Minutes of the
Hazardous Spills Coordination Group Meeting
Four Points Sheraton
Rock Island, Illinois
John Whitaker of
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources called the meeting to order at 2:00
p.m. on April 15, 2003. The following
Spills Group members and observers were present:
|
Rodney
Tucker |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Stan
Kalinoski |
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency |
|
John
Whitaker |
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources |
|
John
Grump |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Ben
Wopat |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District |
|
Harvey
Dexter |
U.S. Coast
Guard, Eighth District |
|
Carol
McAllister |
U.S. Coast Guard,
MSD Quad Cities |
|
Greg
Morris |
U.S. Coast
Guard, MSD Quad Cities |
|
Steve
Faryan |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Ann
Whelan |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Eddie
McGlasson |
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
Gary
Haden |
McKinzie
Environmental |
|
Barb
Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Minutes of the October
Meeting
Barb
Naramore suggested modifying the draft minutes of the October 16-17, 2002
meeting to reflect that a portion of the meeting was held as a joint session
with the UMR Water Suppliers Coalition.
The minutes were approved with this modification.
Biological Resource Risk
Assessment (aka Net Environmental Benefits Analysis)
Ann
Whelan described a Biological Resource Risk Assessment process employed in
coastal California to identify the risk to species posed by spills and various
response alternatives. The Coast Guard
and EPA both participated in the California effort, which was primarily
intended to enhance decision making regarding the use of dispersants. While response options are obviously quite
different on inland rivers, Whelan suggested that a similar approach might
prove useful on the Upper Mississippi River.
In particular, she said it could provide insight regarding the placement
of early warning monitoring stations and decisions about where to execute
various response strategies.
Whelan
explained that the assessment effort considers all species and asks resource
experts to identify which species would be most affected, what would be the
likely impacts, etc. of a particular scenario.
Participants included at least three individuals in each area of expertise
(e.g., aquatic invertebrates) to encourage dialog and ensure a range of
perspectives. Impact metrics include
the percentage of the species population affected and estimated length of
recovery. In the coastal California
assessments, participants considered a range of response options and how they
would affect various species during a series of 3-day meetings. Based on this, they prioritized various
response options, and these results were documented to aid in future
incident-specific decision-making.
Whelan
said EPA Region 5 would like to try this basic approach on the UMR, and
suggested a pilot effort in January or February of 2004. She noted that much of the resource
information needed to inform the assessment has already been gathered as part
of the inland sensitivity mapping effort.
As a result, the process would likely require fewer in-person
meetings. According to Whelan, the
assessment effort would complement the site-specific response strategies that
have been developed in some sub-areas and Region 5’s forthcoming freshwater
strategies document. She reported that
a similar effort is planned for this winter to assess Isle Royale, as part of
an effort to develop protection strategies for this National Park Service
island.
In
response to questions from Spills Group members, Whelan said she expects that
the UMR is likely too large to undertake a single, riverwide assessment. Instead, she proposed breaking the river
into more reasonably sized sections.
Key participants would likely include response and resource experts from
the Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, state agencies, universities, Coast Guard,
and EPA. Barb Naramore said UMRBA staff
could work with EPA and the Coast Guard to identify specific individuals with
the desired resource expertise.
Naramore noted that the process would likely require considering
species-habitat groupings, rather than individual species. She suggested that the effort build on previous
work in the region to define logical groupings. Carol McAllister observed that seasonality will be a critical
consideration in determining resource vulnerability on the UMR.
John
Grump said such an approach would help engage biologists in the consideration
of response options in advance of a specific incident. Grump said this would help the resource
experts understand the very real limitations that govern riverine
response. McAllister asked about
feedback from participants in the coastal California effort, and Whelan said
responders have been very pleased with the scientific basis it has provided for
them in making response decisions.
After further discussion, the consensus among Spills Group members was
in favor of pursuing a pilot assessment effort on the UMR, with modifications
as needed to adapt the approach for a large inland river.
Whelan
noted that the approach is no longer being called Biological Resource Risk
Assessment because risk assessment has a very specific, and different, meaning
within EPA. Instead, the process is now
called Net Environmental Benefits Analysis.
Prior to the next Spills Group meeting, Whelan said she would attempt to
have additional discussions with participants in the California process, as
well as potential UMR participants, in order to obtain additional insight
regarding how such an effort might best be structured for the UMR.
November
2002 Dredge Thompson Spill
Stan
Kalinoski described a November 13, 2002 fuel spill incident involving the
Corps’ Dredge Thompson
operations. The dredge was operating
near Weaver Bottoms on the UMR when approximately 1,000 gallons of diesel were
spilled during refueling. Diesel was
been transferred from the fuel barge to Booster Barge Mullen, which is used to augment the Thompson’s pumping power, allowing dredged material to be transferred
through pipeline for longer distances.
According to Kalinoski, the incident occurred at approximately 2:15
p.m., and MPCA was first notified by the state Duty Officer at about 3:30 p.m. The spill was initially reported as
approximately 200 gallons. Coast Guard
personnel arrived on scene at about 8:00 p.m. and concluded that considerably
more product was involved.
Kalinoski
said that the Corps’ emergency response plan for the vessels included some
outdated contact information. In
addition, the vessel captain was unwilling to hire a clean-up contractor until
he received approval from higher authority, despite the fact that the vessel
plan authorized him to do so. As a
result, MPCA intervened and hired Bay West at approximately 10 p.m. of the first
day. The Corps subsequently hired Bay
West on November 14.
Skirt
boom was deployed around the Mullen,
but much of the fuel was out of the immediate area within an hour, before the
boom was deployed. The product went
through a channel to reach the main body of Weaver Bottoms, traveled through
this area, and went back out to the main channel. Kalinoski described Weaver Bottoms as an extensive backwater area
that serves as a significant migratory stopover for birds. However, bird populations at the time were
low and no waterfowl damage was reported.
According
to Kalinoski, the entry channel to Weaver Bottoms would have been a good place
to recover the fuel. He said the Corps
personnel had the response equipment necessary to execute such a strategy, but
did not deploy it correctly. Kalinoski
said this lost opportunity illustrates the need for frequent training.
MPCA
and Corps staff met in January to review modifications to equipment, procedures,
and training that the Corps had already made or planned to make. This included relocating the shut-off switch
for the fuel pump to an outside location and modifying procedures to require a
crewmember to remain in place during all refueling operations. Kalinoski said he has continued to work with
Mark Krumholz of the Corps on various follow-up activities. This included updates and revisions to the
Corps’ response plan for the vessels and a training exercise scheduled for
mid-May. Kalinoski expressed
reservation concerning a Corps practice of refueling while the vessels are
underway.
Ben
Wopat said operator error is always possible, but acknowledged that the Corps
personnel’s response could have been better.
Wopat said the St. Paul District is revising not only its vessel plan,
but also the District’s response plan.
It is also reviewing personnel arrangements, training, notification
procedures, and the master’s authority to contract for response services. Wopat and Kalinoski agreed that even an
immediate hire of Bay West would not have fundamentally altered the outcome in
this particular instance. Instead,
vessel personnel needed to deploy their own response assets more quickly and
effectively. Kalinoski said he has also
encouraged the District to consider purchasing additional boom, anchors, and a
skimmer, emphasizing the importance of being able to collect what is contained.
Wopat
said approximately 30 District staff will attend the May training. He invited the states, EPA, and Coast Guard
to observe the training, which will be videotaped for future use as a
refresher. Wopat also indicated that
the Corps will evaluate the possibility of booming during refueling operations,
including assessing the additional time that would be required. Kalinoski said this could help reduce risks
during stationary refueling. Greg
Morris observed that setting the boom anchors can be quite time consuming and
requires considerable small boat work.
In response to a question from John Whitaker, Wopat said the Corps is
considering an automatic shutoff device, but has reservations concerning
reliability. He said such a switch
would not take the place of personnel.
Kalinoski
said there were some concerns with notification during the incident. John Grump explained that an interstate
notification protocol was developed for the UMR Spill Plan in hopes of avoiding
such problems, and expressed concern that personnel in the signatory agencies
may not be fully conversant with its provisions. He briefly reviewed the protocol, under which the first-aware
state is responsible for notifying other potentially affected states and
appropriate federal response and natural resource agencies. Notification of adjoining states and key federal
agencies is to be made by voice immediately.
Others may be notified during the first available working hours by voice
or fax. Grump observed that the
protocol, which has been in place for years, may have lost some of its currency
as time has passed and personnel have changed within the signatory state and
federal agencies. He urged all Spills
Group members to familiarize themselves and their colleagues with the terms of
the plan’s notification protocol.
Barb
Naramore highlighted other provisions of the protocol, including a first-aware
federal agency’s responsibility to notify the affected state(s). In such an instance, the state receiving
notice from a federal agency would then assume the notification
responsibilities of a first-aware state.
Each state is responsible for its own intrastate notifications. Daily updates are issued either by the
designated coordinating state or, if the spill is federalized, by the federal
on-scene coordinator.
In
response to a question from Harvey Dexter, Naramore and Grump explained that
the UMR Spill Plan notification protocol is designed to supplement any
notifications issued by the National Response Center (NRC). The UMR protocol should function regardless
of who has notified, or been notified by, the NRC. Grump said Wisconsin reminds responsible parties of their
obligation to notify the NRC, but doesn’t call the NRC itself. With respect to the Thompson spill, Wopat said the Corps notified the NRC per its plan,
but did not make notifications in accordance with the UMR protocol. Greg Morris said the Coast Guard will
generally notify potentially affected states as a courtesy, though it does not
do so with spills it deems trivial. He
also reported that the Coast Guard is not generally investigating spills estimated
to be less than 100 gallons in size.
Coordinating Across SACPs
on the Big Rivers
Harvey
Dexter reported that the Region 4 RRT recently discussed the idea of developing
an umbrella plan for the Ohio River that would facilitate coordination across
the local sub-area contingency plans (SACPs) that have been developed for
various spots along the Ohio.
Representatives of several agencies, including EPA Regions 3, 4, and 5,
the Coast Guard, and NOAA, are meeting today in Paducah to discuss the idea
further. Dexter distributed a Coast
Guard summary of plans completed and in progress on the inland rivers in
District 8. The summary also outlined
various options for linking the existing plans, including developing an
umbrella plan for the Ohio River, establishing a single plan covering all of
District 8’s inland rivers, and using a single format for all local SACPs. According to Dexter, the Coast Guard’s
primary goal is to ensure adequate plan coverage throughout the inland rivers
region. District 8’s summary explains
that the Coast Guard would prefer all SACPs to be in the same format, in order
to facilitate its personnel’s use of multiple plans. In contrast, EPA prefers to tailor each SACP to local needs, in
consultation with local planning participants.
John
Whitaker asked about potential implications for the Upper Mississippi
River. Barb Naramore asked whether the
Coast Guard and other agencies believe the UMR Spill Plan is currently
functioning as an umbrella plan on the Upper Mississippi. She noted that there is relatively little
real world experience using any of the UMR SACPs, so this question may be
difficult to answer. Dexter said he
does not yet know what judgments will emerge from the discussion concerning a
potential Ohio River umbrella. Naramore
suggested waiting to see what happens with the Ohio River discussions before
considering implications for the UMR.
Terrorism Preparedness
John
Whitaker reported that, with increased threat levels, Missouri has focused on
establishing detailed processes and protocols for various contingencies. For example, if the federal terrorism alert
level is raised to red, there are specific provisions for who is on call, who
is mobilized, etc. The state has also
increased its on-call resources.
John
Grump said most of Wisconsin’s terrorism preparedness is being coordinated
through the Wisconsin Emergency Management Agency and National Guard. There have not been any increased
requirements on DNR staff for availability.
The Governor’s office updates the state’s alert level approximately
every two days. Federal grants are
being used to help equip responders, such as equipping response vehicles with
laptops that have wireless internet access.
Stan
Kalinoski reported that Dorene Fier-Tucker is MPCA’s terrorism
coordinator. MPCA has been working closely
with Minnesota’s Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health, and others
on various livestock-related threats.
In addition, MPCA is working on a series of fact sheets concerning
issues such as debris clean-up.
Eddie
McGlasson said Janice Kroone is heading EPA Region 7’s counter-terrorism
efforts. Region 7 has hired five new
OSCs who are dedicated to counter-terrorism.
Their expertise includes radiation, bio-hazards, air monitoring,
etc. The region has also established
industry advisory groups focused on specific potential threats, such as
chlorine. Internally, Region 7 has
established specific tasks and protocols that are triggered at different alert
levels. This includes an occupant
evacuation plan for the regional headquarters and an alternate location plan to
ensure continuity of operations.
Nationally, EPA’s goal is to develop the capability to respond to five
simultaneous incidents on the scale of the World Trade Center attack.
Gary
Haden reported that McKinzie Environmental is developing a terrorism-related
tabletop to be held in conjunction with the June Region 7 RRT meeting in Kansas
City. Burlington Northern has
volunteered to be the industry participant.
Harvey
Dexter stressed that terrorism has been at the forefront of the Coast Guard’s
priorities since the September 11 attacks.
From the start of the war in Iraq, the Coast Guard has been heavily
involved in protecting military assets.
The Coast Guard’s Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) approach involves
identifying vulnerabilities and developing mitigation strategies. Fourteen of the top national ports are
within District 8, including some on the inland rivers that handle large cargo
volumes, including some highly toxic substances. Other challenges in District 8 include its large geographic size
and the amount of training needed due to reliance on reserve personnel.
Coast
Guard priorities include cruise ships, high interest vessels, and critical
assets such as locks and dams and nuclear facilities. The National Vessel Movement Center tracks the arrival of foreign
vessels. Requirements for advance
notice and information regarding cargo and crew have all increased. Coast Guard escorts are provided for some
high risk vessels and armed Sea Marshals ride aboard certain vessels. The Coast Guard has also established
100-person teams capable of deploying anywhere to address threats. Dexter distributed a handout showing how the
three-level maritime security system employed by the Coast Guard equates with
the Department of Homeland Security’s five-level, color-coded system. He also explained that the Coast Guard has
issued a variety of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NAVICs) to
address various security issues on an interim basis until regulations can be
adopted.
Ben
Wopat explained that the Corps of Engineers is primarily focused on protecting
its infrastructure. Criteria, including
factors such as the size of the potentially affected human population, are used
to rate infrastructure protection priorities as high, medium, or low. Most money is currently going to improving
security at hydropower generating sites.
Security measures include things like fencing, lighting, and
monitoring. The Corps relies on the
Coast Guard to provide waterside security for many of its facilities. Wopat noted that the Corps does not receive
any follow-up information from the FBI after it investigates reports of
suspicious activity near Corps facilities.
He said such follow-up would be quite helpful. In response to a question from Steve Faryan, Wopat said
responders can still access Corps facilities when necessary by calling ahead
and presenting identification upon arrival.
Greg
Morris noted that the Coast Guard had been working closely with the Corps to
identify key vulnerabilities along the UMR.
Carol McAllister reported that the Coast Guard is developing Port
Security Committees for the Twin Cities, Quad Cities, Peoria, and St. Louis. The committees will include representatives
of industry and all levels of law enforcement.
They will be charged with identifying vulnerabilities and mitigation
strategies. McAllister said the Coast
Guard’s goal is to have initial working documents for each port by December
2003.
Rodney
Tucker explained that Iowa Emergency Management has the lead in Iowa for
counter-terrorism. The state has
specific plans for various threat levels, including personnel recall lists,
etc. Camp Dodge functions as the
primary operations center. DNR conservation
officers share watch duty on key bridges that carry substantial volumes of
hazardous material.
Faryan
reported that EPA Region 5 has added a variety of personnel, including a
bio-hazards specialist. Chicago will be
the site for a tabletop exercise in May geared to top officials from various
agencies. The exercise will involve a
plague scenario. Faryan said observers
are welcome. He also reported that
Region 5 is working with the Wisconsin Rural Water Association on approaches
for securing various types of facilities.
The
meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. for the day and reconvened on April 16 at 8:10
a.m.
Cape Girardeau Exercise
John
Whitaker reported that Missouri will be holding an exercise on the UMR in the
Cape Girardeau area September 5-6. It
will include deployment of the Coast Guard’s vessel of opportunity skimming
system (VOSS). The event is part of an
annual exercise program that Missouri established two years ago. Last year’s exercise involved a
terrorism-related pipeline break and was quite large in scale. This year’s scenario will not have a
terrorism component and the overall event will be somewhat smaller in
scale. Mobile Oil is the tentative
sponsor, and the scenario will likely involve a release from their pipeline,
combined with other factors. Whitaker
encouraged interested observers to contact him for further information.
Harvey
Dexter explained that the Cape Girardeau VOSS deployment will substitute for a
Paducah-area deployment that the Region 7 RRT discussed last fall. The Coast Guard’s Atlantic Strike Team will
participate in the deployment, along with personnel from the region. The Corps of Engineers has committed to
providing the mv Pathfinder as the
vessel of opportunity. Dexter said EPA
will be the lead federal agency under the scenario, with the Coast Guard
playing a support role to EPA and the state.
He also noted that the Coast Guard may also seek to test various fast
water options, such as the flow diverter, as part of the exercise.
The
Coast Guard will use the Granite City-based VOSS for the Cape Girardeau
exercise. Dexter reported that the
Coast Guard and the Port Authority that owns the former base where the VOSS is
located have reached agreement on lease terms for ongoing storage.
UMR Early Warning Monitoring
Network
Barb
Naramore provided a brief update on activities of the UMR Early Warning
Monitoring Network (EWMN) Scoping Group, explaining that the group has met
through a series of conference calls.
The group has concluded that using a combination of a multi-parameter
probe and a fluorescence detector offers a reasonable balance of several key
considerations, including parameters monitored, labor required, and equipment
costs. The Scoping Group has also tentatively
identified the Quad Cities as its preferred location for a monitoring station,
with the Corps of Engineers’ Lock and Dam 15 offering perhaps the most
promising site.
Steve
Faryan stressed that funding is likely to be a significant hurdle to
establishing an EWMN for the UMR. He
encouraged examination of a variety of potential sources. Naramore emphasized that operation and
maintenance costs, as well as the initial capital investment to equip the
system, must be addressed. In response
to a question from Stan Kalinoski, Naramore explained that the Scoping Group is
also looking at the communication and information dissemination system that
would be an essential part of any EWMN.
Specifically, the Scoping Group has sent a survey to UMR drinking water
operators asking them about their notification preferences, what information
they need about incidents, and their perspectives and willingness to
participate in a web-based information system.
Faryan said that communication between responders and drinking water
operators has already been enhanced and called this one of the best results of
the effort so far.
Gary
Haden emphasized the need for utilities to contribute financially to any
EWMN. Naramore concurred that utility participation
will be important, but cautioned that the UMR utilities would not likely be
able to establish a system on their own.
Considerations include the fact that the benefits of a particular
monitoring station accrue largely to those utilities downstream from it,
spatial dynamics that suggest UMR stations might be best placed at a variety of
types of sites on the river (i.e., not exclusively at intakes), and the mix of
large and small municipal and private sector operators on the river means they
have widely varying resources. Naramore
said models from elsewhere in the country suggest that a combination of utility
participation and public agency leadership will be required if there is
ultimately to be an EWMN on the UMR.
Faryan said the Scoping Group would welcome input on funding options.
Tri-State
Hazmat Group
John
Grump reported that the Tri-State Hazmat Group has not yet established its work
plan for the coming year. Members have
been focused on their responsibilities related to counter-terrorism, weapons of
mass destruction, etc. Recent past
activities include an August 2002 communications exercise that tested the
efficacy of various equipment options in the river bluffland area and June 2002
barge training. In response to a
question from Stan Kalinoski, Grump explained that Tri-State is driven largely
by the state emergency management agencies and noted that MPCA has not
previously been active in the group.
Grump also noted that Craig Strand of the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety is the current Tri-State chair.
Barb
Naramore said she spoke recently with Lois Ristow, who indicated that Tri-State
may hold outreach sessions in August 2003 and also plans to update the manual
that it distributes to county emergency managers. Naramore said Ristow invited the UMR Spills Group to participate
in those August sessions as a way of informing people about the UMR Spill Plan.
UMR Spill Plan
Distribution and Maintenance
Barb
Naramore reminded Spills Group members of the basic distribution strategy for
the UMR Spill Plan. That strategy
includes the following:
·
Each
signatory agency’s primary POC to the group is responsible for distributing the
plan within their state or agency as they deem appropriate.
·
UMRBA staff
provides each POC with the plan in hardcopy and electronic format to facilitate
that distribution.
·
For
periodic updates, POCs have the option of distributing only updated pages to
their plan holders, or redistributing the plan in its entirety with each
update.
·
UMRBA
distributes the plan to other parties only upon their direct request. UMRBA refers plan requests from personnel
within signatory agencies back to the POCs for those agencies.
·
UMRBA
maintains a public access version of the plan on its web site (http://www.umrba.org/hazspills/umrplan.pdf).
Naramore
reported that she distributed the most recent plan updates to the primary POCs
in January. John Whitaker said he was
concerned that plan holders may have missed some previous updates, so he
distributed the updated plan in its entirety in digital form to plan holders
within Missouri DNR. Whitaker said he
will also be exploring the possibility of distributing the plan to local hazmat
teams, at least in the St. Louis area.
Harvey Dexter reported that he also forwarded the entire updated plan in
digital form to the Coast Guard’s plan holders, including Bob Allen of the
Ninth District and the Chiefs of Port Operations for MSO St. Louis and Paducah. Dexter said he left further distribution
within each MSO to the ports ops chief.
Rodney Tucker said he was unsure whether Iowa’s plan holders all had
current copies of the plan, so he distributed the entire document
electronically. Iowa DNR’s distribution
includes local hazmat teams, Iowa emergency management, DNR field offices, and
staff within DNR headquarters.
Whitaker
raised the question of whether it is reasonable to rely on people who receive
the plan electronically to print it out.
Dexter said he does not necessarily see the need to print the plan,
stressing that the important thing is to ensure people have access to it when
they need it. John Grump said people
will not print the plan if they receive it electronically and encouraged hardcopy
distribution as a key means of encouraging responders to familiarize themselves
with the plan.
Eddie
McGlasson said he discussed distribution of the UMR plan with Scott Hayes and
followed Hayes’ previous practice of not distributing the document to staff
within Region 7. Instead, the updated
plan is maintained in the Region 7 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and OSCs
are notified when there are updates to ensure they have an opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the changes.
Stan Kalinoski said he is still trying to determine an appropriate
distribution strategy within Minnesota and has not yet done anything with the
January 2003 updates. Grump reported
that he followed his standard practice of distributing paper copies of the
updates, with a memo explaining the changes.
Grump said his 33-member distribution list consists of field wardens for
the counties along the river, environmental responders who work on the river,
three Level A hazmat teams that have the river within their response area,
Wisconsin DNR’s central office, and the regional directors for the three DNR
units that border the river.
Steve
Faryan said EPA Region 5 OSCs have told him that they do not want personal
copies of the UMR plan. Faryan said he
maintains a copy in the Region 5 EOC.
Naramore said she has received confirmation that the updated plan has
been received and distributed within the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and
the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts of the Corps. No information is available from the Corps’ Mississippi Valley Division
or St. Louis District.
Naramore
noted that some agencies appear to be having difficulty with plan distribution
and observed that accounts from several recent incidents indicate that the UMR
plan’s protocols are not being implemented consistently. In light of these trends, Naramore urged
Spills Group members to carefully consider the question of whether the plan
still serves a useful purpose and is worth maintaining. She noted that the landscape has changed
considerably since the plan was first developed to address an
interjurisdictional void on the UMR. In
addition, she cautioned that the state and federal agencies may find themselves
in a very difficult situation if they are signatory to a document that includes
protocols that they do not consistently follow. Finally, she observed that maintaining the plan requires
considerable effort and asked whether this effort might be better directed to
other areas.
Kalinoski
said that the size of the UMR plan makes it daunting, and suggested that a simplified
plan might be more effective. Grump
said he uses the plan routinely and finds that it provides critical
information. He noted that some data,
such as the information on commodities transported by barge, could probably be
eliminated. Carol McAllister said she
finds Appendix D, including the commodities information, to be quite
useful. Naramore observed that Grump
and McAllister’s perspectives illustrate why the plan looks the way it does —
i.e., the plan’s contents are essentially additive in nature and different
people want different things in the plan.
Naramore suggested that it is time to step back and examine the plan in
its entirety. Faryan said EPA
responders use the resource lists extensively and encouraged that they be
maintained.
Grump
said the plan’s protocols, such at the in-situ
burning guidelines, are also useful.
Kalinoski emphasized local responders will always dictate what is
actually done, regardless of the protocols that may be in place. Grump said he has not found this to be the
case on the UMR, where locals are kept informed, but are not typically asked
for permission/consent before response actions are taken. McAllister said she believes the protocols
function as a preparedness element, while the resource appendices serve as the
plan’s response element.
Dexter
acknowledged that he is not an end-user of the plan and said the Coast Guard’s
perspectives on the plan’s usefulness should be sought from the MSOs and their
detachments. In general, he said the
Coast Guard is aware of the plan.
However, its personnel are not going to familiarize themselves with it
in detail in advance of an incident.
Instead, they are likely to turn to it in the event of a spill and see
whether it can be useful. He noted that
the UMR Spill Plan is only one of several references available to any
particular Coast Guard unit.
Grump
suggested developing a list of questions that responders may need to answer in
responding to a spill on the UMR as a way of familiarizing them with the plan’s
content.
Dexter
suggested polling plan users before making decisions concerning the document’s
future and related training and outreach issues. Whitaker and Faryan agreed that input from plan users would be
helpful. McAllister cautioned that the
feedback may be of limited utility if people have not been using the plan. After further discussion, it was agreed that
Naramore would draft a survey for the group’s consideration. After incorporating the group’s input, she
will distribute a final version, which the agency POCs will then be responsible
for circulating to their plan holders.
POCs will have the option of conducting the survey via phone or using a
printed version. Further discussion of
potential plan modifications and related training and outreach issues will be
deferred until after the survey results are available.
Public
Access Version
Naramore
reminded Spills Group members that the group devised an interim strategy for
public access to the UMR Spill Plan shortly after September 11, 2001. Under that approach, public access was
limited to the plan portion of the document, and all of the resource appendices
were restricted. Naramore said that
this is how the plan is currently posted on the UMRBA’s web site. With each of the signatory agencies having had
time to revise its own standards governing public information, Naramore
suggested that it is time to develop a more targeted approach to limiting
access to potentially sensitive information in the UMR plan. Grump concurred, noting that much of the
resource appendix information is not sensitive. McAllister and McGlasson observed that there are many other
sources for the information contained in the appendices. However, McAllister said she still favors
restricting access to some of this information, including intake locations and
pipeline crossings. Noting that not all
of the signatory agencies were present at the meeting, Naramore said she would
query the Spills Group via e-mail regarding what information in the UMR plan
should be suppressed in the public access version.
Other
Naramore
suggested deferring discussion of updates to several resource listings and
development of an integrated resource list by river mile until after the survey
of plan users has been completed.
McGlasson offered an update to one of the EPA Region 7 contact numbers.
Planning and Mapping
Updates
Gary
Haden reported that Margie Daniels of the UMRBA staff provided considerable
assistance in converting the Quad Cities Sub-Area Plan to Microsoft Word and
preparing it for web posting. The
public access version of the Quad Cities plan is now posted on the UMRBA’s web
site (http://www.umrba.org/hazspills/quadcitiesplan.pdf). Daniels is also assisting with the Greater
St. Louis Sub-Area Plan, which is almost ready for posting (note: subsequently posted at (http://www.umrba.org/hazspills/stlouisplan.pdf). Haden also reported that the Quad Cities
Sub-Area Committee will be meeting shortly after conclusion of today’s Spills
Group meeting. Barb Naramore reported
that UMRBA staff are in the process of updating the Minneapolis/St. Paul
Sub-Area Plan (http://www.umrba.org/hazspills/twincitiesplan.pdf). The updated plan will be included on CD with
the forthcoming updated and expanded Twin Cities/St. Croix inland sensitivity
maps.
Steve
Faryan reported that the first round sensitivity maps for all of Region 5 and
adjacent areas should be completed by the end of FY 03. Naramore added that the partner agencies
have devised an updating approach that should result in sensitivity maps for
two Region 5 states being updated each year.
As part of these updates, a hazmat data layer will be added.
Naramore
recounted the Spills Group’s previous consideration of a special UMR CD that
would include the sensitivity maps and tables for the UMR corridor, the UMR
Spill Plan, and UMR sub-area contingency plans. She asked whether members remain interested in such a CD and
whether additional content should be included.
Harvey Dexter, John Whitaker, and Steve Faryan encouraged creation of a
UMR CD. John Grump asked whether maps
and tables for the entire corridor along with all of the plans could be
included on a single CD. Naramore said
she believed this would be possible, but that file sizes had not yet been verified. Grump emphasized the importance of clear
instructions, noting that, with this much content, it would be easy for users
to become confused. No Spills Group
members suggested any additions to the basic content that Naramore outlined.
Agency Updates and Reports
on Recent Incidents
John
Grump reported on a recent diesel release at a hospital complex. Approximately 1,200 gallons of diesel
overflowed during the filling of two 25,000 gallon tanks on the grounds. The fuel reached a storm sewer. Since the incident, the hospital has
revamped its plans and procedures.
Barb
Naramore reminded members that the UMRBA’s web site contains a variety of
Spills Group information, including meeting announcements, minutes, and contact
information. In addition, the site also
provides the public access versions of the UMR Spill Plan and various sub-area
plans, as well as information and links related to the early warning monitoring
and inland sensitivity mapping efforts.
Steve
Faryan said there was a spill on the Nemadji River in northwestern Wisconsin
this past winter. Faryan said response
efforts, which involved Wisconsin, EPA, and the Coast Guard, went well. Most of the product was recovered on top of
ice. Faryan also reported that EPA and
the Coast Guard have been unable to determine a source for the April 2002 Rouge
River spill in Detroit. The mixed waste
oil released has confounded fingerprinting efforts.
Stan
Kalinoski reported that approximately 25,000 gallons of jet fuel have been lost
at the Twin Cities international airport.
Some of the fuel has reached the Minnesota River. The source of the release has not been
determined, though it is presumed to have come from operations of either the
Metropolitan Airports Commission or Northwest Airlines.
Other Business
John
Grump suggested the possibility of holding the Spills Group’s next meeting in
conjunction with the September Cape Girardeau exercise. Other members expressed concern given the
relative remoteness of the location and the commitments that several Spills
Group members would have related to the exercise. Barb Naramore agreed to query the full Spills Group concerning
this option versus an October meeting in the Quad Cities. [Note:
Subsequent to the April 15-16 meeting, the next Spills Group meeting was
set for October 22‑23
in the Quad Cities.]
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.