Meeting Summary
February
28-
John
Whitaker, Chair of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) Hazardous Spills
Coordination Group, called the meeting to order at
|
John
Whitaker |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jim
Silver |
|
|
John
Punkiewicz |
|
|
Frank
Catalano |
|
|
Roger
Lauder |
|
|
Tim
Ganz |
American
Water Company |
|
Greg
Swanson* |
City
of Moline Water Department |
|
Steve
Faryan |
|
|
Ryan
Schuler |
American
Water Company |
|
Rodney
Tucker |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jim
MacDonald |
|
|
LTjg
James Peeler |
|
|
Scott
Pettis |
|
|
David
Morrison |
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency |
|
Tom
Morgan |
FEMA,
Region 7 |
|
Ann
Whelan |
|
|
Gary
Haden |
McKinzie
Environmental |
|
Tom
Kendzierski |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Patrick
Cuty |
|
|
Dave
Owens* |
City
of Moline Water Department |
|
Satyajyoti
Debchoudhury* |
City
of Moline Water Department |
|
Ginger
Molitor** |
US
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
*February 28th only.
**March
1st only.
(Note: In
the meeting summary, follow-up action items are shown in italics.)
Whitaker
welcomed all in attendance. All
individuals present introduced themselves.
Minutes
of the October Meeting
Whitaker
and Dave Hokanson provided opportunity for comment and correction of the
minutes of the
UMR
Early Warning Monitoring Network/Pilot Probe at Lock and Dam 15
Tim
Ganz provided an update on the operation of the early warning monitoring
network (EWMN) pilot probe located at Lock & Dam 15. In particular, he noted the ongoing work by
Dave Kull of Iowa-American Water to correct drift in turbidity readings and
calibration of chlorophyll measurements.
He also noted that a potential relocation of the probe to Iowa
American’s plant in
Jim
Silver asked what the purpose of the chlorophyll readings was. Ganz responded that this is an indicator of
the level of nutrients present in the river.
Greg
Swanson indicated that the temperature, turbidity, and pH readings at the probe
have been tracking pretty well with what he is seeing at the
Ann
Whelan indicated that EPA is comfortable with a relocation of the probe.
Hokanson
asked whether there were any further thoughts at this time regarding the
notification element of the EWMN system.
Whelan indicated she could look
into the possibilities at EPA. Hokanson
said he would follow up with Clint Beckert regarding role for USACE.
Hokanson
asked whether the funds proposed for EPA’s “WaterSentinel” program could be
used to the support the EWMN on the UMR. Whelan and Steve Faryan indicated that they
had done some initial investigation of this funding source, and that it is
largely intended to support monitoring for intentional contamination &
comparatively exotic compounds. However,
Faryan indicated that he would continue to investigate possibilities with EPA
Office of Research and Development (ORD). Faryan
also indicated that he would provide a report to Hokanson for distribution to
the group regarding early warning monitoring systems (Faryan subsequently
provided this information to Hokanson, who distributed to the group).
There
was general agreement among the group that alternate/additional sources of
potential funding should be pursued to support the EWMN project.
Ganz
inquired regarding the applicability and opportunities related to EPA’s
“Coastal Monitoring Network”. Whelan
replied that this network was geared primarily towards oceans (and the
Swanson
indicated that monitoring for additional parameters (beyond what is currently
measured by the probe) is very important.
An additional benefit of broadening out parameters monitoring would be
to potentially bring in additional sources of funding. He
indicated that Satyajyoti
Debchoudhury would be
providing information to the group on additional monitoring parameters.
Ganz
mentioned that American Water staff had visited a treatment plant in
The group also
agreed that a dedicated meeting or conference call to discuss the EWMN was
needed. Hokanson indicated he would
arrange such as discussion.
Patrick
Cuty provided a brief update on reorganization within the U.S. Coast
Guard. He indicated that the Coast Guard
is moving towards a (geographic) sector structure, as opposed to the current,
mission-based approach. Cuty emphasized
that, especially during the transition period, individuals should continue to
contact their local USCG staff and ask to be referred to the proper
person/location. He suggested relying on
these existing and personal contacts as an interim strategy while the
re-organization unfolds.
Frank
Catalano asked what was behind the re-organization. Cuty replied that,
initially, it was related post-9/11 security concerns but more recently has
been driven by Hurricane Katrina.
Tom
Morgan commented that the reorganization would likely not be as problematic on
the UMR, as compared to coastal areas, as there were not as many transition he
issues on the river. He further noted
that a command center will be located in
Rodney
Tucker noted that the reorganization has not resulted in the loss of any
individuals. Whelan, however, commented that response to spills of less than
500 gallons would be lost. Tucker
responded that, technically, a response from USCG would not be required – but
in reality a response would likely happen.
Hurricane
Katrina Response – Report from the Field (presented by Patrick Cuty)
Cuty
presented his experiences, both as a responder to Hurricane Katrina and as an
individual directly impacted by the storm.
The following are summarized highlights from his comments:
·
Communications were adversely affected and were
a major issue in the response effort. Examples of this included:
o
IMT temporarily unable to communicate due to
server failure.
o
Only short range FM transmitters working
initially.
o
Satellite phones were in conflict with
transmissions from news trucks. Depending on the service provider, news truck
signals would bump responders trying to communicate.
o
Initially, public phone access sites had to be
guarded – due to demand and lack of phone service otherwise available to the
public.
o
One communications success story was the
distribution of inexpensive transistor radios to citizens.
·
Main drivers in the response effort were:
o
Safety (both of victims and responders)
o
Search & Rescue
·
Most official response vehicles were
destroyed. Responders had to use
unmarked vehicles, which led to safety concerns.
·
Transportation was another major issue,
including the following:
o
Bridge crossings were generally impassable.
o
Most roads were impassable due to debris.
o
Flat tires were a common problem, due to the
amount of debris on roads.
o
There was no air traffic control system, but
many helicopters aloft.
·
Hazardous materials issues included the
following:
o
Thousands of damaged tanks and containers with
hazardous materials.
o
Displaced and damaged large propane tanks were
common.
o
Underground storage tanks filled up with
water.
o
Needed to remove large volumes of fuel from
grounded boats.
o
Due to the number of homes destroyed, a large
volume of household hazardous waste was created.
o
Collecting
hazardous materials from debris piles is a challenge. There is a need to sort
and segregate debris.
o
Many abandoned and/or destroyed vehicles were
full of gas and oil.
Jim
MacDonald asked whether any changes in land use were likely to occur as a
result of Katrina. Cuty felt that the
area is not adjusting its practices and is largely “rebuilding for
disaster”.
Frank
Catalano noted that debris clearance and removal is currently the largest
mission in the area, and that there are a variety of issues related to the
debris created by homes such as asbestos and buried tanks. He also noted that unsegregated debris can be
a problem during disposal.
Cuty
noted the following factors as contributing to the Katrina’s impact: 1)
geographic scope of the storm, 2) lack of building codes in the affected area,
3) generally poor construction methods, and 4) structures built to withstand
wind, but not water.
EPA
Response to Hurricane Katrina (presented by Jim Silver)
Jim Silver of U.S. EPA Region 7 presented
a summary of EPA’s involvement in the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Hurricane
Response: Lessons Learned and Implications for Response Planning
Ann Whelan led a discussion regarding the
implications for response planning resulting from the 2005 hurricanes. Whelan noted that now is a good time to
address these issues, as we are generally past the emotional portion of the
hurricane response and can now review events from a more analytical
perspective. In general, Whelan had
identified two areas that should be addressed in considering the 2005 hurricane
responses: 1) Data Management, and 2) Experts.
Data
Management
Whelan noted that a number of issues
related to the collection of data and use of collected data arose during
hurricane response as follows:
Silver commented on the disconnect
between sampler collectors and sample results.
He noted the frustration that collectors did not see their results
promptly and moreover, that these sample results could have been used in making
decisions about how to ensure safety of staff in the field.
Cuty also commented on the struggles with
mapping issues. He noted that a
contractor ended up doing the best work on mapping issues in the area where he
was working. He also highlighted a
digital camera that included a GPS receiver, allowing for the collection of
both visual and geographic information at the same time.
Whelan noted that there were delays in
the processing of data and mapping. Therefore,
a need exists to clean up data in advance to minimize dealing with bad data
during a response.
Experts
Whelan further noted the following in
relation to the role of “experts” in a response:
In summary,
Whelan made the following points:
Inland
Sensitivity Atlas Update
Hokanson provided a brief update on the
status of the Region 5 Inland Sensitivity Atlas. He noted that updates are now being done on a
statewide basis, rather than according to previously used mapping areas. Currently, anticipate that the ongoing update
to the state of
Meeting adjourned for the day at 5:00 pm.
Reconvened at
Spill
of National Significance (SONS) Exercise Planning
Whelan provided a brief summary of the
recently completed SONS 07 initial planning conference (IPC) held in
Silver mentioned that the concept of
“exercises within the exercise” was frequently discussed at
Whalen stated that it is becoming clearer
which states are planning to participate and how they plan to participate. She noted that evacuation may be part of the
exercise, as people are likely to evacuate, if only because their utility
services are knocked out. She mentioned
that the federal government participants were interested in evacuation as part
of the exercise. Whalen informed the
group that, currently, 13 states and 25 federal agencies were planning to
participate in the exercise.
Rodney Tucker made the observation that
SONS 07 has gone beyond a spill scenario to become a catastrophic event
exercise.
Tom Morgan asked whether the White
House’s “Lessons Learned” from Katrina was being considered as part of the SONS
07 planning process. Whelan responded
that Cmdr. Doug Eames was considering this in the development of the
exercise. Further, she expected that the
National Response Plan would be re-written based on the Katrina experience.
In response to a question from Hokanson,
Whelan explained how the SONS 07 has evolved in scope. She noted that its initial scope was expanded
to dovetail with an existing requirement for an earthquake drill and further
expanded subsequent to 2005 hurricane responses.
Whelan stated that a specific date needed
to be established for the October 2006 mid planning conference (MPC) as soon as
possible (note: UMRBA is currently in the process of helping arrange for next
SONS meeting). She noted that this
meeting will get into planning details to a greater extent and will address
simulation cells. She also noted
discussion from IPC regarding the use of actual vs. “canned” weather in the
exercise.
Roger Lauder commented that real weather
should be used during the exercise to avoid confusion. He noted that flooding is going to result
regardless of the weather situation and there is no need to create “additional”
mistakes related to confusion over weather – enough mistakes will occur,
anyway. Lauder further noted that the
interstate interaction was improved at the IPC (as compared to the November
2005 Concept Development Conference).
Lauder provided historical information
related to the 1811 New Madrid earthquake.
He highlighted the extended duration of the event (3 months total,
including aftershocks) and the catastrophic nature of the event overall. In terms of the exercise, he stated that a
7.7 magnitude earthquake is going to be catastrophic regardless of the other
parameters of the exercise.
Whelan noted that an earthquake would
lead to a lot of subsidence along the river – and resulting damage to levees,
pipelines, and docks. She raised the
concern that pipeline shut-offs may not be operable to responds to such as
situation.
Scott Pettis noted that, under the SONS
scenario, there would likely be suspension of shipping on the UMR and that
water intakes could be affected.
Whelan commented that river crossings
would likely be knocked out, further complicating evacuation and response.
Catalano noted the “cold start” nature of
the earthquake – as compared to the advanced warning of a hurricane – that
would be response even more difficult.
Whitaker asked how local responders were
being involved in the exercise and whether it was the states’ job to bring in
the locals. Whelan replied that the
states do need to help bring in local responders.
Lauder commented that testing out local
capabilities, as well as those of individual facilities, would be important.
Whelan asked whether there were any
specific goals that the UMR Spills Group has for the SONS exercise. Whitaker replied that he would like to see
that the exercise tests out the UMR spills plan, and perhaps allows us to add
to the plan. Whelan suggested that any
redrafting of the plan be completed by June 2007 to allow for it to be
exercised during SONS.
James Peeler asked whether USACE had
considered looking at the potential impact on the locks and dams under the SONS
earthquake scenario. John Punkiewicz
responded that he was not aware of any such consideration to date.
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)
David Morrison presented background
information related to
Morrison stated that, in terms of SONS,
planners should consider whether or not EMAC will be incorporated. He will provide to the group a web page
showing how to connect with
Silver stated that there needed to be
clarification of how state employees would be reimbursed if EMAC was use. Morrison replied that, at least for
Lauder noted that, in Katrina response,
there were issues regarding pay differential between salaried and managerial
employees.
Other
Upcoming Exercises/Planning Activities
Whitaker noted that
Lauder outlined upcoming planning meetings
being held by
Whelan mentioned that US EPA Region 5 is
planning 30 unannounced exercises in calendar year 2006.
UMR
Spills Plan Updates and Spills Plan MOA
Hokanson indicated that he had been
working to update discharger lists within the UMR Spills Plan. He asked the group what level of detail they
would like to see in the dischargers list and what would be the best geographic
identifier (river mile, lat/long, street address, all of the above).
Whelan stated that more precision and
detail was preferred and that we should not attempt to modify the data we
receive from the individual states.
Hokanson noted that the Spills Plan MOA
is at its final signature point (US Coast Guard) and would be included with the
revised plan.
Hokanson
said that he would continue to work on plan, with target completion by the end
of March, and distribute as has been done in the past (with direct distribution
to Spills Group members, who then carry out any further distribution).
Emergency
Action Field Guide and Companion Matrix of Reporting Requirements
Hokanson
distributed recent versions of the emergency action field guide. Group consensus was that most recent draft
(with modified order of presentation on 8.5 x 11 paper) was preferred. The group proposed some additional
modification in appearance and then recommended that the guide be sent to US
EPA Region 5 graphics staff for finalization, with a target date of April 1st
for completion. Hokanson agreed to provide an electronic copy of the current draft of
the guide to Whelan and Barbi Lee, who would then work with US EPA Region 5
graphics staff.
Hokanson also
distributed a draft matrix summarizing state reporting requirements and
indicated that he would be contacting individual states to verify information.
UMR-Specific
Inland Sensitivity Atlas DVD
The
group expressed continuing interest in the development of an Inland Sensitivity
Atlas DVD which would provide all data for the UMR on single DVD. Desired contents would include: 1) atlas maps,
2) UMR Spills Plan, 3) sub-area plans.
Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA)
Workshop Update
Ginger Molitor provided a preview of the upcoming
NEBA workshop focusing on Pool 12 to be held in Savanna,
Whelan noted that the term “NEBA” is roughly
equivalent to the “Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA)” done by the Coast
Guard. She saw the need for a
contingency plan for the refuges that could be annexed to the UMR Spills Plan.
Agency Updates
Missouri-John
Whitaker
Whitaker
stated that there were no spills of note to report. He did mention the recent release of a large
amount of water that affected a State Park.
USFWS-Ginger
Molitor
No
report beyond NEBA update provided earlier.
USACE-John
Punkiewicz and Frank Catalano
Punkiewicz
noted a recently reported spill at
Tucker
provided a summary of the
USEPA Region 5
– Steve Faryan
Faryan
noted that he would provide an electronic copy of a report on early warning
monitoring detection systems to Hokanson, who could then distribute to the UMR
Spills Group. Faryan also indicated that
anyone who was interested could contact him to get access to NRC spills reports
online.
USCG – James
Peeler
Peeler
stated that any recently reported spills have been very small. Peeler further noted that sector-based
reorganization would become effective in
FEMA Region 7 –
Tom Morgan
Morgan
indicated that FEMA would be re-organizing in the near future and that this
would impact both FEMA HQ and FEMA regions.
USEPA Region 7
– Jim MacDonald and Jim Silver
Jim
Silver reported that there had been an oil spill near St. Genevieve. MacDonald indicated that there was no further
report from EPA Region 7.
Lauder
reported that
Morrison
noted that many spills in
McKenzie
Environmental-Gary Haden
Haden
noted that completion of sub-area contingency plans in Region 7 was on hold due
to changes in NIMS and NRP. He commented
that local partners have been seeking ways to make plans shorter and more
accessible, but it is not clear if this can be done by annexing to local
plans. In the interim, work is being
done to standardize the plans. He noted
that the biggest issue in the plans is communications.
Kendzierski
described a fertilizer spill near
USCG, District
8 – Patrick Cuty
Cuty
stated that some Coast Guard equipment (trailers w/boom) was available for
“loan” under an MOU. He indicated that
anyone interested in the equipment should contact him, as the equipment is now
under his control. Jim MacDonald
indicated that sub-regions were interested in the trailers and boom. Catalano
questioned whether the boom (18 inch) would be appropriate for use on the
UMR. Cuty felt that boom could be
useful, as long as angle of use was properly adjusted. Catalano commented that
perhaps marinas could use this boom. Cuty
replied that the boom could not be given, at least directly, to a private
entity. Faryan commented that this type
of boom could be used in protection of backwaters.
Upcoming
Change in Chair
Whitaker mentioned that the group should
begin to consider a change in chair, as he would like to move out of the chair
position in the near future. He
suggested that the rotation of the chair between states should be considered
and that the group should address further at its next meeting.
Next
Meeting
The
relationship of the next UMR Spills Group meeting to the SONS mid planning
conference (to be held in October 2006) was discussed. In general, the group preferred that the UMR
Spill Group meet after the SONS conference.
Federal representatives suggested avoiding the first week of October,
both for SONS and UMR Spills Group, as it is the beginning of the federal
fiscal year. It was also suggested to
avoid 10/26 and 10/27 due to an
Adjournment
Meeting
was adjourned at