In 1988 an Ashland Oil tank was being filled in Floreffe, Pennsylvania. During the fill, the tank collapsed, releasing three and a half million gallons of petroleum oil into water dikes. The resulting oil slick contaminated drinking water for over one million people. Contamination of the drinking water is not only a huge inconvenience, but also a health risk for all those who could consume the drinking water, in addition to a legal liability for Ashland Oil Inc.1
Environmental Risks: Oil does not blend with salt or fresh water. It then floats on the surface spreading out in a think layer. This is known as a slick. Most slicks are 0.01 mm or less thick. The slick can be spread further across the surface due to the weather, as well as water currents and waves. As times goes on the oil can breakdown and sink to the bottom of the ocean continuing to contaminate the body of water.2
The lengthy amount of time that oil can remain in the water source that it contaminated can then begin to damage the water’s wildlife. Ingestion of oil by fish will poison these animals if they survive the destruction of their habitat. Ingestion of either contaminated marine life or contaminated water could be very damaging to the health of any human relying on the water source.2
Measures to improve water safety: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established in 1974. Its purpose is “to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply.” This act applies to any public water system that is located within the Unites States. Over time and through many amendments the act now requires many different actions to protect the water source in addition to the actual drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the standards used and regulated through the SDWA. The act includes a number of different possible contaminated that need to be watched for. They include chemicals, animal waste, pesticides, underground waste, human threats, and naturally substances. This includes oil contamination. The standards that are set by the EPA are enforceable by law. If water systems are not meeting the standards, action can and will be taken until the standards are met.3
In 1948 the Clean Water Act (CWA) was developed. It was amended to its current status in 1977. The CWA is used to regulate the amount of pollution that is disbursed into any U.S. water. The act also helps to regulate the standards for U.S. surface waters. The Clean Water Act allows the EPA to use pollution control programs. These programs include things such as setting standards for industry wastewater. The EPA was also able to make it against the law to disburse any form of pollution from a point source without a permit.4
Ashland Oil, Inc.: Ashland Oil was the largest oil refiner in the United States when this spill occurred. On January 2nd, 1988 one of Ashland’s oil tanks ruptured while it was being filled. The oil company itself constructed the tank that ruptured. It was constructed using steel that was 40 years old. Standards at the time allowed the use of old steel to build tanks as long as a permit was obtained, but like any other oil tank it had to meet the American Petroleum Industry standards set forth. These standards involve the use of a hydrostatic water method. This tank, however, was tested with alternative method that is only acceptable to use in areas where water is scarce. This meant that not only were the best methods available not used in testing the tank, but also a permit was never received in the first place to use the older material in the first place. This presented quite a few legal ramifications for the oil company.1 These ramifications included EPA standard violations, as well as SDWA and CWA violations.5
3. Key constituencies
Public—The general public expects to have clean drinking water and not be exposed to any contamination that may have occurred. Exposure to high levels of contamination, including oil contamination, can lead to severe public health risks and possible panic amongst the public if exposure is realized and there is not method of correction.
Oil tanking industry—This is the main focus because of the adverse impact the oil spill could have on other companies.
Governmental agencies in general—They are a central point in regulating public drinking water sources and making sure that the public’s safety is kept through these governmental regulations
Environmental Protection Agency—The EPA regulates the standards of public drinking water sources that are set by the Safe Water Drinking Act and the Clean Water Act.
Legal System—Violations of the Safe Water Drinking Act and Clean Water Act would be passed on to the appropriate governmental agency for any oil spill and resulting slick that resulted.
Core Public Health Disciplines Involved
This case is typical one that involved almost every public health discipline. These disciplines are:
Environmental Health: this is the main discipline in the case. Exposure to toxic and poisonous substances contaminated water, aquatic life, soil, and air.
Epidemiology: this discipline played an important role in establishing a source of exposure, characterizing the exposure and the disease that occurred, ascertaining trends of occurrence and risk of exposure. It also helps mapping the spill area and proposes appropriate community surveillance.
Health Administration/policy: this section helps in addressing legal issue relating to this spill and help formulating adequate response to the catastrophe. It definitely helps in formulating new laws to proactive react in any future spill that might occur or reinforce existing laws in order to provide clarity on the legal processes and actions.
Biostatistics: this section facilitates in detecting the causes, risks, and exposures of different factors. New investigation is needed detect additional parameters that can accelerate the contamination.
Health Education/Behavior: after the spill, education is important in providing the community or public proper information on the risks of the oil spill and the actions being taken to help preserve the quality of life of the public. Also, the discipline should prepare the educational materials for public.
Cross-discipline domains involved
Additional disciplines are involved in this case. These cross-discipline domains are:
Communication and Informatics: because the oil spill involved many regions and states in the U.S., coordination imposes to standardize and share information on oil spill as they happened elsewhere. Expertise at multiple states and regions levels should be oriented and targeted in order to provide corrective actions in a timely manner.
Diversity and Culture: public or community affected by the oil spill lived in three states and different regions within a state. Therefore, the methodology to address the problem should take into account such diversity.
Leadership: the surprise of the oil spill and the size of the spill created important pressure from affected community and the Ashland Oil staff. The person in charge should be able to supervise responsibilities and be ready to deal with various concerns involved.
Professionalism: Ashland oil staff was unprepared and unprofessional when it comes to deal with the oil spill. The staff showed an extremely poor leadership and professionalism such reacting late to the oil spill, providing false information about tank certification, and focusing on the company financial future instead of being concern about community and environmental health. In this case, public health professional should push for actions and solutions to defend public good.
Program Planning: View the damage of this oil spill in public and the environment; protocols should be set to minimize uncertainty and inconsistent of reaction. The impact of this type of catastrophe in community and wild life calls for effort. This effort should be devoted in getting some emergency planners that can time to time simulate an oil spill in other to test not only the employers’ readiness and community awareness but also the company’s equipment and automatism.
Public Health Biology: this section help in providing exposure risks and biological susceptibility.
C. External disciplines
1. Law:
In September 1988, Ashland Oil Company was indicted by a federal grand jury for negligently discharging oil into the Monongahela River in violation of section 311(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) was designed to help enforce preservation of water quality. It is the principal federal statute protecting navigable waters and adjoining shorelines from pollution, and has formed the foundation for regulations detailing specific requirements for pollution prevention and response measures. Section 311 of the CWA addresses pollution from oil and hazardous substance releases, providing EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard with the authority to establish a program for preventing, preparing for, and responding to oil spills that occur in navigable waters of the United States.
In 1973, EPA issued the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (codified at 40 CFR Part 112), to address the oil spill prevention provisions contained in the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation applies to non-transportation-related facilities that: (1) Have an aboveground storage capacity of more than 660 gallons in a single tank, an aggregate aboveground storage capacity of more than 1,320 gallons, or a total underground storage capacity of 42,000 gallons, and; (2) could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities into navigable waters of the United States.
This regulation requires each owner or operator of a regulated facility to prepare a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. It is required to address the facility's design, operation, and maintenance procedures established to prevent spills from occurring, as well as planned measures to control, contain, clean up and mitigate the effects of an oil spill that could affect navigable waters.
Following Ashland's massive oil spill, the EPA formed the SPCC Task Force to examine federal regulations governing oil spills from aboveground storage tanks. The Task Force recommended that certain provisions in the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation were clarified, as well as establishing additional technical requirements for regulated facilities, and to require the preparation of facility-specific response plans. In 1990, the Oil Pollution Act was enacted by Congress - one of the regulations requiring certain oil storage facilities to prepare facility response plans.
2. Political Science:
Is it legal to engage in the negligent conduct, which led to the oil discharge into the river? The main thrust of the implications of this case are that owner-operators of facilities with hazardous materials are legally bound to protect those resources from being dangerously mishandled. As a part of the oil industry, Ashland was had the responsibility to ensure that the tanker with oil was properly insured against problems. Three things that came under scrutiny in the preliminary investigation were: age of the oil tanker, testing that had been done before filling it, and whether a permit had been filed to use the tanker.
The tanker had been transported from Cleveland, and many were under the impression that it was a new tank. Upon more investigation, it was found that while the tank had been newly constructed, it was made out of 40-year-old steel. While this was a common industry practice, the application for a permit should have specifically stated that this was the case.
Adding further complications for Ashland was the fact that the permit had only been applied for, it had not been granted. Construction commenced with only a verbal commitment. Immediately after the oil spill, Ashland had provided documentation to show proof of permit - but it had actually been a statement from a different agency to acknowledge that construction was underway.
The final area of concern was the testing on the tank before filling. The American Petroleum Industry (API) has a standard 650 for proper testing of tanks. Ashland is required to use a hydrostatic method of testing - filling the tank with water to settle the foundation and to test the strength of the tank's welds. Instead of this mandated test, Ashland personnel filled the tank with only three feet of water to settle the foundation. They had sprayed oil on the welds inside the tank and then vacuum suctioned the outside to determine whether any oil could be pulled through possible leaks in the weld. This is the testing model presented by 650 for desolate locations with scarce water supplies.
Resource protection, under environmental law, helps to maintain the environmental balance of public resources. This includes public lands and rivers; mineral resources; solid waste management; historic preservation; and water pollution, among other areas. The government has taken responsibility for the enactment of laws, as well as the enforcement, for acts that threaten the environment. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a major piece of federal legislation that oversees all federal actions that affect the quality of the human environment.
When the oil tanker collapsed, it caused a sequence of reactions that had a major impact outside the bounds of Ashland. It put the water supply of over a million people at risk. Because it was such a major environmental issue, putting the safety of citizens at risk, it became an issue of federal concern. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) created the Superfund for environmental cleanup. The EPA was dispatched immediately, and the federal government stepped in to coordinate the cleanup, using Ashland employees. The liability for cleanup was legally appointed to Ashland, since they were the owner-operators of the hazardous site.
D. Ethical Issues:
The actions taken by Ashland, including sidestepping the permit protocol and rushing through testing, have obvious legal ramifications. They were held accountable by law to do everything in their power to prevent such an accident from occurring.
Ashland Oil promoted a great deal of negligent in regards to the oil spill. Their negligence began with the construction of the tank and grew as the oil spill continued. The attempted to show no responsibility or blame for what had happened with the construction of the tank. Nor where they ready for an incident of this magnitude. The company showed malfeasance in dealing with the issues at hand and most of the issues could have been alleviated had they taken proper care in the construction of the failed tank.
The known effects of the introduction of the diesel fuel into the environment include the death of fish, birds and the contamination of dozens of miles of shoreline. Studies conducted after the crisis do not account for the emotional anguish of citizens, for personal inconveniences, unknown health risks or for the economic losses on commercial activities. Aside from legal responsibility, the ethical liabilities remain as long as the relationship exists between the spill, environment and the community.
Rawls' basic idea is that justice should involve developing social institutions that do not lead to unfair advantages for some at the expense of others. In particular he emphasizes on the individual's freedom of choice and, one could argue, sense of duty to make decisions which will act in the interests of all, rather than just oneself. Furthermore, Rawls argued that present generations bear a heavy burden for the sake of future generations because it is unjust for present generations to leave nothing for future generations. Each generation should put themselves in the "original position and should; Ask what is reasonable for members of adjacent generations to expect of one another at each level of advance. They should try to piece together a just savings schedule by balancing how much at each stage they would be willing to save for their immediate decedents against what they would feel entitled to claim of the immediate predecessors.
Thus, imagining themselves to be parents, say, they are to ascertain how much they would set aside for their children by noting what they would believe themselves entitled to claim of their own parents. With this said, based upon Rawls' theory that we should not hand the next generation a situation worse than we received from the generation preceding us, Ashland Oil had a great responsibility to ensure care for the surrounding community and the environment.
The failure by Ashland to find the flaw located near the top edge of a steel plate in the oil tank was a serious departure from sound practice and code compliance by the company. Ashland, its employees and some contractors displayed a dangerous pattern of negligence and ignorance in selecting, assigning, constructing, supervising and inspecting the reconstruction project. Reconstruction of the tank failed to conform to industry standards or the terms of the contract for the project. Ashland Oil's response to the incident was adequate but slow. The company's response indicated that it had governmental guidelines to respond to an incident of this nature, but none of its own standard operating procedures for crisis response. This crisis highlights the company's lack of internal conduct and safety operating procedures for checks and balances of its industries. Furthermore, this incident showed a lack of policy and involvement by government agencies. These agencies should have taken active roles through continual inspections and verifications of the plants operations.
A more rapid establishment of a central command post would have enhanced response coordination. In addition, the delay of the incident-specific Regional Response Team activation until two days after the incident may have decreased opportunities for valuable assistance to the responding agencies. Communication problems and lack of available containment and monitoring equipment also hindered response efforts. Inventories of locally available equipment be prepared to assist emergency responders in quickly locating needed equipment. The collapse could have been and should have been averted. Both the existence of the flaw and the tendency of the tank steel to react brittle under normal regional climatic and service conditions were discoverable through the application of good engineering, construction and inspection practices and by compliance with applicable industry and governmental standards.
4. Restatement of the scope of the problem and proposed options/alternatives
(TIME) Better testing mechanisms - Ashland Oil made the choice to reuse 40 year old steel that had previously been cut up which could have possibly decreased its holding strength. They also decided to not use the standard safety practices for testing the holding capacity of the tank by not filling it with water before introducing oil. Both of these actions should have had priority due to the overall condition of the steel and the winter conditions being experienced at that time.
(TIME/EPA)Adequate secondary safety mechanisms- After investigations were conducted on the failure of the dikes, which have the purpose of containing accidental spills, it was found that they were of adequate size by EPA standards. Seeing how dikes that dikes that meet the EPA standards may have very little or no affect on containing an accidental spill, it is in the best interest of the EPA to review these standards and make revisions. The revisions should address the possibility of tanks being filled at settings that may not have adequate dikes that can help counter accidental spills.
(EPA) Better location for refilling oil tanks- How the oil spill got access into the Monongahela River and subsequently into the Ohio River was traced by an uncapped storm drain. There should have been better placement or monitoring of this particular storm drain due to its proximity to possible toxic material. Not only was this not paid any attention but it was left uncovered. If adequate focus was used than there is a possibility that the oil would not have spread so quickly and contaminated so much.
(EPA) Establish a chain of command for multiple agencies to use-There needs to be a better and more structured network for events that involve different agencies from different areas. Not establishing such a structured network resulted in delayed response in coordinating efforts for the clean up and may have resulted in worse damage by the oil spill. Also, the lack of structured communication resulted in the Regional Response Team to be activated two days after the initial spill. This delayed response time may have resulted in decreased opportunities to provide assistance to those assisting in the cleanup effort.
5. Choice and Justification of a Plan to Address the Problem
Ashland Oil being the largest oil refiner in the United States when this spill occurred, it meant that the company has sufficient benefit and financial stability to act appropriately. Therefore, the company officers should have met the American Petroleum Industry standards. These standards focused in building and testing of the oil tanks. Methods had not been successful in detecting and characterizing the lick in the tank, however, the approach to control the oil spill in order not to expand water contamination.
We propose that any oil companies follow the American Petroleum Industry standards. In addition, the officers should be trained on the EPA regulation standards. Regardless the proximity or not from drinking water sources, these trainings must be provided. These trainings must first start with the Safe Water Drinking Act and the Clean Water Act. Then, add additional training such as emergency planning strategies, not only to supervisors, but also to all workers in order to make all staff proactive in any future spill. Furthermore, the company should post around the tanks standards protocol and chain of command so that any employer can refer to in case of emergency.
View the impact of this type of catastrophe in community and wild life, effort should be devoted in getting some emergency planners that can time to time simulate an oil spill in order to test not only the employers’ readiness and community awareness but also the company’s equipment and automatism.
This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com
