NOAA's Response and Restoration Blog

An inside look at the science of cleaning up and fixing the mess of marine pollution


Leave a comment

The Earth Is Blue and We’d Like to Keep It That Way

Pod of dolphins swimming.

Spinner dolphins in the lagoon at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge in Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. A pod of over 200 spinner dolphins frequent Midway Atoll’s lagoon. (NOAA/Andy Collins)

Often, you have to leave a place to gain some perspective.

Sometimes, that means going all the way to outer space.

When humans ventured away from this planet for the first time, we came to the stunning realization that Earth is blue. A planet covered in sea-to-shining-sea blue. And increasingly, we began to worry about protecting it. With the creation of the National Marine Sanctuaries system in 1972, a very special form of that protection began to be extended to miles of ocean in the United States. Today, that protection takes the form of 14 marine protected areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters.

Starting October 23, 2014, NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is celebrating this simple, yet profound realization about our planet—that Earth is Blue—on their social media accounts. You can follow along on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and now their brand-new Instagram account @NOAAsanctuaries. Each day, you’ll see an array of striking photos (plus weekly videos) showing off NOAA’s—and more importantly, your—National Marine Sanctuaries, in all of their glory. Share your own photos and videos from the sanctuaries with the hashtag #earthisblue and find regular updates at sanctuaries.noaa.gov/earthisblue.html.

You can kick things off with this video:

Marine sanctuaries are important places which help protect everything from humpback whales and lush kelp forests to deep-sea canyons and World War II shipwrecks. But sometimes the sanctuaries themselves need some extra protection and even restoration. In fact, one of the first marine sanctuaries, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary off of southern California, was created to protect waters once imperiled by a massive oil spill which helped inspire the creation of the sanctuary system in the first place.

Japanese tsunami dock located on beach within Olympic National Park and National Marine Sanctuary.

To minimize damage to the coastline and marine habitat, federal agencies removed the Japanese dock that turned up on the Washington coast in late 2012. In addition to being located within a designated wilderness portion of Olympic National Park, the dock was also within NOAA’s Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and adjacent to the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex. (National Park Service)

At times NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is called to this role when threats such as an oil spill, grounded ship, or even huge, floating dock endanger the marine sanctuaries and their incredible natural and cultural resources.

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

In March 2013, we worked with a variety of partners, including others in NOAA, to remove a 185-ton, 65-foot Japanese floating dock from the shores of Washington. This dock was swept out to sea from Misawa, Japan, during the 2011 tsunami and once it was sighted off the Washington coast in December 2012, our oceanographers helped model where it would wash up.

Built out of plastic foam, concrete, and steel, this structure was pretty beat up by the time it ended up inside NOAA’s Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and a designated wilderness portion of Olympic National Park. A threat to the environment, visitors, and wildlife before we removed it, its foam was starting to escape to the surrounding beach and waters, where it could have been eaten by the marine sanctuary’s whales, seals, birds, and fish.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

In an effort to protect the vibrant marine life of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA’s Restoration Center began clearing away illegal lobster fishing devices known as “casitas” in June 2014. The project is funded by a criminal case against a commercial diver who for years used casitas to poach spiny lobsters from the sanctuary’s seafloor. Constructed from materials such as metal sheets, cinder blocks, and lumber, these unstable structures not only allow poachers to illegally harvest huge numbers of spiny lobsters but they also damage the seafloor when shifted around during storms.

A spiny lobster in a casita on the seafloor.

A spiny lobster in a casita in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA is removing these illegal lobster fishing devices which damage seafloor habitat. (NOAA)

Also in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, our office and several partners ran through what it would be like to respond to an oil spill in the sanctuary waters. In April 2005, we participated in Safe Sanctuaries 2005, an oil spill training exercise that tested the capabilities of several NOAA programs, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard. The drill scenario involved a hypothetical grounding at Elbow Reef, off Key Largo, of an 800-foot cargo vessel carrying 270,000 gallons of fuel. In the scenario, the grounding injured coral reef habitat and submerged historical artifacts, and an oil spill threatened other resources. Watch a video of the activities conducted during the drill.

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

Even hundreds of miles from the main cluster of Hawaiian islands, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument does not escape the reach of humans. Each year roughly 50 tons of old fishing nets, plastics, and other marine debris wash up on the sensitive coral reefs of the marine monument. Each year for nearly 20 years, NOAA divers and scientists venture out there to remove the debris.

This year, the NOAA Marine Debris Program’s Dianna Parker and Kyle Koyanagi are documenting the effort aboard the NOAA Ship Oscar Elton Sette. You can learn more about and keep up with this expedition on the NOAA Marine Debris Program website.


Leave a comment

Adventures in Developing Tools for Oil Spill Response in the Arctic

This is a post by the Office of Response and Restoration’s Zachary Winters-Staszak. This is the third in a series of posts about the Arctic Technology Evaluation supporting Arctic Shield 2014. Read the first post, “NOAA Again Joins Coast Guard for Oil Spill Exercise in the Arctic” and the second post, “Overcoming the Biggest Hurdle During an Oil Spill in the Arctic: Logistics.”

People in a boat lowering orange ball into icy waters.

The crew of the icebreaker Healy lowering an iSphere onto an ice floe to simulate tracking oil in ice. (NOAA/Jill Bodnar)

The Arctic Ocean, sea ice, climate change, polar bears—each evokes a vivid image in the mind. Now what is the most vivid image that comes to mind as you read the word “interoperability”? It might be the backs of your now-drooping eyelids, but framed in the context of oil spill response, “interoperability” couldn’t be more important.

If you’ve been following our latest posts from the field, you know Jill Bodnar and I have just finished working with the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center on an Arctic Technology Evaluation during Arctic Shield 2014. We were investigating the interoperability of potential oil spill response technologies while aboard the Coast Guard icebreaker Healy on the Arctic Ocean.

Putting Square Pegs in Round Holes

As Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map specialists for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, a great deal of our time is spent transforming raw data into a visual map product that can quickly be understood. Our team achieves this in large part by developing a versatile quiver of tools tailored to meet specific needs.

For example, think of a toddler steadfastly—and vainly—trying to shove that toy blue cylinder into a yellow box through a triangular hole. This would be even more difficult if there were no circular hole on that box, but imagine if instead you could create a tool to change those cylinders to fit through any hole you needed. With computer programming languages we can create interoperability between technologies, allowing them to work together more easily. That cylinder can now go through the triangular hole.

New School, New Tools

Different technologies are demonstrated each year during Arctic Shield’s Technology Evaluations and it is common for each technology to have a different format or output, requiring them to be standardized before we can use them in a GIS program like our Environmental Response Management Application, Arctic ERMA.

Taking lessons learned from Arctic Shield 2013’s Technology Evaluation, we came prepared with tools in ERMA that would allow us to automate the process and increase our efficiency. We demonstrated these tools during the “oil spill in ice” component of the evaluation. Here, fluorescein dye simulated an oil plume drifting across the water surface and oranges bobbed along as simulated oiled targets.

The first new tool allowed us to convert data recorded by the Puma, a remote-controlled aircraft run by NOAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program. This allowed us to associate the Puma’s location with the images it was taking precisely at those coordinates and display them together in ERMA. The Puma proved useful in capturing high resolution imagery during the demonstration.

A similar tool was created for the Aerostat, a helium-filled balloon connected to a tether on the ship, which can create images and real-time video with that can track targets up to three miles away. This technology also was able to delineate the green dye plume in the ocean below—a function that could be used to support oil spill trajectory modeling. We could then make these images appear on a map in ERMA.

The third tool received email notifications from floating buoys provided by the Oil Spill Recovery Institute and updated their location in ERMA every half hour. These buoys are incredibly rugged and produced useful data that could be used to track oiled ice floes or local surface currents over time. Each of the tools we brought with us is adaptable to changes on the fly, making them highly valuable in the event of an actual oil spill response.

Internet: Working With or Without You

Having the appropriate tools in place for the situation at hand is vital to any response, let alone a response in the challenging conditions of the Arctic. One major challenge is a lack of high-speed Internet connectivity. While efficient satellite connectivity does exist for simple communication such as text-based email, a robust pipeline to transmit and receive megabytes of data is costly to maintain. Similar to last year’s expedition, we overcame this hurdle by using Stand-alone ERMA, our Internet-independent version of the site that was available to Healy researchers through the ship’s internal network.

NOAA's online mapping tool Arctic ERMA displays ice conditions, bathymetry (ocean depths), and the ship track of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy during  the Arctic Technology Evaluation of Arctic Shield 2014.

NOAA’s online mapping tool Arctic ERMA displays ice conditions, bathymetry (ocean depths), and the ship track of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy during the Arctic Technology Evaluation of Arctic Shield 2014. (NOAA)

This year we took a large step forward and successfully tested a new tool in ERMA that uses the limited Internet connectivity to upload small packages (less than 5 megabytes) of new data on the Stand-alone ERMA site to the live Arctic ERMA site. This provided updates of the day’s Arctic field activities to NOAA staff back home. During an actual oil spill, this tool would provide important information to decision-makers and stakeholders at a command post back on land and at agency headquarters around the country.

Every Experience Is a Learning Experience

I’ve painted a pretty picture, but this is not to say everything went as planned during our ventures through the Arctic Ocean. Arctic weather conditions lived up to their reputation this year, with fog, winds, and white-cap seas delaying and preventing a large portion of the demonstration. (This was even during the region’s relatively calm, balmy summer months.)

Subsequently, limited data and observations were produced—a sobering exercise for some researchers. I’ve described only a few of the technologies demonstrated during this exercise, but there were unexpected issues with almost every technology; one was even rendered inoperable after being crushed between two ice floes. In addition, troubleshooting data and human errors added to an already full day of work.

Yet every hardship allowed those of us aboard the Healy to learn, reassess, adapt, and move forward with our work. The capacity of human ingenuity and the tools we can create will be tested to their limits as we continue to prepare for an oil spill response in the harsh and unpredictable environs of the Arctic. The ability to operate in these conditions will be essential to protecting the local communities, wildlife, and coastal habitats of the region. The data we generate will help inform crucial and rapid decisions by resource managers, making interoperability along with efficient data management and dissemination fundamental to effective environmental response.

Editor’s note: Use Twitter to chat directly with NOAA GIS specialists Zachary Winters-Staszak and Jill Bodnar about their experience during this Arctic oil spill simulation aboard an icebreaker on Thursday, September 18 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. Follow the conversation at #ArcticShield14 and get the details: http://1.usa.gov/1qpdzXO.

Bowhead whale bones and a sign announcing Barrow as the northernmost city in America welcomed me to the Arctic.

Bowhead whale bones and a sign announcing Barrow as the northernmost city in America welcomed Zachary Winters-Staszak to the Arctic in 2013. (NOAA)

Zachary Winters-Staszak is a GIS Specialist with the Office of Response and Restoration’s Spatial Data Branch. His main focus is to visualize environmental data from various sources for oil spill planning, preparedness, and response. In his free time, Zach can often be found backpacking and fly fishing in the mountains.


Leave a comment

Science of Oil Spills Training Now Accepting Applications for Fall 2014

Two men standing on a beach with one holding a bin of sand.

These trainings help oil spill responders increase their understanding of oil spill science when analyzing spills and making risk-based decisions, and also include a field trip to a beach to apply newly learned skills. (NOAA)

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, a leader in providing scientific information in response to marine pollution, has scheduled a Science of Oil Spills (SOS) class for the week of November 17–21, 2014 in Norfolk, Virginia.

We will accept applications for this class through Friday, October 3, 2014, and we will notify applicants regarding their participation status by Friday, October 17, 2014.

SOS classes help spill responders increase their understanding of oil spill science when analyzing spills and making risk-based decisions. They are designed for new and mid-level spill responders.

These trainings cover:

  • Fate and behavior of oil spilled in the environment.
  • An introduction to oil chemistry and toxicity.
  • A review of basic spill response options for open water and shorelines.
  • Spill case studies.
  • Principles of ecological risk assessment.
  • A field trip.
  • An introduction to damage assessment techniques.
  • Determining cleanup endpoints.

To view the topics for the next SOS class, download a sample agenda [PDF, 170 KB].

Please be advised that classes are not filled on a first-come, first-served basis. The Office of Response and Restoration tries to diversify the participant composition to ensure a variety of perspectives and experiences to enrich the workshop for the benefit of all participants. Classes are generally limited to 40 participants.

Additional SOS courses will be held in 2015 in Houston, Texas; Mobile, Alabama; and Seattle, Washington. Course dates will be posted as they are determined.

For more information, and to learn how to apply for the class, visit the SOS Classes page.


2 Comments

Join NOAA for a Tweetchat on Preparing for Arctic Oil Spills

 

Coast Guard icebreaker in sea ice.

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy, a state-of-the-art icebreaker and the August 2014 home of a team of researchers evaluating oil spill technologies in the Arctic. (U.S. Coast Guard)

As Arctic waters continue to lose sea ice each summer, shipping, oil and gas exploration, tourism, and fishing will increase in the region. With more oil-powered activity in the Arctic comes an increased risk of oil spills.

In August of 2014, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration sent two GIS specialists aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy for an exercise in the Arctic Ocean demonstrating oil spill tools and technologies. This scientific expedition provided multiple agencies and institutions with the invaluable opportunity to untangle some of the region’s knotty logistical challenges on a state-of-the-art Coast Guard icebreaker in the actual Arctic environment. It is one piece of the Coast Guard’s broader effort known as Arctic Shield 2014.

Part of NOAA’s focus in the exercise was to test the Arctic Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA®), our interactive mapping tool for environmental response data, during a simulated oil spill.

Join us as we learn about NOAA’s role in the mission and what life was like aboard an icebreaker. Use Twitter to ask questions directly to NOAA GIS specialists Jill Bodnar and Zachary Winters-Staszak.

Get answers to questions such as:

  • What type of technologies did the Coast Guard Research and Development Center (RDC) and NOAA test while aboard the Healy and what did we learn?
  • What was a typical day like on a ship that can break through ice eight feet thick?
  • Why can’t we just simulate an Arctic oil spill at home? What are the benefits of first-hand experience?

Tweetchat Details: What You Need to Know

What: Use Twitter to chat directly with NOAA GIS specialists Jill Bodnar and Zachary Winters-Staszak.

When: Thursday, September 18, 2014 from 11:00 a.m. Pacific to 12:00 p.m. Pacific (2:00 p.m. Eastern to 3:00 p.m. Eastern).

How: Tweet questions to @NOAAcleancoasts using hashtag #ArcticShield14. You can also submit questions in advance via orr.rsvp.requests@noaa.gov, at www.facebook.com/noaaresponserestoration, or in the comments here.

About NOAA’s Spatial Data Branch

Jill Bodnar is a GIS specialist in the Assessment and Restoration Division of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. She is an experienced oil spill responder and has been mapping data during oil spills for more than a decade. This is her first trip to the Arctic.

Zachary Winters-Staszak is a GIS specialist in the Assessment and Restoration Division of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. While not aboard the Healy, he co-leads an effort to manage data and foster partnerships for Arctic ERMA. This is his second time participating in the annual Arctic Technology Evaluation in support of Arctic Shield. You can listen to him discuss this exercise and NOAA’s participation in a NOAA’s Ocean Service audio podcast from August 2014.

About Oil Spills and NOAA

Every year NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) responds to more than a hundred oil and chemical spills in U.S. waters. OR&R is a center of expertise in preparing for, evaluating, and responding to threats to coastal environments, including oil and chemical spills, releases from hazardous waste sites, and marine debris. This work also includes determining damage to coastal lands and waters after oil spills and other releases and rotecting and restoring marine and coastal areas, including coral reefs.

Learn more about how NOAA responds to oil spills and the full range of OR&R’s activities in the Arctic.


2 Comments

NOAA Prepares for Bakken Oil Spills as Seattle Dodges Oil Train Explosion

As federal leaders in oil spill response science, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is grateful for each oil spill which does not take place, which was fortunately the case on July 24, 2014 in Seattle, Washington, near our west coast office. A train passing through the city ran off the tracks, derailing three of its 100 tank cars carrying Bakken crude oil from North Dakota to a refinery in the port town of Anacortes, Washington. No oil spilled or ignited in the accident.

However, that was not the case in five high-profile oil train derailments and explosions in the last year, occurring in places such as Casselton, North Dakota, when a train carrying grain derailed into an oil train, causing several oil tank cars to explode in December 2013.

Oil production continues to grow in North America, in large part due to new extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) opening up massive new oil fields in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana. The Bakken region lacks the capacity to transport this increased oil production by the most common methods: pipeline or tanker. Instead, railroads are filling this gap, with the number of tank cars carrying crude oil in the United States rising more than 4,000 percent between 2009 (9,500 carloads) and 2013 (407,761).

Just a day before this derailment, Seattle City Council signed a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, urging him to issue an emergency stop to shipping Bakken crude oil in older model tank train cars (DOT-111), which are considered less safe for shipping flammable materials. (However, some of the proposed safer tank car models have also been involved in oil train explosions.) According to the Council’s press release, “BNSF Railway reports moving 8-13 oil trains per week through Seattle, all containing 1,000,000 or more gallons of Bakken crude.” The same day as the Council’s letter, the Department of Transportation proposed rules to phase out the older DOT-111 model train cars for carrying flammable materials, including Bakken crude, over a two-year period.

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is examining these changing dynamics in the way oil is moved around the country, and we recently partnered with the University of Washington to research this issue. These changes have implications for how we prepare our scientific toolbox for responding to oil spills, in order to protect responders, the public, and the environment.

The fireball that followed the derailment and explosion of two trains, one carrying Bakken crude oil, on December 30, 2013, outside Casselton, N.D.

The fireball that followed the derailment and explosion of two trains, one carrying Bakken crude oil, on December 30, 2013, outside Casselton, N.D. (U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)

For example, based on our knowledge of oil chemistry, we make recommendations to responders about potential risks during spill cleanup along coasts and waterways. We need to know whether a particular type of oil, such as Bakken crude, will easily ignite and pose a danger of fire or explosion, and whether chemical components of the oil will dissolve into the water, potentially damaging sensitive fish populations.

Our office responded to a spill of Bakken crude oil earlier this year on the Mississippi River. On February 22, 2014, the barge E2MS 303 carrying 25,000 barrels of Bakken crude collided with a towboat 154 miles north of the river’s mouth. A tank of oil broke open, spilling approximately 31,500 gallons (750 barrels) of its contents into this busy waterway, closing it down for several days. NOAA provided scientific support to the response, for example, by having our modeling team estimate the projected path of the spilled oil.

Barge leaking oil on a river.

Barge E2MS 303 leaking 750 barrels of Bakken crude oil into the lower Mississippi River on February 22, 2014. (U.S. Coast Guard)

We also worked with our partners at Louisiana State University to analyze samples of the Bakken crude oil. We found the oil to have a low viscosity (flows easily) and to be highly volatile, meaning it readily changes from liquid to gas at moderate temperatures. It also contains a high concentration of the toxic components known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that easily dissolve into the water column. For more information about NOAA’s involvement in this incident, visit IncidentNews.


Leave a comment

You Say Collision, I Say Allision; Let’s Sort the Whole Thing Out

Despite improved navigation aids, including charts and Global Positioning Systems (GPS), ships still have accidents in our nation’s waterways, and I regularly review notification reports of these accidents from the National Response Center. Sometimes I need to consult the old nautical dictionary I inherited from my grandfather (a lawyer and U.S. Navy captain) to figure out what they mean.

Nautical terms and marine salvage books.

Keeping it all straight. (NOAA)

The U.S. Coast Guard investigates ship accidents, but they use the terms “marine casualty or accident” interchangeably [PDF]. Mariners are required to report any occurrence involving a vessel that results in:

  • Grounding
  • Stranding
  • Foundering
  • Flooding
  • Collision
  • Allision
  • Explosion
  • Fire
  • Reduction or loss of a vessel’s electrical power, propulsion, or steering capabilities
  • Failures or occurrences, regardless of cause, which impair any aspect of a vessel’s operation, components, or cargo
  • Any other circumstance that might affect or impair a vessel’s seaworthiness, efficiency, or fitness for service or route
  • Any incident involving significant harm to the environment

Some of those terms are pretty straightforward, but what is the difference between grounding and stranding? Or foundering and flooding? And my favorite, collision and allision?

Here is my basic understanding of these terms, but I am sure that some of these could fill an admiralty law textbook.

Groundings and strandings are probably the most common types of marine casualties. A grounding is when a ship strikes the seabed, while a stranding is when the ship then remains there for some length of time. Both can damage a vessel and result in oil spills depending on the ocean bottom type (rocky, sandy, muddy?), sea conditions, and severity of the event (is the ship a little scraped or did it break open?).

Flooding means taking on excessive water in one or more of the spaces on a ship (e.g., the engine room), while foundering is basically taking on water to the point where the vessel becomes unstable and begins to sink or capsize. Note that “foundering” is different than “floundering,” which is to struggle or move aimlessly.

And collision and allision … These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but technically, a collision is when two vessels strike each other, while an allision occurs when a vessel strikes a stationary object, such as a bridge or dock.

Close up of large damaged ship with Coast Guard boat.

A U.S. Coast Guard boat approaches the gash in the side of the M/V Cosco Busan after it allided (rather than collided) with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007, releasing 53,000 gallons of bunker oil into San Francisco Bay. (U.S. Coast Guard)

No matter the proper terminology, all of these incidents can result in spills, keeping us pollution responders on our toes because of the potential impacts to coasts, marine life, and habitats such as coral reefs and seagrass beds. But understanding these various nautical terms helps us understand the circumstances we’re dealing with in an emergency and better adapt our science-based recommendations as a result. And as my grandfather used to say, a collision at sea can ruin your entire day …


Leave a comment

In a Louisiana Marsh, an Uncommon Opportunity to Learn about Burning Oil

This is a post by LTJG Kyle Jellison, NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator.

“Every day is a new adventure.” I came to believe this phrase while sailing on the high seas, but it proves true as a NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator as well. There have been many adventures in my time working in the Gulf of Mexico doing emergency response for oil spills and hazardous materials releases.

The most recent oil spill—a pipeline leak in a Louisiana marsh—didn’t seem out of the ordinary, that is, until the Unified Command in charge of the response turned to alternative approaches to quicken and improve the effectiveness of the cleanup.

The Spill and Our Options

On May 28, 2014 a plane hired by Texas Petroleum Investment Company was performing a routine aerial survey of their inland oilfield and noticed a slight oil sheen and a dead clump of roseau cane (phragmites). This sparked further investigation and the discovery of 100 barrels (4,200 gallons) of crude oil, which had leaked out of a breach in their pipeline passing through the Delta National Wildlife Refuge, outside of Venice, Louisiana. Pipelines like this one are routinely inspected, but as they age the potential for corrosion and spills increases.

Roseau cane is a tall, woody plant, similar to bamboo, reaching heights of up to 20 feet. The stalks grow very close together and in water depths between two and 30 inches. This creates a complex situation which is very hard to clean oil out from.

The least invasive method for oil cleanup is to flush out the oil with high volumes of water at low pressure, but this is a long process with low amounts of oil recovered each day. Another common practice is to flush with water while cutting lanes into the vegetation, creating pathways for the oil to migrate along for recovery. Though more aggressive and with higher amounts of oil recovered each day, it still would likely take many weeks or months to clean up this particular oil spill using this method.

An Unconventional Solution

What about doing a controlled burn of the oil where it is, a strategy known as in situ burning? It removes a large amount of oil in a matter of days, and when performed properly, in situ burning can help marsh vegetation recover in five years or less for more than 75 percent of cases in one study.

In situ burning, Latin for burning in place, is considered an “alternative” response technology, rather than part of the regular suite of cleanup options, and is only employed under the right set of circumstances. More information about this can be found in the NOAA report “Oil Spills in Marshes,” which details research and guidelines for in situ burning in chapter 3, Response.

To help determine if burning was appropriate in this case, the Unified Command brought in the NOAA Scientific Support Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Management Team, U.S. Coast Guard Gulf Strike Team, and T&T Marine Firefighting and Salvage. After considering the situation, gaining consensus, developing a burn plan, and earning the support of Regional Response Team 6, it was time to light it up!

Where There’s Smoke …

On June 3, 2014, we burned the oil for two hours, with flames reaching 40 feet. The next day, we burned for another six hours. There was a lot of oil to be burned, with pockets of oil spread throughout three acres of impacted marsh. The fire remained contained to the area where enough oil was present to support the burn, extinguishing once it reached the edge of the oiled marsh.

We have an ongoing study to evaluate the impacts of the burn, and preliminary results indicate that there was minimal collateral damage. More than 70 percent of the oil was burned over the two-day period. We considered this to be a very successful controlled burn. The much less remaining oil will be recovered by mechanical methods within a few weeks, instead of months.

Texas Petroleum Investment Company, as the responsible party in this case, will be responsible for all costs incurred for this incident, including cleanup and monitoring (and restoration, if necessary).

To help ensure we learn something from this incident, an assessment team entered the impacted marsh before the burns to collect oil, water, and sediment samples. The team also collected samples after each day of burning and returned a week after the burn to assess the condition of the vegetation and collect samples. This multi-agency team will return to the site in August for more sampling and monitoring.

The long-term monitoring and sampling project is being managed by NOAA, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Texas Petroleum Investment Company. We are conducting the study under the umbrella of the Response Science and Technology Subcommittee of the New Orleans Area Committee, a standing body of response scientists. Jeff Dauzat of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and I co-chair this subcommittee and are looking forward to the results of this ongoing scientific project.

Was burning the right move? The science will speak for itself in time.

For more information:

Man standing in a marsh with smoke in the background.LT Kyle Jellison is a Scientific Support Coordinator for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. He supports Federal On-Scene Coordinators throughout the Gulf of Mexico by providing mission critical scientific information for response and planning to oil and hazardous material releases.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 429 other followers