USCG Strike Teams Provide Assistance
Seventy Coast Guard Strike Team members from the National Strike Force deployed to the World Trade Towers incident, Washington D.C., and Boca Raton, Fla., to assist other agencies with response as a result of terrorist attacks. The Coast Guard Strike Force, specialists in emergency and chemical response, were requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assist with air monitoring, contractor oversight and operating washing stations in New York at Ground Zero and the Staten Island Landfill evidence collection site. In Washington, Strike Force members are dressed in Level B response gear to help gather samples at the Capitol Building and the Hart Senate Office Building. Additionally, they are providing contractor oversight and are operating washing sites on scene.
Chemical Spill Rules for Tank Vessels Proposed by USCG
We all know OPA 1990 contained directions to EPA and the USCG concerning incident response planning and handling with respect to oil. Many of us forget the Act contained similar requirements for chemical incidents. The major difference between the two was oil pollution planning requirements were to be completed by EPA and the USCG within a specified time. There were no such time-directed response planning requirements concerning chemical incidents within the Act. Initially, in 1990, the USCG took the lead on oil spill response planning and EPA was to take the lead on chemical response planning. For some reason, EPA was unable to move forward and develop effective rules for chemical response plan incident planning.
Hazardous Substance Proposal
A recent article mentioned the USCG's March 22, 1999, Notice of Proposed RuleMaking (NPRM) concerning Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances. Since that time I've spent a good deal of time thinking about this NPRM. I feel it appropriate to address some additional aspects of the proposal. There are many issues seemingly unresolved within the proposal. Is it the USCG's intent to establish a new industry for hazardous substance response recovery, developing techniques and recovery equipment not widely in use? If one takes seriously what the USCG has written, such would seem to be the case. It would seem the USCG is taking the experience gained from many years of working with oil recovery and attempting to apply it to chemical responses. Is that possible? Many think it isn't.
