NCP Subpart J
40 CFR 300.910
A Case Study on Microblaze
Craig Myers, OSC
Peaks Oil – Telluride, CO
• April 1, 2008 (discovered)
• 2,500 gallons #2 Diesel
• Direct to wetland/perennial
stream under snow cover
• High water result in severe
oiling of plant species
• EPA not notified until April
14th (via news paper).
Peaks Oil (con’t)
• Duty OSC contacts PRP, resulting in NRC
report #868033.
• April 24th, EPA Enforcement receives a
copy of the latest PRP report detailing
response status.
– Report, dated April 18th, details the use of
Micro-Blaze by PRP’s sub contractor
EnviroTech.
– When asked, they admitted that the product
was used w/o OSC consultation/approval.
Peaks Oil (con’t)
• EnviroTech insisted to the PRP that:
– The PRP had only to notify the State of Colorado of
the spill
– Micro-Blaze is on EPA’s Product Schedule, no further
approvals are necessary
• PRP hired EnviroTech as an expert and did no
further research to confirm any of this
• CO Oil and Public Safety (UST) personnel had
no issues with the PRP’s use of Micro-Blaze
…may be
authorized for
use by
(OSCs)…40
CFR 300.910
…note that
listing…does
not constitute
approval,
certification,
authorization
Note: As Required by EPA regulation:
Disclaimer: “Micro-Blaze Emergency Spill
Control is on the U.S. EPA’s NCP Product
Schedule as a bioremediation agent. This
listing does not mean the EPA approves,
recommends, licenses, certifies, or authorizes
the use of Micro-Blaze Emergency Liquid Spill
Control on an oil discharge…
What is the Product
Schedule?
• Required by Section 311(d)(2)(G) of the CWA
– Compiles chemicals and other agents that may be used to carry out
the NCP, waters they may be used in, and quantities that may be
used.
• Listing in the schedule gives:
– The RRT the power to pre-approve usage under certain conditions
and in specific locations with “preauthorization plans” – 300.910(a)
– The OSC the power, with concurrence/consultation of select RRT
members, to approve the use “on the fly”. – 300.910(b)
• EPA co-chair and State reps of States with jurisdiction over the
effected or threatened waters: concurrence
• US DOI and US DOC trustees: consultation
• Not listed on the schedule? No approval can be granted…
– Except by an OSC to prevent or “remove a hazard to human life.”
• 300.910(d) – the only place the NCP states “human life”
Subpart J applies only to
water, right?
• No – 300.900(b)
– “…adjoining shorelines…activities that may
effect natural resources belonging to,
appertaining to, or under exclusive
management of the United States…”
What are “natural
resources” in this case?
• Natural resources – 300.5
– Land, fish, wildlife, biota, water, groundwater
drinking water supplies, and other such
resources belonging to, managed by, held in
trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise
controlled by the United States…any state or
local government, any Indian Tribe, or if such
resources are subject to a trust restriction on
alienation, any member of an Indian Tribe.
Use in Headwaters vs
Main Streams
• NCP and CWA 311 do not distinguish
between them.
• RRT’s responsibility to approve, or not, per
40 CFR 300.910
What do we tell local
agencies?
• Always question salesmen that say EPA
approves of any product – we don’t do that.
• For oil response products, anything beyond
mechanical recovery requires consultation with
an OSC and subsequent RRT approval.
– AFFF/AR-AFFF and other vapor suppression foams
are considered to be used under 300.910 (d). It is
EPA’s position that they won’t press a local agency for
applying foam prior to contacting an OSC for
approval.
– EPA should be notified if foam is used on a spill that
reaches/threatens water.
But “they” say…
• That (insert product name here) can be used in
lieu of absorbents/dig-and-haul and disposal.
– Yes, however…
• May or may not be a violation of RCRA (soils)
– Gasoline spills may require monitoring for ignitability and
benzene levels (D001, D018 waste codes)
• If on or near waters of the US or natural resources, it requires
OSC/RRT approval.
• Once I mix it in with the product that was on fire,
I can discharge it to a POTW
– Yes, however, you need the POTW’s approval first.
Bioremediation Agent
Effectiveness in soils
• Requires
– relatively neutral soil pH.
– May require nitrogen and phosphate amendments,
though these may be “built-in” to the agent
– Faster with aeration/mechanical tilling
– In dry areas, water addition may be required as well.
• All depends on the agent selected (42 bio
agents listed currently)
Bioremedation Agents
Other considerations
• Some states limit/restrict addition of nonnative bacteria/organic material to soils
– May preclude/limit the use of bioremediation
agents
Questions?