United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA 540-N-00-003
OSWER 9360.8-25
October 2000
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Program Center 5203G
Volume 4 Number 1
The U.S. EPA's Oil
Program Center Journal
Contents
South African Oil Spill
Oil Spills in Brazil
Alternative Countermeasures for
Oil Spills
Pipeline - Deadly Reminder of Risk..
Heinz Refuge Healing After
Oil Spill
Kentucky Buses Running on
Grease
Study of Waterfowl Survival After
Spill Finds Greater Long-Term
Effects
South Florida Oil Spill
Pipeline Oil Spill Threatens
Canadian Town's Water Supply....
1
2
4
5
5
6
About The Oil DROP
The Oil DROP is an informal
journal, produced twice a year
by EPA's Oil Program Center.
The goal of the Oil DROP is to
attract a broad audience, includ-
ing concerned citizens and
environmental groups, on
current developments in envi-
ronmental news related to the
Oil Spill Program. The Oil
DROP covers oil spills in the
United States and throughout the
world, with an emphasis on the
effects these spills have on
wildlife and ecosystems. The
Oil DROP is available on the Oil
Program homepage at
www. epa. go v/oilspill.
South African Oil Spill
The Panamanian bulk-ore carrier
Treasure sank off the shores of
Cape Town, South Africa on June
23, 2000, polluting the waters
around Robben and Dassen
Islands. The islands are home to
approximately 64,000 endangered
African penguins, and the spill
triggered the largest marine bird
rescue effort in history. Estimates
of the total number of birds
immersed in oil range from 14,000
to 18,000. The severity of the
incident was compounded by the
fact that the Treasure sank during
breeding season, when 20-30
percent of the adult birds on
Robben Island were sitting on
eggs. The
South
African
National
Foundation
for the
Conserva-
tion of
Coastal
Birds
(SANCCOB)
is heading
the rescue
effort, with
the help of approximately 300
volunteer workers and 100 mem-
bers of the South African Navy.
Three bird rescue centers were set
up in the area to address the oiled
penguins.
By June 27th, over 4,500 penguins
had been transported to the
mainland for cleaning, and by July
4th the number had leapt to 14,500
birds. Initially, the spill directly
affected only Robben Island, but
by June 28th, oil was sighted on the
surf of Dassen Island also. Thus,
the decision was made to evacuate
all 50,000 penguins that inhabited
Dassen Island. By July 4th,l 1,000
unoiled penguins from Dassen
Island had been transported around
the tip of South Africa to Port
Elizabeth, leaving the remaining
penguins fenced in on the island to
keep them from the sea. Homing
instincts will bring the displaced
penguins back to Dassen Island,
but relief workers hope to have the
oil spill cleaned up by the time
these penguins return to their
native habitat.
In addition to the ecological
disaster, the sinking of Treasure
created political controversy. The
vessel is owned by Good Faith
-------
Shipping Co. of Piraeus, Greece
and was damaged by stormy
weather while heading south along
the West African coast. The South
African Maritime Safety Authority
(SAMSA) inspected the ship while
it sat anchored off the coast of
Robben Island in Table Bay and
found a 170 meters squared hole in
the ship's hull, ordering it to leave
Table Bay or unload the fuel in
Cape Town and begin repairs, or
devise a plan to do so. Decision-
makers for Treasure could reach
no agreement on a plan of action,
and SAMSA ordered the ship to
leave, at which time the ship was
already beginning to sink. At-
tempts were made to drop the
anchors and keep the ship from
drifting towards shore as it sank,
but by 3:00 a.m. local time, the
ship had settled 48 meters to the
bottom of the bay and a 5.5 by 7.4
kilometer oil slick had formed on
the water's surface. South African
officials demanded to know why
the ship had been allowed to
remain in the bay as long as it had
without pumping out its oil cargo.
Other controversies surfaced
concerning the ship's insured
worth. SAMSA is preparing to
investigate the ship's sinking.
Original cost estimates for the oil
spill cleanup and penguin rehabili-
tation ranged between $444,700
and $587,600 but, by July 6th, had
risen to $5.9 million. Cleaning an
oiled penguin begins with rehy-
drating the bird and cleaning the
oil from the intestines and eyes,
followed by removing oil from the
feathers. Finally, the penguin is
rinsed under high-pressure hoses
and dried using infrared lights.
The entire rehabilitation process
for one bird takes approximately
three weeks.
Immediate efforts were made to
address the quickly dispersing oil.
The vessel was originally carrying
382,000 gallons of No. 5 oil and
26,460 gallons of gas oil. Divers
closed off the leaks in the hull by
8:30 a.m. the morning Treasure
sank. Preparations were then
made to remove the oil from the
ship using a hot tap system. Under
this scenario, a hydraulic drill was
used by divers to puncture the
ship's fuel tanks. A control valve
and hose was fitted to this hole,
allowing the oil to rise through the
hoses to a barge where the oil was
contained. Meanwhile, efforts
were in place to protect the
shoreline. An oil skimming vessel
was addressing the growing oil
slick, and cleanup continued on
Robben and Dassen Islands as
well as on Cape Town's western
beaches through early July.
Oil Spills in Brazil
Environmental news in Brazil has
been dominated by oil spills in the
past year, many of which were
caused by the oil company
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA
(Petrobras). Brazil's worst oil
spill in 25 years occurred on July
16, 2000, when a Petrobras
pipeline burst at President Getulio
Vargas Refinery and spilled 1.06
million gallons of crude oil in
southern Brazil. Clean-up activi-
ties for this spill were hampered
by persistent rains. The most
urgent spill response work in-
cluded the construction of con-
crete dikes to prevent rains from
washing spilled oil around the
refinery area into the Barigue
River. The Barigue River is a
tributary of the Iguacu River,
located on the Brazilian border of
Argentina and Paraguay. Accord-
ing to Petrobras, more than
150,000 gallons of oil were
contained within the refinery
grounds. Even with the spill
response effort, over one million
gallons of crude oil escaped into
the Barigue River and eventually
into the Iguacu River. Clean-up
crews managed to remove all but
5,000 gallons of oil from the
Iguacu River.
About 100 oil-coated animals were
found during the cleanup and
taken to a veterinary hospital in
nearby Curitiba. Half of the
animals died. Environmental
activists who flocked to Curitiba
have accused Petrobras of gross
negligence in its second large
accident in six months. A major
concern was the 2.7 million liters
believed to have soaked into the
ground, which could be washed
into rivers by strong rains.
USEPA Oil DROP-
October2000
-------
Greenpeace International esti-
mated the river will need years to
recover, mostly because of the
residue that will be left on the
rocks and banks.
A spokesman for Petrobras said
the accident was caused by a
combination of human and techni-
cal errors. A worker forgot to let
incoming oil flow in, and a pipe
joint broke before the emergency
valve was triggered. Brazil's
environmental agency, IBAMA,
fined the company $94 million
(U.S. dollars) to be paid over 3
years for the spill and for the
company's repeated damage to the
environment. The Parana state
government has separately fined
Petrobras in the amount of $28
million (U.S. dollars).
More spills
The July 16th spill was Petrobras'
third oil spill this year, but not its
last. In January 2000, a ruptured
pipeline at a Petrobras refinery in
Rio de Janeiro released 340,000
gallons of oil into Guanabara Bay
and a nearby protected mangrove
swamp. Guanabara Bay was the
site of Brazil's largest spill in
1974, when 1.6 million gallons
were dumped by a tanker.
IBAMA fined the company $28
million (U.S. dollars) for the
January spill. A smaller spill that
took place in
June 2000 was
traced to a
Petrobras
barge that
washed its
tanks out,
dumping
approximately
98 gallons of
crude oil into
Guanabara
Bay again.
The company
states that it
has earmarked $62.3 million (U.S.
dollars) for cleanup of the Bay, but
environmentalists say that the
actual costs are "ongoing and
unlimited."
In late July 2000, a Petrobras
pipeline carrying methyl tertiary
butyl ether ruptured, spilling 270
gallons of the fuel additive near
the Town of Paracambi. Petrobras
was made aware of the leak when
residents of the town began
suffering from nausea and com-
plaining of a strong chemical
smell on July 29th. The company
immediately shut down the
pipeline that runs past Paracambi
from the City of Volta Redonda to
Japeri. The actual hole in the
pipeline was discovered the next
day, and company officials assured
the public that the chances of
groundwater contamination are
"minimal."
Finally, on August 7, 2000,
Petrobras caused a small offshore
spill off the coast of Ceara State,
Brazil. The company confirmed
that approximately 25 gallons of
crude oil was spilled and that it
was utilizing chemicals to clean
the 1.3 square-mile slick.
These five spills caused by
Petrobras were not the only oil
spills occurring in Brazil this year.
Other spills with unidentified
culprits have occurred this year,
such as the July 25th spill of 100
gallons of diesel oil from an
unknown source in Guanabara
Bay. Residents of Brazil's tourist
mecca fumed over this incident in
light of all the previous spill
incidents this year. A greasy film
of about 100 gallons of diesel
appeared at the entrance of the bay
and washed up one day later on
beaches in Niteroi, which lies
across the bay from Rio. Rio's
world-famous Copacabana and
Ipanema beaches were spared.
Officials had not determined the
cause of the spill but said the
diesel could have leaked out of a
ship's fuel tank or cargo tanks.
The oil also could have been
washed into the water when a
tanker flushed its bilges.
Legal ramifications
The predominance of Petrobras
spills this year is a serious cause
for concern and action. Environ-
mental activists in Brazil are very
concerned about Petrobras' actions
and lack of response to environ-
mental, safety, and health con-
USEPA Oil DROP
October 2000
-------
cerns. They cite Petrobras' lack of
preparedness, incompetence in
taking preventative measures, and
slow reaction time to spills as
being particularly alarming.
Financial analysts are applauding
a "reduction in inefficiencies" in
the mammoth company, while
employees attribute it to an
overemphasis on the bottom line
and a drastic cut in qualified labor
and proper training.
On July 27, the Association for the
Environment of Araucaria
(AMAR) filed suit against
Petrobras asking for the "cancella-
tion of the company's environmen-
tal license, elaboration of impact
studies, and indemnity for material
and moral damages." This comes
in addition to hundreds of millions
of dollars in fines that IBAMA has
already assessed Petrobras for its
spills this year.
Alternative Countermea-
sures for Oil Spills
Oil spill cleanup involves a
number of steps, beginning with
an evaluation of the degree of
cleanup needed. For example, it is
often up to firefighters who are
usually first on the scene of a
tanker truck or automobile acci-
dent to decide the best and safest
method of cleanup. The most
common methods involve sorbents
such as sand, plant materials, or
synthetic materials in pad or boom
form, which are placed on and
around the spill to contain and
remove it.
If the spill is too large for the first
responders to handle, local au-
thorities may turn to state or
federal response agencies for help.
These agencies send an on-scene
coordinator (OSC), who assesses
the situation and draws up a plan
to start clean-up activities and
control the downstream effects of
the spill. The OSC may deem it
necessary to use chemical or
biological countermeasures often
referred to as alternative or
applied countermeasures.
Alternative countermeasures
include bioremediation agents,
dispersants, surface washing
agents, and miscellaneous oil spill
control agents. Bioremediation
agents are microbiological cul-
tures, enzyme additives, or nutri-
ent additives that are introduced
after the initial cleanup has taken
place to increase oil's biodegrada-
tion rate. A surface washing agent
is any product that removes oil
from a solid, impervious surface
that has been coated with oil, such
as a rocky beach or a road, using a
detergent mechanism. Surface
washing agents do not involve
dispersing or solubilizing the oil
into the water column. Miscella-
neous oil spill control agents are
any other products that do not
meet the strict definition of any
other type, but can be used to
clean up, remove, treat, or mitigate
an oil spill. EPA determines into
which category a product will fall.
There are also alternative response
options, such as in-situ burning of
oil in which case the decision is
made that burning the oil will be
the most effective and efficient
way to remove the oil and mini-
mize the harm to the environment.
If the use of alternative counter-
measures is proposed, the state or
federal OSC must receive approval
from the regional response team
(RRT) and a representative of the
state, unless a pre-approval plan
exists. There are 13 RRTs, one for
each of the 10 federal regions plus
1 for Alaska, 1 for the Carribean,
and 1 for the Pacific Basin. Title
40, Part 300.910 of the Code of
Federal Regulations requires RRTs
and area committees to evaluate,
in writing, the desirability of using
alternative countermeasures during
the first hectic hours of a spill, in
part because chemical and biologi-
cal agents may themselves have a
deleterious effect on the environ-
ment. Typically, alternative
countermeasures are considered
only when mechanical clean-up
methods are extremely difficult or
impossible to use. Most are used
in conjunction with mechanical
measures and offer a faster way to
prevent oil from causing harm to
the environment. Bioremediation
of spills into wetland areas pre-
vents harm associated with many
labor-intensive response options.
Chemical or biological agents are
to be used in compliance with
Subpart J of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA
lists these products on the NCP
Product Schedule, which indicates
that product data has been submit-
ted and technically screened, as
required by the NCP. Appearance
on this list does not indicate that
EPA approves, encourages,
endorses, or authorizes a product.
These data are intended to inform
OSCs about the potential effects of
these products on human health
and safety and on the aquatic
environment. Protocols are in
place to monitor the effectiveness
of most alternative countermea-
sures.
Manufacturer-supplied informa-
tion on special handling and
worker precautions for storage and
field application must be followed,
as must the product's recom-
mended application procedures.
USEPA Oil DROP-
October2000
-------
Emergency workers must use
caution when applying chemical
countermeasures in closed con-
duits, such as sanitary or storm
sewers. They also must provide
adequate ventilation and vapor
suppression when using chemicals
that increase a spilled fuel's
tendency to vaporize. The EPA
Environmental Response Team
can provide expertise in this area.
For more information on the
proper authority and use of
alternative countermeasures,
please contact the EPA Oil Pro-
gram Center at (703) 603-9918.
Pipeline - Deadly
Reminder of Risk
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. Advocates of
increased pipeline safety hope that
this will push Congress to vote in
favor of federal reforms in under-
ground pipeline safety. Supporters
of increased regulations, such as
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 parties interested in 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 MTBE in North Texas.
Representative Bob Franks (R-
New Jersey) cited that under-
ground pipelines are no longer
buried in remote locations, but that
instead "thousands of people live
or work in immediate proximity to
pipelines." For example, Kern
County, California, which delivers
energy to Los Angeles, has miles
of 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.
Addition-
ally, energy
companies
recognize
the in-
creased
danger with
closer
proximity to pipelines and, in
some cases, work with city and
county planners on developments
near pipelines. However, pipeline
safety champions such as Inslee,
Murray, and others feel the need
for federal regulation to create
uniform 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.
Heinz Refuge Healing
After Oil Spill
In February, a visitor to the John
Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in
Tinicum, Pennsylvania reported
smelling petroleum. Initially, no
one was alarmed by the report
because the refuge is adjacent to
the Philadelphia National Airport
and a Sunoco refinery where
petroleum smells are common.
When workers found a pool of oil
in an iced-over pond in the refuge,
Sunoco launched a large-scale
effort to stop the leak and repair
the damage. Sunoco received an
USEPA Oil DROP
October 2000
-------
Emergency Removal/Response
Order issued pursuant to Section
311(c) on February 7, 2000, to
perform immediate clean-up
actions. Additionally, EPA issued
a Unilateral Order for Abatement
of Endangerment on February 29,
2000, requiring long-term cleanup.
The action required by the order
included the characterization and
remediation of contaminated soil.
In the weeks that followed discov-
ery of the oil, Sunoco recovered
191,000 gallons of oil from the
pond and replaced many of the
joints in the pipes that traverse the
refuge.
In the aftermath of the spill,
community members and local
officials are beginning to assess
the longer-term effects on the
refuge, some of which have
already been identified. The soils
along the access road that was
built to reach the spill site were
compacted so badly by the heavy
equipment that nothing can grow
there. The sediments within as
well as outside the spill area are
contaminated. The long-term
effects of this contamination on
wildlife may not be known for
many years. The effects of clear-
cutting along the pipeline right-of-
way, done to improve access for
inspectors, may be double-sided.
On one hand,
the
clearcutting
has frag-
mented the
woodlands,
potentially
reducing their
value as
habitat for
migrating
songbirds.
On the other
hand, it has
increased the
proportion of edge habitat in the
refuge that supports butterflies and
woodcocks. While it is clear that
the spill and the response actions
to address it have changed the
refuge, the magnitude of that
change will not be immediately
revealed. Nonetheless, Dick
Nugent, manager of the refuge
believes that only time will reveal
how the animals will acclimate.
He believes that nature will adapt,
and that "it will be interesting to
see what happens next Spring."
Kentucky Buses Running
on Grease
In July, the Cincinnati Metro and
the Transit Authority of Northern
Kentucky (TANK) began using a
fuel mixture of 20 percent used
cooking oil and
grease and 80
percent diesel.
This two-month
project explor-
this "biodiesel
fuel" is funded
through a
$50,000 grant
for each of the
organizations
from the U.S.
Department of
Transportation.
According to a press release issued
by Griffin Industries, the Ken-
tucky-based supplier of the fuel,
over 280 Metro and TANK buses
ran on the fuel mixture in July and
August. The company produces
the fuel from recycled vegetable
oil collected from local restau-
rants.
This use of biofuels is not the first
for the Cincinnati Metro. The
transit system used soybean-based
diesel fuel in 1993 and 1994.
However, the cost of the fuel has
prevented it and other transit
systems from using it more in the
past decade. Currently, the system
pays only $.51 per gallon for
regular diesel fuel. The biodiesel
fuel costs almost three times as
much, at $1.49 per gallon.
Despite the increased cost of
biofuels, the use of oils derived
from plant and animal sources is
gaining interest as an alternative to
the use of petroleum-based
products. Biofuels are a renew-
able resource, burn more cleanly
than petroleum, and are similar
enough chemically to diesel fuel to
fit many of the same applications.
Thus, biodiesel fuels, fuel mix-
tures of diesel fuel and fuel
USEPA Oil DROP-
October2000
-------
derived from plant or animal
origin, have been one of the first
uses.
However, vegetable oils, animal
fats, and other non-petroleum oils
can still cause significant damage
if released into the environment.
These types of oils create slicks on
the surface of water and can have
negative environmental impacts on
aquatic organisms and birds.
Careful storage and transport of
these products is critical to mini-
mize spill potential. Edible oil
spills have been associated with
the deaths of thousands of water-
fowl, fish, and crustaceans.
Spilled non-petroleum oils have
coated beaches and created
problems for water treatment
plants.
Study of Waterfowl Sur-
vival After Spill Finds
Greater Long-Term
Effects
Oil spills pose significant environ-
mental risk to bird populations.
Oil can damage bird feathers,
making them lose their insulating
properties and possibly causing
death. Often, immediately after an
oil spill has been discovered,
several organizations may attempt
to rehabilitate the oiled birds by
cleaning the oil and other contami-
nants from the birds' feathers. Of
course, one of the greatest con-
cerns is how well these birds can
survive after being oiled, rehabili-
tated, and released from captivity
back into the environment.
Researchers at the University of
California at Davis conducted an
analysis of 37 rehabilitated
American Coots, a marsh bird
found in the western half of the
United States and Canada, that
were exposed to an 1,100 barrel
crude oil spill in the San Gabriel
River released from a broken
pipeline on February 20, 1995.
The coots were captured after
exposure and cleaned. These
coots were compared against a
control group of coots that were
not exposed to the oil.
The researchers published two
articles from this study in the
journal Environmental Pollution.
One article examines the "linger-
ing effects" of the oil exposure on
the birds. Most significantly, the
study points to higher mortality
rates among the oiled, rehabili-
tated population over the control
group. Additionally, the research-
ers noted that rehabilitated coots
were more active, slept less,
preened and bathed more, and fed
and drank more than the control
group. The second article reports
that differences in blood-related
factors between rehabilitated coots
and the control coots suggest that
the experience appeared to have
caused some variations in the
blood composition of the rehabili-
tated coots. However, the authors
note that these effects could be
due to the oil exposure, the
rehabilitation, the captivity, or a
combination of these aspects.
A separate study published in
Comparative Haematology Inter-
national considers the role of
petroleum ingestion in causing
anaemia in marine birds. The
researchers considered 40 rhinoc-
eros auklets that were given
varying amounts of Prudhoe Bay
Crude Oil and then examined to
determine whether the oil had
caused anaemia, a condition
believed to be caused by petro-
leum ingestion. The researchers
found that birds in the study
developed the condition regardless
of whether they had ingested oil.
Researchers suggest that the
development of anaemia in marine
birds exposed to oil may be
dependent on the age of the bird or
may be caused by the stress of
captivity.
These studies on oiled wildlife
provide a greater understanding of
the detrimental effects of oil spills.
They also point the rehabilitation
community to techniques that will
increase the likelihood of survival
among cleaned wildlife released
back into their natural habitats.
Sources:
An Experimental Soft-release of
Oil-Spill Rehabilitated American
Coots (Fulica americana): I,
Lingering Effects on Survival,
Condition, and Behavior, D.W.
Anderson, S.H. Newman,
P.R. Kelly, S.K. Herzog, and
K.P. Lewis, Environmental
Pollution, July 1999.
An Experimental Soft-Release of
Oil-Spill Rehabilitated American
Coots (Fulica americana): II,
Effects on Health and Blood
Parameters, D.W. Anderson,
S.H. Newman, M.H. Ziccardi,
J.G. Trupkiewicz, F.S. Tseng,
M.M. Christopher, and J.G. Zinkl,
Environmental Pollution, June
1999.
Haematological Changes and
Anaemia Associated with Captiv-
ity and Petroleum Exposure in
Seabirds, S.H. Newman,
J.K. Mazet, M.H. Ziccardi, C.L.
Lieske, D.A. Fauquier, I.A.
Gardner, J.G. Zinkl, and M.M.
Christopher, Comparative
Haematology International, 1999.
South Florida Oil Spill
The worst oil spill that South
Florida has seen in a decade
USEPA Oil DROP
October 2000
-------
blackened 15 to 20 miles of
coastline on August 8, 2000. The
spill covered the coastline from
Pompano Beach to Golden Beach.
Emergency workers were respon-
sible for gathering swimmers out
of the water and hurrying to rescue
thousands of sea turtle hatchlings
from the huge globules of oil. The
last of the swimming bans imme-
diately went into effect and were
not lifted until August 10, 2000.
The bans were lifted in exchange
for yellow caution flags informing
swimmers that conditions could
still be grimy. There have been oil
slicks that have appeared on the
Southern Florida beaches before,
but none have involved a swim
ban of this size.
The spill appeared overnight in
clumps, globules, puddles, and
knots of seaweed. The slick was
initially spotted at 9:00 a.m. The
U.S. Coast Guard investigated in
an attempt to find the source of the
spill. The oil could have been
intentionally dumped or simply
leaked from a cargo tank of a ship
carrying petroleum products.
Samples of the gooey mess were
sent to labs, and the results
revealed that toxic substances are
not present.
The immediate threat was to sea
turtles because the spill arrived at
the peak of their hatching season.
If the slick does not subside before
the hatchlings head for the water,
their already low odds for survival
will be reduced even more. Some
swimmers were immediately
affected by the slick because they
were unaware of any danger of
being in the water until lifeguards
communicated the hazardous
conditions. No wildlife was
injured as a result of the spill.
Scientists say the long-term effects
are harder to predict. If the slick is
driven out to sea, the environmen-
tal effects should be minor near
the coast. If the oil remains along
the coast, it will begin to break
down, volatile chemicals will
evaporate into the air, and the
crude oil will clump into tar. Even
after the oil is no longer visually
apparent, it still remains in the
environment.
The cleanup was conducted in a
low-tech, labor intensive manner,
focusing on the shore and coast
line. Workers used shovels and
rakes to scoop up tar balls and
place them into plastic bags.
Twenty tons of oil-soaked debris
were collected by August 9, 2000,
and more is expected to be col-
lected in the future. The cleanup
is financed with money from the
federal government fund for oil
spills. Dozens of ships have been
boarded, and investigators have
collected oil samples in an effort
to find a match to the oil that was
spilled.
Pipeline Oil Spill Threat-
ens Canadian Town's
Water Supply
A pipeline in northeastern British
Columbia, Canada ruptured on
August 1, 2000, spilling about
6,300 barrels (449,400 gallons) of
crude oil into the Pine River,
which supplies the region's water.
The cause of the rupture is unde-
termined. The spill created an oil
slick reported to be 13 miles long,
says Rich Girard, pollution
prevention manager with the
provincial Environment Ministry.
"This is pretty big in that it has
spilled into a river to start with
(and) secondly a pretty sensitive
river," Girard said. The pipeline,
operated by Federated Pipe Lines
Ltd., was shut down shortly after
the early morning incident.
The rupture occurred about 60
miles from Chetwynd, a commu-
nity of about 3,000 people ap-
proximately 435 miles northeast of
Vancouver. Pembina Pipeline is
taking the lead in containment and
recovery of the oil. About 80
percent of the oil that reached
booms along the river was con-
tained, but a thin sheen got past
the third and last set of barriers.
Girard stated that the sheen would
dissipate, but some oil was certain
to reach the intake.
Town officials filled the municipal
reservoir with untainted water
from the river, and a monitoring
station was established about three
miles upstream from the intake.
The mayor and local officials
encouraged citizens to conserve
water during the cleanup.
The long-term environmental
consequences could be severe.
Wayne Landis, a professor of
environmental toxicology at
Western Washington University in
Bellingham, Washington said the
Pine River ecosystem will never
return to its previous state. The
British Columbia Oil and Gas
Commission and the Environment
Ministry will conduct a full
investigation of the incident.
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 DROP-
October2000
------- |