United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA 540-R-00-001
OSWER 9360.8-22
May 2000
&EPA Oil Spill Program Update
Oil Program Center Report
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Program Center 5203G
Volume 3 Number 3
EPA's Oil Spill Program Update is produced quarterly, using information 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 distributed
in hard copy and is available on the Oil Program home page at www.epa.gov/oilspill.
ABOUT THIS ISSUE
This issue of the Oil Spill Program Update
offers highlights of the Freshwater Spills
Symposium, held from March 6 to 8 in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. One of the major
themes of the symposium was the development
of partnerships and coordination of prevention
planning and response efforts among federal
agencies, states, tribes, local communities, and
industry. The event attracted 251 participants,
including 78 from industry, 101 from federal
government agencies, 47 from tribal, state, and
local governments, and 25 from other countries.
Prominent issues addressed at the symposium
included scientific and technical aspects of
spills and spill sources; fuels management;
Indian tribes perspectives on regulation and
prevention; and non-traditional spill sources and
substances. A complete list of session topics,
presenters and presentation titles is available on
the oil spill program web site at
www. epa.gov/oilspill/fss.
During the opening plenary session, Myron
Knudson, Superfund Director for EPA Region
6, and Stephen Luftig, Director of EPA's Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, outlined
the importance of efforts to specifically address
the issues and problems associated with
freshwater spills. Knudson stressed the number
and severity of spills in EPA Region 6 and
spoke of EPA's commitment to promoting
compliance with spill prevention requirements
and enforcing spill prevention regulations. He
outlined five elements that comprise the
Regions' balanced approach including:
• Outreach to industry organizations and state
and tribal agencies;
• Compliance workshops for smaller
industries
• SPCC inspections;
• Expedited enforcement for minor violations
and small spills; and
• Traditional enforcement when warranted.
In remarks to the plenary session, Luftig noted
the unique nature of inland and freshwater oil
spills, and provided information about the
prevalence and severity of spills in freshwater
areas. For example, a majority of the oil-related
"significant incidents" reported to the National
Response Center were into or near freshwater,
and many of those were spills of greater than
100,000 gallons. Luftig also noted the variety of
types of spills that occur in freshwater,
including vegetable oil and animal fat spills, and
he discussed the Final Facility Response Plan
that includes rules for animal fats and vegetable
oils which will be published this summer.
-------
The issues and challenges of freshwater spills
were the focus of Luftig's concluding
comments. He cited improved cooperation
between DOT and EPA regarding oil pipeline
issues as an example of partnerships and
cooperation that can be built at all levels of the
regulatory and response community. EPA and
other federal agencies must continue to
recognize the importance of local responders
and planners and address their needs.
Government agencies also need to find more
opportunities to work with the regulated
community. And finally, all groups that have a
stake in preventing and controlling spills need to
address new challenges such as those presented
by the gasoline additive MTBE.
The symposium provided a forum for
participants to discuss new cooperative
approaches, new methods, and results of studies.
It demonstrated that oil spill professionals from
all areas are working to meet the challenges of
freshwater spills and reduce risks to our nation's
waters. The following articles summarize a few
of the presentations made at the symposium.
ASTS IN RURAL AND NATIVE VILLAGES
Presenter: Bert Tarrant, Alaska Energy
Authority
The use of bulk fuel storage facilities in Alaska
began in the 1950s when the Bureau of Indian
Affairs established schools and developed
water, sewage, and power projects in rural
villages. Tank farms were built as part of these
developments to store the fuel needed to keep
them running. Due to remoteness and weather
conditions, the rural communities that use the
storage facilities receive fuel shipments only
once or twice a year, so they must provide long-
term storage. There are approximately 1,000
above-ground tank farms serving 160 rural
villages in Alaska - essential infrastructure to
allow these communities to survive through the
winter season. A typical rural community has 5
tank farms with storage capacity of 200,000 to
300,000 gallons.
Tank farm before upgrades.
Tank farm after upgrades.
Many rural tank farms were built using
secondhand equipment and without strict
adherence to standards and applicable codes.
These tank farms often have sub-standard
piping, tanks, and fuel dispensing systems.
Additionally, spill containment dikes may be
inadequate or nonexistent at these facilities,
which are often located close to the ocean or
rivers. There was little concern about the
condition of these tank farms until 1990 when
liability questions were raised about the transfer
of fuel. The Exxon Valdez spill in Prince
William Sound on March 24, 1989 contributed
greatly to these concerns. In 1991, the U.S.
Coast Guard assessed and documented the status
of rural Alaskan tank farms, raising the
possibility that farms with tank deficiencies
would be barred from receiving shipments of
fuel. If this were to happen, some rural
communities would be left without power,
transportation, heat, and the means to meet other
needs. In 1992, the Alaskan Energy Authority
-------
(formerly Department of Energy) estimated that
corrective measures to bring all 210 existing
farms to compliance would cost $200 million.
More recently, this figure has been re-estimated
at $400 million. In 1999, 97% of the facilities
inspected by EPA were out of compliance.
In 1996, the Alaskan Energy Authority began a
three-year effort to assess the condition of all
tank farms in rural Alaskan communities. The
data collected from this assessment revealed that
nearly every tank farm needed reconstruction.
Shutting down fuel facilities was not an option,
but deteriorating tank farms were already
polluting the environment, negatively impacting
local human health, and creating serious fire
hazards. The Energy Authority determined the
best course of action would be to prioritize
construction schedules and consolidate multiple
tank farms into single community facilities at all
sites where such an approach was practical. To
aid in funding the reconstruction, the Energy
Authority applied for and received federal block
grants.
Additional funding was procured through
discussions with EPA and the Denali
Commission (an organization formed in 1998 to
address rural re-development needs). Village
liaisons helped to maintain partnerships between
the Energy Authority and rural communities.
The arrangement allows the communities to
make the major decisions in project planning,
and leads to results the residents have helped to
shape. In the initial phases of the project, the
Energy Authority completed tank farm
construction or reconstruction at 20 rural
communities and replaced piping systems at 40
others. Fourteen more bulk fuel projects are
currently underway or are in planning stages.
CALIFORNIA'S SOLUTION TO MARINE
OIL SPILL EVENTS - THE OILED
WILDLIFE CARE NETWORK: CAN THIS
PROGRAM WORK FOR INLAND SPILLS?
Legislatively mandated rehabilitation of wildlife
damaged in coastal oil spills has resulted in
professionally supervised rehabilitation efforts
in California. The Oiled Wildlife Care Network
(OWCN) is a joint program of the Wildlife
Health Center, School of Veterinary Medicine at
the University of California, Davis and the
California Department of Fish and Game, Office
of Spill Prevention and Response (DFG-OSPR).
The OWCN is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 365 days a year to respond to injured
oiled wildlife. The mission of the OWCN is to
provide the best achievable care to oil injured
wildlife.
The four main programs of the OWCN include:
1) oil spill response, 2) establishing and
equipping facilities, 3) training OWCN
personnel about oiled wildlife care techniques,
health and safety issues, and the incident/unified
command system, and 4) oversight of a grant
program that supports research on the effects of
oil on wildlife and other aspects of health for
species that could be impacted by oil spills.
To date, the OWCN has established over 20
wildlife care facilities with trained personnel
available along the entire California coast from
Crescent City to San Diego. The OWCN has
awarded over $800,000 in competitive grants
during the past 4 years of the research program.
While the OWCN was initially established to
respond to marine oil spills, DFG-OSPR is now
responding to inland oil spill incidents, and the
OWCN has started to respond to inland spills as
well. Certain issues associated with inland spill
responses make them more challenging than
coastal spills in many ways. The physical
infrastructure of the OWCN does not exist
inland and trained response personnel are not
geographically close to inland spill locations. In
these situations, if the OWCN is not activated
early during a spill incident, geographical
challenges may delay capture of injured wildlife
resulting in higher mortality, or secondary
petroleum exposure to other predators from
scavenging oiled carcasses. Search and
collection activities can also be difficult at
inland spills because access to the spill site is
not always convenient. Dense vegetation or
sensitive habitat (wetlands/riparian) may exist,
-------
and often, there are dangers associated with
rapid-flowing rivers or deep waterways.
Another challenge associated with inland spill
responses is the variety of species that require
care which are often quite different from species
injured by coastal spill incidents. In addition to
birds, inland spills can also affect a variety of
reptiles and terrestrial mammals. Capturing
these species can also be very difficult because
these animals are often mobile and fast moving,
or they can hide in dense vegetation or burrows.
Most recently, the OWCN responded to a 600-
barrel crude oil spill outside of Bakersfield,
California, where oil flowed for approximately
one mile through a wetlands habitat heavily
used by a variety of avian and mammalian
species including raptors (red-tail hawk, golden
eagle, American kestrel, and White-tailed kite);
owls (great-horned owl, burrowing owl);
shorebirds (common snipe, killdeer); doves
(mourning dove, rock dove); rails (sora, Virginia
rail); songbirds (red-winged blackbird, tricolor
blackbird, brown-headed cowbird, European
starling, Western meadowlark, marsh wren,
black phoebe, Say's phoebe, Northern
mockingbird, American goldfinch, house finch,
white-crowned sparrow, Savannah sparrow,
Lincoln's sparrow, common raven, and
loggerhead shrike); northern flicker; and greater
roadrunner. Non-avian species observed in the
spill area included Pacific tree frogs, ground
squirrel, rabbits, rodents, skunks, and gopher
snakes. Several dens (either kit fox, red fox, or
badger) were observed adjacent to the spill site
as well.
A total of 22 live animals were recovered during
the spill response, most of which were red-
winged blackbirds. Since no definitive care
facility was available in the area, the OWCN
used DFG-OSPR's mobile veterinary lab to
stabilize birds at the spill site. Once stable, birds
were transported to the International Bird
Rescue Research Center in Berkeley, California,
one of the OWCN's marine care centers. One
hundred and thirty-three dead animals were
recovered, including tri-colored blackbirds, a
species of special concern. In addition to caring
for oiled wildlife and collecting dead animals at
this spill, the OWCN assisted OSPR with
multiple hazing techniques (Zon guns, gun fire,
and milar tape, streamers and balloons).
From the experience gained from this spill and
other marine and inland spills that the OWCN
has responded to, certain important lessons have
been learned. The most important lesson being
that it is essential to be prepared before the spill.
This includes having in place, a rapid call out
system to activate responders, pre-identifying
local personnel who can respond, and pre-
training response personnel (search and
collection techniques, animal handling, OSHA
regulations). It is important to pre-identify a
stabilization and definitive care facility and to
identify methods for birds to be transported if
these facilities are distant locations. When well
prepared, inland spill responses can result in
appropriate care for oil-injured wildlife.
For more information, please contact Scott
Newman at (530) 754-9424.
IOWAN SOYBEAN OIL SPILL
Presenter: Tom McCarthy, Iowa DNR
Vegetable oil spills and other non-petroleum
spills pose significant risks to natural resources
in rural areas. In areas where there is a minimal
capability to respond to hazardous materials,
they can also put a strain on local resources.
Tom McCarthy of the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) illustrated the nature
of vegetable oil spills with a presentation
describing a soybean oil spill into a tributary of
Buffalo Creek in Linn County Iowa.
On April 2, 1999, a railroad tank car carrying
22,000 gallons of crude soybean oil derailed,
spilling nearly 9,000 gallons. The spill presented
a threat to both Buffalo Creek, classified as a
"significant warm water stream," and to the
Coggon Impoundment, a downstream resource
used for recreational fishing and swimming.
-------
The spill occurred near the Town of Coggon,
allowing its volunteer fire department to
respond quickly. The Linn County hazmat unit,
the local sheriff, and the Iowa DNR also
responded. Local responders worked quickly to
dig ditches and contain the spill on the night of
the accident. During the first 4 days of the
response, contractors collected 3,500 gallons of
spilled oil.
Despite the quick response, oil did reach the
surface water through an underground drainage
system. Much of the oil was spilled into a corn
field that was drained by a network of
underground pipes that drained into the affected
tributary of Buffalo Creek. Long-term measures
to address the spill included booming areas
around the points where the drainage system
emptied into the stream, installing valves on the
affected outlets to control the flow, monitoring
the area, and recovering the oil with sorbent
pads. Streambed sediments were not monitored
during or after the spill, but the Iowa DNR plans
to perform this type of analysis for future
vegetable oil spills.
Although no impacts to fish and wood duck
habitats were detected, the spill did result in
substantial damage to farmland. The spill also
highlights the importance of local volunteer fire
departments in rural response. Iowa has between
40 and 45 paid fire departments, including 17
hazmat units, but has approximately 830
volunteer fire departments. The 17 hazmat units
cover areas in 64 counties; 35 counties are
without hazmat coverage.
OVERVIEW OF THE FUELS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Presenters: Donn Zuroski and Steve Calanog,
U.S. EPA Region 9
"Fuels Management" includes the entire life
cycle of oil, from production, through refining,
storage, and distribution. Each phase of this
process is often regulated by multiple agencies,
each with its own set of rules and regulations.
Buffalo Creek was threatened when 9,000 gallons of
crude soy bean oil was spilled by a derailed train.
This "patchwork" regulatory approach results in
major gaps and substantial overlap in the
regulatory framework, misunderstanding and
confusion regarding responsibility, and
inconsistencies between agencies in regulatory
implementation. Although regulators seem to
have similar concerns regarding fuels
management, there is little communication
regarding roles and responsibilities, and often a
general lack of consensus on common key issues
needing resolution. Resolving these issues and
coordinating among regulators is especially
important in an era of rapid change in the oil
industry.
The oil industry is transforming itself through
mergers, industry downsizing, and sales of
production, refining, and distribution facilities
to smaller and less sophisticated companies.
These changes can lead to abandoned oil wells
and inadequate investment in maintenance and
new infrastructure. EPA's Fuels Management
Program (FMP) was conceived to help
regulators from all agencies understand and
adapt to the changes in the industry.
The FMP can provide a neutral forum for candid
discussion of regulatory issues through the Oil
Program's area contingency planning process or
through a similar process. Fuels management
can also provide coordination among efforts and
-------
help leverage resources for more efficient
regulatory and enforcement actions.
EPA has a natural leadership role in fuels
management because it has regulatory oversight
in exploration and production through
consumption. Further, its emergency response
and Oil Programs cover the fuels life cycle from
exploration and production to retail storage
systems, and in many cases, end users' small
bulk storage facilities.
Fuels management facilities include oil and gas
fields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, service
stations, transportation systems, and other
facilities such as oil recyclers, landfills and
chemical plants. Many of these facilities have
aging infrastructure-some over 100 years old. In
addition, some are subject to preventable fuel
spills from inadequate operator training,
infrequent maintenance, and incomplete
monitoring.
Current goals for the FMP are to improve
regional interagency communication; identify
issues that could be resolved through
partnerships and training; and identify the
universe of problem petroleum sites in Region 9.
To accomplish these goals, regulators must
become more familiar with the technical aspects
of the oil industry; the regulatory community
needs a better understanding of each other's
roles; and, there must be substantive discussion
and significant consensus, building on pertinent
fuels management and resource issues.
The FMP is conducting a series of workshops
and outreach activities for the regulatory
community and regulated industry. To date,
EPA has held four workshops to encourage
regulators to gain a better understanding of each
others' function and to improve technical
understanding of the oil industry. Workshops
are structured to highlight the environmental
and regulatory problems posed by fuels
management facilities, offer technical training,
examine specific fuels issues through case
studies, and demonstrate state-of-the-art
equipment. Future workshops are planned for
Las Vegas, Nevada; southern California; and a
two or three day Pacific Islands workshop.
For more information, contact Steve Calanog at
(415) 744-2327, or Donn Zuroski at (415) 744-
2285.
REGULATING OIL FACILITIES: THE
NAVAJO EXPERIENCE
Presenters: Steve Austin and Ronnie Ben,
Navajo Environmental Protection Agency
One of the themes of the Freshwater Spills
Symposium was developing partnerships and
finding opportunities for cooperation. Tribal
government agencies are valued partners in
preventing, preparing for, and responding to oil
spills. Because identifying common interests is
an essential step in developing partnerships, the
symposium offered participants the chance to
learn more about tribal government activities
and priorities. Representatives of the Navajo
Nation shared some of the following
information.
The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection
Agency was established in 1972 and became an
independent organization in 1995. The agency
works to establish policy, protect public health
and the environment, represent the Navajo
Nation in environmental issues, regulate
activities that have potential environmental
impacts on Navajo lands, and collect and
manage environmental information. The Navajo
EPA has four divisions: air and toxics, waste,
water, and enforcement. The agency has grown
to include 13 programs and 70 employees with
offices in Window Rock, Shiprock, and Tuba
City.
The area under the jurisdiction of the Navajo
EPA covers 17,627,262 acres in 10 states,
39,000 miles of streams, and 7,853 lakes, ponds,
and impoundments. Oil facility development on
Tribal lands began in the 1920s, hitting a major
production era from the 1950s through the
1970s. Present-day facilities under agency
jurisdiction include 50 oil production facility
-------
operators, 1,900 wells on reservation lands, and
1,700 wells on allotted lands. These facilities
have a combined annual production of 6 million
barrels. Federal agencies that provide regulatory
oversight to the Navajo EPA include the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, U.S. Geological Survey,
Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Federal Indian Minerals Office,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State oversight is provided by the New Mexico
Oil Conservation Division. Tribal regulatory
oversight is provided by Navajo Minerals,
Navajo Nation Department of Environmental
Management, Utah Land Office, and the Navajo
EPA.
Navajo EPA involvement in the regulation of oil
facilities increased markedly in the 1990s.
During this decade, the agency closed unlined
pits, increased involvement in oil spill response
by opening a sub-office in Shiprock, performed
facility inspections with the US EPA, increased
above and underground storage tank regulatory
actions, and developed policies on regulatory
issues, spills, and remediation. Most recently,
the agency passed the Navajo Nation Clean
Water Act in January 1999 and established
Navajo Nation Water Quality Standards in
November 1999, while continuing work on its
oil spill policies.
For more information, contact Steve Austin at
(505) 368-1037, or Ronnie Ben at (520) 871-
7187.
PROBLEM OIL PIT INITIATIVE
Presenters: JaneNakad, U.S. EPA, Region 8;
Pete Ramirez, U.S. FWS; and Craig Eggerman,
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission
In many western oil-producing states, problem
oil pits are a persistent threat to wildlife and the
environment. Oil pits are used as part of the
crude oil production process. When oil is
extracted from the ground, water is often
extracted along with it. Heat is used to separate
the oil and water, but the waste water produced
by the process still contains significant amounts
of oil. The water is often placed into ponds
known as oil pits for further separation.
Unfortunately, many animals mistake uncovered
oil pits for wetlands and become coated with or
ingest the oil. Affected wildlife include birds,
bats, snakes, and muskrat. Songbirds account for
about half of the victims of oil pits. Mortality of
oil pit-exposed wildlife generally occurs slowly.
Oil is toxic to birds and other wildlife, and can
be ingested as oiled animals attempt to clean
themselves. Secondary affects may also arise if
scavenging animals feed on oiled carcasses.
EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) have formed a partnership that draws on
their complementary authorities to address
problem oil pits. The goal of this problem oil pit
effort is to minimize the potential for bird and
wildlife mortality from oil. EPA and FWS hope
to rectify contamination of surface water and
groundwater, damage to wetlands and habitats,
and ensure that oil pit facilities are constructed
and managed in an environmentally protective
manner.
EPA and FWS have established a four-phase
process to address the problem, consisting of
information gathering, information evaluation,
field inspections, and follow-up.
»Si«s,SfflSbfSv^'W';;¥;^!i!:'-.:asrs;v:i''.:
/.=•»« r':''- V -' i^C*|!-' '":'"^"^
Abandoned oil pit
-------
Many oil pit operators, in an attempt to deter
wildlife from their pits, string plastic flagging
across their pits. However, flagging is an
ineffective deterrent. The best option for
keeping animals out of oil pits is to enclose the
pits with netting. Although netting requires
considerable maintenance, it is otherwise an
economic and effective alternative.
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, pit
operators may be fined $250 or more for each
bird that dies as a result of contact with an oil
pit. Each state may handle fines against
corporations differently. Pedro Ramirez, who
works for FWS in Region 6, notes that rather
than simply levying fines, FWS prefers that
problem pit operators clean up their pits. Both
Ramirez and Craig Eggerman of Wyoming Oil
and Gas Conservation, noted that a small
percentage of operators account for a majority
of the problem.
Further information on problem oil pits can be
found on the Region 6 FWS web pages at
www.r6.fws.gov/contaminants/oilpits.htm.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCIENCE
Presenters: Allen Mearns, NOAA; Gary
Shigenaka, NOAA; Jacqui Michel, RPI; Steve
Lehmann, NOAA; and Jason Maddox, NOAA
As part of efforts to learn more about the effects
of oil spills and methods for mitigating their
effects, scientists often conduct field
experiments immediately following a spill. One
session of the Freshwater Spills Symposium was
dedicated to exploring the opportunities for
scientific exploration when a spill occurs, and
approaches to taking advantage of those
opportunities.
Alan Mearns started the Opportunities for
Science session by reminding participants of
what "science" means. Science is an organized
inquiry involving the formulation of a
hypothesis and testing the hypothesis. Science
helps to reduce the level of uncertainty and
"puts a number on things."
Opportunities for
science during spills
means that
hypotheses can be
tested on already-
spilled oil. It gives
scientists the
opportunity to
validate and
improve predictions, develop criteria, avoid
surprises, and monitor the progress of a spill.
Steve Lehmann, of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, led a discussion
on "set asides" - what they are and how they can
be used. Set asides are areas reserved for testing
hypotheses about the fate and behavior of
spilled oil and the efficiency of new treatment
methods. Participants discussed the problems
encountered when trying to obtain permission to
use certain portions of land after a spill.
Communicating with the public can be an
important issue when attempting to use a spill as
a scientific opportunity. It is important for the
public to understand that the area will be
cleaned up and new techniques or products will
be used.
Participants also discussed how to pull together
sources of information and present them in an
informal way - a way of saying "this is what we
did and here is what happened" without
formality and peer-review. Two ways of
"publishing" material were brought up - the use
of a web page and submitting articles to the Spill
Science and Technology Journal.
For more information on NOAA, please visit the
NOAA web site at
response, restoration, n oaa.gov.
SURFACE WASHING AGENTS
Presenter: Royal Nadeau and Harry Allen, U.S.
EPA
Surface washing agents are used to clean up oil
contaminated shorelines and increase the
efficiency with which oil is removed from
-------
contaminated surfaces. Applying surface
washing agents is most appropriate in habitats
that experience flooding, when oil has
weathered to the point where it cannot be
removed using water alone.
In a spill response situation, special
formulations of surface washing agents are
applied to a substrate, acting as a pre-soak and
flushing solution. This application softens and
lifts weathered or heavy oils and enhances water
flushing methods. The applied agent is allowed
to sit for 45 minutes to 1 hour. After that time,
water is sprayed from pressure hoses to release
the oil from the often rocky substrate.
Use of surface washing agents has proven to be
effective in many cases. Used on vegetation,
surface washing agents were found to accelerate
the recovery of leaf exchange functioning.
Surface washing agents also facilitated the
cleanup of shorelines affected by the Exxon
Valdez and Portland Harbor oil spills.
When considering the use of surface washing
agents, it is important to recognize some of their
limitations. Although they can decrease the
presence of shoreline oil, the rising and ebbing
tide in marine environments generally recoats
treated rocks with some amount of oil. Further,
as indicated by their name, surface washing
agents clean the surface only, leaving subsurface
rocks and soil virtually untouched.
Surface washing agents are covered by Subpart
J of the National Contingency Plan (NCP),
which requires EPA to maintain a list of all
dispersants, other chemicals, spill mitigating
devices, and substances that are authorized for
oil spill remediation. This list is known as the
NCP Product Schedule. The Product Schedule
lists dispersants, surface washing agents, surface
collecting agents, bioremediation agents, and
miscellaneous oil spill control agents.
To obtain more information about the NCP
Product Schedule, including copies of the
schedule itself and the technical notebook for
schedule-listed products, please visit EPA's web
site atwww.epa.gov/oilspill/prodover.htm. To
obtain a Subpart J product application package,
please call the NCP Product Schedule
Information Line at (202) 260-2342.
NON-FLOATING OILS RESPONSE
TECHNIQUES
Presenter: Ed Owens, Polaris Applied Sciences
The fate and behavior of non-floating oils, or
sinking oils, in freshwater is much more
complex and therefore, the oils are much more
difficult to contain and recover than most
floating oils. Non-floating oils, such as bunker
oil, asphaltine, and Group 5 oils, have a specific
gravity greater than 1 and sink in fresh water.
Because the density of water is not uniform
throughout the water column, non-floating oils
will sink to a level where their density is equal
to that of the surrounding water-the greater the
density, the deeper the oil sinks.
When oil sinks, it takes on three dimensional
dynamics that are more complex than the two
dimensional dynamics of floating oil. When oil
sinks, it often breaks up into tiny droplets that
disburse throughout the water column and
almost never re-coalesce. Floating oils, on the
other hand, can break into smaller slicks, move
several miles apart, eventually find each other,
and re-coalesce. These dynamics make sunken
oil much more difficult to locate and therefore,
much more difficult to contain and recover.
Dr. Owens presented techniques and processes
for responding to non-floating oil spills and
what to realistically expect when trying to
contain and recover the oil. The first thing the
responder should do when faced with a
freshwater, non-floating oil spill is to determine
whether the oil can be accurately located; how
long it is likely to stay in the same location;
whether it is likely to be eroded or buried; and
what are its environmental effects. The
responder should then determine whether to
allow the oil to disburse naturally, contain and
recover all of the oil, or contain and recover as
much oil as possible.
-------
The most common tools used to contain sunken
oil are booms. A standard boom may be used for
spills that are likely to extend to six feet or less
in depth. Specialized booms such as split curtain
booms and deep skirt booms, can contain oil up
to depths of 10 feet and 12 feet, respectively.
Nets and pneumatic barriers may also be used to
contain sunken oil. Although nets and
pneumatic barriers are often not as effective as
booms, they are useful under some
circumstances. Recovery mechanisms for
submerged and sunken oil include skimmers,
suction recovery dredges, adhesion recovery
mechanisms, and weir devices. Both skimmers
and suction recovery dredges act like vacuums
to recover oil; however, suction recovery
dredges are much more effective with large
amounts of sunken oil that are subjected to low
currents. Weir devices are almost never used,
but can be used when sunken oil has pooled into
a depression on the floor of the water body.
The following conditions affect an oil
containment and recovery effort:
• Water depth and current action which affects
oil distribution;
• Wave exposure which affects oil adhesion;
• Extent of the affected area;
• Amount of oil spilled; and
• Distance the spill is offshore.
It is important for those involved in a sunken oil
spill operation to understand the complexities
and limitations of oil containment and recovery
of sunken oil. Re spenders of non-floating oil
spills should keep in mind the following three
principles:
1. Never expect to predict the movement or
detect submerged oil.
2. Know that no practical containment
measures for submerged oil have been
demonstrated and it is not realistic to contain
a plume.
3. Understand that realistic control and
recovery of sunken oil is likely when the
sunken oil is located.
CALIFORNIA TIRE FIRE HANDLED
RAPIDLY BY OSC DAN SHANE
In the late fall of 1999, another tire fire occurred
when lightning struck a large pile of
tires-estimated at 40 million tires-in Westley,
California.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) Dan Shane
oversaw the response to the fire, which prompted
officials to declare a state of emergency.
Response included not only extinguishing the
fire, but also skimming and booming the
pyrolitic runoff from the piles. OSC Dan Shane
and his team should be commended for their
efforts.
Using these principles, a responder should be
able to set practical, feasible, and reasonable
goals and communicate reasonable expectations
to all stakeholders.
NON-TRADITIONAL SPILLS: KIRBY
TIRE INFERNO CASE STUDY
Presenter: Mark Durno, U.S. EPA Region 5
Inland oil spills are most often associated with
pipelines, storage tanks, tank cars, trucks, and
barges. However, some of the most devastating
and complex inland oil spills are caused by non-
traditional sources such as tire fires. Tire fires
produce pyrolytic oil that can flow into
groundwater, rivers, or streams. In addition to
pyrolytic oil, tire fires produce a variety of other
harmful substances such as arsenic, lead, zinc,
sulfuric acid, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, toluene,
and carbon monoxide. These substances can
pose threats of contamination through multiple
pathways, including releases into the air, soil,
and water. Tire fires can be particularly
challenging because they are very hard to
control and extinguish. A recent tire fire at the
Kirby Tire Recycling facility in Sycamore,
Ohio, illustrates the complexity of tire fires and
their potential damage to the environment.
On Saturday, August 21, 1999, a massive fire
broke out on the southwest portion of the Kirby
Tire Recycling facility. At 1:30 a.m., state and
10
-------
local responders arrived at the site and began
using foam in an effort to extinguish the fire, but
were unsuccessful. Consequently, they
attempted to control the migration of the fire
with massive amounts of water, and built a sand
and soil berm to help contain the runoff. At 3:30
a.m., the Ohio EPA requested assistance from
the U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA and contractors
followed the smoke plume to the site. The
plume was visible over 70 miles away.
U.S. EPA arrived at 11:00 a.m., joining 21 fire
departments, 30 pieces of heavy equipment, and
various volunteer groups. EPA immediately
became the lead responder and established a
unified command. EPA promptly ceased the use
of water, covered the fire with soil, and
constructed a collection basin and water
treatment system for the runoff.
EPA established a mobile command post and
mobilized Emergency and Rapid Response
Services (ERRS) contractors and team
subcontractors and solicited local support. EPA
also sought assistance on health and safety
issues from the U.S. Coast Guard Strike Team.
As the fire came under control, local fire
departments were demobilized. Ohio EPA began
sampling, air monitoring, monitoring the nearby
Sycamore Creek for potential releases, and
conducting daily public briefings.
The fire site was completely covered with soil,
and a clay cover was installed to suffocate the
fire and slow down water infiltration. The initial
fire response was completed in three weeks.
During this time, however, there were two
releases of oil and dissolved contaminants into
nearby Sycamore Creek. Fish kills were
observed immediately and storms and drainage
from the tire fire caused increased river levels
and movement. Nearly seven miles of Sycamore
Creek had been affected and the contamination
was flowing towards the Sandusky River, which
serves as a drinking water source for the city of
Tiffin. The Ohio Department of Health posted
an advisory.
Two siphon dams were installed to remove the
floating oil and five aeration systems were
placed upstream of the dam to vent off volatile
organic compounds and increase the dissolved
oxygen levels in the water. A secondary water
treatment system was also established.
The tire fire response and the creek mitigation
cost EPA approximately $2.05 million,
including $ 1.25 million in Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Recovery Act (CERCLA) funding and $800,000
Oil Pollution Act (OPA) funding. Either
CERCLA or OPA funds can be used in tire fires
that pose a threat to waterways. In this case, the
initial response of covering the fire was funded
under CERCLA; capping and creek mitigation
was funded under OPA. EPA spent 24 days on
site and used over 93,000 cubic yards of
soil/clay for capping, treated over 517,000
gallons of water, and collected and disposed of
56,000 gallons of oil.
For more information, please contact Mark
Durno at (440) 250-1743.
OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND
Presenter: Commander Jeffrey Hammond,
USCG
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was
established under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA) to cover certain costs related to oil spill
clean-up, damages from spills, and restoration
costs. In a presentation to attendees of the
Freshwater Spills Symposium, Commander Jeff
Hammond, of the National Pollution Funds
Center, explained how state agencies can gain
access to the fund.
Under OPA, the owner or operator of a facility
from which oil is discharged (also known as the
responsible party) is liable for the costs
associated with the containment or cleanup of
the spill and any damages resulting from the
spill. The federal government's first priority in
paying the costs of a spill is to ensure that
responsible parties pay to clean up their own oil
releases. However, when the responsible party is
unknown or refuses to pay, funds from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund can be used to cover
11
-------
removal costs or damages resulting from
discharges of oil.
The trust fund is replenished in a variety of
ways including a five cent per barrel tax on oil,
and costs and penalties from responsible parties.
The fund can provide up to $ 1 billion for any
one oil pollution incident, including up to $500
million for the initiation of natural resource
damage assessments and claims in connection
with any single incident.
The fund can provide:
• Funding for State removal action;
• Payments to Federal, State, and Indian tribe
trustees to carry out natural resource damage
assessments and restorations;
• Payment of claims for uncompensated
removal costs and damages; and
• Research and development and other
specific appropriations.
States can access the fund by contacting the
federal on-scene coordinator for the spill, and
having him or her approve a plan of action on
how to proceed with the cleanup. The fund can
be used if expenses are:
• Consistent with the on-scene coordinator's
agreement;
• Documented;
• Appropriate; and
• Below an agreed upon ceiling.
In responding to questions asked by state
representatives about hiring extra police to
barricade spill areas, Commander Hammond
said that as long as the extra police were over
and above what the area normally needed, they
could be compensated by fund monies.
For more information on how to use the fund,
contact the National Pollution Funds Center at
(202) 493-6999 or visit their web page at
www. uscg.m il/h q/npfc/npfc. h tm.
REMEDIATION OF A FRESHWATER
WETLAND IN THE PRESENCE AND
ABSENCE OF WETLAND PLANTS
THROUGH ENHANCED
BIOSTIMULATION
Presenters: Al Venosa, U.S. EPA and Kenneth
Lee, Fisheries and Oceans
Large oil spills can have devastating effects on
wildlife and aquatic animals. Local ecological
diversity can be seriously threatened and food
chain interactions significantly disrupted for
years following a catastrophe. Accelerated
cleanup is vital and can prevent or mitigate
further damage to exposed living populations,
some of which may consume animals that may
have bioconcentrated contaminating
compounds. This project was undertaken to
develop an understanding of how to implement
bioremediation for cleanup of a catastrophic
spill on the ecologically, environmentally, and
economically important St. Lawrence River.
The project is sponsored by the U.S. EPA and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The objectives of the field study were: 1) to
determine the effectiveness of bioremediation
with and without the confounding effects of
wetland plants to restore the contaminated area
to pre-spill conditions; 2) to determine the effect
of phytoremediation to restore the impacted
ecosystem; and 3) to evaluate the ecotoxicity of
the oil exposed areas once bioremediation/
phytoremediation activities are in place.
Biostimulation is nutrient enrichment to
enhance bioremediation. While it is a technique
that can be successful in converting toxigenic
compounds to nontoxic products, it is not
without challenges. The washout rate for water-
soluble nutrients can be very high in the
intertidal zone of marine beaches or near the
shore zone of rivers, where spill impacts usually
occur. The effectiveness of biostimulation will
depend on the characteristics of the
contaminated environment.
Phytoremediation is the use of vegetation for the
in-situ treatment of contaminated soil and
12
-------
sediment. Phytoremediation has shown to be an
effective and inexpensive cleanup option for
certain hazardous wastes. However, little
research has been conducted to assess the
capacity of revegetation to enhance
biodegradation. Phytoremediation may prove
particularly effective when used in conjunction
with biostimulation. The addition of fertilizers
that enhance indigenous microbial activity will
also stimulate plant biomass production and
thereby increase the effectiveness of
phytoremediation.
The experimental area consisted of 20 plots. The
five treatments included a no oil control and
four oiled treatments. Sampling began one week
after oiling when the first nutrient application
was made. The subsequent sampling intervals
were at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 21, and one
to be conducted this spring, yielding a total of
10 sampling events.
Preliminary results indicated that slow but
steady biodegradation occurred in all plots
through the 21- week sampling period. The data
suggests that the biodegradation was not
enhanced by fertilizer addition. However, at and
subsequent to week 12, additional samples were
collected from the top centimeter surface of
each plot. These samples revealed that an
enhanced biodegradative removal occurred in
the plots with cut plants that had received
ammonium as the nitrogen source. The
preliminary conclusion is that, if oil
contaminating a wetland is able to penetrate
below the surface substantially, oxygen
availability to the oil degraders limits their
productivity even if substantial nutrient
concentrations exist in the sediment. These
conclusions are preliminary, however, and
should not be considered final until a more
thorough analysis of all the data has been made.
For more information on this study, contact Al
Venosa at venosa.albert@epa.gov or Kenneth
Lee at leek@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.
IN THE NEWS...
DOT AND EPA
SIGN AGREEMENT
In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
dated February 4, 2000, from Richard B. Felder
of the United States Department of
Transportation (DOT) and Stephen D. Luftig of
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the two agencies clarified
jurisdictional issues involved with breakout
tanks/bulk oil storage tanks at transportation-
related and non-transportation-related facilities,
and established mutual goals for the EPA Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response and
DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety.
Existing statutes require EPA to regulate non-
transportation related facilities; DOT has
regulatory authority over transportation-related
facilities. However, some facilities engage in
both transportation and non-transportation
related activities. Such a facility is defined as a
"complex facility" and is subject to the dual
jurisdiction of EPA and DOT. The most current
MOU explains the discussions of the two
agencies to improve communications and
establish long term goals.
The MOU provides for improved
communication through information sharing,
sharing critiques and assessments of response
efforts, inviting EPA staff toparticipate in a
DOT pipeline safety committee, and having
DOT staff participate in inland area committees
to advise EPA on pipeline issues. The agencies
will continue discussions involving
jurisdictional issues between the two agencies.
Future discussions will involve both regional
and headquarters staff. The MOU also provides
for cross training of EPA and DOT staff, and
joint inspections
of facilities subject to dual jurisdiction.
13
-------
The mutual long term goals of EPA and DOT
are:
• To ensure that all breakout tanks/bulk
storage containers are appropriately
regulated under all applicable statutes,
• That all rules and enforcement practices of
both agencies are substantially equivalent to
the extent possible and,
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5203G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
• That as many facilities as possible are
subject to single jurisdiction in the interest
of regulatory efficiency.
It is the hope of EPA and DOT to encourage the
implementation of tank management programs
that exemplify "best practices/good engineering
and operational practices" in the industry.
This MOU can be viewed at
www. epa.gov/oilspill/ wh at. h tm.
------- |