U.S. Marine Salvage Assets and Capabilities in a Maritime Disaster (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S 4 5 U.S. Marine Salvage Assets and Capabilities in a Maritime Disaster Summary of a Workshop PETER JOHNSON Rapporteur September 4–5, 2008 Beckman Center Irvine, California Organized by Marine Board Sponsored by U.S. Navy, Office of the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard Port of Los Angeles Washington, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 45 ISSN 1073- 1652 ISBN 978-0-309-12608-3 Subscriber Categories IX marine transportation X security Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national- academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affil- iation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334- 2519; or e- mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Printed in the United States of America. NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the project were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This conference was sponsored by the Office of the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving of the U.S. Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Marine Board of the Transportation Research Board. U.S. Marine Salvage Assets and Capabilities: A Workshop Malcolm MacKinnon III, Chair, MSCL, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia Judith Hill Harris, Department of Transportation, Portland, Maine Ronald K. Kiss, Consultant, Rockville, Maryland Reginald E. McKamie, Sr., Houston, Texas Jeffrey Stettler, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland Thomas H. Wakeman III, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey Liaison Representatives Richard Buckingham, Office of the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving, U.S. Navy Mary Erickson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Captain Richard Hooper, Office of the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving, U.S. Navy Rajiv Khandpur, U.S. Coast Guard Michael Kidby, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jason Marineau, U.S. Coast Guard Gerald Wheaton, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rapporteur Peter Johnson Transportation Research Board—Marine Board Staff Mark Norman, Director, Technical Activities Joedy Cambridge, Director, Marine Board Beverly Huey, Senior Program Officer Brie Schwartz, Senior Project Assistant TRB Publications Office Norman Solomon, Senior Editor Jennifer J. Weeks, Editorial Services Specialist Juanita Green, Production Manager Cover design by Beth Schlenoff, Beth Schlenoff Design Cover photo credits: Harbor panorama courtesy of the Port of los Angeles; inset photographs by Brian Gibson. Typesetting by Carol Levie, Grammarians

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters per- taining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to asso- ciate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innova- tion and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Contents PREFACE................................................................................................................................................vii OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................................1 SECTIONS 1 AND 2: SESSION SUMMARIES Section 1: Welcome and Opening Presentations........................................................................................5 Welcome....................................................................................................................................................5 Malcolm MacKinnon III Keynote Address: Setting the Stage ..........................................................................................................5 Stephen E. Flynn Hypothetical Disaster Scenario..................................................................................................................6 Captain Richard Hooper and Michael Herb Hypothetical Response and Recovery Steps ..............................................................................................6 Captain Paul Wiedenhoeft, Michael Herb, Mauricio Garrido, Michael Kidby, James Fields, Gerald E. Wheaton, and LCDR John Hennigan Charge to the Working Groups .................................................................................................................8 Malcolm MacKinnon III Working Group Discussions......................................................................................................................8 Environmental and Response Safety......................................................................................................8 Legal, Insurance, and Cabotage.............................................................................................................8 Security, Incident Scene, and Forensics ..................................................................................................9 Logistics, Utilities, and Hidden Infrastructures....................................................................................10 Communications, Economics, and Political Factors ............................................................................10 Debris Staging, Dredging, and Disposal ..............................................................................................11 Plenary Discussion of Working Group Reports .......................................................................................11 Summary Points ..................................................................................................................................11 Wrap- Up .............................................................................................................................................13

Section 2: Working Group Questions and Summaries of Key Points.......................................................14 Environmental and Response Safety........................................................................................................14 Legal, Insurance, and Cabotage ..............................................................................................................16 Security, Incident Scene, and Forensics ....................................................................................................17 Logistics, Utilities, and Hidden Infrastructures........................................................................................18 Communications, Economics, and Political Factors ................................................................................19 Debris Staging, Dredging, and Disposal ..................................................................................................20 SECTION 3: PRESENTATIONS Mahan Revisited: Why Resilient Commercial Seaports Are a National Security Imperative ...................27 Stephen E. Flynn Salvage Response Case Study: Scenario...................................................................................................31 Michael Herb, Captain Richard Hooper, and Mauricio Garrido Salvage Response Case Study: Response .................................................................................................38 Michael Herb, Captain Richard Hooper, and Mauricio Garrido Incident Command and Response ...........................................................................................................52 Captain Paul Wiedenhoeft Channel Assessment ................................................................................................................................68 Mohammed Chang Dangers to Navigation ............................................................................................................................73 Gerald E. Wheaton APPENDICES A Statement of Task for the Workshop ..................................................................................................77 B Workshop Agenda ..............................................................................................................................78 PARTICIPANTS .....................................................................................................................................80

v i i Preface The United States is a world trade leader with aneconomy increasingly dependent on ocean trans-portation and the vitality of the nation’s ports and waterways. U.S. ports and waterways are remark- ably diverse in terms of the vessel traffic served, the types of services provided, geography, and environmen- tal conditions. If a natural disaster, maritime accident, or terrorist- related incident results in the blockage of a major port or waterway, an array of marine salvage services— including salvage and towing vessels, heavy- lift assets, lightering systems, divers, and underwater robotic systems— must be available to respond. Time would be required to move these expensive assets into place, and salvors would need to conduct effective sur- veys and operations. Continual evaluation of the myr- iad legal, regulatory, economic, transportation, political, and other issues that could seriously impede the execution of a timely, economically sound, and environmentally responsible major salvage recovery operation is important to the nation’s security. The U.S. Navy’s Office of the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SupSalv), which was established primarily to meet military needs for search and salvage, maintains a marine salvage capability primarily to meet military needs for at- sea search, recovery, and salvage opera- tions. By statute and through agreements with other fed- eral agencies, SupSalv, because of its recognized expertise in the field, also provides services to meet cer- tain nonmilitary emergency salvage needs. Under the Salvage Facilities Act, the Navy has oversight responsi- bility for monitoring the nation’s overall marine salvage capabilities, both military and commercial, and is authorized to provide, by contract or otherwise, neces- sary salvage facilities and capabilities. This involves coordinating with and, as appropriate, augmenting commercial assets to protect the public interest. Other agencies also have vital responsibilities in responding to major port or waterway blockages due to natural disasters, maritime accidents, or terrorist- related incidents. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has key leadership roles for marine safety; maritime security; marine pollution prevention, response, and enforce- ment; and the marine transportation system (including vessel traffic and ports and waterways management). Thus, for maritime incidents such as collisions, ground- ings, and shipboard fire, USCG usually takes the lead federal responsibility for responding and for overseeing and monitoring the actions of the responsible parties. If salvage capability is needed beyond that which is com- mercially available, the Navy may be called on or con- sulted. In addition, the U.S. Maritime Administration has a vital interest in ensuring that U.S. ports and the marine transportation system in general are as safe, effi- cient, and competitive as possible, for reasons of both national defense and national economic interest. Other federal agencies that could be involved in response include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The roles of the various agencies are described in the National Response Plan, an integrated plan that is designed to coordinate efforts of local, state, and national agencies to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; to reduce U.S.

vulnerability to terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies; and to minimize the damage and recovery time from these events when they occur (www.nmfi .org/natlresp/files/NRPallpages.pdf). In 1982, the Marine Board conducted a comprehen- sive study of salvage needs and capabilities, the findings of which appear in the report Marine Salvage in the United States. This was followed by a 1994 report, A Reassessment of the Marine Salvage Posture of the United States, which contains a description of the Navy’s salvage resources and contribution to the nation’s sal- vage capabilities. In 2003, at the request of SupSalv, an ad hoc committee of the Marine Board appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) organized a work- shop to address national salvage response capabilities, with particular attention to the consequences of poten- tial terrorist incidents simultaneously affecting opera- tions in multiple U.S. ports and waterways. After the workshop, the committee reviewed information pre- sented at the workshop and developed conclusions and recommendations for future action, which are contained in the report Conference Proceedings 30: Marine Salvage Capabilities: Responding to Terrorist Attacks in U.S. Ports— Actions to Improve Readiness. Included was a recommendation for further study of policy issues criti- cal to maintaining an adequate readiness posture. In recent years, there has been no significant increase in the amount or capability of domestic marine salvage assets. On the West Coast in particular, a lack of heavy- lift salvage capability has been demonstrated. Although the rate of marine casualties in U.S. waters is at a historic low, recent events— notably the situation in the Gulf region as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, terror- ist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Yemen— demonstrate that issues relating to national salvage capa- bility have importance in terms of transportation, the nation’s economy, the environment, and homeland security. Given the differences in the salvage missions and inter- ests of the various agencies, coupled with the relative dearth of salvage capability on the U.S. West Coast, it is timely to consider, identify, and assess the legal, regulatory, economic, transportation, and political issues that might pose significant hurdles to an effective salvage response to a major maritime disaster in a critical West Coast port. At the request of SupSalv, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) assembled a committee appointed by NRC to plan, organize, and conduct a workshop to examine these issues and suggest approaches to resolve them. The objective of the workshop was to promote robust and candid discussion among federal, state, and local govern- ment officials, industry representatives, and other experts and stakeholders concerning the issues involved with, and the time frame required for, responsible recovery from a major maritime disaster. The workshop would focus on a hypothetical terrorist attack that essentially closes two critical U.S. ports. The catalyst for dialogue among work- shop participants was a dynamic terrorist- incident sce- nario involving a containership, a tractor tug, a heavy- lift vessel, a tanker ship, and a car carrier, which, for all prac- tical purposes, shuts down both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, California. The planning committee consisted of six individuals who have expertise in marine response and salvage, port and waterways management, port and harbor safety, ship operations and management, marine and transportation engineering systems, intermodal transportation, risk assessment and management, terrorism, safety, law enforcement, environmental regulation and response, economic impact analysis, and governmental emergency response policy. The committee, chaired by Malcolm MacKinnon, met twice before the workshop to discuss the realism and feasibility of the terrorist scenario and to develop the workshop program and a list of prospective invitees. A consultant- developed report was prepared for SupSalv to frame the initial workshop discussion and pro- vide realistic assumptions with regard to the availability of suitable marine salvage assets, their costs, and the pro- jected time required for various stages of planning, oper- ations, and recovery from a major maritime disaster in the Los Angeles–Long Beach (LA/LB) port complex. The intent of the workshop was to draw on the expertise of the participants— from a wide range of disciplines, sectors, and institutions— to review the scenario and iden- tify issues and areas of conflict or delay that could seri- ously impede a successful salvage and recovery effort. The workshop was held September 4–5, 2008, at the National Academies Beckman Center in Irvine, Califor- nia. A scenario resulting in major port and channel clo- sures in the LA/LB area was presented at the outset of the workshop and included a comprehensive inventory of capital and human salvage assets available to respond to this event, including projected time lines and costs to deploy such salvage assets. The workshop program was designed to maximize the exchange of information and perspectives among the participants. During the workshop, concurrent ses- sions were organized on the major issues identified by the planning committee. Individuals invited to the work- shop were asked to participate in sessions related to their area of expertise and professional responsibilities. The sessions were moderated to facilitate open discus- sion of the issues among all invited participants, and a rapporteur was assigned to each working group. This summary report is based on the moderated discussions that took place in each breakout session on the work- shop program. The views presented reflect the opinions of the individual participants and not those of a TRB committee or the workshop participants as a group. v i i i U.S . MARINE SALVAGE ASSETS AND CAPABILITIES IN A MARITIME DISASTER

This project was conducted under the overall supervi- sion of Mark Norman, TRB’s Director of Technical Activ- ities. The committee gratefully acknowledges the work and support of Joedy Cambridge, Marine Board director. It extends special thanks to Peter Johnson, consultant, who prepared this workshop summary report, and to Beverly Huey, senior program officer, who readied the report for review, responded to review comments, and revised the report for publication. The committee also acknowledges the work and support of Suzanne Schnei- der, Associate Executive Director of TRB, who managed the review process; Norman Solomon, who edited the report; Jennifer J. Weeks, who prepared the prepublica- tion files for web posting; and Javy Awan, Director of Publications, under whose supervision the report was prepared for publication. The committee thanks the following individuals who served as rapporteurs for each of the breakout sessions: Joedy Cambridge, Susan Garbini, Beverly Huey, Peter Johnson, Brie Schwartz, and Jill Wilson. The committee extends special thanks to SupSalv, NOAA, USACE, USCG, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Marine Board for providing funding support for the workshop along with the vision and encouragement that made the event the success that it was. The committee appreciates the time and effort that USCG personnel dedicated to iden- tifying key individuals and organizations to be invited to participate in the workshop. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purposes of this independent review are to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the project charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confi- dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. TRB thanks the following individuals for their par- ticipation in the review of this report: Judith Harris, Department of Transportation, City of Portland, Maine; Ronald K. Kiss, Rockville, Maryland; Steve Ruggerio, Port of Long Beach, California; James T. Shirley, Jr., Holland and Knight, LLP, New York; and Captain James Wilkins, SupSalv (retired), Crownsville, Mary- land. Although these reviewers provided many con- structive comments and suggestions, they did not see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by C. Michael Walton, Univer- sity of Texas, Austin. Appointed by NRC, he was responsible for ensuring that an independent examina- tion of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. i xPREFACE