Draft final

Discussion Note 9.2 WHEN DISPERSANT IS NOT EFFECTIVE

If monitoring shows dispersion does not appear effective, review all aspects of the application and monitoring for possible reasons why. Aspects to consider include:

• 
  Dispersant formulation
  
• 
  Application ratios (increase or decrease oil: dispersant ratio)
  
• 
  Application methods
  
• 
  Monitoring methods
  
• 
  Interpretation of monitoring results
  
• 
  Oil weathering
  
• 
  Weather conditions
  

From Cawthron, 2000

BOX 12 DO NOT USE DISPERSANT

Pre-approval to use dispersants does not apply if any of the following occur:

• 
  The spill cannot be chemically dispersed with an approved and available agent (see Box 2 and);Oceanographic and weather conditions are not potentially conducive to dispersant use (see Box 3 and DISPERSANT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET);
  

• 
  The spilled oil is closer than 3 nautical miles from shore, within the boundaries of a National Marine Sanctuary (see Box 4), within 3 miles of the CA/Mexico borders, will be applied surface water oil spill for more than 5 days, or is a subsea use. Approval to use dispersants outside the Pre-Approval Zone, and/or for uses that have not been pre-approved in any zone (surface use for more than 5 days, subsea use) do not fall within the Pre-Approval guidelines, and will instead need to be considered under the RRT Expedited Approval Process (see Box 4a and Attachment 4910b Section II);
  
• 
  The dispersant will not have a net environmental benefit (see Box 7a);
  
• 
  The dispersant cannot be applied safely (see Box 5), with suitable weather (Box 5a) or available resources (Box 5b);
  
• 
  The dispersant is not significantly more effective than natural dispersion or other response options (see Box 9).
  

IF DISPERSANT USE IS CONSIDERED INAPPROPRATE, CONSIDER OTHER RESPONSE OPTIONS.
Go to Box 1a.

BOX 11 CONTINUE TO MONITOR APPLICATION PARAMETERS AND Run

additional dispersant sorties as necessary

More than one dispersant sortie (run) may be necessary to effectively treat the oil spill. Continue to monitor information on the spill extent, dispersant effectiveness, continued availability of suitable weather “windows” and dispersant application equipment and personnel, and perform addition applications as necessary.

• 
  Record information from each sortie on the Dispersant Decision Summary.
  
• 
  Inform RRT when all runs are completed (fax Dispersant Decision Summary form to RRT contacts in Attachment IX).
  

There will be a point when dispersants ARE no longer effective.

BOX 10 IS ONGOING DISPERSANT USE JUSTIFIED AND SAFE?

All of the following must apply to justify ongoing dispersant use:

• 
  The spill can be chemically dispersed with an approved and available agent (see Box 2 and Attachment VII);Oceanographic and weather conditions are potentially conducive to dispersant use (see Box 3 and DISPERSANT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET);
  

• 
  The spilled oil is at least 3 nautical miles from shore, not within the boundaries of a National Marine Sanctuary (see Box 4), and not within 3 miles of the CA/Mexico border, not being used at the surface for more than 5 days, and not a subsea use:
  
• 
  The dispersant will have a net environmental benefit (see Box 7a);
  
• 
  The dispersant can be applied safely (see Box 5), with suitable weather (Box 5a) and available resources (Box 5b);
  
• 
  There are indications the dispersant continues to be effective (see Box 9).
  

Decision: Continue with dispersant use?

• 
  Yes Go to Box 11
  
• 
  No Go to Box 12
  

Make a note of the decision on Dispersant Use Checklist (Page I-9)
There will be a point when dispersantS ARE no longer effective.



References Cited
Etkin, Dagmar Schmidt. 1999. Oil Spill Dispersants: From Technology to Policy. Cutter Information Corp, Arlington, MA.
ExxonMobil Dispersant Guidelines. 2000. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company.
Ross, S.L. 2002. Assessment of the Use of Dispersants on Oil Spills in California Marine Waters. S.L. Ross Environmental Research, Ltd. for Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA.
State of California, Office of Emergency Services. 2001. Risk communication Guide for State and Local Agencies. 17pp.
Stevens, Leigh. 2000. Oil Spill Dispersants: Guidelines for use in New Zealand. Prepared for Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand.
Wildlife Response Plan Appendices of the California Area Contingency Plan. Version 2, October 2003.

This page provided for spacing purposes.


ENCLOSURE 4920a

LETTER OF AGREEMENT (LOA)
Among
US COAST GUARD (USCG),
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA),
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA),

And
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CONCERNING THE USE of
IN-SITU BURNING
AS A RESPONSE METHOD TO OIL POLLUTION
FOR THE AREA 35-200 NAUTICAL MILES OFF THE CALIFORNIA COAST

PURPOSE
The Region IX Mainland Regional Response Team (RRT-IX Mainland) recognizes that mechanical recovery, in-situ burning and chemical dispersants are the three primary means of dealing with oil discharges into the waters of the United States. While mechanical removal is the preferred method, the RRT-IX Mainland recognizes that in-situ burning is a viable option in conjunction with, or in lieu of mechanical or other types of recovery. The purpose of this Letter of Agreement is to provide concurrence of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) representative, the US Department of the Interior (DOI) representative, and the US Department of Commerce (DOC)-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) representative for the use of in-situ burning for oil discharges on the waters within the jurisdiction of the RRT-IX Mainland 35-200 nautical miles off the Coast of California within the geographical boundaries described in Geographical Boundaries, below. This concurrence is given to the federally pre-designated US Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSC). This agreement gives guidelines to allow the FOSC to use in-situ burning in a timely manner to: (1) prevent or substantially reduce a hazard to human life; (2) minimize the adverse environmental impact of the spilled oil, and (3) reduce or eliminate, the economic or aesthetic losses of recreational areas.
This agreement for pre-approval is necessary due to the time constraints under which burning is a viable option. In developing this pre-approval agreement, the environmental impacts associated with an on-water oil burn have been evaluated in relationship to other mechanical and chemical alternatives. It is the view of the signatories that the overall environmental benefits of in-situ burning out weigh the relative environmental costs, except in those circumstances noted in this agreement.
If the conditions for pre-approval are not met, selected representatives in the RRT-IX Mainland must be involved prior to commencing with any in-situ burn. In accordance with the provisions of the National Contingency Plan, this means that the concurrence of the US EPA representative to the RRT, in consultation with the natural resource trustee Federal agencies, is required. If the burn is being considered within the area 0-35 nautical miles off the California Coast, consultation with the State of Califomia representative to the RRT-IX Mainland is also required. If the burn is being considered within State waters, the concurrence of the State of California representative is required.
AUTHORITY
Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the National Contingency Plan or NCP) provides that the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) with the concurrence of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) representative to the Regional Response Team (RRT) and the concurrence of the State with jurisdiction over the navigable waters polluted by the oil discharge, may authorize the use of in-situ burning of oil spills. The Commandant of the US Coast Guard has predesignated the USCG Captains of the Port under his jurisdiction as On-Scene Coordinators for oil spills, and has delegated authority and responsibility for compliance with Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, to them. The Governor of the State of California has delegated responsibility to coordinate State approval for proper usage of in-situ burning for control of oil spills within State waters to the State of California Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), within the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The USEPA has been delegated authority under Subpart J of the NCP to authorize use of in-situ burning for control of oil spills.
SCOPE
The USCG, USEPA, NOAA, and DOI agree that the physical removal of discharged or spilled oil from the water surface is the primary method of control. Furthermore, it is recognized that the most effective response to an oil spill may include a combination of mechanical recovery, in-situ burning and dispersant or other chemical use. As such, this Letter of Agreement sets guidelines under which in-situ burning may be used by the USCG Federal On-Scene Coordinator on or in Federal waters 35-200 nautical miles off the Coast of California - waters which are also within the boundaries of the Eleventh Coast Guard District.
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES
The geographical area covered by this Agreement is the Pacific Ocean at a distance 35-200 nautical miles from the Mainland California Coast.
PROTOCOLS
As attested to by the signatures set forth below, the USEPA, the USDOC-NOAA, and the USDOI agree with the USCG that the pre-designated USCG FOSC may consider the use of in-situ burning of oil discharges, as defined in the NCP, in accordance with the following guidelines.
GUIDELINES

1. 
   As per the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300.120, the authority to use in-situ burning of oil discharges in accordance with this Agreement is vested in the pre-designated USCG FOSC. The pre-designated USCG FOSCs along the California Coast are the Captain of the Port of San Francisco, the Captain of the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach, and the Captain of the Port San Diego. This authority may not be delegated.
   

2. 
   The USCG FOSC may authorize the use of in-situ burning without obtaining the concurrence of the USEPA representative or the Federal natural resource trustee representatives to the RRT-IX Mainland, when, in the FOSC's judgment, human life is threatened or when all of the following three conditions are met:
   

A. In-situ burning is a viable option for oil removal; and

B. The potential plume caused by the burn will not expose unprotected human populations to more than 150 ug/m3 of particulates less than 10 microns in diameter averaged over a one-hour period as determined by the FOSC (on- scene worker safety shall be addressed by the Site Safety Plan, meeting OSHA requirements); and
C. The plume or heat from the burn will not result in greater impact to sensitive wildlife resources than would the spilled oil (in-situ Burning Checklist information shall be compiled by the FOSC in advance of the burn).

3. 
   Mechanical recovery equipment shall be mobilized on scene, when feasible, as a
   

backup capability should in-situ burning prove ineffective.

4. 
   Wind patterns will be predicted by the NOAA SSC, and will be monitored in real time prior to and during the burn by the FOSC. If the prevailing wind direction is either parallel to the shore or away from the shore, it will be assumed that there is no unprotected human exposure above 150 µg/M³ of particulates less than 10 microns in diameter averaged over a one-hour period as determined by the FOSC.
   

5. 
   A designated Federal agency representative will be on scene to observe the burn and the prevailing wind direction. If practical, so as not to create an unnecessary delay, monitors from the DOI and DOC-NOAA will be provided to observe the burn and record results. Any of these observers/monitors has the authority to halt any burn if he observes that the conditions in Paragraph 2 are no longer true. The protocol for observing and halting a burn is described in the In-situ Burning Monitoring Plan (Attachment III).
   

6. 
   In any case where the circumstances do not meet the criteria set forth in Paragraph 2, the pre-authorized use of in-situ burning is not authorized.
   

7. 
   If the FOSC feels in-situ burning should be used in areas not met by Paragraphs 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, or in areas not part of the pre-authorized geographical boundaries, the FOSC must request approval from the pertinent RRT-IX Mainland member agencies, in accordance with the NCP requirements. The FOSC shall submit the request along with the required information listed in the provided in-situ Burning Checklist.
   

8. 
   Burning will be conducted by trained professionals using recognized techniques
   

and technology.

9. 
   Burning will be conducted in a way that allows for rapid controlling and stopping of the burn to account for wind shifts. When a decision is made to conduct a burn operation, the FOSC shall notify the USCG Co-Chair for the RRT-IX Mainland. The Co-chair shall notify the signatories of this agreement immediately.
   

10. 
    Contained burning is recognized as the preferred method of burning, using burn resistant boom or similar technology. The ignition of slicks is not permitted if there is a significant chance of igniting the source or if there is a significant hazard to adjacent structures or vessels.
    

DOCUMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

1. 
   NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING TO THE RRT. If the FOSC decides to conduct an in-situ burn, a description of the operation shall be documented and submitted to the RRT-IX Mainland as soon as possible following the burn. Typical information to be included is listed in Attachment II (an example of the In-situ Burning Plan from the Oceania RRT), Attachment III (an example of the In-situ Burning Monitoring Plan from the Oceania RRT), and Attachment IV (an example of the In-situ Burn Site Safety and Health Plan from the Oceania RRT). These appendices must be modified as appropriate so that information provided is geographically pertinent to the given in-situ burn conditions. The evaluation noted in Paragraph 3 of this section will be completed as part of the FOSC Report. An FOSC Report shall be required whenever an in-situ burn is conducted.
   

2. 
   DOCUMENTATION. The FOSC will ensure that all information described in the previous Paragraph 1 is documented.
   

3. 
   MONITORING. The Federal natural resource agencies and the USCG will conduct monitoring of the in-situ burn in general accordance with the example In-situ Burning Monitoring Plan, attached as Attachment III. As part of the Monitoring Plan, oil samples shall be taken prior to the burn and samples of any floating residue shall be taken following the burn.
   

4. 
   EVALUATION. The FOSC shall include a full evaluation of all in-situ burning applications in any FOSC report following an incident. The report should comment on burn (s), supported by visual record (video, photos) and parties. Data should include estimates of product and analysis of oil residue.
   

Federal resource agencies shall evaluate the in-situ burning to assess environmental and endangered species impacts after ignition.

5. 
   NOTIFICATION OF STATE AGENCIES. The State of Califomia representative to the RRT-IX Mainland (representative from OSPR, DFG) will be notified, along with the other RRT representatives in accordance with Paragraph 1. of this Section. The State representative will be responsible for notifying other appropriate State and, local agencies.
   

6. 
   OTHER NOTIFICATIONS. The USCG is responsible for notification of neighboring regions (RRT-Region X) and Mexico - depending upon the location of the in-situ burn site.
   

AMENDMENTS
This Letter of Agreement will be reviewed annually and amended as appropriate.
This Letter of Agreement may be amended in writing in whole or in part as is mutually agreeable to all parties thereto.
This Letter of Agreement may be canceled by any party hereto upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other parties.

DATE

//s//

KATHLEEN G. SHIMMIN 4/10/97

USEPA REGION IX

CO-CHAIR, RRT-IX MAINLAND

//s//

WILLIAM H. BOLAND 4/10/97

CAPTAIN, US COAST GUARD

CO-CHAIR, RRT-IX MAINLAND

//s//

DAVID M. KENNEDY 4/10/97

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE RRT-IX MAINLAND
//s//

PATRICIA SANDERSON PORT 4/10/97

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE RRT-IX MAINLAND

Attachment I Overview of In-situ Burning as an Oil Spill Response Tool
Attachment II In-situ Burning Plan [this appendix is an example of the information pertinent to in-situ burning; it was developed for Oceania and must be adapted for the area off the California Coast]
Attachment III In-situ Burning Monitoring Plan [this is an example from Oceania, and it must be adapted for the area off the California Coast]
Attachment IV Site Safety Plan for In-situ Burning - [Oceania Site Safety Plan included as example; some language has been adapted for the area off the California Coast]
Attachment V In-situ Burn Boom Operations Procedures [Oceania version included as example; Region IX-Mainland version to be developed by those involved in Unified Command Operations phase]
(Not included) Resolution of 1997 Questions Re LOA


ENCLOSURE 4910b
SECTION II: RRT IX Expedited Approval dispersant Zone

TABLE of CONTENTS

Page

Overview ………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Purpose and authority

The response planning process

What is in the California Dispersant Plan (CDP)

Quick guide to forms, worksheets and checklists …………………………………... 5
Dispersant Assessment Worksheet ………………………………………………….. 7

Decision-Making Flowchart ……………………………………………………………. 9

Dispersant Use Checklist ……………………………………………………………….10