Minutes of the
Upper
Mississippi River
Hazardous
Spills Coordination Group Meeting
October 25,
2000
Hampton Inn
Eagan,
Minnesota
Jim O’Brien of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency called the meeting to order at
12:03 p.m. on October 25, 2000. The
following Spills Group members and observers were present:
|
|
Jim
O’Brien
|
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
|
|
|
Dave
Perry |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
Steve
Lee |
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency |
|
|
Kevin
Faus |
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency |
|
|
Craig
Strand |
Minnesota
Department of Public Safety |
|
|
John
Whitaker |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
John
Grump |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
Susan
Hampton |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division |
|
|
Theresa
Kauzlarich |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District |
|
|
Dick
Beatty |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District |
|
|
Dave
Pertuz |
U.S.
Coast Guard, Eighth District |
|
|
Jason
Neubauer |
U.S.
Coast Guard, St. Paul MSD |
|
|
Todd
Dudley |
U.S.
Coast Guard, St. Paul MSD |
|
|
Steve
Faryan |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
|
Ann
Whelan |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
|
Barbi
Lee |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
|
Scott
Hayes |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
|
Stan
Smith |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
|
Rich
Gullick |
American
Water Works Service Company |
|
|
Walter
Grayman |
W.M.
Grayman Consulting Engineer |
|
|
Alan
Vicory |
Ohio
River Valley Water Sanitation Commission |
|
|
Tom
Rayburn |
Great
Lakes Commission |
|
|
Barb
Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
The
minutes of the April 3, 2000 meeting were approved as written.
Steve Lee briefly described the Minneapolis/St. Paul
Sub-Area planning and mapping efforts, noting that the plan attempts to bridge
the gap between local and regional plans while focusing in particular on the
three major rivers in the sub-area (i.e., the Mississippi, Minnesota, and
St. Croix Rivers). Upon completion
of the sub-area plan and inland sensitivity maps, the sub‑area committee
initiated a pilot effort to develop site-specific response strategies using
information from the plan and maps as well as insight from field
assessments. Teams of responders and
resource managers, working from both the land and water, have evaluated
portions of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. Lee described several challenges encountered, including getting
people to use consistent terminology and methodology and take sufficient field
notes. Using notes from the field
assessments, UMRBA staff developed standardized text descriptions for each site
as well as special maps showing the site locations and some key features from
the more elaborate inland sensitivity maps.
Lee distributed sample strategy descriptions and maps.
In
addition to providing a starting point for actual response activities, Lee said
the response strategies help facility operators prepare response plans and help
agency personnel review those plans.
Developing the strategies also can identify areas where no response is
possible and areas where more study is needed.
Finally, the process of identifying strategies opens important dialogues
with landowners and resource managers.
Lee
said next steps in the Twin Cities will include testing and modifying the
strategies already identified as well as assessing the remainder of the three
major rivers in the sub-area. Lee
explained that industries were asked to volunteer to test strategies. Those strategies for which no industry
volunteers will be assigned.
Susan
Hampton asked whether the response strategies reflect information that may
already be in facilities’ plans. Lee
explained that facility operators were encouraged to participate on the
sub-area committee and in the response strategies pilot. He observed that facility plans generally
identify sensitive areas, using information from the inland maps, but do not
typically have well-considered, site-specific response strategies. Lee said that the sub-area committee’s
response strategies effort has prompted facilities to cooperate and enhance
their joint capabilities.
Dave
Perry requested a copy of Minnesota statutes and regulations governing facility
planning and mandatory drills. The other
state spills group members indicated that their states do not have specific
plan and drill requirements. Lee
reported that Minnesota has conducted three unannounced drills, each of which
revealed substantial shortcomings and was followed by the company making
significant investments in its response capabilities.
Steve
Faryan said Tom Olson of the Corps’ Huntington District reports using lock
chambers to contain relatively small spills (i.e., less than 1,000 gallons) in
three or four instances. According to
Faryan, Olson had relatively positive feedback on the potential of using lock
chambers to contain materials that are not flammable or highly toxic. Olson did not see much potential for
modifying dam operations on the Ohio to facilitate containment in the event of
a spill, though he did note that dams could serve to volatilize some types of
material. Faryan reported that a coal
slurry spill in Martin County, Kentucky has the potential to reach the Ohio
River through Wolf and Big Sandy Creeks.
River levels on the Ohio are being raised in an effort to back up water,
and thus the spilled material, in the tributaries. Dave Perry asked whether dams actually volatilize material or
simply mix it in the water column, from which it reemerges later. Faryan said he was unaware of any studies on
the subject.
Susan
Hampton reported that she has prepared a draft FOSC/COE coordination protocol,
which she described as similar to the approach outlined in Colonel Mudd’s July
1999 letter to Rick Karl. She
emphasized that the draft maintains the Corps’ flexibility to respond to
requests on a case-by-case basis.
Counsel at the Mississippi Valley Division is currently reviewing the
draft. Hampton said she would circulate
the draft to the Spills Group once it is cleared for release.
Jim
O’Brien said he hoped MVD counsel would clear the draft before the Spills
Group’s next meeting. O’Brien
acknowledged Hampton’s point that Corps personnel have only first responder
training and emphasized that the state and federal response agencies are not
asking the Corps to assume an OSC role.
He explained that the value of the coordination protocol would be to
facilitate direct communication between responders and lock personnel rather
than requiring communication to run up and down the agencies’ respective
hierarchies.
The
state Spills Group members reviewed their states’ requirements and procedures
for notifying water intake operators.
Jim O’Brien said Illinois EPA’s Emergency Response Unit has a 24-hour
duty officer, who is responsible for notifying intake operators. O’Brien said the unit maintains a
comprehensive list of drinking water intakes.
If responders are not able to reach a plant by phone, they often enlist
the assistance of local law enforcement.
O’Brien said the state will also notify potentially affected power plant
operators where they are known.
However, the state responders do not maintain a comprehensive list of
power plant locations, other than what exists in the UMR Spills Plan. O’Brien said state responders use their
judgment in determining which operators to notify.
Dave
Perry said there is not always a duty officer in Des Moines to receive calls to
Iowa’s spill line. In that event,
notification goes directly to the duty officer for the appropriate field
office. Iowa law requires the state to
notify surface drinking water intakes of pollution events, regardless of
quantity. Perry said intake operators
genuinely appreciate the notifications and do not object to being notified of
small spills. The state spills plan
includes 24-hour contact numbers for all surface drinking water intakes. State responders use their discretion in determining
whether to notify power plants and industrial intakes of spill events. Per the UMR Spills Plan, Iowa responders
also use their judgment in determining whether to notify other states of spills
in Iowa. In response to a question from
Steve Lee, Perry said that Iowa law does not require spillers to notify
potentially affected downstream facilities such as water intakes.
John
Grump said calls to Wisconsin’s spill line are answered in Madison by the
Bureau of Law Enforcement, which notifies the duty officer. The duty officer in turn notifies the DNR
conservation warden for the area, who notifies the regional spills
coordinator. Grump observed that there
are no drinking water intakes on the Mississippi in Wisconsin, though four
power plants rely on the river for cooling water. Notification to the power plants is based on the regional spill
coordinator’s best judgment. Grump said
he maintains a list of emergency contact numbers for power plants and indicated
that the plant operators appreciate receiving notice of spills.
Kevin
Faus explained that the state duty officer answers Minnesota’s spill line and
notifies the appropriate state agency(ies).
In addition, the duty officer has informal arrangements to notify major
drinking water suppliers and Xcel Energy power plants directly. Faus said he assumes the duty officer would
also notify other intake operators where known (e.g., if they are identified in
the UMR Spills Plan or other plans).
Lee stressed the value of redundant notifications and said MPCA also
generally notifies potentially affected intake operators.
John
Whitaker reported that Missouri maintains a central 24-hour spill reporting
line. State law requires responsible
parties to notify either the National Response Center (NRC) or the state. When the state receives notice of a spill,
it notifies the DNR’s drinking water program, which has discretion in
determining whether to notify any drinking water operators. Similarly, the state duty officer exercises
discretion in deciding whether to notify any power plant or industrial intakes.
Theresa
Kauzlarich said the Rock Island District’s lock plans require local
coordination. For some of the locks,
this includes provisions for notifying drinking water intakes. O’Brien said such potential duplication is
not cause for concern, noting that duplication is far better than omission when
it comes to spill notification. Grump
said intake operators can also benefit from multiple notifications because one
source may have more information about the incident.
Steve
Faryan observed that each state has a system in place for notifying intake
operators. Faryan said he asked about
the states’ protocols at the Spills Group’s last meeting only because it was
apparent that there is no centralized notification system for intakes on the
UMR. Faryan said he sees no need to
pursue such a system, given that each state has provisions for notification.
Perry
asked whether the Spills Group would like to have a presentation from NRC staff
regarding how the Center works and makes notifications. O’Brien said most of the Spills Group
members had probably already seen such a presentation at an RRT meeting.
Rich
Gullick briefly described American Water Works Service Company (AWWSC), the
largest U.S.‑based, investor-owned water utility in the country, and its
interest in protecting intake water quality.
As one means of furthering this goal, Gullick said AWWSC’s subsidiaries
and other intake operators on the UMR are interested in exploring the
possibility of an early warning monitoring network. Such a network could detect a sudden deterioration in the source
water supply as well as compounds that might pose chronic health problems. Gullick overviewed early warning systems,
including general characteristics, issues, methodologies, and scales. He noted that a complete system includes not
only detection mechanisms and analytical capabilities but also a communications
infrastructure and response mechanisms.
Gullick
reported on preliminary discussions he has held with AWWSC’s subsidiaries,
other UMR intake operators, and some UMR Spills Group members. He said that there seems to be a general
consensus that commercial navigation, railroads, pipelines, and fixed
facilities pose a substantial risk on the UMR and that a monitoring network
could be one way of managing this risk.
According to Gullick, potential benefits beyond spill detection include
improved communication, increased spills reporting, decreased incidence of
spills, improved public confidence, and better public information during spill
events. Gullick expressed his
preference for a centralized communications hub, similar to the system used on
the Ohio River, rather than the “state-by-state” approach currently in use on
the UMR.
Walter
Grayman described his in-progress study of early warning and predictive source
water monitoring systems. He explained
that advanced warning systems are typically extensive in size and/or scope; use
on-line state-of-the-art monitoring equipment; and integrate monitoring,
modeling, and communications. There are
relatively few such systems in existence.
Grayman cited the Ohio River system coordinated by ORSANCO as the
premier advanced system in the U.S. and briefly highlighted features of other notable
international systems. He described
differences in institutional structures, regulatory frameworks, monitoring
methods, analytical techniques, and public involvement.
According
to Grayman, the mathematical models used to predict fate and transport as part
of a warning system must provide timely and generally accurate
predictions. They need not, however,
be extraordinarily accurate. It is more
important, he stressed, that they be easy to use for non-modelers. In the early 1990s, Grayman worked with
ORSANCO to develop a model for the Ohio River.
It has been refined based on feedback from ORSANCO’s water users group
and Grayman is now attempting to generalize it for use on other rivers.
Grayman’s
current study also includes a risk-based modeling approach to examining various
factors related to spills.
Probabilities are assigned to events and processes, such as flow
conditions, the occurrence of spills, etc.
Then the implications of different monitoring, treatment, and operating
policies are examined in terms of their impacts on finished water quality. According to Grayman, his preliminary
findings include the following:
·
penalties
and legal threats are effective in reducing spills and encouraging
self-reporting;
·
monitoring,
self-reporting, and public reporting should all be components of an early
warning system;
·
institutional
structure is needed for coordination; and
·
raw
water storage provides a useful barrier.
Alan
Vicory provided some background on ORSANCO, an interstate compact commission formed
by the six states bordering the Ohio River.
ORSANCO implements the Ohio River detection system in coordination with
a water users group that includes representatives from among the 72 drinking
water, industrial, and power plant intakes on the Ohio River. Vicory explained that the Ohio River system
was established in 1978 in direct response to a carbon tetrachloride
spill. It is designed to provide a
systemic approach to spills detection and communication on the river. It also serves to enhance public confidence
in water supplies.
The
Ohio River system currently includes fourteen intake operators, most of which
are drinking water suppliers. They
operate monitoring stations at their intakes.
This involves taking samples at least daily, notifying ORSANCO
immediately if anything unusual is detected, and forwarding routine data to
ORSANCO weekly. ORSANCO coordinates the
system, provides technical assistance, manages the data, serves as a
communications hub, and owns most of the equipment used.
Samples
are analyzed for 22 compounds. In
addition, there are other contaminants that the stations can detect, but not
identify. A response is triggered if
the maximum contaminant level for a regulated compound is exceeded or if the
concentration of an unregulated compound exceeds 2 micrograms per liter. If a problem is detected, a duplicate
analysis is performed, notification is made, and modeling and tracking are
initiated. Vicory estimated costs to
equip a station at between $30,000 and $50,000 and said the equipment
typically has a 10-year lifespan. In
addition, ORSANCO’s FY 00 costs for staff, travel, supplies, and other related
expenses totaled $162,800. According to
Vicory, major benefits of the system include enhanced cooperation and
relationships, other uses to which utilities can put the equipment, and
increased spills reporting.
Gullick
said he has contacted 22 drinking water operators on the river between St.
Cloud, Minnesota and Chester, Illinois regarding participation in a UMR Water
Users Coalition. While he has not yet
done so, Gullick also plans to contact industrial and power plant intakes. Gullick briefly summarized preliminary
results from a survey of the UMR drinking water suppliers. Respondents identified
transportation-related accidents as the most serious potential contamination
threat. Other major threats include
nonpoint sources, industrial spills, and sewage discharges. All of the utilities contacted have
expressed at least conceptual support for an early warning monitoring system on
the UMR. Gullick presented letters from
several water utilities in support of a network.
Gullick
said he would envision starting by developing a central information
clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would
facilitate compilation, analysis, and dissemination of water quality data that
are currently generated. Gullick also
foresees the clearinghouse serving as a communications hub for spill
notification. If additional data are
warranted, then the next step would involve developing the necessary monitoring
capabilities at strategic locations.
Gullick identified the following near-term next steps for exploring a
potential monitoring network:
·
continue
formation of the UMR Water Users Coalition (AWWCS lead);
·
identify
the primary risks to UMR water quality and water treatment plant intakes;
·
review
the types of data already available; and
·
identify
what additional data, if any, might be desired to optimize system benefits.
Jim
O’Brien thanked Gullick, Grayman, and Vicory for their presentations. John Grump noted that there are no drinking
water intakes on the UMR in Wisconsin.
However, Grump said Wisconsin would still be interested in such a system
because of its potential contributions to deterrence and early detection. Steve Lee suggested that the states’
drinking water personnel be brought into the discussion. Susan Hampton asked whether ORSANCO would be
able to manage data from a UMR monitoring system. Vicory said it would be preferable to have a UMR-based entity be
responsible for data management and system coordination. In response to a question from O’Brien,
Vicory said much of ORSANCO’s funding for the Ohio River network has come from
the Clean Water Act Section 106 funds that are reserved for certain interstate
basin commissions. Vicory suggested
that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s source water protection program might be a
source of funding for a UMR network. He
emphasized that a successful system cannot rely exclusively on EPA funding. Ann Whelan said she has done some
preliminary exploration regarding possible sources of EPA funds.
Barb
Naramore stressed the need to more clearly articulate what the agencies and
intake operators are interested in doing before seeking funding. She also noted that start-up and maintenance
for a network present distinct challenges and may well require different
funding sources. Gullick urged that the
effort start by developing a mechanism for communication and data sharing
before pursuing expanded data collection that would involve a significant
equipment investment. In response to a
question from John Whitaker, Gullick said most utilities on the river currently
have only basic monitoring and analytical capabilities. Lee suggested a strategy of having the
intake operators pay for the aspects of the system that benefit them directly
and having a more general source of funding for those elements that serve
common interests.
O’Brien
recommended that further discussion and decisions regarding the network await
the results of Gullick’s survey. In
particular, O’Brien said he wanted information about the intakes’ current
monitoring capabilities. He noted that
expensive equipment such as gas chromatographs may not be necessary to monitor
the major contaminants of concern on the UMR.
O’Brien offered to represent the Spills Group at a meeting of the Water
Users Coalition. Naramore said she
would update the UMRBA Representatives at the Association’s November
meeting. It was agreed that the Spills
Group would coordinate as necessary between meetings via conference call.
Ann
Whelan presented an analysis of regional response capabilities, reporting that
most parts of the region are within a six-hour drive of a contractor. However, she emphasized that there is only
about 21,000 feet of boom available on the UMR mainstem, 75 percent of which is
in the St. Louis area. Almost that
amount again is located elsewhere within Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin,
largely in Chicago. Under OPA,
facilities must be able to deploy sufficient equipment within 12 hours to
respond to a worst case scenario (assumed to involve recovering 10,000 barrels
per day). They must also have 1,000
feet of boom and the means to deploy it within one hour. Whelan said Region 5’s unannounced exercises
have demonstrated that many facilities cannot meet the one-hour requirement.
After
some discussion, the group agreed to consider various options for addressing
the limitations in regional response capabilities. These options include ensuring that facility and vessel plans are
consistent with the Area Contingency Plans, encouraging industry cooperatives,
exploring non-traditional response strategies and equipment (e.g., alternatives
to boom), and focusing on areas of greatest risk (e.g., pipeline crossings). Dave Pertuz also urged the group to consider
ways to enhance spill prevention. Steve
Lee asked whether EPA and the Coast Guard could hire a contractor to develop
response strategies for the UMR and identify the equipment required to
implement those strategies. Whelan said
EPA can use its oil funding to develop strategies in the event of a spill, but
not in advance of an incident. Pertuz
observed that any such effort for the entire UMR would be quite expensive. Jim O’Brien urged Spills Group members to
give further consideration to options for enhancing regional response
capabilities.
Whelan
also reported that Section 4112 of OPA 90 authorized the Corps to study the
potential for modifying dredges for use in removing oil and hazardous
substances. Barb Naramore said she had
contacted staff at the Corps’ Waterways Experiment Station to determine whether
any work was done under this authority.
[Subsequent to the meeting, Naramore obtained the results of a 1991
study that evaluated the use of two Corps hopper dredges in response to the
Exxon Valdez spill and made recommendations regarding potential future use of
Corps hopper dredges. Naramore
distributed the Executive Summary of the study to Spills Group members on
November 28.]
Dave
Pertuz reported that there are no plans to move the Granite City-based VOSS out
of the St. Louis area. He noted that
the VOSS will most likely continue to be stored at the former Granite City Army
Base, which is now operated by the Navy.
The Coast Guard has transferred the New Orleans-based VOSS to
Honolulu.
Pertuz
said Commander Drieu would like to exercise the VOSS and other fast water
response equipment in the late spring or early summer of next year. Other equipment to be deployed would include
boom vane and high-speed skimmers.
Pertuz said tentative plans were to hold the exercise in Paducah, but
that was before Drieu and Pertuz learned of the Spills Group’s previous request
for such an exercise in St. Louis.
Spills Group members reiterated their strong support for a field
assessment in the St. Louis area.
Pertuz said the Coast Guard is particularly interested in the
possibility of using an Illinois ferry as a deployment platform.
Pertuz
said the Coast Guard’s primary objective would be to evaluate the performance
of the equipment in a big river environment.
Spills Group members concurred, recommending that the effort be limited
to equipment deployment, rather than trying to incorporate other aspects of an
exercise. Pertuz said the Coast Guard
has six new high-speed skimmers, two of which are stationed on the Atlantic and
two of which are on the Pacific. Pertuz
said the remaining two may go to the Gulf Strike Team, but a final decision has
not been made.
In
response to a question from Dave Perry, Pertuz said some components of the VOSS
could be released to a qualified contractor in the event of a spill. But the whole system, which requires
extensive training, would not be released.
In response to a question from Barb Naramore, Pertuz said a letter from
the Spills Group expressing support for the equipment exercise would be
helpful. Pertuz, O’Brien, and Naramore
agreed to coordinate further regarding the exercise.
Dave Perry reported that the September 7 Quad Cities
river response workshop was generally well received by the approximately 70
participants. Perry said the Quad
Cities session generally followed the outline of the February 2000
Tri-State/Spills Group workshops in Wabasha and Prairie du Chien. Several Spills Group members were
presenters at the Quad Cities workshop.
According to Perry, attendees did note inconsistencies among some
presenters on issues such as the feasibility of recovering product on a large river. Scott Hayes and Perry expressed concern with
the lack of local involvement in the Quad Cities Sub-Area planning effort.
Theresa
Kauzlarich reported that the City of Muscatine is interested in holding an
exercise at L&D 16.
Hayes
reported on fast water boom training that he recently attended in Taos, New
Mexico. He said the training was
focused on much smaller rivers than the Upper Mississippi or the Missouri and
relied on the use of ropes and anchors to hold the boom in fast current. Hayes noted that this approach was very
labor-intensive even on relatively small streams. He said the training would need to be modified substantially
before it would be appropriate for big river response. Tom Rayburn reported that the Coast Guard is
publishing a field guide on fast water response. Hayes said EPA’s Environmental Response Team could be another
source for big river response training.
Barb
Naramore circulated a response brochure for the Baton Rouge area. The Coast Guard prepared the brochure in
cooperation with the state, city, and USGS.
Naramore said she thought the brochure was quite effective in conveying
basic information concisely, including key contact numbers and general
locations of industrial facilities, water intakes, and environmentally
sensitive areas.
Perry
reported that the Tri-State Hazmat Group is planning a workshop for May 2001 on
issues related to immediate spill response.
Topics will likely include the role of elected officials, media,
notification, and reimbursement.
Tom
Rayburn reported on the recently established Freshwater Spills Information
Clearinghouse (www.freshwaterspills.net). The site is sponsored by the Great Lakes
Spill Protection Initiative, which is a coalition of Great Lakes Governors and
the CEOs of major oil companies that do business on the lakes. Rayburn overviewed the site, which provides
access to planning and response information, research, data, and abstracts. Designers took care to make the site
friendly for field users (e.g., small size pages that permit quick loading) and
is selective in the other sites to which it links. A list serve will foster communication within the freshwater
spills community.
Ann
Whelan described a “small science” initiative, under which the Freshwater
Spills Information Clearinghouse will be a repository for data on small
freshwater spills. Noting that federal
agencies do not typically respond to such spills, she said local and state
personnel will likely be the primary contributors to the database. To make the process as easy as possible,
people will be able to submit data on paper or upload information directly to
the site. However, to enhance the
validity and comparability of the data, they will be asked to use a
standardized data submission form.
Whelan distributed a draft of the submission form and invited Spills
Group members to comment. Pertuz
encouraged Whelan to separate narrative comments from other data submitted in
order to facilitate data analysis.
Barb
Naramore distributed review copies of the revised UMR Spills Plan and requested
comments and corrections by November 8.
She also reported that updates to some of the resource appendices are
pending, awaiting receipt of data from the states. After these data updates are received and incorporated, the fully
revised plan will be distributed to Spills Group members, who will in turn be
responsible for distributing the plan within their state or agency. Naramore said the UMRBA is developing a web site
and will post the UMR Plan on the site.
After some discussion, Spills Group members decided not to execute a new
MOA as part of the comprehensive update to the UMR Plan.
John
Whitaker reported that the Greater St. Louis Sub-Area Committee is nearing
completion of its plan. According to
Whitaker, the most significant item remaining is development of a
communications protocol.
Ann
Whelan reported that final maps for the UMR from the Twin Cities to Cape
Girardeau will be complete by the end of the calendar year. These maps include one county on each side
of the river. Whelan said the next
phase of the mapping work will include the Wisconsin River, Illinois River, and
Red River of the North.
Jim
O’Brien reported that Illinois has not had any major incidents on the
Mississippi River since the Spills Group’s April meeting. As part of organizational changes within
Illinois EPA, the office that O’Brien heads is being renamed the “Office of
Emergency Response.”
John
Whitaker reported that Ken Teeter is no longer with Missouri DNR. Whitaker also described a recent incident
involving a pipeline on the Missouri River near St. Charles. Since the 1993 flood, there have been
problems with intermittent oil releases from an unknown source. An angler managed to mark the spot where the
oil appeared to be surfacing. The
current in the area is too swift for divers, but sonar and other investigation
suggest that the source is an inactive pipeline owned by Equilon. Whitaker said the leaking appears to have
stopped for the time being. Equilon
does not have records regarding the pipeline’s original shutdown, but has
agreed to purge and seal the line. This
work is pending. [Note: subsequent to the Spills Group meeting, there
was a release during Equilon’s attempt to purge the line.]
Dave
Perry briefly summarized spills to the Mississippi and its tributaries in Iowa
since the first of the year. These
included a spill of 50 to 100 gallons of fertilizers and herbicides to a fast
moving stream with no recovery; 40,000 gallons of animal and vegetable products
to the Yellow River; 1,000 gallons of sulfuric acid to Beaver Channel; and 400
gallons of engine oil directly to the Mississippi at Keokuk.
John
Grump said there have been no major incidents in Wisconsin on the Mississippi
River, though a few sheens have been reported at locks. According to Grump, the state has been very
busy dealing with methamphetamine labs.
Grump said he had responded to five meth labs in the last six months,
including one in a boathouse on the Mississippi. Due to a shortage of Drug Enforcement Agency funds, Grump said
Wisconsin has been forced to use money from its abandoned container fund for
some meth lab expenses. Steve Lee said
Minnesota has had a similar experience, but said DEA has additional funding now
and will reimburse states for such expenses.
Lee said he would provide Grump with the necessary information. Grump said Wisconsin has also had several
recent incidents involving residential fuel oil tanks.
Scheduling
of the next UMR Spills Group meeting was deferred in hopes of holding it in
conjunction with the VOSS demonstration.
[Note: the Spills Group meeting
and VOSS demonstration were subsequently scheduled for May 8-10.]
Spring
2001 will mark the end of Jim O’Brien’s two-year term as chair of the Spills
Group. With the concurrence of the
group’s members, John Grump agreed to serve the next two-year term as chair,
commencing with the spring 2001 meeting.