1
How Public Health and Law Enforcement Agencies Worked Together During the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Dr. Joseph Costa, D.H.Sc., PA-C
Health Policy and Management
MPH 525
Shannon Mikrut
June 2013
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
- Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………....…3
The Accident………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
UnknownTerritory…...3
- A Manmade Environmental Disaster……………………………………………………………………………….…3
The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill……………………………………………………………………………..4
Impacts from the Spill……………………………………………………………………………………………..4
- Preparedness and Disaster Relief Control Efforts…………………………………………………………………….5
Mobilizing the Response………………………………………………………………………………….…….....5
The Response Efforts Made by Government Agencies………………………………………………………...…6
The Response Efforts Made by the States………………………………………………………………………...8
The Response Efforts Made by BP………………………………………………………………………...... 8
The Response Efforts Made by Volunteers……………………………………………………………………….9
- Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....9
Lessons Learned……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..9
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Accident
On the evening of April 20th, 2010, the United States Coast Guard District Eight command center received an emergency call explaining that the Transocean Deepwater Horizon (DWHR), a mobile drilling rig run by the oil company British Petroleum (BP), lost control of a deepwater exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico’s Macondo Prospect, and suffered a catastrophic blowout. The U.S. Coast Guard immediately responded to the emergency by dispatching vessels for search and rescue and fire fighting (Aldy, 2011). By the morning of April 21st, the fire still raged and eleven rig workers were missing at sea. A senior executive at BP then reached out the White House to inform senior staff of the accident (Aldy, 2011). On the afternoon of April 22nd, 2010, the DWHR collapsed and sank nearly one mile to the ocean floor. This was the start of the greatest oil spill in the history of the United States and one of the most challenging and complex response operations ever conducted (Epperson, 2011).
UnknownTerritory
As the DWHR sank to bottom of the ocean, thousands of gallons of oil began flowing freely from the well into the ocean. The spill presented challenges that have never before been experienced by humankind. At this time, an oil spill had never taken place offshore or at depths of this magnitude. The leaking well was nearly one mile, or 1500 meters below the ocean surface, which made the spill categorically different from all previous well-studied crude oil released into the sea(Peterson, Anderson, Cherr, Ambrose, Anghera, Bay, & ... Taylor, 2012). Prior to the event, the scientific model of maritime oil behavior, fate, and exposure pathways had just limited understanding of spills when on or near the surface of near shore waters (Peterson et al., 2012). There were serious gaps in the base-line information on deep-sea communities, their functioning, and ecotoxicological vulnerability in regards to oil being discharged under such high pressure. The Incident Specific Preparedness Review (ISPR), which is conducted to evaluate all large-scale oil spill events, determined that the oil industry and the U.S. government were not adequately prepared to deal with such a massive spill (Oil Spill Intelligence Report, 2011).
Chapter 2
A Manmade Environmental Disaster
The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Due to a lacking preparedness model and unprecedented circumstances, it took nearly three months to cap the well and stop the leak of oil; during which time, more than 7,000 vessels, 800 specialized oil skimmers, 120 aircraft, and 47,000 people on the ground worked simultaneously in an effort to contain the spill and ease the damaging impacts of the oil pollution (Aldy, 2011). The capping of the well was a difficult multiple stage process that required innovation, collaboration from experts around the world, technological advancements, and a multitude of resources (Whitehouse.gov, 2010). After continued efforts and failed attempts, the well was officially capped by BP, concluding the spill of oil, on July 15th, 2010. There is currently no confirmed amount of oil that was leaked into the ocean as a result of the incident; however, it is estimated by experts and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that approximately 210,000 gallons of oil escaped each day from the leaking well (Amico, 2010). Despite the ceased flow of oil into the ocean, efforts are still being conducted to this day to repair and reverse the damage caused by the event.
Impacts from the Spill
As oil continued to gush out of the broken wellhead and contaminate Gulf waters, a variety of ecosystems, wildlife, and habitats were threatened by encroaching oil and gas. Migratory birds, sea turtles, dolphins, and other ocean species were found trapped and covered in oil slick. More than 8,000 birds and marine animals were found injured or dead within the first six months after the spill. On shore landscapes were impacted by oil washing ashore and damaging beaches and nesting grounds. Deep sea corals were discovered dead roughly seven miles away from the DWHR oil well (National Wildlife Federation, 2013). Louisiana had to close several state waters to the fishing industry in May 2010, because of concerns associated with sea creatures ingesting oil. Federal waters also closed despite the start of the shrimping season and the damaging economic impacts on the fishing industry, local seafood businesses, local residents, and the entire GulfCoast region to protect people from potential toxic exposures (Aldy, 2011). Many hotels and resorts along the GulfCoast suffered financially from tourism rates dropping and lost jobs.
There are many other environmental and life changing impacts that developed from the Gulf oil spill and many that are still unknown. Researchers and scientists are still assessing the effects of the spill, and continue to monitor the GulfCoast region as impacts from the disaster continue to unfold. Concerns regarding decreased wildlife and fish populations, an unbalanced food web, economic strain from decreased recreation, and potential health issues from chemical exposure are still impacts at play for subsequent years to come, despite the well being capped nearly two years ago (National Wildlife Federation, 2013).
Chapter 3
Preparedness and Disaster Relief Control Efforts
Mobilizing the Response
Relief and control efforts began immediately on April 22nd, 2010, after the DWHR sinking. The National Response Team (NRT) organized its first daily meeting with leadership from across the federal government, including the White House, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others (Epperson, 2011). The NRT is an interagency organization made up sixteen different federal agencies and departments responsible for emergency preparedness and response to oil and hazardous substance pollution events (Epperson, 2011). The NRT has three major responsibilities in the result of a hazardous pollution event, distributing information, such as technical, financial, and operational; planning for emergencies, in which the roles for federal agencies are outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP); and training for emergencies, mostly done by state and local personnel (EPA, 2011). President Obama and the NRT agreed to mobilize all available government assets to aid in searching for the eleven missing rig workers, contain the oil spill, and mitigate both economic and environmental damage caused by the spill (Epperson, 2011).
Disaster response efforts consisted of federal, state, and local agencies, non government organizations, scientists, oil experts, local residents, and numerous volunteers working and collaborating together. As no agency was prepared for such a large spill, nor were any methods in place to address a leaking well in deep water, an ad hoc team of scientists and experts from U.S. government agencies, Department of Energy national laboratories, BP personnel, and the oil and gas industry were put together to design, evaluate, and implement various well-control measures (Epperson, 2011). Awaiting a solution, hot pressurized oil and gas continued to leak and be entrained in cold sea waters. This produced a variety of oil variations including oil droplets, gas bubbles, oil-gas emulsions, and gas hydrates. A variety of methods were utilized to reduce adverse impacts from the spill until a resolution was found. Attempts to relieve the harmful impacts of oil on the environment included 0.77 million gallons of chemical dispersants being injected at the wellhead and on the top water; mechanical skimming of oil that reached the surface; surface oil burning; boom deployment; berm construction; water diversion and manipulation; cleaning up shorelines where oil washed ashore; and other efforts to save treasured ecosystems, wildlife and habitat (Peterson et al., 2012).
The Response Efforts Made by Government Agencies
The federal government was actively involved in the oil response and disaster relief efforts. Immediately following the incident, the DHS responded by deploying the U.S. Coast Guard to aid in all necessary relief efforts. As the Secretary of Homeland Security is also the leader of the NRT, the Department played a significant role throughout each phase of the disaster’s response and control efforts. The DHS also established a control center on the GulfCoast to foster coordination efforts between state and local governments (Whitehouse.gov, 2012).
The EPA organized personnel to perform continued monitoring of air, water, sediment, and waste generated by the leaking oil and cleanup operations (EPA, 2013). Samples were routinely collected and analyzed to help guide where cleanup efforts were most needed and ensure safety. In response to growing controversy and disagreements that arose regarding the use of dispersants in the water, the EPA began conducting new tests on the acute short-term toxicity to two standard laboratory test organisms for dispersants considered for and used in the spill (Peterson et al., 2012). Oil dispersants had never been used on such a large scale and debates involved evaluating the trade-offs of use (Peterson et al., 2012). Controversy also surrounded the impacts of using dispersants in the deep water due to unknown factors such as its efficacy, ecological impacts, and potential toxicity to a variety of living organisms. Prior to the DWHR oil spill, there was no detailed understanding of the physicochemical behavior of oil, gas, and dispersants when its released under an array of environmental conditions, such as adverse weather; dynamic changes in buoyancy and physical circulation of deep waters; and its role to biological exposures (Peterson et al., 2012).
Within the Department of Labor (DOL), several agencies worked to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of those involved in the oil spill response and cleanup efforts. Oil response workers were at risk of being exposed to varying levels of chemical, physical, biological, and psychological hazards. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) evaluated safety at worksites around the Gulf, including local beaches, vessels that aided in oil cleanup efforts, and the decontamination, distribution, and deployment sites (Whitehouse.gov, 2010). The Employment and Training Administration helped facilitate retraining and employment placement to help workers who were displaced from their jobs find new opportunities. Efforts from the DOL also included providing support and resources regarding wage laws and federal contract to local residents (Whitehouse.gov, 2010).
The DOI’s secretary went to the GulfCoast following the DWHR explosion to support and coordinate response efforts and to provide the administration with hourly updates (Whitehouse.gov, 2012). The DOI also played a vital role in monitoring BP’s response efforts to the spill. BP was determined to be the party at blame for the incident and therefore deemed responsible for containment efforts, the damages incurred to local businesses and residents, wages lost due to the inability to perform certain jobs due to the contamination of the spill, habitat restoration, and others (Whitehouse.gov, 2010).
The DOI’s Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, were actively involved in the Gulf spill operations as well. Land managers, wildlife specialists, and support workers aided in putting booms in place to capture oil before it could spread to the Breton National Wildlife Refuge, a place where thousands of brown pelicans and shorebirds were nesting (Whitehouse.gov, 2010). Along with the refuge, eight national parks in the Gulf of Mexico were in jeopardy of being affected by the spill. Protection and human safety were of top priority, along with assessment of resources, collecting baseline data, coordinating boom placement, eco-friendly cleanup, installation of barriers, and protecting turtle nesting grounds in the parks. Throughout the process, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration council to lead activities and address long-term damage to natural resources (Whitehouse.gov, 2010).
The NOAA is considered the nation’s leading scientific resource for oil spills and aided federal, state, and local organizations by providing them with scientific weather and biological response services instantly following the incident (Whitehouse.gov, 2012). The DOD allowed forAir Force and Naval bases in the surrounding area to be used as a staging area for boom deployments, chemical dispersant set up, and other relief activities. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense authorized the use of Title 32 for National Guard members in four of the GulfCoast states to aid the federal government in relief efforts (Whitehouse.gov, 2012). Several other efforts were made by government agencies in response to the oil spill.
Despite the significant resources and efforts invested by the government, many different organizations, disaster evaluation experts, and public citizens criticized the federal government’s response efforts. The government was not prepared, nor properly equipped for an oil spill of this magnitude. Inadequate funding and understanding of deep water oil and spill procedures caused delays in response efforts and untested methods to be utilized. Agencies failed to acquire in advance of deep water drilling the approval that drillers demonstrate the availability of tested technologies to terminate a deepwater blowout (Peterson, et al., 2012). Complaints from state and local officials suggested that the federal government’s insufficient preparedness model, lack of support, and poor communication lead to delayed action and uncertain role expectations for both state and local executives during the disaster response (Birkland & DeYoung, 2011). There are many different consequences that developed from these mishaps, but they all resulted in more oil being leaked into the ocean.
The Response Efforts Made by the States
The states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana were all at risk of being impacted from the spill due to their coastal shores being in the Gulf of Mexico. All five states lead and aided disaster response efforts. They partnered with the federal government, directed volunteer efforts, and employed their state emergency response plans. Efforts consisted of protecting wildlife and habitat, cleanup of beaches, aiding in oil removal, and providing public health services. Restoration efforts throughout the Gulf States are facilitated by the Deepwater Horizon Trustee Council. The trustees are responsible for evaluating the impacts to natural resources caused from the spill, and are working to restore, replace, and rehabilitate the affected natural resources (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2013).
The Response Efforts Made by BP
The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 enacts policies that specify collaboration between federal, state, and tribal governments, together with the parties responsible for the spill, to assess impacts and achieve restoration (Peterson, et al., 2012). The OPA has a liability cap of $75 million for damages. Upon investigation and the report of the presidential National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling documented many failings among BP’s actions leading up to the event and other parties’ policy failings (Peterson, et al., 2012).
In the aftermath of the explosion, investigations were carried out by several entities, and it was determined that BP was the responsible party for the oil spill. BP was therefore deemed responsible by the OPA for capping oil well, aiding in disaster response efforts, and for the costs associated with removal of oil, ongoing cleanup and restoration efforts, and public and environmental damages (BP, 2013). In November of 2012, BP reached an agreement with the US government to resolve all federal criminal claims arising out of the Gulf of Mexico incident (BP, 2013). BP also pleaded guilty to 11 felony counts of misconduct or neglect of ship’s officers, relating to the loss of 11 lives; one misdemeanor count under the Clean Water Act; one misdemeanor count under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and one felony count of obstruction of Congress (BP, 2013). BP committed to pay all legitimate claims made in relation to the oil spill; even above the liability limit enforced by the OPA. As of a public report completed on April 30th, 2013, BP has paid a total of $10,928,298,057 in individual, business, government, and other miscellaneous claims in relation to the oil spill (BP, 2013). Issues did originally arise regarding BP’s promptness to reimbursing the claims, to help the issue, a third party took over processing claims (Whitehouse.gov, 2012). BP also agreed to take additional actions, enforceable by the court, to further enhance the safety of drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.