Anadarko Petroleum Co., agrees to pay penalty for oil spills in Wyoming
Release date: 05/07/2009
Contact Information: Richard Mylott, 303 312-6654

Company has also agreed to upgrade spill prevention and response plans

(May 7, 2009 — Denver, Colo.) Anadarko Petroleum Co., and two related oil production companies have agreed to pay a civil penalty of more than $1 million and implement injunctive relief, develop facility response plans, and revise spill prevention as well as containment plans at a cost of more than $8 million during the term of the settlement in order to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today.

According to the consent decree, filed in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, Wyo., Anadarko, Howell Corp., and Howell Petroleum Corp., agree to pay $1.05 million and will upgrade and implement appropriate spill prevention plans and develop and implement facility response plans. The consent decree also requires the companies to implement a multi-phased integrity and mitigation plan that incorporates inspection, monitoring, testing, data collection and failure analysis activities.

“This multi-million dollar settlement will protect water resources and habitat in Wyoming and the West,” said Carol Rushin, EPA’s Acting Regional Administrator in Denver. “We are pleased that Anadarko and its partners will make significant investments in monitoring and control measures that will ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and minimize the likelihood and severity of future spills.”

“As a result of today’s settlement, Anadarko will pay a significant civil penalty and spend an even greater amount to come into compliance with the Clean Water Act,” said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The consent decree will clearly improve Anadarko’s preparedness and prevention plans and will ultimately result in a cleaner environment for the people of Wyoming.”

According to a complaint filed concurrently with the consent decree, Anadarko Petroleum and the two related companies allegedly discharged harmful quantities of oil from its facility in Wyoming on more than 35 occasions between Jan. 26, 2003, and Oct. 19, 2008. The complaint alleges that more than 31,300 barrels of oily water and crude oil were released during the spills and resulted in an observable film, sheen or discoloration on the surface of the impacted water or shoreline. The spills occurred on oil production fields in Park, Johnson and Natrona Counties and resulted in the pollutants being discharged into the tributaries or drainages of Silver Tip Creek and Salt Creek which, respectively, are tributaries to the Clarks Fork and Powder Rivers.

The Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of oil into waterways and coastal areas in quantities that may be harmful to the environment or public health. Oil spills threaten fresh water and marine environments, harming plant and animal life through physical damage and the toxicity of the oil itself, which may poison exposed organisms. For more information on the effects and cleanups of oil spills, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill.

The consent decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming and is subject to a 30-day public comment period and subsequent court approval. A copy of the consent decree is available on the Justice Department Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

PHOTO: 14' x 40' x 10” Rigid Containment System (RCS)

Basic Concepts, Inc. has expanded its spill containment berm offering with the introduction of the Rigid Containment System (RCS). The RCS is designed for customers that require a longer term solution for secondary containment than offered by flexible berms constructed from coated fabrics.

The RCS is designed specifically to meet or exceed EPA, state and federal regulations for secondary spill containment. Fuel tankers that require containment can park on top of (using the raised grating) or in the RCS depending on the end user’s preference.

Designed for high traffic use and long term applications the RCS is the ideal solution for permanent containment without the drawbacks, limitations and expense of concrete berm basins. The RCS avoids the costs and time associated with engineering, permitting and constructing concrete secondary containment. There are no concerns with cracking and filling like there are with concrete berm containment areas. If something changes and the containment area needs to be moved, the RCS is able to be relocated without disassembly or permitting.

Designed to meet military and industrial operational needs for containment, the RCS’s primary function is for secondary containment of refueler trucks. However, the RCS can also be utilized for wash racks, loading and unloading areas for fuels and chemicals and as a decontamination site.

The RCS was designed utilizing heavy duty C channel and I beam wall construction with steel sheets comprising the floor of the containment unit. The C channel and I beams provide a very durable side and entry wall that can be driven across from any direction. The RCS is a single piece construction which minimizes on site installation time and eliminates issues with seam inspection and maintenance. The end user never has to worry about failed seams leaking.

The RCS’s underside is coated with a corrosion preventive sealant used as a rust-inhibiting undercoating. The inside floor of the RCS is coated with a 40 mil slip resistant coating that has UV inhibitors added allowing for years of service. The coating is compatible with all hydrocarbons and can be reformulated to be compatible with the customer’s specific chemical requirements.

The RCS has drain ports in all four corners to allow rain water to be removed via gravity. The RCS can include the patented Petro-Pipe® oil barrier as an accessory that allows rain water to pass through but traps and contains oil, forming a plug when in contact with filter media.

The RCS is available in standard sizes of 30′x12′x10″ and 40′x12′x10″ which are designed to contain the military’s 7 ton fuel tank truck and the 2500 gallon HEMTT fuel truck respectively. Individual RCS units can be connected to provide expanded sump capacity as needed. Custom sizes are available upon request. For more information contact Basic Concepts, Inc, 1310 Harris Bridge Rd, Anderson, SC 29621, telephone 1-800-285-4203 or visit the company website at www.basicconcepts.com where additional specifications, photos and video demonstrations are available for viewing.

From this article you will be able to properly identify the size of your spill berm, the fabric construction needed, whether or not you need puncture protection and what type of brace support is most desirable.

All spill berms are not created equal! Most end users seeking secondary containment are doing so to comply with either Federal or State regulations. The EPA enforces 40 CFR of the Clean Water Act and most other regulations stem from that legislation.

1. The first question that an end user must answer in determining what type of containment they are seeking is what are they trying to accomplish?

Notice I did not mention secondary containment as the user may not be required to have sized secondary containment but instead is only interested in drips or leaks from equipment.

2. What is sized secondary containment?

40 CFR addresses containment of certain hydrocarbon (oil) filled equipment. Part 112 specifically calls for sized containment. The containment must be able to contain 100% of the largest oil filled container on the equipment plus enough free board capacity to contain rainwater. The rule of thumb generally accepted is 110%. If sized containment is not needed then the end user can purchase drip berms or spill pads that are compatible with hydrocarbons to meet their needs.

3. Once the end user has determined that they are seeking sized secondary containment they must decide the volume capacity of the spill berm that they need?

Volume is gained through length, width and height of the spill berm. Some locations are challenged with a limited area footprint for the spill berm. In these instances, you can raise the height of your wall from the industry standard of 1ft. Length and width of the spill berm should be customized to your specific need. Seek out berm manufacturer’s that are willing to build the berm to your customized requirements.

4. Now that you have the size for your berm, the real questions can be asked. What are you going to contain?

Where will you contain? How often will you use your spill berm? What type of foot traffic will you have around the spill berm? Answering these questions will define the type spill berm you choose.

The importance behind knowing what you will be containing is that the chemical you are containing will determine what type of material is used in the spill berm. There are several materials that can be used in a spill berm including: steel, concrete, coated fabrics and film. The vast majority of spill berms are constructed using coated fabrics that are compatible with the chemical that the end user is containing. Films are a cheap alternative, typically constructed with polyethylene (PE). These are generally considered a single use solution as the film easily cracks and breaks when folded. Without a scrim behind the film, punctures are also likely. A fabric will have a base scrim that the coating is extruded to and will provide higher puncture ratings.

For permanent spill berm installations coated fabrics, concrete and steel with special coatings are used. Concrete is used for permanent installs that are fixed and will not change. Building permits are typically required when doing a concrete spill berm installation. Once installed the end user is committed to this area being their secondary containment. There is no ability to expand and the end user must diligently inspect the bermed area for cracks. In most instances, the concrete will be required to be sealed to meet the requirements of impervious containment. The price and maintenance of concrete areas are often detractors from this type of solution.

Steel constructed spill berms offer the longevity that many end users require but at a significant price. The steel spill berm can be coated with special coatings to protect the unit against weathering and rust. The end user will want to make sure that the coating is compatible with the chemical that they are containing. Steel spill berms are typically moveable with the assistance of a heavy duty crane and should be one piece in construction if possible to avoid leaks at seams.

Spill berms constructed with coated fabrics offer advantages over the other systems. That is why most spill berms are constructed with coated fabrics. The spill berms are portable, easier to install, don’t require permitting and can be a long term solution if cared for properly. Spill berms constructed with coated fabrics are far more cost effective than steel and concrete berms.

There are several fabrics that are used to construct fabric spill berms. Polyurethane, PVC and modified PVC’s are the primary coatings used in spill berms. Compatibility is a primary concern for fabric selection. For instance, PVC is not long term compatible with hydrocarbons. When PVC comes into contact with hydrocarbons, it will get brittle and crack as the hydrocarbons leach out the plasticizers in the fabric. Modified PVC and Polyurethane are the most common coatings used with Polyurethane being the most expensive choice.

In instances where aggressive acids are being contained, it is often common for the end user to lay down an acid liner inside of the berm. Typically, the liner is a lighterweight PE woven tape that is flexible and inexpensive compared to the cost of the berm. The berm liner can be replaced as it wears out.

Once you have determined what fabric is compatible with your application, you need to determine what weight fabric to use in your berm liner. Lighter weight fabrics will be more susceptible to punctures. Coating weight alone does not determine the puncture rating of the fabric. The base scrim and how tightly it is woven will also assist in raising your puncture rating.

To assist in keeping your berm puncture free, invest in track belts for inside the berm and ground mats for underneath your spill berm. This will effectively sandwich your berm and protect it from below and above. Fabrics offered for this application vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. The best protection to weight of fabric ratio is provided by using a coated polyester. This material is often used in conveyor belt construction and is extremely resistant to punctures in the harshest conditions.

Finally, the end user must determine what type of side walls and entry/exit walls they prefer to have in their spill berm. The wall support design and fabric construction are the two key features that set berms apart and justify the statement that all berms are not created equally. There are six categories of berm wall support: angle bracket, float up, foam wall, air inflation, outside brace and inside brace.

The angle bracket is generally the least expensive method as it requires far less time to manufacture. The advantage of an angle bracket design is that it is clean and free of trip hazards. It also provides the end user the most useable space in the smallest footprint. The downside to an angle bracket is that there are many parts to the berm and it requires assembly. Entry/exit from the unit requires the end user to disassemble the berm wall, drop the wall and then reassemble the wall when done. For high traffic, this type spill berm is not very functional.

Float up berm walls have been introduced in the last several years. Float up booms are used in the entry/exit wall or in all four walls. The advantage of this type berm is that it has a low profile and the float walls can be driven over from any direction. The end user does not have to raise or lower the walls to provide containment. The disadvantages of this type spill berm is that the end user must be diligent and not park equipment on or lay anything across the float up walls that will keep the walls from floating up in the event of a spill. It is also noted that this type berm is not recommended for areas where there is any annual snowfall. The weight of the snow on the berm wall will impede its ability to float up. The units are also very bulky due to the foam and typically do not last as long as other fabric construction berms.

Foam wall berms are very limiting in their ability to contain. Regardless of manufacturer, if you go over a height of 6″ the end user runs the risk of berm failure. The fluid pressure that builds on a wall when a berm is filled over 6″ in height is too great for the foam construction and buckles the wall. There are manufacturers that offer the foam wall design in over 6″ height but it is advised to steer clear of these designs. With the reduced height, your footprint must extend in length and or width to accommodate the needed volume. Foam walls also do not last long when continually driven over. These disadvantages coupled with the bulk associated with a foam berm wall limits its applications and is therefore, rarely seen in use.

Air berms are an older design that is rarely used today. The puncture of the air filled tubes is a chief concern as you immediately lose containment. Another detractor is the additional equipment necessary to inflate the unit.

Outside brace supports come in several different designs. A single piece construction that requires no berm assembly as in the patented Quickberm is the most user friendly. An outside support brace that offers no assembly reduces or eliminates the ergonomic issues associated with berm assembly. Braces that require assembly or are not attached permanently to the berm body offer the same disadvantages as the angle bracket berm. For portable applications, the end user should not be concerned with losing parts in the field. Another disadvantage to the outside brace support is that each brace support is considered a trip hazard around the perimeter of the berm.

Inside brace supports are only available from one manufacturer, Basic Concepts, Inc. It is a single piece construction that requires no assembly. The end user simply unfolds the spill berm and pulls the walls back to erect the unit. The berm footprint must be slightly oversized to accommodate the inside brace supports. The overall footprint takes up the same space as an outside brace support berm would when including the outside support braces in the footprint. The benefits of the inside brace design are that there are no tripping hazards around the perimeter of the berm, there are no parts to lose in the field, the berm folds up to the smallest storage footprint of any spill berm available on the market and set up is quick and easy without the ergonomic challenges that spill berms requiring assembly present.

From this article the end user should be able to properly investigate the size of their spill berm, the fabric construction needed, whether or not they need puncture protection and what type of brace support is most desirable. Hopefully from this article the end user will understand that all spill berms are truly not created equal.
Basic Concepts Inc will be able to assess your needs and custom design a solution for your specific application that incorporates all of the above factors and features. For more information feel free to contact a technical sales representative at Basic Concepts, Inc. at 1 (800) 285-4203.

Containment berm prevents oil spill from seeping into Burrard Inlet
Metro Canada – Vancouver – Vancouver,Canada
A lined containment berm prevented 200,000 litres of crude oil from spilling into Burrard Inlet following a spill at a storage tank on Burnaby Mountain.

A third-party contractor was working at Kinder Morgan’s Burnaby terminal at 10 p.m. Wednesday when an “equipment malfunction” spilled crude oil into a lined, secondary containment dike.

“No product escaped from the site,” said Andrew Galarnyk, Kinder Morgan’s director of external relations.

“There was a pump that the contractor had connected to our tank. It might have been the piping from his pump that failed.

“In no uncertain terms was it a flaw or any kind of leak from our tank.”

The Burnaby terminal stores crude oil and refined oil products that are brought in by pipeline before being sent to local refinerys or tanked to other locations.

First responders and community officials were called as crude was drained from the tank to stop the spill.

Kinder Morgan is monitoring air quality because of the strong odour of crude oil. Firefighters even sprayed foam onto the spill to negate the fumes.

Galarnyk said he expects cleanup to be completed on Friday as pumper trucks move the recovered oil to a different tank.

Stephenson Oil Company, Inc. Fined for Violating the Clean Water Act
U.S. EPA.gov (press release) – Washington,DC,USA
Release date: 05/04/2009

Contact Information: Dave Bary or Anthony Suttice at 214-665-2200 or r6press@epa.gov

(Dallas, Texas – May 4, 2009) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has fined Stephenson Oil Company, Inc. of Cleburne County, Arkansas, $20,906 for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Today’s announcement settles a Clean Water Act violation for discharging approximately 1970 gallons of oil into Sulphur Creek and its adjoining shorelines from Stephenson Oil Company’s bulk oil storage facility in Heber Springs, Arkansas, and associated Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) violations. A federal inspection of the facility revealed that the company had failed to prepare an adequate SPCC plan for the facility, and had failed to provide adequate secondary containment for bulk storage tanks and storage units which contributed to the oil spill.

Additional information on SPCC regulations is available at http://www.epa.gov/oilspill

More about activities in EPA Region 6: http://www.epa.gov/region6

Petco Petroleum Corporation Fined for Violating the Clean Water Act
U.S. EPA.gov (press release) – Washington,DC,USA
Release date: 04/09/2009

Contact Information: Dave Bary or Anthony Suttice at 214-665-2200 or r6press@epa.gov

(Dallas, Texas – April 9, 2009) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has fined Petco Petroleum Corp. of Hinsdale, Illinois, $1,000 for violating federal Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations outlined under the Clean Water Act. A federal inspection of an oil production facility located on Hill Jones Lease Road, Drumright, Creek County, Oklahoma, on February 6, 2009, revealed written procedures developed for the facility were not followed, and accumulated oil on rainwater was not removed and returned to storage or disposed of properly. The inspection also found excessive vegetation, walls of the containment systems were slightly eroded or had low areas, and visual inspection of containers, foundation and supports were not conducted periodically for deterioration and maintenance needs. As part of an Expedited Settlement Agreement with EPA, the facility has certified that all identified deficiencies have been corrected.

Additional information on SPCC regulations is available at http://www.epa.gov/oilspill

More about activities in EPA Region 6: http://www.epa.gov/region6

EPA audio file is available at http://www.epa.gov/region6/6xa/podcast/apr2009.html

Maine Firm Fined for Oil Spill Prevention Violations, Inadequate … Occupational Health Safety – Dallas,TX,USA Nov 03, 2008

An oil distribution company will pay $8,000 for failing to adequately prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans at two of its facilities in Stonington, Maine, located directly adjacent to Penobscot Bay. An inspection by EPA and the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection found that R.L. Greenlaw’s oil storage facilities in Stonington had failed to maintain sufficiently impervious secondary containment for its oil tanks at both locations and failed to construct adequate containment for the loading and off-loading areas at one of the locations adjacent to the harbor. Both facilities lacked adequate security measures, said EPA, which has regulations to prevent unauthorized access to oil storage containers.

Following EPA’s inspection and contacts with the company, R.L. Greenlaw submitted and has begun implementing corrective action plans for both facilities. These plans include liquid-tightness tests at the site near the harbor to identify leaking areas in the containment walls and floor, dike repairs, and construction of poured concrete spill containment areas for the oil transfer areas.

EPA noted that spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into surface waters, such as harbors, rivers or streams. The regulations require that certain spill prevention and response measures be implemented at facilities that store oil above threshold amounts. Since 2007, EPA has conducted inspections at more than 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations, the agency said.

Guarding against another Exxon Valdez
Anchorage Daily News – Anchorage,AK,USA

BY WESLEY LOY
Graphics by RON ENGSTROM

Published: March 21st, 2009 09:16 PM
Last Modified: March 21st, 2009 11:38 PM

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 mandated double hulls for all oil tankers by 2015. Previously, ships could operate with only a single hull, or layer of steel, separating the oil cargo from the sea.

The idea is that should a double-hull tanker run aground, or collide with another vessel, only one of the ship’s two shells will rupture, keeping the oil safely inside.

A U.S. Coast Guard study found that had the Exxon Valdez been equipped with a double hull, as much as 60 percent of the spilled oil might have stayed within the ship.

All but one of the 15 tankers regularly loading at the Valdez oil dock now have double hulls.

Backup systems

Tankers are now built with twin propellers, twin rudders and twin engines.

Ships with these “redundant” systems are more maneuverable and better able to cope with breakdowns than the aged, single-hull tankers they replaced.

BP and Conoco Phillips each built fleets of new tankers this decade.

A typical BP ship cost $250 million, is 941 feet long and can carry 55 million gallons of oil.

Escort tugs

Before the spill, a single tug escorted oil-laden tankers through Valdez Narrows, the tight channel connecting Port Valdez to Prince William Sound. The tug turned back several miles short of Bligh Reef, so the Exxon Valdez was unescorted at the time it ran aground.

Since the disaster, the escort system has been greatly enhanced. Two powerful and highly maneuverable tugs now escort tankers until they leave Prince William Sound and sail into the Pacific Ocean through Hinchinbrook Entrance.

An industry organization called the Ship Escort/Response Vessel System, or SERVS, maintains a fleet of 11 tugs with response crews on duty around the clock.

The tugs are meant to help tankers that lose power by pushing or towing the ships away from rocks or other dangers.

Spill equipment, drills

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground, the industry’s one cleanup barge was down for repairs and much of the equipment it carried was buried under deep snow. And cleanup drills were uncommon prior to 1989.

After the spill, oil containment and cleanup equipment was vastly expanded. Many systems were added to skim oil off the water. Today, 71 miles of containment boom are required, compared to the five miles available in 1989. Spill response equipment is stationed around the Sound at Cordova, Whittier, Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and five salmon hatcheries.

Response barges are anchored at remote sites and manned around the clock for quick action.

State-mandated cleanup plans require the industry to be able to clean up a large spill within 72 hours. Regular drills are held, often involving a fleet of commercial fishing boats that can help respond to spills.

The Sound now has “one of the best-equipped oil-spill response forces in the world,” says a Valdez-based oil industry watchdog group.

Marine pilots

When tankers leave Valdez with a load of oil, they carry a marine pilot — an extra captain who knows local waters well.

In 1989, the pilot’s job was done and he jumped off the ship onto a small boat at Rocky Point, 10 miles short of Bligh Reef where the Exxon Valdez ran aground just after midnight.

Today, pilots stay aboard until tankers pass Bligh Reef.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tracking systems

Before the 1989 spill, radar coverage of tanker traffic was too limited to detect the Exxon Valdez grounding less than 30 miles from the U.S. Coast Guard’s vessel traffic center in Valdez.

Today, the Coast Guard has better radar and an Automatic Identification System to track the name, position, heading and speed of ships and tugs. The idea is to ward off collisions.

The Coast Guard also has used remote video cameras to watch tankers departing and approaching Valdez.

Another radar system in 2002 began tracking icebergs that can drift into shipping lanes from Columbia Glacier. The Exxon Valdez ran aground after crewmen steered out of the lanes to avoid ice.

Alcohol

Exxon Valdez Capt. Joe Hazelwood was charged with operating the tanker while drunk, but a state jury acquitted him of that charge. All tanker captains today are given breath tests an hour before sailing, and any crewman suspected of drinking can be tested.

Tanker captains were not subject to alcohol tests prior to 1989.

Watchdog groups

A new creation after the spill was independent citizens oversight councils to watchdog tanker operations in the Sound and in Cook Inlet.

Congress mandated the nonprofit Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council, which gets most of its $3 million annual budget from the oil company consortium that runs the 800-mile trans-Alaska oil pipeline and Valdez tanker port.

The council monitors tanker traffic, conducts independent research and advises regulators and industry on oil spill prevention and response. Its board includes commercial fishermen, local government officials and business people.

The council counts among its accomplishments its push for double-hull tankers, for a “world-class system” of escort tugs and for radar to detect the icebergs that can damage tankers.

Sources: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council

——————————————————————————–

Where is Joe Hazelwood?

The 1989 wreck of the Exxon Valdez marked the end of Joe Hazelwood’s career as a tanker captain. In “The Spill,” a new book of remembrances about the spill and massive cleanup operation, Hazelwood says he now works as an investigator and technical consultant with a maritime law firm in New York. Now in his 60s, Hazelwood apologizes for the disaster. “I was the captain of a ship that ran aground and caused a horrendous amount of damage. I’ve got to be responsible for that,” he says. “I would like to offer an apology, a very heartfelt apology, to the people of Alaska for the damage caused by the grounding of a ship that I was in command of.”

Close calls since the spill

Despite safeguards put into place after the Exxon Valdez disaster, oil tankers have been in trouble on several occasions in Prince William Sound since the March 1989 spill. Some examples:

March 13, 2005 — The captain of the empty tanker Overseas Washington, sailing into the Sound from the open ocean, makes a sharp turn away from land and an oncoming ship after losing power to its radar systems.

Oct. 10, 2002 — Two tugs take the loaded 869-foot tanker Kenai in tow after a problem in the engine room. It happens at Hinchinbrook Entrance, where the Sound opens to the Pacific Ocean.

July 10, 2001 — Escort tugs haul the loaded 790-foot tanker Chevron Mississippi to a stop to avert a collision with a commercial fishing boat and its outstretched net. It happens in Valdez Narrows, the slim channel connecting Port Valdez to the Sound.

Oct. 20, 1992 — The tanker Kenai, loaded with 35 million gallons of crude oil, experiences a steering problem and comes within 100 yards of hitting Middle Rock at the mouth of Valdez Narrows. An escort tug pushes the ship clear.

Sept. 20, 1989 — The 906-foot tanker Atigun Pass loses engine power near Bligh Reef, but escorts attach tow lines to prevent a potential grounding and major oil spill. It’s the first test of the oil industry’s new tanker escort system.

EPA Focus on Oil Spill Prevention Results in Three Settlements -Effort includes inspections of multi-facility companies

 

Release date: 01/15/2008

Contact Information: Paula Ballentine, (617) 918-1027

 

(Boston, Mass. – Jan. 15, 2008) – Under an ongoing EPA effort to prevent oil spills, three additional New England companies will pay penalties to resolve allegations that they violated federal regulations related to the storage of oil. The companies have operations in all six New England states, and two own and operate multiple oil storage facilities.

Mantrose-Haeuser Co. Inc., an Attleboro Mass. shellac-based coatings facility, will pay $34,000 following a 2006 EPA inspection of its oil tanks and its facility. EPA found the company to be in violation of federal Clean Water Act regulations by releasing an unknown quantity of oil into the nearby Ten Mile River and failing to prepare and implement an adequate Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan.

Rice Oil Co. of Greenfield Mass. will pay a $157,500 penalty for alleged SPCC violations at four of its Massachusetts oil storage and distribution facilities and at a Vermont facility, where two oil spills occurred in 2003 and 2007. The company is affiliated with approximately 40 gas stations and convenience stores throughout New England.

Irving Oil Co., with U.S. operations based in Portsmouth N.H., will pay a $55,000 penalty for alleged violations at one of its facilities located in a drinking water protection area in Alton, N.H. In addition to the Alton facility, Irving owns and operates a total of twelve bulk oil storage facilities in New England, three of which are marine terminals with a combined storage capacity of over 100 million gallons.

Federal oil spill prevention regulations are designed to prevent pollution to waterways and to ensure that there will be an effective response to any oil discharges that do occur. Among other requirements, the SPCC plan must contain measures to prevent and control oil spills, including ensuring that there is adequate containment to prevent the spilled oil from reaching a waterway. Since meeting with EPA representatives, all three companies have been working cooperatively to update and fully implement SPCC plans at their New England facilities.

“Oil spills can do significant damage to the environment, so it is important to take steps to prevent them from occurring,” said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England Office. “Facilities that store and distribute oil have a responsibility to carefully follow established procedures to minimize risks of oil spills.”

EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. In 2007, EPA conducted inspections at over 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.

Additional Information on Mantrose-Haeuser

EPA had originally responded to a release of sulfuric acid at Mantrose-Haeuser in June 2006, and subsequently conducted an inspection of the facility’s oil tanks one month later, during which the inspector observed another spill occurring, this time a release of diesel fuel. The second spill resulted from a leak in a diesel-powered high pressure washing device that had been staged on the facility’s parking lot without any secondary containment to catch spills.

The leaked oil flowed into a nearby storm drain and into the Ten Mile River. EPA also noted that there was heavy oil staining and evidence of prior spillage throughout the delivery truck unloading area, directly adjacent to the river.

Upon EPA’s observation that an oil sheen had developed on the river, Mantrose-Haeuser initiated steps to protect the storm drain with oil absorbent pads, shut down the leaking equipment and clean up the spilled oil. No environmental damage was evident from this release.

Additional Information on Rice Oil

On July 4, 2007, Rice Oil reported a 400-gallon discharge of oil from its Readsboro, Vt. facility. Emergency personnel from the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation responded and oversaw the investigation and remediation of the discharge. Some of the oil was observed to have escaped the earthen berm surrounding the tanks, however, no impact to the Deerfield River was observed.

This was the second oil discharge from this site within the past five years. Previous to the July 4th spill, Rice Oil had a 300-gallon fuel oil release in October 2003. The oil was discharged from a tank into the Deerfield River, and no product was recovered from the river during subsequent response operations. Following this release, Rice Oil paid a $15,000 penalty to EPA for violations of the federal Clean Water Act. At that time, the company also agreed to upgrade the oil storage and distribution systems at the Readsboro facility, as well as its other Massachusetts bulk plants.

On November 28, 2006, representatives from EPA and the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection inspected three of Rice Oil’s Massachusetts bulk plants in Greenfield and Shelburne Falls, and reviewed information related to an Orange, Mass. facility and the Vermont facility. The inspection revealed that the company had failed to upgrade its equipment as previously agreed to, including building sufficiently impervious and appropriately sized secondary containment for oil storage tanks, transfer areas, and loading racks.

Additional information on Irving Oil

A joint inspection by representatives from EPA’s New England office and the N.H. Dept. of Environmental Services at the Alton bulk plant found that the company had failed to construct sufficiently impervious secondary containment around its aboveground storage tanks. The facility’s oil storage included six aboveground bulk petroleum storage tanks ranging in size from 10,000 to 20,000 gallons, with an aggregate storage capacity of more than 100,000 gallons.

The Irving Oil facility also stores gasoline on-site and is located within the well radius of the Town of Alton’s drinking water supply. This sensitive location means that spills at the bulk plant could lead to contamination of a public drinking water aquifer. In November 2005 the facility had a spill of over 5,000 gallons of No. 2 home heating oil, which impacted the groundwater beneath the tank farm.


var addthis_pub=”basicconcepts”;

Tests identify airport contamination Billings Gazette – MT, USA

By Gazette News Services

HELENA – Soil tests confirm that spillage of jet fuel at the Hamilton airport led to three plumes of contamination, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality said Friday.

On July 1, 4,500 gallons of fuel spilled during a fuel transfer at Northstar Aviation. Fuel was being moved from a storage tank above ground to a truck used for fueling airplanes.

The three plumes are above a shallow aquifer, DEQ said. The contamination is northwest and southeast of the maintenance building at the Ravalli County Airport, the agency said.

“The lab results confirm what we expected as far as the extent and magnitude of the spill,” said Nick Sovner, environmental science specialist for DEQ.

The department said environmental cleanup will include soil excavation, some of it before the winter, with the contaminated soil probably going to the Missoula landfill. Officials expect continued sampling of wells that serve the airport maintenance building and a U.S. Forest Service building nearby. Testing of those wells has revealed no contamination.

In the initial response to the spill, about 800 gallons of spilled fuel were removed.

Published on Monday, October 20, 2008.
Last modified on 10/20/2008 at 12:17 am