Are all oil tanks considered equal under SPCC? - USCG and EPA MOU

I’ve been managing and developing Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans for over 20 years, so I don’t run into many aspects of the rule that shock me and take some time to appreciate any more fully. Today’s conversation is not a very common one, so uncommon, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) auditor that was involved with today’s example had to run it by EPA’s legal for clarification.

Here’s the scenario: Company A washes vessels and barges and removes ballast water and other sludge waste from them. This refuge is placed in roll-off boxes onshore. These roll-off boxes are stored throughout the facility while awaiting transport to an offsite disposal plant. Currently, the facility does not have any containment for the roll-offs.

First thoughts based on the SPCC regulations: Company violates the secondary containment requirements under the rule as these roll-offs contain oil, which makes them tanks, and there is no containment for them.

United States Coast Guard (USCG) stance while accompanying EPA auditor: These are onshore oil tanks, thus under EPA’s jurisdiction, and not something the USCG wants to manage or deal with.

If familiar with the SPCC regulations, one can see how this seems pretty black and white. There are oil tanks stored onshore, not on a vessel. The facility meets the volume and location requirements that trigger an SPCC Plan, thus subject to EPA’s jurisdiction and applicable regulatory requirements. Honestly, when I first got involved with this project and spoke with the EPA, I was confused about why there was a debate on these containers; again, this seemed pretty black and white.

Within the SPCC rule, and most rules, buried in the regulations was a provision that provided exceptions to the norm. In this case, it was Appendix A to Part 112 - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. ?This MOU under part (1), subpart (H), states the below. Simple translation, tanks used to store oily waste or other waste from vessels are still under the USCG’s control and thus not subject to the EPA’s SPCC regulations. A quick analogy is how breakout tanks are subject to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and can be exempt from SPCC requirements though located at a facility subject to the SPCC regulations. As these tanks are not under EPA’s jurisdiction, and the USCG doesn’t have a secondary containment provision for such containers, technically, the facility complied even though they did not have containment for these tanks. However, as a best engineering/management practice, these tanks should be contained; however, there is no hard and fast rule.

(H) Waste treatment facilities including in-plant pipelines, effluent discharge lines, and storage tanks, but excluding waste 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.

Where this got slightly tricker in our Company A example was the facility also had FRAC tanks where the waste was sometimes pumped to. As these were permanent tanks at the facility and not pumped directly from a vessel or barge, they were not exempted, as these transfers were not shipped to container transfer, rather roll-off to onshore tankage. In this scenario, these FRAC tanks were subject to all the EPA’s SPCC rule provisions. And lastly, to throw another wrench in today’s discussion, tanks that have virgin/clean product don’t get lumped into this exemption, so if removing “good” fuel tanks and placing them onshore, those tanks would require containment as not waste material as noted under (H).

So, there you go, an uncommon and unusual situation, and now another tool in the toolbox.

One last word of caution, I would not take today’s conversation as a one size fits all discussion and treat each situation on a case-by-case basis.

For a complete listing of archived blogs and compliance insights, click here. Past blogs cover training requirements, clarification on additional confusing elements within the above rules, and much more.

We are here to help solve your compliance questions and challenges. Need some compliance assistance, or have a question? Please email John K. Carroll III ([email protected]) Associate Managing Director – Compliance Services or call +1 281-320-9796.

Witt O’Brien’s:

• To learn more about Witt O'Brien's breadth of services, please visit our website.
• Follow Witt O’Brien’s on LinkedIn and stay informed on important updates.

?