The Gulf States: In need of a Plan

By Maxwell Stevenson

The ecological devastation suffered due to massive oil spills is terrible and quite real. The insight of certain parties in the western coastal states and our northern compatriots, Canada, has led to the induction and implementation of oil spill response organizations. Though these response organizations are not full proof it seems to be paying to have contingency plans should these emergencies arise. That is why we are making this suggestion to the gulf states who, at this time, do not have any sort of contingency plan concerning oil spills. This is odd due to the massive oil transport in this region. This proposal is aimed at alerting the gulf states of the environmental damage that can be done, the ways in which one could fund a response organization and ways of taking measures to contain and clean up oil spills.

Environmental Effects of Oil Spills

Simply put, the effects of oil on marine life, are caused by either the physical nature of the oil (physical contamination and smothering) or by its chemical components (toxic effects and accumulation leading to tainting). Marine life may also be affected by clean-up operations or indirectly through physical damage to the habitats in which plants and animals live.

The main threat posed to living resources by the persistent residues of spilled oils is one of physical smothering. The animals and plants most at risk are those that could come into contact with a contaminated sea surface. Marine mammals and reptiles; birds that feed by diving or form flocks on the sea; and marine life on shorelines.

The most toxic components in oil tend to be those lost rapidly through evaporation when oil is spilt. Because of this, lethal concentrations of toxic components leading to large scale mortalities of marine life are relatively rare, localized and short-lived. Sub-lethal effects that impair the ability of individual marine organisms to reproduce, grow, feed or perform other functions can be caused by prolonged exposure to a concentration of oil or oil components far lower than will cause death. Sedentary animals in shallow waters such as oysters, mussels and clams that routinely filter large volumes of seawater to extract food are especially likely to accumulate oil components. Whilst these components may not cause any immediate harm, their presence may render such animals unpalatable if they are consumed by man, due to the presence of an oily taste or smell.

The ability of plants and animals to survive contamination by oil varies. The effects of an oil spill on a population or habitat must be viewed in relation to the stresses caused by other pollutants or by any exploitation of the resource. In view of the natural variability of animal and plant populations, it is usually extremely difficult to assess the effects of an oil spill and to determine when a habitat has recovered to its pre-spill state.

In coastal areas some marine mammals and reptiles, such as turtles, may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from oil contamination because of their need to surface to breathe and to leave the water to breed. Adult fish living in near shore waters and

juveniles in shallow water nursery grounds may be at greater risk to exposure from dispersed or dissolved oil.

The impact of oil on shorelines may be particularly great where large areas of rocks, sand and mud are uncovered at low tide. The amenity value of beaches and rocky shores may require the use of rapid and effective clean-up techniques, which may not be compatible with the survival of plants and animals.

Marsh vegetation shows greater sensitivity to fresh light crude whilst weathered oils(oils that have been broken down chemically through interaction with the salt water) cause relatively little damage. In tropical regions, mangrove forests are widely distributed and replace salt marshes on sheltered coasts and in estuaries. Mangrove trees have complex breathing roots above the surface of the organically rich and oxygen-depleted muds in which they live. Oil may block the openings of the air breathing roots of mangroves or interfere with the trees' salt balance, causing leaves to drop and the trees to die. The root systems can be damaged by fresh oil and the effect may persist for some time inhibiting repopulation by mangrove seedlings. Protection of wetlands, by responding to an oil spill at sea, should be a high priority since physical removal of oil from a marsh or from within a mangrove forest is extremely difficult. Loss of the mangrove forests means rapid salt water erosion.

Birds which congregate in large numbers on the sea or shorelines to breed, feed or molt are particularly vulnerable to oil pollution. Although oil ingested by birds during preening may be lethal, the most common cause of death is from drowning, starvation

and loss of body heat following damage to the plumage by oil. These are the pictures we. see in the media of oil logged ocean going birds.

Funding for a Response Organization

In order to have coverage under legislation, a vessel or facility will be required to make an arrangement with a Certified Spill Response Organization. They will have to register with the response organization(RO) that operates in the Geographic Area of Response (GAR) through which the vessel will sail or in which the facility has its operations. This would mean signing an annual contract and paying a membership fee. It would be something like joining a guild in that the membership fee would constitute the funds for the clean up.

In order to make the plan more appealing and convenient to oil companies, they would be allowed to simultaneously register oil vessels with multiple Response Organizations, that is, if their vessels will pass through more than one GAR. Should a member have a spill, or otherwise require the assistance of its Response Organization, they would be able to call a 24-hour emergency number provided. The RO call-out process would begin to activate personnel, contractors and equipment to the degree necessary to respond to the size of spill reported. Each Region should have arrangements with its neighboring Regions to allow a cascading of people and equipment. This includes having mutual aid agreements with companies not affiliated with this particular Response Organization.

Response, Containment and Clean-up

The Gulf plan will resemble the plan implemented by the western states of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Canada, called the Incident Command System. The version of the ICS used will be the "Spill Management System"(SMS) The Spill Management System allows for the Spill Management Team to manage the response from its initial "reactive" mode to a "proactive" or "project" mode of operations. The SMS is a structured process allowing the SMT to fulfill its immediate tactical responsibilities while focusing on a movement toward the Strategic Phase of the response. As soon as possible after activation, a Spill Management Team is assembled from local, regional and national resources. The type and number of response professionals are selected by the Spill Response Manager to suit the incident scope and magnitude. The initial team will be local Response Organization staff from the Response Center.

The SMS provides the SMT with a system for information exchange and a structure to facilitate the efficient provision of marine oil spill response services. The SMS identifies a functional structure, a series of common actions and meetings, a common language or terminology and prescribed status reports to encourage a unified management effort. There are two phases of response. One is the Emergency period or the initial period in which the immediate concern is containing the problem. The second phase is the Project period or the Strategic period. This period allows the team to confer over the clean-up process. The Strategic Phase is reached when planning becomes longer term and activities tend to be more

proactive. The SMS process for maintaining control of the response now combines a system of meetings and plans that look three to seven days ahead as well as maintaining day-to-day operational control.

Because of the difficult decisions that will be required during an oil spill in order to mitigate damage and to resolve conflicts of interest, much can be done at the contingency planning stage to identify sensitive areas and to determine priorities for protection. This is a list of paraphrased points to remember when doing contingency planning.

1.Persistent oils and mousse may seriously affect the visual appeal and use of coastal amenity areas; fresh crude products may constitute a fire and explosion hazard.

2.Oil spills can interfere with the normal working of power stations and desalination plants that require a continuous supply of clean seawater and with the safe operation of coastal industries and ports.

3.The effects on marine life are caused by the physical nature of the oil and by its chemical composition.

4.ln the context of marine ecology, the health of populations and associated plants and animals and the integrity of their habitats are more important than the status of any individual of a species.

5.The time taken for oil-damaged populations of plants and animals to recover is highly variable: the extent to which the biological recovery of a habitat can be accelerated is severely limited.

6.An oil spill can contaminate fishing equipment and mariculture facilities and cause loss of market confidence in marine products; stocks of adult fish are rarely, if ever, affected.

7.Marine life as well as natural and man-made structures can be damaged by clean-up techniques, such as the use of heavy equipment and high pressure hosing.

8.Following an assessment of the likely impact of an oil spill on each habitat or activity, attention should be given at the contingency planning stage to identifying areas to be protected, their order of priority and the techniques to be used.

In-situ burning is the term given to the process of burning oil slicks at sea, at or close to the site of a spill. Burning may be seen as a simple method which has the potential to remove large amounts of oil from the sea surface. In reality, there are a number of problems which limit the viability of this response technique. These include: the ignition of the oil; maintaining combustion of the slick; the generation of large quantities of smoke; the formation and possible sinking of extremely viscous and dense residues; and safety concerns. The decision whether or not to burn a slick at sea is often contentious. Issues such as the distance of the oil from the damaged vessel or from a populated area; the potential toxicity of the resultant smoke; the nature of the oil; the likelihood of the burn being successful; and the fate of any unburned residues all require careful attention before attempts are made to ignite the oil.

Vast quantities of black smoke can be produced from in-situ burning. Following an accidental fire onboard the CASTILLO DE BELLVER (South Africa, 1983), clouds of black smoke resulted in an oily rain falling on farms up to 80km inland contaminating sheep and wheat. Fortunately, most of this residue was subsequently washed away. The accidental ignition of the cargo on board the AEGEAN SEA (Spain, 1992) caused dense clouds of black smoke to threaten the town of La Coruiia leading to temporary mass evacuation. In addition, black soot coated several buildings which required cleaning. Although both incidents are not examples of an intentional in-situ burn, they illustrate the possible consequences of burning oil when the smoke will be carried across inhabited areas. Health and airborne pollution concerns could prove to be a major obstacle in gaining permission to employ the technique in an actual spill and alternative methods of clean-up may be more appropriate.

The viscous residue that can be left following in-situ burning resembles the consistency of toffee, and is difficult to recover both at sea and from the shoreline. Of even greater concern is the potential for some residues to sink. Sunken residue has the potential to smother or poison bottom dwelling species. It can also contaminate fishing gear or nearby shorelines, following storms or changes in the current or tide.

There is another method of clean-up which is more common and safer to deploy, dispersants. Dispersants are a group of chemicals designed to be sprayed onto oil slicks, to accelerate the process of natural dispersion. Spraying dispersants may be the only means of removing oil from the sea surface, particularly when mechanical recovery is not possible. Their use is intended to minimize the damage caused by floating oil, for example to birds or sensitive shorelines. However, in common with all spill response options, the use of dispersants has its limitations and should be carefully controlled. Dispersant use will be dependent upon national regulations governing the use of these products.

It is imperative that the Gulf states take heed to this proposal because the repercussions of a massive oil spill could be devastating not only to marine life but to humans who could be affected through the consumption of contaminated aquatic foods, the loss of land due premature erosion. It is not to say that this is the right response

plan for the gulf states but this is just to plant the seed that the gulf states are in need of one.

Bibliography

1. http://www.oil-spill-web.com/default.asp

2. http://www.envirosan.com/s2p9press.html

3. http://www.slross.com/slr2.htm

4. http://www.newpig.com/spillresponse.html

5. http://www.aip.com.au/amosc

6. http://www.dems.com

7. http://www.nrcc.com