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

NOAA Assists with Response to Bakken Oil Train Derailment and Fire in West Virginia

Smoldering train cars derailed from the railroad tracks in snowy West Virginia.

On Feb. 18, 2015, response crews for the West Virginia train derailment were continuing to monitor the burning of the derailed rail cars near Mount Carbon next to the Kanawha River. The West Virginia Train Derailment Unified Command continues to work with federal, state and local agencies on the response efforts for the train derailment that occurred near Mount Carbon on February 15, 2015. (U.S. Coast Guard)

On February 16, 2015, a CSX oil train derailed and caught fire in West Virginia near the confluence of Armstrong Creek and the Kanawha River. The train was hauling 3.1 million gallons of Bakken crude oil from North Dakota to a facility in Virginia. Oil coming from the Bakken Shale oil fields in North Dakota and Montana is highly volatile, and according to an industry report [PDF] prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, it contains “higher amounts of dissolved flammable gases compared to some heavy crude oils.”

Of the 109 train cars, 27 of them derailed on the banks of the Kanawha River, but none of them entered the river. Much of the oil they were carrying was consumed in the fire, which affected 19 train cars, and an unknown amount of oil has reached the icy creek and river. Initially, the derailed train cars caused a huge fire, which burned down a nearby house, and resulted in the evacuation of several nearby towns. The evacuation order, which affected at least 100 residents, has now been lifted for all but five homes immediately next to the accident site.

The fires have been contained, and now the focus is on cleaning up the accident site, removing any remaining oil from the damaged train cars, and protecting drinking water intakes downstream. So far, responders have collected approximately 6,800 gallons of oily water from containment trenches dug along the river embankment.

Heavy equipment and oily boom on the edge of a frozen river.

Some oil from the derailed train cars has been observed frozen into the river ice, but no signs of oil appear downstream. (NOAA)

The area, near Mount Carbon, West Virginia, has been experiencing heavy snow and extremely cold temperatures, and the river is largely frozen. Some oil has been observed frozen into the river ice, but testing downstream water intakes for the presence of oil has so far shown negative results. NOAA has been assisting the response by providing custom weather and river forecasting, which includes modeling the potential fate of any oil that has reached the river.

The rapid growth of oil shipments by rail in the past few years has led to a number of high-profile train accidents. A similar incident in Lynchburg, Virginia, last year involved a train also headed to Yorktown, Virginia. In July 2013, 47 people were killed in the Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, after a train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed and exploded. NOAA continues to prepare for the emerging risks associated with this shift in oil transport in the United States.

Look for more updates on this incident from the U.S. Coast Guard News Room and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.


Leave a comment

NOAA Partners with University of Washington to Examine How Citizen Science Can Help Support Oil Spill Response

This is a guest post by University of Washington graduate students Sam Haapaniemi, Myong Hwan Kim, and Roberto Treviño.

Volunteers sample mussels at a Mussel Watch beach site near Edmonds, Wash.

Volunteers sample mussels at a Mussel Watch site in Washington, one of NOAA’s National Mussel Watch Program sites. This program relies on citizen scientists to gather data on water pollution levels and seafood safety by regularly sampling mussels at established locations across the nation. (Alan Mearns/NOAA)

Citizen science—characterized by public participation in the scientific process—is a growing trend in scientific research. As technology opens up new opportunities, more and more people are able to collaborate on scientific efforts where widespread geographic location or project scope previously may have been a barrier.

Citizen science can take a number of forms, ranging from small-scale environmental monitoring to massive crowdsourced classification efforts, and there is a great deal of benefit to be realized when managed properly. For example, the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory developed the mPING smartphone app to allow anyone in the United States to file hyper-local weather reports, which in turn helps the NOAA National Weather Service fine-tune their weather forecasts.

The Citizen Science Management Project

Our team of University of Washington graduate students is working with NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration to research the potential for incorporating citizen science into its oil spill response efforts.

Thanks to improvements in technology, the public is more interested in and better able to contribute help during oil spills than ever before. During recent oil spills, notably the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident, large numbers of citizens have expressed interest in supporting monitoring and recovery efforts. As the lead science agency for oil spills, NOAA is considering how to best engage the public in order to respond to oil spills even more effectively.

The goal of the project is to provide recommendations for NOAA on effective citizen science management. To do this, we began working to find the most current and relevant information on citizen science by conducting a broad review of the published scientific literature and speaking with experts in the fields of oil spill response, citizen science, and coastal volunteer management. Our next steps are to analyze the research and come up with possible options for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration on how to best adopt and incorporate citizen science into its work.

Initial Findings

NOAA’s Role. NOAA’s role in an oil spill response is primarily that of scientific support. During a response, NOAA begins by addressing a few core questions. Phrased simply, they are:

  • What got spilled?
  • Where will it go and what will it hit?
  • What harm will it cause and how can the effects of the spill be reduced?

We believe that using citizen scientists to help answer these fundamental questions may help NOAA better engage communities in the overall response effort and produce additional usable data to strengthen the response.

Aerial view of Deepwater Horizon oil spill and response vessels.

A view of the oil source and response vessels during the Deepwater Horizon incident as seen during an overflight on May 20, 2010. This spill piqued public interest in oil spills. (NOAA)

Changing Trends and New Opportunities. Technology is changing quickly. More than half of Americans own a smartphone, mapping programs are readily available and easy-to-use, and the Internet provides an unparalleled platform for crowdsourced data collection and analysis, as well as a venue for communication and outreach. These advances in technology are adding a new dimension to citizen science by creating the ability to convey information more quickly and by increasing visibility for citizen science projects. Increased exposure to citizen science efforts spurs interest in participation and the additional data collection capacity provided by smartphones and other technology allows more people to contribute. One such trend is the digital mapping of crowdsourced information, such as the NOAA Marine Debris Program’s Marine Debris Tracker app, which enables people to map and track different types of litter and marine debris they find around the world.

Oil Spills, NOAA, and Citizen Science. In 2012 the National Response Team prepared a document on the “Use of Volunteers: Guidelines for Oil Spills,” outlining ways in which oil spill responders can move toward improved citizen involvement before, during, and after an oil spill. We will use this as a framework to assess potential citizen science programs that could be adopted or incorporated by NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Challenges. All citizen science programs face certain challenges, such as ensuring data reliability with increased participation from non-experts, finding and maintaining the capacity required to manage a citizen science program and incorporate new data, and working with liability concerns around public participation. The challenges become even greater when incorporating citizen science into oil spill response. The unique challenges we have identified are the compressed timeline associated with a spill situation; the unpredictability in scope, geography, and nature of a spill; and the heightened risk and liability that come from having volunteers involved with hazardous material spill scenarios. We will keep all of these concerns in mind as we develop our recommendations.

Next Steps

From here, our team will be analyzing our findings and developing some recommendations for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. We hope to identify, categorize, and assess different citizen science models that may work in a response situation, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each model. These findings will be presented in a final report to NOAA in March 2015.

If you would like to learn more about the Citizen Science Management Project or check on our progress, please visit the project website: https://citizensciencemanagement.wordpress.com. If you have ideas about the project, feel free to reach out to us through the contact page. We would love to hear from you!

Sam Haapaniemi, Myong Hwan Kim, and Roberto Treviño are graduate students at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. The Citizen Science Management Project is being facilitated through the University of Washington’s Program on the Environment. It is the most recent project in an ongoing relationship between NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration and the University of Washington’s Program on the Environment.


Leave a comment

When Oil Spills Take You to Hawaii and the Yellowstone River in Two Days

Overview of the Yellowstone River at the site of the pipeline spill.

Overview of the Yellowstone River at the site of the pipeline spill on Jan. 19, 2015. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

We get called for scientific support between 100 and 150 times a year for oil spills, chemical releases, and other marine pollution events around the nation. That averages to two or three calls per week from the U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but those calls aren’t nicely scheduled out during the week, or spread out regionally among staff in different parts of the country.

The date of an oil spill is just the starting point. Many of these pollution incidents are resolved in a day or two, but some can lead to years of work for our part of NOAA. Some oil spills make the national and regional news while others might only be a local story for the small coastal town where the spill took place.

To give you an idea, some of the incidents we worked on just last week took us from Hawaii one day to eastern Montana the next day—and we were already working on two others elsewhere. These incidents included a pipeline break and oil spill in the Yellowstone River in Montana; a mystery spill of an unknown, non-oil substance that resulted in birds stranded in San Francisco Bay, California; a tug boat sinking and releasing diesel fuel off of Oahu, Hawaii; and a fishing vessel grounded near Sitka, Alaska.

Aerial view of oil spilled along the edge of Yellowstone River.

View from an aerial survey of the spill site on the Yellowstone River, taken about six miles upstream from Glendive, Montana. (Montana Department of Environmental Quality)

The Yellowstone River spill involved a pipeline releasing oil as it ran under a frozen river. The source of the leaking oil has been secured, which means no more oil is leaking, but response operations are continuing. It is an interesting spill for several reasons. One is because the oil type, Bakken crude, is an oil that has been in the news a lot recently. More Bakken crude oil is being transported by train these days because the location of the oil fields is far from ports or existing pipelines. Several rail car accidents involving this oil have ended in explosions. Another reason the Yellowstone River spill is of particular interest is because the response has to deal with ice and snow conditions along with the usual challenges of dealing with an oil spill.

Watch footage of an aerial survey over the Yellowstone River and spilled oil:

The mystery spill in the San Francisco Bay Area is still a mystery at this point (both what it is and where it came from), but hundreds of birds are being cleaned in the meantime. The response is coordinating sampling and chemical analysis to figure out the source of the “mystery goo” coating these seabirds.

Marine diesel fuel dyed red in the ocean.

Marine diesel fuel, dyed red, is shown approximately seven miles south of Honolulu Airport on January 23, 2015. The spill came from a tugboat that sank off Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, on January 22. (U.S. Coast Guard)

Meanwhile, the tugboat accident in Hawaii involved about 75,000 gallons of fuel oil leaking from a tugboat that sank in over 2,000 feet of water. All 11 crewmembers of the tugboat were safely rescued. We were helping forecast what was happening to the spilled oil and where it might be drifting. In addition, there was a lot of concern about endangered Hawaiian monk seals and sea turtles in the area, but no oiled wildlife have been reported.

And that brings us to the fishing vessel grounded in Alaska. At this time the vessel is still intact and hasn’t spilled any of the 700 gallons of fuel believed to be onboard. Salvors are working to refloat the vessel. Fortunately, the crew had time to cap some of the fuel tank vents before abandoning ship, which may be helping prevent oil from being released. All four crew were safely rescued.

That makes four very different spills in four very different areas … and we have to be ready to respond with oil spill models and environmental expertise for all of them at the same time. But that’s just all in a day’s work at NOAA.


4 Comments

Information about Oil Spills Is at Your Fingertips

Where and when was the biggest oil spill? How many oil spills happen each year? Is the frequency of oil spills going up or down? Where can I get information about oil spills?

We at NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration hear these questions often, frequently from high school students looking for help writing their research papers …

We have a lot of information on our website about oil spills in general, as well as those cases in which we have provided scientific expertise during the response. In addition, we maintain IncidentNews.noaa.gov, which has information on thousands of selected historical incidents spanning 30 years of our experience responding to spills.

But NOAA only becomes involved with larger, more complex incidents in which scientific expertise is required to track or clean up spilled oil or cases with a significant threat to marine and coastal resources. Sometimes we get involved before any oil has actually spilled, such as when a ship runs aground on a coral reef and the fuel tanks have not been breached—yet. We typically respond to more than a hundred oil and chemical incidents annually, but there are thousands of smaller spills happening as well, many in marinas and urban and industrial waterways.

So what are some good sources of information on oil spills? For general statistics on oil spills in U.S. waters, I recommend that researchers go to the National Response Center website at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil.

The National Response Center (NRC) receives all reports of releases involving hazardous substances, including oil spills. Reports to the NRC activate the National Contingency Plan and the federal government’s response capabilities. The NRC maintains reports of all releases and spills in a national database going back to 1990 that you can download and search.

If you are interested in a specific pollution incident in the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard has a lot of information in their Marine Casualty and Pollution Data files. This database goes back to 1973 and captures details about marine casualty and pollution incidents that were investigated by the Coast Guard.

On the international level, the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) does a good job of providing data on oil spills from tankers and barges transporting oil. The ITOPF database goes back to 1970, and includes data from a variety of sources including maritime insurers and shipping publications.

One of the interesting trends that ITOPF data shows is that while tanker traffic has increased over the past 30 years, there has been a downward trend in oil spills originating from tankers.  In their list of the top 20 tanker accidents, 19 occurred before 1990, or pre-Exxon Valdez. Since then, many oil pollution prevention rules have been put in place and ship navigation tools have been improved. One notable example being the phase out of single-hull tankers.

Another good source of international data is CEDRE, the Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution, based in Brittany, France. The CEDRE website has a good map and database featuring major oil spills around the world, dating back to 1917.

Speaking of oil spill data, we crunched the numbers on the locations of all of our oil spill-related responses from 2014 and came up with the following infographic:

Map of United States with numbers of oil spill responses in various coastal regions.

NOAA oil spill responses in 2014, by region. Includes actual and potential oil spills. The Gulf of Mexico, a region which produces and refines a lot of oil, also experiences the most oil spill responses NOAA is involved with of any other region. The U.S. Coast Guard in different regions takes advantage of NOAA support services in different ways, which may account for some of the very low or very high numbers of NOAA responses in various regions. (NOAA)


Leave a comment

When the Dynamics of an Oil Spill Shut Down a Nuclear Power Plant

Yellow containment boom floats on a river next to a nuclear power plant.

Precautionary containment boom is visible around the water intake system at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey on December 6, 2004. The nuclear plant was shut down for 11 days to prevent the heavy, submerged oil from the Athos spill from clogging the water intakes. (NOAA)

“I’ve never reopened a nuclear power plant,” thought NOAA’s Ed Levine. Despite that, Levine knew it was his job to get the right information to the people who ultimately would make that decision. This was his role as a NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator during oil spills. However, most major oil spills do not affect nuclear power plants. This wintry day in 2004 was an exception.

Forty miles north of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey, an oil tanker called the Athos I had struck an object hidden beneath the Delaware River. As it was preparing to dock at the CITGO refinery near Philadelphia on November 26, the ship began tilting to one side, the engine shut down, and oil started gushing out.

“Not your typical oil spill,” later reflected Jonathan Sarubbi, who served as U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port and led the federal response during this incident. Not only did no one immediately know what the ship had hit—or where that object was located in the river channel—but the Athos, now sitting too low in the water to reach the dock, was stuck where it was. And it was still leaking its cargo of heavy Venezuelan crude oil.

Capt. Sarubbi ordered vessel traffic through this busy East Coast shipping channel to stop until the object the Athos hit could be found. Little did Capt. Sarubbi, Levine, and the other responders know that even more challenges would be in store beneath the water and down the river.

Getting Mixed up

Most oils, most of the time, float on the surface of water. This was precisely what responders expected the oil coming out of the Athos to do. But within a couple days of the spill, they realized that was not the case. This oil was a little on the heavier side. As it shot out of the ship’s punctured bottom, some of the oil mixed with sediment from the river bottom. It didn’t have far to go; thanks to an extremely low tide pulling the river out to sea, the Athos was passing a mere 18 inches above the bottom of the river when it sprung a leak.

Now mixed with sediment, some of the spilled oil became as dense as or denser than water. Instead of rising to the river surface, it sank to the bottom or drifted in the water column. Even some of the oil that floated became mixed with sediment along the shoreline, later sinking below the surface. For the oil suspended in the water, the turbulence of the Delaware River kept it moving with the currents increasingly toward the Salem nuclear plant, perched on the river’s edge.

NOAA’s oil spill trajectory model GNOME forecasts the spread of oil by assuming the oil is floating on the water’s surface. Normally, our oceanographers can verify how well the forecasts are doing by calibrating the model against twice-a-day aerial surveys of the oil’s movement. The trouble with oil that does not float is that it is harder to see, especially in the murky waters of the Delaware River.

Responders were forced to improvise. To track oil underwater, they created new sampling methods, one of which involved dropping weighted ropes into the water column at various points along the river. The ropes were lined with what looked like cheerleader pom-poms made of oil-attracting plastic strips that would pick up oil as it passed by.

Nuclear Ambitions

Nuclear plants like the Salem facility rely on a steady flow of freshwater to cool their reactors. A thin layer of floating oil was nearing the plant by December 1, 2004, with predictions that the heavier, submerged oil would not be far behind. By December 3, small, sticky bits of oil began showing up in the screens on the plant’s cooling water intakes. To keep them from becoming clogged, the plant decided to shut down its two nuclear reactors the next day. That was when NOAA’s Ed Levine was tasked with figuring out when the significant threats due to the oil had passed.

Eleven days later, the Salem nuclear plant operators, the State of New Jersey, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowed the plant to restart. A combination of our modeling and new sampling methods for detecting underwater oil had shown a clear and significant drop in the amount of oil around the plant. Closing this major electric generating facility cost $33.1 million out of more than $162 million in claims paid to parties affected by the Athos spill. But through our innovative modeling and sampling, we were able to reduce the time the plant was offline, minimizing the disruption to the power grid and reducing the economic loss.

Levine recalled this as an “eye-opening” experience, one yielding a number of lessons for working with nuclear power plants should an oil spill threaten one in the future. To learn more about the Athos oil spill, from response to restoration, visit response.restoration.noaa.gov/athos.

A special thanks to NOAA’s Ed Levine and Chris Barker, former U.S. Coast Guard Captain Jonathan Sarubbi, and Henry Font, Donna Hellberg, and Thomas Morrison of the Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center for sharing information and data which contributed to this post.


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.


Leave a comment

OR&R Defines the Issues Surrounding Oil Spill Dispersant Use

Oil floating on water's surface.

Oil on the water’s surface. (NOAA)

I recently had the opportunity to attend an interesting seminar on the use of dispersants in oil spill response. On August 8, 2014, OR&R Emergency Response Division marine biologist, Gary Shigenaka, and Dr. Adrian C. Bejarano, aquatic toxicologist, made presentations to a group of oil spill response professionals as part of the Science of Oil Spills class, offered by OR&R in Seattle last week.

Mr. Shigenaka introduced the subject, giving the students background on the history of dispersant use in response to oil spills, starting with the first use in England at the Torrey Canyon spill. Because the first generation of oil dispersants were harsh and killed off intertidal species, the goal since has been to reduce their inherent toxicity while maintaining effectiveness at moving oil from the surface of the water into the water column. He gave an overview of the most prevalent commercial products, including Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500, manufactured by Nalco, and Finasol OSR52, a French product.

Aerial view of testing facility with long pool.

The Ohmsett facility is located at Naval Weapons Station Earle, Waterfront. The research and training facility centers around a 2.6 million-gallon saltwater tank. (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement)

Shigenaka reviewed the U.S. EPA product schedule of dispersants as well as Ohmsett – National Oil Spill Response Research Facility in Leonardo, N.J. Ohmsett is run by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. He showed video clips of oil dispersant tests conducted recently at the facility by the American Petroleum Institute.

The corporate proprietary aspects of the exact formulation of dispersants were described by Shigenaka as one of the reasons for the controversy surrounding the use of dispersants on oil spills.

Dispersant Use in Offshore Spill Response

Dr. Bejarano’s presentation, “Dispersant Use in offshore Oil Spill Response,” started with a list of advantages of dispersant use such as reduced oil exposure to workers; reduced impacts on shoreline habitats; minimal impacts on wildlife with long life spans; and keeping the oil away from the nearshore area thus avoiding the need for invasive cleanup. She followed with some downside aspects such as increased localized concentration of hydrocarbons; higher toxicity levels in the top 10 meters of the water column; increased risk to less mobile species; and greater exposure to dispersed oil to species nearer to the surface.

Dr. Bejarano is working on a comprehensive publicly-available database that will include source evaluation and EPA data as well as a compilation of data from 160 sources scored on applicability to oil spill response (high, moderate, low and different exposures).

Her presentation concluded with a summary of trade-offs associated with dispersant use:

  • Shifting risk to water column organisms from shoreline, which recover more quickly (weeks or months).
  • Toxicity data are not perfect.
  • Realistic dose and duration are different from lab to field environment.
  • Interpretation of findings must be in the context of particular oil spill considerations.

Dr. Bejarano emphasized the need for balanced consideration in reaching consensus for the best response to a particular spill.

Following the formal presentations, there was a panel discussion with experts from NOAA, EPA, and State of Washington, and the audience had an opportunity to ask questions. Recent research from the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service/ Montlake Laboratory was presented, focusing on effects of oil and dispersants on larval fish. The adequacy of existing science underlying trade-offs and net environmental benefit was also discussed.

Read our related blog on dispersants, “Help NOAA Study Chemical Dispersants and Oil Spills.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 586 other followers