OIL SPILLS
AND SPILLS OF
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
ater Program Operations
imental Protection Agency
D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
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
Director
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 3, 1975
Contents
Effects of Spills 2
Prevention of Spills ... 3
Responding to Spills . . . 6
Spill Surveillance .... 9
Spill Incidents 19
International Cooperation 23
-------
OIL SPILLS
AND SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
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
occur.
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
underway.
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
PROTECTION
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER 1, SQBCHAPTER D
PART 112
OIL POLLUTION
PREVENTION
NON TRANSPORTATION RELATED
ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE
FACILITIES
-------
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
facilities.
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-
ment,
- 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
environment.
- 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.
COMPLIANCE ACTIONS
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.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
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
Oil
accumulation
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
OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
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
substances.
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
factors.
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.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DATA SYSTEM
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
terminal.
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
material.
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.
I
-------
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.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
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.
10
-------
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
j
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.
waters.
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.
platform
November 1970 Waste Lagoon break Schuylkill River, 3,000,000 gal.
crankcase Pennsylvania
oil/sludge
December 1970 Shell Blowout Gulf of Mexico 4,000,000 gal.
platform
January 1971 Oregon Tanker San Francisco Bay 1,200,000 gal.
Standard collision
The offshore platform blowout at Santa
Barbara.
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
water.
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
sources.
12
-------
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.
SAN JUAN RIVER SPILL
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
personnel.
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
fc
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.
ZOE COLOCOTRONI SPILL
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
hours.
Above: Perpendicular trenches in beach
collect some oil coming ashore.
Below: Tank trucks load up.
L-j1.
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,
15
-------
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-
tions.
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
•MB!
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.
SPILLS AT BANTRY BAY
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.
OTHER SOURCES OF OIL SPILLS
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.
STORAGE TERMINAL SPILLS
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.
17
-------
constructed two underflow dams to protect an
adjacent creek flowing into the Atlanta water
supply.
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
apparatus.
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 •
18
-------
BEFORE
AFTER
(Near
final
grading)
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.
SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
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.
HERBICIDE FACILITY FIRE
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
19
-------
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
PCBs.
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
DERAILMENT INVOLVING CHEMICALS
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
intact.
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.
STORAGE POND SPILLS
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.
mm
-------
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.
CHLORINE BARGE INCIDENT
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.
22
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.
HURRICANE AGNES SPILLS
OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
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.
>
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
« 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.
ARRIVING AT DISCHARGE PORT
Full cargo-Clean ballast tank empty.
i
AFTER DISCHARGING CARGO AND PROCEEDING TO SEA
Clean ballast tank full (clean sea waterJ-Cargo tanks partially full (dirty ballast).
AFTER SEVERAL DAYS AT SEA
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
separation.
docking-Waste tank containing i
and all residues for
ARRIVING AT LOAD PORT
Clean ballast for docking-Waste tank drained of all clean water, leaving only
collected residue-Be fore loading, all clean water pumped into sea.
DURING LOADING CARGO
Waste tank loaded on top of residues.
Clean Sea Water
Oil Contaminated Sea Water
23
-------
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
Convention.
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
MEPC.
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.
LIST OF SPILL INCIDENTS
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.
1975
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.
Derailment
90,000 gal.
oil
10,000 gal.
NR 2
4,000 gal.
isobutyronitrile
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.
oil
New Orleans, La.
Freighter collided
with tow of barges
Porto, Portugal
Supertanker Jakob Maersk
grounding and fire
(List incomplete for 1975)
1974
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
1
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
4
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.
gasoline
240 gal.
PCBs
84,000 gal.
NR 6
308,700 gal.
NR 6
70,000 gal.
mixed chemicals
100,000 gal.
oil
150,000 gal.
gasoline
18,000 gal.
NR 6
270 gal.
PCBs
50,000 gal.
diesel
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
1973
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.
crude
84,000 gal.
crude
250,000 gal.
crude
3,000,000 gal.
raw sewage
21,000 gal.
propane
Corpus Christi, Tex. Unknown
Barge sank vinyl acetate
25
-------
EPA
REGIONAL OFFICES
I-BOSTON IV-ATLANTA VIII-DENVER
II-NEWYORK V-CHICAGO IX-SAN FRANCISCO
III-PHILADELPHIA VI-DALLAS X-SEAnLE
VII KANSAS CITY
1973 Spill List (continued)
SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Chesapeake, Va.
Tank overflow
Ama, La.
Derailment
Elkhorn City, Ky.
Derailment
Lynchburg, Va.
Tank rupture
210,000 gal.
gasoline
Unknown
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
617-223-7265
Mr. Bill Librizzi
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region II
Edison Industrial Waste
Treatment Laboratory
Edison, N.J. 08817
201-548-3347
Mr. Howard Lamp'l
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region III
Curtis Building
6th & Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
215-597-9898
Mr. A1 Smith
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region IV
1411 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
404-526-3931
Mr. Russell Diefenbach
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60604
312-353-5813
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
816-374-4285
Mr. Al Yorke
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colo. 80203
303-837-2468
Mr. David Henderson
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region IX
100 California St.
San Francisco, Calif. !
415-556-5105
Mr. James Willman
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region X
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Wash. 98101
202-442-1263
26
-------
Waynesboro, Miss.
Pipeline break
Vicksburg, Miss.
• Tug-barge collision
109,000 gal.
crude
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.
Derailment
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.
crude
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.
crude
126,000 gal.
crude
30,000 gal.
diesel
1400 gal.
PCBs
Cold Bay, Alaska 235,000 gal.
Tanker Hillyer Brown diesel s gasoline
aground
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.
crude
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
Derailment
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.
crude
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.
tallow
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.
crude
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
27
-------
Macon, Ga.
Pipeline break
Stephen, Minn.
Pipeline break
25,000 gal.
gasoline
175,000 gal.
crude
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.
Derailment
Marshall, 111.
Pipeline rupture
Lea, N. M.
Corroded pipeline
Enid, Okla.
Pipeline break
Keensburg, 111.
Storage tank leak
Vanport, Pa.
Chemical plant
Rush, Ky.
Derailment
Rufus, Oregon
Truck accident
Argyle, Minn.
Pipeline break
100 gal.
sulfur dioxide
19,000 gal.
butyl alcohol
formaldehyde
40,000 gal.
NR 2 fuel
30,000 gal.
crude
250,000 gal.
crude
30,000 gal.
crude
Unknown quant.
dietyhylene benxene
Unknown quant.
aerylonitrlies
metallic sodium
15,000 Ibs.
phenolic resin
1,680,000 gal.
crude
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.
JP-4
16,000 gal.
Bunker C
200,000 gal.
NR 2 fuel
299,000 gal.
oil
63,000 gal.
crude
126,000 gal.
crude
20,000+ gal.
NR 6
600,000 gal.
bunker
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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
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.
28
-------
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
1-572.
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
------- |