The United States
Environmental Protection Agency
The Journal of the U.S. EPA Oil Program Center
Volume 5 Number 1
Contents
Giant Oil Rig Sinks 1
Exxon Valdez Oil Still in Alaskan Soil 3
New Oil Cleanup Web Site 4
New World Record for the Largest
Offshore Oil Containment Boom 4
International Pipeline News 4
Fishing Boats Recover One-Third of
Sunken Ship's Diesel Fuel 5
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center
Infoline 5
Documenting the Revival of Sea Grass in
the Patuxent River 6
Jet Planes Harbor New Use for Soybean
Oil 6
Environmental Impacts of Ethanol 7
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 such as the
general public, including concerned
citizens, students and environmen-
tal groups, on current develop-
ments in news related to oil spills.
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 atwww.epa.gov/
oils pill.
Giant Oil Rig Sinks
On March 20, 2001, Petrobras
Platform 36 (P-36) sank into 4,455
feet of water, 75 miles off the coast of
Brazil, 120 miles northeast of Rio de
Janeiro in the Roncador Field, Cam-
pos Basin. It all started on March 15,
when a feed valve malfunctioned,
causing three explosions. The first
explosion occurred at 12:20 a.m. in a
supporting column. Work was
suspended and fire and emergency
equipment were brought in. The
second explosion occurred at 12:24
a.m. and workers began to be evacu-
ated to Platform 47, 7.5 miles from
P-36. The third explosion occurred
about 10 to 15 minutes later while the
workers were still being evacuated.
Of the 175 people on board, 10 were
not found and 165 were rescued. An
additional person was rescued, but
was burned on 98% of his body and
died 7 days later.
By 7 a.m., 24 people had boarded the
vessel to help investigate the situation;
they were soon evacuated due to the
instability of the platform. Twelve
vessels were deployed to help control
the emergency. One of the vessels
used was a fire fighter that directed
jets of water onto the platform.
On March 16, divers were sent to the
tilting structure to determine the
damage underwater. Three Petrobras
engineers volunteered to go aboard
the vessel, accompanied by two
Brazilian divers. The workers
had experience in floating sys-
tems operations, vessel stability,
and shipbuilding. Their mission
was to look for missing workers,
look for holes that needed to be
blocked from incoming water,
assess actions to drain the
flooded compartments, and help
determine how to stabilize the
platform. There were barges
onsite to help with oil retrieval
and storage if a spill occurred.
The main objective was to find
the missing workers and to
stabilize the platform. Another
team of 30 technicians, including
voluntary engineers, divers from
the Marines, U.S. International
consultants, and Petrobras
technicians boarded the platform
and began sealing gaps. All work
occurred above the water line
because it was impossible to
access the underwater compart-
ments. The team started to inject
nitrogen and compressed air to
expel accumulating water from
the submerged areas. Smit, a
Dutch company specializing in
water drainage, provided 11
technicians and 50 tons of
equipment to the recovery effort.
Their equipment, consisting of
suction pumps and hoses, was
flown into Rio de Janeiro Interna-
tional Airport, and was then
transported by a convoy of
trucks escorted by eight military
-------
police vehicles to Macae, the rig's
land base. Three hundred men
from the Navy's First Naval
District were brought in to help
also. The Navy also provided a
patrol boat, troop carrier, deep-sea
tug, and a helicopter. Petrobras
Platform 23 has moved to the site
to provide a base for operations.
By day three of the rescue and
recovery operations, the platform
was listing 2 degrees less than
before, due in large part to the holes
in the compartments being sealed
and the nitrogen pumping. There
were efforts being made to make a
larger area of the platform acces-
sible and to access the areas where
it was believed that the still missing
bodies might be found.
On day four, the platform sank 16
inches in 12 hours, because there
were still openings feeding water
into other compartments. Those
The aeeHienS happened sti the P-38 plstfetm en fienoader Field,
Ca-mpes. Basin, 12S kms frofn !he coast of Rio de Janeiro
areas continued to be sealed
throughout the night.
On day five, March 20, at 2:30
a.m., the platform shifted suddenly
and all repair and recovery person-
nel were removed. By 10:45 a.m.,
P-36 had sank irreversibly. It
wasn't until 11:30 p.m. that the
first oil spill was detected, possibly
from the 21 pipelines to underwa-
ter wells or the crude oil and diesel
stored on the rig. The Petrobras
Courtesy of the Estado de Sao Paulo.
On Satyfday. March 17,
Petrobras engineers
chmhed ypthe platform
and recovered tha bsdf of
s weffser. Injection
of nitrogen started
m tfifi sybtmerged tanks
te try to stabilize the
si
sit inle ito
After ? He
•" bemg evacyated. Ten •asm
netteynci.
2:3iam - Bssis and ¥«f=Kers jemevRCi Item
tbc jfM sftef j> atiaii! fiffl¥fifl*iHtt el the
H *as enpeeted the 41?, MS g&Ile-fis of diose^ o
tanks, woylei teah o5ae t@ the pres*yre
at a dspth @f feet.
3:2yam -Ay e^a r^Bens a?«
i:MiiHH -in®iinn1iQn reaches 3t ttsgrs@s and
gattofts at heairy oil leahefl due te thS
kr* el this pip.efin.fc Be/nnftstee lo tft*
w»i« used iti
triiasm - Inodnatien is 4S d
1S:3Sam - P-M lannbies.
th* released oil Snd tnrta
tfi'ssne te 4jse dis,pei^fmts> to md tlie dispersiaa and
•e«pet alien sf the rtfnsniutig eil.
Few uddltiBtifll ^ease-Is ysctf beesms !e
ftie M dyfiAg cFi
11:30ani - First Hi I leak oeo«ra: 1.&DO gallo
of &es.af oil from tank*.
In tetal, 1 1 vessels weis ys«fl in the cents fnJranl
4:1ipfH -Se«ene oil leak eecyrs
(A I4S4 M lisly is a
4
-Td^Ilftrtftte
n ISiS te if
leet
r.-cri:, •- OP |n W;.-< 2000
USEPA Oil DROP-
October2001
-------
Environmental Contingency Plan
had nine recovery vessels on site
from the beginning to recover or
disperse any oil that was spilled.
These vessels were equipped with
3.6 miles of barriers and recovery
and dispersal equipment.
P-36 was the largest production
platform in the world that had the
capabilities to produce 180,000
barrels of crude oil a day. It was
built in Italy in 1994 as a drilling
platform, then rebuilt in Canada in
1998 as a production platform.
Production on the rig started in May
2000, less than a year before it
sank. The platform was equivalent
to 40 stories high, weighed 31,400
tons, and was capable of water
depths of 4,460 feet.
Petrobras was faced with a $8.9
million fine by Brazil's environmen-
tal agency that covered the P-36
accident, spilling some 312,000
gallons of oil and another accident
on April 12 that spilled approxi-
mately 6,800 gallons of crude oil
into the sea. Petrobras had to pay
another $890,000 for inappropri-
ately using detergents to break up
oil in one of the spills.
Exxon Valdez Oil Still in
Alaskan Soil
It has been more than 12 years
since the infamous Exxon Valdez oil
spill on Bligh Reef, some 25 miles
south of Valdez, Alaska. However,
the effects are still prominent.
There is much debate between
interested parties regarding the
status of the environment in the
region. Exxon claims that the area
is fully recovered, yet hard evidence
seems to prove otherwise. Only 2
of the 23 species listed as damaged
by direct cause of the oil spill are
classified as
"fully recov-
ered" (the
river otter and
the bald
eagle).
Hanging in the
balance are a
variety of
other key
players in the
food chain:
the common
loon, three
___ ^HLYfBk, " M
HUJBr*
iBr • ctumiiiti
^ujj ot
oil spilt
^ .jj" =,
ALASKA w--'^* m
.:'"-• / 3.*..
;. '•!!• .aSg
-^•:-:v.:« :-ls^ '"""""Ssg
.jjf^sa, - f T
v ^_ .;:f ^ - ; :%:
,: * ; - - - yj/m
-g|^ap*r ^-.--' .^ ^;, :-•
•''lif,L,,,,f - •^\"r ••;:*'
_,;-ir' •:"'-,• .,;i :^>"
P Extent of oiled coastline.
species of
/ r" ,, ,,
_.,,..,,•,_. -j Va a
4 ^ , jtit
^ urn, if,- f ', »;S™iiP -:f~'.-t -
' . ;:l "'-'-
tf/^/t^rt ,.sjfe fesE -( . «
»2V^riy !™^ J?S? .J'
^>
i-""
a? ~ *i«f
i
SBifOfAWftt
IS®
cormorants, harbor seals, killer
whales, and a variety offish species
ranging from the cutthroat to the
Pacific herring.
When the tanker Exxon Valdez ran
aground on March 24, 1989, some
10.8 million gallons of crude oil
were expelled into Prince William
Sound. The impact of the oil was
felt up to 1,300 miles southeast of
the site. Despite extensive efforts
by the citizens of the region and
coordinating agencies, the cleanup
efforts have not fully rectified the
situation. Upon returning to the site
during a 1993 survey, crews found
hundreds of significant oil deposits
along the beach. Cleanup efforts
only removed surface oils, remov-
ing 14 percent of the oil according
to a 1992 NOAA study. Another
13 percent sunk to the ocean floor,
and a great majority of the oil either
evaporated or dispersed into
the water column where it
degraded naturally. Two
percent, or 216,000 gallons,
remained on the beaches just
below the surface under
rocks and overburden.
Winter storms constantly
rearrange the coastline,
exposing deposits that
require subsequent cleanup.
The effect of the cleanup efforts
has also impacted the ecosystem.
Intense scrubbing and scrapping
actions, coupled with thermal
treatment of the rocks and the
introduction of "oil-eating" mi-
crobes, destroyed much of the
aquatic life whose habitat was in
the intertidal zone. These effects,
in turn, were reflected up the food
chain as adequate supplies of food
dwindled. Harbor Seal populations
have fallen at an annual rate of five
percent from 1989 to 1997. The
Sound was also frequented by six
pods of killer whales. One particu-
lar pod, which numbered at 36
whales prior to the spill, lost 14 in
the years since, and has only had a
net gain of 3 individuals since the
spill.
atmospheric
photolysis
20%
dispersed
1%
biodegradsd/
photolyssd
50%
Fate of the 10.8 million gallons spilled from the Exxon Valdez.
USEPA Oil DROP
October 2001
-------
New Oil Cleanup Web Site
A new oil spill web site has been
created recently on the World Wide
Web, and can be found at
Known as
the International Directory of Oil
Spill Cleanup Contractors and
Response Organizations, the site
provides updated information on
oil spill contractors and cleanup
equipment at over 1,000 service
centers in over 40 countries. The
directory was created by Stewart
Ellis of Norfolk, Virginia. After
working in the oil spill industry for
more than 20 years, Ellis realized
the need for up-to-date informa-
tion. The site contains information
on oil spill equipment, bulletin
boards, links to other sites, and
contact information.
The oil spill equipment link
provides detailed information on
different types of equipment used
for various needs including rapid
response and long term responses,
inexpensive options, and recovery
for different oil types. It also
includes equipment for uses in
many different locations and spill
situations such as tidal, fast
flowing, and shallow waters, and
floating oil or oil that clings to
objects. The bulletin board is
available to post messages. Re-
cently posted messages included
requests for information on
contractors, and information on
training courses and workshops.
There is also a section that pro-
vides links to other Web sites for
more information of related
interest. The site includes links to
industry associations, other
discussion groups, oil spill news,
health and safety issues, and
publications of interest. There are
many ways to find information on
the site, including a
word search, location
search, or through an
e-mail inquiry.
This site was created
because of the need
for updated response
information gathered
at one location for
information in a hurry.
The site hopes to reduce cost by
putting users in direct contact with
the contractors, provide a self-
sustaining database of contacts,
reduce response times by putting
people in contact with equipment
closest to their area, and provide
contacts for joint ventures. EPA
does not endorse contractors,
products, or other information
provided on this website.
New World Record for the
Largest Offshore Oil
Containment Boom
New records have been set
recently in offshore oil boom
containment. Ro-Clean Desmi of
Denmark, a producer of oil spill
combating devices, released to the
market the RO-BOOM 3500.
Earmarked as the pinnacle of
offshore boom development, the
boom has displayed its capabilities
in the Norwegian sector of the
North Sea during a three-year
period. In one test, 95 cubic
meters of oil were released, and
RO-BOOM contained 95% of the
test oil, which was measured at a
thickness of 14 cm at the boom
wall. During oil sweeping tests,
the RO-BOOM 3500 contained oil
at speeds of up to 1.3 knots.
During conditions of long-term
towing, the RO-BOOM 3500 was
towed for two weeks in the winter
through swells of 23 feet. The
Record-breaking RO-BOOM 3500.
boom survived without significant
damage. It has an overall deflated
width of 3.5 meters, an operational
freeboard of 1.3 meters and a draft
of 1.5 meters. It was honored in
an entry in the Guinness Book of
World Records for largest offshore
containment boom.
International Pipeline News
Blast Causes Oil Spill in
Yemen
On June 28, 2001, Yemeni tribes-
men blasted a hole in a pipeline
operated by Hunt Oil Company, of
Dallas, Texas, spilling 10,000
barrels of oil. This was the second
attack in a month on the pipeline,
which has been a target of dis-
gruntled tribesmen trying to force
the government to improve local
services. The pipeline carries oil
from the Safer field in the Marib
province 100 miles northeast of
San'a, the capital of Yemen, to the
port of Ras Isa on the Red Sea.
The oil field produces 165,000
barrels of oil a day.
Thieves Break Pakistan
Pipeline
The Pak-Arab Refinery Limited oil
company (PARCO) found their
main pipeline broken in the
Sehwantaluka area on July 12,
2001. Thieves broke the pipeline
USEPA Oil DROP -
October 2001
-------
at a point located six kilometers
from the Bajara police check post
with the help of heavy machinery.
Fishing Boats Recover
One-Third of Sunken
Ship's Diesel Fuel
At about 10:50 a.m. on Saturday,
August 4, 2001, the Windy Bay
tender vessel was heading south
about 400 yards east of Olsen
Island in the Prince William Sound.
Tender vessels normally take the
catch from fishermen and deliver it
to shore, which is what the 180-foot
Windy Bay was attempting to do
when it struck a submerged ledge
and sank into 1,000 feet of water,
disgorging its entire 35,000-gallon
fuel supply into surrounding waters.
Ralph Hansen, co-owner of the
vessel from Sumner, Washington
said skipper Doug Elden, who was
commanding the boat at the time of
the incident, simply misjudged his
position, hit a rock, and sank. "It
doesn't take a lot of misjudgment to
hit something in Prince William
Sound," says Hansen.
Since the 1989 Exxon Valdez
disaster, this has been the largest
spill in Prince William Sound.
Recovery of spilled fuel from the
Windy Bay was about 30 percent
compared to an estimated 3 to 13
percent recovery from the Exxon
Valdez. However, the comparison
is hardly just, considering 35,000
gallons is only a tiny fraction of the
11 million gallons spilled in 1989.
In the Exxon Valdez disaster, there
was inadequate spill response
equipment and a confused recovery
effort. In comparison, a local
citizens watchdog group, fishermen,
and authorities are all calling this a
successful spill recovery.
One reason for the increased
recovery percentage in this year's
spill is more modern technology
such as new spill containment
boom and a new skimmer, the
Valdez Star, which is working
better than expected. But even
more important are the fishermen
who are now better trained and
equipped for cleanups. One such
fisherman, Skipper Megan
Corazza, pulled in $2,350 worth of
oil the Tuesday after the spill. Her
boat is one of the 19 that halted
fishing in order to aid in the
cleanup effort. In addition to being
registered with the spill cleanup
group at the oil terminal in Valdez,
Corazza and her boat crew are
trained in spill response.
Despite the intense cleanup efforts,
vibrant sheens can still be seen
wrapped around the Sound's rocky
heads and curled into its coves.
Diesel arrived on shore of at least
four islands and one merganser
duck covered in oil has been
recovered. Sea life such as endan-
gered Steller sea lions and hump-
back whales were spotted swim-
ming in the diesel sheens. As the
spill expanded due to tides and
wind, the recovery effort slowed.
Cleanup continued, but with fewer
boats and less boom. Workers
walking the beaches were assessing
fuel amounts that reached shore as
well as searched for dead or injured
wildlife. Containment booms
protecting oyster farms and a
hatchery north of the spill remained
in place.
U.S. EPA Oil Program
Center Infoline
The EPA's Oil Program Center
(OPC) offers a variety of
information about oil spill
prevention and response through its
Internet web site (www.epa.gov/
oilspill). This information serves as
a resource for businesses that are
subject to oil spill regulations,
emergency personnel that respond
to oil spills, students, teachers, and
the general public. One of the most
popular features of the web site is
the e-mail infoline (www.epa.gov/
oilspill/comment.htm or
oilinfo@epa.gov). This feature
allows the public to contact OPC
personnel to ask specific questions
that may not be answered
elsewhere on the web site. People
who do not have access to Internet
can reach the infoline voice mail
system at 1-800-424-9346.
OPC staff respond to approximately
70-90 public inquiries each month.
They provide answers to oil facility
owners and technical professionals
regarding oil spill regulations, offer
information to concerned citizens
about how to report a suspected
spill, provide information on the
environmental impacts of oil spills,
and respond to requests for data
about oil spills. Many of the
questions submitted to the OPC
through oil spill infoline are from
students and teachers seeking
information for classroom and
science fair projects dealing with oil
spills. OPC staff are pleased to
have the opportunity to respond to
questions from interested individu-
als.
Typical questions answered through
the infoline include items such as:
• What would be an environmen-
tally conscious method of
cleaning crude oil from a beach?
• Can you provide or direct me to
information on biological oil
clean-up agents?
USEPA Oil DROP
October 2001
-------
• I am doing a high school science
experiment involving oil spills.
Can you provide me with
examples of how to demonstrate
or simulate an oil spill in a
classroom laboratory environ-
ment?
• How are wildlife oiled during an
oil spill incident rehabilitated?
• Is it true that vegetable and
cooking oils are also regulated
by the EPA?
• What oil regulations apply to
transfer facilities? What regula-
tions apply to marinas?
• Does the professional engineer
that certifies my facility's Spill
Pollution Control and Counter-
measures (SPCC) Plan have to
be licensed in the state my
facility is located in?
Documenting the Revival
of Sea Grass in the
Patuxent River
Barren muddy bottoms now found
in some regions of the Chesapeake
Bay make it difficult to imagine the
lush aquatic fields of sea grasses
that once flourished throughout the
clear waters. The delicate ecosys-
tem of the Chesapeake Bay has
been hit hard by development
within the watershed as chemical
and nutrient rich runoff into the
water increased drastically over the
past century. To combat this
change, anew frontier of scientific
research is developing, involving
the restoration of ecosystems
disturbed by human activities.
Some scientists at the Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory, headquar-
tered at Solomons Island, part of
the University of Maryland's
Center for Environmental Science,
are working to restore a pristine
image of the Chesapeake, begin-
USEPA Oil DROP •
October 2001
ning with a revival of the sea grass.
A wetsuit clad scientist walks down
a dock carrying an ordinary cooler.
His mission is to plant the grassy
foliage in his cooler as part of a
$670,000 restoration project. The
goal is to restore 63 acres of
degraded aquatic ecosystem at the
mouth of the Patuxent River with
the contents of the cooler, a plant
by the name of eelgrass. If the
planted eelgrass survives, it will
provide increased habitat for
shellfish, in particular, oysters. As
oysters filter the water to feed, they
gradually help clear the water,
boosting the light levels available
for eelgrass growth. With purer
water and increased vegetation,
scientists hope to foster a habitat
for fish and birds.
Along with their usual business of
science, the lab group has an even
larger goal of documenting the
restoration process. Although
scientists have thoroughly docu-
mented the degradation of the
environment through human
activities, the ability to help heal
ecosystems remains difficult to
evaluate. Equipped with state-of-
the-art underwater cameras to
capture the secret lives of the
eelgrass habitats, the scientists will
post live images on the Internet for
public access to the project.
Although government-funded
projects like this one are leading the
way, private industries are now
investing millions per year in
restoration ecology. Corporations
are researching better technologies
to clean up environmental spills and
ways to build in sensitive environ-
ments. On one project alone, the
cleanup of an oil spill at a former
plant near the Patuxent River, the
Potomac Electric Power Company
has spent over $60 million.
Jet Planes Harbor New
Use for Soybean Oil
Soybean oil has been successfully
used to power cars, buses, and
boats. A new use has emerged as
researchers at the federal
government's Agricultural Re-
search Service have found a way
to blend the bean-based oil with jet
fuel.
nspecting soybean oils that have been winterized.
I'Uilu !;y "'eilh rta. sr: I o;,i !>?:,>• U3D"
Supporters of biodiesel technology
cite payoffs such as cleaner air,
larger profits for U.S. soybean
growers, and a decreased national
dependency on foreign oil imports.
Biodiesel components can come
from renewable sources such as
soybeans, sunflowers, canola, and
cottonseeds. In addition, waste
products like fryer oils and cooking
grease, as well as beef tallow and
pork lard, can be used. However,
drawbacks and limitations to
biodiesel use in jet aircraft exist. A
spill of these non-petroleum oils
could affect local wildlife by
coating animals' fur and feathers
causing suffocation, starvation, and
freezing. Biodiesel fuels can also
cause oxygen depletion in water
-------
leading to fish kills, and they can
contaminate drinking water sup-
plies.
Biodiesel also has one serious
technical problem - the behavior of
the bean oil at low temperatures.
Using biodiesel fuel blends that
have not been "winterized" could
limit a jet's ability to fly at high
altitudes, where cold temperatures
can cause crystal formation,
blocking fuel filters and plugging of
fuel lines. Research continues and
steps have been made to develop an
appropriate winterizing process for
biodiesel fuel. In fact, in 1999, the
Federal Aviation Administration
certified a fuel for piston driven
aircraft containing biodiesel. This
fuel contains 85 percent ethanol, a
high-octane petroleum product, and
an agriculturally derived biodiesel
for lubrication. Look for the
certification of more biodiesel fuels
in the future.
Environmental Impacts of
Ethanol
There's little doubt that the impend-
ing necessity for energy solutions is
not a trivial issue, nor is it a simple
one to understand. As has been the
case since energy concerns were
brought to the public's attention
several decades ago, the different
sources of energy each have their
positive sides, as well as potentially
harmful aspects. Hydroelectric
dams, for example, were once
touted as being the ultimate in
"clean" energy. Now, many dams
are being removed as their impact
on the waterways and the inhabiting
fauna are reevaluated.
A current issue for regulators to
handle is whether ethanol should be
used as either a fuel or a gasoline
additive. Ethanol is a natural,
biodegradable, renewable resource.
In the face of a limited supply of
oil, and such tragic oil spills as the
Jessica tanker leak, the prospect of
its use is very appealing.
One of the most pressing applica-
tion of ethanol is its use as a
gasoline additive. Each ethanol
molecule contains a high ratio of
oxygen by weight, and, for this
reason, it is used as an "oxigenate."
In the presence of oxygen, most
hydrocarbons (the simplest compo-
nents of gasoline, molecules formed
from carbon and hydrogen only)
are combusted completely into
water and harmless carbon dioxide.
However, when oxygen is not as
abundant, some incomplete com-
bustion may occur, leading to the
dangerous gas carbon monoxide.
Many states have regulations
concerning allowable levels of
carbon monoxide produced in
engine exhaust. The oxigenate
methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), which was until recently
a favorite additive for lowering
carbon monoxide, is being banned
in many states following several
high profile incidents in which the
non-biodegradable compound
leaked from tanks into nearby
water supplies. WithMTBE's
shortcoming fresh in mind, ethanol
seems to be the ideal alternative.
Ethanol degrades very quickly and
does not pose a groundwater
contamination threat.
However, not everyone is pleased
with the idea of ethanol additives in
gasoline. Like many other sources
of energy, ethanol may have several
negative impacts along with the
desired effect. Opponents of
ethanol have noted that, while
carbon monoxide emissions drop
when the chemical is used as an
additive, emissions of nitrogen
oxides increases. These nitrogen
oxide molecules are responsible for
the reddish-brown haze of smog,
acid rain, and the formation of
ozone, a dangerous respiratory
irritant. Also, opponents are
concerned that the ethanol-blended
fuel will evaporate more easily,
especially on hot summer days.
Evaporated gasoline is chemically
altered by elements of smog to
produce particulates and amplify
ozone production.
Just as natural gas contains a foul-
smelling additive to help people
detect leaks, ethanol intended for
fuel has a sulphurous compound
added to distinguish it from alcohol
intended for consumption. How-
ever, as guidelines concerning
sulfur in gasoline become more
restrictive, this additive may
become a problem.
Another concern lies in the trans-
portation of ethanol-enriched fuel.
As it passes through the large
network of fuel pipelines, ethanol
in the blended fuel separates in the
presence of moisture. Forthis
reason, it is better to ship the pure
ethanol separately by truck and mix
it into the gasoline at the point of
distribution. However, this results
in an increase in transportation
costs, which is likely to be passed
down to the consumer.
As is the case with most energy
sources having both positive and
negative aspects, the benefits must
be carefully weighed before ethanol
becomes a component of all
gasoline.
USEPA Oil DROP
October 2001
-------
BeatrizOliveira, 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
First-Class
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
PermitNo. G-35
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Program Center 5203G
EPA540-N-01-007
OSWER 9360.8-34
October 2001
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency(5203G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |