Review of the Inland Estimated Recovery System Potential (ERSP) Prototype Calculator

Committee on the Review of the Inland Estimated Recovery System Potential (ERSP) Prototype Calculator

Ocean Studies Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the United States Coast Guard. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69144-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69144-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26649

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Review of the Inland Estimated Recovery System Potential (ERSP) Prototype Calculator. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26649.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF THE INLAND ESTIMATED RECOVERY SYSTEM POTENTIAL (ERSP) PROTOTYPE CALCULATOR

Berrin Tansel, Chair, Florida International University, Miami

Victoria Broje, Shell Projects & Technology, Houston, Texas

Brian House, Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC (ret.) & Spill Control Association of America, Scituate, Massachusetts

Scott Pegau, Prince William Sound Science Center, Cordova, Alaska

Malcolm Spaulding, Spaulding Environmental Associates, LLC & University of Rhode Island (ret.), Wakefield

William Stafford, Marine Spill Response Corporation, Herndon, Virginia

Staff

Susan Roberts, Director, Ocean Studies Board

Stacee Karras, Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board

Vanessa Constant, Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board

Kenza Sidi-Ali-Cherif, Senior Program Assistant, Ocean Studies Board (until April 2022)

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD

Claudia Benitez-Nelson, Chair, University of South Carolina, Columbia

Mark Abbott, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Rosie ‘Anolani Alegado, University of Hawai’i, Manoa

Carol Arnosti, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Amy Bower, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Lisa Campbell, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

Thomas S. Chance, ASV Global, LLC (ret.), Broussard, Louisiana

Daniel Costa, University of California, Santa Cruz

John Delaney, University of Washington (ret.), Seattle

Timothy Gallaudet, Ocean STL Consulting, LLC, North Beach, Maryland

Scott Glenn, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Marcia Isakson, University of Texas, Austin

Lekelia Jenkins, Arizona State University, Tempe

Nancy Knowlton, Smithsonian Institution (ret.), Washington, District of Columbia

Anthony MacDonald, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, New Jersey

Galen McKinley, Columbia University, Palisades, New York

Thomas Miller, University of Maryland, Solomons

S. Bradley Moran, Ex-Officio, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Ruth M. Perry, Shell Exploration & Production Company, Houston, Texas

Dean Roemmich, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (ret.), Solana Beach, California

James Sanchirico, University of California, Davis

Mark J. Spalding, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, District of Columbia

Paul Williams, Suquamish Indian Tribe, Seattle, Washington

OSB Staff Members

Susan Roberts, Director

Stacee Karras, Senior Program Officer

Kelly Oskvig, Senior Program Officer

Emily Twigg, Senior Program Officer

Vanessa Constant, Program Officer

Thanh Nguyen, Financial Business Partner

Elizabeth Costa, Program Assistant

Acknowledgments

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Andrew Solow, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Glen Daigger, University of Michigan. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

Study Task and Approach

2 DETERMINING APPROPRIATENESS

Relevant Distinctions Between Inland and Offshore Oil Behavior and Response

Spectrum of Planning and Modeling Criteria for Determining Appropriateness

Potential Users and Purpose

Criteria for Assessment

3 REVIEW OF CALCULATOR ALGORITHMS AND MECHANICS

USCG Inland ERSP Calculator Framework and Operations

Validation and Verification

4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Methodological Improvements

Other Considerations and New Methodologies

REFERENCES

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIXES

A KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT AND THE INLAND ENVIRONMENT

B USCG INLAND ERSP CALCULATOR SOFTWARE ISSUES

C POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE USCG INLAND ERSP CALCULATOR

D COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHIES

This page intentionally left blank.