Gallon JP-5 Spill at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads - Supervisor of ...

Winter 1999/2000SUPSALV Teams with NOAATo Quantify Oil Spill RiskAnalyses at Navy PortsNOAA’s Hazardous Materials ResponseDivision has developed an advanced toolto quantify and characterize the risksposed by oil spills on water. This tool,called the Trajectory Analysis Planner, orTAP, goes well beyond analyzing risksand developing associated responseplans based entirely on a single “worstcase spill” event as determined strictlyby largest volume. Rather, the TAP programdeveloped by NOAA HAZMAT isintended to fully evaluate oil spill risks ina given area or body of water based onthe entire range of potential spill volumesand locations.Background Leading up to the Navy’sUse of TAP. The US Navy has carefullyevaluated its oil spill risks over the yearsto establish the need for procuring andpre-staging spill response equipment atthe local (Tier 1), regional (Tier 2), andnational (Tier 3) levels. In the past, theNavy has evaluated oil spill risks basedprimarily on oil throughput and ship transits,port calls, and fueling evolutions.This “first order” risk analysis essentiallyestablished the Navy homeports and bulkfuel storage facilities as the Navy’s highspill risk areas. With the passage of theOil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), theNavy took a hard look at its worst casedischarge (WCD) scenarios, defined byOPA 90 as the largest spill volume withina specific Captain of the Port zone. Navyfacility plans were updated and revisedto comply with the many provisions ofthe OPA 90 implementing regulations,and Navy regional response plans, calledNavy On-Scene Coordinator (NOSC)plans, were also revised to address specificWCD events.In the nine years since OPA 90, variouscoastal states have promulgated regulationsthat require oil tankers and certainother vessels to conduct risk analysesthat go far beyond addressing the largestpossible volume spill event. Like thestate regulators, the Navy, other potentialspillers, and federal and local plannersrecognized the value of performingmore comprehensive analyses of any andall spills that could occur within a givenarea. This move toward statistics-basedrisk assessments that examined multiplespill scenarios at multiple locations interestedthe Navy. Furthermore, the Navyhad experienced many changes in its facilitiesdue to newly established shiphomeports and consolidations resultingfrom base closures. In summary, the timingwas right for the Navy to begin reexaminingits oil spill risks.The Navy/NOAA Partnership.SUPSALV evaluated numerous off-theshelfoil spill risk analyses tools and programs.Ultimately, NOAA’s TAP applicationwas accepted for the followingreasons: SUPSALV was already familiarwith most of the NOAA spill readinessand response applications and had alreadyestablished internet links with theseapplications to assist the NOSCs withtheir area-wide planning responsibilities;TAP provided the potential to examinecurrent Navy response equipment capabilitiesagainst Navy oil spill risks; andmuch of the hydrodynamic data requiredto build local TAP trajectory models andconduct the TAP analyses already residedwithin NOAA or the Navy---thus the largeinitial expenditures for obtaining the rawor digitized data typically associated withstart-up for risk analyses were not necessary.In March of 1999, SUPSALV andNOAA began a pilot study of TAP forSan Diego Harbor. Because TAP investigatesthe probabilities that spilled oil willmove and spread in particular ways withina particular area, the first step establishedthe set of hydrologic, oceanographic, andmeteorological conditions that were specificto San Diego Harbor. Using this data,tide and wind currents were then modeledfor both the Bay and the approachesjust outside the Bay. The shoreline forthe study area was divided into 190 separatesegments of 0.5 km in length. Theselocations represented the receptor sites.Then, 183 spill locations were chosen, and500 independent spill trajectory runs weredone for each of these locations for eachseason. These spill trajectories were runfor five days in 0.1 hour increments.The TAP analyses for San Diego Bayallows the user to choose four differentmodes to view the compiled data.1. Threat Zone Analysis: This is agraphical display showing contours ofwhere various statistical spills originated.This mode can help answer thequestion of where oil could come fromif one wants to protect a specific site.2. Shoreline Impact Analysis: Thisdisplay identifies the percent of spillsthat impact the various receptor sites,and is particularly useful in identifyingwhether oil spilled at a given spotwill impact given shoreline locations.3. Site Oiling Analysis: This displayprovides a way to visualize how a particularsite is likely to be oiled by aspill originating at a particular location,allowing the planner to estimatehow much oil the responders shouldbe prepared for at a particular site.4. Shoreline Resource Analysis:This display represents the cumulativecost or consequence of oil impacts toall sites threatened by all modeledspills from a given location. The costor consequence of a site can be anythingidentified in an appropriate unit,such as response equipment, restorationcosts, wildlife impacted, etc.Navy/NOAA Plans for TAP.SUPSALV is continuing its partnershipwith NOAA to enhance the output andapplication of TAP. Over this next year,SUPSALV and NOAA intend to build onthe resource analysis capabilities of TAP,continuing to use San Diego Bay as apilot study area. By the completion ofFY 2000, SUPSALV hopes to have validatedthe inventories and locations oflocal Navy response equipment as wellas the major SUPSALV equipment inventoriespre-staged in Port Huenemeand San Diego. Should any equipmentshortfalls be identified, SUPSALV willdiscuss these deficiencies directly withtheir resource sponsor to program andpre-stage additional equipment.15