By Chris Jimieson, PE and Jared Omernik, PE
Do you know how much oil and fuel you store in aboveground containers at your facility? If you have more than 1,320 gallons, you may need an SPCC Plan. What is an SPCC Plan? SPCC stands for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure, and it is a federal rule (40 CFR 112 in the Federal Register) designed to prevent oil-based products from entering navigable waterways of the U.S. But it’s about more than just compliance. It’s an important tool to help you limit your liability.
Facilities covered under the SPCC rule are subject to agency inspections and potential enforcement actions if the facility’s practices are found to be out of compliance.
Does the SPCC rule apply to me?
The 1,320-gallon threshold isn’t the only trigger for an SPCC Plan. One of the keys to take away from the SPCC rule is that it does not count oil/fuel storage in containers less than 55-gallons in size. Another trigger is that a facility must reasonably be expected to discharge oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of the U.S.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not define what “reasonably be expected” means. Rather, the responsibility is on the facility owner or operator to determine the potential for discharge. In reality, it’s usually easy to think of a scenario where spilled oil could reach a waterway. Even if you think a spill would never reach the stream, what if there was a significant rain event that washed away spilled oil on the ground through a storm sewer? Often the “reasonably to be expected” is not challenged, so it is best to err on the side of caution.
The SPCC rule applies to my facility, now what?
There are three options: 1) Prepare the plan yourself. 2) Use a third party provider to prepare your plan, or 3) Have a licensed professional engineer develop your plan. The option you choose depends on how much oil you store at your facility and your working knowledge of the SPCC rule.
If you have less than 10,000 gallons of oil and no single aboveground oil storage container with a capacity greater than 5,000 U.S. gallons, you may be able to prepare your own SPCC Plan, following the EPA’s Tier I qualified facility template.
You can download the EPA’s Tier I qualified facility template here: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/tier1template.pdf. The template is the least expensive way to comply with the SPCC rule. However, some users feel it is a little confusing.
If you have less than 10,000 gallons of oil and have a single aboveground oil storage container with a capacity greater than 5,000 U.S. gallons, you could qualify under the EPA’s Tier 2 qualified facility category. The EPA does not provide a plan template for a Tier II qualified facility. You can still prepare the plan yourself, or you may hire a third party or professional engineer to develop the plan for you.
If your facility has greater than 10,000 gallons of oil storage, you must have a licensed professional engineer prepare your facility’s SPCC Plan.
Working on an SPCC Plan with a Third Party Provider
If you decide to work with a third party provider, here are some things you can expect as part of the process. The provider will conduct a facility site visit to review the oil storage. Prepare to have a staff member familiar with the oil storage escort the provider to each of the sources. The provider will ask questions about spill prevention features at each source location, including secondary containment, overfill protection, and interstitial monitoring, if applicable.
After visiting the oil sources, the provider may ask to see any available tank data such as specifications, current inspection protocol, and tank repair or integrity testing documentation. You can eliminate follow-ups and help keep costs down by having this data available for review.
Following the site visit, the provider will prepare an SPCC Plan that you should review for accuracy before implementation.
The Value of an SPCC Plan for Your Facility
An SPCC Plan is about more than just compliance. An SPCC Plan contains inspection forms and protocols that can help to prevent a spill at your facility. It identifies the single point of contact, an “SPCC Coordinator” for the facility. If there is a spill, the Plan contains steps necessary to contain the spill initially and control the discharge, and the proper contacts to notify internally and externally.
The SPCC rule requires all oil-handling personnel receive annual training to respond appropriately to spills in their work areas. The annual training requirement is another key element to spill prevention, but also covers aspects on how to properly take control and countermeasure actions in the event of an oil spill.
Work with your staff to determine if the SPCC rule applies to you. An SPCC Plan is a required document for certain facilities to help you comply with the SPCC rule and gain the benefits of having a plan in place. However, more than that, it is a practical document that’s designed to assist with training and inspections and to help prevent spills from occurring. Moreover, if spills do occur, an SPCC Plan provides the guidance to help control the spill and limit your liability.
Chris Jimieson and Jared Omernik have more than 26 years’ combined experience helping various types of clients with environmental compliance. Chris and Jared have extensive experience helping customers build and review SPCC and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) projects. For questions about the SPCC rule or how to comply, Contact Chris at
For questions about the SPCC rule or how to comply, Contact Chris at or 608-216-7367, or contact Jared at or 608-216-7348 in the Upper Midwest.
To find an office near you click here.
Read and share the full article by David Greene, PE, here.
EPA recently established expansive new air rules affecting MSW Landfills. Implementation of the new rules places new responsibilities on both the regulated community and regulators alike. However, some of these responsibilities are unclear and have created unresolved issues that should be addressed in close consultation now with your state/local regulatory authority.
For example, if a landfill is “new,” the facility is now subject to NSPS Subpart XXX, which is fully effective. A design capacity and NMOC emissions rate report should already have been submitted.
If NMOC emissions from a facility exceed 34 Mg/yr, then the landfill will need to submit a GCCS design plan within 12 months of the date of exceedance and install and operate within 30 months (no later than May 2019 for those triggering with the promulgation of the rule). If a landfill is an “existing emissions source,” it will be subject to the new EG rule (Subpart Cf).
Landfill owners should maintain close contact with their state/local regulatory authority regarding the status of the regulator’s state implementation plan, due by November 2017. That state implementation plan will prescribe the required compliance dates for an existing landfill, likely to be no later than the 2018/2020 time period. In either case, owners should become familiar with the rule and stayed tuned as compliance guidance evolves to address the unresolved issues.
Contact SCS Engineers to discuss the regulatory status in your state at , or call your local representative.
Are you approaching the required five-year review/plan re-certification for your facility’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan? Even if you’ve been through several cycles of performing five-year tune-ups on your SPCC Plan, you can make your next review easier and prepare yourself for future SPCC Plan re-certifications if you follow these five tips.
Start Early
Late renewals are a consistent pain point for many companies. To avoid being late with your next re-certification, start your review six months before your SPCC Plan is due for its 5-year review. If you are conducting the review internally, start by identifying the person who will be doing the review. If you are using a third party, this approach will help you go through the proposal/contracting process, so you are ready to conduct the actual review and complete the re-certification before the Plan expires.
Simplify Data Collection
One of the keys to a compliant SPCC Plan is to collect accurate data in the field about your facility’s oil sources. Streamlined data collection is of particular importance if you have a large facility or your oil storage changes regularly. The key to simplifying data collection is to make sure your reviewer has organized information to evaluate the compliance aspects of each source. Accurate data collection can limit the follow-up required from plan preparers to verify information, as well as minimize the potential for discrepancies. Moreover, particularly useful if a third party is auditing your Plan or if it is in review during an EPA inspection.
Reduce Redundancy with a Summary Table
One way to simplify your Plan is to use an oil source summary table to cover as much information as possible. A table can include each oil source and the aspects of how the oil source is compliant with the SPCC Rule. There may be areas in the Plan where you need to provide additional text discussion regarding oil sources to explain a compliance matter. In general, try to avoid duplicating information within the Plan.
Watch Out for Commonly Overlooked Areas
While secondary containment and overfill protection are key elements to review at each oil source, some reviewers forget to measure the size of containment structures. Dimensions need to be carefully measured in the field to verify and show sufficient secondary containment capacity in your facility’s SPCC Plan.
Another commonly overlooked area is facility drainage; specifically the overland flow in the proximity of each oil source, which is key to determining the potential receptors where spilled product can travel. These receptors could be storm sewers, ditches, wetlands, or waterways. You can discuss the protection of these receptors during your facility’s annual SPCC training. Swift action and concise communication during a spill can help limit your liability.
Use Targeted Annual Training
Many companies struggle to comply with the annual training requirement. One of the tripping points is trying to train all employees who handle oil for example. To avoid this pitfall, implement a tiered training program so you can focus the training content based on an employee’s responsibility level.
Spill recognition and notification through proper internal channels to get a spill cleaned up is an essential message for employees that occasionally handle oil. These employees could also be trained to aid with the initial control and response to a spill. A second tier may include team members who manage the SPCC Plan; they have additional responsibilities such as inspections of oil sources and spill reporting.
By Chris Jimieson, SCS Engineers
Chris Jimieson has over 17 years of experience supporting industrial, commercial, military, federal, state, municipal, and solid waste companies with environmental compliance. He has extensive experience building and reviewing SPCC and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and manages compliance assignments, providing computer-based training modules to meet employer training needs. Contact Chris at or 608-216-7367.
EPA is proposing a GHG SER of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and requesting comment on it as well as two lower levels, specifically 30,000 tpy and 45,000 tpy CO2e, respectively.
The Associations do not believe there is sufficient information to support lowering the GHG SER below the proposed 75,000 tpy CO2e level and provided a table utilizing equivalent criteria pollutants from combustion sources (i.e., NOx, CO) yields CO2 emissions as high as 780,000 tpy CO2.
EPA already concluded in USEPA, Proposed PSD Revisions Rule, 81 FR 68137 that the burdens of regulation at a GHG SER level between 30,000 and 75,000 tpy CO2e would yield a gain of trivial or no value from both a programmatic and individual project-level perspective. Therefore, NWRA and SWANA strongly recommend EPA retain proposed GHG SER of 75,000 CO2e (or higher), and resist pressure to lower the GHG SER.
On the Topic of Biogenic GHG Emissions, the EPA’s final rule requires clarification to remain consistent with previous documentation and research to prevent significant permitting delays and increased costs that will not result in meaningful emission reductions.
The Associations encourage the EPA to ensure that waste-derived biogenic CO2 (e.g., from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills) is treated as carbon neutral under the final PSD Permitting Revisions Rule to be consistent with prior Agency determinations specified in this memorandum and documents as follows:S. EPA, Memorandum Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, McCabe, Janet, November 19, 2014.
S. EPA, Memorandum Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, McCabe, Janet, November 19, 2014. The documents highlight waste-derived, biogenic CO2 as a type of “carbon neutral” feedstock based on the conclusions supported by a variety of technical studies and conclusions of the Agency’s latest draft Framework for Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources, which was released with the memo. The Agency memo stated that “the Agency expects to recognize the biogenic CO2 emissions and climate policy benefits of such feedstocks in [the] implementation of the CPP.”
US EPA, Emission Guidelines for EGUs, 80 FR 64855. Both the revised Framework, and the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) peer review of the 2011 Draft Framework, found “that the use of biomass feedstocks derived from the decomposition of biogenic waste in landfills, compost facilities, or anaerobic digesters did not constitute a net contribution of biogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.”
S. EPA, Appendix N. of Revised Framework for Assessing biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources, November 2014, pg. N-25. In Appendix N. of the Framework, entitled Emissions from Waste-Derived Biogenic Feedstocks, EPA calculated negative Biogenic Accounting Factors (BAF) for various examples of treatment of landfill gas via collection and combustion. EPA explains, “Negative BAF values indicate that combustion of collected landfill gas feedstock by a stationary source results in a net CO2e emissions reduction relative to releasing collected gas without treatment.”
US EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units; Final Rule [Emission Guidelines for EGUs], 80 FR 64885. “[T]he use of some biomass-derived fuels can play a role in controlling increases of [in] CO2 levels in the atmosph The use of some kinds of biomass has the potential to offer a wide range of environmental benefits, including carbon benefits.”
US EPA, Emission Guidelines for EGUs, 80 FR 94855. Types of waste-derived biogenic feedstocks may include: landfill gas generated through decomposition of MSW [municipal solid waste] in a landfill; biogas generated from the decomposition of livestock waste, biogenic MSW, and/or other food waste in an anaerobic digester; biogas generated through the treatment of waste water, due to the anaerobic decomposition of biological materials; livestock waste; and the biogenic fraction of MSW at waste-to-energy facilities.
NWRA and SWANA believe the final PSD Revisions document should follow the approach to waste-derived feedstocks enshrined in the Final Clean Power Plan, and as recommended by the SAB, and ensure that waste-derived biogenic CO2 is treated as carbon neutral. Based on EPA’s own lifecycle assessments for the Renewable Fuels Standard program, its U.S. GHG Inventory, and confirmed by the SAB, EPA has sufficient analysis to support exclusion of selected categories of biogenic emissions from PSD permitting, including those from managing landfill gas and organic components of MSW.
The EPA does not seem to consider the regulatory treatment of biogenic CO2 from stationary sources to be a key issue in the context of the PSD revisions rule, based on a comment found in a Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language. Instead, the EPA continues to believe this rulemaking to establish a GHG SER under the PSD program is not the appropriate venue to address the broader concern of the regulatory treatment of biogenic CO2 from stationary sources.
The Associations strongly disagree and are concerned that because EPA remains silent on this important issue, some permitting authorities might improperly require landfills to incorporate biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD permitting process. Historically, few landfills triggered PSD because non-methane organics emissions rarely reached the threshold. However, if biogenic CO2 emissions become subject to PSD, many landfill projects, which are “anyway sources” due to renewable energy projects, would also be forced to do BACT analysis for GHG. Biogenic CO2 is emitted from:
From the perspective of developing new renewable transportation fuel or energy projects, subjecting biogenic emissions from landfills to PSD could be an enormous barrier. The Associations would like the EPA to clarify in its final rule that the emissions of biogenic CO2 from treating or controlling landfill gas does not increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but instead, has positive emission reduction and climate benefits. Failing to clarify this important point could subject landfills to significant permitting delays and increased costs that will result in no meaningful emission reductions.
Questions? Contact SWANA, NWRA, Patrick Sullivan, or your local SCS office.
Our latest SCS Technical Bulletin summarizes the EPA federal mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program (GHGRP) into two pages of the most vital information. The new reporting requirements for Subparts HH and A discussed in our bulletin are effective January 1, 2017.
Remaining updates will be phased in from 2017 to 2019. These updates include, but are not limited to, revisions to the reporting regulation for all reporters including Subpart A Administrative Requirements, Subpart C Stationary Combustion Sources, and Subpart HH Municipal Solid Waste Landfills the three most common reporting sectors for MSW landfills. SCS Engineers will continue to post timely information, resources, and presentations to keep you well informed.
Use our resources for guidance or to answer questions.
Share, read, or print the Technical Bulletin
Greenhouse Gas Service Information
Getting a firm handle on a solid waste operation and expenses is a challenge for any solid waste agency manager or landfill operator. It is particularly imperative in this era of “lean and mean” budgets and looming regulatory policy. Doing more with less is the watchword for most operations across the country still reeling from the financial impacts of the Great Recession.
SCS Engineers has created a package of articles to help you identify if your landfill, landfill gas, or solid waste operation is ready for 2017. We hope this useful guidance will help you plan for the upcoming year. SCS professionals are always available to answer questions and provide advice. Find the office or SCS professional nearest to you by clicking on one the links here: Offices and Professionals.
Download, print or share this package by using the download button under the articles or by using the navigation at left. The package includes the following information written by SCS National Experts:
Article in Waste360: explains who’s impacted and how to begin managing the costs.
SCS Technical Bulletin: a digest of hundreds of EPA regulatory policy into the information and timelines to act on now.
Article: strategic financial planning to support infrastructure costs.
Call our compliance specialists – find the office nearest you or email us at
Recent direct communications with SWRCB and local Regional Boards’ have indicated that during the 2016-2017 permit cycle year, inspections will be more detailed for facilities considered to be at high risk, which were specifically named as those with a long history of water quality violations, as well as scrap metal recyclers, and End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) recycling. There will also be increased focus on facilities that discharge to impaired waterbodies with adopted Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements.
Industries should take action now if there is any uncertainty in regards to the meeting permit regulations. Contact your local SCS Engineers’ office or one of our industrial stormwater experts in California, Cory Jones or Jonathan Meronek. If you need questions answered, or if you are unsure of your business’s requirements, and believe that your facility may be in violation, SCS will help sort through the permitting red-tape. This includes SMARTs filing, NOI/NEC or NONA submittals, SWPPPs and Monitoring and Implementation Plans.
Recent News, Stats, and Resources
More Resources
Read the NSPS – EG Technical Bulletin
Article by Cheryl Moran, CHMM
Technological advances in traditional printing and the advent of digital printing can make it more challenging to know when you need an air permit and which permit is best for your operations.
There are two main activities that may trigger air permitting – construction and operation; each of these comes with its own permitting requirements. Always check to see if you are required to apply for a construction permit before bringing new equipment on site. Once a source is installed, an operating permit will be necessary, which is the focus of this article.
Federal Title V operating permits (also referred to as Part 70 permits) are required for any facility that is considered a “major source” of air pollution. For purposes of operating permits only[1], a major source is a facility that has the potential to emit (PTE) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of any criteria pollutant; volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), or more than 10 tons of any individual hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or more than 25 tpy of combined HAPs . Permitting thresholds are lower for facilities located in non-attainment areas.
Some facilities take limits on material throughputs, hours of operation, or emissions in order to artificially lower their PTE to qualify for a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP). These permits are also called “synthetic minor” permits.
Facilities that do not exceed federal permitting thresholds may still need to acquire a state operating permit. State permitting programs have more options than ever before and several states are summarized below.
ILLINOIS:
All “emission units” are required to secure an air permit, or register with the Illinois EPA, even very small sources of air pollution. An “emission unit” is any piece of equipment located at an emission source that has a potential to emit air pollution. Registration of Smaller Sources (ROSS) is for operations that emit less than 5 tpy of combined criteria pollutants. Sources with a potential to emit more than 5 tpy, but whose emissions are less than the threshold for a FESOP, may qualify for a “life-time” operating permit.
Visit for more information on the Illinois EPA permitting program.
WISCONSIN:
ROP Type A Registration Permit is for facilities with actual emissions of less than 25 tpy for criteria pollutants and 6.25 tons per year for HAPs.
ROP Type B Registration Permit is for facilities with actual emissions of less than 50 tpy for criteria pollutants and 12.5 tpy for HAPs.
ROP C Registration Permit for Printers is only available to printers. To qualify for this permit, emissions of each criteria pollutant are limited to 25 tons per year, and HAPs are limited to 12.5 tons per year.
General Operation Permit (GOP) for Printers applies to digital, screen, lithographic web printing (both heatset and coldset), and lithographic sheetfed printing.
INDIANA:
Source Specific Operating Agreement for Surface Coating or Graphic Arts Operations is available to printers with total VOC and HAPs that do not exceed 15 lb/day (7 lb/day in select counties).
Permit by Rule may be used for facilities that qualify for an operating agreement with criteria pollutant and HAP emissions that do not exceed 20% of the major source limits.
Find more on the Indiana permit options at http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality.
Whether you are applying for a state operating permit, or a federal operating permit, all applications will go through your state environmental regulatory agency.
[1] For construction permitting purposes, the thresholds that define a “major source” are typically higher than the operating permit thresholds.
For more information contact Cheryl Moran at SCS Engineers, Wisconsin or Ann O’Brien at SCS Engineers, Illinois, or for an SCS professional in your state.
Cheryl Moran is a Project Manager with SCS Engineers with more than 20 years of experience in the printing industry. She is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM) and has worked with air, water, and waste issues including permitting, environmental recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring programs, hazardous waste management, environmental compliance audits, and sustainability programs.
Ann O’Brien is a Project Manager with SCS Engineers. During her 32-year career in the printing industry she was responsible for environmental compliance programs, including, but not limited to, air and water quality permitting, environmental recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring programs, hazardous waste management, environmental compliance audits, and environmental site assessments and due diligence associated with real estate transactions and corporate acquisitions.
