MUMM - Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models

advertisement

MUMM - Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models

RBINS - Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences

National North Sea Contingency Plan: the Shaping of Operational Arrangements

Thierry G. JACQUES

Marine Environmental Management Section

MUMM

2006 http://www.mumm.ac.be/ http://www.mumm.ac.be

/

The Shaping of the Plan

1.

Setting the scene – the history

2.

Legal foundations

3.

Features of the response strategy

4.

Operational arrangements

5.

Conclusions

Rotterdam, Hamburg

1. Setting the scene

Dover Strait 65 km of coast

Antwerp

1987

1987

1988

1988

1988

1988

1989

1989

1981

1982

1982

1982

1982

1983

1984

1985

1985

1986

1987

The eighties: 19 accident alarms

World Dignity

Jumpa

Saint Anthony

Molesta

Benetank

Sterling

Mont-Louis

Stamy

Contract Voyager

Staffortshire

Herald of Free Ent.

Olympic Dream

Skyron

Borcea

Seafreight Fariway

Anna Broere

Westeral

Paul Robeson

Perintis

100,000 t crude containers, toxic

38,000 t crude fuel

3,000 t heavy fuel

55,000 t crude nuclear reprocessed fuel dangerous drums light petroleum gas

5 dangerous lorries

2,100 t gasoline

137,000 t crude fuel

3 dangerous lorries

550 t acrylonitrile dangerous containers grounding

5.8 t lindane

Mont Louis 1984: building awareness

•30 50-t cylinders of UF6

• just off limits, out of control

1987

> 100 different chemicals

HFE

From passive to reactive: 1988 North Sea Plan approved

The nineties:

29 accident alarms

British Trent (1993)

1990

1990

1990

1991

1991

1991

1991

1991

1992

1992

1992

1992

1992

……

Bussewitz

Thomas Weber

Viva

14,000 t ammonia

221 dangerous drums fuel

Tomisi

Globel Ling fuel fuel

Clipper Confidence Pb concentrate, Cu, Zn

Grete Turkol ethylbenzene

British Esk naphtha

Jostelle

Atlantic Carrier

Nordfrakt

Long Lin

Amer Fuji fuel fuel

3,252 t lead sulphide fuel fuel

1993

1993

1993

1993

1993

1993

1993

1994

1994

1994

1995

1995

1997

1997

1997

1999

Fleur de Lys

Alexandros

Zaphos

Sherbro

Hyaz

British Trent

Aya

Shoeburyness

Elatma

Ming Fortune

Carina

Spauwer

Bona Fulmar

Mundial Car

Vigdis Knutsen

Ever Decent fuel fuel

68,000 t condensate?

bags pesticides fuel

24,000 t gasoline fuel

90 M14 mines

1,378 t NH4 NO3

38 t sodium chorate oil capsizal, oil

7,000 t gasoline lost oil oiletanker containers toxic

1994:

MUMM signs first oil recovery contract

MUMM obtains first compensation for .be!

2. The Legal Foundations

1987: law on the territorial sea

1989: new Bonn Agreement

1990-95: intl. concertation on the EEZ regime

1990-96: continental shelf treaties (FR, UK, NL)

1998: law ratifying UNCLOS

1999: law on the EEZ law on the marine environment:

- Strict liability of the polluter

- ex officio intervention o/b if needed

- compensation for environmental disruptions

The 2000’s: getting at it!

Buying oil combating equipment

Strict liability for remediation

From reactive to offensive and operational!

3. Special features

The driving force behind was Science Policy

Five federal departments have authority

Principles:

- Strict liability of the polluter

-

- compensation for environmental disruptions ex officio intervention o/b if needed

2005: Coast Guard Structure

(features and goals)

 to maximize enforcement capabilities to pool resources

(there is no dedicated response vessel) to co-ordinate in a single structure

(good sense) to make the Environment central:

NEBA

4. The Operational Arrangements

1988: the North Sea Alarm Plan

– who is responsible

– how to alarm them and when where to go

… but not what to do !

21.06.2005: oiled birds

21.01.2005: shore cleanup

10.08.2006: operations at sea

Action at sea: the philosophy

The Fed. Dept. Env. takes the lead

The Navy takes command at sea

MUMM evaluates impact (NEBA)

Step by step development of the intervention

Action at sea: the structure

7 phases:

 alarm assessment initial counter-mesures choice of strategy intervention follow-up debriefing

3 scenarios:

S1: danger of poll.

S2: confirmed

S3: major

the assessment

Search for information in one location

Site-specific modelling

(natural processes, behaviour of the pollutant)

On scene monitoring

Aerial guidance

role of the scientist

(worse case scenario, scaling, monitoring methodology)

the strategic options

Mechanical recovery

Chemical dispersion

Mechanical dispersion

Do nothing (+ monitoring)

Requisitions

International assistance operations, methods, communications etc.

How good are these plans?

They are sound, professional instruments

But

 they are coined to deploy existing means they are typical

Tier 1

instruments

Tier 2

(Rampenplan) and

Tier 3

(internl.) require further elaboration

What do we miss?

OSC

Support Staff

& Advisors

Public Affairs

Safety

Health

Science

Environment

Technical

Legal

Deputy OSC

Operations Logistics Finance Planning

Lead Agency

OSC

Support Staff

& Advisors

PublicAffairs

Safety

Science

Finance

Logistics

Operations

Area 1

Operations

Area 2

Operations

Area 3

Operations

Area 4

OSC

Deputy OSC

Support Staff

& Advisors

Public

Affairs

Safety

Health

Science

Environme nt

Technical

Legal

Operations Logistics Finance Planning

What we miss

What do we miss to fulfill the needs of Tiers 2 & 3?

The Future

Strong technical support for the co-ordinators

OSC-AR

IMO/OPRC contingency organization

 administrative, financial, legal support

 centralized logistics organizational support for volunteers

2 oil-recovery vessels (inshore, offshore)

5. Conclusions

The alarm procedures are sound

We have a professional approach

We have a potential structure (Coast Guard)

The IMO doctrine should be implemented

The ops plans must be scaled up to Tiers 2 & 3

Technical advice must be made explicit in the plans

The pooling of resources must be made effective to ensure the availability of specialized vessels

The End

Download