Minutes of the
Hazardous Spills Coordination Group Meeting
St. Louis, Missouri
Jim
O'Brien of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency called the meeting to
order at 12:30 p.m. on April 3, 2000.
The following Spills Group members and observers were in attendance:
|
|
Jim O'Brien |
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency |
|
|
Dan Bowen |
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency |
|
|
Ken Teeter |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
Jared Meese |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
Rick Gann |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
Susan Hampton |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley
Division |
|
|
Theresa Kauzlarich |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island
District |
|
|
Frank Catalano |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District |
|
|
Jim Twichell |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District |
|
|
Mike Kruckeberg |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District |
|
|
CDR Ed Stanton |
U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth District |
|
|
LCDR Anthony Lloyd |
U.S. Coast Guard, National Strike Force |
|
|
Ann Whelan |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
|
Steve Faryan |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
|
Betty Lavis |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
|
Marc Callaghan |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
|
LCDR Jason Maddox |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Cleveland |
|
|
Gary Haden |
Ecology and Environment, Inc. |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
Minutes of the October Meeting
The minutes of the
October 19-20, 1999 meeting were approved as written.
Protection Strategies
Corps Coordination Protocol
Barb Naramore briefly
summarized the Spills Group's previous work on protection strategies, noting
that the group's inquiries regarding coordination with the Corps of Engineers
resulted in Colonel Mudd's July 13, 1999 letter to Rick Karl. That letter outlines procedures for FOSCs to
coordinate with the Rock Island District concerning response activities that
may affect Corps facilities or operations.
At the October 1999 Spills Group meeting, members discussed Mudd's
letter and decided to pursue a coordination protocol with the Corps that would
govern all three districts on the Upper Mississippi. Naramore authored a letter dated December 16, 1999 to Dan Renfro
of the Corps' Mississippi Valley Division outlining the Spills Group's
objectives and seeking guidance on how best to proceed. That letter highlighted the following
perspectives from the Spills Group:
·
The protocol should include a general statement
regarding the Corps' UMR navigation system operating procedures, objectives,
and constraints.
·
It should also identify procedures for responders
to make incident-specific requests for operational changes, use of Corps
facilities, and information on river conditions.
·
The protocol would not commit the Corps to take any
particular action to facilitate response.
Nor would the Corps be assuming a direct response role under the
protocol.
·
The protocol should govern the Corps' coordination
with all types of responders, not merely FOSCs.
Naramore reported that
she has not received a response to the letter to Renfro.
Susan Hampton briefly
described the Corps' procedures for addressing discharges of oil and hazardous
materials from Corps-owned vessels and facilities. She emphasized that the Corps has no authority to provide
assistance in responding to spills from other vessels or facilities, other than
technical assistance, unless there is an immediate threat to human life or
safety. Hampton explained that the
Corps can respond to FOSC requests for assistance, but emphasized that the
Corps is quite limited in what it can do to facilitate the FOSC's response
effort. Moreover, any requests for
operational changes or the use of Corps facilities must come through the FOSC
rather than a state or local responder.
The Corps considers FOSC requests on a case-by-case basis.
Hampton concurred that it
would be helpful to have a protocol laying out the Corps' basic roles and
responsibilities and listing appropriate contacts within each district. She agreed to take the lead in drafting such
a protocol, but emphasized that it will be quite limited in scope. In response to a question from Ed Stanton,
Hampton agreed that there are relatively few scenarios under which the Corps
could alter its operation of the navigation system to facilitate response. She observed that the potential is somewhat
higher to use Corps facilities as staging areas and command centers.
Rick Gann recalled an
incident in November 1999 near Lock and Dam 20. He noted that the lockmaster was quite willing to cooperate with
responders. Steve Faryan reported that
Corps personnel on the Illinois River were very prompt in reporting a release
from an upstream generating facility.
Theresa Kauzlarich recalled the same incident on the Illinois and said
that the lock and dam personnel reported that they did not get sufficient
information from responders regarding what, if any, actions responders wanted
them to take.
Ed Stanton asked whether
the Spills Group had identified specific response strategies that might involve
changes to navigation operations or the use of Corps facilities. Jim O'Brien observed that the Corps'
hydraulics people have the best idea of what actions are feasible. O'Brien suggested meetings between
responders and hydraulics personnel to discuss options for particular reaches
of the river. Hampton said the group
might also want to seek funding for some Corps modeling work. After further discussion, it was agreed to
develop the coordination protocol first.
After that, the Spills Group will sponsor a series of discussions
between responders, hydraulics people, and operations personnel regarding
specific options on different portions of the river. These sessions may be held in conjunction with future Spills
Group meetings and will focus on those pools where there appears to be some
potential for modifying lock and dam operations to facilitate response.
Drinking Water Notification
Steve Faryan noted that
responders on the UMR currently notify drinking water operators directly about
upstream spills. He suggested the
Spills Group consider a monitoring and notification system like the one on the
Ohio River. Under this system, intake
operators monitor the river and report any spills detected to the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO).
ORSANCO then notifies any potentially affected downstream intakes.
Jim O'Brien noted that
one of the primary responsibilities of Illinois' state duty officer is to
notify public water supplies of any spills that may affect them. If needed, a state engineer contacts the
intake operator to discuss options for protecting the facility. O'Brien said Illinois does not routinely
notify industrial and power plant intakes, but may do so if warranted. Jared Meese indicated that Missouri also
notifies drinking water plants. Ken
Teeter elaborated, explaining that the state duty officer notifies the response
program, which in turn notifies operators of drinking water, power plant, and
industrial intakes. In response to a
question from Jim Twichell, O'Brien and Meese said the 24-hour spill reporting
numbers for each state are in the UMR Plan.
Twichell and Mike Kruckeberg urged that this information be kept at the
Corps' facilities on the UMR. O'Brien
explained that, as a signatory to the plan, the Mississippi Valley Division is
responsible for distributing copies of the plan within the Corps.
Faryan observed that, if
the current notification system is working, there is no need to change it. O'Brien asked that each state member report
at the next Spills Group meeting on their state's procedures for notifying
intakes.
Twin Cities Response Strategies Pilot
Naramore updated the
Spills Group on the Twin Cities Sub-Area Committee's response strategies
pilot. Members of the sub-area
committee did field assessments of potential response sites on the UMR between
downtown St. Paul and Hastings, Minnesota.
A draft description the sites and proposed response strategies, along
with a series of maps, is out for review by the sub-area committee and local
industry. Naramore encouraged comments
from Spills Group members and noted that samples from the draft were
distributed to members with a memo dated March 24, 2000. As the Twin Cities response strategies are
finalized, MPCA intends to require facilities to be prepared to implement those
strategies.
Betty Lavis noted that
the Twin Cities committee will be developing response strategies for the
remaining portions of the Mississippi River, as well as the Minnesota and St.
Croix Rivers, within the sub-area. In
addition, the committee is reviewing response options such as establishing
permanent anchor points and using barges as an alternative to boom. Lavis announced that MPCA plans an exercise
for this summer to test the use of barges as a substitute for boom. Ann Whelan mentioned that Scott Hayes is
investigating a new fast water boom training class for potential applicability
to the UMR.
Corps Information on Navigation Hazards
Kauzlarich followed up on
the discussion from the October 1999 Spills Group meeting regarding information
that the Corps maintains on navigation hazards. According to Kauzlarich, the districts keep databases of dredge
cuts and chronic grounding sites.
However, they do not track spills.
Kruckeberg said the districts also document incidents at their
locks. Stanton noted that groundings,
collisions, and allisions involving commercial vessels must be reported to the
Coast Guard's Marine Safety Offices.
The MSOs keep a record of these reports. Hampton described the Corps authority to remove abandoned barges
that pose a hazard to navigation.
Stanton said the Coast
Guard's incident database, which is available through its headquarters office,
is the most extensive source of information on incidents involving
vessels. He noted that the database
includes information about location and some indication as to cause, but does
not provide detailed information about cause.
O'Brien said the Spills Group's interest is in identifying obvious
high-risk areas on the UMR. Stanton
said people on the river, including staff in the MSOs, lockmasters, and tow
operators, have a good handle on the most hazardous areas. He suggested that the Spills Group start by
consulting with the St. Louis MSO.
Ohio River Experience Using Locks and Dams
to Facilitate Response
Faryan
said he has not yet received a response to his requests for information about
experience on the Ohio River using locks and dams to facilitate response. Faryan said he is aware that responders on
the Ohio have used lock chambers for containment and have used dams to help
volatilize spills. O'Brien suggested
deferring the topic until the next meeting in hopes of obtaining additional
information.
Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS)
Barb Naramore noted that
the Coast Guard's Eighth District had previously asked the Spills Group for its
input on the possible relocation of the St. Louis-based VOSS. The Spills Group discussed the issue at its
October 1999 meeting and recommended against moving the VOSS out of the area,
at least until there is an opportunity for the region's responders to evaluate
its potential applications on the inland river system. Naramore conveyed the group's perspectives
in a December 10, 1999 letter to Ed Stanton.
That letter requested an opportunity to view the Coast Guard's VOSS
video and also recommended a field deployment of the VOSS on the UMR to assess
its potential usefulness.
Ed Stanton explained that
the Eighth District currently has VOSSs based in Corpus Christi, Galveston, New
Orleans, and St. Louis. Each Strike
Team also has a VOSS. The UMR falls
within the response area of the Fort Dix-based Strike Team. These VOSSs were purchased with OPA 90
funds. Stanton noted that the St. Louis
VOSS has never been used. Because it is
limited to low velocity (i.e., less than one knot) conditions, Stanton
questioned the VOSS's potential utility on the inland river system. He explained that the Coast Guard would like
to relocate the St. Louis VOSS to Guam and the New Orleans VOSS to Alaska, both
of which are relatively remote areas with limited access to equipment and
contractors.
Stanton reviewed the
VOSS's components. The system includes
an inflatable barge used to store material as it is recovered. This barge drafts 9 feet and is thus
unsuitable for use on the river due to potential for it to rupture. According to Stanton, the skimmer is the
most adaptable part of the system and can work in any low velocity
environment. He noted that similar
skimmers are available from many contractors and explained that the Coast Guard
cannot deploy its equipment if doing so would compete with the private
sector. In response to a question from
Susan Hampton, Stanton estimated that it would take five or six hours to fly a
VOSS in from the Gulf or Atlantic coasts.
With the St. Louis-based VOSS, he estimated that there would still be at
least a two-hour delay for the Strike Team to reach the area to deploy the
system.
Stanton said the Spills
Group's December letter is on file and assured the group that the
St. Louis VOSS will not be relocated out of the region if the group
objects. However, he also emphasized
that there may be options for other equipment better suited to the inland
rivers. In particular, according to
Stanton, the Coast Guard plans to purchase six high-speed skimmers that can
operate in currents up to four knots.
He said that one of these skimmers might be based in St. Louis if the
VOSS is moved from the area.
After watching the Coast
Guard's VOSS video, the Spills Group continued its discussion. In response to questions from O'Brien,
Stanton said the Coast Guard would be willing to release the VOSS skimmer to
any qualified contractor for use in spill response. He estimated that it would take five people approximately half a
day to deploy the full VOSS. Stanton
said the Coast Guard might be able to fund a VOSS exercise on the UMR in FY
01. O'Brien said he would explore the
possibility of using one of the Illinois Department of Transportation's river
ferries as a platform for the VOSS exercise.
Summarizing his previous
remarks, Stanton noted that current, water depth, and the prohibition on
competing with private contractors are the most significant limiting factors
for the VOSS on the inland rivers. In
addition, he observed that the VOSS is really only useful on fairly large
spills (i.e., those exceeding 10,000 gallons).
Stanton did suggest that moving the system upstream as it collects
product may be one way of addressing the velocity limitation. However, he cautioned that this approach
would be constrained by the need to limit the velocity on the face of the boom
to two knots.
Potential UMR Spills Monitoring
By way of background,
Barb Naramore briefly described a joint federal-state monitoring program on the
UMRS that is part of the Environmental Management Program (EMP). The EMP's Long Term Resource Monitoring
Program (LTRMP) is funded through the Corps of Engineers and implemented jointly
by USGS and the five states. The LTRMP
emphasizes long term trend monitoring of water quality, fisheries, and
vegetation. The water quality
parameters are largely habitat-related, including temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and turbidity. There is no on-going contaminants monitoring
under the program. According to
Naramore, the LTRMP does have some limited ability to do
"opportunistic" monitoring and research in response to specific
events. The LTRMP's six field stations
are located at Lake City, MN (Pool 4); Onalaska, WI (Pool 8); Bellevue, IA
(Pool 13); Alton, IL (Pool 26); Cape Girardeau, MO (Open River); and
Havana, IL (Illinois River).
Ann Whelan described
ORSANCO's 15-station organics detection network, consisting of 12 stations on
the Ohio River and 3 more on major tributaries. Drinking water suppliers operate 11 of the stations, while the
remaining 4 stations are located at power plants. ORSANCO provides equipment and technical support, while the
intake operators furnish the lab space and staff time needed for testing. The baseline monitoring is daily sampling,
generally using automatic sampling.
Facilities have the option to do additional sampling. ORSANCO serves as the central place where
data from the sampling is collected, analyzed, and disseminated as necessary.
Whelan encouraged the
Spills Group to explore the possibility of establishing some kind of monitoring
network on the UMR. She emphasized that
such a network would not necessarily have to follow the Ohio River model. Jim O'Brien observed that the Ohio River has
more reported spills and a wider variety of spilled substances than does the
UMR. He suggested that the Upper
Mississippi may not need the full capabilities of the Ohio River system. O'Brien also noted that the network on
the Ohio River evolved over a period of years.
He recommended that each state Spills Group member determine what
monitoring is already being done by intake operators in their state. The group concurred and asked the state
members to report back at the next meeting concerning current monitoring
capabilities and practices.
River Traffic Levels and Incidence of Spills
Ann Whelan noted that the
Corps of Engineers is conducting a navigation feasibility study on the
UMRS. The study is evaluating potential
federal investment in expanding the system's navigation capacity. In response to a request from the Fish and
Wildlife Service, EPA analyzed the relationship between traffic levels and
incidence of spills. According to
Whelan, EPA's analysis found a strong statistical correlation between increased
traffic and increased spills. Ed
Stanton noted that one capacity option under consideration is the extension of
lock chambers to 1,200 feet. This would
allow tow configurations of up to 15 barges to lock through without
decoupling. Stanton asked whether EPA's
analysis considered this potential source of risk reduction. Whelan said she was not familiar with the
details of the analysis.
Outreach/Training
Barb Naramore reported
that the February 2000 joint workshops with the Tri-State Hazmat Group were
quite successful, with a good mix of local responders, industry
representatives, resource managers, and marina operators. Attendance was estimated at 80 in Wabasha
and 120 in Prairie du Chien.
Participants provided favorable feedback on the sessions. Naramore noted that copies of the agenda and
press clippings describing the workshops were included in the read ahead
materials distributed to the Spills Group.
She thanked the several Spills Group members who contributed to the
success of the workshops and noted that the Tri-State Group was also pleased
with the outcome.
Naramore reported that
Tom Baumgartner, from Iowa's Emergency Management Agency, has asked the Spills
Group to work on a similar training session being planned by the Quad Cities Sub-Area
Committee for September 2000. Naramore
said she has consulted with Dave Perry, who asked that she convey his support
for the Spills Group's involvement in the Quad Cities training. Jim O'Brien expressed Illinois' support as
well.
Gary Haden urged that the
proposed training session not come at the expense of a much-needed exercise of
the Quad Cities Sub-Area Plan. O'Brien
observed that holding the training prior to the exercise may well serve to
increase awareness of the plan, thereby enhancing the exercise.
Ann Whelan noted that the
February workshops did not include a written evaluation. She urged that future training include time
for participants to evaluate the session.
Naramore said she would inform Perry and Baumgartner that the Spills Group
is willing to participate in the Quad Cities training session.
Regional Response Capabilities
Ann Whelan reported that
she had obtained data from the National Strike Force Coordination Center on
equipment that is owned by OSROs.
According to these figures, OSROs have 24,700 feet of boom along the
Upper Mississippi, most of which is in the St. Louis area. OSROs have an additional 13,650 feet
within 200 miles of the UMR. The Coast
Guard has 10,000 feet of boom pre-positioned at various points on the river. Noting the geographic distribution of the
OSRO-owned boom, Whelan said these figures suggest that it would require
several hours to get enough boom to most portions of the UMR to implement
response strategies beyond containment.
She said most protection strategies would likely be limited to
deflection booming, given the limited amount of equipment in the region. Whelan suggested that innovative approaches,
such as using barges as a substitute for boom or using lock chambers for
containment, could help augment response capabilities.
Jim O'Brien agreed that
there is not sufficient boom on most portions of the river to deal with a major
spill. However, he said there do not
appear to be many options for addressing the situation. Whelan said EPA can talk with industries on
the river about what their strategies are, whether they have timely access to
sufficient resources to implement those strategies, and whether those
strategies meet OPA requirements. In
response to a question from Whelan, Susan Hampton and Theresa Kauzlarich
declined to provide an average speed for the UMR, explaining that the river's
velocity is highly variable and depends on many factors. Whelan said EPA must use some assumption
about river speed in assessing response time and the adequacy of industries'
proposed strategies. She noted that EPA
is considering identifying high volume areas on the river, observing that the
concentration of railways, pipelines, vessels, and fixed facilities puts some
portions of the river at substantial risk.
EPA regulations require faster response time in such areas.
Whelan noted that the
Spills Group has never identified a worst case scenario for the Upper
Mississippi. She said that the Region 5
RRT would be very interested in the group's perspectives on risk and
vulnerability. Hampton suggested that
the double hull requirements for tank vessels will reduce the risk of spills on
the Mississippi River. Whelan concurred
that double hulls may reduce the risk of spills from barges, but noted that this
requirement will do nothing to change the risk presented by railways,
pipelines, roadways, fixed facilities, or tow boats themselves. Ed Stanton emphasized that response options
on large rivers are often quite limited, particularly for spills under adverse
conditions, such as high water levels.
Whelan acknowledged this and said EPA is very interested in the group's
input regarding what is reasonable to expect from companies on the UMR.
Whelan said she will be
requesting a spatial analysis of equipment locations, potential
spill sources, response times, and sensitive areas. The assessment will attempt to identify gaps
i.e., areas of risk and vulnerable resources without much response
capability. In response to a
question from Whelan, Stanton said the Coast Guard would consider repositioning
some of its UMR equipment if such an analysis identified significant gaps. However, he noted that the Coast Guard's
equipment is very limited and suggested that vessels and facilities would
likely have to increase their response capabilities to appreciably enhance
regional response capacity. O'Brien
observed that pipelines are the most significant source of risk on the
UMR. Stanton agreed to work with Whelan
to facilitate a coordinated gap analysis by EPA, the Coast Guard, and the
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). Tony
Lloyd said he would address the issue with the National Strike Force
Coordination Center, and Whelan said she would contact OPS. The Spills Group discussed the possibility
of voicing its concerns regarding regional response capabilities in a letter to
the three federal regulatory agencies.
After some discussion, it was agreed to defer such a letter, pending the
outcome of the informal gap analysis.
UMR Spills Plan
Barb Naramore reported
that she is in the process of making updates to the UMR Spills Plan. Many of these updates are based on
information gathered as part of the OPA mapping process. As a result, completion of the plan updates
is somewhat dependent on the review process for the UMR maps. Naramore also reported that the current
digital version of the plan must also be modified in several ways to allow
on-line posting. In order to avoid
having two different versions of the plan (i.e., the hardcopy format and the
downloadable format), Naramore suggested that the group consider replacing
hardcopies of the plan at the same time that the plan is posted on-line. She indicated that the UMRBA will provide
Spills Group members with both a digital file of the plan and a copy-ready
original. As has been the practice in
the past, Spills Group members will then be responsible for distributing copies
of the plan within their own state or agency as they deem appropriate. Naramore urged Spills Group members to
contact her with any corrections or updates to the plan.
OPA-Related Issues
Jim O'Brien reported that
the Quad Cities Sub-Area Committee held a tabletop exercise in October 1999 and
a meeting in January 2000. The
committee is scheduled to meet again on May 25 to discuss plans for the September
training session (see above discussion under Outreach and Training). Gary Haden said the Quad Cities group may
also have a functional exercise in 2001.
Scott Hayes said EPA Region 7 will be holding a public availability
session for regulated industries in the Quad Cities on May 24. A similar session is also planned for
St. Louis. Jared Meese reported
that the Greater St. Louis Sub-Area Committee is close to putting its draft
plan out for comment. The St. Louis
committee's work will also be the subject of a panel presentation at the Hazmat
2000 conference. Meese noted that the
next St. Louis Sub-Area Committee meeting is scheduled for April 18.
Barb Naramore highlighted
the status of the following mapping products:
Twin Cities and UMR Pools 3-9 completed; UMR Pools 10-15
scheduled to send final edits to UMESC in April; UMR Pools 16-26 and Greater
St. Louis Sub-Area draft maps are out for review, will probably send final
edits to UMESC in June or July; Chicago Sub-Area scheduled to send final
edits to UMESC in May; Wisconsin River scheduled to send draft data to UMESC
in June. Ann Whelan noted that this
schedule is subject to further revision.
Naramore reported that
the Coast Guard published the proposed 2000-2002 PREP schedule in the March 7 Federal Register. The March 7 notice was included in the read
ahead materials distributed to Spills Group members. In response to a question from Naramore, no Spills Group
members expressed an interest in commenting on the proposed schedule. Whelan reported that a national PREP meeting
is scheduled for late May or early June.
Agency Updates/Reports on Recent Incidents
Rick Gann reported that
there was a mystery spill near Lock and Dam 20 in mid-November. Missouri DNR received the report of the
spill on a Friday evening and responded to the area. DNR personnel were able to observe visible product pooled along
the shoreline and against the dam at L&D 20. DNR and Coast Guard personnel checked with fixed facilities on
the Missouri side and with vessels, all of which denied responsibility, leading
to the tentative conclusion that the source was likely on the Illinois
side. Due to darkness, further work was
deferred until Saturday morning. Jim
O'Brien explained that, by Saturday, there was so much debris mixed with the
product that recovery was impossible.
Illinois EPA personnel attempted to track the product to its source, but
the release stopped before the source could be identified. O'Brien speculated that the source may well
have been a tank on a levee pump.
O'Brien said Illinois EPA
used the UMR Plan in responding to the spill at L&D 20. He observed that the resource appendix
format is somewhat cumbersome because information is organized by theme and
then by river mile within theme. He said
a consolidated listing of all types of features by river mile would be quite
helpful to responders seeking a quick overview of what is present in a given
area. Naramore said that it would be
simple enough to create such a listing, with some basic information, but noted
that format constraints would probably preclude providing all of the
information found in the current appendices.
She also suggested a searchable database as another option. O'Brien said he favors the consolidated list
by river mile, while Ken Teeter expressed a preference for the database
option. After further discussion,
Spills Group members asked Naramore to explore the potential for both a river
mile list and a database.
Teeter reported that a
tow sunk south of Cape Girardeau with approximately 6,000 gallons of diesel
fuel on board. Ed Stanton said he heard
that only a small amount of fuel was released from the tow. Stanton noted that the salvage barge took
approximately three or four days to reach the sunken tow.
Susan Hampton said MVD
will be requiring its districts to report any spill on their property to the
division. If the district is the
responsible party, the division must be notified within 24 hours. Hampton clarified that this reporting
requirement is a supplement to, not a substitute for, reporting required under
state and federal law.
Stanton noted that a
construction barge broke loose on the UMR above St. Anthony Falls in the Twin
Cities. The barge was caught in an ice
flow, complicating efforts to recover the vessel.
Other Business
Barb Naramore said Dave
Perry told her he was very impressed with a recent presentation by LCDR Jeff
Hammond concerning the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Perry had suggested that the Spills Group
consider asking Hammond to make the presentation at one of its meetings. After some discussion, the group concluded
that there might be better opportunities to reach the broad range of people who
could benefit from such a presentation.
The September 2000 Quad Cities training session was mentioned as one
possibility.
The next Spills Group
meeting was scheduled for October 25-26, 2000 in the Quad Cities. [Note:
The location was subsequently changed to the Twin Cities to allow
members to observe a Wakota CAER exercise on the UMR below St. Paul.]