On August 30 no spills were found from aerial inspections (made by EPA and Murphy) at the refinery site. However on September 3 Murphy Refinery workers have discovered the oil spill. Thus Murphy corp. responded immediately, pumping out of the oil in interceptor canals and putting booms to capture residual oil. Approximately 72% of oil was recovered. Then the corp. has begun to clean up residential and public areas. Oiled debris were removed and transported to industrial landfill.

Actors and response activities:
- The U.S. Coast Guard oversaw Murphy Oil’s removal of free oil in canals, tank farm containment areas, and storm drains.
- EPA was monitoring Murphy Oil’s sampling and clean-up at residential properties, parks,
school, roads, side-walks and other public spaces that were contaminated by the spill.
- The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was working with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH) to help address health-related issues at the Murphy Oil Spill site.

Health risks existed for properties that clean-up operations were delayed or not performed. For most of the sampled properties, no short-term or long-term health risks existed.

Other health risks included:
-transfer of contaminating oil from adjacent properties that had not been cleaned-up;
-mould;
-snakes, rodents.

The 20 Arpent, the 40 Arpent, the Meraux, the Corinne, and the Delarond canals and various unnamed interceptor canals were affected by the oil spill.

The spilled oil affected approximately 1,800 homes and businesses in an adjacent area of about one square mile. On this area, sediment samples have been collected to determine levels of TPH (ORO, DRO) relative to State RECAP standard. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supervised all Murphy actions. Finally health agencies (LDHH and ATSDR) have determined based on the samples that only at some properties the acceptable levels are exceeding, potentially posing a health hazard. Remedial activities should take place at those properties for re-occupancy.

As the responsible party, Murphy Oil was conducting assessment and clean-up activities. Clean-up of public areas included removal of oil-stained sediment and soil.

Houses were washed inside and outside and when needed the courtyard was excavated and replaced. Since homes of those suing cannot be accessed and many homeowners cannot be located, clean up whole contiguous blocks of neighbourhoods has not been possible. Hence, there were some oiled homes next to cleaned ones. Moreover the Federal Court has restricted Murphy’s communication with property owners (following a Federal Judge certified a class-action lawsuit against Murphy Oil over the oil spill on January 30, 2006).

Approximately, 72% of oil recovered (roughly 18,000 barrels).

Tanks had been constructed in accordance with industry standards based upon the SPCC Plan review. Tank and pipes were tested. The secondary containment was adequate. Hence, some critical events cannot be prevented but a robust emergency plan is needed to face up such unpredictable events.

The affected site belongs to different zones of jurisdiction (NRP, ESF-10 and EPA/USCG) that uses different standards. Federal Court has restricted Murphy’s communication with property owners. These and public relations (as Parish plans for future: expanded road, etc.) have complicated the recovery process causing delays in clean up.

The delayed production of FEMA Flood maps caused uncertainty.

Due to the restricted access to contaminated private properties, the clean-up operations could not be performed for whole blocks of neighbourhoods, or even the entire affected area, leading to the “island effect”, i.e., contaminated homes next to cleaned ones.