Summary of Valdez On March 23rd, 1989 a ship called the Exxon Valdez was leaving from Alaska on the way to California. The Valdez was hauling over 53 million gallons of crude oil at the approximately 9:12 PM, the time of departure from the port. The Valdez was piloted by Captain Joseph Hazelwood and Marine Pilot William Murphy. Accompanying the pilots were 19 crew members to assist with the haul. The ship was originally scheduled to depart at 10:00 PM, however, the departure time was changed without notification to 9:00 PM. Members of the crew spent the day relaxing in local bars, shopping, and taking it easy prior to departing the docks. Directly upon their arrival to the Port they realized the ship was loaded and ready to leave for California immediately.
The ship was to travel along the Prince William Sound, which was a common oil hauling route during the time of the incident. When the ship was traveling on its route, Pilot Hazelwood decided to go to quarters for a few hours of sleep. The absence of Pilot Hazelwood left Pilot Murphy alone to operate the ship, strictly against company policy. According to policy two pilots are to be on the bridge at all times while the ship is moving. Murphy finally called Hazelwood back to the deck to help pilot the ship after a two hour break. At this time the decision was made to increase speed since the tugboat was no longer towing the ship through the narrow waterway.
Captain Hazelwood departed the deck once again leaving another Pilot by the name of Third Mate Cousin to operate the ship independently. While navigating through the Bligh Reef, Third Mate Cousin made an abrupt movement causing the ship to slam into an iceberg. The ship hit the iceberg at approximately 12:04 AM on March 24th, 1989. The Valdez spilled over 10 million gallons of oil into the Prince William (Oil Spill Facts, 1990).
As of today there is still remnant of oil on the ocean floor. Charles Peterson from the University of North Carolina conducted a study concluding that there are extremely large amounts of oil still remaining at the place of the Valdez accident. The level of toxicity is still at an extremely dangerous level but has finally started to subside after two decades. Peterson’s team also concluded that it will take up to 30 years for the Prince William to completely recover and return to its original state (Graham, 2003).
Exercise 8.1
List of Problems 1) Should a second tanker be dispatched to remove the remaining oil? The issue is there are an unknown number of damaged compartments. If the tanker slips off the reef it could capsize. There is a good chance of this happening if the oil is removed from the compartments on the damaged side only 2) Should we use chemical dispersants to break up the oil spill, this would ultimately cause the ship to sink. It is unknown if there are enough chemicals for the spill, these chemicals are also extremely detrimental to the fishing industry. 3) Should we use floatable booms to surround and contain the spill? There may not be enough boom material to contain the massive spill. 4) If we do use the boom material where should we put it? We could put it on the shore of a small village, to contain the oil movement in the channel of the Fjord, to protect the 4 fisheries or risk a depressed fishing industry for generations to come. 5) We are scheduled to release fish from fisheries into the contaminated water 2 weeks from now. Should this still occur, if so, where should they be released?
Prioritizing the Problems and situational appraisal 1) There is not a timing issue for this problem (L), The problem does have a potential for growth if it slips from the reef (M). This is a serious problem due to an increased amount of oil be spilled, but there is already so much oil in the water it may not make a huge difference (M). This is not a known problem so we could do a K.T.P.A. The problem is the ship moving in the event that we try to remove the oil, the problem is not the ship moving on its own, rather us causing it to move. Also, we are unsure 2) Timing is not an issue for this problem (L). The problem does have a potential for growing. The ship could sink causing a total loss, also the chemicals could be harmful to the wildlife, the environment, and the fishing industry as a whole (H). This is an extremely serious situation due to the harmful effects on the environment (H). The chemical dispersants used to clean up the oil spill could possible create other problems. The chemicals in such a massive quantity may be unknown as to what effects they could cause. For this reason there are potential problems that could arise from the solution alternatives. I chose to use the K.T.P.P.A due to anticipating the decision and preventing future events from occurring. 3) There is a timing issue for this problem (H), the oil could continue to not be contained if the booms are not used. The problem does have a potential for growing due to the oil traveling to further locations. The more area it covers the more potential for destruction is has (H), This is an extremely serious situation, however, future problem most likely will only arise in the event that the booms are not used (H). Also, we may not have the required materials to put the booms completely around the oil spill. I chose to use the K.T.D.A analysis for the problem due to the fact that the problem has been found and we need to make a decision of what to do about it. 4) This is a minimal timing issue (M), if we put the materials up then we could risk it being in the wrong spot. If this occurs we could risk the oil spreading in the wrong areas. The problem does have a potential for growing if not quickly contained in the correct spot (H), the devastation that could be caused to the fishing industry would be astronomical. This is a serious situation and future problems could occur if the correct choice is not made (H). I chose to use the K.T.P.P.A approach due to anticipating future problems, such as choosing to place the booms somewhere other than the 4 fisheries. This would make the fish population tainted and devastate their habitat for generations to come. 5) This is definitely a timing issue (M). The problem does not have a potential for growing if the fish are not released (L). There appears to be no future problems arising if the fish are not released (L). I would use the K.T.P.A due to the problem being unknown. What is the problem with the fish remaining where they are. What impact would this cause if they were not released?
KTPA PROBLEM
Potential Problem- #5- If the fish are released they will more than likely die due to being placed in contaminated waters.
Possible Cause- The cause of this issue is following through with releasing the fish. The decision must be made to not release the fish into the contaminated water. If the fish are release they will definitely not survive.
Preventative Action- The fish need to be released in a different area. Areas need to be surveyed until a decision is made for a new release site.
Contingency Action- As a last resort and if a new release site is not determined the fish should be kept in captivity. This would obviously be an issue due to trying to fund this operation. The fish are scheduled to leave for a reason, so alternative measures must be made to try and get the fish into a natural habitat.
K.T.P.P.A PROBLEM
Potential Problem- If we decide to use the booms to control the oil spill, we could potentially place the booms in the wrong location. If the booms are placed in the wrong location then the oil will continue to spread and cause more destruction.
Possible Causes- Possible causes of using the booms but placing them in the wrong positions are lack of information. The loss of oil is an estimated loss, this could cause us to bring in less boom equipment than we actually need. The oil would continue to spread. Our prioritization could also be wrong. If we think the fisheries are the best place to put the booms, but then realize the scientists are wrong and we should have placed them around the island, we are going to have a serious issue.
Preventative Action- A inventory of the booms needs to be completed. We need to ensure that we have the amount of booms we need to contain the spill. Also, is there a chance that we have more booms than we originally predicted? If that’s the case perhaps we can place booms in more areas than we originally thought.
Contingency Action- If there were not booms available to supply the given areas, an alternative would be one of the other options listed above. Perhaps ordering more booms would be an option. The best contingency action would be to find the exact number of booms, and the best resource you need to protect. A priority designation needs to be made to accurately determine this.
K.T.D.A PROBLEM
Decision Statement- Would the booms be efficient for containing the oil from spreading and contaminating other areas? We are trying to accomplish the oil to be contained and not spread to further locations.
Wants: We want to use the booms to contain the oil. We also want the booms to be numerous enough to use them in different locations.
Musts: We must be able to contain the oil from spreading to other locations. We also must ensure the booms can at least contain the oil from spreading to one of the specified locations.
Alternative Options: Make a priority list of the locations we could possibly place the booms. Ensure the booms are properly functioning and determine if more booms are able to be received from somewhere else. Conduct a cost/benefit analysis and determine if getting more booms will be in the budget.
Objectives: The alternative that satisfies the must are making the priority lists for all the locations. If the booms were able to be received from a different area the problem would be solved. There would be more booms and it would be more reasonable to control the oil if more supplies were on hand.
Summary
I think the best option to combat the oil spill would be to find more booms and place them in prioritized locations. There are not any negative issues with this objective unless the prioritization is wrong. The worst possible scenario is to use the chemical agent to solve the problem. There is little research done to actually determine if the chemicals can handle a spill of such a large magnitude. In addition, the chemicals could have a negative effect on the wildlife and environment much like the oil would. A potential incident of using the chemicals is making the situation worse and not having enough chemical agent to solve the issue. The problem would be doubled and nothing at all would be solved. The option of using another tanker is a risky situation. The tanker could possible cause the Valdez to slip from the reef and sink. This would create a total loss and the remaining oil would be on the ocean floor. The tanker could extract the oil but this could cause the tanker to capsize, ultimately creating the same outcome. The fish from the fisheries should not be released. The fish population is already going to be dwindling due to the original oil spill. Keep the fish in the fisheries until a new location is determined, or the oil issue is solved. By releasing the fish they will die, keeping them in captivity may be the only option to maintain the fish population.

References
Details about the Accident. (1990, February 1). Oil Spill Facts. Retrieved September 26,
2014, from http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index.cfm?FA=facts.details
Graham, S. (2003, December 19). Environmental Effects of Exxon Valdez Spill Still Being
Felt. Scientific American Global RSS. Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/environmental-effects-of/.