By LTJG Timothy D. Denby and Mr. Robert M. Gauvin

"The 11-million-gallon spill from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and the three spills within a 24-hour period just months later in the coastal waters of Rhode Island, the Delaware River and the Houston Ship Channel have demonstrated that oil pollution from accidental tanker spills is a real and continuing threat to the public health and welfare and the environment."

These words from the Senate report on the legislative history of OPA 90 and many similar statements have been published since August 1989, when the country's largest oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound.

Many of these statements have been critical of our ability to clean up coastal oil spills of more than one million gallons using current resources and technology. Others point to the need for quick and effective actions, which must be preplanned today, and not evolve as a clean-up response is required.

New federal requirements under OPA 90 ordain that the Coast Guard carry out a preparedness planning regime to serve as a cornerstone of all spill response activity.

History

Since the early 1970s, oil and hazardous material response activities have been conducted according to the national contingency plan, which assigned the Coast Guard and EPA the responsibility for coordinating all pollution contingency planning and response. The Coast Guard worked at the local level in the coastal zone with individuals and organizations of state and local communities to coordinate their pollution response activities.

Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTPs) worked diligently preparing local contingency plans to address the myriad of difficulties involved in mounting an effective response to a spill incident. The response capabilities and concerns of other federal, state and local agencies, and the marine community were incorporated in the plans, although the agencies and community members did not actively participate in the planning process. This lack of participation sometimes generated a lack of commitment, which resulted in contingency plans that were unable to provide alternative solutions to extremely difficult operational issues.

Potentially controversial operations, such as the use of dispersants and the disposal of recovered spill material, were not fully dealt with for a number of reasons. For example, in many spills the quantity of discharged oil was too small to create controversies. In other cases, the agencies in charge did not have sufficient comprehensive information to formulate overall policy. Consequently, they agreed to evaluate appropriate courses of action on a case by case basis.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, this system served the nation well in most spill response operations. However, in March 1989, when the Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef and inundated Prince William Sound with Alaskan crude oil, the national response system was stressed to the limit.

Those undecided, potentially controversial issues arose all at once. The federal, state and local government, and industry response structure was faced with the enormous task of making a multitude of detailed process decisions in a crisis environment.

To address these issues, the Coast Guard and EPA led the administration's efforts in Congress to enact legislation to mandate comprehensive preparedness planning as a critical element in protecting the environment.

Area committees

Section 4202(a)(6) of OPA 90, which amends section 311(j)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321) formalizes the relationship between federal, state and local environmental protection agencies. It requires these agencies to cooperatively form "area committees," which will develop comprehensive area contingency plans in which each agency has an ownership interest.

The committees must directly confront and resolve controversial issues early in the planning process so that the response community can aggressively manage a crisis when the oil hits the water, instead of being delayed by arduous decision making.

Coast Guard notice 57 FR 1933, published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992, proposes a mechanism for the appointment of members to coastal zone area committees, and outlines their roles and responsibilities.

The geographic boundaries for the coastal area committees will be the COTP zones as defined in the national contingency plan. A Coast Guard notice of intent (56 FR 33481), published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1991, proposed the boundaries of the coastal area committees.

Area committees will be preparedness planning forums and will not convene during response situations. The committees are not intended to be local response advisory groups, although many members will be involved in response operations. Their participation in the planning process will unquestionably enhance the collective response effort.

Members

The Coast Guard intends that the 47 federal on-scene coordinators be delegated the responsibility to appoint area committee members from representatives of federal, state and local agencies of the designated coastal areas.

While area committee members will be drawn from government agencies, the committees will solicit advice and guidance from all appropriate resources. The Coast Guard believes that these sources should include a broad spectrum of the community: bulk liquid facility owners/operators, environmental groups/ specialists/consultants, response organizations, shipping company representatives, concerned citizens, emergency response officials, cleanup contractors, port interests and academia.

Continued on page 38

Continued from page 37

A COTP, as federal on-scene coordinator, will chair each area committee. The National Strike Force, the scientific support coordinator, and members of the Coast Guard district response advisory team may serve as consultants to area committees.

Federal government members of area committees will be appointed from the 15 agencies which comprise the National Response Team. Under the national contingency plan, each state governor will be asked to name a state agency as a principal point of contact for pollution preparedness planning and response. This agency will provide the primary state representatives to the area committees. Other state agencies will be considered for membership, especially if nominated by the designated primary state agency member.

Local county, city and town officials considered for appointment will be drawn from agencies with environmental and emergency response responsibilities in the coastal zone. Whenever possible, agencies having similar or related interests will be encouraged to agree on representation by a single agency.

Role

The area committee will provide focus for pollution preparedness, and act as the focal point for comments and advice on the concerns and responsibilities of industry and the local community. Committee members can incorporate this valuable information into their area contingency plan, thereby ensuring that local environmental, social and economic concerns are considered. The committees may, and will be encouraged to, establish specific issue-related subcommittees, which could include communication systems, sensitive environmental areas, response strategies (mechanical versus chemical or biological clean up), recovered waste storage and disposal, exercise participation, navigation safety, and fish and wildlife rescue. Chaired by area committee members, these subcommittees can be staffed by non-members with special interests and expertise.

Conclusion

Area committees are changing the way we plan and prepare for oil and chemical spill responses. They provide an outstanding opportunity to form and foster cooperative relationships between federal, state and local government agencies, and the community. Involvement in area committees by local representatives will enhance the development of comprehensive oil spill response plans by defining and addressing the unique capabilities, needs and concerns of each local area. The committees will provide forums for open discussions of local environmental, social, economic and geographic issues. Such discussions will be critical in achieving universally agreed upon, cohesive response structures, which can act decisively in emergency situations.

Under Executive Order 12777, the administrator of the EPA has been authorized to establish area committees for inland zones of the United States. The EPA plans to publish its policy concepts in a separate notice in the Federal Register.

Similarly, the Coast Guard intends to finalize its concepts and policies through a final notice in the Federal Register. This policy will also be incorporated into the ongoing national contingency plan revision required by section 4201(c) of OPA 90.

LTJG Timothy D. Denby is a staff member of the Pollution Response Branch of the Marine Environmental Protection Division, and Mr. Robert M. Gauvin is a marine transportation specialist with the OPA 90 staff.

Telephone: (202) 267-0439 or (202) 267-6226, respectively.

About a year ago, the Coast Guard faced what business and academic individuals call "an organizational start-up," which stemmed from the major regulatory requirements of OPA 90. There was an immediate need for expert staff to carry out the act as mandated by Congress. OPA 90's two-year charter didn't leave much time for normal start-up delays.

IPA

To have the OPA 90 staff up and running with quality personnel as quickly as possible, the Coast Guard took advantage of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970 to fill a portion of its billets. Administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), this act allows government agencies to "borrow" experienced personnel from federal and state government agencies, accredited academic institutions and OPM-designated nonprofit organizations. Personnel are detailed knowing that they will return to their parent organizations upon completion of their one- or two-year assignments.

The IPA is designed to encourage a sharing of regulatory and technical expertise at all levels of government, academia and the nonprofit sector. To be eligible for an IPA detail, a candidate must be a permanent, full-time employee of such an institution for at least 90 days before the assignment.

Following a conflict of interest review, a person hired through the IPA works under a negotiated contract. The salary is shared about 50-50 between the providing organization and the borrower. Moving, work-related travel and administrative costs are paid by the borrower.

In the case of the Coast Guard, an IPA billet must meet the approval of the secretary of transportation, ensuring that the assignment is for sound public purposes and that it furthers the goals of the participating organization.

Benefits

The IPA process benefits both the Coast Guard and the parent organization. By "loaning" personnel to the Coast Guard, the parent group gains back staff members with valuable hands-on experience in drafting federal trans

portation, safety and environmental regulations with global impacts.

Government agencies, like the Coast Guard, also benefit from fresh insights to everyday problems. This strengthens their management capabilities, and also is an effective way to involve state governments in developing and carrying out federal policies and programs. State government and nonprofit hirees benefit from exposure to the federal system with which they must deal effectively. Academics are able to apply conceptual models to authentic situations. Such "real world" experience helps academics keep their perspective and makes their subjects "come alive" for their students. "Fit"

The "organizational fit" of the diverse IPA group is a natural for the OPA 90 staff whose work requires flexibility and the ability to compromise in finding solutions among potentially conflicting priorities of various segments of society. The IPA hirees come from those sectors.

After normal start-up difficulties, an integrated OPA 90 staff got organized. Contacts and processes were identified, resulting in fewer false starts. Both IPA and Coast Guard personnel are now meeting the challenge of OPA 90's strict mandates.

Summary

The IPA agreement provided the OPA 90 staff with the opportunity to solve short-term problems in both staffing and regulation writing. In addition to mutual technical advantages, there is important goodwill gained when hirees return to their parent organizations. Although public relations is a secondary benefit, the IPA is an excellent way to convey the Coast Guard message on OPA 90.

Mr. Jim Bennardo is an IPA hiree from Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, where he is an assistant professor of management. He is the assistant coordination and clearance manager on the Coast Guard's OPA 90 staff. Telephone: (202) 267-6410.