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

Accidents on a Flooded Lower Mississippi River Keep NOAA Busy with a Rash of Spills

Damaged barge on the Mississippi River.

A barge carrying slurry oil being pushed by the towing vessel Amy Francis hit the Natchez-Vidalia Bridge, Jan. 21, 2016. The barge reportedly has a maximum potential of more than 1 million gallons of slurry oil on board. (U.S. Coast Guard)

This is a post by the Office of Response and Restoration’s Donna Roberts.

Did you know that oil spills occur every day in U.S. waters? Rivers bustling with ship traffic, such as the Mississippi, are no exception to this rule.

In the past few weeks, we’ve been involved with quite a few accidents involving vessels carrying oil and chemicals on the Lower Mississippi River.

These river accidents coincided with high water and swift currents. Despite safeguards for vessel traffic put in place by the U.S. Coast Guard, the river conditions resulted in ships colliding, hitting bridges and ground, and breaking away from their towing vessels. One unlucky railroad bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi, has been hit by vessels five times already this year.

Even now, the NOAA River Forecast Center reports that the Lower Mississippi is experiencing moderate flood conditions. It’s difficult to navigate a river with a tow of barges at any flow—and extremely challenging when the flow is high and fast. In spite of everyone’s best efforts, under conditions like these, accidents can and do still happen, and investigations are ongoing into the precise causes.

Luckily, most of the incidents that have occurred were relatively minor, resulted in no injuries to vessel crews, and all spills received immediate responses from state and federal agencies. Still, when oil or chemicals spill into rivers, we know that they differ from spills in the ocean or along coasts, and therefore present different challenges for spill responders.

Here are just a few of the dozen or so spills and near-spills we know of and which have been keeping our spill modelers, chemists, and Scientific Support Coordinators busy over the past few weeks.

January 21, 2016: A barge being towed by the UTV Amy Frances struck the Natchez Bridge, where Highway 84 crosses over the Lower Mississippi River between Mississippi and Louisiana, in the vicinity of Mile Marker 363. As a result, two of the barge’s tanks were damaged, spilling slurry oil, which our chemical lab confirmed was denser than water. That means this oil sinks.

In the wake of this oil spill, one of our Scientific Support Coordinators helped survey the river to detect sunken oil. Given the river’s very fast and turbulent water at the time, we think any oil released from the damaged tanks was immediately broken into small droplets and carried downstream while also sinking below the river surface. Any oil that reached the bottom was probably mixed with or buried by the sand moving downstream near the river bottom. This is because rivers that move a lot of water also move a lot of sediment.

In addition, we provided information on the expected fate and effects of the barge’s spilled slurry oil and on the animals and habitats that could be at risk.

Workers on a river edge pump oil from a damaged barge.

Response crews remove oil from the damaged MM-46 barge, Jan. 23, 2016, on the Mississippi River. Crews estimate that approximately 76,000 gallons of clarified oil mixture is still unaccounted for. Crews continue to take soundings of the damaged barge tank to determine the amount spilled while assessment teams work to locate missing product. (U.S. Coast Guard)

January 25, 2016: Just a few days later, the Coast Guard called on us for advice related to a barge containing liquid urea ammonium nitrate (liquid fertilizer), which sank south of Valewood, Mississippi, at Mile Marker 501 on the Mississippi River. Side-scan sonar indicates the barge is upside-down on the river bottom, approximately 80 feet down.

Given the position and water pressure, we believe the chemical cargo stored on the barge was likely released into the river. The chemical is heavier than water and will mix quickly into the water column. Because elevated levels of ammonia can affect aquatic life, our focus was on predicting and tracking where the chemical would go downriver and what would happen to it. Salvage efforts for the barge itself continue.

January 26, 2016: The next day, two vessel tows collided upriver of New Orleans, Louisiana, near Mile Marker 130 on the Lower Mississippi River. The collision capsized one of two barges carrying caustic soda, or sodium hydroxide. We provided the Coast Guard with an initial chemical hazard assessment for this chemical, which is a strong base. The release of a large enough quantity of sodium hydroxide could raise the pH of the water around it, posing a risk to local fish and other aquatic life nearby. The barge is secure, but righting it is difficult in the swift currents. No pollution release has been reported to date.

Science for Spills of All Kinds

During these kinds of spills, we have to be ready to provide the same round-the-clock, science-based support to the Coast Guard and other agencies as big spills like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico.

For example, if a chemical has spilled into a river, we need to know where it’s going to go, what’s going to happen to it, and what, if any, species will be harmed by it. To help answer the “where’s it going?” question, our response specialists use the spill trajectory tool, GNOME, to predict the possible route the pollutant might follow.

To better understand the pollutant and its possible effects, we use software tools such as CAMEO Chemicals to provide information about the chemical’s properties, toxicity, and behavior as it is diluted by the river water. Our Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects (CAFE) database contains information on the effects of thousands of chemicals, oils, and dispersants on aquatic life.

The Mississippi River and its floodplain are home to a diverse population of living things. On the Lower Mississippi, there may be as many as 60 separate species of mussel. To protect vulnerable species, we use our Environmental Sensitivity Index maps and data to report what animals or habitats could be at risk, particularly those that are threatened or endangered. Keeping responders and the public safe and minimizing environmental harm are two of our top priorities during any spill, no matter the size.

Donna Roberts

Donna Roberts

Donna Roberts is a writer for the Emergency Response Division of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R). Her work supports the OR&R website and the Environmental Sensitivity Index mapping program.


Leave a comment

Apply Now for NOAA’s First Class Examining the Science of Chemical Spills

People standing in a lab next to chemical testing equipment.

This three and a half day class will provide a broad, science-based approach to understanding chemical release response. (NOAA)

For years, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration has been offering our popular Science of Oil Spills classes to oil spill responders and planners. But oil isn’t the only hazardous material for which we have expertise. This March, we’ll launch our first official Science of Chemical Releases (SOCR) class to share this expertise in new ways.

This class is designed to help spill responders and planners increase their scientific understanding when preparing for and analyzing chemical spills, which could range from toluene to sulfuric acid, and when making risk-based decisions to protect public health, safety, and the environment in the event of such a release.

The three and a half day class will take place at NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center in Mobile, Alabama, from March 21–24, 2016.

We are accepting applications for this class until Friday, February 19, 2016. We will notify accepted participants by email no later than Friday, February 26.

The class is primarily intended for new and mid-level spill responders, planners, and stakeholders from all levels of government, industry, and academia.

During the class, participants will be introduced to a realistic scenario to demonstrate the use of scientific tools, resources, and knowledge to aid in response to chemical releases. The scenario will be centered on a hypothetical chemical incident involving the derailment of multiple railcars containing hazardous chemicals, resulting in a fire and release of dangerous chemicals into the environment.

Through this new training, we hope to provide a broad, science-based approach to understanding chemical release response, thereby increasing awareness and preparedness and reducing uncertainty and risk associated with this type of incident.

There is no tuition for this class. However, students are responsible for all miscellaneous expenses, including lodging, travel, and food.

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

If you have any questions or experience any problems with your application, please send us an email.

To receive updates about our activities and events, including Science of Chemical Releases or Science of Oil Spills classes, subscribe to our monthly newsletter.


Leave a comment

Alaska Updates Plan for Using Dispersants During Oil Spills

Humpback whale and seabirds at surface of Bering Sea with NOAA ship beyond.

By breaking crude oils into smaller droplets, chemical dispersants reduce the surface area of an oil slick as well as the threats to marine life at the ocean surface, such as whales and seabirds. (NOAA)

While the best way to deal with oil spills in the ocean is to prevent them in the first place, when they do happen, we need to be ready. Cleanup is difficult, and there are no magic remedies to remove all the oil. Most big oil spills require a combination of cleanup tools.

This week the Alaska Regional Response Team, an advisory council for oil spill responses in Alaska, has adopted a revised plan for one of the most controversial tools in the toolbox: Chemical dispersants.

How Dispersants Are Used in Oil Spills

Dispersants are chemical compounds which, when applied correctly under the right conditions, break crude oils into smaller droplets that mix down into the water column. This reduces not only the surface area of an oil slick but also the threats to marine life at the ocean surface. By making the oil droplets smaller, they become much more available to natural degradation by oil-eating microbes.

Dispersants are controversial for many reasons, notably because they don’t remove oil from the marine environment. Mechanical removal methods are always preferred, but we also know that during large oil spills, containment booms and skimmers can get overwhelmed and other pollution response tools may be necessary. This is a big concern especially in Alaska, where weather and remote locations increase the logistical challenges inherent in a large scale oil spill response.

Although dispersants get a lot of attention because of their extensive use after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, they actually are used rarely during oil spills. In fact, dispersants have only been applied to about two dozen spills in the United States in the last 40 years. The only time they were tested during an actual spill in Alaska was during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.

Some oils like light and medium crude are often dispersible and others, like heavy fuel oils, often are not. In some cases dispersants have worked and in others they haven’t. The results of the Exxon Valdez testing were unclear and still subject to debate. So, why have a plan for something that is rarely used and may not be successful?

Probably the biggest reason is pragmatic. Dispersants work best on fresh, unweathered oil. Ideally, they should be applied to oil within hours or days of a spill. Because time is such a critical factor to their effectiveness, dispersants need to be stockpiled in key locations, along with the associated aircraft spraying and testing equipment. People properly trained to use that equipment need to be ready to go too.

A New Plan for Alaska

Airplane sprays dispersants over an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.

Although only used once in an Alaskan oil spill, dispersants have already been an approved oil spill response tool in the state for a number of years. This new plan improves the decision procedures and designates areas where dispersant use may be initiated rapidly. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Now, dispersants have already been an approved oil spill response tool in Alaska [PDF] for a number of years. This new plan improves the decision procedures and designates areas where dispersant use may be initiated rapidly while still requiring notification of the natural resource trustees, local and tribal governments, and other stakeholders before actual use.

Alaska’s new plan specifies all the requirements for applying dispersants on an oil spill in Alaskan waters and includes detailed checklists to ensure that if dispersants are used, they have a high probability of success.

The new plan sets up a limited preauthorization zone in central and western Alaska, and case-by-case procedures for dispersant use elsewhere in Alaska. The plan also recognizes that there are highly sensitive habitats where dispersant use should be avoided.

In addition, preauthorization for using dispersants exists only for oil spills that happen far offshore. Most states have similar preauthorization plans that allow dispersant use starting three nautical miles offshore. The new Alaska plan starts at 24 miles offshore.

We realize that even far offshore, there may be areas to avoid, which is why all of the spill response plans in central and western Alaska will be revised over the next two years. This will occur through a public process to identify sensitive habitats where dispersant use would be subject to additional restrictions.

Planning for the Worst, Hoping for the Best

As the NOAA representative to the Alaska Regional Response Team, I appreciate all of the effort that has gone into this plan. I am grateful we developed the many procedures through a long and inclusive planning process, rather than in a rush on a dark and stormy night on the way to an oil spill.

But I hope this plan will never be needed, because that will mean that a big oil spill has happened. Nobody wants that, especially in pristine Alaskan waters.

Any decision to use dispersants will need to be made cautiously, combining the best available science with the particular circumstances of an oil spill. In some cases, dispersants may not be the best option, but in other scenarios, there may be a net environmental benefit from using dispersants. Having the dispersants, equipment, plans, and training in place will allow us to be better prepared to make that critical decision should the time come.

At the same time, NOAA and our partners are continuing to research and better understand the potential harm and trades-offs of dispersant use following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We are participating in an ongoing effort to understand the state of the science on dispersants and their potential use in Arctic waters. (The University of New Hampshire is now accepting comments on the topic of dispersant efficacy and effectiveness.)

You can find Alaska’s new dispersant policy and additional information at the Alaska Regional Response Team website at www.alaskarrt.org.

For more information on our work on dispersants, read the April 2015 article, “What Have We Learned About Using Dispersants During the Next Big Oil Spill?” and July 2013 article, “Watching Chemical Dispersants at Work in an Oil Spill Research Facility.”


2 Comments

Helping a 7-year-old Oceanographer Study Oil Spills in Washington’s Waters

A young boy drops wooden yellow cards off the side of a boat into water.

Dropping the first round of drift cards off a boat in Washington’s San Juan Islands, a kindergartner kicked off his experiment to study oil spills. (Used with permission of Alek)

One spring day in 2014, a shy young boy sidled up to the booth I was standing at during an open house hosted at NOAA’s Seattle campus. His blond head just peaking over the table, this then-six-year-old, Alek, accompanied by his mom and younger sister, proceeded to ask how NOAA’s oil spill trajectory model, GNOME, works.

This was definitely not the question I was expecting from a child his age.

After he set an overflowing binder onto the table, Alek showed me the printed-out web pages describing our oil spill model and said he wanted to learn how to run the model himself. He was apparently planning a science project that would involve releasing “drift cards,” small biodegradable pieces of wood marked with identifying information, into Washington’s Salish Sea to simulate where spilled oil might travel along this heavily trafficked route for oil tankers.

Luckily, Chris Barker, one of our oceanographers who run this scientific model, was nearby and I introduced them.

But that wasn’t my last interaction with this precocious, young oceanographer-in-training. Alek later asked me to serve on his science advisory committee (something I wish my middle school science fair projects had the benefit of having). I was in the company of representatives from the University of Washington, Washington State Department of Ecology, and local environmental and marine organizations.

Over the next year or so, I would direct his occasional questions about oil spills, oceanography, and modeling to the scientists in NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Demystifying the Science of Oil Spills

A hand-drawn map of oil tankers traveling from Alaska to Washington, a thank-you note on a post-it, and a hand-written card asking for donations.

Alek did a lot of work learning about how oil tankers travel from Alaska to Washington waters and about the threat of oil spills. He even fund-raised to cover the cost of materials for his drift cards. (NOAA)

According to the Washington Department of Ecology, the waters of the Salish Sea saw more than 7,000 journeys by oil tankers traveling to and from six oil refineries along its coast in 2013. Alek’s project was focused on Rosario Strait, a narrow eastern route around Washington’s San Juan Islands in the Salish Sea. There, he would release 400 biodegradable drift cards into the marine waters, at both incoming and outgoing tides, and then track their movements over the next four months.

The scientific questions he was asking in the course of his project—such as where spilled oil would travel and how it might affect the environment—mirror the types of questions our scientists and oil spill experts ask and try to answer when we advise the U.S. Coast Guard during oil spills along the coast.

As Alek learned, multiple factors influence the path spilled oil might take on the ocean, such as the oil type, weather (especially winds), tides, currents, and the temperature and salinity of the water. He attempted to take some of these factors into account as he made his predictions about where his drift cards would end up after he released them and how they would get there.

As with other drift card studies, Alek relied on people finding and reporting his drift cards when they turned up along the coast. Each drift card was stamped with information about the study and information about how to report it.

NOAA has performed several drift card studies in areas such as Hawaii, California, and Florida. One such study took place after the December 1976 grounding of the M/V Argo Merchant near Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, and we later had some of those drift cards found as far away as Ireland and France.

A Learning Experience

A young boy in a life jacket holding a yellow wooden card and sitting on the edge of a boat.

Alek released 400 biodegradable drift cards near Washington’s San Juan Islands in the Salish Sea, at both incoming and outgoing tides, and tracked their movements to simulate an oil spill. (Used with permission of Alek)

Of course, any scientist, young or old, comes across a number of challenges and questions in the pursuit of knowledge. For Alek, that ranged from fundraising for supplies and partnering with an organization with a boat to examining tide tables to decide when and where to release the drift cards and learning how to use Google Earth to map and measure the drift cards’ paths.

Only a couple weeks after releasing them, Alek began to see reports of his drift cards turning up in the San Juan Islands and even Vancouver Island, Canada, with kayakers finding quite a few of them.

As Alek started to analyze his data, we tried to help him avoid overestimating the area of water and length of coastline potentially affected by the simulated oil spill. Once released, oil tends to spread out on the water surface and would end up in patches on the shoreline as well.

Another issue our oceanographer Amy MacFadyen pointed out to Alek was that “over time the oil is removed from the surface of the ocean (some evaporates, some is mixed into the water column, etc.). So, the sites that it took a long time for the drift cards to reach would likely see less impacts as the oil would be much more spread out and there would be less of it.”

During his project, Alek was particularly interested in examining the potential impacts of an oil spill on his favorite marine organism, the Southern Resident killer whales (orcas) that live year-round in the Salish Sea but which are endangered. He used publicly available information about their movements to estimate where the killer whales might have intersected the simulated oil (the drift cards) across the Salish Sea.

Originally, Alek had hoped to estimate how many killer whales might have died as a result of a hypothetical oil spill in this area, but determining the impacts—both deadly and otherwise—of oil on marine mammals is a complicated matter. As a result, we advised him that there is too much uncertainty and not enough data for him to venture a guess. Instead, he settled on showing the number of killer whales that might be at risk of swimming through areas of simulated oil—and hence the killer whales that could be at risk of being affected by oil.

Ocean Scientist in Training

Google Earth view of the differing paths Alek's two drift card releases traveled around Washington's San Juan Islands and Canada's Vancouver Island.

A Google Earth view of the differing paths Alek’s two drift card releases traveled around Washington’s San Juan Islands and Canada’s Vancouver Island. Red represents the paths of drift cards released on an outgoing tide and yellow, the paths of cards released on an incoming tide. (Used with permission of Alek)

“I’d like to congratulate him on a successful drift card experiment,” said MacFadyen. “His results clearly show some of the features of the ocean circulation in this region.”

In a touching note in his final report, Alek dedicated his study to several great ocean scientists and explorers who came before him, namely, Sylvia Earle, Jacques Cousteau, William Beebe, and Rachel Carson. He was also enthusiastic in his appreciation of our help: “Thank you very very much for all of your help! I love what you do at NOAA. Maybe someday I will be a NOAA scientist!”

If you’re interested in learning more about Alek’s study and his results, you can visit his website www.oilspillscience.org, where you also can view a video summary of his project.


Leave a comment

Science of Oil Spills Training: Apply for Summer 2016

Group of Coast Guard members sit and stand at a table.

These trainings help new and mid-level spill responders increase their understanding of oil spill science when analyzing spills and making risk-based decisions. (NOAA)

NOAA‘s Office of Response and Restoration, a leader in providing scientific information in response to marine pollution, has scheduled a summer Science of Oil Spills (SOS) class in Seattle, Washington, June 6-10, 2016.

Currently, we are accepting applications for three SOS classes for these locations and dates:

  • Mobile, Alabama, the week of March 28, 2016
  • Ann Arbor, Michigan, the week of May 16, 2016
  • Seattle, Washington, the week of June 6, 2016

We will accept applications for these classes as follows:

  • For the Mobile class, the application period will be open until Friday, January 22. We will notify accepted participants by email no later than Friday, February 5.
  • For the Ann Arbor class, the application period will be open until Friday, March 11. We will notify accepted participants by email no later than Friday, March 25.
  • For the Seattle class, the application period will be open until Friday, April 1. We will notify accepted participants by email no later than Friday, April 15.

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.

The 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 understand that classes are not filled on a first-come, first-served basis. We try 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.

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


Leave a comment

How Will Climate Change, New Technologies, and Shifting Trade Patterns Affect Global Shipping?

Large waves crash on a huge cargo ship aground on a beach.

After a major storm, a massive bulk cargo ship, the Pasha Bulker, ran aground on a beach in Australia in 2007. (Credit: Tim J. Keegan/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)

This is a guest post by University of Washington graduate students Megan Desillier, Seth Sivinski, and Nicole White.

A warming climate is opening up new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean as summer sea ice shrinks. Developing technologies allow mega-ships unprecedented in size and cargo to take to the seas. North America is increasingly exporting oil, shifting global trade patterns.

Each of these issues poses a suite of potential challenges for safely shipping commodities across the ocean and around the world. Out of these challenges, new risks are emerging in marine transportation that NOAA and the maritime industry need to consider.

Our group of three graduate students at the University of Washington, with the support of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) and NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, are looking to understand how the world’s shipping dynamic has changed in recent years and how these emerging challenges in marine transportation will affect that dynamic. And then we aim to answer: how should NOAA and ITOPF best prepare for responding to these new risks?

In the course of this research project, we will attempt to identify and assess significant emerging risks in marine transportation that have the potential to lead to oil or chemical spills. We are focused on three drivers of emerging risks in the global shipping network: developing technologies, changing patterns of marine trade, and shifting environmental conditions due to climate change. Each of these drivers will be considered within three distinct time frames: the present, 4-10 years from now, and more than 10 years from now.

Risky Business

Fishing vessl half in water and half on a damaged building.

Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge left this fishing vessel on top of a local fish dealer shop in Mississippi. Even small changes in sea levels can have major effects on storm surge. How will a changing climate affect affect global shipping? (NOAA)

The emerging risks that we will identify and assess come from analyzing the network of global cargo ship movements, focusing on the emerging usage of the Northern Sea Route, Northwest Passage, Trans-Arctic Route, the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, and the possibility of a future Nicaraguan Canal.

At this point in our project, we have come across several interesting findings relating to each of our three main research areas. Within the area of developing technology, for example, we are examining the emerging risk of “mega-vessels,” which include “mega-containers,” “mega-tankers,” and “mega-bulkers,” depending on their cargo type. These mega-vessels are massive and measure significantly larger than previous, standard-sized vessels. For example, any container ship over 10,000 twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, can be considered a “mega-ship.” However, the largest mega-vessel to date can handle 18,000 TEUs.

Bulk carriers are used to transport unpackaged cargo in bulk, such as grain, ore, and cement. These ships have also grown in size to the new mega-bulkers, which can handle over 80,000 deadweight tons (DWT), as opposed to the most common, smaller-sized bulk carrier that can handle 60,000 DWTs. In addition, ships are carrying riskier cargoes, which, depending on the cargo, can lead to a dangerous phenomenon known as liquefaction. In general, liquefaction can occur during events like earthquakes, when intense shaking causes “water-saturated sediment temporarily [to lose] strength and [act] as a fluid.”

This phenomenon can also happen on board ships when a cargo, like nickel-ore, becomes wet either before being loaded or while on board and then liquefies due to the ship’s movements. When that happens, the liquefied cargo quickly destabilizes the ship and can lead to it sinking. There are numerous cases of cargo liquefaction occurring on standard-sized bulk carrier ships, which can result in the loss of both crew and vessel.

Context Clues

We also have incorporated several elements to give social-economic, technological, and environmental context to our research of emerging maritime risks. The social-economic element considers the form of cargoes being shipped, environmental resources potentially affected by pollution, available industry tools, and the types of vessels involved.

As for the technical element, we’ll focus on understanding the gap in the salvage of mega-vessels and vessels in the Arctic region, the increased use of floating production storage and offloading vessels (FPSOs, which act like semi-mobile floating fuel storage tanks), risks from vessel automation technologies, and finally, the increased congestion of ships in high-risk areas and choke points, such as the narrow Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia.

For the environmental context, we’ll examine changing environmental conditions that may present additional risks to marine transportation, such as the increased intensity and frequency of storms, sea level rise, and Arctic sea ice melt.

We’ll also consider some market drivers, such as the North American oil trade and the International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code (which is an international shipping safety code for polar waters), in a broad global context. However, our research will not directly consider organizational, regulatory, and market contextual elements in any significant detail.

Relevance and Risk

After we analyze and categorize potential risks, we’ll consider the materiality, or relevance, of our identified risks and the types of incidents that could result. We’ll be connecting how important our identified risks are to the potential losses and damages to vessels, cargoes, and the environment resulting from specific types of incidents. For example, if larger ships are carrying larger quantities of oil as fuel or cargo, then damage to a ship’s hull could spill more oil and result in greater potential environmental impacts.

Stay tuned for updates on our research over the next few months.

Megan Desillier, Seth Sivinski, and Nicole White are Master’s Candidates at the University of Washington (UW) in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs working with faculty advisors Robert Pavia and Thomas M. Leschine. The team is researching emerging risks in marine transportation for the International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation (ITOPF) and is being provided additional assistance in their research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The students are completing this research over the course of an academic year as part of the thesis/capstone requirement for the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs at the UW. Our team would like to thank our sponsor, ITOPF, as well as NOAA for providing additional assistance. To contact the authors, please email Robert Pavia at bobpavia@uw.edu.

The views expressed in this post reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of NOAA or the U.S. federal government.

Photo of Pasha Bulker courtesy of Tim J. Keegan and used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.


Leave a comment

On the Hunt for Shipping Containers Lost off California Coast

Large waves break on a pier that people are walking along.

The M/V Manoa lost 12 containers in stormy seas off the coast of California in the area of the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. (Credit: Beach Watch/mojoscoast)

On December 11, 2015, the Matson container ship M/V Manoa was en route to Seattle from Oakland, California, when it lost 12 large containers in heavy seas. At the time of the spill, the ship was maneuvering in order to allow the San Francisco Bay harbor pilot to disembark.

The containers, which are 40 feet long and 9 feet wide, are reported as empty except for miscellaneous packing materials, such as plastic crates and packing materials such as Styrofoam. Luckily there were no hazardous materials in the cargo that was spilled.

The accident occurred about eight miles outside of the Golden Gate Bridge in the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Three containers have come ashore, two at or near Baker Beach, just south of the Golden Gate Bridge, and one at Mori Point near Pacifica, California. The search continues for the others.

The Coast Guard is responding to this incident with assistance from NOAA, the National Park Service, State of California, and City of San Francisco. The responsible party is working with an environmental contractor to recover the debris and containers. The Coast Guard asks that if a container is found floating or approaching shore to exercise caution and notify the Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Command Center at 415-399-7300.

On December 14, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration became involved when the Coast Guard Sector San Francisco contacted the NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator for the region, Jordan Stout. The Coast Guard requested help from the Office of Response and Restoration in tracking the missing containers. Oceanographer Chris Barker is providing trajectory modeling, using wind and current information to predict the potential direction of the spilled containers.

NOAA chart of waters off San Francisco showing where the shipping containers were lost and where three have been found.

A NOAA oceanographer is using wind and current information to predict the potential direction of the spilled shipping containers off the California coast. This information is helping direct search efforts for the remaining containers. (NOAA)

This accident occurred in NOAA’s Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The Greater Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association Beach Watch program, provided some of the initial sightings to the Coast Guard, and volunteers are doing additional beach surveys to look for debris and more containers. There is a concern that the containers, contents, or parts of the containers could pose a hazard to wildlife through entanglement or by ingestion. There is also concern about the containers potentially damaging ocean and coastal bottom habitats within the marine sanctuary. (Read a statement from the sanctuary superintendent. [PDF])

This incident illustrates another way that marine debris can enter the environment. According to Sherry Lippiatt of the NOAA Marine Debris Program, “This incident is a reminder that while marine debris is an everyday problem, winter storms and higher ocean swells may increase the amount of debris entering the environment.”

To learn more about how storms can lead to increased marine debris, take a look at the recent article, California’s “First Flush”. For information on how citizen science can help in situations like this, see this article about searching for Japan tsunami debris on the California coast.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 647 other followers