I
I
I
I
I
AERIAL REMOTE SENSING PROGRAM FOR OIL
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES
FY-84 PROGRAM SUMMARY
FY-85 MANAGEMENT PLAN
I
v
by
ADVANCED MONITORING SYSTEMS DIVISION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|CT}'>
°2 -
UD
I«-
j|~V... J
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOREWORD
Since the mid-1970's, the Environmental Protection Agency has employed
aerial remote sensing technology to assess environmental oil spills and
hazardous materials releases. Aerial photography is used to assist Agency
officials in emergency response situations, release prevention surveys, and
spill contingency mapping. Acquisition and interpretation of these aerial
imagery data are provided by the Agency's Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory at Las Vegas, Nevada, as technical assistance support to regional
offices and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Program
summary and planning documents are prepared annually to provide Agency
managers with an overview of resources expenditures and program activities.
ii
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas provides
aerial imagery acquisition and interpretaton support for oil and hazardous
materials releases to each of the ten EPA regional offices and the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. This support is provided for emer-
gency response situations, hazardous materials release prevention surveys
for industrial facilities and oil fields, and contingency mapping. Support
is provided through the Laboratory facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada, and its
eastern field facility, the Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) in Warrenton, Virginia.
This document describes program operations along with examples of remote
sensing data and information delivered to requesting offices. A summary of
FY-84 program accomplishments is presented. In total, approximately 5,900
flight line miles of color aerial photography were collected in support of 12
emergency responses, spill prevention surveys in 43 cities and 3 oil fields,
and spill contingency planning for 4 waterways, 1 highway and 1 railroad.
Spill contingency support decreased in FY 84, while spill prevention support
increased over previous fiscal year levels.
A management plan for FY-85 is provided, outlining funding for the various
program categories. The overall level of effort is expected to decrease in
comparison to the previous fiscal year, commensurate with a reduced level of
funding.
iii
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword. . 11
Abstract. Ill
Figures . v
Tables * v1
Introduction . 1
Program Operations. . . 1
Emergency Response . 2
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 3
Oil Field Survey 5
Contingency Planning 7
Flood Plain Mapping 9
Program Management 9
General 9
Support Contracts 10
Personnel, Equipment and Material Requirements 11
FY 84 Program Summary -. 11
FY 85 Program Plan 15
Appendices
A. Fiscal Year 84 Projects, Oil and Hazardous Materials
Release Program 18
B. Fiscal Year 84 Remote Sensing Coverage, Oil and Hazardous
Materials Release Program 21
C. Contingency Planning Program Through 1984 25
iv
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
Number
1
2
3
4
5
FIGURES
Page
Example photograph from an emergency response 4
Typical Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
product for industrial sites 6
Typical contingency planning product with projected 100 year
flood overlay 8
Remote sensing miles flown for oil and hazardous materials
spills program, FY-84 ; 13
History of remote sensing miles flown for oil and hazardous
materials releasts (FY-81 thru FY-84) 14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Number
1
2
3
TABLES
FY-84 Summary of Funds Committed for Oil and
Hazardous Materials Release Program 12
Anticipated FY-85 Funding for Oil and Hazardous
Materials Release Program 16
Proposed Extramural Funding Allocation for FY 85, Oil and
Hazardous Materials Release Program 16
vi
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
^
i,
AERIAL REMOTE SENSING PROGRAM FOR OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas (EMSL-LV)
provides remote sensing support (aerial imagery acquisition and interpretation)
for emergency response to oil and hazardous material release situations, re- •
lease prevention surveys for industrial facilities and oil fields, and hazard-
ous release contingency planning under section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and the revised National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Support is provided to each of the ten EPA regional offices and the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Support is provided
through the Laboratory facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada, and its eastern facil-
ity, the Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC), in Warrenton,
Virginia.
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
There are four types of support projects conducted under the oil and
hazardous materials releases program. Emergency response to oil or hazardous
materials releases commands the highest priority. Hazardous release prevention
projects assist compliance monitoring efforts of each EPA regional office.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Detailed analysis provided in these reports calls attention to potential problem
facilities and specific problem areas within facilities and serves as a guide
to field inspectors during site inspections. Oil fields surveys are conducted
in a similar manner to provide information to field inspectors in planning
ground inspections. Contingency planning handbooks are prepared as planning
documents to aid in emergency cleanup operations during an oil or hazardous
material release. Similar documents are prepared.for other transportation
corridors such as highways, railroads, and pipelines. Integration of flood
plain mapping information into the contingency planning handbooks is scheduled
for FY85 for those waterways where the information is available. This infor-
mation will depict the projected extent of a 100-year flood and could be used
to evaluate the potential impact of flood conditions on containment structures
at SPCC related facilities. ' ••
V
EmergencyResponse
Since 1975, EMSL-LV has been prepared to commence a 24-hour work schedule
in the event of an oil or hazardous material release in waterways of the United
States, To date, EMSL-LV has responded to approximately 75 emergency situations.
The majority of the spills are caused by watercraft (i.e., tankers, barges,
lighters, etc.) accidents,with a majority of these occuring in major waterways
of the eastern United States. The majority of spill incidents in the mid-west
and western United States are from oil production sources (i.e., wells, pipe-
lines, refineries, etc.). Emergency response has also been activated for flood
conditions, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.
EMSL-LV support,under an emergency response consists of aerial photography
2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
acquisition and analysis depicting the extent of release and direction of
material movement (Figure 1). Relay of critical information is provided
immediately via telephone, with backup photography and maps indicating areas of
material accumulation. This information is used by the On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC)to determine possible sites for set-up of containment booms to prevent
further progress of hazardous material downstream. It is also used as a tool
to assess the effectiveness of cleanup opertions and to ascertain the amount of
damage to the environment.
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
The SPCC program was initiated by EMSL-LV in 1976 to assist the SPCC com-
pliance monitoring efforts of each EPA Region. Under the authority of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended 1972), the EPA set forth
i
requirements to prevent discharges of oil into the navigable waters of the
United States. These regulations require owners/operators of facilities with
nonburied aggregate storage of more than 1320 gallons or single tanks larger
than 660 gallons prepare a SPCC plan. EPA regional offices are responsible
for those facilities within their jurisdiction, EMSL-LV support to this
program is designed to assist the limited number of personnel available for
these monitoring efforts. The typical report includes a summary of the
of the project operations, an index of facility sites, maps showing site loca-
tions, a large-scale color photograph (1:6,000 scale) with a transparent over-
lay showing the coded observations of the interpreter, and a narrative summary
covering findings at each site (Figure 2). The image interpretation depicts
such features as: 1) the absence of or adequacy of secondary containment pro-
vided for storage or holding tanks; 2) product spills outside contained areas;
3
-------
Figure 1. Example photograph from an-emergency response.
-------
I
jl
• 3) entry point of spillage into the natural drainage system; 4) leaking or
deteriorating tanks; 5) damaged vegetation; and 6) oil slicks or sheen on water
£ surfaces. This report enables regional inspectors to concentrate inspection
_ efforts on those facilities that appear to be in noncompliance with SPCC
" regulations.
I
To date, approximately 70 SPCC projects, have been flown by EMSL-LV cov-
£ ering almost every major city in the United States. This effort has produced
m photography of over more than 7,000 miles of the United States covering more
• than 15,000 facilities requiring monitoring under the SPCC program. The
• majority of facilities covered are oil production, storage, and distribution
related.
I
Oil Field Survey
• Surveys of oil fields in the United States were initiated by EMSL-LV
in 1978. This analysis is very similar to that done for SPCC. The major
• difference between oil field survey and SPCC reporting is the use of smaller
scale (1:8,400) aerial photography. Often larger and more remote areas are
• " involved and small scale photography acquisition is more economical. Report
I format and report conditions remain the same. To date, 21 oil field projects
-
have been accomplished, providing photography covering over 6000 square miles.
I Analysis provided conditions at over 3,000 sites for which some form of SPCC
violation was noted.
I
I
I
-------
Figure 2. Typical Spill Prevention Control^and Countermeasures (SPCC)
product for industrial sites.
-------
I
I
Contingency Planning
In 1978 EMSL-LV distributed a demonstration Spill Contingency Handbook to
all regional offices to elicit responses as to the usefulness of such a document
• in support of their SPCC program. Regional requests for this type support
• started in FY-79. The contingency handbook is designed to provide informaton
for contingency planners and as an aid for OSC's and emergency cleanup crews
• during an oil or hazardous material release. The handbook consists of textual
material with a brief description of the waterway, average flow rates, and other
• collateral information (Figure 3). Color aerial photographs (1:24,000 scale)
• are provided with annotated, clear acetate overlays depicting information such
as: 1} river access routes (vehicle, trail, and boat); 2) river crossings; 3)
I recommended command post locations; 4) helicopter landing zones; 5) location
of sensitive natural resources or human habitation; and 6) visible industrial
• outfall discharge points. All industrial and commercial facilities which have
• storage tanks or production and distribution capabilities of oil or hazardous
materials are delineated. A brief narrative description of each site is also
• provided. Any sites which appear to pose a potential threat to the environment
are identified. Contingency planning was expanded in FY83 to cover major high-
I ways, and in FY84 to cover railroads. Reporting criteria basically remained
• the same. Some information relating to waterways only were deleted, while
information pertaining to locations of hospitals, schools, and gas stations
I were added. Since 1979 approximately 90 waterways covering over 11,000 miles;
1 major interstate covering approximately 600 miles; and 1 railroad covering
• 200 miles have been flown.
I
I
I
-------
Figure 3. Typical contingency planning product with projected 100-year
flood overlay. •
8
-------
I
• Flood Plain Mapping
* Flooding waterways have major impacts on secondary containment of oil and
I chemical storage tanks, surface runoff of Industrial facilities, and access
routes for emergency response cleanup operations. Contingency plans may not be
I effective during the flooding conditions and an alternate plan must be imple-
• mentect during the various flood stages. The use Of flood plain mapping of water-
ways offers the field investigation teams and emergency response personnel val-
I
•
uable information about areas that will be impacted during the 100-year floods.
| Many of the waterways have been mapped for flood plains by the U. S. Army
£ Corps of Engineers (COE). Flood plain maps are produced from topographic maps
" and computer models, which give a good indication of what areas will be impacted
, • by the major floods. This information may not always be current, but will pro-
vide a suitable base from which flood plain management programs may be estab-
jj lished. Confirmation of the accuracy of existing flood plain maps can be ob-
_ tained with aerial photography collected over selected waterways during flood
• conditions. The photography serves as a base for updating flood plain projec-
• tions. Figure 3 shows the extent of 100-year flood on an area of the Missis-
sippi River.
I
B PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
General
I EMSL-LV responds to routine regional and program office needs for remote
I
I
-------
I
• sensing support upon receipt of a written request from a regional office
division director, Deputy Project Officer (DPO), or a program office project
| officer. An EMSL-LV technical monitor is assigned to review the study objec-
m t1ve&, approaches, plans, deliverables and completion dates with the requesting
office. When the requester's requirements are clear, a project plan is pre-
I pared with the scope of work, deliverables, estimated costs and schedules
identified. Projects are performed through the Laboratory's support contractors.
I
_ For emergency responses, the request may be accepted by telephone from a
* regional office division director, DPO, On-Scene Coordinator, or a program
• office project officer. The request is immediately coordinated with OSWER/OERR
by telephone, and with its approval, a project is initiated.
I
_ After receipt of a valid request, an EMSL-LV Technical Support Notice is
™ prepared and distributed to Laboratory and OSWER/OERR management officials,
I containing a project description and estimated costs as information bulletins
to appropriate headquarter's offices. Upon completion of a project, copies of
P the project completion letters to requestors are forwarded to OSWER/OERR
_ headquarters. Expenditures of funds supporting this program are tracked on a
™ project-by-project basis for cost accounting and program management analysis.
I
Support Contracts
I
_ At each of the EMSL-LV facilities, a professional staff is available
through support contracts to acquire imagery, process film and print
I photographs, graphs, provide aerial imagery interpretation, and prepare final
I
I
-------
I
I reports with imagery and other graphic displays. EPA technical monitors are
responsible for preparing statements of work and monitoring progress towards
• completion. The overall contracts are administered by an EPA contract officer
• and designated project officers.
I PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
| The resources to support the aerial remote sensing program come from two
• sources. Base funding is provided through the Office of Research and Devel-
opment (ORD) under decision unit D109. These resources provide for in-house
I personnel and materials as well as limited contract support. The major source
of extramural operating funds is provided directly from OSWER/OERR. These
| resources directly support hazardous release activities of the support
_ contractors.
• FY 84 PROGRAM SUMMARY
J During FY 84, EMSL-LV provided support for 12 emergency projects covering
approximately 1,500 flight-line miles. Four SPCC projects for industrial sites
P were conducted covering 43 cities and 472 flight-line miles, 3 oil field pro-
• jects covering 1360 miles and 3 projects under the contingency planning program,
covering 4 waterways totaling 600 miles, 1 Interstate highway of 314 miles, and
• 1 railroad covering 200 flight-line miles were conducted. In total, approximately
5,900 flight-line miles of color aerial photography were collected.
• Table 1 summarizes the resources expended, by region, in support of
I
I
11
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
these programs. Figure 5 summarizes the miles flown, by region, for FY 84;
while Figure 6 shows a four-year history of the program. Appendix A lists
specific projects funded in FY 84. Coverage for individual facilities, rivers,
and oil fields is summarized, by region, in Appendix B. Appendix C shows, by
region, the transportation routes mapped under the contingency planning program
through FY 84.
TABLE 1. FY 84 SUMMARY OF EXTRAMURAL FUNDS COMMITTED
FOR OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES PROGRAM
— SSS5SS
Region
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Grand
Total
Note:
=============================
Spill Prevention
Industrial Large Areas
Facilities (Oil Fields)
$ 6. IK $ —
48. 9K
— - —
47. IK
—
90. 8K
9.5K
— —
10. 6K
$73. 3K $139. 7K
Contingency Planning
Oil Field Release Prevention
Industrial Release Prevention
Emergency Response Coverage
Total Coverage
Contingency
Planning
$53. OK
—
—
—
—
. —
—
—
—
20. 8K
$73. 8K
Coverage
Coverge
ssss = — «—• = = — = = = = = = = = :
Emergency Funds
Response Total
$— $ 59. IK
48. 9K
10. OK 10. OK
47. IK
7. IK 7. IK
78. 9K 169. 7K
9.5K
13. OK 13. OK
10. 6K
4.8K 25. 6K
1 c f|K
$113. 8K $415. 6K
= 1,114 miles
= 2,804 miles
* 472 miles
- 1,500 miles
= 5,890 miles
Projects
Total
3
1
1
1
1
10
1
2
1
2
23
12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
00
:x••••••••*•••••
"vXvXvXvX<
• ••••*•••*••-
00
>-
re
s.
OJ
o
o.
V)
0
I/I
3
O
N
(O
O
s_
o
o
I/I
01
E
en
(U
I/)
O)
+J
o
O)
a:
O O
O O
o o w
CO OJ —
o o o
o o o
co r- co
s=nm inom
o
o
in
o
o
<*•
o
o
10
o o
o o
CM —
13
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SPCC (INDUSTRIAL SITES
AND OIL FELDS)
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
7000 n
6000
5000-
4000-
3000 • •:•:•:
2000-
1000
81
84
Figure 5.
Recent history of remote sensing for oil and hazardous
materials releases program.
14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In FY 84, a total of $565K ($550K OERR and $15K ORD) In extramural funds
were allocated for this program. As shown in Table 1, $415.6K were actually com-
mitted to support projects. The remaining $149.4K will be used for FY 85 support.
"FY 85 PROGRAM PLAN
EMSL-LV support for the Oil and Hazardous Releases program in FY 85 will
be provided to each of the 10 EPA regional offices and OSWER/OERR based upon
individual requirements, priorities, and available funds. Anticipated funding
for FY 85 is shown in Table 2.
A breakdown of the proposed extramural funding allocation is shown in Table
3. Firm requests for SPCC and contingency planning are being defined for all
10 regions. The level of contingency planning projects is expected to remain
approximately the same as for FY 84, although the integration of flood plain
mapping support in the contingency category may increase expenditures over FY 84
levels. Emergency support is expected to remain at similar levels as FY 84, but
may deminish as improved controls are established by industry. Spill prevention
analysis support is expected to diminish as regional offices reduce thier priority
in deference to hazardous waste site analysis, and in view of the accumulation
of plans that have been supported and proposed in past years. The overall .
program will be managed accordingly, at an anticipated level of $508.4K, reduced
from $565K in FY 84.
15
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED FY 85 FUNDING
FOR OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE PROGRAM
t==============================================
Source
PFTE/OPFTE
In-house
Extramural
ORD
OERR
TOTAL
2.9/1.1
-/-
2.9/1.1
$156.OK
$156. OK
FY 84 Carry Over
Total FY 85
$159.OK
$200.OK
$359.OK
$149.4K
$508.4K
TABLE 3. PROPOSED EXTRAMURAL FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR FY 85
OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE PROGRAM
Data
Collection
Labor
(Hours)
Labor and
Materials
Equipment Total
OERR($200K)
Emergency
Response
Regional
Support
Headquarters
Support
Sub-Total
$ 5K
$ 29K
$ 34K
500
5400
600
6500
$ 17K
$135K
$ 9K
$161K
$ 5K
$ 5K
$ 22K
$169K
$ 9K
$200K
ORD($159K)
Emergency
Response
Regional
Support
Headquarters
Support
Sub-Total
$ 5K
$ 26K
$ 31K
500
4000
500
4900
$ 17K
$100K
$ 6K
$123K
$ 5K
$ 5K
$ 22K
$131K
$ 6K
$159K
(continued)
16
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.. Continued
Data Labor Labor and
Collection (Hours) Materials
Equipment Total
FY 84 Carry over (I149.4K)
Emergency
Response $ 5K
Regional
Support
Headquarters
Support
Sub-Total
Total
$ 20K
$ 25K
90K
500
4000
450
4950
16350
$ 17 K
$ 97.4K
$ 5 K
$119.4K
$403.4K
$ 5K
$ 5K
$15 K
$ 22 K
$149.4K
$, 5 K
$149.4K
$508.4K
17
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
^
X
o
UJ
a.
a.
i
to
<_>
UJ
3
cc
a.
^^
CO
5
UJ
_J
o
t~^
u.
1
C9
O
C£
Q
^£
2
LlJ
1—
£
to
O
O
5
Nl
<
z
a
5Z
<
— J
o
II
II
n
n
«
n
n
n
n
ii
u
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
a
ti
n
H
n
n
H
n
n
n
n
it
n
n
n
ii
»
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
H
II
II
II
II
II
H
tl
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
n
n
n
H
H
H
II
II
It
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
tl
n
n
ti
ti
ti
n
u
n
n
n
cu in
c cu
T- 4-»
_• *^K
to
+» -s.
JZ (A
cn cu
r"* *F*
u. z:
M- •*->
O t-
O
cu a.
o- a.
>> s
f-v>
to
o
o
c
o
f- «/»
+J CU
CU 4J
t— «O
1°
0
c
o
•F-
cn
cu
Ct
a>
E
^
C
•o -.
"s, O "Ss. »H
^- fO CM CO
-V. "^. --» -^
«-H cn CM I***
VO "* VO O
«-^
(X.
o
A
a>
^z
cu *c
JZ * C
c_j * 10
U. 0 » f—
ox z »
CU « C9 Z U. K— O
a. (/i t— c
•o «•>,*«
•*-> c _i •> +-> c cn
t- «O - *r- O C
Or- 1 S^ r- -•-» ••-
O-.E O -F~ *A *^
i cn o * o 3 c
•f- «i- a. to co o o
z i to s u. z o
.|_
o tf> vo cv)
co ro co ^
o o o o
CO 00 CO CO
§11^
? * **
0
o
0
Cu
to
VO
o
f-l
CO
-v.
t-H
co
r-
en
ro
K
J_
o
«*-
•^
^—
10
o
1
o
o
a.
to
in
^^ *
o
00
o
vo
cn
u.
o
cn
CO
^^
CO
*****
^3
CO
cn
CM
-*^
t_
o
^"
f
cu
1
0
C_)
a.
^5
^^
cu
•r-
i^
t*~
•r-
O
*4*
VO
0
cS
o
o
o
vo
u.
o
£
vo
**J"
CO
*****
o
CO
cn
to
X
H-
t
0
O
a.
to
•o
r™
CU
•f*
^—
^K
•r*
O
^
CM
in
o
CO
*•*•»
cu
*«"•»» 4«'
"0 «0
10 4->
•-• O «/>
s. &. u
CUr- CU
1- (O C
a: as »-•
««^ <^M*«M^
cn cn cn
c c c
•p- »f— t—
c c: c
c c c
(O ftf fQ
a. o_ o-
>>>>>>
c? o c?
C C C T3
CU CU O r—
cn cn cn cu
Cc c *^
felv hB ^^
+^ 4^ 4J
^— ^— C ^^
O O O «r-
O O O C3
1 1 1 1
t. S
o o: o u.
Q£ Q£ *— * O
(/I
CU
3
cr
at
a?
cu
in
c
O
CL
to
CU
f>* I/)
(/)
^*i CU
0 I-
c cn
cu o
Cn u
i-Ou
.
CU O
4-> Q.
0 CU
-z. oc
* -1-
M
CU
4^ ^^
40 CU
13
f- 4J
t. C
•!-> 0
(/I O
•o "~"
^
*-^
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
N
II
II «> *t
II C O
n _j T-
11 CO
II •M'-s.
n f M
II CD O)
n i— i—
II *• y
1)
II
II
II
II <«- -M
not.
II 0
n o» a
II CX O
It >> 3
It I-?CO
it
n
H-
? i
Oi II -M
CO It VI
OHO
OC II CJ
O- H
II
CO II
Ul II
CO CO H
— 1— < II
•o o ui ii
at uj _i ii c
3 "-D UJ IIO
C O O£ II i- i/>
•f- Of II 4-> - E ii
«-« II
O _l l/> II
2 «C 3 II
UI CJ O II C
a. co a n o
a. «— i ac n t-
hsl II 0)
< II Or
± n
n
a n
z n
•eC II
II -
i «— i II
; . o n
n
u
u
'• n
n
n
n
ii
it
n
n
it a»
II E
H «O
II 'Z.
II 4-»
n u
n a*
n •!->
H O
n t-
II 0.
ro
CM
(_>
o
0.
CO
*
*
vo
&t
*tf"
CO
o
*»n^
o
^H
^f
s.
M
•z.
o
1
o
Q.
CO
CO
in
o
00
a
ff
o
o
vo
0
aC
•*£.
in
CO
CO
^*
CO
o
CO
en
*H
Ul
•1
O)
c
•r-
c
c
(0
Ck.
^J
0
c
u
en
c
4J
c
o
CJ
+
in
o
CO
a
*sC
8
CM
CJ
ex.
in
*
^
«-H
^-
CO
o
co
cr>
«— c
Ul
fl»
C7>
C
•t—
c
c
CO
i
i n
in
VO
O
CJ
Q.
CO
v:
un
•
Cf>
•«*•
CO
^Xfc
o
CO
•*»s*
a^
r^.
o
s:
A
>^
4^
c
3
O
^j
A
i/)
•r^
• 3
O
*
4-*
CO
1
t \
0
a.
CO
00
VO
o
^^
CO
1
^
•^
ex
CO
f^r
O
CO
^~
^^
CO
^*s^
^o
CM
"*>v»
CO
o
.^-1
r—
^~
»^
O.
(/>
P«*
•^
0
t.
(U
>
*^-
0£
«a
•r~
_Q
E
3
^K
O
o
CO
p**
o
*^i*
00
§
c£
*
^
•r»
a.
CO
^
o
CM
O
r~4
•*
"•^
0
CM
•**s»
00
dO
A
E
O
U
I/I
UJ
3c
*l
a>
c
•^
_v/
o
3 -
t-
l_
o
o
3t
QJ
+•* X
CO 1—
CO
CO
^"
CO
o
^^
*
^
•^
Q.
CO
t—
o
in
o
r^
^
oo
CO
""fc*^
vo
CO
^~
^_
»^-
a.
CO
^^
•^
o
J_
a
•r-
Q^ "
s.
u
i.
o
t^
c
Ul
en
*
CM
^^
CO
""s^-
C\J
^^
**»^
vo
00
1
r— CD
•i- CJ
CJ
ea •>
u. c
0
3^
1- 0
0 C
3
• 1-3
^>
CO
a
*c
*
— .
Cv)
"O «C
O V»
s. s. s.
tt> f— a>
^ «^ 4^
«r- IB C
or ae HI
O) O) O)
c c c
t- «•"• •!- «fl
C C C ftl
C C C 4->
fO (O (0 *r* •"*
>— r— f— CO -O
o. a. a. 0)
^- 3
>,>>>, we
u u o •»- •*•
e c .c -o s. M
at a> a* •— -M c
O) O) O) 4D ^ O
C C C t- 3 U
•r- •*- •»- Lu T3 •—
+J 4^ 4^ C
C C C i— •-•
o o o •»-
CJ CJ O O 1
1 1 1 1 CJ
CJ 0
cj cc o u. a.
or or HM o co
4_>
(A
0)
3
CT
C0
OH
a>
^> c.
U C7>
C O
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
to
— • 1—
•o o
0,1 UJ
=> 3
c: O
•f— CC
4»* o
c:
o «*•
0 00
fV
^t ^-
UJ
x >-
>— P
a — i
z «c
UJ <-5
a. to
a. i-«
< u.
3P*
^^
j^*
g^l
o
oc
a.
UJ
to
UJ
uj
to
_j
|Mf
X
^^•
^£
y
^
"^
^
0
a:
^£
fsj
^£
DC
O
Z
J
t— 1
o
n
n
ti
n
ii
n
H
N
N
n
n
H
N
ii
n
n
n
n
N
n
11
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
u
n
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
u
ii
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
II
n
n
ii
H
. u
u
II
n
n
u
H
n
N
N
n
N
O) t/»
C 01
•f" <4Ji
MM! **""
to
+} "**x.
JCZ I/)
en
O t-
O
O> 0.
O. CL
>> 3
H™ (S)
1
4^
M
O
O
c .
o
•I- V)
4-> Ol
Q} 4-*
i— IO
0-0
E
0
c
0
01
CO
nS
at
*o
z
+J
u
*^>
e
Q-
1
1
1
^™
•r-
Q.
V)
ywo
•ffM
O
vx
,_-(
•
^
^_
w
c
•^
«*-
a>
on
1™~
*l~
O
c
•f_
i/)
IO
m
«IMl|
CSJ
«— 1
i(!f
CO
a
4c
1
1
1
fmm
•*-
CL
CO
^-»
*^*
O
XX
^^
•
|*«*
^f
CO
*l^ll
CO
^*1^
00
in
i
•—4
M
>^
^_
C
•r~
O
Q_
^>
tX)
ai
M
r—
^~
*i—
Q.
CO
r™
•r-
O
^_l
*3r
i— »
^-
00
o
Q.
*
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
N
H
II
II
II
II
II
N
II
II
n
II
n
n
N
n
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
u
H
n
ii
u
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n .
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
11
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
i^+
v
10
f— O
1_ i-
a> i—
•^ ^)
u u
c c
0) 0)
en en
c c
•^ •**
4^ ^^
C C
00
0 <->
1 1
0
o oc
Q£ GC
4-)
4>ii)
o
z
*
^•MUfc
01
4^
<0
4J
f>
&.
ai
c
•-1
"~^
c
•^
c
c
(0
r~
a.
^.
u
C T>
eu^
cn a>
C *»~
••- u.
^j
C i—
O i-
0 0
1 1
0 U.
>— « o
VI
a>
4-*
•i-»
V)
f—
•o
•|W>
i.
^J
(/>
3
^3
C
fr—4
|
O
0
a.
CO
20
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
FISCAL YEAR 84 PROJECTS
OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE PROGRAM
Region
Project
Type of Report
Area Covered
1
AMD84053
AMD84054
SPCC of Industrial
Facilities
Contingency Planning
AMD84055
Contingency Planning
21
Bridgeport, CN
New Haven, CN
Boston, MA
Moosehead Lake, ME
Madison, ME
Penobscot Bay, ME
Skowhegan, ME
Hinckley, ME
Waterville, ME
Augusta, ME
Gardiner, ME
Brunswick, ME
Bath, ME
Old Town, ME
Greenbush, ME
North Lincoln, ME
Medway, ME
Millinocket, ME
Orono, ME
Bald Hill, ME
Bucksport, ME
Verona Island, ME
Belfast, ME
MeAdam, Canada
Todds Farm, ME
Sherwood Mountain, ME
Danforth, ME
Wytopicok, ME
Winn, ME
Hardy, ME
Adams, ME
Brownsville Jet., ME
Barnard, ME
Greenville, ME
Moosehead Lake, ME
(continued)
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•»» ™ ^ .— ^ »«— — — —•••••- — — ,^ ••mw^nr •• — ••-
Region Project
1 [con't) AMD84055
2 . AHD84046
4 AM084035
\
5 AM084125
6 : AMD84009
AMD84023
AMD84030
AMD84036
AMD84052
a
APPENDIX B. (Continued)
Type of Report
(con't) Contingency Planning
SPCC of Oil Fields
SPCC of Industrial
Facilities
•
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
SPCC-Oil Fields
22
Area Covered
Somerset Jet. , ME
Long Pond, ME
Newton, ME
Attean Pond, ME
Trout Pond, ME
Lowell ow, ME
Batavia, NY
Olean, NY
Decatur, AL
Huntsville, AL
Gasden, AL
Waycross, GA
Casselbury, FL
Orlando, FL
Leesburg, FL
Ocala, FL
Mobile, AL
Hoi linger Isle, AL
Prichard, AL
Gulfport, MS
Atlanta, GA
Owensboro, KY
Madison, AL
Madisonville, AL
Jackson, TN
Humboldt, TN
Lexington, TN
Durham, NC
Chapel Hill, NC
Sanford, NC
Lemon t, IL
Oklahoma City, OK
La Rose, LA
Highlands, TX
Houston, TX
Galveston, TX
(continued)
-------
1
1
1'
1
1
.
1
1-
1
1
1
^•P
1
1
1
1
Region Project
6 . AMD84062
AMD84065
AMD84083
AMD84121
AMD84129
7 AMD84068
8 ' AMD84107
AMD84108
9 AMD84045
10 AMD84042
1
f
APPENDIX B. (Continued)
Type of Report
Emergency Response
SPCC-Oil Fields
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
SPCC of Industrial
Facilities
Emergency Response
Emergency Response
SPCC of Industrial
Facility
.
Contingency Planning
23
Area Covered
B1 cornfield, NM
Creek County, OK
Watcom, TX
Okmulgee, OK
Galveston, TX
St. Louis, MO
Hazel wood, MO
Roberton, MO
Berkeley, MO
Florissant, MO
Lambert Field, MO
Evanston, WY
Grand Junction, CO
Rancho Cordova, CA
Sacramento, CA
New Helveta, CA
Brighton, CA
Rosemont, CA
Mather, CA
Florin, CA
Clarksburg, CA
Pittsburg, CA
Antioch, CA
Newlove, CA
Portland, OR
Salem, OR
Albany, OR
Steinman, OR
Medford, OR
Grants Pass, OR
Eugene, OR
Goshen, OR
Cottage Grove, OR
Anault, OR
(continued)
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B. (Continued)
====:======================================================================:
Region Project Type of Report Area Covered
10 (con't) AMD84042 (con't) Contingency Planning
AMD84073
Emergency Response
24
Sutherlin, OR
Myrtle Creek, OR
Canyonvllle, OR
Azalea, OR
Fortune Branch, OR
Pleasant Valley, OR
Seven Oaks, OR
Longview, WA
Portland, OR
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
CONTINGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM THROUGH 1984
!
The Index maps, compiled by EPA Regions, Identify all waterways, highways,
and railroads that have been flown with aerial photography for producing spill
contingency mapping handbooks from the first one in 1977 through the present.
The following maps will be updated each year for a quick reference of iden-
tifying areas where contingency handbooks have been produced.
25
-------
^APPENDIX C (Continued)
26
-------
*TrG0IlESf GREEKS
'-^*-.?i*...'-_l^J-»^;ii;-'±wSr-.i'!L_ — »*-K*-—i';V**^
27
APPENDIX C (Continued)
-------
ss
28
APPEMDIX C (Continued)
-------
29
APPENDIX C (Continued)
-------
30
APPENDIX C (Continued)
-------
•f-t
£
S3
1
31
APPENDIX C (Continued)
-------
32
APPENDIX C (Continued)
-------
33
APPENDIX C (Continued)
------- |