 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Places of Refuge:
What Decisions are Needed,
Who will make them, and When? |
|
Stan Norman
Spills Prevention Section Manager
Washington Department of Ecology |
|
Anil Mathur
President and CEO
Alaska Tanker Company |
|
|
 |
|
 |
Anil Mathur
Keynote Speaker
|
|
Stan Norman
Roundtable Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Fairbanks, Titan Maritime LLC |
|
LT Sarah Scherer, NOAA HAZMAT |
|
Fred Beech, Environment Canada, Pacific Region |
|
Norman Meade, NOAA Damage Assessment Center |
|
Patrick Torres, Honolulu Harbormaster |
|
Photo Panel #1 (from left to right): Norman Meade, Sarah Scherer,
Dick Fairbanks, Fred Beech, & Patrick Torres
|
|
|
|
Paul Revere, President, SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. |
|
Gordon Macatee, Deputy Minister for the BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection |
|
LCDR Paul Albertson, US Coast Guard Office of Response |
|
Don Rodden, Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region |
|
Patrick Torres, Honolulu Harbormaster |
|
Photo Panel #1 (from left to right): Paul Revere, LCDR Paul Albertosn, Gordon Macatee, Don Rodden, & Carl Moore
|
|
|
|
Timely, workable, responses to requests for refuge to minimize the impact of operational incidents |
|
Planning, not pre-designation of specific places |
|
Acceptance and use by all of one set of guidelines |
|
Consistent national and local implementation |
|
Single point of contact for ships communications 24/7 |
|
Liability and compensation coverage still an issue |
|
|
Develop contingency plans to help authorities follow the guidelines when managing requests for assistance |
|
Pre-agree on process for gaining timely access to ports, even for minor incidents |
|
Establish one single point for ship-generated communications, 24/7: USCG |
|
Support IMO’s quest for financial guarantees needed to compensate coastal nations for costs and risks assumed |
|
Establish the legal liability, compensation and financial security guidelines for a vessel to obtain refuge |
|
|
Task Force Working Group to develop template for pre-planning for ships’ request for assistance:
- Co-chair by USCG & Canadian CG.
- All states/BC to have input
|
|
Template given to Areas Committees for final planning:
- Define agency process to obtain port access
- Define liability prerequisites
|
|
Comment on guidelines moving through IMO and act in alignment |
|
Provide West Coast results as a template for national/international action |
|
|
IMO Guidelines are being established |
|
U.S. agrees with IMO’s position |
|
Need to translate these guidelines into firm plans
- must address minor incidents
- must address liability issues
|
|
Having contingency plans ready is... SMART BUSINESS! |
|
| |
USCG Capt Rob Lorigan
poses question to speakers
|
|
|
|
|
The International Salvage Union recommends:
|
|
|
Conducting a physical inspection of the vessel before making a decision |
|
Establish a panel of experts – including a salvor - to advise decision-makers |
|
Consider the consequences of refusing refuge |
|
Establish a financial security regime to cover costs of any decision; should be reasonable from shipowner’s perspective |
|
|
|
NOAA would use the same analysis and trajectory modeling it uses in any oil spill in order to weigh environmental trade-offs:
- What would be/is being released to the environment?
- Where will it go?
- What resources will be at risk?
- What response and mitigation actions are possible?
|
|
Trajectories will differ for releases near or inshore versus offshore as a function of wind, currents, freshwater discharges, and time frames |
|
Noted that offshore currents are unpredictable, as are offshore oil spill recovery rates |
|
NOAA should also use the ecological risk assessment process to weigh alternative impacts |
|
We need to educate resource trustees and local decision-makers in advance regarding how the process would work |
|
Once adopted, the Places of Refuge decision-making process should be exercised (Note that Sause Brothers NPREP (National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program) Drill in WA 9/18 where Places of Refuge will be played) |
|
A decision-making process is more crucial than pre-designation of locations |
|
|
|
Noted more protected areas - likely to be candidates as places of refuge - along Canadian coast than along WA coast |
|
Use of the Canadian coast would be politically difficult if a TAPS trade tanker (explain no benefit but note Statia terminal proposal at Prince Rupert) |
|
Protected bays with port facilities also have biologically and culturally sensitive resources; while no good places, trade-offs with potential impacts on entire coastline |
|
Canada has a response fund and is signatory to two international liability funds, but none of these cover natural resource damage assessment and restoration |
|
|
|
In economic terms, a Place of Refuge is a place to minimize both public and private costs |
|
In political terms, it’s an opportunity (or political hot potato) for public officials to make difficult choices and be held accountable – praised or criticized – for how it turns out |
|
Decision-making should include a cost/benefit analysis of such factors as:
- Potentially affected natural, cultural, historical, commercial, and recreational resource values
- The value of the vessel and its cargo
- Cleanup costs for alternative scenarios
|
|
Economic studies on the Places of Refuge issue might address the following questions:
- Under what conditions do Places of Refuge produce benefits?
- Would incentives be useful? If so, what kind?
- Although the US has the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, would it be sufficient?
Should Places of Refuge be offered a “double indemnity”?
(i.e., reimbursed for damages at twice the normal rate)
|
|
|
|
A vessel seeking refuge must provide an agent who can speak on behalf of those fiscally responsible for the vessel. A port would not welcome a vessel of dubious ownership/backing. |
|
The port should require a performance bond from the ship’s owners/operators/insurers sufficient to cover scrapping and removal costs. (Bond should = 10% of value of vessel & cargo or estimated costs, whichever is higher. Port retains the right to require that the amount be increased if circumstances change.) |
|
In Hawaii, the state attorney general’s office would have to approve pollution liability insurance and financial security bonds submitted by the responsible party, and would expect joint and several liability. |
|
A port would want to see an incident action plan indicating persons responsible for all aspects of the operations as well as damage assessment and pollution control plans approved by appropriate state and federal agencies. The port would reserve the right to impose additional requirements if circumstances change from those outlined in initial plans. |
|
The ship’s size and draft would be considerations, of course. |
|
Honolulu especially, but all ports, rely on the flow of goods in/out and would not want that flow interrupted for long. |
|
Port and state agencies responsible for these decisions must be pre-identified as part of any planning effort. |
|
|
|
Paul Revere, President, SeaRiver Maritime, supported points by Anil Mathur and reiterated need for decision-making process for small incidents as well as big ones, and for incidents involving bunker fuel as well as hazardous cargos. Noted SeaRiver operates on West Coast, East Coast, Gulf of Mexico and internationally, and is committed to working with government and stakeholders
|
|
USCG LCDR Paul Albertson noted that the USCG Office of Response would prefer to see IMO guidelines applied locally, rather than pre-determined sites.
|
|
Gordon Macatee, Deputy Minister for the BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection noted the daunting array of agencies that would need/want to be involved in a Places of Refuge policy development, but also noted that the alternative of not having a policy or plan is "unthinkable".
|
|
Don Rodden, Superintendent for Environmental Response, Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region, noted that the CCG has authority to direct a vessel for pollution avoidance and Transport Canada directs vessels with regard to structural issues, so both would be involved in a Places of Refuge decision in Canada.
|
|
Carlton Moore, Interim Administrator, California Office of Spill Prevention and Response, noted that California’s coastal geography suggests that a spill anywhere offshore would impact large sections of the coast, which includes four National Marine Sanctuary areas.
|
|
He also noted difficulties already encountered with siting lightering and ballast water exchange zones and referred to previous examples of Places of Refuge decisions in California, including the Exxon Valdez and Thompson Pass
|
|
|
|
Consider response capacity, repair facilities, and cargo type
|
|
Ultimate authority rests with federal authorities, but state and local officials bring local knowledge to the decision-making process and FOSC would hope to incorporate them in a consensus decision through Unified Command and the RRT process (LCDR Albertson)
|
|
Involve Harbor Safety Committees and other local bodies in designing the decision-making process
|
|
Time available to make a decision will determine how many stakeholders have input (Don Rodden)
|
|
Who is liable for damages that occur when a vessel is ordered to move to another location?
|
|
How should such a decision address port security issues?
|
|
Expand paradigm to include prevention of releases
|
|
|
|
Task Force Members approved partnering with the US and Canadian Coast Guards, Pacific Area, to assemble a stakeholder workgroup and initiate meetings in early 2004 (I’ll meet with USCG and CCG next month to discuss project process and membership)
|
|
Workgroup would develop recommendations for a “Places of Refuge” decision-making process for the West Coast and submit them to federal, state, and local agencies or Area Committees as appropriate. Target date: Summer 2005
|
|
|
|
Oil Spill contingency plans already exist at the area and national level; plans are transitioning to include all hazards;
|
|
We must include a place of refuge type of incident in such plans; we ignore the lesson of the T/V Prestige at our own risk;
|
|
IMO guidelines under development; incorporation into local planning both tailors and creates ownership; and
|
|
Pre-identifying a process and who’s involved could help reduce NIMBY responses and reduce politics of the decision, but it requires:
- Involving key stakeholders in development of the decision-making guidelines;
- Ground-truthing the guidelines through exercises; and
- Regularly educating local officials.
|
