Guidance on the Use of Chemical Countermeasures on Inland Oil Spills
Guidance on the Use of Chemical Countermeasures on Inland Oil Spills

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recognizes the major role of local government responders, such as firefighters, as the first line of defense for mitigating threats to public health and the environment from spills of oil and hazardous substances, and tries to provide them with the tools necessary to safely and effectively mitigate such incidents. Chemical countermeasures (CCMs) are one of those tools, but their use must be authorized and carefully managed. This article describes that process where countermeasures are proposed for use on inland events such as fuel spills that may affect navigable waters. These may include surface waters and conduits to them, including road ditches and storm drains, though the exact definition remains in flux.
What are chemical countermeasures?
EPA defines CCMs as “any element, compound, or mixture that coagulates, disperses, dissolves, emulsifies, foams, neutralizes, precipitates, reduces, solubilizes, oxidizes, concentrates, congeals, entraps, fixes, makes the oil more rigid or viscous, reduces the harmful effects or otherwise helps remove the oil from the environment.” This includes biological additives, dispersing agents, surface washing agents, surface collecting agents, burning agents and any other miscellaneous oil spill control agents.
Which ones can be used?
For spills that have the potential to reach navigable waters, either directly or by runoff, the CCM must be listed on the Product Schedule found at Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The Product Schedule Q&A can answer many typical questions, and you can also verify that a product is on the Schedule by calling 202-260-2342. The NCP Product Schedule Notebook contains detailed information on listed products.
When can they be used?

Free product should first be recovered and/or removed to the extent practical. Provisions must be made to contain and recover runoff from the treated area if there is a threat that it might reach navigable waters. Approval is unlikely in situations where there are concerns with groundwater contamination (i.e., shallow aquifers, Karst geology) that might affect navigable waters.
Caution must be used when applying CCMs into a closed conduit, such as a sanitary sewer or storm sewer. Many countermeasures, particularly dispersants, break the fuel into small droplets and increase vaporization, raising the risk of explosion and fire. In these cases, use only products specifically designed for vapor suppression. The Product Schedule will help you find these.
What do we do with the mess?
Whatever you use and however you use it, EPA expects you or some other responsible party to clean it up if at all possible. Don’t fall for the sales pitch that the product “makes it all go away” or that you “just spray it on, spray it down and it’s gone.” Yes these are real pitches, and EPA has heard them all. My personal favorite was “Works on any oil spill of any size. Spray it on, wait 20 minutes, wash it down. It’s gone like it never happened, and can’t be detected in the environment.” That would be rolling-on-the-floor funny if it was meant as a joke, but it wasn’t. The vendor had practiced the pitch so much that he could say it with a straight face. By the way, that product is a huge seller with fire departments in Texas, and probably elsewhere.
Also, don’t believe that you cannot be sued, or that EPA will not take enforcement action against local governments or fire departments. They don’t want to, and usually don’t, but they can. Refer to this short presentation on first responder liability (and your attorney) for more information on that.
When is approval necessary?
Product Schedule listing does NOT imply or confer pre-approval for use. It means only that the agent has met the performance testing requirements set forth in the NCP. Authorization is required for use in EVERY case where navigable waters may be affected. Authorization is not required in cases where it is certain that no runoff can reach navigable waters. An example of this might be treatment of a road surface to reduce slickness, although the very common practice of hosing down the scene after application and not containing the runoff probably negates that.
Who can give approval?
The NCP at Subpart J requires authorization from the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), with concurrence from the Regional Response Team (RRT) and other affected agencies. In cases where use of chemical countermeasures is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce an immediate hazard to human life, the OSC may authorize use of the agent without RRT concurrence for the emergency phase of the operation.
How do I request approval?
During a spill event, the fastest way to contact an OSC is by calling the 24-hour EPA Hotline number (if they have one) for your region. A slower Plan B is to call the National Response Center (NRC) at 800-424-8802. The NRC will take your spill report and forward the information and your request for OSC approval to the appropriate Regional Response Center.
What information is needed to consider approval?
Be prepared to provide all of this information to the OSC when you request approval to use any CCM:
- Exact location of spill
- Type and amount of material spilled

- Justification for CCM use
- Potential health and environment impacts
- Name of countermeasure proposed
- Product MSDS
- Rate and method of application
- Estimated volume proposed
- Nearest surface water
- Forecasted weather conditions
- Monitoring strategy
- Material recovery strategy
Click here to download this article in PDF.
Dr. Scott Harris is the Senior Risk Manager for IESO, LLC. His experience covers over 27 years of Environmental, Health and Safety Management in Federal and State government, consulting, general industry and University instruction. He received his Ph.D. in Environmental Science, with a specialization in Disaster and Emergency Management, from Oklahoma State University, and holds degrees in Geology (B.S.) and Public Health (MPH) from Western Kentucky University. Before joining IESO Scott was a Federal On-Scene Coordinator for EPA Region 6 and a member of their Emergency Readiness Team. He held DOD “Top Secret” and DOE “Q” security clearances, and directed multi-agency emergency response, planning and recovery activities for chemical, biological and radiological releases and exercises within the five-state region.
Last 5 posts by Scott Harris
- IESO Presenting at 2010 ASSE Conference - December 7th, 2009
- IESO Adds Another PhD - December 1st, 2009
- Meet Us at St. Pete Beach in February! - November 4th, 2009
- EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is Final - October 26th, 2009
- IESO Client Achieves ISO 14001 Certification! - October 23rd, 2009
Troy Naquin said,
Wrote on June 2, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Scott, great article to sum up an oil spill response. Also, remember that is is always good to include the nexus pathway via waterways of potential impact from the location of the spill to a major stream, river, bayou in Louisiana, lake, Gulf of Mexico, Atlanta Ocean, etc.. Also, the regulated community should always have a copy of their SPCC/FRP plans available for review by the EPA during the response.
Troy M. Naquin, PG, CHMM
Dynamac Corporation
Scott, LA
Scott Harris said,
Wrote on June 4, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Troy,
You are correct. Who ever thought that working an oil spill would involve phrases like “nexus pathway?” For those who have not seen this before, that is government-speak for the route the oil will take from the source to a navigable waterway. That matters more than before since the definition of nav-waters no longer automatically includes anything wet, potentially wet or connected to something wet. The threat to nav-waters is where the Agency gets the authority to respond to the spill, so the connection must be demonstrated or else no response can be justified by them.
The SPCC may be of less interest to the OSC, since he or she will be conducting or supporting the response as needed based on existing conditions, but someone else at EPA may want to see it, particularly the SPCC group. As you know, it is not uncommon for EPA to conduct an SPCC inspection during or after a significant response to determine whether the SPCC was adequate and was implemented as needed to prevent or minimize the spill. This has a big impact on any enforcement actions by the Agency.
Thanks for the comments.
Scott
IESO Faculty at UNC-Chapel Hill « IESO, LLC Industrial Risk Management said,
Wrote on September 16, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
[...] article on Oil Spill Chemical Countermeasures recently published by Dr. Scott Harris, the Senior Risk [...]