Sei sulla pagina 1di 8
API PUBL*4452 87 W 0732290 0533640 227 OIL POLLUTION RESPONSE ARRANGEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA: THE GOVERNMENT
API PUBL*4452 87 W 0732290 0533640 227
OIL POLLUTION RESPONSE ARRANGEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA:
THE GOVERNMENT VIEW
(INCLUDING AN UPDATE ON DISPERSANT TESTING)
Donald Brodie
Federal Department of Transport
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
ABSTRACT: Australia has an extensive and varied coastline and 25
major ports. While marine traffic densiv is significantly less than in
North America and European waters, the potential for
oil spills never-
human population. The prime considerations of a grounding in these
areas would be of an SAR nature, and the effects of pollution less
significant or damaging than in the closer inshore areas.
theless exists. In 1973, the Australian National Plan to Combat Pollu-
tion of the Sea by Oil was established. its aim was to provide all the
elements of a contingency plan designed to respond to oil pollution
from ships. The plan brought together the resources of the federal and
state governments and the oil industry. A unique funding arrangement,
based on the ‘polluterpays” principle, was established to maintain the
currency of the plan. This paper discusses the continuing development
of the nationalplan, its equipmentphilosophies and training programs.
It also discusses in some depth the tests being carried out on dis-
persants. Multispectral scanning is a comparatively new science in the
Australian scene and trials have taken place to develop its use in oil spill
operations. Today the Australian government believes a comprehensive
set of operational and administrative arrangements exists to respond to
The pian
the threat of marine oil spills.
Australia is a large island continent with an area of 7.6 million
square kilometers and a coastline of about 36,000 kilometers. The
population is approximately 14 million, with the majority living in a
handful of coastal cities, particularly in the southeast of the country
(Figure 1).
The Great Barrier Reef occupies the whole of the northeast coast,
stretching for a distance of 2,000 kilometers. The remaining coastline
consists primarily of surf beaches and mangroves. Any Australian will
tell you the beaches are the longest and cleanest in the world; the
environmentalists all tell us the mangroves are a top priority and are
essential to the environmental balance of the region.
The areas of densest marine traffic are in the southeast. These are
small compared with shipping routes in the northern European and
North American approaches. Ships on the Asia trade routes use
either the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef or approach Austra-
lia through the Coral Sea. The Department of Transport is working,
with the support of the International Maritime Organization, to rec-
ommend that tanker masters transitting the Barrier Reef make use of
the available pilotage service in view of that areas’ extreme environ-
mental importance. A number of routes through the Barrier Reef
enable ships to approach the east Australian coast from the Coral Sea
into Queensland ports.
We are fortunate in Australia, at least in the temperate zones, to
have a relatively stable weather system, one that can be forecast with
a reasonable degree of accuracy. In addition, the landfalls are accept-
ably prominent to the navigator. In tropical areas, cyclones (hurri-
canes) are prevalent from December through March, and landfalls
during this time are less prominent, compounded by poorer visibility.
However, the approach areas are generally vast, with virtually no
The Australian National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil
is the principal government mechanism for providing a response to
marine oil pollution. Its prime aim is to maintain an organization and
provide the funding and equipment to respond to oil spills from ships
in Australian waters.
Established in the early 1970s, the plan brought together the sparse
and fragmented resources of the federal and state governments. Rec-
ognizing that cooperation with the oil industry is essential, the plan
incorporated the resources of the Australian Institute of Petroleum,
Marine Oil Spills Action Plan (MOSAP). In those early days, some
government and port authorities and the industry had acquired a
limited amount of equipment. These equipment resources largely
reflected the sales energy of a few internationally based companies;
they did not by any means represent the full potential of the available
market.
9. .Townsville
AUSTRALIA
Brisbane
Figure 1. Principal ports and population centers of Australia
181
Copyright American Petroleum Institute
Provided by IHS under license with API
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
Not for Resale
--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

182

.API

PUBLz4452

87

m

1987 OIL SPILL CONFERENCE

The federustate structure required that decisions be made as to who would carry responsibility for ports and territorial waters. At meetings between federal and state governments, agreement was reached on both this issue and that of procedural arrangements. A set of administrative arrangements was produced that exists today, with modifications, to define the initiai responsibility for spills in specific areas. Responsibilities were divided as follows: (1) within a port or harbor, the administrative authority of that port or harbor; (2) on beaches and foreshores, the relevant state authority; (3) in territorial seas, in Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, the relevant state authority; in all other states and the Northern Territory, the common- wealth government authority (represented by commonwealth region- al authorities), at the request of the relevant state authorities; and (4) on the high seas, the commonwealth government authority, repre- sented by commonwealth regional authorities. Regardless of which authority bears initial responsibility, the ar- rangements provide that other authorities shall assist, so far as prac- ticable, in response to requests from the responsible authority. They further provide for an authority to request another to accept re- sponsibility for pollution response action. While the arrangements relating to responsibility in territorial seas differ from state to state, the overall organization is clearly understood and enables response action to be mounted rapidly and effectively. The administrative arrangements also deal with the establishment of national equipment stockpiles, procedures for access to equipment and joint use of resources and financial arrangements for the national plan. They provide that the Commonwealth, through the Department of Transport, will assume responsibility for coordination, training, provision of technical and logistic support, materials, equipment, and funds.

Funding

Funding for the national plan is based on the “polluter pays” prin- ciple. The law imposes a levy on ships using Australian ports. The levy is small, currently 1.7 cents per net registered ship tonne and is paid quarterly. Monies raised by the levy are paid into federal consolidated revenue but national commercial accounts are maintained and pub- lished in the annual report of the federal Department of Transport. In the financial year 1985-86, the levy raised $1.27 million; the distribu- tion of these funds is shown in Figure 3. Wherever possible, costs incurred in the response to a pollution incident are recovered from the polluter. State authorities have in force their own laws to achieve this. It is recognized, however, that recovery proceedings can be protracted due to the sometimes com- plex nature of claims made against the polluter. To alleviate the possibility of a financial burden on cleanup authorities, a procedure is in force whereby the responsible authority is reimbursed by the federal authority on the understanding that action is being taken through the state legal processes to recover costs from the polluter. Should this action be successful, the costs recovered are paid back into federal consolidated revenue.

Figure 2. Areas of prime responsibilityfor oil spill response

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

0732290 0531b41 163

The system is simple and ensures that a state or municipal authority is not out of pocket, irrespective of whether the polluter is identified.

Operations

Operationally, the plan aims to ensure that adequate manpower and equipment are available to deal with marine oil spills in Austra- lian waters. Each state has established a State Oil Pollution Committee. While committees differ to some degree in format, their compositions are basically very similar. Chairmanship is vested in a senior officer of the state’s responsible authority. Additional membership includes the federal regional office, environmental agencies, police and emergency services, and oil industry. States are encouraged to maintain their own teams of trained per- sonnel to enable immediate identification of officers having re- sponsibility for specified functions. These personnel may be drawn from all areas of the state organization so that a broad range of authorities are on the response team. Pre-designation of positions such as on-scene coordinator, scientific support coordinator, and ad- ministrative support coordinator is recommended and, in most cases, exists. This organization provides the nucleus of a response team when required. The federal Department of Transport maintains an operations and procedures manual that outlines organization, reporting and alerting procedures, access to equipment stockpiles, and the procedures for obtaining funding. The operations manual is supported by state sup- plements, which provide details of state plans, contacts for manpower and equipment response, and local port plans. An example of the on-scene coordinator’s field organization is shown in Figure 4. In all states, the OSC is acknowledged as a decisionmaker who operates generally from an operations center close to the scene of the spill. He is backed by the state committee, which provides support and in most cases accepts the decisions made by the OSC regarding use of equipment, dispersants, and manpower available from the field organizations. Consultation and liaison with environmental agencies,

P & I clubs, the salvor, and others is the keynote of the OSC’s

response. At the time of establishment of the plan in 1973, nine stockpiles of equipment were set up at strategic locations around the country. Each consisted of 100 tons of a hydrocarbon solvent-based dispersant and eight sets of spraying equipment based on the Warren Spring Labora- tory design. Subsequently, and as developments in control and recov- ery equipment took place, booms and oil recovery units were acquired

to provide a broader and more acceptable combat capability. A num-

ber of Vikoma Seapacks were purchased during the 1970s, as were four Marco Class I skimmers. These were placed at the principal ports

of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Fremantle.

Over the years these units have all given useful service. In the most recent incident, July 1986, a Marco unit recovered a substantial quan-

tity of almost 100% oil in Fremantle harbor after a bunker pipeline

New Equipment 729

\,

Figure 3. Distribution of funds from levy on shipping

Not for Resale

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

API

I

PUBL+4452

COMMUNICATIONS

SPILL MOOEL

I

87

I

0732290 0533642 OTT

CONTINGENCY PLANNING

\UPPORT

NATIONAL/STAIE

REGIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

ARRANGEMENTS

ARRANGEMWTS

L

I

J

I

183

DEPUTY

DEPUTY

SCIENTIFIC

AOMINISTRATIVE

OSC

OSC

SUPPORT

SUPPORT

OFFSHORE

FORESHORE

COORDINA

R

CO ORDINATOR

IlACCOUNTING

II

dRECORDING

LOGISTICS

-

CONTRACTS

LEGAL

1 INFORMATION

ENVIRONMENTAL

I

HONITORING

RESTORATION

Figure 4. Example of an on-scene coordinator’s field organization-This would be scaled appropriately to the size of the incident.

is a recommendedchart for response to a major spill; the organization

failure. The incident occurred in an area sensitive not so much from an environmental point of view, but because many of the contending teams for the America’s Cup challenge had their berthing facilities within the harbor. Figure 5 shows the Marco operating during this incident. With development of combat strategies and expertise over recent years, a variety of equipment is now held in each port, based on the national plan’s response philosophy: (1) stop the flow of oil, (2) do nothing but monitor the spill movement, (3) control and recover the oil, and (4) use dispersants. Risk assessment and equipment acquisition. A list of the principal items of control and recovery equipment held nationwide is presented in the appendix. Decisions to acquire equipment were based on the usual factors, including types of oil handled, locations at which oil spills could be expected, and availability of trained personnel. In 1980 the Australian Bureau of Transport Economics was commissioned to produce a risk assessment for spills of oil at all Australian ports. The resulting report produced probability estimates of spill frequency and size for all locations (Table 1). These estimates have been used to determine the desirable distribution of pollution combat equipment and materials at a variety of levels:

1. Each marine oil terminai berth is required to provide, at its own expense, its own “first aid” response capability. Guidelines for requirements in this context were agreed to by federal and state ministers in 1982, and state authorities have responsibility for en- suring an acceptable level of compliance.

2. Each port is then considered and, through the national plan, pro- vided with equipment sufficient to deal with the spill size likely to be encountered in a five-year period.

3. Superimposed on this is an assessment of the risk in the region. If necessary, additional equipment is provided at a regional center sufficient to combat the spill size likely to be encountered in a 10-year period.

4. Finally, national needs are assessed and specialized equipment for “major” incidents is stockpiled centrally in Sydney and in Fremantle.

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

Table 1. Projections of oil spill occurrences at Australian ports

Average volume

Maximum spill

Average number spilled per size (tons)

Port

of spills per year

year (tons)

(90% confidence)

Sydney

9.2

14.9

18.9

Botany

1.7

3.6

6.4

Newcastle

1.8

2.6

3.6

Port Kembla

2.1

2.6

3.6

Melbourne

9.0

12.3

15.4

Geelong

1.9

2.8

4.4

Westernport

2.0

3.9

6.8

Portland

0.1

0.2

0.04

Brisbane

3.1

7.0

10.6

Gladstone

0.2

0.4

0.1

Hay Point

0.1

0.4

0.02

Mackay

0.1

0.2

0.02

Townsville

0.4

0.6

0.6

Port Adelaide

1.6

2.6

3.5

Port Stanvac

0.9

1.3

2.6

Whyalla

0.3

1.0

0.6

Fremantle

12.7

17.4

19.9

Albany

0.2

0.3

o. 1

Bunbury

o. 1

0.5

o. 1

Dampier

0.3

1.1

0.7

Port Hedland

0.3

1.o

0.6

Port Walcott

0.1

0.5

0.1

Hobart

0.9

1.6

1.9

Launceston

0.2

0.7

0.4

Darwin

0.3

0.6

0.5

Total,

50.4

82.9

27.6

1. Totals are for all ports considered in study and are, therefore, not equal to column totals.

Not for Resale

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

API RUBL*4452

87

184 1987 OIL SPILL CONFERENCE

0732270 0531643

T3b 9

Figure 5. Marco skimmer operating during pollution incident in

Fremantle Harbor, July 1986

Equipment evaluation and acquisition has not been an easy pro- cess. One cannot always take the international salesman’s word for performance of a particular unit. Most of the equipment now held has been imported from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries. Selection has been based largely on re- ports of first-hand experience from overseas-based impartial and au- thoritative sources with whom we have established useful contacts. As is the practice in most nations, the Australian government’s purchasing policy favors a high local content in the manufacture of most items of hardware. A number of local entrepreneurs have sub- mitted designs and claims for development of spill response equip- ment. The disadvantage of these designs, while they are based on acceptable principles, is that they have tended to lack the background of experience. We are not in the equipment-development business and in many cases cannot wait for a unit to be proven. As a con- sequence, only overseas-designed and proven units are in service. A number of leading overseas manufacturers have engaged Australian- based companies to build equipment under license. This has resulted in quality-built equipment with a high Australian content and has considerably simplified the task of selection in recent years. Nearly all equipment now in place around the country has been acquired through funds provided by the oil pollution levy. While the federal government maintains two major stockpiles of backup equip- ment, booms, skimmers, and other items projected for specific port use are passed over to the states on a long-term loan, no-cost basis. It is the responsibility of the state operators to maintain the equip- ment in a constant state of readiness. The Department of Transport in its two major stockpiles also main- tains emergency offloading systems to be brought into use should a tanker casualty occur. The principal units held are Yokohama low- pressure fenders and Marflex high-capacity transfer pumps. All items have been used in real situations and are exercised as frequently as possible.

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

Dispersant use and testing

In the early days of the plan, with the stockpiling of a substantial quantity of dispersants, the dispersant option was considered as the first line of defense. It was accepted that if an oil spill occurred off the Australian coast and the wind or water effect was such that an area of sensitivity was threatened, the only effective response would be to organize dispersant spraying on an appropriate scale. This general rule still applies but with a number of provisos re- sulting from subsequent scientific evaluations of specific areas. The following basic rules apply to dispersant response:

0

The area must have an adequate water depth.

0

The area must have an active water change rate.

0

The area must not contain larvae or eggs of a commercial fish- eries species.

0

Seasonal variations in biological activity must be taken into ac- count.

0 The spilled oil must be a type amenable to dispersion. Most Australian state environmental authorities have developed guidelines for consideration of dispersant use in spill response pians. In New South Wales for instance, an excellent series of coastal re- source atlases has been published, covering Botany Bay, Port Jack- son, and Trial Bay. The Botany Bay atlas states that dispersant use should be restricted to waters more than five meters deep; however, dispersant use is prohibited in areas adjacent to mangroves and oyster beds. All response management teams understand that consultation with authoritative environmental agencies is essential, as guidelines vary according to physical location and seasonal conditions. The con- sultative mechanism ensures that the dispersant option is considered and a balanced response decision is arrived at. Australia has been fortunate in that a major oil spill has not oc- curred to threaten the coastline. As a result, the quantity of dis- persants stockpiled has not dramatically decreased. Another factor

Not for Resale

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

API PUBLx11452 87 = 0732290 0533644 972

that has contributed to the maintenance of the stockpile is that since the early days of the plan, greater emphasis through training has been placed on control and recovery, rather than dispersal, of spilled oil. This has considerably reduced the amount of dispersant being used. In planning the original resources of the national plan, it was antici- pated that a significant spill in the territorial waterdhigh seas area of responsibility of the federal authority could occur within the for- seeable future. Although a number of incidents have had circum- stances with this potential, such a spill has not happened and the largest single withdrawal of dispersant from the national stockpile has been about 20 tons. As a result, the plan continues to maintain a stockpile of approximately 780 tons of hydrocarbon-based dispersant. This dispersant, although a number of years old, has been tested against the original specification and is considered to be effective. With the development overseas of aerial application techniques, it was recognized that, in the interests of improved efficiency and cost- effective operations, Australia needed to acquire a capability in this field. Consequently, a specification for concentrate-type dispersant, suitable for aerial application, was produced. In requesting samples for evaluation, the Department of Transport considered only those suppliersimarketers with manufacturing facilities in Australia. The principal reason for this was to maximize local content in the manu- facture and supply of the subsequently selected product. Assurance of a ready supply of stocks of local manufacture was also a strong argu- ment. In 1983 the Marine Science Laboratories (MSL) of Queenscliff, Victoria, participated in the round-robin tests arranged by Exxon Chemicals and the Warren Spring Laboratory of the United King- dom. MSL staff using a Mackay tester built up expertise in efficiency testing, and it followed that this facility was the appropriate one to carry out a limited dispersant-efficiency testing program. Fourteen dispersant samples were forwarded to the laboratory in March 1984. Each product was given a reference number, and the brand name was removed to maintain anonymity. Suppliers had been requested to indicate recommended application rates for their prod- ucts. Testing was carried out using dispersant : oil ratios of 1 : 20 ex- cept where otherwise recommended by manufacturers. Results of the tests indicated four fairly distinct groups in order of efficiency, with three products at 0 to 10% efficiency, three on the order of 25%, five between 58 and 72%, and three products between 87 and 92%. With the understanding that field conditions cannot be reproduced in the laboratory, and the considered need to corroborate laboratory results, a limited field test was planned. After consultation with fish- eries and environment authorities in the state of South Australia, a test location in the Gulf of Saint Vincent was chosen. Among other equipment, two Simplex series 6810 spray buckets were taken to the site and, over the two-day test period, five one-ton quantities of an Arabian light crudeifuel oil blend were released to the sea. The principal objectives of the field test were operational, but allowed for a number of scientific observations to be carried out. The aims of the field phase of the test program were: to corroborate results of laboratory testing of oil spill dispersants; to assess the effectiveness of aerial spraying systems on oil spills at sea and determine the oper- ational control procedures and requirements; to carry out additional tasks related to dispersion of oil into the water column as required; to investigate the effectiveness of remote-sensing techniques; and to gain experience with state-of-the-art oil spill response equipment. Within five minutes of discharge of the first slick, it was estimated that the oil covered an area of 22,000 square meters and had a thick- ness of <0.1 mm. To obtain maximum visual and remote-sensing effect, it was decided to spray through the center of the slick rather than treat the outside edges, as is the recommended practice in a real spill situation. The effectiveness of the first spray run was clearly seen both from surface craft and from the scanning aircraft operating at 2,000 ft. Figure 6 is a sequence of both IR and UV quick-look prints taken at four-minute intervals during the first spray run. A black-and-white photograph (Figure 7), taken simultaneously with print 2 of Figure 6 clearly shows the swath of dispersant and its effect on the oil. Subse- quent scans (Figure 6) show the slick reforming over the area (print 3), a second spray run (print 41, and the treated slick being broken up through the effects of both dispersant and wind/wave effect (print 5). Subsequently, spray runs were made or attempted throughout days 1and 2 of the program. The intention on day 2 was to lay oil, contain it within a boom, recover the oil by means of an oil skimmer, and

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

CONTINGENCY PLANNING

185

disperse any residue. A number of technical and operational prob- lems prevented this phase of the program from achieving conclusive results. The trials were seen to offer a rare opportunity to gain real data on the depth to which oil was dispersed into the water column. It was also considered that measurement of amounts of oil in the water might provide some indication of the relative effectiveness of the different dispersants being tested. Oil concentrations were measured in the field using continuous flow spectrofluorometer apparatus. Water samples also were collected for subsequent laboratory analysis, using extraction and fluorescence spectrum techniques. Laboratory analyses were used both for identification of oil type and to confirm the accuracy of field mea- surements. Analysis of the data showed a good correlation (cor- relation coefficient = 0.98) between values measured in the field and those determined in the laboratory. The sampling revealed background concentrations of oil on the order of 20 kg/L (parts per billion) in the test area. Such concen- trations were thought to be not unusual in coastal waters. Maximum concentrations recorded during the tests were 2.5 mg/L, under the slick. As was expected, the measurements showed higher concentrations of oil in the water after application of dispersants. The results, how- ever, proved to be of little value in assessing the relative effectiveness of different dispersants due to the fresh wind and sea state and to the resource constraints of the overall program. Australia does not yet have a toxicity test specifically designed for oil dispersants, although development of a test procedure is well in hand. In the interim, a product attaining an acceptable level of effi- ciency must have the backing of an approved toxicity test. The two dispersant products acquired subsequent to completion of the effi- ciency test program have both passed the Canadian Environment Protecton Service test. At this stage, the Department of Transport considers that sufficient dispersant and spraying equipment for aerial application by rotary-wing aircraft is now available to cope with brush-fire-type incidents. A more comprehensive study addressing the feasibility of a fixed-wing capability is proposed for 1987.

Remote sensing of oil spills

The opportunity was taken during the 1985 field tests to explore a multispectral scanning capability operated by the National Safety Council, Victorian Division. This was the first occasion, to our knowl- edge, on which this capability was used on oil slicks in Australian waters. While scanning times were prescribed according to the oper- ations taking place on the surface, the occasion was seen as an ideal opportunity for personnel to obtain the maximum data out of their equipment capability and relate it to the effective detection and fate of oil slicks in the marine environment. The scan width determined that flying take place at an altitude of 2,000 ft. As effective scanning cannot be carried out through a cloud layer, it was fortunate that most of the clouds were above this level, and minimum interference was experienced. The equipment used was a Daedalus DS 1268digital line scanner mounted on a Piper King Air twin-engined aircraft. The results provided useful data in the following areas: fate of the oil, effectiveness of the dispersants, reforming effect of the oil slick,

variations in the thickness of the oil, and detection of oil on the water. Scans made in the ultraviolet mode over a number of channels

that bands 1, 2, and 11 produced the most effective en-

determined

hancement, depending on the thickness of the oil on the water. For the exercise, a total of 50 scanning runs were made. The large number was due to an attempt to provide reasonably continuous sampling, such that data were collected for control, before and after dispersant

runs, when the oil was thick, when the oil was thin, and so on. All runs were at an altitude of 2,000 feet AMSL, giving an IFOV at nadir of 1.23 meters. Scanning was conducted at an aircraft speed of 140 knots, and a scan rate of 50 per second, resulting in approxi- mately 15% overscan. All except two runs were flown on a northerly heading, which is the most conducive to even solar illumination. Altogether, approximately 135,000 scan lines were collected, re- sulting in well over 1,000 megabytes of data. Preliminary investigations revolved around determining what wave

Not for Resale

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

API

PUBL*4452

87

186 1987 OIL SPILL CONFERENCE

Series of ultraviolet/infrared scans of two dispersant spray runs at four minute intervals.

1

freshly laid oil slick

3

oil slick reformingover dispersed area

4

second runof dispersant

5 oil slick breakingup

0732290 053Lb45 809 W

Ultraviolet

Infrared

Figure 6. Infrared and ultraviolet scans of dispersant-effectiveness field test

lengths would be useful in “seeing” the oil. The following points were noted. Greatest deviation from sea response appeared to be in chan- nels 1,2, and 11. When the oil was thick, channel 11 gave the single most effective representation, but as the oil spread and became thin- ner, channel 1also gave a useful image. This would most likely be due to interference effects as the thickness became comparable to the incident wavelength. This last point is considered to be a useful tool when looking at ‘‘live’’ oil spills to determine their degree of spread when first detected, and hence how much further they may go. Some computer enhancement and processing of a small portion of the data was subsequently undertaken. Imagery produced showed a three-band composite with a Bayesian classification to distinguish the oil slick extent. This also clearly demonstrated the straight edge and splitting into two of the slick caused by the helicopter pass spraying dispersant. Although multispectral classification holds the key to ac- curate oil work, the thermal response from an oil slick is also useful. Further imagery showed the apparent sea surface temperature vari- ation across an oil slick.

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

Training

Recognizing that no contingency planning or operational prepared-

ness can be effective without adequate training, the Department of Transport conducts a comprehensive national program that is struc- tured in three levels:

1. Operator training. This is hands-on training in the use of spill response equipment. The courses are generally of three days dura- tion and involve 20 to 30 people from government and port author- ities, oil industry, environmental authorities, and shire councils.

2. Workshops for on-scene coordinators. These have received consid- erable attention over recent years and have the aim of providing an effective forum for what is considered to be the most important of our pollution response training functions. These workshops involve about 20 participants, are held for one week, and are designed to address all the essential functions and responsibilities of the oil spill manager. Emphasis is on discussing principles rather than dealing with specific instances and details.

Not for Resale

API

PUBLX4452

87

=

Figure 7. Photograph of oil slick immediately after dispersant spray run

3. Contingency planning workshops. These are designed to cover the site-specific requirements of a contingency plan jointly with the operational resource and organization needs. The workshops are usually held in a small port having a number of basic features such as amenities beaches, fishing industry, oil terminal, and environ- mentally sensitive areas. They are aimed at participation of 20 persons and include an incident scenario the response to which assists with the compilation of a draft plan for the area. From time to time, communications and organization exercises are held to test the resources of one or two states, as are local training exercises with the joint participation of the oil industry (Figure 8). Recently, through closer participation with the International Mari- time Organization, training has been extended to include participants from Southeast Asian countries, and in October 1986, Australia hosted an International Maritime Organization workshop on oil spill response in Cairns, Queensland. Approximately 30 representatives attended from Pacific Island nations as well as Malaysia and the Philippines. It is frequently considered by the uninformed that the art of clean- ing up oil spills has a high degree of mystique. This is not so. Oil spills make things look pretty black for a while. They can have an adverse effect on the environment through smothering and reducing photo- synthesis. They make a sorry mess of birds, and in some cases the release of toxic components into the sea or intertidal zones can cause problems to the more sedentary marine species. The Australian train- ing program attempts to show that success of the cleanup operation is directly proportional to the amount of common sense and balanced advice that is applied; the more emotive the action taken, the less effective that action is going to be.

Conclusion

As stated earlier, Australia has not experienced a major oil spill in its waters since establishment of the existing comprehensive response

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

0732290 0533646 745

CONTINGENCY PLANNING

NATIONAL PLAN TRAINING

[-I

PAHIICII’ATICN

ONLY

INYOLVEMFNT

187

Figure 8. Flow chart of the oil spill training program under the national plan

arrangements. The national plan has, as a result, not been called upon to deal with a spill of the type and size for which it was originally devised. However, the aims and objectives of the plan have been realized in that the level of coordination and liaison among federal and state authorities is high, each authority being aware of the re- sources that may be called upon when the need arises. These aims and objectives are adequately supported by a useful armory of equipment designed to respond to spills of different types of oil in varying loca- tions. Equipment purchased through the national plan frequently is used by port authorities and others in containing and cleaning up minor spills within our ports. Statistics indicate that we can expect 250ut SO such spills around Australia in any given year. Approximately 30 claims for reimbursement of cleanup costs are received and processed annually by the national plan. While the majority of these involve relatively small sums of a few thousand dollars, this regular use of the national plan funding procedures goes some way toward ensuring that the system works effectively.

Appendix

Oil spill equipment: Australia, 1986

 

StateiEauiument

Ouantitv

Location

New South Wales:

 

Vikoma Seapacks

1

Sydney

Marco Class 1 ORV

1

Sydney

Morris MI30 skimmer

1

Sydney

Expandi

trawi boom

1

Sydney

Expandi

3000 boom

700 m

Sydney

Walosep Wi oil recovery unit

1

Sydney

Not for Resale

API

PUBLrYLi52 87 W

188 1987 OIL SPILL CONFERENCE

O732290 0533647 bBL

Vikovac oil recovery unit

1

Sydney

South Australia:

Versatech 12/18 boom

300

m

Sydney

Maximax boom

 

200

m

Port Adelaide

Barracuda 2000 oil recovery unit

1

Sydney

Vikovac oil recovery unit

1 Port Adelaide

Recovered oil barge

1

Sydney

Oil pollution services

 

Komara 12K skimmer

1

Sydney

craft (Conch)

 

1 Port Adelaide

OM1 MK 11-6 oil

recovery unit

1

Sydney

Helicopter spray unit

1 Port Adelaide

JBF DIP 1003 oil recovery vessel

1

Port Botany

Maximax boom

300

m

Port Pirie

Helicopter spray unit

2

Port Botany

Skimmex shoreline barrier

500 m

Port Pirie

Recovered oil barge

1

Port Botany

Troilboom and GT185 oil

 

Roulunds Bay boom

600 m

Port Botany

recovery unit

 

1

Port Pirie

Transpac containers

6

NSW ports

Slickskim oil recovery unit

1

Port Pirie

 

Oil pollution

services craft

(Mui rex)

1

Port Pirie

Victoria:

Transpac containers

5

SA ports

Vikoma Seapacks

1

Melbourne

Marco Class I ORV and trailer

1

Melbourne

Western Australia:

 

OM1 6D oil recovery unit

1

Melbourne

Vikoma Seapack

 

1

Fremantle

OM1 4D oil recovery unit

1

Melbourne

Marco Class I ORV and trailer

1

Fremantle

Skimmex shoreline barrier

500 m

Melbourne

Thune Eureka cargo transfer pump

1

Fremantle

Maximax boom

200

m

Melbourne

Expandi 3000 boom

 

6û0 m

Fremantle

Versatech boom

300

m

Melbourne

Helicopter spray unit

1

Fremantle

Vikovac oil recovery unit

1

Melbourne

Komara 12K skimmer

1

Fremantle

Komara 12K skimmer

1

Melbourne

Troilboom single ship recovery

 

Oil pollution services craft (Clam)

1

Melbourne

system

1

Fremantle

Troilboom and GT185 skimmer

1

Westernport

Komara 12K skimmer

 

1

Geraldton

Helicopter spray unit

2

Westernportl

Versatech ZoornBoom

300

m

Geraldton

 

Melbourne

Expandi 3000 boom

300

m

Bunbury

Roulunds Bay boom

600

m

Westernport

Transpac containers

13

W.A. ports

Recovered oil barge

1 Westernport

 

Barracuda oil recovery unit

1 Geelong

Tasmania:

Komara 12K skimmer

1 Portland

Piranha oil recovery unit

 

1

Hobart

Polutek/Expandi boom

300

m

Portland

Komara 12K skimmer

2

Hobart/Bell Bay

Transpac containers

5

Victorian ports

Polutek boom

500m

Hobart

 

CSC 62 oil recovery unit

1

Devonport

Queensiand:

Versatech 18/24 boom

475

m

Devonport

Marco Class I ORV and trailer

1

Brisbane

Expandi 3000 boom

200 m

Burnie

Troilboom and GT185 skimmer

1

Brisbane

Maximax boom

100 m

Brisbane

Northern Territory:

 

Skimmex shoreline barrier

300

m

Brisbane

Piranha oil recovery unit

 

1

Darwin

Minipak 5, Hoyle manne boom

40 m

Brisbane

Versatech 12/18 boom

300m

Darwin

Oil pollution services craft (Triton)

1

Brisbane

Trailer

1

Darwin

OM1 6D oil recovery unit on trailer

1

Gladstone

Dispersant equipment

 

One set

Darwin

Polutek boom

300

m

Gladstone

Sobar boom

300

m

Gove

Oil pollution services craft (Chiton)

1

Townsville

1. In addition to the equipment listed, dispersal equipment and

Polutek trawl boom and GT185 skimmer

1

Townsville

dispersants, sorbent materials, radiocommunication equipment and

floating plant are available at most ports.

Versatech 12/18 boom

300

m

Cairns

 

Komara 12K MK III skimmer

1

Cairns

Transpac containers

5

Queensland

Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

--`,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Not for Resale