Ecological Research Series
A REVIEW OF OIL POLLUTING INCIDENTS
IN AND AROUND NEW ENGLAND
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-77-064
June 1977
A REVIEW OF OIL POLLUTING INCIDENTS
IN AND AROUND NEW ENGLAND
by
Jeffrey L. Hyland
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND 02882
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Narragansett Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The following report offers a comprehensive review of oil
pollution incidents in and around New England waters. The first
section of the report presents an analysis of all oil discharge
data maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard for years 1973 through
1975. The data are analyzed categorically to reveal where most
spills occur in New England waters, where the greatest quanti-
ties are spilled, what types of oil are most frequently spilled,
what types are spilled in the greatest quantities (in gallons),
what the most significant sources and causes of spills are, and
within which size range (in gallons) most spills occur. The
second section offers synopses of the more publicly recognized
spills which have occurred within the last twenty-five years.
The management of oil discharges and areas in which additional
research is required are discussed in a concluding section.
Work for this report was completed as of February 14, 1977.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Tables vi
Introduction 1
Coast Guard Reported Spills 3
Single Major Spills 6
Muscongus Bay, Maine Oil Spill 6
Searsport, Maine Oil Spill 6
Casco Bay, Maine Oil Spill 7
Great Bay, New Hampshire Spill 8
West Falmouth, Massachusetts Spill 9
New Haven, Long Island Sound Spill 10
Niantic Bay, Long Island Sound Spill 11
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Oil Spills 11
Discussion 14
Addendum 17
References 18
-------
TABLES
Number Page
Caveat 22
1 Number and Quantity of Oil Spilled per Annum, 1973-
1975 23
2 Number and Quantity of Spills within Each Size
Category (1973, 1974, 1975) 24
3 Size Spill (Gallons) Versus Location (1973, 1974,
1975) 25
4 Size Spill (Gallons) Versus Material Spilled (1973,
1974, 1975) 27
5 Size Spill (Gallons) Versus Source of Spill (1973,
1974, 1975) 29
6 Size Spill (Gallons) Versus Cause of Spill (1973,
1974, 1975) 33
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
The reality of oil exploration off the New England coast-
line has alarmed many, including the citizen, scientist, and
decision maker. All are concerned with a basic question. Are
New England's aquatic resources threatened in view of potential
offshore petroleum development and the possibility of a conse-
quent increase in oil polluting events in and around New England
waters?
Further research to elucidate ecological and socioeconomic
effects is one necessary approach to answering such a question.
However, there is also much to be learned from an existing yet
incompletely synthesized data base. An analysis of existing
data relating to the nature and impact of oil pollution events
can be useful both in terms of bettering our understanding of
the environmental consequences of oil contamination and pro-
viding a basis of comparison with future spill data. Accord-
ingly, the following report has been completed in response to
an in-house request from the Narragansett Environmental Research
Laboratory of the Environmental Protection Agency to review the
nature and environmental impact of previous oil discharges
within New England1 waters.
The first section of the review summarizes the number and
volume of all oil discharges recently reported to the U.S. Coast
Guard. Such data are presented categorically to reveal where
most spills occur, where the greatest quantities are spilled,
what type of oil is most frequently spilled (by number), what
type is spilled in the greatest quantity (in gallons), what the
most significant sources and causes of spills are, and within
which size range (in gallons) most spills occur. The second
section offers synopses of the more publicly recognized spills,
most of which have been evaluated through follow-up ecological
investigations and are documented in the literature. The
management of oil discharges and areas in which additional
research is required are discussed in a concluding section.
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut.
2
Information received through the courtesy of the U.S. Coast
Guard, Marine Environmental Protection Division, Coast Guard
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
-------
Previous reviewers (Hyland and Schneider, 1976; National
Academy of Sciences, 1975; Boesch, et al., 1974; Nelson-Smith,
1973; Moore, ejt al. , 1973) have described oil spills and their
environmental effects, but on a more or less national or global
scale. Until now, a review of oil spill information specific
for New England waters has not existed. The information has
remained in back newspaper files or in the Coast Guard's com-
puterized Pollution Incident Reporting System, or is dispersed
throughout the literature as individual, nonintegrated reports.
It is anticipated then that the following review will be
extremely useful in making this information available within a
single, coherent source.
-------
COAST GUARD REPORTED SPILLS
The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Environmental Protection Agency now share an array of oil
spill control, prevention, and enforcement responsibilities.
Many of these responsibilities, as exercised today, were
authorized under the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA) of
1970, an amendment to the original Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) of 1948. One authorization under the act
designated the Coast Guard as the official federal agency
responsible for receiving notification of discharges of oil in
harmful quantities from vessels or facilities into U.S. waters.
To facilitate the successful fulfillment of this responsi-
bility (as well as others), the Coast Guard established in 1971
the Marine Environmental Protection Program (MEP). One immedi-
ate goal of MEP was to create an effective system for retrieving
information concerning discharges of oil and other hazardous
materials. Accordingly, MEP developed in December of 1971 the
Pollution Incident Reporting System (PIRS). This is a com-
puterized system capable of storing categorized data relating
to oil discharges (Leotta and Wallace, 1975).
Through the use of the PIRS, and commencing with 1973,
oil discharge information for New England waters was retrieved
and is made available herein to the reader (Tables 1-6, and
preceding Caveat). The data (number and quantity in gallons)
are presented for each of the following categories: size of
spill (in gallons) versus location, type spilled, source, and
cause. Coding information for each category appears in the
Coast Guard's coding manual (USCG, 1976). It must be pointed
out that prior to 1973, oil discharge data are not complete as
a result of either the incomplete development of the PIRS, or
as a result of fewer people being aware of the legal require-
ments to report discharges to the Coast Guard (U.S. Coast Guard,
1973). 1976 data are still being received.
Table 1 reveals that a total of 1,524 oil spills, amounting
to over 1,022,102 gallons, were reported between 1973 and 1975.
These values represent only 4.7% of the total number of oil
spills occurring in all U.S. waters, and 2.2% of the total
volume spilled. In contrast to the Gulf region which is the
site of extensive oil production and refining and which received
approximately 33% of the nation's total number of spills
(USCG, 1973-1975), the New England region currently experiences
-------
no oil production and has just one operating refinery (in East
Providence, Rhode Island) whose crude capacity is only 0.05% of
the nation's total (Petroleum Publishing Co., 1976).
Table 1 also reveals that a slight decrease in oil spillage
has occurred between 1973 and 1975, since 560 spills (amounting
to over 490,862 gallons) were reported for 1973, while 497
spills (amounting to over 248,451 gallons) were reported for
1974, and 467 spills (amounting to over 282,789 gallons) were
reported for 1975. It is impossible to determine at this time
whether such a trend extended throughout 1976 (i.e., in terms
of number of spills), since PIRS data for that year are not yet
available. However, the volume of oil released as a result of
one incident alone during 1976 exceeded seven times the combined
volume spilled from all sources during the previous three years.
The incident in mention was the grounding and sinking of the
Liberian tanker Argo Merchant on December 15, 1976, which led
to the release of approximately 7.6 million gallons of No. 6
industrial fuel oil into offshore waters 27 miles southeast of
Nantucket Island. Thus, at least in terms of volume of oil
spilled, during 1976 New England experienced a dramatic increase
over previous years.
Table 2 reveals that of the total 1,524 spills reported
between 1973 and 1975, over 50% were extremely small, i.e.,
under 50 gallons (approximately one barrel). In contrast, the
15 spills amounting to over 10,000 gallons each (representing
together less than 1% of total number spilled) accounted for
72% of the total volume spilled. Table 2 also reveals that a
large number of the reported spills were of unknown volume.
Therefore, it must be noted that the figures reported in the
preceding paragraphs, representing the total volume of oil
spilled, are somewhat conservative.
Table 3 reveals that between 1973 and 1975 the greatest
number of spills in New England (76.5%), as well as the greatest
volume spilled (75.5%), occurred in coastal waters. This is of
concern to many, since coastal areas are extremely rich in
living resources. Coastal waters refer herein to bays, estu-
aries, sounds, harbors, ports, channels, beaches, and certain
river areas, all occurring between the boundaries set by the US
CG and EPA for inland waters (upstream of coastal waters) and
the contiguous zone (3 to 12 miles seaward). Open coastal
waters out to the contiguous zone are represented as a separate
category. High seas refer to waters further than 12 miles from
shore.
Table 4 reveals that light oils (representing 44.5% of the
total number spilled) were the most frequently spilled in New
England waters. Light oils include light crude and light
diesel oils, gasoline, and the distillate fuel oils (jet fuels,
including JP-1 through JP-5; Kerosene; and numbers 1 through 3
-------
heating oils). Light oils were also spilled in notable quan-
tities (40.0% of total volume); however, heavy oils contributed
to over 57% of the total quantity spilled. Heavy oils include
heavy crude and diesel oils, residual fuel oils (numbers 4
through 6), and other residuals (creosote, asphalt, and coal
tar). Waste oil refers to substances such as used crankcase
oil. "Other oils" include substances such as lube oil,
liquefied petroleum gas, hydraulic fluid, lacquer-based paint,
paraffin wax, grease, mixtures of two or more petroleum pro-
ducts, oil-based pesticides, and unidentified light and heavy
oils.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the sources and causes of oil
spills in New England between 1973 and 1975. The source of
most spills could not be identified (unknown sources accounted
for 34.6% of the total number of spills)? however, of those
which could be determined, most involved either a vessel (tanker,
barge, dry cargoship, tugboat, federal vessel, fishing vessel,
passenger vessel, recreational vessel) or a non-transportation
related facility (including tank farms, industrial plants,
power plants, pipelines within non-transportation related
facilities, and processing facilities). Together, all vessels
contributed to nearly 38% of the total number of spills, while
non-transportation related facilities contributed to over 16%.
The largest quantities spilled were attributed to the same
sources.
The cause of most spills also could not be identified, as
unknown causes contributed to approximately 40% of the total
number of spills. The most significant known causes, however,
included personnel and equipment failures, which contributed to
20.0% and 18.6% respectively. Personnel failures include
inadequate soundings, errors leading to tank overflows, and
the improper handling and operation of equipment during cargo
transfers. Equipment failures include leaks or ruptures in
pipelines, hoses, manifolds, and loading arms, and general
operational failures in pumps, flanges, gaskets, and valves.
The greatest volume of oil spilled (27.5% of total) also resulted
from personnel failure. In addition, unknown causes contributed
to 22.3% of the total volume spilled, while casualties contribu-
ted to 20.0%. Casualties refer to collisions, groundings, fires,
explosions, capsizing or overturning, sinking, etc.
-------
SINGLE MAJOR SPILLS
In the following section are described several of the larger,
and with a few exceptions, more thoroughly investigated spills
which have occurred in New England waters. Included for each
spill is a general history of the event, along with a summary of
the ecological and/or socioeconomic impact, if available. Accord-
ingly, the following are documented: Muscongus Bay, Maine spill,
November 25, 1963; Searsport, Maine spill, March-Junef 1971; Casco
Bay, Maine spill, July 22, 1972; Great Bay, New Hampshire spill,
May 11, 1969; West Falmouth, Massachusetts spill, September 16,
1969; New Haven (Long Island Sound), Connecticut spill, January
23, 1971; Niantic Bay (Long Island Sound), Connecticut spill,
March 21, 1972; and several major uninvestigated spills which oc-
curred in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, during the last 25
years.
MUSCONGUS BAY, MAINE OIL SPILL
On November 25, 1963, the Liberian tanker, Northern Gulf, ran
aground on West Cod Ledge, Casco Bay, Maine, and spilled approxi-
mately 5,000 metric tons (approximately 1,540,000 gallons, based
on a density of 0.86 for API reference crude oil) of crude oil.
As a result of weather conditions, much of the oil was carried
northeastward and accumulated in the Friendship-Bristol-Bremen
area of Muscongus Bay. Damages as a result of the spill included
immediate and continuous kill of soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria),
and contamination of lobsters held in tidal storage impoundments.
Damages to the clam and lobster fisheries were dramatic, amounting
to the loss of 60 to 209 and 15.2 metric tons, respectively.
Chemical analyses of sediments revealed persistence of weathered
fractions of the crude oil at concentrations greater than 4,000
ppm, even 11 years after the original event. "
The above information was reported by Mayo, et al. (1974) and
Dow (1975) . Effects on other organisms or communvties" of organ-
isms, or pollution of subtidal areas, were not investigated.
SEARSPORT, MAINE OIL SPILL
Between March 16 and June, 30, 1971, a minimum or 14 metric
tons (approximately 4,300 gallons, based on a density of 0.86
for API reference No. 2 fuel oil) of No. 2 fuel oil mixed with
JP-5 jet fuel spilled from the U.S. Air Force storage facility on
6
-------
Long Cove, Searsport, Maine. Although at first the Coast Guard
estimated that possibly no more than a barrel and a half entered
the water, much of Long Cove and adjacent portions of Sears
Island slowly became contaminated as a result of the spill.
Follow-up ecological, chemical and histopathological investiga-
tions of the affected areas were conducted by a team of scien-
tists from the Maine Department of Marine Resources, Bowdoin Col-
lege, and the Environmental Protection Agency (Dow, et al_., 1975),
Acute toxicity of the spilled oil resulted in immediate and con-
tinuous mortality of soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria). Dow
reported that of the estimated total of 50 million market-size
clams occupying Long Cove and western Sears Island before the
spill, 13% were killed by March 30, 1971; 25% by July 31, 1971;
55% by August, 1972; and 86% by August, 1974. The histopathologi-
cal studies conducted by Barry and Yevich (in Dow, et al., 1975)
revealed a high incidence of cancerous gonadal tumoursTn clams
contaminated by the oil. Examination of some of the clams re-
vealed that the tumour cells had invaded the entire bodies. The
area of highest oil concentration (150 ppm in sediments) was
correlated with the highest percentage of tumours found in the
clams (10% of sample).
Only effects on clams were investigated.
CASCO BAY, MAINE OIL SPILL
On July 22, 1972, the Norwegian tanker, Tamano, ran aground
in Hussey Sound, an entrance channel into Casco Bay, Maine, and
spilled approximately 100,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil. It was
estimated that approximately 30,000 gallons escaped cleanup
attempts and contaminated 70% of the bay's shorelines, particu-
larly the islands in the immediate vicinity. These facts to-
gether with the ecological effects were reported by The Research
Corporation of New England under contract with the Environmental
Protection Agency (TRC, 1975) , and were further documented by
Eidam, et al. (1975). Additional studies were performed by
Gilfillan" and Hanson (1974).
Intertidal mud flats were the most seriously affected areas.
Here, oil accumulated in sediments as well as in the tissues of
the abundant, soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria). Here, also,
population densities and diversity within the bottom invertebrate
community were lowered, and losses of polychaetes and bivalves
were particularly notable. In one case, there was almost a com-
plete loss of organisms, although gradual recovery was observed
thereafter. Rocky intertidal areas were also affected, but to a
lesser degree. Within these latter areas, large amounts of
seaweed, barnacles, and amphipods were killed; and periwinkles
were observed upside down in tidal pools. Chemical analyses
revealed the incorporation of oil into the tissues of surviving
rocky intertidal species. Subtidal bottom areas were apparently
affected the least, since species diversity and population
-------
densities were not severely altered. Chemical evaluation of
these areas, however, revealed the ability of oil to pollute
deeper, previously uncontaminated areas, and the gradual con-
tamination of lobsters (Hbmarus americanus). Observations of
several of the rookeries within the bay confirmed the death of
waterfowl as a result of the spill.
r
A later phase of the study conducted one year after the
spill revealed some signs of recovery. For example, in the
intertidal areas, where seaweed was previously killed off, new
fronds were beginning to appear; and population densities and
species diversity within the bottom invertebrate communities
were increasing. On the other hand, rocky areas still heavily
oiled were void of animals such as barnacles. Furthermore,
there was no evidence of resettlement of previously oiled,
intertidal mud flats by newly arriving populations of shellfish.
The effectiveness of various cleanup procedures were also
discussed in the reports.
In addition, the TRC report (1975) documented several
other uninvestigated spills (that were reported to the Natural
Resources Council of Maine) occurring along Maine's coastline.
They were as follows:
1. August 9, 1969. Approximately 2,100 to 8,400
gallons of No. 6 fuel oil spilled from a tanker in
Portland Harbor, and accumulated to some extent
along the shore of Little Diamond Island, Casco Bay-
2. December 1, 1953. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000
gallons of gasoline spilled from a tanker which ran
aground between Orr's and Bailey Island, Casco Bay.
3. April 24, 1964. Minimum of 4,200 gallons of "oil"
spilled from a ship at Birch Point, Wiscasset.
4. October, 1953. "Oil" spilled from a boat at Castine,
Penobscot Bay, and polluted nearby clam flats. An
estimated 3,690 bushels of clams were lost as a result,
GREAT BAY, NEW HAMPSHIRE SPILL
On May 11, 1969, a vessel collided with the Kittery bridge
in the Piscatagua River, Great Bay, New Hampshire, and spilled
approximately 200,000 gallons of fuel oil. Oil accumulated in
intertidal areas on the north shore of Little Bay, and in Fox
Point Cove. This information together with a description of the
ecological impact one month after the spill was documented by
Croker (1969) .
-------
Most of the ecological damage occurred at the high tide
marks on beaches where oil washed ashore, and included the
immediate death of Spartina marsh grass and several species of
molluscs, crustaceans, and polychaetes. Amphipod crustaceans
of the genera Gammarus and Marinogammarus were particularly
vulnerable. In addition, local fishermen confirmed the tainting
of striped bass (Roccus saxatilis) .
Yet, disregarding the above effects, one month after the
spill conditions appeared normal. There was evidence of fresh
growth of marsh grass. Macroalgae at all locations appeared
normal. Several invertebrate species (11), including even
Gammarus, were observed in various stages of reproduction. Fur-
thermore, there was no evidence of reduction in species diversity
of bottom communities within the spill areas. Croker claimed that
the species which suffered mortality were still sufficiently
abundant to restore their numbers to "normal" pre-spill levels.
Long-term ecological effects or pollution of subtidal areas
were not investigated.
WEST FALMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS SPILL
On September 16, 1969, the barge,Florida, ran aground off
Fassett's Point, West Falmouth, in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
The rupture in her hull allowed approximately 600 metric tons
(650,000 to 700,000 liters = 172,600 to 184,800 gallons also
documented) of No. 2 fuel oil to spill into West Falmouth Harbor
and the adjacent waters of Wild Harbor and Silver Beach Harbor.
Because of the nearness to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-
tion and the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, the
immediate as well as long-term ecological damages from the spill
were well studied (Hampson and Sanders, 1969; Blumer, 1970;
Blumer, Souza, and Sass, 1970; Blumer, et a_l. , 1970; Blumer, et
al., 1971; Blumer and Sass, 1972a and b; Sanders, et al., 1972;
Sanders, 1974; Grassle and Grassle, 1974; Michael, et a_l. , 1975).
Massive kills of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and polychaetes
were reported immediately after the spill from intertidal to
subtidal (3 meters) areas (Hampson and Sanders, 1969). Dead
benthic invertebrates (crustaceans, snails, and clams) were also
observed in bottom samples collected offshore in 7-10 meters of
water. As a result of the massive mortalities of benthic
organisms, numbers of species as well as individuals were lowered
notably in impacted areas (Sanders, et aj^. , 1972).
Chemical analyses of samples collected several months to
two years after the spill revealed that the oil was persistent
and that it had spread out across the bottom to even deeper
areas that were previously uncontaminated. For example, the
-------
concentration of oil in sediments increased over several months
from 500 ppm to 12,000 ppm (dry weight) in a subtidal area in
Silver Beach Harbor (Blumer and Sass, 1972b). However, two
years after the spill the concentration of oil in the sediments
at Silver Beach had gradually decreased to about 1,000 ppm. The
concentration of oil in the sediments in the marshes of Wild
Harbor River increased from about 500 ppm at first to 1,650 ppm
several months later, and then decreased to about 250 ppm two
years later.
There was also evidence of the oil retaining its toxicity
throughout subsequent years. For example, ampeliscid crus-
taceans were particularly affected by the oil's long-term
toxicity (Sanders, et a^. , 1972). Other long-term effects
included the persistence of petroleum hydrocarbons in animal
tissues (Blumer, e_t al. , 1971; Blumer, Souza, Sass, 1970), and
the invasion of oil-devastated areas by pollution-resistant
species, such as the polychaete, Capitella capitata (Blumer,
Dap:
Til
et al. , 1971; Grassle and Grassle, 1974).
Michael's (1975) investigation, five years after the spill,
revealed signs of recovery; however, weathered hydrocarbons
still persisted, and numbers of benthic species were still sig-
nificantly low at both offshore and marsh stations. Some
stations were still characterized by the presence of opportunis-
tic species.
In addition to the ecological damages, there was also
considerable economic losses. For example, commercial shell-
fishing of oysters, soft-shell clams, quahaugs, and scallops
was prohibited in the affected areas. The total cost, including
loss of the fisheries, legal expenses, loss of oil sales, and
cleanup expenses amounted to almost half a million dollars
(Blumer, e_t a^. , 1971).
In summary, the investigators demonstrated that the spill
was responsible for immediate mortality of a wide range of
organisms from intertidal to offshore areas, chronic pollution,
persistence of oil in sediments and organisms, spread of pollu-
tion with the moving sediments to previously uncontaminated
areas, destruction of fishery resources, and additional monetary
losses.
NEW HAVEN, LONG ISLAND SOUND SPILL
On January 23, 1971, the tanker, Gettysburg, ran aground
near the entrance to New Haven Harbor, Long Island Sound, and
spilled approximately 387,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil into
the shipping channel. Prevailing winds drove the oil onto
shores eastward of the harbor, as far as the Guilford area.
10
-------
Chemical analyses of sediments and animals (oyster, Crassostrea
virginica; and white slipper shell, Crepidula plana) collected
up to three months after the spill revealed contamination by
hydrocarbons typical of the type of oil spilled (Raytheon Co.,
1971) .
Long-term ecological effects or effects on entire communi-
ties were not investigated.
NIANTIC BAY, LONG ISLAND SOUND SPILL
On March 21, 1972, the tanker, F. L. Hayes, ran aground on
Bartlett Reef in Long Island Sound, and spilled approximately
80,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil into surrounding waters of
Niantic Bay. A study of the spill was conducted by Vast Inc.,
under contract to the Environmental Protection Agency (1973).
Most of the short-term (three months after spill) ecological
damages were observed in a subtidal area in the middle of the
bay, and included the disappearance of normally occurring
amphipods. Hermit crabs of the genus, Pagurus, were also
sensitive to the oil and were found to concentrate it in their
tissues. Unlike inshore stations, the mid-bay station was the
only area where oil was found in sediments in significant
quantities. Apparently, the weathering action of a storm which
occurred during the time of the spill spared the bay from
serious contamination.
Long-term ecological effects of the spill were not
investigated.
NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND OIL SPILLS
Although not thoroughly investigated, or documented in
the literature, several oil spills of relatively major sizes
have occurred in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, over the
past twenty-five years. Information describing such spills on
a superficial level, however, has been made available to the
author through local reports, records, and communications with
state and federal personnel employed in the vicinity. An
emphasis on the coverage of these spills does not necessarily
imply that oil spills in the Narragansett Bay occur more
frequently or are more voluminous than in other coastal New
England ports. In fact, Portland, Boston, and New Haven each
handle a great deal more petroleum and petroleum products than
do all ports together in the Narragansett Bay (MIT, 1973).
Instead, a fuller coverage of Narragansett Bay spills is a
result of the author's direct access to detailed spill informa-
tion for this area. Accordingly, oil spills in Narragansett Bay
are included hereinbelow.
11
-------
Fort Wetherill, Jamestown
Weathered oil may be observed to date in underlying sediments
of the westernmost cove at Fort Wetherill, Jamestown, at the
mouth of the Narragansett Bay. Although no formal proof exists,
some believe that the most probable source of this oil was from
a spill which occurred on September 6, 1960, when the tanker,
Thirtle ran aground in the immediate vicinity and spilled approx-
imately 420,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil. The spill itself was
extensive, covering shores from the mouth of the bay southward to
at least the Watch Hill area.
An earlier spill of No. 6 fuel oil was also noted in the
same area back on August 7, 1953. The source or quantity
spilled was not positively identified.
Spills Near North Tiverton, Mount Hope Bay
Farrington and Quinn (1973) received the following informa-
tion from the Rhode Island Department of Health concerning
spills in the North Tiverton area, in the upper part of Narra-
gansett Bay: January 8, 1969, 155 metric tons (approximately
48,000 gallons, based on a density of 0.86 for API reference No.
2 fuel oil) of No. 2 fuel oil spilled; January 8 and March 4,
1970, 22 metric tons (approximately 5,800 gallons, based on a
density of 1.0 for API reference No. 6 fuel oil ) of No. 6 fuel
oil spilled.
The North Tiverton area is the site of oil storage facili-
ties and is subjected to discharges associated with tanker off-
loading activities.
Popasquash Point Spill
On April 9, 1973, the Liberian tanker Pennant ran aground
on a boulder off Popasquash Point, in the upper part of Narra-
gansett Bay, and spilled approximately 250,000 gallons of No. 6
fuel oilc Areas polluted ranged from Bristol Point at the mouth
of Mount Hope Bay to Sabin Point on the Providence River. Clean-
up of visible "clumps" of oil was effective, however conoern
over ecological damages from unrecovered fractions was expressed
among scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency and the
University of Rhode Island, Narragansett. Subsequent sampling
for ongoing baseline studies in the area revealed some abnormali-
ties, such as the presence of oil droplets in plankton tows,
including small droplets adhered to the appendages of the copepod,
Temora longicarnis (H. P. Jeffries, University of Rhode Island,
personal communications).
Chronic Pollution in Narragansett Bay
Chronic oil pollution in Narragansett Bay has been recog-
nized, particularly in the upper parts of the bay, around the
12
-------
mouths of the Providence River and Mount Hope Bay- Chronic
inputs are contributed as a result of ship traffic including
pleasure craft, small spills associated with off-loading tankers
at the oil storage points, and sewage treatment effluents
(Farrington, 1971). Farrington and Quinn (1973a) estimated
that the Field's Point and East Providence sewage treatment
plants, both located along the Providence River, discharge from
130 to 655 metric tons/yr and 4.9 metric tons/yr of petroleum
hydrocarbons, respectively. Assuming a density of 0.90 for the
types of materials involved (from Farrington, 1971), then it
can be estimated that between 39,700 and 194,000 gallons of oil
per year enter the bay from these sources alone. Inputs from
such sources are often unreported since the oil does not
instantaneously contaminate the body of water by forming a
noticeable sheen, but gradually accumulates on the bottom through
time via oil-laden sediment or particulate matter. Concentrations
of petroleum hydrocarbons in the sediments may range from 820-
3,560 ppm (dry weight) in areas around sewage treatment outflows
(Farrington and Quinn, 1973b).
13
-------
DISCUSSION
Major spills and localized repeated discharges continue
to contribute substantial quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons
to New England waters. Levels harmful to marine organisms have
been found in some areas, particularly coastal areas subjected
to the larger vessel spills, to oily sewage and industrial
treatment effluents, or to contamination resulting from activi-
ties near storage facilities. For example, oil has been
observed in the sediments at levels as high as 12,000 ppm (dry
weight) after the West Falmouth spill, and up to 3,560 ppm in
areas including the upper part of Narragansett Bay, R.I., which
are subjected to chronic oil stress. At an oil-in-sediment
concentration of approximately 500 ppm, which was observed
immediately after the West Falmouth spill, a wide range of
organisms were killed.
The ecologically harmful effects from spilled oil most
often result from either its chemical toxicity or from the
effects of physical coating, entanglement, and smothering.
Damages have included the endangering of seabird species,
immediate and continuous mortality of fish and invertebrate
species, sublethal behavioral changes of certain species, modi-
fication of intertidal to subtidal benthic communities, and
contamination of commercially important species of fish and
shellfish. The latter category has involved the tainting of
meats, as well as the contamination of certain palatable
species with compounds that are potentially carcinogenic to man.
Incidence of cancer has been evidenced among clams sampled from
oil spill sites. Aesthetic infringements have resulted from
the oiling and tarring of beaches, as well as the loss of living
resources.
•
Spillage of oil in New England waters creates a coastal
management problem. These biologically productive coastal areas
receive the greatest percentage of oil spilled, both by number
and volume, and as revealed herein, often experience consider-
able losses of living resources as a result. Those charged with
management responsibilities then should decide how to effectively
reduce petroleum inputs, especially if nearshore petroleum-
related activities should increase as a result of future oil
development.
Van Cleave (1973) has estimated that spill cleanup opera-
tions are typically 20% efficient, and further reasons that the
best solution to reducing inputs is the implementation of
14
-------
effective spill prevention. Recent proposals and recommenda-
tions may provide useful guidelines for preventing discharges
of oil into New England waters (as well as other bodies of
water). For example, Van Cleave discusses how the Environmental
Protection Agency has developed the Spill Prevention control
and Countermeasure (SPCC) concept, which is a spill prevention
program designed for non-transportation related facilities. The
SPCC concept proposes stiffer penalties for violation of
regulations, and encourages the development of effective con-
tingency planning and response prior to the spillage. Van
Cleave claims an 80% reduction in petroleum inputs from
non-transportation related activities through implementation of
the SPCC.
A more general approach to spill prevention was recom-
mended by the National Academy of Sciences during a recent
workshop on the fate and effects of petroleum in the marine
environment (NAS, 1975). The recommendations called for improve-
ments in the control of tanker and shipping operations, municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment processes, and petroleum
hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles and other internal com-
bustion engines. The successful implementation of such recom-
mendations should significantly reduce chronic inputs as well
as inputs from larger, single spills.
The best available prevention technology will not eliminate
all spills. So, the next best management tactic is the imple-
mentation of appropriate cleanup measures. The nature of the
spill and the environmental conditions must be investigated
first, however, to assure that the most effective and least
harmful cleanup practice is employed. Various cleanup tech-
niques and relevant training programs are reviewed in the
proceedings of several recent symposia (API and FWPCA, 1969;
API, 1970; API, EPA, USCG, 1973; NBS, 1974; API, EPA, USCG,
1975).
In addition, follow-up field investigations of the more
major spills should be conducted to assess their fate and
impact, while controlled laboratory and field studies should be
performed to help elucidate such fate and effects and to aid in
determining ultimately what levels of petroleum hydrocarbons
are "safe" for aquatic organisms and/or man. When performing
these investigations standardized biological and chemical
techniques should be encouraged in order to develop a more
reliable and accurate data base. Studies concerning the fate
of spilled oil should be directed at defining the mechanisms
which determine the "mass balance" of a particular oil spill.
In other words, for a given spill with its unique conditions,
how much of the oil evaporates into the atmosphere, how much
accumulates at the air-water interface, how much dissolves or
disperses into the water column, and how much accumulates in
the sediment? As pointed out in the National Academy of Science
15
-------
report (NAS, 1975), such an understanding would be invaluable in
terms of defining which cleanup method should be employed, which
ecological compartments would be most vulnerable for a particu-
lar spill, and which precautionary and/or corrective measures
should be taken to minimize the ecological impact of the spill.
Ecological studies should emphasize effects on entire communities,
subtidal as well as intertidal; effects on significant and/or
sensitive components thereof (e.g., community dominants; com-
mercially or ecologically important species; or sensitive species
such as the amphipod crustaceans revealed herein); assessment of
long-term effects; and the identification of levels of oil in
sediments, organisms, and the water column. In addition, base-
line studies are extremely useful as yardsticks for monitoring
ecological changes that may accompany offshore oil development
or nearshore petroleum-related activities. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is now engaged in sponsoring baseline studies
for those Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas (e.g., Georges
Bank) that are under consideration for petroleum development.
So far, studies have revealed that oil-polluted areas
within New England experience at least interim losses of living
resources. However, as the National Academy of Sciences asked
during their recent workshop (NAS, 1975), "At what level of
petroleum hydrocarbon input . . . might we find irreversible
damage occurring?" The final recommendation to coastal managers
and other decision makers, then, is to provide incentives for
research directed at answering this question of utmost concern.
16
-------
ADDENDUM
The author has attempted to provide in this report a
comprehensive review of oil pollution incidents in and around
New England waters. However, even during the final editing of
the manuscript, New England experienced a rash of publicly
recognized incidents involving the discharge of oil, or vessels
that carry oil. So, in an effort to generate a review that is
as comprehensive as possible, the manuscript is hereinbelow
supplemented with accounts of these rather recent incidents.
On November 10, 1976, approximately 1,500 gallons of No. 6
fuel oil spilled from a storage tank at Quonset Pt., Rhode
Island, and leaked through a storm drain into the Narragansett
Bay. Much of the oil was driven southeastward and contaminated
approximately one mile of shoreline in the Sand Point area of
Jamestown Island. One day later, approximately 1,300 gallons of
No. 6 fuel oil leaked from a ruptured storage tank at the Ban
Realty Company, Barrington,Rhode Island, and contaminated
neighboring sections of a marsh in Allen's Cove. On December
15, the Liberian tanker, Argo Merchant, ran aground 27 miles
Southeast of Nantucket and discharged 7.6 million gallons of
No. 6 fuel oil into prime fishing grounds. On December 22,
approximately 2,500 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil leaked from a
fractured underground pipeline at the Narragansett Electric
Company, Providence, Rhode Island, and contaminated waters in
the vicinity of the Fox Point hurricane barrier. On December
30, the Panamanian tanker, Grand Zenith, which was carrying a
cargo of 8.2 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil and a crew of 38,
disappeared 50 miles off Cape Sable, Nova Scotia. On January
10, 1977, a smaller tanker, the Chester A. Poling, broke apart
in a storm 8 miles off Gloucester, Mass. Although the vessel
was not carrying a cargo of oil at the time, the incident caused
the death of one of the crew members. Lastly, on January 28,
1977, the barge, Frederick E. Bouchard No. 65, ran aground on
rocky shoals in an ice-covered section of Buzzards Bay, Mass.,
near Cleveland Ledge Light, and spilled approximately 100,000
gallons of No. 2 heating oil.
At this time, the long-term socioeconomic and/or environmental
effects of the incidents are unknown. A few of the incidents,
however, particularly the Argo Merchant and Buzzards Bay spills,
will undoubtedly be fully investigated and well documented in
the not too distant future.
17
-------
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1970. Proceedings of the
industry-government seminar on oil spill treating agents,
April 8-9, 1970, Washington, D.C. 168 p.
American Petroleum Institute (API), Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and United States Coast Guard (USCG). 1973.
Proceedings of joint conference on prevention and control
of oil spills, March 13-15, 1973, Wash., D.C. 834 p.
American Petroleum Institute (API), Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and United States Coast Guard (USCG). 1975.
Proceedings of conference on prevention and control of oil
pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, California.
612 p.
American Petroleum Institute (API) and Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration (FWPCA). 1969. Proceedings of
joint conference on prevention and control of oil spills,
Dec. 15-17, 1969, New York, N.Y. 345 p.
Blumer, M. 1970. (Oil spill off Cape Cod in September 1969.)
Testimony of Max Blumer before the Antitrust and Monopoly
subcommittee, United States Senate, Aug. 4-6, 1970.
13 p. Wash., D.C.
Blumer, M., H. L. Sanders, J. F. Grassle, and G. R. Hampson.
1971. A small oil spill. Environment. 13(2):1-12.
Blumer, M. and J. Sass. 1972a. The West Falmouth oil spill.
Data available in November, 1971. Part II. Chemistry-
WHOI-72-19.
Blumer, M. and J. Sass. 1972b. Oil pollution: persistence
and degradation of spilled fuel oil. Science. 176:1120-
1122.
Blumer, M., J. Sass., G. Souza, H. Sanders, F. Grassle, and
G. Hampson. 1970. The West Falmouth oil spill. WHOI-
70-44. 53 p.
Blumer, M., G. Souza, and J. Sass. 1970.
of edible shellfish by an oil spill.
Hydrocarbon pollution
Mar. Biol. 5:195-202.
18
-------
Boesch, D. F., C. H. Hershner, and J. H. Milgram. 1974. Oil
spills and the marine environment: [A report to the Energy
Policy Project of the Ford Foundation] XV. Ballinger Pub.
Company. Cambridge, Mass. 114 p.
Croker, R. A. 1969. Post oil-spill intertidal survey. Great Bay,
"N. H. A report to the executive committee of the Jackson
Estuarine Laboratory. Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham, N. H.
18 p.
Dow, R. L. 1975. Reduced growth and survival of clams trans-
planted to an oil spill site. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 6:124-125.
Dow, R. L., J. W. Hurst, D. W. Mayo, C. G. Cogger, D. J. Donovan,
R. A. Gambardella, L. C. Jiang, J. Quan, M. Barry, and P- P-
Yevich. 1975. The ecological, chemical and histopathologi-
cal evaluation of an oil spill site. Three parts. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 6:164-173.
Eidam, C. L. , E. V- Fitzpatrick, and J. F. Conlon. 1975. The
Casco Bay oil spill: problems of cleanup and disposal.
Proceedings of conference on prevention and control of oil
pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, California.
API, EPA, USCG. p. 217-221.
Farrington, J. 1971. Benthic lipids of Narragansett Bay--Fatty
acids and hydrocarbons. 157 p. URI Ph.D. Thesis.
Farrington, J. W. and J. G. Quinn. 1973a. Petroleum hydrocarbons
and fatty acids in wastewater effluents. J. Water Poll.
Control Fed. 45 (4) :704-712.
Farrington, J. W. and J. G. Quinn. 1973b. Petroleum hydrocarbons
in Narragansett Bay. I. Survey of hydrocarbons in sediments
and clams. Est. and Coastal Mar. Sci. 1:71-79.
Gilfillan, E. S. and S. Hanson. 1974. Final report on the inves-
tigation of the effects of the Tamano oil spill on the Fauna
of Casco Bay, Maine. The Cape Ann Society for Marine Science,
Inc., Gloucester, Mass.
Grassle, J. F. and J. P. Grassle. 1974. Opportunistic life
histories and genetic systems in marine benthic polychaetes.
J. Mar. Res. 32 (2) : 253-284.
Hampson, G. R. and H. L. Sanders. 1969. Local oil spill. Oceanus.
25:8-10.
Hyland, J. L. and E. D. Schneider. 1976. Petroleum hydrocarbons
and their effects on marine organisms, populations, com-
munities, and ecosystems. Proceedings of symposium on
sources, effects, and sinks of hydrocarbons in the aquatic
environment, August 9-11, 1976, Washington, D. C. American
Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)„ p. 463-506.
19
-------
Leotta, J. and W. A. Wallace. 1975. The U.S. Coast Guard's
Pollution Incident Reporting System: its use in program
management. Proceedings of conference on prevention and
control of oil pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco,
California. API, EPA, USCG, p. 201-204.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT Offshore Task Group).
1973. Georges Bank petroleum study. Vol. II. Impact
on New England environmental quality of hypothetical
regional petroleum developments.
Mayo, D. W., D. J. Donovan and L. Jiang. 1974. Long term
weathering characteristics of Iranian crude oil: the
wreck of the Northern Gulf. Proceedings of the Marine
Pollution Monitoring (Petroleum) Symposium, May 13-17, 1974,
Gaithersburg, Md. IOC-UNESCO, WMO, NBS. p. 201-208.
Michael, A. D., C. R. Van Raalte, and L. S. Brown. 1975.
Long-term effects of an oil spill at West Falmouth, Massa-
chusetts. Proceedings of conference on prevention and
control of oil pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco,
California. API, EPA, USCG. p. 573-582.
Moore, S. F., R. L. Dwyer, and A. M. Katz. 1973. A preliminary
assessment of the environmental vulnerability of Machias
Bay, Maine to oil supertankers. MIT. Cambridge, Mass.
No. MITSG-73-6. 162 p.
National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Petroleum in the marine
environment. Summary of workshop on inputs, fates, and
effects of petroleum in the marine environment, May 21-25,
1973. Airlie, Virginia. 107 p.
National Bureau of Standards (NBS). 1974. Proceedings of
marine pollution monitoring (petroleum) symposium, May 13-
17, 1974. Gaithersburg, Maryland. 316 p.
Nelson-Smith, A. 1973. Oil pollution and marine ecology.
Plenum Press, N.Y. 260 p.
Petroleum Publishing Company. 1976.. Worldwide directory.
Refining and gas processing.
Raytheon Company, 1971. New Haven-Long Island Sound. Oil
spill impact study for EPA. EPA-1P0110410. Environmental
Systems Center, Portsmouth, R. I. 63 p.
Sanders, H. L. ' 1974. The West Falmouth oil spill saga. New
Engr. 7 p„
Sanders, H. L., J. F. Grassle, and G. R. Hampson. 1972. The
West Falmouth oil spill. Part I. Biology. WHOI-72-20.
20
-------
TRC-The Research Corporation of New England. 1975. Tamano oil
spill in Casco Bay: environmental effects and cleanup
operations. EPA 430/9-75-018. 49 p.
U.S. Coast Guard. 1973, 1974, 1975 (Separate reports). Pollut-
ing incidents in and around U.S. waters. Report to
Commandant (G-WEP), Washington, B.C.
U.. S. Coast Guard. 1976. Pollution incident reporting system.
Coding instruction manual. CG-450. 72 p.
Van Cleave, H. D. 1973. Spill prevention—Phase II. Proceed-
ings of joint conference on prevention and control of oil
spills, March 13-15, 1973, Washington, B.C. p. 27-30.
Vast, Inc. 1973. Oil spill, Long Island Sound, March 21,
1972. Environmental effects. EPA-OHM-73-06-001. EPA-68-
01-0044. 136 p.
21
-------
CAVEAT
Slight, insignificant errors occasionally exist among the
data filed in the PIRS computer, and are attributable to impro-
per coding when specifying parameters at the time the data were
entered. Certain of these errors are carried over to the tables
presented herein, since often it is impossible to trace their
exact source. As a result, in Tables 3-6 minor inconsistencies
are observed if one should compare column totals (represent .ng
total number or volume of spills for a given size category) in
one table with corresponding column totals in remaining tables.
Such errors do not affect the interpretation of the data.
However, in order to document the total number and quantity of
spills within each size category (Table 2), consistent values
are necessary. Accordingly, the values appearing in Table 2
for a given size category were determined by averaging the sums
of values appearing in corresponding columns from each of
Tables 3-6.
22
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER AND QUANTITY OF OH. SPILLED PER ANNUM, 1973-1975
Number spills Quantity spilled (Gallons)
1973 560 > 490,862
1974 497 > 248,451
1975 467 > 282,789
TOTAL 1,524 > 1,022,102
23
-------
TABLE 2. NUMBER AND QUANTITY OF SPILLS WITHIN EACH SIZE CATEGORY
(1973, 1974, 1975)
1
Size category
0-
10-
50-
100-
500-
1K-
2.5K-
5K-
10K-
50K-
100K-1
Over 1
9 (Gal)
49
99
499
999
2.5K
5K
10K
50K
100K
OOOK
Mil
Unknown Amt
TOTAL
Number
442
381
116
162
47
36
16
16
9
3
3
None
293
1,524
% Total
29
25
7
10
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
.0
.0
.6
.6
.1
.4
.1
.1
,6
.2
.2
Quantity
1
7
6
32
29
53
55
107
159
200
369
r301
,273
,577
,070
,670
,049
,386
,276
,950
,000
,550
% Total
0
0
0
3
2
5
5
10
15
19
36
.1
.7
.6
.1
.9
.2
.4
.5
.7
.6
.2
None -
19
.2
-
> 1,022
?
,102
-
_
24
-------
TABLE 3. SIZE SPILL (GALLONS) VERSUS LOCATION (1973, 1974, 1975)
0-9 10-49 50-99 100-999 500-999 1K-2.5K 2.5K-5K 5K-10K 1DK-50K
Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal
Inland Waters
No. of spills 114 78 20 30 7 4 3 5 1
Quantity 329 1,517 1,190 5,490 4,600 5,800 11,700 43,816 41,950
Coastal Waters
No. of spills 307 288 91 128 39 29 13 11 7
Quantity 910 5,480 5,116 25,955 24,570 44,124 44,686 65,710 103,000
Open Waters
No, of spills 131 1
Quantity 1 35 50 15,000
Contiguous Zone
No. of spills
Quantity
High Seas
No. of spills 19 11 5 3 1 2
Quantity 65 210 250 400 500 2,500
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
NJ
Inland Waters
No. of spills
Quantity
Coastal Waters
No. of spills
Quantity
Open Waters
No. of spills
Quantity
Contiguous Zone
No. of spills
Quantity
High Seas
No. of spills
Quantity
50K-100K 100K-1000K Over 1 Mil Unknown Row
Gal Gal Gal Amt . Totals
1 21 284
122,000 238,392
3 2 246 1,165
200,000 275,000 794,551
2 8
15,086
1 1
7
23 64
3,925
%
Totals
18.7
22.7
76.5
75.5
.53
1.4
0.07
?
4.2
0.37
-------
TABLE 4. SIZE SPILL (GALLONS) VERSUS MATERIAL SPILLED (1973, 1974, 1975)
0-9 10-49 50-99 100-499 500-999 1K-2.5K 2.5K-5K 5K-10K 10K-50K
Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal
Heavy Oil
No. of spills 58 74 31 66 11 17 88 5
Quantity 195 1,405 1,795 14,695 7,300 24,024 29,186 56,250 100,950
Light Oil
No. of spills 191 175 51 70 21 17 78 4
Quantity 563 3,469 2,954 12,835 12,840 26,000 24,700 53,276 59,000
Waste Oil
No. of spills 59 63 11 11 41
Quantity 190 1,269 577 1,910 2,830 2,300
Other Oil
No. of spills 135 68 24 16 11 2 1
Quantity 352 1,114 1,285 2,755 6,700 2,100 2,500
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
OO
Heavy Oil
No. of spills
Quantity
Light Oil
No. of spills
Quantity
Waste Oil
No. of spills
Quantity
Other Oil
No. of spills
Quantity
50-100K 100-1000K Over 1 Mil Unknown Row
Gal Gal Gal Amt. Totals
31 20 302
200,000 105,000 540,800
2 134 680
182,200 377,837
22 171
9,076
117 374
16,806
%
Totals
19.8
57.3
44.5
40.0
11.2
1.0
24.5
1.8
-------
TABLE 5. SIZE SPILL (GALLONS) VERSUS SOURCE OF SPILL (1973, 1974, 1975)
Dry Cargo Vessels
No. of spills
Quantity
Tank Ships
No. of spills
Quantity
Tank Barges
No. of spills
, Quantity
j
Combatants
No. of spills
Quantity
Other Vessels
No. of spills
Quantity
Land Vehicle
No. of spills
Quantity
Non-Transportation
Facility
No. of spills
Quantity
0-9
Gal
1
1
72
198
13
44
26
82
64
192
11
42
42
132
10-49
Gal
1
10
76
1,487
11
245
23
480
61
1,131
8
170
64
1,232
50-99
Gal
22
1,278
5
295
1
50
14
702
7
400
26
1,455
100-499
Gal
3
426
41
8,312
11
1,820
4
550
12
2,575
8
1,624
49
10,403
500-999
Gal
12
8,130
5
3,640
2
1,300
1
500
2
1,000
13
8,100
1K-2.5K
Gal
1
2,300
9
10,624
1
2,000
1
1,000
4
4,600
3
5,100
12
19,079
2.5K-5K 5K-10K 10K-50K
Gal Gal Gal
312
10,486 5,250 25,000
1
3,000
1
5,860
2 3
8,200 22,600
6 4,5
22,200 27,000 78,000
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
u>
o
0-9 10-49 50-99 100-499 500-999 1K-2.5K 2.5K-5K 5K-10K 10K-50K
Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal
Pipelines
No. of spills
Quantity
Other Land
Transportation
Facility
No. of spills
Quantity
Marine Facility
No. of spills
Quantity
Miscellaneous
Unknown
No. of spills
Quantity
5
14
3
9
26
77
180
509
2
30
11
265
25
420
100
1,827
4
215
9
525
28
1,616
1
100
3
525
5
1,250
25
4,460
1
700
3
1,700
1
600
7
4,000
1
1,500
1
2,221
2
2,500
1
1,500
2
7,000
1
3,000
1
2,500
1
5,000
3
23,816
3
20,000
1
15,000
1
41,950
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
LO
Dry Cargo Vessels
No. of spills
Quantity
Tank Ships
No. of spills
Quantity
Tank Barges
No. of spills
Quantity
Combatants
No. of spills
Quantity
Other Vessels
No. of spills
Quantity
Land Vehicles
No. of spills
Quantity
5 0-10 OK 10 0-1 00 OK Over 1 Mil Unknown Row
Gal Gal Gal Amt. Totals
1 7
2,737
21 24 265
140,000 105,000 315,765
2 48
8,044
4 62
6,462
39 196
15,560
1 2 47
60,000 99,136
%
Totals
0.46
0.26
17.4
30.0
3.2
0.76
4.1
0.61
12.9
1.5
3.1
9.4
Non-Transportation
Facility
No. of spills
Quantity
292,000
(continued)
28 251 16.5
459,601 43.7
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
50-100K
Gal
100-1000K
Gal
Over 1 Mil
Gal
Unknown
Amt.
Row
Totals
Totals
U)
Pipelines
No. of spills
Quantity
Other Land
Transportation
Facility
No. of spills
Quantity
Marine Facility
No. of spills
Quantity
Miscellaneous
Unknown
No. of spills
Quantity
182
10
2,344
34
31,935
78
74,138
.70
.26
2.2
3.0
5.1
7.1
527 34.6
36,412 3.5
-------
TABLE 6. SIZE SPILL (GALLONS) VERSUS CAUSE OF SPILL (1973, 1974, 1975)
u>
Casualty
No. of spills
Quantity
Rupture and Other
Structural
Failures
No. of spills
Quantity
Equipment Failure
No. of spills
Quantity
Personnel Failure
No. of spills
Quantity
Deliberate
No. of spills
Quantity
Natural Disaster
No. of spills
Quantity
Unknown
No. of spills
Quantity
0-9
Gal
4
13
34
105
77
228
92
272
26
85
17
52
192
543
10-49
Gal
7
105
41
933
86
1,623
90
1,812
31
592
4
50
123
2,182
50-99
Gal
1
50
24
1,345
25
1,409
26
1,535
7
370
3
175
30
1,672
100-499
Gal
4
600
30
6,270
44
8,003
47
10,283
7
1,260
3
355
28
5,424
500-999
Gal
1
900
10
5,700
10
6,900
16
10,370
1
600
9
5,200
1K-2.5K 2.5K-5K 5K-10K
Gal Gal Gal
1
1,500
843
12,500 13,200 21,600
11 4 4
17,400 13,986 28,250
752
10,824 18,200 14,816
412
4,500 2,500 10,000
514
6,200 4,500 25,860
10K-50K
Gal
1
15,000
1
15,000
2
24,000
4
95,950
1
10,000
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6. (continued)
U)
50-100K
Gal
Casualty
No. of spills 1
Quantity 85,000
Rupture and other
Structural
Failures
No. of spills 1
Quantity 55,000
Equipment Failure
No. of spills
Quantity
Personnel Failure
No. of spills
Quantity
Deliberate
No. of spills 1
Quantity 60,000
Natural Disaster
No. of spills
Quantity
Unknown
No. of spills
Quantity
100-1000K Over 1 Mil Unknown Row
Gal Gal Amt. Totals
1 5 26
105,000 208,168
11 167
131,653
21 284
101,799
1 15 305
122,000 286,062
19 99
79,907
11 38
632
1 211 605
170,000 231,581
%
Total
1.7
20.0
11.0
12.7
18.6
9.8
20.0
27.5
6.5
7.7
2.5
.06
39.7
22.3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-77-064
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A REVIEW OF OIL POLLUTING INCIDENTS IN AND AROUND
NEW ENGLAND
5. REPORT DATE
June 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jeffrey L. Hyland
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory—Narragansett, R.I,
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA608
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Same as above
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
In-house
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/05
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The following report offers a comprehensive review of oil pollution incidents
in and around New England waters. The first section of the report presents an
analysis of all oil discharge data maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard for years
1973 through 1975. The data are analyzed categorically to reveal where most spills
occur in New England waters, where the greatest quantities are spilled, what types
of oil are most frequently spilled, what types are spilled in the greatest quantities
(in gallons), what the most significant sources and causes of spills are, and within
which size range (in gallons) most spills occur. The second section offers synopses
of the more publicly recognized spills which have occurred within the last twenty-
five years. The management of oil discharges and areas in which additional research
is required are discussed in a concluding section.
Work for this report was completed as of February 14, 1977.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
WQter pollution
Pollution
Toxicity
Research management
Environmental surveys
Hydrocarbons
Oils
Data retrieval
Oil recovery
Petroleum industry
Aquatic animals
Underwater environ-
ments
New England oil spills
Oil spill review
PIRS
Oil toxicity data
Resource management
Environmental impact
6F
6T
8A
11H
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS {This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
41
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
35
-t- U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977— 241-037 /62
------- |