Showing posts with label secondary containment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secondary containment. Show all posts

Friday, November 25, 2022


Earth Shield® TPV (thermoplastic vulcanizate) (aka TPE-R) Waterstop is the world's leading chemical-resistant waterstop, with renowned physical properties and broad-spectrum resistance to hazmat, deleterious fluids, and concentrated ozone. NSF 61 certified and GreenSpec listed. Earth Shield® Thermoplastic Vulcanizate Waterstop (TPV) (aka TPE-R), by J P Specialties, dramatically expands the scope of conventional waterstop by offering unmatched chemical resistance to a broad spectrum of aggressive chemicals, solvents, and hot petroleum oils. EPA-compliant waterstop profiles are available for new construction and retrofit, and the necessary tools and accessories for proper installation.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Chemical Resistant Waterstop Trench Modules

Earth Shield® Waterstop manufactures complete drop-in-place trench modules for the petrochemical industry. Learn more HERE.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

New York DEC Releases Fracking Report With Secondary Containment Requirements

Penn Yan, NY — The Department of Environmental Conservation released its revised recommendations on mitigating the environmental impacts of high-volume hydraulic fracturing “fracking” July 1.
Those opposed to the practice argue that the recommendations allow the state to apply double standards to protecting drinking water supplies.
The recommendations contain these major revisions:
•High-volume fracturing would be prohibited in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, including a buffer zone.
•Drilling would be prohibited within primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries.
•Surface drilling would be prohibited on state-owned land including parks, forest areas and wildlife management areas.
•High-volume fracturing will be permitted on privately held lands under rigorous and effective controls.
•DEC will issue regulations to codify these recommendations into state law.
The Department’s review has resulted in recommendations for controls on high-volume fracturing on private lands such as:
Protecting Drinking Water
• Well water and other water protection: No permits would be issued for sites within 500 feet of a private water well or domestic use spring. No permits may be issued for a proposed site within 2,000 feet of a public drinking water supply well or reservoir at least until three years of experience elsewhere have been evaluated. No permits will be issued for well pads within a 100-year floodplain.
•Additional Well Casing to Prevent Gas Migration: In most cases, an additional third, cemented well casing is required around each well to prevent the migration of gas. The three required casings are the surface casing, the new intermediate casing and the production casing.
Spill control: Flowback water on site must use watertight tanks within a secondary containment. No open containment may be used. Secondary containment for all fracturing additive containers, additive staging areas and flowback tanks will be required.
• Stormwater Control: Strict stormwater control measures will be required.
Regulating Water Withdrawals
A special permit will be required to withdraw large volumes of water for industrial and commercial purposes.
All withdrawals from surface water bodies will be subject to limits to prevent impacts upon ecosystems and other water quantity requirements. Identification of the water source an applicant intends to use will be required. An annual report must be issued on the aggregate amount of water it has withdrawn.
Applicants must have DEC-approved plans for disposing of flowback water and production brine. DEC would institute a process to monitor disposal of flowback water, production brine, drill cuttings and other drilling waste streams that is similar to the handling of medical waste.
Taking Localities into Account
DEC would notify local governments of each well permit application for high-volume fracturing. Applicant must certify that a proposed activity is consistent with local land use and zoning laws. Failure to certify or a challenge by a locality would trigger additional DEC review before a permit could be issued.
Identifying Fluid Chemicals
The 2011 environmental report identifies 322 chemicals proposed for use in New York and includes health hazard information for each as identified by the NYS Department of Health. Applicants must fully disclose to DEC all products utilized in the high-volume fracturing process. Applicants must agree to publicly disclose the names of the additives, subject to appropriate protections for proprietary information. Operators will be required to evaluate using alternative additives that pose less potential risk.
Protecting the Air
Enhanced air pollution controls on engines used at well pads will be required. DEC will monitor local and regional air quality at well pads and surrounding areas. The use of existing pipelines will be required rather than flaring gas.
Conserving Habitats
Disturbing the surface of the land is strictly restricted in forests of 150 acres or more, or grasslands of 30 acres or more, by requiring applicants to comply with best management practices.
The DEC report says the 2009 SGEIS did not adequately consider the community and socioeconomic impacts of high-volume fracturing. DEC officials say they have engaged independent consultants to thoroughly research these types of effects, such as:
• Socio-economic conditions including positive and negative impacts.
• Transportation infrastructure, current road use and the impacts of increased traffic.
• Visual and noise impacts.
DEC expects the research to be completed by July 31. This research will be considered and reflected in the final draft of the report.
Upon final adoption of the permitting standards, DEC will implement a system of oversight, monitoring and enforcement with close consultation with local governments and communities.
A High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel, composed of outside environmental and industry experts and local government representatives, will be charged with developing recommendations for:
• funding to ensure the proper oversight, monitoring and enforcement by state and county agencies responsible for drilling activities and reviewing water sampling data.
• measures to minimize socioeconomic and other impacts on local governments and communities;
•a fee structure for drilling development.
• a mechanism for the funding of infrastructure improvements.

Friday, November 05, 2010

Waterstop for Corner Joints

Earth Shield® Waterstop profile JP540L is the perfect solution for sealing corner joints between wall/wall or wall/slab on environmentally engineered concrete containment structures.  The product is externally applied using factory supplied novolac epoxy, stainless steel Tapcons®, and stainless steel batten bar.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Compliance Q&A

Question - What constitutes an SPCC Plan?
Answer - A sketch or drawing of the site will assist in identification the implementation.
Question - When the SPCC Plan is completed and certified, is it sent to EPA for review?
Answer - No, a certified copy of the Plan is required to be available from EPA on-site review; if the facility is attended at least eight hours a day. If the facility is not attended, then the Plan shall be kept at the nearest company office.
Question - What is the time frame for plan preparation and implementation for a new facility?
Answer - One year from the date the facility begins operation.
Question - Is an SPCC Plan required when a facility has existing preventative systems in place and no previous history of spills?
Answer - The need for an SPCC Plan is determined by criteria; the storage capacity and the location, disregarding existing manmade structures.
Question - When a production lease consists of several operations, such as wells, oil/water separators, collection systems, tank batteries, etc. does each operation require a separate SPCC Plan?
Answer - No, one SPCC Plan may include all operations within a single geographical area when each is addressed in the Plan.
Question - Is every loss of oil or oil product subject to a penalty?
Answer - No, a discharge is defined in 311(a)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as including, but not limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping that enters the waters of the United States or on the adjoining shorelines in harmful quantities. If the water is affected, a penalty could be assessed if a spill occurs and is prevented by some means from entering water, no penalty should be assessed.
Question - What is considered to be a harmful quantity?
Answer - Harmful quantity is defined in the Regulations as discharges which affect the water quality standards or cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water or adjoining shorelines.
Question - What are considered navigable waters?
Answer - The waters of the United States. The Coast Guard interpretation includes not only the traditionally recognized navigable waters but all streams, creeks, lakes, and ponds connected to the tributary system in a river basin.
Question - Is one spillage of oil into a municipal storm sewer a violation?
Answer - If oil reaches "navigable water" a violation has occurred and penalties may result. The facility spilling the oil must also have an SPCC Plan implemented. A properly engineered plan and implemented would prevent a spill from occurring.
Question - What penalties are assessed?
Answer - The Regional Administrator to assess a civil penalty up to $5,000 per day for each violation.
Question - Must secondary containment be provided for transfer operations (i.e. for a tanker truck loading or unloading fuel at a facility?
Answer - The secondary containment system should be designed to hold at the least maximum capacity of any single compartment of a tank car or tank truck loading or unloading at the facility. This is not to say that a truck must park within a diked wall for loading/unloading. The regulation allows flexibility here for diversion structures such as curbing or diking to channel a potential spill to a secondary containment structure.
Question - Must an SPCC Plan be sent to EPA for review and/or approval?
Answer - Normally an SPCC Plan is not required to be sent to EPA for approval; however the owners or operators of a facility is required to maintain a complete copy of the Plan at the facility if the facility is normally attended to at least eight hours per day, or at the nearest field office if the facility is not attended. Upon inspection by EPA or representative, a SPCC Plan must be produced for the inspection review. A SPCC Plan must be submitted to EPA for review if either of the following conditions are met: (1) A facility discharges 1,000 gallons or more of oil in a single spill event, (2) a facility discharges oil in harmful quantities as defined in 40 CFR 110 into any waters of the United States in two spill events, reportable under section 311(b)(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; occurring within any twelve month period. If either conditions applies, the owner or operator of such facility is required to submit their SPCC Plan to the EPA within 60 days for review.
Question - Are SPCC Plans required for hazardous substances or hazardous wastes?
Answer - SPCC Plans are required for facilities that store or transport oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged soil.
The SPCC regulation, as written does not apply to hazardous substances or hazardous waste. Some RCRA permits may require secondary containment for hazardous wastes on a facility specific basis. Although secondary containment is not required by regulation for hazardous substances, EPA recommends that facility owners strongly consider it as a means of reducing environmental damage and liability resulting from an accidental release.
Question - Is a facility required to develop a SPCC Plan if a spill from the facility is not able to reach any navigable waters of the United States?
Answer - A SPCC Plan is required for any facility which, due to it's location, could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities, as defined in 40 CFR Part 110, into or upon the waters of the United States. The determination to develop a SPCC Plan is the responsibility of the owners or operators of the required facilities.
Question - Are federally-owner facilities subject to SPCC requirements?
Answer - Federally-owned and operated facilities are required to develop a SPCC Plan for any federal facility that meets the applicability requirements.
Question - Do the SPCC regulations spell out design requirements for diking, curbing, etc.?
Answer - The SPCC regulations requires diked areas for storage tanks to be sufficiently impervious to contain any spilled oil. All bulk storage tank installations should be constructed so that a secondary means of containment is provided for the entire contents of the largest single tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation. Containment curbs and pits are sometimes used as secondary containments but they may not always be appropriate for some facilities.
Question - What authorities do states have under the SPCC regulation?
Answer - The SPCC Program is a federally mandated program. Executive Order 11735 (August 3, 1973) delegated the authority of the President to promulgate prevention regulations for vessels or transportation, and to EPA (The Regional Administrators) for prevention for transportation related and non-transportation related facilities. States may perform SPCC inspection at the request of EPA; however, the overall review process of the inspection is the responsibility of the EPA. This review process will be handled within the Regional EPA office.
Question - If a tank is taken out of service, what measures must a facility take in order to be exempt from SPCC regulations?
Answer - Any tank taken out of service must have all pipes and fittings sealed off and tanks should be filled with an inert material, such as sand or concrete in order to be exempt from the SPCC regulations.
Question - Are tanks-within-a-tank satisfactory to meet the secondary containment requirement for SPCC?
Answer - Tanks-within-a-tank may provide adequate secondary containment; however, the valving must be designed so that accidental release from the inner tank (from such occurrences as an inadvertent valve opening or a failure) are completely contained within the outer tank.
Question - Must each tank in a tank battery have secondary containment?
Answer - A dike for tank battery is required to contain only the largest single tank within the tank battery plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation. The dike should be sufficiently impervious to contain any spilled oil from the tank battery.

Question - Should above ground tank and underground tanks be subject to inspection?
Answer - All above ground tanks should be subject to periodic integrity testing, taking into account tank design and using such techniques as hydrostatic testing, visual inspection or a system of non-destructive shell thickness testing. Tank supports and foundations should be included in these inspections.
Buried storage tanks represent a potential for undetected spills. A new buried installation should be protected from corrosion by coatings. Buried tanks should be at least be subject to regular pressure testing. To qualify as buried storage, a tank must be completely buried in the earth. Tanks which are in an underground basement or vault do not qualify for underground storage. The reason is that buried tanks usually have some inherent protection by the containment action of the surrounding earth.
Question - Are transformers covered under SPCC compliance?
Answer - Electrical transformers and similar equipment are covered by the SPCC regulation provided that they contain sufficient quantities of oil, and due to location, can reasonably be expected to spill their oil into navigable waters or adjourning shorelines.
Question - If the drainage from a facility discharge into a sewer system is this facility required to have a SPCC Plan?
Answer - If the sewer is a storm sewer or combined sewer, the spill could reasonably be expected to reach navigable waters and thus the plan would be required. If the flow from the sewer is entirely treated in a sewage treatment plant then an engineering assessment should be made by the owner or operator as to whether or not the treatment system could handle the possible volume of oil without exceeding the permitted amount in the plant discharge without causing a harmful discharge. If the system could not handle the oil, then a SPCC Plan would be required. Violations of other sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or other laws may be involved in a spill to a municipal sewer system.
Question - What other regulation or standards may be applicable for oil storage facilities?
Answer - UST (Underground Storage Tank), NFPA (National Fire Prevention Association) and State Fire Marshals.
If you have additional Questions about the SPCC Regulation, please contact the United States Environmental Protection Agency at (214)855-0711.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Secondary Containment Halts Greka Facility Oil/Water Spill

Approximately 250 barrels of mostly produced water and crude oil spilled at the Greka Oil Lease facility in Santa Maria, according to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
Representatives from Greka, the fire department, the Department of Fish and Game, and County Petroleum responded to the scene at 9:16 a.m.
Crews say the spill was a result of an over-filled produced water tank. The spill did not affect local wildlife, and was within secondary containment, according to the fire department.

Special thanks to KSBY News for reporting.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Secondary Containment Rules for New Zealand

Secondary containment is a system which will contain fuel spills if a fuel tank leaks or is damaged, and from which the fuel can be cleaned up after a spill. A secondary containment system must also have a capacity capable of containing a spill equaling 110% of the capacity of the largest fuel tank it contains.
General Provisions:
Where a total of 2000 liters or more of petrol and/or diesel is stored the person in charge of the farm must ensure that fuel is stored in a compound (bund). Where the total is below 2000 liters the fuel may alternatively be located so that any spillage will not endanger any building, or flow into any natural water body. Any tanks must be maintained so that valves, hoses and dispensers do not leak.

What is a Compound (Bund)?

A compound is a form of secondary containment consisting of a hollow, pit or structure which is capable of containing any fuel spill from the fuel storage. To comply with HSNO regulations it must:
  • Be of a size capable of holding 110% of the contents of the largest fuel tank; and be constructed of non-flammable materials (concrete, brick, HDPE, clay, earth or similar); and effectively retain the fuel if there is a spillage.
  • In areas with light, free draining soils (e.g. pumice or sandy soils), a compound must be lined with an additional impermeable layer (e.g. concrete, clay or brick) to stop spills entering groundwater.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Bulk Storage Secondary Containment Requirements

For purposes of the SPCC requirements, secondary containment for bulk storage facilities must be constructed to at least provide for the capacity of the largest single tank with sufficient freeboard for precipitation.  EPA believes that the proper standard of "sufficient freeboard" to contain precipitation is that amount necessary to contain a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. There are several different types of secondary containment measures that could be used at a facility including:

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Oil Spill in Ingleside, Texas — Secondary Containment Breached

Ingleside, TX — Federal and local officials are dealing with an oil spill at the Falcon Refinery.
Some 25,000 barrels of crude oil spilled out of a ruptured storage tank.
Over two million gallons of oil are kept in the storage tanks at the refinery.
Two of these tanks ruptured causing thousands of gallons to leak.
Crews from the Texas General Land Office at 7:30 Wednesday came started to siphon the oil into another tank for secondary containment.
But the crew got an unfortunate surprise when that secondary containment tank started to leak.
Jimmy Martinez, the regional director of the Texas General Land Office said, "Oil has gotten into the secondary containment. We found 3 different locations where the oil escaped the secondary containment and now we have some free floating oil outside what they call a duck pond directly behind the facility here."
Crews from the environmental protection agency's emergency response team have flown in from Dallas. They are here to oversee the operation; specifically monitoring the oil's proximity to the coastline, and making sure that oil does not run into redfish bay.
No injuries to humans to report, but four oily birds were taken to the ARK in Port Aransas.
The EPA has previously classified this area as a potentially hazardous zone back in 2002.
The clean-up will continue all day Thursday. (Story by Spencer Lubitz)

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

EPA SPCC Rule Deadline January 14th, 2010

On November 5, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a notice amending certain requirements of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule in order to address additional areas of regulatory reform that have been raised by the regulated community. The November 2009 amendments revise the December 2008 amendments as a result of EPA's review of comments and consideration of all relevant facts. EPA is either taking no action or providing minor technical corrections on the majority of the December 2008 provisions. However, this action modifies the December 2008 rule by removing the provisions to: exclude farms and oil production facilities from the loading/unloading rack requirements; exempt produced water containers at an oil production facility; and provide alternative qualified facilities eligibility criteria for an oil production facility.
Additionally, because of the uncertainty surrounding the final amendments to the December 5, 2008, rule and the delay of the effective date, EPA will propose to extend the compliance date.
This rule is effective January 14, 2010.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Volume 1, Number 1 of "We Contain More" Now On-line

The premier issue of our electronic magazine — We Contain More — is now live and available for download on the website. The inaugural issue covers the brand new CFR 112 regulations and is recommended to all our engineering and owner clients. Download your free copy today.