Natech Accident
DISCLAIMER: The Joint Research Centre does not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the data in eNatech. It also reserves the right to cancel or change records without prior notification.
Type
Natech Accident
Date
1994/01/17
Time
05:35
Status
Published

Units Involved

  1. Name
    Pipeline
    Type
    Transport: Pipeline
    Year of Construction
    1925
    Description
    The pipeline was constructed in 1925-26.

    The pipeline had 88.4 km (54.9 mi) with acetylene welds and 108 km (67.2 mi) with arc-welds.

Event Sequences

  1. Name
    Pipeline spill
    Unit
    1. Pipeline
    Description
    The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, caused the rupture of a crude oil pipeline owned by ARCO/Four Corners near the city of Santa Clarita, California (ca. 35 miles north of Los Angeles). The pipeline ruptured in several places and ca. 190,000 gallons of San Joaquin Valley Crude exited the pipeline, traveled through a culvert to a drainage ditch and then into the Santa Clara River. The oil traveled downstream (west) roughly 15 miles to a point where the river runs subterranean.

    In another spill a portion of the released crude oil entered the Los Angeles River.

    Although all petroleum pipeline pumping stations shut down within about 1 minute after earthquake detection, thereby reducing pipeline pressure, the spills could not be prevented.
    Substances Involved
    1. Name
      San Joaquin blended crude oil
      Involved Quantity
      902 m³
      Description
      Overall, approximately 238,000 gallons of crude oil were released from the pipeline ruptures.
    Initiating EventCritical EventMajor Event
    Component (Structural): Pipeline break / damage
    During the earthquake, a non-producing, but full, 10-in pipeline operated by ARCO-Four Corners Pipeline Company broke in multiple (9) locations. The ninth break in the pipeline was discovered during a test of the line. This rupture was not near the river.
    Contributing Factors
    Equipment: Component failure:
    The preliminary investigation into the spill by the California Office of Pipeline Safety indicated that a contributing cause was acetylene weld failure at all rupture locations, indicating a particular susceptibility of acetylene welds to earthquake loading.

    There were indications that there may have been failure of the girth weld and lack of penetration at the rupture locations.
    Release: Liquid release to ground
    Several releases occurred from the pipeline, with the most significant (ca. 190,000 gallons) at the Newhall booster pump substation located in Valencia, California. This break caused approximately 5 miles of pipeline, containing 27 API gravity San Joaquin blended crude oil, as well as oil from storage tank 310, to empty onto the ground.

    Overall, the release quantities from the 9 pipeline breaks were (in gallons): 190,000; ?; 24,000; 126; 1,260; 1,470; 210; 21,000; 168
    Dispersion: Substance in / on water
    The oil flowed across the parking lot, into a storm drain, then into a drainage ditch to the Santa Clara River.

    A portion of crude oil from the Wolfskill Street site entered a storm drain and reached the Los Angeles River.

Emergency Response

Response Planning Activities
To manage the response, ARCO implemented the incident command system utilizing unified command. Originally, the unified commanders were from ARCO and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Representatives of ARCO filled the operations, logistics and finance section chief positions with CDFG fulfilling the primary planning section chief role. On the 18th a representative of the US Environmental Protection Agency arrived on scene and the EPA OSC became a member of the unified command.
Difficulties in Response to the Natural Hazard
Natech event prevents efficient operation of personnel in the natural hazard affected area: Yes
Response to the Natural Hazard
There was concern related to the structural integrity of the upstream water impoundment dams, in particular due to continuing aftershocks, and rumours about the dams having been damaged. Flooding of the entire riverbed due to dam failure would have posed a major threat to responders. An investigation showed, however, that no structural problems existed, but much time and effort was spent resolving this and similar issues in the early stages.
Response Teams and Equipment Involved
Regional / national hazmat teams
Response to the Natech Event
The spill was initially discovered by ARCO at 05:35 am. ARCO notified the National Response Center at 07:41 am and California Office of Emergency Services at 07:50 am. Reports of the spill reached the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at approximately 12:28 pm, but as a 150 barrel spill. It was not until the morning of the 18th that EPA received information on the true magnitude of the spill. EPA then mobilized federal resources to the spill site.

The first cleanup steps consisted of constructing a containment berm across the drainage ditch to prevent additional oil from entering the Santa Clara River, and construction of two underflow dams at sites farther downriver. The containment berm successfully impounded over 1,600 barrels of spilled oil, which was recovered by vacuum trucks over the first two days.

Difficulties were encountered in building the underflow dams. Due to the shallowness of the river, and its extended riverbed, it was hard to develop sufficient water in depth behind the dams for them to be effective. The flow into the underflow pipes created whirlpools that would suck the pooled oil down with the water and carry it through. Eventually deflection booms were installed at both underflow dams. The reduced current and marginally increased river depth behind the dam then allowed the oil to be diverted into collection pockets, where it was recovered using vacuum trucks and dams skimmers.

Approximately 12 miles from the point where the oil first entered the Santa Clara River, the surface water of the river dried up as the water percolated into the porous gravel riverbed. A terminus dike was constructed at this site on day two. This formed a pond to recover oil from, and prevented the further downstream migration of the oil.

At one oil spill location, response efforts had to wait for the repair of a ruptured natural gas pipeline that constituted a hazard to the responders.

Initial response efforts were hampered by several earthquake-related problems. Logistics was complicated by closed roads, power outages, lack of available lodging (due to locals unable to stay in their homes), disruption to the communications infrastructure, and the lack of potable water due to disruptions in the distribution systems. There was also competition for resources with the higher priority public health and safety concerns in the Los Angeles Basin. Interstate 5 and State Highway 126 from Ventura were both closed. Interstate 5 was the primary access to the region from Long Beach from where most of the spill response resources were mobilized. Highway 126 was the only road that followed the general course of the river from the spill site to the sea, and the primary access for responders coming inland from Santa Barbara and Ventura. Highway 126 was reopened on the 18th.

Consequences

Environmental Zones Impacted
  • Inland (e.g. grassland, cropland, forest)
  • Freshwater (e.g. pond, lake, stream)
Environmental Impacts
The release of oil and the cleanup operations impacted ca. 100 acres of woody and herbaceous vegetation, ca. 150 acres of river sediments, as well as fish including the arroyo chub and the federally endangered unarmored three-spine stickleback, a number of bird and other wildlife species, and riparian vegetation including critical habitat for the federally-listed endangered least Bell’s vireo.
Economic Impacts
ARCO settled to pay $8,125,000 to the United States and State agencies for the earthquake-related spills, as well as response and damage assessment costs of $854,966.

Remedial Activities

Decontamination Activities
Over the days following the earthquake, more than 500 people vacuumed crude oil out of the Santa Clara river and catalogued dead animals. Subsequently, 100 acres of contaminated vegetation along the riverbank were dug out.

Cleanup of the oiled vegetation continued for several days; however, on 24 January it started raining and site operations had to be suspended. Unfortunately, the increased river flow washed out the containment that had been installed along the river, and even breached the first terminus dike. Cleanup operations were suspended on 25 January due to the water level and the fact that all access points were impassible. On 26 January the collection and containment sites that had been washed out were re-established. A large amount of oil was now pooled at the terminus dike and recovery of this oil began.
Remediation Activities
Cleanup operations removing the oiled vegetation continued for several weeks after this, but most of the free oil was recovered immediately after the rains of the 24th. Buried oil was discovered in several locations afterwards and more substantial removals were necessitated, particularly in the lower reaches of the affected area. One successful method for dealing with the buried oil was dewatering sections of the river and mechanically disking the soil. This was followed by water flushing, which moved the free oil downstream to excelsior collection dams.

Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned on Emergency Response Aspects
With over 450 people involved in the spill directly, ARCO had developed a well-thought-out contingency plan in case of rain; and this plan worked extremely well when implemented. It was an important part of the planning operation for this event, and inclement weather contingencies should almost certainly be considered in every major response.
ID: 44, Created: Bogdan DORNEANU, 2014-03-06 12:18:48 – Last Updated: Amos NECCI, 2021-01-04 15:42:42

Attachments

NoDescriptionFile Size
1.Agreement and Consent Decree, 1997 2.05MB
2.Leveille, Shane, Morris, 1995 1.64MB
3.Lindell, Perry, 1997 1005.71KB
4.Los Angeles Times, February 26, 1994 103.38KB
5.National Petroleum News, February 1994 320.63KB
6.New York Times, January 1994 119.68KB
7.The Santa Clara River Trustee Council, 2002 561.75KB