4-6 Attachment C...2015/01/22 · Informal Review Request, C-Plan Approval l4-CP-4057GL#31720 December 5,20t4Page 4 Commander (IRIC) or the Incident Command (IC) within the first

P.O Box 300 VALDEZ, ALASKA 99686 TELEPHONE (907) 834-6480

December 5, 2014 Govt. Letter No. 31720 File No. 2.08 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) 555 Cordova St. Anchorage, AK 99501 Attention: Kristin Ryan, Division Director, Spill Prevention and Response Subject: Request for Informal Review Reference: Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan

Approval, Plan No. 14-CP-4057 Dear Ms. Ryan: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) received the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) letter File No. 304.20 on November 21, 2014. We wish to acknowledge and thank you and your team for the extensive work and commitment to improving the plan as it has progressed through the renewal review process. As outlined in the letter, and following review, Alyeska requests the opportunity for informal review of the following items from the Terms and Conditions of the letter: 1. Condition of Approval (COA) No. 1: Item a. Throughout the plan, replace all references to

“VOO” with the intended category of vessel, for example, Fishing Vessel from the FV Program or Tank of Opportunity. Alyeska Concern: The requirement should be removed for the following reasons:

The vessel program is in fact a Vessel Of Opportunity (VOO) program, as vessels are not obligated to respond to a call out. By contracting with more vessels and training more vessel operators than are needed for compliance, Alyeska has demonstrated a sufficient number of vessels have been and are available to meet Contingency Plan (C-Plan) requirements. Reference the attached sample copy of the contract (Attachment A) used for the program which states vessels under contract are not required to respond. See Article 1.A.

The stated rationale (vessels would not be under contract and not trained) for not wanting a VOO program is contrary to over 20 years of demonstrated history; all VOOs are under contract (Tiers I and II and all VOOs participate in annual training.

4-6 Attachment C

Informal Review Request, C-Plan Approval I4-CP-4057GL#31720

December 5,2014Page2

If the VOO Program was called a Fishing Vessel Program:

o The program title would conflict with reality. There are a number of vessels other thanfishing vessels in the program.

o Alyeska would have a more difficult challenge in recruiting as many suitable vesselsas possible if only fishing vessels are allowed, or if non-fishing vessel owners believethey are not eligible for the VOO program.

o The program might fail to comply with OPA90, requiring oil spill response trainingfor "...Local Residents...", os well as "...Individuals engaged in...[fishing]...".

o Alyeska's VOO program does not include "Tanker of Opportunity" or "Barge ofOpportunity" vessels. Although the titles are similar, Tankers and Barges are notincluded in the VOO Program and there should not be any conflict surrounding thismatter.

COA No 1: Item c. Part 2, Section 2.1.5.3 Off-Loading and Loading of Tank Vessels, number5. Please edit to include a reference to Adverse Weather Loading Response Tactic REF-00223.

Alyeska Concem: The requirement should be removed.

The addition would provide detail that is unnecessary. The referenced tactic is an AlyeskaOperational routine procedure for implementation of general tactics (Winter & SummerContainment Boom; Berth 4 Diversion Booming; Increased Free Oil Recovery Options)outlined in Volume 3 of the Plan. The section in question adequately describes the proceduresfollowed in the event of adverse weather and the addition of the reference is not needed in theplan.

3. COA No. l: Item g: Part 2, Section 2.1.8 Facility Oil Piping. Please add language regardingthe submittal of the Annual Cathodic Protection Report to the department and other applicableagencies. Edit for clarity.

Alyeska Concem: This requirement should be removed.

The Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) relevant Cathodic Protection requirements, including therequirement to submit an annual report are contained in Alyeska documents MP-166-3.07 andMP-166-3.23. Both procedures are described in the Plan in Sec 2.1.8.2 Facility PipingCorrosion Control Program [18 AAC 75.080(b)] at an appropriate level of detail. The report issubmitted each year to the Joint Pipeline Office (JPO) as the result of a long-standingagreement based on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System Grant and Lease. Alyeska tracks therequirement for submittal each year. The addition of language indicating a report is submittedto JPO is additional, unnecessary detail without adding clarity.

4-6 Attachment C

Informal Review Request, C-Plan Approval l4-CP-4057GL#3t720

December 5,2014Page 3

4. COA No. 1: Item h: Part 2, Section 2.I.10 Preventative Maintenance. Please add the name ofthe data based system used for tracking preventative maintenance work at the VMT.

Alyeska Concern: The requirement should be removed.

There is no requirement to provide the name(s) of a specific database. Alyeska uses multiplesystems to track preventive maintenance activities. It is inappropriate, and unnecessary, toidentify a specific vendor, type of software, or system. Adding the name or names of thesystems seryes no reasonable planning purpose, adds additional detail without benefit, andcompromises Alyeska's ability to negotiate with vendors if a specific vendor is listed in theplan.

COA No. l: Item o: Part 3, Section 3.4.3.2 Sea State, Tide and Current Considerations; Table3-10 Wave Height Estimations. Provide Annual Estimated Frequency of Occurrence forWind Speeds 4-7 and 13-17.

Alyeska Concern: This requirement should be removed.

As stated during the renewal process in Alyeska's response to ADEC RFAI 28; "...theinformation provided in Table 3-10, including the Annual Estimated Frequency of Occurrence(column 3) is sufficiently detailed for C-plan information and planning purposes". Theinformation requested does not serve a purpose relative to the utility of the C-plan and isbeyond regulatory requirements. The requirement (18 AAC 75.a25@)(3)(D)) for an analysisof the frequency and duration, expressed as a percentage of time of limitations renderingmechanical response actions ineffective, is met in Table 3-8, Summary of Wind and Sea

Limitations. Alyeska believes Table 3-10 and associated notes should be removed.

COA No. 1: Item t: The Equipment & Personnel Mobilization Charts for Scenarios2,4 & 5:

Please revise to clarify that the Valdez Duck Flats and Solomon Gulch Hatchery Protectiontactics are completed by no later than hour 10.


The time requirement for deployment of the Solomon Gulch Hatchery and Duck FlatsProtection tactics, as stated in both the previously approved plan and the currently approvedplan, is "Total estimated deployment time for both Solomon Gulch and Valdez Duck Flats,when done simultaneously, would range from six hours in favorable conditions, to ten or morehours in unfavorable conditions." There are two additional time factors relevant to thisstatement:

o First, as stated in the currently approved plan (Vol 3 Sec 9.0.2.1) and the previouslyapproved plan (Part I Sec 5.12.2), the decision matrix used to determine the need todeploy the Protection plan is "...to be used by the Initial Response Incident

5.

6.

4-6 Attachment C

Informal Review Request, C-Plan Approval l4-CP-4057GL#31720

December 5,20t4Page 4

Commander (IRIC) or the Incident Command (IC) within the first one or two hours ofan incident."

o Secondly, as identified in the previously approved plan, Scenario 5 Table l-22Resource Mobilization Chart, and in the currently approved plan Volume 2 Figure 5-15, mobilization is depicted as requiring an hour, with on scene work beginning atapproximately hour two. Logically, mobilization does not begin until such time as thedecision is made to implement the protection tactics. For these reasons, completion nolater than hour 10 is not reflective of the approved plan.

Also, the plan should not limit the ability of responders to make the best decisions at the timeof an incident. For example, if winds and currents dictate sensitive areas other than theHatchery and Duck Flats should be protected first; responders should not be hampered byseeking approval to deviate from a directed requirement to protect the Hatchery and DuckFlats.

As a matter of format, the mobilization charts were not designed to provide the level of detailbeing required. The time requirements associated with these protection tactics is sufficientlydocumented in Volume 3 of the C-Plan. See also comments relative to these protection plansin Item 10 (COA No. 3, Item b) of this letter.

7 . COA No. 1: Item u:

i: Reinstate response barge 500-2 and the deck barge Sawmill Creek in the MajorEquipment list in Section 12, VMT-LP-4.ii: Reinstate the deck barge Sawmill Creek in VMT-LP-5.iii: Reinstate the descriptions of the response barge 500-2 and deck barge Sawmill Creek andtheir associated equipment in Appendix A.

Alveska Concern: These requirements should be removed for the following reasons:

Barge 500-2: As outlined in the C-Plan, the 500-2 is not needed to meet requirements of theregulations and therefore should not be required to be included in the plan. The statementfrom Issue No. 22 of the Findings Document that "...the (Barge 500-2) was used as a forwardcommand post for nearshore response" is correct. However, this is not sufficient reason tocharactefize the Barge as ".. .essential for an RPS response at the VMT. ...(and therefore must)be reinstated in the major equipment list of the plan." For the specific reference, the use of thebarge as a forward command post consisted of two responders using radios on the barge. Itwas a convenient, not essential, site from which to operate during the exercise. Command andcontrol of the VMT nearshore response can easily and effectively be done from a variety ofother locations, including vessels and shore side sites. Alyeska acknowledges the restrictionsset for the field exercise (to not use the 500-2) were not adequately communicated to theresponders. It is unreasonable to conclude from the limited use during the exercise the 500-2should be placed in the plan.

4-6 Attachment C



Sawmill Creek: There is an important distinction between the Sawmill Creek barge and theequipment it carries. The barge serves only as a convenient platform for staging equipmentlocated on its deck. The barge itself is not required for this role. The equipment can easily bestored in a number of other tidewater locations assuring its availability for response. Forexample, the Sawmill Creek is currently out of Prince William Sound for maintenance andrepairs. The equipment normally staged on the barge's deck has been relocated to the VMTand remains readily available and response ready.

8. COA No. 1: Item v: Section 15, Berth Operations Tactics. Include pre-deployed boom forexclusion and diversion for Berths 4 and 5.

Alyeska Concem: This requirement should be removed.

The deployment of referenced boom is an Operations procedure assembled as animplementation of the vessel loading tactics already identified in Vol 3 of the C-plan.Discussion of the tactics in greater detail is provided in our TAPS Documents System as REF-00223.

9. COA No. 2: Item b: The training schedule for all response training shall be submittedannually, including online, in class and in the field training, and with updates as needed toallow for agency observation and evaluation. Further discussion can be found in Issue No. 17.

The initial prevention and response training schedules must be submitted within 90 days ofthis approval with subsequent submittals due to the department by January 5 of each year.

Alyeska Concem: This requirement should be modified.

Inasmuch as we are involved in response training almost daily and often at multiple locations,Alyeska is concerned with the expectations associated with the word "all" in this condition.ADEC has deemed Alyeska's plan adequately describes the response training program. Wecan provide a training schedule. It is not feasible, or useful, to attempt to identify a schedulefor "all" training as suggested. Given the stated objective is to observe and evaluate, Alyeskawelcomes receipt of the evaluation criteria necessary to assist in ensuring adequacy of trainingdevelopment.

10. COA No. 3: Items b: Alyeska must restore the sensitive area deployment strategies, resourcesand equipment for the Valdez Duck Flats and Solomon Gulch Hatchery prior to publishingthe plan. This requirement includes restoration of committed personnel and equipmentresources and simultaneous Deployment of the east and west sides of the Yaldez Duck Flats.

Alyeska Concem: Alyeska proposes this requirement be modified to require the company toundertake redesign of the Duck Flats and Hatchery Protection plans in support of Alyeska'sability to meet regulatory expectations.

4-6 Attachment C



We propose using a collaborative format to ensure alignment of all parties as the redesignproject proceeds. The requirement to simply "restore the sensitive area deployment strategies,resources and equipment..." will not fix the situation nor resolve the identifred concerns andchallenges associated with protecting these areas. The protection plans have undergonemultiple modifications over the years, including this past year, and are beset with a variety ofconflicting perspectives, memories and opinions. At the conclusion of the redesign,appropriate amendments would be submitted. We estimate the effort will require at least sixmonths to complete once started and propose to begin work in January 2015.

I l. COA No. 3: Item c: Alyeska is required to incorporate the site specific protection strategiesand tactics included in Port Yaldez Sensitive Area Tactical Guide TG-900 directly intoVolume 3, VMT Technical Manual. Prior to including these tactics Alyeska is requiied toupdate the format, not content, of the Information presented to ensure consistency withVolume 3.

Alyeska Concem: Alyeska proposes that this requirement be modified.

Alyeska proposes as an alternative to incorporating TG-900 into Volume 3, to utilize the PortYaldez Geographic Response Strategies (GRS's) in lieu of maintaining our own set ofsensitive area protection strategies. During the C-plan renewal process, ADECrepresentatives denied Alyeska's proposal to use the GRS's in lieu of its own strategies. Withthat denial, extensive work was undertaken to develop a new manual, TG-900, and to validatethe site information it contained.

Applicable State regulations state: "...if identification of those areas (environmentallysensitive areas and areas of public concern) and site-specific strategies for protection of thoseareas are in an applicable subarea contingency plan, the plan holder may incorporate thatinformation by reference." To this point, the ADEC GRS web site, under its FAQ section,contains the following statements:

o Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) are designed to be a supplement to theSubarea Contingency Plans for Oil and Hazardous Substances Spills and Releases.

o GRS are the current standardfor site-specific oil spill response planning in Alaska.o The GRS are a great help in preplanningfor a spill response and can provide

excellent guidance during a spill response, but are not a mandate for specific action atthe time of a spill. As part of the subareq contingenc)) plons. they have been approvedby the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, the Alqska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation and the U.S. Environmeitol Protection Agency.

Notably, COA No. 3 Item d. requires Alyeska to deploy all pre-identified site specificsensitive area and area ofpublic concem protection tactics at least once during the course ofthe plan approval. Approval to use the GRS sites for our C-plan will result in Alyeskadeploying the GRS sites and then being in a position to submit any identifiedrecommendations for improvement of the GRS. In addition, Alyeska was recently

4-6 Attachment C



approached informally by a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, acting as representative of theSubarea Committee, exploring the possibility of Alyeska assisting with actual deployment ofthe GRS sites. Our authorization to use the GRS as our sensitive sites could potentiallybenefit that work as well.

12. COA No. 5: Alyeska is required to develop protocols to assess potential environmentalconsequences, provisions for monitoring and real-time assessment of environmental effects ofthe non-mechanical response options proposed for inclusion into the VMT plan. Alyeska mustdemonstrate resources to conduct the required assessment and monitoring are available in-house or secured by contract. Further discussion of this issue can be found in Issue No. 24 inthe attached findings document. This amendment must be submitted to the department byDecember 31,2016. The amendment implementing this condition will undergo public reviewunder 18 AAC 75.455. The department encourages review through the VMT CoordinationGroup prior to submission of an amendment to the plan.


Monitoring of dispersants has historically consisted of measurements to determine ifdispersant application is effective. For in-situ buming, monitoring centers on assuring nopublic population areas are impacted. The development of protocols, in addition toperformance monitoring,that would be of use is overwhelming for a single Responsible Party(RP) to undertake. Development requires extensive collaboration and participation by theresource trustee agencies (those trusted and authorizedtojudge environmental impacts) and itis unreasonable to expect a potential, private sector RP to be able to move such a significantbody of work to a finished product in a reasonable amount of time. The evolution of thescience and practice of pollution response has repeatedly demonstrated protocols in the area ofenvironmental protection, assessment and monitoring are extremely difficult to develop.

The development of the SMART protocol, used for monitoring of dispersant use and in-situburning, was done by the Federal Region III Regional Response Team in the late 1990s. Theeffort was led by a NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator with active participation by a variedgroup of both state and federal trustees in the Federal Region III area and took several years tocomplete. That protocol is fairly simple when compared to experience working in the area ofenvironmental impact assessment and monitoring. For a protocol to have value, the naturalresource trustees must have the primary voice in the development and would likely need tocommit resources to the effort in the event it was used. In addition, development of thecalled-for protocols must take into consideration how this effort might best support andintegrate with requirements for Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration, as

well as the laws goveming that program.

Alyeska believes the most reasonable approach would be for the Alaska Regional ResponseTeam to take the lead in protocol development.

4-6 Attachment C


Sr. Directo g Y aldez Operations

Attachments: A - Sample Contract Template

cc: Graham Wood / ADECBecky Spiegel / ADEC


I look forward to working with you to address these items and providing increased effectivenessof the plan through additional clarity in implementation and administration.

Please address all responses to:

Tom StokesCompliance DirectorAlyeska Pipeline Service CompanyP O Box 196660, MS 502Anchorage, Alaska 99 5 19 -6660

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Joe Kuchin at (907) 834-7320 or me at (907) 834-7300.

Sincerelv.

Elizabeth Stergiou / ADECState Records Center (ADNR/SPCO)

4-6 Attachment C

GL #31720 Attachment A Sample Contract Template

SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C


SAMPLE

4-6 Attachment C