Ask the MSSC—You have questions. We have answers from the USCG Marine Safety and Security Council.

Where is the USCG going with the STCW NPRM, especially the near coastal, domestic lower tonnage licenses, and possibly imposing officer in charge of a navigational watch (OICNW) requirements?

Answered by the USCG Office of Standards Evaluation and Development.


The International Maritime Organization comprehensively amended the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978, in 1995. The amendments came into force on February 1, 1997. The Coast Guard amended its regulations implementing the STCW amendments in an interim rule published on June 26, 1997. The current Coast Guard project proposes to amend this interim rule to more fully incorporate the requirements of STCW.

Specific changes to the interim rule involving domestic lower tonnage licenses and OICNW requirements have not yet been determined. Changes under consideration are being developed to:

• continue to give full and complete effect to the STCW Convention,
• incorporate lessons learned from STCW implementation through the interim rule and through Coast Guard guidance documents,
• clarify regulations that have generated confusion.

The revisions to the current rules will ensure that the U.S. continues to comply with the STCW requirements on merchant mariner training and documents their qualifications and watchstanding and other arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the United States. This proposed rulemaking will also streamline regulations for the mariner credential issuance process.

Understanding Fatty Acid Methyl Esters

This "Chemical of the Quarter" excerpt is from the U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine, by Mr. Tom Felleisen, lead chemical engineer for bulk liquids and gases in the Hazardous Materials Standards Division.



Fatty Acid Methyl Esters

What is it?
Fatty Acid Methyl Esters (FAME) is the product shipping name for biodiesel, a replacement fuel for petroleum-derived diesel oil. FAME can be produced from animal fat or vegetable oil, including waste oil from fast food retailers.

How is it shipped?
On barges, FAME can be carried as a Grade E combustible liquid. For the purposes of the Oil Pollution Act, FAME is considered oil. Under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, FAME carriage must be on a Type 2 chemical carrier (double-hull).

Why should I care?
Shipping concerns. For the past several years, FAME shipments have been increasing. Since oceangoing ships must meet MARPOL Annex II requirements, there could be a significant rise in the number of certificates of compliance as the use of chemical tankers increases incrementally.

Health concerns. There are no significant health concerns. However, the International Bulk Chemical Code does indicate that FAME has a safety hazard based on an estimate of the effect of a fine mist of FAME being accidentally inhaled. In making that safety hazard determination, however, there was no evidence that such a mist could be made under normal conditions, so the hazard is purely hypothetical.

Fire or explosion concerns. For FAME, the concerns about fire or explosion are, in a way, the opposite of what one normally considers. In particular, FAME has a flashpoint above and an energy density below those of petroleum-derived diesel.

Therefore, it is safer than diesel, but in consequence engine performance parameters must be adjusted to take those differences between FAME and diesel into account. Since FAME is a combustible liquid, it does not require an inert gas system for fire protection. Nonetheless, inert gas may be needed to keep FAME from absorbing water vapor that is in the same tank.

FAME is unusual because it will not dissolve in water (the technical term is “hydrophobic”), but it will absorb water (it is “hygroscopic”). Compensating for those properties is not too difficult when shipping by vessel, but those properties mean that it may not be able to reach major markets using existing oil pipelines.

What’s the Coast Guard doing about it?
Current enforceable regulations for FAME need to be brought up to international standards, but overall existing methods of carriage by tank vessel already provide an excellent level of safety and environmental protection.


For more information:
Full article is available at: http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009/articles/69_Felleisen_Chemical%20of%20the%20Quarter.pdf .

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

SS Sultana Explosion and Fire Anniversary – April 27, 1865

145 years ago today, the United States experienced its most significant marine casualty in terms of lives lost. On that day the steamship Sultana exploded and caught fire. An estimated 1,700 of the approximately 2,400 passengers and crew died after one of the ship’s boilers exploded.

The vessel had a certificated capacity of 376. The ship had just left Vicksburg en route St. Louis. She was carrying numerous Union Army veterans home, many recently released from Confederate prisons. The Sultana was severely overcrowded, and many of her passengers had been weakened by their incarceration and associated illnesses.

Subsequently, inspection standards for steamboats were strengthened and the Steamboat Inspection Service was created in 1871.

Sometimes it is good to remember just how far we have come in marine safety.

National Strategy Developed for Uninspected Passenger Vessel Compliance

Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, discussed Uninspected Passenger Vessel Compliance in his blog on Friday, April 23. 

"The Coast Guard will team up with state boating authorities to raise awareness and educate vessel operators and consumers on uninspected passenger vessel licensing requirements. Uninspected Passenger Vessels are those vessels that carry six or fewer passengers for hire on federally navigable waters. There are over 30,000 legal UPVs in the U.S.  ...  " 

Follow this link to read the entire entry:  http://blog.uscg.dhs.gov/2010/04/national-strategy-developed-for.html

Natural-born Killers—anti-fouling coating systems and their mixed effects on the marine environment

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine, by Mr. Charles (Bud) Darr, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law.


Like so many issues related to environmental protection, balancing the benefits of a particular protective measure against the potential harm is a prime consideration. For example, anti-fouling hull coating systems can provide substantial environmental benefits, but an effective coating system can also have an unfortunate negative impact on the marine environment. In other words, what happens when the natural-born killers are too good at killing?

Positive Effects of Anti-fouling Coating Systems
As a ship’s hull becomes fouled with biological matter, the resulting surface friction causes a significant increase in the power required to maintain speed. The additional power output results in increased fuel consumption, which adds cost. As power output increases, the air pollution emissions from a shipboard propulsion system also increase.

Possible Environmental Harm
Among the environmental harm caused by certain anti-fouling coating systems are documented mutations in invertebrate species, long-term heavy metal deposition, effects on marine mammals, and dangers to human health and welfare.

Although more research remains to be done, there is a growing belief that the top of the food chain, including these mammal vertebrate species, is substantially affected by exposure to these biocides.

Ongoing Efforts
At present, the principal substitutes are copper-based coating systems. However, copper is far from a perfect solution because it is also associated with negative environmental effects, though not believed to be as serious as those related to biocides.

Although there are some less toxic alternative biocides under consideration, some of the most promising alternatives may be those that approach the problem by inhibiting adherence of the species to the hull rather than killing the species directly.


For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/Winter2008-09/.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

The Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program—a U.S. Coast Guard aquatic invasive species reduction incentive

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LCDR Brian Moore, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Environmental Standards.


The accelerating problem of invasive species in U.S. marine ecosystems is driven largely by changes in shipping practices and increases in traffic volume over the last decades. In the past, most species’ translocation occurred when people purposely introduced organisms they wished to establish in a new location, or when the occasional “hitchhiker” species clung to the hull of a ship to make its way to a new location.

Stowaways
More recently, single-purpose ships such as crude oil carriers now routinely sail to one port with cargo and return to the loading port in ballast, carrying millions of gallons of water each ballast voyage and repeatedly innoculating the waters in the loading port with water from the cargo offloading port. This can reinforce colonies of species that may have been deposited on previous voyages. This repeat depositing of millions of gallons of aquatic organism-carrying water is the perfect design for establishing viable colonies of nonindigenous species in new locations.

As shipping practices evolve and trade increases, such ship-mediated invasions put additional areas at risk for similar ecological and economic impact.

What’s Being Done?
International, national, state, and local efforts have been initiated to address the problem of ballast water-facilitated species translocation.

To facilitate the invention of new systems to address organisms in ships’ ballast water, the U.S. Coast Guard developed the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) to provide an incentive for ship owners to participate in experimental evaluations of promising technologies on operational cargo vessels.

The STEP Process
Under STEP, successful applicants receive an “equivalency,” whereby the Coast Guard deems that use of the experimental system satisfies ballast water management requirements. Enrollment includes a rigorous evaluation of the prototype’s likelihood of success based on a thorough review of the science and engineering behind the technology.

Following this review, the applicant’s study plan is peer-reviewed for scientific rigor and validity. Finally, the Coast Guard completes a thorough evaluation of the potential environmental impact associated with the use of the system. Only upon completion of these screening measures are systems accepted and allowed to begin in U.S. waters.

Technologies Under Evaluation
Current applicants have proposed mechanical filtration systems that expose organisms to ultraviolet energy, use of in situ-generated chlorine ions, and dosing ballast water with chlorine dioxide for sterilization.

Additional technologies that are being advanced include using ultrasonic energy to disrupt cellular structures, heat to sterilize the water, various chemicals as biocides, and de-oxygenation to suffocate any organisms.

As these ballast water treatment efforts mature, a future focus will include dealing with organisms that attach themselves to ships’ hulls, shafts, and anchors, a process that also transports species outside their native range.


For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/Winter2008-09/.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Proceedings Spring 2010 Available Online

The current edition of Proceedings (Spring 2010 – U.S. Coast Guard Rulemaking) is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/.

This “U.S. Coast Guard Rulemaking” issue will give the maritime industry as well as the American public better insight into the USCG rulemaking process and understand the value we place on it. Readers/stakeholders will learn how developing and implementing regulations are effective ways for the Coast Guard to save lives, protect the environment, and safeguard our maritime security.

Setting a Course for Ballast Water Management—reducing the global spread of aquatic nuisance species

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. John Morris, environmental protection specialist, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards.


Photo Caption: Petty Officer Travis Kelly looks through a refractometer at a sample of ballast water.

In our Great Lakes, more than 160 non-native species have been introduced since the 1800s—one-third of which have appeared in the past 30 years. The zebra mussel alone is estimated to have cost $750 million to $1 billion in damages or control measures between 1989 and 2000. The Chesapeake and San Francisco Bays, Puget Sound, and other waters of the U.S. have been similarly affected by aquatic nuisance species.

Their spread is a threat to the global marine environment, not just to U.S. waters. The North American comb jellyfish has decimated Black Sea anchovy fisheries. Chinese mitten crabs burrow into German riverbanks, and “red tides” caused by Japanese toxic dinoflagellates impact Australian shellfish beds.

U.S. Efforts
In response to concerns regarding aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes in the mid-1980s, the federal government enacted the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA). It was reauthorized and expanded to cover all U.S. waters with the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).

NANPCA/NISA directed the Coast Guard, in association with the Smithsonian Institution, to establish the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md., created and maintains the NBIC’s electronic database to track and analyze changes in patterns of ballast water discharge and management in U.S. waters.

Under NANPCA, the Coast Guard developed mandatory ballast water management (BWM) regulations for vessels in the Great Lakes in 1993, and extended them to the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge in 1994.

In 1996, NISA established a national ballast water management program for all U.S. waters. The Coast Guard issued voluntary guidelines in 1999 and mandatory regulations in 2004. These regulations require each vessel to maintain a BWM plan and assign responsibility to the master or appropriate official to execute the ballast water management strategy. All vessels arriving in U.S. ports or places must submit BWM reports to the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse.

The Coast Guard has also developed the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 07-04, Change-1, “Ballast Water Management for the Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Waters of the United States,” to provide guidance concerning compliance with and enforcement of the BWM program.

In 2005 the Coast Guard established a policy for vessels declaring “no ballast on board,” or NOBOB. These NOBOB vessels may carry unpumpable ballast water and/or sediments in their ballast tanks. The policy encourages NOBOB vessels to conduct mid-ocean exchange on all ballast-laden voyages or, if unable to do so, conduct saltwater flushing of their “empty” ballast tanks prior to entering the Great Lakes.

International Efforts
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments in 2004. The Coast Guard coordinates the U.S. government’s participation on the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which serves as the IMO’s coordinating body on marine pollution issues, and develops agreements and technical and administrative guidelines for convention implementation.

The Coast Guard works with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, Maritime Administration, Navy Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and State Department, to coordinate U.S. government positions and analyses on issues for IMO MEPC meetings.

The United States, Canada, the U.S. St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation cooperate to inspect vessels entering the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard and Transport Canada signed an agreement in 2004 to share resources and track results.

Ballast Water Management Systems
The Coast Guard is developing a program for type approval of BWM systems and coordinating with the EPA regarding ballast water management systems that use active substances. These technologies may include:

• mechanical means of removal such as filtration or separation;
• physical means of killing or disabling organisms such as ultraviolet light, de-oxygenation, ultrasound, or cavitation;
• chemical biocides added to ballast water or generated aboard, such as ozone or hypochlorite generators.

The Coast Guard initiated the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) to provide incentive for ship owners to participate in the experimental testing of prototype BWM systems. Ships with installed experimental ballast water management systems accepted to participate in STEP may receive a designation of equivalency to future ballast water discharge standard regulations.


For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/Winter2008-09/.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Efficient, Environmentally Friendly LNG Vaporization Methods

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LT Hannah Kawamoto, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, Deepwater Ports Standards Division.


Natural gas is odorless, colorless, non-toxic, non-corrosive, and, when supercooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns into liquefied natural gas (LNG). Liquefying natural gas reduces its volume by more than 600 times, which makes it more efficient and practical to transport.

When liquefied natural gas reaches its destination, it is revaporized back into a gas, which is then linked to pipelines that transport the gas.

Best Available Commercial Technologies
The three sources of thermal energy typically used to warm LNG from a liquid to a gaseous state are ambient air, heat from combustion, and seawater.

Each system uses a vaporization process that passes the liquefied natural gas through pipes that are surrounded by a heating medium to transfer heat into the LNG. “Direct” heat is when the heating medium directly warms the liquefied natural gas. “Indirect” heat is when the heating medium is used to warm an intermediate (or secondary) medium that transfers the heat to the LNG.

Intermediate Fluid Vaporizers
An intermediate fluid vaporizer uses an intermediate heat transfer fluid (such as propane, refrigerant, or a water/glycol mixture) to revaporize LNG. Although refrigerant and propane have low flash points ideal for heat transfer, the operational risks are much higher when handling these types of fluids, and they are very costly. The water/glycol mixture has a high flash point, requiring a larger heat transfer area, which results in a larger system than the propane or refrigerant systems. However, the water/glycol fluid system is more cost effective and the associated operational risks are relatively low.

Ambient Air Vaporizers
Ambient air vaporization (AAV) technology uses ambient air as the thermal energy source to vaporize liquefied natural gas. The LNG is distributed through a series of surface heat exchangers, where the air travels down and out the bottom of the vaporizer.

This can be set up as either a direct heat or indirect heat system. AAV technology is best suited for areas with warmer ambient temperatures. Frost on the vaporizer is an issue because the LNG is vaporized directly against the air and the water vapor in the air condenses and freezes. Frost build-up reduces performance and heat transfer. Additionally, the ambient air vaporization system requires a significant amount of space.

Open Rack Vaporizers
Open rack vaporizers use seawater as the thermal energy source in a direct heat system to vaporize the LNG. To control algae growth within the system, chlorine is injected on the intake side of the system. The treated seawater is then pumped to the top of the water box and travels down along the outer surface of the tube heat exchanger panels, while LNG flows upward through these tubes and is vaporized. Because this technology relies on seawater as the primary heat source, it is only effective where seawater temperatures exceed approximately 63 degrees Fahrenheit.

Shell and Tube Vaporizers
Shell and tube vaporizers (STV) also use seawater as the thermal energy source. The liquefied natural gas passes through multiple tubes while seawater enters a shell surrounding the tubes.

A closed-loop system uses an intermediate fluid to transfer heat. The intermediate fluid flows through tubes in separate heating equipment to absorb heat, then the fluid passes through the STV unit to re-gasify the LNG. Since there are two heat exchangers, this requires a large amount of space.

Submerged Combustion Vaporizers
Submerged combustion vaporizers do not use seawater for LNG vaporization. Instead, the liquefied natural gas is warmed by flowing through tube bundles that are submerged in a water bath, which is heated by natural gas combustion. The submerged combustion burner emits hot exhaust gas that directly heats the water bath by bubbling through the water to an exhaust stack.

Waste Heat Recovery and Engine Cooling Technology
Deepwater ports can use regasification vessels equipped with revaporization systems to vaporize the LNG. Waste heat recovery and engine cooling technologies have been incorporated as part of the revaporization system to improve the efficiency and reduce the emissions of these regasification vessels.

Additionally, using engine cooling technology reduces the amount of seawater intake because instead of cooling the engines solely with seawater, cooled water from the LNG vaporization process is used to cool the engines. Additionally, any cooling systems can be tied into the intermediate fluid, such as the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems.


For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/Winter2008-09/.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Lounging on the Deep Green Sea—cruise line efforts in environmental stewardship

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. Steve Collins, director of Environmental and Health Programs, Cruise Lines International Association, Inc.

Environmental Efforts
Cruise ships were some of the first in the industry to work with municipalities in Alaska and California to develop shore power connections at berth, allowing a vessel to shut down its engines and eliminate air emissions from the vessel. Other vessels are test platforms for ballast water treatment systems, more efficient lighting, and plasma arc gasification (a waste incineration process).

Cruise lines also work with equipment manufacturers to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter through in-engine technology and exhaust gas scrubbers. Many vessels are equipped with advanced waste water treatment systems to treat black (sewage) and gray water and turn it into clean water.

Waste Management
As one might expect, cruise ships generate large amounts of waste, but it is not volume that constitutes or prevents pollution, it is the strength or failure of waste management practices and procedures. In the first picture, environmental officer Malcolm Barry, right, prepares waste for landing ashore. Managing waste includes:

• landing it ashore to an approved disposal facility,
• grinding and screening for disposal to the sea (mostly food waste),
• sorting and combusting in an incinerator,
• reusing,
• sorting and compacting for recycling.

Reduce
Cruise ships continually analyze where waste is generated and work to reduce the amount of waste coming aboard. The process has also been used to reduce toxicity of chemical products. Also, buying bulk concentrates and using dispensing stations reduces the number and volume of bottles of prepared products coming aboard.

Reuse, Recycle
Today’s port facilities can recycle aluminum cans, tin, glass, cardboard, white paper, photo copier cartridges, plastics, photo waste, cooking oil, carpet, paints and thinners, batteries, and even electronics.

One challenge for a vessel with finite storage space is deciding where to put items awaiting recycling. Cooking oil and glass from beer and wine bottles are stored in cold rooms to keep them from attracting pests. Most other recyclables are compacted into palette-sized bundles that can be stacked and landed ashore.

Ships are also unique in that they can land some wastes to the dock and others to a barge, opening recycling opportunities to both land- and sea-based companies. The picture here depicts a barge taking on recycling materials from a cruise ship in Vancouver, B.C., Canada.


For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/Winter2008-09//.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Marine Debris—solutions to a persistent problem

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. David Major, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Standards Division.


As a compliance and enforcement agency, the U.S. Coast Guard regulates items that may become marine debris. Beyond this regulatory role, the U.S. Coast Guard provides support and leadership for a variety of anti-marine debris activities.

Persistent Materials
The term “marine debris” encompasses a variety of items that persist in the marine environment. The picture at left shows Coast Guard Seaman Bryan Grebe as he works to offload a mountain of fishnet from the Coast Guard Cutter Walnut. While shipwrecks and other artifacts indicate that man-made items are already present in the marine environment, social and technical changes have added a new dimension to the problem.

Replacing natural fibers with synthetic has exacerbated the marine debris problem. Fishing nets, for example, used to be made with natural materials. Modern nets are typically made of synthetic materials. In addition to resisting decay, modern nets are more likely to maintain positive buoyancy.

Widespread consumer use of persistent, single-use beverage containers, such as aluminum cans and plastic bottles, also took hold in the United States. Today, the “individual retail package” is a common sight on the shores of many American beaches.

In the case of consumer plastics, the advances in durability of synthetic fibers combined with a lifestyle based on throwaway goods can also create a significant threat to the marine environment. Plastic straws, beverage bottles, and bags are the most commonly found marine debris items.

Transportation of Marine Debris
One unique problem with marine debris prevention stems from the ocean’s ability to move and circulate the debris. The combination of ocean currents and atmospheric winds can transport debris across great distances. It can also retain and concentrate items.

Nets and other fishing gear may come from fisheries far from the marine ecosystem that suffers the impact; more than 80 percent of the northwest Hawaiian Islands’ recovered derelict gear comes from seine or trawl fisheries operating hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Derelict fishing gear may circulate for years in areas like the North Pacific.

The Environmental Toll
Marine debris is known to cause mortality among marine species. Even after being lost, fishing gear can continue to kill fish in a process known as “ghost fishing.” Ghost nets can also entrap and kill species that were never intended to be netted. In 2003, the endangered Hawaiian monk seal had one of the highest entanglement rates of any seal worldwide (see seal picture).

Seabirds may mistake fragments of plastic for food. This may cause intestinal blockages or reduction in the absorption of nutrients. Filter-feeding organisms may be unable to distinguish between debris and plankton.

Coast Guard Activities to Prevent Marine Debris
The U.S. Coast Guard combats marine pollution by regulating the at-sea discharge of vessel-generated waste. Certain vessels over 40 feet must maintain a written document that provides for compliance with Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 and U.S. law, including a description of procedures for collecting, processing, storing, and discharging garbage. Placarding is required for the smallest class of vessels.

The Coast Guard also ensures compliance with U.S. regulations related to marine environmental protection through inspections and boardings. For recreational and commercial fishing vessels that are not required by law to be inspected, boardings allow the Coast Guard to ensure environmental compliance.

Annual facility inspections and harbor patrol spot-checks ensure compliance among reception facilities. When a vessel is found to have violated regulations, we may issue written warnings, impose monetary civil penalties, and, for the most serious instances, refer the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution or civil judicial enforcement action.

Beyond Regulation: Finding Solutions to a Persistent Problem
During discussions at a Coast Guard-sponsored meeting in Irvine, Calif., marine industry members highlighted the strides they have taken to minimize waste. Some cruise ships have voluntarily developed advanced programs for waste minimization and waste stream management. One practical example is using beverage containers without plastic rings.

Concerned civic organizations in Southern California recently banded together to promote a “Day Without a Bag.” Stores donated reusable bags and offered discounts and rebates to reusable bag users.

Through the “Sea Partners” campaign, U.S. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary personnel educate the maritime industry and boating public on pollution issues via public education classes, vessel safety checks, voluntary commercial vessel exams, public marine events, and annual pollution prevention conferences. Through school visits and educational materials, the “Officer Snook” program communicates Sea Partners’ marine pollution mission to children.

Looking Forward
While the Coast Guard has authority over a mere fragment of items that might be considered marine debris, it is fitting that the solution to a problem composed of small persistent fragments is found in the aggregate effect of small contributions to marine debris prevention and reduction.

Through its regulatory authorities, the U.S. Coast Guard can limit the amount of persistent items entering the environment from sea-based sources. As a partnering organization, it can cooperate with international counterparts to prevent the deposition of debris beyond U.S. jurisdiction; work with government agencies to develop policy that will reduce marine debris; remove items that pose significant harm to the environment; and assist industry to develop strategies that exceed legal obligations, especially in regard to garbage handling and source reduction.

Most importantly, the U.S. Coast Guard can educate a concerned public about the dangers of marine pollution and its ability to ensure that marine debris will become less pervasive.


For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/Winter2008-09/.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Efficiencies in Vessel Response Plan Program

CDR Lee Boone and Mr. Timothy Brown were guest bloggers on "iCommandant" on Friday where they described internal process improvements of the Vessel Response Program.  For more information on VRPs, go to the VRP page on Homeport.  //

Greener Oil Spill Response Operations—ways to make less of a mess when cleaning one up

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LT Kelly Dietrich, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Incident Management and Preparedness, Oil and Hazardous Substance Division.


When marine oil spills occur, response officials cooperate to minimize environmental impact. Objectives for on-water operations include preventing oil or debris from migrating to the shore, removing oil from the water, and minimizing overall environmental intrusion.

Ironically, cleanup operations themselves can generate waste and environmental impact, such as:

• contaminated sorbents used in the containment/collection effort,
• contaminated personal protective equipment,
• floating trash that comes into contact with oil.

Waste Makes Waste
Objectives for minimizing net environmental impact should include reducing the amount of solid waste from boom and sorbents, reducing the amount of liquid waste from decontamination and on-water recovery, reusing cleanup equipment and resources, and recycling recovered oil. Today's picture shows an on-site example of excessive use of soft boom during a waterfront remediation project. Once discovered, the USCG assisted contractors toward creating a static hard boom containment.

Waste segregation. Consciously keeping different waste types separated during a response can ensure that response actions minimize the amount of hazardous waste, and careful management of waste streams can increase the opportunity to recycle and/or reuse materials.

Decanting. The idea behind decanting is to separate oily water using the chemical properties of the oil. The oily water is left in a tank to separate, then water is removed until only the oil layer remains. This method greatly reduces the volume of liquid that requires treatment.

Reducing and reusing sorbents and booms. It takes discipline and understanding to decide how much sorbent to put in the water. Another option is to use hard boom for collecting oil. Hard boom is designed for reuse but requires decontamination (with water). So although the solid waste volume is reduced, this option can increase the liquid waste volume.

Personal protective equipment. Human health and safety is the number-one priority during any spill response. Although safety specialists conduct hazard assessments to determine the appropriate level of personal protective equipment, many responders have a “more is better” mentality. When additional personal protective equipment is not actually necessary to provide protection, it may cause more environmental damage.

Beach clean-up. When oil hits the shoreline, all of the trash and organic material that comes into contact with it must be treated as hazardous waste. Picking up trash on beaches before the oil can migrate there reduces the total amount of hazardous waste.

Reprocessing, incinerating, and recycling recovered oil. Liquid-recovered oil is not easy to reprocess, given the large amount of debris that is usually entrained in it. Some refineries can process recovered oil, but usually only do so if the spill involves them or occurs on their property. Even so, solid wastes must be incinerated or disposed of at a hazardous waste site.

Another option is to send recovered oil to a waste recycling facility. This costs between 25 cents to a dollar per gallon, depending on how much contamination the recovered product contains.

Dispersants, in-situ burning, bioremediation. Dispersants are chemicals applied directly to the spilled oil to remove it from the water surface. The idea is to break down the oil into small enough particles that they are diluted into the water column and are biodegraded easier. With in-situ burning, the tradeoff is that the contamination moves into the air in the form of particulates and smoke. Bioremediation uses micro-organisms to break down the oil through natural processes. This can take a very long time, and its effectiveness is still being studied.

For more information:
Full article and “Environmental Protection” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at www.uscg.mil/proceedings. Click on “archives” and then "2008-09 Volume 65, Number 4" (Winter 2008-09).

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Direct requests for print copies of this edition to: HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.