v> EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA's Oil Program Center Report
Volume 4 Number6
Contents
Questions and Answers on the
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contin-
gency Plan, Subpart J, Product
Schedule 40 CFR 300.900 1
Region 5 Maps Inland Waterways
for Spill Response 2
National Pollution Funds Center
Seminar 2
Peer-reviewed Bioremedation
Guidance Document 3
Axton Road Gasoline Leak 3
Anonymous Tip Leads to Discov-
ery of Diesel Spill 3
Field Guide for Oil Spills in Fast
Currents 4
Inland Spills Conference 4
Avista-Coyote Transformer Spill 4
Fire and Smoke Plume at Petro-
chemical Plant in Texas 5
Region 8 Exercises 5
ERT Training Courses 6
Recent Spills in Brief 6
Questions and Answers on the
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, Subpart J, Product Schedule
40 CFR 300.900
Due to increased interest in the listing
process and proper use of alternative
countermeasures (ACMs) for oil spills,
the Product Schedule manager produced
this fact sheet for stakeholders interested
in understanding Subpart J of the NCR
This fact sheet describes the protocols
for listing ACMs on the Product
Schedule. ACMs for oil spills include
bioremediation agents, dispersants, and
surface washing agents that may be
authorized for use during an oil spill
response.
Background information:
• Alternative countermeasures range
from simple absorbents that soak
up the oil for collection and
removal to complex chemical and
biological agents intended to
disperse or biodegrade the oil.
• The National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) Subpart J Product
Schedule (40 CFR 300.900)
established a process that
manufacturers must follow to have
an oil spill product listed and
evaluated by EPA and Regional
Response Teams (RRTs). The RRT
plans for and may respond to oil
spills when the on-scene
coordinator (OSC) considers the
use of an alternative countermea-
sure. Fifteen different federal
agencies may also provide
assistance.
• A product must be listed on the
NCP before it can be considered
for use in an oil spill cleanup.
RRTs convene to determine the
appropriateness of using an oil
spill cleanup technology at a
particular oil spill site and provide
advice to the OSC.
What is the Product Schedule?
Section 311(d)(2) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended by section 4201 (a) of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, authorizes
the President to prepare a "schedule of
dispersants, other chemicals, and other
spill mitigating devices and substances, if
any, that may be authorized for use on oil
discharges..." The EPA prepares and
maintains this schedule. The Product
Schedule contains five product
categories:
Dispersants—used to break up oil on the
water's surface, causing it to disperse
down into the water column where natural
forces can degrade the oil droplets.
(Marine/Coastal waters only)
Surface washing agents—used on solid
surfaces only to lift and float oil to better
absorb or vacuum it up.
-------
July 2002
Surface collecting agents—used to
control the thickness layer of oil to aid
mechanical recovery. Also know as
"herding agents."
Bioremediation agents—microbes,
nutrients, enzymes, or a combination
intended to encourage the degradation of
the oil.
Miscellaneous oil spill control agents—
any other spill mitigating agents, such as
chemical or biological based sorbents and
elastizers.
Where can one find the procedures for
listing a product on the NCP Product
Schedule?
The general requirements are found at 40
CFR 300.900, and the required toxicity
and effectiveness protocols are found in
Appendix C to Part 300 of the NCP (40
CFR 300.920). You can also call 202-
260-2342 or visit the Oil Program
website at: www.epa.gov/oilspill
What testing must be conducted for
different types of products?
In order to be listed on the Product
Schedule, a dispersant must obtain an
effectiveness value of 50% + or - 5% for
the Dispersant Effectiveness Test.
Bioremediation agent submissions must
include the successful results of a 28 day
Bioremediation Agent Effectiveness Test.
Who may submit data on a product for
listing?
The owner and/or manufacturer of the
product, or authorized representative.
How does EPA decide whether to list a
product?
EPA's Oil Program Center conducts a
review of the raw data and required
information to confirm that the data are
complete and valid.
EPA will inform the submitter, in writing
within 60 days, after receipt of complete
technical product data, of its decision on
adding the product to the Schedule.
Additional information or a sample of the
product may be required (300.920(a)(2)).
The data requirements are designed to
provide sufficient information to FOSCs
and RRTs to determine whether, and in
what quantities, a product may be used to
control a particular oil discharge.
What does having a product listed on
the Schedule mean?
Inclusion of a product on the NCP
Product Schedule means only that the data
submission requirements have been
satisfied. The product may then be
authorized for use on a particular oil spill
by FOSCs and RRTs. To prevent possible
misrepresentation or misinterpretation,
all product labels, literature, or
advertisements that refer to placement on
the Schedule must either reproduce the
entire EPA letter announcing the
placement on the Schedule or include the
disclaimer set forth in Section
300.920(e). This disclaimer stresses that
EPA does not endorse the product.
Who manages the data?
EPA has a designated Product Schedule
Manager who receives requests and data
as described above. Referring companies
to this EPA representative can save time
and ensure that they are given the most
accurate and useful information. If the
product is listed, EPA will post the
company's product information on the Oil
Program Center website and share the
information with RRTs and OSCs in all
regions. The RRTs and FOSCs can then
use this information when determining
the appropriateness of using a listed
product.
The Product Schedule Manager is
William Nichols. If you have further
questions regarding the NCP Product
Schedule, he can be reached at 703-603-
9918 or by e-mail at
nichols.nick@epa.gov.
Please note: Once a product is listed,
the NCP does not mandate the use of
that product by the RRT, state, industry,
or any oil spill response organization.
Region 5 Maps Inland Waterways
for Spill Response
EPA Region 5 has initiated a project to
collect and map information about
environmentally and economically
sensitive resources in the Region's inland
waterways. Entitled the Inland Spill
Response Mapping Project, this activity
brings together several partners for the
portions of the Upper Mississippi River,
Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins that
fall within EPA Region 5. The project
provides community planners and oil spill
responders with spatial information about
resources at risk during a spill.
Partners in the project include EPA
Region 5, the Great Lakes Commission
(GLC), the U.S. Geological Survey Upper
Midwest Environmental Sciences Center
(UMESC), and the Upper Mississippi
River Basin Association (UMRBA). EPA
Region 5 provides funding and project
coordination, GLC and UMBRA collect
data, and UMESC processes the data and
automates the information using
geographical information system (GIS)
software.
Currently, the project has generated 35
Inland Sensitivity Atlases for mapping
areas throughout EPA Region 5. The
Atlases include data layers, maps, and
other information necessary for preparing
and responding quickly to oil spills. Such
information is critical to the Area
Contingency Plans that are required under
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. For more
information, visit the EPA Region 5
Inland Spill Response Data and Maps web
page at www.umesc.usgs.gov/epa_atlas/
overview.html
National Pollution Funds Center
Seminar
The National Pollution Funds Center
Funds Use Seminar will be held on July
23 and 24, 2002, at the Marriott Salt Lake
City Downtown Hotel. Topics that will be
covered during this seminar include:
submission of fund incident documenta-
tion; use of financial management, cost
documentation, and fund access tools; on-
shore facility response issues (EPA/
USCG), and much more. For more
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
information on the seminar and
registration, visit www.uscg.mil/hq/npfc/
npfc.htm or contact Jan Vorhees, NPFC
Outreach Coordinator at 202-493-6719.
Peer-reviewed Bioremediation
Guidance Document
EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment has published a guidance document
that details the use of bioremediation for
oil contamination of certain marine and
freshwater environments. The document
presents an approach for the design of
bioremediation processes pertinent to
cleanup of oil-contaminated marine
shorelines and freshwater wetlands. It
evaluates current practices and state-of-
the-art research results pertaining to
bioremediation of hydrocarbon
contamination relative to the types and
amounts of amendments used, frequency
of application, assessment of the extent
of bioremediation, sampling, and analysis.
The scope of the document is limited to
marine shorelines and freshwater
wetlands because of definitive results
from recently completed, EPA-sponsored
field studies. The document, entitled
"Guidelines for the Bioremediation of
Marine Shorelines and Freshwater
Wetlands," is available on the EPA Oil
Spill Program website at www.epa.gov/
oilspill/docs/bioremed.pdf.
Based on various studies conducted in
marine and freshwater environments, the
researchers concluded that
bioremediation should be considered for
spill sites depending upon the cleanup,
restoration, and habitat protection
objectives as well as other factors that
might impact the success of the effort.
Specifically, in certain marine environ-
ments where background nutrient
concentrations might be near the level for
maximum stimulation of intrinsic
biodegradation to occur, it was concluded
that natural attenuation might be the
appropriate response action. This is
dependent, however, on the need to
protect resources at risk. For example, if
a bird migration occurs at the same time
every year and a spill takes place prior to
the arrival of the migration, active
bioremediation could be considered
appropriate even though natural
attenuation would otherwise be the
response action. In a freshwater wetland,
if significant penetration of oil into the
subsurface has occurred following a spill
incident, anaerobic conditions might
greatly slow the process of biodegrada-
tion, rendering it ineffective. However, if
ecosystem restoration is the primary
objective in a freshwater wetland rather
than accelerating oil disappearance,
nutrient addition could be very effective.
If significant penetration has not taken
place in the wetland, bioremediation may
be a viable response option. Thus,
responders should take into consideration
the oxygen and nutrient balance at a given
site as well as the resources at risk in
their decision-making process.
For more information on the document
and supporting studies, contact Albert D.
Venosa, Ph.D., EPA Office of Research
and Development (513-569-7668,
venosa.albert@epa.gov).
Axton Road Gasoline Leak
An accident involving a semi-tanker
carrying 8,200 gallons of gasoline owned
by Mid Mac Enterprises occurred on May
16, 2002 in Ferndale, Washington. No
injuries occurred, and the cause of the
accident is still under investigation. The
truck overturned into a 25-30 foot deep
ravine near East Main Street where it
turns into Axton Road, about l/i mile east
of Interstate 5. Initial reports indicated
that most of the gasoline had leaked, but
only about 700 gallons of gas actually
escaped. Approximately 7,500 gallons
were recovered from the tanker. About
100 residences and a small strip mall
were evacuated for a day and a half during
the recovery. Power was shut off to deter
an ignition and explosion, but was
restored within a couple days. West
Axton Road was closed during the major
cleanup while the authorities tried to
determine whether the gas that had spilled
into Deer Creek had reached the
Nooksack River into which it feeds.
Almost 400 cubic yards of soil and
rubble-like material were removed. The
material removed was replaced with clean
material brought in to rebuild the
driveway structure that was affected.
There were also drainage pond-like areas
July 2002
on either side of the driveway that were
treated and cleaned up. These areas, along
with the creek, were treated with booms
and absorbent pads as a precaution after
the major cleanup had occurred. For
more information, contact EPA Region
10 On-Scene Coordinator, Mike Sibley at
202-553-1886.
Anonymous Tip Leads to
Discovery of Diesel Spill
On March 5, 2001, EPA Region 7
received an anonymous phone call about a
spill in Cuba, Crawford County, Missouri.
The spill occurred on March 4, 2001, in a
commercial area, apparently owned by
Voss Truck Port, at the corner of the
intersection of Interstate-44 and Highway
19. Preliminary reports stated that the
Voss Truck Port diesel spill occurred
because a driver failed to close a check
valve on an above-ground storage tank
(AST), allowing the AST to gravity feed
four underground storage units and
overflow. It is alleged that drivers wire-
open the check valves which quickens
their runs. The 20,000-gallon spill and
conflicting information given to the
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) by the facility owner
prompted EPA on-scene coordinators
(OSCs), to respond to determine onsite
conditions and cleanup measures.
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(OSLTF) was opened on March 7, 2001,
by Janice Kroone, an EPA OSC, to fund
MDNR's oversight of cleanup operations
and to fund a trip for EPA to visit the site
to conduct the SPCC Inspection. Total
funding allotted was $18,000. Two EPA
OSC's responded to the spill. An MDNR
representative was onsite during the
majority of the cleanup and was working
with Voss Oil Company and their
Boom across Pleasant Valley Creek
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
July 2002
contractors (Environmental Works of
Springfield, Missouri) to conduct the
cleanup. The diesel fuel was pushed
downstream with leaf blowers into
Pleasant Valley Creek near a newly
constructed underflow dam, to be
vacuumed up. Diesel-contaminated dirt
was dug up by a backhoe and placed onto
Visqueen (a commercial product to cover
waste) for sampling and disposal. On
March 13, 2001, it was determined by
MDNR that the site no longer posed an
eminent danger to a waterway, and was no
longer considered an emergency
response; therefore, the site was turned
over to the MDNR Hazardous Waste
Program Tanks Section, Remediation
Unit, to complete the cleanup. The
potentially responsible party oversaw the
Remediation Unit removal, including
installing extraction wells and continued
excavation of contaminated soils. As of
March 25, 2002, approximately 57
percent of the originally allotted OSLTF
funds were remaining. To date there has
been no disposal of waste. Voss will
investigate waste disposal options, to be
approved by MDNR for the final
disposition of all waste generated.
For more information about this incident,
please contact Eric Nold, On-Scene
Coordinator, EPA Region 7 at 913-551-
7488.
Field Guide for Oil Spills in Fast
Currents
The U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center published Oil Spill
Response in Fast Currents: A Field Guide,
in October 2001. Multiple government
agencies, U.S. Cost Guard units, and
commercial spill response firms
contributed to the field guidance.
The field guidance is intended to provide
advice, strategies, and tactics to spill
planners, responders, and monitors/field
observers to improve spill response in
fastwater conditions. It is reported that
from 1992 to 1996, over 58 percent of
oil spills larger than 100 gallons have
occurred in waters that routinely exceed 1
knot. According to the field guidance,
controlling and recovering oil spills in
water above one knot is difficult to
accomplish because oil entrains under
booms and skimmers in swift currents.
Timely response efforts are required in
order to minimize environmental damage,
economic losses, and associated cleanup
costs.
The guidance primarily consists of
practical applications of research
conducted for the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning technology assessment of
fast-water oil spill response. It provides a
decision guide to determine what specific
methodologies and techniques can be
used in currents ranging from one to five
knots under various spill response
scenarios. Figures and pictures
accompany tactics and methodologies to
provide users with a full explanation. The
field guidance also covers hydrodynamic
issues, individual tactics, fast-water
skimmers, and support equipment, such as
boats and anchors. Appendices to the
guidance provide additional background
information needed to make decisions
during a response in fastwater conditions.
Oil Spill Response in Fast Currents: A
Field Guide, is available to download in
PDF format from their web site at http://
www. rdc .uscg. gov/rdcpages/On-line-
Reports-Page-2002.htm, or you can link
there directly from the What's New
section of the Freshwater Spills
Information Clearinghouse web site
(www.freshwaterspills.net).
Inland Spills Conference
The twenty-sixth annual Inland Spills
Conference and Exhibits is scheduled to
be held in Columbus, Ohio on September
30, 2002 through October 3, 2002. This
year new sponsorships have been created
to draw additional participation from the
private sector. New sponsors include the
Ohio Manufacturer's Association, the
Ohio Environmental Services Associa-
tion, and the Ohio Chemistry Technology
Council. Additionally, the Spill Control
Association of America (SCAA) is
looking to expand outreach for marketing
efforts in the exhibits hall. The goal of
this year's exhibits is to provide
conference attendees an opportunity to
view the latest advances in both spill and
remedial response equipment and
services. In addition, there will be a
cocktail reception in the exhibit area on
the first day of the conference from 5:30-
7:00 pm. This reception is open to all
registered conference attendees and
speakers. Prior to the conference, a golf
outing has been scheduled to be held at a
local course on September 29, 2002. For
details on the conference and all special
events, visit SCAA's web site at www.scaa-
spill.org, or call Marc Shaye at 313-962-
8255.
Avista-Coyote Transformer Spill
On May 6, 2002, a large transformer in
Boardman, Oregon caught fire, releasing
most of its contents into the environment.
The transformer stored approximately
17,000 gallons of non-PCB containing
oil. The spill threatened a nearby holding
pond, the Columbia River, and the
surrounding environment. The trans-
former is owned by Avista Utilities of
Spokane, Washington and is part of the
Coyote Springs Power Plant. The cause
of the transformer malfunction is
unknown; however, an employee of the
plant suggested that it may have resulted
from a short in the internal windings.
EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), Dan
Heister was notified of the spill by the
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ). The OSC and the
Superfund Technical and Response Team
(START) mobilized to the site to further
assess the transformer spill. They were
met on site by Kevin Booth, the
Environmental Compliance Coordinator
for Avista Utilities, who provided them
with a material safety data sheet (MSDS)
of the oil. The product was identified as
Diala Oil AX, manufactured by Shell. The
MSDS required Avista Utilities to notify
the National Response Center (NRC) if
the spill reached surface water.
A containment vault located beneath the
transformer was filled with oil and water.
Cleanup crews tried to recover the
remainder of the spilled oil. Trenches
were constructed in an effort to contain
the oil. Two Spenser Environmental vac-
trucks collected the oil following
stabilization of the insulators above the
transformer. The disposal site for the
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
July 2002
waste was not yet determined at that time.
The spill produced a stained path,
approximately 100 yards long and 20 feet
wide, leading up to a holding pond
adjacent to the transformer. A sheen was
visible on the western section of the
pond. Water was being pumped from the
eastern side, but the pump was eventually
shut off. The sheen did not appear to have
migrated to the eastern side of the pond.
Able Clean-up Technologies, Inc. of
Spokane, Washington was contracted to
conduct the cleanup activities for the
holding pond. As of 13 hours following
the transformer fire, the NRC had not
been contacted, even though the spill had
reached surface water.
The State of Oregon will provide
regulatory oversight for the remainder of
the cleanup activities. Enforcement
actions are pending discussions with the
ODEQ and other relevant authorities.
For more information, contact On-Scene
Coordinator, Dan Heister, EPA, Region
10, at 503-326-6869.
Fire and Smoke Plume at Petro-
chemical Plant in Texas
On May 1, 2002, EPA Region 6 On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) Richard Franklin
responded to an oil and chemical fire at
the Third Coast Packaging facility in
Pearland, Texas. The Friendswood Texas
Fire Department requested EPA's
assistance with air monitoring of the
contaminants of concern, including glycol
products and lubricant oils, such as
antifreeze, transmission fluid, motor oils,
and mineral oils. Located on fifteen
Aerial view of fire in Pearland, Texas
acres of property that include many
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), three
packaged products warehouses, and office
and building structures, Third Coast
Packaging conducts automotive/
petrochemical blending, packaging, and
distribution operations at its facility. The
fire, which produced a large, low-hanging
plume of smoke, was discovered at
approximately 1:00 AM when a security
guard noticed it at the rear of the facility
and notified local authorities.
Due to a lack of fire hydrants in the area
and an inability to transport large volumes
of water to the site, the fire was allowed
to burn through the early morning hours
and it was not completely extinguished.
Many hot spots remained and a small
contaminant plume continued on-site for
several more hours. Winds from the south
caused the plume of smoke and potential
contaminants to travel north over nearby
residential housing resulting in an
evacuation of about 100 homes within a
one-mile radius of the site. No injuries
were reported.
The facility had a combined capacity of
over 2,500,000 gallons of product
material contained inside its 91 ASTs,
many of which were destroyed or
structurally compromised. In addition to
OSC Franklin, Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission Strike Team
Coordinators Bob Brock and Jim Indest,
firefighters from 15 local fire depart-
ments, the EPA Superfund Technical
Assistance and Response Team (START),
USCG Gulf Strike Team (GST),
responded on-scene to contain the fire.
The EPA OSC and the TNRCC Strike
Team Coordinators set up a unified
command post and were instrumental in
responding to this incident. OSHA, FBI,
ATF, and the Chemical Safety Board also
conducted separate investigations at the
site. In addition, OSC Franklin mobilized
EPA's Project Safeguard aircraft to the
site to provide aerial photographs and
assistance with plume analysis and
delineation.
The potentially responsible party (PRP)
assumed cleanup responsibility, hired
Williams Firefighter Inc. to suppress flare
ups and hot spots as well as Garner
Environmental Services to contain and
remove chemicals, fire-fighting runoff
water, and contaminated soils and
vegetation from the ditches. Local
drainage ditches were quickly blocked by
the county in order to prevent any
chemical spills or runoff water from
flowing off the property to the nearby
waterway, Cowarts Creek, located a
quarter of a mile south of the site. Garner
also constructed an earthen berm around
the facility to control any runoff that
could occur from additional fire-fighting
activities or rainfall.
EPA continuously performed perimeter
air monitoring in a one to two-mile radius
of the incident. Paniculate matter
readings recorded in neighboring
residences, the hospital, the nursing
home, and the elementary school were
significantly below action levels provided
by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR); however,
readings recorded at the facility and
immediate downwind locations were
significantly above ATSDR levels. Later
in the day, data from the Project
Safeguard aircraft indicated very little
offsite movement of other chemical
contaminants.
At least 10 residential homes located
directly adjacent to the incident have
obvious significant soot damage and may
require interior and exterior home
cleaning. EPA is working with ATSDR to
determine a sampling protocol to identify
all properties requiring cleaning. The
PRP hired Cotton Companies to perform
the residential interior and exterior home
cleaning as well as an industrial hygienist
to serve as the overall safety coordinator.
For more information, contact EPA
Region 6 OSC, Richard Franklin at 214-
665-2785.
Region 8 Exercises
EPA Region 8 will be conducting
unannounced exercises during the weeks
of July 29, August 5, September 9,
September 16, and September 23, 2002,
as required by the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA). Any facility that has
successfully completed a government-
initiated exercise within the past 36
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
July 2002
months will not be selected. Facilities
will be determined by a random process.
The selected facilities will be required to
deploy adequate equipment to respond to
a probable oil spill. These exercises were
developed using information from the
Facility Response Plan. The names of the
selected facilities will not be made
available before the exercise. If EPA
Region 8 determines that the response of
a selected facility is inadequate or
insufficient, EPA will require revisions to
that facility's plans. Please contact
Martha Wolf, EPA Region 8 at 303-312-
6839 with any questions about this
announcement.
ERT Training Courses
The following Oil Program Training
courses will be available for registration.
These courses are intended for on-scene
coordinators (OSCs) from EPA, USCG,
and state and local responders involved in
inland oil spill prevention and cleanup.
For more information, contact the
registrar at 513-569-7537.
Course Title: Fastwater Course
Course Description: Provides hands-on
practical oil spill training on fast water
rivers. Participants will spend three days
learning appropriate techniques for boom
deployment and oil recovery from fast
water. This course includes minimal
classroom instruction with strenuous
field activity. Taught by EPA, former
EPA, and former State and Bureau of
Reclamation responders.
Course Location: Black Canyon Dam on
the Payette River, northwest of Boise,
Idaho
Course Schedule: The week of August
26, 2002
Course Title: Inland Oil Spill Course
Course Description: Hands-on course
demonstrating oil recovery methods in
slow/backwater and marsh environments.
Emphasis is placed on product recovery
techniques in the subsurface in order to
prevent discharges to waterways.
Participants will spend five and one-half
days learning safe boat handling
techniques, boom deployment, map
reading and global positioning system
(GPS) usage, ATV operation, and proper
oil recovery techniques.
Course Location: TARA Wildlife
Center, northwest of Vicksburg,
Mississippi
Course Schedule: The week of
September 16, 2002
Course Title: Inland Oil Spill Training
Course
Course Description: Covers portions of
the CWA, OPA '90, and the NCP; and
provides practical information for the
control and cleanup of inland oil spills.
Course Location: To be determined,
based on demand from Regions
Course Schedule: To be determined,
based on demand from Regions
Recent Spills in Brief
Spill in the Great Lakes
The largest spill in the Great Lakes within the
last 12 years was discovered on April 10,2002
in the Rouge River in Detroit, Michigan. The
spill of at least 10,000 gallons of industrial-grade
waste oil did not appear to contain PCBs or
other toxic chemicals, according to preliminary
tests. Although originally thought to have been
caused by sewer and storm-drain runoff, the
source of the spill is still unknown. According to
EPA Spokesman Don de Blasio, a detective
team made up of several federal agencies will
collect samples from every River Rouge industry
and compare them to the slick. The
environmental impacts of the spill are still
unknown, although about 70 birds have been
found with oil on their feathers according to
representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department. Cleanup costs, to date, have run to
Spill response in Michigan
$500,000 and are estimated to reach at least $2
million.
Pipeline Leak Causes Spill on Louisiana
Coast
On April 6,2002, an oil leak from a BP pipeline
resulted in a 90,000 gallon crude oil spill on the
southeastern Louisiana coast. According to BP
spokesman Daren Beaudo, the spill was the
result of a three-inch hole in the pipe that may
have been caused by a boat propeller. BP
stopped the flow of oil soon after the rupture
was detected. Two days later, a diver placed a
clamp over the leak to cease the flow of residual
oil. Wildlife experts were flown to the site to
examine any potential damage to wildlife in the
area. An oil soaked bird was found; however,
no other injuries or death to marine life were
found. Officials are concerned about shrimp,
crabs, and oysters in the area since many are
currently in their larval stages. Impacts may not
be known until harvests are collected.
Soy Bean Oil Spill in South Carolina
A spill of 3,000 gallons of soy bean oil occurred
on April 24,2002, on the Wando River in
Charleston, South Carolina. The spill was the
result of a break in a bladder tank containing the
oil during offloading from the M/V Sealand
Atlantic. Reportedly, the oil was very difficult to
find or see, but the recovery operations have
been ongoing with sorbent materials. According
to U. S. Coast Guard officials, it is believed that
most of the spilled oil has collected under nearby
docks. No wildlife impacts have been observed.
NOAA Hazmat was assisting the U.S. Coast
Guard by providing weather forecasts;
information on tides, currents, and spill
trajectory; and other general information on the
fate and effects of soy bean oil.
Oil Spill Discovered After 12 Years in
Washington, B.C.
After 12 years, a gasoline spill, which had
migrated into a residential area of Northeast
Washington, D.C., has been disclosedto
residents of the neighborhood. Although
residents complained for years about gasoline
smells present in their neighborhood, neither the
residents nor Washington, D.C. officials were
informed about the spill until late last year.
However, Chevron indicated that the company
complied with the law by notifying Maryland
officials after discovery of a spill emanating
fromaMarylandstationinl989. Notuntil
February 2001, did the company realize that the
plume had migrated to Washington, D. C., when
a well indicating migration had tested positive for
gasoline. Results of recent tests have shown the
gasoline plume to be at least 1,300 feet long,
which is more than four times the typical fuel
spill in a residential area. The plume was also
found to contain high levels of benzene in a few
locations. However, officials stress that there is
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
-------
Recent Spills (cont.)
no immediate health hazard since residents of
the area depend on public drinking water and the
gasoline is in groundwater several feet deeper
than the basements in the neighborhood. Since
initial cleanup efforts failed based on the
migration of fuel across the Washington, B.C.
line, EPA has become involved to ensure that
the affected groundwater and soil are cleaned
up to a high standard. Chevron produced a
short-term remediation plan on May 10,2002,
and implemented a long-term cleanup plan on
June 14,2002.
Fire at Shell Chemical Plant in Texas
On May 13,2002, a fire occurred at the Shell
Chemical Plant in Houston, Texas. No injuries
were reported, and the company has been
conducting air monitoring that has indicated no
environmental health concerns. START
personnel from EPA Region 6 responded to
assess and provide assistance as needed. The
chemical processing plant had been inspected by
EPA Region 6 and was found to maintain a
current Facility Response Plan under the Oil
Pollution Act, which aided the quick assessment
of the environmental impacts of the fire and the
resources needed to contain the fire. The
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
will continue to monitor this situation. Further
information regarding this incident can be
obtained by contacting Richard Franklin, EPA
Region 6 On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), at 214-
665-2785.
Update on the Tranguch Gasoline Spill Site
in Pennsylvania
On April 25,2002, representatives from EPA,
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and the State Health Department
briefed local officials and citizen representatives
on the status and schedule for site restoration
work planned for the Tranguch Gasoline Spill
Site inHazleton, Pennsylvania. The focus of the
meeting was on the individual property reports
that EPA is preparing for each affected
household, which EPA delivered to property
owners at the beginning of May 2002. Of major
concern to the attendees were property value
issues related to the site. To date, EPA has
pumped and treated over 3 million gallons of
groundwater and removed 28,000 cubic yards of
soil from the spill site. A follow-up public
meeting will be held to address residents'
questions and concerns related to the individual
property reports, as well as to review EPA's
upcoming plans for completing cleanup of the
site. For further information, please contact
EPA OSC, Steve Jarvelaat215-814-3259.
Oil Spill into Caravajal Creek, Dominican
Republic
A pipeline discharged approximately 10,000
Tank at Dominican Republic spill site
gallons of fuel oil into the Caravajal Creek in
Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic. The
discharge was reported on April 8,2002, and
apparently originated from a pipeline operated by
Falconbridge. The Caravajal Creek flows into
the Haina River. The Dominican government
requested EPA technical assistance to estimate
environmental consequences and cleanup costs.
An OSC from EPA Region 2, Puerto Rico,
arrived in Santo Domingo on April 12,2002. The
source of the spill was contained, and efforts to
clean up the oil included the responsible party's
efforts with primitive bucket cleanup recovery
methods. The OSC estimated that an actual
65,000 gallons of fuel was discharged into the
creek. EPA's Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response continues to monitor the
situation. For more information, please contact
OSC Angel Rodriguez at 737-977-5830.
Abandoned Oil Production Facility
The abandoned Ed I. Estis-Blanche L. Smith
facility, located near Franklin, Louisiana was
referred to the EPA for consideration for an
OPA response action. The site includes a barge
in a slip, a tank farm in a secondary containment
berm, and an oil well. The total estimated
volume of oil and sludge forthis facility is 4,840
bbls. The facility is bordered by an Intracoastal
Canal Waterway (ICW), and drainage from the
site flows directly into the ICW. The site's
above ground storage tanks (ASTs) are in poor
condition, with rust and corrosion causing oil
leaks into the secondary containment. The
barge is also rusted and lacks secondary
containment. The oil well is corroded, and it has
been reported that it periodically causes sheens.
The leaking oil well was discovered by the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
(LDNR) during an orphan well inspection at the
site the week of February 18,2002. LDNR
requested assistance from EPA to plug the well,
and EPA OSC Mike Ryan arrived at the site on
February 27,2002, to meet with the U.S. Army
Corp. of Engineers (USACE) START-2
Environmental Restoration contractor, the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
(LDNR), and the USACE contractor. A
planning meeting was held on March 8,2002, to
discuss the scope of work to plug the well.
July 2002
The responsible party (RP) was formally offered
by EPA the chance to conduct the required
cleanup action. When the RP declined, EPA
began work at the site as an Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund-financed cleanup action. The work
to plug the leaking well was conducted by
USACE, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Environmental Services, START-2 Environmen-
tal Restoration contractor, LDNR, and other
groups from March 23-29,2002. The cost for
cleanup of the facility as of March 22,2002, was
$1,108,582.34. Additional cleanup activities are
planned for the remainder of the site including
residual oil in ASTs, containment structures, and
the barge.
Mobilizing response equipment in Louisiana
About The Update
The goal of the EPA Oil Program
Center Update is to provide straight-
forward information to keep EPA Re-
gional staff, other federal agencies
and departments, industries and
businesses, and the regulated com-
munity current with the latest devel-
opments. The Update is produced
quarterly, using a compilation of sev-
eral sources. The views expressed
here are not necessarily those of the
US EPA.
U.S. EPA Oil Program Center Update
7
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
5203G
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
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
EPA 540-N-02-002
OSWER 9360.8-41
July 2002
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
------- |