United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA540-N-01-004
OSWER 9360.8-31
My 2001
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Program Center 5203G
Volume 4 Number 3
Contents Fourth Biennial EPA Freshwater Freshwater oil spills are often different
„ ,_,. . 1T~AT, u c, •„ Spills Symposium from marine spills in oil type, fre-
Fourth Biennial EPA Freshwater Spills r J cmencv and volume.
o • i '
EPA will host its Fourth Biennial
Facility Response Plan Outreach and Freshwater Spills Symposium (FSS) The 2002 FSS concentrates on topic
Five- Year Reviews 2 from March 19 to 21, 2002 in Cleve- areas that differ from those covered in
land, Ohio. The symposium focuses traditional marine spill-oriented fora.
Nuex Well Blow Out 2 specifically on freshwater oil spills and Each FSS session and track emphasizes
Red Barn Gasoline Spill 4 encourages an exchange of ideas and preparedness, prevention, and response
solutions to some of their unique to oil spills in freshwater environments
Oil Spills in Virginia & Maryland 4 aspects and may include case studies, lessons
TrainDerailmentandDieselFuelDis- learned, natural resource restoration,
charge 5 Freshwater oil spills differ from marine environmental impacts, oil well fields,
spills in that they have a greater ten- effects of MTBE on inland oil spill
Recent Enforcement Actions 6 dency to occur near areas that are response, and spill prevention in the
o -n ^XT ^ ! o- --c- T- • , nonnl ated and areas that are ecolopi- Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Spill of National Significance Exercise. 6 popuidicudiiudicdh mai die ccoiogi &
cally sensitive. Oil spills in freshwater
Tranguch Gasoline Leak 7 may affect drinking water supplies such Individuals who may find the 2002 FSS
Tank Fire at Orion Refining 7 as surface and groundwaters, and especially interesting include local, state,
8 biologically productive wetland areas. federal, and industry responders; natural
Did You Know? 42-Gallon Barrel 7
About The Update
EPAs Oil Spill Program Update is produced quarterly; using informa-
tion provided by EPA regional staff, and in accordance with regional
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 businesses, and the regulated commu-
nity current with the latest developments. The Update is available on
the Oil Program homepage at www.epa.gov/oilspill.
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
-------
resource trustees and managers; and
facility response planners. The sympo-
sium is free of charge and open to the
public; however, registration is required.
The 2002 FSS will be held at the
Sheraton Cleveland City Centre Hotel.
Abstracts for the selection of speakers
are being accepted by EPA through
August 15, 2001. The FSS Design
Team will review the abstracts and
select the presentation speakers by
September 14, 2001. To have a topic
considered for presentation at the FSS
2002, please send an abstract of 200
words or less to: USEPA Oil Program
Center (5203G), FSS 2002 Presenta-
tion Abstracts, Washington, DC 20460,
or via e-mail to oilinfo@epamail.epa.gov.
Visit the FSS 2002 Web Site for more
information at
www.freshwaterspills.net/fss2002/.
Facility Response Plan Outreach
and Five-Year Reviews
The EPA Region 5 Oil Planning and
Response Section (OPRS) has been
very busy since the beginning of fiscal
year 2001. Since October 2000, OPRS
has been preparing for the lengthy task
of conducting five-year reviews of
Facility Response Plans (FRPs) located
in Region 5. After OPRS staff re-
viewed the FRPs for the 500 facilities
in Region 5, the staff determined that
200 facilities were subject to a five-
year review. Those plans were re-
viewed against the FRP checklist and
plan deficiencies were recorded. The
200 facilities were informed that they
had 60 days to correct their plans and
submit new plans to Alexander Tzallas,
Region 5 FRP Coordinator. As of
March 2001, Mr. Tzallas has received
165 of 200 revised plans.
In order to assist facilities with their
FRP revisions, OPRS staff conducted
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
July 2001
Plume from the Nuex well blowout, as seen from the command post area.
FRP seminars at six locations. The
seminars were very successful, drawing
an attendance of 324 people, including a
Brazilian representative who was
interested in adapting U.S. oil regula-
tions and programs to his country.
Seminar attendees were mostly industry
individuals, including terminal owners/
operators, consultants, and agency
personnel. The seminar agendas
included discussions by Mr. Tzallas on
FRP preparation, the FRP review
process, the FRP five-year review
process, Integrated Contingency Plans
vs. Facility Response Plans, plan
deficiencies, inspections, and agency
expectations. Additional discussions
led by OPRS staff included Region 5's
unannounced exercise program, inland
sensitivity maps, spill response strate-
gies, as well as legal and enforcement
issues.
Because these FRP seminars were so
successful, plans are being made to
conduct four more FRP seminars in
October 2001. Notices for these
seminars will be mailed out in late
summer 2001. For further information,
please contact Alexander Tzallas at
(312)886-0622.
Nuex Well Blow Out
On April 19, 2001, a completion
drilling rig owned by Louisiana
Swabbing and under contract with
Nuex Exploration experienced a blow
out at approximately 2:45 p.m. The rig
is situated between the communities of
Loreauville and New Iberia in Iberia,
Louisiana, and is surrounded in all
directions by crawfish ponds and
sugarcane fields. The blowout oc-
curred when a bull plug on the blowout
preventer (BOP) stack failed. The
natural gas that was then released
could not be cut off. The escaping
natural gas combined with formation
sand and oil, causing a spark that
apparently ignited the well and re-
sulted in an explosion. A large, thick,
black cloud and 80-foot flames could
be seen several miles from the rig.
There were no reported injuries to the
six workers who were working on the
rig at the time. Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
representatives conducted air monitor-
ing on-site and detected no dangerous
levels of toxins in the ambient air.
The clean-up effort began on April 20,
2001, after an EPA Superfund Techni-
cal Assessment and Response Team
-------
(START)2 representative arrived on-
site. A cleanup contractor and numer-
ous vacuum trucks were employed to
begin oil recovery and cleanup activi-
ties. Absorbent booms and pads were
placed in all drainage pathways to
contain the spill for cleanup. The
amount of oil discharged from the well
as a result of the blowout was un-
known. Oil was observed in drainage
ditches around the rig as well as in Tee
Bayou, which is a receiving waterway
for the drainage ditches. Nuex Explora-
tion also contracted a well control
company to snub and cap the well. The
well was left to cool and decrease in
pressure before the well control com-
pany attempted to cap it.
drum and rope skimmers with vacuum
trucks to recover the spilled oil. It was
estimated that about 1,000 barrels of
oil had spilled from the well blowout.
The well continued to burn; however,
the well pressure began dropping.
Very little oil had entered the sur-
rounding crawfish ponds and the
contractor immediately recovered any
oil observed in them. Nineteen frac
(liquid pumping) trucks and two
temporary groundwater wells were
prepared to carry water to the blowout
area for cooling the metal debris field
and to extinguish the well fire.
By the end of the day on April 22,
2001, water was sprayed on the well
and the metal debris was prepared for
Recovery action along Tee Bayou.
Cleanup operations continued on April
21, 2001. Representatives from the
LDEQ and the U.S. Coast Guard
(Marine Safety Office Morgan City,
Louisiana) were on-site. Overnight,
the wind direction had changed and
caused the flames from the rig to ignite
a pocket of oil in a drainage ditch near
the blowout area. The well control
company mobilized personnel and
equipment and attempted to smother
the fire with water, cut the old BOP,
and capped the well once the fire was
out. Cleanup efforts continued with
removal. The following day, the well
control company extinguished the fire
and began digging a cellar around the
well to remove the BOP. After digging
the cellar, the old BOP was unbolted
and removed and the well was capped
with a new BOP. Then, 323 barrels of
12-pound drilling mud was pumped
downhole and the well was killed.
Cleanup efforts continued on a day-to-
day basis and included oil recovery
operations in the drainage pathways,
heavy equipment transportation from
the command post off-site, and multi-
media preparation of samples from
areas contaminated by the spilled oil for
laboratory analysis.
The EPA START2 representative
returned to the scene May 1, 2001, to
inspect the progress of the cleanup.
Contractor personnel continued oil
cleanup and maintenance operations
and transferring the oil recovered from
the fractation tanks to aboveground
storage tanks owned by Nuex Explora-
tion. START was informed that
approximately 2,785 barrels of oily
liquid were recovered, of which, 1,100
barrels were oil. START was also
informed that the multi-media samples
taken from the drainage areas and
crawfish ponds revealed no hydrocar-
bon contamination. A radiation survey
was conducted for naturally occurring
radioactive materials around the well
blowout scene and they found no
elevated radiation levels above a
background level of 5 to 6 micro-
roentgens per hour. LDEQ instructed
Nuex Exploration to construct an
earthen berm around the well blowout
scene to prevent storm water runoff. A
new completion rig owned and operated
by Louisiana Swabbing was positioned
over the well and will be used to
conduct the following: retrieve the
wireline from the hole; set a retrievable
plug at 600 feet; remove the BOP stack
installed by Cudd Well Control; install a
new BOP stack; pull the retrievable
plug; go in with new tubing to clean the
hole; and put the well online to begin
the production of oil and gas.
Oil cleanup and maintenance opera-
tions were to continue on a weekly
basis until all oil contamination was
removed. The soil around the blowout
scene was to be sampled and tested per
LDNR Order 29-B regulations after the
completion of the well. EPA involve-
ment has been terminated and the case
is closed. The spill contact is Mike
Ryan, EPA Region 6, (337) 626-6006.
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
July 2001
-------
Red Barn Gasoline Spill
EPA Region 7 activated the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
in response to a spill that
occurred on February 24,
2001. A half-full, 12,000-
gallon aboveground storage
tank (AST) at a Red Barn
Convenience Store and bulk
petroleum storage facility
released in excess of 2,500
gallons of gasoline into
secondary containment. Due
to the gasoline leakage and
persistent precipitation, the
capacity of the secondary
containment was nearly
exhausted at the time of EPA's
notification from the National
Response Center. EPA
dispatched the Emergency and
Rapid Response
Services (ERRS) contractor, two
START members, and On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC), Scott Hayes to the
spill.
Upon arrival at the scene, the OSC
learned that the responsible party (RP)
was unable to mitigate the threat of
exceeding secondary containment
capacity. The RP requested that EPA
handle recovery of the spilled gasoline
and prevention of containment breach.
Though hampered by ice in the con-
tainment area, the ERRS contractor
completed recovery of free liquid
contained in a fractionation tank
secured on-site. Remaining puddles,
too small to be recovered by dia-
phragm pumps and containing mostly
water, were absorbed using sorbent
pads. The RP's fuel supplier provided
a tanker truck that pumped remaining
product from the leaking tank to an
adjacent vessel.
Two residences near the incident
located in the Town of Maysville,
Missouri, were voluntarily evacuated
during the cleanup period. Though
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
July 2001
A ditch harbors the derailed cars of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Railroad in April 2001.
heavy rains threatened to overflow
secondary containment, only a small
amount of gasoline reached outside
drainage. In addition, other immediate
threats that were abated included a fire
hazard by ignition of gasoline vapors,
and discharge into nearby West Fork
Creek, potentially harming fish,
wildlife, and adjacent cropland. Five
days after the initial response, the
estimated cleanup costs were approxi-
mately $10,100. For more informa-
tion, contact Scott Hayes, EPA Region
7 OSC, at (913) 551-7670.
Oil Spills in Virginia & Maryland
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
The Washington Metropolitan Area
has addressed two oil spills in recent
months. The jail in Anne Arundel
County Maryland suffered a 3,500-
gallon diesel fuel spill that was caused
by a faulty fuel pump. The pump was
turned off at 8 p.m. on Saturday, May
26, 2001, but continued to operate until
county jail staff turned off circuit
breakers. The resulting spill was
exacerbated by heavy rains that
washed the fuel into storm drains and a
storm water management pond. A
contractor was assigned to address the
spill.
Alexandria, Virginia
The Alexandria, Virginia shoreline of
the Potomac River is also the subject
of a cleanup that will be ongoing. A
new 400-foot boom was placed along
the shoreline to absorb an oily sub-
stance that was seeping into the river at
the site of the former Alexandria Gas
Works in Old Town, Alexandria. City
officials have known about the leak
since the 1970s and have tested soil,
sediment, air, and water, and found the
previously unknown substance to be
composed of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. Several attempts have
been made to control and clean the
spill since its discovery over two
decades ago. The cleanup is expected
to be finished by December 2002, with
a total cost of approximately $2.5
million.
-------
Train Derailment and Diesel Fuel
Discharge
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at
approximately 9:00 p.m., a southbound
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Railroad train derailed about 50 miles
southeast of Des Moines near Bussey,
Marion County, Iowa. The derailment
occurred in a remote wooded and
agricultural area with moderate to
steeply sloped terrain. The derailment
involved nine general service tank cars
containing diesel fuel. Three of the
tank cars were returned to the track by
BNSF contractors with no release of
material. The six remaining cars were
damaged when they rolled down a steep
railway embankment, causing the
release of an estimated 50,000 gallons
of diesel fuel. The spilled diesel fuel
was released into a low area between
the active rail to the east, and an old
abandoned railway adjacent on the
west side. A drainage culvert located
below the abandoned railway allowed
a large amount of the released material
to discharge west into an intermittent
tributary of Cedar Creek.
OSCs, Joe Davis and Heath Smith,
responded to the incident by coordi-
nating response efforts with represen-
tatives from the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR), Marion
County's Emergency Management
Agency (EMA), and BNSF. On
Thursday, April 19, 2001, a county
road crew, working under the direc-
tion of EMA, constructed an under-
flow dam on the tributary creek about
one-mile downstream of the derail-
ment location. The underflow dam
prevented the release of floating oil
into the creek beyond this point. The
OSCs evaluated the scene and
determined that the response actions
needed to cleanup the spill exceeded
the capability of the railroad's emer-
gency response contractors. As a
result, OSC Davis mobilized the ERRS
contractor and equipment to the scene.
Over the next week, cleanup efforts
continued at the derailment site. The
ERRS contract personnel conducted
recovery of pooled diesel fuel from the
low area at the location of the derail-
ment, using pumps, skimmers, and
vacuum trucks to transfer the fuel to
storage tanks on the site. A second,
upstream, underflow dam was con-
structed in the culvert beneath the
abandoned rail line at the derailment
location. Crews used gas powered leaf
blowers and water pumps to push
residual oil down the creek to the
recovery area at the downstream
underflow dam. The contractor crew
conducted transfer operations on the
derailed tank cars. After holes were
drilled into the damaged tank cars, the
excess diesel fuel was pumped into rail
cars provided by BNSF. By Wednes-
day, April 25 2001, nearly all free
liquid oil had been removed from the
impacted creek area and all remaining
product in the derailed cars had been
transferred into tank cars.
The BNSF contractors dragged the
damaged derailed cars into an adjacent
field where they were washed out and
cut up for scrap. Contaminated soil
was excavated and stockpiled on plastic
in the adjacent field. The contaminated
soil will undergo land farm treatment
and disposal at a facility identified and
permitted by IDNR. The BNSF
contractor will maintain absorbent
booms within the underflow dams to
prevent any release of residual product
or sheen from the site. On-going
maintenance and monitoring of the site
will be conducted by the IDNR. On-
site response actions were conducted
with a joint effort from BNSF, federal,
state, county, and local resources.
For further information, please contact
Kevin Mould of EPA at (703) 603-
8728.
An underflow dam in a drainage culvert blocked the flowing oil.
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
July 2001
-------
Recent Enforcement Actions
Pepperell Associates
Recently, there have been a number of
enforcement actions involving EPA. On
April 11,2001, the First Circuit of the
United States Court of Appeals upheld
the decision of the Environmental
Appeals Board in the Pepperell Associ-
ates v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency (No. 00-1708)
decision. The issues hearkened back to
October 1996 when Pepperell Associ-
ates (who operated a business out of an
old mill), experienced a rupture in a
gasket in the boiler room of the build-
ing. The result was a 300- to 400-
gallon oil spill that ultimately worked its
way into Gully Brook and the
Androscoggin River, which are both
navigable waters of the United States.
The spill was cleaned up through the
help of the State of Maine. In light of
the spill, however, EPA issued a three-
count administrative penalty action
against Pepperrel for not having an
appropriate spill control plan. This
action met with resistance by Pepperell,
who claimed inadequate knowledge of
their need to be compliant with federal
oil spill provisions, and was finally
brought in front of the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB). The EAB
ordered Pepperell to pay $43,643 for
the three counts of the complaint. The
U.S. Court of Appeals refused to
overturn that decision. Court of
Appeals Judge Sandra Lynch, who
wrote the court's opinion on the case,
wrote, "This case illustrates the perils
facing a small business that does not
determine whether it is subject to
regulation under 33 U.S.C. 1321, the oil
spill provision of the Clean Water Act."
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
In Texas, a Texaco subsidiary (Texaco
Refining and Marketing, Inc.) pled
guilty in March 2001 to two felony
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
July 2001
charges and was fined $4 million for
discharging millions of gallons of
polluted waste water into the
Dominguex Channel near its
Wilmington refinery, and into a creek
in San Luis Obispo. The plea was
entered in front of U.S. District Judge
Margaret Morrow. The guilty plea
grew out of a 4-year investigation by
15 federal, state, and local agencies
into operations at the company's
Wilmington refinery. The Wilmington
refinery, on the Pacific Coast High-
way, is known to have discharged high
levels of oily and greasy wastewater
through an outfall into the nearby
channel. The infractions seemed to
have taken place in 1995, during a
time when the company was having
trouble with its new wastewater
treatment system. Instead of shutting
down systems to address any problems
however, the company continued to
flush millions of gallons of wastewater
into the channel, exceeding the allow-
able pollutant release allotment. The
offenses occurred while the company
was under the ownership of Texaco. It
is now owned by Equilon Enterprises, a
joint venture of Texaco and Shell Oil.
Seventy-five percent of the $4 million
fine will be earmarked for environmen-
tal projects.
Koch Petroleum Group
Koch Petroleum Group, L.P. (Koch),
pled guilty in April 2001 to a single
felony count of filing false statements
to the federal government, and con-
spiring to conceal information from
the federal government. Koch has
agreed to contribute $10 million to a
fund for Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs) to be approved by the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Committee (TNRCC), U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, and EPA. These
projects are frequently used to benefit
communities that may have been
harmed by the violation of environ-
mental regulations. In this case, SEPs
may be used to enhance air pollution
detection equipment along Refinery
Row. Koch has also agreed to pay $10
million to the federal government, and
will be given five years of probation.
The criminal case against Koch was
developed by the Texas Environmental
Enforcement Task Force, established
in 1991, which includes the TNRCC,
EPA, the U.S. Attorney's office, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The agreement was approved by U.S.
District Judge Janis Jack, and accord-
ingly, the U.S. Attorney has dropped all
charges.
Spill of National Significance
Exercise
A spill of national significance (SONS)
exercise will be performed in Port
Arthur, Texas and Morgan City, Louisi-
ana from Fall 2001 until Spring 2002.
The United States Coast Guard
(USCG) considers a SONS event to be
an uncommon spill incident that: has
multiple Federal On-Scene Coordinator
(FOSC) zones, USCG districts, or
international boundaries; poses a
significant threat to human health or the
environment over a large geographic
area; includes an extended period of
discharge or cleanup; and/or poses
significant public, political, or media
interest and concern. The purpose of
the exercise is to investigate the re-
sponse readiness of the Incident
Command System for a SONS at the
local, regional, and national levels.
Likewise, the exercise allows for the
testing of the effectiveness and coordi-
nation between contingency plans
categorized as area, regional, and
national.
The exercise will begin in September
2001 with Phase One; a table top
exercise involving industry and
government participants from the
local, regional, and national levels. The
-------
goal of Phase One is to ensure that
participants across levels are fully
aware of all levels of contingency
plans and are able to implement them.
Phase One is scheduled to last two to
three days.
Phase two will be a four- to five-day,
full scale exercise to begin in April
2002. This field exercise will include
large-scale equipment deployment in
response to a simulated oil release
along the gulf coasts of Texas and
Louisiana of a magnitude great enough
to affect several hundred miles of
shoreline. The exercise will be de-
signed to test the knowledge and
efficiency of responders and contin-
gency plans through extensive field
involvement and realism. Response
techniques to be implemented during
the exercise include shoreline and on-
water recovery and cleanup, lightering,
in-situ burning, dispersant application,
and salvage methods. The SONS
exercise will allow the functionality of
an Incident Command System, includ-
ing hundreds of participants, to be
tested and evaluated. Further informa-
tion and updates on the exercise can be
found on the Internet at http://
www.incidentnews.gov/incidents/
incident_7.htm.
Tranguch Gasoline Leak
As of June 2001, many steps have
been taken by EPA towards the clean
up of an underground gasoline leak
from the former site of Tranguch Tire
Service in Hazelton, Pennsylvania.
The plume is estimated to contain
50,000 gallons of gasoline. While the
Tranguch site is the main source of the
spill, three other potential responsible
parties have contributed a small
portion of leaked fuel to the area.
These parties include Orloski's Shell,
Sam's Amoco, and Hazelton Standard
Oil. They are all within a one-block
radius of the spill.
The site, which consists of 402 proper-
ties (359 of which are residential),
extends for 12 city blocks. EPA
recently began installation of sewer
vent trap units to prevent vapors from
entering into homes in this area.
Specifically, EPA has found 71 private
residences exceeding the non-detect
level for benzene, and is taking appro-
priate measures to lower those levels.
In addition, EPA has removed 56 cubic
yards of contaminated soil from the
construction site, as well as completed
the treatment and discharge of 9,900
gallons of groundwater. For further
information, please contact Stephen
Jarvela of EPA Region 6 at (215) 814-
3259.
Tank Fire at Orion Refining
Early in the morning on June 8, 2001,
a gasoline storage tank at the Orion
Refining Complex in Norco, Louisi-
ana, burst into flames after being
struck by lightning. The incident,
which happened on the Mississippi
River about 25 miles west of New
Orleans, did not affect surrounding
residential areas. The tank, with over
250,000 barrels of gasoline, emitted a
1,300-foot smoke plume, which
dissipated over an adjacent swamp and
Lake Pontchartrain. This event was the
largest tank fire recorded in Louisiana's
history.
Respondents to the blaze included an
EPA On-Scene Coordinator and
START contractor, as well as Louisi-
ana State Police Hazmat, Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality,
and other organizations. Gasoline that
was not consumed in the fire was
allowed to cool before it was relocated
to adjacent tanks. The fire did not
visibly impinge upon the affected tank
and its neighbors.
While a threat of a spill was present,
there were no spills into any waters.
Air monitoring was conducted in the
surrounding neighborhoods. Evacua-
tions were deemed unnecessary
because contaminants were not found.
The water used to extinguish the blaze
was taken from the Orion Refinery
storm sewer and collection pond to be
recycled. A START contractor re-
mained onsite to monitor the tank and
its neighbors as well as wrap-up the
close out response. For more informa-
tion, contact Richard Franklin, EPA
Region 6, at (214) 665-2785.
Did You Know
What is the genesis of the 42-gallon barrel?
In 1866, oil producers in western Pennsylvania, the heart of the newly
emerging industry, agreed to sell their product by the gallon instead of in
randomly-sized barrels. This was typical of an industry that was starting
to grow beyond regional borders, and needed the ability to consistently
communicate and deal with customers around the country. Interestingly
enough, they decreed that "an allowance of two gallons will be made on
the gauge of each and every 40 gallons in favor of the buyer." This was a
bold gesture of their desire to satisfy their customers. As a result, the
Petroleum Producers Association adopted the 42-gallon barrel in 1872.
USEPA Oil Spill Program Update
July 2001
------- |