AND SPILLS OF
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
     ater Program Operations
     imental Protection Agency
     D.C. 20460


    This document represents an update of the "Oil  Spills
and Spills of Hazardous Substances" publication  prepared
two years ago by the Oil and Special  Materials Control  Di-
vision.  We have found this type of publication  to  be ex-
tremely effective in describing some of the more signifi-
cant spill incidents and the mechanisms, both managerial
and technological, to deal with them.
    The primary objective of EPA's oil and hazardous  sub-
stance spill program is to protect water quality through
the prevention of spills and minimize the impact of spills
on the environment.  Section 311 of the Federal  Uater Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended in 1972, specifies a three-
fold approach to the control of spills which consists of
response, prevention and enforcement.   Essential to the
implementation of Section 311 is the promulgation of key
regulations, development of the National Contingency Plan,
establishment of spill response programs, and development
of an aggressive spill prevention program.
    One should recall that prior to the passage of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act of 1970, there was a mini-
mal effort at the State and Federal levels to prevent or
clean-up spills.  Since then, and bolstered by the FWPCA
amendments of 1972, spill prevention and spill response
have taken on an added impetus.  It is heartening for us  in
EPA to witness the progress being made in both areas.

                          Kenneth E. Biglane
               Oil  and  Special  Materials Control Division
                    Office of Water Program Operations
                  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                        Washington, D.C. 20460

                            March 3,  1975

                               Effects of Spills	2
                               Prevention of Spills  ... 3
                               Responding to Spills  .  .  . 6
                               Spill  Surveillance  .... 9
                               Spill  Incidents	19
                               International Cooperation 23

                                     OIL  SPILLS
     Since 1970, the U.S. Environmental  Protec-
tion Agency has played  a major role in attempts
to reduce the frequency of spills of oil and
hazardous substances, and to minimize environ-
mental  damage caused by those spills that do
    Over 13,000 spills  of oil and hazardous
substances occur annually.  Over half of the
spills  are small, involving less than 100 gal-
lons; still, some 20 million gallons—largely
oil—are spilled every  year.  Even if a  spill
is detected quickly and crews and equipment
arrive  on the scene promptly, 70 to 80 percent
of the  material can escape into the aquatic en-
vironment. Spilled into rivers, streams, coas-
tal  waters, estuaries,  and lakes, oil  is car-
ried away in a matter of minutes by the force
of currents, tides, and winds. Hazardous sub-
stances, which are generally soluble in water,
disperse just as quickly and are often more
difficult than oil to clean up.
     Spills not only damage the environment,
but they are expensive  to clean up—easily
$25 per gallon of oil spilled—and they repre-
sent wasted resources.  Because of the obvious
limitations to responding after the fact, EPA's
Oil  and Special Materials Control Division em-
phasizes prevention of  spills.  EPA has issued
regulations covering oil operations not related
to transportation—for  example, oil fields and

tank farms—while the U.S. Coast Guard has  is-
sued regulations for oil facilities related to
transportation.  The program for preventing
spills of hazardous substances is just getting
     Thus, the  Federal program to combat spills
now has three goals:
     -To prevent spills.
     -To detect spills that do occur.
     -To contain, remove, and clean up spills.
     Primed with  legal authority to fine spilj-
ers and to make them  liable for clean-up costs,
the Federal program is committed to meeting
those goals and protecting the Nation's water-
ways from materials that are unwanted, harmfifl ,-
and wasted there.
                           EFFECTS   OF   SPILLS
     Because of the  large quantities often in-
volved in spills,  their effects are not always
comparable to those  caused by chronic pollu-
tion from sources  such as industrial and muni-
cipal discharges.  Some of the effects of an
oil spill are obvious — covered beaches,
rivers dotted with oil slicks, trees and bushes
coated with oil, dead birds and fish.  A spill
of a hazardous substance such as acids, bases
and pesticides can also kill birds and fish;
in some cases, a hazardous substance spill can
literally sterilize  a body of water.
     But the ecoloqical effects from spills
are not confined to  the immediate or obvious.
They can also involve subtle changes that over
a long period could  change the composition of
aquatic communities  or damage the ability of
a species to survive.
     Between 1967  and 1971 at least 250,000
marine birds died  as a direct result of oil
spills.  They die  when oil destroys the natural
insulating qualities of their feathers.  In
addition,  ingested oil can kill  birds  by  inter-
fering with  their normal body processes.   Hun-
dreds of thousands of fish deaths result  an-
nually from  oil and hazardous material  spills
in the United  States.  Fish and shellfish made
unfit for human consumption by an oily taste,
and damaged  fishing grounds, have meant finan-
cial losses  for fishermen and processors.  Also,
some commercial species can accumulate poten-
tially carcinogenic substances from oil.   Hazar-
dous substances can also accumulate in organisms,
damaging the organism itself or making it unfit
for consumption by man and other animals.
     Spills  can affect aquatic systems in many
other ways.  Oil  and  hazardous substances can
interfere with vital  processes such as photo-
synthesis, and introduce subtle changes in the
behavior patterns of  aquatic organisms.  For
example, fish  may lose their ability to secure
food, avoid  injury, escape from enemies,  choose
a habitat, recognize  territory, migrate,  com-
municate, and  reproduce.

                      PREVENTION  OF   SPILLS
     The  causes  of spills are many —  equipment
failure,  human error, collisions, natural dis-
asters.   The philosophy  of the Federal  spill
prevention program is that, whatever the  cause,
most spills can be prevented by the use of  pro-
per equipment and procedures.  Responsibility
for the program is divided between EPA  and  the
U.S. Coast Guard.  EPA is responsible for all
facilities, both onshore and offshore (within
3 miles), that are not related to  transporta-
tion.  Included are facilities that drill,  pro-
duce, gather, store, process, refine, transfer,
distribute, or consume oil  and hazardous sub-
stances.   The Coast Guard is responsible for
transportation-related facilities, including
vessels,  railroads, tank trucks,  and pipelines.
     On December 11, 1973, EPA published  oil
pollution prevention regulations in the Code
of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 112). They
require  that a Spill Prevention, Control  and
Counter-measure (SPCC) Plan  be prepared and  im-
plemented by any facility that could reasonably
     Tffli 40-OFR
      PART 112

be expected to spill oil into the waters of the
United States if it meets any of these criteria:
      - Has total  buried storage greater
        than 42,000 gallons.
      - Has total  nonburied storage of
        greater than 1 ,320 gallons.
      - Has any single container greater
        than 660 gallons.
After January 1975, plans  must be on hand at all

                 SPCC PLANS

     The SPCC plan is prepared by  the owner or
operator and must be certified by  a registered
Professional Engineer.  The EPA regulations con-
tain guidance as to what should be  included in
a plan, the form in which the information should
be presented, and good prevention  engineering
practices  that have been successfully used by
industry in the past.
     This  guideline approach  is desianed to pro-
vide flexibility so that even older facilities
can prevent spills at a reasonable  cost.  The
plan is not submitted to EPA  unless the facility
violates the conditions specified  below.  The
plan must, however, be available at the facility
for EPA review to assure that it has  been pre-
pared  and  is being  implemented.  EPA  Regional
offices will conduct frequent inspections of
facilities  to confirm that the required design
changes are constructed and prevention equip-
ment is installed as stated in  the plan.
     If a  facility experiences  a single spill
of over 1,000  gallons or  two  spills which dis-
charge a harmful quantity  of  oil  (as  defined
by EPA regulation 40 CFR Part 110) within 12..''
consecutive months, the owner or operator must
submit his plan, along with additional data, to
the EPA Regional Administrator for review of
the facility's prevention devices and procedures.
     On reviewing the SPCC plan, the Regional
Administrator may determine that it is not ade-
quate to prevent spills.  In that case, he may
require the owner or operator to amend it.  Un-
less extensions were granted, plans for exist-
ing facilities had to be prepared by July 11,
1974, and implemented by January 11, 1975.
     EPA's oil spill prevention program covers
these major facilities:

     -  About  30,000 oil  storage terminals,
       tank farms,  and  bulk  plants.
     -  About  285 oil  refineries.
     -  Several  thousand production facilities,
       both onshore and offshore.   The num-
       ber changes  almost daily as old oil
       fields are reopened,  stripped,  and
       closed or abandoned.
     -  Large  numbers  of bulk oil  consumers
       such as  apartment houses,  office
       bui1di ngs, schools, hospi tals, farms,
       and Federal  facilities.

     On December 21, 1972, the Coast Ruard pub-
lished prevention regulations for vessels and
oil transfer facilities (33 CFR Parts 154, 155,
156).  The regulations became effective on July 1,
1974.  Regulations applicable to other modes of
transportation — pipelines, railroads, and
tank trucks  -- are expected to be published.  .
                   Below:   Oil-water separator  equipment  is being installed to avoid
                   harmful discharges of  oily water  during oil  terminal operations.

'•_ .   The regulations governing vessels emphasize
the need to assign responsibility for oil trans-
fer operations to a specific individual experi-
enced in such operations.  They cover:

     - Onshore and offshore facilities trans-
       ferring oil in bulk to and from any
       vessel  having a capacity of 250 or
       more barrels.  Each facility must
       prepare an operations manual spell-
       ing out how it will meet the operat-
       ing rules and equipment requirements
       of the regulations, as well as the
       duties  and responsibilities of those
       conducting oil  transfer operations.
       The Coast Guard can inspect the
       facility, assess civil penalties for
       violations of the regulations, and
       suspend operations when conditions
       are found that threaten the environ-
     - Operations of vessels in the naviga-
       ble waters and contiguous zone of the
       United  States.   To receive a certifi-
       cate of inspection from the Coast
       Guard — in fact, an authority to
       operate — U.S. vessels must adhere
       to the  design and equipment require-
       ments of the oil  pollution prevention
       regulations.   Again, operations can
       be suspended if they threaten the
     - Transfer of oil to or from vessels
       having  a capacity of 250 or more bar-
       rels on the navigable waters and con-
       tiguous zone of the United States.

      The Coast Guard  regulations,  together with
'vessel  traffic systems  and construction  require-
ments under the Ports and Waterways  Safety Act
of  1972, should significantly reduce discharges
from  vessels  and oil  transfer operations.

      EPA has been conducting compliance inspec-
 tions for preparation of SPCC plans since July 11,
 1974, and for preparation  and implementation of
 plans since January 11, 1975.  As of February 1,
 Simple repairs  at  an  oil  facility may protect
 environment  from spills during  truck loading.

1975, approximately 2,400  inspections had been
completed.  About 65 percent of  the  facilities
inspected were in compliance.  Failure  to have
plans prepared or implemented resulted  in the
referral of approximately  565 cases  for enforce-
ment action.
     On  February 1, 1975, EPA began receiving
plans  for review from facilities that had spill
problems.  To ensure reasonable uniformity in
its  review and  amendment procedures, EPA devel-
oped a  course in oil spill prevention engineer-
ing.   Among  the first to take the course were
engineers from  EPA Regional  Offices who review
SPCC plans,  evaluate the facility's system de-
sign from a  spill prevention point of view, and
develop  required amendments.

     EPA's program  to prevent spills of hazar-
dous substances will  probably follow the same
principles used in  setting up the oil spill
prevention program.  The  first  step was for
EPA  to publish  a list of hazardous substances,
a  complicated task  because almost any substance
can  be hazardous in certain  amounts or under
certain circumstances.
     In  an advanced notice published on August
22,  1974, EPA proposed a  list of 372 hazardous
polluting substances.  To limit the list to
only the most hazardous substances, EPA desig-
nated  them first on the basis of toxicity. The
substances were selected  if  they met specified
 levels in tests  on  aquatic animals and plants
 and  in oral, dermal,  and  inhalation tests on
experimental animals.  The candidates also must
possess a reasonable  spill potential.  There-
fore,  the substances  selected are produced or
handled in larger  than research quantities.
     Other factors  such as radioactivity, bio-
 concentration,  biochemical oxygen demand, and
growth-stimulating  abilities will be consider-
ed in  any future additions to the list.
     In  addition to designating a list of haz-
ardous  substances, the August 22 notice deter-
mined  that all  the substances cannot be physi-
cally  removed once they have entered the aquatic
environment.  Factors considered in determining
removability included solubility, density, phy-
sical  state, and dispersion  of each candidate.

Also considered were potential for leaving  a
residue, detectability in the water body, status
of current removal  technology, and availability
of necessary removal equipment.
     Since all substances on the proposed list
are nonremovable, spills are subject to civil
penalties under  the provisions of section 311
(b) (2) of FWPCA.   Any actions the spiller  takes
in trying to mitigate the effects of the spill
will be considered  in assessing the fines.  The
fines also vary according to the toxicity,-rfe-
gradability, and dispersal characteristics.
What constitutes a  harmful quantity, and rates
of penalty, are in  the process of being deter-
mined for each hazardous substance.
     With these steps taken, the hazardous sub-
stances program will then intensify its efforts
to prepare spill  prevention regulations and to
improve techniques  to mitigate the harmful ef-
fects of spills.
                       RESPONDING   TO   SPILLS
                                   Vacuum track
     Pockets of oil from oil
     spill upstream of this
     flooded area are being
     contained by booms and
     picked up by vacuum truck
     Success  in cleaninq up an oil  spill  depends
upon preparedness and rapid action  by the spill-
er and by Federal, State, and local  agencies.
When a spill  occurs, the spiller must report
it promptly to the nearest Coast Guard Station
or EPA office.  If the spiller fails to give
immediate notice, he can be fined up to $10,000
and imprisoned up to one year, or both.  The
spiller must  also take proper action to contain
and clean up  the spill.  If he doesn't, EPA or
the Coast Guard may remove the spill using a
special Federal revolving fund.  In such cases,
the spiller is liable for the cost incurred.
     Cleaning up after an oil spill  that is
floating or partially submerged starts with con-
taining it.  Safety of work crews is an impor-
tant consideration.  The containment needed
depends on the  type of waterway, the size of
 the  spill, weather conditions,  and  the proce-
 dure to be used to remove it.   In shallow water,
 a  dam of baled straw can absorb oil and trap
 or filter floating materials.   In a small, fast-
 moving stream, wire fencing such as chicken
 wire can be packed with straw and laid across
 the  stream at an angle.  A series of barriers
 can  be placed to catch any oil  that is already
 moving downstream.
      In slow-moving water, small booms with a
 weighted apron or shield, or earthen dikes may
 be used.  Such booms are commercially available.
 In general, containment procedures are adequate
 for  coastal or slow-moving waters, but in large
 bodies of water or fast-moving  streams, the
 spills disperse so quickly that effective con-  "
 tainment is very difficult.

             RESPONSE  TO SPILLS
     Since most hazardous substances are solu-
ble in water,  actually removing them from the
water is extremely difficult with current tech-
nology.  Traditional methods of treatment-
adsorption with activated carbon, neutraliza-
tion with acids and alkalies, or precipitation,
for example—have proved their effectiveness
in industrial  processes  and laboratory appli-
cation.  However, they have not been demonstrated
satisfactorily in actual  spills of hazardous
     Even though there is little technology
available to actually remove hazardous substances
spilled into the water,  there are actions which
can be taken to minimize the damage.  For ex-
ample, an entire lake or pond of water conta-
minated by a hazardous material spill  can be
dammed, bypassed, and filtered or treated to
make the water safe again.   The bottom sediments
are then treated to make them safe.
     Several different procedures may be used
to remove a spill once it has been contained.
Liquid deposits that have settled can be
dredged, sucked up, or pumped off.  Solid or
sludge deposits can be shoveled or dredged.
Contained oil or other liquids can be removed
by tank or vacuum trucks equipped with pumps,
which are usually available locally.  Large
amounts of oily water can be removed by mechani-
cal skimmers; the kind and type to be used de-
pend  upon water conditions and the amount of
debris, availability of equipment, and other
     Cleaning oily sand from beach areas can be
•a long and tedious process.  Heavy grading equip-
ment is effective, but many beach areas have
limited access.  Manual labor then becomes the
only method for picking up oil-soaked debris
and sand.  Finding a site for permanent dispo-
sal of the oil and debris -- without creating
new pollution -- is often a serious problem.
     The complex nature of oil removal opera-
tions has caused the oil industry to establish
oil clean-up cooperatives. They provide special-
ized equipment and personnel trained in oil
cleanup techniques.
 Water  flowing  into  lake  is bypassed while the
 Endrin-poisoned water is being treated.

     A valuable tool now available to spill  re-
sponse personnel is the Oil and Hazardous Mater-
ials Technical Assistance Data System (OHM-TADS).
This computerized information  retrieval  file is
accessible by telephone hookup to a computer
     OHM-TADS stores detailed  information on
some 900 chemical compounds.   The information—
numerical data as well as interpretative com-
ments—has been assembled into the computer
from technical literature.   It emphasizes the
effects the materials can have when spilled,
but much more information is  provided, includ-
ing trade names, synonyms,  chemical formulas,
major producers, common modes  of transportation,
flammability, explosiveness,  potential for air
pollution, methods of analysis, and chemical,
physical, biological, and toxicological  pro-
perties.  In less than 15 minutes, OHM-TADS
can relay procedures for safe  handling and
clean-up of spilled materials.

     Another capability of OHM-TADS is identi-
fication of unknown materials.  After key
characteristics of the unknown are furnished
to the system, OHM-TADS screens for candidate
substances with similar physical  and chemical
properties.  For example, if the computer is
given the color, odor, or density of an unknown
material, it will  generate a list of candidates.
Continued elimination of substances on this list
will lead ultimately to identification of the
     OHM-TADS was first used in June 1971 in a
fire in an agricultural chemicals warehouse in
Farmville, North Carolina.  Since that time it
has been used on a wide variety of spills; it
is now being expanded to provide a network of
data terminals for emergency service to spill
response personnel all over the Nation and in
Canada and Sweden.
              OHMSETT FACILITY

     EPA supports a number of research and deve-
lopment activities to provide spill response
teams with more effective techniques and equip-
ment for the future.  In Leonardo, New Jersey,
a new spill research facility called OHMSETT
(Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environ-
mental Test Tank) is used to develop standard
test procedures and evaluate devices to con-
tain and pick up spills.
     The tank is 670 feet long, 65 feet wide,
and 11 feet deep.  One end has a wave genera-
tor capable of making 2-foot-high waves with
a length of up to 16 feet.  Wave height and
length are selected for each test.  Waves can
be absorbed by a simulated beach at one end of
the tank, or reflected so as to generate a
Oil is being added to the water in the OHMSETT
tank in preparation for a test. A party of ob-
servers is on the moveable bridge.

choppy condition.  Currents are simulated by
towing test equipment down the tank from a
moveable bridge.
     The bridge and wave generator are controll-
ed from a three-story control building.  An
underwater observation area and instrumentation
equipment are also provided.   More information
about this facility may be obtained from the
Director, EPA Industrial Waste Treatment Re-.
search Laboratory, Edison, N.J. 08817.
                 Device designed for picking up oil from the  surface of the water ,
                 being tested for the U.S.  Coast Guard  at EPA's new OHMSETT facility.

                          SPILL   SURVEILLANCE
     Even with adequate laws  and regulations,
 spills will probably continue to occur and
 must be quickly detected and  controlled.  Spill
 surveillance, detection, reporting, and track-
 ing are useful in legal  proceedings and enforce-
 ment actions.  The information gathered also
 helps in containment and removal operations.
 Good methods and plans  are essential to discover
 and clean up spills, especially the larger ones
 that result from tanker accidents, offshore oil
 well blowouts, storage  lagoon failures, catas-
 trophic storms, and pipeline  failures.  Undetec-
 ted, such spills can spread out over wide areas
 of water and severely damage  the environment.
     Remote sensing is  an effective surveill-
 ance tool, because it can be  used in many lo-
 cations with low manpower costs.  Working to-
 gether, the Coast Guard and EPA recently
 initiated spill surveillance  from aircraft in
 coastal and inland waters.  The purpose is to
 detect unreported spills, as  well as to check
 operations and maintenance of harbor areas and
 industrial oil handling facilities adjacent to
 inland waterways.
     A number of modern remote sensing systems
 are used in the aircraft, including standard
 aerial cameras, electromechanical scanners
 operating in the ultraviolet  and thermal infra-
 red range, and various  radar  systems for all-
 weather and long-range  detection.  All systems
 can detect petroleum products on the water
 under varying atmospheric conditions.
     Now confined to daytime  surveillance, the
 EPA-Coast Guard program will  ultimately be
 expanded to night and all-weather patrols,
 particularly over coastal shipping lanes and
 offshore oil production  platforms.
     Apart from these surveillance activities,
 aerial remote sensing of large spills provide
 support during clean-up  operations by mapping
 the extent and location  of heavy concentrations
 of oil.  For example, in January 1974, an oil
 pipeline break released  about 1 million gallons
 of crude oil into the Mississippi River near
 New Orleans.  Flood conditions swiftly carried
 the oil downstream, leaving pockets of oil on
 and near the river banks for  a distance of
100 miles.   EPA's  National Environmental  Research
Center in  Las  Vegas  and  an aerial  surveillance
firm photogranhed  the entire area.   With the
photographs,  the  Coast Guard and the oil  com-
pany officials in  charge  of clean-up operations
were able  to direct  their attention to the areas
where oil  had accumulated.
                    Aerial photo  on right was
                    one of many taken of the
                    lengthy spill area on the
                    >Hssissippi after a pipe-
                    line break.   Many pockets
                    of oil uere located and
                    methods of cleanup were
                    assessed using this type
                    of photography.

     EPA  and  the  Coast  Guard  have also embarked
 upon a joint  effort  to  install oil  sensors on
 fixed platforms in harbors near marine transfer
 terminals and in  inland waterways adjacent to
 refineries  and industrial complexes.  Research
 and development supported by  the two agencies
 has resulted  in several remote sensing instru-
 ments that  can detect oil on  water, in day or
 night and in  varied  weather conditions.  These
 instruments can record  spills and notify spill
 response  crews.   Thus,  they are truly oil spill
 sentinels.  Infrared sensors  are now being in-
 stalled in  New York  Harbor and the  Houston Ship
 Channel.   Other instruments under development
 will afford greater  range detection and a scan-
 ning capability.
    With  improved detection capabilities for
 many pollutants,  remote sensing will also be
utilized for monitoring  of industrial facilities
 producing and using  hazardous substances.
National  Contingency Plan and for generally
overseeing its operations.
     The  NRT's emergency activities are coor-
dinated in the National  Response Center (NRC) .
located at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washin.g-
ton, D.C., where a continuously manned communi-
cations center, as well  as  other specialized
facilities and personnel, are on hand.  The
Chairman  of the NRT is from EPA and may utilize
the NRC,  especially in the  critical first stages
of an emergency.  In addition, a spill-emergency
Situation Room is maintained by EPA's Oil and
Special Materials Control Division in Washing-
ton; the  room is equipped with audiovisual  and
communication facilities, as well as the OHM-
TADS computerized information system.
     Regional Response Teams (RRT) exist in
each of the 10 EPA Regional Offices.  When
necessary, the teams can call upon skilled
emergency personnel trained by EPA and the
Coast Guard.  Coast Guard Strike Teams on the
East, West, and Gulf Coasts are made  up of
specialists in ship salvage, diving,  and spill
removal techniques.  Each EPA Regional Office
has at least four emergency response  special-
ists.  Thev are trained  in biology, chemistry,
engineering, meteorology and oceanography and
experienced  in  cleaning  up and  removing  spills
or mitigating  their environmental  effects.
     Spill response cooperatives and  fully
equipped  response teams  have been  set up by
some coastal States, port authorities, local
agencies, and industrial facilities.
     Most spills are handled at the regional
level, either with regional resources or by
contract.  The Oil and Special Materials Control
Division  in EPA's Headquarters provides  back-
up support when EPA Regions need additional
scientific personnel and equipment.   If  a spil.l
involves  more than one Region or requires out-
side assistance, EPA Headquarters  assists in
coordinating the  efforts,  or arranges to bring
 in additional  personnel  and  equipment from  other
EPA facilities.

      The National  Oil  and Hazardous  Substances
 Pollution Contingency  Plan (40 CFR 1510), pub-
 lished by the Council  on Environmental  Quality,
 is  put into operation  when the spiller  is not
 taking proper action to clean up.   The  plan  is
 intended to coordinate Federal clean-up efforts.
 Responsibility for on-the-scene coordination
 on  spills into inland  waters  rests with EPA.
 The Coast Guard deals  with those in  coastal
 waters and the Great Lakes.
      When a spill  presents an unusual situation
 or  transects reqional  boundaries,  the National
 Response Team (NRT) assumes  certain  responsi-
 bilities.  Representatives to the  NRT are pro-
 vided by several Federal agencies, including
 the Energy Research and Development  Adminis-
 tration and the Federal Disaster Assistance
 Administration of the  Department of Housing
 and Urban Development.  The NRT also serves  as
 the committee responsible for revising  the
 A spill-response team, with some relatively
 light and portable spill-containment and clean-
 up equipment.

                               SPILL   INCIDENTS
     A number of spectacular  spills of the 1960s
 and early  1970s  resulted  in  considerable harm
 to the environment.   But they did more than
 that—they provided  the stimulus for enactment
 of oil spill legislation in the United States,
 Canada, and Great Britain  and also provided
 valuable experience  in clean-up operations.
     The incident that alerted the world to the
 disastrous consequences of spills was the ground-
 ing of the Torrey Canyon on the shoals off the
 English coast in 1967.  The tanker spilled
 approximately 30 million gallons of oil upon
 the shores of Great  Britain and France.  Pro-
 perty damaae was extensive.   Tens of thousands
 of seafowl were killed, and several hundred
 miles of beaches and shorelines were covered
 with oil.
    For two months a  concerted attack was waged
 to clean up the spill.  It was the first major
 international effort to clean up a very large
 oil spill, and many  mistakes  were made.  For
 example, the use of  chemical  detergents to
 disperse the oil in  the water proved to be
 more toxic to aquatic life than the oil itself.
 A variety of materials were used to lessen the
•effects of the oil slick,  including napalm, saw-
 dust, straw, hydrophobic chalk, and detergents.
 The attempts were largely  unsuccessful, although
_some valuable lessons were learned from experi-
"menting with unproven methods of control.
      The Torrey Canyon  compelled the United
 States to take its  first  step in planning for
 and dealing with oil  spills.  On May 26, 1967,
 the President of the  United States directed
 the Secretary of the  Interior and the Secretary
 of Transportation to  examine how the resources
 of the Nation could best  be mobilized against
 the pollution of water  by spills of oil  and
 other hazardous substances.  Referring to the
 Torrey Canyon incident, the President consider-
 ed it "imperative that  we take prompt action
 to prevent similar  catastrophes in the future
Above:   Cleanup after the Torrey Canyon oil spill.
Below:   The Torrey Canyon breaking  up.

   and  to  insure that the Nation is fully equipped
   to minimize  the threat from such accidents  to
   health,  safety, and our natural resources."
   An extensive report was subsequently prepared,
   with  specific recommendations for new legisla-
   tion  to prevent and control oil spills in U.S.
         In January 1969,  an oil  production plat-
   form  blowout  off the Santa Barbara coast re-
   leased  700,000  gallons of oil.   Spurred by
   public  reaction, Congress enacted the Hater
   Quality  Improvement Act of 1970 (PL 91-224).
   This  Act established the policy that there
   should  be no  discharges of oil  into or upon
   the navigable waters of the United States, ad-
   joining  shorelines, or into or upon the waters
   of the  contiguous zone  (12 miles from the shore-
   line).   In addition, the Water Quality Improve-
   ment  Act prescribed a three-pronged program--
   including contingency planning and cleanup,
   prevention,  and enforcement—to prevent and con-
   trol  oil spills.

February 1970   Arrow
                    Tanker      Chedabucto Bay   3,000,000 gal.
                    grounding   Canada
April  1970     Chevron   Blowout     Gulf of Mexico   1,500,000 gal.
November 1970  Waste     Lagoon break Schuylkill River, 3,000,000 gal.
            crankcase            Pennsylvania
December 1970  Shell     Blowout     Gulf of Mexico   4,000,000 gal.
January 1971   Oregon    Tanker      San Francisco Bay 1,200,000 gal.
            Standard  collision
       The offshore platform blowout at Santa

        In the period  from  February 1970 to Janu-
   ary 1971, four major  oil  spills occurred in
   the United States and one  in  Canada, each in
   excess of 1 million gallons;  estimated clean-
   up costs totaled more than  $15 million.  The
   massive spills presaged  the difficult battle
   ahead to control and  prevent  oil spills.  There
   was a demonstrated  need  for government assis-
   tance, oil recovery and  disposal contractors,
   and industry personnel to  coordinate efforts
   to meet the emergencies  of oil spills.  EPA
   and the Coast Guard,  with  their Canadian counter-
   parts, discovered that even monumental and costly
   clean-up efforts could retrieve relatively small
   amounts of spilled  oil.
                                                             Some of the cleanup activity along  the coast
                                                             resulting from the Santa Barbara  oil  spill.

                                                                             OIL SPILLS

                                                                Oil  spills  occur  in many types of facili-
                                                           ties,  in  many locations, and  for many reasons.
                                                           Oil spills  account  for the great majority of
                                                           spills occuring  in  the United States.   In addi-
                                                           tion,  oil sometimes enters the aquatic environ-
                                                           ment from routine operations—for example,
                                                           cleaning  out tankers and discharging process
                PIPELINE  SPILLS

     Pipeline breaks  and  leaks cause about 500
spills a year, discharging  about 1  million gal-
lons of oil.  Small leaks in  underground lines
may go undetected  for years.   Some  breaks can
be observed indirectly, as  when snow covers
the ground or when  leaks  from offshore lines
produce an oil film on  the  surface  of the water.
Other causes of pipeline  spills include acci-
dental rupture of  a buried  pipeline by heavy
equipment or underwater damage to an offshore
pipeline by a dragging anchor.  Gathering lines
and flowlines in oil  fields as well as piping
in plants and terminals are frequent spill

      Pipeline break as seen from the air.

     Some older lines are not protected against
corrosion and are a common cause of spills.
Current Department of Transportation regulations,
which call for cathodic protection of major inter-
state pipelines, do not apply to intrastate pipe-
lines.  However, EPA's oil pollution prevention
regulations do apply to flow and gathering lines
in oil fields.


     With present capabilities, men and equip-
ment often cannot be deployed quickly enough to
meet every conceivable spill emergency in all
types of terrain.   In October 1972, a broken
16-inch pipeline spilled over 285,000 gallons
of crude oil  into the San Juan River, which
flows through isolated and rugged land in New
Mexico and southern Utah.  The spill threatened
tbe waters of an Indian reservation and a
National recreation area.  Several days passed
as heavy rains, near-record floods and snow-
storms delayed the  actions necessary to contain
and remove the oil  and debris in the river.
                                                            The spill  continued  to move  downstream  in
                                                       spite of the efforts  of the pipeline  company,
                                                       with assistance of men  and equipment  from  EPA,
                                                       the Pacific  Strike Force  of the Coast Guard,
                                                       the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land
                                                       Management,  the Department of the Army, the
                                                       National  Park Service,  the Geological  Survey,
                                                       the Bureau of Indian  Affairs, the Federal  Avia-
                                                       tion Agency, the Navajo Tribe, and the State of
                                                       Utah.   Several  miles  of the San Juan  River and
                                                       portions of  Lake Powell were affected.  When
                                                       weather conditions permitted work to  be resumed,
                                                       the remaining visible oil and the oily debris
                                                       were eventually removed by the pipeline company.
              OIL BARGE  SPILLS

     In January 1973 an oil  barge struck a
bridge pier on the Mississippi near Helena,
Arkansas, spilling 800,000 gallons of diesel
fuel.  This was one of four oil barges which
broke loose during a wintry accident resulting
from flood conditions and fast current.  The
other barges stranded nearby, with two leaking.
     Response was coordinated by Region IV of
EPA, as the OSC, assisted by the Coast Guard,
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Arkansas High-
way Department, Civil Defense officials, and
others involved with public  health and drinking
water safety, and with fish  and wildlife pro-
tection.  The leaking barges were offloaded
after booms were placed near them.
     Two bargemen lost their lives when the
steel cables snapped at the time of the barge-
tow breakup.  Precautions had to be taken in
spill response to prevent further accidents or
loss of life during the freezing rain, snow,
and flood conditions.
  Above:  Crude oil and debris on the San Juan
  River.   Below: A portion has been enclosed
  in a boom, being towed to shore for pickup.
Above:  Oil barge is seen on right side of photo
after striking bridge pier on the Mississippi
River near Helena, Arkansas.  Below:   A close-up.

     Although some of the oil reached 120 miles
downriver, most of the cleanup was confined to
a number of pockets close to the accident site.
In spite of the conditions, several thousand
gallons were recovered.

     In December 1973 a towed barge spilled
336,000 gallons of crude oil after an accident
on the Atchafalaya River west of Baton Rouge.
Much of the oil was contained within a one-
mile stretch of the river.  There were an es-
timated 50,000 ducks in the marshes along the
river, but the oil was prevented from reaching
them by protective booms placed by response
     In June 1974 a barge struck the Huey Long
Bridge on the Mississippi near New Orleans,
spilling an estimated 157,000 gallons of crude
oil.  Ribbons of the oil reached 30 miles down-
river and oil was collected at the outside of
each bend on the river.
                OCEAN VESSELS

      Tanker  spills  have  occurred  in the past
 and  can  be expected to continue to occur.  The
 world's  tanker  capacity  doubled from  1960 to
 1970 and is  still increasing.  New supertankers
 and  their facilities will  be required to re-
 ceive oil from  Alaska and  other world sources.
 The  rapid growth of the  numbers of tankers
 will inevitably increase tanker-related spills
 and  also discharges. At the same time, tankers
 are  getting  larger; 125-mi11 ion-gall on super-
 tankers  are  now in  operation and  tankers with
 a capacity of 250 million  gallons are under
 construction.  Thus, spills possibly  will  be
 proportionately larger.
      Continued  efforts  are being  made toward
 adoption of  better  designs, techniques,  and
 equipment to cut down on pollution  by tankers
and other vessels.  Cleaning practices for
tankers and bilge cleaning methods on vessel-s-'
are receiving increased attention.  EPA is en-
couraging use of the load-on-top method for
cleaning tanks on existing tankers at sea, the
incorporation of segregated ballast designs "in
new tankers, and better tank cleaning facili-
ties at terminals.  Most large fleets now use
the load-on-top technique.  A properly equipped
tanker carrying 30 million gallons of crude
oil avoids washing 150,000 gallons of oil into
the sea after each delivery.


     In March 1973 the tanker Zoe Colocotroni,
with its cargo of 7.5 million gallons of crude
oil, ran aground near the southwest coast of
Puerto Rico.  Her captain quickly discharged
over 2 million gallons of crude oil into the
sea to lighten and free the vessel, instead
of waiting to offload it into a barge.  With
only minor damage, she proceeded to port, after
causing the most serious oil spill in Puerto
Rico since the Ocean Eagle incident in 1968.
     The oil, driven by the wind, headed toward
Bahia Sucia and Cabo Rojo.  Floating oil covered
a wide area, moving about with the wind and
water currents.
     An estimated 1 million gallons of oil  hit
the shore and beach areas; 400,000 gallons
reached the island's mangrove swamps, where
there was major damage to plant and animal  life.
On the beaches the oil penetrated as deep as
12 inches.
     The Coast Guard assumed on-scene coordi-'
nation in spill clean-up operations. EPA spill
response personnel from Region II and Head-
quarters provided technical assistance for oil,
recovery operations.
   Below:   Crude oil floats into mangrove area
           after Zoe Colocotroni spill.

          Oil in mangrove area.

     Perpendicular trenches and sumps were dug
into the sand to trap the heavy oil  slicks piled
up by wind and surf along some areas of the
shoreline.  Vacuum trucks pumped out oil large-
ly free of water and debris.  Any water taken
in was drained off.  The trucks drove to a
refinery near Ponce, a round-trip drive of 5
     Above:   Perpendicular trenches in beach
             collect some oil coming ashore.
     Below:   Tank trucks load up.
                       iiSS ••'«;*•   "^-"O
                                                            Because of the long turnaround time and a
                                                       shortage of trucks, larger pits were dug near
                                                       the trenches and sumps for temporary storage.
                                                       Floating debris and seaweed could be cleared
                                                       after filling each pit, Increasing the effi-
                                                       ciency of pumping the oil to the trucks.
Additional temporary ponds were made as needed
to contain the oil collected from the sump/trenches.

       Removing oil  from the mangroves was  more
  difficult.   The area  was swampy and virtually
  Inaccessible by trucks and other equipment.  In
  addition,  the wind shifted frequently and moved
  the oil  In  and out of the mangrove areas. Local
  and Federal  agencies  began a  massive clean-up
  effort,  using booms to confine the oil  in a
  fairly small  area  and foam to absorb it.  The
  oil-soaked  foam was then collected and  removed.
       The damage by the oil  was considerable,
  but the  percentage of oil  recovered was larger
  than in  previous clean-up operations of oil
  tanker spills at sea.   An estimated 700,000
  gallons  were collected in the first 6 days of
  recovery operations.

                CORINTHOS SPILL

       In  January 1975,  the tanker Corinthos,
  while offloading crude oil  at Marcus Hook below
  Philadelphia, was  struck by the tanker  Edgar M.
  Queeny.  The Corinthos exploded and burned,
  leaving  three dead and 27 missing.   The Corinthos
  carried  approximately 13 million gallons  of  light
  crude.   The Queeny, with its  cargo of phenol,
  gasoline, paraffin, and vinyl  acetate monomer,
  suffered relatively light damage.
       Flames  from the  fire reached 500 feet Into
  the air  and  could  be  seen for over 15 miles  1n
  the heavily industrialized and populated  area.
  Favorable winds kept  the flames from reaching
  the tank storage area  near the unloading  ter-
  minal.   The  oil  slick  immediately began to spread
  down river,  and the Coast Guard provided  an  on-
  scene coordinator  for  spill containment and
  clean-up.  The chairman of the National Response
  Team flew over the spill  area and noted that
  approximately 50 miles of the Delaware  River
  were covered  with  oil.
       EPA's  Regions II  and III provided  technical
  support  in  the response operations and  EPA's
  NERC Las Vegas provided aerial  surveillance.
  EPA placed  booms to protect three wildlife areas
  from oil, warned downstream water users to close
  their intakes,  directed six clean-up contractors,

  Wreckage  of  the  tanker  Corinthos after  fire.

made additional aerial photography and surveil-
lance of the spill areas, and suggested and
assisted in establishing bird-cleaning opera-
     Approximately 2,000 waterfowl  died from the
effects of the oil slick.  The cost of cleanup
was over $1 million.

                METULA SPILL

      The Metula,  a  supertanker carrying  64 million
gallons of crude  oil,  ran aground off  the Coast
of Chile in August  1974, spilling 16 million
gallons of its cargo.  The  incident occurred at
night during  a high wind.
      Oil spread for 1,000 square miles,  into an
estuary and along 75 miles  of Chilean  coast. A
team  from  the Coast Guard flew in with special
equipment  to  offload some of the crude oil from
the Metula into a smaller tanker.  Winds of 50
miles per  hour and  intense  cold hampered the
process.   Refloating and removal of the  super-
tanker was delayed  until late September  because
of high winds.  No  attempt  was made to clean up
the spill.
                                                            Five months  later  a joint  study  team  from,
                                                       the United States,  including  a  marine biologtst
                                                       from EPA, conducted a field investigation  of  the
                                                       affected  shorelines and islands to document some
                                                       of the environmental effects.   At that time at«
                                                       least half of the stranded oil  was still on the
                                                       shore and in estuarine  areas.   The fate of the
                                                       oil  in the water  and on the bottom was not es-
                                                       tablished.  Because of  the low  rate of biodegra-
                                                       dation in this cold climate,  the stranded  oil
                                                       could be  a source of oil pollution for a longer
                                                       period than for a spill in a  warmer climate.
                                                       Massive environmental damage  was recorded  by
                                                       the team.
Crude oil from the Metula appeared inland and
ashore after being driven there by very high
winds which are normal for Tierra del Fuego area.

             SHOWA MARU SPILL

     In January 1975 the supertanker Showa Mara,  -
with over 67 million gallons of crude oil, ran
aground on rocks and coral reefs in the Strait
of Malacca.   Coastal and beach areas of Singapore,,
the Malay Peninsula, and adjacent islands were*
threatened after three of her 12 tanks released
about 1  million gallons of light oil.  A 10-mile
                            Tanker Metula aground in  the  Strait  of  Magellan.

                                                                   JAKOB MAERSK SPILL
Showa Maru lists to port after running aground.

slick moved onto several islands in the western
section of the port of Singapore, as well as re-
sort and dock areas.  Large-scale measures to
combat the slick had to be organized and put into
service almost immediately.
     An EPA observer on the scene noted that
massive amounts of chemical dispersants were used
on the oil slicks in an attempt to keep them away
from beaches and shore areas.  In the United
States dispersants are rarely used.
'Detergents, after being applied to an oil slick,
 can create new pollution and other problems—
 they are not favored over physical removal of
 the oil in the United States.


     Early in January 1975 a supertanker spill
occurred in Bantry Bay at the southwest corner
of  Ireland.  It was the second spill there in
a short time.  In October 1974, crude oil was
spilled at a terminal on Whiddy Island in Bantry
Bay when a valve on the 92,000-ton tanker
Universe Leader failed to close.
     During the 1974 spill over 750,000 gallons
of  oil escaped, clogging Irish fishing ports and
fouling coast and beach areas.  Seagoing tugs
sprayed detergent on the slick along the coast
to  sink it.  Removal of the oil was hampered by
lack of manpower and suitable equipment.
     The Bantry Bay is rich in marine life. On
the south shore of the bay, all life was reported
virtually destroyed a month later.  Fishermen
claimed that the entire southern end of the bay,
where oil was accumulated by northerly winds, had
become unfishable.  Marine biologists are watch-
ing the area closely, using surface inspection
techniques, as well  as underwater television
and scuba divers.
     In late January 1975 the supertanker
Jakob Maersk, with over 26 million gallons of
Persian Gulf crude oil, struck a sandbar and
suffered four explosions while attempting to
enter the artificial deepwater port of the
city of Porto, Portugal.  Spilled and leaking
crude oil soon covered 20 miles of coastline
and additional damage was feared.  Although
the ship burned for two days after the inci-
dent, it continued to leak after that time.


     River barges, rail tank cars, and highway
tank trucks haul millions of gallons of crude
oil, diesel and heating oil, gasoline, and other
products.  Collisions and other accidents can
result in oil spills. Human error and equipment
failure in loading and transfer operations also
create spills.
     To protect human lives from fire and explo-
sions, fire fighters frequently hose down vola-
tile and flammable materials.  This can result
in pollutants being washed into sewers, rivers,
and harbors.  EPA frequently provides on-scene
technical assistance to fire department person-
nel.  But is some cases, there is little that
can be done.  For example, a barge loaded with
gasoline broke loose from its tow on the Ohio
River and drifted for several miles before strik-
ing an electrical power site and catching fire.
Fire fighters and spill personnel were almost
helpless, as the flames destroyed the barge and
the power complex.


     In April 1972 a tank car exploded while
loaded at the storage terminal of an oil refin-
ery in Doraville, Georgia.  A fire started among
the tanks of oil products and spread to homes
in the neighboring area.  One person was killed
and several injured.  Civil Defense evacuated
400 from the area, and Region IV of EPA
                                                           Storage  terminal  fire  in Georgia caused
                                                           oil  spill which spread to nearby homes.

 constructed  two  underflow dams to protect an
 adjacent  creek flowing  into  the Atlanta water
      In July 1974,  a  storage tank in Glenmont,
 New York, was overfilled and approximately
 800,000 gallons  of  fuel oil  flowed from the top.
 About 100,000 gallons leaked out through Dart of
 the earthen  dike area around the tank.  The oil
 reached a creek  flowing into the Hudson River.
 When the  leak was discovered, the tank owners
 had placed oil booms  across  the mouth of the
 creek, but 10,000 gallons still reached the
 Hudson.   Once there,  it moved about 4 miles
 down river.   Directional booms were extended at
 an angle  from the shore in an effort to entrap
 some of the  oil  in  the  river.
      A contractor used  about 50 persons and
 heavy equipment, such as tank and vacuum trucks,
 to clean  up  the  contained oil.
               WASTE OIL LAGOON

      A spill  does  not  have  to  involve a simple
 discharge—as the  case of an abandoned lagoon
 in  Utah illustrates.   In late  1973, at the re-
 quest of State officials, EPA's  Region VIII  in-
 vestigated  and found that waste  oil sludge in
 the 5-acre  lagoon  was  seeping  into canals of
 the nearby  Ogden Bay Wildlife  Refuge.  Some  of
       Aerial view  of waste oil lagoon.

 the  lagoon's containment walls were in danger of
 collapsing and polluting the entire refuge and
 even the  nearby Great Salt Lake.  The lagoon's
 contents  were in three layers.  The bottom layer
 was  an acidic and tarlike sludge containing a
 high content of sulfurous acid and lead.  A
 middle layer of water and top layer of oil were
 also high in these  substances.
     At this point, EPA, supported by the State
 of Utah and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
 Wildlife  declared that the situation was an
 "imminent and substantial threat" under section
 311(c) of the FWPCA.  EPA took formal legal ac-
 tion against the operator of the lagoon, and
 while awaiting the  court's decision, strengthened
 the  weak  banks around the pond with sand bags.
       Numerous flocks of ducks landed and died.

     In March 1974, the court decided that EPA
should take action under section 311(c).  EPA
moved quickly to set up contracts for the re-
moval and disposal of the contents of the lagoon.
Both the oil and water had to be disposed of
safely.  The disposal problem was solved when
the nearby U.S. Air Force base permitted EPA to
establish a disposal farm on an isolated tract
of land near the lagoon.  The material could be
         Aerial view of disposal farm.
biodegraded by farming it into the land under
controlled procedures.
     After removing a large number of junked cars
and other debris to gain access to all  parts of
the lagoon, the two top liquid layers were pumped
into small  tank trucks and spread over prepared
and fertilized ground on the Air Force land. The
liquids were worked into the soil with farm
machinery.  The pumping, hauling, and farming
operation proceeded for several weeks until all
the ponds of the lagoon complex were dry.
     The liquid was removed by summer, exposing
the bottom sludge, which softened somewhat in
the Utah sun.  Disturbing it with a dragline and
bulldozer created hazardous levels of sulfur
dioxide, methane, ethane and propane on hot days,
requiring crews to wear self-contained breathing
     In this dry and dusty setting, with the sharp
and pungent odor being carried by the wind for
more than a mile, the sludge was thoroughly mixed
with local clay until it was firm enough to hold •

a heavy layer of clay and topsoil.   This task
ended the clean-up operations at the lagoon.
Monitoring of the farm will  be necessary to check
on the microbiological degradation of the liquids.
Late in 1974 plants were growing on many of the
fanned areas.


     Though  far fewer in number than oil spills,
 hazardous substances spills are extremely sig-
 nificant in  terms of their immediate and long-
 term threat  to human life and the environment.
 Because final regulations governing hazardous
 substances are not yet in effect, EPA cannot
.implement the provisions of section 311 of the
 1972 Act.  In the interim, EPA actively responds
 to spills of hazardous substances.


     In July 1974 lightning struck a powerline,
 igniting a million-dollar fire in a paint and
 herbicide manufacturing and storage facility in
 Alliance, Ohio.
     Soot, ashes, hydrogen chloride, and other
 toxic gases  were carried by a slight breeze over
 residential  areas into the Alliance Water Facility,
 the Berlin Reservoir, and the Mahoning River.
 Runoff from  fire-fighting operations flowed toward
 the reservoir and river.
 Herbicide facility fire at Alliance,  Ohio.
     The on-scene coordinator from EPA's Region
V called for local and county police to evacuate
citizens downwind; later a shift in the winds at
the site of the fire necessitated evacuation of
500 hospital patients.
     To reduce runoff, chemical foam was flown
in and used as much as possible to fight the
fire.  Bags of lime were dumped into gutters
and storm sewers in an attempt to neutralize
the acid liquid.  Several filter fence dams of
peat moss and fine limestone were erected across
a small creek near the site.  They neutralized
some of the pollutants before they reached the
river and the reservoir.
     About a day later, the fire was extinguished
and the air pollution hazard eliminated. The
Mayor of Alliance, after consultation with EPA
representatives, allowed citizens to return to
their homes.
     This did not end the EPA involvement.
Follow-up action included:
     - Monitoring the clean-up and disposal
       of contaminated debris and soil  to
       an approved landfill.
     - Maintaining a hotline for inquiries
       from citizens and the press.
     - Conducting an extensive water-sampling
       program in the Mahoning River and
       Berlin Reservoir.
     The reservoir was sampled for several days
until lab results showed that the water was safe.
At the end of the clean-up, EPA's on-scene coor-
dinator was given the  Keys  to the City in recog-
nition of his efforts.

                  PCBs SPILL

     A simple accident in September 1974 caused
a major hazardous substance spill  in the Duwamish
Waterway in the  State  of Washington.  An elec-
trical transformer  being loaded onto a barge fell
from its loading  sling, spilling  260 gallons of
polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs)  onto the dock
and  into the waterway.  By  direct contact, this
liquid can  cause  sickness,  serious skin disease,
stunted growth,  and other effects.  When spilled,
it does not harmlessly disappear, but persists

      in the environment.  It can even penetrate to
      underground water supplies when spilled on land.
      PCBs can concentrate in tissues, and thus are
      harmful to aquatic life, livestock, and birds.
           The spiller handled the incident as a minor
      spill until a follow-up investigation by the
      Washington State Department of Ecology revealed
      that PCBs were involved.  The State requested
      EPA's assistance in clean-up, and Region X
      assumed the responsibility of on-scene coordi-
      nation.  An initial plan called for using a
      20-inch suction dredge and a slurry pipeline to
      a small island with lined containment ponds
      about 100 yards from the spill site.  Because
      of construction problems and concern over oossi-
      ble soil instability, this plan was discarded in
      favor of a more secure method of containing the
           Using 4-inch hand-held suction dredges,
      divers picked up pools of PCBs, which are heavier
       than water, from the bottom of the waterway.
      This, with dredged material, was pumped into a
      series of settling tanks.  The sludge was sepa-
      rated from this slurry and stored in 55-gallon
      drums.  The water was processed through a truck-
      mounted unit brought in from an EPA research
      facility in New Jersey.  The prototype unit uses
      a series of charcoal filters to adsorb PCBs. The
      treated water was returned to the waterway.
           In the effort to locate and remove the
      PCBs, divers searched the bottom of the waterway.
      They discovered pools of the persistent PCBs ly-
      ing on the bottom.  Clean-up operations contin-
      ued for several weeks, with the main effort con-
      centrated on removing the PCBs from the immediate
      spill area.
           About 100 gallons of PCBs were recovered
      using this method.  The remaining pollutant was
      so widely dispersed that removal would have re-
      quired dredging the entire channel.

           Dock area during the PCBs spill cleanup.
                          *.»™«-       •  ^f^mWm^K **
                  	   llr I

     A hazardous substance spill  occurred near
Rush, Kentucky, in October 1973 when 15 railroad
cars were derailed.  There were several explo-
sions and a fire involving three tank cars con-
taining acrylonitriles, metallic sodium, and
other hazardous substances.
     Another car containing tetraethyl lead did
not rupture.  OHM-TADS provided additional in-
formation on the characteristics of the spilled
substances and cargoes nearby that were still
      Material leaking from rail tankcar.

     Fires and explosions had already occurred,
the fire was still burning from one huge tank
car, and another even larger explosion was a
good possibility.  The EPA on-scene coordinator
from Region IV requested Civil Defense to evacu-
ate area residents.
<  ib

      Reading TADS printout in aircraft.

     Headquarters EPA personnel  flew in to pro-
vide technical assistance to the coordinator and
make a situation report by means of videotape.
     Because of an extensive fish kill  15 miles
downstream from the spill site,  numerous  water
quality sampling stations were set up for local
wells, Williams Creek, and the Ohio River.
     In addition, EPA set up air monitoring
stations, and residents were allowed to return
to their homes only after analysis indicated
that the air was safe.

      Spills  caused  by  failure  of storage
,ponds containing  hazardous  substances are
 a constant threat.   In 1972, a strip mining
 pond in West Virginia  gave  way, releasing a
 wave of polluted  water.  Such  ponds are
 commonly constructed in  strip  mining areas
 (using tailings)  to concentrate liquid
 wastes from  mining  operations. There they settle
 and clarify; the  liquid  then passes into lower
 ponds for additional settling.
                                                            In  February  1972,  heavy rainfall and
                                                       melting  snow overflowed one of  the ponds
                                                       at Buffalo  Creek  and  eroded a small dam on
                                                       the upper level.   The dam  failed, cascading
                                                       water into  the  lower  and larger ponds.  The
                                                       resulting wave  crashed  down a narrow  valley,
                                                       destroying  small  towns  and killing over
                                                       100 people.
                                                            Research on  systems to provide early war-
                                                       ning of  the failure of  earth dams holding haz-
                                                       ardous substances has been sponsored  by EPA.
Above:  Earth dam failure brought spill disaster.
Below:  Some of the homes caught in the event.
     On the Peace River in Florida in 1971  a
storage pond released 2 billion gallons  of
sludge from phosphate mining operations.
Composed of silica sand, clay and phosphate,
the sludge is a gummy, sticky, almost rubber-
like substance.
     The sludge polluted the Peace River  and
the Charlotte Harbor area for 60 miles.   The
sheer volume and nature of the spill  suffocated
most forms of marine life in the river, de-
stroyed the adult fish population, drastically
         Peace River after pollution.
   Lagoon perched high in strip mining area.

    curtailed growth,  and seriously altered the
    total  environmental  structure of the area.
         Even in 1974, sludge remaining  on the
    bottom of the river was being flushed out by
    heavy rains, polluting the water repeatedly.

         In March 1972 a barge loaded with liquid
    chlorine broke its towline in the Ohio River
    near Louisville, Kentucky.  Drifting backward  in
    a 15-mile-per-hour current,  the barge punctured
    its hull  as  it struck a pillar of the McAlpine
    Dam, part of a hydroelectric complex.  Then
    the barge was pierced by submerged concrete
    obstructions inside  the spillway.  The four
    70-foot long tanks held a total  of 640 tons of
           Chlorine  barge hung  on  dam.

    liquid  chlorine, capable  of releasing  a
    poison  gas  cloud into Louisville, just down-
    wind.   On EPA's  recommendation,  the  National
    Response Team was activated and  the  Office
    of Emergency Preparedness joined in  the
    effort  to avoid  a national  disaster.
         To prevent  the  heavy barge  from breaking
    loose and tumbling over the dam, a large
    salvage catamaran was brought  in and tied
    to the  barge by  cables.  Plans were  then
    made to offload  the  chlorine to  another
    barge by slowly  reducing  the pressure  in-
    side the tanks.   Any gas  released would be
    neutralized by bubbling it  through a caustic
    solution.   As an extra  precaution, a high-
    pressure spray of water was set  up and
    directed downward from  the  superstructure
    of the  dam  toward the tanks.  The spray was

    Aerial  view of barge at hydroelectric  complex.
    Less than one-half of chlorine barge can be seen.
  Striking the pillar saved the barge from
  going over the dam.  Note two men on barge.

to force any leaking chlorine back into the
water.  Instruments were also set up to detect
chlorine in the air or water, and part of the
city was evacuated.  The tanks were emptied of
chlorine without incident, however, and no
chlorine escaped.


      Nature often  causes  spill problems.   In
June  of 1972, Hurricane Agnes lashed up from
the Gulf of Mexico, causing severe floods  in
several river basins over the eastern half
of the United States.   In her wake she left
scores dead, thousands homeless, and property
damage in the billions.
      Water pollution from spills of oil and
hazardous substances was  general and wide-
spread.  EPA, together with other Federal,
State,  local, and private agencies, worked
hard to restore clean water supplies.  Large
quantities of floating oil were on the loose,
as well as thousands of drums of oil, chemicals,
and other materials, some of unknown com-
position.  Specialists from EPA and industry
helped  in the oil clean-up and in identification
and removal of drums from the disaster areas.
    Hurricane Agnes also inundated some oil
storage lagoons along the Schuylkill River in
Pennsylvania.  These same lagoons had over-
flowed  in 1970, following 10 days of heavy rain,
and about 3 million gallons of oily sludge were
spilled into the river.                        t

       The Hurricane  Agnes spill released  6  to
  7 million gallons of the material, which had
  a high acid and  lead content.  Carried by  the
  flood water, the oily sludge penetrated
  hi-*|h ground and  damaged farms, homes, and
  businesses as it swept down the Schuylkill.
       Clean-up and removal  of oil and debris
  were an almost endless task.  Disposal of
  the waste material  collected was especially
  difficult; after numerous  delays, the
  material went via dump trucks and railroad
  hopper cars to a sanitary  landfill approved
  by State and local  authorities.
    Hurricane  caused spill of several million
    gallons of gasoline at storage terminal.


  «     Many  nations recognize  that cooperative
  programs must be broadened and strengthened
  if  countries are to deal  effectively with the
  problems of global pollution.   EPA has demon-
  strated a  willingness  to share its knowledge
  and experience by participating in international
  activities dealing with  the  pollution aspects
  of  ship design and operations, ocean dumping,
  designation  and control  of  hazardous substances,
  and other  related programs.
       As a  part of this effort, EPA provides
  representatives to the Intergovernmental
  Maritime Consultative  Organization (IMCO)
  and to the Joint Group of Experts on the
  Scientific Aspects of  Marine Pollution
  (GESAMP).   These United  Nations organizations
  provide an international  forum for airing of
  marine pollution problems and establishing
  international conventions to regulate the
  activities of member nations.
       Since IMCO began  in 1948, two Inter-
  national Conferences for the Prevention of
  Pollution  of the Sea by  Oil  were held, re-
  sulting in the 1954 and  1973 Conventions.
  Amendments to the 1954 Convention were pro-
  posed in 1962, 1969, and 1971.
       The 1973 Conference adopted regulations
  for the prevention of  pollution by oil,
  noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful
•» substances carried in  package form, sewage,
and garbage.   In addition, the  Conference
adopted  a  protocol  relating to  intervention
on the high  seas in cases of casualties in-
volving  marine pollution by substances other
than oil.  EPA was  instrumental  at  the 1973
Conference in broadening the definition of
oil to include all  types of petroleum oils,
such as  light refined products  and  other
nonpersistent oils.
     One of  the principal causes  of ocean
pollution  has been  the operational  discharge
of oily  ballast water. The traditional  practice
for most tankers has been to carry  ballast
water in cargo tanks to weigh the ship down
in the water and provide stability  during the
return voyage.  This water mixed  with oil cling-
ing to the sides of the cargo tanks and was
flushed  into the ocean on the return voyage to
the loading  port.
     All tankers subject to the 1973 Convention
would be required to be capable of  operating
either  retention-on-board (ROB) systems with the
discharge  of oily wastes to reception facilities,
or load-on-top (LOT) systems.
                                                           The load-on-top  system is used to avoid  the
                                                           problem of washing  residues from emptied oil
                                                           tanks into the sea.   Some tanks must be  filled
                                                           with water  after unloading or the ship  will
                                                           ride too high in the sea.
       Full cargo-Clean ballast tank empty.

       Clean ballast tank full (clean sea waterJ-Cargo tanks partially full (dirty ballast).
       Oil settles on top-Clean water pumped from bottom-Tank cleaning of empty
       tanks-Tank wash water collected in waste tank.
      AT SEA
      Clean ballast for
docking-Waste tank containing i
                  and all residues for
       Clean ballast for docking-Waste tank drained of all clean water, leaving only
       collected residue-Be fore loading, all clean water pumped into sea.
       Waste tank loaded on top of residues.
                                                                      Clean Sea Water

                                                                      Oil Contaminated Sea Water

          The 1973 IMCO regulation requiring ROB
     or LOT  systems was originally designed to  re-
     duce operational  discharges.  However, because
     of increased  transportation  of oil, these  mea-
     sures have not proved adequate to reduce ocean
     pollution.   Accordingly, the Convention will
     require  all  new tankers of 70,000 tons dead-
     weight  and above, contracted or delivered  after
     specified dates,  to be fitted with segregated
     ballast  tanks large enough to provide adequate
     operating draft without the  need to carry  bal-
     last water in the cargo tanks.
          The 1973 Convention will enter into force
     for  those nations signing the Convention,  12
     months  after  ratification by a required number
     of countries.  Upon ratification, the  1973
     Convention will supersede the 1954 Convention.
     The  United States has not yet ratified the
          The Administrator of EPA was instrumental
     in establishment  of the Marine Environmental
     Protection Committee  (MEPC)  within IMCO.   The
     committee acquires and disseminates scientific,
     technical, and practical information;  pro-
     motes international cooperation; and adopts or
     amends  regulations under international con-
     ventions for prevention and  control of marine
     pollution from ships.  EPA provides rep-
     resentatives  and  technical information to  the
          Additionally, EPA has been instrumental
     in development of bilateral  agreements for
     prevention and control of pollution, with
     other North  American  countries.  During
     development  of the agreement between Canada
     and  the United States on Great Lakes Water
     Quality, EPA, with other Federal agencies,
     provided the  technical criteria and standards
     for  protection of these lakes.
          Together with Canadian  counterparts,  EPA
     and  the Coast Guard prepared a Marine
     Pollution Contingency Plan (MPCP) for  joint
     response to  spills affecting the boundary
     waters  of the Great Lakes.   This plan,
     effective in 1972, was later expanded  to
     include the  boundary  waters  of both coasts.
          The plan has been successfully imple-
     mented  a number of times.  It has served
     further as a guidance document for other
     nations sharing coastal and  river boundaries
     subject to spill  incidents.

Harbor scene after chemical loading accident
killed 576 persons at  Texas City,  Texas  in  1947.
     EPA promotes international  cooperation  ,
because a uniform set of rules and regulations
will better enable the international
community to enforce the prevention and
control of marine pollution from ships.  Wit.h
IMCO's expanding role to prevent operational
and accidental discharges of oil and
hazardous substances into the oceans, EPA's
efforts will continue to increase at the
international level.

     The following  list  of  spills  is  representa-
 tive of thousands  which occur  each year.  The
 quantity does  not  always equate to the  amount
 spilled into waterways. In the case of vessel
 strandings  and collisions,  a portion may  have
 been recovered by  pumping  operations or burned.


  Norfolk, Va.                   30,000  gal.
    Naval base-unk. cause          oil

  Singapore                   1,000,000  gal.
    Tanker Showa Maru grounded      crude
  Galveston,  Texas
    Pipeline fracture

  Albany,  N.Y.
    Source unknown

  Bay St.  Louis,  Miss.
                               90,000 gal.

                               10,000 gal.
                                  NR 2

                                4,000 gal.
  Limetree Bay,  St.  Croix       136,000 gal.
    T/V Michael  C. Lemos disch.     crude

  Marcus Hook, Pa.            13,000,000 gal.
    M/T Corinthos struck           crude
    by M/T Edgar Queeny
                              250,000 + gal.
New Orleans, La.
  Freighter collided
  with tow of barges

Porto, Portugal
  Supertanker Jakob Maersk
  grounding and fire

         (List incomplete for 1975)

                                                               Houston Ship Channel, Tex.     84,000 gal.
                                                                 Tug-barge collision          crude

                                                               Trenton, N.J.                 30,000 gal.
                                                                 Tank rupture                  NR 2

                                                               Ft. Holabird, Md.              36,000 gal.
                                                                 Storage tank-pers.  error       NR 2
                                                               Markland Dam, Ind.
                                                                 17 Barges adrift
                                 45,000 gal.
                             mixed chemicals

f -New Orleans, La. 1,680,000 gal.
' Submerged pipeline break oil
.Krotz Springs, La. 583,800 gal.
«• 2 Barges hit RR bridge crude
St. Louis, Mo. 203,000 gal.
Barge offloading ops. caustic soda
Omaha, Neb. Unknown
Chemical plant mixed chemicals
Polk County, Tex. 126,000 gal.
Pipeline break crude
Paulsboro, N.J. 285,000 gal.
Athos & Notre Dame crude
Victory collision
Helena, Ark. 84,000 gal.
Barge ran aground gasoline
Ft. Miflin, Pa. 6,300,000 + gal.
Tanker Elias exploded crude
Ogdensburg, N.Y. 175,000 gal.
Tanker Sarnia aground crude
Baton Rouge, La. 1,870 gal.
Incorrect valve handling mixed chem.
Baranof Island, Alaska 13,000+ tons
Barge sank mixed chemicals
Ponca City, Okla. 37,200 gal.
Pipeline break gasoline
Chicago, 111. 1.5 million gal.
Storage tank leak silicone tetrachlor.
Ravenna, Ky. 25,000 gal.
Storage tank- vandal ism crude
Delaware, Ohio Unknown
Explosion and fire mixed chemicals
New Orleans, La. 500,000 + gal.
2 Barges hit bridge crude
Nacogdoches County, Tex. 37 tank cars
Derailment and fire mixed chemicals
Hawkins, Tex. 331,800 gal.
Pipeline break crude
Alliance, Ohio Unknown
Pesticide plant fire mixed chemicals
Cleveland, Ohio 400,000 gal.
Storage tank gasoline
Saugerties, N.Y. 100,000 gal.
Barge aground-Hudson R. jet fuel
Glenmont, N.Y. 940,000 gal.
Tank overfilled NR 2
Peoria, 111. 92,400 gal.
Tank and Barge collision NR 2
Beaumont, Tex.
Pipeline Break
Seattle, Wash.
Transformer accident
New Haven, Conn.
M/T Messiniaki aground
Corpus Christi , Tex.
Pipeline break
Huntington, W.Va.
Barge grounding
Baton Rouge, La.
Tanker Ercole aground
Tonawanda, N.Y.
Storage tank-br. pump
Roseton, N.Y.
Tanker Bouchard aground
Rome , Ga .
Highway accident
Ogdenscurg, N.Y.
M/V Jodney aground
84,000 gal.
240 gal.
84,000 gal.
NR 6
308,700 gal.
NR 6
70,000 gal.
mixed chemicals
100,000 gal.
150,000 gal.
18,000 gal.
NR 6
270 gal.
50,000 gal.
Camp Lejeune, N.C. 25 gal.
Transformer damage PCBs
Skiatook, Okla. 126,000 gal.
Pipeline split seam fuel oil
Saglek, Newfoundland 500,000 gal.
Tank-personnel negligence NR 3
Bantry Bay, Ireland 750,000 gal.
Tanker Universe Leader crude
Offloading operations
Punta Arenas, Chile 16,170,000 gal.
Tanker Metula aground crude
Dalhousie, N.B. Canada 65,000 aal .
Tanker Golden Robin aground NR 6
Keensburg, 111.
Tank leak
Creek County, Okla.
Pipeline break
Enid, Okla.
Tank-pipeline break
Warren , Pa .
Ruptured tank
Disko, Ind.
Pipeline rupture
30,000 gal.
84,000 gal.
250,000 gal.
3,000,000 gal.
raw sewage
21,000 gal.
Corpus Christi, Tex. Unknown
Barge sank vinyl acetate



                     VII KANSAS CITY
          1973 Spill List  (continued)
                                      SPILL PREVENTION AND  CONTROL
   Chesapeake,  Va.
     Tank  overflow

   Ama,  La.

   Elkhorn City,  Ky.

   Lynchburg, Va.
     Tank  rupture
     210,000 gal.

  mixed chemicals

          29 tons
ammon. fertilizer

      20,000 gal.
  Trans, oil
   Helena, Ark.                   800,000 gal.
     Barge struck bridge           diesel

   Gulf of Hex., La.              400,000 gal.
     Tank rupture offshore         crude

   Bellingham, Wash.              500,000 gal.
     Pipeline break                crude

   Kenner, La.                   126,000 gal.
     Tanker Naess Mariner,          crude
     Tug-barge collision
   Melville,  La.                   84,000 gal.
     Pipeline break                crude

   Salem, Mass.                    84,000 gal.
     Tanker Helena  Venizelos         NR 6
     loading  operations
   Hardin County, Tex.             33,000 gal.
     Chemical st. tank  overflow   sulfuric
   Oakland,  Calif.
      Stor. tank  vandalism
     200,000 gal.
   waste oil
Mr. John Con!on
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region I
240 Highland Ave.
Needham Heights, Mass.02194

Mr. Bill Librizzi
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region II
Edison Industrial Waste
  Treatment Laboratory
Edison, N.J. 08817

Mr. Howard Lamp'l
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region III
Curtis Building
6th & Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106

Mr. A1 Smith
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region IV
1411 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Mr. Russell  Diefenbach
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region  V
230 S.  Dearborn  Ave.
Chicago,  111.  60604
Mr. Wallace Cooper
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region VI    *
1600 Patterson St.
Dallas, Tex. 75201
214-749-3971      „   .

Mr. W. L. Banks
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region VII
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Mo.  64108

Mr. Al Yorke
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colo. 80203

Mr. David Henderson
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region IX
100 California St.
San Francisco, Calif. !

Mr. James Willman
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region X
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Wash. 98101

 Waynesboro, Miss.
   Pipeline break

 Vicksburg, Miss.
 •  Tug-barge collision
   109,000 gal.

   250,000 gal.
      NR 2
 Mississippi River,  La.         204,000 gal.
   Tanker Hess Refiner,      liq.  fertilizer
   Tug Socrates collision
 Johnson County,  Tex.
   Pipeline facility

 Middletown,  Ohio
   Industrial malfunction

 Dovmingtown, Pa.

 Charlotte, N.C.
   power plant accident

 Cairo,  111.
   M/V Hor tense Ingram
   struck bridge
 Dnity,  Ohio
   Tank  truck collision

 Stephens ,  Ark .
   Pipeline break

 Baton Rouge, La.
   Tug Dixie Vanguard,
   M/V Banta collision
 Skiatook,  Okla.
   Pipeline break

- Kingston,  Tenn.
   Transformer leak
    210,000 gal.

     50,000 gal.
     untr .  waste

      7,000 gal.
 mixed chemicals

    400,000 gal.
   fuel oil

     58,800 gal.
   jet fuel

      2,000 gal.
   sulfuric acid

     37,800 gal.

    126,000 gal.

     30,000 gal.

       1400 gal.
 Cold Bay,  Alaska               235,000 gal.
   Tanker Hillyer Brown    diesel s gasoline
 Silverton, Colo.
   Pipeline break-pond
  1,050,000 gal.
  tailings waste
Houston Ship Channel, Tex.     420,000 gal.
  M/V Merril Lykes and        Bunker C
  Tug Bayou La Foushe collision

La Parguera, Puerto Rico     1,596,000 gal.
  Tanker Zoe Colocatronis        crude
  deliberate discharge
 Cambridge, Wis.
   Eguipment failure
    252,000 gal.
Chicago, 111.                   10,000 gal.
  Chem. facility fire   sulfur monochloride
 Baton Rouge, La.
   Oil pit collapsed
2,000,000 + gal.
   slop oil
 La Platte, Neb.              3,000,000 gal.
   Stor.  tank failure  urea S ammonium nitr.

 Radford, Va.                   66,000 gal.
   Airanun. plant equip,  fail,   sulfuric acid
                                                       Narragansett Bay,  R.I.
                                                         Tanker Penant aground
                                                                                      50,000 gal.
                                                                                     NR 6 oil
                                                       Morgan City,  La.               168,000 gal.
                                                         Tug Raymond Thorpe,         ethyl benzene
                                                         Tug Goldfinch collision

                                                       Laurel, Miss.                  63,000 gal.
                                                         Production well equip,  fail,  crude
                                                       Norfolk, Va.
                                                         Tug severed line
                                                                                      30,000 gal.
                                                                                  Navy distillate
                                                       Pike County, Ohio                 200 Ibs.
                                                         Stor.  tank leak     uranium hexafluoride

                                                       Lenoir,  N.  C.                   9,000 gal.
                                                         Chem.  plant-vandalism   alcohol aldehyde

                                                       Gulf of  Mexico, La.  coast     240,000 gal.
                                                         Underwater pipeline break     crude
                                                       Mentor,  Ohio
                                                                                      13,000 gal.
                                                                              chlorosulfonic acid
                                                       Joliet, 111.                     8,000 gal.
                                                         Stor. tank;pers.  negligence   mixed acid
                                                       New York,  N.Y.
                                                         M/V Sea  Witch and
                                                         M/V Exxon Brussels

                                                       Duval, Texas
                                                         Stor. tank-pers.  error
                                                                                     420,000 gal.
                                                                                   crude oil and
                                                                                  red label cargo

                                                                                      46,200 gal.
                                                       Preeport,  Texas                15,000 gal.
                                                         Chem.  plant-valve fail.    cyano pyridene
                                                        Pittsburgh,  Pa.
                                                          Pipeline rupture
                                                           40,000 gal.
                                                         NR 6 oil
                                                       Chattanooga, Tenn.             Undetermined
                                                         Chem. plant fire     chlorinated toluene

                                                       Findlay, Ohio                 150,000 gal.
                                                         Pipeline break    naphtha s turbine fuel
                                                        Savannah, Ga.
                                                          M/V Gunda Brovig
                                                          tank cleaning
                                                           30,000 gal.
                                                       Miss. R. MP 88, La.           210,000 gal.
                                                         M/V Messiniaki and            crude
                                                         Tug National Crest collision
                                                       Martinez, Calif.              10,000 + gal.
                                                         Chemical pipeline break     sulfuric acid
                                                        Mitchell Co., Texas
                                                          Pipeline rupture
                                                            237,000 gal.
                                                       Kingsport, Tenn.                 31,000 gal.
                                                          Industrial plant-carelessness  paraxylene

                                                       Gulf of Hex., La.                42,000 gal.
                                                          Offshore pipeline rupture      crude

                                                       Mile 894, Ohio River             84,000 gal.
                                                          T/B Patco 200 grounded         gasoline

  Macon,  Ga.
    Pipeline break

  Stephen, Minn.
    Pipeline break
        25,000 gal.

       175,000 gal.
  Doraville, Ga.                   10,000  gal.
     RR tank car discharge        aqua ammonia

  Baton Rouge, La.                120,000  gal.
     Barge sank                     chloroform

  Mile 445.7, Tennessee  River     34,000  gal.
     M/V Sarah Thomas  sank           diesel

  Houston, Texas                   42,000  gal.
     M/T Splendid Arrow              crude
     Discharge hose broke

  Portland, Oregon                100,000  gal.
     USHS Princeton sank             crude

  Polk Co., Minn.                 210,000  gal.
     Pipeline break                  crude

  Williamsburg, Va.                30,000  gal.
     Pipeline break                  gasoline

  Winter-haven, Pla.               500,000  gal.
     Holding pond break chlorinated hydrocarb.
  Gulf of Mexico
    M/V Perseus and
    M/V Puebla collision
          520 drums
     sodium cyanide
  potassium cyanide
  Geismar, La.                         350 tons
     Industrial plant-human error caustic soda
   Scranton, Pa.
     Truck accident

   Dearborn, Mich.
   Marshall,  111.
     Pipeline rupture

   Lea, N. M.
     Corroded pipeline

   Enid, Okla.
     Pipeline break

   Keensburg, 111.
     Storage  tank  leak

   Vanport, Pa.
     Chemical plant

   Rush, Ky.
   Rufus, Oregon
     Truck accident

   Argyle, Minn.
     Pipeline break
           100 gal.
    sulfur dioxide

       19,000 gal.
     butyl alcohol

       40,000 gal.
       NR 2 fuel

       30,000 gal.

      250,000 gal.

       30,000 gal.

    Unknown quant.
dietyhylene benxene

    Unknown quant.
   metallic sodium

      15,000  Ibs.
    phenolic resin

    1,680,000 gal.
 Hayden,  Arizona                100, OCO gal.
   Industrial storage  leak       diesel

 Cincinnati, Ohio               130,000 gal..
   Tug  ST 120-rupture            NR 2 fuel
 Seattle,  Wash.
   Stor.  tank-equip,  failure

 Cape  San Martin, Calif.
   M/V Pearl Venture  and
   USNS Pvt Merrell collision

 Grey's Ferry, Pa.
   Oil Co. storage tank

 Boston,  Mass.
          Lalibella grounded
 Calcasieu, La.
   Tug  Restless and
   Tug  Columbia collision

 Chester,  Pa.
   Tanker  Mellon grounded

  Albany, N.Y.
    Barge Seaboard 31 aground

  Vancouver,  B.C.
    Tankers Erawan and
    Sun Diamond collision
                                                                 39,000 gal.

                                                                 16,000 gal.
                                                                  Bunker C
                                                                200,000 gal.
                                                                  NR 2 fuel

                                                                299,000 gal.

                                                                 63,000 gal.
                                                                126,000 gal.

                                                               20,000+ gal.
                                                                 NR 6

                                                               600,000 gal.
                                                             Trelleborg,  Sweden
                                                               Tanker Jawacta
                                                            6,000,000+ gal.
                                                                heavy oil
  Laksfjorden,  Norway          600,000+ gal.
    Tanker Mallard aground   light fuel oil  *

  Lindsway Bay, Wales, U.K.    900,000+ gal.
    Tanker Dona Marika aground   crude

    A more  detailed presentation of the laws,
regulations and other subjects  pertaining  to
spills may  be  found in  these  references:
Council on Environmental  Quality, 40 CFR, 1510, "National
  Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,"
  Federal Register, vol.  38, no. 155, August 13, 1973.
Executive Order 11735, "Assignment of Functions Under Sec-
  tion 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  As
  Amended," Federal Register, vol. 38, no. 151, August
  7, 1973.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, As Amended,
  Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, October 18, 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 114, "Civil
  Penalties for Violation of Oil Pollution Prevention Regu-
  lations," Federal Register, vol. 36, no. 228, November
  25, 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 116, "Desig-
  nation and Determination of Removability of Hazardous
  Substances from Water:  Notice of Proposed Rules, "Federal
  Register, vol. 39, no.  164, August 22, 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Discharges of Oil
  for Research, Development and Demonstration Purposes,"
  Federal Register, vol.  36, no. 75, April 17, 1971.

f   U'S- Environmental Protection Agency, "Field Detection and
      Damage Assessment Manual  for Oil  and Hazardous Material
      Spills," Division of Oil  and Hazardous Materials,  June
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 112,  "Oil
      Pollution Prevention: Non-Transportation Related  Onshore
      and Offshore Facilities," Federal Register, vol.  38, no.
      237, December 11, 1973.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 109,  "Criteria
      for State, Local and Regional Oil Removal  Contingency
      Plans," Federal Register, vol. 36, no. 145, July  28, 1971.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 110,  "Dis-
      charge of Oil," Federal Register, vol. 36, no. 228, No-
      vember 25, 1971.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 113,  "Lia-
      bility Limits for Small Onshore Storage Facilities,"
      Federal Register, vol. 38, no. 177, September 13,  1973.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 129,  "Water
      Programs: Proposed Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards,"
      Federal Register, vol. 38, no. 247, December 27,  1973.
    American Petroleum Institute, "Oil  Spill Prevention: A
      Primer," publication 4225, 1974.
    Proceedings of 1969 Joint Conference on Prevention  and Con-
      trol of Oil Spills, Dec.  15-17, 1969, New York, sponsored
      by American Petroleum Institute and Federal Water Pollu-
      tion Control Administration, published by API, 1801 K St.,
      N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
    Proceedings of 1971 Joint Conference on Prevention  and Con-
      trol of Oil Spills, June 15-17, 1971, Washington,  D.C.,
      sponsored by American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, published by
      API, 1801 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
    Proceedings of 1973 Joint Conference on Prevention  and Con-
      trol of Oil Spills, March 13-15,  1973, Washington, D.C.,
      sponsored by API, USEPA,  USCG, pub. by API, 1801  K St.,
      N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
    Proceedings of 1975 Joint Conference on Prevention  and Con-
      trol of Oil Spills, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco,
      Calif., sponsored by API, USEPA, USCG, published by API,
      1801 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
    Arthur D. Little Learning Systems, "Guide to Water  Cleanup
      Materials and Methods," New Boston House, 1974.
Commoner, Barry, "The Closing Circle:  Nature,  Man and  Tech-
  nology," Alfred A.  Knopf, New York,  1971.
Operation Rescue  (Cleaning and Care of Oiled Waterfowl),
  American Petroleum Institute, 1801 K Street, N.W., Wash-
  ington, D.C. 20006. 1972.
 Proceedings  of the 1972 National  Conference on Control  of
   Hazardous  Material  Spills, sponsored by U.S. Environmen-
   tal  Protection Agency and University of Houston.  Published
   by Graphics Management Corporation, 1101  16th St.,N.W.,
   Washington, D.C. 20036.
 Proceedings  of the 1974 National  Conference on Control  of
   Hazardous  Material  Spills, sponsored by U.S. Environmen-
   tal  Protection Agency and American  Institute of Chemical
   Engineers, published by American Institute  of Chemical
   Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York,  N.Y.  10017.
 Shenton, Edward H.,  An Historical Review of Oil  Spills
   Along the  Maine Coast, Maine State  Planning Office,
   Coastal Planning Group, Augusta, Maine, August 1973.
 Report of the Task Force—Operation Oil  (Clean-up of
   the Arrow  Oil  Spill  in Chedabucto Bay) Atlantic Oceano-
   graphic Laboratory, Bedford Institute, Dartmouth, Nova
   Scotia 1970.
 Impingement  of Man on the Oceans, ed. by Donald E.  Hood,
   New York,  John Wiley and Sons,  1971.
 Kaiser, Robert; Jones, Donald and Lamp'l, Howard, "Tropical
   Storm Agnes: Pennsylvania's Torrey  Canyon"  in Proceedings
   of the Conference on Prevention and Control  of Oil  Spills,
   March 1973.
 Marine Pollution and Sea Life, ed. by Mario Ruvio,  London,
   Fishing News (Books) Ltd., 1971.
 McHale, John, The Ecological Context, New York, George
   Braaziller, 1970.
 Oil on the Sea, ed.  by David P.  Loult, New York, Plenum
   Press, 1970.
 Potter, Jeffrey, Disaster by Oil, New York, Macmillan,  1972.
 Ross, William M., Oil Pollution as an International Problem:
   A Study of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia, Seattle,
   University of Washington Press, 1973.
 Inland Spills, by U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
   Region VII, Attn:  Mr. W.L. Banks, 1735 Baltimore  Ave.,
   Kansas City, Mo. 64108, 1973.

   The Congress hereby declares that
   it is the policy of the United States
   that there should be no discharges
   of oil or hazardous substances
   into or upon the navigable waters
   of the United States, adjoining
   shorelines, or into or upon the
   waters of the contiguous zone.

           —Section 311, Federal Water
             Pollution Control Act
             Amendments of 1972
               (Public Law 92-500)
                                                                       »   i
•is U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:  1975-629-906 3-1