v> EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA's Oil Program Center Report
Volume 4 Number 4
Contents
Alaskan Shoots Bullet into Pipeline
Triggering Major Oil Spill 1
Freshwater Spills Symposium 2002 3
EKG Operating Spill 3
Puget Sound Diesel Leak 4
Transformer Spill In Vienna, Virginia 4
Clearwater River Diesel Spill 4
In-Situ Burning Finds Increased Under-
standing 5
When Oil Meets the Shore 6
$5 Billion in Exxon Valdez Damages Ruled
Excessive 6
Exxon Cleanup Crew Illnesses 7
Environmental Response Team Website 7
Alaskan Shoots Bullet into
Pipeline Triggering Major Oil
Spill
On Thursday, October 4, 2001, a
bullet punctured a hole in the trans-
Alaska oil pipeline in Livengood,
Alaska, a small community 107
miles north of Fairbanks on Elliott
Highway. The pipeline was punc-
tured about halfway between
Prudhoe Bay in the Arctic and the
Prince William Sound port of
Valdez.
The spill was discovered during a
helicopter overflight, said Alyeska
spokesman Tim Woolston. By mid-
afternoon Friday, October 5, more
than 277,000 gallons of oil had
spilled. Despite efforts, crude was
still pouring from the hole contami-
nating the scrub and spruce forest
surrounding the pipeline. The
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
(APSC), which runs the 1 million
barrel a day pipeline, struggled
with the problem. Though the north
slope of the pipeline was shut down
hours after the shooting, pressure
remaining in the pipe was forcing
the oil out at a rate of over 140
gallons a minute more than 24 hours
later.
According to APSC, about 840,000
gallons were trapped in the leaking
pipe section, giving Alyeska two
possible choices. The oil could be
drained using two nearby valves to
relieve the pressure in the damaged
sections, which would take several
days, or the pipe could be clamped.
Pipe clamping had been tested, but
never used to control a real spill;
however, APSC President David
Wight felt confident in this method.
"This is a scenario we've thought
About The Update
EPA's Oil Spill Program Update is produced quarterly; using infor-
mation 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 businesses, and the regulated
community current with the latest developments. The Update is
available on the Oil Program homepage at www.epa.gov/oilspill.
-------
January 2002
about. And we've got equipment
that will work," Wight said. Even-
tually, APSC used both methods.
Late Saturday, October 6, the hole
was permanently plugged and
welded with DOT-OPS & Joint
Pipeline Office oversight and
approval.
Approximately 150 personnel
responded to the spill and worked
with skimmers, pumps, and vacuum
trucks to remove pooled oil. The
leading edge of the spill migrated
300 to 400 yards to the west of the
release point, soaking trees, brush,
and tundra in a 5 to 6 acre area.
More than 108,402 gallons of oil
have been collected and re-injected
into the pipeline or stored at Pump
Station 7. Cold temperatures in the
30's and repair of the system
substantially slowed the rate of
crude oil flowing into the recovery
area. Crews set up containment
dikes to prevent the oil from reach-
ing the Tolovana River, a tributary
of the Yukon River, which lies only
one mile away. Removal of con-
taminated soils began Sunday,
October 7, with oiled soils being
stockpiled in a staging area. No
impacts to surface water or wildlife
have been reported to date, but
APSC will be collecting fish
samples from nearby Shorty Creek.
By October 11, crews were concen-
trating on clean-up of surrounding
acres affected by the spill. Soil
will be tested to confirm clean-up
Alaskan Pipeline.
before backfilling. The
EPA On-Scene Coordina-
tor (OSC) from the An-
chorage Alaska office of
Region 10 scheduled an
overflight of the spill site
to obtain the potential
magnitude of the oil
discharge.
Alaska State Troopers,
who responded to the spill
with the FBI, charged
Daniel Lewis, 37, with
two felony counts and two
misdemeanor counts,
including intentionally
damaging an oil pipeline,
reckless endangerment,
possession of a firearm
while intoxicated, and driving
while intoxicated. Police say
Lewis and his brother were spotted
near the pipe by an APSC helicop-
ter crew at 2:30 PM on Thursday,
October 4, 2001. When helicopter
landed, Lewis fled, but his brother
Randolph Lewis, stayed on-scene
and identified him as the shooter.
Randolph Lewis stated that his
brother shot the pipeline after an
argument between them. By 6:35
PM, Daniel Lewis was appre-
hended, but denied any involvement
in the shooting saying that he was
asleep at his residence that after-
noon. Police say he had shot the
pipeline at least four times with a
.338 caliber rifle before firing the
shot that punctured the pipe. He
remained in custody in Fairbanks
under $1.5 million bail.
The pipeline is on above-ground
supports to allow for movement due
to weather and seismic distur-
bances. That makes it difficult to
protect 800 miles of pipeline that
^
pipeline
•-.
ENGSTROM
airtenki-'
tV'trHjIVlCfc? C-?U
runs through Alaska's wilderness
and is owned by six different oil
companies, primarily Exxon Mobil,
BP and Phillips Petroleum. Au-
thorities have expressed frustration
that someone could so easily do that
much damage to the state's most
valuable industrial asset. Though
APSC has increased security along
the pipeline since the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks, they will
again review their security mea-
sures.
This is not the first time vandals and
saboteurs have targeted the pipe. In
1977, a dynamite explosion buck-
led, but did not break, the pipeline.
In 1978, plastic explosives were set
off on the pipeline at Steel Creek
near Fairbanks, Alaska, spilling
16,000 barrels of oil. Authorities
never made an arrest. In 1999, in
an attempt to drive up oil prices and
profit on oil futures, a Vancouver
man was charged with attempting to
blow up the pipeline. This was the
largest spill along the pipeline in 23
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
January 2002
years and the second largest in its
history. State regulations prohibit
the use of firearms within five miles
of the pipeline and hunting rifles
would not penetrate the line unless
it was in close range, but hunting is
still prohibited near the line.
Though this shooting was the first
time a gunshot penetrated the half-
inch steel on the pipeline, bullets
from intentional or stray shootings
have scarred the pipe in dozens of
places since its opening in 1977.
For additional information, contact
Carl Lautenberger, U.S. EPA
Region 10, at (907) 271-4306.
Freshwater Spills Symposium
2002
Cleveland, Ohio has been selected
as the site of the fourth biennial
Freshwater Spills Symposium
(FSS), which will take place over
two-and-a-half days, from March
19 to 21, 2002. The FSS is a forum
for local, state, federal, and industry
spill responders to focus on plan-
ning, prevention, and response to
oil spills in freshwater environ-
ments. Others who may also be
interested in attending the sympo-
sium include industry and govern-
ment regulators; natural resource
trustees and mangers; facility
owners, response planners, and
managers; environmentalists,
naturalists, and conservationists.
FSS2002's plenary session will
include presentations from guest
speakers on spill response planning
and planning and preparing for
small spills. Additional session
topics include:
• oil spill prevention measures,
• planning and preparedness,
• natural resource restoration,
• case studies,
• cleanup techniques and response
technologies,
• tanks and standards,
• environmental impacts in
freshwater areas
• biological control methods,
• rehabilitation of oiled wildlife in
inland areas, and
• sensitivity mapping and GIS
For the first time, the symposium
will sponsor an oil spill-related
poster contest for students. Local
high school students will enter their
posters to be judged by members of
the FSS Design Team for a chance
to win cash prizes. The winning
posters will be on display at the
symposium.
A special room rate has been
reserved for attendees at the
symposium location, the Sheraton
Cleveland City Centre Hotel. For
more information regarding
FSS2002, visit the website at
www.freshwaterspills.net/fss2002
or contact Sheila Calovich, U.S.
EPA Region 5 at (312) 353-1505.
You may also email questions about
the ymposium to oilinfo@epa.gov
or FSS2002@dyncorp.com.
EKG Operating Spill
EKG Operating employee Paul
Tucker found an oil and saltwa-
ter spill, but did not report it to
the National Response Center
(NRC), the State of Oklahoma,
or the EPA. The event oc-
curred the morning of October
5, 2001. Mr. Tucker discov-
ered the spill leaking from a
rupture in the oil production
flowline running from the oil
well to the storage facility located
about 10 miles northwest of Aola,
in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. The
well was shut off immediately.
Three days after the spill, a contrac-
tor constructed an earthen dike to
prevent further migration; however,
it was not wide enough and the
waste entered into a small stream
that flows into a creek and meets the
South Canadian River. Two days
later, clean-up crews inserted two
absorbent booms into the stream,
but placed them upstream of much
of the product. Mr. Tucker added
an unspecified amount of "Petro-
Green,"a surface washing agent
listed on the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) Product
Schedule.
Grant Ellis of the Oklahoma Cor-
poration Commission discovered
the spill on October 10, 2001 and
notified the NRC and EPA. EPA
mobilized the Superfund Technical
Assessment and Response Team
(START). It was hard for the
inspectors to determine the exact
volume of the spill due to weather,
but it was estimated that approxi-
mately 2 barrels of crude oil and
200 barrels of saltwater were
spilled. They also noted that there
were about fifty dead fish of six
different species along the pathway
Tributary of South Canadian River
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
January 2002
of the spill. There was no recovery
effort observed by the inspectors.
Although this spill was not that
large, it is notable because there
was no notification by the Respon-
sible Party (RP), poor clean-up
response by the RP, a sizable fish
kill, and the use of Petro-Green in
violation of the NCP. A fine was
recommended and the case will be
referred to Region 6 Oil Pollution
Act Enforcement for spill and
SPCC violations. For more infor-
mation, contact the Federal On-
Scene Coordinator, Richard
Franklin at (214) 665-2785.
Puget Sound Diesel Leak
A spill of 4,000-5,000-gallons of
diesel fuel occurred near Puget
Sound on October 5, 2001. A
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
freight train hit some debris on the
tracks, puncturing of two locomo-
tive fuel tanks. The train continued
traveling north another 10 miles
before the leaks were discovered
by the crew of a southbound train.
The spill was mostly contained on
land, but fuel did leak into Puget
Sound according to Gus Melonas, a
railroad spokesman. Most of the
fuel that reached the Sound stayed
on the surface of the water and
dissipated. An absorbent boom
was deployed to contain the spill.
Emergency crews from local fire
departments plugged the leak in the
first locomotive tank and used
plastic to build a containment pool
around the second locomotive,
according to Paul O'Brien, the OSC
from the Washington State Depart-
ment of Ecology. Absorbent pads
were also used in the spill re-
sponse, and the fuel that soaked into
the soil was removed.
Transformer Spill in Vienna,
Virginia
A transformer installed in 1989
ruptured at a Dominion Virginia
Power Substation in Vienna, Vir-
ginia on late in the summer of 2001.
The spill released 10,500 gallons of
non-PCB transformer oil onto the
Washington & Old Dominion
bicycle trail. A small amount of oil
left a sheen on nearby Piney Branch
Creek, according to the Assistant
Fire Marshall. The spill also cut-
off power to 6,100 local Virginia
Power customers for 23 minutes.
Virginia Power and the Fairfax
County Fire Department immedi-
ately responded to the incident and
were able to build a dam to contain
the oil. The USCG also responded
and served as the first federal
official on-scene until the EPA
Region 3 OSC arrived later in the
day. State agencies chose not to
respond to the event. The EPA
OSC remained through the follow-
ing day to ensure appropriate
response measures were being
taken.
The cause of the rupture is un-
known, but believed to be a me-
chanical failure. EPA monitored
the site for long-term damage, no
further updates were released. For
more information, contact Nelson
Mix, U.S. EPA Headquarters, (703)
603-8775
Clearwater River Diesel Spill
The new year started in Region 10
with an oil spill on the Clearwater
River in Idaho. Early on the
morning of January 6,2002, a
petroleum tank transporting red-
dyed diesel was involved in a
traffic accident on Idaho State
Highway 12, just northwest of the
town of Kooskia. The accident
resulted in a release of approxi-
mately 10,000 gallons of diesel into
the Middle Fork of the Clearwater
River. Later that day, the EPA On-
Scene Coordinator and START-2
personnel responded and estab-
lished a unified command with the
Soil! Ct-esafiuft
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
January 2002
Idaho State Patrol and the respon-
sible party, Hi-Noon Petroleum,
Inc. Public safety was a concern;
therefore, notification was sent to
the four downstream municipal
water systems to prepare for
potential oil impact. The systems
were closed for two days. Hi-Noon
Petroleum, Inc. provided 10,000
gallons of bottled water to local
residents.
Approximately 600 gallons of
standing product was recovered
from a ditch north of the river. The
remainder of the product had
already reached the river or soaked
into soils. A recovery trench was
constructed between the site and the
river, from which a vacuum truck
reclaimed approximately 5,000
gallons of fuel/water mixture.
Furthermore, 1,300 yards of
contaminated soil was excavated
and removed by truck for disposal.
An initial helicopter overflight
confirmed that most contamination
was within the first few miles
downstream. Beyond this distance,
no major pockets of recoverable
product were discernable. The
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
and the Nez Perce Tribe observed
no fish or wildlife mortality in fish
and wildlife impact surveys. For
more information, contact Federal
On-Scene Coordinator, Greg
Weigel, U.S. EPA, Region 10, (208)
378-5773.
In-Situ Burning Finds Increased
Understanding
In-situ oil spill burning is beginning
to be looked at in a new way. No
longer is it thought to be as pollut-
ing as it once was, and its advan-
tages of being fast working and
efficient are causing in-situ burning
to be considered as a viable clean-
up option more often.
In-situ burning involves the ignition
of an oil slick on the water from a
vessel-deployed device that is
soaked in a volatile compound, set
afire, and directed to drift into the
slick. A helicopter may also be
used to drop burning fuel directly
on to the slick. The resulting fire is
quick burning and intense. It leaves
behind oil residue, and produces a
black smoke plume.
Although it can be effective in some
situations, in-situ burning is rarely
used on marine spills because of
widespread concern over atmo-
spheric emissions and uncertainty
about its impacts on human and
environmental health. However,
burning of inland spills is frequently
used in a number of states. All
burns produce significant amounts
of particulate matter, dependent on
the type of oil being burned. Burn-
ing oil delivers polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, volatile organic
compounds, carbon dioxide, and
carbon monoxide into the air in
addtion to other compounds at
lower levels.
It's the thick plume that has cloaked
in-situ burning in controversy over
its safety. However, an international
group of scientists recently revealed
that concentrations of most sub-
stances released during burns of
crude oil are below human health
limits, even when measured as
close as 500 meters from the burn
site. The remaining soot is mostly
composed of carbon, with the
residue being unburned oil, which
is sticky and can be difficult to
recover. Interestingly, less pollut-
ants would be released to the
atmosphere by conducting in-situ
burning than would be if the oil
were burned by consumers as fuel.
In-situ burning rapidly reduces the
volume of spilled oil. With de-
creased volume and a shortened
response-time involved, oil has less
of a opportunity to spread and harm
aquatic and shoreline ecosystems.
Further, in-situ burns decrease or
eliminate the need to collect, store,
transport, and dispose of large
volumes of recovered material.
Favorable conditions for using in-
situ burning include: wind speeds of
less than 23 mph, waves under 3
feet high, a slick thickness of at
least 2 to 3 mm, under 30 percent
evaporative loss, and an emulsifica-
tion of less than 25 percent water.
Burning must take place at least
three miles from a population at
risk. Before in-situ burning can be
employed, a Regional Response
Team must approve it, per the
guidelines of the National Contin-
gency Plan. Air monitoring equip-
ment is also required to ensure that
In-situ Burn Test
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
January 2002
air quality standards are not ex-
ceeded.
The international researchers hope
that greater understanding of the
effects of in-situ burning result in its
increased acceptability as an
alternative countermeasure. In a
number of ways, responders are
growing in recognition of its envi-
ronmental benefits and economic
savings.
When Oil Meets the Shore
When an oil spill occurs on open
water, a number of factors influence
the path of the oil, including wave
action, current, and wind. However,
when that same spill finds its way
to a shoreline, new challenges
arise. The physical properties of the
oil and the shoreline will dictate
how the spill affects the coast. The
effects of the spill, in turn, dictate
the method of cleanup that should be
used.
The degree to which the oil pen-
etrates the shore is, in part, a
function of the type of oil spilled.
Lighter oils tend to evaporate and
degrade more quickly than heavier
oils, but often penetrate soils more
easily. While heavier oils tend to
remain on the surface, the oil that
does penetrate the beach is more
difficult to remove, and may stick to
the rocks in the form of tar balls or
asphalt.
Shoreline geology also influences
the impacts of a spill. The larger the
size of the beach particles, the
easier it is for oil to ooze into the
spaces between them. Once oils
penetrate a beach, they adhere to the
particles in different ways, depend-
ing on whether they are heavy or
light. Oils that tightly adhere to the
particles are more difficult to
remove than those that loosely
adhere. Oils that remain on the
surface of a beach with cobbles and
pebbles, may be more easily de-
graded by the waves and sunlight
that is able to reach them.
Freshwater inland spills usually
affect shorelines with standing or
slow-moving water, where oil
remains long enough to be easily
absorbed. Conversly, when oil is
spilled in a marine or riverine
environment, intense waves and
current keeping most of the oil from
settling. If oil reaches a shoreline
that is near to or supports a sensi-
tive biological community, it may
take longer for that community to
recover from the effects of the spill.
However, a sparsely inhabited
shoreline may experience fewer
long-term effects.
The decision of whether to rely on
natural processes, such as evapora-
tion and biodegradation, or to use
physical methods, such as
absorbents or pressure washing,
should be closely linked with the
situation. Authorized chemical
cleaners can also be used to clean
up oiled shorelines. By weighing
oil properties against shoreline
characteristics, cleanup can be
planned and conducted with great
success.
$5 Billion in Exxon Valdez
Damages Ruled Excessive
On November 7, 2001, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco stuck down an award of
$5 billion in damages to be paid by
Exxon for the 1989 oil spill by the
tanker Valdez. The plaintiffs were
commercial fishermen affected by
the spill, with Exxon, which has
since merged with Mobil to form
Exxon Mobil Corporation, as the
defendant.
The tanker ran aground in Alaska's
Prince William Sound, in the largest
and most-publicized oil spill in
U.S. history. In 1994, the jury of the
U.S. District Court in Anchorage
filed with the plaintiffs who
claimed financial harm from the
spill, and argued for between $5
billion and $15 billion in punitive
damages. In the same decision,
$287 million was awarded to the
plaintiffs for spill-related economic
losses.
The $5 billion amount in punitive
damages settled upon, noted the
court in November's decision, was
17 times greater than the amount of
compensatory damages. The Court
of Appeals also noted that in a
separate 1991 case, the U.S. Su-
preme Court restricted punitive
damages awards to four times the
actual harm inflicted on plaintiffs,
Valdez Cleanup Workers
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
January 2002
and that the ratio was "close to the
line" of being constitutionally
acceptable and not.
Lead plaintiff attorney for this case,
David Oesting, stated that, "...every
other technical legal argument by
Exxon against the damages was
rejected...and the only issue is
quantification of the amount." Each
of the three judges rendering the
decision asserted that some dam-
ages were justified, but that $5
billion was simply too much. The
$287 million in compensatory
damages granted in 1994 was left
unmodified by the appeals court.
The recent Court of Appeals deci-
sion, made over seven years after
the original ruling, met with resent-
ment by many Alaskans adversely
affected by the spill. Many still see
the oil in the shoreline ecosystem.
One corporate owner of land
bordering Prince William Sound
relayed that people would not
recover until the lawsuit was
settled.
The U.S. District Court in Anchor-
age is directed to reduce the amount
of the punitive damage award by
applying factors set by the Supreme
Court, including the relative repre-
hensibility of conduct, penalty
imposed for similar misconduct,
and the ratio of the damage award
to the actual harm inflicted.
Exxon Cleanup Crew Illnesses
Out of the 15,000 workers who
cleaned up the worst oil disaster in
U.S. history, the 1989 Exxon Valdez
oil spill, there is an increasing
number who are experiencing health
problems. The health issues are
similar and include respiratory
problems, headaches, skin rashes,
enlarged livers, and kidney prob-
lems. More severe cases include
cancer, emphysema, pancreatitis
and spleen problems. The large
number of upper-respiratory com-
plaints is a potential warning flag of
chemical exposure.
Exxon says the cleanup operation
was "remarkably safe" and in-
volved crude oil, which is naturally
occurring with a very low toxicity
after a few days of weathering. But,
the Valdez cleanup also involved
strong solvents, in addition to the
crude oil. Some believe that
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
could have entered the lungs of
workers or been absorbed through
the skin.
The National Institute for Occupa-
tional Health and Safety (NIOSH)
agreed with Exxon's assessment
that a virus was likely responsible
for the respiratory problems, that
affected not only cleanup workers,
but also office personnel and even
lawyers. It was concluded there
was no risk, as long as there was
meticulous adherence to standards
developed by Exxon, NIOSH, and
teh Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). There are
claims that this was not always the
case. Most health officials remain
unconvinced that the cleanup left
anyone sick.
ERT Website
The Environmental Response Team,
in response to the need to provide
high-quality video programs on
treatment technologies, hazardous
waste sites, site investigations, and
other ERT activities, has launched a
web site. It is at www.ertvideo.org
You can view video samples and
order full-length videosfrom their
on-line catalog. The site has videos
on phytoremediation, oil spill
clean-up options, tire fires, metham-
phetamine labs, revegetation with
native plants, information on spe-
cific hazardous waste sites, and
more. The related links,
www.ertsupport.com and
www.ert.org, were both formed to
support staff and help them with
decision-making processes. They
provide web support and training in
different programs and automation
of specific tasks to assist OSCs,
Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), Task Leaders, and field
personnel with on-site tasks. The
site's goal is to resolve problems,
provide support, and take requests
for improvements. These sites can
be used as tools to build web sites
about hazardous waste sites and
provide site activity information,
site photos, profiles, and docu-
ments. Questions and comments on
these sites can be made via email at
ert-support@epa.gov or by calling
(800) 999-6990.
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5203G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
First-Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Program Center 5203G
EPA540-N-01-009
OSWER 9360.8-39
January 2002
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
------- |