Oil Spill Case History, 1967-1991

8/9/2019 Oil Spill Case History, 1967-1991

1/224


2/224


3/224

Int roduct ion

The Nat ional Oil and Hazardous Subst ances Pollut ion

Cont ingency Plan (4 0 CFR Part 3 0 0 ) , referred t o subsequent ly

as The Nat ional Cont ingency Plan ( NCP) , is t he principal

Federal mechanism f or operat ions pert aining t o t he

ident i f icat ion, cont ainment , and cleanup of releases of oi land hazardous subst ances in the coastal Unit ed St at es. NOAA

has the responsibil i ty, under the NCP, to provide scientif ic

support t o t he U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG) in planning for and

responding t o spil l emergencies in t he marine environment .

Discussions bet ween t he USCG Research and Development Cent er

and NOAA concluded that, by providing insights into past

experiences, a dat abase of oil spil l case hist ories might be

benef icial to t he USCG, NOAA, and ot her agencies involved inspill response and cont ingency p lanning. These case

hist or ies, developed with signif icant f unding and

consult at ion f rom t he USCG Research and Development Cent er,

are int ended as ref erences t o be read as planning aids for

insight s int o scient i f ic and operat ional decision-making, and

t o ensure t hat part icular st rat egic element s are properly

addressed in contingency planning. Although the files are

conf igured for ready accessibil it y t o det ails of par t icular

spil ls, these case histories can be used for constructing

hypothetical scenarios and for gaming a spil l , e.g., givent he act ual response t o spi ll x, what would you do? or what

would you have done diff erent ly, and why?

Cr i t er ia were establ ished t o l imi t t he ini t ial number of

spil ls t o be evaluat ed. The case hist ories include all

sp il ls t hat :

exceeded 10 0,0 0 0 barrels int ernat ionally

exceeded 10 ,00 0 barrels in U.S. wat ers

involved the use of dispersant s

involved bioremediat ion

involved severe environment al impact s: more t han 50 0

- 1 -


4/224

birds kil led, more t han 1 0 0 mammals kil led, smot hering of

over a mile of int ert idalzone, closure of f isheries, et c.

Fol lowing this introduct ion there is an alphabetical l ist of

spi ll case hist or ies included in t he report and a dict ionary

of key words. The key words comprise t he dict ionary from

which shoreline t ypes, resources at r isk, et c. are chosen.

The dict ionary w as developed b y Research Planning Inc.,Columb ia, Sout h Carolina ( Guidelines f or Develo ping a Spill

Preparedness Plan: Focus on Environment al Inf ormat ion, 19 9 2 ,

NOAA report HMRAD 92-3).

Each case hist ory is organized as fo llows:

A l ist of headers t hat summarizes t he spi ll name,

location, product , size, use of dispersant s,bioremediat ion, and in-sit u burning, ot her special

int erest s, shoreline t ypes af fect ed and keywords. (For

t he comput erized version, any word can also be searched

as if i t were a designat ed keyword.)

A br ief incident summary including weat her

condit ions and event s leading up t o t he spill .

A descript ion of t he behavior of t he oil including

movement, evaporation, mousse formation, and dispersion.

A discussion of countermeasures and mit igat ion.

A descript ion of ot her special interest issues

such as communicat ion prob lems, unusual hazards

encount ered, and large losses of organisms.

A l ist of references f rom which the history was

synt hesized. The l ist ranges f rom very skimpy t o very

ext ensive; early spi l ls were not wel l document ed.

It ems wit hin t he text t hat t he reader may want t o f ind

rapidly are highl ight ed by t he use of b oldface i t alics

These include proper names, amount s, or unusual condit ions.

- 2 -


5/224

Sources of inform at ion f or t he case hist ories include U.S.

Coast Guard OSC Report s and Pollut ion Report s, f ile report s

of t he Int ernat ional Tanker Owners Pollut ion Federat ion Lt d.,

NOAA Scient if ic Support Coor dinat ion ( SSC) Branch spill

report s, commercial newslett ers in t he public domain, st at e

agency reports, industry reports, and published scientif ic

report s. Oil propert ies were t aken from Environment Canadas

Cat alogue of Crude Oil and Oil Product Propert ies (1 9 9 0version) (unpublished report EE-1 2 5 , Ot t awa) . References

are included at t he end of each case hist ory.

The complet e dat abase consist s of t wo parts: a t ext f i le,

available on disket t e or as hard copy, and a HyperCard st ack

on disket t e summarizing each of t he case hist ories. The

HyperCard st ack is based on CAMEO, hazardous mat erials

planning and response sof t ware developed by NOAA and t he U.S.

Environmental Prot ect ion Agency.

We intend to add future spil ls to the database that meet the

cri t er ia for not able impacts or innovative responses even

t hough t he size of t he spil l falls below t he values select ed

ini t ia lly. Past spi l ls wil l be re-reviewed wi t h t he same

int ent ion. As new dat a are discovered, or part icipant s in

past spi lls prov ide addit ional inform at ion, case hist or ies

will be updat ed. SSC report s are now being prepared in t he

f ormat used in t his report . We encourage ot her nat ional and

int ernat ional spill response agencies t o use t he same f ormatbot h for consist ency of report ing st yle and fut ure inclusion

in t he database.

This is one of several comput er-based project s being

conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA to improve

planning and response t o oil spil ls. We would part icularly

like t o t hank Cdr. Pet er Tebeau o f t he USCG Research and

Development Cent er for his support of t hese project s.

Cont r ibutors t o t his report included:

Cheryl Anderson ( Minerals Management Service, U.S. Depart ment of t he Int erior)

Robert Barry ( Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Kennet h Bart on ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division, Nat ional

Oceanic and At mospheric Administ rat ion)

- 3 -


6/224

R.G.B. Brown (Canadian Wildlife Service)

Gini Curl, Cover A rt ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,

Nat ional Oceanic and At mospheric Administ rat ion)

Herbert Curl, Jr., Proj ect Manager ( Hazardo us Mat erials Response and Assessment

Division, Nat ional Oceanic and At mospheric Adm inist rat ion)

Sharon Christ opherson ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and A ssessment Division,


Dean Dale, Project Coord inat or ( Genwest Syst ems Inc.)Christ opher Hall ( Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Lori Harris, Edit or ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,


John Kaperick ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,


David Kennedy ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,


Edwin Levine ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,

Nat ional Oceanic and At mospheric Administ rat ion)Dan Mat t son (Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Barry McFarland ( Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Jacqueline McGee ( Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Clark Lee Merriam ( The Coust eau Societ y)

Jim Morr is ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,


John Murphy (Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Robert Pavia ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and Assessment Division,


Ellen Shaw ( Genwest Syst ems Inc.)Jean Snider, NOAA-Coast Coast Guard Liaison ( Hazardous Mat erials Response and

Assessment Division, Nat ional Oceanic and At mospheric Administ rat ion)

Lynet t e St evens ( Genwest Systems Inc.)

Melody St raub (Genwest Syst ems Inc.)

Ian C. Whit e (Int ernat ional Tanker Owners Pollut ion Federat ion, Lt d.)

- 4 -


7/224


8/224


9/224

Dictionary of Keywords

A Resources at RiskHabitats(See shoreline types key below), eelgrass beds, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), kelp,coral reefs, worm beds

Marine MammalsWhales, dolphins, sea lions, seals, sea otters, manatees, walruses, polar bears, populationconcentration areas, haulouts, migration routes, seasonal use areas

Terrestrial MammalsMustelids, rodents, deer, bears, population concentration areas, intertidal feeding areas

BirdsDiving coastal birds, waterfowl, alcids, petrels, fulmars, shorebirds, wading birds, gulls, terns,raptors, rookeries, foraging areas, wintering areas, migration stopover areas, winteringconcentration areas, nesting beaches, migratory routes, critical forage areas

FishAnadromous fish, beach spawners, kelp spawners, nursery areas, reef fish (includes fish usinghard-bottom habitats) spawning streams, spawning beaches, estuarine fish, demersal fish

MolluscsOysters, mussels, clams, scallops, abalone, conch, whelk, squid, octopus, seed beds, leased beds,abundant beds, harvest areas, high concentration sites

CrustaceansShrimp, crabs, lobster, nursery areas, high concentration sites

ReptilesSea turtles, alligators, nesting beaches, concentration areas

RecreationBeaches, marinas, boat ramps, diving areas, high-use recreational boating areas, high-userecreational fishing areas, State Parks

Management AreasMarine Sanctuaries, National Parks, Refuges, Wildlife Preserves, Reserves

Resource ExtractionSubsistence, officially designated harvest sites, commercial fisheries, power plant waterintakes, drinking water intakes, industrial water intakes, intertidal and subtidal miningleases, fish/shrimp/bivalve/plant aquaculture sites, log storage areas

CulturalArchaeological sites, Native American Lands

vi


10/224

B Shoreline Types Impactedbrackish marshescoarse gravel beachescoarse sand beachescoastal structuresconsolidated seawalls

consolidated shorescypress swampsdeveloped uplanderoding bluffsexposed bedrock bluffsexposed bluffsexposed fine sand beachesexposed riprapexposed rocky platformsexposed rocky shoresexposed scarpsexposed seawallsexposed tidal flats

exposed tidal flats (low biomass)exposed tidal flats (moderate biomass)exposed unconsolidated sediment bluffsextensive intertidal marshesextensive salt marshesextensive wetlandsfine sand beachesflatsfreshwater flatfreshwater marshesfreshwater swampsfringing salt marshesfringing wetlandshardwood swampsleveeslow banksmangrovesmarshesmixed sand and shell beachesmixed sediment beachespiersriprapsalt marshsaltwater marshessand/gravel beaches

shell beachessheltered bedrock bluffssheltered fine-grained sand beachessheltered impermeable bankssheltered mangrovessheltered marshessheltered rocky shoressheltered seawallssheltered tidal flats

vi i


11/224

B, cont.shelving bedrock shoresspoil banksupratidal marshesswamptidal mudflat

unforested uplandunvegetated steep banks and cliffsvegetated bluffsvegetated low banksvegetated riverbankvertical rocky shoreswavecut platforms

C Key wordsabsorbent padsabsorbentsadverse weather conditions

air activated pumpsair hornsAir-Deliverable Anti-Pollution Transfer System (ADAPTS)airboatsAirspace Request ZoneAlpha Bio-Sea microbesArdox 6120Atlantic Strike Team (AST)Audubon SocietybackhoesBennett boomblowoutblowout preventer

boat rampsbombingboomBP 1002BP 1100DBP 1100WDBP 1100XBRAS-X-plusbulldozersCalifornia Department of Fish and Game (CA DFG)cannonball diaper samplerCenters for Disease Control (CDC)chalk

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaryclamshell bucketClean Bay Inc.Clean Coastal WatersClean GulfClean Harbors CooperativeClean SeasClean SoundClean Water

viii


12/224

C, cont.collection boomcollisioncontainment boomcontingency plancontracting

coppercopper sulfideCorexit 7664Corexit 8666Corexit 9527Corexit 9580Crowley Environmental ServicesCustomblenDasic LTDDavidson Currentdeflection boomsDelaware Bay and River Cooperativedemolition

detergentdisposalDrewdrift cardselastolEnjay 7664evaporationExpandiboomexplosionfilter fenceFinasol OSRFinasol OSR-2Finasol OSR-5Finasol OSR-7fingerprintingfireFlight Restricted AreafogFood and Drug Administration (FDA)Gold CrewGoodyear boomGulf Strike Team (GST)hand mopshigh-pressure hot water washinghigh-pressure warm-water washing

high-pressure washinghigh-viscosity screw pumpshot-water flushinghydro-blastingInfra Red (IR)InipolInternational Bird Rescue and Research Center (IBRRC)International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF)Intervention on the High Seas Act

ix


13/224

C, cont.JBF skimmerlighteringlow pressure washingMagnusmanual removal

Marco skimmerMulti Agency Local Response Team (MALRT)National GuardNational Strike Force (NSF)National Wildlife RefugesNavy boomNew Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP)New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC)oil mop machinesoil snaresOpen Water Oil Containment and Recovery System (OWOCRS)Open Water Oil Recovery System (OWORS)Pacific Strike Team (PST)

Point Reyes National SeashorePolycomplex Apompomspropane cannonsRegional Response Teamrelief wellremote responseremotely operated vehicle (ROV)reoilingsalvagesawdustSea Curtain boomself-contained skimming devicesself-propelled skimmershallow water recoveryShell Oil HerderShell Solvent 70Shell VTSshop vacuumsSide Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR)sinkingsiphon damskimmersskimming pumpSlickgone LTE

Sorbent Csorbent boomsorbent padssorbent pillowssorbent pompomssorbentssteam generatorsstern trawl netstraw

x


14/224

C, cont.sub-surface oilsubmersiblesuction operationssupersuckertoxic fumes

trenchesTri-State Bird Rescue CenterTullanox 500U. S. Naval Explosive Ordnance Detachment (EOD)U.S. Navy Superintendent of Salvage (NAVSUPSALV)US Strategic Petroleum Reservevacallsvacuum pumpsvacuum truckvegetation cuttingvolunteersWashington Department of Ecology (WA DOE)Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR)

water-washingweir sumpweir/pump skimmer

D Other Special Interest IssuesEffects to tourism, recreation areas, or personal propertyClosure of commercial or recreational fishing areas and public landsClosure of shipping lanes and vehicle traffic routes

Wildlife impacts and rehabilitation

Ecological destruction and habitat loss due to spilled material impactsEcological destruction and habitat loss due to cleanup operationsEffects to human health and safety

Bioremediation, dispersant, in-situ burning operationsUnusual, experimental, or innovative cleanup techniquesComplex successful salvage operationsLogistical or operational problems (including adverse weather conditions)Interaction with foreign or Native authoritiesMedia interestVolunteer response and organizationStudies conducted; ongoing research

xi


15/224

Name Al Rawdat ain Spill Dat e 1 0 / 2 9 / 7 7

Genoa, It alyLocation

44 24 NLat it ude Longitude 008 48 E

Oil Product Kuwait crude oil

Tank VesselOil Type Bar rels 7350 SourceType 3

Dispersants Yes Bioremediation No In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 1 7 / 9 2

Incident Summary

On Oct ober 29 , 19 77 , a valve was left open during t he off loading of t he Al Rawdat ain at t he Genoa-Multedo

dock. Seven thousand three hundred fift y barrels of Kuwait crude oil spilled from t he vessel over a period of

several hours. The spill was mitigat ed with chemical dispersant s. No shoreline impact s occurred.

Behavior of Oil

Kuwait crude oil is a medium weight product wit h an API gravit y of 31 .2 and a viscosity of 2.53 centistokes.

Overflights on the morning of Oct ober 30 revealed a slick ext ending out 2 75 y ards fr om the vessel. By

October 31 , a 7 mile long by 3 mile wide slick ext ended out t o sea. A smaller amount of oil broke off from t he

large slick and moved west t owards Savona. This oil for med a 5 mile long by 3 m ile wide slick which st ayed

2 miles off t he shore between Cogolet o and Varazza. No oil cont aminat ed the shoreline.

Countermeasures and Mitigation

The Genoa Port Aut horit y was responsible for cleanup operat ions. On October 3 1, dispersant s were applied to

t he offshore slick and in the vicinity of t he tanker's mooring by 4 t ugboat s, which were directed by observersin helicopt ers. Two tugs were fit t ed with Warren Springs Laborator y dispersant spraying equipment and

st orage t anks. The other tw o tugs used improvised spraying gear. A harbor launch applied dispersant s to t he

smaller slick near Savona on t he morning of Oct ober 31 . Two fire monit oring t ugs joined t he Savona

operations later t hat day, and sprayed dispersant s into t he night using search lights. Overflight s revealed

t hat no significant amounts of oil persist ed aft er t he dispersant s were applied. Operations were considered

successful and were complet ed by November 2 in perfect weather.

Approximat ely 11 90 barrels (50 ,00 0 gallons) of dispersant s were used, and included: Gamlen LT12 6, Finasol

OSR2, Chimisol TC 66 , Saros Melt out M, Urrut y Dispersol, and Rochem.

A Gaima skimmer was deployed near Genoa, but it broke down almost immediat ely.

Other Special Int erest Issues

References

Genwest Syst ems, Inc. communications wit h ITOPF representat ives.

Keywords

Gamlen LT12 6, Finasol OSR2, Chimisol TC 66 , Saros Melt out M, Urrut y Dispersol, Rochem, skimmer.

NOAA/ HMRAD OIL SPILL CASE HISTORY


16/224

Name Alvenus Spill Dat e 0 7 / 3 0 / 8 4

Calcasieu River bar channel, 11 miles SE of Cameron, Louisiana.Location

29 35 NLat it ude Longitude 093 15 W

Oil Product Venezuelan Merey, Pilon Crude

Tank VesselOil Type Bar rels 65000 SourceType 3,Type 3

Dispersants Yes Bioremediation No In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 1 7 / 9 2

Incident Summary

On July 3 0, 1 98 4 at 12 36 t he U.K. Tank Vessel Alvenus grounded in t he Calcasieu River Bar Channel 11 miles

sout heast of Cameron, Louisiana. The vessel suffered a str uct ural failure which rupt ured t he hull near t he No.

2 t anks. The result ing spill of approximat ely 65 ,50 0 barrels of Venezuelan Merey and Pilon crude oil was

carried in a west erly direct ion by wind and currents. Offshore recovery w as hampered by rough weather and

t he magnit ude of t he spill. The wat er t emperat ure was 80 F and winds were from t he east and nort heast

15-20 knots.

The spill moved slowly west ward, coming ashore near High Island, along t he Bolivar Peninsula, and into

Galveston Bay, Texas bet ween Aug. 2-5 . Oil impact s were severe at Rollover Inlet and Cryst al Beach, and on

Aug. 4 more oil was pushed ashore furt her south along t he Galvest on Island coast. The spill affect ed 90 % of

Galvest on' s West Beach, including 80% of t he Galveston seawall and t he associat ed rock groins and pilings.

Oil in t he seawall area was a concern due t o t he oils smothering eff ect on marine organisms. Organisms in

t his area were determined to be a minor part of t he ent ire ecosyst em and due t o t heir transient nature were

able to move t o more suitable habitat s. Several dead crabs, rays, and fish were recovered along the seawall

but could not be direct ly att ribut ed to t he spill.

Also oiled were marsh grass areas in East Bay (1 0- 20 barrels) and 2 small lagoons. Some oil which entered

Galvest on Channel did aff ect several small sand islands used as nesting sit es for birds, although no aff ect ed

birds or eggs were reported. One oiled sea turt le was cleaned and released. Tourism losses were est imated

at $ 1 million per day. Commercial shrimp fishermen filed a suit f or $1 0 million. By Oct ober 1 t he oiled

beaches of Bolivar Peninsula and Galveston Island had been cleaned by t he removal of oiled sand.

Behavior of Oil

Merey crude oil is a medium crude oil wit h an API gravit y of 17 .3 and a pour point of -10 degrees F. Pilon

crude is a heavy crude oil of A PI gravit y 1 3.8 with a pour point of -9 degrees F and a viscosity of 1 ,943

cent ist okes. The spill for med a heavy, coalescent slick which was init ially predict ed to move off shore t o the

sout h away from t he Texas coast. Changes in wind direct ion result ed in a west erly t raject ory, spreading t heoil into a 75 mile long slick wit h t hree leading arms.

The oil came ashore in the Galvest on, Texas area forming as t ar balls, sheens, and pancakes float ing out side

t he surf zone. By August 7 an estimated 17,000 - 26,00 0 bbl (2,5 00-3 ,500 t ons) of oil had accumulat ed on

t he shores of Galveston Island and the Bolivar Peninsula. An addit ional 74 00 - 1 1,1 00 bb l (1,0 00 -1,5 00

t ons) of oil adsorbed ont o suspended solid particles (sediment ) nearshore and sank in t he surf zone where it

was trapped among successive sandbars and trenches forming "blankets" t o 4 inches in depth. Some of t he

subtidal oil formed cylindrical shaped rolls t hat mov ed up and down t he beach wit h wave act ion. Warm

t emperatures on t he beach (8 0F water, 8 0-1 00 F air) may have contribut ed t o keeping the oil highly fluid

and fresh. Unless mixed with sand, the oil was easily dispersed with gent le agit ation.


Oil booms and sea barrier were placed around the vessel on t he day f ollowing the grounding. Eff ort s t o

cont ain and recover t he spilled oil at sea became ineff ect ive due to rough seas which pushed oil under the

barrier, and the refusal of t he contract ed light ering barge t o receive oil recovered from seawater. This

refusal was a major contr ibution t o the failed recovery eff ort . A second barge and t ug were cont ract ed, but

delayed due t o a line becoming fouled in t he screw of t he t owing vessel. The principal contract or, Clean Gulf

Associat ion, an industr y cooperat ive, was not equipped f or massive at-sea cleanup and equipment was not

immediat ely available in Cameron, Louisiana. Had the equipment been available, it st ill may not have been

loaned t o a non-member company.

Beach cleanup was determined t o be best accomplished by using road graders t o move newly beached oil above

t he high tide zone. Graders were most eff ect ive when used t ogether in a st aggered format ion, moving oil up

t he beach from t he intert idal area to backshore storage areas. Oiled sand collected in t he storage areas was

loaded into dump t rucks for disposal. This operation involved as many as 50 graders and 10 0 dump t rucks.

Submerged oil in t he subtidal proved t o be t he great est problem because reoiling necessit ated cont inual

recleaning of beaches. Removal of t he subt idal oil was at t empt ed with mesh screening, pumping, and heavy



17/224

equipment, but none of t hese t echniques proved effect ive. During beach cleanup, conflict arose between stat e

and privat e landowners over ownership of t he contaminat ed sand, the st ate want ing t o remove t he sand

versus the landowners wanting it t o remain in place on the beach.

Cleaning of t he seawall and revetment involved more t han 150 workers manually removing oil wit h sorbent

materials, shovels, and rakes. Various " hydo-blasting" methods were tried. Low-pressure (8 50 psi)

warmed seawater lef t st ains on t he rocks, a high-pressure " sugar" sand blast w as eff ect ive on the rocks but

not concret e seawall, and dry sand blast ing proved t oo abrasive. Hydro-sand blast ing was chosen as the most

eff ective for seawall cleanup. A test of dispersant (Corexit 9 52 7) was approved and conducted on theseawall. When t he dispersant was unable t o penetrat e t he oil, hydroblast ing remained the met hod of choice.

Ext ensive discussions with expert s and representat ives of t he Int ernational Tanker Owners Pollut ion

Federat ion concerning dispersants concluded that dispersant use on t he water was not appropriate due t o

water dept h, proximit y of t he spill t o shore and fisheries resources, and t he inability of t he dispersant t o

penetrat e thick Venezuelan crude. Since the dispersant would have been only partially effect ive, the cost

benefit of using an ineffect ive dispersant would have divert ed funds f rom t he beach cleanup deemed necessary

in either case. See discussion below about subsequent dispersant use on the seawall.


Logist ics became a problem during t he beach cleanup due to t he large number of heavy equipment units

involved. Traff ic constraint s at disposal sites result ed in as many as 40 loaded vehicles wait ing on t he

beaches t o off -load. Graders were only available fr om t he Texas Depart ment of Highways for a short t ime,

so cleanup began premat urely, requir ing recleaning as new oil came ashore.

Mass balance calculat ions estimat ed the volume of t he recovered oil at bet ween 63 ,00 0 - 78 ,00 0 bbl (8 70 0 -

10 ,700 metric t ons). This is very high considering that an est imat e of t he tot al spill was 65,00 0 bbl

(10,000 metric tons).

A severe case of oiling at a previously unaffect ed San Luis Pass area was cleaned up by t he cont ract or and

later analysis proved t he oil was not of Alvenus origin.

Ten liters of Exxon Corexit 95 27 were applied t o T/ V Alvenus oil stranded on t he Galveston seawall on

August 2 8, 19 84 . Ten samples were taken from t he sea water at t he base of the seawall before and aft er the

applicat ion of Corexit 9 52 7 and analyzed f or polynuclear aromat ic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by The Center f or

Bio-Organic St udies, Universit y of New Orleans. The analyt ical dat a were interpret ed by the Inst it ut e for

Environment al Studies, Louisiana Stat e Universit y. Concent rat ions of aromat ic hydrocarbons were very low

and no discernable effect s of t he dispersant were obvious in t he dat a set . Observations of marine organism

mort alities made by Nat ional Marine Fisheries Service indicat ed no t oxic eff ect s.

References

Alejandro, A.C. and J.L. Buri, 198 7. M/ V Alvenus: Anat omy of a major oil spill. Oil Spill Conference

Proceedings 19 87 , pp. 27-3 2.

Baxt er, Todd, NOAA SSC. Memo t o Part icipants of t he ALVENUS Oil Spill, January 4, 1 98 4.

NOAA Hot line report

Petr o-Canada report ( " Alvenus file" )

USCG On Scene Coordinato rs repo rt

World Information Systems "Tanker losses in U.S. Wat ers 197 8-1 99 0

Keywords

Corexit 95 27 , hydro-blast ing, reoiling, Internat ional Tanker Owners Pollut ion Federat ion (ITOPF),

sub-surface oil, manual removal.



18/224

Name Amazon Venture Spill Dat e 1 2 / 0 4 / 8 6

Savannah River , Garden Cit y, GeorgiaLocation


Oil Product No. 6 Fuel Oil


Dispersants No Bioremediation No In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 1 7 / 9 2

Incident Summary

On December 4, 19 86 , at 2 33 0, an oil spill of unknown origin at t he Garden Cit y, Georgia container berths on

t he Savannah River was report ed t o t he U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Marine Safet y Off ice (MSO) in Savannah,

Georgia. As t he responsible part y had not been identif ied, the On-Scene Coordinat or (OSC) declared a

federally funded spill to f acilitat e response measures.

Early in the morning on December 5, before the source of the spill was known, personnel contracted by the

USCG deployed containment boom at t he Amoco and Southern Bulk Industries facilities. At first light, t he

Amazon Venture was boarded and inspect ed as it was believed to be t he most likely source of t he spill. The

cause of t he spill was lat er determined t o be t hree malfunct ioning valves in the ballast and cargo discharge

piping of the Amazon Venture.

Behavior of Oil

No. 6 fuel oil is a heavy product wit h an API gravit y t hat ranges from 7 t o 14 . The amount of spilled oil was

initially estimated t o be less than 50 barrels. During the first t wo days of t he spill, much of t he float ing oilremained beneat h t he approximately eight een acres of dock and wharf area at t he edge of t he Savannah River.

On December 7, personnel f rom t he USCG Gulf St rike Team (GST) estim ated that t he amount of oil in t he

water was about 11 ,00 0 barrels. The final est imate was reached on December 11, f ollowing tank gauging

t hat revealed that approximat ely t welve thousand barrels of t he Amazon Vent ure's cargo was missing.

Approximat ely 25 miles of t he Savannah River and it s t ributaries were affect ed by t he spill. An estimated

61 0 acres of m arsh were oiled along t he canals and t ribut aries of t he Savannah National Wildlife Refuge

( SNVR). Thirt y-eight acres along major waterways were heavily oiled, and eight y acres along major

waterways were lightly oiled.


Shoreline cleanup consisted of washing wit h pressurized water and hand scrubbing of oiled surfaces.

Dispersant use was not considered due t o t he environment al sensitiv it y of t he area. The Nat ional Oceanic and

At mospheric Administ ration ( NOAA) Scientif ic Support Coordinator ( SSC) recommended against cut t ing marsh

grass. Since the spill occured in wint er, the grass was dormant at t he time and it was felt t hat litt le harm

would come t o t he grass if it were left intact. Also, increased traff ic associat ed with grass cutt ing could

force oil deeper into the sediments.

Areas wit h the heaviest concentr ations of oil were isolated with cont ainment boom. The oil was too t hick

initially f or vacuum t rucks to have any effect . A barrier boom was deployed at Middle River to prot ect t he

waters of t he Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. The swift current s of t he river made securing the boom

very dif ficult , however, it was in place by the morning of December 6. Five hundred feet o f boom was

deployed at St eamboat Cut in t he SNVR on December 9. Sorbent boom was deployed at Fort Jackson and Fort

Pulaski. Sorbent boom was deployed across t he Dundee Canal at t he request of t he Georgia Department o f

Nat ural Resources (DNR) t o prevent oil fr om cont aminat ing sensit ive inland areas.

Cont ainment boom was deployed at seven sit es in t he wildlife refuge as recommended by t he U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS). Oil in t he contained areas was difficult t o remove because of current s and the

relatively small amount of oil act ually cont ained by t he booms. Booms were placed at Hog Island, St .

August ine Creek, Upper Litt le Back River, Rifle Cut, and Middle River. Booms in t hese areas required

constant maint enance and reposit ioning due to t he current s. All booms were removed from t he wildlife refuge

by December 23.

Limited cleanup operations cont inued until January 1 2, 1 98 7. On January 1 6, t he OSC present ed t he vessel

owners with t he final recommendat ions for t he long-t erm cleanup and removal of t he oil. The cleanup was

complet ed by March 13, 198 7.


Disposal of oily debris was a problem. The dumpst ers provided by the cleanup contr actor were unlined. This

caused oil t o leak into t he soil around t he dumpsters until a dike was construct ed and the dumpst ers were lined

wit h plast ic, pending t he acquisition of proper cont ainers.



19/224

The FWS established a bird cleaning center. The center c leaned only a few birds because the spill had only a

minimal eff ect on t he birds in t he area. Approximat ely 36- 48 o iled birds were sighted by U.S. FWS

personnel. Most of t hese were cormorants. There were fears that t he Bald Eagles in the Refuge would prey

on t he oiled birds, however no report s of aff ect ed Bald Eagles were received.

References

Golob's 19 78 -19 89 US Spill Report

MMS Worldwide Tanker Spill Dat abase NOAA Hotline Reports

NOAA Response Report

OSIR Oil Spills, Int ernational Summary & Review, 19 86 -19 88

Tanker Advisory Cent er, Inc. 19 91 Guide for t he Select ion of Tankers. T.A.C. Inc. 19 91 .

USCG On-Scene Coordinat ors Report

World Informat ion Systems. Tanker Losses in U.S. Waters: 19 78 -19 90 . World Informat ion Systems.

1991.

Keywords

Gulf St rike Team ( GST), cont ainment boom, National Wildlife Refuges, vacuum t ruck, manual removal, sorbent

boom, high-pressure washing.



20/224

Name Amerada Hess Oil Co. st orage t anks Spill Dat e 0 9 / 2 0 / 8 9

Port Alucroix, Limet ree Bay, St Croix, U.S. Virg in Islands.Location


Oil Product Heavy crude oil

Facilit yOil Type Bar rels 10000 SourceType 4


Incident Summary

On Sept ember 18 , 19 89 , Hurricane Hugo hit t he island of St . Croix wit h winds in excess of 14 0 miles per

hour. Five large oil stor age tanks were dest royed and several severely damaged at t he Hess Oil Virgin Islands

Corporation ( HOVIC) power plant in Port Alucroix, St Croix. Of t he 10,0 00 barrels released, approximat ely

9,00 0 barrels were contained wit hin eart hen berms on t he facilit y's grounds.

Coast Guard personnel of t he Marine Safet y Off ice (MSO) San Juan part icipated in an overf light of t he area on

September 21 . The overflight was conduct ed to assess damages t o two aff ect ed facilities. Members of t he

USCG At lant ic St rike Team and t he Federal On-Scene Coordinat or arrived on-scene Sept ember 22 t o inspect

t he damaged st orage tanks. Approximat ely 1,0 00 barrels of heavy crude oil were in HOVIC's main tanker

harbor. HOVIC employees had already begun count ermeasures t o cont ain the oil. HOVIC personnel appeared to

need litt le assistance from t he Coast Guard. Coast Guard personnel cont inued on t o Virgin Islands Wat er

Power Aut hority (V I WAPA) t o assess the damages and needs at t hat f acilit y.

Behavior of OilApproximat ely 1,00 0 barrels of heavy crude escaped into t he wat ers of Limetree Bay. Nat ural wind and

wave action pressed the oil against t he shoreline, thus containing t he oil within t he narrow t anker harbor

limits. Almost all of t he 1,0 00 barrels were recovered.


HOVIC employees quickly deployed 2,000 feet of 2 4 inch skirt boom bet ween the piers t o contain most of t he

oil in the harbor. HOVIC provided VI WAPA addit ional booms to help cont ain the spill on t he north side of t he

island.

Earthen berms on the facilit y grounds contained approximat ely 900 0 barrels of t he est imat ed 10,0 00 barrels

t hat were released. Skimming pumps were unsuccessful in recovering t he oil at HOVIC due to t he high pour

point of t he oil. As an alt ernat ive cleanup technique, oil-snare absorbent was applied to t he boomed oil aft er

which it was recovered by clamshell bucket s. The bucket s were used to lift t he oil into a t emporary earthen

sump onshore. Using this method, HOVIC was able to recover t he majorit y of t he wat er-borne oil and return

it t o an int act r ecovery t ank. HOVIC accepted additional recovered oil from t he VI WAPA spill that was placed

into another recovery t ank.


Due t o the destr uct ion from Hurricane Hugo, communicat ions were disrupt ed. Therefore, mobile satellit e

communications were crit ical t o the success of the response operation. Much of the island's infrastr uct ure,

including potable water, electricit y, and sanitat ion facilit ies, was also dest royed by t he hurricane. The

widespread destruct ion on t he island caused many logist ical and operational problems. The result ing oil spill

was simply one component of a much larger scale disast er.

Response personnel experienced physical threat s from armed groups of escaped convict s eluding capture in

remot e beach areas. Some civilians were also armed wit h weapons to prot ect t heir propert y from cro wds of

loot ers. Personnel at t he VI WAPA command post regularly heard gunfire in the evenings.

The HOVIC facilit y was ext remely well prepared for t his response. The facility it self is designed t o provideexcellent opport unity f or containment and recovery of spills. The nort hwest corner of each pier contains an

oil recovery ramp. HOVIC was also able to provide VI WAPA wit h boom, a t ank barge, and an oil recovery

tank.

References

Bills, C.E. and Whit ing, D.C. 1 99 1. Major Oil Spills Caused by Hurricane Hugo, St . Croix, U.S. Vir gin Islands.

Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 1991. pp. 247-251.

OSIR Internat ional Spill St atist ics 19 89 -199 0, Special Report, 3 / 28/ 91


Keywords

At lantic Str ike Team (A ST), adverse weather condit ions, boom, skimming pump, oil snares, clamshell bucket.



21/224

Name American Trader Spill Dat e 0 2 / 0 7 / 9 0

Huntingt on Beach, Califor niaLocation


Oil Product Alaskan Nort h Slope Crude Oil



Incident Summary

On February 7, 19 90 at 1 62 0, t he single-hull tank vessel American Trader grounded on one of it s anchors

while approaching the Golden West Refining Company' s off shore mooring. Two holes were punct ured in one of

t he vessel's cargo tanks, releasing 945 8 barrels of heavy crude oil into t he wat er approximately 1 .3 miles

fr om Huntingt on Beach, California.

The mast er of t he vessel immediat ely report ed t he incident t o t he USCG Marine Safet y Off ice/ Group Los

Angeles-Long Beach (MSO/ Group LA-LB). The mast er moved t he American Trader into deeper water one mile

t o t he sout h. The commanding off icer of t he MSO/ Group assumed the role of t he Federal On-Scene

Coordinat or ( FOSC). The responsible parties assumed full financial responsibility for t he spill and sent

represent atives t o t he Long Beach area.

Oil began to come ashore on February 8 in light concentr ations around Newport Pier. By February 9, oil was

ashore at Hunt ingt on Beach; in some instances, oil in t he surf zone here appeared to be in heavier

concentr ations t han observed earlier at Newport Beach.

Calm seas and fair weather f or most of t he response period result ed in a rapid and successful cleanup. All of

t he beaches were cleaned by March 2. The FOSC concluded all cleanup operat ions by April 3 .

The 22 ,00 0 b arrels of crude remaining in t he damaged cargo t ank were light ered by personnel from t he USCG

Pacific St rike Team and t he responsible part y using t he USCG Air-Deliverable Ant i-Pollution Transfer Syst em

(A DAPTS). By 120 0 on February 9, the oil fr om the damaged tank plus 90,0 00 barrels from t he mid-body

t anks had been transferred into barges t o decrease the draft of t he vessel. Temporary pat ches were applied

t o t he holes in the hull and t he American Trader was moved t o an oil transfer f acilit y in Long Beach Harbor t o

off -load the remaining 47 0,0 00 barrels of crude oil. The vessel was moved t o San Francisco on February 18

for drydocking and repair.

Behavior of Oil

Alaska Nort h Slope Crude Oil is a medium weight oil wit h an API gravity of 26 .5 and a pour point of 0 degrees

F. The release of oil from t he damaged hull was rapid. Both of t he punct ure holes were in t he No. 1 st arboardwing t ank. None of t he other cargo t anks were damaged. The released oil was driven by the prevailing winds

t o t he NNW of t he grounding sit e. By the morning of t he second day, the wind direct ion had changed and was

blowing t he oil away from t he coast line. Most of t he oil was held off shore by winds in a for t y square-mile

slick for t he first f ive days of t he response, which allowed cleanup crews t o concentrat e on an ext ensive

open-wat er recovery operation.

On February 13 , 35 knot winds forced most of t he remaining slick ashore along fourt een miles of shoreline

fr om Long Beach Harbor t o Newport Beach. Heavy oil sludge and emulsified oil accumulat ed up to t wo inches

t hick in places. Most of t his area had received only light t o moderate oiling in t he previous five day period.


Booming of t he sensit ive wet lands of t he Bolsa Chica Nat ional Wildlife Refuge, Newport Bay, and t he mout h of

t he Santa Ana River was completed by 02 00 on February 8 . Double harbor booms were deployed at Anaheim

Bay, Newport Bay, and across the mout h of t he Santa Ana River. Small skimmers were stat ioned behind t he

first barrier to recover oil which passed beyond it. Sorbent boom was also deployed between the t wo hard

booms to collect oil which passed the outer barrier. Sorbent boom was placed across the mout hs of shallow

inland channels in t he Bolsa Chica marshlands.

Personnel from Orange County Flood Cont rol const ruct ed earthen berms across t he t hree channels of t he

Sant a Ana River t o keep oil fr om entering t he sensitiv e wetlands. The current s and t idal act ion in the river

had made exclusionary booming ineffect ive. Heavy rain runoff washed away all three berms on February 17

and deposited debris from upriver onto Huntingt on Beach. The berms were repaired before any oil

cont aminated t he wet lands. The berms proved t o be very eff ect ive unt il February 25 when five t o ten gallons

of oil were washed over t he berm into t he Huntingt on Beach wetlands by high tides and surf. This oil was

removed with sorbent pads with minimal damage to the wetlands.

As a result of prompt exclusion booming, no contaminat ion t o t he wetlands at Bolsa Chica and Newport Bay

was observed. However, t he FOSC recommended t hat fut ure exclusion booming operat ions employ a st urdier



22/224

boom, such as Expandiboom, to prevent t his outermost barrier from part ing during heavy weather.

Open-wat er recovery was done with f ift een skimming vessels and t wenty-f ive support / boom t ow vessels.

The USCG Pacific St rike Team responded t o t he scene wit h t wo Open Wat er Oil Cont ainment and Recovery

Syst em skimming barriers (OWOCRS). The U.S. Navy Supervisor o f Salvage (NAVSUPSALV) p rov ided seven

Marco Class V skimmer s. The Clean Coast al Wat ers and Clean Seas oil spill cooperat ives provided t hree large

off shore skimmers. This extensive open-water recovery eff ort resulted in the recovery of 14 ,00 0 barrels of

emulsified oil and water ( estimat ed to be over 25 per cent of t he spilled oil). Offshore skimming operat ions

were concluded by February 17 , as most of t he remaining oil had beached by t hat t ime.

Beach cleanup methods included of manually deployed sorbent booms, sorbent pads, and manual removal.

These t echniques were used t o prevent dest ruct ion of t he beach face and accelerat ed shoreline erosion t hat

would have been caused by moving heavy equipment on t he beaches. Sorbent pompoms were strung toget her

and pulled t hrough the surf zone to collect oil before it cont acted t he beaches.

The exposed rocky shorelines, exposed bluff s, and riprap in t he area of t he Bolsa Chica Bluff s, Newport

Finger Piers, and Santa Ana River jet t ies were heavily oiled by emulsified o il mousse and oil sludge during t he

February 13 st orm. Sorbent s and vacuum trucks were used t o remove free-st anding pools of oil. These areas

were furt her cleaned using hot-wat er flushing and spraying. The t emperature of t he wat er was cont rolled by

personnel from t he California Depart ment of Fish and Game (CA DFG) t o keep it wit hin the t olerance of t he

organisms inhabiting t he rocks.

Most of t he beaches were cleaned and opened to t he public by March 2. Cleaning of t he rocky shorelines andriprap t ook place during February and March. All of t he shoreline cleaning was complet ed by April 3. In t he

final days of t he spill, concern was expressed over t he human healt h threat posed by reopening beaches that

had been contaminated by oil. MEDTOX, a Brit ish Pet roleum contract or, conduct ed limited surveys t o

det ermine t he level of cont aminat ion. Survey results indicat ed no risk t o human healt h. Addit ionally, a

modified EPA sand sampling t est determined safe hydrocarbon limits for each beach before it was reopened.

The approval process for reopening cleaned beaches was carried out by repr esent at ives of t he USCG, CA DFG,

and the cit y responsible for t he beach.

On the evening of February 7, t he use of dispersing chemicals applied t o dissipat e t he spilled oil was

discussed. The St ate of California concluded t hat t he wat ers in t he vicinit y of t he vessel were to o shallow to

consider dispersant use and a conclusive t hreat t o specific wet land areas could not be ident ified, as required

by California stat e law.


Out of t he 1,0 17 oiled birds t aken t o the bird rescue cent ers, 50 2 birds died as a result of t he oiling. TwoPacific whit e-sided dolphins died from ingest ing oil. A bird rehabilitat ion cent er was set up on Terminal Island

and a bird rescue center was set up on Hunt ington Beach. Both cent ers were st affed by paid cont ractors and

volunt eers, and were managed by biologist s fr om CA DFG, British Petroleum, and t he Int ernational Bird

Rescue and Research Cent er ( IBRRC). Birds were init ially cleaned at t he Huntingt on Beach center and t hen

t ransport ed to t he Terminal Island cent er for furt her cleaning and rehabilitat ion. Rehabilit ated birds were

released approximately sixt y miles north of t he spill locat ion near Point Mugu.

The major coastal bird species at risk was the brown pelican, a diving bird t hat could become complet ely

coat ed by oil while diving through t he surface of t he wat er t o feed. The Snowy Plover, a shorebird in t he

area, could also ingest cont aminat ed organisms at oiled shorelines. Many shorebird species, however, tend t o

seek out non-cont aminated areas fo r feeding. One hundred for t y one Brown Pelicans, an endangered species,

were oiled during t he spill; sixty -eight of t hese died, an estimat ed 1.5 percent of t he population at t he time.

Over one hundred Grunion died while att empt ing t o spawn on the oiled beaches near the Bolsa Chica Bluff saccording t o wardens from t he CA DFG.

References

Card, CPT J.C., and Meehan, LT J.A. 1 99 1. Response t o t he American Tr ader Oil Spill. Oil Spill Conference

Proceedings 199 1. pp. 30 5-31 1.

NOAA Response Report

Rolan, R.G. and Cameron, K.H. 19 91 . Adapt at ion of t he Incident Command System t o Oil Spill Response During

t he American Trader Spill. Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 19 91 . pp. 26 7-2 72 .

USCG On-Scene Coordinat ors Report

White, J. and Williams, T. 19 91 . Saving Endangered Species in Major Oil Spill Cleanup Eff ort s., Oil Spill

Conference Proceedings 1991. pp. 221-223.

Keywords



23/224

Boom, Open Water Oil Cont ainment and Recovery System (OWOCRS) , U.S. Navy Superint endent of Salvage

(NAVSUPSALV), sorbent pompoms, sorbent boom, sorbent pads, California Depart ment of Fish and Game (CA

DFG) , Int ernat ional Bird Rescue and Research Cent er ( IBRRC), Air- Deliverable Ant i-Pollution Transfer

System ( ADAPTS), Expandiboom, vacuum t ruck, Marco skimmer, hot -wat er flushing, Clean Coast al Water s,

Clean Seas, Pacific Strike Team ( PST), Nat ional Wildlife Refuges, manual removal.



24/224

Name Amoco Cadiz Spill Dat e 0 3 / 1 6 / 7 8

Britt any, FranceLocation


Oil Product Arabian light crude, Iranian light crude, Bunker C.

Tank VesselOil Type Bar rels 1619048 SourceType 2,Type 2,

Type 4

Dispersants Yes Bioremediation Yes In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 1 7 / 9 2

Incident Summary

On March 16, 1 97 8, t he Amoco Cadiz ran aground on Port sall Rocks, three miles off t he coast of Britt any

due to failure of t he steering mechanism. The vessel had been en route f rom t he Arabian Gulf t o Le Havre,

France when it encount ered st ormy weather which cont ributed t o t he grounding. The entire cargo of

1,61 9,04 8 barrels, spilled int o t he sea. A slick 18 miles wide and 80 miles long pollut ed approximat ely 200

miles of Britt any coastline. Beaches of 76 dif ferent Breton communities were oiled.

The isolated location of t he grounding and rough seas restrict ed cleanup effort s for t he two w eeks following

t he incident . Severe weat her resulted in the complet e break up of the ship before any oil could be pumped out

of t he wreck. As mandat ed in the " Polmar Plan", t he French Navy was responsible for all off shore operations

while t he Civil Safet y Service was responsible fo r shore cleanup act ivit ies. Alt hough t he t ot al quantit y of

collect ed oil and water reached 100 ,000 t ons, less than 20,00 0 t ons of oil were recovered from t his liquid

after treatment in refining plants.

Behavior of Oil

Both Arabian Light and Iranian Light crude oil are medium weight oils wit h an API gravit y of 3 3.8 . Bunker C is

a heavy product wit h an API of betw een 7 and 14 . A 12 -mile long slick and heavy pools of oil were smeared

onto 45 miles of t he French shoreline by nort hwest erly winds. Prevailing west erly winds during t he

following month spread the oil approximately 10 0 miles east along t he coast . One week aft er t he accident, oil

had reached Cot es de Nord.

Oil penet rated t he sand on several beaches to a dept h of 2 0 inches. Sub-surface oil separated int o t wo or

t hree layers due to t he ext ensive sand t ransfer that occurred on the beaches during rough weather. Piers and

slips in t he small harbors f rom Porspoder t o Brehat Island were covered wit h oil. Other impact ed areas

included the pink granit e rock beaches of Tregast el and Perros-Guirrec, as well as t he t ourist beaches at

Plougasnou. The tot al ext ent of oiling one month aft er the spill included approximat ely 200 miles of coast line.

Oil persist ed for only a f ew weeks along t he exposed rocky shores t hat experienced moderate t o high wave

act ion. In t he areas sheltered from wave act ion, however, t he oil persisted in the for m of an asphalt c rust

for several years.


A 2.5 mile long segment of boom prot ected t he Bay of Morlaix. Alt hough it required const ant monitoring, t he

boom f unctioned properly because this shelt ered area was prot ect ed from severe weather and from receiving

excessive quant it ies of oil. Boom was largely ineffect ive in ot her areas due to st rong currents and enormous

quantit ies of oil.

Skimmers were used in harbors and other prot ect ed areas. However, skimmer eff iciency was limit ed due t o

t he blocking of pumps and hoses by seaweed. Vacuum tr ucks were used to remove oil fr om pier and boat slip

areas where t he seaweed was t hick.

" Honey wagons", vacuum t anks designed t o handle liquid manure, were effect ive in pumping out t he emulsified

oil along the coast. These wagons were able to pump oil, wat er, and seaweed. Aft er the wat er and oil were

separated as much as possible, the t anks were emptied t hrough filt er-buckets int o interim st orage tanks.

When int erim sto rage tanks were not available, t he oil mixture was stored in large holes t hat were dug in t he

ground and lined wit h plast ic sheet s.

Stranded oily seaweed was manually removed f rom t he beaches using rakes and fro nt -end loaders. Nat ural

cleaning of t he sand by wave action occurred on oil penetrat ed beaches aft er ploughing and harrowing of t he

sediments. Both art ificial fert ilizers and bact erial cultures were poured on the oily sand before harrowing.

Several brands of dilut ed and concent rat ed dispersant s, including BP 11 00 X, Finasol OSR, BP 11 00 WD, and

Finasol OSR -5, w ere used by t he French Navy. Good dispersion of oil was dif ficult since the emulsified oil

was several centimet ers t hick in some places.



25/224

Approximat ely 65 0 met ric t ons of oleophilic chalk, Nautex, was applied in an eff ort t o sink the oil and prevent

it f rom entering the "goulet de Brest ." Aft er one month at sea, t he oil was so viscous t hat t he chalk could not

penetrate it.

A rubber powder made from old t ires was applied to promot e oil absorption. The powder was spread with

wat er hoses aboard French Navy ships or applied manually by w orkers fr om small fishing boats. Wave act ion

proved t o be insufficient in mixing the powder with t he oil. The powder had litt le eff ect on t he slick because it

remained on top of the oil.

High-pressure hot wat er (f resh wat er at 2 ,000 psi, heated t o 80 - 1 40 C) was very eff ect ive in cleaning oil

fr om rocky shoreline areas during t he third and fourt h months of cleanup. A small amount of dispersant was

applied to prevent t he oiling of t he cleaned rocks during t he next high tide.

Several of t he impact ed rivers contained oyst er beds and marshes that required manual cleaning. Soft mud

river banks were cleaned by using a low pressure wat er wash t o push the oil down t he river. To make

collect ion more eff icient, a sorbent mat erial was mixed with wat er and poured in fro nt of t he washing

nozzles. The oil was later collect ed by a locally developed device called an "Egmolap." This device was able

t o collect any mat erial float ing in sheltered areas.

Much of t he collected oil was stored at Brest and Tregastel and treat ed wit h quick-lime for encapsulation and

stabilization.

Other Special Int erest IssuesThe nat ure of t he oil and rough seas cont ributed t o t he rapid format ion of a " chocolat e mousse" emulsification

of oil and wat er. This viscous emulsification great ly complicat ed t he cleanup eff ort s. French authorit ies

decided not t o use dispersant s in sensitive areas or the coast al fringe where wat er dept h was less than 50

met ers. Had dispersant been applied from t he air in t he vicinit y of t he spill source, t he formation of mousse

may have been prevent ed.

At t he time, t he Amoco Cadiz incident resulted in the largest loss of marine life ever recorded from an oil

spill. Mort alit ies of most animals occurred over the t wo month period following the spill. Two weeks

following t he accident , millions of dead mollusks, sea urchins, and ot her bot t om dwelling organisms washed

ashore. Diving birds constit uted t he majority of t he nearly 20 ,000 dead birds t hat were recovered. The

oyst er mortality from t he spill was est imated at 9,0 00 t ons. Fishes with skin ulcerat ions and tumors were

caught by f ishermen in the area. Some of t he fish caught in t he area report edly had a strong t ast e of

pet roleum. Alt hough echinoderm and small crust acean populat ions almost complet ely disappeared, t he

populations of many species recovered wit hin a year. Cleanup activit ies on rocky shores, such aspressure-washing, also caused habitat impact s.

The Amoco Cadiz spill was one of t he most st udied oil spills in hist ory. Many st udies remain in progress.

This was t he largest recorded spill in history and was t he first spill in which estuarine tidal rivers were

oiled. No follow-up mitigat ion existed t o deal with asphalt for mation and problems that resulted aft er the

initial aggressive cleanup. Addit ion erosion of beaches occurred in several places where no att empt was made

t o restore t he gravel t hat was removed to lower the beach face. Many of the affect ed marshes, mudflat s,

and sandy beaches, were low-energy areas. Evidence of oiled beach sediments can st ill be seen in some of

t hese sheltered areas. Layers of sub-surface oil still remain buried in many of t he impact ed beaches.

References

8/ 9/ 91 & 8/ 28/ 91 Lett ers from Daniel Owen at ITOPF

Bellier, P. and G. Massart . 19 79 . The Amoco Cadiz oil spill cleanup operat ions - An overview of t he

organizat ion, cont rol, and evaluat ion of t he cleanup techniques employed., Oil Spill Conference Proceedings1979. pp.141-145.

Bocand, et al. 19 79 . Cleaning products used in operations aft er the Amoco Cadiz disaster., Oil Spill

Conference Proceedings. 19 79 pp.163 -16 7.

D'Ozouville, et al. 19 79 . Occurrence of oil in off shore bot t om sediments at t he Amoco Cadiz oil spill site.,

Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 1979 pp.187-191.

Gundlach, E. and Marshall, M. 19 90 . The Physical Persist ence of Spilled Oil: An Analysis of Oil Spills

Previous t o Exxon Valdez. Final Report . HAZMAT. OAD. NOAA. pp.2 1- 41 .

Gundlach, et al. 19 83 . The Fat e of AMOCO CADIZ Oil. The Physical Persist ence of Spilled Oil: An Analysis of

Oil Spills Previous t o Exxon Valdez. Final Report . HAZMAT. OAD. NOAA. pp. A90 -A9 7.

Hann, R.W. 19 79 . Unit operat ions, unit processes and level of resource requirement s for t he cleanup of t he

oil spill from t he supertanker Amoco Cadiz. Oil Spill Conference Proceedings. 19 79 pp.1 47 -16 1.

Hayes, et al. 19 79 . Role of dynamic coast al processes in the impact and dispersal of t he Amoco Cadiz oil

spill (March, 19 78 ) Brit t any, France., Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 19 79 pp.193 -19 8



26/224

Hooke, N. Modern Shipping Disast ers 196 3-1 98 7. Lloyds of London Press. 19 87 .

MMS Worldwide Tanker Spill Dat abase

OSIR Newslet t er 2/ 21/ 91


Overt on, E. 19 79 . Chemical characterizat ion of mousse and select ed environmental samples from the

Amoco Cadiz oil spill., Oil Spill Conference Proceedings. 19 79 pp.16 9-1 73 .

Review of Oil Spill Occurrences and Impacts, Exxon Product ion Research Company, 19 89 .

Samain. 19 79 . Ecophysiological eff ect s of oil spills from Amoco Cadiz on pelagic communit ies -

preliminary results., Oil Spill Conference Proceedings. 19 79 pp.175 -18 5. The SocioEconomic Impact s of Oil Spills, Final Report , WAPORA, March 19 84 .

Vandermeulen, J.H. 19 82 . Oil Spills: What Have We Learned? Oil and Dispersant s in Canadian

Seas-Research Appraisal and Recommendat ions. Environm ent Canada. pp. 29 -46.

Keywords

Adverse weat her conditions, boom, skimmer, vacuum t ruck, manual removal, high-pressure hot water

washing, sub-surf ace oil, r emot e response, BP 11 00 X, Finasol OSR, BP 110 0WD, Finasol OSR-5 , chalk, low

pressure washing, disposal.



27/224

Name Apex 3417 Barge, Apex 3503 Barge Spill Dat e 7 / 2 8 / 9 0

near buoy 5 8 in Galveston Bay, TexasLocation

29 29.9 NLat it ude Longitude 094 52.2 W

Oil Product No. 5 Oil (Vacuum Oil / Catalyt ic Feed St ock)

Tank BargeOil Type Bar rels 16476 SourceType 4

Dispersants No Bioremediation Yes In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 1 7 / 9 2

Incident Summary

On July 28, 1 99 0, at 14 30 , t he Greek Tank Vessel Shinoussa collided with t he tank barges Apex 341 7 and

Apex 35 03 in the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) near buoy 58 in Galvest on Bay, Texas. All t hree cargo t anks of

t he Apex 34 17 were damaged, as well as t he aft t ank of t he Apex 35 03 , result ing in t he release of nearly

17 ,000 barrels of No. 5 oil (vacuum oil/ catalytic feed stock) int o Galveston Bay. A t hird tank barge also

under tow, the Apex 3510, was not damaged in the collision.

The Apex 3417 sank with its stern resting on the bottom of the channel and only its bow showing above the

water. It released nearly all of it s cargo, over 15,0 00 barrels of oil, over t he course of tw o days. Apex

35 03 was less damaged and ult imately released 113 0 barrels of oil into t he wat er. The Apex 351 0 was

t owed to Houston, discharged its 2 3,0 00 barrel cargo, and ret urned on July 30 t o off load the remaining oil

from the Apex 3503 .

The USCG Marine Safet y Off ice (MSO) Galveston c losed t he Houst on Ship Channel to marine t raff ic f rom t wo

miles nort h to t wo miles sout h of t he incident site ( betw een buoys 51 and 60) . Apex Towing Co., Inc.

immediat ely accepted responsibilit y for t he spill. Apex hired Riedel-Pet erson Environment al Services t o

cont ain the oil at t he site of t he barges, and T & T Marine Salvage t o raise and remove t he Apex 341 7 barge

from t he channel.

On July 2 9, Malin Environment al was hired for additional cleanup assist ance, and t he Clean Gulf Association

prov ided skimmers fo r use by Apex. In a meeting wit h the USCG On-Scene Coord inator ( OSC) , Apex was

criticized for allowing t he cleanup cont ractors t o operat e without direct supervision. At t he suggestion of t he

OSC, Apex hired OBrien Oil Pollut ion Services t o ov ersee t he cleanup operat ions as well as Garner

Environment al Services and Industrial Cleanup, Inc. for addition cleanup support .

On July 30 , the cargo of t heApex 35 03 was lightered to t he Apex 351 0 which was then taken to Houston for

off loading. On July 31, t he HSC was opened to inbound single-widt h barge tows only, under positive cont rol

of t he Vessel Traff ic Service, and wit h assistance from at least one tug when proceeding past t he accident

site. These traffic restrict ions remained in eff ect until August 3. Following the movement of Apex 341 7

from t he middle of t he channel on August 3 , t he HSC was restrict ed t o one-way t raffic only, wit h direction of

t ravel being reversed every 8 t o 12 hours. Aft er cleaning, gas freeing, and welding repairs, Apex 3417 was

t owed to Galvest on. The HSC was opened t o all ship traf fic wit hout rest rict ion on August 1 0. Cleanup

operat ions cont inued until t he case was closed on August 1 7, 1 99 0.

Behavior of Oil

Results of the initial overflight on July 28 showed a sheen to the South of Apex 3417 extending 0.75 miles.

By lat e aft ernoon, t he sheen was report ed to be 3 miles long. On the first day, the oil moved to t he SSW

under t he influence of t he winds and t ides. A shift in the wind on the second day resulted in the movement of

the slick to the NE of the accident site, with sheen extending 3.5 miles.

Oil landed on t he east ern shoreline of Red Fish Island on July 29, wit h a heavy accumulat ion along it s one mile

length. By the end of t he day, t he slick reached from four miles nort h to t wo miles sout h of t he accident sit e,

consisting most ly of sheen wit h heavy str eamers of oil t o t he nort h. On July 30, oil impact ed the Texas Cit yDike and t he north side of Pelican Island, 10 miles south of t he accident site. Oil continued to move t o t he

nort h, sout h, and west driven by t idal currents and changing winds. By the morning of August 3, oil had made

landfall along the nort hern shoreline of Galveston Bay. The primary f ocus of t he cleanup shift ed t o t his area,

as only lighter residual oiling existed on t he southern and west ern shorelines.

A st udy performed by Louisiana St ate University charact erized the oil as a non-sticky, heavy, r efined

product similar to 2 0W-50 motor oil. This allowed stranded oil to be re-floated by t he tide rat her than

strongly adhering to objects and surfaces.


Containment boom was in place by t he morning of July 2 9 around t he leaking barges t o keep the oil at t he

incident sit e. Booms were placed across t he ent rance to Dickinson Bayou and t he cooling water int ake channel

for t he Houston Light ing and Power Bacliff generating plant.



28/224

On July 2 9, t he Texas Water Commission (TWC) Chairman and the Deput y Commissioner of t he Texas General

Land Office suggested t he use of bioremediat ion for mit igation of t he spill. The OSC felt t hat bioremediat ion

was not essential to the cleanup of the spill, but permitted it, provided that payment came from the state or

t he spiller directly . Addit ionally, any bioremediat ion plan would need approval of t he Region 6 Regional

Response Team (RRT) .

Four skimmers arrived on-scene on t he morning of July 30 and began skimming operations on t he heavy

concent rations of oil within t he cont ainment boom around the barge, and to t he Nort h of t he accident site.Shallow wat er skimmers, capable of operat ing in 2-3 feet of wat er, proved to be highly useful during t he

response to skim oil and deploy booms. Skimmers and boat s that were incapable of operat ing in t hese dept hs

suff ered frequent groundings in t he shallow estuaries. Skimmers, sent complet e with operator s and support ,

were put t o use immediately upon t heir arrival; t he crews and support f or t he Clean Gulf Associat ion

skimmers had to be contract ed separately which caused additional delays. A deck barge equipped with t wo

vacuum t railer unit s was also used at t he collision sit e.

Cleanup operat ions began on July 31 on all impact ed shorelines using vacuum t rucks and sorbent booms and

pads. On August 1 , t he wind shift ed again to t he SSE and remained from t hat direct ion for t he next five days.

The oil slick moved steadily t o t he Nort h and st randed along t he northern shoreline of t he bay on August 3.

The shallow wat er dept h (less t han six feet ) in t he est uaries hampered operations wit h boats and skimmers.

Deflection booms were positioned east of Houston Point to direct oil to the shore for removal by vacuum

t rucks. Low pressure washing was used on t he shoreline at Red Fish Island, as well as some small sites near

Cedar Point .

On August 2 , approximat ely 10 0 pounds of Alpha Bio-Sea microbes wit h a nut rient addit ive were applied to

t he marsh at t he north end of Pelican Island. On August 5, an applicat ion of 14 0 pounds of Bio-Sea microbes

was made in the Marrow Marsh area, just south of t he ent rance to Cedar Bayou. Anot her application t ook

place on August 6 at a point fart her south of Cedar Bayou using 150 pounds of Bio-Sea microbes. The final

application of Bio-Sea microbes was made on August 13 at Marrow Marsh t o t reat residual oil remaining in an

untreat ed site.

On August 1 0, surv eys by memb ers of t he TWC, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and the USCG det ermined t hat

shoreline cleanup was complet e except f or t he final application of bioremediat ion agent t o t he Marrow Marsh

area. The final shoreline survey was satisf act orily complet ed on August 17 and the case was closed.


The proposed TWC bioremediat ion plan was approved by t he RRT, allowing bioremediat ion in t hese areas:

Open wat er with concent rated oil Open wat er surface oil contained with booms

Impact ed marshes with oil on grass, exposed mud and wat er surface

Beaches wit h residual oil f ollowing mechanical cleanup

The TWC present ed a monitor ing plan which was required by t he RRT. The RRT direct ed t hat t he application of

bioremediat ion t ake place away from t he commercial oyst er beds, if possible, and that it not interfere wit h

any other cleanup activit ies. Wat er and sediment samples were collect ed at v arious t imes unt il 11 days aft er

t he bioremediation application, but determination of t he effect iveness of t he bioremediation was inconclusive.

Result s of EPA laboratory analyses of samples showed no not icable diff erences bet ween tr eated and untr eat ed

plot s 48 hours aft er microbe application. NOAA gas chromat ography/ mass spectroscopy analyses of samples

before and aft er t reatm ent showed no apparent changes in the relativ e abundances of specif ic compounds in

t he oil. Because biodegradat ion takes place slowly, t he 11 day period of sampling may not have been long

enough. Results were clouded by poor cont rol of t he application and the disturbance of t est areas by human

activities and livestock.

On July 31 , t he Division of Shellfish Sanitat ion Cont rol of t he Texas St ate Department of Health ordered a ban

on t he removal of shellfish, shrimp, and finned fish f rom Galveston Bay in the area of t he spill sit e until a

determination of f it ness for human consumption was made. On August 2, t his was alt ered to include all of

Galvest on Bay. On August 4 t he ban on fin fishing was lift ed, but t he ban on shellfish and shrimp removal

remained in effect until September 2.

On August 1 , Apex announced it s intent ion t o t erminat e cleanup response, having reached the limit of liability.

The OSC assumed federal responsibility fo r t he cleanup on August 2, keeping all the curr ent c leanup companies

on contract . Apex continued t o oversee t he salvage operation until it s complet ion.

On August 5 , TWC report ed a fish kill of 2 00 -30 0 speckled tr out NE of t he Houston Light and Power spillway



29/224

near t he Trinit y River out flow.

References

Draft OSC Report

Golob's Oil Pollution Bulletin II.16,1 7,2 6

Greene, CPT T.C. 199 1. The A pex Barges Spill, Galvesto n Bay, July 19 90 ., Oil Spill Conference Proceedings

1991 . pp. 291-297 .

Hoff, R. 19 91 . A Summary of Bioremediat ion Applicat ions Observed at Marine Oil Spills. Report HMRB 91-2 .

Jan. 1991. Mearns, Alan J. 199 1. Observat ions of an Oil Spill Bioremediat ion Act ivit y in Galvest on Bay, Texas. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 57. Seat t le. Hazardous Materials Response Branch, Nat ional Oceanic and

At mospheric Administration. 38 pp.


Oil Spill Intelligence Report s XIII.31 &SUP,32 ,33 ,51

OSIR Internat ional Spill St atist ics 19 89 -199 0, Special Report, 3 / 28/ 91


Keywords

Low pressure washing, vacuum t ruck, sorbent boom, cont ainment boom, skimmer, shallow water recovery,

Alpha Bio-Sea micro bes, collision, sinking, salvage, Clean Gulf, lig ht ering.



30/224

Name Arabian Gulf / Kuwait Spill Dat e 0 1 / 1 9 / 9 1

Persian Gulf, KuwaitLocation

29 30 NLat it ude Longitude 048 00 E

Oil Product Kuwait crude oil

Tank vessels,

facilit ies,

pipelines,

platforms.

Oil Type Barrels 9000000 SourceType 3

Dispersants No Bioremediation Yes In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 2 1 / 9 2

Incident Summary

Oil was spilled into t he Arabian Gulf when t he Iraqi Army occ upying Kuwait began destro ying t ankers, oil

t erminals, and oil wells late in January 199 1. Approximately 9,0 00 ,00 0 barrels of oil spilled.

Behavior of Oil

Approximat ely 9,00 0,00 0 barrels of oil spilled onto Kuwait lands or into t he Arabian Gulf. An estimated

t hird of the t ot al amount of oil released evaporated. Approximat ely 8,000 ,000 barrels of oil spilled directly

into t he Arabian Gulf f orming a 600 square-mile oil slick. An unknown amount of t he oil sank. Four hundred

miles of t he western shoreline of t he gulf was oiled. The areas bet ween Safaniya and Abu Ali Island in Saudi

Arabia were the most severely impact ed. Tarmat s up to 12 inches thick for med on some of t hese beaches.

Over a million barrels of oil were removed from t he Arabian Gulf by A pril 19 91 by cleanup operations.


While t he ongoing war bet ween Iraq and t he Unit ed Nat ions Coalition Forces prevented most opt ions for

response t o t he spills, some eff ort s were made during t he war. Most significant was the sealing of open

pipelines at t he Mina Al Ahmadi facilit y using smart b ombs deployed from Coalition for ce aircraft . During t he

war, t he Unit ed St ates Coast Guard conducted ov erflight s wit h SLAR aircraft , and made onshore observations

t o t rack the movement o f t he slick. Post war effor t s were organized by Saudi Arabia's Arabian American Oil

Company ( ARAMCO), a Saudi owned oil company, t he Met eorolog ical and Environm ent al Prot ect ion

Administ rat ion (MEPA) , and t he Royal Commission for Jubayl and Yanbu. Firefight ing, environmental and

biological experts f rom around the world came to t he Middle East t o advise on mit igation operations. In Saudi

Arabia t he init ial response concentr ated on prot ect ing desalinization plant wat er intakes. Of primary concern

was the plant at Jubayl, which provides t he city of Riyadh wit h 80 per cent of its wat er. Desalinization,

industry and power plant int akes were prot ect ed by booms and skimming operat ions. Sensit ive nat ural areas

were also boomed to prevent oiling. Twenty -fiv e miles of boom and 21 skimmers were deployed in t he Gulf.

Recovery operat ions using skimmers, vacuum tr ucks and booms provided by ARAMCO recovered 1,40 0,0 00

barrels of oil fr om t he gulf by A pril. Oil that collected in coast al depressions was boomed off and skimmed

out . Earthen berms were built out from t he shoreline to cat ch oil for skimming. Trenches were dug to collect

oil brought in on high t ides.


A bird r ehabilitat ion center w as set up at A l Jubayl and st affed by Saudi volunteers and Coalition armed

for ces personnel. An estimat ed 20,0 00 b irds died from oiling, among them t he Socot ra Cormorant , which is

an endangered species, and the Great Cormorant . Thousands of dead crabs were found in t he salt marshes,

mangroves, and beaches.

Cleanup eff ect iveness and ecological impact research was conduct ed in salt marshes by t he Int ernat ional

Marit ime Organization ( IMO) and Crowley Marit ime Corporat ion (CMC) . Testing of various bioremediation

agents and sampling programs for t he benthic, pelagic, and planktonic communit ies of habitat s such as

mangroves, mudflat s, sand beaches, seagrass beds, and coral reefs were init iated by t he Research Instit ut eof King Fahd University of Pet roleum and Minerals (KFUPM/ RI).

References

Canby, T.. The Persian Gulf Aft er t he St orm. Nat ional Geographic. Vol. 18 0, No. 2. August 19 91 . pp.2-3 2.

Environment al Crisis in the Gulf: The U.S. Response. A booklet produced by t he U.S. Gulf Task Force.

Keywords

Sub-surface oil, side looking airbor ne radar (SLAR) , skimmers, boom, vacuum t ruck.



31/224

Name Aragon Spill Dat e 1 2 / 2 9 / 8 9

Madeiran Archipelago, Port ugalLocation


Oil Product Mexican Maya crud e oil


Dispersants Yes Bioremediation Yes In-si tu Burning No Last Edit 9 / 1 8 / 9 2

Incident Summary

While under tow, t he Spanish tank vessel Aragon suff ered damage during a storm on December 29, 19 89 ,

approximat ely 36 0 miles off t he coast of Morocco. The damage resulted in t he release of approximat ely

17 5,0 00 barrels of Mexican Maya Crude Oil int o t he At lantic Ocean, near t he Madeiran archipelago.

The Port uguese Navy was in charge of t he response. They monitored t he init ial movement of t he oil unt il it

made landfall. Approximat ely t hree weeks aft er t he spill, pollut ion occurred on the Port uguese Island of

Port o Santo, wit h oil believed to have been from t he Aragon. This was lat er confirmed when oil samples were

t aken fr om the vessel.

Port uguese aut horit ies request ed assistance f rom t he Int ernational Tanker Owners Pollution Federat ion

( ITOPF) and t he European Economic Communit y ( EEC) Task Force. Specialist s from t he ITOPF and EEC Task

Force recommended bringing addit ional equipment t o t he island, as there was no pollut ion response fo rce

already in place.

Behavior of Oil

Mexican Maya oil is a medium crude wit h an API gravit y of 22 . The Port uguese Navy observ ed t he oil drift ing

t o the sout hwest. The oil was diff icult t o see in t he water. Following t he initial reporting and tracking, the oil

was lost and was believed t o have moved below t he surface.

Approximat ely three weeks aft er the spill, oil impact ed the island of Port o Santo. Oil filled five coves on t he

east side of t he island. The oil was held in place by the prevailing winds, although some along shore migrat ion

of oil was driven by currents. This caused pollution of t he sand beach on t he sout h coast of t he island, an

import ant t ourist and recreation beach.

A small amount of oil impact ed on the rocky shores of t he island of Madeira and t he Desert as Islands. These

islands are sparsely inhabited ( only a small research st ation exist s there) , but are ecologically sensitive and

have large seabird and Monk Seal populat ions. The Monk Seal is a t hreatened species. Impacts on t he

Desert as Islands consist ed of scat t ered tarballs.Countermeasures and Mitigation

There was no response at-sea, as condit ions in the area were t oo rough t o use removal equipment . Vessels

were unable to get into t he coves t o facilitat e nearshore recovery. All cleanup took place from t he shoreside

and generally consist ed of pumping, manual, and mechanical removal wit h any equipment which could be

obtained.

Cleanup equipment was f lown t o Port o Sant o f rom France, Denmark, Germany, and t he Unit ed Kingdom in

heavy transport aircraf t . Armed forces personnel unloaded t he initial shipments during the night following

t heir arrival, and the equipment was allowed to c lear cust oms quickly so it could be deployed.

Poor access to t he shorelines and limit ed t ransport ation asset s on t he island hampered the ability of t he

cleanup personnel t o remove t he oil. Where access was possible, bulldozers, dump trucks, and backhoes

provided eff ect ive recovery. Booms were used t o hold oil against t he coves, where it was pumped by

high-viscosit y screw pumps int o st orage tanks and pits which had been dug to increase t he rat e of recovery.

Recovered bulk oil was stor ed t emporarily in these t anks and pits unt il it could be carried away f or longer

t erm storage. A disused quarry near the port was used for t his purpose, but t ransport of oil t here was

limited by t he number of trucks and the condition of t he roads. An est imated 10,0 00 cubic met ers of bulk oil

were recovered from Porto Santo.

Once t he bulk oil was removed, t he shoreline tended t o self-clean by wave action. Dispersant s and

high-pressure hot-wat er washing were used as secondary c leaning for t he rocks in t he public use areas.

Af t er one wint er, all of t he residual oil was gone from t he beaches, including beaches which had not been

cleaned.


Bioremediat ion was att empt ed on an experiment al basis. Inipol was applied at t wo sit es on Port o Santo.



32/224

Results of t he experiment s were inconclusive as both sit es were in high-energy locations and suffered f rom

reoiling.

Oily solids were transport ed t o t he landfill near the airfield on Port o Santo and disposed of w it h t he island's

domestic refuse. A hydrogeologist from t he United Kingdom recommended the action, following an

investigation which determined t hat t here would be no risk to t he local groundwat er. Cleanup personnel

excavat ed proper ref use cells and made t he landfill t o EEC st andards.

Two opt ions were considered for t he remaining bulk oil in the quarry. The first was to t reat t he oil and use itas road foundation. It was decided inst ead t o remove the oil from t he island. A Dutch company built a pipeline

fr om t he quarry t o t he port and used specialized pumps t o move t he heavily emulsified oil direct ly int o a

barge. The quarry was cleaned and t he oil was shipped to a recycling f acility in Amst erdam.

Logist ics were a major problem during t his response. Very lit t le heavy equipment was available for use and

was brought t o the island from ot her locat ions. Trucks were shipped fr om Madeira. The spill aff ect ed areas

which were not accessible t o large vehicles. Many roads had to be built or improved on Port o Santo in order

t o handle the size and number of vehicles used in the response.

The cleanup operation was an internat ional eff ort . Organizat ions instr umental in this response included t he

Port uguese Navy, t he Int ernat ional Tanker Owners Pollut ion Federat ion, t he European Economic Communit y

Task Force ( fo rmed by t he Commission of European Communit ies), t he government s of France, Germany, t he

United Kingdom, and t he Net herlands. Their eff ort s were critical t o t he rapid procurement and proper use of

cleanup equipment .

Tourist activit y on Porto Sant o increased following t he spill due to interest in t he spill and response activit y.

References

08/ 09/ 91 & 08/ 28/ 91 Lett ers f rom Daniel Owen at ITOPF

Genwest Syst ems, Inc. communications wit h ITOPF representat ives.


Nichols, J.A. and Moller, T.H. 19 91 . Internat ional Cooperat ion in Oil Spill Response. Oil Spill Conference

Proceedings 199 1. pp. 61-6 4.

Oil Spill Int elligence Report 01/ 04/ 90



Oil Spill Int elligence Report , International Summary & Review, 198 9-1 99 0

Tanker Advisory Center, Inc. 199 1 Guide for t he Selection of Tankers. T.A.C. Inc. 199 1.

Keywords

Internat ional Tanker Owners Pollut ion Federat ion (ITOPF), boom, high-v iscosit y screw pum ps, high-pressure

washing, hot -wat er f lushing, Inipol, reoiling, manual removal, fingerprint ing, sub-surface oil, disposal.



33/224

Name ARCO Anchorage

ARCO Anchorage

Spill Dat e 1 2 / 2 1 / 8 5

Port Angeles Harbor, Port Angeles, Washington.Location


Oil Product Alaska Nort h Slope Crude Oil



Incident Summary

At 16 26 on December 21 , 19 85 t he Tank Vessel ARCO Anchorage ran aground while anchoring in Port Angeles

Harbor, Washingt on. The vessel was carrying 81 4,0 00 barrels of Alaska Nort h Slope Crude Oil en rout e from

Valdez, Alaska to t he Cherry Point Refinery in Bellingham, Washington. Weat her conditions at t he time of t he

incident were calm wit h a visibilit y of 3 miles. The vessel was holed in two cargo t anks resulting in t he loss

of 5 69 0 barrels of oil into Port Angeles Harbor. Int ernal t ransfer of cargo from t he holed tanks st opped the

discharge of oil into t he wat er by 20 52 , December 21. The ARCO Anchorage remained aground unt il 024 4,

December 22 when it was refloated and moved t o deeper anchorage within Port Angeles Harbor.

Through discussions with t he Canadian Coast Guard it was decided that invocat ion of t he joint U.S. Canadian

response plan (CANUSPAC) was not necessary, but t hat close cont act would be maint ained. An ARCO spillresponse t eam was activat ed from Long Beach, California. Under t he influence of wind and t ides, the oil was

carried t o t he west almost t o Neah Bay and to t he east t o Dungeness Spit. No impacts were observed in

Canada from t his incident. Cleanup activit ies were suspended on April 7, 19 86 .

Behavior of Oil

Alaska Nort h Slope Crude Oil is a medium weight oil wit h an API gravity

Documents

Oil Spill Case History, 1967-1991