EPA Focus on Oil Spill Prevention Results in Three Settlements -Effort includes inspections of multi-facility companies
Release date: 01/15/2008
Contact Information: Paula Ballentine, (617) 918-1027
(Boston, Mass. - Jan. 15, 2008) - Under an ongoing EPA effort to prevent oil spills, three additional New England companies will pay penalties to resolve allegations that they violated federal regulations related to the storage of oil. The companies have operations in all six New England states, and two own and operate multiple oil storage facilities.
Mantrose-Haeuser Co. Inc., an Attleboro Mass. shellac-based coatings facility, will pay $34,000 following a 2006 EPA inspection of its oil tanks and its facility. EPA found the company to be in violation of federal Clean Water Act regulations by releasing an unknown quantity of oil into the nearby Ten Mile River and failing to prepare and implement an adequate Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan.
Rice Oil Co. of Greenfield Mass. will pay a $157,500 penalty for alleged SPCC violations at four of its Massachusetts oil storage and distribution facilities and at a Vermont facility, where two oil spills occurred in 2003 and 2007. The company is affiliated with approximately 40 gas stations and convenience stores throughout New England.
Irving Oil Co., with U.S. operations based in Portsmouth N.H., will pay a $55,000 penalty for alleged violations at one of its facilities located in a drinking water protection area in Alton, N.H. In addition to the Alton facility, Irving owns and operates a total of twelve bulk oil storage facilities in New England, three of which are marine terminals with a combined storage capacity of over 100 million gallons.
Federal oil spill prevention regulations are designed to prevent pollution to waterways and to ensure that there will be an effective response to any oil discharges that do occur. Among other requirements, the SPCC plan must contain measures to prevent and control oil spills, including ensuring that there is adequate containment to prevent the spilled oil from reaching a waterway. Since meeting with EPA representatives, all three companies have been working cooperatively to update and fully implement SPCC plans at their New England facilities.
"Oil spills can do significant damage to the environment, so it is important to take steps to prevent them from occurring," said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England Office. "Facilities that store and distribute oil have a responsibility to carefully follow established procedures to minimize risks of oil spills."
EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. In 2007, EPA conducted inspections at over 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.
Additional Information on Mantrose-Haeuser
EPA had originally responded to a release of sulfuric acid at Mantrose-Haeuser in June 2006, and subsequently conducted an inspection of the facility's oil tanks one month later, during which the inspector observed another spill occurring, this time a release of diesel fuel. The second spill resulted from a leak in a diesel-powered high pressure washing device that had been staged on the facility's parking lot without any secondary containment to catch spills.
The leaked oil flowed into a nearby storm drain and into the Ten Mile River. EPA also noted that there was heavy oil staining and evidence of prior spillage throughout the delivery truck unloading area, directly adjacent to the river.
Upon EPA's observation that an oil sheen had developed on the river, Mantrose-Haeuser initiated steps to protect the storm drain with oil absorbent pads, shut down the leaking equipment and clean up the spilled oil. No environmental damage was evident from this release.
Additional Information on Rice Oil
On July 4, 2007, Rice Oil reported a 400-gallon discharge of oil from its Readsboro, Vt. facility. Emergency personnel from the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation responded and oversaw the investigation and remediation of the discharge. Some of the oil was observed to have escaped the earthen berm surrounding the tanks, however, no impact to the Deerfield River was observed.
This was the second oil discharge from this site within the past five years. Previous to the July 4th spill, Rice Oil had a 300-gallon fuel oil release in October 2003. The oil was discharged from a tank into the Deerfield River, and no product was recovered from the river during subsequent response operations. Following this release, Rice Oil paid a $15,000 penalty to EPA for violations of the federal Clean Water Act. At that time, the company also agreed to upgrade the oil storage and distribution systems at the Readsboro facility, as well as its other Massachusetts bulk plants.
On November 28, 2006, representatives from EPA and the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection inspected three of Rice Oil's Massachusetts bulk plants in Greenfield and Shelburne Falls, and reviewed information related to an Orange, Mass. facility and the Vermont facility. The inspection revealed that the company had failed to upgrade its equipment as previously agreed to, including building sufficiently impervious and appropriately sized secondary containment for oil storage tanks, transfer areas, and loading racks.
Additional information on Irving Oil
A joint inspection by representatives from EPA's New England office and the N.H. Dept. of Environmental Services at the Alton bulk plant found that the company had failed to construct sufficiently impervious secondary containment around its aboveground storage tanks. The facility's oil storage included six aboveground bulk petroleum storage tanks ranging in size from 10,000 to 20,000 gallons, with an aggregate storage capacity of more than 100,000 gallons.
The Irving Oil facility also stores gasoline on-site and is located within the well radius of the Town of Alton's drinking water supply. This sensitive location means that spills at the bulk plant could lead to contamination of a public drinking water aquifer. In November 2005 the facility had a spill of over 5,000 gallons of No. 2 home heating oil, which impacted the groundwater beneath the tank farm
Friday, December 12, 2008
Maine Company Fined for Oil Spill Prevention (SPCC) Violations
Stonington, Maine Company Fined for Oil Spill Prevention Violations
U.S. EPA.gov (press release) - Washington,DC,USA
Release date: 10/28/2008
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
(Boston, Mass. – Oct. 28, 2008) - An oil distribution company will pay $8,000 for failing to adequately prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans at two of its Stonington, Maine facilities.
An inspection by EPA and the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection found that R.L. Greenlaw’s oil storage facilities in Stonington had failed to fully implement adequate SPCC plans for two sites – on Sea Breeze Avenue and Indian Point Road. The company failed to maintain sufficiently impervious secondary containment for its oil tanks at both locations and failed to construct adequate containment for the loading and off-loading areas at the Sea Breeze Avenue facility, which are adjacent to the harbor. The two facilities also lacked adequate security measures, which are required by the EPA regulations to prevent unauthorized access to oil storage containers.
Following EPA’s inspection and contacts with the company, R.L. Greenlaw submitted and has begun implementing corrective action plans for both facilities. These plans include liquid-tightness tests at the Sea Breeze Avenue site to identify leaking areas in the containment walls and floor, dike repairs, and construction of poured concrete spill containment areas for the oil transfer areas.
Spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into surface waters, such as harbors, rivers or streams. The regulations require that certain spill prevention and response measures be implemented at facilities that store oil above threshold amounts. Both R.L. Greenlaw oil storage facilities are located directly adjacent to Penobscot Bay, thus posing a threat to the Bay if spills were to occur.
EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. Since 2007, EPA has conducted inspections at well over 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. This action contributes to EPA's record-shattering enforcement results for the 2008 Fiscal Year. Nationwide this year, EPA has concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to spend an estimated $11 billion on pollution controls, clean-up and environmental projects, an all time record for EPA. After these activities are completed, EPA expects annual pollution reductions of more than three billion pounds.
U.S. EPA.gov (press release) - Washington,DC,USA
Release date: 10/28/2008
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
(Boston, Mass. – Oct. 28, 2008) - An oil distribution company will pay $8,000 for failing to adequately prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans at two of its Stonington, Maine facilities.
An inspection by EPA and the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection found that R.L. Greenlaw’s oil storage facilities in Stonington had failed to fully implement adequate SPCC plans for two sites – on Sea Breeze Avenue and Indian Point Road. The company failed to maintain sufficiently impervious secondary containment for its oil tanks at both locations and failed to construct adequate containment for the loading and off-loading areas at the Sea Breeze Avenue facility, which are adjacent to the harbor. The two facilities also lacked adequate security measures, which are required by the EPA regulations to prevent unauthorized access to oil storage containers.
Following EPA’s inspection and contacts with the company, R.L. Greenlaw submitted and has begun implementing corrective action plans for both facilities. These plans include liquid-tightness tests at the Sea Breeze Avenue site to identify leaking areas in the containment walls and floor, dike repairs, and construction of poured concrete spill containment areas for the oil transfer areas.
Spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into surface waters, such as harbors, rivers or streams. The regulations require that certain spill prevention and response measures be implemented at facilities that store oil above threshold amounts. Both R.L. Greenlaw oil storage facilities are located directly adjacent to Penobscot Bay, thus posing a threat to the Bay if spills were to occur.
EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. Since 2007, EPA has conducted inspections at well over 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. This action contributes to EPA's record-shattering enforcement results for the 2008 Fiscal Year. Nationwide this year, EPA has concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to spend an estimated $11 billion on pollution controls, clean-up and environmental projects, an all time record for EPA. After these activities are completed, EPA expects annual pollution reductions of more than three billion pounds.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Common SPCC Violations at Colleges and Universities
Common Violations: SPCC
Common SPCC (Spill Prevention Controls & Countermeasures) Violations
This page provides useful information to help colleges and universities comply with some basic environmental regulatory requirements. This page, however, does not list all the applicable regulatory requirements that might apply to your campus. Please be sure to comply with all applicable requirements.
No Plan at all. [40 CFR 112.3 (a) or (b)]
Failure to prepare and implement SPCC plan, specifically failed to include all elements of a complete plan as required by SPCC regulations. [40 CFR 112.3 (c)]
Plan not PE certified. [40 CFR 112.3 (d)]
Plan not reviewed/updated every three years. [40 CFR 112.5 (b)]
Plan does not include all oil on facility, i.e., transformers, hydraulic systems, emergency generators, drum storage, etc. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(2)]
Plan does not accurately identify, from each oil storage location, the detailed path spilled oil would take to reach a waterway, i.e., a typical campus is so wide, drainage may flow in different directions, to different receptors, especially in urban locations. Drains not traced out. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(1)]
Designated staff do not conduct regular walk-through inspections of teaching and research locations to be aware of oil use by professors, TAs, graduate students, and other non-maintenance staff. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(8)]
Small, scattered Above-ground Storage Tanks (ASTs), especially in dormitory locations, are not adequately protected from tampering/vandalism. A transient student population presents unique hazards not encountered with supervised adults in an industrial setting. Students are not employees, are not OSHA trained, and have no stake in paycheck protection through preservation of an employer's image or goodwill. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(9)]
Common SPCC (Spill Prevention Controls & Countermeasures) Violations
This page provides useful information to help colleges and universities comply with some basic environmental regulatory requirements. This page, however, does not list all the applicable regulatory requirements that might apply to your campus. Please be sure to comply with all applicable requirements.
No Plan at all. [40 CFR 112.3 (a) or (b)]
Failure to prepare and implement SPCC plan, specifically failed to include all elements of a complete plan as required by SPCC regulations. [40 CFR 112.3 (c)]
Plan not PE certified. [40 CFR 112.3 (d)]
Plan not reviewed/updated every three years. [40 CFR 112.5 (b)]
Plan does not include all oil on facility, i.e., transformers, hydraulic systems, emergency generators, drum storage, etc. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(2)]
Plan does not accurately identify, from each oil storage location, the detailed path spilled oil would take to reach a waterway, i.e., a typical campus is so wide, drainage may flow in different directions, to different receptors, especially in urban locations. Drains not traced out. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(1)]
Designated staff do not conduct regular walk-through inspections of teaching and research locations to be aware of oil use by professors, TAs, graduate students, and other non-maintenance staff. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(8)]
Small, scattered Above-ground Storage Tanks (ASTs), especially in dormitory locations, are not adequately protected from tampering/vandalism. A transient student population presents unique hazards not encountered with supervised adults in an industrial setting. Students are not employees, are not OSHA trained, and have no stake in paycheck protection through preservation of an employer's image or goodwill. [40 CFR 112.7 (e)(9)]
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Shell Refinery To Pay $300000 Penalty For Spill
Shell pays fine for 2006 spill
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
By Mike Taugher
Contra Costa Times
Article Launched: 09/25/2008 06:41:45 PM PDT
Shell Oil Co. has agreed to pay more than $300,000 in fees and penalties for spilling about 420 gallons of oil into Carquinez Strait at its Martinez refinery in January 2006.
No injuries were reported at the time and no dead wildlife were found, though the spill did foul the marina and some boats.
"It's something we wish didn't happen and we have taken all steps to make sure it doesn't happen again," said Shell spokesman Steve Lesher, who also apologized to boat owners and others affected by the spill.
The accident occurred as refinery personnel were taking partially refined oil from a tanker into the refinery.
The slow leak led to oil contaminating the nearby water because a pump that was supposed to keep the containment system clear failed and an alarm that was supposed to alert workers did not work either, Lesher said.
The settlement, announced by the Contra Costa County district attorney's office, was approved Wednesday.
Deputy district attorney Lon Wixson said Shell made several improvements to help prevent similar spills.
"They were concerned when it happened and did some things on their own," Wixson said.
"They have a better system now."
The settlement calls for Shell to pay $250,000 in civil penalties, $50,000 to the city of Martinez for improvements to the city's marina or waterfront, and $10,000 to pay for the response by state oil spill cleanup crews.
Mike Taugher covers
natural resources. Reach him at 925-943-8257 or mtaugher@bayareanewsgroup.com.
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
By Mike Taugher
Contra Costa Times
Article Launched: 09/25/2008 06:41:45 PM PDT
Shell Oil Co. has agreed to pay more than $300,000 in fees and penalties for spilling about 420 gallons of oil into Carquinez Strait at its Martinez refinery in January 2006.
No injuries were reported at the time and no dead wildlife were found, though the spill did foul the marina and some boats.
"It's something we wish didn't happen and we have taken all steps to make sure it doesn't happen again," said Shell spokesman Steve Lesher, who also apologized to boat owners and others affected by the spill.
The accident occurred as refinery personnel were taking partially refined oil from a tanker into the refinery.
The slow leak led to oil contaminating the nearby water because a pump that was supposed to keep the containment system clear failed and an alarm that was supposed to alert workers did not work either, Lesher said.
The settlement, announced by the Contra Costa County district attorney's office, was approved Wednesday.
Deputy district attorney Lon Wixson said Shell made several improvements to help prevent similar spills.
"They were concerned when it happened and did some things on their own," Wixson said.
"They have a better system now."
The settlement calls for Shell to pay $250,000 in civil penalties, $50,000 to the city of Martinez for improvements to the city's marina or waterfront, and $10,000 to pay for the response by state oil spill cleanup crews.
Mike Taugher covers
natural resources. Reach him at 925-943-8257 or mtaugher@bayareanewsgroup.com.
Friday, September 26, 2008
SPCC Regulations Enforced on the Ice in Antarctica
July 25, 2008
Basic Concepts continues to have environmental spill containment products deployed on all seven continents with the most recent Sentry Quickberm installation at a scientific research site in Antarctica.
The spill berm pictured above was constructed of heavy-duty 32 oz. polyurethane with an 18” tall wall that is constructed to withstand the harsh environment and sub-freezing temperatures of the polar region. The Quickberm was designed to provide secondary spill containment for a 10,000 gallon fuel bladder. The site has two 10,000 gallon hydrocarbon bladders requiring two spill berms.
Mr. Taube, the original project manager for the site, commented upon deploying the two spill berms: “… the berms were a breeze to set up and looks like they are going to work out well.” After well over two years in service the spill berms have performed so well that additional spill berms have been purchased including the latest ordered July 24, 2008.
Lee Hill the territory sales manager for Basic Concepts stated:
“The berms that Basic Concepts has supplied for secondary containment in Antarctica remain a flagship example of our commitment to providing the highest quality, most durable secondary containment berms on the market. This project is a source of pride for our company and we are thankful to have the opportunity to demonstrate just how durable our products are.”
Basic Concepts’ Environmental Spill Containment Products have been proven in the harshest environments. The ecosystem of the polar region is vunerable to oil spills, so when the need arose Basic Concepts is who was entrusted. Basic Concepts’ engineered spill containment berms and related products can be customized to solve almost any customer requirement. Remember that Sentry is always on guard against environmental oil spills.
About Basic Concepts
Basic Concepts is a World War II veteran owned small business that manufactures environmental spill containment products. Founded in 1988, the company is celebrating its 20th year of serving a global market one customer at a time. Want to know more about Basic Concepts and its full line of secondary containment berms and oil spill products? Please contact Basic Concepts, Inc, 1310 Harris Bridge Rd, Anderson, SC 29621, telephone 1-800-285-4203 or visit the company website at www.basicconcepts.com.
Electric Utility Substation SPCC Compliance Products
Oil Containment Systems for Electric Utility Substations
Jun 29, 2008 5:58 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency’s deadline for compliance with Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans for utilities is July 2009. Containment is required by law for certain above-ground oil tanks and transformers located near navigable waters, and for many utilities addressing this issue is a monumental task.
Tony Picagli from United Illuminating and William Gannon from Solidification Products International teamed up to present a session on oil containment systems for substations, sharing their firsthand experiences and several options for SPCC.
Picagli, a principal electric system maintenance engineer at UI in New Haven, Connecticut, will present a few installations his company has made and the rationale behind each installation.
Gannon, president of SPI in Northford, Connecticut, will present several different designs of how SPI has helped companies with SPCC compliance “Today, every type of our product has been used in real-world spills with transformer oil, cable oil, # 6 oil, eiesel and most impressive, a fiery explosion,” Gannon said. “In all cases, no oil has ever been released.”
SPI has been installing passive oil containment systems for more than 10 years. Many companies have begun to address or are about start to comply with the SPCC regulations and need help in finding the best-suited system for their needs.
All SPI systems allow rain water to drain passively while filtering oil sheen from small drips and leaks and only seal in the event of an oil overload. SPI provides Petro-Barrier systems that drain directly into the ground in areas with good water percolation or can be drained off to a drainage area for use in poor draining soil. Petro-Pipes are used in areas with high water tables and are mounted directly into the containment wall allowing all the water on the containment floor to drain through the Petro-Pipe only sealing in the event of an oil spill.
“There are many different ways to address oil containment, and I will give options to companies that have built containment but have not addressed rainwater build up,” Gannon said.
Picagli’s work at UI concentrates on circuit breakers of all classes, gas-insulated substations and standby battery systems. Picagli is active on several Doble Engineering client committees and has been an IEEE member for over 30 years. He earned both his BSEE and MBA at The University of New Haven and is a registered professional engineer in Connecticut.
Gannon has been in the environmental industry since 1984 in different capacities, from pioneering polymer absorbent technology in 1986 to having developed SPI into a state-of-the-art oil spill containment company. He has three U.S. patents with other U.S. and foreign patents pending.
Jun 29, 2008 5:58 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency’s deadline for compliance with Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans for utilities is July 2009. Containment is required by law for certain above-ground oil tanks and transformers located near navigable waters, and for many utilities addressing this issue is a monumental task.
Tony Picagli from United Illuminating and William Gannon from Solidification Products International teamed up to present a session on oil containment systems for substations, sharing their firsthand experiences and several options for SPCC.
Picagli, a principal electric system maintenance engineer at UI in New Haven, Connecticut, will present a few installations his company has made and the rationale behind each installation.
Gannon, president of SPI in Northford, Connecticut, will present several different designs of how SPI has helped companies with SPCC compliance “Today, every type of our product has been used in real-world spills with transformer oil, cable oil, # 6 oil, eiesel and most impressive, a fiery explosion,” Gannon said. “In all cases, no oil has ever been released.”
SPI has been installing passive oil containment systems for more than 10 years. Many companies have begun to address or are about start to comply with the SPCC regulations and need help in finding the best-suited system for their needs.
All SPI systems allow rain water to drain passively while filtering oil sheen from small drips and leaks and only seal in the event of an oil overload. SPI provides Petro-Barrier systems that drain directly into the ground in areas with good water percolation or can be drained off to a drainage area for use in poor draining soil. Petro-Pipes are used in areas with high water tables and are mounted directly into the containment wall allowing all the water on the containment floor to drain through the Petro-Pipe only sealing in the event of an oil spill.
“There are many different ways to address oil containment, and I will give options to companies that have built containment but have not addressed rainwater build up,” Gannon said.
Picagli’s work at UI concentrates on circuit breakers of all classes, gas-insulated substations and standby battery systems. Picagli is active on several Doble Engineering client committees and has been an IEEE member for over 30 years. He earned both his BSEE and MBA at The University of New Haven and is a registered professional engineer in Connecticut.
Gannon has been in the environmental industry since 1984 in different capacities, from pioneering polymer absorbent technology in 1986 to having developed SPI into a state-of-the-art oil spill containment company. He has three U.S. patents with other U.S. and foreign patents pending.
Valero Refining Pay 2.0 Million in Clean Water Act Violation Fines
Valero agrees to pay nearly $2 million to settle environmental complaints
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
San Antonio Business Journal
Valero Refining Texas LP has reached a settlement with the Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency to end allegations that the oil refiner violated the Clear Water Act two years ago.
The government alleged Valero spilled 3,400 barrels of oil into the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on June 1, 2006. The ship channel flows from Tule Lake into Corpus Christi Bay and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. The channel is used heavily by barges and other commercial ships.
The EPA alleged that the oil spilled from a containment berm located on the edge of the ship channel at Valero's Corpus Christi Refinery West Plant. Valero has since removed the berm and the above-ground storage tank from the edge of the ship channel in order to prevent future spills.
Attorneys for Valero did not admit any wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, according to the consent decree.
Under the consent decree filed Tuesday in federal court in Corpus Christi, Valero has agreed to pay $1.65 million in civil penalties and invest in an additional environmental project that will cost the company $300,000. The penalty funds will be deposited in the government's Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Valero also will design and construct a boat ramp that will aid emergency-response efforts in the vicinity of where the oil spill took place.
Valero Refining Texas is a wholly owned subsidiary of San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. (NYSE: VLO).
The consent decree filed with the court is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court review. The Justice Department has posted a copy of the decree on its Web site (www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html).
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
San Antonio Business Journal
Valero Refining Texas LP has reached a settlement with the Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency to end allegations that the oil refiner violated the Clear Water Act two years ago.
The government alleged Valero spilled 3,400 barrels of oil into the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on June 1, 2006. The ship channel flows from Tule Lake into Corpus Christi Bay and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. The channel is used heavily by barges and other commercial ships.
The EPA alleged that the oil spilled from a containment berm located on the edge of the ship channel at Valero's Corpus Christi Refinery West Plant. Valero has since removed the berm and the above-ground storage tank from the edge of the ship channel in order to prevent future spills.
Attorneys for Valero did not admit any wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, according to the consent decree.
Under the consent decree filed Tuesday in federal court in Corpus Christi, Valero has agreed to pay $1.65 million in civil penalties and invest in an additional environmental project that will cost the company $300,000. The penalty funds will be deposited in the government's Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Valero also will design and construct a boat ramp that will aid emergency-response efforts in the vicinity of where the oil spill took place.
Valero Refining Texas is a wholly owned subsidiary of San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. (NYSE: VLO).
The consent decree filed with the court is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court review. The Justice Department has posted a copy of the decree on its Web site (www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)