-------
zl
o
-\
<
cc
111
HI
O
111
1-
co
15
CO
0
O)
T5
J3
0)
4 ^k
CO
CO
0
o
o
Q.
"c
0
E
"co
0
^
CO
c
0
>
0
(/)
•
CO
"c
CO
0
o
c
CO
c
0
a °
E ^
^ &
® c
CO
0
>
'co
£
CL
X
0
O)
c
o
ach
2
jt-
CL
o
5
"co
"0
-------
(/)
LU j=
>o
±+
— CO
H^
••^^
ffl
LU
O
Z
Z
—
5
e
N
<
X
c
o
E
c
0
c
0
-
E
0
1
I
_o
O
0
O
*O
0)
"c/5
o
o
0)
o
3
•o
0)
oc
UTC
•:= o
CO-—
5*2
CO
0 t
s °
£ Q.
.t± Q.O
tit
o o-o
1 1 1
O)
B_
o
CO
*5
c
CO
B
0)
"SJ
o
o
_£)
o
o
s
'•ZZ
owers
J
11-9
-------
HI
111
en
m
<
Q
N
<
X
0)
T3
0
0
CD
(A
CD
Amount
(gal/yr)
O
a
o
«•
C/)
a
Z
c
en •
^ Proces
escripi
»_
«
c
$
O
0)
c
•o
~
CO
E
3
z
o
0
CM
Paint
Residue
o
CO —
i- C
Q.—
^0.
N
X
CO
CM
T™
r-
O
O
0
«
o
o
0
0
>*
o
CD
00
n
rr
.
in
11-10
-------
§03
J O . I ! -
X 2 •§ • ? *
. O — i ^ ? i
-lilMI
;;siii!i"
r
u
111
a 55
uj
ec
o
UJ
5
* ^ »
ill
r S?
UJ
UJ
a:
UJ
to • |Noc
•ulltMul
0
—
•
a: ^
< o
S u!
11
u
u
>
3
V^
11-11
-------
co
co
DC
O
LL,
LL,
LU
LL
O
LU
O
<
O
LL
DC
o
CO
LU
H
_J
O
<
LL co
H DC
Z O
LU H
< LU<
LU ZLU
DC LUDC
HC5fc
MI CO
H^LU
uj o
O)
LLJ
(0
O Q
CO
UJ
O)
CM
II
UJ
O
GC
UJ
11-12
-------
CO
o
Q.
o
CE
O
O
<
Q
LLJ
O
O
111
DC
Q.
LU
LU
LU
(0
Q.
O
O
CO
LLJ
HI
HI
O
111
Q.
O
111
LU
O
O
DC
LLJ
CO
LU
DC
11-13
-------
11-14
-------
Q
L
PAINTS
OPEN BURNING ASH
METAL PARTS RESIDUE
REATMENT PLANT SLUDGE
t$ FOR NEW ITEMS DISPOSAL • TCLP
t FOR WASTE TREATMENT- LAND BAN
11-15
-------
DC
2
LU
OC
IT
0
Lil
DC
>
oc
<
o
z
<
o
LU
^
(/>
UJ
CO
<
I
0.
«—
^
<
cc
o
o
cc
Q.
Z
g
N
<
X
*
(/>
O
H
<
Q
Z
UJ
RECOMM
z
*!
N
<
X
*
UJ
2
H
O
f A
W/
s
o
o
*
o_
<
DC
H
NMENTAL
O
DC
>
LU
*
11-16
-------
12.1 WORKSHOP E: SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
12.2 ATTACHMENTS
Newsweek Article - "The Military's Toxic Legacy"
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Information Guide
-------
12.1 WORKSHOP E: SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
Vincent F. Zenone. On-Scene Coordinator, Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA-
Region III.
Mr. Zenone presented an overview of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) regulations. Regulations will become more stringent in accordance with the new Oil
Pollution Act. Federal facilities are not exempt from the rules and regulations of the SPCC.
In fact, if the regulations are not followed, the facilities are likely to be in the public limelight.
The Oil Pollution Act was previously called the Clean Water Act. The SPCC deals
specifically with oil. There are three basic concepts inherent to the SPCC. The regulation that
promulgates a facility under operation developing an SPCC plan is 40 CFR 112 (EPA's Oil
Pollution Regulation). The basic concepts are prevention, control, and countermeasure. A
number of facilities in Region III tend to clump these three concepts in various manners.
Prevention is what a facility does to prevent a spill from ever occurring in the first place.
Controls are engineering and operational procedures that would control a spill if it occurred.
A spill is any unplanned discharged, emission, or leak. A discharge is a spill which threatens
or enters into surface waters of the United States or adjoining shore lines. Countermeasures are
what you do if the spill occurs on the facility and is contained by the controls or escapes the
controls.
Information guidelines has been put together for EPA Region in. In Region III, virtually
every type of facility requires a SPCC Plan (40 CFR 112). Criteria for 40 CFR 112 are as
follows:
Above ground in a single tank in excess of 660 gallons.
Above ground/aggregate storage in excess of 13,020 gallons.
Underground storage in excess of 42,000 gallons.
These three criteria can be intermixed in any manner. As soon as a facility meets the
minimal requirements, all the oil storage areas need to be addressed in the SPCC Plan.
The SPCC Plan must be developed by the owner/operator of the facility. A certified
professional engineer must certify the plan indicating that it was drawn up with engineering
practices in mind and is in conformance with regulations. The SPCC Plan should be a working
document.
40 CFR 114 defines the civil penalties that EPA will access if a facility is in violation
of 40 CFR 112. The U.S. Coast Guard mandates that the National Response Center be notified
whenever a spill event occurs at a facility.
12-1
-------
The SPCC will inspect private industry unannounced. They will inspect federal facilities
on an announced basis. SPCC inspections are not time dependent, for example, spills and
discharges could happen at any time due to equipment failure.
George W. English. On-Scene Coordinator, Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA-
Region HI, Philadelphia, PA.
Mr. English presented slides of several superfund sites and discussed proper spill
prevention and response activities. The first site covered a city block and was a storage site of
11,000 drums of surfactants, oxidizers, propane, ether, acids, costics, thousands of lab jars, and
other hazardous substances. The site took one year and 3 million dollars to clean up. The site
was located in a heavily populated, industrial area near Delaware Avenue and 1-95 in central
Philadelphia. Therefore, an extensive air monitoring program was put in place. Extensive
precautions always need to be taken to prevent contamination (assure zero exposure) of any
worker cleaning up the site and precautions need to be taken for possible problems encountered
in clean up efforts such as faulty packaging, spontaneous fires, and unknown chemicals.
During clean up efforts an estimation of the likely harm to the community needs to be
made. This consists of coordinating and protecting the community and viable resources in the
area and of protecting yourself and others.
The second example presented was a hazardous waste site consisting of 5 million burning
tires. Each tire had the potential to release up to 7 quarts of oil. Therefore, there was the
possibility of groundwater contamination. To resolve this problem, a large pit was dug and a
pipe was installed where the oil could be collected via filter fence. Other problems encountered
were lack of water, large amounts of soot in equipment, heat, and remaining steel belts.
In the third example, the hazardous problem was oil coming out of a sewer outlet in the
Schuylkill River. Coast Guard approval and contractor involvement was necessary. Local
emergency planning commissions were also needed to track down the source of the spill.
Mr. English emphasized the need for training seminars and site plans of all federal
facilities. Trained personnel need to find parties responsible, and call in experts for each
specific project when necessary. First responders need to be aware of the hazards so they can
properly assess the site. Damage needs to be assessed and an incident commander needs to be
designated. For example, the fire chief is the commander in EPA Region HI. For federal
facilities, this would be different. Informational input and safety recommendations must be on
hand at each federal facility in the event of a hazardous occurrence.
Who gets to clean it up? Each time the EPA goes onto a site, they have the authority
to spend a certain amount of dollars to immediately initiate clean up. Clean up contractors need
to be in place for each federal facility. Emergency preparedness is the key. If you have a
12-2
-------
problem and you are not sure how to deal with it, call the EPA for evaluation of contingency
plans and training of first responders.
Training consists of OSHA/EPA regulation education.
1. General hazardous awareness (4 hours)
2. Police (8 hours)
3. Operations level (16 hours)
4. Emergency Medical Staff (16 hours)
5. Response in a defensive fashion (16 hour course)
6. First responder technician (24 hour course)
7. Specialist in incident command
12-3
-------
NATIONAL AFFAIRS
The Military's
Toxic Legacy
The cold war buildup fouled thousands of acres.
Now the Pentagon faces a costly fight to clean up.
BY BILL TURQUE
AND JOHN MCCORMICK
BHBo the victors in the cold war go the
• spoils—and the spoilage. It's in
H the form of fouled soil, contami-
H nated drinking water and acres of
Hi wilderness pocked with unexplod-
ed bombs. The Pentagon's arsenal, assem-
bled over 40 years to keep the lid on super-
power conflict, has left deep scars on the
home front While a generation of new
laws and a growing environmental con-
sciousness are bringing private industry
to heel, the Department of Defense a
America's moat pervasive and protected
polluter.
Now, as budget cuts draw down the mili-
tary, the United States must confront a
daunting post-cold-war cleanup. The mili-
tary's 871 domestic installations, strung
across 25 million acres of land, produce
more tons of hazardous waste each year
than the top five U.S. chemical companies
combined. Department of Defense reports
document 8,000 sites that may require
some form of environmental restoration, a
task that could take 20 years and $20 bit-
lion, or more. The issue will gain momen-
tum early next year when the first of 86
military bases, targeted for cost-cutting
closures, begin to shut down. Contaminat-
ed ground water, unlined beds of toxic
sludge and porous, carelessly constructed
landfills make their conversion to civilian
use problematic—and expensive. The coot
of their restoration could easily eclipse the
$5.6 billion in savings the closures were
expected to yield over the next two dec-
ades. "Next to outright conflict itself."
says Rep. Richard Ray, of the House
Armed Services Committee, "this is prob-
ably the No. 1 priority the Defense De-
partment has to face."
The Pentagon is legally bound to clean
the bases before they are sold. But many
will be shut for years before they are put
right. The size of the task, a plodding
bureaucracy and military reluctance to
commit its dwindling largesse to mopping
up, will add yean to the conversion. Some
communities fear a double economic hit:
20 NEWSWEEK : AUGUSTS. 1990
the loss of a military base and environmen-
tal barriers that couid keep the sites from
productive reuse. "That is not what people
had in mind when they gave up the proper-
ty for national security," says New Hamp-
shire Rep. Robert Smslh.
The military's u»xic inventory is bound-
ed neither by geography nor size; it in-
cludes notorious big messes and nasty little
surprises. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a
27-scuar»~rr,u» complex in metropolitan
Denver, was a laboratory for some of the
Army's most deadly alchemy—the produc-
tion of nerve gas. Once an economic boon
and & source of local pride (ARSENAL MEANS
Hasty swvrisis: Collecting
Capyri&ti 1990
Newsweek, Inc.
All Rights
o ,, •_». i
-------
IJi AHMYCOWSOf KWUNKKKd
sort on f he Vineyard (top), warning in Denver
DEATH FOB FOBS, AID TO DCNVKK, CTOWed a
1964 headline in the The Denver Post),
the plant produced a soup of chemical by-
products lea in vast holding ponds. Last
year visitors to South Bench at Martha's
Vineyard found military teams cautiously
sifting through sand dunes to collect 1,500
old ordnance shells. The Massachusetts re-
treat was once a World War II practice
bombing target Startled islanders who
had hauled the stray rounds home as oddi-
ties dragged them back for inspection by
military munitions experts.
Nowhere in this country is the Penta-
gon's environmental nightmare more vivid
than at the Army's Jefferson Proving
Ground (JPG) in southern Indiana. Since
1941 workers have test-fired 23 million ar-
tillery, mortar and tank rounds across 90
square miles of forests and wildflower
meadows. An estimated 1.4 million of those
test rounds haven't exploded—yet. The re-
sult is a wasteland layered with deadly
debris. Shells protrude menacingly from
the ground; others have burrowed as far as
24 feet below. There are also armor-pierc-
ing rounds made of radioactive uranium
and munitions containing white phospho-
rus, which ignites on contact with air.
"Poke your nose in the Army's business
and you might disappear," says Jane
Hance, whose farmhouse windows rattle
with the thunder of steady cannonades.
"They don't even know what they've got
over there."
Now Jefferson is on the Pentagon's clo-
sure list, but extracting this ordnance will
be no day at the beach. Shutting down the
range will save the Pentagon about $7 mil-
lion a year. Cleanup estimates run into the
billions. A study commissioned by Indiana
officials cays it would take $550 million just
to minimally sweep the site for a wildlife
preserve. Even if money were no object,
DOD officials all but admit they could nev-
er extract nil the ordnance. Townspeople
fear a mothbnlled parcel that would be
forever treacherous.
A Trail of Defense Pollution
Generating hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous
waste yearly, the military is the nation's most pervasive
and protected polluter. Some of the wont sites:
More than safety is at stake. Good jobs
like the 410 civilian positions at Jefferson
are hard to come by in nearby Madison, a
picturesque Ohio River town. Mayor Mor-
ris Wooden peppers Congress with mail-
ings that detail the absurd cost-benefit of
the closing, stamping the word STUPID in
red across the top of each. "Grade-school
math tells you the Army won't want to
remove this unexploded ordnance." &ays>
Wooden. "But we are determined not to iet
them walk away from the ground they
seized 49 years ago."
Dwate stsatoa: A curious double standard
protects the Pentagon from vigorous envi-
ronmental regulation. Ambiguities in fed-
eral law have prevented some suite and
local governments from levying civil fines
against military facilities that violate haz-
ardous-waste laws. Moreover, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency does not file civ-
il suits against other federal departments
to enforce its regulations; the Justice De-
partment, which would bring any action on
EPA's behalf, says the Constitution pre-
cludessuch suits. It insists that EPA rely on
voluntary agreements that can take years
to negotiate. The result is that cities and
states, which must comply with federal
standards at their own sewage-treatment
plants, have limited recourse when Uncle
Sam pollutes. Two bills pending in Con-
gress would strengthen EPA's hand and
allow states to penalize federal polluters.
The Pentagon is hardly alone among fed-
eral agencies in slovenly environmental
practice. The Department of Energy, the
other custodian of the cold-war arsenal.
faces a 30-year program to clear radioac-
tive waste from its 17 plants and labora-
tories. But while DOE's problems may be
more notorious, the military's mess is more
diffuse. Many of the hot sites are at large
bases, but others are wedged in asprawling
infrastructure of obscure arsenals, depots
and plants. Ninety-two Pcntni;on facilities
are on, or proposed for addition to. EPA's
Superfund list. "These places produce ma-
terials designed to kill people."
says Mark Schmitt, a soil spe-
cialist with the Minnesota Pol-
lution Control Agency. "It's not
surprising that their byprod-
ucts are often toxic."
The Pentagon says that after
a slow start, it is beginning to
make peace with the environ-
ment "Westarted from further
down the hill, but I look at the
progress we've made over the
last couple of years," says Da-
vid Berteau, the Defense De-
partment's top environmental
official. But EPA and congres-
sional regulators say DOD's
budget doesn't reflect the rhet-
oric. The White House is
proposing $817 million for envi
JAMHOnOK
12-5
NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 6. 1990 2'
-------
NATIONAL
ronmentai restoration in 1991, up more
than 30 percent from this year but still lea
than .3 percent of the total Defense budget
(Congress is expected to add more). They
talk about the environment Cheney puts
out memos, but the reality is, are they
budgeting the money?" asks one House
committee staffer.
Years of red tape and bureaucratic jaw-
boning often delay cleanups. For three
years U.S. Rep. James Saxton has tried
to get the Air Force to treat several acres
of his New Jersey district that were con-
taminated by plutonium in I960 when a
Bomarc missile warhead caught fire. The
military is willing, the task relatively in-
expensive, but nothing has happened. "I
think we've dealt with nine federal agen-
cies to iron out details," he laments. "We
get report after report But nobody does
anything."
The military's penchant for secrecy and
devotion to standardized procedure have
slowed the growth of environmental con-
sciousness. Some critics say the old cold-
war attitude has improved, but that the
Pentagon is still way behind the learning
curve. "DOD installations are what the oil
and chemical industries were 15 years
ago," says Shira Flax a toxics expert at the
Sierra Club.
Too often military intransigence poses
the greatest ecological threat Riverside,
In Tucson, 'We Were Victims of War'
Mission Manor sprang up
on Tucson's south side
after World War II, growing
into a comfortable working-
class community where His-
panic and Anglo families
could buy their first homes.
There were good jobs nearby:
US. Air Force Plant 44 was
thriving. Opened in 1961 and
run for the government by
Hughes Aircraft, the sprawl-
ing factory in the Sonoran
Desert turned out nearly
600,000 missiles over the next
40 years, including TOWs,
Mavericks and Phoenixes.
Built to destroy distant ene-
mies, the weapons may also
have been hazardous to Mis-
sion Manor. Residents charge
that Hughes dumped decades'
worth of dangerous chemicals
into the arroyos and ponds
surrounding AFP 44, poison-
ing the neighborhood's drink-
ing water and producing high
rates of cancer and other ill-
ness. A five-year-old law-
suit—amended last Novem-
ber to add new plaintiffs—is
pending. "Even though we
didn't go to war, we were vic-
tims of war." says Rose Marie
Augustine, whose husband
has bladder cancer.
Hughes officials refuse to
discuss the suit In court docu-
ments and congressional tes-
timony the company denies
causing any illness and says
past disposal practices fol-
lowed regulations in force at
the time. It adds that other
companies in the area also
contributed to toxic-pollution
problems. EPA reports depict
a witches' brew of chemical
waste at Hughes. Before it in-
stalled a modern treatment
system in 1977, it discharged
15,000 gallons of chrome- and
cyanide-contaminated water
into the desert each week. It
also used the solvent trichlo-
roethyiene (TCE)—a suspect-
ed carcinogen. By 1981, the
damage was impossible to ig-
nore. A water sample at the
plant revealed TCE at more
than 900 times the safe maxi-
mum. Later that year the
city closed six wells with high
TCE levels.
That caught Melinda Ber-
nal's attention. Former high-
school classmates in Mission
Manor, under 30 and in ro-
bust health, were falling
desperately ill. City officials
insisted that south aiders
were not at risk from TCE.
But in 1986 The Arizona Dai-
ly Star confirmed the worst
the neighborhood had con-
sumed TCE-laced watar for
yean. The paper found
five types of cancsr on the
south side—including leuke-
mia and testicular tumors-—
at rates above national norms
for certain age groups. A Uni-
versity of Arizona study of
1,200 children treated for
heart disease in Tucson be-
tween 1972 and 1986 found
elevated rates of congenital
defects in those with parents
exposed to the TCE-contami-
nated area.
If ksa* Official response
was timid and indifferent
State officials challenged the
evidence, while local politi-
-JJi *•-••- •„.
Stfj^-uw.- :.•;•' .« •
N
<£<
44
'®§*
dans, reluctant to alienate a
big employer, made them-
selves invisible. Officials lec-
tured residents on their
unhealthy lifestyles. "They
called us hysterical Hispanic i
women," says Sally Rendon,
whose son had a five-pound
tumor removed from his leg.
Neighbors who also worked
at AFP 44 feel doubly
violated. Marie Sosa, who
scrubbed missiles by hand
with TCE, says co-workers
were frequently overcome by
fumes. "You could smell the
chemicals," says Sosa, who
had breast cancer in 1984.
Procedural wrangling has
slowed the cleanup. The Air
Force has pretty much fought
us every step of the way," says
Dan .Opalski, regional EPA
project manager. In 1987,
Hughes added a system to
pump and clean 26 billion gal-
lons of ground water near the
plant The $30 million project,
paid for by the Air Force, will
take at least a decade. Plans to
decontaminate Mission Man-
or are still in limbo.
With budgets declining,
AFP 44 faces an uncertain
future: the Phoenix and Mav-
erick are not in the 1991 Pen-
tagon budget The Air Force
wants to sell, but there's no
market for a missile factory
with toxic chemicals under-
fdbt Illness and poverty from
heavy medical bills have di-
minished Mission Manor. The
case may go to trial next year,
but no one has any illusions
about the law. "A lot of people
went into this knowing they
wouldn't be alive when it was
resolved," says Bernal. "But
they wouldn't stand by and
allow their community to be
poisoned."
i Tuan*
12-6
-------
Calif., officials discovered toxic
waste in wells near the perime-
ter of Norton Air Force Base a
decade ago; the installation
sits atop the Bunker Hill aqui-
fer, primary source of drinking
water for the desert city 50
miles east of Los Angeles. Con-
cerned that an underground
plume of trichlorocthylene
(TCE>—an industrial solvent
and suspected carcinogen—
might pollute the municipal
water supply, the city asked
for quick action. The EPA add-
ed Norton to its Superfund list
in 1987, and city officials be-
lieved the problem would be
resolved with dispatch.
They were wrong. Instead,
EPA and Air Force officials
spent two years haggling over
how to investigate the extent
of the pollution. "It was just
appalling," says Riverside at-
torney Roger Luebs, part of
group monitoring the
harder vt took, the
wt fmf: Treating contaminated water in Minnesota
a citizens
dispute. "EPA
would send them letters saying the test
you propose is unsatisfactory. The Air
Force would sit on it and then send back
another letter. Just back and forth."
Meanwhile, another problem cropped up:
uranium in the well water. Some suspect a
leak in the concrete tomb under the llth
tee of the base golf course, where workers
buried radium once used to illuminate air-
craft cockpit dials.
'tmt art tratt': Air Force officials say
technical complexities and a sluggish EPA
hindered the cleanup. Last summer the Air
Force Anally agreed to install a $42 million
"pump and treat" system by 1991 to inter-
cept the plume and decontaminate the
ground water—a process that could contin-
ue for more than a decade. Norton will close
in 1994, and the Air Force says it is commit-
ted to completing the task. But Riverside
residents worry about what happens if the
contamination proves more serious than
first thought "What they think gets the job
done may be a lot less than what's really
needed," says Luebs.
Riverside is actually lucky. Because of
Norton's Superfund status, it will get first
shot at the Pentagon's environmental mon-
ey. Only a handful of bases earmarked for
closure, however, will enjoy such priority.
The Pentagon says there are more serious
problemsatscoresofbases that will remain
open. Under its "worst first" system, those
facilities will get the lion's share of the
funding. But Congress, worried that slow
cleanups will threaten economic redevelop-
ment in their districts, wants the Pentagon
to move faster. California Rep. Vic Fazio is
sponsoring a bill that would add $82 million
to help bases earmarked for shuttering. The
measure is likely to be included in the
House version ofthe 1991 Pentagon budget
Even bases with Superfund designation
will be shut long before they can be cleaned.
First on the closure list is Pease Air Force
Base near Portsmouth, N.H., north of Bos-
ton. State officials hope it can be converted
to light industry, a convention center and
a coastline wildlife refuge. But it boasts
some 20 waste sites, including toxic sludge
dumps and a fire-training area that was
repeatedly drenched with jet fuel and set
ablaze. Pease will close next March; while
decontamination at the worst sites on the
base is underway, it will be 1994 before the
Air Force even has all the problems diag-
nosed. Some 500 of Pease's 4,254 acres will
probably be cordoned oft" for yean—a pros-
pect creating congressional headaches for
the EPA. "Redeveloping Pease is the
New Hampshire delegation's big project,"
says one agency official. "We're satisfying
them—for now."
The tug of war between environmental
and economic concerns may grow more
tense, partly because the term cleanup is a
misnomer. While the worst sites might
eventually be suitable for limited surface
uses, they will never be completely safe.
Even the military's success stories can
leave frightening legacies.
Near homes at the fringe of the Twin
Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP)
north of Minneapolis-St Paul, brightly
colored well caps sprout from the ground,
marking the water-monitoring stations.
For decades plant workers hauled toxics
to sites bluntly marked DUMP on Army
maps. The liquids sank through 150 feet of
sandy soil to the metropolitan area's main
system of ground-water aquifers. In 1981
the state confronted the Army with evi-
dence of poisoned municipal wells. The
Army reluctantly began a cleanup of the
soil and ground water that mil ' •"'•
years, maybe longer.
Neighbors have adjusted. Pubk u.&^t
ings that once drew large, angry thrvm&i to
discuss the plant's hiotory of polluuca jicsw
draw only handfuls of enviromwpi*i gad-
flies. And state officials say they are satis-
fied with the Army's progress, although
other toxic sites at the plant are still being
identified. "The harder we look, the
we find," says Mark Schmitt, who ov«
the project for the state. Yet mth . ach
small improvement at the facility. M sur-
rounding suburb wants to appropriate a
piece of the land for its own ua*. Some
neighbors envision a sports complex of
baseball diamonds and soccer seidz But
the prospect of kids kicking up :. !«>8 vas
Schmitt queasy. "We're not intewated in
anything that would bring big c-^-nds
here," he says.
The dimensions of the miii'«> n «•..*! vi-
ronmental quagmire keep wid?*., iu; As its
budget shrinks, the Pentagon vwj w to add
4.5 million acres to bases in Weste.-1\ states,
arguing that the broader reach of Modem
weaponry like the F-4 bomb*- «i.*l the
Bradley Fighting Vehicle r*-^...
space for testing and training.w i
acres was once enough for a Wo. •!.
style tank and infantry extrci.v
generals say they now need 8G,SAtG
ers and environmentalists— nevei
lies—have been fighting what Uu -
a massive land grab at a tim? n
military should be scaling dt*v.,
what is happening now as a CPK •
building," says Robert Fulke^ •••-..,
zens Alert, a Nevada watchdw
pansion, they fear, will do mun than in
crease the military's presence It^Mioper
new frontiers for what has !«osf txser. i
reckless stewardship of the \&r& I
inore
4/.XX)
«r II-
<»*al-
sew as
.• Citi-
(Hip. £x-
12-7
NEWSWEEK : AUGUS't
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
July 1990
REGION III
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
TEAM .
REGION III Western Response and Oil Enforcement Section (3HW32)
841 CHESTNUT BUILDING
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL,
AND
COUNTERMEASURE
(SPCC)
INFORMATION GUIDE
12-8
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
The SPCC Plan
Key Points of Prevention Regulation
Questions Frequently Asked
Appendix A ... Certification Information
Appendix B ... Example SPCC Plan
Appendix C ... Dike Designs
Appendix D ... 40 CFR Part 110
... 40 CFR Part 112
... 40 CFR Part 114
Page
1
5
8
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G ... 33 CFR Part 153.201
FOREHARD
This document provides information to assist with the development
of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC
Plans) as required under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 112 (40 CFR Part 112). The information contained here has
been compiled from existing Regulations, EPA documents, and other
guidance documents. This document should not be relied upon as
the sole source in developing a site-specific SPCC Plan; however,
it is intended to be used as * guide in explaining the SPCC
Regulations. 40 CFR 112, which is included in Appendix E, is the
ultimate standard against which SPCC Plans will be judged. 40
CFR 112 should be used as the primary guide in developing SPCC
Plans.
12-9
-------
THE SPCC PLAN
BASIC CONCEPTS
There is no rigid format for an SPCC Plan. The guidelines
in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 112) state that
the SPCC Plan be a carefully thought out plan, prepared in
accordance with good engineering practices, and which has full
approval of management at a level which has the authority to
commit the necessary resources.
The SPCC Plan should clearly address the facility's
operating procedures which have been installed to prevent the
occurrence of oil spills.
The SPCC Plan should clearly address control measures
installed to prevent a spill from entering the navigable waters.
The SPCC Plan should clearly address counter-measures - the
plan of action to contain, cleanup and mitigate the effects of an
oil spill which impacts navigable waters.
SPILL PREVENTION
Operational errors and equipment failures are the primary
cause of spills; therefore, the SPCC Plan should contain measures
designed to avoid these errors and failures.
Operational errors can be minimized through adequate
supervision of facility process, personnel training and operator
awareness of the imperative nature of spill prevention.
Management must be committed to spill prevention and must
develop and enforce techniques for safe and efficient operation.
Equipment failures can be minimized through proper initial
selection, construction, maintenance of structural integrity and
function, and frequent inspections (visual and mechanical).
Industry standards and sound engineering practices dictate the
proper course of action in each of these areas.
12-10
-------
SPILL CONTROL
In EPA Region III, we are generally concerned with spills
from facilities where positive containment devices and systems
are practical and effective. Dikes, retaining walls, curbing,
spill diversion ponds, sumps, etc. fall into the category of
positive containment. Only where "impracticability" to provide
positive containment can be clearly demonstrated does the
facility have the option to take the "contingency" plan approach.
Impracticability to provide positive containment alludes mainly
to those cases where severe space limitations may preclude
installation of structures or equipment to prevent oil from
reaching water. Justifying "impracticability" on the basis of
financial considerations is unacceptable because the required
commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials to expeditiously
control, remove, and dispose of spilled oil would not normally
offer any significant economic advantage over providing positive
containment.
SPILL COUNTERMEASURES
Contingency plans are considered "reactive". They
generally describe after-the-fact actions and can only be
expected to mitigate the effects of a spill after it occurs.
Therefore, spill prevention and spill control must be given first
priority consideration in the preparation of the SPCC Plan.
ELEMENTS OF SPCC PLAN
While each SPCC Plan is unique, there are certain elements
which may be included almost without exception to make the SPCC
Plan comply with the provisions of the Regulation. These
elements include, but nay not be limited to, the following:
1. Name of facility - This may or may not be the business
name.
2. TV-PC of facility - This briefly describes the business
activity.
3. Data of Initial Operation - The date that the facility
began operation.
4. Location pf the facility - This nay be a word description,
or city address which can be supported by area naps.
5. Name and Address of Owner - This is often an address
renote fron the facility location.
12-11
-------
6- Designated Person Responsible for Oil Spill Prevention
Each facility should have some person with overall oil
spill responsibility. This person should be thoroughly
familiar with the Regulations and the facility's SPCC
Plan.
7. Oil Spill History - This section can be either a reactive
declaration, or a detailed history of significant spill
events which occurred in the twelve-month period prior to
the publication of the regulation (December 11, 1972 to
December 11, 1973). In the latter case, typical
information would include:
a. Type and amount of oil spilled,
b. location, date and time of spill(s),
c. watercourse affected,
d. description of physical damage,
e. cost of damage,
f. cost of cleanup,
g. cause of spill, and
h. action taken to prevent recurrence.
8. Management Approval - This ia a signed statement of a
person with the authority to commit management to
implementation of the SPCC Plan.
9. Certification - This is a statement of SPCC Plan
certification under the seal, signature, State and
registration number of a registered Professional Engineer.
The certifying engineer is not necessarily registered in
the State in which the facility is located.
NOTE; All of the aforementioned information (elements 1 through
9) may be presented on a single page of an SPCC Plan As
an example, a sheet entitled "Certification Information"
is included in this information guide as Appendix A.
10. Facility Analysis - A portion of the SPCC Plan should
include a description of facility operation which would
generally indicate the magnitude of spill potential. For
example/ the amount and type of storage, normal increments
of transfer or pattern* of usage, distribution, processes,
•te. Zn this analysis the direction of flow of spilled
oil should be indicated along with any factors which are
pertinent or influence spill potential. It is appropriate
to support this type of information by charts, tables,
plot plans, etc. to aid clarity or promote brevity.
12-12
-------
11 • Location of F^eiiitiy - The geographical location is an
integral part of the SPPC Plan. Location and topographic
maps can be critical in determining the adverse
consequences of an oil spill, sources for such maps
include: (i) U.S. Geological Survey, (2) State Highway
Department, (3) County Highway Engineer, (4) Local Land
Surveys, and (5) City Engineer.
12. Facility Inspection - An inspection report covering the
facility in terms of equipment, containment, operation,
drainage, security, etc. may provide essential information
necessary to formulate the SPCC Plan. Such reports could
reasonably be incorporated as part of the SPCC Plan. This
kind of report would best serve in the more complex
facilities and is not considered necessarily an element
common to all SPCC Plans.
13. Review of the SPCC Plan - The SPCC Plan must be reviewed
by the owner/operator of the facility at least once every
three years. This review must be documented.
SPCC EXAMPLES
Several industrial trade associations have developed suggested
SPCC Plan preparation guideline* for use by their members.
Generally, these guidelines were developed for a particular
type of facility and have been very helpful. However, care
should be exercised not to rely completely on any stereotyped
format. Each SPCC Plan is unique to the facility and requires
individual thought processes and tailoring to spill potential
specific to the facility.
The American Petroleum Institute has prepared a bulletin
entitled "Suggested Procedure for Development of Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plans" (API Bulletin D 16). This
bulletin was designed primarily for oil production facilities and
may be used in addition to the Regulations and other guidance
documents to develop an SPCC Plan that is specific to the
facility.
An example SPCC Plan for a modest-sized oil storage
facility i« included in this information guide as Appendix "B".
12-13
-------
KEY POINTS OF PREVENTION REGULATION
The Environmental Protection Agency Oil Pollution
Prevention Regulation, published in the Federal Register
addresses non-transportation-related facilities and is further
identified as Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112.
The main requirement of facilities subject to the Regulation is
the preparation and implementation of a plan to prevent any
discharge of oil into waters of the United States. The plan is
referred to as a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plan (SPCC Plan).
The following discussion will summarize key elements of
the Regulation.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the SPCC Regulation is to prevent
discharges of oil into waters of the United States. The main
thrust of the Regulation is "prevention" as opposed to "after-
the-fact", or "reactive", measures commonly described in Spill
Contingency Plans.
APPLIES TO
Owners or operators of facilities engaged in drilling,
producing, gathering, storing, processing, refining, transferring
or consuming oil and oil products, providing —
The facility is non-transportation-related (see definition
of non-transportation Appendix E, pages 12 and 13),
aboveground storage capacity of a single container is in
excess of 660 gallons, or an aggregate storage capacity
greater than 1,320 gallons, or providing that total below
ground storage capacity is greater than 42,000 gallons,
- and -
facilities, which*due to their location, could reasonably
expect spilled oil to reach waters of the United States.
12-14
-------
Requires facilities which are subject to the Regulation to
prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, prepared in accordance with
guidelines outlined in Section 112.7 of the Regulation.
WHO PREPARES THE SPCC PIAK?
Owners — operating their own facilities, or
Operators — of leased facilities, or
Persons in Charge — including departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities of State or Federal Government.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPCC PLAN
1. The SPCC Plan shall be a carefully thought out plan,
prepared in accordance with good engineering practices, and which
has the full approval of management at a level of authority to
commit the necessary resources (Section 112.7).
2. The complete SPCC Plan shall follow the sequence
outlined (Section 112.7), and include a discussion of the
facility's site-specific conformance with the appropriate
guidelines listed.
SPECIFIC
The SPCC Plan must be certified by a registered
professional engineer (Section 112.3).
A complete copy of the SPCC Plan shall be maintained at
the facility, if the facility is normally attended at least eight
hours per day, or at the nearest field office, if the facility is
not so attended. The SPCC Plan is only submitted to EPA or state
Agencies under circumstances and conditions outlined in Sections
112.3 and 112.4.
The SPCC Plan shall be made available to the EPA Regional
Administrator, or to his duly authorized representative, for on-
site review during normal working hours.
12-15
-------
If a discharge occurs ~ in excess of 1,000 gallons in a
single event, or two discharges occur in "harmful quantities'
within any twelve-month period, the owner/operator must then
submit copies of the SPCC Plan to the Regional Administrator and
to the State Agency in charge of water pollution control
activities. Other information must accompany the SPCC Plan as
outlined in Section 112.4.
After review of the SPCC Plan submitted under these
circumstances, the Regional Administrator may require an
amendment to the SPCC Plan as deemed necessary to prevent any
future discharges. Amendments must be certified per Section
112.5.
12-16
-------
QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED
Question - What facilities are subject to the 40 CTR Part 112 Regulation?
Answer - All Non-transportation-related facilities which have:
1. Aboveground oil storage capacity in excess of 1,320 gallons or
a single container (tank, drum, transformer, etc.) in excess of
660 gallons.
2. Underground oil storage capacity in excess of 42,000 gallons.
3. Facilities which due to their location and capacities in 1 and
2 could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into waters of
the United States if a spill should occur.
4. The facility must address both above ground and underground
storage capacities when subject to 40 CFR Part 112.
Question - What is considered a non-transportation-related facility?
Answer - All fixed facilities including support equipment, but excluding
interstate pipelines, railroad tank cars en route, transport
trucks en route and terminals associated with the transfer of
bulk oil to or from a water transportation vessel (see the
definition of non-transportation in the Memorandum of
Understanding at the end of the Regulation).
Question - Who determines if a facility is in need of an 8PCC Plan?
Answer - The owner/operator as required by the Regulation (Section
112.3).
Question - What determines reasonabilit??
Answer - Location of the facility in relation to a stream, ditch, storm
sewer, distance, volume of material, drainage patterns, soil
conditions, etc. ignoring manmade structures that would inhibit
the flow of oil.
Question - What constitutes an 8PCC Plan?
Answer - A detailed, site-specific written description of how a
facility•• operation complies with the guidelines suggested in
the Regulation (Section 112.7). The SPCC Plan must also be
certified by a registered Professional Engineer.
A sketch or drawing of the site will assist in identification
of the implementation.
.12-17
-------
•lestion - Who is required to prepare the 8PCC Plan?
Answer - The owner/operator is required to prepare a written SPCC Plan
which must be certified by a Professional Engineer (Section
112.3 and 112.7).
Question - Why does the SPCC Plan have to be certified?
Answer - To assure that good engineering practices are followed in
preparing the SPCC Plan (Sections 112.3 and 112.7).
Question - What are the requirements for certification?
Answer - The engineer should be familiar with the provisions of 40 CFR
Part 112, must have examined the facility, and be a registered
professional engineer in at least one state. It is not
necessary to be registered in the state in which the facility
is located. The engineer's name, registration number and state
of registration shall be included as part of the SPCC Plan
(Section 112.3).
Question -
Answer -
When the SPCC Plan is completed and certified, is it sent to EPA
for review?
No, a certified copy of the SPCC Plan is required to be
available at the facility for EPA on-site review, if the
facility is attended at least eight hours a day. If the
facility is not attended, then the SPCC Plan shall be kept at
the nearest company office.
Question - Who reviews the SPCC Plan and how often is the SPCC Plan reviewed?
Answer - The owner/operator is required to review the SPCC Plan at least
once every three years. This review must be documented.
Question - when must an SPCC Plan be anended?
Answer - The owner/operator must amend the SPCC Plan whenever there is a
change in the facility's design, construction, operation or
maintenance which affects the facility's potential for
discharge into navigable waters of the United States or
adjoining shorelines (Section 112.5).
Amendments must be certified by a Professional Engineer in
accordance with Section 112.3.
12-18
-------
Question - Whan * production lease consists of several operations, such a.
walls/ oil/water separators, collection systems, tank batteries,
etc., does each operation require a separate SPCC Plan?
Answer - No, one SPCC Plan may include all operations within a single
geographical area, however, each operation must be addressed in
the SPCC Plan.
Question - Is every loss of oil or oil product subject to a penalty?
Answer - A discharge is defined in the Clean Water Act (CWA) as
including, but not limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping that enters the waters
of the U.S. or on the adjoining shorelines in harmful
quantities.
(1) If a spill occurs and enters the water, a penalty will be
assessed.
(2) If a spill occurs and is prevented from entering the
water, a penalty may or may not be assessed.
Question - What is considered to be a baraful quantity?
Answer - A harmful quantity is defined in the Regulation as a discharge
which affects the water quality standards, or causes a film or
sheen upon or discoloration of the water or adjoining
shorelines, or cause an emulsion or sludge to be deposited
beneath the surface or the water or upon adjoining shorelines.
Question - What is considered navigable waters?
Answer - The Clean Water Act (CWA) defines navigable waters as the
waters of the United States. The Coast Guard interpretation
not only includes the traditional navigable waters, but all
streams, creeks, lakes, and ponds connected to the tributary
system in a river basin.
Question - Is one spillage of oil into a municipal storm sever a violation?
Answer - If oil reaches "navigable water" a violation has occurred and
penalties will result. The facility spilling the oil must also
have an SPCC Plan 'implemented. A properly engineered and
implemented SPCC Plan would prevent * .spill from occurring and
entering navigable waters.
Question - What penalties are assessed?
Answer - Section 112.6 of 40 CFR authorizes the Regional Administrator
to assess a civil penalty up to $5,000 per day for each
violation. The guidance for determining penalties is addressed
in 40 CFR Part 114.
12-19
-------
uestion - What should be reported to the National Response center (NRC)
1-800-424-8802 (toll free)?
Answer - Discharge of oil involving U.S. waters must be reported to the
NRC by the person in charge of the vessel, facility or vehicle
from which the discharge occurs. It is also desired that
threats of discharges or releases be reported. The procedures
for such notices are set forth in 33 CFR Part 153, 40 CFR Part
110, 40 CFR Part 112 and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
Question - Do tanks have to be tested?
Answer - Yes, the Regulation recommends periodic testing of tanks, tank
supports and foundations (Section 112.7).
Question - Does a State Spill Plan meet the requirements of a Federal SPCC
Flan?
Answer - Not necessarily; if the State Spill Plan is intended to be used
as the Federal SPCC Plan, it must meet or exceed all the
requirements under 40 CFR Part 112. The State Spill Plan must
express clearly that it addresses both the state and Federal
Regulations.
Question - Where can I get additional information?
.nswer - For additional information concerning SPCC regulations, contact
the SPCC Coordinator by writing or telephone at the following
address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
SPCC Coordinator- Vincent Zenone (3HW32)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3038
12-20
-------
APPENDIX
A
12-21
-------
following is an example of a certification page for an SPCC Plan.
CERTIFICATION INFORMATION
A. Name of Facility - Tex's Bulk Storage Terminal
B. Type of Facility - Commercial (Storage and distribution)
C. Date of Initial Operation - January 31, 1970
D. Location of Facility - 100 Everspilload, Oily City, USA
E. Name and Address of Owner - SJ Oi
P.O.
Crude
(Seal)
DATE:
F. Designated Person
NAME
G. Oil Spill History - Th
significant oil spill
to December 11, 1973.
H. Management approva
management at a leve
necessary resou
77000
11 Prevention -
has experienced no
ng the twelve months prior
roval is extended by
hority to commit the
Mr. John Paul Jones
President - SJ Oil Company
hereby certify that I have examined the
ng familiar with the provisions of 40 CFR
that this SPCC Plan has been prepared in
good engineering practices.
NAME:
SIGNATURE
REGISTRATION NO.:
STATE:
Appendix A pg. 1 of 1
12-22
-------
APPENDIX
B
12-23
-------
EXAMPLE
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN
TEX'S BULK STORAGE TERMINAL
100 Everspill Road
Post Office Box 311(K)
Oily City, USA 12345
Telephone (123) 222-2*
SJ Oil
P.O.
Crude City
Box
Compar
Steve
CERTIFICATION: I hereby c
being familiar with the pr
Plan has been prepared
Engineer: Christoph
signature:
License Number: 98765
Date: 6/11/74
have examined the facility, and
CFR Part 112, attest that this spec
"with good engineering practices.
State: Of The Union
(seal)
Appendix B pg 1 of 7
12-24
-------
1. NAME OF OWNERSHIP
Name: SJ Oil Company - Tax's Bulk Storage Terminal
100 Everspill Road
Post Office Box 311(K)
Oily City, USA 12345
Telephone: (123) 222-2222
Manager:
Steve Bob Doe
505 Oil Road
Oily City, USA 12345
Telephone: (123) 222-3333
Owner:
SJ Oil Company
P.O. Box 00002
Crude City, USA
77000
Other Personnel:
Service Area: North-West
2. DESCRIPTION OT TACILI
Tex1* Bulk Storage
distribute* petrole,
No. 2 fuel oil.
adjacent highway dr
facilities.
Fixed Storage:
Total:
Vehicles:
Secretary-Boo!
Dispatcher
Transport
(3) Delive
the SJ Oil Company handles, stores and
Lin the form of motor gasoline, kerosene, and
Lng drawing shows the property boundaries and
las, onsite buildings, and oil-handling
(2) 100,00"o gallon vertical tanks (premium gasoline)
(2) 100,000 gallon vertical tanks (regular gasoline)
(2) 20,000 gallon vertical tanks (No. 2 fuel oil)
(1) 20,000 gallon vertical tank (kerosene)
460,000 gallons
(1) Transport Truck
(4) Tankwagon Delivery Trucks
Appendix B pg 2 of 7
12-25
-------
Appendix B pg 3 of 7
12-26
-------
3. POTENTIAL 8PZLL VOLUMES AND RATES
Potential Situation Volume Release^
100,000 gallons
Complete failure of a
full tank
Partial failure of a
full tank
Tank overfill
Failure of a pipe
Leaking pipe or valve
packing
Truck loading area
1-99,000 gallons
1 to several gallons
Up to 20,000 gallon
Several ounces
several gallons
1 to sever
4. SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
A. STORAGE TANKS
1)
2)
3)
Each tank is UL-142
Each tank is equipped
capacity is suitsftle fol
A dike surro
been constru
engineering
area) is
(100,000
vertical
(estimated
2-inch water
Rate of Spilling
Instantaneous
Gradual to
instantaneous
Up to 1 gallon
per minute
Ions per
d
to 1 gallon
er minute
Up to 1 gallon
per minute
(aboveground use).
a direct reading gauge. Venting
fill and withdrawal rates.
4)
5)
installation. Each dike wall has
Tgned to Local, State, and Federal
, The contained volume (height vs.
on the single largest tank within
allowance is made for all additional
tcement volumes below the dike height
Cquid level), and for precipitation. A
Ls located at the lowest point within the
dike enclosure, 'and it connects to a normally closed gate-
valve outside the dike. The gate valve is manually operated.
Rainwater contained within this dike is examined prior to
release to ensure that harmful quantities of oil are not
discharged.
After a fill pips is used, a bucket is placed under it to
catch any product that might drip from the pips.
There are no buried or partially buried tanks at this facility,
Appendix B pg 4 of 7
12-27
-------
6) Tanks are subject to periodic integrity testing and inspection
Tank supports, foundations, and piping are included in these
inspections, and proper records are kept. The exterior of the
tanks are examined frequently.
7) Materials stored on the site for spill countenneasures include
bagged absorbent, sorbant pads and booms. There is a sand-filled
catchment basin for minor, routine spillage at loading pump
intakes and at loading rack. This catchment will contain greater
than the largest compartment of the largest tank truck loaded or
unloaded at this facility. Sand will be replaced as needed, and
any oil-contaminated sand is disposed of pcjbperly.
8) Failsafe Engineering
a) Tanks are equipped with high-level
b) Tanks are equipped with visual
B. FACILITY TRANSFER OPERATIONS
1) Buried pipes are properly profee^edVagainst corrosion. If a
section of buried pipe is e)ip$s^d«qa«ision and contraction.
4) Aboveground pipelines an£(valves are examined periodically to
assess, their coni
5) Warning signsf a»e ppaSy as needed to prevent vehicles from
damaging pidtlinesl
6) Curbings afc* i/ftalle4 at the vehicle loading racks.
5. SPILL COUNTEHMlAflUWSS
The front highway drainage ditch on the property's northern bovwtery
crosses the highway through a culvert headed eastward and eventually leads
to Carol Creek located approximately one half mile distant. Emergency
containment action will constitute the erection of an earthen dam and
placement of absorbent materials at the entrance to the culvert. Sorbent boom
will be strategically placed on Carol Creek upstream from dead duck pond to
contain oil which will be recovered and disposed of properly. Manpower
materials and equipment are committed to ensure this contingency plan is
implemented in a manner that no oil reaches dead duck pond (an environmentally
sensitive ecosystem).
Appendix B pg 5 of 7
12-28
-------
PAST SPILL EXPERIENCE
None
SECURITY
a) The bulk plant is surrounded by steel security fencing, and the
gate is locked when the plant is unattended.
All valves which will permit direct outward flow of a tank's
contents and dike drain valves are locked, in the closed position
and the electrical controls for the pumpy are locked in the off
position when not in use.
b)
c)
d)
8. PERSONNEL
All personnel have been instructed b
the following spill prevention
The loading and unloading connections
when not in service.
Two area lights are located in su'
illuminate the office and stor
a)
b)
c)
d)
f)
No tanks or compartments
reserves.
No pump operations w
Warning signs ar
before vehicle d
Training ha
retrieval
spill has
Instructi
the office
Response Cent
es are capped
n so as to
management and rehearsed •
sure plans:
filled without prior checking
unless attended constantly.
to check for line disconnections
oil-spill prevention, containment, and
a "dry-run" drill for an on-site vehicular
ed.
ne numbers have been publicized and posted at
the report of a spill to the National
the State.
Instructions and company regulations which relate to oil spill
prevention and countermeasure procedures have been conspicuously
posted.
Appendix B pg 6 of 7
12-29
-------
. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
1) Steve Bob Doe, Facility Manager
2) National Response Center
3) The State
B. CLEANUP CONTRACTORS
1) E-Z Clean Environmental
2) 0. K. Engineers, Inc.
C. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
1) Oily City Equipment Co.
2) Northwestern Sorbent Co.
10. REVIEW DATES
6/08/77 (signature)
6/01/80 (signature)
6/10/83 (signature)
6/09/86 (signature)
(123) 222-3333
(800) 424-8802
(123) 555-2221
123) 222-3038
222-2207
(123) 222-8372
(123) 222-9217
Appendix B pg 7 of 7
12-30
-------
APPENDIX
C
12-31
-------
EXAMPLE OP DESIGN: HORIZONTAL TANKS ONLY
45 FT.
30 FT.
NOT TO SCALE
calculations for this example:
a) Minimum containment volume is single largest tank within dike:
15,000 gal X .1337 cu.ft. - 2,006 cu. ft.
gal
b) Available area: 30 ft. X 45 ft. • 1,350 sq. ft.
c) Average Dike height "h"
"h" X 1,350 sq. ft. - 2,006 cu. ft.
"h" • 2,006 CU. ft. - 1,350 sq. ft.
"h" - 1.486 ft. (17.8 inches + freeboard)
Appendix C pg 1 of 2
12-32
-------
2. EXAMPLE OF DESIGN: HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TANKS
10, 000
GAL HORZ.
15,000 GAL HORZ.
15,000 GAL HORZ.
(2) 20, 000
GAL
30 FT.
75 FT.
NOT TO SCALE
Calculations for this example*
a) The minimum containment volume is that of the singly largest tank:
20
b)
c)
20,000 gallons X .1337 cu. ft. /gallon - 2,674 cu. ft.
Available dike area, this example: 30* X 75' • 2,250 sq. ft.
Observe that some volume of the vertical tanks go below the dike
wall height. This volume of the second 20,000 gallon tank (and
any additional verticals) assumed QO£ ruptured must be
considered.
Appendix C pg 2 of 2
12-33
-------
APPENDIX
D
12-34
-------
§ 110.1
PAftT 110—OISCXAIGI 0» OIL
See.
110.1 Definitions
110.2 Applicability.
110.3 DUcharte into navifablc waters at
such quantities M may be harmful
110.4 Dbcharre into contiguous cone at
such quantities ai may be harmful.
110.3 Discharre beyond contiruous tone of
such quantities a* may be harmful.
110.4 DUcharie prohibited.
110.7 Exception for vesatt entitle*.
110.8 Dispenama.
110.9 Demonstration projects.
; 10.10 .Votict.
110.11 Discharge at deepwaur ports.
Atmiotrrr See*. 311 (6X3) and (bK4) and
SOKa). Federal Water Pollution Control
ACL M amended (33 UAC. 1331 (bX3> and
(bX4> and 13Sl(a>K ate !KmM3) of tat
Deepwaier Pen Act of 1174 (33 U.3.C.
1917(mX3)K E.0.11738. U PR 21243.3 CPU
Paru im-im Come., p. 7ft.
Soomcc S3 PR 10719. Apr. i. 1M7. unies*
otherwise noted.
1110.1 Dcflnitiom.
As used in this part, the following
terms shall have the meaning indlcat-
ed below:
-Act- means the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act. as amended, 34
U.S.C. 1251 et aee> also known as the
Clean Water Ace
"Administrator" means the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPAX
•• Applicable water quality standards"
means State water quality standards
adopted by the State pursuant to sec-
tion 303 of the Act or promuliated by
EPA pursuant to that section:
"Contiguous tone" meant the entire
zone established or to be established
by the United States under article 24
of the Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone;
"Deepwater port" means an offshore
facility as defined In section (3X10) of
the Deepwaier Port Act of 1974 (33
U.S.C. 1502(10)):
"Discharge." when used in relation
to section 311 of the Act. includes, but
is not limited to. any spilling, leaking.
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying.
or dumping, but excludes (A) dis-
charges tn compliance with a permit
under section 402 of the Act dis-
charges resulting from circumstances
Identified and reviewed and made a
part of the public record with respect
to a permit issued or modified under
section 402 of the Act. and subject to a
condition in such permit, and (C) con-
tinuous or anticipated intermittent
discharges from a point source, identi-
fied in a permit or permit application
under section 402 of the Act. that are
caused by events occurring within the
scope of relevant operating or treat-
ment systems:
"MARPOL 73/78" means the Inter-
national Convention for the Preven-
tion of Pollution from Ships. 1973. as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 relat-
ing thereto. Annex I. which regulates
pollution from oil and which entered
into force on October 2.1983;
"Navigable waters" means the
waters of the United States, including
the territorial seas. The term includes:
(a) All waters that are currently
used, were used In the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or for-
eign commerce. Including all waters
that are subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide:
(b) Interstate waters. Including
interstate wetlands;
(c) All other waters such as Ultra-
state lakes, riven, streams (Including
Intermittent streams), mudflats, sand-
flats, and wetlands, the use. degrada-
tion, or destruction of which would
affect or could affect Interstate or for-
eign commerce lncUr"*$g any such
waters:
(1) That are or could be used by
interstate or foreign travelers for rec-
reational or other purposes;
(2) From which flan or shellfish are
or could be taken and sold In inter-
state or foreign commerce:
12-35
Appendix D pg 1 of 4
-------
§110.2
(3) That are used or could be used
for industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce:
(d) AJ1 impoundment! of waters oth-
erwise defined u navigable waters
under this section:
(«> Tributaries of waters identified
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
seetioa including adjacent wetland*;
and
(f ) Wetlands adjacent to waters Iden-
tified In paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section; Provided. That watte
treatment systems (other than cooling
ponds meeting the criteria of this
paragraph) art not water* of the
United States:
"NPDES" means National Polluunt
Discharge Elimination System:
"Offshore facility" means any facili-
ty of any kind located in. on. or under
any of the navigable waters of the
United States, and any facility of any
kind that is subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States and Is located in.
on, or under any other waters, other
than a vessel or a public vessel:
"Oil", when used in relation to see-
lion 311 of the Act means oil of any
kind or to any form. Including, but not
tinted to. petroleum, fuel oil. sludge.
oil refuse, and oQ nixed with waste*
other than dredged spoil "OH." when
used In relation to section l*xmX3> of
the Deepwaur Port Act of 1W. hat
the meaning provided in section 3(14)
of the Deepwater Port Act of lf7«
"Onshore faculty" neans any faefll*
ty (Including. but not United to. motor
vehicles and roUlnc stock) of any kind
located to, on. or under any land
within the United States, other than
submerged land:
-Person- Include* aa individual.
firm, corporation, association, and a
partnership!
-Public veaaer means a vessel owned
or bareboat Chartered «nd operaud by
the United Bute*, or by i State or po*
Utfeal MMMstaa thereof, or by a for*
•lea nation, except wliee men veseeJ to
mean* an Iridescent appear*
ance on the surface of water:
•SludsX* m«anc an atirscato of ofl
or ofl and other matter of any kind tat
any fora otter than dredged spoO
having • combined specific gravity
equivalent to or greater than -water:
40 CFI Ch. I (7-1-S7 Edition)
"United States" means the States.
the DUtrict of Columbia, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam.
American Sajnoa, the Virgin Islands.
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands;
"Vessel" means every description of
watercraft or other artificial eontrtv*
ance used, or capable of being used, as
a means of transportation on water
other than a public vessel: and
"Wetlands" means those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency or du-
ration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do sup-
port, a prevalence of vegetation typi-
cally adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally Include
playa lakes, swamps, marshes, bogs
and similar areas such as sloughs, prai-
rie potholes, wet meadows, prairie
river overflows, mudflats, and natural
ponds.
«II«J Applicability
The regulations of this part apply to
the discharge of oO prohibited by see*
tion 311(bx3> of the Act. This Includes
certain discharges Into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States
or adjoining shorelines or into or upon
the waters of the contiguous tone, or
In connection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deepwater Port Act of 1*74. or
that may affect natural resources be*
longing to. appertaining to, or under
the exclusive management authority
of the United States (Including re*
sources under the Magnueoa Fishery
Conservation and Management Aetx
The regulations of this part also
define the term "discharge- for pur-
poses of section IKaX*) of the Deep*
water Port Act of 1*74. as pwided
under I lle.ll of this part.
HIM Discharge tote Mvtgafcie
For purposes of seetioa SlUb) of the
Act. discharges of oO Into or open the
navigable waters of the United States
or adjoining shorelines to
ties that It has been determined: mas'
be harmful to the nubile health or
welfare of the United States, except as
12-36
Appendix D pg 2 of 4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
provided in f 110.7 of this part. Include
discharges of oil that:
(a) Violate applicable water quality
standards, or
(t» Cause a film or sheen upon or
discoloration of the surface of the
water or adjominc shorelines or cause
a sludee or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the water or
upon adjominc shorelines.
f 110.4 Dfscherf* into contiguous ton* of
tuch quantities u may b« harmful.
For purposes of section 311(b> of the
Act. discharges of oil Into or upon the
waters of the contiguous zone in such
quantities that It has been determined
may be harmful to the public health
or welfare of the United States, except
as provided in I 110.7. Include dis-
charges of oil that:
(a) Violate applicable water quality
standards, or
(b) Cause a film or sheen upon or
discoloration of the surface of the
water or adjoining shorelines or cause
a sludge or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the water or
upon adjoining shoreline*.
11104 Discharge beread contiyuow see*
of »uch e.uanUti«* as may be harmful
For purposes of section 31Kb) of the
Act. discharges of oil Into or upon
waters seaward of the contiguous son*
in connection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deepwater Port Act of 1*74. or
that may a/feet natural resources be-
longing to. appertainlnc to. or under
the exclusive management authority
of the United State* n~*i,uit*f r*.
source* under the Kafnuaon Fishery
• Conservation and Management Act) la
such quantities that tt bat been deter-
mined nay be harmful to the publle
health or welfare of the UnlUd State*.
except at provided IB 1110.7. include
dl*charg**ofoathae
(a) Violate applkabl* water quality
standard*, or
(b) Can** a mm or aheen upon or
discoloration of the furfact of th*
water or adjoining shoreline* or eaua*
a sludge or emulstoo to b* deposited
beneath th* surface of th* waur or
upon adjoining shoreline*.
§ 110.10
9 I10.S Discharge prohibited.
As provided In section 311(bX3> of
the Act. no person shall discharge or
cause or permit to be discharged into
or upon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines
or into or upon the waters of the con-
tiguous zone or into or upon waters
seaward of the contiguous zone In con-
nection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deep water Port Act of 1974. or
that may affect natural resources be-
longing to. appertaining to, or under
the exclusive management authority
of the United State* (including re-
sources under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act)
any oil in such quantities as may be
harmful as determined in If 110.3.
110.4. and 110.3. except as the same
may be permitted in the contiguous
zone and seaward under MARPOL 73 /
78. Annex I. as provided In 33 CFR
131.09.
i I !«.? Exception for rcucl engines.
For purpose* of section 31 Kb) of the
Act. discharges of oil from a properly
functioning vessel engin* an not
deemed to bt harmful, but discharge*
of such oQ accumulated In a vessel's
bilge* shall not be so exempt.
1 1104
Addition of dlspenant* or emulslfl-
en to OH to be discharged that would
circumvent th* provision* of this part
(•prohibited.
HIM Dew«MSratie« projects.
Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion* of this earc. the Administrator
may permit the discharge of ofl. under
section 311 of th* Act, tat connection
with research, demonstration projects,
or studies relating to the prevention.
control, or abatement of ofl pollution.
illt.lt Watts®.
Any penoa la chars* of a vessel or
of an onihor* or offahor* facility
•hall, a* soon a* he or ah* ha* knowl-
edge of any discharge of ofl from such
vesaai or fadUty ta violation of I ilAJ.
notify th* National Re-
sponse Center (KRO (SOO-424-MOt ta
the WashlngtOB, DC metropolitan
12-37
Appendix D pg 3 of 4
-------
§ no.n
area. 436-2675). If direct reporting to
the NRC la not practicable, report*
may be made to the Coast Guard or
EPA predestinated On-Seene Coordi-
nator (OSO for the geographic are*
where the discharge occurs. All such
report! shall be promptly relayed to
the NRC. If It Is not possible to notify
the NRC or the predesignated DCS
immediately, reports may be made Im-
mediately to the nearest Coast Guard
unit, provided that the person In
charge of the vessel or onshore or off-
shore facility notifies the NRC as soon
as possible. The reports shall be mad*
in accordance with such procedures a*
the Secretary of Transportation may
prescribe. The procedures for such
notice are set forth In U.S. Coast
Guard regulations. 33 CFR Part 153.
Subpart B and in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Con-
tingency Plan. 40 CFR Part 300. Sub-
pan E. (Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under the
control number 2050-0046)
1110.11 Discharge at dctpwattr ports.
(a) Except a* provided In paragraph
of the Deepwater Port Act of
1974, the urn "discharge" shall In-
clude but not be limited to. any spill*
inc. leaking, pumping, pouring, emit*
tint, emptying, or dumping into tht
marine environment of quanUUe* of
oilthac
(1) Violate applicable water quality
standards, or
(3) Cause a fflm or sheea upon or
discoloration of the surface of the)
water or adjoining shorelines or causo
a studft or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the waur or
upon adjoining shorelines.
(b) Tor purposes of section IftmXI)
of tht Deepwater Pen Act of 1974. the
Urn "discharge" excludes:
(1) Discharges of oQ from a property
functioning vessel testo*. (infludlng
an engine on * 0uabe vessel), but not
discharges of such oil accumulated to
a vessel's bOgee (unless In eompllane*
with MARPOL 7I/1& Annex XX and
(2) Discharges of ofl permitted under
MARPOL nm. Annex L
12-38
Appendix D pg 4 of 4
-------
APPENDIX
B
12-39
-------
40 CFR Ch. I (7.M7 Edition)
PART 112— OIL POLLUTION
PREVENTION
See.
112.1 General applicability.
m.J Definition*.
112.3 Requirement* for preparation and
implementation of Spill Prevention Con-
trol and Countermeuure Plant.
112.4 Amendment of SPCC Plans by Re-
f lonal Administrator.
112.J Amendment at Spill Prevention Con-
trol and Counurm«uur« Plam by
owner* or operators.
112.8 Civil penaltlet for violation of oil pol-
lution prevention refutation*,
112.7 Guideline* for Ut« preparation and
Implementation of a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan.
BETWCO TMt SCCHCTAKT or TMANSPORT*-
TICK AKB TMC ADMrXISTBATO* O? TXI EN-
VmONMCTTAl PSOTtCTIOM ACtXCT
AtrrHomrr Sees. llKjxixC). 31KJX2).
SOKa). Federal Water Pollution Cdntrol Act
(see. 2. Pub. L. 12-SOO. M Sut. IK ct aeq.
(33 U.S.C. 1231 et aeq.)K aee. 4(bi. Pub. L.
»2-500. M Sut 197: 5 V3.C. Reort. Plan ol
1170 No. ! (1170). J3 PR 1M23. 3 CFR lt«*-
1970 Compu E.O. 117SS. 3« FR 21243, 3
CFR.
Sooxcr M FR 341U. Dee. 11. irrj. unl«M
othcnrtat noud.
I Mil CeiMnJ •pplinbiiltv.
(a) This put esublishct procedures.
method* and equipment and other re-
quirement* for equipment to prevent
the discharge of oil from non-trans-
portatlon-relat«d onshore and off*
shore faculties Into or upon the nart-
cable vattrs of UM United SUMS or
adjoininc shoreline*.
(b) Except M provided la paragraph
(d) of this section, title pan applle* to
owners or operators of non-transport*-
Uon-related onshore and offshore fa-
cilities encaged In drflllnc. producing.
gathering, storing, processing, refla*
ing, transferring, distributing or coo*
suming ofl and ofl products, and
which, due to their location, could rea-
sonably be expected to discharge oO m
harmful quantities, as defined In Part
lie of this chapter, into or upon th«
navigable waters ol the United States
or adjoining shoreline*.
(0 At provided to section 113 (M
Stat ITS) departmentt. agencies, and
tnstrumeaullUea of the Federal
12-AO
Appendix E pg 1 of 13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
eminent are subject to these regula-
tions to the same extent u any
person, except for the provisions of
IU2.6.
(d) This part does not apply to:
(1) Facilities, equipment or oper-
ations which are not subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the Environment*! Pro-
tection Agency, as follows:
(t) Onshore and offshore facilities.
which, due to their location, could not
reasonably be expected to discharge
oil Into or upon the navigable waters
of the United States or adjoining
shorelines. This determination shall
be based solely upon a consideration
of the geographical, locational aspects
of the facility (such as proximity to
navigable waters or adjoining shore-
lines, land contour, drainage, etc.) and
shall exclude consideration of man-
made features such as dikes, equip-
ment or other structures which may
serve to restrain, hinder, contain, or
otherwise prevent a discharge of oil
from reaching navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines:
and
(U) Equipment or operations of ves-
sels or transportation-related onshore
and offshore facilities which are sub-
ject to authority and control of the
Department of Transportation, u de-
fined in the Memorandum of Under-
standing between the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection
Agency, dated November 24. If7l. 38
FR 24000.
(2) Those facilities which, although
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
meet both of the following require*
menu:
(1) The underground burled storage
capacity of the facility to 42.000 gal*
Ions or less of oU. and
(11) The storage capacity, which to
not buried, of the faculty to 1420 gal-
lon* or less of ofl. provided no sing)*
container has a capacity in excess of
(e) This part provides fur the prep*
ration and Implementation of 8001
Prevention Control and Countermeae.
ure Plans prepared In accordance with
1112.1. designed to complement exist*
ing laws, regulations, rules, standard!*
policies and procedures pertaining to
§ 112.2
safety standards, fire prevention and
pollution prevention rules, so as to
form a comprehensive balanced Feder-
al/State spill prevention program to
minimize the potential for oil dis-
charges. Compliance with this part
does not In any way relieve the owner
or operator of an onshore or an off-
shore facility from compliance with
other Federal. State or local laws.
(31 FR 34 IBS. O«e. U. 1973. u *m«nded at
41 Fit 12637. Mar. 38 187«1
1112.2 Definition*.
For the purposes of thU pare
(a) "Oil" means oil of any kind or in
any form. Including, but not limited to
petroleum, fuel oil. sludge, oil refuse
and oil mixed with wastes other than
dredged spoiL
(b) "Discharge" includes but is not
limited to. any spilling. leaking, pump.
ing. pouring, emitting, emptying or
dumping. For purposes of this part,
the term "discharge" shall not include
any discharge of oil which is author-
ized by a permit issued pursuant to
section 13 of the River and Harbor Act
of ISM (30 Stat. 1121. 33 U.3.C. 407).
or sections 402 or 40S of the FWPCA
Amendments of 1972 (86 SUt 118 et
seq.. 33 U.3.C. 1231 et seq.).
(c) "Onshore facility" means any fa-
cility of any kind located In. on. or
under any land within the United
States, other than submerged lands.
which to not a transportation-related I
faculty.
(d) "Offshore faculty" means any fa- I
cfllty of any kind located In. on, or
under any of the navigable waters of
the United State*, which to not a
transportation-related facility.
(e) "Owner or operator" means any
person owning or operating an on-
shore faculty or an offshore faculty.
and to the case of any abandoned off-
shore faefllty. the person who owned
or operated such faculty Immediately
prior to such abandonment.
(ft "Person" '-jgudts an Individual. ,
flra. eorpMAttdA. amociatlon. and a ;
partnership.
(g) "Regional Administrator*, means
the Regional Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, or his
rtetlgnee. m and for the Region In
which the facttlty to located.
Appendix E pg 2 of 13
-------
§112.3
No SPCC Plan shaU be effective
to satisfy the requirements of this
part unless It has been reviewed by a
Registered Professional afeflneer and
certified to by such Professional End*
neer. By means of this certification
12-42
Appendix E pg 3 of 13
-------
Environmental Protection Agoncy
the engineer, having examined the fa-
cility and being familiar with the pro-
visions of this pan. shall attest that
the SPCC Plan has been prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practices. Such certification shall In
no way relieve the owner or operator
of an onshore or offshore faculty of
his duty to prepare and fully Imple-
ment such Plan in accordance with
I 112.7. as required by paragraphs
-------
«.nx4
(5) Maximum slorare or
capacity of the facility and normal
daily throughput:
(6) Description of the facility. In-
cluding maps, flow diagrams, and topo-
graphical maps:
(7) A complete copy of the SPCC
Plan with any amendments:
(8) The causecs) of such spill, includ-
ing a failure analysis of system or sub-
system In which the failure occurred:
(9) The corrective actions and/or
countermeasures taken. Including an
adequate description of equipment re-
pairs and/or replacements:
(10) Additional preventive measures
taken or contemplated to minimize the
possibility of recurrence:
(11) Such other Information as the
Regional Administrator may reason-
ably require pertinent to the Plan or
spill event.
of
into section, the Regional Administra-
tor may require the owner or operator
of such facility to amend the SPCC
Plan tf he finds that the Plan do«a not
meet the requirements of this part or
that the amendment of the Plan to
necessary to prevent and to contain
discharges of of) from web faculty.
(t) When the Regional Adminttn*
tor proposes to require an amendment
46 CFB Ch. i (7-1-67 Edition)
to the SPCC Plan, he ihaJJ notify the
facility operator by certified mail ad-
dressed to. or by personal delivery to.
the facility owner or operator, that he
proposes to require an amendment to
the Plan, and shall specify the terms
of such amendment. It the facility
owner or operator is a corporation, a
copy of such notice shall also be
mailed to the registered agent, if any.
of such corporation in the State where
such facility is located. Within 30 days
from receipt of such notice, the facili-
ty owner or operator may submit writ-
ten information, views, and arguments
on the amendment. After considering
all relevant material presented, the
Regional Administrator shall notify
the facility owner or operator of any
amendment required or shall rescind
the notice. The amendment required
by the Regional Administrator shall
become pan of the Plan 30 days after
such notice, unless the Regional Ad-
ministrator, for good cause, shall
specify another effective date. The
owner or operator of the facility shall
implement the amendment of the
Plan as soon as possible, but not later
than six months after the amendment
becomes pan of the Plan, unless the .
Regional Administrator specifies an-
other date,
(f) An owner or operator may appeal
a decision made by the Regional Ad-
ministrator requiring an amendment
to an SPCC Plan. The appeal shall be
made to the Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and must be made In writ-
ins within 30 days of receipt of the
notice from the Regional Administra-
tor requiring the amendment. A com- ,
plete copy of the appeal must be sent
to the Regional Administrator at the
time the appeal Is mad*. The appeal
shaU contain a clear and concise state-
ment of the Issues and points of fact
In the caw. It may also contain addi-
tional teforaation from the owner or
operator, or from any other person.
>Th« Administrator or als designee
may request additional Information
from the owner er operator, or from
any other person. The Administrator
or his deslcne* shall render a decision
within M day* of receiving the appeal
and shall notify the owner or operator
of his dedsi®&»
12-44
Appendix £ pg 5 of 13
-------
Environmental Prelection Agency
(38 PR 34163. Dec 11. 1973. M amended u
41 PR 12651. Mar. t<. 19761
III1S Amendment of Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeuure Plsni by
ownen or operator*.
If such tech*
nology has been field-proven at the
time of the review.
(c) No amendment to an SPCC Plan
shall b* effective to satisfy the re-
quirements of this section unless It
has been certified by a Professional
Engineer in accordanc* with
for violation of OH
• til* CMI
i or operators of faculties sub-
Jtot 10 I 111* or who vlo»
lalo tho requirement* of this Part 119
by faOlag or refusing to comply with
any of the provision* of 11124.11114
or I112J shan be liable fora dvfl pen-
alty of not more than SS.OOO for each
day such violation continue*. CIvO
penalties) shall bo Imposed In accord-
ance with procedures set out In Part
114 of this Subchapur O.
§ 11Z7
(39 PR 31602. Aue, J9. 1»74)
1112.7 Guidelines for the preparation and
Implementation of a Spill Prevention
Control tnd Counter-Mature Plan.
The SPCC Plan shall be a carefully
thought-out plan, prepared In accord-
ance with good engineering practices.
and which has the full approval of
management at a level with authority
to commit the necessary resources. If
the plan calls for additional facilities
or procedures, methods, or equipment
not yet fully operational, these items
should be discussed In separate para-
graphs, and the details of Installation
and operational start-up should be ex-
plained separately. The complete
SPCC Plan shall follow the sequence
outlined below, and Include a discus-
sion of the facility's conformance with
the appropriate guidelines listed:
(a) A facility which has expenenced
one or more spill events within twelve j
months prior to the effective date of i
this part should Include a written de-
scription of each such spill, corrective
action taken and plans for preventing
recurrence.
(b) Where experience indicates a
reasonable potential for equipment
failure (such as tank overflow, rup-
ture, or leakage), the plan should In-
clude a prediction of the direction.
rat* of flow, and total quantity of oil .
which could be discharged from the
facility as a result of each major type
of failure.
(c) Appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structure* or equipment
to prevent discharged ofl from reach*
ing a navigable water course should be
provided. On* of tho following preveo* ,
liv* systems or Its equivalent should ;
b* used as a •»«••«•••"••? '
(1) Onshore facilitloc
(U Olka*, berms or retaining wail*
sufficiently teponrtou* to contain
spfOedoO:
(U)Curblnc
(lit) Culvertlnc. gutters or other
drainage systems; .
Weir*, boom* or other barriers:
(v) SpUl diversion poodK
(vt) Retention ponds
(vil) Sorbent material*.
(3) Offshore facilltlec
12-45
Appendix E pg 6 of 13
-------
§11X7
(I) Curbing, drip pans:
(11) Sumps and collection systems.
(d) When It Is determined that the
Installation of structures or equipment
listed in I 112.7(O to prevent dis-
charged oil from reaching the naviga-
ble waters Is not practicable from any
onshore or offshore facility, the owner
or operator should clearly demon-
strate such Impracticability and pro-
vide the following:
(1) A strong oil spill contingency
plan following the provision of 40 CFR
Part 1M.
(2) A written commitment of man-
power, equipment and materials re-
quired to expeditiously control and
remove any harmful quantity of oil
discharged.
(e) In addition to the minima] pre-
vention standards listed under
i 112.7(c). sections of the Plan should
include a complete discussion of con-
formanee with the following applica-
ble guidelines, other effective spill pre-
vention and containment procedures
(or. If more stringent, with State rules.
regulations and guidelines):
(I) facility drainage (oiunoreX* (ex-
cluding production /acilittat). (1)
Drainage from diked storage areas
should be restrained by valves or other
positive means to prevent a spOl or
other excessive leakage of on Into the
drainage system or Inplant effluent
treatment system, except where plan
systems are designed to handle such
leakage. Diked areas may be emptied
by pumps or ejectors: however, these
should be manually activated and the
condition of the accumulation should
be examined before starting to be sure
no ofl win be discharged Into the
water.
(11) Flapper-type drain valves should
not be used to drain diked areas.
Valves used for the drainage of diked
areas should, as far as practical, be of
manual, open-and-cleeed design. When
plant drainage drains directly Into
water courses and not into wastewater
treatment plants, retained storm
In paragraphs (eXlXlil) (B). (O and
-------
Environmental Protection
not cause i harmful discharge as de-
fined in 40 CFR Part 110.
fectlve Internal heating coils, the fol-
lowing factors should be considered
and applied, as appropriate.
(A) The sts*m return or exhaust
linos from Internal heating coOs which
discharge into an open water course
should bo monitored for contamina-
tion, or passed through a settling
tank, skimmer, or other separation or
retention systeoa.
Tte* feasibility of Installing an
. .ml heaUnt system should also be
(vlll) New and eld tank !nstanai__
should, as far as practical, be fsD-eale
engineered or updated Into a fan-safe
engineered Installation to avoid spOJs.
Consideration should be given to pro*
§1117
vidmg one or more of the following de-
vices:
(A) High liquid level alarms with an
audible or visual signal at a constantly
manned operation or surveillance sta-
tion: in smaller plants an audible air
vent may suffice.
(B) Considering size and complexity
of the facility, high liquid level pump
cutoff devices set to stop flow at a pre-
determined tank content level
(C) Direct audible or code signal
communication between the tank
gauger and the pumping station.
(D) A fast response system for deter-
mining the liquid level of each bulk
storage tank such as digital comput-
ers, telepulse. or direct vision gauges
or their equivalent.
(E) Liquid level sensing devices
should be regularly tested to Insure
proper operation.
(Ix) Plant effluents which are dis-
charged Into navigable waters should
have disposal facilities observed fre-
quently enough to detect possible
system upsets that could cause an oil
spill event.
(x) Visible oil leaks which result In a
loss of oil from tank seams, gasket*.
rivets and bolts sufficiently large to
cause the accumulation of on in diked
areas should be promptly corrected.
(xi) Mobile or portable oil storage
tanks (onshore) should be positioned
or located so as to prevent spilled oil
from reaching navigable waters. A sec-
ondary means of containment, such a*
dikes or catchment basins, should be
furnished for the largest single com-
partment or tank. These faculties
should be located where they will
not be subject to periodic flooding or
washout.
(9) /acuity tmiuyvr oswmMou
anel to-pfSMf process (on-
(excfuettitf •foetecMow /scttf-
desk (1) Buried pipinc Installations
should have a protective wrapping and
coating and should be fiihodirally
protected if soQ conditions warrant If
a section of bulled line to exposed ...
any reason. It should be carefully ex-
amined for deterioration. If corrosion
damage to found, additional examlna-
Uon and corrective action should be
taken as Indicated by the magnitude
of the damage. An alternative would
12-47
Appendix E pg 8 of 13
-------
be the more frequent use of exposed
pipe corridors or galleries.
(II) When a pipeline is not In service.
or in standby service for an extended
time the terminal connection at the
transfer point should be capped or
blank-flanged, and marked as to
origin.
(ill) Pipe supports should be proper-
ly designed to minimize abrasion and
corrosion and allow for expansion and
contraction.
(iv) All aboveground valves and pipe-
lines should be subjected to regular
examinations by operating personnel
at which time the general condition of
items, such as flange joints, expansion
joints, valve glands and bodies, catch
pans, pipeline supports, locking of
valves, and metal surfaces should be
assessed. In addition, periodic pressure
testing may be warranted for piping In
areas where facility drainage is such
that a failure might lead to a spill
event.
(v) Vehicular traffic granted entry
Into the facility should be warned ver-
bally or by appropriate signs to be
sure that the vehicle, because of Its
size, wfll not endanger above ground
piping.
(4) facility tank car and tank (rack
loading/unloading nek (onshore). (I)
Tank car and tank truck loading/un-
loading procedures should meet the
minimum requirements and regulation
established by the Department of
Transportation.
(11) Where rack area drainage doe*
not flow Into a catchment basin or
treatment facility designed to handle
spills, a quick drainage system should
be used for tank truck loading and un-
loading anas, Th* containment
system should be designed to hold at
least maximum capacity of any single
compartment of a tank car or tank
truck loaded or unloaded in the plant.
(HI) An Interlocked warning light or
physical barrier system, o
signs, should be provided I
•mlMjtt^ areas to prevent vehicular
departure before complete disconnect
of flexible or fixed transfer Unas.
(Iv) Prior to fOUng and departure of
any tank ear or tank truck, the lower-
most dram and aD outlet* of such ve-
hicle* should be closely examined for
leakage, and If necessary, tightened,
40 CFI Ch. I (7-1 -17 Edition)
adjusted, or replaced to prevent liquid
leakage while in transit.
(S) OH production facilities (on-
jAore>—<|) Definition. An onshore pro-
duction facility may include all wells.
flowlines. separation equipment stor-
age, facilities, gathering lines, and aux-
iliary non-transportation-related
equipment and facilities In a single
geographical oil or gas field operated
by a single operator.
(II) Oil production facility (otuJiore)
drainage. (A) At tank batteries and
central treating stations where an ac-
cidental discharge of oil would have a
reasonable possibility of reaching navi-
gable waters, the dikes or equivalent
required under | UM(cXl) should
have drains closed and sealed at all
times except when rainwater is being
drained. Prior to drainage, the diked
area should be Inspected as provided
in paragraphs t'«t ofl should
be visually etamlned by a competent
person for condition and need for
Such evtminstlon should In-
clude the foundation and supports of
tank* that are above the surface of
the ground
12-48
Appendix E pg 9 of 13
-------
Environmental Protection Agoncy
(D) New and old unk bactery instal-
lations should, as far as practical, be
fail-safe engineered or updated into a
(ail-safe engineered insuilation to pre-
vent spills. Consideration should be
given to one or more of the following:
(1) Adequate unk capacity to assure
that a unk will not overfill should a
pumper/gauger be delayed in making
his regular rounds.
(2) Overflow equalizing lines be-
tween Unks so that a full tank can
overflow to an adjacent tank.
(J) Adequate vacuum protection to
prevent Unk collapse during a pipeline
run.
(*) High level sensors to generate
and transmit an alarm signal to the
computer where facilities are a part of
a computer production control system.
(iv> Facility tnruftr operations, oil
production facility (out/lore). (A) All
above ground valves and pipelines
should be examined periodically on a
scheduled basis for general condition
of items such as flange joints, valve
glands and bodies, drip pans, pipeline
supports, pumping well polish rod
stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge
valves.
(B) Salt water (oU field brine) dis-
posal facilities should to exalned
often, particularly following a sudden
change in atmospheric temperature to
detect possible system upsets that
could cause an oil discharge.
(C) Production faculties should have
a program of flowline maintenance to
prevent spills from this source. The
program should Include periodic ex-
aminations, corrosion protection, flow-
line replacement, and adequate
records, as appropriate, for the Indi-
vidual facility.
(6) OU drUHn0 «*d vorkover Jocttt-
titt (oiutofv). (1) Mobile drilling or
workover equipment should to posi-
tioned or located so as to prevent
spilled oO from reaching navigable
watem.
(U) Depending fx t^e location.
catchment toatu or diversion struc-
tures may to necessary to Intercept
and contain spffls of fuel, crude ofl. or
oUy drilling fluids.
(Ill) Before drilling below any easing
string or during workover operations,
a blowout prevention (BOP) assembly
and well control system should to In-
§112.7
stalled that is capable of controlling
any well head pressure that is expect-
ed to be encountered while that BOP
assembly Is on the welL Casing and
BOP Installations should be in accord-
ance with State regulatory agency re-
quirements.
(7) Oil dnUtny. production, or vark-
ovtr facilitiet (o/TMort). (I) Definition:
"An oil drilling, production or wor-
kover facility (offshore)" may Include
all drilling or workover equipment.
wells, flowllnes. gathering lines, plat-
forms, and auxiliary nontranspona-
tlon-related equipment and facilities
in a single geographical oil or gas field
operated by a single operator.
(11) Oil drainage collection equip-
ment should be used to prevent and
control small oil spillage around
pumps, glands, valves, flanges, expan-
sion joints, hoses, drain lines, separa-
tors, treaters. tanks, and allied equip-
ment. Drains on the facility should be
controlled and directed toward a cen-
tral collection sump or equivalent col-
lection system sufficient to prevent
discharges of oU Into the navigable
waters of the United States. Where
drains and sumps art not practicable
oil contained In collection equipment
should to removed as often as neces-
sary to prevent overflow.
(Ill) For faculties employing a sump
system, sump and drains should to
adequately steed and a spare pump or
equivalent method should to available
to remove liquid from the sump and
assure that oU does not escape. A regu-
lar scheduled preventive maintenance
Inspection and testing program should
to employed to assure reliable oper-
ation of the liquid removal system and
pump start-up device. Redundant
automatic sump pumps and control de-
vices may to required on
(hr) In areas where separators sad
treaters are equipped with dump
valves whose predominant mode of
faflure to In the closed position and
pollution risk to high, the facility
should to specially equipped to pre-
vent the escape of ofl. This could to
accomplished by extending the flare I
line to a diked area If the separator to '
near shore, equipping It with a high ;
liquid level sensor that wffl automati-
cally shut-in wells producing to the
12-49
Appendix E pg 10 of 13
-------
separator, parallel redundant dump
valves, or other feasible alternatives to
prevent oil discharges.
(v) Atmospheric storage or surge
tanks should be equipped with high
liquid level sensing devices or other ac-
ceptable alternatives to prevent oil dis-
charges.
(vl) Pressure tanks should be
equipped with high and low pressure
sensing devices to activate an alarm
and/or control the flow or other ac-
ceptable alternatives to prevent oil dis-
charges.
(vii) Tanks should be equipped with
suitable corrosion protection.
(vlll) A written procedure for In-
specting and testing pollution preven-
tion equipment and systems should be
prepared and maintained at the facili-
ty. Such procedures should be includ-
ed as pan of the SPCC Plan.
(Ix) Testing and inspection of the
pollution prevention equipment and
systems at the facility should be con-
ducted by the owner or operator on a
scheduled periodic basis commensu-
rate with the complexity, conditions
and circumstances of the facility or
other appropriate regulations.
(x) Surface and subsurface well
shut-In valves and devices In use at the
facility should be sufficiently do-
scribed to determine method of activa-
tion or control. tg~ pressure differen-
tial, change In fluid or flow conditions.
combination of pressure and flow.
manual or remote control mecha-
nisms. Detailed records for each wen.
whOe not necessarily pan of the plan
should be kept by the owner or opera-
tor.
(xl) Before drming below any casing
string, and during workover operation*
a blowout preventer (BOP) assembly
and weU control system ahould be in-
stalled that to capable of controUtng
any well-head pressure that to expect-
ed to be encountered whfle that BOP
•••mnlT to on the wett Casing and
BOP taatanattom should be In accord-
i with State regulatory agency re-
'OoD extraordinary won control
measures ahould bo provided should
emergency condtUom. Including fir*.
loss of control and other abnormal
conditions, occur. The degree of con-
trol system redundancy ahould vary
40 CFt Ch. I (7-M7 Edition)
with hazard exposure and probable
consequences of failure. It is recom-
, mended that surface shut-In systems
have redundant or "fail close" valving.
Subsurface safety valves may not be
needed In producing wells that will not
flow but should be installed as re-
quired by applicable State regulations.
(xiii) In order that there will be no
misunderstanding of Joint and sepa-
rate duties and obligations to perform
work In a safe and pollution free
manner, written instructions should be
prepared by the owner or operator for
contractors and subcontractors to
follow whenever contract activities in-
clude servicing a well or systems ap-
purtenant to a well or pressure vessel.
Such Instructions and procedures
should be maintained at the offshore
production facility. Under certain cir-
cumstances and conditions such con-
tractor activities may require the pres-
ence at the facility of an authonxed
representative of the owner or opera-
tor who would intervene when neces-
sary to prevent a spill event.
(xiv) All manifolds (headers) should
be equipped with check valves on indi-
vidual flowlinea.
(xv> If the shut-in weD pressure is
greater than the working pressure of
the flowline and manifold valves up to
and Including the header valves associ-
ated with that Individual flowline. the
flowline should be equipped with a
high pressure sensing device and shut-
in valve at the wellhead unless provid-
ed with a pressure relief system to pre-
vent over pressuring.
-------
Environment*! Protection Agoncy
in accordance with written procedures
developed Tor the facility by the owner
or operator. These written procedures
and a record of the Inspections, signed
by the appropriate supervisor or In-
spector, should be made pan of the
SPCC Plan and maintained for a
period of three yean.
(9) Security (excluding oil produc-
tion facilities. (1) All plants handling.
processing, and storing oil should bt
fully fenced, and entrance taut
should be locked and/or guarded when
the plant Is not In production or is un-
attended.
(li) The master flow and drain valves
and any other valves that will permit
direct outward flow of the tank's con-
tent to the surface should be securely
locked In the closed position when la
non-operating or non-standby status.
(Ill) The starter control on all oil
pumps should be locked in the "off-
position or located at a site accessible
only to authorized personnel when the
pump* are in a non-operating or non-
standby status.
(iv) The loading/unloading connec-
tions of ofl pipelines should be secure-
ly capped or blank-flanged when not
In service or standby service for an ex-
tended time. Thia security practice
should also apply to pipelines that an
emptied of liquid content either by
draining or by inert gas pressure.
(v> Facility lighting should be com-
mensurate with the type and location
of the faculty. Consideration should
be given to: (A) Discovery of spttte oc-
curring during hours of darkness, both
by operating personnel. U present, and
by non-operating personnel (the gen-
eral public, local police, etc.) and (B)
prevention of spins occurring through
§*f f of vandalluav
(10) Personnel {retain* end rvUZ
pnroenMo* •roctshirm (I) Owners or
operators art responsible for property
inatrucUng their personnel m the op-
eration and maintenance of equipment
to prevent the dischargee of ofl and
applicable poOuUon ear UM. tana, rulee
and regulatlonc.
(U) dch ippUccMo faculty should
have a dciignitcd person who to ac-
countable for oO spm prevention and
who report! to line management.
till) Ownen or operators should
schedule and conduct spill prevention
Pi. Ill Appendix
briefings for their operating personnel
at intervals frequent enough to assure
adequate understanding of the SPCC
Plan for that facility. Such briefings
should highlight and describe known
spill events or failures, malfunctioning
components, and recently developed
precautionary measures.
—MmoKAHVUM or UNBKB-
STANDING Brrwmt THE SSCXXTAAY or
TftAMSFOETATIOH AKD TH* ADKimS-
TJUTOH or not ExvatomoarTAi. Pio-
ncnoN ActHcr
section ii—osmrmom
The Environmental Protection Aeeney
and the Department of Transportation
acrot that for the purposes of Executive
Order 11341. the Una:
(1) "Mon-trmnsporuUon-reUted onshore
and offshort faculties" means:
(A) Fixed onshore and offshore oil veil
drilling facilities Induding all equipment
and appurtenances related thereto used In
drilling operations for exploratory or devel-
opment wells, but excluding any terminal
facility, unit or process tategrally ssaortstid
with the handling or transferring of oil In .
bulk to or from a veaeeL
(8) Mobile onshore and offshore en well
drilling platforms, barges, trucks, or other
mobile facilities Including aO equipment and
appurtenance* related thereto whoa such
noolle facilities are fixed m poettlea for the
purpose of drilling operation* for explorato-
ry or development wells, but excluding soy
terminal facility, unit or process tategrally
amoclatid with the handling or tranaferring
of oil in bulk to or from a vissel.
1C) Fixed onshore and offshore oO pro-
duction structure, platforms, derricks, and
USB taehidtng all equipment and appurte-
nances related thereto, as wen as completed
wells and the wellhead aeparaton. oO eepa-
raieta, and storage faculties wed In the pro-
faculty, unit or pretest integrally i
wtth too handling or transferring of oO to
baft to or from a i
(0)
went and
its the
preductto* of efl when stun sseafle fadUUes
are fixed to poetUoa Her tke purpose of eO
production operational bet oxchtdtag any
temlnal tacOlty. unH or process tategrally
associated with the handling or transf erring
of oil to bulk to or from a i
12-51
Appendix E pg 12 of 13
-------
§113.1
(E) Oil refining facilities including all
equipment and ippurtenances related there-
to as well as m-plant processing uniu. stor-
M« uniu. piping, drainage systems and
waste treatment units used in the refining
of oil. but excluding any terminal facility.
unit or process Intetrally associated with
the handling or transferring of oil In bulk to
or from a vessel
Industrial. commerctsJ. agricultural or
public facilities which use and store oil. but
excluding any termmaJ facility, unit or
process integrally associated with the han- .
dllng or transferring of oil in bulk to or
from a vessel.
(H) Wast* treatment facilities Including
In-plant pipelines, effluent discharge lines.
and storage tanks, but excluding wasu
treatment facilities located on vessels and
terminal storage tanks and appurtenances
for the reception of oily ballast water or
tank washings from vessels and associated
systems used for off-loading vessels.
(1) Loading rack*, transfer host*, loading
arms and other equipment which art appur-
tenant to a nontransporution-relaud facili-
ty or terminal facility and which are used to
transfer oil In bulk to or from highway vehi-
cle* or railroad ears.
(J) Highway vehicles and railroad can
which are used for the transport of ofl ex-
clusively within the confines of a nontrans-
porution-related facility and which ant not
intended to transport oil in Interstate er
ifltTVUfttt COttflMFQwl*
Pipeline systems which an need for
the transport of ofl exclusively within the
confines of i nontraMporuuoo-relaud fa-
culty or terminal facility and which an oat
Intended to transport oO la Interstate or
tntrasute commerce, but excluding pipeline
systems ated u transfer ofl IB bulk to or
frOSB a VeOML
tl> -Transportation-relate*
and]
and offshore terminal f acft>
transfer hoses, Inertlng arns
8taoT equipment and appurtenanoss)
for IBO purpttio of nandllnsT or tmisv
f errtai ofl IB bulk to or from a vessel u vtn
as gton«s Uak» and appurtenances for the
reception of oOy ballast water or tank vtsh-
Ing* from vessels, but excluding terminal
waste treatment fsfflltles and terminal ofl
storage facilities.
40 Ctt Ch. I (7-1-47 Edition)
Transfer hoses, loading arms and
other equipment appurtenant to a non-
transportailon-related facility which Is used
to transfer oil In bulk to or from a vessel.
Interstate and Intrasute onshore and
offshore pipeline systems including pumps
and appurtenances related thereto as well
as in-line or breakout storage tanks needed
for the continuous operation of a pipeline
system, and pipelines from onshore and off-
shore oil production facilities, but excludinc
onshore and offshore piping from wellheads
to oil separators and pipelines which are
used for the transport of oil exclusively
within the confines of a noniransporuilon-
related facility or terminal facility and
which are not intended to transport oil In
Interstate or Intrasute commerce or to
transfer oil In bulk to or from a vessel.
Highway vehicles and railroad can
which are used for the transport of oil la
Interstate or Intrasute commerce and the
equipment and appurtenances related there-
to, and equipment used for the fueling of lo-
comotive uniu. as well as the nghu-of-way
on which they operate. Excluded are high-
way vehicles and railroad cars and motive
power used exclusively within the confines
of a nontransporution-related facility or
terminal facility and which are not Intended
for use in Inurstate or Intrastau commerce,
12-52
Appendix E P8 13 of 13
-------
APPENDIX
F
12-53
-------
40 CFR Ck. I (7-1-47
PART 114— CIVIL PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION OF Oil POLLUTION
PREVENTION REGULATIONS
NoH-T&AXSrOITATIO* ROjkTTB OftSMOU AW
OrrsMoas PACIUTISB
Set
114.1
no
no
114.4
114.}
1H.6
114.1
114.1
114.10
114.11
General applicability.
Violation.
Determination of penalty.
Nolle* of Violation.
Request (or hearing.
Presiding Officer.
ConaoUdaUon.
Prcheartnc conference.
Conduct of hearing.
Decision.
Appeal to Administrator.
Atmioamr Sea. 31UJ). JOKa). Pub. L.
9J-500. M Stat MS. US (SI OAC. IJ2HJ).
1381(a».
Sounec J9 PR 31*02. Aug. M. If 14. unleai
otherwise noted.
Now-TiujigrorTATioii
ONSHOU AMP OrrsMOU P*ciura
1114.1 General applicability.
Ownen or operator! of faculties sub-
ject to 11124 (a), (b) or (e) of this sub-
chapter who violate tht rtquirtmeou
of Part 112 of thta Subehapur D by
falling or refusing to comply with any
of the provisions of 11124. 113.4. or
112.5 of *hta cubchapter tK*n be liable
for a eivQ penalty of not more than
$5.000 for each day meh vtolatloa co»
Unuea. CtvO penalttea shall be i
and compromised m
thta part. Mo penalty ahaQ be i
until th« own** or operator h*ji *»«
been flten notice and an opportunity
for hoarlnf In aecordanot with thta
part.
I11U
tf opessc..,
be liable for a cM penalty for
of Pan 112 Ol U
Ing but not Umlted to failure tee
(a) Prepare a Spffl Prevention
tool and Cov
In accordance with 11134 of thto
chapter.
(b) Rave a SPCC plan certified by a
Recistered Professional Engineer u
required by 1112.3 of thi* subchatUn
(c) Implement the SPCC pUn u Re-
quired by 1112.3 of this subchapun
(d) Submit Information after a n>U
u required by 1112.4 of thta tubchap-
ten
Amend plan at required by
1112.4 of thta gubehapter.
(f) Implement amendment u re-
quired by 1112.4 of thta tubcnapter.
(f) Amend plan after change In facu-
lty desicn u required by f 112.6 of thta
subchapun
Amend plan after re lew M re-
quired by 11124: or
(j) Have amendment certified ai re-
quired by 11124 of thta tubchapter
and implemented.
I114J DeUrnttMtloa e/ penalty.
(a) In determining the amount of
the penalty to be assessed the follow-
Ing factors shall be considered:
(1) Gravity of the violation: and
(3) Demonstrated good faith efforts
to achieve rapid compliance after noti-
fication of a vtolatlea.
(b) The amount of the dvO penalty
to be assessed may be settled by com-
promise at any state of the proceed-
ings. jw_
(c> Civo penalties may be assessed by
the Regional Administrator where
there to no request for a bearing pur-
suant to 11144.
III44 NetineffVteeatiea.
The Notice of Violation shall be sent
to the person charged with a violation
and shall specify the
(a) Pate of te«uanogj
(b) Nature of violation. Including the
law or regulation that he to charged
wlthviolatmc
(e) Amount of the msjdmum penal-
ty:
(d) Amount of the proposed dvfl
(e) The right to prsssnt written ex-
planations. Information or any materi-
atomaiOTw to the chars* or mmtt»>
gation of the penalty: or bearing on
the parson's efforts to achieve eomptt-
•not after noUftaation of the violation:
12-54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
(f) Manner of the payment of any
money which may be paid to the
United States:
The procedures for requesting a
hearing including the right to be rep-
resented by counsel.
II14J Request for hearing.
Within thirty (30) days of the date
of receipt of a Notice of Violation, the
person named in the Notice may re-
quest a hearing by submitting a writ-
ten request signed by or on behalf of
such person by a duly authorized offi-
cer, director, agent, or attorney-in-
tact, to the Regional Administrator.
(a) Requests for hearings shall:
(1) State the name and address of
the person requesting the hearing:
(2) Enclose a copy of the Notice of
Violation: and
(3) State with particularity the
issues to be raised by such person at
the hearing,
(b) After a request for hearing
which complies with the requirement*
of paragraph (A) of this section has
been filed, a hearing shall be sched-
uled for the earliest practicable date.
(c) Extension* of UM time for the
commencement of the hearing may be
granted for good cause shown.
Ill 4.1 FrtMClng Officer.
The hearing shall be conducted by
the Presiding Officer. The Regional
Administrator may designate any at*
torney In the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to act as the Presiding Of-
fleer. No person shall serve as a Pre-
siding Officer when he hat any prior
connection with UM case Indudlnc
without limitation UM performance of
Investigative or prosecuting functions
or any other such fuactiontwThe Pre-
siding Officer appointed shall hav«
UM Ml authority to conduct UM hoar-
tag* decide Issues ***** to assess .a dvft
penalty u appropriate.
• iuf
The Presiding Officer may. to his
discretion, order consolidation of any
hearings held under this part and aris-
ing within one Region whenever he do-
»AM«ln*a *!••* nttnmnllAmtittn •ffl AXBA.
§ 114.9
tor may. in his discretion, order con-
solidation. and designate one Region
to be responsible for the conduct of
any hearings held under this pan
which arise in different Regions when-
ever he determines that consolidation
will expedite or simplify the consider-
ation of the Issues presented. Consoli-
dation shall not affect the right of any
person to raise Issues that could have
been raised If consolidation had not
occurred. At the conclusion of the
hearing the Presiding Officer shall
render a separate decision for each
separate civil penalty case.
IIUJ PrchMring conference.
The Presiding Officer may hold one
or more prehearing conferences and
may issue a hearing agenda which
may include, without limitation, deci-
sions with regard to any or all the fol-
lowing:
(a) Stipulations and admissions:
(b) Disputed Issues of fact;
(c> Hearing procedures Including
submission of oral or written testimo-
ny and the time allotted for oral argu-
ments: and
(d) Any other matter which may ex- :
pedlte the hearing or aid In disposition '
of any Issues raised therein.
III4J Conduct ef keariftg. I
The hearing shall be held In the gen- •
era! location of the facility where the
alleged violation occurred or as agreed ,
to by EPA and the person charged. ;
The Presiding Officer shall have the
duty to conduct a fair and Impartial
hearing, to take action to avoid unnec-
essary delay m UM disposition of pro-
ceedings. and to maintain order. The
person charged with UM violation may
offer relevant facts, statements, expla-
nations, and other Item* which such
person feels should be considered m,
defense to the «* art**, bearing; on UM
termlncs thatot
diu or simplify UM consideration of
the Issues presented. The Admlnistra-
i efforts id achieve onmpHanm
after notifkatioB of UM violation or
which may bear upon UM penalty to
be ass sens. The KPA or other appro-.
priate Agency personnel shall have
the opportunity to offer fact*. slat>~
meats, explai
Including testimony of other
ate Agencies personnel la order for
the Presiding Officer to be fully m-
12-55
-------
§114.10
formed. In the event the matter
cannot be resolved by settlement the
person charged with the violation
shall be informed in writing, of the de-
cision of the Presiding Officer and
shall be advised of his right to appeal.
91U.10 Decision.
Within thirty (30) days after the
conclusion of the hearings, the Presid-
ing Officer shall Issue findings with re-
spect to the matter, including, where
appropriate to the amount of the civil
penalty. In assessing the civil penalty
the Presiding Officer shall consider
the factors set forth in 1114.3. A copy
of the Presiding Officer's decision
shall be sent to the person charged in
the Notice of Violation. The decision
of the Presiding Officer shall become
the final decision of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency unless within
fifteen (IS) days from the date of re-
ceipt of such decision, the person as-
sessed the penalty appeals the deci-
sion to the Administrator, or unless
the Administrator shall have stayed
the effectiveness of the decision pend-
ing review.
1114.11 App*&l to Administrator.
(a) The person assessed a penalty IB
the Presiding Officer's determination
shall have the right to appeal an ad-
verse decision to the Administrator
upon filing a written Notice of Appeal
in the form required by paragraph (b)
of this section within fifteen (IS) days
of the d&te the receipt of the Presid-
ing Officer's decision.
(b) The Netie* of Appeal shall:
(l) State the name and address of
the person f ilLrig the Notice of Appeal:
(2) Contain a concise statement of
the facts on which the person reUsc
(3) Contain a eondM statement of
the legal basis on which the person
relies; and
(4) Contain a eofids* statement att>
ting forth the action «*&%> tas person
proposed that UM Artmiiilstrsuir take.
(c) The Administrator may dtlcfsJ*
this authority to act m a sjtan cat*.
(d) The Administrator, aftar a
Notice of Appeal in proper form has
been filed, shall render a decision with
respect to the appeal promptly. la ren-
dering his decision, the Administrator
may adopt, modify, or set aside the do-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-47 Edition)
cision of the Presiding Officer in any
respect and shall include in his deci-
sion a concise statement of the basis
therefore. The decision of the Admin-
istrator on appeal shall be effective
when rendered.
12-56
-------
APPENDIX
O
12-57
-------
Coast Guard, Del
Subport B—Nolle* of the Discharge
of OR or o Hazardous Sob»toneo
I1U.M1 Purpose.
The purpose at this subpart Is to
present* the manner in which the
notice required In section 311(bX3> of
the Act U to be riven and to list the
government officials to receive that
notice.
11S&M3 Procedure for the notice of at*
charge.
Any person in charge of a vessel or
of an onshore or offshore facility
shall, as soon as they have knowledge
of any discharge of oil or a hazardous
substance from such vessel or facility
in violation of section 311(bX3) of the
Act. immediately notify the National
Response Center (NRC). UA. Coast
Guard. 2100 Second Street. SW*
Washington. DC 20593. toil free tele-
phone number 800-424-S8Q2 (la Wash-
ington. D.C metropolitan area, 42ft-
2«7S). If direct reporting to the NRC
It not practicable, report* may be
made to the Coast Guard or EPA pre-
destinated OSC for the geographic
ares, when the discharge occurs. AH
such reports shall be promptly relayed
to the NRC. If It to not possible to
notify the NRC or the prertetlgntted
OSC immediately, report! may be
made immediately to the nearest
Coast Guard unit, provided that the
person la charge of the vessel or on-
shore or offshore faefllty notifies the
NRC as soon as possible.
Note geographical JurMlctiea of
Quart and CPA OWs are specified fa the
applicable lUfJeml Ceatinceacy Plan. Re-
gional ConUageacr Plain are available aft
Coast Quart Otttrtet Offleoi and «PA Re-
•tonal Offices as todtaat** to Table X Ad-
i for those of-
(Ices are listed fa Table L
(COO M-OffT. II n, STMe. May 1C. 1*M1
Act
f-£;
I1IUM
BeeOoa JllfbXS) of the
Mrtbes) Uut any person w»
notify the appropriate ateaer of th*
TTnlted ftritfi OovenuBcnt tanmedlate>>
ty of » dlscharg* SB, upon eonvtetioo,
subject to a fine of not more than
$10.000. or to Imprisonment of not
more than one year, or both,
§ 153 JOS
TABLE i.—AOOMESSCS ANO TCLEPHONC Nuu-
BCRS or COAST GUAMO OISTNICT OFFICCS
ANO EPA REGONAI. Omen
IV.
v_
VI.
COIOJOI-J41X
til
1200 C»
Mtei.
11*
U*
is*
MO1
1TK
491 Ol«Hra 8V.
VAS>0»-MM.
. KM* tan. tt
S.W. «• AM. Mont. «.
331SS.
Hi »a -nil
tan
{COO M-Off. It Fit ntee. May l«, t»Ml
12-58
-------
0153JOI
TA«U Z—STAMOAAO AoMiMisnunvt R«-
own* or STATIS AND Co**csroMOi*a
COAST GIMNO OKTNICTS AMD EPA RCOIOMS
33 Cfll Ch. I (7-1-4* CdltlM)
TA«U 2.—STAMOAMO
QiOKt of STATCS AND
COAiT GUAMO OtSTHICTS
OKXS—Continued
R|.
ma
EPA Re-
1«
WM
Ti«lT«H«nr«Ml
COM
11M
tin
tin
11*
11*
rCOD M-MT. IIFR J7H4. May 1C 1MC1
12-59
Appendix G pg 2 of 2
-------
13.1 WORKSHOP F: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) COMPLIANCE
13.2 ATTACHMENTS
"Facing the Unexpected; Cleanup of Underground Storage Tank Releases Using
Pump and Treat Methods"
Musts for USTs
-------
13.1 WORKSHOP F: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) COMPLIANCE
Wayne Naylor. Chief UST/LUST Section EPA, Region III.
Mr. Naylor presented the requirements of the Underground Storage Tank Program
(UST). Program goals include preventing leaks in underground tanks, locating existing leaks,
cleaning up releases and building additional programs at the state level. The federal UST
program regulates all petroleum and hazardous waste tanks that are underground. Farm and
residential heating oil tanks less than 1,100 gallons are excluded from the regulations. The
following attainments present important points of the UST program as defined in the code of
federal regulations section 280.
13-1
-------
m
6<
a
o><
S
WD
.S
1
•
•
•
•o
4>
a.
X
v
5
*
u
V
•o
5
«*.
0
a.
3
s
CQ
M
c:
^
"S
f*.^
G6
en
•0
O
J=
•4^
a>
5?
•«^
a
5
•o
e
03
13-2
-------
= ^6
-.a £ = a
a 5 S « c
K\n
'3 Q
II
?*.
s *
tiK-
IS1* i
|f2*l
l«*i
IP 11
iSlii
ii* H
!> * a|
HI
II!
•a «
•il
I
i
llll
I
I
1
i H
» o. Bi
f
^
11
lifiii
MlHtM
ill if i i ,
fit
t
lilt
i low
• B p < — r4 «^
f^
*
5 5 55
i;
r
s^
3
I
rl ^^1 l ! rfl !
Jl ||1 i l« ff
m Iht j!
lillil iliilHI I11"
i 1
Si
J
i
I
I
{
!i
11! Ii
1
u^ i Lftl
ll I j lijph \\
IP 1 !i ifijl
frJiSil JsnillHsg !
|C-<
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Underground Storage Tanks
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA/530/UST-88/008
September 1988
oEPA
Musts for USTs
- , ^ I^j*T'"^--^5SU;TM-psy T^ ^-=4^-!-lJgSagip^'1r.:^>'
13-4
-------
Musts for USTs
A Summary of the New
Regulations for Underground
Storage Tank Systems
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
September 1988
13-5
-------
Acknowledgement
The text of this booklet was prepared by Jay Evans for
EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
13-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
What Are These Regulations About?*.
What Do New Petroleum USTs Need?-
What About Existing Petroleum USTs? 13
How Do You Correct Problems Caused By Leaks? 19
How Do You Close USTs? 23
What About Reporting And Recordkeeping? ___ 25
For Chemical USTs Only - 27
Technical Questions & Answers 31
Videos, Brochures, and Handbooks on USTs 37
Industry Codes And Standards 39
*The financial responsibility requirements are not summarized in this booklet A complete explanation of
your financial responsibility requirements will appear in the Federal Register and in an EPA brochure later
in 1988.
13-7
-------
PAGE I
WHAT ARE THESE REGULATIONS ABOUT?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has written regulations for many of the nation's
underground storage tank systems. This booklet briefly describes the new technical requirements for
these systems, which include tanks and piping. You can find the complete regulations in the Federal
Register. Properly managed, underground storage tank systems ~ often called USTs - will not
threaten our health or our environment.
Why Has EPA Written These
New Regulations?
Several million underground storage tank sys-
tems in the United Stated contain petroleum or
hazardous chemicals. Tens of thousands of
these USTs, including their piping, are cur-
rently leaking. Many more are expected to leak
in the future. Leaking USTs can cause fires or
explosions that threaten human safety. In addi-
tion, leaking USTs can contaminate nearby
ground water. Because many of us depend on
ground water for the water we drink. Federal
legislation seeks to safeguard our nation's
ground-water resources.
Congress responded in 1984 to the problem of
leaking USTs by adding Subtitle I to the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Subtitle I requires EPA to develop
regulations to protect human health and the
environment from leaking USTs.
What Are The Goals Of The
UST Regulations?
EPA has developed the UST regulations to
make sure the following goals are reached:
• To prevent leaks and spills.
• To find leaks and spills.
* To correct the problems created by
leaks and spills.
• To make sure that owners and opera-
tors of USTs can pay for correcting
the problems created if their USTs
leak.
• To make sure each State has a regu-
latory program for USTs that is as
strict as or stricter than the Federal
regulations.
Of THE U.S.
POPULATION USES
GROUND WATER AS A
SOURCE OF DRINKING
WATER
13-8
-------
PAGE 2
WHY WORRY ABOUT LEAKS AND SPILLS?
• Because your tank or Us piping may leak. As
many as 25 percent of all underground storage
tanks (USTs) may now be leaking. Many more
will leak in the near future, possibly including
yours. Your tank or its piping might be leaking
right now. If a tank system is past its prime
(over 10 years
old), especially if
it's not protected
against corrosion,
the potential for
leaking increases
dramatically.
Newer tank
systems
(especially the
piping) can also
leak, and spills can
happen anytime.
Don't let your
profits drain away.
• Because it's in your best interest.
Leaking UST sites can be very costly to
clean up. Imagine how much money
you'd lose if your tank could not be used
for weeks during lengthy cleanups or if
local residents sued you for property
damages. The
costs can run into
the thousands,
/perhaps as much
as $100,000 and
/ / more. Detect and
clean up spills or
leaks - before
they hurt you
financially.
• Because it's the law. But it's the law for good
reason. Much of our country depends on
ground water for drinking water, and leaked or
spilled petroleum can contaminate this vital
resource. Explosions are another potential
hazard. Many State and local governments,
therefore, already require specific steps to
prevent, detect, or clean up leaks and spills.
Others will soon have similar requirements.
Check with your local and State governments
to learn what requirements apply to you.
• Because it's for the good of the
community and the environment. Leaks
and spills can have serious consequences.
Petroleum can contaminate soil, drinking
water supplies, and air. Petroleum and its
resulting vapors can also accumulate in
nearby confined spaces, such as septic
tanks, sewers, and the basements of
homes. These vapors are poisonous and
can cause a fire or explosion.
13-9 '
-------
PAGE 3
How Will These Regulations
Affect You?
The regulations describe the steps you -- the
tank owner or operator -- need to take to help
protect our health and environment These
steps will also help you avoid the high cost of
cleaning up the environment and defending
yourself in legal actions that can result if your
tank or its piping leaks.
You should note the following major points of
the UST regulations:
• If you install an UST after December
1988, it must meet the requirements
for new USTs concerning correct instal-
lation, spill and overfill prevention,
corrosion protection, and leak
detection (see pages 7-11).
• If you have an UST that was installed
before December 1988, it must meet
two major requirements -
1) Requirements for corrosion protec-
tion and spill and overfill preven-
tion (see page 13).
2) Leak detection requirements (see
pages 14-15).
• You must take corrective action in re-
sponse to leaks (see pages 19-20).
• You must follow closure requirements
for tanks you temporarily or perma-
nently close (see pages 23-24).
4 You are financially responsible for the
cost of cleaning up a leak and compen-
sating other people for bodily injury
and property damage caused by your
leaking UST.
Although these points are discussed in the fol-
lowing sections, additional information appears
in the "Technical Questions & Answers" sec-
tion starting on page 31.
What's Your "Financial
Responsibility" For Petroleum
Leaks?
A complete explanation of your financial re-
sponsibility requirements will appear in the
Federal Register and in an EPA brochure later
in 1988.
In general, owners or operators of petroleum
USTs must be able to demonstrate their ability
to pay for damage that could be caused if their
tanks leaked. These payments would need to
cover the costs of cleaning up a site (see page
20) and compensating other people for bodily
injury and property damage.
Who Is "The Regulatory
Authority"?
This booklet describes EPA's basic require-
ments for USTs, but your State or local regula-
tory authority may have requirements that are
somewhat different or more strict You will
need to identify your regulatory authority and
its specific requirements for your USTs. If you
are not sure who your regulatory authority is,
call your local fire marshall for help.
13-10
-------
PAGE 4
What's An "UST"?
An UST is any tank, including underground
piping connected to the tank, that has at least
10 percent of its volume underground. The
regulations apply only to USTs storing either
petroleum or certain hazardous chemicals.
The "For Chemical USTs Only" section starting
on page 27 identifies hazardous chemicals and
special requirements for chemical USTs. Gen-
erally, the requirements for both petroleum and
chemical USTs are very similar.
Some kinds of tanks are not covered by these
regulations:
• Farm and residential tanks holding
1,100 gallons or less of motor fuel used
for noncommercial purposes.
• Tanks storing heating oil used on the
premises where it is stored.
• Tanks on or above the floor of under-
ground areas, such as basements or
tunnels.
• Septic tanks and systems for collecting
storm water and wastewater.
* Flow-through process tanks.
* Tanks holding 110 gallons or less.
• Emergency spill and overfill tanks.
Other storage areas that might be considered
"tanks" are also excluded, such as surface im-
poundments and pits. Some "tanks," such as
field-constructed tanks, have been deferred
from most of the regulations. The regulations
published in the Federal Register fully iden-
tify various tank types and which requirements
apply to them.
Excluded
by Congress
Excluded
by EPA
Petroleum
Chemical
Deferred
UST Program Scope
13-11
-------
WHY DO USTs CAUSE PROBLEMS?
PAGES
No Corrosion Protection
Most of the UST systems
already in the ground have tanks
and piping made of bare steel.
When unprotected steel is buried
in the ground, it can be eaten
away by corrosion. The UST
regulations require corrosion
protection for all USTs. The
"Technical Questions &
Answers" section explains how
corrosion works and ways to de-
feat it (see pages 31 and 32).
Spills and Overfills
In addition to leaks from tanks and
piping, spills and overfills cause
many UST releases. When more
petroleum is delivered into the tank
than it can hold, an overfill happens.
When the delivery truck's hose is
disconnected incorrectly, a spill
results. The "Technical Questions
& Answers" section identifies ways
to combat spills and overfills (see
page 33).
Installation Mistakes
Tanks and piping also leak if they
are not put in the ground properly.
For example, if poorly selected or
compacted backfill material is used
when covering the UST, or if pipe
fittings are inadequately attached to
the UST, then leaking can result
You can avoid mistakes made
during installation by using an
installer who carefully follows
approved installation procedures.
The "Technical Questions &
Answers" section identifies ap-
proved installation procedures (see
page 33).
Piping Failure
EPA studies show that most leaks
result from piping failure. Piping is
smaller and less sturdy than tanks.
It is assembled in the field with nu-
merous connections and usually in-
stalled near the ground's surface.
As a result, piping suffers much
more than tanks from the effects of
installation mistakes, excessive
surface loads, the stress of
underground movement, and corro-
sion. Using a skilled installer is
even more critical to the proper
installation of piping. It is impor-
tant to remember that the regula-
tions apply to the entire UST system
- both tanks and piping.
13-12
-------
PAGE?
WHAT DO NEW PETROLEUM USTs NEED?
You must meet four requirements when you in-
stall a new UST system:
• You must certify that the tank and pip-
ing are installed properly according to
industry codes.
• You must equip the UST with devices
that prevent spills and overfills. Also,
you must follow correct tank
filling practices.
• You must protect the tank and piping
from corrosion.
• You must equip both the tank and pip-
ing with leak detection.
The following sections provide basic informa-
tion on these requirements. Also, see the
"Technical Questions & Answers" section
starting on page 31 for more information.
El
Properly
Installed
Spill And
Overfill
Protection
Protected
From
Corrosion
^Equipped
With
Leak
Detection
REMEMBER...
New UST systems are those that are installed
after December 1988.
Those USTs installed between May 1985. and
December 1988 most meet two minimum re-
quirements:
• The UST must prevent releases due to
corrosion or structural failure.
• The stored contents must be compat-
ible with the tank's interior wall.
After December 1988, these older USTs must
meet the requirements for existing USTs (see
pages 13-17).
13-13
-------
PAGES
Installing UST Systems The Right
Way
First, install USTs correctly by using qualified
installers who follow industry codes. Faulty
installation is a significant cause of UST fail-
ures, particularly piping failures. (See pages
33, 37 and 39 for information on correct instal-
lation practices and industry codes.) You must
make sure that the contents you store are
with the UST system.
Srtund, you will also need to certify on a noti-
fication form (see page 25) that you have used
a qualified installer who can assure you that
your UST has been installed correctly.
Preventing Spills And Overfills
Because human error causes most spills and
overfills, these mistakes can be avoided by fol-
lowing the correct Lank filling practices re-
quired by the UST regulations. If you and your
distributor follow these practices, nearly all
spills and overfills can be prevented from hap-
pening. Also, the UST regulations require the
use of mechanical devices, such as spill catch-
ment basins and overfill alarms, to prevent
these releases from narrnhf, the environment.
(Correct tank filling pr •• • •.; and preventive
devices arc identified c'i page 33.)
13-14
-------
PAGE 9
Protecting Tanks And Piping From
Corrosion
Tanks and piping must be protected or they will
be eaten away by corrosion:
• Steel tanks and piping can be coated
with a corrosion-resistant coating and
"cathodically" protected. (Caihodic
protection uses either sacrificial anodes
or impressed current, methods described
on page 31.)
Tanks and piping can be protected by
other methods approved by the regula-
tory authority.
Tanks and piping can be made totally of
a noncorrodible material, such as fiber-
glass-reinforced plastic. (Metal piping
connected to noncorrodible tanks still
requires corrosion protection.)
Steel tanks (but not piping) can be pro-
tected using a method in which a thick
layer of noncorrodible material is
bonded to the tank.
13-15
-------
PAGE 10
Detecting Leaks From Tanks
You must check your tanks at least once a
month to see if they are leaking.
You must use one (or a combination) of the
following monthly monitoring methods:
• Automatic tank gauging.
+ Monitoring for vapors in the soil.
• Interstitial monitoring.
• Monitoring for liquids on the
ground water.
* Other approved methods.
For Young Tanks...
An Alternate Leak Detection Method
You have one additional leak detection choice,
but only for 10 years after you install your
UST. Instead of using one of the monthly
monitoring methods noted above, you can
check for leaks by combining monthly inven-
tory control with tank tightness testing every 5
years. After 10 years, you must use one of the
monthly monitoring methods listed above.
Information on these leak detection methods
appears in the "Technical Questions & An-
swers" section on pages 34-35. (Special re-
quirements for USTs containing hazardous
chemicals are described in the "For Chemical
USTs Only" section on pages 27-30. These
USTs must use secondary containment and
interstitial monitoring.)
Vapor—I
Monitor
Interstitial.
Monitor
VT
2 1\
Tank Test
'Spill Device
. In Tank
Monitor
h
Monitoring
Well -1
Barrier w/
Monitor
Leak Detection Alternatives
13-16
-------
PAGE 11
Detecting Leaks From Piping
Because most leaks come from piping, your
piping must have leak detection.
If your piping is pressurized, you must meet
the following requirements:
The piping must have devices to auto-
matically shut off or restrict flow or
have an alarm that indicates a leak.
You must either conduct an annual
tightness test of the piping or use one of
the following monthly methods noted
above for tanks: vapor monitoring,
ground-water monitoring, interstitial
monitoring, or other approved monthly
methods.
If your UST has suction piping, your leak de-
tection requirements will depend on which type
of suction piping you have:
* The most commonly used suction piping
requires cither monthly monitoring
(using one of the four monthly methods
noted above for use on pressurized pip-
ing) or tightness testing of the piping
every 3 years.
* Another kind of suction piping is safer
and does not require leak detection.
This safer method has two main charac-
teristics:
-- Below-grade piping is sloped so that
the piping's contents will drain back
into the storage tank if the suction is
released.
-- Only one check valve is included in
each suction line and is located di-
rectly below the suction pump.
Vent Pipes
Tank Truck
Delivery Hose
Line Leak
Detectors
Product Dispensers
Product Delivery Line
A Typical Tank Facility
13-17
-------
PAGE 13
WHAT ABOUT EXISTING PETROLEUM USTs?
Existing UST systems are those installed be-
fore December 1988. In addition to immedi-
ately starting tank filling procedures that will
prevent spills and overfills, you will need to
meet the following requirements for corrosion
protection, spill and overfill prevention, and
leak detection. (The chart on pages 16-17 dis-
plays these requirements and when you must
meet them.)
Deadline For Corrosion Protection
And For Devices To Prevent Spills
And Overfills
By December 1998 (10 years after the UST
regulations become effective), USTs that were
installed before December 1988 must have:
Corrosion protection for steel tanks
and piping (see page 9).
• Devices that prevent spills and
overfills (see page 8).
Although the regulatory deadline is in 1998,
you should make these improvements as soon
as possible to reduce the chance that you will
be liable for damages caused by releases from
substandard USTs.
CAUTION/:
U
PASS
13-18
-------
PAGE 14
Deadlines And Choices For Leak
Detection
Deadlines...
Leak detection requirements are being phased
in for existing USTs depending on their age:
If the tank was
installed...
It must have leak
detection by
December or...
before 1965 or unknown 1989
1965-1969 . 1990
1970-1974 1991
1975-1979 1992
1980-Dec.l988 1993
This schedule will make sure that the older
USTs, which are more likely to leak, have leak
detection first
Choices For Existing Tanks...
You have three basic choices for making sure
your tanks are checked at least monthly to see
if they are leaking:
You can use any of the monthly
monitoring methods listed for new tanks
on page 10.
If your UST has corrosion protection or
internal tank lining and devices that
prevent spills and overfills, you can
combine monthly inventory control
with tank tightness testing every 5
years. This choice, however, can only
be used for 10 years after adding
corrosion protection or internally lining
the tank (or until December 1998,
whichever date is later). After 10 years,
you must use one of the monthly
monitoring methods on page 10.
If your UST does noi have corrosion
protection or internal tank lining and
devices that prevent spills and overfills,
you can combine monthly inventory
control with annual tank tightness
testing. Please note, however, that this
method is allowed only until December
1998. After that, your UST -- now
equipped with corrosion protection or an
internal tank lining, and devices that
prevent spills and overfills -- must use
one of the first two leak detection choices
noted above.
13-19
-------
Some Choices May Be Better...
You have a leak detection advantage if your
UST has been "upgraded" with corrosion pro-
tection and devices to prevent spills and over-
fills. For 10 years after "upgrading," you can
use a leak detection method that will be less
costly and easier to apply than most other leak
detection methods. This method requires you
to cqnduct monthly inventory control and to
have tank tightness tests performed every 5
years (see page 14). By contrast, USTs that
have not been "upgraded" must have tank
tightness tests every year.
Choices For Existing Piping...
You have two basic choices of leak detection
for piping depending on the type of piping you
use:
* By December 1990, existing
pressurized piping must meet the leak
detection requirements for new
pressurized piping (see page 11).
• Existing suction piping must meet the
requirements for new suction piping
(see page 11) at the same time the tank
meets the leak detection schedule
given above.
REMEMBER...
No matter which leak detection methods you
use for tanks and piping, they must be work-
ing by the deadlines described above. If not,
you must close your UST or replace it with a
new UST.
The chart on pages 16-17 displays all
these leak detection requirements and
the ones for corrosion protection and
spill and overfill prevention.
13-20
-------
PAGE 16
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO? Minimum Requirements
You must have Leak Detection, Corrosion Protection, and Spill/Overfill Prevention.
For WHEN you have to add these to your tank system, see the chart on the right. ^-
LEAK DETECTION
NEW TANKS
2 Choices
EXISTING TANKS
3 Choices
The chart at the bottom of
the next page displays
these choices.
NEW & EXISTING
PRESSURIZED PIPING
Choice of one from each set
NEW & EXISTING
SUCTION PIPING
3 Choices
CORROSION PROTEC
NEW TANKS
3 Choices
EXISTING TANKS
4 Choices
NEW PIPING
2 Choices
EXISTING PIPING
2 Choices
• Monthly Monitoring*
• Monthly Inventory Control and Tank Tightness Testing Every 5 Years
(You can only use this choice for 10 years after installation.)
• Monthly Monitoring*
• Monthly Inventory Control and Annual Tank Tightness Testing
(This choice can only be used until December 1998.)
t Monthly Inventory Control and Tank Tightness Testing Every 5 Years
(This choice can only be used for 10 years after adding corrosion protection and
spill/overfill prevention or until December 1998, whichever date is later.)
• Automatic Flow Restrictor • Annual Line Testing
• Automatic Shutotf Device -and- • Monthly Monitoring*
• Continuous Alarm System (except automatic tenk 9au9ins)
• Monthly Monitoring*
(except automatic tank gauging)
• Line Testing Every 3 Years
• No Requirements
(if the system has the characteristics described on page 1 1 )
TISNKI ' •' '•••••• .j." ..• • • ;• '.. ..•;
TION ."•: ....;::......,......,.,,,...., . . . ^ ^ •
• Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel
• Fiberglass
• Steel Tank clad with Fiberglass
• Same Options as for New Tanks
• Add Cathodic Protection System
• Interior Lining
• Interior Lining and Cathodic Protection
• Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel
• Fiberglass
• Same Options as for New Piping
• Cathodically Protected Steel
SPILL /OVERFILL PREVENTION ?
ALL TANKS
• Catchment Basins -and- • Automatic Shutotf Devices -or-
• Overfill Alarms -or-
• Ball Float Valves
* Monthly Monitoring includes: Automatic Tank Gauging Ground-Water Monitoring
Vapor Monitoring Other Approved Methods
Interstitial Monitoring
13-21
-------
PAGE 17
WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO ACT? Important Deadlines
For WHAT you have to do, see the chart on the left.
TYPE OF
TANK & PIPING
New Tanks and Piping*
Existing Tanks**
Installed:
Before 1965 or unknown
1965-1969
1970 - 1974
1975 - 1979
1980 -December 1988
Existing Piping**
Pressurized
Suction
LEAK -
DETECTION
At installation
By No Later Than:
December 1989
December 1990
December 1991
December 1992
December 1993
December 1990
Same as existing
tanks
CORROSION
PROTECTION
At installation
^
t
> December 1998
December 1998
December 1998
SPILL /OVERFILL
PREVBmONJ:^^;
At installation
^
> December 1998
*
Does not apply
Does not apply
* New tanks and piping are those installed after December 1988
** Existing tanks and piping are those installed before December 1988
IF YOU CHOOSE TANK TIGHTNESS TESTING AT EXISTING USTs ...
If you donl use monthly monitoring at existing USTs, you must use a combination of periodic tank
tightness tests and monthly inventory control. This combined method can only be used for a few
years, as the chart below displays.
Was the UST 'upgraded',
which means does it have
corrosion protection and
spill/overfill prevention
devices?
NO
YES :
Was it 'upgraded'
before
December 1988?
NO
Do monthly inventory
control and a tank tightness
test every vear until 1998;
then 'upgrade'. For
•upgraded* USTs, use the
box on the right.
Do monthly inventory
control and a tank tightness
test every 5 years for 10
years after 'upgrading';
then do monthly monitoring.
YES
Do monthly inventory
control and a tank tightness
test every 5 years until
1998; then do monthly
monitoring.
13-22
-------
PAGE 19
HOW DO YOU CORRECT PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY LEAKS?
What Do You Do When You Suspect
Your Petroleum UST Is Leaking?
Various warning signals indicate that your UST
may be leaking and creating problems for the
environment and your business. You can avoid
most of these problems by paying careful atten-
tion to these warning signals and by taking the
appropriate actions.
Warnings From Equipment
You should suspect a leak when you discover
the following warning signals from equipment:
• Unusual operating conditions (such as
erratic behavior of the dispensing
pump).
• Results from leak detection monitoring
and testing that indicate a leak.
You need to confirm quickly whether these sus-
pected leaks are real. What at first appears to be
a leak may be the result of faulty equipment that
is part of your UST system or its leak detection.
Double check this equipment carefully for fail-
ures. You may simply need to repair or replace
equipment that is not working.
If repair or replacement of faulty equipment
does not solve the problem, then you must report
this finding to the regulatory authority and con-
duct tightness tests of the entire UST system. If
these tests indicate a leak, you need to report to
the regulatory authority and follow the actions
for a confirmed leak (see page 20).
Warnings In The Environment
You should also suspect a leak if evidence of
leaked petroleum appears at or near your site.
For example, neighbors might tell you they
have smelled petroleum vapors in their base-
ments or tasted petroleum in their drinking
water. You might even discover evidence of
environmental damage as you investigate the
suspected equipment failures discussed above.
Whenever evidence of environmental damage
is discovered, you must take the following ac-
tions:
+ Report this discovery immediately to
the regulatory authority.
• Conduct tightness tests of the entire
UST system.
• Investigate the UST site for additional
information on the extent and nature of
the environmental damage.
The results of these system tests and site checks
will help answer the crucial question: "Is my
UST leaking?" If the answer is yes, then you
will need to follow the actions for responding
to confirmed leaks (see page 20).
13-23
-------
PAGE 20
What Do You Do When Your
Petroleum UST Leaks?
Your response to confirmed leaks and spills
(including overfills) comes in two stages:
short-term and long-term.
Short-Term Actions
4 Take immediate action to stop and
contain the leak or spill.
* Tell the regulatory authority within 24
hours that there is a leak or spill. How-
ever, petroleum spills and overfills of
less than 25 gallons do not have to be
reported if you immediately contain and
clean up these releases.
• Make sure the leak or spill poses no im-
mediate hazard to human health and
safety by removing explosive vapors
and fire hazards. Your fire department
should be able to help or advise you
with this task. You must also make sure
you handle contaminated soil properly
so that it poses no hazard (for example,
from vapors or direct contact).
* Find out how far the petroleum has
moved and begin to recover the leaked
petroleum (such as product floating on
the water table).
+ Report your progress and any informa-
tion you have collected to the regulatory
authority no later than 20 days after you
have confirmed a leak or spill.
* Investigate to determine if the leak has
damaged or might damage the environ-
ment. You must report to the regulatory
authority what you have learned from a
full investigation of your site within 45
days of confirming a leak or spill. At
the same time, you must also submit a
report explaining how you plan to re-
move the leaked petroleum, if you have
found contaminated ground water. Ad-
ditional site studies may be required if
necessary.
These actions are fully explained in the UST
regulations and in a brochure (see page 38).
Some leaks and spills will require additional,
long-term attention to correct the problem.
Long-Term Actions
Based on the information you have provided,
the regulatory authority will decide if you must
take further action at your site. You may need
to take two more actions:
4 Develop and submit a Corrective Action
Plan that shows how you will meet
requirements established for your site
by the regulatory authority.
* Make sure you meet the requirements
approved by the regulatory authority for
your site.
13-24
-------
PAGE 21
Can Leaking Tanks Be Repaired?
You can repair a leaking tank if the person who
does the repair carefully follows standard in-
dustry codes that establish the correct way to
conduct repairs. (See page 39 for repair
codes.)
Within 30 days of the repair, you must prove
that the tank repair has worked by doing one of
the following:
* Having the tank inspected internally or
tightness tested following standard
industry codes.
• Using one of the monthly leak detection
monitoring methods (except for the
method combining inventory control
and tank tightness testing).
* Using other methods approved by the
regulatory authority.
Can Leaking Piping Be Repaired?
Damaged metal piping cannot be repaired
and must be replaced. Loose fittings can sim-
ply be tightened, however, if that solves the
problem.
Within 6 months of repair, USTs with cathodic
protection must be tested to show that the
cathodic protection is working properly.
You must keep records for each repair as long
as you keep the UST in service.
Piping made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic,
however, can be repaired, but only in accor-
dance with the manufacturer's instructions or
national codes of practice. Within 30 days of
the repair, piping must be tested in the same
ways noted above for testing tank repairs (ex-
cept for internal inspection).
13-25
-------
PAGE 23
HOW DO YOU CLOSE USTs?
You can close your UST permanently or tem-
porarily.
Closing Permanently
If your tank is not protected from corrosion and
it remains closed for more than 12 months or
you decide to close it'permanently, you must
follow requirements for permanent closure:
You must notify the regulatory authority
30 days before you close your UST.
You must determine if leaks from your
tank have damaged the surrounding
environment. If there is damage, then
you will have to take the corrective ac-
tions described on page 20.
You can either remove the UST from
the ground or leave it in the ground. In
both cases, the tank must be emptied
and cleaned by removing all liquids,
dangerous vapor levels, and accumu-
lated sludge. These potentially very
hazardous actions need to be carried out
carefully by following standard safety
practices. (See pages 37 and 39 for
sources of information on good closure
practices.) If you leave the UST in the
ground, you must also fill it with a
harmless, chemically inactive solid, like
sand. The regulatory authority will help
you decide how best to close your UST
so that it meets all local requirements
for closure.
Three Exceptions To Permanent
Closure
The requirements for permanent closure may
not apply to your UST if it meets one of the
following conditions:
* If your UST meets the requirements for
a new or upgraded UST, then it can re-
main "temporarily" closed indefinitely
as long as it meets the requirements
below for a temporarily closed UST.
* The regulatory authority can grant an
extension beyond the 12-month limit on
temporary closure for USTs unprotected
from corrosion.
* You can change the contents of your
UST to an unregul-ted substance, such
as water. Before you make this change,
you must notify the regulatory author-
ity, clean and empty the UST, and deter-
mine if any damage to the environment
was caused while the UST held regu-
lated substances. If there is damage,
then you must take the corrective ac-
tions described on page 20.
13-26
-------
PAGE 24
Closing Temporarily
Tanks not used for 3 to 12 months must follow
requirements for temporary closure:
* If your UST has corrosion protection
and leak detection, you must continue to
operate these protective systems. If a
leak is found, you will have to respond
just as you would for a leak from an
active UST, as described on page 20.
(If your UST is empty, however, you do
not need to maintain leak detection.)
• You must cap all lines, except the vent-
line, attached to your UST.
13-27
-------
PAGE 25
WHAT ABOUT REPORTING AND
RECORDKEEPING?
What Do You Need To Report?
In general, you will only need to report to the
regulatory authority at the beginning and end of
your UST system's operating life:
* When you install an UST, you have to
fill out a notification form available
from your State. This form provides
information about your UST, including
a certification of correct installation.
(You should have already used this
form to identify your existing USTs. If
you haven't done that yet, be sure you
do so now.)
• You must report suspected releases to
the regulatory authority (see page 19).
* You must report confirmed releases to
your regulatory authority. You must
also report follow-up actions you plan or
have taken to correct the damage caused
by your UST (see page 20).
* You must notify the regulatory authority
30 days before you permanently close
your UST (see page 23).
You need to check with your regulatory author-
ity about the particular reporting requirements
in your area, including any additional or more
stringent requirements than those noted above.
REPORTING
INSTALLATION
SUSPECTED
RELEASE
CORRECTIVE CLOSURE
ACTION
13-28
-------
PAGE 26
What Records Must You Keep?
You will have to keep records that can be pro-
vided to an inspector during an on-site visit that
prove your facility meets certain requirements.
These records must be kept long enough to
show your facility's recent compliance status in
four major areas:
You should check with your regulatory author-
ity about the particular recordkeeping require-
ments in your area. Generally, you should
follow this useful rule of thumb for recordkeep-
ing: When in doubt, keep it.
You will have to keep records of leak
detection performance and upkeep:
— The last year's monitoring results,
and the most recent tightness
test.
-- Copies of performance claims
provided by leak detection
manufacturers.
— Records of recent maintenance,
repair, and calibration of leak
detection equipment installed
on-site.
PETAILED
RECOPPS
You will have to keep records showing
that the last two inspections of your
corrosion protection system were
carried out by properly trained
professionals.
You must keep records showing that a
repaired or upgraded UST system
was properly repaired or upgraded.
For at least 3 years after closing an
UST, you must keep records of the site
assessment results required for
permanent closure. (These results
show what impact your UST has had
on the surrounding area.)
13-29
-------
PAGE 27
FOR CHEMICAL USTs ONLY
What Chemicals Are Included In The
UST Regulations?
Several hundred chemicals were designated as
"hazardous" in Section 101(14) of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act of 1980, better known
as CERCLA or "Superfund."
The UST regulations apply to the same hazard-
ous chemicals identified by CERCLA, except
for those listed as hazardous wastes. These
hazardous wastes are already regulated under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and are not covered by the UST
regulations. (See 40 CFR Parts 260-270 for the
hazardous waste regulations.)
Information on the CERCLA hazardous chemi-
cals is available from EPA through the RCRA/
CERCLA Hotline at l-(800)^24-9346 or (202)
382-3000.
The following pages describe requirements for
USTs that contain hazardous chemicals ~ more
simply referred to as chemical USTs.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST
(Partial Listing Only)
REMEMBER...
New UST systems are those that are installed
after December 1988.
Those USTs installed between May 1985 and
December 1988 must meet two minimum re-
quirements:
* The UST must prevent releases due to
corrosion or structural failure.
• The stored contents must be compat-
ible with the tank's interior wall.
After December 1988, these older USTs must
meet the requirements for existing chemical
USTs (see page 29).
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
Acouphlhcne
Acenaphthylene
Aceuldehyde
AceuJdehyde, chloro-
Acetaldehyde, tricloro-
Chromic nilfate
Choromium
CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS
Chromatis chloride
Chrytene
Cobaltoui bromide
Cobaltaus fotmite
Cobaltous tulfunate
Copper
rcyinide
3T
Famphur
Feme ammonium citrate
Feme ammonium oxalate
Feme chloride
Feme dextran
Feme fluoride
Feme nitrate
Feme nilfale
Keithane
Kepone
Luiocvpine
LEAD AND COMPOUNDS
Lead
Lead acetate
Leadarsenate
Lad chloride
Lead fluoborate
Lead iodide
Zinc nitrate
Zinc phcnoniUbnate
Zinc phosphide
Zinc silicoflouridc
Zinc ulfale
Zirconium nitrate
Zirconium sulfate
Zirconium tetnchlondc
CASRN*
83329
208968
75070
107200
75876
10101538
7440473
10049055
218019
7789437
544183
14017415
7440508
544923
52857
1185575
2944674
7705080
9004664
7783508
10421484
10028225
^
115322
143500
303344
7439921
301042
7784409
7758954
13814965
10101630
7779886
127882
1314847
16871719
7733020
13746899
14644612
10026116
•Chemical Abnncts Service Registry Number
13-30
-------
PAGE 28
What Requirements Apply To New
Chemical USTs?
New chemical USTs have to meet the same
requirements described earlier for new petro-
leum USTs concerning correct installation,
corrosion protection, spill and overfill preven-
tion, corrective action, and closure.
However, they must have secondary contain-
ment and interstitial monitoring as described
below.
Secondary Containment
All new chemical USTs must have "secondary
containment." A single-walled tank is the first
or "primary" containment. Using only pri-
mary containment, a leak can escape into the
environment. But by enclosing an UST within
a second wall, leaks can be contained and de-
tected quickly before harming the environment.
There are several ways to construct secondary
containment:
• Placing one tank inside another tank or
one pipe inside another pipe (making
them double-walled systems).
• Placing the UST system inside a
concrete vault.
• Lining the excavation zone around the
UST system with a liner that cannot be
penetrated by the chemical.
Interstitial Monitoring
The chemical UST must have a leak detection
system that can indicate the presence of a leak
in the confined space between the first and the
second wall. Several devices are available to
monitor this confined "interstitial" space.
("Interstitial" simply means "between the
walls.") The UST regulations describe these
various methods and the requirements for their
proper use.
You can apply for an exception, called a vari-
ance, from the requirement for secondary con-
tainment and interstitial monitoring. Getting a
variance will require a lot of work. You will
have to convince your regulatory authority that
your alternative leak detection method will
work effectively by providing detailed studies
of your site, proposed leak detection method,
and available methods for corrective action.
Also, some States may not allow variances.
13-31
-------
PAGE 29
What About Existing Chemical USTs?
Existing UST systems arc those installed before
December 1988. In addition to immediately
starting tank filling procedures that prevent
spills and overfills, you will need to meet the
following requirements for existing USTs.
There is a special deadline for pressurized
piping in December 1990. At that time, exist-
ing pressurized piping must meet the require-
ments for new pressurized piping (described on
page 11).
Protection From Corrosion And
Prevention Of Spills And Overfills
By December 1998 (10 years after the UST
regulations become effective), you must im-
prove your USTs installed before December
1988:
• By adding corrosion protection to steel
tanks and piping.
• By using devices that prevent spills and
overfills.
Although the regulatory deadline is in 1998,
you should make these improvements as soon
as you can to reduce the chance that you will
be liable for damages caused by your sub-
standard UST.
Leak Detection
Leak detection requirements are being phased
in for existing USTs depending on their age:
If the tank was
installed...
It must have leak
detection by
December of...
before 1965 or unknown 1989
1965-1969 1990
1970-1974 1991
1975-1979 1992
1980-Dec.l988 1993
Choosing Leak Detection Methods
For Existing Chemical USTs
You can meet the leak detection requirements
in one of the following three ways:
* After December 1998, your UST must
meet the same requirements for
secondary containment and interstitial
monitoring that apply to new
chemical USTs.
* After December 1988, a variance can be
granted if you meet the same
requirements described above for getting
a variance for a new chemical UST.
• Until December 1998, you can use any of
the leak detection methods, other than
interstitial monitoring, described on page
14 but only if the method you choose can
effectively detect releases of the
hazardous chemical stored in the UST.
(Variances are not required in these
cases before December 1998.)
After December 1998, you must either
use secondary containment and
interstitial monitoring or get a variance.
This schedule will make sure that the older
USTs, which are more likely to leak, have leak
detection first
NOTE..
No mailer which leak detection methods you
use for tanks and piping, they must be work-
ing by the deadlines described above. If not,
you must close your UST or replace it with a
new UST.
13-32
-------
PAGE 30
What Do You Do If You Have A
Hazardous Chemical Leak Or Spill?
You must follow the same short-term and long-
term actions described earlier for petroleum
leaks and spills - except for two modified
short-term actions.
First, you must immediately report hazardous
chemical spills or overfills that meet or exceed
their "reportable quantities" to the National
Response Center at l-(800)-424-8802 or (202)
267-2675.
Second, you must also report hazardous chemi-
cal spills or overfills that meet or exceed their
"reportable quantities" to the regulatory au-
thority within 24 hours. However, if these
spills or overfills are smaller than their "re-
portable quantities" and are immediately con-
tained and cleaned up, they do not need to be
reported.
You can get information on the "reportable
quantities" by calling the RCRA/CERCLA
Hotline l-(800)-424-9346 or (202) 382-3000.
13-33
-------
PAGE 31
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q. How does "corrosion" cause USTs to
leak? How can USTs be protected from cor-
rosion?
A. Unprotected steel USTs are frequently dam-
aged by corrosion. When this happens, the
metal UST system and its underground sur-
roundings act like a battery. Pan of the UST
can become negatively charged and another
pan positively charged. Moisture in the soil
provides the connecting link that finally turns
these UST "batteries" on. Then, the negatively
charged pan of the UST system ~ where the
current exits from the tank or its piping ~
begins to deteriorate. As electric current passes
through this pan, the hard metal begins to turn
into soft ore, holes form, and leaks begin.
Steel tanks and piping can be protected by coat-
ing them with a corrosion-resistant coating and
by using "cathodic" protection. Cathodic
protection reverses the electric current that
causes corrosion and comes in two forms:
• "Sacrificial anodes" can be attached to
the UST. Sacrificial anodes are pieces of
metal more electrically active than the
steel UST. Because these anodes are
more active, the electric current will exit
from them rather than the UST. Thus, the
UST is the "cathode" and is protected
from corrosion while the attached
"anode" is sacrificed.
• An "impressed current" protection
system introduces an electric current into
the ground through* a series of anodes that
are not attached to the UST. Because the
electric current flowing from these anodes
to the tank system is greater than the
corrosive current attempting to flow from
it, the UST is protected from corrosion.
In addition, steel USTs can also be protected
from corrosion if they are bonded to a thick
layer of noncorrodible material, such as
fiberglass-reinforced plastic. Cathodic protec-
tion is not needed with this method of corrosion
protection. Also, the corrosion problem can be
totally avoided by using tanks and piping made
completely of noncorrodible material, such as
fiberglass.
For more information on how corrosion works
and how USTs can be protected from corrosion,
contact the National Association of Corrosion
Engineers or other corrosion professionals. See
page 39 for industry codes on corrosion protec-
tion.
13-34
-------
PAGE 32
Q. How can existing USTs (those installed
before December 1988) be "upgraded" to
meet the corrosion protection requirements
by December 1998?
A. When you add corrosion protection to exist-
ing UST systems, you have several choices.
Your first choice is to meet the corrosion pro-
tection requirements for new tanks and piping
(see page 9). Your other choices, described
below, depend on whether you are protecting
the tank or the piping.
Protecting Tanks
You have three choices for "upgrading*
tank for corrosion protection:
your
• The interior of a tank can be lined
according to industry codes (see page 39
for codes). Tanks using only an interior
lining for corrosion protection must pass
an inspection in 10 years and
reinspections every 5 years after that to
ensure that the lining and tank are
structurally sound.
• Tanks using only cathodic protection
must meet the general requirements for
cathodic protection and satisfy one of the
methods below to make sure that the tank
is structurally sound:
— If the tank is less than 10 years old,
you can use one of the monthly leak
detection monitoring methods noted on
page 10.
— If the tank is less than 10 years old,
you can have two tank tightness tests
conducted. The first test must take
place before you install cathodic
protection, and the second test must
take place between 3 and 6 months
later.
— If the tank is 10 years old or more,
it must be internally inspected and
assessed to make sure that the tank is
structurally sound and free of corrosion
holes before a cathodic protection
system is installed.
You can combine tank interior lining with
cathodic protection. If you use this
combined method, you are not required to
have the inierior lining periodically
inspected.
Protecting Piping
Unless the existing piping is made of noncor-
rodible material, it must meet the requirements
for cathodic protection of new metal piping,
except that the existing piping does not need to
be coated with a corrosion-resistant coating
(see page 9).
13-35
-------
PAGE 33
Q. What are "installation mistakes" and
how can they be avoided?
A. Improper installation is a significant cause
of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) and steel
UST failures, particularly piping failures.
Proper installation is crucial to ensure the
structural integrity of both the tank and its pip-
ing. Installation includes excavation, tank
system siting, burial depth, tank system assem-
bly, backfilling of the tank system, and surface
grading. Many mistakes can be made during
installation. For example, mishandling of the
tank during installation can cause structural
failure of FRP tanks or damage to steel tank
coatings and cathodic protection. Improper
layout of piping runs, incomplete tightening of
joints, inadequate cover pad construction, and
construction accidents can lead to failure of
delivery piping.
Installation problems result from careless in-
stallation practices that do not follow recog-
nized industry codes and procedures. If owners
and operators make sure that their installers
carefully follow the correct installation proce-
dures called for by industry codes, the number
of installation mistakes will be significantly
reduced. See page 39 for industry codes on in-
stallation. See page 37 for sources of informa-
tion on installation.
Q. What are spills and overfills? How can
they be stopped?
A. Many of the leaks at UST systems are actu-
ally the result of spills and overfills (which are
two separate problems). In fact, these releases
are at least twice as numerous as tank or piping
releases. Spills most often occur at the fill pipe
opening when the delivery truck's hose is dis-
connected, usually releasing only a few gallons.
Repeated releases of even small volumes, how-
ever, can create real environmental problems.
Overfills occur less frequently but usually re-
lease much larger volumes. When a tank is
overfilled, large volumes can be released
through untight fittings on the top of the tank
or the vent pipe. The tightness of these fittings
normally would not be a problem as long as the
tank was not filled beyond its capacity.
There are three keys to solving the problems of
spills and overfills. First, you must make sure
that the volume available in the tank is greater
than the volume of product to be transferred to
the tank before the transfer is made.
Second, you have to make sure that the transfer
operation is watched constantly to prevent
overfilling and spilling. See page 39 for appro-
priate industry codes.
Third, you must use equipment that can pre-
vent or severely limit spills and overfills (see
below for when you have to do this). Spill
prevention devices, such as spill catchment
basins or dry disconnect couplings, are readily
available. Overfill prevention devices auto-
matically shut off flow when the tank is nearly
full. Other overfill devices either restrict flow
or trigger an alarm when the tank is nearly full.
Your new UST system must be equipped with
both spill and overfill prevention devices when
it is installed. Your existing USTs must have
these devices by December 1998. The only
exception to this requirement is if your UST
system is filled only by separate transfers of no
more than 25 gallons. In these cases, you do
not have to follow the spill and overfill equip-
ment requirements.
13-36
-------
PAGE 34
Q. What leak detection methods will satisfy
the leak detection requirements for new or
"upgraded" petroleum USTs?
A. You must provide your UST system with a
method, or combination of methods, of leak
detection that allows you to meet the following
three basic requirements:
* You can detect a leak from any portion of
the tank or its piping that routinely
contains petroleum;
• Your leak detection equipment is
installed, calibrated, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions; and
• Your leak detection equipment meets the
performance requirements described in
the Federal regulations, sections 280.43
or 280.44.
EPA is developing brochures that fully describe
the various ways you can meet the leak detec-
tion requirements (see page 38). Leak detec-
tion methods are presented in the Preamble to
the UST regulations (Section IV.D.) and in the
rule (Subpart D, Sections 280.43 and 280.44).
The descriptions below briefly identify leak
detection methods for tanks and piping.
Leak Detection for Tanks
Leak detection for tanks can consist of one or a
combination of the following methods:
Tank Tightness Testing Combined with
Inventory Control
This method combines manual inventory con-
trol information (measured daily and compiled
monthly) with tank lightness testing every 5
years. Tank tightness testing requires taking
the UST out of service while changes in level
or volume over time are measured. This method
can be used only by new or upgraded USTs
during their first 10 years of operation (or until
1998, whichever is later). After that, one of the
monthly monitoring methods below must be
used.
Automatic Tank Gauging Systems
This method uses automated processes to moni-
tor product level and inventory control.
Monitoring for Vapors in the Soil
This method samples vapors in the soil gas
surrounding the UST. Leaked petroleum pro-
duces vapors that can be detected in the soil
gas. The regulations describe several require-
ments for using this leak detection method. For
example, this method requires using porous
soils in the backfill and locating the monitoring
devices in these porous soils near the UST sys-
tem.
13-37
-------
PAGE 35
Monitoring for Liquids on the Ground Water
This method monitors the ground water table
near an UST for the presence of released free
product on the water table. Monitoring wells
near the UST are checked frequently to see if
petroleum can be detected. The regulations
allow manual and automatic methods for de-
tecting petroleum in the monitoring wells. The
regulations also describe several requirements
for the use of this method. For example, this
method cannot be used if the water table is
more than 20 feet below the surface of the
ground.
Interstitial Monitoring
This method detects leaks in the space between
the UST and a second barrier or wall. The
regulations describe several general perform-
ance requirements for the application of inter-
stitial monitoring with double-walled USTs,
USTs fitted with internal liners, and USTs us-
ing partial interception barriers located below
the UST.
Other Methods Approved by the Regulatory
Authority
If other methods can be shown to work as ef-
fectively as the methods described above for
leak detection, then these alternative methods
can be approved by the regulatory authority.
One Additional Method with Restricted Use
Manual tank gauging can be used as the sole
method of leak detection, but only with tanks
that are 550 gallons or less. This method in-
volves taking two stick measurements at least
36 hours apart when the lank is not open for
use. Also, manual tank gauging can be used in
place of manual inventory control in tanks
ranging in size from 551 to 2,000 gallons. In
these cases, however, manual tank gauging
must be combined with tank tightness testing.
Leak Detection for Piping
If you have pressurized piping, you need to do
two things:
• Install an automatic line leak detector,
and
• Either conduct an annual line tightness
test,
Or conduct monthly leak detection
monitoring using one of the following
methods noted above for tanks: vapor
monitoring, ground-water monitoring,
interstitial monitoring, or other approved
monthly methods.
If you have suction piping, you need to do one
of two things:
• Either conduct line tightness tests every 3
years,
Or conduct monthly leak detection
monitoring as described above for
pressurized piping.
You do not need to have leak detection if your
suction piping meets some basic design re-
quirements:
• Below-grade piping is sloped so that the
piping's contents will drain back into the
storage tank if the suction is released.
• Only one check valve is included in each
suction line and is located directly below
the suction pump.
13-38
-------
PAGE 37
VIDEOS, BROCHURES, AND HANDBOOKS
ON USTs
Videos
Installation
"A Question of When: Tank Installation for
Inspectors"
"In Your Own Backyard"
Available for purchase only, $22.85 each, pre-
paid.
Order from:
National Fire Protection Association
Ann: Jim Smalley
Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02269
"Doing It Right" (coming soon)
For information:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
P.O. Box 6044
Rockville, MD 20850
Closure
"Tank Closure Without Tears: An Inspector's
Safety Guide"
Video and companion booklet available for
purchase, $25.00, prepaid.
Booklet only, $5.00, prepaid.
Order from:
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commision
Attn: VIDEOS
85 Merrimac Street
Boston, MA 02114
Video and companion booklet available for
loan, $5.00, prepaid.
Order from:
New England Regional Wastewater Institute
Two Fort Road
South Portland, ME 04106
13-39
-------
PAGE 38
Brochures
Corrective Action
"Oh No!" -- Leaks and Spills: What Do You
Do? (coming soon)
Leak Detection
"Leak Lookout" ~ Using External Leak De-
tectors to Prevent Petroleum Contamination
from Underground Storage Tanks
Financial Responsibility
Financial Responsibility Requirements
Summary (coming soon)
These brochures may be ordered from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
P.O. Box 6044
Rockville, MD 20850
Handbooks
"Financial Assurance Programs: A Handbook
for States" (coming soon)
"Funding Options for State and Local
Governments"
"Underground Storage Tanks: Building State
UST Compliance Programs"
These handbooks may be ordered from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
P.O. Box 6044
Rockville, MD 20850
"Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs:
Selected Technologies"
Stock No. 055-000-00272-0, S7.50 prepaid.
This handbook may be ordered from:
Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
13-40
-------
PAGE 39
INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS*
Installation
API Publication 1615, 1987, "Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage Systems,"
Recommended Practice, 4th Edition
PEI RP-100-87, 1987, "Recommended Prac-
tices for Installation of Underground Liquid
Storage Systems"
Tank Filling Practices
API Publication 1621, 1977, "Recommended
Practice for Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Re-
tail Outlets," 3rd Edition (A revised edition
is now available.)
NFPA 385, 1985, "Standard for Tank Vehicles
for Flammable and Combustible Liquids"
Closure
API Bulletin 1604, 1987, "Removal and Dis-
posal of Used Underground Petroleum Storage
Tanks," Recommended Practice, 2nd
Edition
Lining
API Publication 1631, 1987, "Interior Lining
of Underground Storage Tanks," Recom-
mended Practice, 2nd Edition
NLPA Standard 631, 19-, "Spill Prevention:
Minimum 10 Year Life Extension of Existing
Steel Underground Storage Tanks by Lining
Without the Addition of Cathodic
Protection"(DRAFT)
Corrosion Protection
API Publication 1632, 1987, "Cathodic Protec-
tion of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks
and Piping Systems," Recommended Practice,
2nd Edition
NACE RP-0169-83, 1983, "Recommended
Practice: Control of Corrosion on Underground
or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems"
NACE RP-0285-85, 1985, "Recommended
Practice: Control of External Corrosion on
Metallic Buried, Partially Buried, or Sub-
merged Liquid Storage Systems"
General (Repair, Spill and Overfill,
Installation, Compatibility)
API Publication 1626, 1985, "Storing and Han-
dling Ethanol and Gasoline-Elhanol Blends at
Distribution Terminals and Service Stations,"
1st Edition
API Publication 1627, 1986, "Storage and
Handling of Gasoline-Methanol/Cosolvcnt
Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service
Stations"
API Recommended Practice 1635, 1987,
"Management of Underground Petroleum Stor-
age Systems at Marketing and Distribution
Facilities," Recommended Practice, 3rd
Edition
NFPA 30, 1987, "Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code"
NFPA 30A, 1987, "Automotive and Marine
Service Station Code"
"This list includes the most relevant codes and
standards for underground storage tank
systems. Organizations are identified on
page 40.
13-41
-------
PAGE 40
ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTACT FOR TANK INFORMATION
ACT - Association for Composite Tanks
108 North State Street
Suite 720
Chicago, IL 60602
(301) 355-1307 (for information requests)
API - American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 682-8000
Fiberglass Petroleum Tank and
Pipe Institute
One SeaGate, Suite 1001
Toledo, OH 43604
(419) 247-5412
NACE ~ National Association of Corrosion
Engineers
Box 218340
Houston, TX 77218
(713) 492-0535
NFPA -- National Fire. Protection Association
Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02269
(617) 770-3000
NLPA - National Leak Prevention Association
P.O. Box 29809
Cincinnati, OH 45229
(513) 281-7693
l-(800)-543-1838
PEL -- Petroleum Equipment Institute
Box 2380
Tulsa.'OK 74101
(918) 743-9941
Steel Tank Institute
P.O. Box 4020
Northbrook, IL 60065
(312) 498-1980
13-42
-------
14.1 WORKSHOP G: CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER
NOTIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS FROM BUILDINGS
-------
14.1 WORKSHOP G: CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER
NOTIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS FROM BUILDINGS
Pauline G. Levin. Chief, Asbestos Management Section, EPA-Region III.
Ms. Levin presented key events that have been incremental in the development of EPA's
asbestos program. These events are outlined in the attached chronology.
Federal regulatory requirements for asbestos are authorized under TSCA and the Clean
Air Act. It is recommended that commercial or institutional building owners have an asbestos
operations and maintenance program that includes identification of asbestos, description of work
practices, surveillance and record keeping including medical and respiratory programs for the
workers.
14-1
-------
EPA ASBESTOS PROGRAM CHRONOLOGY
1972 List asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant.
1973 Set standard of "no visible emissions" for the milling of asbestos, the manufacturing of
asbestos products, and the demolition of buildings. Prohibited the spray application for
most uses of friable materials containing more than one percent of asbestos.
1974 Issued water effluent guidelines for asbestos manufacturing point sources and new source
performance standards.
1975 Extended the "no visible emissions" standard to waste collection and disposal.
1978 Prohibited most friable, sprayed-on asbestos.
1979 Initiated a technical assistance program to help schools identify and control friable
asbestos-containing materials. Announced Agency's intention to consider regulating
commercial uses of asbestos.
1980 Listed asbestos as a hazardous waste in proposed rules. Proposed rule for schools to
identify and notify EPA of any friable asbestos in schools. Proposed a rule under TSCA
requiring the reporting of production and exposure data on asbestos.
1982 Issued final rule on the identification and notification of friable asbestos-containing
materials in schools. Also, issued final rule under TSCA requiring the reporting of
production and exposure data on asbestos.
1984 Conducted national survey of public buildings to determine the extent of asbestos-
containing materials.
1985 Made first distribution of annual ASHAA loans and grants to financially needy schools.
1986 Proposed the ban and phase-out of most asbestos products and the uses of asbestos.
Distributed second round of ASHAA funds to schools. Began developing a regulation
to carry out the newly enacted Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).
EPA used the "regulation negotiation" process, which calls for including all interested
and affected constituencies in the actual development of the regulation.
1987 Proposed and subsequently finalized regulations for AHERA implementation which were
distributed to public and private schools. Distributed third round of ASHAA funds to
schools. Developed and finalized Model Accreditation Plan.
14-2
-------
1988 Distributed grants totaling $15 million to states for AHERA inspections and management
plans. Distributed fourth round of ASHAA funds to schools. Submitted report to
Congress on asbestos in public and commercial buildings, which proposed a three-year
program of increased guidance, technical assistance, and enforcement of current
regulations. Provided training to AHERA state designees and EPA's Regional Asbestos
Coordinators on proper AHERA implementation. Appointed an Asbestos Ombudsman
at EPA headquarters to respond to citizen concerns, questions, and complaints about
asbestos-in-schools issues. Provided schools with AHERA implementation support in the
form of guidance materials, a nationwide teleconference, and technical assistance.
Approved over 400 training courses for accreditation f asbestos consultants.
1989 Distributed fifth round of ASHAA funds to schools. Continued inspections under
AHERA in schools. Continued accreditation of training courses. Issued Ban and
Phasedown Rule for manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce.
Held dialogue on Public and Commercial buildings. Developed coordination of AHERA
and NESHAP. Stated approval of state programs to take over accreditation of courses.
1990 Reauthorization of Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA). First phase of
Ban and Phasedown Rule went into effect. Continued inspections under AHERA in
schools.
14-3
-------
15.1 KEYNOTE ADDRESS - IS TOTAL COMPLIANCE ACHIEVABLE?
-------
15.1 KEYNOTE ADDRESS - IS TOTAL COMPLIANCE ACHIEVABLE?
Christian R. Holmes. Deputy Assistant Administrator for Federal Facilities, Office of
Enforcement, EPA, Headquarters.
Mr. Holmes presented a keynote address focusing on the environmental challenge at
federal facilities. He discussed his observations concerning environmental problems at federal
facilities and difficulties encountered in addressing these problems. He stressed the importance
of identifying key problem areas and securing resources to correct the problems. According to
Mr. Holmes, his observations indicate that environmental problems at federal levels are getting
worse.
There are 1200 facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL). Approximately 115 of
these facilities are federal facilities. Mr. Holmes sees a series of waves crashing down on
federal facilities in the future, resulting in increased NPL listings and a greatly increased
workload. Under RCRA, 250 federal facilities are Transport, Storage and Disposal Facilities
(TSD). Eighty percent of these will require corrective action resulting in a further increase in
workload. Huge management challenges, exceeding even those of the private sector will
develop. Lastly, interagency agreements and feasibility studies must be developed. In summary,
there will be a phenomenal increase in federal facility workload.
The largest problem in dealing with the increased workload as Mr. Holmes stated, will
be a shortage of staff to oversee cleanup activities. Whether the agency will be able to carry
out its responsibility will depend on supplemental appropriation and reprogramming. With a
workforce turnover rate of 20 to 50 percent annually, there is also a need to consolidate training.
According to Holmes, it is necessary to identify key problem areas at federal facilities
and the specific threats to the environment. There is a need to identify short term problems and
then secure resources to fix the problems.
Tools and approaches at the disposal of federal facilities to accomplish these objectives
are as follows;
1) Agreements on compliance, violation, and enforcement.
2) Systematic approach to cleanup technologies.
3) Communication: Need to start communicating to others what methods are
successful.
15-1
-------
16.1 THE NEW OFFICE OF FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZA-
TION AND GOALS
-------
16.1 THE NEW OFFICE OF FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZA-
TION AND GOALS
Gordon Davidson. Director Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement EPA, Headquarters.
Mr. Davidson discussed EPA's philosophy on compliance and clean-up and the intended
goals and anticipated regulations of the Office of Federal Facility Enforcement. Mr. Davidson
stressed that enforcement is not one of the goals but a tool to achieve a commitment of
environmental compliance. It is EPA's goal to establish memorandums of agreements (MOAs)
as a step towards achieving environmental compliance at federal facilities. It is necessary to
have agreements that are enforceable in court.
The MOAs should clarify roles and responsibilities of the parties. They should include
a schedule that defines who does what and when. An action plan that reflects relative priority
of problems should be clearly defined. The MOAs allow EPA to prioritize problems. EPA
plans to continue, as a policy, to focus on these agreements.
The goal on the clean-up side is to expedite response actions. The primary objective in
clean-up operations is to contain waste so it can be disposed of properly.
Mix waste management problems were also addressed. EPA hopes to achieve the
following with their compliance strategy; clear definition of the mix waste problem nationwide,
national prioritization of problems and identification of successful technologies for dealing with
mix waste problems. EPA has suggested that certain federal facilities be used to test
environmental technologies.
16-1
-------
17.1 PANEL ON BUILDING A MULTI-MEDIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
17.1 PANEL ON BUILDING A MULTI-MEDIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
Panelist: Len Richardson, Director, Environmental Support Office
Captain James Taylor. Commander, Norfolk Navel Shipyard
Colonel Gerald P. Williams. Deputy Commanding Officer, Fort Belvoir
Moderator: Robert E. Greaves, Chief, RCRA Enforcement and UST Branch EPA, Region III
Richardson
Mr. Richardson discussed the Department of Defense (DoD) headquarter's perspective
on environmental issues. He stated there is a sincere apathy in the DoD to meet environmental
responsibilities, however within the past year some progress has been made.
In August of 1989, Secretary Cheyney challenged the DoD to be the federal leader in
environmental compliance and protection. Secretary Cheyney stated that environmental
consideration must be integrated and budgeted into all activities and that meeting environmental
standards must be a command priority at all levels. Environmental concerns need to be clearly
communicated. The Environmental Support Office created defense and environmental initiatives
to meet Secretary Cheyney's challenge.
Mr. Richardson referred to an Environmental Initiatives Forum held at an earlier date.
At this conference, Secretary Cheyney addressed issues regarding defense and the environment.
He said to choose between them is impossible in this real world of serious human threats and
general environmental concern. The goal is to build environmental ethic into the daily business
of defense. Good environmental planning and management need to be exercised before actions
are taken. The environmental initiatives are designed to produce a plan and to integrate goals
into day to day operations. Mr. Richardson presented the three phases of the environmental
initiatives process as follows; assess military conformance and progress, develop broad
sustainable compliance and, develop leadership goals with cost schedules.
The greatest challenge within the DoD vision is to sustain the momentum they have now.
To meet this challenge, the DoD is developing a strategy by 1992. This strategy will include
every aspect of how the DoD carries out business. Operation and installation, acquisition of
major weapons systems, procurement of equipment and supplies, and production of military
materials will be analyzed. The following list indicates the goals DoD hopes to accomplish as
part of the 1992 strategy:
• Help command the environmental mission to maintain momentum and support.
• Provide adequate policy, dollars, and manpower.
• Provide institutional and educational training to advance knowledge in the field.
• Establish environmental career field for military and civilian personnel with pay
comparable to private industry.
17-1
-------
• Involve public and regulators early in the decision process.
• Provide a clear road map of how to solve environmental problems more efficiently.
An environmental management study will be developed as part of the overall defense
management review process. The study objectives are to reduce overhead costs and provide a
solid basis for establishing DoD leadership in environmental activities. The goal of the study
is to look at the organizational structure in the DoD in order to streamline the environmental
structure and implement environmental programs.
Congress has implemented a new resource management program to establish a
recommitment to natural resources and to develop, identify, and manage all significant wildlife,
geophysical, cultural, and historical resources on DoD land.
Taylor
Captain Taylor discussed his experiences in using total quality management to conduct
operations at the navy's oldest and largest industrial facility. A brief introduction to the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard was presented along with discussion of the strategic plan and vision of how they
were set up to mold environmental policy to support daily business at the yard.
Since Norfolk Naval Shipyard started operations in 1776, environmental problems have
been building. The 1300 acre shipyard sits on the south branch of the Elizabeth River. All
work required on navy ships takes place in this yard.
The following are significant principles for a successful environmental program which
are outlined in the strategic operations plan for the shipyard;
1. Incorporate total quality management or total quality leadership principles into daily
business at Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
A. Establish a Quality and Productivity Improvement Committee
B. Maintain a well trained work force.
C. Establish levels of management to insure quality processes.
2. Define responsibilities.
3. Incorporate planning and design.
4. Hold annual audits.
5. Maintain enforcement crews to hold daily inspections.
In his summary, Captain Taylor emphasized the following key elements for successful
total quality management;
1. Investment of resources
2. Corrective action programs
17-2
-------
3. Communication with work force
4. Commitment
In his closing remarks he noted that if all of the elements are not activated, there will not
be a total program.
Williams
Colonel Williams emphasized that federal facility compliance to the detail is very
important and everyone at the conference can help achieve this. Fort Belvoir is going to go
through a lot of what the Norfolk Naval Shipyard has already done to get their program
organized and on the correct path.
Colonel Williams gave examples of how unaware personnel may be of many materials
in existence on the installation. Therefore, an emphasis on education as well as public
involvement should be made.
Greaves
Mr. Greaves feels the following six areas are needed for maintaining and developing
multi-media environmental planning;
1. Establish a high level of focus for program compliance.
2. Develop environmental management systems.
Perform comprehensive waste characterization
Perform internal audits
3. Improve environmental support services.
4. Implement training.
5. Coordinate environmental planning.
6. Integrate new regulations.
17-3
-------
18.1 OVERVIEW OF CHESAPEAKE BAY FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
INITIATIVE AND WHAT WE WILL DO NEXT
18.2 ATTACHMENTS
List of Federal Facilities Covered by EPA, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Multi-media
Federal Facility Compliance and Enforcement Initiative
EPA Chesapeake Bay Federal Facility Compliance Initiative
-------
18.1 OVERVIEW OF CHESAPEAKE BAY FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
INITIATIVE AND WHAT WE WILL DO NEXT
Neil Swanson. Manager, Bay Federal Facilities and Multi-Media Compliance Initiative EPA,
Region in
When EPA Administrator, William Reilly, accepted the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay
Executive Council in December, 1989, one of his goals for 1990 was to make the federal
community a role model for environmental compliance. The Chesapeake Bay Federal Facility
Compliance Initiative was a direct result of this commitment and the goal of physical compliance
or a signed compliance agreement with EPA or the State by December 31, 1990 was established.
In this presentation, a status of the Initiative to date was presented as outlined in the attached
materials. A great deal of progress has been made, yet a number of facilities must still come
into compliance. The majority of the presentation covered issues and challenges which have
arisen during this Initiative. Many are listed in the attached material. The key items on the
positive side have been an increased level and detail of communication, high level attention given
to environmental issues, and the ability to expedite the bureaucratic process to achieve results.
On the downside, EPA Region HI has encountered some data and inspection reporting
delays, some legal and resource impediments and have found it difficult to transfer successes into
quantifiable environmental improvements. EPA's general plans for the upcoming year were
outlined. EPA will continue its emphasis on Bay federal facility compliance. However,
pollution prevention and long-term compliance strategy development will be emphasized. The
momentum gained by this year's initiative must be maintained and converted into long-term
success. Again, the goal of the federal community as the role model for environmental
compliance can and shall be achieved through a partnership between EPA, the States and the
federal facilities.
The federal facilities initiative has two goals:
1) 100% compliance.
2) Establish a continuous cooperative effort to build on.
Mr. Swanson recognized the accomplishment of these goals as being a fairly tough task,
he focused on major issues.
Of 50 facilities on the list, 37 started in non-compliance. There are 12 facilities still in
non-compliance and 9 new violators have been added to the list.
Issues and challenges that face all facilities are as follows:
1) Communication and information transfer.
18-1
-------
2) Training in new regulations (For example, new regulations being developed for
storm water discharge).
3) Establishing data tracking systems.
4) Developing a multi-media approach.
5) Developing compliance indicators.
6) Promotion of success story publicity.
EPA is an regulatory agency and they are supposed to enforce all laws and regulations.
The public looks to EPA to enforce regulations. In working with the Department of Defense,
the EPA must keep its purpose in mind.
Problems created over legal versus technical issues cause difficulties for facilities. Legal
issues take time to solve. The Department of Defense is now beginning to achieve federal
compliance and there are many legal issues for them to go through.
Facilities also need to know who the actors are in the bureaucratic arena and what
resources are available to them. A long term multi-media environmental strategy, including
inspection plans, needs to be developed and public involvement must be initiated. The bottom
line, according to Mr. Swanson is that the federal government should be taking the lead in all
of these issues.
18-2
-------
LIST OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
COVERED BY
EPA, REGION 3
CHESAPEAKE BAY MULTI-MEDIA FEDERAL FACILITY
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
For more information contact:
Neil R. Swanson (215) 597-6509
or
Koge Suto, Jr. (215) 597-1231
18-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
The attached list was compiled to support one of two compliance
goals that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set for
all federal agencies with facilities located in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. The goal is to achieve full federal facility
compliance in the watershed by December 31. 1990. EPA is working
with the District of Columbia and with the Bay states—Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia—who have primary authority for most
environmental programs, to achieve this goal within this short
timeframe.
The parameters of this goal can be defined as follows:
1. It applies to all major federal facilities or those
that have a potential major impact on Chesapeake Bay
water quality. This includes, but is not limited to,
all facilities that are in significant noncompliance
(SNC) or its equivalent in the Bay drainage area. It
also includes all Department of Defense (DOD)
facilities listed in Appendix B of the EPA/DOD Coopera-
tive Agreement, i.e., those facilities that were
identified through the Tetra-Tech study as having a
potential for significant impact on the Bay's water
quality.
2. EPA and the States will be seeking compliance for all
sources that significantly impact the Bay in all
environmental programs for which we have regulatory
authority. This includes
—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES),
—Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Program,
—Air emissions if the source will have a signi
ficant impact on Bay water quality,
—PCB requirements of the Toxics Substances
Control Act (TSCA), and
—any hazardous waste sites that are currently on
the National Priority List (NPL) or proposed to
be listed.
3. Violations of other programs that may not have a direct
impact on Bay water quality may be included during the
negotiation of compliance agreements. For example,
—violations of drinking water standards for
public water systems,
—violations of requirements for the removal and
disposal of asbestos in buildings (NESHAPS),
—PCB record-keeping and labelling violations,
—RCRA Class II violations, and
18-4
-------
—any violations of air emissions standards
without significant impact on the Bay.
4. Our primary goal is physical compliance by December 31,
1990. If that cannot be reasonably achieved within the
established timeframe then we will seek a legally
binding agreement containing a schedule for compliance
beyond December 31, 1990 signed by the federal agency
and EPA or the appropriate State agency.
5. The attached list focuses on SNC or its equivalent
based on data available as of December 31, 1989. It is
a dynamic list that will be changed as facilities
achieve compliance or go into noncompliance status
during the year. EPA and the States will continue to
monitor for new violations that come to our attention
by December 31, 1990. Violations that occur within
this timeframe will be added to the list.
There is another concurrent compliance goal that federal facili-
ties should be aware of. During the same timeframe, EPA and the
Bay States will be taking appropriate action to cut the NPDES SNC
rate in half. The parameters of this goal can be defined as
follows:
—The goal applies to all facilities in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed with major NPDES permits, i.e., municipal,
industrial, and federal facilities,
—The goal is 50 percent reduction of the rate of SNC by
December 31, 1990. (The rate of SNC was 8.3 percent in
1989, including federal facilities.)
—The goal is physical compliance by December 31, 1990 or a
legally enforceable document (compliance agreement or
consent order) establishing a schedule for compliance
signed by the facility and EPA or the appropriate state
authority.
NOTE: Any federal facilities in SNC under the NPDES program are
already included on the attached list.
18-5
-------
Definition of Significant Noncompliance
To assist you with understanding the attached list we have
provided brief summaries of the definition of Significant Noncom-
pliance (SNC) or its equivalent for each media program cited in
the list. The guidance establishing these definitions is much
longer and more complex. For this reason, we have also iden-
tified an EPA or, where appropriate, State contact for each
program. If you have any questions about the violations cited or
if you want more detailed information on SNC, please call the
designated contact directly.
In addition, EPA and the States expect all violations to be
corrected. Obviously, violations vary in degree and SNC is an
attempt to identify serious violations and chronic violators that
require priority attention.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
Contact: EPA - Carol Stokes-Cawley, Chief
General Enforcement Section
Water Management Division
(215) 597-3689
State - (MD) Merrylin ZawMon (301) 631-3574
James Pittman (301) 631-3386
Maryland Dept. of the Environment
(PA) Stan Rudisill, Bureau of Water Quality
Management, Pennsylvania Dept. of
Environmental Resources
(717) 787-8184
(VA) John Roland
State Water Control Board
(804) 367-6775
All violations of NPDES permit conditions and enforcement orders
are violations of the Clean Water Act. The term "Significant
Noncompliance" (SNC) identifies the most serious violations
including:
any monthly average effluent violation that meets the
Technical Review Criteria (TRC)*, for the same parame-
ter at the same outfall, occurring at least two months
within a six month period.
any monthly average effluent violation, for the same
parameter at the same outfall, occurring at least four
months within a six month period.
any effluent violation that causes or has the potential
to cause a water quality or public health problem.
18-6
-------
NPDES fcont'd)
any violation of a compliance schedule milestone date
by 90 days or more (i.e., start of construction, end of
construction, attain final compliance).
any report late by 30 days or more.
— any violation of permit requirements (pretreatment
program, narrative conditions).
any violation of an enforcement order (administrative
and judicial).
NOTE: For purposes of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative, all
instances of NPDES program noncompliance will be
addressed.
*TRC is a factor by which the monthly average pollutant
limit is multiplied to determine the severity of a viola-
tion. The TRC for conventional pollutants is 1.4; the TRC
for toxic pollutants is 1.2. If an effluent violation
exceeds the product of the permit limit for that parameter
multiplied by its TRC, it is designated as a TRC violation.
Example
— The monthly average permit limit is 30 mg/L (conven-
tional pollutant).
The reported monthly average result is 45 mg/L.
1.4 (TRC) x 30 mg/L (permit limit) = 42 mg/L
Since the reported result (45 mg/L) exceeds 42 mg/L, it
is considered a TRC violation. Two TRC violations of
the same parameter at the same outfall within a six
month period indicates significant noncompliance.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Contact: EPA - John G. Nevius
State Enforcement Section
Hazardous Waste Management Division
(215) 597-2381
State - (MD) Butch Dye, Maryland Dept. of the
Environment
(301) 631-3400
(PA) Rick Shipman, Bureau of Waste Management
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources
(717) 787-6239
18-7
-------
RCRA (cont'dl
(VA) Karol Akers
Virginia Dept. of Waste Management
(804) 225-2496
The RCRA program classifies both violators and violations. It
does not use the term significant noncompliance.
A High Priority Violator (HPV) is a handler who causes or poses a
substantial likelihood of exposure to waste or its constituents.
An HPV is a chronic violator or one who substantially deviates
from program requirements or the terms of a permit, order, or
decree by failing to comply in a timely manner. Regulating offi-
cials consider the combined effect of violations, the result of
previous inspections, and the violator's responsiveness in
correcting previous violations in classifying a violator as an
HPV.
A Medium Priority Violator (MPV) is a handler with one or more
Class I violations who does not meet the criteria for an HPV.
RCRA violations are classified as follows:
Class I - Any deviation from regulations, or provisions of
compliance orders, consent decrees or agreements,
or permit conditions which could result in failure
—to assure that hazardous waste is destined for
and delivered to authorized treatment, storage,
or disposal facilities (TSDF's); or
—to prevent releases of hazardous waste or its
constituents, both during the active life and
applicable post-closure periods of the facility
operation where appropriate; or
—to assure early detection of releases; or
—to perform emergency clean-up or other correc
tive action for releases.
Class II - Any other violation that would not be considered
a Class I violation.
AIR
Contact: EPA - Christie Johnson
Enforcement Policy and State Coordination Section
Air, Toxics & Radiation Management Division
(215) 597-3023
18-8
-------
AIR (cont'd)
State - (DC) Don Wambsgans, Chief
Engineering Services Section
DC Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
(202) 767-7370
(MD) Ronald E. Lipinski, Administrator
Enforcement Program, Air Mgmt. Administra-
tion, Maryland Dept. of the Environment
(301) 631-3220
(PA) Jim Salvaggio, Chief, Abatement &
Compliance Division, Bureau of Air Quality
Control, Pennsylvania Dept. of
Environmental Resources
(717) 787-9256
(VA) Pam Faggert, Director
Division of Technical Evaluation,
Virginia Dept. of Air Pollution Control
(804) 786-5481
A violator is identified as a significant violator if they meet
any one or more of the following criteria:
1. A source that is in violation of National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) re-
quirements other than asbestos demolition and renova-
tion requirements.
2. A source violating new source requirements, including
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, and Part
D nonattainment area permitting requirements.
3. A Class A source that is in violation of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) if the source is located
where it will impact a nonattainment area and is
violating the pollutant for which the area is in
nonattainment.
4. A source that is violating a federal consent decree or
administrative order or a state consent decree or
administrative order (because the source would also be
in violation of the SIP). A source violating a state
decree or order is a significant violator only if the
decree/order addresses violations for pollutant for
which the area is in nonattainment.
5. Any federal facility violator.
18-9
-------
PCB REQUIREMENTS OF THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)
Contact: EPA - John Ruggero, Chief
TSCA Enforcement Section
(215) 597-9937
The TSCA program defines SNC as a violation of one of the regula-
tions under TSCA that will result, at a minimum, in an ad-
ministrative complaint issued in accordance with the appropriate
Enforcement Response Policy, and for which the penalty will be at
least $25,000. For federal facilities, a facility is in SNC if
the violation(s) would normally result in a formal enforcement
action. However, these actions are handled in accordance with
the EPA Federal Facility Compliance Strategy (the Yellow Book).
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)
Contact: EPA - Thomas Conlon, Enforcement Coordinator
Water Management Division
(215) 597-8241
Patti Kay Wisniewski (for general drinking water
info.), Water Management Division
(215) 597-9032
State - (MD): Barry O'Brien, Chief, Facilities Inspec-
tion Division, Water Supply Program,
Maryland Department of the Environment
(301) 631-3706
(PA): Jeff Gordon, Compliance & Enforcement
Unit, Division of Water Supplies,
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources (717) 787-9037
(VA): Evans Massie, Division of Water Supply
Engineering, Virginia Dept. of Health
(804) 786-1766
The SWDA regulates public water systems. A community water
system would be in SNC if it meets any of the following criteria:
1. violates the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
microbiological contaminants or turbidity for four or
more months during any 12 consecutive month period, or
18-10
-------
SDWA (cont'd)
2. is a major violator of monitoring or reporting require-
ment for microbiological contaminants or turbidity or
Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) for 12 consecutive months,
or
3. violates the MCL for microbiological contaminants or is
a major violator of the monitoring reguirments for
these contaminants for a combined total of 12 consecu-
tive months, or
4. violates the MCL for turbidity or is a major violator
of the monitoring requirments for this contaminant for
a combined total of 12 consecutive months, or
5. exceeds the level for which exemptions may be issued
for any regulated inorganic, organic (excluding TTHM),
or radiological contaminant, or
6. exceeds the MCL for TTHM for two or more running annual
averages during the year, or
7. fails to monitor for or report the results of any one
of the currently regulated inorganic, organic (other
than TTHM), or radiological contaminants since the
Federal requirements for that contaminant became
effective (June 24, 1977), or
8. violates a requirement of a written and bilaterally
negotiated compliance schedule.
NOTE: EPA's Drinking Water Program is modifying the SNC
definition, which will be used beginning in FY91. It
will include non-transient, non-community water systems
in FY91 (they are not covered by the present defini-
tion for SNC). Transient, non-community water systems
serving 500 or more people will be included in FY92,
followed by all remaining systems in FY93. EPA an-
ticipates that this change will increase the number of
water systems in SNC.
Chronic violators of drinking water regulations are classified as
persistent violators. A community water system is a persistent
violator if during a 12 consecutive month period, it
— has four or more monthly violations of the bacterio-
logical or turbidity MCL's or the monitoring and
reporting requirements for these MCL's.
has had two or more quarterly violations of the bac-
teriological or turbidity MCL's or the monitoring and
reporting requirements for these MCL's.
has violated the TTHM MCL for one running annual
average.
has violated the monitoring and reporting requirements
for TTHM for two or three quarters.
18-11
-------
9
SDWA (cont'd)
NOTE: If a system meets the persistent violator definition
and the SNC definition, the system is considered as
SNC.
18-12
-------
10
KEY TO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY FEDERAL FACILITIES LIST
The list will receive a new date whenever changes are made to it.
Check the date in the upper left corner of the page to ensure
that you are working from the most recent copy of this list.
Column l State/NPDES Number - If the facility has a current
NPDES permit, the number of that permit will appear in
this column. If the facility has more than one permit,
additional permit numbers may appear under the "Com-
ments" column.
Column 2 Facility Name - The name of the facility as it appears
in EPA data bases.
Column 3 Federal Facility I.D. Number - The number assigned to
each federal facility in the GSA data base.
Column 4 New Violation Since 12/89 - Violations that occurred
during/since December 1989 will be identified by a "T"
(True). Violations that occurred before December 1989
will be identified by an "F" (False).
Column 5 Date of Compliance or Agreement - When a facility
achieves physical compliance or signs a compliance
agreement, the date will appear in this column.
Column 6 Comments - This column will be used to identify the
media program in which the violations occurred and a
brief description of the nature of the violations. It
will also indicate the activities which have been
conducted to bring the facility into compliance.
18-13
-------
EPA CHESAPEAKE BAY
FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE
1990
Decembers, 1990
18-14
-------
GOALS
o 100% COMPLIANCE OF BAY FEDERAL
FACILITIES BY DECEMBER 1990
O ESTABLISH CONTINUING COOPERATIVE
EFFORT WITH ALL FEDERAL FACILITIES
TO ENSURE ONGOING COMPLIANCE
18-15
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OP FEDERAL FAr.ll ITY INITIATIVE
o GEOGRAPHIC AREA: ENTIRE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
o MULTI-MEDIA PROGRAM COVERAGE
(NPDES,SDWA,RCRA,NPLJSCA,AIR)
- MAJOR VIOLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1968
- SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BAY
- ALL MAJOR NPDES FEDERAL FACILITIES IN BAY
- TOTAL OF 50 DOD AND NON-OOO FEDERAL FACILITIES
o OBJECTIVE: ATTAIN PHYSICAL COMPLIANCE IF POSSIBLE,
OR IF NOT, FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH EPA AND/OR STATE
CONTAINING SCHEDULE FOR ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE
o STATIC LIST: CURRENT KNOWN VIOLATIONS ARE TOP
PRIORITY
o DYNAMIC LIST: WILL EXPEDmOUSLY WORK TO RESOLVE
ANY NEW NONCOMPUANCE (MAJOR AND MINOR)
18-16
-------
C/i'esapeafce Bay
FEDERAL FACILITIES
COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE
EPA
REGION
ol Dtl*mt F»cilitlt»
A Non-Otpj r t««»l ol Dtlimt ficilit
g Or iglRil I > Out ol Co«>pli|(ic«
gltturntd to Complltitct $lnc« 0
-------
STATUS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY
FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE
(Through November 1990)
START OF INITIATIVE - DECEMBER 1989
13 - COMPLIANCE 37 - NONCOMPLIANCE
(13 DoD) (29 DoD, 8 NON-DoD)
STATUS THROUGH OCTOBER 1990
38 - COMPLIANCE 12 - NONCOMPLIANCE
(32 DoD, 6 NON-DoD) (10 DoD, 2 NON-DoD)
25 RETURNED TO COMPLIANCE STATUS
(ACTUAL OR COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE)
(19 DoD, 6 NON-DoD)
ASSESSING POTENTIAL NEW VIOLATIONS
9 Facilities - New Noncompliance Since 9/15/90
(8 DoD, 1 NON-DoD)
3 - COMPLIANCE 6 - NONCOMPLIANCE
(3 DoD) (5 DoD, 1 NON-DOD)
18-18
-------
ISSUES/CHALLENGES
l. Communication/Information Exchange
(EPA, States, Facilities)
2. Training/Complexity of Regulations
3. Data/Tracking Systems Inadequate
4. Multi-Media Approach Difficult
5. How do we show environmental improvements?
6. Foster partnerships yet maintain enforcement presence
7. New noncompliance
8. Inspection report delays
9. Legal vs technical issues
10. Bureaucratic process
Organizational structures
EPA vs State enforcement lead
Escalation process
Resources
18-19
-------
WHAT'S NEXT?
1. Continue process/partnerships established
2. Expand to include all media
(i.e., UST, asbestos)
3. Pollution prevention
4. Develop long term multi-media environmental compliance
strategy.
5. Federal community as role model
18-20
-------
19.1 STATUS REPORT FROM THE WORKING SESSION ON THE LONG-TERM
COMPLIANCE PLAN
19.2 ATTACHMENTS
• Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy for the NPDES Program
-------
19.1 STATUS REPORT FROM THE WORKING SESSION ON THE LONG-TERM
COMPLIANCE PLAN
Carol Stokes-Cawley. Chief NPDES General Enforcement Section EPA, Region IH
Ms. Cawley reported that last December, under the Chesapeake Bay Compliance
Initiative (CBCI), Administrator Riley set two compliance goals for the Chesapeake Bay. One
was to cut significant non-compliance or water violators in half by the end of the year. The
second was to have all federal facilities in 100% compliance by the end of the year. During the
year, EPA, DoD, and other federal facilities have been doing a lot of things innovatively and
differently to work toward accomplishing the administrative goals.
To provide a preliminary evaluation of the 1990 Initiative in the Chesapeake Bay and to
develop a set of recommendations for 1991 which build upon the efforts to achieve 100%
compliance, a working session was planned at the Federal Facilities Conference. The session,
which consisted of over 90 people, broke into groups. Each group came back with two things
that worked and two things that needed improvement in the initiative. Each participant was
asked to vote for one activity or program identified as the most successful component of the
initiative and one activity or program that needed improvement. The results are as follows:
Strengths of the Initiative
High command attention (helped communication and budgeting)
Communication between EPA, State and facilities has improved because of initiative
Priorities were established
Willingness by Regulators to participate more freely in negotiations
Meetings with workers and all levels
Summarized what needed to be done and feedback from EPA
Information good and helpful
August, 1990 meeting - Facility, EPA, States (mtg. in Washington, D.C., which
promoted communication) facilitated communication (went through the UST)
• Progress report helped get out information on good things going on at facilities
(D.O.D. progress report).
Weaknesses of the Initiative
• List: Not Accurate
Accusatory
Not Timely
Doesn't reflect risk
Can't get off
• Unrealistic expectation or goal (100%)
• Lack of awareness of goals - what they mean; how they were established
19-1
-------
Need clear direction to come into compliance and leeway for budget decisions
Haste makes waste - Forced into initiative under tight timeframe
Emphasis only on D.O.D. facilities - need to bring in others
Communications - Late notification of initiative
Accusatory language - showing up on list before formal notification to federal
facility of violation.
In the second half of the work session, individuals were asked to recommend activities
that would improve compliance in the long term. The following are a few of the ideas which
were discussed;
1) Develop a realistic program, a goal outline, and a specific reporting outline.
2) Focus on environmental audits to assure continued compliance (recommended EPA
conduct more multi-media inspections).
3) A yearly tour of the hazardous storage areas of the facility by the commander.
4) Develop a better exchange of information and even better communication among
EPA, Federal Facilities, and State Agencies.
5) There is a need for more staff and adequate funding.
6) Publish a list of violators quarterly in local newspapers.
7) Perform multi-media inspections.
8) Compliance and agreement for compliance are not the same thing. Sustainability of
compliance is an issue which needs to be resolved.
A questionnaire was also distributed that asked participants to identify an initiative that
would improve compliance at Federal Facilities within the Bay Watershed. The following
responses were compiled:
1) Better information exchange between EPA, Federal Facilities and states. Need info
exchange mechanism. For example, we are trying to complete a corrective action plan
for USTs. However, SWCB has yet to approve any CAP (Navy) or provide a model for
an appropriate "approvable" (sic) CAP.
2) A yearly tour by the Facility Commander of areas used to store hazardous waste.
3) Identify requirements for environmental personnel at facility level and then approve
"fenced" money to fund these people.
4) More staff and adequate funding at the activity level.
5) To have a realistic program and goal outline developed by joint committees to follow
and a specific reporting outline.
6) Focus on environmental audits to insure continued compliance. Find areas that need
work and then work toward corrective actions.
19-2
-------
7) Communicate to facilities the potential impact on resources (i.e., budget, staff) to
negotiate compliance versus cleaning up/preventing, by themselves.
8) That there be workshops by each state and their program for federal facility
compliance.
9) Publish a list of violations every quarter in leading newspapers in that state.
10) If Chesapeake Bay Initiation is to clean up the water of the Bay, then information/
inspection/attention should follow the 80/20 rule (80% problems by 20% causes). Major
impact/improvement areas should be highlighted and activities should be emphasized in
this area. For example, storm water management. What is the impact/benefit to the bay
of BMP and retrofits of grandfathered facilities via the current posture of compliance?
Would it be more beneficial to work on erosion or to address the asbestos portion of the
Clean Air Act?
11) A. Redirect EPA resources to conduct more multi-media environmental audit of
Federal Facilities. Follow-up the assistance visits with "inspection visits" to
ensure the identified deficiencies have been corrected. The audits need to go
beyond "regulatory issues" and address environmental management and pollution
prevention issues.
B. Since "compliance status" is a relatively poor indicator of environmental quality,
develop better measures of environmental quality.
C. Emphasize an enlightened self-interest and personal accountability among
individuals as the key success factor to achieving environmental quality
objectives.
12) I recommend that more pollution prevention initiatives be emphasized. This will put
us on the course to substantial compliance by preventing the pollution in the first place.
This would get us into the mode of not needing enforcement.
13) Compliance is not necessarily a measure of Environmental Quality. Recognize that
compliance is only a part of the solution. Other parts of the solution relate to non-
compliance issues, i.e., non-point source controls, programs, public awareness, the level
of public participation or outdoor recreation use.
19-3
-------
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND
ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGY
FOR THE
NPDES PROGRAM
CHESAPEAKE BAY
BY
STATE OF MARYLAND
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE OF VIRGINIA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1990
19-4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PURPOSE AND GOALS
3. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
19-5
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
WORK GROUP MEMBERS
MARYLAND:
PATSY ALLEN
JAMES METZ
JAMES PITTMAN
MERRILYN ZAW-MON
PENNSYLVANIA:
LEON OBERDICK
STANLEY RUDISILL
VIRGINIA:
JOHN ROLAND
RICHARD KOZLOWSKI
TERRY ODA
JOSEPH PIOTROWSKI
CAROL STOKES-CAWLEY
19-6
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
William J. Reilly at his inaugural to chair the Chesapeake Bay Executive
Council on December 19, 1989, challenged members of the Council to
improve compliance of dischargers in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
Specifically, he challenged the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania and
Virginia, and the EPA to:
• Reduce significant noncompliance by 50%, and
• Bring federal facilities into compliance.
Both of these goals were to be achieved by the end of 1990.
The States and EPA accepted the challenge and proceeded to work together
to improve coordination and cooperation between the agencies. Further,
established compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures were
reviewed and improved as necessary and feasible within the time
constraints.
Predicting success of the compliance initiative, the States and EPA
formed a work group to develop a long term Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Strategy to build upon that success. The goal of the strategy
is to continuously improve the effectiveness of the compliance monitoring
and enforcement program of the agencies to ensure that noncompliance
will continue to diminish. This, in turn, will ensure that the goals to
reduce pollution and restore the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
will be achieved and maintained.
The Strategy has twenty-one objectives which will be accomplished over
the next few years. A committee composed of staff from the States of
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia and EPA will be convened to oversee
the implementation of the Strategy. The committee's responsibility will
be to initially develop an implementation plan by spring 1991, and
subsequently, to ensure that the plan is being implemented. The
Committee will also prepare periodic reports on the status of
implementation and of compliance in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
These reports will be submitted to the various committees of the
Chesapeake Bay Program and the general public.
19-7
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
FOR THE
NPDES PROGRAM
PURPOSE:
MAXIMIZE NPDES COMPLIANCE TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION
OF PUBLIC HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT AND LIVING
RESOURCES.
ENHANCE COOPERATION AND COORDINATION AMONG THE
STATES AND EPA TO CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY DRAINAGE AREA.
GOALS OF THE STRATEGY:
• ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING
COMPLIANCE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WITH THE AIM OF
ELIMINATING NONCOMPLIANCE.
• ESTABLISH A COMMON BASIS FOR INITIATING AND
RESOLVING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
• ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR COOPERATION AND
COORDINATION TO MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE RESOURCES
AND STRENGTHS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AND EPA, AND
PREVENT DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.
• PROMOTE THE USE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION METHODS
WHICH CONSIDER MULTI-MEDIA IMPACTS TO MAXIMIZE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS.
PURPOSE AND GOALS 9/5/90 PAGE 1 OF 1
19-8
-------
CHEASAPEAKE BAY
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
FOR THE
NPDES PROGRAM
1. MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF CURRENT ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.
OBJECTIVE 1.1: Maintain the Exceptions List at zero after July 1, 1991 thru:
1.1.1 Taking forma! enforcement action against all violators in significant
noncompliance (SNC) for the same pollutant before the end of the second
consecutive quarter for which such violations persist (timely and apropriate
enforcement actions).
1.1.2 Using EPA to notify SNC dischargers of potential federal actions where the
state feels federal assistance would assist in quick resolutions.
1.1.3 Initiation by EPA of appropriate enforcement action (after consultation with the
state), when timely and appropriate enforcement action has not been taken by
the state to prevent a violator from appearing on the Exceptions List.
1.1.4 Referral of state selected cases to EPA for federal enforcement.
OBJECTIVE 1.2: Eliminate SNC by January 1, 1993 thru:
1.2.1 Developing procedures to identify and address violations before they become
SNC, including reviewing historical violators to ensure that past problems have
been fully addressed and closely monitoring dischargers who are discharging
at levels near their limitations.
1.2.2 Rapidly escalating enforcement responses to prevent violations from becoming
significant.
1.2.3 Establishing clear enforcement response criteria to ensure that appropriate
enforcement actions are taken to address violations.
OBJECTIVE 1.3: Expand the use of criminal sanctions to ensure the integrity of the
the self monitoring and reporting system of the NPDES program by:
1.3.1 Establishing criteria for screening information to identify criminal activity.
COMPLIANCE MONTTOR1NG AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY Pavel 0(6
-------
1.3.2 Developing procedures to investigate suspect situations to identify the violation
and determine its nature.
1.3.3 Improving communication betwen state and federal criminal investigators
and prosecutors on possible criminal cases.
OBJECTIVE 1.4 Improve oversight on Federal Facilities to ensure compliance is
expeditiously achieved and maintained by:
1.4.1 Developing state and EPA procedures promptly notifying a federal facility of the
occurrence of a violation and for escalating enforcement response.
1.4.2 Establishing an early decision point for possible state referral to EPA of federal
facility cases.
1.4.3 Revising procedures in EPA to promptly resolve federal compliance issues.
1.4.4 Providing quarterly federal facilities compliance status reports to the DOD
Chesapeake Bay coordinator for senior level DOD assistance in resolving
noncompliance.
2. ESTABLISH A COMMON BASIS FOR INITIATING AND RESOLVING
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
OBJECTIVE 2.1: Use common procedures and criteria to rapidly identify and
address noncompliance, including the following:
2.1.1 Requiring and reviewing DMR's on a monthly basis to identify all types of
violations.
2.1.2 Establishing enforcement reponse criteria to estimate violations.
2.1.3 Establishing quality control criteria or automating DMR review of major facilities
to ensure consistent evaluation.
2.1.4 Revising Enforcement Management Systems to reflect any updated
procedures.
OBJECTIVE 2.2: Enhance pretreatment enforcement by addressing failure by
Municipal Treatment Plants to adequately implement their programs and enforce
noncompliance of Industrial Users by:
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY i 9 _ i A Pme 2 of6
-------
2.2.1 Improving monitoring of pretreatment implementation where appropriate thru
increased use of biomonitoring and chemical pollutant specific analysis at
municipal plant discharges.
2.2.2 Implementing pretreatment training programs for municipalities
2.2.3 Increasing the severity of enforcement responses against all pretreatment
violations, including the assessment of penalties.
2.2.4 Adding pretreatment violations to the Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports
(QNCRs).
2.2.5 Increasing use of enforcement against violations by Industrial Users by EPA
and the states.
2.2.6 Identifying, monitoring and enforcing when necessary at Industrial Users
discharging to municipalities not required to have pretreatment programs.
OBJECTIVE 2.3: Closely monitor permits with new NPDES requirements to
maintain high compliance rates by:
2.3.1 Developing requirements in new permits or companion enforcement orders for
toxics, stormwater, sludge and Combined Sewer Overflows to meet water
quality standards.
2.3.2 Revising procedures to monitor the permits to ensure that compliance with new
program requirements will be timely achieved, or that appropriate enforcement
proceedings are taken at an early date.
OBJECTIVE 2.4: Increase emphasis on minor NPDES facilities in the Chesapeake
Bay compliance and enforcement program by:
2.4.1 Developing procedures to maintain or progressively increase where necessary
the number of minor dischargers routinely monitored for compliance.
2.4.2 Setting priorities for addressing minor dischargers based on impacts on water
quality and living resources.
OBJECTIVE 2.5: Increase enforcement of operator certification and training
requirements at Wastewater Treatment Plants by:
2.5.1 Implementing a standard permit condition to make operator certification an
enforceable permit requirement.
2.5.2 Requiring periodic renewal of the license or annual continuing education
obligations for the municipal treatment plant operators.
COMPLIANCE MONTTORING AND ENFORCEMENTSTRATEGY Paee3 of 6
19-11
-------
2.5.3 Expanding operator licensing for pretreatment and wastewater treatment
operators at industrial plants.
OBJECTIVE 2.6: Use and improve the quality of the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) to review waste loads, evaluate trends and assess compliance by:
2.6.1 Commiting the necessary resources to ensure data quality to make PCS the
common NPDES data base for the Bay.
2.6.2 Continuing efforts by EPA to make PCS more user friendly in all aspects of data
entry and use.
3. TARGET ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL
RESULTS.
OBJECTIVE 3.1: Target inspections at dischargers in noncompliance to improve
compliance by:
3.1.1 Targeting inspections at violators; where resources are limited.
3.1.2 Revising criteria for prioritizing inspection targets.
3.1.3 Evaluating and developing improved inspection procedures if necessary.
3.1.4 Establishing a field citation program where appropriate.
3.1.5 Conducting Bay-wide inspector training thru EPA sponsorship.
OBJECTIVE 3.2: Target compliance monitoring and enforcement actions at
environmentally sensitive areas to enhance protection of the living resources by:
3.2.1 Identifying areas sensitive to point source discharge violations.
3.2.2 Ensuring both major and minor permits specify requirements that are sufficiently
stringent to protect against adverse effects and are clearly enforceable.
3.2.3 Developing and implementing an education program to heighten the sensitivity
of the dischargers to the living resources needing protection.
3.2.4 Establishing a method for quick detection of violations and criteria for early
enforcement response in sensitive areas.
COMPLIANCEMONITORING AND ENFORCEMENTSTRATEGY 19_12 Paee4of6
-------
4. ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
TO MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE RESOURCES AND STRENGTHS QF
THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AND EPA. AND PREVENT DUPLICATION OF
EFFORT.
OBJECTIVE 4.1: Strengthen the enforcement partnership by improving procedures
for sharing of information and responsibilities between the states and EPA.
OBJECTIVE 4.2: Increase the use of administrative and civil penalty authorities of
the states to those established under the federal Clean Water Act by:
4.2.1 Increasing administrative, civil and criminal enforcement authorities at least
equivalent to those authorized under the Clean Water Act where necessary.
4.2.2 Developing and adopting a state-wide penalty policy that will recoup.-where
appropriate, economic benefit and gravity of the violations.
OBJECTIVE 4.3: Continue to conduct state/EPA quarterly enforcement meetings to
review noncompliance and enforcement plans.
OBJECTIVE 4.4: Continue to conduct joint annual meetings to share information
and accomplishments between all states and EPA.
5. PROMOTE THE USE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION METHODS WHICH
CONSIDER MULTI-MEDIA IMPACTS TO MAXIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL
AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS.
OBJECTIVE 5.1: Establish Chesapeake Bay-wide NPDES compliance awards to
create positive reinforcement to comply by:
5.1.1 Developing criteria for identifying exemplary dischargers.
5.1.2 Establishing an awards system, including frequency and type of award,
selection committee, etc.
OBJECTIVE 5.2: Establish municipal wastewater pollution prevention (MWPP)
programs to promote compliance at POTWs thru:
5.2.1 Defining the basic elements of a MWPP programs applicable to all Bay municipal
facilities.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY 19-13 Pate5of6
-------
5.2.2 Implementing a MWPPP appropriate for each state.
OBJECTIVE 5.3: Conduct periodic conferences with the regulated community to
discuss new requirements and promote compliance.
OBJECTIVE 5.4: Increase the use of publicity on a cooperative basis to increase
incentives to comply and create a deterrence against noncompliance by:
5.4.1 Making the list of significant noncpmpliers, including Federal facilities, available
each quarter for publication in available newsletters and local media.
OBJECTIVE 5.5: Improve public access to compliance information for all
Chesapeake Bay dischargers through:
5.5.1 Improvement of public access by EPA to the national computer database, the
Permit Compliance System (PCS).
5.5.2 Periodic meetings with EPA, the States and citizens to discuss compliance
monitoring and enforcement.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY Paee6of6
19-14
-------
20.1 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE DoD/EPA AGREEMENT ON THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY
-------
20.1 PROGRESS REPORT ON THEDoD/EPA AGREEMENT ON THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY
Len Richardson, Director, Environmental Support Office, U.S. Department of Defense
The first DoD/EPA agreement concerning pollution prevention in the Chesapeake Bay was
signed in September, 1984. DoD agreed to develop and initiate a pilot environmental program.
This program included a study at 66 installations to determine the relative impacts of their
activities on the Chesapeake Bay. The study was completed in 1987 for a total cost of
$570,000.
Results indicated that DoD was not a major contributor of pollution in the Bay. Mr. Richardson
noted that the DoD manages less than 1 % of the bay land area adjacent to the Bay. The study
also concluded that significant reductions at DoD facilities have been achieved.
A second agreement between DoD and EPA was signed in December of 1987. This agreement
went beyond the 1984 agreement and established specific commitments to achieve the overall
goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program. One action taken by DoD was the development of
federal facility implementation plans which included a computer tracking program for water
quality management. DoD also agreed to undertake a more active role in Bay restoration. For
example, one facility has been cultivating marshland along a tributary of the Bay.
The most recent Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed on April 20th, 1990 by Secretary
Cheney and the EPA. Findings of the 1987 water quality study were incorporated in addition
to provisions for auditing, inspection and participation goals. Langley Air Force Base and
Norfolk Navel Shipyard have been selected to serve as model facilities to demonstrate pollution
prevention techniques.
20-1
-------
21.1 THE TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
21.2 ATTACHMENTS
Major Flowchart - Major Committees in the Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Program Timeline
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
-------
21.1 THE TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Richard Batuik. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, EPA Region HI.
This presentation focused on the toxic related issues in the Chesapeake Bay Program. The two
goals that address the toxic issue in the Bay are 1) a toxic free bay by elimination of discharges
from all controllable sources and 2) by the year 2000, reduction in the input of toxic substances
to levels that would result in no toxic impacts on Bay wide resources.
Several strategies are being used to achieve these goals. First, it is necessary to define existing
toxic impacts on the Bay and evaluate their stress on the system. Institutionalizing efforts are
being made to reduce toxics and existing regulatory mandates continue to be expanded. As part
of the toxic reduction initiative, a toxics of concern list based on risk assessments has been
developed and a baseline toxics loading inventory has been conducted.
21-1
-------
0<
UW
^u
3
en
•al Agenc
»mmittee
si
"* s
.§-£
0)
0
en c
S O
_N(J
en
dJ
"c ^
QJ ."tJ
C C
o o
f3.52
•§$
-j ^_>
c
o
II
S o
11
3
O
a:
5
c
.0 S
"8
t; Q-
£.2
o
a
•§
bOu
bO
-------
DO
—p5
c/i 3
u S
*" °
* ?»
sill
I
w 2 O
I
3
cn
§2
fl
> o
32
J S
•*« **
II
* *
21-3
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY
TOXICS PROGRAM TIMELINE
— Federal Facilities Perspective —
Chesapeake Bay Program - Research Phase: 1978-1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 signed: 1983
Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Phase: 1984
Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987 signed: Dec. 1987
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy adopted by the
Chesapeake Executive Council: Dec. 1988
toxics Blue Ribbon Panel convened: March 1989
Toxics Subcommittee convened for
its first meeting: Sept 1989
Federal Facilities Compliance Initiative announced by
EPA Administrator Reilly: Dec. 1989
21-4
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY BASINWIDE
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
The long term goal of the this Strategy
is to work towards a toxics free Bay by
eliminating the discharge of toxic
substances from all controllable
sources.
By the year 2000 the input of toxic
substances from all controllable sources
to the Chesapeake Bay will be reduced to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccu-
mulative impacts on the living resources
that inhabit the Bay or on human health.
21-5
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY BASINWIDE
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
- STRATEGY PRIORIT
Further definition of existing and
potential Bay toxics issues and impacts.
Institutionalizing coordinated efforts
necessary for addressing toxics
reduction issues and ultimately
achieving the long term goal of a "toxics
free" Chesapeake Bay.
Building on existing legislative and
regulatory mandates while taking
advantage of innovative technologies to
change the assessment, control,
reduction and prevention of toxics
loadings to the Bay.
21-6
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY BASINWIDE
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
Basinwide Toxics Loading Inventory
Baywide Toxics Monitoring Program
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research
Program
Basinwide Integrated Pest Management
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Critical Issues
Forums
System for Measuring Progress under
the Strategy
Chesapeake Bay Ecological Risk
Assessment Framework for Toxics
21-7
-------
ROLE FOR FEDERAL FACILITIES
IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
BASINWIDE TOXICS REDUCTION
STRATEGY
More active participation in activities of
the Toxics Subcommittee and its
workgroups.
Become key players in the building of
institutional mechanisms for addressing
and implementing toxics assessment,
control, reduction and prevention issues
and actions.
Recognize leadership role in pursuing
implementation of more innovative
technologies for toxics reduction and
prevention within the Bay basin.
Beyond compliance, establish clear
goals for further toxics reduction and
prevention from Bay basin facilities.
Share implementation experiences with
other federal facilities, Bay basin states
and local jurisdictions.
21-8
-------
22.1 TOUR: EPA REGION m, CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
AND DAVID TAYLOR RESEARCH CENTER
22.2 ATTACHMENTS
Brochure - David Taylor Research Center
Characteristics of Waste under RCRA
-------
22.1 TOUR: EPA REGION m, CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY
AND DAVID TAYLOR RESEARCH CENTER
Tour Guide: Norman Fritsche
The tour of the central regional laboratory stressed the control of hazardous
materials/wastes at CRL by tracing samples and chemicals from receipt in the lab through
analysis to final disposal. The CRL tour included a brief review of laboratory facilities and
analytical capabilities.
The second stop on the tour was the Navy's David Taylor Laboratory. The Lab has
several projects involving improved management of wastes on ships that were described.
22-1
-------
£--.
11
-=! -Q
J<
« 5
£.£=
re o
= D.
< "
*- W
CC ^
Is
™ C3
J I
Er* t-
CC CH
cx c
£c§
x
_Q3
n.
E
u
u
E
re
c
0*
'5
t~
CO
£
£
3
>>
,w
E
CD
U.
DC
I
'"
TT-
CO
re
'•5
"5
CO
03
"C
">
L^
«
e
'03
c V
2 ^
S c
«e cj
" 13
?>
"3
o
earch Division, Portsm
VJ
03
Dfi
w,
C
O
_0
X
M
S
o
o
B.
a.
3
O.
«"s
-2 JS
"u >i
tS *"
1 a3
5 E5
CO _
0) g
•£ x
-a S
C a
CD d.
artments
13~
"3
projects involve severs
tH
05
C
CJ
>i
CC
2
to
03
M
CD
"u
the development of n<
c
fT
„»
y
M
'^D
O.
.2 5
-2 o
tS .2
lough specialized assi
Maritime Administrat
~ 03
T3 £
C ~-
< IB
«; ~
"in S.
c/;
03
0)
J5
_0
"u
O
D.
D.
en
ts
03
LM
•5
"D
c
"-"
03
E
c
c
cc
"S
c/3
(D CO
E «
Q- p
C r
"03
03
"C
03
v:
. O/
C ^
5^ us
S J2
c "
O -S
c c^
>. cc
i- c;
r;
c.
-c
c
CO
re
CO
03
'C
CO
C
nponent:
5
u
-c
to existing platforms ar
t/:
c
E
03
c
tl«
D.
P
C
03
•c
ishments are possible
a.
E
c
U
rc
a.
y;
H
-c
d
TO
d
u
«
CD
X
W
£
a.
c
CO
, .
C
03
C
O
c.
-a
c
re
c/i
03
G
u.
03
D-
w:
-c
03
_C
<« "03
C C
03 C
C O
"ocE
E 03
n
H
•4
X
8
M
it
The Annapolis Laboratory is the former U.S. Naval
Kngineering Experiment Station, which was estab-
lished in 1908 under the guidance of Rear Admiral
O w
••- re
C g
.2 03
V, W
K 3
_ a;
03 C
C ^
'So —
°l
i|
-c .5
- re
— E
> "Si
03 5
2T3
. C
S *
a.
&.S
Q P
(expanded, the station was renamed the Marine
Kngirieering Laboratory in 1963. The site became part
of the Center in 1967 and now houses two major
technical departments,
s The Propulsion and Auxiliary Systems Depart-
ment performs research and develops and evaluates
a variety of naval machinery. The Department
addresses such areas as propulsion, auxiliary and
electrical machinery components and systems:
electrical and machinery systems integration;
machinery dynamics and acoustic quieting; electric/
magnetic quieting; ship automation and control; and
shipboard energy availability and conservation.
* The Ship Materials Engineering Department
conducts research and development in metals and
alloys, corrosion, welding and fabrication, fuels and
lubricants, coatings, elastomers and plastics, ship-
board fire engineering, shipboard pollution abate-
ment and advanced composites. Recent develop-
ments include high strength, low alloy steels,
coatings for marine gas turbines, thermal spray
coatings, anti-fouling organotnetallic coatings and
aluminum anodes for shipboard cathodic protection.
The Department also works on smoke control
systems, fire extinguishing, fire resistant hydraulic
fluids and other projects, like a steam injection
disinfection system.
22-2
-------
a
of
J2 x •*
Uw-3
X b. i~
» 5 O
JS g 2
S u o>
S 03 -C
_1 "O **
2 s 2
' D
Departm
underwate
e that ships
other dev
on charac
.a e s - .a
e
's
*- ^- •-
03 c to
» ® Q
S E~
_e t: «
— co —
u- Q. C
O 0> O
>>Q -z
c
=2 -c •-
E E- Q
men
ens
S2 —
• Te Ship Acous
and develop
vibrations, to
water weapons and
acoustic and vibrati
ed an Anechoic Flow Facil
the coustic Research Detach
e Department conducts full-sc
evalu
and a
Id. T
*>•§ g 3 ^
.£ ™ "3 £ tu
— • ••—•- i—i
§ » s *S
cE£^
it Hi
° 5 5 " -5
§n si
2 u « * a-
en 3 U »
•mil
S '~ 1: ra
•£ -o J= QJ 0)
JS $ £ £?£
<^cj S'S
«- — «
« o , 5 - o g.J5 .
— .-fc.3
.2 C « Q..H « T> T .2
11IHII4|i
Sfi.8gU°.-S3|S
•c -a^ £ 3 S
evelop
techn
app
ent d
s ADP
f Navy
s, nume
ign, ma
uisition
fare anal
n additio
tes high
other De
ate
y o
ure
desig
acqu
warf
s. I
era
nd
Carderock Laboratory
-a
Hi
develops new vehicle concepts based on advanci
i , £
aerodynamics technology. To ready the most prom
ing concepts for full-scale development, the Depart
ment uses wind tunnels and towing tanks, flight tes
and manned craft trials. Current projects include
advanced rotorcraft, super-maneuverable aircraft
and surface effect ships.
"5
• The Ship Electromagnetic Signatures Departme
is responsible for research and development in
&4
'S
electromagnetic signatures for Navy ships and th
associated wakes. These efforts include electro-
£ S-
t«
o
magnetic theory, analytical models, countermeasui
design and control techniques, scale-model measui
ments in Center laboratories, trials at sea, and signa
and image processing development. Another maj
function is design engineering and instrument
support for both Department and Center projects
"5
** u.
<*v
« a °
• The Ship Structures and Protection Departme
develops structural concepts and design analysis
methods to ensure lighter, stronger, more reliable
ships and submarines. The Department also dete
mines the vulnerability of all types of naval ship
and develops ways to protect them against comb
threats and peacetime hazards. The effectiveness
o -a ;-
antiship and ASW weapon warheads is appraised I
support weapon design and deployment. Model an
full-scale tests are conducted to confirm behavioi
esear Center i
arch, development
r for naval vehicles
£ •- £ ^ = - r^
.c
u
e
&
5 s g
"fli
a|l
^ -™ w-i
JS 2 co
H
2"« -
•5- > S
_c
•n ^ ' ^i
« 2 S
•*- -C u}
f~J
§ ™~g
-i-
111
-S.E-^
J -c =c
e > i
£5-^
c£ £
'' u
75 t- r- O t~
-^ a . r^ oa
s i. §. 11
s s £ | ft
2 S " ^ H~
> _• -S g g
S "5 3 § .2P
is 5* a
. cc ^
r <£ M
•— yi •>
a 01 _
p <- tc
| 3 g
-0 "er a
10 -So1*"
C C '^
O_— k-l
a>
"~ a
w QJ
&-•
S ffl
S S
primary conc
airc'.raft com
ment of vehi
« c3
ca S
' G.
aj
c;
3 ^ — .^:
S T3
-5 5
ca v:
i 5T t; » g ra .2
t; o; _5 "S .~ « —
a»-
, cc -O
S £ g
151
P£ cr
ploy!
nd en
nt
^£P"5 Sp^fll^.
"•SSoo^^-C"1")?
5»Sj5.sss-1^.s| s
^ca ^ .-S S 6 *s ss e
3.3>«:32 .
j? S & S -2 P.
IS
.
a
-a
Center
officer
detachme
25
•S-2
II
o —
•—• co
>, t.
E= S
^5
> <
CO I_
a S
J! «
01
2 „
^: a. c
« '3 '3
CO
. _a
CO
co g
03 «-
5l
•g«
2s"
« "^5
II
u ^
« "0
« o
c •>-
QJ —.
•£•0
c
.2 ^2
§J2
EC
t: o
>-,
!! 11!
2II1I
E s S^-S
« -^ a » «
•5 -* *, oo cu
IP e C-S co —
r/T1'— . C "
.s-11 i s
5 « E-S^
co C >i
• - 03 b*
« *:. co
^ -C S
u u —
IS -a £
O) C
> CO
£ *
•a a.
co w
03 CO
asi-e-SJ
= S.-S'"
5 -2P2 ®
* « tn —
* S O
£ u
s-s •-
« y « T3
flS-si
Hie
S^ 2»*
•^ ciJ C w
>>s s "S
a a-2 T3
•s-s-i!
£-a a.
"Sgi
£-a °G
11
«
5^
o
22-3
Si
c S
3 *
*^ Cfl
-a S
.£ 2
5 IP
o
U3 l«
0) O.
2 C
> o
0 Q.
t- CO
O- 0)
- S
g-b
i i
•Ccd
(9 (D
a. u.
fa
M CO
e >,
0 >
•£ CO
2 z
'> 0
"S
"O
o
u
9i
>
0
U
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE UNDER RCRA
Background
In 1976 Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) which directed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop and implement a program to protect human health and the environment
from improper hazardous waste management. EPA first focused on large
companies which generate the greatest portion of hazardous waste. In
recent years, however, public attention has been drawn to the potential
for environmental and health problems that may result from mismanaging
even small quantities of hazardous waste. In November, 1984, the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA were signed into law. With these
amendments, Congress directed EPA to establish new requirements that
would bring small quantity generators who generate between 100 and 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste In a calendar month into the hazardous waste
regulatory system. EPA issued final regulations for those 100 to 1,000
kg/month generators on March 24, 1986. Most of the requirements were
made effective September 22. 1986.
A waste is any solid, liquid or contianed gaseous material that you
no longer use, and either recycle, throw away, or store until you have
enough to treat or dispose.
There are two ways a waste may be brought Into the hazardous waste
regulatory system: "listing", and identification through "characteristics"
testing. Listed wastes appear on any one of the four lists of hazardous
wastes contained in the RCRA regulations (40 CFR Part 260),. These wastes
have been listed because they either exhibit toxic constituents that
have been shown to be harmful to health and the environment. Characteristic
wastes are those which are ignitable, corrosive, reactive or are EP toxic
(40 CFR Part 260). Some wastes are considered to be "acutely hazardous".
22-4
-------
These are wastes that EPA has determined to be so dangerous 1n small
amounts that you may accumulate only 1 kg/month.
There are three categories of Hazardous Waste Generators:
1) generators of no more than 100 kg (conditionally exempt).
2) 100 to 1,000 kg (small quantity generators).
3) generators of 1,000 kg or more per month.
Each of the categories has Its own regulations which are found 1n 40 CFR
Part 260. The EPA facility must follow all state regulations first If
they are more stringent than the federal guidelines. For example, Maryland
small quantity generators are those who generate between 100 - 550
kg/month.
22-5
-------
SAMPLE DISPOSAL FORM
Sourc«:_
Progrta:,
Analysis:.
Analyst:_
Data:.
Lab * |.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
HON-Regul
Liquid f
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
atcd tfaite
Solid f Oil
1
j
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
II
1 j
| i
II
1 j
II
II
j j
II
II
II
j j
Regulated
Liquid 1 Sol
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Vacte
id 1 Oi-)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22-6
-------
LISTING OP CHEMICALS IN LOCATION 335
CHEMICAL NAME
HP ANY NAME
PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER
STOCK NUMBER
USER DATE ORDERED
DATE RECVD. IN
ORDER f PACK LIST * EXP.DATE HAZARD FLAM STOCK
LOCATION LOT/SERIAL* DISCARD CARCIN (Y/N) (Y/N) UNIT SEC
1,5-DIPHENYLCARBOHYDRAZIDE POWDER
J. T. BAKER CHEMICAL CO.
1,5-DIPHENYLCARBOHYDRAZIDE POWDER
J. T. BAKER CHEMICAL CO.
1,3-DIPHENYLCARBOHYDRAZIDE POWDER
J. T. BAKER CHEMICAL CO.
2-ETHYL-HEXANOIC ACID
KODAK CO.
4-AMINOANTIPYRINB
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
6PB-039-NNLX
4-AMINOANTIPYRINB
DAK CO.
ALUMINUM OXIDE (ALUNDUM)
THOMAS SCIENTIFIC
6PB-005-NNST
ALUMINUM OXIDE (ALUNDUM)
THOMAS SCIENTIFIC
6PB-005-NNST
ALUMINUM OXIDE (ALDNDUM)
THOMAS SCIENTIFIC
6PB-OOS-NNST
ALUMINUM REF STD
CONOSTAN INC.
AMMONIUM FLUORIDE
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
6PB-039-NNLX
AMMONIUM OXALATB
UNK K620-03
08/01/87
UNK K620-03
08/01/87
UNK K620-03
/ /
UNK P4442
11/01/83
UNK 0-1123
12/14/85
UHK 6902
05/01/78
UNK 1590-018
/ /
UNK 1590-D18
/ /
UNK 1590-D18
/ /
UNK AL
08/01/83
UNK A-665
06/01/72
UNK A-679
1400
335
1400
335
1*02
335
1*63
335
33
335
1*03
335
1397
335
1397
335
1)97
335
1*27
335
5
335
13
08/20/87
621718
08/20/87
621718
/ ,
3*6502
11/15/83
A13B
01/14/86
853083
05/10/78
BCF
05/02/88
1344-28-1
05/02/88
• .
1344-28-1
05/02/88
1344-28-1
08/10/83
5026
06/15/72
726242
06/19/86
/ / N N Y 250 335
N
/ / N N Y 25G 335
N
/ / N N Y 25C 335
N
/ / Y N Y 5000 335
N
/ / N N Y 100G 335
N
/ / N N Y 100G 335
N
/ / Y N Y POUN 335
H D
/ / Y N Y POUN 335
H D
/ / Y N Y POUN 335
N D
/ / N N Y 2 OZ 335
H
/ / Y N Y 453G 335
N
/ / Y N Y 4530 335
22-7
-------
REVISED 6/13/89
CRL INVENTORY CONTROL SLIP
1. CHEMICAL NAME:.
2. Stock #
DATE:.
Lot or Serial #_
3. Chemical Destination:
a. Empty! I Expired! 1
b. New^ X Room # Date Ordered.
c. Removed from to
MoveL.
d. Removed from.
_to_
4. Chemical Manufacturer or Supplier:
a. Aldrich
b. Arundel/Linde ..
c. Baker _
d. Burdick & Jackson _
e. Chem. Services ..
f. Daigger
g. Eastman
h. Baxter "
5. Amount
a. Pint
b. Gallon
c. Ounce
d. Pound
6. Initials
Basic
Unit
Quantity
(Room)
(Room)
i. Fisher
J. Supelco Inc.
k. Thomas
1. Matheson
m. Mallinckrodt
n. Roberts
o. Other (please specify)
Basic
Unit
Quantity
e. Liter
f. Gram
g. Kilogram
h. Cylinder
i. Mtlliliter
22-8
-------
APPENDIX A
List of Attendees
-------
Federal Facilities Conference Attendees
William F. Alcarese
Hawkins Point Road
U.S. Coast Guard Yard
Baltimore, Maryland 21226
Danielle Algazi (3ES43)
J.S. EPA, Region III
Environmental Planning Section
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
^athew Amann
Safety Office
Rm 10-63 HFA-205
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Thomas E. Baca
Deputy Assist Secretary for Defense
(Environment)
The Pentagon, Room 3D833
Washington, DC 203001-8000
3yron Bacon
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
5825 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20012
Baker
3SA ROB
Richard Batiuk (3CBOO)
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
J.S. EPA, Region III
Annapolis, Maryland
^laria Bayon
sfASA HQ
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Darwin Benidict
/A Medical Center
3erry Point, MD 21902
William Beverly
JSDA, ARS, BARC, FMOD, FEE, USS
Building 426 BARC-E
Beltsville, MD 20705
A-l
Rhoda Binley
FDA Safety Office
Rm 10-63 HFA-205
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Teresa Boucher
David Taylor Research Center
Navy
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
MaryAnn Boyer (3ES43)
U.S. EPA, Region III
Environmental Planning Section
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Joe Bowden, Law Enforcement Specialist
Gettysburg National Military Park
Gettysburg, PA 17325
James Bridges
Risk Reduction Evaluation Lab (RREL
26 West Martin L. King Drivee
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Donald L. Brower
AMSLC-RK
HQ US Army LABCOM
2800 Powder Mill Road
Adelphi, MD 20783-1145
Alan L. Brown (3EA21)
US EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Capt. William Buckingham, Chief
Environmental Planning
Boiling AFB, DC 20332-5000
Nicholas Cavallaro
U.S. Army Test & Evaluation Command
Paul Carroll, Mgmt Analyst
FDA, Center for Devices &
Radiological Health
12720 Twinbrook Parkway HF-Z-20
Rockville, MD 20852
Jengfu J. Chen
Naval Weapons Station
Yorktown, VA 23691-5000
-------
Jerry G. Cleaver
Environmental Programs Department
National Naval Medical Command
Bethesda, MD 20814
Don Clymer
US Dept of Agriculture
Allegheny National Forest
Box 847
Warren, PA 16365
Scott Coflin
Environmental Programs Department
National Naval Medical Command
Bethesda, MD 20814
Second Lt. Chris Cole
MD National Guard
Angelo Colianni
AFKA-Z1-EH-E, Building 2212
Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5115
Elizabeth Creel
EPA HQ
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Jim Curlin
Pollution Prevention
Information Clearing House
McKlean, VA
Shirley Curry
Andrews Air Force Base
1776 ABW/DEEV
Camp Springs, MD 20331-5000
Jayne Dahm (3ES40)
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila, PA 19107
Kerin J. Dame
U.S. Army Core of Engineers
Planning Divisino
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
Gordon Davidson, Director (OS-530)
U.S. EPA, HQ
Office of Federal Facility Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mark Decot
USAF/LEEVIN
Boiling Air Force Base .
Washington, DC 20332-5000
Joseph S. DeLasho
Director Utilities/ Environmental Divi
Chesapeake Division
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, DC 20374
Eufrosina Diaconu
Environmental Engineer
DPSC-WIS-8A
2800 South 20th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Major Michael C. Dougherty
HQ, U.S. Army Material Command
Alexandria, VA 22333
Olga Dominguez
408 Walnut Drive
Annapolis, MD 21403
Catherine L. Dow
Environmental Protection Specialist
Ordnance Environmental Support Office
Naval Ordnance Station
Indian Head, MD 2064
Hal Dusen, Environmental Engineer
913 Tactical Air Group/DEEV
Willow Grove Air Reserve Facility
Willow Grove, PA 19090-5130
Henry Dutcher, DOA
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Aberden, MD 21005-5423
Russell Dyrland
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Route 197
Laurel, MD 20708
Jim Edward
U.S. EPA, HQ
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Thomas Eisiminger
Naval Security Group - HQ
Chesapeake, VA 23322
A-2
-------
Fran Elford
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, DC 20374
Manton Emerson
VA Medical Center
Barbara Engel
Department of the Army
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5113
George English (3HW31)
On-Scene Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila, PA 19107
Edwin B. Erickson, (3RAOO)
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Diana Esher, Chief,
Environmental Planning Section
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
John L. Feustle
607 Coleraine Road
Baltimore, MD 21229
William Fletcher
USDA, ARS, BARC, FMOD, FEE, USS
Beltsville, MD 20705
Sue Ellen Foor
Hercules Incorporated
P.O. Box 210
Rocket Center, WV 26726
Thomas E. Franklin
193D Special Operations Group/SGPB
Harrisburg International Airport
^iddletown, PA 17057-5086
Elizabeth L. Freese
Environmental Compliance Branch Head
20MNAVSECGRVCOM (6435)
3801 Nebranska Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20939-5213
Wayne Funkhouser
Head, Operations and Maintenance
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Facility Engineering Branch
Beltsville, MD 20705
James E. Gansel
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Riverbank, CA 95367-0670
John R. Ganz
U.S. Department METC
P.O. Box 880
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
Basit H. Ghori
AMSLC-RK
HQ U.S. Army LABCOM
2800 Powder Mill Rd.
Adelphi, MD 20783-1197
Warren Gillette
Smithsonian Institution
Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Management & Safety
490 L'enfant Plaza - Suite 4202
Washington, DC 20560
Dennie Goss
R.D. 1 Box 200A
Olanta, PA 16863
Karen Gray
Fort Meade AFKA-ZI-EH-E
Fort Meade, MD 20755-5115
E. Jacqueline Grimes
National Security Agency
9800 Savage Road
Ft. Mead, MD 20755-6000
Robert E. Greaves (3HW60)
Chief, RCRA Enforcement & UST Branch
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Michael J. Green
NASA HQ (Code NXG)
400 Maryland Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20546
A-3
-------
Henry Gunther
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
Phila., PA 19112-5087
Patricia Haggerty
Law Engineering
4465 Brookfield Corporate Drive
Chantilly, VA 22021
William C. Hallow
U.S. Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD 21402
Ed Hammerburg
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Charlene Harrison (3HW62)
U.S. EPA, Region III
TSCA Enforcement Section
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Jeff Hass (3WM41)
U.S. EPA, Region III
Drinking Water/Control Section
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Steven R. Hearne
Army Environmental Office
Attn: ENVR-EP
1 677 Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-2600
Peter Hill
U.S. Army
H/Q DESCOM
LetterKenny Army Depot
Attn: AMSDS-CC
Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150
Colleen Hillman
Law Engineering
4465 Brookfield Corporate Drive
Chantilly, VA 22021
William Hofmann
Letterkenny Army Depot
Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150
Karen F. Hogsten
Dept. of Justice
Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Joe Hoenscheid
Senior Environmental Protection Special.
Defense Logistics Agnecy
Cameron Station DLA-5M
Alexandria, VA 22304-6100
Ted Horan
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21235
Bruce Hornaday
David Taylor Research
Carderock Lab
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
Kathy Hudson
Fort Meade
AFKA-ZI-EH-E
Fort Meade, MD
20755-5115
John Hunton
Warrenton Training Center
P.O. Box 700
Warrenton, VA 22186
Bill Hutchison
David Taylor Research
Carderock Lab
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
Joyce A. Jatko
1700 St. Margarits Road
Annapolis, MD
Koury Johnkins
2604 Rhode Island Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20018
Karen Johnson, Chief (3WM43)
UIC Section
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
A-4
-------
n W. Joyner
.S. Air Force
gional Environment Office
lanta, GA 30335
»yce Jatko
'.chael Kane (substitute for Brian Keck)
tval Air Station
'.ke Kanowitz
'.rector Emerency Management
iryland Department of the Environment
>OiO Broening Highway
iltimore, MD 21224
arry Kosteck
reject Manager, U.S. Army
rotection Base Modern Activity
^ISMC -PBC, Building 171
icatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
yula F. Kovach, Chief
ivironmental Protection Branch
ational Institutes of Health
ailding 13, Room 2W64
ethesda, MD 20892
art Kuhn
97 Standard Ct
mold, MD 21012
tanley L. Laskowski, Director
ffice of Pollution Prevention & Planning
.S. EPA HQ
01 M Street, SW
ashington, DC 20460
harles Lechner
berdeen Proving Grounds
berdeen MD
ohn Lee
ASA, Langley Research Center
S-106,
ampton, VA 23665-5225
oe Letorneau
ASA/GSFC
Bill Lewis, Chief
Maintenance & Operations
Veterans Affairs Medical Center
1201 Broad Rock Blvd.
Richmond, VA 23249
Pauline Levin, Chief (3AM32)
Pesticides & Grants
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila, Pa 19107
Capt. Gabriel Lifschitz
Andrews Air Force Base
1776 ABW/DEEV
Camp Springs, MD 20331-5000
Barry Lincoln
Environmental Programs Department
National Naval Medical Command
Bethesda, MD 20814
Will Lintner
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
200 Stovall St
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
R. Donald Little
13417 Rich Lynn Court
Highland, MD 20777
Maryalice Locke AEE-20
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591
Juan Lopez
US Army Test & Evaluation Command
Harvey C. Lyon
David Taylor Lab
Carderock Lab
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
First Lt. Douglas Reed Macmillan
State Environmental Specialist for the
5th Regiment Armory
29th Division Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-2288
Kenneth L. Malick
886 Lark Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17111
A-5
-------
Ross Mantione
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tobyhanna, PA 18466-5054
Milton Harder
MD Dept. of the Environment
Pamela D. Marks
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Cam Martin
Head, Office of Public Affiars
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23665-5225
Michael M. McCahill (Naval Ord MD)
Route 2 Box 76C
Indian Head, MD 20640
Scott McNally
VA Medical Center
Gary McSmith
Richmond, VA
Karen B. Menczer
AMSLC-RK
HQ US Army LABCOM
2800 Powder Mill Rd.
Adelphi, MD 20783-1145
Tawnya Mercer
David Taylor Research
Carderock Lab
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
Frank Messineo
USDA, ARS BARC, FMOD, FEB, EPS
Beltsville, MD 20705
Julie Metz
Planning Division
Baltimore Corp of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
Sherry Milas
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Washington, DC
Edmund Miller
9622 Commonwealth Blve.
Fairfax, VA 22032-2822
Russel Milnes, Principal Deputy
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense
(Environmental) DASD(E)
Joe Montgomery
Office of Federal Activities
U.S. EPA HQ
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Lloyd Tolento Moore
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Jeffrey Morris
Navy
David Taylor Research Center
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
Steve Morris
VA Hospital
Richmond, VA
Joane Mueller
MD Dept. of Highway
Georgette Myers
Letterkenny Army Depot
Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150
Wayne Naylor, Chief (3HW63)
UST\Lust Enforcement
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Marian B. Nuckolls
GSA, ROB
(202) 708-5082
Mike Baker
Edward Olenginski, Manager
Utilities/Environment Branch
Chesapeake Division
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, DC
Bret Oltjen
Fort Meade
MD RTE 175
Fort Meade, MD 20755
A-6
-------
hn C. Ordaz
vironmental Engineer
fice of Environmental Mgmt & Safety
0 L1enfant Plaza
shington, DC 20460
ry Orth
N Naval Security Station
01 Nebraska Ave., NW
shington, DC 20390
hn Palcer
rrenton Training Center
0. Box 700
rrenton, VA 22186
id Parramore
vironment Safety and Health Office
.iladelphia Naval Shipyard
dla., PA 19112-5087
.chard Pecora
sistant Secretary Operations
iryland Department of the Environment
iOO Broening Highway
iltimore, Maryland 21224
ones A. Pedrick, Jr.
SPA Coordinator
trine Corps Combat Development Command
aantico, VA
.chard V. Pepino, Chief (ES40)
ivironmental Assessment Branch
.S. EPA, Region III
11 Chestnut Building
lila., PA 19107
2rnie Perry
.S. Army Test & Evaluation Command
:ephan J. Pijar, Sr.
DA, Center for Devices & Radiological Hec
2720 Twin Brook Parkway HFZ-20
ockville, Maryland 20857
eltsville Research Facility
eltsville, MD 20705
enny Plumeau
aw Engineering
465 Brookfield Corporate Drive
hantilly, VA 22021
Gary M. Pominville
MAJ BDE ENGR
157th SIB (M),
Horsham, PA 19044
Deborah A. Potter
135 Cherwell Court
Williamsburg, VA 23188
David A. Prevar, USDA
Agricultural Research Service
Beltsville Area
National Agricultural Library
Room 020
Beltsvile, MD 20705
Ned Pryor
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
200 Stovall St.
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
Larry Ramsey
GSFC/NASA
Timothy Rath
Navy
David Taylor Research Center
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
Steve Rice
Naval Electric Systems Engineering Activ
Saint Inigoes, MD 200684
Len Richardson
David J. Riedel, P.E.
Chief Engineering & Housing Division
Bldg. 250 Vint Hill Farms Station
Warrenton, VA 22186
Lew Riess
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
Philadelphia, PA 19112-5087
Caroline H. Roe,
Env. Compliance Officer
NAL, RM.20
10301 Baltimore Blvd.
Beltsville, MD 20705
Charles Roland
Area Maintenance Support Activity 113
Green Castle, PA
A-7
-------
Russell Rowe
Department of Defense
LTJG Matt Ruckert
Coast Guard Reserve Training Center
213 Brad Court
Newport News, VA 23603
Lydia Sanchez
Felipe B. Sanchez
P.O. Box 180
Dahlgren, VA 22448
Gary Schneider
Department of Energy W.V.
Martha Stanczak
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Attn: SDSTO-JD
Tobyhanna, PA 18466-5078
John P. Stasko
Patuxent Wildife Research Center, RTE ]
Laurel, MD 20708
Albert Steel
Walter Reed Medical Center
6825 16th St., NW
Washington, DC 20012
Capt. H.A. Stephan
CO NAVAMPHIBASE, Little Creek
Norfolk, VA 23521-5140
William M. Schultz Janice Streeter
Air Force Experimental Training Activity Public Works Dept (Code N492)
P.O. Box 1447 Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek
Williamsburg, VA 23188 Norfolk, VA 23521-5141
Edward Schwenk
Environmental Programs Dept.
National Naval Medical Command
Bethesda, MD
Leslie Scott
., VA Medical Center
••'Perry Point, MD
Steve Sekscienski
Department of the Army
Directorate of Engineering & Housing
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5113
Vince Sexton
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21235
Doug Sharp
EPIC
Victor Smith
Naval Electrical Systems Eng,
Saint Inigoes, MD 20684
Act
Henry Sokolowski, Chief (3HW26)
CERCLA Federal Facility Section
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
George Sundstrom
Koge Suto (3WM52)
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Conrad Swann
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Aberdeen, MD 21005-5423
Neil Swanson (3CBOO)
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Phila., PA 19107
Steven Swope
3128 Riverview Drive
Colonial Beach, VA 22443
W. Wade Talbot
U.S. EPA Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center/ORD
Vint Hill Farms Station
Bicher Road, Building 166
Warrenton, VA 22186-5129
*~°
Capt. James Taylor, Commander
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Attn: Code 100
Portsmouth, VA 23709
A-8
-------
udy Taylor
'ort Meade, AFKA-ZI-EH-E
•ort Meade, MD 20755-5115
'irst Lt William Thacker
Environmental Coordinator
tolling Air Force Base
Jashington, DC 20332-5000
Jregory A. Thompson
lajor Robert Thompson
Acting Dept. of Defense
SPA Liaison Officer
Jon Ware
Robert B. Webster
448 McClellan Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15236
George Weeks
Naval Air Statipn
Patuxent, MD 20670
Roger West
Coast Guard Reserve Training Center
Route 3, Box 1154
Glouster, VA 23061
Judy Timberlake, Commander Colonel Gerald Williams
VTTN: CETHA-EC-A Deputy Commander
Aberdeen Proving Grounds Fort Belvoir
J.S. Army Toxic & Hazardous Materials Agen. Attn: DEH-ENRD Bldg. 1442
\berdeen, Maryland 21010-5401 Alexandria, VA 22060-5113
Timothy Toplisek
J.S. Army HQ DESCOM
jetterKenny Army Depot
\ttn: AMSDS-INE
2hambersburg, PA 17201-4150
2apt. Gerald Torrence
562A Forney Loop
?ort Belvoir, MA 22060
John Turner
:hief of Safety Office
Dept. of Defense
^orraine Urbiet (3ES43)
federal Facilities Coordinator
J.S. EPA, Region III
341 Chestnut Building
?hila, PA 19107
Thomas Vegella
Industrial Hygienist - FDA
12720 Twin Brook Parkway
*ockville, Maryland 20852
-------
APPENDIX B
Survey Results
-------
A106 SURVEY
RESULTS
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
Smithsonian Institution National Aeronautics and Space -
Department of Air Force Administration
Department of Army Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Navy Department of Agriculture
Department of Defense Department of Energy
Federal Aviation Administration Defense Logistics Agency
Virginia National Guard Veterans Administration
Number of Respondents: 28
TRAINING
1. Have you had any training on A106? yes 57% no 36% N/A 7%
a) If yes, what has your training consisted of? (Check as many as apply)
[number of respondents selecting each training source; out of 28]
7 handbook materials
12 help from others familiar with the program
6 training workshop on A106
4 other (Computer program, A106 instructions, Completing
project forms)
3 no response
2. How would you rate your training? Average: 4.6 (acceptable)
Selection by category:
682 1 11
(1-3) poor (4-6) acceptable (7-9) good (10) exceptional N/A
3. How would you improve A106 training?
- Increase availability
- Clarify forms and instructions
- Supply a manual
- Offer facility specific guidance
B-l
-------
PROJECT REVIEW
4. How long have you been involved with the A106 process?
21% less than 1 year 40% between 1 - 3 years
21% more than 3 years 18% no response
5. How much time were you given to review projects?
Selection by category:
JL jL _3_ _4_ JL
1 -2 weeks 3-4 weeks > 1 month ? No response
6. Is your Agency and office using A106 as a planning tool?
Yes 61% No 32% No response 7%
If yes, what disincentives exist for you to use A106 as a planning tool?
- Poor timing
- A106 is a low priority
- Headquarters makes adjustments
- Insufficient training
- Limited access to information
- A106 doesn't apply to industrially funded projects
If no, do you have any other system that helps you plan your
agency's/facility's environmental needs?
- Internal workplan/ budget system
- Local budgeting
- Pollution Control Reports
- Annual facility audits
- EPA enforcement initiatives
7. What feedback did you receive regarding the project? (Check as many as apply)
[number of respondents selecting each feedback source; out of 28]
9 Recommended needed project sheet
6 Conversations with facility representative (s)
3 Federal facility compliance agreement negotiation
3 Other (from headquarters)
5 No feedback
5 No response
B-2
-------
8. Do you know if the project was finally funded?
yes 57% no 11% ? 11% No response 21%
If yes, what was the final outcome (i.e. project was close to budget,
time frame, etc.)?
- 2 projects: cost > budget
- 3 projects: variable
9. What do you think the goals of A106 are? (Check as many as apply)
[number of respondents selecting each goal as one of several; out of 28]
22 For budgeting purposes 19 For tracking purposes
21 For program planning 15 For pollution control
20 For compliance 1 Other ( ? )
1 No response
52% Chose 4 or more of the above
41% Chose 2-3 of the above
7% Chose 1 of the above
a) Have the goals been reached?
yes 36% no 46% ? 7% No response 11%
10. What areas would you improve in the A106 process? (Check as many as apply)
[number of respondents selecting each area; out of 28]
14 training 8 forms
10 timing 4 review chain
10 budgeting 4 other: - Computerization of A106
- Training publicity
6 no response - Direct Feedback
BUDGETING
11. How effective is A106 in determining budget requirements for environmental
projects? Average: 5.5 (adequate)
Selection by category:
_3_ _7_ _6_ J_ 11
(1-3) ineffective (4-6) adequate (7-9) effective (10) very N/A
effective
B-3
-------
12. Is a 2-year budget cycle compatible for funding projects necessary for
compliance? yes 39% no 36% N/A 7% No response 18%
13. How would you improve the budgeting process?
- Make future projections - Allot funding for newly identified projects
- Increase feedback - Allot funding for environmental compliance
- Speed up the process - Ensure use of funds on project "start" date
- Link A106 to Army 1391 - Include daily budget in A106
- Use appropriated funds for all
required projects
OTHER RESOURCES
14. Did you use any additional resources to help you with A106 such as a
computerized data system?
- Computerized data system
- EPA facilities
- Spreadsheets
15. What is the best way to obtain up-to-date A106 information?
- Computer file - Installation updates
- EPIC - Directly from EPA
- Internal Tracking System
16. Do you currently send projects to state agencies?
yes 11% no 78% ? 4% No response 7%
a) Do you think that state agencies should be involved?
yes 39% no 32% ? 7% No response 22%
17. Other comments?
- Original Forms should be supplied.
- A106 is time consuming with little benefits.
- A106 should not lead to enforcement actions because information is
volunteered.
- A106 is focused on clean-up, not on prevention.
-------
Federal Facilities Conference Evaluation
Summary of Results*
I. Workshops
The speakers for each workshop were rated on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5
(excellent). The following figures represent the average rating for each
category.
TOPIC
Pollution Prev.
Program
Refresher course
onTSCAPCB
requirements
New developments
in CERCLA
New drinking water
requirements
Spill prevention
and response
UST compliance
Asbsestos/
NESHAPS
PREPARED
4.2
3.3
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.3
HELD
ATTENTION
4.0
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
UNDERSTOOD
TOPIC
4.3
3.5
•
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.3
COMMENTS:
Offer workshops more than once... Presentations lacked detailed
information... Too general... Provide more information on SDWA standards
for community systems... New Clean Air Act requirements were not
addressed... Allow more time for discussion.
Excellent handouts...Handouts of slides and presentation notes would
be helpful...Overheads were not ledgeable...Not all acronyms were
understood... Some speakers lacked sufficient knowledge of RCRA and TSCA
requirements.
Well organized overall.
* 66 Conference attendees completed the Conference Evaluation.
8-5
-------
II. Questions and Answers:
1. Were you satisfied with the accommodations provided by the Ramada
Inn?
Yes.... 88% No... 12%
2. Please make suggestions for future conference locations:
Annapolis, MD, Williamsburg, VA, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, PA,
Baltimore, MD, Richmond, VA.
3a. Was the tour well organized?
Yes... 92% No... 8%
b. Was the content of the tour appropriate?
Yes... 92% No... 8%
c. Comments:
Provide a briefing on the lab before the walking tour...Spend more
time on the lab processes and inspection procedures...Tour was very
enjoyable.
4a. Did the Pollution Prevention presentation enhance your knowledge of
this new strategy in any way?
Yes... 94% No... 6%
b. Would you be interested in receiving more information on the
subject in the future?
Yes... 96% No... 4%
c. Comments:
Excellent... Very important... Offered new and pragmatic ideas...
Include in future agenda... Not aware an Act was passed... Too
general... Need more information on alternative materials, waste
stream analysis, and EPA requirements for federal facilities...
Pollution prevention programs are desirable but funds are limited.
5a. Did you like the opportunity to choose among several activities(e.g.
different workshops, tour vs. strategy working session)?
Yes... 90% No... 10%
b. How would you like to see workshops scheduled in the future?
Grouped... 61% Individually... 39%
c. Comments:
Offer workshops more than once... Offer only two courses per group...
Provide an opportunity to interface with the speakers... Offer evening
discussion groups... Maintain original schedule of workshops... Provide
more handouts.
B-6
-------
6. How would you rate the overall preparation and presentation of the
conference by EPA? (scale: 1 =poor, 5=excellent)
Rating: 4.1
7a. Would you like to see more panel discussions at future events?
Yes... 82% No... 18%
b. Comments:
Taylor and Williams gave pertinent and informative talks; they were
excellent.
8. Did you prefer panel sessions on...
Regulations/technology review only? 8%
Discussion of issues only? 2%
Both of the above? 90%
9. If you were running the conference next year, what changes (if any)
would you make in order to achieve the best possible results?
Improve registration procedures... PreregisteYed attendees would
get preference... Mail agenda three months before conference...
Provide an attendance list in advance... Reduce session time to 50
minutes... Begin earlier and end earlier... Shorten breaks... Provide
tables.
Offer most popular workshops more than once... Have more speakers,
fewer workshops... Present keynote address first... Invite more
installation commanders and allot them more time during panel
discussions... Encourage participation from non-DOD facilities and
state program experts... Offer more breakout session's.
Give presentations on successful clean-up operations... Provide
information on state priorities... Provide handouts of slide
presentations and overheads... Improve the quality of overheads...
Provide "Yellow", "Red", "Blue", and "Purple" books to new facility
personnel... Continue to emphasize organization and management...
Extend conference to five days.
B-7
-------
10. Do you have any suggestions for agenda topics at future conferences?
Stormwater Regulations and Management
Sewage Sludge Regulations
Permit Writing
Waste Minimization
Community Pollution Prevention Program Model
Media/ Public Awareness of Environmental Issues
New Hazardous Ranking system
New Remedial Technology and Technology Transfer
New Clean Air Act
RCRA Laboratory Waste Regulations/Solutions
Compliance Tracking (EPA and State levels)
Multi-media Audits
Managing and Organizing an effective facility Environmental Office
Integration of the NEPA Process with Substantive Compliance
NEPA/CERCLA Integration
RCRA/CERCLA Integration
Household Hazardous Waste Identification
Impact of GSA Facilities on the Bay
RCRA Reauthorization
Non-point Source Pollution Control
Federal Facilities with Laboratories (NIH, FDA, DA)
Compliance Strategy
"Lessons Learned and Change Required"
Results and Trends in Compliance and Regulation
Panel Discussion on the Formulation of Regulations
B-8
-------
-------