TC427
.P4u56
U
OOOR77008
SPILLS
,, AND SPILLS OF
DOUS SUBSTANCES
^Qiljftf Social Materials$ontrol Division
'; olice Jrbater Program Ojerfiions
^ " mmental Prtrtecti^ Agency
-------
FOREWORD
This document represents the third edition of "Oil
Snills and Spills of Hazardous Substances" oriqinallv ore-
oared in March 1973 by the Oil and Special Materials Con-
trol Division. We have found this type of publication to
be extremely effective in describing some of the more sig-
nificant spill incidents and the mechanisms, both manager-
ial and technological, to deal with them. Already, over
25,000 copies of this booklet have been requested by and
sent to schools, the general public and others.
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 Water 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, WH-548
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 1977
Contents
Effects of Spills 2
Prevention of Spills 3
Responding to Spills 6
Spill Surveillance 9
Spill Incidents 11
Spills of Hazardous Substances 26
International Cooperation. . . 32
EPA Regional Offices 38
Front cover: Tanker Olympic
Games, see p. 21.
Back cover: Tanker Argo
Merchant, see p. 21.
Photos by EPA (MERC)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, VJ S Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
OIL SPILLS
AND SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS SUDSTANCES
For several years the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard have
played major roles in attempts to reduce the
frequency and volume of spills of oil and haz-
ardous substances, and to minimize environmen-
tal damage caused by those spills that do occur.
Spills add to any existing pollution
stresses in lakes, streams, estuaries, or the
ocean itself. These stresses accumulate from
urban runoff, agricultural operations, indus-
trial activities, and many other sources.
Among the 13,000 spills which have been reported
annually in the United States, the effects of some
are easy to see, as in the photo below.
Over 95% of the oil spills are fairly small--
less than 1,000 gallons. About 6,500 are less
than 20 gallons. Spilled into rivers, streams,
coastal waters, estuaries, and lakes, oil is
carried away in a matter of minutes by the
force of currents, tides, and winds. Hazardous
substances, 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,
they may threaten health and safety. They are
expensive to clean up, and cause wasted energy
and food 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 Federal program to combat spills 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 spill-
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, harmful,
and wasted there.
EFFECTS OF SPILLS
Because of the larae 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 discharqes. 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 threaten health and safety.
It can kill birds and fish; in some cases, a
hazardous substances spill can literally steri-
lize a body of water.
But the effects of spills are not confin-
ed to the immediate or obvious. They may also
involve subtle changes that over a long period
could change the composition of aquatic commu-
nities or damage the ability of a species to
survive.
Marine birds die 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
interfering with their normal body processes.
Fish and shellfish are killed, stressed,
or made unfit for human consumption by an oily
taste. Damaged fishing grounds have meant
financial losses for fishermen and processors.
Hazardous 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. Spills interfere with
the movement of fish such as salmon, striped
bass, shad and others. They must leave the
ocean coastal areas and go into bays, estuaries,
wetlands, rivers, or streams in order to spawn.
-------
PREVENTION OF SPILLS
The causes of spills are many — equipment
failure, human error, collisions, natural dis-
asters. The philosophy of the Federal snill
prevention proqram 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
ttXl 112
OIL POLLUTION
PREVENTION
NWTRMISrOSTATKm RELATED
AWOfFSHORE
FACH.ITKS
-------
be expected to spill oil into the waters of the
United States if it meets any of these criteria:
- Has total buried storaae greater
than 42,000 gallons.
- Has total nonburied storaoe of
greater than 1,320 gallons.
- Has any sinnle container greater
than 660 gallons.
SPCC PLANS
The SPCC plan is nrepared by the owner or
operator and must be certified by a registered
Professional Enoineer. 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 desioned 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 implemented. EPA Regional offices
conduct frequent inspections of facilities to
confirm that the required design changes are
constructed and prevention equipment is instal-
led 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.
- Larae numbers of bulk oil consumers
such as anartment houses, office
buildings, schools, hospitals, farms,
and Federal facilities.
The number of oil spills from nontranspor-
tation related facilities during calendar year
1975—the first year that the prevention regu-
lation was fully operational--were significantly
lower than the previous year.
COAST GUARD REGULATIONS
On December 21, 1972, the Coast Guard pub-
lished prevention regulations for vessels and
Below: Oil-water separator equipment is being installed to avoid
harmful discharges of oily water during oil terminal operations.
-------
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,
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 havina 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 naviqa-
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
reoulations. Again, operations can
be suspended if they threaten the
environment.
- Transfer of oil to or from vessels
havinq a capacity of 250 or more bar-
rels on the naviqable 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 discharqes
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 implementa-
tion of plans since January 11, 1975. As of June
1, 1976 EPA had completed 12,313 compliance
inspections, which resulted in 1,487 notices
of violations of the Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulation being issued.
Simple repairs at an oil facility may protect
environment from spills durinrr truck loadina.
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.
Spills of hazardous substances are fewer
in number compared with oil spills, but far
more toxic and dangerous than oil spills. In
many instances they pose immediate and long-
term threats to human safety and health.
In response to Section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, EPA promulgated notice of proposed rule
making relative to spills of hazardous sub-
stances in the Federal Register on December
-------
30, 1975. Therein, over 300 substances were
designated as hazardous, along with corollary
regulations dealing with removability, harmful
quantities, and penalty rates.
Because of certain problems relating to
degree of penalty assessment and enforcement
procedures, final rule making has been post-
poned. It is expected that the final rules
and regulations will go into effect in 1977,
at which time EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard
can implement an enforcement, control and
prevention program similar to that in effect
for oil spills. In the interim, they will re-
spond to spills of hazardous substances in the
interest of public welfare.
Most spillers have taken quick remedial
actions on a voluntary basis. There is no
legal requirement at the present time for re-
porting spills of hazardous substances.
There may be about 2,000 of them a year.
RESPONDING TO SPILLS
Vacuum truck
Oil &
accumulation
Pockets of oil from oil
spill upstream of this
flooded area are beina
contained by booms and
picked up by vacuum truck
Success in cleanina up an oil spill depends
upon preparedness and rapid action by the spill-
er and by Federal, State, and local aqencies.
When a spill occurs, the spiller must report
it promptly to the nearest Coast Ruard Station
or EPA office. If the spiller fails to give
immediate notice, he can be fined up to $10,000
and inprisoned 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 snill 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 tran
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 ancile. 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 mav
be used. Such booms are commercially available.
In general, containment procedures are adequate
for coastal or slow-moving waters, but in laroe
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-
noloay. 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 thouqh 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 anain. The bottom sediments
are then treated to make them safe.
Several different procedures mav be used
to remove a snill 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 aradinq 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 creatinq
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 nore 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, biolooical, and toxicolonical 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, nH'1-TADS screens for candidate
substances with similar physical and chemical
properties. For example, if the computer is
niven 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 beina expanded to provide a network of
data terminals for emerqency 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 lono, 65 feet wide,
and 11 feet deep. One end has a wave qenera-
tor capable of makino 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 leaal proceedings and enforce-
ment actions. The information gathered also
helps in containment and removal operations.
Spill surveillance is essential to discover
and clean up spills, especially the larger
ones that result from tanker accidents, off-
shore oil well blowouts, storage lagoon fail-
ures, catastrophic storms, and pipeline fail-
ures. Many details, useful in cleanup, are
learned about such spills, which spread out
over wide areas of water and shore.
Remote sensinn 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 conduct spill
surveillance from aircraft in coastal and in-
land waters. The purpose is to detect unre-
ported spills, as well as to check operations
and maintenance of harbor areas and industrial
oil handling facilities adjacent to inland
waterways in support of EPA and USCG oil pollu-
tion prevention regulations.
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 ranqe, and various radar systems for all-
weather and long-range detection. All systems
can detect petroleum products on the water
under varying atmospheric conditions.
Apart from these surveillance activities,
aerial photographic mapping of large spills
provides support during clean-up operations by
mapping the extent and location of heavy con-
centrations of oil. For example, in 1976 EPA
contractor aircraft conducted a number of
aerial photographic missions for major spills,
occuring on the Chesapeake Bay, St. Lawrence
River, and Hackensack River in New Jersey.
Also, the Delaware River and the Nantucket
Shoals area, after the grounding and breakup
of the tanker Argo Merchant, were photographed.
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory at Las Vegas processed and analyzed
the photographic data round the clock, quickly
dispatching the data to Federal authorities in
charge of cleanup and control. With the photo-
graphs, EPA and Coast Guard officials and the
oil company officials in charge of clean-up
operations were able to direct their attention
to the areas where oil had accumulated. They
even located access routes for cleanup equip-
ment to be moved to the heavily polluted areas.
f
-**»*
-------
E ''A ard the Coast 'luard have ? -o embarked
upon p .ioirt effort to install oil s-nsors on
fixed nlatforms in harbors near nar ie transfer
terminals fnd in inland waterways afl'acent to
refineries and industrial complexes. Research
and development supported by the two anencies
has resulted in several remote sensina 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. Several of these sensors are now
being installed in the industrial Rouge River
in Detroit, Michigan. Other instruments under
development will afford greater range detection
and a scanning capability.
With improved detection capabilities for
many pollutants, remote sensing will also be
utilized for monitoring of industrial facilities
producing and using hazardous substances.
and Urban Development. The MPT also serves as
the committee responsible for revising the
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 Washing-
ton, D.C., where a continuously manned communi-
cations center, as well as other specialized
facilities and personnel, are on hand.
In addition, a sni11-emergency Situation
Room is maintained by EPA's Oil and Special
Materials Control Division in Washington; the
room is equipped with audiovisual and conmuni-
cation 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 bioloay, chemistry,
engineering, meteorology and oceanography and
experienced in cleaning up and removing spills
or mitigating their environmental effects.
Spill response cooperatives and fully
equipned 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 supnort when EPA Regions need additional
scientific personnel and equipment. If a spill
involves more than one Region or requires out-
side assistance, EPA Headquarters assists in
coordination 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.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAMS
When a spill presents an unusual situation
or transects reaional 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
10
Oi
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 environnent. But they did more than
that—they provided the stimulus for enactment
of oil spill leqislation 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
inn of the Torrey Canyon on the shoals off the
English coast in 1967. The tanker spilled
approximately 30 million nallons o* oil upon
the shores of Great Britain and France. Pro-
perty damane 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 waaed
to clean up the spill. It was the first major
international effort to clean up a very large
oil spill, and manv 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 dealinn 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 aoainst
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:
Re low:
Cleanup after the Torrey Canyon oil spill.
The Torrey Can von 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 leaisla-
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 oallons of oil. Spurred by
public reaction, Congress enacted the Uater
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.
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 oallons; estimated clean-
up costs totaled more than $15 million. The
massive spills presaned 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 emeraencies 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.
3,000,000 gal.
February 1970 Arrow Tanker Chedabucto Bay
grounding Canada
April 1970 Chevron Blowout Gulf of Mexico 1,500,000 gal.
platform
November 1970 Waste tagoon break Schuylklll 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
12
»•
Some of the cleanup activity along the coat-1
resulting from the Santa Barbara oil spill.
CALIFORNIA
PACIFIC OCEAN
SANTA
CATALINA^
OIL SLICK
.-: ESCAPING. -J?
' OIL •*•
AND
GAS
CASING STOPPED HERE. /
239 FT UNDERGROUND -»-
WHAT WENT WRONG?
///ft/ A WORNOUT DRILL WAS /
'
OIL FOLLOWED
CRACKS THRU
STRATA
-------
OIL SPILLS
Oil spills occur in many types of facili-
ties, in many locations, and for many reasons.
In addition, oil sometimes enters the aquatic
environment from routine operations—for example,
cleaning out tankers and discharging process
water from offshore oil platforms.
River barges, rail tank cars, pipelines,
and highway tank trucks carry 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 cause 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 in some cases there is little that
can be done to prevent pollution of waterways.
PIPELINE SPILLS
Pipeline breaks and leaks cause about 500
spills a year, discharging over 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 damaoe 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.
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 anply 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
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.
-------
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 soill threatened
the 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.
In October 1975 an excavation crane rup-
tured an 8-inch pipeline near Moosie, Pennsyl-
vania, spilling about 100,000 gallons of gaso-
line. The product quickly spread for several
miles into the swift-flowing Lackawanna River.
Thousands of dead fish were found, includ-
ing some which had jumped out to avoid the gas.
Conservation officers estimated a complete fish
kill for six miles of river. No containment or
cleanup of the light material was possible
because of rapid mixing into the water column.
A 5-inch pipeline in Pennsylvania was
accidentally pierced in 1976 when an iron stake
was driven into the ground. Over 100,000 gal-
lons of fuel oil from a plant were spilled into
a nearby stream and spread 40 miles downstream
to a reservoir and dam.
Iron stake was driven Into pipeline.
Pipeline was pierced accidentally.
-v
-** 4
*»•
-------
UNDERGROUND OIL LEAKAGE
: *7'1
In March 1975 EPA was asked by the State
of Ohio to assist in a project to cleanup an
underground oil seepage problem at Heath, Ohio.
The source of the oil, estimated to be from
500,000 to 1,000,000 gallons, was unknown.
There was no simple solution to the pro-
blem, since a large amount of oil was spread-
ing above the water table, at a depth of about
30 feet, under a large area of ground. This
Long-term seepage of oil Into underground water
at Heath, Ohio, covered a wide area and emerged
in streams.
was first noticed in 1961 and developed over
the years into a considerable nuisance and
hazard to safety and health.
All possible sources for the oil, includ-
ing nearby past and present oil, industrial,
and other facilities had to be checked. Action
had to be taken to find and stop the leak and
to clean up the surface and subsurface water
aquifer.
15
-------
Booms and skimmers were used on the oil
which surfaced on a creek in the area. Chemi-
cal analyses were made of the oil to assist in
tracing the source. Wells and pumps were
installed in the ground to intercept and pick
up the flow of seepage.
Close-up of oil barge wrapped around pier.
Skimming pond on bank of creek.
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.
In March 1975 one of the four barges of
the tug Johnny Dan wrapped around the same
bridge and lost 770,000 gallons of crude oil.
The spill was carried downstream 40 miles.
In these spills, although some of the oil
reached 120 miles downriver, most of the clean-
up was confined to a number of pockets close
Oil barge wrapped around bridge pier.
to the accident site. In spite of the condi-
tions, 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.
TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE SPILL
Late in December 1975 a 240-ft. barge
pushed by the tug Peter Callahan in dense fog,
hit a pier of the Tappan Zee Bridge over the
Hudson River. More than 90,000 gallons of
No. 2 home-heating oil were spilled.
Because of the cold water, scientists from
the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute esti-
mated that 25 percent of the spill went to the
bottom. They indicated that the effects of the
spill would persist in the river and its sedi-
ments for years.
BARGE STC-101 SPILL
INTO CHESAPEAKE BAY
On February 2, 1976 the Barge STC-101
spilled about 250,000 gallons of heavy No. 6
fuel oil into Chesapeake Bay after she ran
aground in gale-force winds and ice-cold water.
Much of the oil sank and was not visible on the
water.
Barge STC-101 in Chesapeake Bay.
-------
In a week a new mystery spill was suspec-
ted, some distance away. It later became evi-
dent that this was oil which had spread under-
water for several miles from the STC-101. It
had simply reappeared on the surface when the
black underwater oil was heated by the sun,
during a freak warm spell.
Investigation underwater and by aerial
surveillance revealed the full extent of the
spill. Major environmental damage was probably
done to the bottom of the bay as well as the
water column. The shores of islands and both
sides of the bay could be more readily inspec-
ted than the bay bottom and water column.
Oil on shore of Chesapeake Bay after spill
by Barge STC-101.
Oil-coated birds were found every 20 or
30 feet along the shore of Fisherman's Island
National Wildlife Refuge in the bay. About
500 whistling swans and many more migratory
ducks wintered there.
Spill response was aided by aerial sur-
veillance and photographic interpretation,
to locate pockets of oil and the best access
routes for cleanup and removal equipment.
A remarkable coincidence in this spill is
that just before it occurred Nancy G. Kelly of
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation completed a study
of a hypothetical case. It involved a spill
of 250,000 gallons of heavy industrial oil which
occurred, in her model, only four miles from
this one. Her study suggested that oil spills
might be causing more harm to the environment
than is realized at present.
Many birds were killed by the oil.
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
On June 23, 1976 the barge Nepco 140, with
almost 7 million gallons of heavy fuel oil,
went aground at 1:35 a.m. in the American
Narrows near the Thousand Islands Bridge. Three
tanks ruptured and spilled about 500,000 gal-
lons of oil.
Barge Nepco 140 spilling oil on St. Lawrence
River. Arrow shows boom around vessel which
was not effective in holding back the spill.
The spill moved 80 miles downstream and
covered 30 miles of it on the first day. Hun-
dreds of miles of beaches, shorelines, inlets,
coves, marshes or wetlands, and waterfronts
were covered with the tarlike substance, re-
quiring over $6.5 million for cleanup.
Aerial photography obtained by EPA air-
craft was used to assist the Joint U.S.-Canadian
Spill Response Team in mapping out the spill
and planning the logistics and other phases
of the response efforts.
Over 700 people, 50 vessels, several
booms, seven skimmers and 14 vacuum trucks
were involved in cleanup. Oil containment
booms were placed in an effort to keep oil
from entering critical areas. In spite of this
the Ho. 6 oil penetrated more than five feet
into 16 miles of wetlands.
Oil moved downriver 80 miles. Arrows show
booms between islands, placed there in an
attempt to capture some oil.
-------
In addition, it caused extensive damage
to beaches, private property, ducks, geese,
and other wildlife, and to the aquatic life
in the river, along its bottom, and in the
sediments.
In 1974 an oil spill from the tanker
Imperial Sarnia caused damages which cost about
$2 million to clean up. In October 1961 a tan-
ker spill on the St. Lawrence was reported to
have caused the extinction of the last colony
of Greater Snow Geese.
Above: EPA aerial photos, showing oil moving
into shore areas. Photos were helpful in
cleanup and locating access routes to oil.
Below: Vacuum trucks at town along the
St. Lawrence after Nepco 140 spill.
- w~ '• :• •'*!'
Workboats after a day of cleanup at one of
thousands of oiled areas on St. Lawrence.
OCEAN VESSELS
Tanker spills have occurred 1n the past
and can be expected to continue to occur. The
world's tanker capacity doubled from 1960 to
1970 and 1s 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; !25-m111 Ion-gallon super-
tankers are now 1n operation and tankers with
a capacity of 250 million gallons are under
construction. Thus, spills possibly will be
proportionately larger.
A supertanker at sea.
In late January 1977 Brock Adams, the
Secretary of Transportation, directed that all
domestic and foreign vessels operating in United
States waters be equipped with a variety of
modern navigation and safety devices.
In February 1977 the tanker Golden Jason
arrived in Newport News, Virginia and was de-
tained by the U.S.Coast Guard for safety reasons.
It was carrying 9.2 million gallons of heavy
fuel oil from Venezuela to New York when it
developed engine trouble off North Carolina.
The Coast Guard reported a number of major
defects and expected the ship would be off-
loaded at Newport News by the owners and then
scrapped.
-------
Continued efforts are being made toward
adoption of better designs, techniques, and
equipment to reduce the pollution by tankers
and other vessels. Cleaning practices for
tankers and bilge cleaning methods on vessels
are receiving Increased attention.
EPA supports the 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
facilities 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 R1co. 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 1n Puerto
R1co since the Ocean Eagle incident in 1968.
The oil, driven by the wind, headed toward
Bahia Suda 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.
Below: Crude oil floats into mangrove area
after Zoe Colocotroni spill.
The Coast Guard assumed on-scene coordi-
nation in spill clean-up operations. EPA soill
response personnel from Region II and Head-
quarters provided technical assistance for oil
recovery operations.
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.
Because of the long turnaround time and a
shortage of trucks, larger pits were dug near
the trenches and sumps for temporary storage.
19
-------
Floating debris and seaweed could be cleared
after filling each pit, increasing the effi-
ciency of pumping the oil to the trucks.
Above: Perpendicular trendies in beach
collect some oil coming ashore.
low': Tank trucks loaJ up.
3
•*>- -jd '-4«^
Additional temporary ponds were made as needed
to contain t'.ie oil collected from the sump/trenches.
OIL TANKER CORINTHOS
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 in
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,
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.
Wreckage of the tanker Corinthos after fire.
20
-------
made additional aerial photography and surveil-
lance of the spill areas, and suggested and
assisted 1n establishing bird-cleaning opera-
tions. The cost of cleanup was over $1 million.
In April 1974 the oil tanker Elias exploded
and burned while offloading Venezuelan crude
oil in Philadelphia. The blast was felt for 35
mi 1es.
ARGO MERCHANT TANKER SPILL
In December 1976 the Argo Merchant ran
aground on the Nantucket Shoals about 35 miles
southeast of Nantucket Island. Efforts to free
the vessel were unsuccessful and she broke up,
spilling 7.6 million gallons of heavy oil.
Some of the slick moved into the fishery area
of the Georges Bank.
Containment booms and skimmers were imprac-
tical because of the high winds and waves.
Burning of the thick oil on a cold and choppy
sea was tried but combustion could not be sus-
tained.
The Argo Merchant spill threatened the
humpback whales, gray seals, and a large fish-
ing industry. Twelve groups of fishermen, from
the local fishing industry which employs about
30,000 people, sued for $60 million in damages.
Also in December 1976 the tanker Olympic
Games ran aground, spilling 134,000 gallons of
oil into the Delaware River near Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania. Within a few weeks of the spill
about 80,000 gallons of the oil had been reco-
vered. Some of the oil remained trapped under
the ice along two shorelines and could not be
reached until warmer weather.
"Long Is.
Above: Spill situation chart.
Left: Tanker Argo Merchant
aground and leaking.
Inset: Tanker breaks up.
Below: Aerial view of oil slick.
••
-------
The tanker Sansinena, after unloading a
cargo of crude oil, exploded and burned at San
Pedro, California, December 17, 1976. During the
cleanup operations oil was recovered from the
vessel and surrounding water. See cages 40, 41.
World-wide, in the first nine months of
1976 13 tankers had spilled more than 50 million
gallons of oil--a new record. Soon after these
and the year-end events, the tanker Grand Zenith
sank several miles south of Nova Scotia with
over 6 million gallons of oil. Late in January
1977 the tanker Exxon San Francisco and Barge
Exxon 119 exploded and burned in the Houston
Ship Channel. A loading arm failure had sprayed
heating oil and a nearby tow boat started its
engines, which may have caused the fire. Several
people were killed or injured in the incident.
The tanker Irene's Challenge, with over
9 million gallons of gasoline, broke up and
sank near the Midway Islands in the North
Pacific Ocean, January 21, 1977. To end the
month the Barge B-65 ran aground at Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts and spilled 100,000 gallons
of heating oil.
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 UD
the spill.
Tanker Metula aground in
Five months later a joint study team from
the United States, including a marine biologist
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 estuarlne areas. The fate of the
oil 1n the water and on the bottom was not es-
tablished. Because of the low rate of biodegra-
dation 1n this cold climate, the stranded oil
could be a source of oil pollution for a longer
period than for a spill 1n 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 Maru,
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 I0-m1le
the Strait of Magellan.
22
-------
c-'-\\ ' , ,1 -u ] ists to port : s- ' in
sli':> iiioved onto several i1- no-, in f>e wi-ste'1'
sect-.on of the port of Singapore, as well as -'e-
sort and dock areas. Large*'.cale 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 disoersants 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 Uhiddy 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.
JAKOB MAERSK SPILL
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 TANKER SPILLS OF THE WORLD
In Hay 1975 the tanker Epic Colocotronis,
carrying about 16.5 million gallons of Venezuelan
crude oil, split and burned near the Dominican
Republic. In Hay 1972 the tanker Tien Chee,
carrying about 2 million gallons of crude oil,
burned and spilled oil after she was rammed by
the cargo vessel Royston Grange southwest of
Montevideo, Uruguay. Oil spread in a fan shape
to the southeast covering an area of about 300
square miles.
In August 1974 a broken submerged pipeline
caused the tanker Esso Garden State to spill
a large quantity of oil into the South Atlantic
Ocean at Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. She was
moored five kilometers off Tramandai Beach,
discharging about 15 million gallons of crude
oil through the pipeline to a shore terminal
when the spill occurred. The terminal serves
the refinery at Canoa, near Porto Alegre.
In March 1975 the tanker Tarik Ibn Ziyad,
carrying about 28,000,000 gallons of light
crude oil, ran aground and spilled about three
million gallons of oil into the Guanabara Bay
at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Some of the oil
was carried out of the bay by tides and wind.
A portion of the South Atlantic shore area was
affected.
On May 12, 1976, the tanker Urquiola
exploded and broke open after it struck a
reef near the mouth of La Coruna Bay in Spain,
spilling about 4.5 million gallons of light
crude oil. The fire was extinguished May 15,
and the remaining oil was pumped into another
tanker. Oceanographers advised that there
was a possibility that prevailing ocean cur-
rents could carry some of the oil to the
Caribbean area in the months following the
spill. In January 1977 the tanker Exotic ex-
ploded and burned in southern Morocco.
In September 1974 the tanker Transhuron
ran aground on the north shore of Kiltan Island
in India and spilled about 900,000 gallons
of heavy fuel oil. In April 1975 the tankers
Tosa Maru and Cactus Queen collided south of
St. John's Island in the Strait of Singapore.
The Tosa Maru burned and sank. In July 1976
five ship collisions and a major oil spill were
reported in the crowded Strait of Malacca
near Singapore. In October 1975 a 123,484-
ton tanker was struck by -lightning and broke
into three parts after catching fire in Singapore
Harbor.
-------
In November 1974 about 12.5 million gal-
lons of naphtha and liquefied petroleum were
spilled into Tokyo Bay when a tanker and
freighter collided and exploded. On 18 December
1974 about 11 million gallons of crude oil were
spilled into the Inland Sea from a large storage
tank at Mizushima, 300 miles southwest of Tokyo.
Damages to fisheries were extensive in this
first large oil spill into the Inland Sea. Winds
and current pushed a slick 80 miles long and 15
miles wide. Payments by the oil company for
damages soon reached $6.1 million, with $3.3
million more promised.
In September 1976 the 96,000-ton tanker
Ryoyo Maru broke in half during a typhoon off
southern Japan, east of Kyushu.
In January 1975 the tanker Oswego Patriot
leaked about 1.3 million gallons of crude oil
into the Pacific Ocean. During a three-week
voyage from Singapore to Los Angeles the oil
came through a hole which was found in the
No.3 port wing tank when the ship reached port.
MYSTERY OIL SPILLS
In January 1972 a mystery oil spill washed
heavy No. 6 fuel oil ashore for 25 miles along
the North Shore of Long Island. Cold weather
caused some of the oil on shore to congeal on
rocks and debris. It formed a solid band about
18 inches wide on beaches and flat shoreline.
Visible oil on the shore extended from Eatons
Neck, past Sunken Meadow State Park and east-
ward to Rocky Point. EPA and Coast Guard in-
vestigators suspected the cause was tank
cleaning by a passing oil tanker. It was typi-
cal of hundreds of mystery oil spills which
had been occurring along the world's coastlines
for years.
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT
"MYSTERY"
OIL SLICK
CAME ASHORE
0 MILES 15
In January 1975 a mystery spill of 25,000
gallons of oil in the Norfolk harbor spread from
the vicinity of the Craney Island fuel depot
in Portsmouth to the Norfolk Naval Base, to
Norfolk International Terminal and into several
estuaries.
U.S. Coast Guard Locates
Source of Mystery Spill
In July 1975 a mystery oil spill came
ashore and caused damage along Key West for
60 miles from Marathon to Dry Tortugas. To
locate the source, the U.S. Coast Guard checked
247 ships docking at ports from Maine to Texas.
Samples of oil were taken from 50 of them and
chemically checked against the spilled oil.
Late in October 1975 a match was made and
the captain of the oil tanker Garbis was ar-
rested and jailed—facing a $10,000 fine and
a year in prison for failure to report the
spill.
OFFSHORE PLATFORM BLOWOUTS
There was a rash of offshore oil well
blowouts in the early 1970s in the Gulf of
Mexico, causing considerable oil pollution there.
Stricter controls on proper blowout prevention
equipment from the wells have almost eliminated
these incidents.
" MYSTERY" OIL SPILL. In January 1972 heavy
oil—probably tank washings—came ashore for
25 miles between Eatons Neck and Rocky Point.
Offshore oil platform blowout in Gulf of Mexico.
TANKER RAMS OIL RIG
In August 1975 the oil tanker Globtik Sun
caused an oil spill after it ran into an off-
shore drilling rig at night and caught fire.
The platform had no working wells and was being
built in 175 feet of water in the Gulf of
Mexico, 120 miles southeast of Galveston, Texas.
The tanker was carrying almost 15 million gal-
lons of light crude oil and was abandoned by
the crew at the time of the accident because
of the fire. The drifting and leaking ship
was later salvaged and offloaded of remaining
oil after the fire went out.
24
-------
WELL BLOWOUT
In October 1975 a new gas well near a
wildlife refuge in Louisiana blew out, spraying
a mixture of gas, oil, and salt water over a
wide area for about three weeks. The heavy
spray covered an area of several miles of marsh,
canals, Vermillion River and Bay. Booms were
only partially successful in keeping the para-
ffin-based oil from spreading beyond the areas
of impact. Considerable damage to fish and
wildlife was noted as a result of the incident.
In cleanup, the Regional Response Team
agreed that burning would be the best for 300
acres of marsh area with a thick coating of the
oil and paraffin. The remaining areas were
cleaned by physical removal and disposal.
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 **••"
A contractor used about 50 persons and
heavy equipment, such as tank and vacuum trucks,
to clean up the contained oil.
In May 1976 a considerable amount of oil
polluted the Hackensack River as a result of
the rupture of a 3 million gallon storage tank
at an oil terminal at Jersey City, N.J.
A containment dike near the ruptured tank
failed. The dike should have kept most of the
spilled oil confined at the oil terminal. The
facility had been fined in the past due to
failure to have a spill prevention, control,
and counter-measure plan.
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
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
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 cart 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.
Aerial view of v;aste 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 watar 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.
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.
-------
* *
«•**
Numerous flocks of ducks landed and died.
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
biodegraded by farming it into the land under
controlled orocedures.
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
BEFORE
"*
Aerial view of disposal farm.
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
farmed areas.
SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Though far fewer in number than oil spills,
hazardous substances soil Is 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 minion-dollar fire in a paint and
herbicide manufacturing and storage facility in
Alliance, Ohio.
Waste oil lagoon after cleanup, showing
the site near the time of final grading.
The liquids were pumped out and farmed
AFTER into the soil at a suitable nearby plot.
Waste oil lagoon before cleanup.
26
-------
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.
PESTICIDE PLANT FIRE
In March 1976 a 12-hour fire at a chemical
plant in Ennis, Texas sent fireballs from
exploding drums over 200 feet high. About 500
nearby residents were evacuated when toxic
fumes spread over the southern portion of the
Fire at chemical plant in Texas.
city. Response by firemen had been trained for
several years for such an emergency and were
prepared with proper clothing, equipment and
procedures.
Because the contaminated runoff water from
firefighting operations contained insecticides,
fungicides, and herbicides, it was captured and
contained in a ditch. After the fire it was
pumped into tanks and the debris was thoroughly
covered with lime, pending disposal.
Testing and decontamination of fire debris
and areas affected by fallout were well coordi-
nated and executed through local, state, and
Federal levels. The contaminated water was
deep-well injected after several alternate
methods were considered.
Pesticide-contaminated runoff water from fire.
TOXAPHENE SPILL
In March 1975 about 50 pounds of toxaphene
pesticide were spilled into a pond near the
Plains, Virginia. In response to a reported
-------
fish kill in the pond, State and Federal envi-
ronmental experts discovered the cause and
outlined a program of treatment or cleanup.
The pond water which could drain into
Broad Run and the Manassas River, was fully
contained, pumped out, and treated by a trailer
unit recently developed by EPA for such emer-
gencies. The visible chlorinated hydrocarbon
Fish killed in pond water by toxaphene spill.
residues were then picked up and some pond
sediments excavated and decontaminated.
In similar cases all over the United
States involving collected water contaminated
by spilled chemicals, the Mobile Hazardous
Materials Spill Trailers have been useful.
Above: Pumping out the pond.
Below: Temporary holding tank.
'41
jSP^twPfr^'' '''•^i^Ba?6*'
Mobile Hazardous Materials Spill
Trailer at toxaphene spill.
PCBs SPILL
A simple accident in September 1Q74 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 ?60 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-un 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 soil! site. Because
of construction problems and concern over oossi-
ble soil instability, this nlan 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
Building temporary holding tank on dock.
-------
•Mfi
H-?:
I'ocK area Ju'
drums. The water was processed through a truck-
mounted unit brought in from an Ef,\ research
facility in New Jersey. The nrototyne unit used
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 PCRs 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 nollutant was
so widely dispersed that removal would have re-
quired dredging the entire channel.
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.
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.
!
» v» «•*. «* •
Hazardous material leaking from rail tankcar.
29
-------
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 sludne is a gurmy, 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.
mf . «,/,""* i
30
-------
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
in the Ohio River
Drifting backward in
chlorine broke its towline
near Louisville, Kentucky.
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 snillway. The four
70-foot long tanks held a total of 640 tons of
Chlorine barge hung on dam.
liguid 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 aas 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.
' r i LJ
' i 11 ?
to force any leaking ch'onne '>ack into v\(
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 snill 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 snills 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 floatina 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.
-------
The Hurricane Agnes spill released 6 to
7 million qallons of the material, which had
a high acid and lead content. Carried by the
flood water, the oily sludge penetrated
high 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, sewaae,
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 lank empty
AFTER DISCHARGING CARGO AND PROCEEDING TO SEA
Clean ballast lank full (clean sea water)-Cargo tanks partially full (dirty ballast)
AFTER SEVERAL DAYS AT SEA
Otl settles on top-Clean water pumped from I
tanks-Tank wash water collected in waste tank
cleaning of empty
AT SEA
Clean ballas
and all residues for
ARRIVING AT LOAD PORT
Clean ballast for docking-Waste tank drained of all clean water, leaving only
collected residue-Before loading, all clean water pumped into sea
DURING LOADING CARGO
Waste tank loaded on top of res
32
Clean Sea Wate
Oil Contaminated Sea Wat
-------
The 1973 If'CO 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.
EPA was instrumental in establishing the
Marine Environmental Protection Committee within
IMCO. The committee acquires and disseminates
scientific, technical, and practical information;
promotes international cooperation; and adopts
or amends regulations under international conven-
tions for prevention and control of marine pol-
lution from ships. EPA provides representatives
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 (HPCP) 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 shios. With
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.
1977
North Atlantic
Tanker Grand Zenith
Missing since 4 Jan 1977
8,000,000 + gal.
NR 6 oil
Delaware River, Pa. No leakage - refloated
Tanker Universe Leader (potential spill
5 Jan 1977 of 21,000,000 gals.
crude)
Tampa Bay, Fla.
Moran Barge
9 Jan 1977
Grand Traverse Bav,
Great Lakes
Vessel Amoco Indiana
11 Jan 1977
80,000 gal.
NR 2 diesel
No leakage - refloated
(potential spill
of 2,310,000 gals.
NR 2 diesel)
Chesapeake Bay -Tangier Is.
Interstate 17 No leakage - refloated
(potential spill
of 608,000 gals. Nr 6)
Several barges grounded during harsh winter
weather Jan.-Feb. 1977. L'SCG could not respond
to large number of vessels needing assistance.
Negligible (50 gal)
(potential spill
of 27,000,000 gal. of
light crude oil)
No leakage - refloated
(potential spill
Gravesend Bav, N.Y
Tanker Harmonic
13 Jan 1977
Potomac River, Md.
Barge STC 007
17 Jan 1977
Choc taw County, Ala.
Lebauf Barge
17 Jan 1977
Ganado, Texas
Pipeline spill
18 Jan 1977
of 840,000 gals. NR 6)
6,300 gals.
(potential major
spill crude oil)
63,000 gal.
crude oil
Midway Island area, Pacific 9,600,000 gallons
Tanker Irenes Challenge sank. light crude
17 Jan 1977
-------
Chesapeake Bay,
Hoopers Strait
Barge
24 Jan 1977
No leakage - refloated
(potential spill
276,000 gal. NR 2 and
138,000 gal. kerosene)
Baltimore, Md. No leakage - refloated
Tanker Overseas Alice (potential spill
25 Jan 1977 5,880,000 gal. gasoline)
Good Hope, La.
Barge NMS 2600 collided
21 Jan 1977
Baytown, Texas
Tanker Exxon San Francisco
and Barge Exxon 119
Explosion and fire
27 Jan 1977
Arcade, N.Y.
Pipeline spill
25 Jan 1977
Buzzards Bay, Mass.
Barge B-65
28 Jan 1977
63,000 gal. asphalt
Unknown
gasoline
10,000 gal.
NR 2 diesel
100,000 gal.
heating oil
(List incomplete for 1977)
1976
Brooklyn, N.Y. - Gowanus Canal 2,000,000 gal.
Storage tank NR 6 oil
6 Jan 1976
Green Pond, Ala. - lake
Pipeline spill
27 Jan 1976
Chesapeake Bay, Va.
Barge STC-101
2 Feb 1976
126,000 gal.
NR 2 diesel
261,500 gal.
NR 6 bunker
Cleanup crew after Barge STC-101 spill.
Gibson, La. 79,800 gal.
Barge Sully crude oil
1 March 1976
Bradford, Pa. - Kendall Creek 84,000 gal.
Pipeline spill NR 2 diesel
2 March 1976
Isle de Cabras, Puerto Rico 19,500 gal.
Tug Gelderland NR 2 diesel
8 March 1976 (potential -
79,250 gal.
Valentine, Neb. 12,000 gal.
Train derailment crude oil
9 March 1976
Billings, Montana 27,300 gal.
Silver Tip Creek crude oil
Pipeline spill
9 March 1976
Stonewall County, Texas
Brazos River
Pipeline spill
9 Feb 1976
Chalmette, La. (Miss. R.)
Barge SJT-4
24 Feb 1976
125,000 oil
oil
84,000 gal.
(potential
877,800 gal.)
Oil coming ashore after Barge
STC-101 spill on Chesapeake Bay.
Silver Tip Creek after pipeline spill in Montana.
Cook Inlet, Alaska
Separator failure
12 March 1976
Buffalo, N.Y.
Buffalo R. threatened
Storage tank
13 March 1976
10,000 gal.
crude oil
840,000 gal.
(potential
1,680,000 gal.
-------
Lake Charles, La.
Pipeline spill
29 March 1976
42,000 gal.
NR 6 fuel oil
and naptha
Martinsville, 111. 1,764,000 gal.
Pipeline - manifold failure crude oil
1 April 1976
Glenwood, Pa. 200,000 gal.
Monongahela and Ohio Rivers NR 2 diesel
Storage tank failure
9 April 1976
Key Blscayne, Fla.
Mystery Spill
29 June 1976
Jacksonville, Fla.
McGirts Creek
Abandoned oil pit
29 June 1976
Cook Inlet, Alaska
Sea Lift Pacific
5 October 1976
Aguirre, Puerto Rico
Tank Barge Caribsun
15 October 1976
P erth Amboy, N.J.
Tanker Richard C. Sauer
29 October 1976
Belt, Montana
Railroad spill
26 Nov. 1976
Slick 30 miles
by 100 yards
wide
200,000 gal.
waste oil
1,260,000 gal.
Jet fuel
(potential -
7,350,000 gal.
No leakage
(potential -
2,940,000 gal.
bunker oil)
75,000 gal.
Light Arabian
crude
(potential -
9,240,000 gal.
60,000 gal.
NR 6 oil
Placing skimmer in pocket of oil from
storage tank failure at Clenwood, Pa.
Houston Ship Channel, Texas
Tank Barge MS 3105 - sank
4 May 1976
Shelburne, Vermont
Lake Champlain threatened
Storage tank
19 May 1976
Cleveland, Ohio
Cayuhoga River
Tug Kinsdale & Barge Gaelic
E-17
Hackensack, N.J.
Hackensack River
Storage tank
26 May 1976
St. Lawrence Seaway
Nepco Barge 140
23 June 1976
Rockton, W. Va. - Elk River
Train derailment
23 June 1976
Houston Ship Channel, Texas
Texas Sun & Barge Exxon 257
collided
28 June 1976
220,000 gal.
Bunker oil
80,000 gal.
gasoline
5,000 gal.
NR 6
(potential -
550,000 gal.
2,000,000 gal.
NR 6 oil
(150,000 gals.
reached river)
500,000 gal.
NR 6 heavy
residual
44,000 gal.
Lube oil
16,800 gal.
NR 6 fuel oil
Cartaret, N.J.
Pipeline spill
30 Nov 1976
Potomac River
(near Quantico, Va.)
Barge Elk River
30 Nov 1976
Nantucket, Mass.
Argo Merchant
15 Dec 1976
Bluff Point, Va.
Potomac River
Barge-411
21 Dec 1976
Marcus Hook, Pa.
Delaware River
Olympic Games
27 Dec 1976
San Juan Harbor, P.R.
Daphne
29 Dec 1976
200,000 gal.
NR 2 oil
200,000 gal.
NR 2 oil
7,500,000 + gal.
NR 6 oil
No leakage
(potential -
1,680,000 gal.
NR 6 oil)
134,000 gal.
Arabian crude
No leakage
(potential -
47,160 tons
oil condensate,
500 tons bunker
A new gas well blew out in Louisiana, spraying paraffin-
based oil over a wide area near wildlife refuge.(See p.25)
-------
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.
M/T Corinthos struck
by M/T Edgar Queeny
13,000,000 gal.
crude
Oil tanker Corinthos burning in Delaware River. The
white area between ship and dock is chemical foam,
used in firefighting.(See p.20.)EPA Las Vegas photo.
New Orleans, La.
Freighter collided
with tow of barges
Porto, Portugal
Supertanker Jakob Maersk
grounding and fire
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
Storage tank failure
San. Juan Harbor, P.R.
Barge Z-102, accident
Conway, Pa.
Ruptured pipeline
Alameda, Calif.
Merchant Vessel Mosshill
Latania Lake, La.
Well
Intracoastal City, La.
gas well (oily) blowout
250,000 + gal.
oil
72,000 gal.
diesel
150,000 gal.
mixed oils
100,000 + gal.
NR 2
13,000 gal.
bunker oil
42,000 gal.
882,000 gal.
oil-paraffin
-------
Lake Superior
Ore boat Edmund Fitzgerald
sank
Dayton, Ohio
Tank collapsed
Trenton, N.J.
Pipeline break
Moosic, Pa.
Pipeline damaged by equip.
Galveston, Texas
Tugboat sank
Skagway, Alaska
Tank rupture
Bronx, N.Y.
Bouchard Barge 115 grounding
Lake City, Tenn.
Tank truck accident
70,000 gal.
bunker oil
2,000 gal.
hydrochloric
acid
200,000 gal.
kerosene
100,000 gal.
gasoline
12,600 gal.
diesel
25,000 gal.
gasoline
20,000 + gal.
NR 4
5,000 gal.
mixed chemicals
Portsmouth, Ohio
Chemical facility, fire
Gulf of Mexico
(90 mi. S. Cameron, La.)
Tanker Globtik Sun struck
oil rig, holed, and burned.
unknown
mixed chemicals
unknown
crude oil
(14,700,000 gal.
originally)
Tanker Globtik Sun after fire, as seen from
U.S.Coast Guard aircraft over Gulf of Mexico.
Baltimore, Md.
Possible barge overfill
Roanoke, Va.
Terminal accident
Strongstown, Pa.
Termite treatment—
to drainage
Key West, Fla.
Mystery spill
(later tied to tanker
Garbis)
Cape May, N.J.
Tanker Olympic Dale
missed turn, ran
aground. Refloated
Chicago, 111.
Storage tank explosion
Garfield Heights, Ohio
Tank car overflow
Detroit, Mich.
Sewer system failure
Milton Freewater, Oregon
Pesticide warehouse fire
Mississippi River near
New Orleans, La.
Barge "Butane" collided
with tug
126,000 gal.
NR 6
3,500 gal.
toluene
unknown
mixed chemicals
approx 100,000 gal.
bunker C oil
small quantity
spilled out of
5 million gal.
potential.
17,000 gal.
hot asphalt
50 tons
sulfuric acid
20,000 gal.
heavy waste oil
mixed with sewage
unknown
mixed chemicals
193,000 gal.
crude oil
,#*»-
-------
EPA
REGIONAL OFFICES
I-BOSTON IV-ATLANTA VIM-DENVER
II-NEWYORK V-CHICAGO IX SAN FRANCISCO
III-PHILADELPHIA VI-DALLAS X-SEATTLE
VII-KANSAS CITY
1975 Spill List (continued)
EPA REGIONAL OIL & HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SPILL COORDINATORS
Atlantic Ocean
(400 mi. off N.J. coast)
Tanker Spartan Lady broke
up in heavy seas
Vandalia, 111.
Storage tank
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Tanker Taryk Ibn Ziyad
ran aground
The Plains, Va.
Dumped in pond
Salt Lake City, Utah
Pipeline leak
Vicksburg, Miss.
Johnny Dan, barges
6,000,000 + gal.
crude oil
14,000 gal.
transformer oil
(not PCBs)
3,000,000 gal.
light crude oil
unknown
toxaphene
50,000 gal.
gasoline
850,000 + gal.
crude oil and
other oil
REPORTING SPILLS
The National Response Center (NRC) is the
National terminal point for receiving notifi-
cation of spills via the toll-free telephone
number 800-424-8802 and via other telephone
and teletype circuits. NRC provides physical
and communications facilities for relaying this
notification.
If you cause a spill, or if you happen to
see one, you should report it immediately. You
may use the toll-free number 800-424-8802. All
vessels and aircraft, military, civil, or pri-
vate, may cooperate in observing and reporting
spills.
Mr. John Conlon
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region I
S & A Branch
New England Regional Lab.
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
617-861-6700
Mr. William Librizzi
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region II
Industrial Environmental
Research Lab.
Edison, N.J. 08817
201-321-6672
Mr. Howard Lamp'l
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region III
Curtis Building
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-597-9075
Mr. AT Smith
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
404-881-3931
Mr. Russell Diefenbach
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region V
230 Dearborn Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2316
Mr. Richard Hill
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
First International Bldg.
Dallas TX 75270
214-749-3971
Mr. Gene Reid
OHM Coordinator
Enforcement Division
EPA, Region VII
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-374-3171
Mr. Al Yorke
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Court
Denver, CO 80203
303-837-2468
Mr. Harold Takenaka
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-556-7858
Mr. James Will man
OHM Coordinator
EPA, Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1263
38
-------
OILED BIRDS
Estimates of damage caused by oil spills
are often erroneously based on the numbers of
birds found on the shore. Millions of birds
may perish and sink on the open water every
year after contact with floating oil spills.
Oiled aquatic birds are unable to fly, lose
their insulation from the cold, cannot float,
are sick, and often blinded. As scavengers or
food seekers, however, waterfowl in the area
of a spill may be attracted to dead or dying
fish and shellfish in oily water, or on shores
and beaches.
*
fJ %"
^ "'^-
i^jsi^l
A -^k-
treatment, and keeping proper records, The
birds are force fed for nourishment and to
clear oil from the digestive tract. Those
lightly oiled are washed or immersed in a
detergent solution and the inside of the beak
is cleaned. A second washing and rinsing is
done on heavily oiled birds. They all dry in
a warm, roomy area for 12 to 24 hours. If
space is available they stay 2 or 3 days and
go to a nearby long-term facility. A bird
that relies on natural oil for waterproofing
its feathers should stay until its own wax is
restored. It may have to molt first, which
could take 6 months or a year.
SCARING BIRDS AWAY FROM SPILLS
Birds are sometimes saved from oil spills
by alarms which employ noisemakers, flashing
lights, pennants, or other devices. It does
not work with all birds. Some ducks dive rather
than fly away. This increases their chances of
becoming oiled.
INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service provides information on
the rescue of oiled birds. In addition, Reg-
ional Contingency Plans for oil spill cleanup
identify organizations or institutions that
can and are willing to participate in water-
fowl dispersal, collection, cleaning and re-
covery activities. These plans are available
from EPA Regional offices listed on page 38
of this booklet and from district offices of
the U.S. Coast Guard.
RESCUE OF BIRDS
Rescue of oiled birds found on the shore
is generally done at low tide, using nets to
avoid injury to the active ones. They are
carefully placed in boxes and promptly taken
to a cleaning station within the hour. The
cleaning station is usually supervised by a
person with experience in bird rehabilitation,
who instructs the others in cleaning, drying,
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)
-------
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Field Detection and
Damage Assessment Manual for Oil and Hazardous Material
Spills," Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials, June
1972.
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, "Tamano Oil Spill
Casco Bay: Environmental Effects and Cleanup Operations,"
(EPA 430/9-75-018) December 1975, Office of Water Program
Operations, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Ef-
fects of Schuylkill Oil Spill'II (June 1972)," (EPA 430/
9-75-019) December 1975, Office of Water Program Opera-
tions, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Below: Tanker Sansinena after explosion and fire
which began December 17, 1976 at an oil
terminal in San Pedro, California. U.S.
Coast Guard photograph.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR, 129, "Water
Programs: Proposed Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards,"
Federal Register, vol. 38, no. 247, December 27, 1973.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "Shipboard Guide to Pollution-
Free Operations," December 1975, Maritime Administration,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
American Petroleum Institute, "Oil Spill Prevention- A
Primer," publication 4225, 1974.
Proceedings of 1977 Oil Spill Conference, sponsored by
American Petroleum Institute, U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast
Guard. Published by American Petroleum Institute,
2101 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. (Also by the
same title and at the same publisher these proceedings
are available for 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975.)
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.
-------
A 2,500-ton piece of the Sansinena smolders on
the dock, blown there by the force of explosion.
A closeup view of the bow of the tanker Sansinena.
The tanker Sansinena at San Pedro, California. The unloading
of her 34 crude oil cargo tanks was completed about 2 hours
before the explosion. A flash fire on deck carried into the
vapor inside the No. 10 tank, causing the first explosion.
U.S. Coast Guard Photos
.:. '
-------
I
l fc - -%-^^!
' l '~
------- |