Questions about SPCC and Mobile Refuelers

Questions about SPCC and Mobile Refuelers


Sized Secondary Containment for Mobile Refuelers

Article by: Lee Hill

March 20, 2008 Industry continues to ask what the SPCC requirements are for mobile refuelers. Many believe that amendments to 40 CFR last year completely exempted mobile refuelers from all SPCC requirements. This is not true.

It is true that the sized secondary requirements were removed for mobile refuelers. However, the general regulations in 112.7(c) of 40 CFR still apply to mobile refuelers at SPCC regulated facilities.

A section taken directly from the EPA’s website should help to clarify. I have reposted it here:

“General secondary containment should be designed to address the most likely discharge from the container and from oil transfers into or from the mobile refueler. The general secondary containment requirements:

Do not prescribe a size for a secondary containment structure but require that the containment system prevent the spilled oil from escaping the system prior to clean up occurring
Require appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
Allow for the use of certain types of active containment measures that prevent a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines”

As you can see, the property owner is still responsible for containing the spill. Many see this regulation as nebulous at best and open to wide interpretations. Conservative facilities are finding that it is easier to proceed forward with sized containment because the EPA also states that refuelers that are unmanned for periods of time would be considered an above ground storage tank (AST). This statement brings the sized containment regulations back into play.

Why were these amendments proposed? The answer is simple, the Airport Industry lobbied Congress to get an exemption. Pressure was applied to the EPA and the sized restriction requiring spill berms was removed. What the industry does not fully realize is that in the event of a spill, the EPA has the authority via the general requirements to fine, hence the nebulous nature of the regulations.

The question asked is do you roll the dice and hope against the inevitable or do you consider taking a best management practices approach and protect your site against a catastrophic spill event. The answer is that it comes down to economics. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It simply is not worth the negative impact to not prepare in advance.

In addition to this argument, it is often the case that the mobile refueler is engaged with loading racks. During this transfer process the sized containment regulations are enforced. Most sites deem it feasible to design their facility for sized containment at the loading racks and leave their mobile refuelers parked in that secondary containment area when not in use. When in use, spill kits are kept handily on board the vehicle as part of an active containment requirement.For more details on the rulings concerning mobile refuelers visit: http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/spcc/factsheet_mobile_refuelers_dec06.htm

For more information on secondary containment 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