What Kinds Of Oil Are Regulated Under SPCC Rule?

What types of oil are regulated by the SPCC Rules (40 CFR 112)?

Caltha receives this question often as facility operators or owners are determining if the SPCC Rule applies to their site. The SPCC Rules define “oil” broadly, and also differentiate between “oil” and “non-petroleum oil”. Petroleum oils, fuels, etc are regulated, as are synthetic oils, and oily wastes. In general, materials that can create a surface sheen or an emulsion in water are likely regulated as oil under the SPCC rules.

40 CFR 122.2:
"Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil."

"Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not petroleum-based, including but not limited to: Fats, oils, and greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; and vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels."

On April 18, 2011, EPA published a final rule amending the SPCC regulations to exempt milk and milk product containers, associated piping and appurtenances. EPA believes that certain specific construction and sanitation standards and requirements address the prevention of oil discharges in quantities that may be harmful. The capacity of the exempt milk and milk product containers, piping and appurtenances does need not be included in a facility's total oil storage capacity calculation to determine if the facility is subject to SPCC.

SPCC Rules apply to oil-filled operational equipment. Oil-filled operational equipment means equipment that includes an oil storage container (or multiple containers) in which the oil is present solely to support the function of the apparatus or the device. Oil-filled operational equipment is not considered a bulk storage container, and does not include oil-filled manufacturing equipment (flow-through process). Examples of oil-filled operational equipment include hydraulic systems, lubricating systems, gear boxes, machining coolant systems, heat transfer systems, transformers, circuit breakers, electrical switches, and other systems containing oil solely to enable the operation of the device.

FAQ: Does an SPCC Plan Expire? How often must I update my SPCC Plan?


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the preparing PE certified and self-certified SPCC Plans, developing emergency preparedness procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

Johnson & Johnson To Phase Out Certain Chemicals From Products

Johnson and Johnson has announced that it plans to remove all potential carcinogens and dangerous chemicals from its line of toiletries and cosmetics for adults by 2015. Among the chemicals that will be removed from the products, which include adult skin care brands such as Aveeno and Neutrogena, over the next 3-4 years are 1,4 dioxane, formaldehyde, triclosan, phthalates, parabens, and fragrance ingredients. However, products will be allowed to contain chemicals that release formaldehyde in the event that there is no safe alternative. J and J's decision to remove the chemicals from its products comes after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pressuring the company to do so in order to protect consumers and its own employees.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

Ohio Revises Rules For Underground Storage Tanks

Ohio has changed its underground storage tank regulations to align with federal rules.Under Ohio Rule OAC 1301-7-9-06, all new UST Systems must have secondary containment. Previously, only UST Systems in sensitive areas had to secondary containment. Further, when the cumulative replacement of an existing UST system exceeds 50%, then the entire system must have secondary containment. When new dispensers are installed or when existing dispensers are repaired and did not have containment pans under the dispenser, containment must be then installed under the dispenser.

Under Rule OAC 1301-7-9-19, by August 8, 2012, Owners and operators had to designate, train and document the training of Class A, B and C operators. This training was for operators of UST systems and is in addition to the licensure requirements for UST installers. Licensed UST installers automatically qualify as Class A operators.

Class A Operators have the primary responsibility for achieving and maintaining compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements and standards necessary to operate and maintain the UST system at one or more UST Sites. Class B Operators have the primary responsibility for implementing applicable requirements and standards for UST systems at one or more UST sites. Class A and B Operators have to undergo training from a state Fire Marshal approved trainer using formats approved by the state.

Class C operators (often being at least one attendant at the facility during working hours) are responsible for the initial response to alarms and other indications of emergencies caused by spills or releases from a UST system and for notifying the Class A or Class B Operators or emergency response personnel of the same. Class C operators may be trained by Class A or Class B operators using formats approved by the state.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Committee Nominations

On August 20, the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced it was extending the deadline by 30 days to receive nominations for membership on a national committee to guide and oversee U.S. implementation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (USEITI). The initiative is a voluntary, global effort designed to increase transparency, strengthen the accountability of natural resource revenues, and build public trust for the governance of these vital activities.

The committee is being convened under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members will include non-federal representatives from the extractive industry and the public, and may ultimately include representatives from state, local, and/or tribal governments. USEITI commits participating countries to disclose to an independent reconciler certain revenues obtained for oil, gas and mining development. It also commits companies to make parallel disclosures regarding payments to the government. The reconciled figures are then made public. The design of each nation's EITI framework is country-specific and developed jointly by a multi-stakeholder group comprised of members of the public, government, and industry through a multi-year, consensus-based process. The committee will serve as the initial multi-stakeholder group for USEITI implementation.

Nominations for membership on the committee must now be received by September 26, 2012.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule CSAPR Vacated By Court

On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia legally voided EPA's August 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CSAPR, also known as the Transport Rule, applies emissions limits on 28 upwind states to protect downwind states from air pollution. The rule has been on hold since December 2011. In its place, EPA has been enforcing CSAPR's predecessor, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR.The statutory requirement for upwind states to prevent sources within their borders from polluting downwind states is often called the “good neighbor statute.” In order to implement this good neighbor statute, the Transport Rule places limits primarily on upwind states' coal-and natural gas-fired power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.Several states, local governments, industry groups, and labor organizations petitioned the court for a review of the Transport Rule.

The Court explained that both the federal government and the states play significant roles in a system of cooperative air pollution control. "The federal government sets air quality standards for pollutants. The states have the primary responsibility for determining how to meet those standards and regulating sources within their borders."In its decision, the Court said EPA's Transport Rule exceeds the Agency's statutory authority in two ways:

1. The statute grants EPA the authority to require upwind states to reduce only their own significant contributions to a downwind state's nonattainment. However, the Transport Rule may require states to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to a downwind state's nonattainment. The court stated, “EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind states without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text.”
2. The Clean Air Act affords states the initial opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the good neighbor provision. But the Transport Rule did not allow the states this opportunity. Instead, EPA quantified states' good neighbor obligations and simultaneously set forth EPA-designed obligations at the state level.

The Court noted that Congress could alter the statute to permit or require EPA's preferred approach to the good neighbor issue. Unless and until Congress does so, EPA must enforce the standard as it is currently written. The Agency has not yet commented on the ruling or on whether it will continue to implement CAIR.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Implementation of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is moving forward to implement its new statutory authority to strengthen federal pipeline safety regulations. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is the first step to implement the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, which toughened pipeline safety regulations and PHMSA's ability to enforce them.

The Act authorizes PHMSA to increase the maximum civil penalty for pipeline safety violations from $100,000 to $200,000 per violation per day. In addition, the agency will be able to collect a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations, up from $1,000,000. PHMSA proposes to apply the new maximums in cases that occur after Jan. 3, 2012, the date the Act was signed into law.

Proposed amendments to the Pipeline Safety Regulations also include technical changes and other minor corrections, including returning PHMSA's authority to enforce the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which had been transferred to the Coast Guard during the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

 

NSPS Revised For Nitric Acid Plants

EPA has finalized new source performance standards (NSPS) for nitric acid plants, effective August 14, 2012. The new standards include lowering the nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission limit for each nitric acid production unit (NAPU) that was built or modified after October 14, 2011. The rule also includes additional testing and monitoring requirements. NSPS are required under Clean Air Act section 111(b) and are issued for sources which cause or contribute significantly to air pollution. The NSPS must reflect the best system of emission reduction, or BSER, and EPA must assess whether a standard is achievable by the regulated industry.

The final rule reduced NOx emissions from 3.0 pounds of NOx per ton of 100 percent nitric acid produced (lb NOx/ton acid) to 0.50 lb NOx/ton acid as a 30 operating day emissions rate calculated each operating day based on the previous 30 operating days.

Although general provisions in 40 CFR Part 60 provide exceptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions, the new final rules will not allow any exceptions to the emissions limits — even during startups and shutdowns. EPA says there is equipment available to address higher emissions during these periods, if that is a concern for a facility. Certain allowances and exceptions may still be made for malfunctions.

Although NAPUs emit another nitrogen compound known as nitrous oxide (N2O), considered a greenhouse gas (GHG), EPA's final rule does not address the compound. However, the Agency says it is in the process of gathering and analyzing data on GHG emissions from NAPUs that will allow it to continue working toward a proposal for GHG standards from nitric acid plants.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website