[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR SPILL CONTAINMENT AND CLEAN-UP ACTIVITIES OF OIL SENSITIVE RESOURCES IN CONNECTICUT 1982 fk7lC COLLECTip'"k' TD 427 T4 __j S73 1982 STATE OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR SPILL CONTAINMENT AND CLEAN-UP ACTIVITIES OF OIL SENSITIVE RESOURCES IN CONNECTICUT COASTAL ZONE V3 INFORIvIATION CENTER Prepared by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Planning and Coordination/Coastal Management Unit This document was financed in part by a grant through the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as amended) and was prepared in cooperation with the Office, of Policy and Management; State of Connecticut ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document consists of two complementary parts: a Connecticut Atlas of Oil Sensitive Resource Areas and General Strategies for Spill Containment and Clean-up Activities of Oil Sensitive Resources in Connecticut. The Atlas was produced by Coastal Management Program staff with the cooperation of many Department of Environmental Protection units including the following: Marine Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources Center, and the Oil and Chemical Spills section of the Hazardous Materials Management Unit. . The development of generic strategies for spill containment atid clean- up as well as the analysis of Connecticut's public and private oil spill cooperatives was authored primarily by Bill Hegener, Don Burton and Janet Frost of the Oil and Chemical Spills section of the Hazardous Materials Management Unit. CONTENTS 1ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Dil Transport & Spill Incident Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Evaluation of Private and Public Oil Spill Cooperatives in Connecticut New Haven Harbor Pollution Abatement Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Bridgeport Harbor Oil Spill Cooperative . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . 13 Thames River Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Mid-Coast/Connecticut River Oil Spill Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Summary of Existing Equipment and Personnel for Deployment . . . . . . . . 19 General Strategies for Spill Containment, Control, and Clean-up 21 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of Storage Areas for Oil Waste and Debris Generated 25 by Oil Spill clean-up Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 TABLES Page Table 1 Summary of Containment Equipment, Private and Public Oil Spill Cooperatives in the CT Coast Area 8 Table 2 New Haven, Bridgeport, and Norwalk Cooperatives, 12 Table 3 Thames River Cooperative 15 Table 4 Mid-Coast/Connecticut River Oil Spill Cooperative 18 Table 5 Summary of Private Contractors Equipme nt 20 Table 6 Schematic of Disposal of Oil Spill Deb ris and Recovered Oil and Oil-Water Mixtures 26 IntrodUction The Long island Sound estuary and its associated resource systems' forms an integrated coastal ecosystem that is unique and fragile. Estuarine embayments, intertidal flats, tidal. wetlands, shellfish concentration areas, and wildlife habitats are sensitive coastal res ources that require pro- tection from total loss or gradual degradation due to catastrophic or chronic oil spills associated with petroleum product shipments. In an effort to prevent, or at least reduce, losses or degradation of sensitive coastal resources from accidential oil spills, the Coastal Manage- ment Program has identified and mapped critical coastal resource areas in Long Island Sound that would need priority protection in the event of a major oil spill where only the most environmentally sensitive areas could be pro- tected due to a lack of available equipment and manpower. The Connecticut Atlas of Oil Sensitive Resource Areas that accompanies this report depicts composite resource areas along the Connecticut coast, as well as the Connecticut River, that contain coastal or valuable biological resources that are vulnerable to oil. The composite resource areas are mapped on mylar overlays used in conjunction with 1980 black and white rectified orthophoto bases at a scale of 1:24000. A preliminary prioritization (subject to field verification) has been developed for each critical coastal area as well as a preliminary assessment of the protectability of each site. The purpose of this dual prioritization system is to give the on-scene-commander information that is readily available during a spill and can be used to develop a spill containment strategy that ensures protection of the most critical and protectable areas as a first priority. It should also be pointed out that while some areas have a higher indicated priority for protection than others, all areas that have been mapped contain valuable and oil sensitive resources. For practical reasons, some sensitive sites have been excluded from this mapping because they are. essentially unprotectable given current limitations associated with.oil spill protection technology and clean-up procedures. The legend of the Atlas should be consulted for greater detail concerning its use and limitations. This companion report to the Atlas contains backgroundiinformation con- cerning oil transportation in the Sound, a qualitative analysis of the capabi- lity of Connecticut's public and private oil spill cooperatives to respond to a major spill incident, and a description of generic strategies that would generally be required for spill containment, control and clean-up activities along the Connecticut coast. The report concludes with recommendations designed to improve the efficiency and operational readiness of Connecticut's oil spill cooperatives. Oil Transport an d Spill Incident Evaluation In order to understand oil. transport and transhipm6nt within Long Island Sound and the Connecticut Coastal Area as it relates to the frequency and magnitude of oil spill occurrences, spill data was obtained from the DEP files on re- corded coastal oil spills together with information on oil shipments into the State from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Offices in New London and New Haven. A review of data indicates that while the quantities of petroleum shipped into Connecticut have been declining, petroleum products still constitute the majority of the materials arriving in this state by water. More oil is shipped into New Haven Harbor than any other port in Connecticut, approximately 82 million barrels of oil and gasoline in 1980. A total of 35 million barrels of oil wereshipped into Bridgeport and Housatonic River Harbors during 1980 with most of these products going@into Bridgeport. Only relatively small quantities of residual (#4 and #6) were shipped into the Housatonic River Area. During the same period, 6 million barrels of oil were shipped into the Norwalk-Stamford Harbor areas. Based on the only figures available (April-June 1981), a much smaller volume of oil, 1.5 million barrels, was shipped into the New London area. Some 5 million barrels went to facilities along the Connecticut River. Large ocean going ships frequently come into the Sound through the Race; however most of the oil shipped into Connecticut arrives by barge and small tank ships. This oil is transported from refineries in New Jersey and New York up the East River and along the Long Island Sound to ports in Connecticut and New York. The large ships go primarily to offshore unloading platform facilities along the Northern shore of Long Island although a number of ships also come into New London and New Haven harbors. 3 The greatest potential for large or catastrophic spills exists along vessel routes and in areas where large quantities of oil are transferredbetween vessels or onshore and offshore unloading facilities. Also there is a potential for large spills at facilities which store large quantities of oil, although these shore facilities are usually secured by substantial dikes to contain even very large accident al spills. An examination of DEP file data giving incidence of marine oil spills for the periods July 1980 through June 1981 and July 1976 through June 1979 shows that the vast majority of spills involved less than 100 ga llons of oil. Considering the great quantities of oil shipped into and through Connecticut waters, the data showed a surprisingly low number of spills associated with vessels and marine terminals. Contrary to general opinion, the most frequent types of spills and the total cumulative volume does not relate to waterborne shipment or loading and offloading of vessels at marine bulk facilities. Large marine spills do occur, and because of the extremely large quantities of oil which are shipped into Connecticut ports through Long Island Sound, the potential for a large spill, possibly involving tens of millions of gallons, definitely exists. The largest marine spill during the data period occuyred in Wethersfield, where more than 100,000 gallons of oil and gasoline were discharged to the Connecticut River. This occurredas the result of a structural failure of a marine bulkhead and ten sub- sequent failures of transport piping (docklines) used to offload barges at the adjacent oil storage facility. The spill did not occur during a loading or offloading operation. During this period-there were only 3 other oil spills in Wethersfield; all were of minor variety and none was marine related. For the same 4 year period, New Haven Harbor reported 60 spills into the marine environment, more than any other harbor areas. New Haven was followed by Bridgeport, 4 'Norwalk and Stamford Harbors which had 46, 45 and 35 spills respectively. The entire area from Greenwich to Branford was fairly active as there were between 18 and 25 spills in each of the remaining towns in this area except for East Hav en which had only 6. Most of these spills did not involve vessels or marine transfer storage facilities. The Groton-New London area also had a fairly large number of spills, with 40 waterborne spills in the Town of Groton, 33 in New London and 13 in Stonington. Again it should be pointed.out that the data clearly showed that relatively few spill incidents involved oil transport vessels, marine bulk plants, or terminal transfer operations. The Connecticut Harbors which have the greatest potential for catastrophic environmental oil spill damage are the harbors which have a large number of terminal facilities and have had a large number of oil spill incidents. New Haven Harbor is therefore the area of greatest concern followed by Bridgeport, the New London-Groton and the Stamford-Nor@walk areas. The Norwich and Hartford areas are also of concern due to the shipment of petroleum product upriver; groundings are frequent occurrences and many spills Are unreported. There is no way to predict where the next large spill will originate. However, because of the large number of vessels transporting petroleum through the Sound and the New York area offloading points, the entire Connecticut Coastline is vulnerable and must be considered when resource protection is evaluated. Evaluation of Private and Public Oil Spill Cooperatives in Connecticut During the past ten years seven private oil spill cooperatives have been established in the coastal area of Connecticut in addition to the New Haven 5 Cooperative. The establishing of the cooperativeshas occurred primarily as the result of the 1969 Connecticut Oil Spill Law*which requires marine ter- minals to provide and maintain oil spill containment equipment. In order to avoid the cost of providing equipment on an individual basis, petroleum distributors and users in close geographical proximity have formed cooperatives to purchase, stage and deploy equipment for the protection of its members. There are a number of reasons for the Department's fostering and acceptance of the oil spill cooperative concept; 1) The total amount of equipment and manpower resources available for any oil spill incident where a cooperative is established is much greater than if marine terminal facilities were to provide containment capability independently. This is especially true of the manpower which an effective cooperative can provide for the initial response and equipment deployment effort. 2) The quantity and quality of equipment, and level of equipment maintenance is in most cases much better through a cooperative arrangement than where in- dividual companies must provide equipment for themselves. 3) Oil spill containment training of terminal personnel and integration of these responsibilities with other first line response forces, such as local fire departments,is usually better undertaken as a cooperative venture. This is especially true when one considers that in a spill incident involving an oil spill cooperative, personnel from more than one facility will be involved. The joint contingency/operations plan established for the cooperative will establish an high level of cooperation between facilities and response agencies. This cooperation and sharing of resources could not be expected if companies opera- ting marine terminals were providing spill containment independently of one another. 6 There have been numerous arguments offered outlining why the cooperative approach is not desirable. The most frequent are listed as follows: 1) Liability incurred as a resuli of injury t o personnel from a company as- sisti ng the polluting facility and resulting changes in insurance coverage. 2) Communications and notification procedures causing delays in equipment mobilization and deployment. 3) Delay caused by equipment not being located within the spill site, as it would be if each facility were required to store and maintain its own equipment. Adm itting that these are valid concerns, experience with both types of spill protection concepts strongly indicates that an effectively managed cooperative is the preferential system for initial response that has an adequate level of oil spill protection. In Connecticut, Oil Spill Cooperativesare located at every harbor receiving petroleum products. See Table #1 for a listing of active cooperatives in Connecticut with containment equipment inventories, locations, and member listings. The three largest private cooperatives were recently evaluated to determine the adequacy of equipment inventory, including level of equipment maintenance and replacement, and their locations to all member facilities. This includes consideration of the modes of transport and deployment. Finally, the evaluation includes training and drill session frequencies and adequacy. The following brief summary is provided for these three Co-op's with improvement recommendations. Comments of the recently established public Mid-Coast/Con- necticut River,Cooperative are also provided. 7 TABLE 1 Suinliary of Containment Equipment Private and Public Oil Spill Coop tives in the CT Coast Area TOWN LOCATION EQUIPMENT Greenwich (Byram) Hoffman Fuel 400' Containment Terminal Boom Stamford Yacht Haven West 500' Metro 6" Containment Boom Bridge port Bridgeport Fire Dept. Engine Co. #6 700' Slickbar Engine Co. #7 700' Slickbar Norwalk Various Locations 12001 Containment Boom Norwalk Oil 750'Slickbar 10" Boom King Ind., Inc. 240' Uniroyal. 14" Boom Penn Petroleum 750' Slickbar Boom L.H. Gault 500' Slickbar 10" Boom New Haven Gulf Terminal 900' Slickbar Wyatt Terminal 900' Slickbar Member Owned 5000' Containment Boom Midcoast/CT River Westbrook 2000' 18" Parker System 1000' 12" Parker System East Lyme 2000' 12" Parker System Haddam 1000' 12" Parker System 4 Locations 600' 6" Miniboom Light House Pt. 500' 36" Kepner Seaboom (Old Saybrook) (USCG) New London-Groton New London Petroleum 400' 18" Uniroyal Thames River Dahl Oil Terminal 540' 18" Uniroyal City Coal Terminal 200' 18" Uniroyal Pfizer 500' 36" Uniroyal 300' 18" Uniroyal General Dynamics 5001 18" Containment Boom CL & P 600' 18" Stickbar 8 TABLE 1(cont) TRI-COAST CO-OP Groton 700' Containment Systems 12" Riverboom (Stonington) 200' Parker Systems Miniboom Milford 700' Containment Systems 12" Riverboom (Stratford) 200' Parker Systems Greenwich 700' Containment Systems 12" River Boom (Stamford) 200' Parker Systems Miniboom U.S.C.G. New Haven 250' 12" Slickbar U.S.C.G. New London 60' 12" Slickbar 200' 24" Sea Curtain 800' 24" Sea Curtain at Helco, Middletown. U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Groton 400' Slickbar 12" 9 = M = M = = M M = M M M M = = DATE_ PREMISE NC).@ SOURCE NO.. PARKING SPACES----, CONTACT Ef '::D Rf: L. w I ---------- z .... . ... ---- -------- - ---------------- 7.,Y 7zk ------------- -- --I @K7?:7 77 F: E:. Z 7L,@i4 W. 7 -z7 7- 7 A ---- ------- Cr C AU:A72 @:Xr- 7' 1 R7.'tR 7.3. P P A C: tkj7'@A F 7_ r-1 -1 E N P SUMIMARY OF CT OIL SPILL CONTAIN; N E C T I C F C .0 N 'Federal y, L Non Member Equipment P D CNT DE "WTV- OF 'ENVIRONMiLENTAL A or P - Clean-up Contract - -op A Private Member Cc A T T - Tricoastal Co-op c - Mid Coast/CT-River Co-op New Haven Harbor Pollution Abatement Committee This oil spill Co-op has been in existence since the 1950's making it one of the first such groups in the country. The Co-op membership has gradually expanded to include three professional clean-up contracting firms,and one company which sells clean-up related materials,as well as the members who operate marine terminal facilities in the New Haven and West Haven area. The City of New Haven has been very active in the Co-op since its formation; b6th"the New Haven Fire Department and Civil Preparedness Office have been involved. The relationship of equipment inventory locations,and member facilities can be found in Table 2. The deploym ent of equipment is initiated by a notification procedure which in- volves pyramid telephone calling among member representatives. Each Co-op facility member will provide manpower to man the boats and move the boom from shoreside stor- age at Wyatt and Gulf to the spill site. Th U.S. Coast Guard Group LIS facility is located at Woodward Avenue on the East side of the harbor. During an actual spill event, boom would likely be deployed with the assistance of one or more Coast Guard vessels which can respond to a spill incident any place in the outer harbor in a few minutes. Up until recently, the New Haven Fire Department maintained a fireboat (Sally-Lee) at Longwharf. This vessel was frequently used to move or 'deploy boom or move oil with fire pumps. Due to budget contstraints, the Sally Lee wastaken out of service. It is not currently known whether she will be returned to service. A unique feature of the New Haven Co-op is that three Co-op members (NEPCO, East Coast, and Sealand) are professional oil spill contractors. Two companies (NEPCO and East Coast) maintain facilities with'equipment in New Haven. This means that additional containment boom can be brought to the spill site very rapidly. in some cases, the contractors equipment brought over land w ill be in place in less time than the Co-op can respond over water. One of the contractors (East Coast) can also deploy equipment from its facility into the Quinnipiac River and respond over water as well. 10 The New Haven Fire Department has had a very high degree of involvement in Co-op activities and has provided a vast amount of assistance to the Co-op during spill incidents, and was instrumental in causing the New Haven Co-op to be formed in the 1950's. In addit ion to an exten sive training program which provided two training sessions from the Texas A & M Oil SpillSchool in 1980, its own spill school in the sum- mer of 1981, and two, two-day spill schools coordinated by the Coast Guard Atlantic Strike Team in 1982, the New-Haven Co-op has had frequent spill drills. The drills are held approximately twice a year and in each of the last two years at least one seminarhas been combined with the spill school training. The spill drills and training sessions allow personnel from member facilities the opportunity for hands-on experience in boom deployment and boat operations. In August 1982, the New Haven Harbor Co-op was involved in a major spill drill conducted over a three day period in New York and Connecticut. While there have been occasional lapses in the personnel notification procedure in the past, Co-op membership representatives are working to design a procedure which will activate the oil spill response without undue delay or confusion. The Co-op equipment inventory including member owned equipment, appears to be adequate. The New Haven Co-op is Connecticut's best example of a private Co-op which has an adequate equipment inventory and the necessary spill response training to effectively contain spills. The high level of Co-op activity with monthly meetings and the unique partnership between o-il facilities, professional clean,-up contractors and governmental agencies makesthe New Haven Co-op very effective in carrying out its functions. 11 TABLE 2 New -Haven, Bridgeport.and Norwalk Cooperatives New Haven Harbor Pollution Abatement Group Boom 1800' Slickbar containment barrier on two trailers Storage: 1 at Wyatt Inc, & 1 at Gulf Oil Co. Member owned Equipment 5000' Boom, assorted brands Boats - 9 small power boats Skimmer -.1 air driven skimmer Pump 1 4" explosion proof Other Various supplies of boom, sorbents & pumps are available at USCG, Group L.I.S., New Haven Bridgeport Harbor Pollution Abatement Group Boom 1400' Slickbar brand containment barrier stored on two trailers Location: 1 at Bridgeport Fire Department Engine Co. #6 1 at Bridgeport Fire Department Engine Co. #7 Norwalk Harbor-Pollution Abatement Committee Boom 1200' of 12" skirted containment barrier Boats Two with*outboard motors Sorbent Materials Sweeps and 5 bundles of sorbent booms a re located in three areas of Norwalk and Westport. The equipment is maintained and inspected by New England Pollution Control Company Byram River Co-op is defunct 12 Bridgeport Harbor Oil Spill Cooperative The Bridgeport Harbor Oil Spill Cooperative is operated somewhat differently from many of the oil spill cooperatives in Connecticut in that the Co-op containment boom is stored on trailers located at two Bridgeport Fire Department facilities. (See Table 2). This requires that the initial response with the boom trailer and boat will be initiated by the Bridgeport Fire Department personnel who will be assisted by terminal personnel. This is fortunate in two respects. First, the marine terminals in Bridgeport are geographicall y spread out on three distinct waterways: Johnson Creek, Ash Creek and the Pequonnock River. This means that the points of ac- cess will be many and varied. Secondly, the response capability of the Bridgeport Fire Department is much more rapid than one could anticipate from individual Co-op members.. This system gives very rapid boom deployment at proper containment locations. With the downtown congestion, independent Co-op members could not hope to duplicate the response. This deployment system accommodates the unique hydrographic aspect of Bridgeport Harbor: that it is formed by narrow channels and creeks as opposed to the large open water set- ting one finds in most harbors. The Bridgeport Harbor Oil Spill Cooperative has had annual oil spill deployment drills. Based on past efforts, the drills should be held more frequently, probably not less than two drills a year. There has been a somewhat passive attitude exhibited in some of the previous drills which no doubt can be attributed to emergency response experience of fire departments which are sometimes casual about oil spill exercises. This will be corrected by conducting full scale and more frequent drills in the future. The Bridgeport Co-op, while more loosely structured, with fewer meetings and fewer drills, does nevertheless, compare favorably with the better Co-ops in Connecticut. 13 Thames River Cooperative The Thames River Oil Spill Cooperative is made up of a combination of industrial and commercial business establishments located in theTo-wnsof Groton, New London, Water- ford, Montville, and Norwich with equipment stored on both the East and West shores of New London Harbor and the Thames River. (See Table 3) In the event of any sizable spill, the Thames River Co-op could obtain assistance from the U.S. Navy Submarine Base in Groton and the U.S. Coast Guard located at Fort Trumbull, New London. This would greatly increase the nanpower and equipment resources. The Navy has the only self-contained oil skimming vessel located in the Connecticut Coastal Zone. This particular Co-op is loosely organized with infrequent meetings. The drills have beentoo infrequent with less than annual sessions. This will be improved with at least annual drills beginning in 1982. The equipment is dispersed through the member facilities and without close'orr,,anizational ties, there is some questions as to how effective the response to a spill incident would be and to what extent Co-op members would commit personnel to assist other member facilities. The Department will be active in upgrading the frequency of oil spill drills and promoting a closer member structure with an effective notification system. Additionally, formal agreements tr rapidly access the superior Federal resources (tugboats and skimmers from the Navy) will be actively pursued. The last drill organized by the Thames River Co-op was held in the spring of 1981 and ran smoothly with al.11members attending and participating. The drill ex- ercise location, time, and date were not divulged to members to add realism to the exercise. All members arrived with the equipment requested at the spill site and other downriver locations for the deployment of equipment. The exercise was conducted with goodefficiency, a minimum of confusion and a greater degree of commit- ment on behalf.of all the membership, not just a few as has been the case in the past. 14 TABLE 3 Thames River Cooperative 6) Central Vermont RR 4) United Fuel 3) C L& P 19 Bags of Sorbent C. Absorbent Materials 600' 18" Slickbar 2000' Wire Fence Sand 13' Boat 25/hp motor 100 Posts Hand tools 3/hp Sea Broom With 100' Generators Tank truck Hose 3/4 ton Pickup 19' Boat 70/hp motor Handtools Handtools New London 5) Petroleum 2) Dahl Oil 7) City Coal 400' Uyiiroyal 18" Boom 540' Uniroyal 200' Uniroyal Handtools (18" Boom) (.18" Boom) 1 Tank Truck I Van Handtools Absorbent Materials Handtools 2 Self priming pumps Sand Absorbent Material 12' Boat without motor Absorbent material 9) Pfizer Lehigh Oil 500' Uniroyal 36' Boom 1 Tank truck Handtools 300' Uniroyal 18" Boom Absorbent Material & Hay 1 Response Van 12' Boat 12/hp motor Portable Pump with equipment 18' Boat 105/hp motor Filter fence material 8) General Dynamics 500' 18" Boom 2 Suction Pumps 1 Vac Al 17 1 Portable Light System 1 Backhoe 2 Portable 500 gal. Tanks 3 Payloaders 181 Boat 40/hp Motor 2 Skimmer Floats with 1 Liquid Vacuum Tank (3300 gal. capacity) six sections of hose Also 10) U.S.C.G. Group L.I.S., New London has assorted spill clean-up equipment available: Boats, boom, etc. U.S.N. Sub Base, Groton has booms, skimmers, boats, etc. available for oil spill containment. 15 A6@ **4k* 13r -1 4F Alm yvill@ :it iman MOO UP 11'C 0..! '@' A N@/PD A" Sc land A E L POME Y D ''..I z TA!f PA irg Hil Oneco 1 5 in horn, 4t or n.0 Hill S th" G C) :x 'MOHFG ki it fORES Hil ry A SC@ HA it TE Hanover I 0 .. t I I E 1$ ;i (.'bonon N. Frankfin A G eter W. It,) 86 t. '0- hen Franklin %lily Hill A K L N T occuk t 1 5 A ME K I a W 0 G i o1chester I 4:r 'ille lie D' 'Vai. i. yonti icFto* 10 roh Stm 0 -L VL N Vill P R E 0 pgestw 6ng ociely".. -j PACNAuG STArf S @LE M ille FORM Solem Poquetonuck ITz M R T H @c ..... FO 0@ Cl SNA k\ 0 0 d.le', Aft tou ISTAY I Gle P Hopki I r S T 0 N I N GI 7 0 N ID 1 ARD HIJI PARK -4 A I E D Y A R D al 0 M ntvill ya-40 e er Nr' Gales fonry ston.91..\ 13 HANTIC 95 uak ibl) H.. -7 @A 7 STAFF 0 A, I t I;t F 0 R ,T(Old my.tic Co., G I. .- Burnett. or re c lit laq, . I. wist A ly F E ;tua> A '9 -@n q VIA Itic oo t Y E a rord wol Ci@ L D olk PA@ t 9 V. age 12) BJUF, '-MAJEY Lordz Point L Y M E PMOINr r DOA r CONtAclic"I i PARK E A, I mi iswomicut S..th I be i@c e-. 11 coart @IZOCK each Pleasure Groton Long I W cfl@lalch Hill 'gC each @l Ir H.111 A, d RKNESS MEMORIAL F@P Pm. '."ond s ... I. F@' A FE PARK w.hh#Qlr-, wr@ ho-d 16 5-'rl V- Black P..t z. hfyiiP S 7' co SCALE OF MILES HARTFORDAND I 71 T . ........... X Stat4l) L 4 :@Ta f L It 0 RAII-o -J, 411# Oj t Marys Cell) A. ?73 to 322 92 ROOSEVELT., zi Backus C'm '000 10 0 Preq A Sch,1 00"' Broad h 'Long S@O' C@ fe, t mj V j.@\ .9 ,:< Vh G,7 i LX LIZ/ ;NH 21 N1 S�@ J a @amilton Ave) B % Cf C 4t Pearl S1 205 @Se % 8 ur S t r Hill mt leasa 0 8 M i@/'Thann6s@ffle \Ah 'C.M6wICoq4. Pt B,eez j 5 F? M'O /0 Gg.: lb :s p M lityi li - C, . . .. ... . Maynard. Hill to t, c ei J@ t Ptne V V A IJ@ co@ Bo A, rr - q ..-f3m J:@ A 45 Pile@ W t 7 a rile rilei o oV6, VI gar i@,e I-n If H HILL 0 5 9' 1 e Le 'o Met Ic ROAD L ILt 7- 0 R I\ co 71 Ruge,j) I ;@IXAJ& 1 s . *. I -, 1. 0- F4,- .71 La @a, J@6 Ij - ".. at Y,, @ighi' Oti 2 %: < -4 IX f PI it) t % \N J, X. \'Q i a @er - 4j, Z /J. A WIEW A, A . )% U 'S N 1\1 ,I.. , M 7- @i A Tf J., wst Vic -il 6, v ,RRadar fer e e Baldwin', Hill 0 R,3dar 0 crence' IA ef b 2krine Mama k@ S b Hill NI, IL BM & 8 M 71 ainarok 10 harrisoyis - - 20 k Gn IE.714\ 30 V dar I till Le- Crooke, V Ln t Ir ch N, 'Eas LILL P M Z,\, L6ndW, w 1, C"fl(l Stal rnor a Me Bridge Fit oint It j ator* j S State r h' Pier Palk H hl,@ I Par h @NMar a rd 14;0m . pa 10 B er Park Sch 9 14 JW C 'n. Rlh Washingto n tm s 0 f-orge 1A N/ Li f4f 0 ti@tpo 11 - ")L@ @Jriicpj'@ @ . .2- 0 N 0 4t N E fL .7 @G r (13 M, 3 @L M 1\ ADS Uh r "U S 'ttornHoust 0-1 -9@ IL e '-Co \Ce la-red He rt Al 5- % IR )it &.Gas 9 - - @) , h 01, ITORT I 14 X F '.ta. el it z3 e %d C '0 M, , r lory wder 0 LIU Q, Po z 0 r it;@ m ton Island If - I' Melton e:@ N, H,Iei' Ledge n@ west Si'te 4 r j?,Caulk Park V sti-rn r, nt 6A ...... Green. White Rock a rbor P3 w Hos EIV LONDON It t4 HARBOR -y' x T C'@ Ch I klt . . . . ........... . t, P0 2 S Sj Hti 11 squ v Crn t "vCn e C paa "T'. b-' J\ A V, A A Y.L Hobs rid, 1"Im. I island j z if Pe pe r 1@0' x ;e@: I - ;@' Eastern oss :.W(fei ROA@ Ouinnipeag, Lett Point ocks / I .". R A\, it 74 LL, It kST GLIAR@ New London Harbor) BlacknU C'O'INING T jj:-- - TRA Lighthouse Rock 'IT ps`@11 17 68 Avery Point .60 4Ridgew P Frank 0 :14 Ledge '3 Mid-Coast/Connecticut River Oil Spill Coopera tive In 1980, a State owned oil spill cooperative was established for the Lower Connecticut River/Mid-:Coast area. This cooperative, established with funding provided by the Coastal Energy Impact Program, was designed to provide oil spill protection to a geographic area which experiences a high volume of waterborne petroleum transport but has no private marine terminals or spill protection from private spill cooperatives. The following summary outlines the current status of the Mid Coast/Connecticut River Oil Spill Cooperative. There are four basic equipment sto rage areas in the Old Saybrook area at a commercial marina. Efforts to locate a State facility which could provide convenient waterfront access with reasonable security have been unsuccessful. The workboat will remain in the water until ice begins to form, usually around the first or second week of December. Arrangements have been made with the, U.S. Coast Guard to have the boat hauled and stored at the New Haven Station. The remaining. large equipment items are the two box-body trucks. These trucks will be located at East Lyme and Westbrook to tow the 20' boats and carry, 500' of 12" contain- ment boom. This will provide a complete unit of boom and boat at. these locations. The.purcha.se of these vehicles has been accomplished. With the acquisition of equipment completed, the emphasis of personnel involved in the Co-op has shifted to equipment deployment. The initial preference for rapid response and deployment of the Co-op equipment was to have local fire departments of the towns from within the Co-op area undertake this task. While this seemed to be the most logical way to achieve the goal of rapid equipment deployment, the initial response from local fire departments indicates that they do not want to participate in the deployment of the Co-op equipment. In June 1981,a training seminar was given by DEP personnel for two participating towns. Nineteen people attended the session representing Chester, Madison and North Madison fire departments. A second training Session was given in August 1981,involving several more'fire departments. Beyond this, it is difficult to 16 determine how many other fire departments will eventually participate in the Co-op. To.make up the additional manpower resources needed to provide timely deployment of equipment, the following adjustments are being made: a) A ten tative commitment has been secured from the U.S. Coast Guard COTP (Captain of the Port) New London to provide at least four personnel from the COTP office for initial response containment boom deployment. These persons, already trained in spill acti- vities and use of water craft, will be available following equip- ment orientation sessions and the formalizing of a memorandum-of- understanding between the Coast Guard and DEP. Additionally, contacts have been rode with the chief executive officers of each area town to request assistance for boom deployment spill incidents involving these individual towns. b) At the present time, boom deployment will be accomplished by DEP Oil & Chemical Spill Unit personnel with the assistance of DEP Conservation and Preservation Division and CT DOT (Depart- rmnt of Transportation - boom delivery). Under our present op- erational procedure for the Co-op area, a professional clean-up contractor will immediately be summoned to respond to any sig- nificant spill report. The contractor will arrive on-scene in time to assist with the deployment of spill containment equipment. Those costs will be borne by Connecticut's Oil Spill Contingency Fund until reimbursement can be obtained from the pollutor. In summary, the establishment of the Mid Coast/Connecticut River Oil Spill Cooperative is now complete. The Co-op is operative with the ability to provide containment of .spills. The response capabilities will gradually be improved as additional commit- ments for participation are secured and those personnel have attended the training and orientation classes. 17 TABLE 4 Mid-Coast/Connecticut River Oil Spill Cooperative (State Funded and Operated) Containment Barrier: 4000' 12" Skirt/Parker Systems 2000' 18" Skirt/Parker Systems 500' 36" Kepner Sea Curtain (U.S.C.G.) 600' American Boom & Barrier; Mini boom, Assorted Anchors, and Buoys. Boats 26' Pacific Plastic diesel powered flat.deck workboat 2 Boston Whaler "Outrage" model work boats with 85/hp Johnson Outboards Assorted Lines, Anchors, and Buoys Vehicles 1 Ford F-600 turck with 10' walkin box 1 Dodge D-30O.truck with 10' walkin box 1 Plymouth 4 X 4 Trail Duster 3 26' Wells Cargo equipment box trailers Miscellaneous Sorbent Materials 25 bags Sorbent Boom 10 bundles Sorbent Pads 10 bundles SUMMARY OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL FOR DEPLOYMENT A review of the enclosed TABLES, particularly TABLE 1, containing summary inven- tories of privately and publically owned containment equipment located within or proximate to Connecticut's coastal area indicates that the State has an adequate geographic distribution of containment equipment. In all cases, the private co- operatives and professional clean-up contractors (TABLE 5) have adequate personnel available for deployment of equipment. For the two public co-operatives, manpower arrangements are presently not adequate. The Connecticut River/Mid-Coast Co-op still lacks complete support from the volunteer fire departments which the Co-ope rative area serves. Present deployment procedures rely on Department of Environmental Protection personnel, with tentative arrangements fo r additional support from United State's Coast Guard personnel from New London and New Haven. The Tri-Coast Co-op will ultimately depend on fire department and, to a lesser extent, other municipal personnel for deployment functions. Training has been initiated and is being completed under a Coastal Energy Impact Program grant. 19 TABLE 5 Summary of Private Contractors Equipment New England Pollution Control New Haven 2000',18" Containment Systems 500' 18" Slickbar Mark V Norwalk 500' 18" Slickbar Mark V 200' 8" MP Boom 100' 8" Mini Boom At New Jersey 3500' 18" Containment System Hitchcock Gas Engine Co. Bridgeport 400' 20" Uniroyal East Coast Environmental Services New Haven 1200' 16" Slickbar 400' 18" Slickbar 200' 12" Slickbar 200' 24" American Sealand Environmental Services, Inc. Derby 2500' 18" Slickbar 900' 18" Bennett 20 General Strategies for Spill Containment, Control, and Cleanup Activities It is extremely difficult to do more than generalize any non site-specific access evaluation. There are many factors other than location which are also important such as magnitude of spill, type of oil or petroleum product involved, wind and tide condition, and type and amount of equipment required. For this evaluation, we have logically concentrated on the various spill site types which can be encountered in coastal water spills with -the access problems associated with each group. 1. Restricted Harbor Areas: These areas are located on channels at coves which are protected from.the tide and wind. Many of the harbors which can be categorized as restricted or confined are narrow throughout or at least at several points., These narrow points usually provide relatively easy landside access for emergency response equipment and containment boom. Spills into such an area can frequently be contAiined by the deployment of boom from the shore without the use of a boat. Lines can be used to draw the containment boom across a channel or the mouth ofa cov% often with little difficulty. Good examples of this would be the terminals in Bridgeport Harbor located on Johnson Creek and Cedar Creek or City Coast in N'ew London located in Shaws Cove. Spills near these facilities could be contained with relative ease. 2. Bulkhead and Vessel at Terminal Spills occurring at a marine bulkhead from within the facility or from a ves- sel such as a barge at the marine facility can frequently be contained by deploying boom directly along a bulkhead or around the vessel from one point on a bulkhead to another. 21 3. Open Water Harbor Area Open water harbor areas will normally require the use of a boat for boom de- ployment. The most rapid deployment response will occur when there are private workboats, fireboats and/or Coast Guard boats in the water at all times. This condition exists in some of our harbors.(New Haven, New London) but is not universal. The access point for the boom deployment boats is sometimes ad- jacent to the boom location point but more likely the boat mu.st be launched at either a marine or other private/public launch ramp near the spill site. In a harbor situation this usally does not present a problem as the launching facilities are usable under most tidal. conditions. Containment boom can be deployed at the boat launch site or in many cases fromthe member facility closest to the spill site. In some locations such as NewHaven, the boom deployment vessel would transport boom to the spill site. This procedure could be modified by the use of contractors boom brought into the member fa- cility and deployed by the Co-op boat. 4. Open Water Access Points When it is determined useful to deploy boom in open water, the access points would normally be out of a harbor, marina or public access that is proximate to the spill area. Obtaining an adequate access to an open water spill would probably not present a problem other than having to transport boom over water for some considerable distance. Access for clean-up could be much more diffi- cult since private property and difficult topography.without roadways can be encountered. 5. Coastal River Access Points Here again we would be required to use existing public/private access ramps or marinas to launch deployment boats and/or equipment. The Coastal River siting could well provide the most difficult circumstances. The deployment 22 of a boat and containment boom may be at different locations distant from the spill site. The clean-up activities may also take place miles from suit- able landside access. Even if permission can be obtained from a property owner, terrain and lack of suitable roadways will frequently prevent bringing landborne equipment to the spill site. The choice must be made between working from the river using small workboats and vacuum equipment mounted on workbarges or allowing the tide and wind to move oil to a containment location where access can be accomplished with relative ease (i.e. vacuum trucks and tankers can be brought within pumping distance of the contained oil). Each spill event presents a unique set of circumstances which.will establish the access conditions for boom deployment and spill clean-up. Usually within a harbor area, access presents no real problem to response for containment or for location of heavy removal equipment such as vacuum truck and large tank trailer rigs. In th'e open waters along coastal shorelines, access can present a problem both for the deployment of containment boom from boats and from actual spill clean up at the waterIs edge. It would sometimes be extremely difficult to get access to the coastal shoreline even if permission were ob- tained from private owners since the terrain would not permit heavy vehicles to come near the waterfront. Fortunately, beach front clean-ups are rare and this problem is not frequently encountered. The most difficult situation which arises from time-to-time is the clean-up in a coastal river setting. Here boom deployment must be accomplished using boats and boom launched from facilities many miles from the spill site or area of oil concentration. Access for clean-up activities is frequently pre- clUded by marsh, and in other cases, rugged terrain sloping steeply to the river. Here it is usually preferable to allow oil to move downstream with the aid of deflection booms to a location which allows landside access for 2.3 essential clean-up equipment such as vacuum trucks. Even when this can be satisfactorily accomplished, it is not infrequent that hand work from small boats. along the river must be carried out to take care of' small accumulations (pockets) of oil and to remove accumulated oily debris. This is of course, more often seen in black or residual oil spills which tend to adhere to the river shoreline and everything with which they come in contact. There has been some consideration of arranging access to private property on a pre-incident basis. This has been discounted as impractical and un- necessary. During an incident where it is necessary to accomplish access to the spill site over private property, it has been the Department's ex-., perience that private parties will almost always allow equipment to enter eve n to the extent that roads have been constructed, trees removed, and lawns dama ged with the owner's permission.. Thes e accesses were made with the verbal agreement of the State on-scene-coordinator that the damage would be corrected to the ownert satisfaction. These arrangements were always honored by the DEP and no grievances a re outstanding to our knowledge. The major difficulty with pre-incident agreements, beside the great effort that would be required to accomplish the task of negotiating and executing agreements with a large number of property owners, would be the problem of property transfers invalidating the agreements. A secondary,effort would be required to keep all agreements up-to-date andin force. In summary, the pre-incident agreement is probably too difficult to accomplish and our previous experience indicates that it is unnecessary- 24 Identification of Storage Areas for Oily__Yaste &_Debris Generated by Oil Spill Clean-up Activities During the past ten years, the disposal of oily waste materials from a spill cleanup has become an increasingly difficult problem. This is true @Of even the small-er 1,000 gallon spill as well as the large "Argo Merchant" size spills which can generate thousands of cubic yards of debris from clean-up operations. Due to the disposal problems associated with oil spills, a conscious effort has been made by State On-Scene-Coordinators to minimize or reduce the amount of waste generated during spill clean-ups. This has become necessary due to the difficulty in finding suitable land disposal sites and the reduced number of incinerators which are still operating in Connecticut. Table 6 summarizes the methods currently used to segregate oil spill clean-up by products. Several important steps have been taken to reduce and keep those materials to manageable levels. 1. Every effort is made to contain and remove sizable spills using vacuum equipment and then by techniques that accomplish as much of the clean-up as possible with direct oil, or oil and water, removal. This allows the relatively uncontaminated oil or oil-water mixture to be reclaimed and eliminates the need for costly, extensive disposal of large amounts of spill debris. 2. The use of absorbent materials such as sorbent pads, sorbent and fiberpearl has been restricted primarily to small spills or to polishing final clean-up on larger spills. When' large numbers of pads are used, the contractors use pads from which the oil can be removed and the pads reused. This is desirable to reduce the amounts of sorbents requiring disposal and can also be cost effective by substantially reducing amounts of sorbent pads required for the clean-up. 25 T.A%BLE 6 SCHEMATIC OF DISPOSAL OF OIL SPILL DEBRIS ANDL RECOVERED OIL AND OIL-WATER MIXTURES TYPE OF DEBRIS PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS DISPOSAL OPTIONS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS 1. Sorbent Pads Press out oil Reuse 2. Sorbents, Particulates None Incinerate 3. Logs Cut to Firewood length Given to public for stove & firewoi NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS 1. Sand Mix with sand if free Landfill, asphalt Araining construction or incineration 2. Stone, Gravel No free draining oil Landfill, asphalt, batch plant, road- bed construction 3. Earth Mix with sand Landfill, daily cover 4. Speedi-Dri, Oil-Dri, No Processing Landfill or incin- Calcium Bentonite erate LIQUID OILS, OIL-WATER MIXTURES 1. Oils No processing Incineration Reclamation (water & Fuel Oil dirt removal) 2. Oily Water Pretreatment for oil Water to municipal removal sewer 26 3. The careful cleaning of beaches using handtools and light weight power equipment can greatly reduce the volume of debris as well as preserve the beaches from destruction by heavy equipment. In large coastal spills it was formerly standard procedure to remove large amounts of beach sand to the point where the clean-up operation was more ecologically damaging than the impact of the spill itself. This attitude has been changed and now sand removal is limited and done carefully to avoid damage, significantly reducing the volume of contaminated sand that requires disposal. 4. The careful separation of burnable debris such as sorbents, brush, and wood can be accomplished and reduces thevolumesof material requiring land disposal. Sorbents and brush are then scheduled for incinerators while the wood is cut and used for fuel. Because the clean-ups are done with much greater care with regard to oil debris generation, it is not frequently necessary to go to storage areas for temporary or long term disposal. However, in the event of a very large fuel oil spill in Connecticut Coastal Waters, interim debr is storage would probably have to be implemented to facilitate this difficult task. The Department has developed a listing of a number of possible private and municipal coastal landfill disposal areas which could be used for storage until ultimate disposal options could be worked out and arrangements consumated. This list was developed with the assistance of the DER Solid Waste Unit in 1976 and was revised as necessary. The list does not imply any commitment in the part of the municipality or owner of the facility to nj - accept this waste. The actual negotiation for acceptance and requirements for site preparation and engineering would take place at the time of the spill.. The staging and ultimate disposal of an extremely large volume of material from a spill can present a very serious problem. Fortunatel:1, in the event of a large spill, the Department's Hazardous..Waste Section and Solid Waste Management Unit would combine their expertise and energies to bring this disposal problem to an enviro nmentally acceptable conclusion. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Connecticut is fortunate in having a good mix of centrally located, seemingly well equipped and trained private oil spill cooperatives. There are also a number of' capable professional clean-up firms with substantial spill equipment inventories and excellent response capabilities. This capability has recently been supplemented by the inclusion of two CEIP funded coastal area cooperatives which provide much greater flexibility-and comprehensive coverage of the entire coastline. This situation probably is unique in the New England area, however, the mere presence of equipment does not insure that the response will be adequate to this end. The following recommendations, if implemented, will substantially improve the functional level of a number of Co-op's which are not very rigorous in training and hold practice drills only at irregular intervals: 1) A cooperative effort should be established with the United States Coast Guard to ensure standardization of requirements for all cooperatives to minimum levels. The standards would include the following: a.. Annual inspections.of all spill related containment equipment for general condition and readiness. Any equipment not found to be in serviceable repair would be required to be repaired or replaced. b. Annual full scale drills, with additional supplemental training as required. Also, communication drills (i.e. notification of responding personnel to be held at least semi-annually). c. Requirement that each Co-op prov ide an annual listing of Co-op officers, member contacts, including 24-houir phone numbers of those Co-op officers and persons responsible for equipment maintenance and storage. 2) The Department of Environmental Protection with the aid of the United States Coast Guard should pursue an agreement with the 'U.S. Navy concerning authorization for the use of Navy personnel and equipment (skimmers, tugs, containment boom) 28 in the event of a major spill in the Lower Thames River or adjacent waters. An agreement could be made with the Navel base public works officer who has recently been given- authority to enter into cooperative agreements by a directive which shifted the responsibility from Navy Buships, Philadelphia to the individual Naval facilities. Details of when equipment would be available, and how procurement could be effected, should be incorporated into a pre-incident agreement. 3) An agreement should be worked out with the United States Coast Guard, Captain-of-the-Port in New Haven and New London ,concerning Coast Guard assistance to the Department of Environmental Protection for 6mployment of Department equipment in the Coastal Zone (Mid-Coast/CT River and Tri-Coast Co-ops). This agreement should contain provisions for equipment orientation of Coast Guard personnel, as necessary, and possible reimbursement to the Coast Guard of certain expenses, such as fuel costs which cannot be recovered through the Section 311 pollution fund of the Clean Water Act.(P.L. 92-500, 1972 as amended) 4) Deveiopment, with guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and United States Coast Guard, of a listing of possible oil spill debris staging sites (temorary storage sites). This should be done with assistance from Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit, Hazardous Waste Unit, and the Solid Waste Unit and should include guidelines for site development and monitoring as well as required permit procedures. 29 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Government. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Appendix C of Economic Analysis of Future Dredged Material Disposal in Long Island-Sound., 1981 2. Lautenberger, Carl , 1981, Un i ted States Coast Guard , Capta i n of the Port Office, New Haven, Connecticut, oral communiciation 3. U.S. Government. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers 4. Personal Contact with United States Coast Guard 5. Personal Contact, United States Coast Guard, Captain of the, Port Office New London, Connecticut July 1981 6. Captain of the Port Office, New Haven 7. Captain of the Port Office, New London 8. Annual Summary of Spill Incidents, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, 1981 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1101011111191 MIN 3 6668 14109 3361