1. Heather Parker D13 DRAT - Seattle, WA Wrecks of the World II 07JUN11 source: Kip Evans Photography

2.  Systems Approach to Addressing Wrecks and Derelicts under FWPCA/OPA Framework  Defining the Problem – Complexity  What are Wrecks and Derelict Vessels?  Who’s in Charge? Who Pays? When Should/Must Action Be Taken?  Challenges:  Costs, Personnel Issues, Prioritization  Bounding the Problem:  Area Committees  Stakeholder Involvement and Expectations  Phased Approach – Through Area Committees 1.AWARENESS PHASE – Inventory your Area 2.RANKING PHASE – Prioritize (G-A-R) 3.ACTION PHASE  INITIAL ASSESSMENT – DECISION TRIGGERS  REMOVAL OPERATIONS – UNIFIED COMMAND 4.REVIEW AND REVISE  NRT GUIDANCE 2

3.  This approach, under authorities of CWA, as amended by OPA90, are under the direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC). CAVEAT: FOSC Involvement will end when threat of oil pollution ends. 3 source: CA DFG source : www.ussmississinewa.com

4.  WRECK (for this discussion) is a vessel:  SUNKEN  BEACHED  BURIED  DERELICT (for this discussion) is a vessel:  FLOATING  MOORED  ANCHORED  BEACHED  PARTIALLY SUNK  Usually more accessible 4 Source: Greg Buie, NPFC

5. 5 Vessel TypeWreck (sunken, beached, buried)Derelict (floating, moored, anchored, beached, partially sunk ThreatActively leaking oil Substantial Threat of a Discharge of oil Concern for eventual discharge No concern (e.g. no oil on-board) LocationOffshoreNearshoreInshore River/Lake/Upland DepthDeepShallowAfloatIntertidal Vessel SizeLarge (greater than 200’ LOA) Small (less than 200’ LOA) Source: Greg Buie, NPFC

6. M/V KALAKALA

8. ALERT LST -1166 LCI -713 RIVER QUEEN EL CONQUISTADOR JEAN SASANOA DAVY CROCKETT MANZANILLO BRETT SCOTT BARGE

9.  FOSC Decision and Authority to REMOVE OIL from Wrecks and Derelicts  Within the bounds of the NCP, however is somewhere between Prevention and Emergency Response  Must be polluting or pose a threat of pollution to use OSLTF/CERCLA  “SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF DISCHARGE”  OSLTF funds used primarily for oil removal, NOT salvage.  Under FWPCA, as amended by OPA90, FOSC is authorized response and removal action authority  Salvage/removal only if best method to mitigate pollution threat. 9

10. 10 PREVENTION WRECK/DERELICT OIL REMOVAL RESPONSE TO DISCHARGE source : www.ussmississinewa.com

11.  In most cases, there are a limited number of options: 1.Defuel/ DeCargo the Wreck or Derelict 2.Seal/Encapsulate and Monitor 3.Vessel Destruction, Removal, Dumping  Some cases may involve a combination, but often the preferred option will be Defueling or Wreck Oil Removal. 11 source : www.ussmississinewa.com

12.  FOSCs will make ultimate decisions, but will want/need input from their Area Committees.  Through a TRANSPARENT, COMPREHENSIVE, DEFENSIBLE Process  Preferably Consensus- Based 12 source : www.ussmississinewa.com

13.  COSTS - Oil Removal Ops from sunken or derelict vessels can cost MILLIONS of dollars  PERSONNEL BURDEN - Oil Removal Ops from sunken or derelict vessels can take MONTHS – heavy burden on Sector personnel and other agencies to sustain the response  PRIORITIZATION – How choose which one(s) to work on first? When is the right time to start threat assessment or removal ? What are the triggers? 13

14. 14 GAP: ESTABLISHED NATIONAL GUIDANCE ON FUNDING RESPONSE PLANNING, AND CONTRACTING PROCESSES Adapted from: LTJG Chris Kimrey, IOSC 2011 Presentation

15.  Defueling a Wreck is a very technically focused operation  Differs significantly from a “classic” spill response to an accidental release  Where we keep responding to yesterday’s bad news  Oil Mitigation Operations on a wreck or derelict is a Prophylactic Response  Typically don’t have many “classic” spill response actions/operations  Shoreline Assessment and Cleanup, Oiled Wildlife Recovery, etc 15

16.  Stakeholder involvement during a defueling or oil mitigation operation may look and feel different from a more “traditional” oil spill response  May not have as robust staffing throughout all the units 16

17. 1.AWARENESS PHASE – Inventory your Area 2.RANKING PHASE – Prioritize (G-A-R) 3.ACTION PHASE  INITIAL ASSESSMENT – DECISION TRIGGERS  REMOVAL OPERATIONS – UNIFIED COMMAND  Adjust Operations as necessary, utilizing deliberate contingency planning  Public/Political Messaging – early, aggressive, often 4.REVIEW/REVISE PHASE – Comprehensive review of removal op, capture lessons learned, revise protocols/triggers/rankings/ACP as necessary 17

18. 18RANKING ACTION REVIEW/REVISE AWARENESS Incorporate into Annual Area Contingency Plan Updates

19.  Area Committees need to work together to help determine a COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY of the wrecks and derelict vessels in their Area.  This is required under OPA90 for Area Contingency Plans  Title IV, section 4202, amended subsection 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to the National Planning and Response System.  Defines Area Committees and Area Contingency Plans, and requirements.  COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 16471.3 (2000)  AREA CONTINGENCY PLAN ORGANIZATION, CONTENT, REVISION CYCLE, AND DISTRIBUTION  94XX - Risk Assessment  94XX - Planning Assumptions - Background Information  94XX - Planning Scenarios 19

20.  Area Committees need to work together to help PRIORITIZE INVENTORY of the wrecks and derelict vessels in their Area.  Area Committees must also help determine a set of TRIGGERS FOR ACTION or KEY DRIVERS to aid the FOSC to make a decision to act on a wreck or derelict.  These prioritizations should take into account RESOURCES AT RISK, as well as the VESSEL CONDITION, among other factors. 20

21. Two primary phases: 1.INITIAL ASSESSMENT – DECISION TRIGGERS  We’ve been triggered to conduct a threat assessment (by drivers/recommendations from Area Committee)  FOSC likely establish limited Unified Command  Set Objectives, Priorities and Endpoints for the Assessment  Typically includes ROV and/or diver surveys, etc.  Might also include real time natural/cultural resource assessment 2.REMOVAL OPERATIONS – UNIFIED COMMAND 1.This is active removal and includes establishing a full UC, daily planning cycles, IAPs, etc. 2.FOSC/UC may want to consider several options for management of these longer-term removal cases:  SECTOR run/managed  Hiring private SMT and Salvors  NST/Strike Team managed  Combination ALSO Consider: 3.MONITOR ING PHASE 21

22.  After the completion of an Oil Removal Operation, review our progress  Capture Lessons Learned and ensure we are improving our process  Do we need to adjust our Priority Rankings or Triggers for Action for other Area Wrecks/Derelicts?  Area Contingency Plans –  Include a section on Strategies for Wreck/Derelicts  Include FOSC Decision Memo examples:  Funding for Initial Threat Assessment  Reaching Endpoints for an Oil Removal Operation  Tie in to Annual Update Cycle 22 BEST RESPONSE = Includes continual improvement

23.  Area Committees are “programmed” to respond to accidental releases of oil  Where we are responding to yesterday’s bad news.  Plan for Average Most Probable Discharges, Worst Case Discharges, etc.  Challenge will be to adopt this traditional Area Committee Response Planning Model to Pro-Active mode.  Bound the problem: must be very clear about goals/objectives for wreck oil removal  Endpoints and Objectives of an Operation should be clear and socialized  Stakeholder Engagement and Effective Public and Political Messaging is key. 23 NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM (NRT) GUIDANCE WILL BE KEY

24.  Area Committees need to support FOSCs in making informed decisions.  Permitting, Consultations for Sect 7 and Sect 106, EPA- Ocean Dumping, etc  NRT should develop overall consistent National guidance to Area Committees to guide the development of:  Awareness  Ranking and Triggers for Action  Action  Review/Revise  Needs to be keyed to Area Contingency Plans  And Annual Update Cycles  Area Contingency Plans – need to capture these Wrecks and Derelicts as a specific class of issue and include strategies, systems approach, etc. 24

25.  Wreck/Derelict Oil Removal, under the OPA90 Regime has specific limits and bounds  Once the threat of pollution is gone, FOSC authorities end  Wreck/Derelict Oil Mitigation is “Prophylactic”  Still under NCP and Emergency Response, but not a “classic” response to large oil discharge event  FOSCs need support from Area Committees  Develop TRANSPARENT, COMPREHENSIVE approach to address these sources of potential pollution  This will provide a defensible, repeatable process that will continue on through the 2-3 year change over of Active Duty CG personnel, and help maintain consistency.  Oil Removal Ops – Heavy Personnel Burdens  Can Sectors, Agencies sustain multi-month responses?  NRT – Needs to develop National Guidelines 25

26. 26