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

Podcast: What Was It Like Responding in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

On today’s episode of Diving Deeper, we remember one of the most devastating natural disasters to hit U.S. shores: Hurricane Katrina, which made landfall 10 years ago this week.

What was it like working in New Orleans and the surrounding area in the wake of such a storm?

In this podcast, we talk with Charlie Henry and Dave Wesley, two pollution responders from NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration who were working in the area in the aftermath of not just one massive hurricane, but two, as Hurricane Rita swept across the Gulf Coast just a few short weeks later.

Hear about their experiences responding to these storms, find out which memories stand out the most for them, and reflect on the toll of working in a disaster zone:

Learn more about our work after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, explore the progress made in the 10 years since, and see photos of the destruction these storms left across the heavily industrialized coast of the Gulf of Mexico.


Leave a comment

10 Years after Being Hit by Hurricane Katrina, Seeing an Oiled Marsh at the Center of an Experiment in Oil Cleanup

This is a post by Vicki Loe and Amy Merten of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Oil tank damaged during Hurricane Katrina.

During Hurricane Katrina in 2005, one of the Chevron oil terminal’s storage tanks was severely damaged on top, possibly after being hit by something extremely large carried by the storm waters. (NOAA)

On August 29, 2005, not far from Chevron Pipe Line Company’s oil terminal in Buras, Louisiana, Hurricane Katrina made landfall. Knowing the storm was approaching, residents left the area, and Chevron shut down the crude oil terminal, evacuating all personnel.

The massive storm’s 144 mile per hour winds, 18 foot storm tide, and waves likely twice the height of the surge put the terminal under water. At some point during the storm, one of the terminal’s storage tanks was severely damaged on top, possibly after being hit by something extremely large carried by the storm waters. The tank released crude oil into an adjacent retention pond designed to catch leaking oil, which it did successfully.

However, just a few short weeks later, Hurricane Rita hit the same part of the Gulf and the same oil terminal. Much of the spilled oil was still being contained on the retention pond’s surface, and this second hurricane washed the oil into a nearby marsh.

A Double Impact

Built in 1963, Chevron’s facility in Buras is one of the largest crude oil distribution centers in the world and is located on a natural levee on the east bank of the Mississippi River. These back-to-back hurricanes destroyed infrastructure at the terminal as well as in the communities surrounding it. Helicopter was the only way to access the area in the weeks that followed.

Chevron wildlife biologist and environmental engineer Jim Myers witnessed the storms’ aftermath at the terminal. He described trees stripped of leaves, and mud and debris strewn everywhere, including power lines. Dead livestock were found lying on the terminal’s dock. And black oil was trapped in the marsh’s thick mesh of sedge and grass. This particular marsh is part of a large and valuable ecosystem where saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico and freshwater from the Mississippi River come together.

Even after using boom and skimmers to remove some oil, an estimated 4,000 gallons of oil remained in the 50 acre marsh on the back side of the terminal. Delicate and unstable, marshes are notoriously difficult places to deal with oil. The chaos of two hurricanes only complicated the situation.

Decision Time

Once the terminal’s substantial cleanup and repair activities began, an environmental team was assembled to consider options for dealing with the oiled marsh. Dr. Amy Merten and others from NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, Jim Myers and others from Chevron, and personnel from the U.S. Coast Guard, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rounded out this team.

The team considered several options for treating the marsh, but one leapt to the top of the list: burning off the oil, a procedure known as in situ burn. In situ burning was the best option for several reasons: the density and amount of remaining oil, remote location, weather conditions, absence of normal wildlife populations after the storms, and the fact that the marsh was bound on three sides by canals, creating barriers for the fire. Also, for hundreds of years, the area had seen both natural burns (due to lightning strikes) and prescribed burns, with good results.

Yet this recommendation met some initial resistance. In situ burning was a more familiar practice for removing oil from the open ocean than from marshes, though its use in marshes had been well-reviewed in scientific studies. Still, in the midst of a hectic and widespread response following two hurricanes, burning oil out of marshes seemed like a potentially risky move at the time.

Furthermore, some responders working elsewhere followed conventional wisdom that the oil had been exposed to weathering processes for too long to burn successfully. However, the oil was so thick on the water’s surface and so protected from the elements by vegetation that the month-old oil behaved like freshly spilled oil, meaning it still contained enough of the right compounds to burn. The environmental team tested the oil to demonstrate it would burn before bringing the idea to those in charge of the post-hurricane pollution cleanup, the Unified Command.

Burn Notice

Left: Burning marsh. Right: Same view of green marsh 10 years later.

Similar views of the same marsh where the 2005 oil spill and subsequent burn occurred after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The view on the right is from August of 2015. (NOAA)

Fortunately, the leader of the Unified Command approved the carefully crafted plan to burn the oiled marsh. The burns took place on October 12 and 13, 2005, a month and a half after the spill. After dividing and cutting the affected marsh into a grid of six plots, responders burned two areas each day, leaving two plots unburned since they were negligibly oiled and did not have the right conditions to burn.

Lit with propane torches, the fire on the first day was dramatic, generating dense black smoke and burning for three hours, the result of burning the part of the marsh closest to the terminal, where the oil was thickest. The second fire generated less smoke but burned longer, for about four and half hours. Afterward, you could see how the burn’s footprint matched where different levels of oil had been.

Observations after the fact assured the environmental team that most (more than 90 percent) of the oil had been burned in the four treated areas. Small pockets of unburned oil were collected with sorbent pads, and any residual oil was left to degrade naturally. Within 24 hours of burning, traces of regrowth were visible in the marsh, and in less than a month, sedge grasses had grown to a height of one to two feet, according to Myers.

A Marsh Reborn

Healthy lush marsh vegetation at water's edge.

The marsh that was oiled after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and subsequently burned to remove the oil. This is how it looked in August of 2015, showing an abundance of diverse vegetation. (NOAA)

Ten years later, in August of 2015, I was curious to see how the marsh had come back. I had seen many photos of during and after the burn, and subsequent reports were that the endeavor had been a great success.

Knowing I would be in the New Orleans area on vacation, I was pleased to learn that Jim Myers would be willing to give me a tour of this marsh. I met him at the ferry dock to cross to the east side of the Mississippi River and the Chevron terminal.

We looked out over the marsh from an elevated platform behind the giant oil storage tanks. All you could see were lush grasses, clumps of low trees, and birds, birds, birds. Their calls were nonstop. We saw cattails uprooted next to flattened paths leading to the water’s edge, evidence of alligators creating trails from the water to areas for basking in the sun and of cows, muskrats, and feral hogs feeding on the cattails’ roots.

The water level was high, so rather than hike through the marsh, we traveled the circumference in a flat-bottomed boat. We saw many species of birds, as well as dragonflies, freely roaming cows, fish, and an alligator.

Today, the marsh is flourishing. I could see no difference between the areas that were oiled and burned 10 years ago and nearby areas that were untouched. In fact, monitoring following the burn [PDF] found that the marsh showed recovery across a number of measures within nine months.

This marsh represents one small part of a system of wetlands that has historically provided a buffer against the high waters of past storms. Since the 1840s, when it was settled, Buras, Louisiana, has survived being hit by at least five major hurricanes. But Hurricane Katrina was different.

Gradually, marshes across the northern Gulf of Mexico have been disappearing, enabling Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters to overwhelm areas that have weathered previous storms. Ensuring existing marshes remain healthy will be one part of a good defense strategy against the next big hurricane. Given the successful recovery of this marsh after both an oil spill and in situ burn, we know that this technique will help prevent the further degradation of marshes in the Gulf.

See more photos of the damaged tank, the controlled burn to remove the oil, and the recovered marsh 10 years later.

Find more information about the involvement of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Amy Merten with kids from Kivalina, Alaska.Amy Merten is the Spatial Data Branch Chief in NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. Amy developed the concept for the online mapping tool ERMA (Environmental Response Mapping Application). ERMA was developed in collaboration with the University of New Hampshire. She expanded the ERMA team at NOAA to fill response and natural resource trustee responsibilities during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Amy oversees data management of the resulting oil spill damage assessment. She received her doctorate and master’s degrees from the University of Maryland.


Leave a comment

It Took More Than the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill to Pass the Historic Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Aerial view of Exxon Valdez tanker with boom and oil on water.

While the tanker Exxon Valdez spilled nearly 11 million gallons of oil into Alaskan waters, a trifecta of other sizable oil spills followed on its heels. These spills helped pave the way for passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which would vastly improve oil spill prevention, response, and restoration. (NOAA)

If you, like many, believe oil shouldn’t just be spilled without consequence into the ocean, then you, like us, should be grateful for a very important U.S. law known as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Congress passed this legislation and President George H.W. Bush signed it into law 25 years ago on August 18, 1990, which was the summer after the tanker Exxon Valdez hit ground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. On March 24, 1989, this tanker unleashed almost 11 million gallons of oil into relatively pristine Alaskan waters.

The powerful images from this huge oil spill—streams of dark oil spreading over the water, birds and sea otters coated in oil, workers in shiny plastic suits trying to clean the rocky coastline—both shocked and galvanized the nation. They ultimately motivated the 101st Congress to investigate the causes of recent oil spills, develop guidelines to prevent and clean up pollution, and pass this valuable legislation.

Yet that monumental spill didn’t fully drive home just how inadequate the patchwork of existing federal, state, and local laws were at addressing oil spill prevention, cleanup, liability, and restoration. Nearly a year and a half passed between the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act. What happened in the mean time?

The summer of 1989 experienced a trifecta of oil spills that drained any resources left from the ongoing spill response in Alaska. In rapid succession and over the course of less than 24 hours, three other oil tankers poured their cargo into U.S. coastal waters. Between June 23 and 24, the T/V World Prodigy spilled 290,000 gallons of oil in Newport, Rhode Island; the T/V Presidente Rivera emptied 307,000 gallons of oil into the Delaware River; and the T/V Rachel B hit Tank Barge 2514, releasing 239,000 gallons of oil into Texas’s Houston Ship Channel.

But these were far from the only oil spills plaguing U.S. waters during that time. Between the summers of 1989 and 1990, a series of ship collisions, groundings, and pipeline leaks spilled an additional 8 million gallons along the United States coastline. And that doesn’t even include another million gallons of thick fuel oil released from a shore-side facility in the U.S. Virgin Islands after it was damaged by Hurricane Hugo.

Birds killed as a result of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill.

Thanks to the Oil Pollution Act, federal and state agencies can more easily evaluate the full environmental impacts of oil spills — and then enact restoration to make up for that harm. (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council)

Can you imagine—or perhaps remember—sitting at home watching the news and hearing again and again about yet another oil spill? And wondering what the government was going to do about it? Fortunately, in August of 1990, Congress voted unanimously to pass the Oil Pollution Act, which promised—and has largely delivered—significantly improved measures to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil spills in U.S. waters.

Now, 25 years later, the shipping industry has undergone a makeover in oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. A couple examples include the phasing out of tankers with easily punctured single hulls and new regulations for driving tankers that require the use of knowledgeable pilots, maneuverable tug escorts, and an appropriate number of people on the ship’s bridge during transit.

Oil spill response research also received a boost thanks to the Oil Pollution Act, which reopened a national research facility dedicated to this topic and shuttered just before the Exxon Valdez spill.

But perhaps one of the most important elements of this law required those responsible for oil spills to foot the bill for both cleaning up the oil and for economic and natural resource damages resulting from it.

This provision also requires oil companies to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a fund theoretically created by Congress in 1986 but not given the necessary authorization until the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This fund helps the U.S. Coast Guard—and indirectly, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration—pay for the upfront costs of responding to marine and coastal accidents that threaten to release hazardous materials such as oil and also of assessing the potential environmental and cultural impacts (and implementing restoration to make up for them).

This week we’re saying thank you to the Oil Pollution Act by highlighting some of its successes in restoring the environment after oil spills. You can join us on social media using the hashtag #Thanks2OilPollutionAct.


Leave a comment

How Is an Oil Spill in a River Different Than One in the Ocean?

Boat with boom next to oil mixed with river bank vegetation.

The often complex, vegetated banks of rivers can complicate cleaning up oil spills. (NOAA)

Liquid asphalt in the Ohio River. Slurry oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Diesel in an Alaskan stream. Each of these oil spills was very different from each other, partly because they involved very different types of oils.

But even if the same type of oil were spilled in each case, the results would be just as distinct because of where they occurred—one in a large inland river, one in the open ocean, and one in a small coastal creek.

In many cases, oil tends to float. But just because an oil floats in the saltwater of the Atlantic Ocean doesn’t mean it will float in the constantly moving freshwater of the Mississippi River.

But why does that happen? And what else can we expect to be different when oil spills into a river and not the ocean?

Don’t Be Dense … Blame Density

To answer the first question: When oil floats, it is generally because the oil is less dense than the water it was spilled into. The more salt is dissolved in water, the greater the water’s density. This means that saltwater is denser than freshwater. Very light oils, such as diesel, have low densities and would float in both the salty ocean and freshwater rivers.

However, very heavy oils may sink in a river (but perhaps not on the ocean), which is what happened when an Enbridge pipeline carrying a diluted form of oil from oil sands (tar sands) leaked into Michigan’s flooded Kalamazoo River in 2010. The lighter components of the oil quickly evaporated into the air, leaving the heavier components to drift in the water column and sink to the river bottom. That created a whole slew of new challenges as responders tried new methods of first finding and then cleaning up the difficult-to-access oil.

Going with the Flow

In rivers, going with the flow usually means going downstream. Except when it doesn’t. When might a river’s currents carry spilled oil upstream?

At the mouth of a river, where it meets the ocean, a large incoming tide can enter the river and overwhelm the normal downstream currents. That could potentially carry oil floating on the surface back upstream.

In open areas, such as on the ocean surface, both winds and currents have the potential to direct where spilled oil goes. And along most coasts, wind is what brings spilled oil onto shore.

In rivers, however, the downstream currents usually dominate the overall movement of oil while wind direction often determines which side of the river oil ends up on.

Locks and Other Blocks

Unlike the ocean, rivers sometimes feature structures such as dams, locks, and other barriers that block or slow down the free flow of water. During an oil spill on a river, these structures can also slow down the movement of oil.

That’s a helpful feature for responders who are trying to catch up to and clean up that oil. Frequently, dams and locks cause oil to pool up on the surface next to them. Some of the tools responders use to collect oil from these areas include skimmers, which are devices that remove thin layers of oil from the surface, and sorbent pads and booms, which are large squares and long tubes of special material that absorb oil but not water.

In fact, the banks of the river can constrain spilled oil as well. Because the oil can’t spread as far or thin as in open water, oil slicks can be thicker on rivers, and recovery efforts can be more effective.

One exception is the case of flow-over dams, known as weirs. The water passing over weirs can be very turbulent, causing oil to disperse into the water column. If it is very light oil and there’s not very much, that oil tends not to resurface and form another slick. But sheens may resurface with heavier oils that might be broken up going over a weir but later resurface as the water it is traveling in becomes calmer downstream.

Vegging Out

Oil rings on trees next to a river with boom.

Flooding on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan during the Enbridge pipeline oil spill left a ring of oil around trees and other vegetation after the river returned to its normal level. (NOAA)

Often, plants grow in rivers and line their banks, whereas many parts of the coast are open sandy or rocky beaches, which tend to be easier to clean oil off of than vegetation. (Salt marshes and mangroves being notable oceanic exceptions.) If oil gets past booms, the long floating barriers responders use to prevent the spread of oil, and leaves a coating on plants, then plant cleanup options generally include cutting, burning, treating with chemical shoreline cleaners, or flushing vegetation with low-pressure water.

Plant life actually became an issue during the oil sands spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. Because this river was flooded at the time of the spill and later returned to its normal level, oil on the river surface actually became stranded in tree branches along the riverbanks.

Muddying the Waters

Another issue for oil spills in rivers is sediment. Rivers often carry a lot of sediment in their currents. (How do you think the Mississippi got its nickname “Big Muddy”?) That means when oil droplets drift into the water column of a river, the sediment has the potential to stick to the oil droplets. Eventually (depending on how strong-flowing and full of sediment a river is) some of the oil-sediment combination may settle out to the bottom of the river, usually near the river mouth as the water slows down and reaches the ocean.

One notable example is related to an oil spill that happened on the Mississippi River in New Orleans in 2008. The tanker Tintomara collided with Barge DM932, ripping it in half and releasing all of the heavy fuel oil it was carrying. Downstream of where the responders were cleaning up oil, the Army Corps of Engineers was dredging the sediments that build up at the mouth of the Mississippi and an oily sheen appeared in the collected sediment.

Responders suspected the oil from Barge DM932 had mixed with the river sediment and fell to the bottom further downstream as the river neared the Gulf of Mexico.

Learn more about oil spills in rivers at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/resources/oil-spills-rivers.html.


Leave a comment

Resilience Starts with Being Ready: Better Preparing Our Coasts to Cope with Environmental Disasters

This is a post by Kate Clark, Acting Chief of Staff with NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

If your house were burning down, who would you want to respond? The local firefighters, armed with hoses and broad training in first aid, firefighting, and crowd management? Or would your panicked neighbors running back and forth with five-gallon buckets of water suffice?

Presumably, everyone would choose the trained firefighters. Why?

Well, because they know what they are doing! People who know what they are doing instill confidence and reduce panic—even in the worst situations. By being prepared for an emergency, firefighters and other responders can act quickly and efficiently, reducing injuries to people and damage to property.

People who have considered the range of risks for any given emergency—from a house fire to a hurricane—and have formed plans to deal with those risks are more likely to have access to the right equipment, tools, and information. When disaster strikes, they are ready and able to respond immediately, moving more quickly from response to recovery, each crucial parts of the resilience continuum. If they prepared well, then the impacts to the community may not be as severe, creating an opportunity to bounce back even faster.

Having the right training and plans for dealing with disasters helps individuals, communities, economies, and natural resources better absorb the shock of an emergency. That translates to shorter recovery times and increased resilience.

This shock absorption concept applies to everything from human health to international emergency response to coastal disasters.

For example, the Department of Defense recognizes that building a culture of resilience for soldiers depends on early intervention. For them, that means using early education and training [PDF] to ensure that troops are “mission ready.” Presumably, the more “mission ready” a soldier is before going off to war, the less recovery will be needed, or the smoother that process will be, when a soldier returns from combat.

Similarly, the international humanitarian response community has noted that “resilience itself is not achievable without the capacity to absorb shocks, and it is this capacity that emergency preparedness helps to provide” (Harris, 2013 [PDF]).

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration recognizes the importance of training and education for preparing local responders to respond effectively to coastal disasters, from oil spills caused by hurricanes to severe influxes of marine debris due to flooding.

Coastline of Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve in southern California.

Within NOAA, our office is uniquely qualified to provide critical science coordination and advice to the U.S. Coast Guard, FEMA, and other response agencies focused on coastal disaster operations. The result helps optimize the effectiveness of a response and cushion the blow to an affected community, its economy, and its natural resources, helping coasts bounce back to health even more quickly. (NOAA)

In fiscal year 2014 alone, we trained 2,388 emergency responders in oil spill response and planning. With more coastal responders becoming more knowledgeable in how oil and chemicals behave in the environment, more parts of the coast will become better protected against a disaster’s worst effects. In addition to trainings, we are involved in designing and carrying out exercises that simulate an emergency response to a coastal disaster, such as an oil spill, hurricane, or tsunami.

Furthermore, we are always working to collect environmental data in our online environmental response mapping tool, ERMA, and identify sensitive shorelines, habitats, and species before any disaster hits. This doesn’t just help create advance plans for how to respond—including guidance on which areas should receive priority for protection or response—but also helps quickly generate a common picture of the situation and response in the early stages of an environmental disaster response.

After the initial response, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is well-positioned to conduct rapid assessments of impacts to natural resources. These assessments can direct efforts to clean up and restore, for example, an oiled wetland, reducing the long-term impact and expediting recovery for the plants and animals that live there.

Within NOAA, our office is uniquely qualified to provide critical science coordination and advice to the U.S. Coast Guard, FEMA, and other response agencies focused on coastal disaster operations. Our years of experience and scientific expertise enable us to complement their trainings on emergency response operations with time-critical environmental science considerations. The result helps optimize the effectiveness of a response and cushion the blow to an affected community, its economy, and its natural resources. Our popular Science of Oil Spills class, held several times a year around the nation, is just one such example.

Additionally, we are working with coastal states to develop response plans for marine debris following disasters, to educate the public on how we evaluate the environmental impacts of and determine restoration needs after oil and chemical spills, and to develop publicly available tools that aggregate and display essential information needed to make critical response decisions during environmental disasters.

You can learn more about our efforts to improve resilience through readiness at response.restoration.noaa.gov.

Kate Clark.Kate Clark is the Acting Chief of Staff for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. For nearly 12 years she has responded to and conducted damage assessment for numerous environmental pollution events for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. She has also managed NOAA’s Arctic policy portfolio and served as a senior analyst to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.


2 Comments

From Board Games to Cookbooks, How the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Infiltrated Pop Culture

Big oil spills, those of the magnitude which happen only once every few decades, often leave a legacy of sorts.

In the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which dumped roughly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, that legacy took many forms. Legislative, ecological, and even cultural—yes, that extends to pop culture too.

In short order, the Exxon Valdez oil spill prompted monumental changes in the laws governing maritime shipping and oil spill response. In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, empowering NOAA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to better respond to and plan for spills and setting up a trust fund (paid for by an oil tax) to help with cleanup operations.

Furthermore, this important legislation mandated that oil tankers with single hulls (like the easily punctured Exxon Valdez) would no longer be permitted to operate in U.S. waters, instead requiring double-hull vessels to carry oil. (However, the full phaseout of single-hull tankers would take decades.)

More than 25 years later, researchers are still uncovering this spill’s ecological legacy, its stamp on the natural world, and learning what happens when oil interacts with that world. The spill affected some two dozen species and habitats, some of which have not yet recovered.

Of course, the Exxon Valdez oil spill also left a complicated cultural legacy, imparting health, social, psychological, and economic impacts on the people living and working in the area, particularly those whose livelihoods are closely tied to the ocean. Commercial fishers, the recreation and tourism industry, and more than a dozen predominantly Alaskan Native communities relying on fish, waterfowl, and other natural resources for subsistence were dramatically affected by the oil spill.

Yet the cultural echoes of this environmental disaster spread beyond Alaska. It inspired a second grader to write an impassioned letter about the plight of otters threatened by the spill to the Alaska director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. After working at this spill, it inspired one NOAA marine biologist to begin collecting some of the strange pieces of memorabilia related to the incident, from a piece of the ill-fated tanker to an Exxon safety calendar featuring the ship in the very month it would run aground.

These echoes even managed to permeate the ranks of pop culture. Take a look at these five ways that the Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown up in places most oil spills just don’t go:

A view of part of the board game “On the Rocks: The Great Alaska Oil Spill” with a map of Prince William Sound.

The game “On the Rocks: The Great Alaska Oil Spill” challenges players to clean all 200 miles of shoreline oiled by the Exxon Valdez — and do so with limits on time and money. (Credit: Alaska Resources Library and Information Services, ARLIS)

  1. A board game. Local bartender Richard Lynn of Valdez, Alaska, created the game “On the Rocks: The Great Alaska Oil Spill” after working part-time to clean up the spill. Each player navigates through the game using an authentic bit of rock from Prince William Sound. The goal was to be the first player to scrub all 200 miles of oily shore. The catch was that you only had about 6 months and $250 million in play money to accomplish this. You could pick up your own copy of the game for $16.69, which was the hourly rate Exxon’s contracted workers earned while cleaning up the spill.
  2. A movie. Dead Ahead: the Exxon Valdez Disaster was the 1992 made-for-TV movie that dramatized the events of the oil spill and ensuing cleanup. This film even featured some well-known actors, including John Heard as Alaska inspector Dan Lawn and Christopher Lloyd as Exxon Shipping Company President Frank Iarossi.
  3. A cookbook. Fortunately, the recipes in The Two Billion Dollar Cookbook don’t feature dishes like “oiled herring” or “otter on the rocks.” Instead, this 300 page cookbook compiled by Exxon Valdez cleanup workers and their friends and families highlights meals more along the lines of barbeque sandwich mix and steak tartare, in addition to being peppered with personal stories from its contributors. Proceeds from the sale of this cookbook benefit a homeless shelter and food bank based in Anchorage, Alaska. Why two billion dollars? That was how much Exxon had shelled out for responding to the spill when the cookbook hit the presses.
  4. A play. Two plays, in fact. Dick Reichman, resident of Valdez, Alaska, during the momentous spill, has twice written and directed plays that examined this disaster—and the high emotions that came with it—through the theatrical lens. His first play, written in 1992 and dubbed “The official Valdez oil spill melodrama,” was Tanker on the Rocks: or the Great Alaskan Bad Friday Fish-Spill of ’89. His second, The Big One: a Chronicle of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, was received with some acclaim during its 2009 run in Anchorage. You can watch a short video of the actors and director preparing for the 2009 performance (warning: some explicit language).
  5. Children’s books, novels, and poetry. From a children’s book about a young girl rescuing an oiled baby seal to a novel written by the tugboat captain who towed the Exxon Valdez out of Prince William Sound, there exists a bounty of literature exploring the many human and environmental themes of this oil spill. As you peruse them, keep in mind this NOAA scientist’s recommendations for evaluating what you’re reading about oil spills, especially when doing so with kids.

Have you seen other examples of the Exxon Valdez or perhaps, more recently, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill showing up in pop culture?

A special thanks to the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS) for compiling an excellent list of Exxon Valdez related information [PDF] and for helping procure an image of the rare “On the Rocks” board game.


Leave a comment

For Oil and Chemical Spills, a New NOAA Tool to Help Predict Pollution’s Fate and Effects

Dead crab on a beach with oily water and debris.

NOAA has released the software program CAFE to help responders dealing with pollution answer two important questions: What’s going to happen to the contaminant released and what, if any, species will be harmed by it? (Beckye Stanton, California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Accidents happen. Sometimes, they happen at places with big consequences, such as at a fertilizer factory that uses the chemical ammonia as an active ingredient.

An accident in a place like that can lead to situations in which thousands of gallons of this chemical could, for example, be released into a drainage ditch leading to a nearby salt marsh.

When oil or chemicals are released into the environment like this, responders dealing with the pollution are often trying to answer two important questions: What’s going to happen to the contaminant released and what, if any, species will be harmed by it?

To help responders answer these questions, NOAA has just released to the public a new software program known as CAFE.

The Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects Database

NOAA’s Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects (CAFE) database allows anyone to determine the fate and toxicological effects of thousands of chemicals, oils, and dispersants when released into fresh or saltwater environments. CAFE has two major components: the Fate module, which predicts how a contaminant will behave in the environment, and the Effects module, which determines the chemical’s potential toxicity to different species.

In the Fate module, CAFE contains data, such as chemical properties, useful in understanding and predicting chemical behavior in aquatic environments.

For example, in our ammonia-in-water scenario, CAFE’s chemical property data would tell us that ammonia has a low volatilization rate (it doesn’t readily change in form from liquid or solid to gas) and is very soluble in water. That means if spilled into a body of water, ammonia would dissolve in the water and stay there.

In the Effects module, CAFE contains data about the acute toxicity—negative, short-term impacts from short-term exposure—of different chemicals. This module plots that data on graphs known as “Species Sensitivity Distributions.” These graphs show a curved line ranking the relative sensitivity of individual species of concern, from the most sensitive to the least sensitive, to a particular chemical over a given period of exposure (ranging from 24 to 96 hours).

Graph showing the range in sensitivity of aquatic species to 48 hour exposure to ammonia.

The reactions of different species to chemicals can vary widely. The CAFE database produces these species sensitivity graphs showing the range in sensitivity of select aquatic species to certain chemicals after a given length of exposure. (NOAA)

Again turning to our scenario of an ammonia spill in a salt marsh, the graph here shows how a range of aquatic species, which the user selects from the program, would be affected by a 48 hour exposure to ammonia. The Taiwan abalone (a type of aquatic snail) is the most sensitive species because many of these snails would be affected at lower concentrations of ammonia, falling into the orange, highly toxic zone.

On the other hand, the brine shrimp is the least sensitive of this group because these shrimp would have to be exposed to much higher concentrations of ammonia to be affected. Thus the brine shrimp falls into the green, practically nontoxic zone. However, most of the data in this graph seem to fall into the moderately or slightly toxic zones, meaning that ammonia is a toxic chemical of concern.

Using these data from CAFE, you then assess the potential impact of the ammonia spill to the aquatic environment.

Download the Software

You can download version 1.1 of the Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects (CAFE) database from NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration website at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cafe.

Adding to our collection of spill response resources, CAFE will serve as a one-stop, rapid response tool to aid spill responders in their assessment of environmental impacts from chemical and oil spills.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 607 other followers