One on One Interview-Good

Page 1 of 6

File Name:one on one interview-good

Daniel Bryant:Okay, my name is Daniel Bryant, and I am working on my project for BAAS 409 Global Technology and Society. My research project is Lessons Learned from the Exxon Valdez. For this project, my interview person is Wayne Roberts, who is the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance at Plains All American Pipeline, which is a crude oil transportation pipeline. In this capacity, he’s, uh, well, I’ll just let you tell it, Wayne. What exactly does your job entail that can relate to our topic discussion?

Wayne Roberts:– Well, it certainly relates to the topic, Daniel. I’m Director of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance for Plains here in the Southwestern division and Southern division, also. So, we – we’re directly responsible for responding to, uh, a significant spill or an incident like this, uh, and that certainly falls in the scope of your – of your course.

Daniel Bryant:Well, and one thing that, uh, that I did wanna discuss with you today is, of course, we’re discussing lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez.

Wayne Roberts:Right.

Daniel Bryant:Obviously, there was a, uh, massive spill up in Prince William Sound, uh, just 20 years ago a few weeks ago –

Wayne Roberts:– Right.

Daniel Bryant:– uh, which was very devastating to the environment out there. Uh, through the course of that, there were many things that weren’t followed in core to – uh, including, uh, emergency response plans, uh, the training – everything else like this. One of the questions that I have is, “How does you and your company prepare for these type of incidents?” What sorta training do you have in place?

Wayne Roberts:Well, that’s – that’s a key – key – key word, I think, is training. What we do, we have a – in order to be ready for a significant occurrence like this, we – we, first of all, have a very detailed and comprehensive response plan in place, and that’s engineered, and – and – and reviewed, and – and – and reiterated to – to be as comprehensive and, you know, provide all – all the details of the coverage that we – we can possibly encounter. And that plan is, actually, sent to panels of the EPA and other agencies for review, and it’s approved, and we, actually, have – every five years, we have to re – resend it in for another review process. But – so, it’s pretty – pretty well-established, uh, as far as guidelines and – and the – the – the plan for how we’re gonna respond.

And then, we train with that plan, and with the – and you – you said the keyword: training. We train to that plan, and we do that by actual deployment drills where we, actually, you know, deploy the – the equipment. We also have mock scenarios that we train to, you know, tabletop exercises, but – but the keyword is training to – to that plan, and knowing what to do in the event of such a – such a spill. That’s how we do it.

Daniel Bryant:Uh, have you ever had to respond to such a spill, uh, where you’ve had a spill into inhabitable water of the U.S.?

Wayne Roberts:Uh, unfortunately, yes, I have –

Daniel Bryant:[Laughs].

Wayne Roberts:– several times. The most recent being the Pecos River Spill back at the end of ’04 and the start of ’05, but yes, yes, we have. We sure have.

Daniel Bryant:And during that, what was one of the biggest obstacles you had to overcome during emergency response in the remediation phase? What was the – where was the biggest breakdown –?

Wayne Roberts:– Yeah, yeah, well –

Daniel Bryant:– Or did it just all run smooth from Day 1?

Wayne Roberts:Well, it never runs completely smooth. The biggest problem with emergency response is, uh, you’re – you’re so keyed into responding and mitigating, you know, containing the oil or whatever. That’s you’re focus, of course, and it should be. But the – the – the problem is, you can often do more harm than you do good in – in that response. You have to be very careful ‘cause you’re – you’re trying to get to the containment, you know, secure the area, uh, protect the environment, as well as the public; and in that process, you know, you sometimes – you have to really be careful not to damage the other ecosystems that are there already, you know, that you have to work around. So, that’s really the biggest barrier that we – that we encounter.

For example, you can’t just take off carte blanche with a bulldozer and bull – bulldoze down trees, and – and – and – and destroy the environment just to get a – start to push a berm to contain the oil – that kinda thing. So, you have to work around those things and that’s really the biggest obstacle you run into during – during that response phase is – even later in – in remediation, the same thing. You really have to be careful.

Daniel Bryant:And during these response phases, uh, did you ever have any problems interacting with government regulatories that caused any problems for, uh, response personnel?

Wayne Roberts:No, not really problems. Uh, I – I mean, we’re lucky, I guess, in that respect. I’ve – I’ve always been able to work well with the agencies, and I think the key to that is – is being, uh, you know, initially – for instance, in the Pecos River Spill, the – the environment – you know, the EPA on-scene commander arrived, you know, right – right away – a lady. And – and we, initially, established a good rapport and kinda laid out what was expected of each other. We knew what our roles were and, uh, and – and we – you know, and we stayed within those constraints. And I think if you don’t, then, you will have trouble.

But I’ve been very fortunate, you know? I’ve never had an – an agency, actually, kinda be a hindrance to the response or remediation. But I think the key is, you know, establishing that – that – that good rapport –

Daniel Bryant:– That communication?

Wayne Roberts:– right a – right a – right up front.

Daniel Bryant:– Yeah.

Wayne Roberts:And that communication, yeah, and – and – and letting each other know, you know, because they’re – they’re there to do a job, and – and you’re there to do your job. So, you just work together to get the job done.

Daniel Bryant:And then, these significant spills that you had, have there been any long-term, lasting ramifications on the environment? Or have you been able to – been successful in remediating these spills?

Wayne Roberts:We’ve been very successful, uh, in – in all of ‘em – in all cases – in getting, you know, getting the environment back, actually, to better condition than it was initially. I mean, you start with the background that you have, and – and we’ve actually improved it, so to speak. Certainly, in the Pecos River incident, we – a couple years, but we – we finally – actually, in that case, they – the – the – the ranchland, the sheep ranching land, and the shoreline, was restored to better condition than – than we found it. So, yeah, we’ve – we had good luck in that respect.

Daniel Bryant:And I would imagine that you have quite a bit of government regulatory –

Wayne Roberts:[Laughs].

Daniel Bryant:– interaction on those types of things.

Wayne Roberts:– Yes, yes, yes.

Daniel Bryant:Uh, one of the things about the Exxon Valdez spill – spill that most people do not know is that Exxon was not actually responsible for responding to, uh, spills in Prince William Sound. There was a consortium of several companies, together, that was, uh, Alyeska. During the process, they kinda faded out of the picture, and Exxon responded in full force.

Wayne Roberts:Um-hum.

Daniel Bryant:It caused problems with the regulatory agencies, who were concerned about a couple of things. One is they were concerned about the legal authority of Exxon to actually respond, since that was not according to the emergency response plan. The second of which is the government authorities were reluctant to approve anything outside of manual recovery just because this was such a high-profile incident that they were being watched.

Wayne Roberts:Um-hum.

Daniel Bryant:How do you think that this failed – uh, this breakdown in the communication and the reluctance on the regulatory agencies to approve anything – how do you think that that hindered cleanup operations?

Wayne Roberts:Well, it [cough] had – had to have been a big hindrance. I mean, I know it was from – from looking back at the incident, but there again, it goes back to, uh, not being a – not having a – a good response guideline in place. And then, in – when – when – when the agencies come in, you’re – you’re just – it’s chaos. So, you’re – you’re actually fighting each other, and – and – and you gotta – you’ve gotta have that good incident command system in place – the structure – and keep it structured for that reason. And – and – and I know they – they – they – in that case, you know, the, uh, responsible party was not clearly identified, and – and – and that has to be, uh, done right up front, you know, right at the very start. So, uh, the failure to do that, and then, it – like we were talking before about the interaction with the agencies, if you don’t establish that initially, it’s – it’s just – it continues to break down. Uh, I know that happened with the Valdez incident, yeah.

Daniel Bryant:– Uh, and with the Valdez incident, they had, uh – Exxon had tried to use dispersants to kinda disperse the oil down there, and they had also, uh, attempted to do some limited burns. The weather was good for the first two days of response activities, but they recovered very little crude oil, and they had reluctance from these government agencies, uh, to do these alternate methods of, uh, uh, cleanup out there to try and mitigate a problem before it gets worse.

Wayne Roberts:Um-hum.

Daniel Bryant:The third day, a big storm ran in and, uh, caused the oil to spread across the entire sound, which really caused a big catastrophe. In significant incidents like this, should the government approve alternate forms of, uh, containment, and, uh, recovery?

Wayne Roberts:I think so. I – I think – recovery, of course, is – is always, you know, first choice, but in some cases like this, I think they should allow some other alternate method of – of – of miti – mitigation. For instance, uh, in this case, uh, you know, they wouldn’t allow burning, and I’m not sure it would have – would have been proper, but – but there needs to be some other, uh, method, you know, available. And prescribed burns are, I think, uh, a vital method.

And – and in years past, even before OPA 90 was – came about, uh, in the local – localized, uh, areas, in the gathering systems, we had situations where a spill would get on a little – little creek, not – not – uh, not a navigable waterway, but a little creek or a tributary, and it would be so remote, or the terrain would be so rough, or so, you know, uh, bad that you couldn’t get any kinda recovery equipment in there – uh, a vacuum truck or in portable equipment. So, in those cases, a few times, we were allowed to do a prescribed burn, and – and really, it – it’s a – it’s a very viable method, and allows you to remove the hydrocarbon. There’s a little bit of, you know, slight air emissions involved, and – and of course, you gotta be careful with – with where the fires are. But anyway, uh, bottom line is there – there should be some other methods allowed.

Daniel Bryant:Uh, I would think anything – uh, that speed is of the essence –

Wayne Roberts:– Uh, exactly, exactly.

Daniel Bryant:– in that type of situation, and I think that’s where they failed in the Exxon Valdez early.

Wayne Roberts:– And – and – and like emissions, there are some – some chemicals now. Of course, you – they have to be EPA-approved as far as the dispersants or surfactants that would – would, you know, that would encapsulate the oil, or – or help – help the effort somewhat.

Daniel Bryant:Yeah.