
list and the dynamic nature of equipment inventories, Cuty also said he would
like to streamline future updates, perhaps by collecting e-mail addresses and
links to web sites for current information, where applicable. He identified the Oil Spill Response
Organizations’ mandatory reporting to the Coast Guard Strike Force as another
source for maintaining the list.
Regarding
Cuty’s suggestion to expand the range of equipment in the list, Faryan
cautioned that such an expansion would increase the updating burden. Cuty said he would work with Naramore on his
ideas for modifying the list and then present his proposal for a revised format
and/or content to the Spills Group for its consideration.
Naramore
explained that the UMR Plan’s list of dischargers to the river has not been
comprehensively updated since the plan’s original publication in 1990. The list was compiled from the five states’
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit databases. The challenge to updating this list is that
that the state NPDES databases do not include the river mile location of the
discharge points on the UMR. Each state
originally estimated the river miles using other locational information. Naramore said she has asked each state
Spills Group member to investigate options for updating this list, but has not
yet heard back. John Whitaker said he still
needs to check with others in his agency.
Grump said Wisconsin has river mile locations for facilities on the UMR
good to one tenth of a mile. However,
the facilities may or may not be located adjacent to their discharge
point. Rodney Tucker said he has made
inquiries with Iowa DNR’s NPDES program staff, but has not yet heard back. Faryan said he would check into the
availability of such information from U.S. EPA.
Naramore
said Stan Smith had requested that the UMR Plan’s notification call roster be
revised to reflect changes in the way the Fish and Wildlife Service works with
the Department of the Interior’s Regional Environmental Officers (REOs). Smith has said that all notification calls,
regardless of time of day or day of week, should go to the appropriate
REO. The Service’s Region 3 Division of
Environmental Contaminants will no longer be taking these calls during business
hours. Whelan expressed concern about the
compatibility of this change with the REO-initiated requirements that federal
agencies contact the Service directly for Endangered Species Act (ESA)
consultations. She suggested adding a
caveat regarding this issue to the UMR Plan.
Naramore agreed to explore the issue further with Smith, if Whelan would
provide further details regarding the REOs’ stand.
Training and Outreach
Whitaker
said that the new emergency action field guide and UMR CD/DVD should be useful
outreach and education tools. He noted
that Missouri DNR has increased its visits to regulated facilities and local emergency
planning committees and said he intends to distribute the field guide and
CD/DVD as appropriate when making these contacts. He encouraged Spills Group members to identify other training and
outreach opportunities. Grump suggested
that the other states include Level B hazmat teams in their future distribution
of the UMR Spill Plan. Grump also noted
that there will be many outreach opportunities associated with distribution of
the field guide. With respect to the
possibility of renewed training efforts, Grump recommended coordinating with
the Tri-State Group where possible.
Cuty
reported that the Coast Guard is developing new training for its
personnel. Within the past few months,
the Coast Guard has held two classes for its pollution investigators and
OSCs. He said the UMR Plan could
readily be incorporated into the class for OSCs. While acknowledging that the Coast Guard rarely supplies the FOSC
for the inland zone, Cuty said he frequently invites private industry and the
states to send their staff to the Coast Guard’s OSC training, when space
permits. He said it might be possible
to extend this practice a bit by having a state request the training for a
particular location, with the objective of primarily serving the needs of
non-Coast Guard personnel.
Whelan
suggested the Coast Guard’s Industry Days as a good outreach opportunity. Collin Fagan said there is no fixed schedule
for when the event is held in St. Louis.
Whelan also identified state emergency management conferences as an
important forum for outreach efforts.
Cuty
said the UMR Plan is useful. However,
the Coast Guard’s limited response activity on the UMR, combined with its
practice of rotating personnel frequently, makes it difficult to keep Coast
Guard responders conversant with the plan.
Whitaker
observed that river access and suitable vessels are a challenge in the St.
Louis area. He said Missouri DNR would
like to coordinate further with the Coast Guard and the City of St. Louis on
incident investigation and response.
Haden
noted that a conference for certified hazardous materials managers is scheduled
for St. Louis in 2005. He
suggested that this might be an excellent outreach opportunity. John Punkiewicz said special sessions at the
lockmasters’ annual meetings could help increase their awareness of basic
response issues and potential impacts on their operations. Punkiewicz said the lockmasters for each
Corps districts typically meet separately.
Joe
Davis described the St. Louis Sub-Area Committee’s recent river tour as an
excellent outreach event. He also said
the Trans CAER group’s railroad sessions have been quite successful. Davis suggested a one-day training session
geared to showing people the equipment that would be involved in river
response.
Tucker
said Iowa DNR’s quarterly field office meetings are a good opportunity for
internal outreach and coordination. He
cited the Iowa SERC and a regularly scheduled hazmat symposium as possibilities
for broader outreach. He also noted
Iowa’s hazmat teams meet twice per year through a Hazmat Task Force. Cuty mentioned that the spill association on
the Gulf of Mexico almost always focuses on a plan during its annual
conference. He suggested working with
similar groups on the UMR to increase awareness of the UMR Plan. Whelan said the LEPCs and state emergency
management conferences would be most nearly comparable to the event Cuty
referenced. She also suggested
statewide conferences as a way of reaching fire chiefs, but said individual
department’s training and that offered by the Association of Fire Trainers
would be better ways of connecting with frontline firefighters.
Naramore
thanked the Spills Group members for their excellent suggestions and said it is
clear the diverse target audiences necessitate a multi-faceted training and
outreach strategy. However, she also
emphasized that need for the Spills Group to articulate an overall strategy
that identifies how the different opportunities will work in conjunction. Naramore said the Spills Group members will
then need to assume mutual accountability for executing the strategy in a
coordinated fashion. She recommended
continuing the training and outreach discussion to the next day in order to
allow people to reflect overnight.
[Note: On October 20, this item was
carried over to the April 2005 meeting due to lack of time.]
The
meeting adjourned for the day at 5:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:05 a.m. on
October 20.
Ann
Whelan reported that a spill of national significance (SONS) exercise is
planned for the inland rivers/Great Lakes region in 2007. SONS exercises are held approximately every
three years, pursuant to the National Contingency Plan. The Coast Guard has led the previous SONS,
which have all taken place on the coasts.
EPA and the Coast Guard will co-lead the inland SONS in 2007. Whelan also noted that the SONS may be
coordinated with a central region earthquake exercise that FEMA is planning for
2007. The FEMA exercise will involve an
event on the New Madrid fault.
Whelan
emphasized that the 2007 SONS will not have a terrorism focus because terrorism
has been a significant element of all other major exercises since 2001. She said an earthquake-related scenario
would allow a wide range of players to participate. The Coast Guard has indicated that it would like this SONS to
involve both the Great Lakes and the inland rivers. Whelan suggested that an earthquake-caused power outage could be
one way of driving impacts to the Great Lakes.
EPA
and the Coast Guard will be initiating scoping and planning for the exercise in
the near future. Whelan said she would
like to see a 5 to 10 day rolling exercise, with different people involved over
the course of the event, reflecting the natural evolution of a real event. This would be in contrast to other major
exercises, which have typically not looked beyond the first few days. As a result, Whelan said, those other
exercises have tended to focus largely on emergency response and the role of
local responders. They have not been as
successful exploring the major environmental issues that do not really emerge
until well into an event. Whelan also
emphasized the need to scale the exercise appropriately, so that search and
rescue issues associated with the earthquake element do not overwhelm the
environmental issues.
As
for schedule, Whelan said EPA, the Coast Guard, and their partners will scope
the exercise in 2005, with more intensive planning taking place in 2006. The SONS itself will be held in the late
spring or early summer of 2007. Whelan
encouraged early input from Spills Group members regarding the schedule and
basic parameters for the exercise, as well as more specific scoping ideas.
Roger
Lauder asked about the level and nature of state involvement that is being
sought. Patrick Cuty said that the
states have been active players in the previous SONS exercises with which he is
familiar. Cuty said the states’ roles
have been determined by their level of interest. Whelan concurred, noting that EPA and the Coast Guard have
neither the means nor interest to compel others’ involvement. However, she said the federal agencies will
participate at a high level. Whelan
said all 10 of EPA’s regions will play in various capacities. Lauder observed that the election cycle may
affect some state agencies’ level of interest and ability to make commitments
in advance of the exercise. Whelan
acknowledged this issue, but noted that exercises of this scale require significant
advance planning.
Cuty
asked whether corporate sponsors have been identified. Whelan replied that the Coast Guard
typically works through the American Petroleum Institute (API) to get a
corporate volunteer to play the responsible party (RP). She said scenario planning is not
sufficiently advanced yet to know whether an RP will be required for the 2007
exercise. Cuty observed that industry
can bring a lot to the table, both as a sponsor and as a player. Whelan agreed, and distinguished between the
sponsor and player roles. She noted
that industry sponsors often incur significant expenses associated with
equipment deployment and that this deployment often ends up being ancillary to
what happens in the command center. She
expressed hope that any large scale deployment in the 2007 exercise could be
made more realistic by deploying the equipment closer to when it would arrive
in an actual incident, rather than at the outset of the exercise.
Citgo’s Bettendorf Exercise
Barbi
Lee reported on the May 18-20, 2004 exercise that Citgo held involving its
Bettendorf facility. Citgo coordinated
with the Quad Cities Sub-Area Committee in planning and holding the event,
which included an incident command system (ICS) training session as well as a
tabletop exercise. According to Lee,
the training and exercise involved Citgo employees from many levels of the
organization, as well as company contractors.
The company’s objectives included practicing unified command, response
under high water conditions, evacuations, and ICS, as well as exploring
potential environmental impacts in the area.
The Sub-Area Committee’s objectives included determining how its plan
would be used during a spill, whether notification procedures would be
followed, and whether its identified response strategies would be used.
The
scenario was designed as a worst case discharge for Citgo’s Bettendorf
facility. It began is a barge release
of 1,200 barrels of diesel at the facility’s dock. This release was used to drive the training session on May
18. The incident then escalated with a
tank and dike failure, which released 24,000 barrels, with product reaching the
river under high water conditions.
According
to Lee, lessons learned for the Sub-Area Committee included that the Sub-Area
Plan and response strategies were not used as extensively as committee members
anticipated. Lee said Citgo primarily
relied on its own plans and documents.
Citgo’s facility response plan (FRP) for the Bettendorf site includes
some specific response strategies. Lee
noted that a few inaccuracies and omissions were also identified in the Quad
Cities plan and response strategies.
Gary
Haden said he intends to compare the response strategies in all Quad Cities
area FRPs with the strategies that the Sub-Area Committee developed. Barb Naramore suggested that Haden might
also want to compare the Quad Cities Sub-Area Plan with the UMR Plan and the
inland sensitivity maps for the area as a cross-reference to avoid omissions.
Lee
noted that Richard Wingrove participated in the exercise and provided NOAA
modeling on fate and transport. Rodney
Tucker praised the exercise, noting that it gave agency staff excellent
exposure to riverine response issues.
Haden expressed regret that the exercise did not explore questions
related to cross-river coordination in the event of a major spill. Lee agreed, noting that the scale of local
participation in the exercise did not permit this.
Haden
cautioned that exercise participants made a common, but potentially
problematic, assumption — i.e., that they would be able to communicate via cell
phone during the response.
Communication alternatives were not explored. In a real disaster, Haden said there is a very real possibility
cell towers might not be functioning.
In response to a question from Steve Faryan, Roger Lauder noted that
many counties and cities in Illinois have been addressing joint communications
with federal anti-terrorism funding.
This has included developing dedicated computer networks for emergency
communication and improving countywide communications with new antennae. While acknowledging that progress has been
made within some counties, Haden said broad interoperability through a common
radio frequency and compatible equipment has not yet been achieved. Haden said he would check with a St. Louis
Sub-Area Committee member who has considerable expertise on these matters to
determine the current status of national and regional efforts.
Faryan
asked whether the unified command functioned effectively in the exercise. Lee said things went fairly smoothly, with
differences of opinion over issues like evacuations resulting in good
discussions. However, Lee noted that
there was not much local government participation in the exercise. She said this is particularly unfortunate,
given that local responders would take the lead in decisions such as
evacuation, in the event of an actual incident.
Early Warning Monitoring Network
Steve
Faryan briefly summarized the background on the UMR early warning monitoring (EWM)
effort, explaining that various entities had contributed significant effort to
exploring the potential for a UMR EWM system through a Scoping Group. The efforts of that group led to the October
2003 establishment of a pilot station at Lock and Dam 15 (L&D 15), using
equipment on loan from its manufacturer, YSI.
The monitoring equipment was to be operated by the City of Rock Island’s
drinking water staff. Faryan said the
Corps’ Rock Island District has been tremendously helpful in supporting the pilot
station, clearing placement of the equipment at their facility, providing data
logging and telemetry equipment, and offering training assistance to the City
of Rock Island staff. However, Faryan
said that keeping the city’s staff engaged has been an issue. In addition, he noted that American Water’s
leadership on this effort has diminished.
According
to Faryan, sources of additional EPA funding to support the UMR EWM effort are
not currently promising. EPA is
focusing some work on water security issues, but the parameters are quite
different and the focus is more on distribution systems and less on source
water. However, he said some of this
research may still provide useful insights.
In
response to a question from Roger Lauder, Barb Naramore described the
difference between the laboratory-based monitoring system on the Ohio River and
the real-time monitoring approach envisioned for the UMR. She explained that the UMR equipment in the
pilot station measures very basic parameters (i.e., water temperature,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, oxidation reduction potential, turbidity,
and chlorophyll). The goal is to see if
continuous measurement of these parameters could provide timely indications of
contamination events. Unlike the more
sophisticated equipment on the Ohio River, the L&D 15 station is not
designed to identify specific contaminants.
On the other hand, by taking multiple measurements per hour rather than
one reading per day, it is capable of providing more timely information. Moreover, the equipment is less expensive,
does not need to be based at a lab, and does not require advanced skills for
operation.
Collin
Fagan suggested port security grants as one potential source of funding to
support EWM. Naramore urged that basic
operating issues be resolved before any additional funding is sought. Since the L&D 15 equipment was deployed
in October 2003, due to various internal factors, the City of Rock Island’s
water treatment plant staff has not assumed responsibility for calibrating and
maintaining the equipment as originally planned. Corps staff has calibrated the equipment occasionally in an
effort to prevent damage, but little insight regarding operating requirements
or the equipment’s suitability for spill detection has been gained over the
past year.
Whelan
said that, with the City of Rock Island not maintaining the equipment and the
UMR Water Suppliers Coalition no longer an active presence, there are very real
questions about whether and how to proceed with the EWM effort. Lauder said Governor Blagojevich’s homeland
security initiative with Illinois’ water intakes may elicit interest from
another supplier.
Naramore
said there appear to be three basic options at this point, assuming the Spills
Group concurs that the status quo is unacceptable. These options are to:
1. establish an absolute deadline for the
City of Rock Island to establish and maintain a viable calibration and
maintenance schedule,
2. look immediately for another partner to
assume calibration and maintenance responsibilities, or
3. pull the equipment from the water and
return it to the manufacturer.
Naramore
urged that the first of these options only be chosen if the group is also
prepared to move immediately to one of the other two options in the event that
Rock Island does not demonstrate a clear capacity to operate the station. After some further discussion, Spills Group
members concurred that the YSI multi-parameter sonde should be withdrawn and
returned to the manufacturer unless:
1. the City of Rock Island water treatment
staff establishes and maintains a viable calibration and maintenance schedule,
starting immediately; or
2. an alternative partner is found in the
near future to operate the equipment.
Members
further agreed that deployment of the previously planned fluorescence detector
should be deferred until at least such time as a reliable mechanism is
established to operate the current equipment.
UMR Plan Notification Protocol
John
Whitaker briefly summarized the Spills Group’s recent discussions concerning
implementation of the UMR Spill Plan’s notification protocol. Following failures to fully implement the
protocol during incidents on the UMR, Spills Group members agreed at their
October 2003 meeting to conduct unannounced notification drills. Ann Whelan and John Grump volunteered to
take the lead in initiating and evaluating drills. Two drills were held, in December 2003 and February 2004, with
mixed success. According to Whitaker,
it was clear that there was room for improvement within all signatory
agencies. At their April 2004 meeting,
Spills Group members agreed to halt the unannounced drills through the summer,
during which time members were asked to work internally to ensure that all
relevant staff were familiar with the protocol and prepared to implement
it. Unannounced drills were then to
resume in the fall.
Several
Spills Group members described their own agency or state’s procedures for
receiving and disseminating spill notifications, as well as efforts they made
to increase competency with the UMR Plan’s protocol. Steve Faryan and Joe Davis indicated that the National Response
Center (NRC) notifies the EPA duty officers.
Those duty officers pass the reports along to the on-duty OSCs, who can
follow-up with the NRC by phone to obtain additional information. It was acknowledged that the NRC’s practice
of simply sending faxes to the states can result in delays because those faxes
are generally not seen by response personnel outside of regular business
hours. However, the states have their
own reporting requirements and 24-hour duty officers to receive notifications
directly from responsible parties and others.
Various options for increasing the states’ access to the federal
information system were discussed, including allowing the states to log on to a
web-based EOC, which includes updated information as incidents unfold.
John
Grump reported on the most recent unannounced UMR notification drill, which was
initiated at 1:15 p.m. on October 14 with a call to Iowa’s 24-hour number. The drill involved a release from the Jet
Gas facility in Fort Madison, Iowa.
Grump said he was transferred to an Iowa DNR field office, where the
person with whom he spoke was not clear on how to proceed. With some prompting, the field office
contacted DNR headquarters in Des Moines and the appropriate contacts were then
made to Illinois and Missouri as potentially affected states. Grump says that the fact that this was a
drill appeared to influence people’s follow through. He emphasized that all agency personnel need to proceed with
notifications as if the drills were real incidents.
Grump
encouraged the Spills Group to continue with the unannounced drills, noting
that they do not require much effort and are the best way to increase the
signatory agencies’ competency with the notification protocol. He said he has asked Whelan to conduct an
unannounced drill where Wisconsin will be the first-aware state.
Roger
Lauder asked whether Illinois could include multiple notification numbers in
the UMR Plan. Grump said this would be
acceptable if this is what the state needs, but stressed that Illinois would
need to make it clear how the various numbers are to be used.
Rodney
Tucker supported Grump’s recommendation to continue the notification
drills. He attributed the confusion at
Iowa DNR’s field office to the fact that the person reached is fourth in line
to receive notifications. Tucker said
he is striving to ensure that all personnel are familiar with the plan. He also reported that Iowa DNR had some
difficulty notifying the Fish and Wildlife Service of the incident using the
coordination office number. Naramore
noted that Stan Smith recently informed her that all notifications to the
Service should go through the Interior Department’s Regional Environmental
Officers [see previous discussion under UMR Plan updates]. John Punkiewicz asked whether the Corps was
notified during the October 14 drill.
Grump said that the Corps should have been notified, but was not.
Whitaker
asked whether the UMR notification protocol should be modified to include
having the first-aware state notify the NRC.
Grump said the Corps of Engineers should also be added to the list of
primary contacts for first-aware states.
After some discussion, Spills Group members agreed to make these
changes.
Oil Planning and Mapping Updates
Planning Updates
John
Whitaker reported that the St. Louis Sub-Area Committee sponsored a boat trip
on Pool 26 in late September, with EPA Region 7 supplying the boat and
operator. Participants looked at
various river features and facilities and discussed planning issues. Whitaker described the event as a good way
to reinvigorate the group. There were
14 participants. Barbi Lee said Jim
Silver would send the UMRBA some inland sensitivity map updates that were
identified on the trip. Lee also said
Jennifer Sweeney of Koch expressed some interest in developing response
strategies for the sub-area. Joe Davis
and Roger Lauder both said the boat trip was an excellent chance to share
information and meet other members of the Sub-Area Committee.
Gary
Haden reported on planning and exercise efforts underway for Omaha/Council
Bluffs and the Siouxland area. He also
said that the Quad Cities Sub-Area Committee is scheduled to meet following
today’s Spills Group meeting.
Barb
Naramore reported that UMRBA staff worked with MPCA, Wisconsin DNR, and Wakota
CAER’s industry members to extend the Twin Cities response strategies
coverage. Strategies were developed for
the UMR from Hastings to Red Wing, Minnesota, downstream from the Twin Cities
metro area. Small portions of the St.
Croix and Vermillion Rivers were also included. John Grump said that, in conjunction with the response strategy
effort, Wakota CAER has received permission to establish an equipment cache at
Kinnickinnic State Park on the St. Croix River. Grump noted that a large pipeline crosses the St. Croix upstream
of the park.
Mapping Updates
Ann
Whelan reported that, with the exception of one portion of Ohio, the inland
sensitivity maps have been completed for all of EPA Region 5. She expressed appreciation for everyone’s
contributions to this effort. Whelan
said Region 5’s management is committed to maintaining the maps, and Minnesota
and Michigan will be the first two states updated. The goal is to complete two statewide updates each year. Whelan said Illinois and Wisconsin are in
line for updating in FY 06 and 07, respectively.
Major
changes in the updated maps will include the addition of protection strategies
where they have been developed, the inclusion of data on historic features
where available, and the addition of a new hazardous materials data layer. The maps will be packaged on a statewide
basis, though sub-divisions may be needed to make the material available to
some users. In any event, the current
mapping areas will no longer be used.
She also reported that the UMRBA and Great Lakes Commission will be
assuming the map production duties formerly done at USGS’s Upper Midwest
Environmental Sciences Center. The
discontinuation of USGS’s role also necessitates moving the project web site
from USGS to EPA. Whelan said there will
likely be a transition period during which the maps are not available online.
Agency Updates and Reports on Recent
Incidents
John
Whitaker said that, other than a few mystery sheens, there have been no recent
incidents on the Upper Mississippi or Missouri Rivers in Missouri. He noted that security preparations for the
Presidential debate in St. Louis were an enormous undertaking.
Rodney
Tucker reported that a tug sank near Cordova.
Approximately 50 gallons of motor oil was released, but the 5,000
gallons of diesel fuel on board was successfully pumped off. Tucker also noted that LT Chris Pisares has
replaced LT Dave Webb at the Quad Cities MSD.
Patrick
Cuty reported that Hurricane Ivan’s impacts on the east coast extended well
inland. Several vessels sunk in the
Pittsburgh area, and some are continuing to create obstructions as salvage work
is ongoing. Cuty said he hopes to
incorporate some good training opportunities concerning naval architecture,
firefighting, and related issues.
Barbi
Lee reported that EPA’s Environmental Response Team (ERT) gave its fast water
boom training class in the Quad Cities in July. There was good local participation in the class, and Lee said it
was a useful follow-up activity to Citgo’s exercise in May. She said EPA may try to offer the class in
St. Louis.
John
Grump said there have been no major incidents recently in Wisconsin. He noted that Wisconsin DNR is experiencing
layoffs to a degree that Grump has not seen in his 28 years with the
agency. Grump announced that he will be
retiring in May 2005. With the current
staffing situation, Grump said he did not know when his replacement would be
named.
The
next meeting of the UMR Spills Group was set for April 20-21, 2005 in the Quad
Cities.
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.