bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Mutual Interests, Mutual Training, Results in Mutual Aid and Respect
Authors: Wieliczkiewicz Edward J 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
In a crisis situation responders from different organizations may find each other's priorities and goals in conflict. By training to a common standard, we create an environment where adversarial conflicts are replaced with open discussions. We may disagree on the path, but in the end it is in everyone's best interest to have a common, well understood goal. After 2010, it became apparent to me that agencies and industry did not always share a common understanding of the principles of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The result would be conflicting agendas, potential mistrust and a perception that responders did not have control of the emergency.
This paper will describe the method that Alaska's North Slope responders used in 2012 to extend the practice of spill response teams training together to the Incident Management Teams and the benefits that resulted from this approach. Our goal was to strengthen the response posture of Alaska's North Slope through an aggressive training program involving multiple industry and agency partners in a year-long series of classroom and field opportunities, working together as members of the same team. A common national curriculum delivered by a team of certified instructors allowed participants to develop or reinforce a common understanding of the NIMS based principles and processes. At the end, teams would participate in a 3 day long field exercise (using a scenario they had never seen before) involving responder and equipment deployment based on plans developed by the Unified Command. Rarely does a training product actually end up as a plan implemented in the field. Because the scenario was not rehearsed, this reality check ensured everyone took their duties seriously. Responders would implement tactics, request and expect supplies, and the consequences of the team's actions would result in a success, or failure, that could affect the reputation of all the parties involved.
Program participants included personnel from six oil companies (including UK based personnel), U.S Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, State of Alaska, North Slope Borough, Alaska Cleans Seas and a myriad of North Slope Spill Response Team.
Key benefits included a common understanding of NIMS ICS at all levels, building relationships, a mentoring environment allowing inexperienced participants to build competency and expertise, and meeting portions of contingency plan readiness requirements.
The program helped reinforce Alaska's North Slope responder's reputation for world class response capability.
Developing Cleanup Endpoints for Inland Oil Spills
Authors: Whelan Ann , Clark Josie , Andrew Gary , Michel Jacqueline , Benggio Bradford 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
Achieving consensus on cleanup endpoints for inland oil spills can be difficult. They tend to be more stringent than those applied to spills in the marine environment and often require more intensive cleanup methods with the risk of increased ecological impacts. There are limited data on which to evaluate net environmental benefit considerations, weighing the consequences between ecological versus human-use priorities. Inland habitats often lack some of the dynamic physical processes (such as waves and tidal fluctuations) that can speed the rate of natural removal of oil residues. The direct human uses of inland habitats, such as for drinking water, recreation, industrial use, and irrigation, require a higher degree of treatment than may be required in the marine environment to avoid human health and socio-economic impacts. Spills in close proximity to where people live, work, or recreate also often require treatment to a higher level. Inland spills can affect smaller water bodies where there are slower rates of dilution and degradation. There may be large-scale differences in water levels during the response, causing oil to be stranded well above normal levels where it can pose hazards to wildlife as well as humans using these areas. Many states perform risk assessments and develop endpoints for sediment quality and/or surface and groundwater guidelines that must be met as part of the remediation phase after the emergency response is completed. Case studies are used to illustrate these issues. Guidelines are provided for developing appropriate cleanup endpoints for inland oil spills and selection of appropriate treatment methods to reach them.
New Tools for the SCAT Program: An Innovative Approach to Assimilating Newer Responders into the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique Program
Authors: Parker Heather A. , Clark Josie , Martin Brad H. , Pilkey-Jarvis Linda , MacDonald Brian 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
As less experienced responders join spill response operations, concurrent with the loss of experienced responders to retirements and fewer large spills, the need for tools that capture and promote the best practices of spill response functions becomes imminently critical. Better, more practical tools help less-experienced responders assimilate not only the basics of the planning assignments but also provide them with guidance gained from seasoned responders. The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT) program within the Incident Command System (ICS) is one assignment that often sees a number of less experienced participants. In many instances, responders participate on SCAT Field Teams and are not adequately exposed to planning or managing the overall SCAT program. Most SCAT tools are oriented towards field work, or focus only on single components of the SCAT process (e.g. treatment recommendations, endpoints). Comprehensive guidance that unites the elements of planning for SCAT, that highlights timing, integration into ICS and best management practices has previously not been available. The Northwest Area Committee (NWAC) in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States created a SCAT Task Force in 2012, comprised of Federal and State agencies, industry and experienced consultants, to develop “smarter” checklists and innovative tools that assist responders from “pre-SCAT” activities through the Treatment Endpoints and Sign Off process, within the ICS framework. Through a collaborative process, this Task Force developed a suite of unique products designed to guide new and less experienced responders to walk through the process of establishing a comprehensive SCAT program and empower them with best practices learned over many years of spill response experience, including those gleaned from some of the larger responses around the United States in the last ten years. This paper will describe this NWAC suite of SCAT checklists and products in greater detail, and describe how they might be used in other regions to help less experienced responders expedite their working knowledge in performing the range of SCAT program tasks, responsibilities and functions.
SHORELINE RESPONSE - A PARADIGM SHIFT
Authors: Owens Edward H. , Dubach Helen C. , Castle Robert W. 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
From time to time an event or a series of events can produce a change in strategic thinking or operating practices. One outcome of the Deepwater Horizon response was to learn from the process by which the shoreline response program was developed while the majority of planning and operational effort was directed towards the multi-faceted and intensive on-water program to recover or eliminate oil on the water before it could reach the coastal zone to minimize the impacts of the spill. This emphasis is typical of most marine and coastal spill response operations even though the duration of on-water operations may be a few days or weeks, whereas the onshore phase typically extends over weeks, months, or even years. The chronic nature of the Deepwater Horizon spill resulted in the on-water phase lasting for several months so that resources that typically would have transferred over to shoreline operations within a short time frame (days to a few weeks) remained committed to offshore and nearshore operation well into the summer of 2010.
Shoreline cleanup is arguably the most intensely scrutinized and potentially expensive, in terms of time and effort, part of any response. Pre-planning shoreline cleanup in detail can be very challenging. Notwithstanding the types and volumes of oil, primary factors affecting shoreline cleanup strategy include potential oil pathways, shore types, seasonal coastal ecosystem and individual resource sensitivities, stakeholder involvements, and tactical cleanup options and restrictions. Few organizations have dedicated resources for shoreline cleanup: these must be identified and mobilized for a specific scenario (shore type, oil character, volume, etc.). However, a readiness to respond rapidly and expertly to oil on shore is critical as cleanup actions typically are most effective and efficient immediately following deposition, before oil is remobilized, buried or weathers to a state more difficult to clean.
These preplanning challenges often mean that crucial details in a shoreline response plan are developed while oil is heading towards or even is onshore. The development of a Shoreline Response Program (SRP) addresses these challenges. The model SRP is a paradigm shift in the sense that it represents a change in some basic assumptions for spill response planning and first-phase response operations related to shorelines.
The IMO/IPIECA Global Initiative: Expanding Government and Industry Cooperation into New Regions
Authors: Coolbaugh Thomas , Bonneville Elisabeth , Depraz Sophie , Murphy Helen , Taylor Peter 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
As oil industry exploration and production activities and global marine shipping patterns have evolved, there is recognition of the potential for increased levels of oil spill risk in specific regions. In response to this, the IPIECA/IMO Global Initiative (GI) Programme is undergoing a period of broad expansion into regions where these increased activities may have the biggest potential impact. These same regions tend to show a need for improvement: consistency in the application of international legislation; effectiveness of regional agreements and national plans; and industry arrangements in order to minimize the likelihood of a significant incident and to mitigate the consequences. As is the case in the existing GI regions, the overall objective of any proposed new regional initiatives is to strengthen the cooperation between government and industry on oil spill related issues and to improve the capacity of countries to protect their marine and coastal environments and resources through the full implementation of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC).
Three active and functional GI regional programmes have been established between 2003–13, covering (i) the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Central Eurasia, (ii) West, Central and Southern Africa and (iii) South East Asia. The establishment and successes of these programmes are described, along with on-going work in this field in the Mediterranean Sea.
As a result of increased oil and gas activity, IPIECA and IMO have identified East Africa as a “high priority” region for future GI activities. In 2013, IPIECA has commissioned a report to outline the existing level of oil spill risk from upstream and shipping activities and assess the existing preparedness and resource capabilities of government and industry within the region. The current status of this effort will be reviewed.
The possible development of a GI programme for coastal China that would provide spill preparedness and response technical workshops in China will be reviewed with particular emphasis on a 2012 agreement between the Chinese Maritime Safety Agency, IPIECA, and the IMO.
The Global Initiative for South East Asia
Authors: Guevarra Joselito 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
The South East Asian region's risk for oil spills has been increasing for the past three decades. This is primarily due to the ever-increasing shipping traffic, especially tankers, bringing oil from the Middle East to customers mainly in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. Another factor is the growth in the exploration and production activities of international and domestic oil companies. Of particular relevance is the expansion of oil exploration into remote areas where oil spill response preparedness is very challenging.
Through the years, the lack of credible legal frameworks and the disjointed approach have hampered the development of the critical elements of a robust oil spill response system such as national oil spill plans, training and exercise programs, ratification of the relevant international conventions, and mutual aid or bilateral agreements between neighboring countries.
The Global Initiative for South East Asia (GI SEA), a collaborative effort between IPIECA and IMO (International Maritime Organization), aims to provide the governments of the Southeast Asian countries with the facility to work together with the oil industry to improve the state of oil spill preparedness and response. GI SEA is a direct response for a credible and effective oil spill preparedness and response system that takes into account each country's individual requirements and the region's needs. The Programme is built on the core principles of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC) and implemented by the combined efforts of government and industry.
This paper will present information on the current state of preparedness of selected South East Asian countries and the region as a whole. It will also describe the process of the formation of the GI SEA, including the major challenges of achieving consensus, building support, funding, and developing the individual country plans to suit their needs. It is also the intention to discuss the current and future activities of GI SEA.
Brazil Case Study - Tactical Response Plans and Voo's Program - A New Approach to Shoreline Protection Preparedness
Authors: Fantinato Lucas , Ranierin Adriano , Martins Pedro , Lutz Gustavo 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
In the past, Brazilian Oil Spill Response Plans focused on the definition of response strategies in offshore environments, but were insufficient when it came to shoreline protection.
After the occurrence of major oil spill accidents around the world and events of great repercussion in Brazil and with the intensification of oil and gas E&P activities in locations close to the coast and near environmentally sensitive areas in the country (such as Camamu-Almada and the Jequitinhonha basin), the need for additional nearshore response studies became of the utmost importance.
Recently developed documents address the environmental characterization of the coast and indicate the appropriate response strategies, but a more action-oriented approach is needed.
For that purpose, based on the best practices in shoreline protection worldwide, a methodology is being implemented so as to provide consistent preparedness support for the protection of nearshore resources.
The methodology uses the Brazilian licensing mandatory documents in order to identify the appropriate level of protection preparedness for each of the vulnerable segments of shoreline within the domain of the E&P activity.
Once the proper level of preparedness has been identified, the method indicates how to attain such result by presenting a set of tools, such as: TRP (Tactical Response Plan), VoOs (Vessel of Oportunity) Program, Advances Bases and Full Deployment Exercises.
This paper provides an overview of the methodology, followed by a case study in Brazil which helps illustrate how the level of preparedness is determined and how the proposed tools help achieve such result. Therefore, it allows assessing the effectiveness of this new approach in the country.
Considering Brazil's growing E&P potential, the long extent of its coastline and the abundance of sensitive resources alongshore, the methodology should be applied to other E&P projects developed in the country.
What Makes a Good Response?
Authors: Purnell Karen , Zhang Ann 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
What defines a successful response to an incident? Is it dependent upon satisfying potential critics; does it depend on money saved or received in compensation; is it defined by avoiding or mitigating pollution damage; or is it all of the above?
Once an incident has occurred the success or otherwise of the response can be predicted based on relatively few key variables. In this paper. For example:Preparedness & Training – i.e. the extent to which a country is prepared for an incident and whether the roles and responsibilities of individuals expected to be involved in the response are clearly defined.Location of the incident – i.e. the country, the culture and reaction to the incident; whether it has occurred off-shore or near-shore etc.Port of Refuge – i.e. whether or not a clear process for dealing with a casualty is pre-established.Trust & Respect – i.e. the extent to which trust exists between the various parties involved in an incident and the level of knowledge and expertise needed to engender respect.Co-operation – i.e. the extent to which parties are willing to co-operate and work together; the degree of realism about what can be achieved, and the level of confidence exhibited by those with ultimate responsibility.Communication – i.e. the effectiveness of the command structure and the lines of communication between parties; willingness to communicate.Cost-control/accountability – i.e. attitude towards cost control and effective use of resources.Compensation – i.e. whether adequate systems are in place to compensate victims of oil pollution damage promptly and fairly; compensation versus punitive fines.3 Ps (Politicians, Press, Public) – i.e. the degree to which these are allowed to drive the response.Willingness to Learn – i.e. the extent to which past incidents are used to inform potential future incidents; realism during exercises and debriefs.
This paper will draw upon incidents that ITOPF has attended in its 45 year history to identify patterns of behaviour and the degree to which these variables can influence the outcome of a response. Recognition of the relative importance of these variables ought to form the basis of learning in order to improve the chances of a positive outcome in future incidents.
BioBind - Airborne clean-up of oil pollution at sea with biogenic oil binders
Authors: Siewert Marcus , Powilleit Martin , Saathoff Fokke 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
The success of oil spill response operations is mainly dependent on the response time and the weather and sea state conditions. That's where the research project “BioBind” is setting the focus: To develop an oil spill response system fast to apply and sea state independent. Within this project a network of eight different partners from universities, research institutes and medium sized companies work from summer 2011 to summer 2014. The paper provides an overview on the oil spill response research project “BioBind” and focuses on a large scale field experiment carried out in summer 2013 with the RV “E.M.Borgese” at the Baltic Sea.
Effect of Salinity on the Effectiveness of Solidifiers for Crude Oil Spill Remediation
Authors: Sundaravadivelu Devi , Suidan Makram T. , Venosa Albert D. , Rosales Pablo I. 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
A laboratory investigation was conducted to test the effectiveness of solidifiers with fresh water and artificial seawater using Prudhoe Bay Crude oil. Experiments were designed to study the effects of salinity, solidifier type, solidifier-to-oil mass ratio (SOR), mixing energy and beaker size using five solidifiers.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is developing a protocol for testing the effectiveness of solidifiers in a laboratory setting. This involves measuring the amount of free oil remaining in the water after the solidified product is removed using an ultraviolet–visible spectrophotometer. For these experiments, 0.25 mL of oil was added to salinized beaker containing 80 mL of water. Milli-Q water and sterile GP2 seawater were used as the exposure media. The mass of the solidifier was changed depending on the SOR. Each of the solidifier was added to a slick of crude oil on water. After stirring the mixture for 30 minutes, the solidifier was removed. The water with the remaining oil was transferred from the beaker to 250 mL separatory funnel. The solution in the funnel was extracted three times with 20 mL of dichloromethane and the final volume adjusted to 60 mL. The extracted samples were analyzed for oil content with an Agilent 8452 ultraviolet–visible spectrophotometer. All experiments were carried out in triplicate. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the data collected, which helped quantify the main and interactive effects of the variables. Salinity of the water was mostly found to be an insignificant factor. Results indicated that SOR and solidifier type are the most important variables affecting removal efficiency.
Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic
Authors: Trigatti Larry , Bjerkemo Ole-Kristian , Everett Mark 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the background, approach, challenges and results of the development of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic signed May 2013 by the eight member states of the Arctic Council at Kiruna, Sweden. The Arctic Council established an interdisciplinary task force in May 2011 to develop the Agreement. The Task Force included participants from the Arctic states, Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council, observers, industry representatives, and invited experts. The Task Force met five times over nearly a one year period. The objective of the Agreement is to strengthen cooperation, coordination and mutual assistance among the Parties on oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic in order to protect the marine environment by pollution from oil. The Agreement applies to oil pollution incidents that occur in or may pose a threat to any marine area over which a State whose government is a Party exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, including in its internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, consistent with international law. An Operational Guideline to the Agreement was developed by the Arctic Council's standing Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR) work group to provide tactical operating procedures for: notification; requests for assistance; provision of assistance; coordination and cooperation in response operations, including in areas beyond the jurisdiction of any State; movement and removal of resources across borders; procedures for conducting joint exercises and training; and a variety of other topics.
Implementing U.S. Arctic Policy: An Analysis of Federal Recommendations
Authors: Guidon Samantha , Leroux Celeste 
Published: August 2014

ABSTRACT
We outline U.S. Arctic policy recommendations, goals, and strategic plans promulgated by federal entities in recent years, then analyze the policies and determine the most commonly referenced policy recommendation. This analysis is valuable in the interest of identifying an overall direction for Arctic policy as suggested by the selected federal entities in the United States. We then delve into the oil and gas industry presence in the U.S. Arctic outer continental shelf and the existing federal permitting process by conducting a case study of Shell's 2012 Arctic offshore exploration activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. We conclude with an assessment of key policies and recommend next steps for implementation.