30 C.F.R. § 550.219

What oil and hazardous substance spills information must accompany the EP?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following information regarding potential spills of oil (see definition under 30 CFR 254.6) and hazardous substances (see definition under 40 CFR part 116) as applicable, must accompany your EP:

(a) Oil spill response planning. The material required under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section:

(1) An Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) for the facilities you will use to conduct your exploration activities prepared according to the requirements of 30 CFR part 254, subpart B; or

(2) Reference to your approved regional OSRP (see 30 CFR 254.3) to include:

(i) A discussion of your regional OSRP;

(ii) The location of your primary oil spill equipment base and staging area;

(iii) The name(s) of your oil spill removal organization(s) for both equipment and personnel;

(iv) The calculated volume of your worst case discharge scenario (see 30 CFR 254.26(a)), and a comparison of the appropriate worst case discharge scenario in your approved regional OSRP with the worst case discharge scenario that could result from your proposed exploration activities; and

(v) A description of the worst case discharge scenario that could result from your proposed exploration activities (see 30 CFR 254.26(b), (c), (d), and (e)).

(b) Modeling report. If you model a potential oil or hazardous substance spill in developing your EP, a modeling report or the modeling results, or a reference to such report or results if you have already submitted it to the Regional Supervisor.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2012–2015 · leading case: Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell, 788 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell, 788 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “JEWELL 7 the Clean Water Act, see 30 C.F.R. § 550.219 (the approval of which is at issue in this case).”

Native Vill. of Point Hope v. Salazar, 680 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “First, they claim that Shell’s revised exploration plan did not meet the informational standards set by OCSLA and the regulations, because (1) it failed to reference an approved oil spill response plan as required by 30 C.F.R. § 550.219 (a) and (2) did not contain an adequate…”

Inupiat Cmty. of the Arctic Slope v. Salazar, 486 F. App'x 625 (9th Cir. 2012). “There is one major difference: These petitions do not include the argument raised in the Beaufort Sea petitions that BOEM erred by approving Shell’s exploration plan in the absence of an approved oil spill response plan as required by 30 C.F.R. § 550.219 (a).”

Native Vill. of Point Hope v. Ken Salazar (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “First, they claim that Shell’s revised exploration plan did not meet the informational standards set by OCSLA and the regu- lations, because (1) it failed to reference an approved oil spill response plan as required by 30 C.F.R. § 550.219 (a) and (2) did not contain an adequate…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.