Maine Company Faces Penalty for Violations of Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Office         
August  2, 2012

Contact Information: Dave Deegan, (617) 918-1017

Maine Company Faces Penalty for Violations of Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

(Boston, Mass. – August 2, 2012) A Maine company that provides motor vehicle services and fuel oil sales is facing a fine of up to $177,500 for violations of the Clean Water Act. 

 EPA recently filed a complaint against the J&S Oil Co., Inc. for failing to maintain and fully implement an oil spill prevention plan, which contributed to the release of approximately 1,500 gallons of used motor oil from a tanker truck at the facility.

The oil release in March 2012 prompted an emergency response from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and EPA.  The company also hired an oil spill response company to contain the spilled oil and dispose of contaminated soils. 

EPA determined that the company had failed to fully maintain and implement it Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan, as required by the Clean Water Act. SPCC plans specify spill prevention measures at facilities that store oil above threshold amounts and help ensure that a tank failure or oil spill does not lead to oil reaching bodies of water.  In its complaint EPA alleges that the company failed to provide for adequate secondary containment for some of the facility’s above-ground storage tanks and the tanker trucks parked at the facility; failed to provide secondary containment for the loading/unloading rack; failed to maintain adequate training records of oil-handling personnel in the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent discharges; and, failed to provide adequate security for the facility.

For more information on federal oil spill prevention requirements:

            http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/er/oilstor.htm

            http://www.epa.gov/oilspill

 # # #

Enterprise Crude Pipeline Fined for Oil Spill in Scurry County, Texas

Press release:

Enterprise Crude Pipeline Fined for Oil Spill in Scurry County, Texas

(DALLAS – July 16, 2012) The Environmental Protection Agency has fined Enterprise Crude Pipeline of Houston, Texas, $5,000 for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Today’s announcement settles a Clean Water Act violation for a 4,200 gallon oil spill into Bull Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River, and adjoining shorelines in Scurry County, Texas. As part of an Expedited Settlement with the EPA, the company has certified it has investigated the cause of the oil spill, cleaned up the oil spill and has taken corrective actions that will prevent future spills.

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines in such quantities that have been determined may be harmful to public health. The EPA is charged with enforcing the Act and ensuring that public health and the environment are protected from harmful impacts of these violations.

More about activities is EPA Region 6 is available at http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/region6.html

# # #

Press release:

April 30, 2012 08:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

Cleanup Continuing at Location of Crude Oil Spill by ExxonMobil Pipeline Company

TORBERT, La.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cleanup operations were continuing at the site of a spill of crude oil on remote rural property near Torbert LA, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company said today.

The oil from the North Line crude pipeline was contained in the immediate area and recovery efforts began on Sunday. Crews used vacuum trucks to recover the oil. Additional resources will be available on Monday as necessary.

There were no injuries. Air quality monitoring was conducted in the impacted area and confirmed no danger to the public. Additional air monitoring will continue.

“ExxonMobil Pipeline Company regrets that this spill has occurred and we apologize for any disruption or inconvenience,” said Karen Tyrone, southern operations manager. “Our crews will be on location until the cleanup has been completed. Fortunately the oil was contained in the immediate area which will enhance our recovery efforts.”

The cleanup is being coordinated with local authorities, including the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Notification to the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies has taken place.

The cause of the spill was under investigation.

A preliminary estimate of approximately 1,900 barrels of oil was provided to regulatory authorities. An early spill volume estimate is required to support planning of response efforts by regulatory agencies and other responders. Once the incident investigation is complete, the spill volume estimate will be updated.

The North Line is a 22-inch pipeline which originates in St. James, Louisiana and carries crude oil to the northern part of Louisiana. The pipeline was shut down after a loss in pressure was identified on Saturday night.

Customers have been notified and efforts are under way to minimize any potential impacts.

About ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded international oil and gas company, uses technology and innovation to help meet the world’s growing energy needs. ExxonMobil holds an industry-leading inventory of resources, is the largest refiner and marketer of petroleum products, and its chemical company is one of the largest in the world. For more information, visit www.exxonmobil.com.

Logan Airport Oil Storage Facility Operators Fined for Inadequate Oil Spill Training

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
March 28, 2012
Contact: Paula Ballentine, (617) 918-1027

Logan Airport Oil Storage Facility Operators Fined for Inadequate Oil Spill Training

(Boston, Mass. – Mar. 28, 2012) – BOSFuel Corp. and Swissport Fueling, Inc., operators of an oil storage facility at Boston’s Logan Airport, will pay a $90,000 penalty for failing to take adequate precaution to contain oil spills.  The Logan facility is operated by BOSFuel, a consortium of major airlines, and has an oil storage capacity of over seven million gallons. Swissport Fueling operates the facility on a day-to-day basis.

In a Sept. 2011 complaint, EPA asserted that the companies had not properly prepared for possible oil spills at the Logan facility in violation of federal oil pollution prevention regulations issued under the Clean Water Act.  These Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations require certain facilities, such as the one at Logan, to have a response plan for containing and cleaning up an oil release.


EPA’s action stemmed from a May 2011 unannounced exercise at the facility carried out by EPA, the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) and the U.S. Coast Guard. The objective of this exercise - a simulated oil spill - was to determine whether a facility can successfully respond to an oil release.  As a result of the exercise, EPA determined that the companies were unable to properly implement the facility’s FRP and its personnel were not adequately trained, resulting in an “unsuccessful” overall rating for the exercise. 


Since EPA filed its action, the companies have worked cooperatively with EPA, as well as the USCG and Mass DEP to correct the deficiencies noted during the exercise.

Federal law requires that facilities that have the potential for spills take every step possible to prevent, before they occur, oil discharges to the nation’s rivers, lakes and oceans through implementation of Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure (SPCC) plans.  Any facility with more than 1,320 gallons of above-ground oil storage capacity and meeting certain other criteria must develop and implement SPCC plans to prevent and contain spills, such as by installing impervious secondary containment around storage tanks and transfer areas.  Facilities also need to know how to react to a spill to minimize environmental damage when one does occur.  The FRP regulations require response planning and spill preparation especially for facilities with more than one million gallons of storage capacity. To ensure that a facility can adequately response to a spill, it must have adequate employee training, spill response equipment, and a contingency plan for containing and cleaning up a release.

While EPA’s action against the Logan Airport oil storage operators is not based on an actual oil release but on the unsuccessful May 2011 unannounced exercise, other facilities should be aware that EPA will continue to pay unannounced visits to conduct simulated spill exercises at facilities throughout New England.


More information:
FRP Requirements (http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/frps/index.htm )
SPCC Requirements (http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/index.htm)

# # #

Columbia N.H. Sand & Gravel Facility Faces Fine for Discharging Polluted Water

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
March 27, 2012

Contacts: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017

Columbia N.H. Sand and Gravel Facility Faces Fine for Discharging Polluted Water

(Boston, Mass. – March 27, 2012) – CSG Holdings, Inc. of Columbia, N.H. faces a possible fine of up to $532,500 from EPA for allowing polluted stormwater and process water from its Columbia facility to flow into nearby waters, in violation of the Clean Water Act.  CSG Holdings is the former operator of Columbia Sand and Gravel, a mining facility on the banks of the Connecticut River.

According to allegations in the complaint, CSG Holdings discharged process waste waters and stormwater from the facility without proper permits and violated the federal Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations by failing to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. The recent complaint against CSG Holdings states that the violations were discovered by EPA’s New England office in 2010.

Stormwater monitoring by CSG Holdings confirmed that stormwater discharges from its sand and gravel mining and aggregate processing operations contain total suspended solids at levels that exceed permit benchmarks for their industrial sector.  When a facility's stormwater discharges exceed benchmark levels, the facility must review its stormwater control measures to determine if changes are necessary and make these changes as needed.

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of process waste waters without a permit. The law also requires that industrial facilities, such as sand and gravel facilities, have controls in place to minimize pollutants from being discharged with stormwater into nearby waterways. Each site must have a stormwater pollution prevention plan that sets guidelines and best management practices that the company will follow to prevent runoff from being contaminated by pollutants. Without on-site controls, runoff from sand and gravel facilities can flow directly to the nearest waterway and can cause water quality impairments such as siltation of rivers, beach closings, fishing restrictions, and habitat degradation. As stormwater flows over these sites, it can pick up pollutants, including sediment, used oil, and other debris. Polluted process water discharges or stormwater runoff can harm or kill fish and wildlife and can affect drinking water quality.

Every year, thousands of gallons of oil are spilled from oil storage facilities, polluting New England waters. Even the  effects of smaller spills add up and damage aquatic life, as well as public and private property. Spill prevention plans are critical to prevent such spills or, if they do occur, adequately address them.

In May 2011, CSG Holdings sold its Columbia, N.H. facility to another owner/operator. The new owner maintains the facility’s stormwater management system and is authorized to discharge stormwater under a general permit covering discharges from industrial facilities.


More information: Stormwater control for Industrial facilities (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/indust.cfm)

#   #  #

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill's Effects on Deep-Water Corals

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill's Effects on Deep-Water Corals

03/26/2012 03:27 PM EDT

Scientists are reporting new evidence that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has affected marine life in the Gulf of Mexico, this time species that live in dark ocean depths--deepwater corals.

The research used a range of underwater vehicles, including the submarine Alvin, to investigate the corals. The findings are published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The scientists used a method known as ...

More at http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123555&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click
This is an NSF News item.

News Release from GE

14 March 2012

GE to Supply Water Recycling Technology for SAGD Project in Alberta Oil Sands

 

GE’s Evaporation System to Help Boost Production, Reduce Liquid Waste Requiring Disposal

TREVOSE, PA.—March 14, 2012—GE’s (NYSE: GE) wastewater evaporation technologies have been selected to improve wastewater recovery at an existing oil sands project near Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada. The facility utilizes once through steam generators (OTSGs) to produce steam, which drives the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process for the production of bitumen, which is a heavy crude oil produced from oil sands.

GE’s system will recycle a portion of the OTSG blowdown, thereby decreasing the volume of liquid waste from the facility and increasing the volume of boiler feed water available for generation of steam and production of bitumen. The use of GE’s evaporation technologies for the recovery of OTSG blowdown is gaining traction in the Alberta oil sands, where producers are seeking sustainable production processes that satisfy increasingly stringent environmental regulations. This project is the fifth to utilize GE’s evaporation technologies for OTSG blowdown treatment. To date, 14 SAGD projects have selected GE evaporation technologies, including six over the past 19 months, for their produced water and OTSG blowdown treatment applications.

“We are aligning our businesses to best meet the needs of Canada’s oil sands industry by offering more energy and water efficient products and services,“ said Jeff Connelly, vice president, engineered systems—water and process technologies for GE Power & Water.

For example, in December 2011, GE opened a new oil sands support center in Fort McMurray to provide greater local support to customers as they experience significant growth in this important sector. In 2012, GE also is scheduled to open a new Heavy Oil Centre of Excellence in Calgary, further building on a strong commitment and presence in the province of Alberta.

Shell Asks Court's Opinion

Excerpt from an article in

The New York Times

Thursday, March 01, 2012

To Avoid a Suit, Shell Asks Court’s Opinion

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

HOUSTON — In an attempt to avoid a last-minute challenge from environmental groups that could delay its plans to begin drilling for oil this summer off the coast of Alaska, Shell asked a federal court on Wednesday to review its Alaska Arctic oil spill response plan and decide whether it complied with the law’s requirements.

Shell received tentative approval from the Interior Department two weeks ago for its spill response plan, a crucial step toward clearing the way for the oil company to begin drilling in the Chukchi Sea this year. Several more regulatory barriers remain, but the company hopes it can get past all the hurdles and expected appeals in the next few months, while the narrow window for summer drilling in ice-free waters remains open.

“This pre-emptive action is an attempt to avoid a legal challenge on the eve of operations,” said Bill Tanner, a Shell spokesman. “We are anticipating that they were going to sue us.”

In a statement, Shell said it was filing the request for a declaratory judgment against 13 environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, which have been resisting Shell’s drilling plans for five years.

MOEX Offshore Agrees to $90 Million Partial Settlement

News release from EPA:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 17, 2012
MOEX Offshore Agrees to $90 Million Partial Settlement of Liability in Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
$70 million penalty is largest under the Clean Water Act; MOEX also to perform Gulf conservation projects worth at least $20 million
 

WASHINGTON – MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC has agreed to settle its liability in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in a settlement with the United States valued at $90 million, announced the Department of Justice, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today.  Approximately $45 million of the $90 million settlement is going directly to the Gulf in the form of penalties or expedited environmental projects.

According to the terms of the settlement, MOEX will pay $70 million in civil penalties to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act resulting from the spill and agreed to spend $20 million to facilitate land acquisition projects in several Gulf states that will preserve and protect in perpetuity habitat and resources important to water quality and other environmental features of the Gulf of Mexico region.  At the time of the spill, MOEX was a minority investor in the lease for the Macondo well. It no longer owns any share of the lease.

The terms of today’s settlement do not affect the potential liability of – or recoveries from – other parties involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Beginning with a well blowout and explosion on April 20, 2010, the owners and operators of the Macondo Well and  the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon allowed millions of barrels of oil to escape into the Gulf of Mexico, affecting the entire region.  Oil spills can cause both immediate and long-term harm to people’s health and the environment.  The Clean Water Act provides for civil penalties for such discharges.  This is the largest civil penalty ever recovered under the Clean Water Act.

“The Department of Justice has not wavered in its commitment to hold all responsible parties fully accountable for what stands as the largest oil spill in U.S. history,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “This landmark settlement is an important step – but only a first step – toward achieving accountability and protecting the future of the Gulf ecosystem by funding critical habitat preservation projects.”

“This will move the Gulf Coast along in its recovery as it continues to rebound from the largest spill in U.S. history,” said Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Bob Papp.  “The settlement demonstrates our firm commitment to  hold accountable those who pollute our environment.”

“This is good news for the Gulf Coast communities that are continuing to rebuild their economy and restore their ecosystem. This administration is going to stand with the people here to ensure a full recovery from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Dedicating funds to actions that restore the local waters is a vital part of restoring these communities.  As someone who grew up on the Gulf Coast, I know how important clean water is to the lives and livelihoods of the people here, and I know we need to take every possible action to get the ecosystem here on a path to long-term restoration.”

As part of the settlement, MOEX Offshore has agreed to pay $70 million in civil penalties, of which, $45 million will go to the United States.  The money will go toward replenishing the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, where by law it will be available to pay for response actions, cleanup and damages caused by future spills.  The remaining penalty will go to Gulf states that participate in the settlement.  Those states will receive penalty payments as follows: $6.75 million to Louisiana, $5 million each to Alabama, Florida and Mississippi, and $3.25 million to Texas.

MOEX Offshore has also agreed to secure and protect properties of ecological significance for the Gulf habitats.  MOEX Offshore will ensure that properties within the states of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Florida are transferred to – or acquired by – state governments, non-profit groups, land trusts or other appropriate entities, to protect those properties from development.  In all, these projects are expected to cost at least $20 million. The negotiation process with MOEX included numerous discussions with the Gulf states, who have been indispensible in reaching this important agreement.

This settlement does not affect the government’s claims against any other defendant in the Deepwater Horizon lawsuit that was filed on Dec. 15, 2010.  The trial of the first phase of the case is set to begin in federal district court in New Orleans on Feb. 27, 2012.

MOEX Offshore is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the MOEX USA Corporation.  Mitsui Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. is the corporate parent of MOEX USA, which in turn is owned by Mitsui & Co. Ltd. of Japan.

The proposed settlement, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is subject to a 30-day comment period and final court approval.

More information on the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/moex.html

Whistle-Blowers Help U.S. Fight Ocean Dumping

Excerpt from an article in The New York Times
Monday, February 13, 2012

Whistle-Blowers Help U.S. Fight Ocean Dumping 

By THEO EMERY

BALTIMORE — Nothing seemed amiss aboard the Maltese cargo ship Aquarosa when Chief Warrant Officer William D. Dodson and his Coast Guard inspection team climbed the gangway. It was a crisp Sunday morning, the day after the new vessel had berthed to load scrap metal in its first visit to the United States.

That sense of normalcy evaporated after the chief engineer led the way below for tests of the rudder and fire pump. There, a crew member named Salvador Lopez nervously tugged a note from his pocket and thrust it toward Mr. Dodson. He had something to share, the note read. A secret.

Mr. Lopez’s secret was that the ship had been illegally dumping oily water and sludge overboard, and he had proof: hundreds of photographs stored on his phone. Partly because of Mr. Lopez’s evidence, two companies that owned and operated the ship pleaded guilty last month to obstruction of justice and other charges and agreed to pay $1.2 million each in penalties and fines.

And for his sleuthing, Mr. Lopez stands to collect as much as $925,000.

Seafaring whistle-blowers, frequently seeking a financial bounty, have become one of prosecutors’ most potent weapons against maritime polluters, providing the backbone for a growing number of cases the federal government has pursued in Baltimore and other port cities across the country.

Union Pacific to Pay $1.5 Million for Clean Water Act Violations

News release from EPA Region 8:


News release from EPA Region 8:

Union Pacific Railroad Company to pay $1.5 million for Clean Water Act violations in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming

Company cited for oil and coal spills, inadequate prevention and planning
Contact Information: Donna Inman (303) 312-6201; Matthew Allen, (303) 312-6085
(Denver, Colo—February 9th, 2012) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a settlement with Union Pacific Railroad Company regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act.

This settlement resolves a Clean Water Act enforcement action against Union Pacific that involves continuing operations at 20 rail yards in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as spills of oil and coal in 2003 and 2004 along railroad lines in all three states.

For the railyards, EPA alleges Union Pacific violated EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) and Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations. These regulations are the first line of defense for preventing oil spills and providing immediate containment measures when an oil spill does occur.

“Today we have secured a settlement that will help prevent spills, protect water quality, and improve the safety of Union Pacific’s operations in 20 communities across Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,” said Jim Martin, EPA regional administrator. “Union Pacific has already begun putting necessary measures in place and we will ensure they continue to do so.”

As part of the settlement, Union Pacific will pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million of which approximately $1.4 million will be deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a fund used by federal agencies to respond to oil spills. The remaining $100,000 will be deposited in the U.S. Treasury for the coal spills and stormwater violations. In addition, the settlement requires the company to develop a management and reporting system to ensure compliance with SPCC regulations, FRP regulations, and storm water requirements at 20 rail yards in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Union Pacific must take further actions to control stormwater runoff at the Burnham Rail Yard in Denver, which are anticipated to prevent the discharge of approximately 2,500 pounds of chemical oxygen demand, 50 pounds of nitrate, 11,000 pounds of total suspended solids, and 30 pounds of zinc annually to waters in the Denver area.

This settlement will benefit many communities in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, many of which are disadvantaged, by requiring Union Pacific to install secondary containment to safely store oil and prevent oil spills from leaving its properties. Further, it will require the company to designate an environmental vice-president responsible for complying with oil spill prevention and stormwater control requirements at the 20 railyards. The majority of the 20 locations cited in the settlement are in disadvantaged areas with significant low-income and/ or minority populations.

The complaint alleges the following violations:

• ·         Six oil spills in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
• ·         Three coal spills in Colorado
• ·         Inadequate SPCC plans and/or inadequate SPCC plan implementation (e.g., inadequate secondary containment) at the following 20 rail yards:
  • o   Denver 36^th Street, Burnham, Denver North, East Portal Moffatt Tunnel, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Pueblo, and Rifle, all in Colorado
  • o   Helper, Ogden, Provo, Roper, Salt Lake City North, and Summit, all in Utah
    • §  Also for six rail yards in Utah, failure to provide certifications and reports for storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) as required by the Utah Multi-Sector General  Permit.
• o   Bill, Buford, Cheyenne, Green River, Laramie, and Rawlins, all in Wyoming
  • §  Also for the Rawlins, Wyoming rail yard, an inadequate FRP and a failed Government Initiated  Unannounced Exercise

For more information on the Clean Water Act, visit EPA's compliance web page: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html

For more information on Environmental Justice within EPA Region 8 please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region8/ej/index.html

Help EPA protect our nation's land, air and water by reporting violations: http://www.epa.gov/tips/

EPA Proposes Waste Water Discharge Permits

From EPA Region 10:


EPA proposes waste water discharge permits for oil and gas exploration in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas


Comments from the public accepted until March 30, 2012
Contact:
Suzanne Skadowski, Community Involvement, 206-553-6689, skadowski.suzanne@epa.gov
Marianne Holsman, Public Affairs, 206-553-1237, holsman.marianne@epa.gov  


(Seattle – Jan. 30, 2012) EPA is now seeking input on two draft waste water discharge permits for oil and gas exploration activities in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The proposed Clean Water Act permits protect public health and the marine environment by placing limits and conditions on the types and amounts of pollution companies can discharge in waste water during oil and gas exploration activities. The proposed permits also require the companies to conduct environmental studies before, during, and after drilling discharges occur to ensure compliance with permit limits.       

These permits are National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits. EPA is proposing one General Permit for the Chukchi Sea and one for the Beaufort Sea. The existing Arctic General Permit (GP), which covered oil and gas exploration discharges for both seas, expired June 2011. Companies currently covered under the expired Arctic GP must reapply for coverage and comply with the new terms and conditions under the final Beaufort and/or Chukchi General Permits.

A detailed summary table of the changes in the General Permits and the specific sections EPA is requesting comments on is included in Appendix A of the Fact Sheet. EPA plans to re-issue the final Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea General Permits by October 2012.

The public comment period for the proposed permits starts: January 30, 2012 and ends March 30, 2012. After the public comment period ends, the EPA will review and address public comments before making final decisions on the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea General Permits.

People who want to comment on the draft General Permits and Fact Sheet must do so by March 30, 2012 by any of the following methods:

• Mail: US EPA Region 10, Suite 900, Attn: Hanh Shaw, Office of Water/Watersheds, 1200 6th Ave, OWW-130, Seattle, WA 98101
• Email: R10arcticpermits@epa.gov
• Fax: Hanh Shaw, 206-553-0165

EPA will hold public hearings on the following dates:

• March 13, 2012, in Barrow, Alaska, at the Inupiat Heritage Center
• March 15, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska, at the Loussac Public Library

Both hearings will begin at 6:00 p.m.  Alaska Standard Time (AKST) and end at 10:00 p.m.
EPA will also hold two hearings via teleconferences on March 16, 2012, at the following times: 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m., and 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. AKST, 1-866-299-3188, code: 2065536524.

For more information about the draft General Permits and to view project documents, visit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/npdes+permits/arctic-gp

Naval Base Kitsap Fails to Properly Monitor Fuel Tanks

EPA News Release:


Naval Base Kitsap fails to properly monitor fuel tanks near Puget Sound for leaks

Contact Information: Hanady Kader, EPA Public Affairs, (206) 553-0454, kader.hanady@epa.gov
Anne Christopher, EPA Ground Water Unit, (206) 553-8293, christopher.anne@epa.gov

Navy correct violations and settles with EPA for nearly $161,000.

(Seattle—Jan. 17, 2012) Naval Base Kitsap Bangor failed to properly monitor pipes and underground fuel storage tanks for leaks on its property in Silverdale, Washington in violation of federal laws that protect groundwater, according to a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Navy will pay nearly $161,000 in fines.

“EPA is working hard to restore Puget Sound and fuel leaks near the shoreline could seriously set us back,” said Peter Contreras, Manager of the Ground Water Unit in EPA’s Seattle office. “Nearby communities also rely on groundwater for drinking water, so preventing releases protects both Puget Sound and public health.”

The violations occurred between 2006 and 2010. The holding capacity of the inspected tanks ranges between 170 gallons and 45,000 gallons.

The Navy has 53 underground storage tanks on the base it uses for storing diesel, used oil and gasoline. EPA inspectors identified 37 violations including failure to properly monitor the tanks and pipes for leaks; failure to have the proper leak detection equipment installed for the pipes; and failure to provide an adequate alarm system to prevent delivery drivers from overfilling the tanks.

Leaks from underground storage tanks allow toxic fumes and vapors to escape and collect in areas such as parking garages or basements where they can cause explosion or respiratory illness. Toxic contaminants can also leak into groundwater sources that people depend on for drinking water. Regularly monitoring tanks and pipes minimizes contamination risks.

To detect leaks quickly, underground storage tanks must be monitored monthly and the pipes must be equipped with a leak detector and tested annually or monitored monthly.  The Navy had the appropriate monitoring equipment in place at most of the sites, but failed to check the monitors on a monthly basis and document that the tanks and pipes were not leaking.

Since the 2010 EPA inspection of the base, the Navy has corrected the violations. The Navy has agreed to provide EPA with documentation showing it is in compliance with proper monitoring.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and requires owners of underground storage tanks to regularly monitor their tank systems for leaks.

For more information on underground storage tanks, visit http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/UST/UST+LUST+home