scholarly journals Report on the explosion, fire, and oil spill resulting in one fatality and injury on September 21, 1978, at Well 6 of Cavern 6 at the West Hackberry, Louisiana, oil storage site of the strategic petroleum reserve. Volume I

1978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Storage Site ◽  
The West ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Strategic Petroleum Reserve

CLEANUP OF A 32,000-BARREL CRUDE OIL SPILL AT THE WEST HACKBERRY DOME STORAGE SITE IN LOUISIANA1

1979 ◽  
Vol 1979 (1) ◽  
pp. 437-440
Author(s):  
Jack E. Wilson ◽  
Jack Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
Crude Oil ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Bright Spot ◽  
Storage Site ◽  
The West ◽  
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ◽  
Lake History ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Crude Oil Spill

ABSTRACT At 4:00 p.m. on September 21, 1978, a fire and major oil spill occurred at the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in West Hackberry, Louisiana. Five days later, the fire was extinguished and within another two days, more than 30,000 barrels of oil had been recovered from the adjoining lake. History will record the event as a serious accident that resulted in one death and an injury, but a closer look will reveal one bright spot—an effective oil spill cleanup operation.

Effect of the Hebei Spirit Oil Spill on the Condition, Reproduction, and Energy Storage Cycle of the Manila Clam Ruditapes philippinarum on the West Coast of Korea

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 602-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun Je Park ◽  
Young-Jae Lee ◽  
Eunah Han ◽  
Kwang-Sik Choi ◽  
Jung Hyun Kwak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Storage ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
West Coast ◽  
Ruditapes Philippinarum ◽  
Manila Clam ◽  
The West ◽  
West Coast Of Korea

The West Falmouth Oil Spill: ∼100 Kg of Oil Found to Persist Decades Later

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily E. Peacock ◽  
Robert K. Nelson ◽  
Andrew R. Solow ◽  
Joseph D. Warren ◽  
Jessica L. Baker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
The West

Oil Spill Prevention Measures for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

1973 ◽  
Vol 1973 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. W. Wellbaum
Keyword(s):  
Crude Oil ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
Prevention Measures ◽  
Operating Life ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Operation And Maintenance ◽  
Pump Stations ◽  
Design Construction

ABSTRACT Oil spills only occur after the start-up of a facility but oil spill prevention for a pipeline-terminal-tanker complex begins with route selection and continues through design, construction, personnel training, operation and maintenance. The trans-Alaska pipeline project has faced all of the usual, and some unusual, problems which needed solutions to give maximum assurance that oil spills would not occur during the operating life of the facilities. This conference today is considering the prevention of oil spill incidents associated with tanker and pipeline operations, refineries, and transfer and storage terminals. The trans-Alaska pipeline system is concerned with each of these functions of the petroleum industry. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company is responsible for design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline system which will move crude oil produced on the Alaskan North Slope along a route to Valdez, an ice free port located on an arm of Prince William Sound. At Valdez, the oil will be transferred to ocean going tankers. The project will have at its ultimate design capacity of two million barrels per day:Almost 800 miles of 48-inch pipeline.Twelve pump stations with 650,000 installed HP.Twenty-million barrels of crude oil storage in fifty-two tanks.Five loading berths at a deep water terminal servicing a fleet of tankers ranging in size from 30,000 dwt to 250,000 dwt.Eight crude oil topping plants, manufacturing fuel for pump stations, each with a charge of 10,000 barrels per day.A ballast water treating plant capable of handling up to 800,000 barrels per day of dirty ballast.A 25,000 KW power generation plant.Several dozen mechanical refrigeration plants which will be freezing the ground in Alaska.

STREAM PRESERVATION TRAINING

1975 ◽  
Vol 1975 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
William W. McMillan Detroit
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Operating Personnel ◽  
Training Techniques ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Test Pool ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup

ABSTRACT Training techniques will vary with the type organization, the geographical location, the subject area, and the organizational involvement. This paper is concerned with the control and containment training techniques evolved by a manufacturing facility, located on an inland stream, for its operating personnel This facility, with an oil storage capacity of over 22 million liters (6 million gallons), improves its oil handling and storage abilities by providing stream preservation training for some 200 persons. (Stream preservation training denotes a positive attitude towards oil spill cleanup.) Trainees were maintenance, powerhouse, oil stores, and plant engineering personnel. The objectives were to provide background information and training in techniques needed for spill cleanup. The specific employee behavioral objectives were to make proper notification of an oil spill, to select and use the proper methods of containment and collection, and to learn on-site public relations response. Training was by lecture, including management overview, by demonstration, and by field practice, including oil removal from a test pool, communications, and small boat handling. Evaluation was designed to stress important points covered and to provide feedback on the degree behavioral objectives were achieved.

HISTORICAL BUILDUP OF OIL SPILL RESPONSE CAPABILITY IN JAPAN

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-43
Author(s):  
Sakae Shirai
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Response Force ◽  
Disaster Prevention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Oil Boom ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Government ◽  
Prevention Law ◽  
Response Capability

ABSTRACT With the large oil spill that occurred in 1971 as an impetus, Japan's Maritime Pollution and Disaster Prevention Law was amended in 1973 and subsequently in 1976. The amendments required owners of vessels and petroleum facilities to retain designated quantities of oil boom, sorbent, dispersant, and other items to minimize impact from spills. A large oil spill caused by a ruptured crude oil storage tank in 1974 led to the enactment of additional legislation: the Petroleum Complex Disaster Prevention Law. Under this, petroleum facilities are required to maintain designated quantities of oil boom, oil boom deploying vessels, skimming boats, and the like. These legislative measures, together with voluntary efforts, have contributed to a sound buildup of the nation's oil spill response force. However, the response capability including stockpiled materials and equipment has been designed primarily to cope with incidents in closed waters such as inland seas, bays, and ports, and hence not for a oil spill in open seas as large as that from the Exxon Valdez. As one of the measures under the 1990 International Convention for Oil Spill Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, the Government of Japan has entrusted the Petroleum Association of Japan with an oil spill response capability reinforcement project to cope with a large oil spill should one occur in Japanese waters or nearby seas. Under the scheme, during the 5 year period beginning in 1991, the Petroleum Association of Japan is scheduled to build up, using subsidies from the government, stockpiles of cleanup equipment and materials and to augment the existing response capability.

UNDERGROUND OIL SPILL INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP1

1983 ◽  
Vol 1983 (1) ◽  
pp. 393-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Storage Tanks ◽  
Federal Funds ◽  
Property Owner ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Region I

ABSTRACT In April 1978, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region I office received an oil spill report which involved a sheen leaching from an industrial park into a river in Connecticut. Initial investigation revealed only two 10,000-gallon and one 11,000-gallon buried storage tanks as possible sources. All were located relatively close together about 200 feet from the river. The maintenance man reported that one of the 10,000-gallon tanks had spilled an estimated 500 gallons into the ground the previous year. EPA responded and initially worked with the property owner and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in addressing the problem. Although the leaching seemed to be relatively minor at first, it gradually increased after July 1978. The property owner was unable to finance cleanup actions after the first few months. EPA assumed cleanup responsibility, using federal funds, and eventually took over all investigation and recovery efforts in 1980. The incident has involved many phases, including locating and estimating the volume of the underground contamination, attempted source identification through sample analysis, installing recovery systems, excavating the oil storage tanks, winter operations of the recovery systems, disposal of product, and river cleanup. Analyses of test boring data in 1979 indicated the maximum volume of spilled product on the groundwater to be between 50,000 and 150,000 gallons. Since 1980, the recovery systems alone have yielded more than 90,000 gallons of oil, making this innocuous incident one of the largest inland oil spills ever in Region I. It also has been the most expensive federally-funded inland spill in the region. Recovery from the groundwater is expected to continue through 1982, albeit at a decreasing rate. The total observed volume of oil involved in the spill will probably exceed 110,000 gallons.

NUTSHELL SUMMARY OF EPA'S NATIONAL SURVEY OF OIL STORAGE FACILITIES

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 952-953
Author(s):  
Janet LaFiandra Weiner
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Oil Storage ◽  
Storage Facilities

ABSTRACT In April 1995, EPA conducted a national survey of oil storage facilities potentially subject to its Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation (40 CFR Part 112). The purpose of the survey was to answer five specific questions: (1) How many facilities are regulated by EPA's SPCC program? (2) What types of facilities does the SPCC program regulate? (3) What do these facilities look like? (4) Which facilities pose the greatest oil spill risk? And (5) How effective is the SPCC program in reducing oil spill risk? This nutshell summary briefly discusses EPA's analysis of the survey data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document