Meeting Summary
Participants
|
Rodney Tucker |
|
|
Mike Anderson* |
|
|
Roger Lauder |
|
|
David Morrison |
|
|
Rick Gann |
|
|
John Whitaker |
|
|
Tom Kendzierski |
|
|
Jaime Brown |
US EPA Region 5 |
|
Steve Faryan |
|
|
Barbi Lee |
|
|
Joe Davis |
|
|
Jim Silver |
US EPA Region 7 |
|
Daniel Asbach |
USCG, Sector |
|
Christopher Pisares |
USCG, Quad Cities MSD |
|
Matt Weakley |
USCG, District 8 |
|
Elizabeth Jones |
NOAA |
|
Richard Beatty |
USACE, St. Paul District |
|
Frank Catalano |
USACE, St. Louis District |
|
Scott Pettis |
USACE, Rock Island District/USCG |
|
John Punkiewicz |
USACE, Rock Island District |
|
Gary Haden |
McKinzie Environmental |
|
David Fritz |
BP America |
|
Tim Ganz* |
American Water Company |
|
Dave Kull* |
Iowa American Water Company |
|
Dave Hokanson |
UMRBA |
*Attended on April 19th only.
Call to Order and Introductions
The meeting of the Upper Mississippi River Hazardous Spills
Coordination Group (UMR Spills Group) was called to order at
Approval of Previous Meeting Summary
The summary of the
Agency Updates
Member agencies provided updates as follows:
Tucker indicated that there may be a reorganization of Iowa DNR in the near future. He further indicated that there were not many recent spills to report, though there have been many stormwater bypasses.
Morrison announced that there will be a “boom school” training in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area sponsored by Wakota CAER during June and a refresher training in July. Hokanson added that registration forms were available, but that the June training dates conflicted with the SONS 2007 exercise dates.
Morrison indicated that there will be a table-top exercise
for the upper portion of the
In reporting recent spill events, Morrison noted that a leaking
rail car carrying anhydrous ammonia had been identified in
Morrison described the efforts being made with marinas to prepare them for response to small spills. This has included encouraging marinas to obtain small segments of boom that can be used to help control spills.
Morrison next announced the development of a debris
management protocol by Minnesota PCA, which was based in part on experiences
from
Lauder reported on a spill event that took place on the
Lauder additionally reported that
Kendzierski reported that
Whitaker indicated that there were not significant spills
affecting the UMR since the last meeting.
He did describe a 15,000 gallon propane leak that took place in northern
Gann noted that Missouri DNR has developed a technical bulletin for response to ethanol spills and that he would provide a web link to the document for the group.
USACE-Rock Island
District (Punkiewicz and Pettis)
Punkiewicz reported that there had been a minor spill from the gearhouse at Lock and Dam 11. He added that communication had worked well in regard to this spill.
Catalano commented that there were no spills to report in then St. Louis District since the last meeting.
Beatty reported that Shelly Shafer has taken the role of emergency manager in the St. Paul District. He added that there were no spills or other news to report.
USCG-Quad Cities MSD
(Pisares)
Pisares indicated that there were no spills to report since the last meeting.
USCG-St. Louis-Sector
UMR (Asbach)
Asbach reported on one spill in pooled water, related to an over-filling situation. He indicated that booming techniques were used to control the spill.
USCG-District 8
(Weakley)
Matt Weakley introduced himself as the representative of District 8. He explained that he has filled the (civilian) position formerly occupied by Pat Cuty.
US EPA-Region 5 (Faryan)
Faryan reported on a Magellan pipeline spill and generally active spill response within Region 5 (though no spills were directly related to the UMR). He added that Region 5 program staff have been working to educate Region 5 senior management staff regarding incident management procedures.
US EPA-Region 7 (
NOAA (Jones)
Jones introduced herself as the new NOAA scientific support
coordinator (SSC) with responsibility for the
BP American (Fritz)
Fritz reported on the merger of BP’s pipeline and terminal businesses into a single entity.
Faryan distributed a report generated from the NRC, summarizing spills reported from January 2000 to February 2007 for the UMR. He noted that fuel oil spills were the most commonly reported, with hydraulic and lubricating oil spills also accounting for many of the reported incidents. Faryan added that there were also numerous “unknown oil” spills.
During discussion of the list, it was noted by the group that there were no spills reported as originating in Missouri (out of the 457 reported spills on the list), and this was attributed to a possible problem in getting Missouri spills properly entered into the system from which this report was generated.
The Group was in agreement that such a list is useful for review and discussion, and should be generated again in the future. Hokanson indicated that he would forward the existing list electronically, in a spreadsheet format, to the Group.
Spill of National Significance (SONS) 2007
Exercise
Lee provided an update of the status of planning for the upcoming SONS 2007 exercise. In addition to the information provided in the slides for her presentation, Lee noted the following:
§
US EPA Region 5 area command will be in
§ This will not be a truly “cold” start, as that would extend the time needed to complete the exercise. Instead, it will be considered a “warm” start to speed up the process of the exercise.
§ Resource allocation will be a key element to be exercised.
§ To bring attention to communications issues, no cell phone or land lines will be available in the first hour of the exercise.
§
The
§ Conoco-Phillips is bringing in their corporate team to participate in the exercise. They will be playing the exercise around the clock.
Additionally, Lee identified the following individuals as points of contact regarding the SONS 2007 exercise:
Phone: (312) 353-1505
Email: Calovich.Sheila@epa.gov
Phone: (312) 886-5296
Email: Lee.Barbi@epa.gov
Phone: (913) 551-7221
Email: Ferguson.Doug@epa.gov
Phone: (314) 269-2591
Email: Katherine.E.Weathers@uscg.mil
Phone: (217) 524-5027
Email: Roger.Lauder@illinois.gov
Illinois’ Role in SONS 2007
Exercise
Lauder reported on
§
The States of Illinois and
§
§ Honeywell has decided not to play in the exercise.
§ Burlington Northern Railroad may play with a hydrogen fluoride spill scenario.
§
Teppco is planning to exercise a pipeline break
near
§ Kirby Marine may play a cumene spill scenario.
§
American Water Company facilities will be
playing along the UMR below
§
Additional scenarios may include
agriculture/CAFO incident, a mine incident (table-top play), and possible
scenario involving pipelines at
Faryan asked whether
Missouri’s Role in SONS 2007 Exercise
Whitaker described
SONS “Second Week” Workshop
Lee also gave a preview of the SONS
“second week” Response and Recovery Workshop, which will take place in
Lauder asked whether the “second
week” workshop was taking place only in
Lauder commented that it will be important to tie SONS to the need for a UMR early warning monitoring network. Lee responded that an event to highlight this gap could be added to the MESL for the exercise. Lauder expressed that the scenario he had in mind was an unidentified contaminant reaching a public water supply intake.
(Note: More information on the Response and Recovery
Workshop is now available on the SONS 2007 website at: http://www.sons-program.org/SONS/SONS_07.nsf/RespRecWorkshop?OpenForm
)
Updated
Haden reported that the
Spills Group/UMRBA/Region 5 Products
UMR Response DVD
Hokanson demonstrated a newly produced DVD that includes all the relevant contingency plans, inland sensitivity atlas maps, and response strategies for the UMR. Copies of the DVD were then provided to the Spills Group members.
Emergency Action Field
Guide
Punkiewicz reported that the field guides were well received
at locks & dams. Morrison indicated
that they had been distributed to marinas in
Hokanson asked that any additional comments/corrections to the field guide be provided to him within the next few weeks. Asbach suggested that Sector UMR, rather than District 8, be listed as the point of contact on the field guide.
The meeting adjourned
for the day at
Updates and Changes
to the UMR Spill Response Plan
US Coast Guard Contact
Phone Numbers
Hokanson noted that Asbach’s comment regarding US Coast Guard contact numbers on the field guide (made at the end of the previous day’s meeting) was actually related to what is currently in the UMR Spill Response Plan, explaining that District 8 is currently identified as the initial point of contact in the Plan and that the field guide and Plan must be in agreement regarding initial contact point. The Group seemed in general agreement that the contact numbers should best reflect how response would happen within the Coast Guard. Hokanson agreed to work with Asbach, Weakley and Tucker to ensure that Coast Guard contact information was correctly and consistently reflected in both the Plan and the field guide.
Plan Language
Regarding Federal OSC Jurisdiction
The group agreed to delete language from the section of the plan, found on page 13, regarding Federal OSC Jurisdiction as follows (strikethrough indicates text to be deleted):
Federal OSC Jurisdiction
In all other federal responses, as per the National Contingency Plan,
the EPA shall serve as the
FOSC. This responsibility is divided between Regions VII and V as
follows. Region VII will provide FOSCs for spills on the mainstem of the Upper
Mississippi River when either When Upper Mississippi mainstem spills
will result in significant response by more than one state, or where there is
uncertainty as to the responding states, Region VII will provide an OSC for
spills between Cairo, Illinois and Keokuk, Iowa (river mile 0.0 to 354.5) and
Region V above that point.
Resources permitting, the Coast Guard will investigate/respond as first
federal official on-scene to all reported spills along the
The group agreed to delete this text as both US EPA Regions 5 and 7 were in agreement that it did not provide a current or correct description of how they would respond and assign jurisdiction for a spill event on the UMR. Hokanson indicated that the plan would be updated accordingly and a revised page of the plan distributed to all Spill Group members electronically.
Spill Plan Distribution
Hokanson asked the Group to provide feedback on the distribution of the recently updated UMR Spill Response Plan and Resource Manual (a hard copy and CD of the manual had been provided to the agency POCs at the Group’s October 2006 meeting).
Lauder asked the other States how they carry out
distribution of the plan. Tucker replied
that
Whitaker asked whether it was technically possible to reproduce the UMR Response DVD within agencies. Hokanson replied that it should be technically possible (and tested copying of the DVD during the meeting – noting that it took about 15 minutes for the contents of the DVD to be copied).
Morrison noted that there is very limited distribution and
use of the plan in
Usefulness of the UMR Spill Plan/Need for Revision
Hokanson next asked the Group to comment more generally on the usefulness and continued viability/value of the UMR Spill Response Plan. He also asked whether a more extensive revision of the plan should be initiated at this time.
Whitaker responded that the plan is useful and that SONS will help to gauge its continuing value, stating that if the plan is used during SONS, that will be an indication of its importance.
Faryan noted that the UMR Plan does continue to work in the context of other regional and sub-area plans. He observed that it is of particular value to individuals new to the area and that it is very helpful for Region 5 OSCs.
Lauder asked whether the plan had been distributed to industry. Tucker replied that it had not been widely provided to industry. Whitaker added that it has been given to local responders, but the amount of use at that level is uncertain. Tucker concurred that the use at the local level is quite variable.
Asbach indicated that waterfront facilities could incorporate the UMR plan into their response plans. Tucker indicated that this does occur for some of the facilities in the Quad Cities. He added that more marketing of the plan to facilities would be desirable.
Lauder noted that it is important to consider who in the private sector receives the plan and where response equipment is located to act when a spill occurs. Whitaker noted that the locations of response equipment are provided in the plan. Lauder concurred, but added that equipment locations can change over time.
Tucker suggested that any potential revisions to the plan be revisited after the SONS exercise. Whitaker concurred, suggesting that the plan be reviewed post-SONS in light of the outcome of the exercise.
Distribution of Materials to Industry/Facilities
Tucker noted that any distribution should be targeted toward
chemical and petroleum facilities along the river.
Hokanson asked the group whether they envisioned sending the
UMR Plan, the Sensitivity Atlas Maps and/or Response Strategies to
facilities.
Hokanson summarized the Group’s preliminary intent as providing the UMR DVD content to all facilities required to produce FRPs, and that the distribution should come from EPA Regions.
Asbach offered that USCG could employ its secure web portal
for distribution of this information, as this is already used by river
facilities to obtain relevant information. However, he noted that this would
initially be limited to the
Overall, the Group emphasized the importance of outreach to industry in the next year regarding the UMR Plan and related information. They expressed this as a priority area for work over the next year. Hokanson agreed to coordinate with the Group to come up with a more detailed plan for distribution.
Meeting Cycle and Group Membership
Hokanson asked whether the group felt that current meeting cycle (two meetings per year, spring and fall) was appropriate and should be continued. The Group indicated that the current meeting cycle should remain in place.
Hokanson also asked whether membership on the group was appropriate and effective. The Group indicated that it was, but that it would to improve participation and communication with the US Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Group meetings.
Next Meeting
The Group identified October 3-4 as target dates for the
next meeting. The location of the
meeting was determined to be the Quad Cities, as there will be an opportunity
to tour
Early Warning Monitoring Network
Hokanson distributed the preliminary bid received from YSI regarding the repair and/or replacement of the multiparameter sonde at Lock & Dam 15. He reviewed the options offered by YSI as:
1) Repair of current sonde with existing configuration (cost of approximately $4000, plus $3000-$5000 for probes).
2) Repair of current sonde with upgraded configuration (cost of approximately $6300 plus $3000-$5000 for probes.)
3) Purchase of new sonde with upgraded configuration (cost of approximately $6400 plus $3000-$5000 for probes.)
Kull suggested that, if the pilot station were to be maintained, he would suggest pursuing option #2 or #3. He added that it might be possible to save money by not including a chlorophyll probe as part of the system. Additionally, he noted that a new DO probe would likely require less maintenance than what had previously been used.
Fritz suggested that there may be a solid-state petroleum-detection
device that could be used for monitoring.
He mentioned that this may be available from WETLabs and is being
investigated by
Hokanson confirmed that the Group was interested in continuing operation of the pilot monitor. He noted the importance of continuing to make progress on other fronts (funding and organizational) in addition to keeping the existing monitor up and running. Anderson and Ganz concurred that it would be important to continue seeking broader support for the effort. Hokanson indicated he would followup with YSI and confirm with Ann Whelan before proceeding with the purchase of new equipment.
Gann suggested that the SONS exercise may offer an opportunity to build support for an early warning monitoring network. Lauder agreed that this may offer a chance to bring the need for an early warning system to the attention of a broader audience.
Ganz asked whether the email notification system should be returned to operation if the monitoring station was placed back in service. The Group agreed that the notification system should be made operational once again if data collection resumed.
The meeting adjourned
at