Hydrocarbon sensors for oil spill prevention and response, Seward, Alaska, April 8th-10th, 2008: workshop proceedings

During April 8th-10th, 2008, the Aliance for Coastal Technology (ACT) partner institutions, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) hosted a workshop entitled: "Hydrocarbon sensors for oil spill prevention and response" in Seward, Alaska. The main focus was to bring together 29 workshop participants-representing workshop managers, scientists, and technology developers - together to discuss current and future hydrocarbon in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors as they apply to oil spill prevention and response. [PDF contains 28 pages] Hydrocarbons and their derivatives still remain one of the most important energy sources in the world. To effectively manage these energy sources, proper protocol must be implemented to ensure prevention and responses to oil spills, as there are significant economic and environmental costs when oil spills occur. Hydrocarbon sensors provide the means to detect and monitor oil spills before, during, and after they occur. Capitalizing on the properties of oil, developers have designed in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors that absorb or reflect the electromagnetic energy at different spectral bands. Workshop participants identified current hydrocarbon sensors (in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors) and their overall performance. To achieve the most comprehensive understanding of oil spills, multiple sensors will be needed to gather oil spill extent, location, movement, thickness, condition, and classification. No single hydrocarbon sensor has the capability to collect all this information. Participants, therefore, suggested the development of means to combine sensor equipment to effectively and rapidly establish a spill response. As the exploration of oil continues at polar latitudes, sensor equipment must be developed to withstand harsh arctic climates, be able to detect oil under ice, and reduce the need for ground teams because ice extent is far too large of an area to cover. Participants also recognized the need for ground teams because ice extent is far too large of an area to cover. Participants also recognized the need for the U.S. to adopt a multi-agency cooperation for oil spill response, as the majority of issues surounding oil spill response focuses not on the hydrocarbon sensors but on an effective contingency plan adopted by all agencies. It is recommended that the U.S. could model contingency planning based on other nations such as Germany and Norway. Workshop participants were asked to make recommendations at the conclusion of the workshop and are summarized below without prioritization: *Outreach materials must be delivered to funding sources and Congressional delegates regarding the importance of oil spill prevention and response and the development of proper sensors to achieve effective response. *Develop protocols for training resource managers as new sensors become available. *Develop or adopt standard instrument specifications and testing protocols to assist manufacturers in further developing new sensor technology. *As oil exploration continues at polar latitudes, more research and development should be allocated to develop a suite of instruments that are applicable to oil detection under ice.

Enabling Sensor* Interoperability, Portland, Maine, October 16-18 2006: workshop proceedings

The ACT workshop "Enabling Sensor Interoperability" addressed the need for protocols at the hardware, firmware, and higher levels in order to attain instrument interoperability within and between ocean observing systems. For the purpose of the workshop, participants spoke in tern of "instruments" rather than "sensors," defining an instrument as a device that contains one or more sensors or actuators and can convert signals from analog to digital. An increase in the abundance, variety, and complexity of instruments and observing systems suggests that effective standards would greatly improve "plug-and-work" capabilities. However, there are few standards or standards bodies that currently address instrument interoperability and configuration. Instrument interoperability issues span the length and breadth of these systems, from the measurement to the end user, including middleware services. There are three major components of instrument interoperability including physical, communication, and application/control layers. Participants identified the essential issues, current obstacles, and enabling technologies and standards, then came up with a series of short and long term solutions. The top three recommended actions, deemed achievable within 6 months of the release of this report are: A list of recommendations for enabling instrument interoperability should be put together and distributed to instrument developers. A recommendation for funding sources to achieve instrument interoperability should be drafted. Funding should be provided (for example through NOPP or an IOOS request for proposals) to develop and demonstrate instrument interoperability technologies involving instrument manufacturers, observing system operators, and cyberinfrastructure groups. Program managers should be identified and made to understand that milestones for achieving instrument interoperability include a) selection of a methodology for uniquely identifying an instrument, b) development of a common protocol for automatic instrument discovery, c) agreement on uniform methods for measurements, d) enablement of end user controlled power cycling, and e) implementation of a registry component for IDS and attributes. The top three recommended actions, deemed achievable within S years of the release of this report are: An ocean observing interoperability standards body should be established that addresses standards for a) metadata, b) commands, c) protocols, d) processes, e) exclusivity, and f) naming authorities.[PDF contains 48 pages]

Trace Metal Sensors for Coastal Monitoring, Seaside, California, April 11-13, 2005: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) Workshop on Trace Metal Sensors for Coastal Monitoring was convened April 11-13, 2005 at the Embassy Suites in Seaside, California with partnership from Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Trace metals play many important roles in marine ecosystems. Due to their extreme toxicity, the effects of copper, cadmium and certain organo-metallinc compounds (such as tributyltin and methylmercury) have received much attention. Lately, the sublethal effects of metals on phytoplankton biochemistry, and in some cases the expression of neurotoxins (Domoic acid), have been shown to be important environmental forcing functions determining the composition and gene expression in some groups. More recently the role of iron in controlling phytoplankton growth has led to an understanding of trace metal limitation in coastal systems. Although metals play an important role at many different levels, few technologies exist to provide rapid assessment of metal concentrations or metal speciation in the coastal zone where metal-induced toxicity or potential stimulation of harmful algal blooms, can have major economic impacts. This workshop focused on the state of on-site and in situ trace element detection technologies, in terms of what is currently working well and what is needed to effectively inform coastal zone managers, as well as guide adaptive scientific sampling of the coastal zone. Specifically the goals of this workshop were to: 1) summarize current regional requirements and future targets for metal monitoring in freshwater, estuarine and coastal environments; 2) evaluate the current status of metal sensors and possibilities for leveraging emerging technologies for expanding detection limits and target elements; and 3) help identify critical steps needed for and limits to operational deployment of metal sensors as part of routine water quality monitoring efforts. Following a series of breakout group discussions and overview talks on metal monitoring regulatory issues, analytical techniques and market requirements, workshop participants made several recommendations for steps needed to foster development of in situ metal monitoring capacities: 1. Increase scientific and public awareness of metals of environmental and biological concern and their impacts in aquatic environments. Inform scientific and public communities regarding actual levels of trace metals in natural and perturbed systems. 2. Identify multiple use applications (e.g., industrial waste steam and drinking water quality monitoring) to support investments in metal sensor development. (pdf contains 27 pages)