United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA 540-N-00-002
OSWER 9360.8-24
October 2000
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Program Center 5203G
Volume 4 Number 1
Contents
June 2000 New Facility Response
Plan Requirements for
Animal Fat/Vegetable Oil
Facilities in 40 CFR 112 1
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils 2
EPA Region 3 - Selection Guide for
Oil Spill Applied Technologies 2
EPA Region 3 - Recent News on
Oil Spill Response and Cleanups .... 3
Westley Tire Fire, Stanislaus
County, California 3
Southern Louisiana Oil Pollution
Act (OPA) Activity 5
Underground Pipeline S afety 6
MTBE Phase-out Plan 6
Third Annual National Customer
Service Conference 7
Changes at Olympic Pipeline
Company 8
Island Cove Marina Spill 8
New ERT Courses 9
About The Update
EPA's Oil Spill Program Update is
produced quarterly, using informa-
tion provided by EPA Regional staff,
and in accordance with Regions'
information needs. The goal of the
Update is to provide straight-forward
information to keep EPA Regional
staff, other federal agencies and
departments, industries and busi-
nesses, and the regulated community
current with the latest developments.
The Update is available on the Oil
Program homepage at www.epa.gov/
oilspill.
June 2000 New Facility
Response Plan Require-
ments for Animal Fat/
Vegetable Oil Facilities
in 40 CFR 112
EPA issued a new Facility Re-
sponse Plan (FRP) rule on June
30, 2000. The new rule changes
the requirements for non-transpor-
tation-related facilities that handle,
store, or transport animal fats and
vegetable oils. The new rule
applies to about 63 facilities that
handle, store, or transport mainly
animal fats and vegetable oils and
transfer large volumes of oil over
water or store one million gallons
or more of oil and meet additional
criteria. It is being issued pursuant
to section 311(j) of the Clean
Water Act, as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act. The new rule
complies with the requirements of
the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform
Act (EORRA) to differentiate
between animal fats and vegetable
oils and other classes of oils,
based on properties and effects.
The new rule provides a more
specific methodology for calculat-
ing planning volumes for a worst-
case discharge of animal fats and
vegetable oils. The methodology is
similar to that currently used in the
rule for petroleum oils, but the
factors in two new tables are more
appropriate for estimating on-
water and onshore recovery
resource needs for animal fats and
vegetable oils.
EPA's detailed evaluation of the
properties and effects of animal
fats and vegetable oils shows that
petroleum oils and animal fats and
vegetable oils share common
physical and chemical properties
and produce similar harmful
environmental effects when they
are spilled in the environment. The
new rule includes separate regula-
tory sections for animal fats and
vegetable oils, but keeps require-
ments for the same three response
planning scenarios (small, me-
dium, and worst-case discharge) as
in the original FRP rule. It adds
new definitions for animal fats and
vegetable oils and further differen-
tiates between classes of oils by
establishing new groups of oils
termed Group A, B, and C, based
on the specific gravity of animal
fats and vegetable oils. Because
persistence depends on many
environmental factors, the new
rule removes terms that are related
to persistence as they apply to
-------
animal fats and vegetable oils.
The United States Coast Guard
(USCG) rule for marine transpor-
tation-related facilities was also
issued on June 30, 2000. EPA and
USCG have worked together to
ensure uniformity in their FRP
regulations whenever possible and
appropriate. EPA-regulated
facilities usually have far greater
worst-case discharges (often one
or two orders of magnitude larger
than those at USCG-regulated
facilities), a larger number of oil
transfers, and greater diversity of
structures and processes, which
can lead to oil discharges in many
ways over a range of volumes.
For more information, see
www. epa.gov/oilspill/64fr htm.
Animal Fats and Veg-
etable Oils
The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of
1990 applies to all oils, including
petroleum oils, animal fats,
vegetable oils, and other non-
petroleum oils. Animal fats and
vegetable oils have their own
unique properties and legislation,
as well as share some legislation
and properties with petroleum-
based oils.
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform
Act (EORRA) of 1995 specifically
targets animal fats and vegetable
oils. EORRA requires the heads
of the agency (excluding the Food
and Drug Administration and the
Food Safety and Inspection
Service) to differentiate between
and establish separate classes of
oils, while issuing and enforcing
any regulation or establishing any
interpretation or guideline relating
to the transportation, storage,
discharge, release, emission, or
disposal of a fat, oil, or grease
under any federal law. The
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
separate classes of oils are differ-
entiated by physical, chemical,
biological, other properties, and
environmental effects.
Petroleum oils, animal fats, and
vegetable oils share common
properties and often have similar
effects on the environment.
Animal fats and vegetable oils
may coat organisms, cause suffo-
cation from oxygen depletion,
produce hypothermia, be toxic to
organisms, destroy food supplies,
produce odors, foul shorelines,
wreak havoc on water treatment
plants, and be persistent in the
environment.
OPA requires the owner or opera-
tor of a facility that could reason-
ably be expected to cause substan-
tial harm to the environment; or
owners or operators of certain
facilities to prepare a response
plan. EPA determines which
facilities (based on location) could
reasonably be expected to cause
substantial harm to the environ-
ment by discharging into or on the
navigable water, adjoining shore-
lines, or the exclusive economic
zone and requires them to submit a
Facility Response Plan (FRP).
The FRP rule applies to facilities
that transfer 42,000 gallons of oil
or more over water to a vessel or
have a storage capacity of one
million gallons or more and meet
at least one of the four
criteria: inadequate
secondary containment,
proximity to environmen-
tally sensitive areas,
proximity to public
drinking water intakes, or
oil spill of 10,000 gallons
or more in the last 5
years.
An FRP outlines informa-
tion needed to respond
effectively to a spill of oil dis-
charged to the environment. FRPs
include response to worst-case
discharges, estimates of planned
resources, emergency response
plans, training drills/exercises, and
other elements described in 40
CFR §120.20(h). OPA did not
include different requirements for
animal fats and vegetable oils.
Appropriation language directed
EPA to modify the 1994 FRP rule
to differentiate classes of oils,
including animal fats and veg-
etable oil. EPA's proposed new
FRP rule was published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 1999
(64 FR 17101). After EPA's
comment and response period, the
final rule was published in June
30, 2000 (65 FR 40491). Require-
ments in the new rule are similar
to those for petroleum oils, but
involve a specific new methodol-
ogy more appropriate to the
handling, storage, and transport of
animal fats and vegetable oils
when planning response actions.
EPA Region 3 - Selection
Guide for Oil Spill Ap-
plied Technologies
The Selection Guide for Oil Spill
Applied Technologies is now
available and is useful for both
coastal and inland areas. The
Selection Guide is a compilation
of information and guidance on
IB?- »".--_
' -X Sfc.^,
,-.- a,- « JK.
-------
the use of oil spill response
technologies and actions that may
be helpful to federal or state on-
scene coordinators or local inci-
dent commanders. The Selection
Guide is a two volume document
prepared by the EPA Regional
Response Team (RRT) Spill
Response Countermeasures
Workgroup, in cooperation with
the Region 4 RRT, and the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association Hazardous Materials
Response and Assessment Divi-
sion. Volume I contains the
Decision-Making Selection Guide,
and Volume II deals with Guid-
ance Procedures for Region-
specific spill countermeasure
technologies. The latest Selection
Guide includes updated changes
from the previous versions and is
available in PDF format, which
will allow access through the
Internet. In the near future, the
Selection Guide can be accessed at
the following web addresses:
www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd and
www.uscg.mil/lantarea/rrt, al-
though these versions will not be
interactive. A hard copy is located
in the Region 3 Response Center.
For more information, contact
Linda Ziegler, EPA Region 3, at
(215) 814-3277, or the EPA Oil
Program at (800) 424-9346.
EPA Region 3 -
Recent News
on Oil Spill
Response and
Cleanups
The Weirton Steel
facility in West
Virginia continued to
encounter oil spills
as of August 14,
2000. A Unilateral
Order (UO), issued
by EPA during the
week of August 7, 2000, pursuant
to Section 311 of OPA, was
acknowledged by Weirton Steel
with a notice of intent to comply.
The UO requires the facility to
place booms at discharge areas
and then evaluate its processes and
submit a proposed prevention plan
for future releases.
The Maryland Department of the
Environment and the City of
Salisbury recently praised the
cleanup efforts and the improve-
ment of the shoreline near the
Dale Enterprise site in Salisbury,
Maryland. Along the shoreline of
the Wicomico River and near the
site, EPA installed a new bulkhead
that will contain and capture
leaching oil from the ground due
to years of onsite spills. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers plans to
build an oil/water treatment
system for the site.
Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania
has recently approved $3 million
from the Growing Greener fund to
assist the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) in addressing leaking oil
wells in northwestern Pennsylva-
nia. EPA and the state have been
plugging old oil wells for many
years. EPA On-Scene Coordinator
Vincent Zenone and PADEP's
Meadville Regional Office staff
are working together to identify
the initial list of well sites that will
be addressed.
August 2000 is the fifth month of
EPA clean-up efforts for the
Swanson Creek Oil Spill in Eagle
Harbor, Prince Georges County,
Maryland. The pipeline spill
involved oil contamination in a
marsh in Swanson Creek. EPA
contractors are currently removing
the damaged section of pipeline
for repair.
The Tranguch Gasoline site in
Hazelton, Luzerne County, Penn-
sylvania, concerns a gasoline
plume that began in 1993 and
continues to expand. EPA con-
ducted residential air sampling and
found elevated levels of benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX) in at least two homes.
More sampling is expected in
future months. Public meetings
were scheduled in July and August
2000 to answer questions from
residents and to discuss issues
with affected residents. The pilot
soil vapor extraction recovery
system continues to operate.
Further monitoring well and soil
gas sampling is planned to update
the characterization of the plume.
Westley Tire Fire,
Stanislaus County, Cali-
foi
The Westley Tire Dump site is one
of the largest waste tire dumps in
the United States. By 1987, it was
estimated that a total of 40 million
tires had been disposed of at the
site since it began operations as a
used tire dump in the 1950s. As a
result of a lightning strike on
September 22, 1999, this site also
became one of the largest tire fires
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
-------
in the United States. According to
EPA's On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC), Daniel M. Shane, this fire
demonstrated the reason why tire
fires are so difficult to fight. Tire
fires are multi-category events
containing the elements of a major
fire, hazardous materials release,
and oil spill all rolled into one.
The burning tire dump at Westley
sent a large amount of hazardous
air pollutants, in the form of thick
black smoke, into the air, affecting
local residents. The fire also
caused the release of a large
amount of pyrolytic oil from the
tires at the dump site. Each
passenger tire can release up to 2
gallons of this substance, which
has the consistency and appear-
ance of used automobile crankcase
oil. Initially, local and state
agencies were quickly over-
whelmed by the magnitude and
persistence of the fire. The OSC,
Daniel M. Shane, responded
immediately under the authority of
the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of
1990. EPA's contractors, as well
as the U.S. Coast Guard Pacific
Strike Team, responded. A
special fire fighting group,
Williams Fire and Hazard
Control from Mauriceville,
Texas, was subcontracted
by EPA to suppress the
fire. The fire was extin-
guished in a record 27
days, even though the
group had to work under
extremely hot and unstable
fire conditions, maneuver-
ing heavy equipment on
steep slopes, as well as
deep and spongy tire piles.
As a result of this effort,
over 4 million gallons of
contaminated fire fighting
water was impounded on
site and eventually used in
the cooling water system for the
co-generation power plant next to
the site and operated by the
Modesto Energy Limited Partner-
ship. In addition to this, over
250,000 gallons of oil were
generated through pyrolysis of the
tires. The oil was contained and
recovered from the site. The
pyrolytic oil had a high BTU value
.*-.
-~
-': I %.
2k,
and was acceptable for use as an
alternative fuel source for a
cement manufacturing plant.
Currently, there are a number of
long-term response actions taking
place at the site. These can be
divided into three categories;
remedial construction activities,
waste recycling/disposal, and site
monitoring.
Remedial Construction Activities
A site storm water diversion
system and catchment basins have
been built and are ready for the
expected precipitation from the
coming winter season.
Waste Recycling/Disposal Activities
Essentially all of the remaining
unburned tires onsite have been
shredded and sheared. Approxi-
mately 3,000 tons of passenger
and agricultural tire shreds remain
stored onsite. After successful
negotiation efforts, this material is
being removed to the Altamont
Landfill where it is used as
replacement for gravel in the
landfill's gas collection system.
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
-------
Those tires that were affected by
the fire will be removed from the
site for disposal at the onsite
Forward Landfill.
Site Monitoring Activities
Surface soil and debris and
subsurface samples are being
taken to determine the depth of the
tires, the extent and magnitude of
surface and subsurface contamina-
tion from the residues of the fire
(primarily heavy metals in the ash
and petroleum hydrocarbons).
Groundwater sampling from
constructed wells indicated the
shallow perched aquifer has been
affected by pyrolytic oil contami-
nation.
The California State Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (California
State EPA) is now the lead agency
at the site for long-term response
activities. Response and monitor-
ing activities conducted by EPA
under OPA 1990 were terminated
on August 7, 2000. EPA will
provide technical support under
CERCLA to the California State
EPA, if so requested.
For more information, contact
Daniel M. Shane, EPA Region 9 at
(415) 744-2286.
Southern Louisiana Oil
Pollution Act (OPA)
Activity
This past September 25, 2000,
EPA, the Louisiana Oil Spill
Coordinator's Office of the
Governor (LOSCO), the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources -
Office of Conservation (LDNR-
OC), the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec)
came together in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana for a joint press confer-
ence for the OPA activity in
southern Louisiana. The purpose
of the conference was to discuss
the partnership's effort to begin
environmental cleanup of numer-
ous abandoned oil wells, produc-
tion pits, and tank batteries.
There are several specific sites
that are under consideration for
clean-up actions in southern
Louisiana. The two sites where
actions began in mid-August are
the Edgewood Land and Lumber
Tank Battery #3 site in the Aladdin
Oil Field in Calcasieu Parish and
the Gulf Fee Lease Tank Battery
#1 site, located in the Edgerly Oil
and Gas Field in Calcasieu Parish.
The Edgewood Land & Lumber
Tank Battery #3 site consists of
four above ground storage tanks
(ASTs) and seven pits. During a
June 26, 2000, site inspection, the
ASTs were observed to be slowly
leaking oil into the secondary
containment berm. The seven pits
showed evidence of oil residue
and surface sheens. An emer-
gency response was performed by
EPA on June 27, 2000, to slow
further leaking and to stop the oil
from reaching nearby waters. The
Gulf Fee Lease Tank Battery site
consists of six ASTs that are
surrounded by an earthen berm
secondary containment structure.
After an EPA inspection that
observed the ASTs were actively
leaking oil into the secondary
containment berm, an absorbent
boom was placed across the hole
in the berm as a temporary action.
Uncontrolled runoff from the site
or oil spillage emanating from the
site poses the potential for oil
exposure to surface waters. A
major effect of the presence of oil
in surface water is the retarding
gas exchange between the water
body and the atmosphere. This
often results in fish kills because
of depressed oxygen.
Abandoned oil wells and tank
battery sites also have the potential
to be harmful to human popula-
tions and animals. If these tanks
are judged to be fair to poor and
deteriorating, there is a consider-
able possibility for future dis-
charge of oil. Many of the con-
stituents of oil are directly toxic to
animal and plant life.
Southern Louisiana is prone to a
wide range of unfavorable weather
conditions, including severe
thunderstorms that can release
several inches of rain in an hour,
lightning, wind gusts in excess of
50 miles per hour, hurricanes, and
tropical storms. Any of these
weather conditions can damage or
destroy exposed tanks, which can
damage or destroy exposed tanks
and can lead to the rapid discharge
of oily wastes from the site to the
local environment.
The EPA, LOSCO, LNDNR-OC,
USAGE, and BuREC partnership
is considering two disposal
methods as the clean-up action for
these and other sites. They are
fuel blending and secondary BTU
recovery. These clean-up actions
would include dismantling and
decontaminating the tanks, exca-
vating contaminated soils within
the berms and disposing them
offsite, and restoring the sites to
grade to retard erosion. In accor-
dance with LDNR regulations, the
associated wells will be plugged
and abandoned.
To finance the clean-up activities,
federal funding is available
through the OPA to abandoned oil
sites when surface water is im-
pacted or threatened. This fund-
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
-------
ing, combined with the partnership
of the agencies, will allow for the
continuation of the plan to remove
the oil/water/sludge from the tanks
and pits.
Sulphur, Louisiana is slated as the
site for a command center, opened
by the EPA OPA Program. This
center will allow the public to ask
questions of EPA staff and con-
tractors, and to voice any concerns
about the clean-up activities.
For additional information on the
OPA activities in the Calcasieu/
Southern Louisiana area, or to be
added to the EPA mailing list,
please call 1-800-533-3508.
Underground Pipeline
Safety
Proponents of increased under-
ground pipeline regulation are
focusing on another pipeline
disaster in hopes that it will bring
public pressure and attention to
their cause. This time, the explo-
sion was a natural gas line in New
Mexico that killed 11 people on
August 19, 2000. Supporters of
increased pipeline safety hope that
this will push Congress to vote in
favor of federal reforms in under-
ground pipeline safety. Endorsers
of increased regulations, such as
New Mexico
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
Representative Jay Inslee (D-
Bainbridge) and Senator Patty
Murray (D-Washington), cite
insufficient safety standards,
inadequately trained pipeline
operators, and an uninformed
public as reasons for the pressing
need for increased federal regula-
tion. Inslee proposes creating a
searchable database of comprehen-
sive pipeline information, includ-
ing age and condition of the pipes,
five-year internal inspections,
federal certification for pipeline
operators and drivers transporting
hazardous materials, and higher
fines for violations to at least
match those under the Clean Water
Act. Inslee states, "Our pipeline-
safety legislation is like Swiss
cheese, it's so full of holes." The
goal of proponents of this measure
is to make the industry safer and
more accountable for spills and
accidents.
Attention to the need for increased
federal regulation has been
building in recent years from other
pipeline disasters. The
Bellingham Park explosion on
June 10, 1999, killed three and a
high-pressure pipeline split open
on March 9, 2000, spilling
500,000 gallons of gasoline and
50,000 gallons of the toxic addi-
tive methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) in North
Texas.
Representative Bob Franks
(R-New Jersey) cited that
underground pipelines are no
longer buried in remote
locations, but that instead
"thousands of people live or
work in immediate proximity
j to pipelines." For example,
Kern County, California,
which delivers energy to Los
Angeles, has miles of
mwm^--^.;':^^g^?'~-r:^,-,' r:-::^
|||.-iijPi;:liP i-^ifcjfj^ij?' JS' ^ _;- -..H"'! _ _.-n
;_,--'t«E2
pipeline carrying crude oil and
natural gas under rural and urban
areas. Industry officials and
regulators state that, compared to
other means of transporting
hazardous liquids and gas such as
rail and trucking, pipelines are
safer and have fewer accidents.
Additionally, energy companies
recognize the increased danger
with closer proximity to pipelines
and, in some cases, work with city
and county planners on develop-
ments near pipelines. However,
advocates, such as Inslee, Murray,
and others, feel the need for
federal regulation to create uni-
form safety regulations across the
country.
The Senate Commerce Committee
passed a pipeline safety bill in
June 2000, but neither House nor
Senate leaders have agreed to
votes by the full chambers. Inslee
hopes that public pressure from
the recent New Mexico explosion
will force Congress to vote.
MTBE Phase-out Plan
EPA and the U.S. Congress are
currently seeking ways to phase
-------
out the use of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) as a fuel additive
because it has contaminated
groundwater and drinking water
supplies across the country. Both
MTBE and ethanol are used to
increase oxygen in reformulated
gasoline (RFG) to improve com-
bustion and reduce emissions.
MTBE is used in 87 percent of
RFG, which is required in areas
with high air pollution and ac-
counts for about one-third of the
gasoline sold in the United States.
Eliminating MTBE is complicated
by the current federal requirement
that RFG contain 2 percent oxygen
by weight, and by conflicting
regional interests. Some states
fear that simply eliminating
MTBE will require them to use
ethanol in RFG, which is more
costly due in part to its high
volatility in hot summer months.
California, where MTBE contami-
nation is the object of a $200
million lawsuit filed against 18
companies, wants to phase out
MTBE by 2003. California has
asked EPA for a waiver from the 2
percent oxygen requirement for
RFG. Midwestern farmers,
though, are wary of solutions that
might reduce the demand for
ethanol, since ethanol is made
from corn.
Senator Bob Smith (R-New
Hampshire) introduced a bill on
July 27, 2000, to ban MTBE and
encourage "clean alternative
fuels." Smith's bill, which was
scheduled for committee action in
September would require EPA to
ban MTBE within 4 years, provide
$200 million for cleanups, and
allow states to waive the federal
requirement that RFG contain at
least 2 percent oxygen. The
Clinton Administration proposed
replacing the 2 percent oxygen
mandate for RFG with a require-
ment that a certain percentage of
the total gasoline market come
from renewable sources, an
approach rejected by Smith as a de
facto mandate for ethanol. Re-
cently, two regional groups
representing 32 states (the North-
east States for Coordinated Air
Use Management and the Gover-
nors' Ethanol Coalition) called on
Congress to create a "clean
alternative fuels program" to
promote the expansion of domesti-
cally produced renewable fuels,
including ethanol, premium
gasoline blends, natural gas, fuel
cell technology, and electric cars.
A separate amendment to Smith's
bill would set aside 0.6 percent of
the U.S. fuels market for clean
alternative fuels in 2002 and
increase the set aside to 1.5
percent by 2011. Smith has
indicated that this is a tough issue,
and "everybody's not going to get
what they want." He also stated
that "we have talked extensively
with the ethanol-state senators
over the past couple months and
have good reason to believe there
will be movement toward that
position."
Third Annual National
Customer Service Con-
ference
The Third Annual National
Customer Service Conference will
be held in Atlanta, Georgia in late
November. The event is being co-
sponsored by the Department of
Interior and promises to be the
biggest Customer Service Confer-
ence yet. The EPA Oil Program
will be in attendance to showcase
its website, which is at the heart of
its outreach communication
strategy (www. epa.gov/oilspill).
The Oil Program posts publica-
tions, events, news, regulations,
and links to other oil-related sites
on its website. It uses the website
a tool to keep the public, Regions,
and all interested parties informed
of news and events in the Oil
Program.
The conference will be held at the
Atlanta Renaissance Downtown
Hotel and will run from November
29-30. The agenda will feature
keynote speaker Doug Krug,
author of Enlightened Leadership -
Getting to the Heart of Change,
who participated in the previous
year's National Customer Service
Conference and was asked back in
a more prominent role due to
demand from participants. Other
items on the agenda include
breakout discussions on improving
customer service by learning what
customers want and how to act on
customer feedback, training
sessions on conflict management
and everyday creativity, and panel
discussions on electronic informa-
tion services.
The EPA Oil Program will discuss
its use of the Oil Spill Update and
Oil Drop journals as part of its
educational outreach efforts, and
comments and questions received
through its Oil Infoline. All these
outreach tools are available
through the Oil Spill Program
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
-------
website.
Changes at Olympic
Pipeline Company
Olympic Pipeline Company
(Olympic) is implementing
changes to its safety and training
procedures in light of the
company's catastrophic June 10,
1999 pipeline explosion that led to
the death of three people. The
company has been pressured by
lawmakers and community mem-
bers to implement more safety
measures and better train employ-
ees.
British Petroleum Company, Ltd.
(BP), took control of Olympic on
June 1, 2000, and has initiated a
number of employee-related
reforms, including termination of
four workers directly involved
with the incident, reassignment of
the two employees who were in
charge at the time of the incident,
and the hiring of more control
room managers. It has also begun
to cross-train employees in
multiple areas and has charged all
90 staff members with the respon-
sibility of shutting down the
system and notifying emergency
response teams if they become
aware of a problem.
In terms of equipment improve-
ments, BP has installed new valves
and an overpressure switch to
remedy those equipment problems
that were responsible for the
explosion. The computer system
now has a 750 percent higher
processing capacity, and the
company intends to take advantage
of it. BP has initiated implementa-
tion of a computerized mainte-
nance system to monitor all
equipment throughout the pipeline.
The company estimates that
implementation and testing of the
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
system will be completed by mid-
2001, at which time it hopes to
reopen sections of the pipeline that
have been closed since the explo-
sion.
While officials from the Office of
Pipeline Safety say that they are
pleased with the changes BP is
making and feel that a mid-2001
opening is feasible however,
shaken community members are
still reluctant to trust the company.
At an August 2000 town hall
meeting, residents criticized the
company for not alerting federal
officials to the numerous problems
it had with the valves prior to the
incident. Residents feel that, had
the company taken more precau-
tions, the incident might have been
prevented.
The company is taking community
comments seriously. It has
conducted inspections of the entire
400-mile pipeline network and has
assured residents that any needed
repairs or replacements will be
made. In addition, it is rerouting
the pipeline from the station where
the pipeline initially shut down to
another location where it can be
more effectively monitored.
However, Bob Rackleff, President
of the National Pipeline Reform
Coalition, has stated that the only
improvement that would make a
serious impact would be complete
removal and reinstallation of the
pipeline.
Island Cove Marina Spill
On August 9, 1999, a Georgia
man's plot to torch his houseboat
so that he could collect on the
insurance turned into a serious oil
spill incident when an adjacent
dock ignited and spread the flames
to 25 other boats housed at the
Island Cove Marina in Harrison,
Tennessee. The incident caused
$5 million worth of damage. The
ensuing cleanup began with the
deployment of booms by EPA On-
Scene Coordinator, Dean Ullock
around the entire marina to bar the
spread of oil into the Tennessee
River and onto other vessels.
Vacuum trucks then went to work
removing surface oil, and teams
were deployed to recover the
sunken boats in order to stop
further seepage. Jerry White, Sr.,
was indicted by a federal grand
jury for insurance fraud, and was
found to have a history of commit-
Did You Know?
A Pre-OPA Incident
One of the largest recent oil spills to occur on inland U.S.
soil was the result of an exploration well blowout near
Eastland, Texas in May of 1985. The well was under such
high pressure that it blew out part of its casing and erupted
oil for roughly 10 days at a rate of 21,000 barrels per day
(bbls), or approximately 880,000 gallons per day, until the
casing was repaired and a blowout preventer installed.
Even after the blowout was addressed, the pressure
continued to force oil out of the well at the same rate for 60
days, yielding roughly 52.8 million gallons of oil that was
diverted to storage tanks. Oil covered a neighboring tract
of land and also contaminated a nearby dry creek. State
and well operator figures place the volume of unrecovered
-------
ting similar fraudulent acts, such
as torching a prior residence to
claim $125,000 in insurance.
For more information, contact
Dean Ullock, EPA Region 4, at
(404) 562-8757.
New ERT Courses
Inland Oil Spill Response
Slow and Backwater Practical
Course
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Course Description:
This is a hands-on course that
demonstrates oil recovery methods
in slow water and marsh environ-
ments. Additional emphasis is
placed on product recovery
techniques in the subsurface in
order to prevent discharges to
waterways. The course is taught
by U.S. EPA, former U.S. EPA,
and former state responders. Class
participants will be instructed on
safe boat handling techniques,
boom deployment, and proper
recovery techniques. Instruction
will be provided on proper con-
tainment methods for spills on
land. Minimal classroom instruc-
tion with strenuous field exercises
make up the course curriculum.
Class participants may get into
water deploying boom, so dress
should be appropriate for this type
of work. Personnel equipment
should include a sharp knife, hat,
sunscreen, insect repellant of some
type. Be advised that daytime
temperature can reach well into
the 90s with high humidity.
Course prerequisite is that all
students must have attended the
ERTs Inland Oil Spills course. For
additional information, contact
Royal Nadeau at (732) 321-6740
or Greg Powell (513) 569-7537.
Inland Oil Spill Response
Fast Water booming Course
Boise, Idaho
Black Canyon Reservoir
Course Description:
The course is hands-on practical
oil spill training on fast water
rivers. The course is taught by
U.S. EPA, former U.S. EPA,
former State and Bureau of
Reclamation responders. Class
participants will spend the three
days deploying boom and learning
appropriate techniques for boom
deployment on fast water and oil
recovery from fast water. The
course has minimal classroom
instruction with strenuous field
activity. The Black Canyon Dam
area is approximately 30 miles
northwest of Boise on the Payette
River. Temperatures can reach
90+ degrees during the day. Class
participants may need to enter the
water during field operations, so
dress accordingly. It is recom-
mended that gloves and a sharp
pocket knife be included in
personnel equipment for the
course, along with a hat and
appropriate sunscreen, as shade is
limited in the area.
Course prerequisite is that all
course attendees must have
attended the basic ERT Inland Oil
Spills course. Class size is limited
to 30 students.
For additional information, contact
Royal Nadeau at (732) 321-6740
or Greg Powell (513) 569-7537.
Beatriz Oliveira, Editor,
Oil Program Center
703/603-1229
David Lopez, Director
Oil Program Center
703/603-8760
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mail Code 5203G
Washington, D.C. 20460
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
October 2000
------- |