The following EPA news releases report on enforcement cases involving environmental regulations of interest to many of our clients.  Clients who store or use over 10,000 lbs. of a chemical should check with us to see if they need a Risk Management Plan.  Two news releases found in this section of the newsletter will address proposed amendments to the EPA Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations.  Clients who handle vegetable oils and animal fats will be particularly interested in the release addressing specific proposed changes to the SPCC regulations.

Settlements Reached in Eight Enforcement Cases for Hazardous Chemical Risk Management Plan Violations

Over the past several months, EPA has brought enforcement actions against eight New England facilities located in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire for failure to complete five-year updates to their Risk Management Plans (RMPs), as required by federal regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Under the regulations, any facility containing more than a threshold amount of certain hazardous chemicals is required to fully update and resubmit an RMP to EPA a minimum of every five years. RMPs include an assessment of the hazards associated with using the hazardous chemical, an accident prevention program, and a plan for emergency response in the event of an accidental release.

Under this effort, EPA took legal action against the following facilities throughout New England:

- A.T. Wall Company, Inc. (Warwick, R.I.)
- Danbury Water Pollution Control Plant (Danbury, Conn.)
- Gold Medal Bagel Bakery, Inc. (West Haven, Conn.)
- Mace Adhesives and Coatings Co., Inc. (Dudley, Mass.)
- Northampton MA Wastewater Treatment Plant (Northampton, Mass.)
- Shield Packaging Co., Inc. (Dudley, Mass.)
- Stonyfield Farm, Inc. (Londonderry, N.H.)
- Webster Wastewater Treatment Plant (Webster, Mass.)

The bulk chemicals used and stored at these facilities included anhydrous ammonia, toluene, isobutene and chlorine. As a result of these cases, the facilities have agreed to correct the violations and pay penalties ranging from $300 to $3,650.

“In this era of heightened security concerns, it is imperative that facilities managing and using hazardous materials do so with vigilant attention to all legal and safety requirements,” said Robert W. Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “This is not just a paperwork exercise. By following Risk Management Plan requirements, facilities help prevent chemical accidents and save lives.”

A number of large and small chemical releases by local companies have led EPA’s New England office to intensify efforts to make sure facilities storing large amounts of chemicals follow procedures for reporting the presence of chemicals and follow steps to prevent chemical accidents. These practices are required by several federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act.

Attleboro, Mass. Company Faces Fine for an inadequate Oil Spill Prevention Plan

An Attleboro manufacturer of industrial and pharmaceutical food coatings faces an EPA fine for alleged violations of the federal Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.

An EPA administrative complaint alleges that Mantrose-Haeuser Co. Inc. failed to adequately prepare and implement a “Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure” (SPCC) plan for their Attleboro, Mass. facility. The complaint also alleges that the facility violated the Clean Water Act by illegally discharging oil to waters of the U.S.

An EPA inspection of the Attleboro facility found that the company had failed to prepare an adequate SPCC plan for the site, and failed to construct adequate containment for the off-loading area associated with the bulk oil storage tanks. Secondary containment for drum storage areas was also found to be insufficient. In addition, the inspector noted signs of oil staining and evidence of prior spillage throughout the off-loading area.

Spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into drinking water wells, rivers or streams. For the alleged violations of the federal SPCC requirements, the Mantrose-Haeuser Co. faces a maximum penalty of $157,500.

“Oil spills can do significant damage to the environment, including to surface waters providing habitat for fish and wildlife, said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England office. “It's very important that facilities handling oils take the correct steps to minimize risks of oil spills.”

Also related to this complaint, it was revealed during the EPA inspection that an unknown quantity of oil leaked from a high pressure washing device at the Mantrose-Haeuser facility. The discharged oil was observed flowing onto the parking lot and subsequently entering an on-site storm drain which discharged directly to the Ten Mile River, resulting in sheening on the river at the outfall location. Fortunately, no lasting environmental damage was evident as a result of the release.

Following EPA’s inspection and contacts with the company, Mantrose-Haeuser Co. has been responsive to EPA’s requests to bring the Attleboro facility into compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. The company has indicated in letters to EPA that it plans to revise its SPCC plan for the Attleboro facility and perform other corrective actions.

EPA proposes penalty for milk plant in Laurel, Md.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a $282,871 penalty against the operators of a milk processing plant in Laurel, Md., for failing to report an accidental release of at least 400 pounds of ammonia from the plant’s refrigeration system in July 2006.

EPA alleges that Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., which owns and operates the Laurel plant, violated federal requirements for hazardous chemical reporting when it failed to immediately report the ammonia release to local, state and federal emergency management agencies. The accidental release occurred while conducting maintenance on the plant’s refrigeration compressors. The milk cooperative also failed to provide follow-up reports to state and local emergency officials.

EPA regulations require companies nationwide to immediately report releases of reportable quantities of hazardous substances to the National Response Center (NRC), the State Emergency Planning Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). The reportable quantity for ammonia is 100 pounds. The NRC, staffed by the U.S. Coast Guard, is the national point of contact for reporting oil and hazardous chemical spills. In Maryland, companies are required to report incidents to the state Department of the Environment. The release in Laurel should also have been reported to the Howard County office of emergency management.

Subsequent to the ammonia release, EPA conducted an inspection and determined that the facility had not complied with emergency preparedness and community right-to-know requirements, which help employees, local fire, police and emergency responders prepare for and respond to chemical incidents. The milk facility had not submitted a risk management plan to EPA that would have included a hazard assessment, a prevention program and an emergency response program. These reporting and planning requirements are important to protecting public health and the environment.

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association Inc., headquartered in Reston, Va., markets milk for its estimated 1,500 dairy farmers throughout the mid-Atlantic and southeast regions of the United States. The cooperative has the right to a hearing to contest EPA’s alleged violations and proposed penalty.

EPA to Assist Livestock Operators

EPA has awarded two grants totaling $8 million to provide direct technical assistance to livestock operators to prevent water pollution discharges and reduce air emissions. RTI International of Research Triangle Park, N.C., will provide assistance to farm operators in the East and Environmental Resources Coalition (ERC) of Jefferson City, Mo., in the West.

"Clean water and sound farming go hand-in-hand," said Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles. "EPA's cooperative conservation funds will help livestock operators assess and prevent potential air and water impacts, while maintaining our country's agricultural and economic competitiveness."

The two organizations will provide livestock operations with two types of technical assistance at no cost to the operator: (1) comprehensive assessments of water and air quality environmental challenges and recommendations for strategies to mitigate these challenges; and (2) development or review of the facility's nutrient management plan, which specifies the amount of manure that can be applied to crops so the potential for runoff to waterbodies is minimized. The technical assistance will be available to any livestock operation in the United States beginning the summer of 2008 through October 2011.

Nationally, there are an estimated 1.3 million farms holding livestock in the United States. Approximately 238,000 of these farms are considered animal feeding operations. These animal feeding operations generate more than 500 million tons of animal waste annually and, as a consequence, continually face the challenge of how best to manage these wastes to minimize adverse impacts on the environment. The grants will assist livestock operations by ensuring that farmers are aware of environmental impacts from their facilities and understand how best to address them.

More information about animal feeding operations and the grant awards: epa.gov/npdes/afo

Information about October 2007 proposed amendments to the SPCC Rule

EPA has proposed amendments to the SPCC rule that will increase clarity and tailor certain requirements for easier and increased compliance.  The regulated community now has the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes during a 60-day comment period, following publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.

EPA is requesting comments on the following proposed changes to the SPCC regulations:

All SPCC-regulated facilities would be potentially affected by the proposed amendments to provide:

• clarity on the general secondary containment requirements;
• flexibility in the security requirements;
• flexibility in the use of industry standards to comply with  integrity testing requirements;
• additional flexibility in meeting the facility diagram requirements; and
• clarification on the flexibility provided by the definition of “facility.”

In addition to the amendments listed above, EPA is proposing to:

• Exempt the following from SPCC regulations:
  • hot-mix asphalt and hot-mix asphalt containers;
  • pesticide application equipment and related mix containers used at farms;
  • heating oil containers at single-family residences; and
  • completely buried oil storage tanks at nuclear power generation facilities that meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission design criteria and quality assurance criteria at 10 CFR part 50, Appendices A and B.
• Differentiate integrity testing requirements for containers that store Animal Fats or Vegetable Oils (AFVO) and meet certain criteria and FDA regulatory requirements.
• Define “loading/unloading rack” in order to clarify the equipment subject to the provisions for facility tank car and tank truck loading/unloading racks and exclude farms and oil production facilities from the loading/unloading requirements; and
• Streamline:
  • requirements and allow the use of an SPCC Plan template for a subset of qualified facilities known as “Tier 1” qualified facilities (i.e., with no individual oil storage container with a capacity greater than 5,000 U.S. gallons up to an aggregate of 10,000 gallons); and
  • several requirements for oil production facilities, including:
    • modify the definition of “production facility”, consistent with the proposed amendments to the definition of “facility”;
    • extend the timeframe by which a new oil production facility must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan;
    • exempt flow-through process vessels at oil production facilities from the sized secondary containment requirements, while maintaining general secondary containment requirements and requiring additional oil spill prevention measures;
    • exempt flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines at oil production facilities from all secondary containment requirements, while establishing more specific oil spill prevention measures;
    • clarify the definition of “permanently closed” as it applies to an oil production facility.

(Note:  EPA is also taking comment on approaches that could be used to establish alternative criteria for an oil production facility to be eligible to self-certify an SPCC Plan as a qualified facility, and approaches to address produced water containers at oil production facilities.)

• Clarify that nurse tanks used at farms are included in the December 2006 amendments related to mobile refuelers and therefore exempt from the specifically sized secondary containment requirements for bulk storage containers.

All SPCC regulated facilities are still required to comply with the existing SPCC regulations while EPA considers these proposed amendments.  For information about facilities required to comply with the SPCC and any compliance date extensions, please visit www.epa.gov/emergencies.

Information about the October 2007 proposed amendments to the SPCC Rule for Facilities handling Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils (AFVO)

EPA proposed amendments to the SPCC rule to increase clarity and tailor certain requirements as they apply to those facilities handling animal fats and vegetable oils (AFVO) in an effort to increase compliance.  The public now has the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes during a 60-day comment period, following publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. 

Nothing in this proposed rule removes any regulatory requirement for owners or operators of SPCC regulated production facilities in operation before the effective date of August 16, 2002 to develop, implement, and maintain an SPCC Plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations.  For additional information on the proposed rule amendments and for SPCC compliance information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies.

The SPCC rule applies to owners or operators of facilities that:

• store, transfer, use, or consume oil or oil products (for example, gasoline, heating oil, off-road diesel, on-road diesel, lubrication/hydraulic oils, animal fats and vegetable oils) above applicable thresholds (listed below), and
• could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to waters of the U.S. 

The applicable capacity thresholds for facilities subject to the SPCC rule are: 

• aboveground oil storage capacity* greater than 1,320 gallons, or
• completely buried oil storage capacity* greater than 42,000 gallons.

*counting only containers with a capacity of 55 gallons or greater.

Facility owners or operators that handle AFVO should pay special attention to the following proposed revisions to the SPCC rule:

EPA is proposing the following amendments to the SPCC rule:

• differentiated integrity testing requirements for containers that store AFVO and meet certain criteria and FDA regulatory requirements;
• a definition for “loading/unloading rack”; and
• streamlined requirements and allowance of an SPCC Plan template for a subset of qualified facilities, known as “Tier 1” qualified facilities (i.e., with no individual oil storage container with a capacity greater than 5,000 U.S. gallons up to an aggregate container capacity of 10,000 gallons).

Additionally, all SPCC-regulated facilities, including facilities that handle AFVO would be potentially affected by the proposed amendments to provide:

• clarity on the general secondary containment requirements;
• flexibility in the security requirements;
• flexibility in the use of industry standards to comply with integrity testing requirements;
• additional flexibility in meeting the facility diagram requirements; and
• clarification on the definition of “facility” associated with describing a facility’s boundaries.

Please submit your comments on the proposed amendments at www.regulations.gov. If you have specific questions about the proposed amendments, please contact our helpline at 1-800-424-9346.