Meeting Summary
Participants
|
Roger Lauder |
|
|
Rodney Tucker |
|
|
Mike Anderson3 |
|
|
Dave Morrison1 |
|
|
Rick Gann2 |
|
|
Brad Harris |
|
|
Tom Kendzierski2 |
|
|
Frank Catalano |
USACE, St. Louis District |
|
Scott Pettis3 |
USACE, Rock Island District/USCG |
|
John Punkiewicz |
USACE, Rock Island District |
|
John Martin3 |
USCG, Quad Cities MSD |
|
Ramon Mendoza |
|
|
Ann Whelan |
|
|
Joe Davis |
|
|
Jim Silver |
|
|
Joel Allen |
|
|
Dana Macke |
|
|
Mike Coffey |
|
|
Aleshia Kenney |
|
|
Gary Haden |
McKinzie Environmental |
|
Doug Schnoebelen |
|
|
David Fritz |
BP America |
|
Chris Biellier |
Seneca
Companies/Illinois MABAS 39 |
|
Matt Stokes |
Pinnacle Engineering |
|
|
Cedar American Rail |
|
Brent Earley1 |
|
|
Bob Bohannan |
City of |
|
Greg Swanson |
City of |
|
Dave Hokanson |
UMRBA |
|
Mark Ellis2 |
UMRBA |
|
Sanhita Chattopadhyay2 |
UMRBA |
1 = First day only.
2 = By telephone.
3 = Second day only.
Call to Order and Introductions
The meeting of the Upper Mississippi River Hazardous Spills
Coordination Group (Group) was called to order at
UMR Hazardous Spills Coordination Group Chair Transition
Tucker noted that he had served two years as Chair of the
Group, and that the Group had decided in previous meetings to rotate the Chair
position between states every two years.
He indicated that the Chair position had most recently been held by
UMR Case Study:
Morrison provided a case study presentation regarding the train
collision and derailment that took place on
Tucker asked when the secondary release took place. Morrison responded that it was approximately
Morrison noted that one consideration in this case, and with propane leaks generally, is that the smell of the propane gas persists after the leak has stopped. He added that this is one reason why it is important to have air monitoring in place in these cases.
Morrison explained that the UMR notification protocol was implemented when the cars slid to the river, as the incident then impacted the UMR.
Morrison indicated that he rail company (Canadian Pacific) worked with several contractors on the incident, including Pinnacle Engineering, West Central Environmental, and Baywest, Inc. He also noted that sampling was not initiated on the first day, so that baseline numbers were not established, but that sampling did begin on the second day of the incident.
Morrison next described some of the challenges to response posed by this specific situation, in terms of weather and location. He indicated that skimmers intended to remove product froze up due to extremely cold temperatures and that ice containing spilled product was eventually cut out, removed, and trucked off site for disposal. Tucker asked whether in-situ burning as considered as an option. Morrison replied that it could not be used because one of the locomotives was still on site. He summarized by stating that the incident tested cold weather capability and pointed out the need to improve cold weather capability.
Matt Stokes of Pinnacle Engineering added a few more details regarding the response, noting that plywood barriers and sorbents had been placed to contain spills along the rail bed. He reported that, in order to remove the locomotive, access to the area had to be built up and that this was an area already identified on navigation charts as an eroded rail bed. Therefore, Stokes indicated, consideration was being given to leaving the added rock in place and restoring the habitat in the area with the new material left in place.
John Punkiewicz asked how close the incident had been to Lock and Dam #7. Morrison replied that it was about ¾ miles upstream from the lock and dam.
Morrison indicated that, as of March, there was still oil entrained in the ice and that sorbent boom was still in place to capture oil.
In regard to water quality monitoring, Morrison mentioned that testing had been done for petroleum and fertilizer, but that it was difficult to distinguish results from background levels, adding that oil and grease were found at low levels in sediment samples from a number of nearby areas.
Morrison noted the following as issues still to be resolved regarding this incident:
1) Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and mussel survey
2) a sediment/substrate survey, and
3) reshaping of the rock embankment to improve habitat.
Joe Davis asked how much fuel had been lost in the incident. Morrison replied that an estimated volume of 3,200 gallons had been lost, though he added that it was difficult to estimate this total.
Morrison highlighted the fact that, for fertilizer spills,
the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (
Aleshia Kenney asked if the extent of the impact on mussel beds from the rock build-out had yet been assessed. Morrison indicated that this had not yet been done.
Doug Schnoebelen asked if the laboratory had run blanks on the water samples to check on lab contamination. Morrison replied that blanks had been run.
Ramon Mendoza noted that this event highlights the need for protocols to address booming on ice. Rick Gann noted that a facility with an oil-water separator might have been an option for disposing of contaminated ice.
All Group members expressed an interest in obtaining a copy of Morrison’s presentation. Morrison indicated he would provide a copy to Dave Hokanson for further distribution to the Group.
Agency and Other Updates
BP America
Dave Fritz reported that BP is planning to conduct a major drill in the UMR area in the near future, although a specific date has not yet been determined.
Morrison noted that
USFWS
Kenney commented on an upcoming effort to enhance Refuge spill contingency planning, and noted that this would be discussed in greater detail later in the meeting.
US EPA Region 7
Jim Silver noted the upcoming 2009 Freshwater Spills
Symposium, to be held in
USACE-Rock Island
District
Punkiewicz mentioned the “Cold Water Boot Camp”
Frank Catalano reported on a release of waste oil at Mel
Price Lock & Dam (Lock & Dam # 26) on
Schnoebelen noted that the
USEPA-Office of
Research and Development
Joel Allen provided a brief update on the status of UMR early warning monitoring stations, indicating that three stations were currently up and running, and that two more will be added in the near future. He noted that further details would be provided during his presentation the following day.
Chris Biellier described two MABAS groups in
Biellier reported that Seneca Companies had been involved
last year with the response to the
In further comments, Biellier described a release of corn
oil that had occurred on
Additionally, in regard to ethanol, Biellier noted that public service agencies were not well equipped to deal with the hazards presented by ethanol production facilities.
Tucker asked whether the boom deployment on the
Pinnacle Engineering
Stokes reported that he had just been promoted to Manager of Emergency Services with Pinnacle Engineering and that he was interested in picking up ideas and information as part of his participation the Group.
DM&E Railroad
Chad Livingston reported that Canadian Pacific had purchased ICE/DM&E rail, which is now known as DM&E Railroad. He indicated that he is working to become more involved in groups such as the UMR Hazardous Spills Coordination Group.
Lauder noted Biellier’s earlier description of MABAS groups
and he emphasized the role of MABAS in mutual aid. Lauder reported that Illinois
Lauder alerted the group to the situation of the MV Hartford
Beaver, which sank in the UMR north of
Lauder also reported on a temporary, and unexplained, drop
in the
USEPA-Region 5
American Water Company
Brent Earley reported that he now holds the position at Iowa America Water previously held by Dave Kull, adding that Kull remains with American Water in a different capacity.
Gann noted the upcoming, seven-stop TRANSCAER tour taking
place in
Gann also reported on a release of hydrofluoric acid at the
Missouri-American water plant on the Missouri River at
Gann asked Lauder about the status of the MV Hartford Beaver. Lauder replied that recovery efforts were awaiting lower water levels and that exact timing of recover was not yet known. He invited members of the Group to contact him if they had not received news in the future regarding this situation.
Tucker noted that budget constraints are a major concern for the agency at this time, with an approximately 15% reduction in the Agency budget to occur after July 1st.
Tucker mentioned the upcoming Vigilant Guard exercise coming
up in June in
Tucker noted that there had not been many incidents
affecting the UMR of late, aside from the corn oil spill at
Tucker asked whether any members of the group had feedback on the USACE-sponsored UMR Flood Response Workshop which had immediately preceded this meeting of the UMR Spills Group. He added that flood predictions shared at the workshop did not forecast major flooding, but noted that all such predictions are dependent on levels of precipitation. Whelan noted that the workshop was focused on the Corps’ statutory mission and not a National Response Framework mission, adding that the there was not much discussion of Emergency Support Function missions.
Area and Sub Area Planning Updates
Region 5 Area
Whelan reported that the Region 5 Integrated Contingency
Plan was currently being updated into a database format. She added that a goal of the update was to
make the plan amenable to use with multiple products and that various methods
of displaying information had been examined, including Google Earth/Google
Earth Pro, Response Manager, GeoPDF and the Environmental Response Management
Application (ERMA). Whelan commented
that the display of data with Google Earth Pro appeared promising and that EMRA
could be valuable, but is expensive to develop.
Fritz concurred that ERMA is quite good, but also expensive and
intensive to develop. Whelan agreed,
noting that it may rely almost too much on the inclusion of data without full
consideration of the need for individuals with specialized skills to utilize
the information.
Fritz commented that he likes the work going on in
Whelan concluded her comments on Region 5 efforts by indicating that the Region has made a commitment to updating sub area plans, and the data structures being explored in the area plan could be potentially integrated into sub area efforts.
Twin Cities Sub Area
Plan
Hokanson reported that a Twin Cities Sub Area Plan Steering
Committee has been meeting and is seeking to update the plan by the end of the
calendar year 2009. He indicated that
participants in the Steering Committee have included Minnesota PCA, Minnesota
DNR, Minnesota HSEM, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, US EPA, US FWS, USCG,
and the City of
Whelan noted that one of the efforts being made in updating the plan is to include information on hazardous materials, and that Steve Lee of Minnesota PCA has been working with Minnesota HSEM to explore this. She added that this vision was to include information related to release, monitoring, and cleanup for hazardous materials, as had already been done for oil in the Plan. Gary Haden asked if this would cause the plan to be restricted any further in its distribution and indicated that in working with Sub Area groups, the sharing of this type of information has been difficult post-9/11. Whelan responded that just a template for facilities’ use would be included and not actual facility plans themselves, and therefore she did not anticipate any additional restriction to the plan would be needed.
Haden reported that there is not a lot of major activity on these plans at this time, with some recent minor updates having just been completed. He noted that one area of upcoming effort was to make worst case scenarios more realistic and relevant.
Haden noted that the
Haden noted that a Greater St. Louis Sub Area Committee
meeting will be held in conjunction with the Freshwater Spills Symposium on
Haden reported that mapping was now taking place in Region 7
sub areas, following on from the Google Earth-based mapping initiated by Joe
Davis and others at Region 7.
Hokanson provided a demonstration of the recently assembled
CD product that contains information about site-specific response strategies
for the UMR in the
UMR Pipeline Crossings/Hazards to Navigation
Whelan and Mendoza raised the issue that some UMR pipeline crossings are hazards to navigation, and may present a risk for failure/collision. Whelan suggested that the group should consider how best to connect with the pipeline industry and in pipeline issues. Bieller noted that there is a pipeline group that meets periodically and where updates are provided. Tucker commented that there is also an Iowa Pipeline Association that hosts “meet and greet” sessions.
Whelan emphasized that her concern was with the vulnerability of existing pipelines on the UMR and that she did not envision the issue as being related to enforcement, but more of an effort to address and mitigate specific existing risks. She also emphasized that the issue was river-specific.
Haden observed that, given the nature of the issue, the
pipeline association did not seem to be the correct mechanism to more the
discussion forward. Silver asked who
would be appropriate to invite for a discussion. Fritz suggested that the Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) would need to be involved.
Refuge Planning
Whelan indicated that recent rail spills along the UMR had
raised the idea of enhancing contingency planning for National Wildlife Refuge
areas on the UMR. Hokanson described
that US FWS, US EPA, Wisconsin DNR, and Minnesota PCA had all been involved in
initial discussions regarding refuge planning.
Group members suggested that the states of
As an example, Whelan commented that build-outs of ramp structures in recent rail incidents may have had important natural resource impacts, and that coordination in these types of scenarios is important. Fritz commented that it is these types of situations that require a plan to be developed. Whelan concurred, noting that the specific issues associated with Refuge lands highlight the need for a Refuge-specific contingency planning effort.
The meeting was adjourned
for the day at
Freshwater Spills Symposium Preview and Preparation
Hokanson next walked through the presentation that he, Davis, and Steve Faryan would be giving at the Freshwater Spills Symposium, with the intent of both refining the presentation and gathering information to aid in the documentation of successful techniques and tools for response on the UMR. The Group provided a number of comments to Hokanson for use in correcting and amending the presentation; among the recommendations for modification from the Group were the following:
§ Adding additional information about the UMR’s locks & dams at the beginning of the presentation.
§ Using aerial photos, and in particular photo of Mississippi River/Missouri River confluence to illustrate the complexity of the system.
§ Emphasizing that some of the UMR’s high value natural resources – mussels in particular – are not mobile and therefore can be more sensitive to incidents.
§ Providing additional description of National Wildlife Refuges on the UMR.
§
Emphasizing the limited amount of response
equipment and the UMR and noting that what is available is found primarily in
§ Noting that spill travel times on the UMR can be rapid, while response times may be slow due to location of equipment and responders.
§ Asking the audience to share where they see similarities between the UMR and other large rivers in terms of response, to hopefully gather lessons learned from other areas.
§ Specifying that 6” boom is more appropriate for fast water/river channel and 12” boom more appropriate for slower water/off channel areas.
§ Making the map of Wakota CAER boom cache locations its own separate slide.
§
Noting that boom vane can be effective, and was
deployed recently on
§ Noting that boom deflector is fairly commonly used and has been effectively deployed on the UMR.
§ For the vessel of opportunity skimming system (VOSS), noting that it may be best used in situations of an ongoing release, due to the time needed to deploy and fit a vessel for use.
§ Adding a separate slide regarding skimmers, noting that they may be use in off-channel areas and showing photos of skimmers in operation.
§ Placing more emphasis on the potential use of barges, both to function as boom and as work platforms. Adding photos of barges operating in each context.
Also, in response to the discussion, several members of the Group observed that it would be important to review and update the equipment list contained within the UMR Spill Plan. Hokanson indicated that he would work with the Group in updating this list.
Hokanson noted that, as discussed during the previous meeting of the Group, the UMR Plan had been modified to provide contact phone numbers for downstream states (Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee), as well as contact information for USCG’s Sector Lower Mississippi River (Memphis). He indicated that, if these changes were acceptable to the group, he would subsequently distribute the revised pages electronically and that UMRBA would also update the version of the UMR Plan on its website accordingly. No objections to these changes to the UMR Plan were raised by the Group.
Hokanson also distributed laminated copies of the UMR Emergency Action Field Guide to members of the Group.
UMR Notification/Recent Notification Drill
Tucker reported that a UMR notification drill was carried
out on
At 0630, an Artco line boat pushing
the red flag barge “Bridge Destroyer” allided with the
Winds are 20 to 30 knots across the
river from the west, and wave action is a 1 foot chop. Surface water flow is at
about 3 knots. There are reports of the smell of diesel fuel in
Tucker noted that, overall, the drill was successful and
that readiness may have been heightened by an actual incident occurring the day
before the drill (corn oil spill at
Lauder confirmed that Illinois EPA had been notified during the drill and in turn had passed notification along to their public water systems.
In response to discussion about the applicability of
notification plans for products beyond just oil,
Lauder raised the issue that, under catastrophic conditions with multiple spills, notification may be challenging.
Lauder and Gann indicated that they would be willing to work together in organizing the next notification drill, which would likely take place before the next meeting of the UMR Spills Group.
UMR Response Training
Tucker asked the Group how members would want to approach
future training activities.
Biellier asked whether it would be possible for the Illinois MABAS groups to acquire boom, and in particular expressed an interest in USCG response trailers that USCG had been seeking to locate with other entities. Catalano indicated that the USACE has been working with USCG to deploy some of these materials to USACE facilities, but that USCG is seeking to retain ownership of the equipment even if it is deployed with other entities. Punkiewicz indicated that that several USACE properties, including Lock & Dam 14 might be promising sites for equipment deployment. John Martin reported that he was maintaining two of the response trailers at MSD Quad Cities and intended to keep this equipment. Hokanson indicated that he would be in contact with Rob McCaskey of USCG, Sector UMR, to determine if any trailers were available at this time for deployment at non-USCG sites. (Note: McCaskey subsequently indicated that no trailers were available for deployment.)
Returning to the discussion of training, Whelan indicated that, historically, the group has help support training that occurred at different locations along the UMR. Biellier indicated that there is a need for ongoing training. In subsequent discussion, the Group targeted the LaCrosse area as most promising for a potential next training event.
NRC Report of Recent UMR Spills
Hokanson distributed an NRC report summary, prepared by
Faryan, covering the UMR from
Allen asked how accurate the NRC report was in describing
all spills to the river and accurately characterizing the circumstances of
individual spills.
Allen gave a presentation regarding the structure and status of the Upper Mississippi River Early Warning Monitoring Network project being funded by US EPA, where he is the lead researcher. He began with an overview of the “early warning system paradigm” underlying the approach being taken in this effort.
Allen next provided an update on the status of the
installations, noting that three stations in Minnesota (St. Cloud, Xcel Energy
Sherco plant, and the Minneapolis Water Works) have been up and running and
that two additional stations in the area of the Quad Cities (University of
Iowa/LACMRER and Mid American Energy) are in progress. He added that an additional station
associated with the National Great Rivers Research and
Allen explained that bivalves (mussels) were chosen for use in these stations due to their lower cost, and because their response can likely be representative of biological response in a broader community. He noted that data collection and transmission appeared to be going well and that work on algorithm continues so that events can be detected with unnecessary triggering of false alarms.
Allen explained that upcoming work on the project included finalization of the algorithm for UV and YSI instrument data, and the development of a data sharing agreement. He indicated that work would also need to be done at the Mid American site to determine how to best deliver water to the monitoring equipment. Schnoebelen indicated that there both technical issues and data sharing/security questions to be resolved in determining how to supply data to users.
Allen characterized the instrumentation set as being quite robust, and anticipated only minor further adjustments to the instrumentation for the monitoring stations – although he mentioned that technology continues to improve and future stations need not necessarily be limited to equipment provided only by specific manufacturers.
Whelan asked whether detection and response to spills was still a main focus of the project. Allen replied that this continued to be focus of the project, along with other potential applications in the water quality sector.
Greg Swanson provided a perspective from the public water suppliers, indicating that they viewed these monitors as the first of several barriers that helps assure the quality of their water.
Allen offered to include any members of the Group who have an interest in future conference calls on the topic. Several members of the Group indicated an interest in obtaining a copy of Allen’s presentation. Hokanson indicated he would work with Allen to distribute this to the Group.
Next Meeting
The Group agreed that its next meeting should take place in the Quad Cities in October 2009, with the weeks of the 5th, 12th, and 26th appearing to be possibilities for meeting. Hokanson indicated that he would send an email to determine final date for the meeting.
The meeting of the UMR
Hazardous Spills Coordination Group was adjourned at noon on April 2, 2009.