[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15404]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 1, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 112
Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore
Facilities; Final Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 112
[SW H-FRL 5002-6]
RIN 2050-AD30
Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore
Facilities
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation,
promulgated under the Clean Water Act for transportation-related
onshore and offshore facilities. The revision incorporates new
requirements added by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that direct certain
facility owners and operators to prepare plans for responding to a
worst case discharge of oil and to a substantial threat of such a
discharge. Requirements to plan for a small and medium discharge of
oil, as appropriate, are also added by this revision.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this rulemaking is located in the
Superfund Docket, Room M2615 at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 [Docket Number SPCC-2P].
The docket is available for inspection between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Appointments to
review the docket can be made by calling 202-260-3046. The public may
copy a maximum of 266 pages from any regulatory docket at no cost. If
the number of pages copied exceeds 266, however, a charge of 15 cents
will be incurred for each additional page, plus a $25.00 administrative
fee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbie Lively-Diebold, Oil Pollution
Response and Abatement Branch, Emergency Response Division (5202G),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460 at 703-356-8774; the ERNS/SPCC Information line at 202-260-2342;
or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 (in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, 703-412-9810). The Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 800-553-7672 (in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, 703-412-3323).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
B. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
C. Background of the Rulemaking
II. Summary of Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation
A. Summary of Approach to Implementing Facility Response Plan
Requirements
B. Response to Major Issues Raised by Commenters
C. Section-by-Section Analysis
III. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
Section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), Public
Law 101-380, amends section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and under CWA
section 311(j)(5) (See 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)) directs the President to
issue regulations that require owners or operators of tank vessels,
offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities to prepare and
submit to the President plans for, among other things, responding, to
the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of oil and to
a substantial threat of such a discharge.
Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA authorizes the President to issue
regulations establishing procedures, methods, equipment, and other
requirements to prevent discharges of oil from vessels and facilities
and to contain such discharges. (See 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C).) The
President has delegated the authority to regulate non-transportation-
related onshore facilities under sections 311(j)(1)(C) and 311(j)(5) of
the CWA to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the
Agency). (See Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, section 2(b)(1), 56 FR
54757 (October 22, 1991), superseding E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243.) By this
same E.O., the President has delegated similar authority over
transportation-related onshore facilities, deepwater ports, and vessels
to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and authority over
other offshore facilities, including associated pipelines, to the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
among EPA, DOI, and DOT effective February 3, 1994, has redelegated the
responsibility to regulate certain offshore facilities located in and
along the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, and the Gulf Coast
barrier islands from DOI to EPA. (See E.O. 12777 Sec. 2(i) regarding
authority to redelegate.) The MOU is included as Appendix B to 40 CFR
part 112. An MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the EPA
Administrator, dated November 24, 1971 (36 FR 24080, December 18,
1971), establishes the definitions of non-transportation-related
facilities and transportation-related facilities. The definitions from
the MOU are currently included in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 112.
B. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
The OPA (Public Law 101-380, 104 Stat. 484) was enacted to expand
prevention and preparedness activities, improve response capabilities,
ensure that shippers and oil companies pay the costs of spills that do
occur, provide an additional economic incentive to prevent spills
through increased penalties and enhanced enforcement, establish an
expanded research and development program, and establish a new Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG). As provided in sections 2002(b), 2003, and 2004 of the OPA, the
new Fund replaces the fund originally established under section 311(k)
of the CWA and other oil pollution funds.
Section 4202(a) of the OPA amends CWA section 311(j) to require
regulations for owners or operators of facilities to prepare and submit
``a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst
case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil
or a hazardous substance.'' This requirement applies to all offshore
facilities and any onshore facility that, ``because of its location,
could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the
environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining
shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone'' (``substantial harm
facilities''). As stated in the February 17, 1993 proposed rule (58 FR
8824), this rulemaking addresses only plans for responding to
discharges of oil.
Under CWA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States has
developed a National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) (40 CFR part 300) and has established Area Committees to
develop Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) as elements of a comprehensive
oil and hazardous substance spill response system. As amended by the
OPA, CWA section 311(j)(5)(C) sets forth certain minimum requirements
for facility response plans. The plans must:
Be consistent with the requirements of the NCP and ACPs;
Identify the qualified individual having full authority to
implement removal actions, and require immediate communications between
that individual and the appropriate Federal official and the persons
providing removal personnel and equipment;
Identify and ensure by contract or other approved means
the availability of private personnel and equipment necessary to
remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge
(including a discharge resulting from fire or explosion), and to
mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge;
Describe the training, equipment testing, periodic
unannounced drills, and response actions of persons at the facility, to
be carried out under the plan to ensure the safety of the facility and
to mitigate or prevent a discharge or the substantial threat of a
discharge; and
Be updated periodically.
Under section 311(j)(5)(D), additional review and approval
provisions apply to response plans prepared for offshore facilities and
for onshore facilities that, because of their location, ``could
reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the
environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines or the exclusive economic zone'' (emphasis added)
(``significant and substantial harm facilities''). Under authority
delegated in E.O. 12777, EPA is responsible for the following
activities for each of these response plans at non-transportation-
related onshore facilities:
Promptly reviewing the response plan;
Requiring amendments to any plan that does not meet the
section 311(j)(5) requirements;
Approving any plan that meets these requirements; and
Reviewing each plan periodically thereafter.
The CWA and the OPA require that owners or operators of
``substantial harm facilities'' submit their response plans to EPA (as
delegated by the President in E.O. 12777) by February 18, 1993, or stop
handling, storing, or transporting oil. In addition, under CWA section
311(j)(5) and OPA section 4202(b)(4), a facility required to prepare
and submit a response plan under the OPA may not handle, store, or
transport oil after August 18, 1993 unless: (1) in the case of a
facility for which a plan is reviewed by EPA, the plan has been
approved by EPA; and (2) the facility is operating in compliance with
the plan. The statute provides that a ``significant and substantial
harm facility'' may be allowed to operate without an approved response
plan for up to two years after the facility submits a plan for review
(no later than February 18, 1995), if the owner or operator certifies
that he or she has ensured by contract or other approved means the
availability of private personnel and equipment necessary to respond,
to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of oil, or
a substantial threat of such a discharge. Owners or operators of
``substantial harm facilities'' are not required to have their plans
approved by EPA, but, are required to operate in compliance with their
plans after August 18, 1993.
Under the OPA, facility owners or operators who fail to comply with
section 311(j) requirements are subject to new administrative penalties
and more stringent judicial penalties than those imposed previously
under the CWA. Section 4301(b) of the OPA amends CWA section 311(b) to
authorize a civil judicial penalty of $25,000 per day of violation for
failure to comply with regulations under CWA section 311(j). In
addition to these civil penalties, OPA section 4301(b) amends CWA
section 311(b) to authorize administrative penalties for failure to
comply with section 311(j) regulations of up to $10,000 per violation,
not to exceed $25,000 for Class I penalties, and up to $10,000 per day
per violation, not to exceed $125,000 for Class II penalties. The
differences between ``Class I'' and ``Class II'' administrative
penalties are the amounts of the potential penalties and the hearing
procedures used (for instance, Class II procedures will generally
ensure the owner or operator a more extensive opportunity to be heard
through the proceedings). These revised penalty provisions are
applicable to violations occurring after the August 18, 1990, enactment
of the OPA. Violations occurring before enactment of the OPA remain
subject to penalty provisions originally set forth in CWA section 311.
C. Background of the Rulemaking
Jurisdictional Issues
Although the issue was not raised specifically in the proposed
rule, the question of clarifying jurisdiction is a pervasive issue in
this rulemaking, because there are a number of regulatory agencies with
OPA authority over the same or similar entities.
By E.O. 12777, the President delegated certain OPA authorities to
EPA, DOI, and DOT. By terms of the E.O., EPA must develop response plan
regulations for onshore non-transportation-related facilities, while
the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in DOI is granted similar
authority for offshore non-transportation-related facilities. The USCG
must develop requirements for vessels and offshore transportation-
related facilities, and the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) has responsibility for onshore pipelines and
rolling stock. (The USCG and RSPA are agencies in DOT.)
As it applies to the CWA, the term ``offshore facility'' means any
facility of any kind located in, on, or under any of the navigable
waters of the United States, and any facility of any kind that is
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is located in, on,
or under any other waters, other than a vessel or a public vessel. (See
CWA section 311(a)(ii).) The combined effect of this definition and the
delegations under E.O. 12777 gives DOI (MMS) responsibility for non-
transportation-related fixed offshore facilities in inland lakes and
rivers. (See E.O. Sec. 2(b)(3).)
However, EPA, DOI-MMS, and DOT have agreed that EPA responsibility
should extend to these non-transportation-related fixed offshore
facilities in inland lakes and rivers, because EPA has the expertise to
provide oversight of facility functions, and because the maintenance of
continuity in oversight will facilitate compliance for the regulated
community. Under Sec. 2(i) of E.O. 12777, the President authorized EPA,
DOI, and DOT to redelegate any of their responsibilities under the OPA
to the head of any Executive department or agency with the consent of
the agency head. The Secretaries of DOI and DOT, and the Administrator
of EPA signed an MOU on February 3, 1994, that gives to EPA
jurisdiction all non-transportation-related fixed facilities located
landward of the ``coast line.'' For purposes of the MOU, the term
``coast line'' is defined as in the Submerged Land Act (43 U.S.C.
1301(c)) to mean ``the line of ordinary low water along that portion of
the coast that is in direct contact with the open sea and the line
marking the seaward limit of inland waters.'' MMS has prepared detailed
charts that reflect the position of the ``coast line'' and can be
contacted for additional information on the status of a particular
facility.
EPA does not address response plan requirements for non-
transportation- related fixed offshore facilities in this final rule,
but will do so under a separate rulemaking. However, because EPA now
has jurisdictional responsibility over such facilities, response plans
for these facilities must be submitted to EPA rather than to MMS. Until
EPA promulgates a rule for non-transportation-related fixed offshore
facilities formerly under MMS authority, the Agency will review
response plans for these facilities under the OPA statutory criteria.
Until such a rule is promulgated, these facilities should look to this
final rule as guidance.
Coordination with Other Federal Programs
Federal and State Government Coordination Efforts. EPA and other
Federal agencies with jurisdiction under the OPA and E.O. 12777
(including the USCG, the Office of Pipeline Safety in RSPA, and MMS)
met during the development of this rule to create an implementation
strategy that minimizes duplication wherever practicable and recognizes
State oil pollution prevention and response programs. The Agency also
participated in a workgroup with representatives from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, and other Federal agencies. These
meetings and workgroup sessions were held to develop a consistent
approach among Federal agencies and between Federal and State
governments for oil response planning, and to develop guidelines and
evaluation criteria for drills/exercises and training conducted to meet
the OPA requirements and for identification of ``environmentally
sensitive areas'' (now ``fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments'').\1\ These meetings were held at various times from
January 1993 to January 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The term ``environmentally sensitive areas'' has been changed
to the term ``fish and wildlife and sensitive environments''
throughout this preamble and the final rule to be consistent with
the terminology used in proposed revisions to the NCP (See 58 FR
54702) that implement OPA requirements. The terms have the same
meaning and the change is not meant to imply an expansion in the
types of areas identified for protection under the OPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the critical outgrowths of these efforts was the development
of a consistent approach to regulate ``complexes.'' (A complex is a
facility with a combination of transportation-related and non-
transportation-related components, e.g., a marine transfer facility
with aboveground storage tanks.) A complex is subject to the
jurisdiction of more than one Federal agency under the President's
delegation implementing section 311(j) of the CWA. Among the ways EPA
has reduced the complexity of planning requirements for these
facilities is to better align EPA's Appendix E (Appendix F in the
proposed rule renamed in this final rule as ``Determination and
Evaluation of Required Response Resources for Facility Response
Plans'') with USCG response resource rules developed for marine
transfer facilities (February 5, 1993, 58 FR 7330). (A complete
discussion of Appendix E appears later in this preamble.) For non-
transportation-related facilities that handle or store non-petroleum
oils, EPA also has adopted an approach similar to the USCG's regulatory
approach for response equipment strategies (58 FR 7362).
The coordination efforts resulted in several key decisions which
are described below and discussed in greater depth later in this
preamble. A common theme of discussion among agency representatives was
the need to facilitate the regulated community's efforts to implement
multiple sets of response planning requirements. EPA emphasizes that it
will accept a response plan prepared to meet State or other Federal
requirements as long as the plan meets the requirements of this final
rule and is appropriately cross-referenced. In response to the need to
provide owners or operators with additional direction on conducting
drills/exercises to meet the OPA requirements, the National
Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) was developed through
a joint effort of the Federal agencies implementing OPA response plan
regulations with involvement from other Federal representatives (e.g.,
natural resource trustees), State agencies, members of the regulated
community, and oil spill response organizations. These efforts resulted
in the creation of guidelines to assist owners or operators in
following the PREP. EPA references, as guidance, PREP guidelines at
Sec. 112.21 of today's final rule. The PREP draft guidelines are
available from Petty Officer Daniel Caras at (202) 267-6570 or fax 267-
4085/4065. (See Appendix E to this part, section 10, for availability).
The USCG has developed similar guidance for training, and EPA
references these training guidelines at Sec. 112.21 of today's final
rule, indicating that following these guidelines (or demonstrating a
comparable program) is an acceptable means to satisfy the OPA
requirement to describe training.
Another interagency effort that resulted in a coordinated approach
to develop response plan requirements involved the identification of
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. The Federal agencies
implementing OPA regulations contributed to the development of a
guidance document prepared by the natural resource trustees to assist
owners or operators in identifying fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments for the evaluation of the substantial harm criteria and
for the development of a response plan, if required. Although EPA has
removed the proposed Appendix D that covered this subject, facility
owners and operators still must consider fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments. EPA refers facility owners or operators to
Appendices I, II, and III of the ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel
Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments''
published by NOAA within the Department of Commerce (DOC) in the
Federal Register at 59 FR 14714, March 29, 1994. This document will
provide guidance on fish and wildlife and sensitive environments until
geographic-specific annexes of ACPs are fully developed. (See the
discussion of ACPs later in this preamble.) Owners or operators are
encouraged to contact the appropriate Area Committee, EPA Regional
office (inland areas), USCG Captain of the Port (coastal areas), or
natural resource agencies listed in the DOC/NOAA Guidance for
information on fish and wildlife and sensitive environments as it
becomes available.
A final critical area where Federal agencies implementing the OPA
reached agreement was the review of response plans. For response
purposes, the NCP divides the United States into inland and coastal
zones, with EPA responsible for providing On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs)
for the inland zone, and the USCG responsible for providing OSCs for
the coastal zone. EPA will provide an opportunity for designated USCG
OSCs to review and comment on response plans for non-transportation-
related onshore facilities subject to 40 CFR part 112, and
geographically located in the coastal zone. For facilities subject to
40 CFR part 112, EPA will maintain the responsibility for final
approval of the response plan; however, the Regional Administrator (RA)
will consider any USCG OSC objection to a response plan and attempt to
resolve any issues through interagency discussions.
The NCP and ACPs. Section 311(j)(5)(C) of the CWA requires that
facility response plans be consistent with the requirements of the NCP
and ACPs. The NCP provides the general organizational structure and
procedures for addressing discharges of oil and hazardous substances
under the CWA, as well as releases of hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants under CERCLA. Among other things, the NCP specifies
responsibilities among Federal, State, and local governments; describes
resources available for response; summarizes State and local emergency
planning requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA or SARA Title III); and establishes procedures for
undertaking removal actions under the CWA. Until a revised NCP is
published, as mandated under OPA section 4201(c), facility response
plans should be consistent with the current NCP and, if necessary,
revised to be consistent with the pending NCP revisions when they are
promulgated. (Revisions to the NCP were proposed on October 22, 1993,
at 58 FR 54702.)
ACPs are mandated under CWA section 311(j)(4) and prepared by Area
Committees comprised of members appointed by the President from
qualified personnel of Federal, State, and local agencies. When
implemented in conjunction with other elements of the NCP, ACPs must be
adequate to remove a worst case discharge from a facility operating in
or near the area covered by the plan. ACPs cover discharges affecting
all U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines. EPA and the USCG are
responsible for establishing Area Committees for the inland and coastal
zones, respectively. In the inland Regions, ACPs have been completed
and approved by EPA. The ACP process, however, is dynamic, and Area
Committees will continue to refine the ACPs to provide more detailed
information on protection priorities, develop protection strategies,
and identify appropriate cleanup strategies for inland areas. Area
Committees have the option to further subdivide their areas into
smaller, geographically distinct subareas and develop geographic-
specific annexes for these subareas. Members of the public may
contribute to the ACP refinement process through involvement with Area
Committees in the development of geographic-specific annexes.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA regulations in
Subpart D of 40 CFR part 264, and Subpart D of 40 CFR part 265
promulgated under RCRA, require owners and operators of hazardous waste
facilities to develop facility-specific contingency plans. The plans
must include response procedures; a list of each person qualified to
act as a facility emergency coordinator; a list of all emergency
equipment and, when required, decontamination equipment at the
facility; evacuation plans, when evacuation could be necessary; and
arrangements agreed to by local police departments, fire departments,
hospitals, contractors, and State and local emergency response teams to
coordinate emergency services. In addition, newly promulgated 40 CFR
part 279 establishes facility-specific contingency planning and
emergency procedure requirements for used oil at reprocessing and
refining facilities. To avoid duplication of effort, owners or
operators of facilities subject to the regulations in 40 CFR parts 264,
265, and 279 may incorporate these RCRA provisions and the response
planning requirements of other applicable Federal regulations into
their facility response plans.
EPCRA. Among other things, EPCRA requires local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) to develop local emergency response plans for their
community and review them at least annually. Under EPCRA, the owner or
operator of a facility where a listed ``extremely hazardous substance''
is present in an amount in excess of the threshold planning quantity
must notify the State emergency response commission (SERC). In
addition, upon request of the LEPC, the owner or operator must provide
the LEPC with any information necessary to develop and implement the
local emergency response plan. Because of the requirement that certain
facilities participate in emergency planning under EPCRA, some overlap
may exist with response plan requirements outlined in today's rule.
The OPA Conference Report states that OPA facility response plans
should be consistent with plans prepared under other programs, and that
any information developed under section 311(j) should be made available
to SERCs and LEPCs. (See OPA Conference Report, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653,
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 1990 at p. 151.) Therefore, a facility response
plan should be consistent with the local emergency response plan for
the community in which the facility is located, and to ensure such
consistency, facility owners or operators should review the appropriate
local emergency response plan. In addition, upon request of the LEPC or
SERC, the facility should provide a copy of the facility response plan.
Clean Air Act. Under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as
amended in 1990, EPA is to promulgate risk management program
regulations for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and
for responses to such releases, including requirements for a risk
management plan (RMP) for chemical accidental release prevention. The
regulation listing the covered chemicals and threshold quantities was
published in the Federal Register on January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4478). The
proposed rule for the risk management program was published in the
Federal Register on October 20, 1993 (58 FR 54190).
Regulated facilities are required to do three things: register with
EPA; develop and implement a risk management program that includes a
hazard assessment, a prevention program, and an emergency response
program; and develop and submit an RMP to the Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board, the implementing agency, the SERC, and the
LEPC. The RMP is to be made available to the public.
EPA anticipates that facilities affected by both regulations can
prepare one response plan that meets the Oil Pollution Act requirements
for oil and the CAA requirements for chemicals.
Prevention Technical Requirements
EPA's proposed rule for the facility response plan rulemaking
contained certain provisions related to aspects of 40 CFR part 112 that
did not address the OPA facility response plan requirements. EPA has
decided not to include these provisions in today's final rule. These
provisions are more closely related to the 40 CFR part 112 revisions
proposed on October 22, 1991 (56 FR 54612), and will be finalized when
that proposal is finalized. The proposed provisions not included in
today's final rule are as follows:
Sec. 112.1(d)(4)--Reiterating that Underground Storage
Tanks are to be Marked on Diagrams;
Sec. 112.1(g)--Regional Administrator Authority to Require
SPCC Plan Preparation;
Sec. 112.2--Definitions of ``Alteration'' and ``Repair'';
Sec. 112.4(d)--Amendment of SPCC Plan by Regional
Administrator;
Sec. 112.7(a)(2)--Submission of SPCC Plans for Waiver of
Technical Requirements;
Sec. 112.7(d)--Requirement to Prepare a Contingency Plan
When the Installation of Secondary Containment Structures is not
Practicable;
Sec. 112.7(f)--Prevention Training; and
Sec. 112.7(i)/Appendix H--Ensuring Against Brittle
Fracture.
Only proposed changes to Secs. 112.2 (except for the definitions of
``alteration'' and ``repair'') and 112.20, and the addition of
Sec. 112.21 are included in today's final rule. The content of
Sec. 112.21 is adapted from Sec. 112.7 of the proposed rule which
addressed training and drills/exercises for both prevention and
response.
II. Summary of Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation
This section provides a summary of the response planning provisions
included in today's final rule. Section II.A provides a brief summary
of the overall approach to implementation of response plan
requirements. In Section II.B, EPA summarizes and responds to major
issues raised by the public during the comment period. Finally, Section
II.C provides a section-by-section discussion of changes from the
proposed rule to the final rule.
A. Summary of Approach to Implementing Facility Response Plan
Requirements
EPA is finalizing an approach for identifying facilities subject to
response planning requirements similar to that outlined in the proposed
rule. Only owners or operators of ``substantial harm facilities'' are
required to prepare and submit plans. EPA will approve only those plans
submitted for ``significant and substantial harm facilities.'' Risk-
based factors for evaluating the potential to cause substantial harm
and significant and substantial harm are established in Sec. 112.20(f)
of today's rule and include: type of transfer operation; oil storage
capacity; lack of secondary containment; proximity to fish and wildlife
and sensitive environments (described as ``environmentally sensitive
areas'' in the proposal), navigable waters, and drinking water intakes;
spill history; age of oil storage tanks; and other facility-specific
and Region-specific information.
There are two methods by which an onshore facility may be
determined to be a ``substantial harm facility.'' The first involves
the use of substantial harm criteria provided in Sec. 112.20(f)(1) and
in the flowchart in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112 by owners or
operators to identify ``substantial harm facilities.'' The second
provides each RA the authority to determine whether any facility
subject to the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation is a ``substantial
harm facility'' based on the specific criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(1),
the factors in Sec. 112.20(f)(2)(A)-(F), or other site-specific
characteristics and environmental factors that may be relevant under
Sec. 112.20(f)(2)(G). In applying these factors, the RA may seek input
on specific facilities from other agencies such as the USCG and natural
resource trustee agencies. The RA also may consider petitions from the
public to determine whether a facility is a ``substantial harm
facility.''
To determine whether an onshore facility could be a ``significant
and substantial harm facility,'' the RA will consider the substantial
harm criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(2) as well as additional factors in
Sec. 112.20(f)(3), including site-specific information such as local
impacts on public health.
In today's final rule, facility owners or operators are provided
with a process to appeal the substantial harm and significant and
substantial harm determinations or the RA's decision not to approve a
response plan for which approval is required.
Finally, under Sec. 112.20(e), owners or operators who are not
required to submit plans must maintain onsite at the facility a signed
certification form, which indicates that the facility has been
determined by the facility owner or operator not to meet the criteria
in Sec. 112.20(f)(1).
Discussion of Response Plans
Those facility owners or operators who submit plans must include a
signed response plan cover sheet (as provided in 40 CFR part 112,
Appendix F, Attachment F-1), which indicates that the information
contained in the plan is accurate, and that gives a basic summary of
facility information, including the results of the substantial harm
determination.
The required elements for response planning in Sec. 112.20(h) of
this rule are designed to direct a facility owner or operator in
gathering the information needed to prepare a response plan. The
response plan elements address requirements under CWA section 311(j)(5)
(as amended by the OPA), including requirements for response training
and participation in response drills/exercises. Appendix F to the rule
includes a model response plan that further describes the required
elements in Sec. 112.20(h). The majority of elements in the model plan
are taken directly from Sec. 112.20(h) or are logical extensions of the
general requirements in Sec. 112.20(h) and are therefore requirements
prefaced by use of the word ``must'' or ``shall.'' EPA recognizes that
certain other elements may not be applicable in all cases. To provide
flexibility for facilities with unique circumstances, certain elements
are prefaced by use of the words ``shall, as appropriate'' or are
modified by use of the words ``or an equivalent.'' Finally, other
elements are presented as recommendations and are prefaced by use of
the word ``may.''
As discussed previously in this preamble, the requirements in
Sec. 112.20(h) and the model response plan in Appendix F do not
preclude the use of a preexisting response plan. Owners or operators
may submit a plan prepared to meet other Federal or State requirements,
as long as the elements in Sec. 112.20 are addressed (including the
requirement for an emergency response action plan), and a cross-
reference to the model response plan is provided.
Under today's rule, owners or operators of ``substantial harm
facilities'' must prepare plans to respond to a worst case discharge,
and small and medium discharges as appropriate. Such response planning
by facilities will help ensure protection of public health and welfare
and the environment by facilitating effective response to discharges to
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. The requirement to plan for
several different spill sizes is consistent with other agencies' (such
as the USCG's) implementation of OPA response planning requirements.
For example, the average most probable discharge and the maximum most
probable discharge under the USCG interim final rule set out the same
values in barrels as EPA sets out in gallons for small and medium
spills (58 FR 7358, February 5, 1993). EPA is authorized to require
owners or operators to plan for small and medium discharges by
Sec. 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA.
OPA section 4201(b) (CWA section 311(a)(24)) defines ``worst case
discharge'' for a facility as the largest foreseeable discharge in
adverse weather conditions. The OPA Conference Report indicates that
facility owners or operators are expected to prepare plans for
responding to discharges that are worse than either the largest spill
to date at the facility or the maximum probable spill for that facility
type. (See H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 1990 at pp.
149-150.) Today, EPA finalizes a requirement for a facility's worst
case discharge planning amount based on the capacity of the largest
single tank within a secondary containment area, or the combined
capacity of a group of aboveground tanks permanently manifolded
together within a common secondary containment area lacking internal
subdivisions, whichever is greater; plus an additional quantity based
on lack of secondary containment, as appropriate. (For facilities that
lack secondary containment for all tanks, the worst case discharge
would be the total storage capacity at the facility.) Production
facilities would also need to consider production volumes. Single tank
facilities are allowed to reduce the worst case discharge volume for
the presence of adequate secondary containment.
EPA has provided worksheets in Appendix D, which owners or
operators of storage and production facilities are required to use in
the calculation of worst case discharge amounts. For complexes, the
worst case discharge volume is the larger of the amounts calculated for
each component of the facility regulated by a different agency using
procedures contained in the respective regulations. EPA requires that
owners or operators of complexes (a complex is a facility with a
combination of transportation-related and non-transportation-related
components, e.g., a marine transfer facility with aboveground storage
tanks) plan for the single largest worst case discharge at the
facility. To facilitate this process, EPA has modified Appendix E as
described in Section II.B of this preamble to be consistent with the
USCG's ``Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating Required Response
Resources for Facility Response Plans.''
In addition to planning for a worst case discharge, under proposed
Sec. 112.20, facility owners and operators are required to plan for (1)
a small spill, defined as any spill volume less than or equal to 2,100
gallons, provided that this amount is less than the worst case
discharge amount; and (2) a medium spill, defined as any spill volume
greater than 2,100 gallons, and less than or equal to 36,000 gallons or
10 percent of the capacity of the largest tank at the facility,
whichever is less, provided that this amount is less than the worst
case discharge amount. For facilities where the worst case discharge is
a medium spill, the owner or operator is required to plan for two
amounts, a worst case spill and a small spill. For facilities where the
worst case discharge is a small spill, the owner or operator must plan
only for a worst case discharge.
For medium spills at complexes, the owner or operator must first
determine a medium spill volume for the transportation-related and non-
transportation-related components at the facility. (The USCG's term
``maximum most probable discharge'' is generally equivalent to a medium
spill. See 58 FR 7354.) The owner or operator must then compare the
medium planning amounts for each component of the facility. Following
this comparison, the owner or operator must select the larger of the
quantities as the medium planning amount for the overall facility. A
similar procedure must be followed for a small spill. (The USCG's term
``average most probable discharge'' is generally equivalent to a small
spill. See 58 FR 7353.) EPA requires that owners or operators of
complexes plan for a single small and medium spill at the facility in
accordance with the requirements in Appendix E.
Equipment Requirements
In Appendix E to today's rule, EPA establishes requirements to
determine for planning purposes the quantity of resources and response
times necessary to respond to the ``maximum extent practicable'' to a
worst case discharge, and to other discharges, as appropriate. The
requirements were adapted from similar requirements developed by the
USCG for vessel response plans and facility response plans for marine
transportation-related onshore facilities. These procedures recognize
practical and technical limits on response capabilities that an
individual facility owner or operator can provide in advance and on
response times for resources to arrive on scene. To address these
limitations, Appendix E establishes operability criteria for oil
response resources and caps on response resources that facility owners
or operators must identify and ensure the availability of, through
contract or other approved means. The caps reflect an estimate of the
response capability at a given facility that is considered a practical
target to be met by 1993 and beyond.
Appendix E (Appendix F in the proposed rule) has been renamed
``Determination and Evaluation of Required Response Resources for
Facility Response Plans.'' EPA made this change to clarify that
facility owners and operators must use this appendix to determine
whether they have appropriate and adequate amounts of resources to meet
the planning requirements in this final rule. In this appendix, EPA has
substituted the words ``shall'' or ``shall, as appropriate'' for the
word ``should'' to clarify whether the requirements are mandatory,
regardless of the circumstances. The phrase ``shall, as appropriate''
is consistent with EPA's intent in the proposal to provide owners or
operators flexibility for facilities with unique circumstances. As
required at Sec. 112.20(h)(3)(i), in cases where it is not appropriate
to follow part of Appendix E to identify response resources to meet the
facility response plan requirements, owners or operators must clearly
demonstrate in the plan why use of Appendix E is not appropriate at the
facility and make comparable arrangements for response resources.
Section 311(j)(5)(C)(iii) of the CWA requires the facility response
plan to identify and ensure the availability, by contracts or other
means approved by the President (as delegated to EPA), of private
personnel and equipment necessary to respond to the maximum extent
practicable, to a worst case discharge. For the purposes of today's
rule, ``contract or other approved means'' is defined in Sec. 112.2 of
today's final rule as:
A written contractual agreement with an Oil Spill Removal
Organization (OSRO(s)). The agreement must identify and ensure the
availability of the necessary personnel and equipment within
appropriate response times; and/or
Written certification that the necessary personnel and
equipment resources, owned or operated by the facility owner or
operator, are available to respond to a discharge within appropriate
response times; and/or
Active membership in a local or regional OSRO(s), which
has identified and ensures adequate access, through membership, to
necessary personnel and equipment within appropriate response times in
the specified geographic areas; and/or
Other specific arrangements approved by the RA upon
request of the owner or operator.
If the owner or operator plans to rely on facility-owned equipment
to satisfy the requirement at Sec. 112.20(h)(3) to identify and ensure
the availability of response resources, then equipment inventories must
be provided. When relying on other arrangements, evidence of contracts
or approved means must be included in the response plan so that the
availability of resources can be verified during plan review. It is not
necessary to list specific quantities of equipment in the facility
response plan when listing a USCG-classified OSRO(s) that has
sufficient removal capacity to recover up to the rate indicated by the
associated caps. (See Section II.B of this preamble for additional
discussion on this issue.)
Final Rule Application to Affected Facilities
The following paragraphs present EPA's approach to implement the
response plan requirements of OPA and of this final rule. Section
112.20(a) of the rule has been revised to reflect this approach.
The Agency proposed in the February 17, 1993 Federal Register (58
FR 8824) its facility response plan rule for non-transportation-related
onshore facilities under its jurisdiction. Before this publication, EPA
made available outreach materials describing its basic approach for
implementation of the OPA response plan requirements to allow facility
owners or operators the opportunity to prepare and submit response
plans by the February 18, 1993, OPA deadline. EPA received over 4,500
plans from owners or operators of facilities that met the criteria to
be a ``substantial harm facility.'' EPA Regional personnel have
identified the subset of ``significant and substantial harm
facilities'' from those facilities that submitted response plans by
February 18, 1993 and, as appropriate, issued authorizations to these
facilities to continue to operate after August 18, 1993, based on a
review of a facility's certification of response resources. These plans
will be reviewed and, if appropriate, approved under the OPA statutory
requirements by February 18, 1995. For inadequate plans submitted
before the February 18, 1993 statutory deadline, RAs may notify
facility owners or operators that additional information or plan
revisions are necessary in advance of February 18, 1995, for plan
approval.
To recognize the compliance efforts of owners or operators of those
facilities in existence on or before February 18, 1993 who submitted
response plans to meet the OPA requirements by the statutory deadline,
EPA will allow them until February 18, 1995 to revise their response
plan, if necessary, to satisfy the requirements of this rule and
resubmit their plans (or updated portions) to the RA. (See
Sec. 112.20(a)(1)(i).) The revised plans for ``significant and
substantial harm facilities'' will be reviewed periodically thereafter
on a schedule established by the RA provided that the period between
plan reviews does not exceed five years. (See Sec. 112.20(c)(4).) RAs
may institute a process by which such plan reviews are staggered so
that not all plans will need to be reapproved in the same year.
Owners or operators of existing facilities that were in operation
on or before February 18, 1993 who failed to submit a facility response
plan to meet the OPA requirements by February 18, 1993 must submit a
response plan that meets the requirements of this rule to the RA by the
effective date of the final rule. (See Sec. 112.20(a)(1)(ii).) EPA
recognizes that such facilities may have prepared and submitted to the
RA some form of a response plan after the statutory deadline. Owners or
operators may submit revised portions of the plan to bring the plan
into compliance with the final rule requirements. Plans for
``significant and substantial harm facilities'' will be reviewed for
initial approval by RAs within a reasonable time. Such plans will be
reviewed periodically thereafter on a schedule established by the RA
provided that the period between plan reviews does not exceed five
years. RAs may choose to stagger such plan reviews.
Owners or operators of facilities that commenced operations after
February 18, 1993 but before the effective date of this final rule must
submit a response plan that meets the requirements of this final rule
to the RA by its effective date. EPA recognizes that such facilities
may have prepared and submitted some form of a response plan to the RA
prior to the publication of this rule. Owners or operator may submit
revised portions of the plan to bring the plan into compliance with the
final rule requirements. (See Sec. 112.20(a)(2)(i).) RAs will review
plans for ``significant and substantial harm facilities'' for initial
approval within a reasonable time. The plans will then be placed on the
Region's review cycle as described in the preceding paragraphs.
The Agency recognizes that identification of ``substantial harm
facilities'' will continue to occur as new facilities come on-line and
existing facilities newly meet the criteria for substantial harm as a
result of a change in operations or site characteristics. EPA is
requiring in Sec. 112.20(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) that: (1) newly
constructed facilities (facilities that come into existence after the
effective date of the final rule) that meet the applicability criteria
must prepare and submit a response plan in accordance with the final
rule prior to the start of operations (adjustments to the response plan
to reflect changes that occur at the facility during the start-up phase
of operations must be submitted to the Regional Administrator after an
operational trial period of 60 days); and (2) existing facilities that
become subject to the response plan requirements as the result of a
planned change in operations (after the effective date of the final
rule) must prepare and submit a response plan in accordance with the
final rule prior to the implementation of changes at the facility. RAs
will review plans submitted for such newly designated ``substantial
harm facilities'' to determine if a facility is a ``significant and
substantial harm facility.'' RAs will review for approval plans for
``significant and substantial harm facilities'' within a reasonable
time and then place the plans on the Region's review cycle as discussed
previously.
An existing facility, however, may become subject to the response
plan requirements through one or a combination of unplanned events,
such as a reportable spill or the identification of fish and wildlife
and sensitive environments adjacent to the site during the ACP
refinement process. In the event of such an unplanned change, the owner
or operator is required to prepare and submit a response plan to the RA
within six months of when the change occurs (See
Sec. 112.20(a)(2)(iv).) The Agency believes that allowing six months
from when a change caused by an unplanned event occurs to prepare and
submit a plan is reasonable.
Under Sec. 112.20(g)(2), facility owners or operators are required
to review appropriate sections of the NCP and ACP annually and revise
their response plans accordingly. In addition, Sec. 112.20(d)(1)
requires the owner or operator of a facility for which a response plan
is required to resubmit relevant portions of the plan within 60 days of
each material change in the plan. For ``substantial harm facilities,''
Regions will review such changes to determine if the facility should be
reclassified as a ``significant and substantial harm facility.'' For
``significant and substantial harm facilities,'' the Regions will
review such changes for approval as described in Sec. 112.20(d)(4).
B. Response to Major Issues Raised by Commenters
A total of 1282 comments were received on the proposed rule. The
majority of these comments were one-page form letters from members of,
and on behalf of, numerous environmental professional groups and
addressed the issue of whether certification of response plans by an
independent party was appropriate. A document entitled ``Response to
Comments Document for the Facility Response Plan Rulemaking'' that
summarizes and provides responses to all comments received on the
proposed rule is available in the public docket. The major issues
raised by the commenters and the Agency's responses are described in
this section.
Option One vs. Option Two
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency discussed two
options for identifying facilities subject to facility response plan
requirements under this rulemaking. In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
the first option, but requested comment on the merits of both options.
The two alternatives are outlined briefly in the next paragraph.
Under Option 1, EPA proposed to require under CWA sections
311(j)(5) and 311(j)(1)(C) that: (1) the owner or operator of a
``substantial harm facility'' prepare and submit a response plan, and
(2) ``significant and substantial harm facilities'' have their plans
promptly reviewed for approval by EPA. Criteria provided in
Sec. 112.20(f)(1) coupled with RA determinations would be used to
identify ``substantial harm facilities'' and a subset of ``significant
and substantial harm facilities.''
EPA's second approach was also based on the authority contained in
CWA sections 311(j) (1) and (5). Under Option 2, all facilities
regulated under 40 CFR part 112 would be required to prepare facility
response plans; certain small, low-risk facilities with secondary
containment structures would be allowed to prepare an abridged version
of a response plan. Only ``substantial harm facilities'' would only be
required to submit plans to EPA. ``Significant and substantial harm
facilities'' would submit plans to EPA and have their plans reviewed
and approved.
The Agency received numerous comments on the two options, with the
vast majority favoring Option 1. Supporters of Option 1 stated that
Option 2 would create too great a burden on facilities and EPA, in
relation to the relatively low environmental benefits derived from
planning. Commenters representing small, lower-risk facilities
expressed concern that being required to prepare response plans would
impose unnecessary financial burdens. In addition, commenters felt that
40 CFR part 112 was sufficiently protective of the environment for non-
substantial-harm facilities. A small number of commenters representing
both industry and environmental groups supported Option 2, stating that
it most closely reflected the mandates of the OPA and that it would
provide a more comprehensive emergency response planning network.
In today's final rule, EPA finalizes Option 1. The Agency believes
that this option targets high-risk facilities in a cost effective
manner that is nevertheless protective of the environment. Owners or
operators of facilities covered by the Oil Pollution Prevention
regulation must evaluate their facilities against a series of
substantial harm screening criteria. Although EPA encourages all oil
storage facilities under its jurisdiction to prepare oil spill response
plans, owners or operators of those facilities not meeting the criteria
provided in Sec. 112.20(f)(1) are only required to prepare a facility
response plan if the RA independently determines that the facility is a
``substantial harm facility.'' Because of the size and diversity of the
regulated community under EPA's jurisdiction pursuant to the OPA and
the tight timeframe established by the OPA, EPA is implementing a
substantial harm selection process with two components (i.e., published
criteria and an RA determination). The published criteria are designed
to capture the vast majority of ``substantial harm facilities.'' To
simplify the process, EPA developed specific selection criteria to be
applied in a consistent manner by all owners and operators.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that there are facilities that do not meet
the criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(1), but may, due to facility-specific or
location-specific circumstances, pose sufficient risk to the
environment to be designated as ``substantial harm facilities.''
Accordingly, RAs, as the designated representatives of EPA, are granted
authority to designate a facility on a case-by-case basis as a
``substantial harm facility.''
Substantial Harm Criteria
As required by Sec. 112.20(f)(1) and the flowchart in Appendix C to
40 CFR part 112, a facility is a ``substantial harm facility'' if
either of the following two criteria are met:
(1) The facility transfers oil over water to or from vessels and
has a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000
gallons; or
(2) The facility's total oil storage capacity is greater than or
equal to 1 million gallons, and one or more of the following is true:
The facility does not have secondary containment for each
aboveground storage area sufficiently large to contain the capacity of
the largest aboveground storage tank within each storage area plus
sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation;
The facility is located at a distance (as calculated using
the appropriate formula in Appendix C or a comparable formula) such
that a discharge from the facility could cause injury to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments;
The facility is located at a distance (as calculated using
the appropriate formula in Appendix C or a comparable formula) such
that a discharge from the facility would shut down operations at a
public drinking water intake; or
The facility has had a reportable spill greater than or
equal to 10,000 gallons within the last 5 years.
A number of commenters suggested that EPA is attempting to regulate
transportation-related facilities that are covered by USCG regulations.
Several of these commenters stated that EPA's approach would result in
redundant and conflicting regulations for such facilities.
The Agency considered these comments and decided to retain the
over-water transfers criterion (Sec. 112.20(f)(1)(i)). The criterion
was designed to identify as posing a risk of substantial harm to the
environment those facilities that store oil above a certain quantity
located in close proximity to navigable waters. EPA is not attempting
to regulate marine transfer operations. In 40 CFR 112.1, EPA clearly
explains which facilities fall under its authority. The section states
that EPA jurisdiction does not extend to transportation-related
facilities. The Agency has the authority, however, to regulate the non-
transportation-related storage component of facilities that may have a
marine transfer component.
Several commenters indicated that the 42,000 gallon cutoff for
transfers over-water is appropriate. Other commenters questioned the
potential of a 42,000 gallon spill to cause substantial harm to the
environment.
EPA has decided that non-transportation-related storage components
of complexes should be regulated at a lower capacity threshold than
storage facilities without an over-water transfer component (i.e.,
42,000 gallons versus 1 million gallons), because the location of over-
water transfer facilities poses a higher risk to navigable waters.
Spills at such facilities are more likely to reach navigable waters
than spills from facilities located further from navigable waters.
Also, it is likely that a higher percentage of the total amount
released will reach navigable waters at a facility directly adjacent to
navigable waters than at a facility located further away. Data indicate
that for oil discharges above 42,000 gallons, the number of incidents
with reported effects including fishkills, wildlife damage, or fire is
greater than for oil discharges below 42,000 gallons. At the 0.01 level
of significance, the size of the release is related to the occurrence
of reported effects. For certain release size thresholds other than
42,000 gallons, however, a similar statistically significant
relationship could not be shown.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Study prepared for EPA titled ``Analysis of Data Relating to
Facility Size, Oil Discharges, and Environmental Effects.''
Available for inspection in the Superfund Docket, Room M2615, at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requested comment in the proposed rule on the appropriateness
of the use of a proposed 1 million gallon or a 200,000 gallon size cut-
off for total storage capacity to determine a threshold for substantial
harm. (See Sec. 112.20(f)(1)(ii).)
The Agency received numerous comments suggesting that the 1 million
gallon cutoff was appropriate. A smaller number of commenters including
other Federal government agencies and environmental associations,
indicated that the size cut-off for substantial harm should be 200,000
gallons or lower. Advocates for a lower cut-off contended that small
facilities with a high throughput may have a higher potential to cause
substantial harm than large facilities with low throughput. These
commenters also suggested that the OPA Conference Report indicated that
the requirement to prepare and submit response plans should be applied
broadly, because even small discharges from an onshore facility could
result in substantial harm under certain circumstances.
Although EPA recognizes that large storage capacity is a
substantial harm risk factor, the Agency also recognizes that the
intent of OPA was not to exclude certain smaller facilities, such as
those near public drinking water intakes or fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments, from consideration as having the potential to
cause substantial harm. EPA intends that the RA determination process
be used to identify additional high-risk facilities that do not meet
the criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(1) although nonetheless pose substantial
harm.
The Agency decided to identify certain high-risk facilities that
pose a threat of substantial harm because of their size in combination
with facility- specific characteristics (i.e., secondary containment
and spill history) or location-specific (i.e., proximity to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments and public drinking water intakes).
The largest oil spills, which could pose the greatest risk to the
environment, occur at large facilities. Data on the effects of spills
from aboveground storage tanks indicate that when larger quantities of
oil are discharged, fish and wildlife damage, off-site soil pollution,
and property damage are greater than for smaller discharges.\3\ The
Agency believes that regulatory coverage and protection of the
environment will be ensured, since facilities that are smaller than 1
million gallons, but that could cause substantial harm because of their
proximity to navigable waters or fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments, could be selected under the RA's authority to require a
facility to submit a response plan, regardless of whether the facility
meets the criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(1) (although the RA considers
these factors as part of the determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, several commenters suggested that the average oil
storage inventory of a facility should be used instead of capacity to
determine the oil storage threshold for substantial harm. Commenters
indicated that the normal amount of oil stored at a facility is often
less than the total capacity, because facilities are overdesigned to
meet seasonal demands. Commenters also contended that tanks dedicated
for standby service and tanks not in service should not be counted in
determining a facility's capacity, and that certification methods could
be employed to ensure that excess capacity is not being used.
In today's final rule, EPA retains capacity rather than inventory
as the basis for assessing risk to the environment. The decision was
based largely on the fact that substantial harm determinations using
inventory would be difficult or impossible to enforce and might not
accurately reflect the true worst case for the facility. EPA would be
unable to inspect facilities often enough to ensure that their
inventory is actually below the substantial harm threshold. Moreover,
owners or operators would likely find it difficult to constantly track
inventory to ensure that changes in inventory did not trigger
additional regulatory requirements and at some time the tank could be
filled to capacity. In addition, there is a need to maintain
consistency in the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, and the
original regulation uses storage capacity for threshold determinations
instead of using inventory. However, EPA has proposed in a separate
rulemaking published on October 22, 1991 (58 FR 54612), to allow owners
or operators to exclude permanently closed tanks (as defined in
Sec. 112.2 of the proposed rule published on October 22, 1991) from the
total capacity of the facility for the purposes of the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation. If these changes are finalized, permanently
closed tanks would not have to be considered in the substantial harm
evaluation.
Several commenters argued that the 10,000 gallon reportable spill
criterion (proposed at Sec. 112.20(f)(ii)(D), 58 FR 8849) should be
modified to allow a facility owner the opportunity to petition the RA
for exclusion based upon modifications to the facility or to its spill
prevention procedures made after the release.
EPA agrees that continuous improvements in spill prevention
procedures are important and that owners and operators that have
significantly upgraded their facility within five years of a spill
greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons (by replacing tanks or adding
secondary containment, for example) should be allowed to request
exclusion from the substantial harm category.
The Agency includes a two-stage appeals process in Sec. 112.20(i)
of today's rule. The appeals process allows an owner or operator to
petition the RA to remove a facility from the category of substantial
harm because of improvements at the facility that lead to greatly
reduced risk to the environment. The appeals process is discussed in
greater detail in the ``Appeals Process'' section of this preamble. Of
course, even if a facility obtains relief through appeal, the RA still
retains authority to require a Plan, under Sec. 112.20(b) should the
circumstances on which the relief was granted change in the future.
In the proposed rule, EPA provided formulas in Appendix C for
owners or operators to determine appropriate distances to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments and drinking water intakes for
purposes of evaluating the substantial harm criterion. EPA also
proposed to allow the use of an alternative formula acceptable to the
RA. EPA solicited data and comments on the appropriateness of the
distance calculations in Appendix C for inland areas.
Several commenters supported the overall approach of using a
calculated distance to define proximity. However, numerous commenters
indicated that the formulas used to calculate the planning distances in
Appendix C are too complex, cumbersome, or impracticable for general
use.
The Agency does not agree. The planning distance formulas proposed
in Appendix C are appropriate based on an evaluation of engineering
principles and input from an interagency technical workgroup that
included representatives from the Natural Resource Trustee agencies, as
well the agencies responsible for measuring river height and flow. The
Agency's primary goal was to provide a series of formulas that were
technically supportable. EPA has provided the least complex formulas
that are still technically supportable. Moreover, EPA allows owners or
operators to use comparable formulas to calculate appropriate distances
provided that the formula is acceptable to the RA and they send
supporting documentation on the reliability and analytical soundness of
the formulas (see Sec. 112.20(a)(3)).
Several commenters noted that the formulas proposed in Appendix C
did not account for tides, currents, wind direction, and other weather-
dependent flow rates. One commenter recommended that EPA use the USCG
planning distances for discharges into tidal waters. To more accurately
account for the range of movement of spilled oil in certain aquatic
environments, EPA includes in Appendix C of today's final rule a
section on oil transport in tidal influence areas as a separate type of
calculation. EPA adopts the tidal influence area criteria from the
USCG's interim final rule for Marine Transportation-Related (MTR)
Facilities (58 FR 7358, February 5, 1993).
Some commenters stated that the proposed response times in Table 3
of Appendix C for calculating the planning distances were inappropriate
and would overpredict the area of the spill. Some commenters noted that
actual response times could be considerably faster than those proposed
because some facilities have their own response resources. Conversely,
one commenter expressed concern that the response times are too short
and do not account for adverse weather conditions or phased planning
required for certain discharges. Other commenters noted that the
proposed response times in Table 3 of Appendix C were inconsistent with
the response times listed in Appendix F of the proposed rule for
determining response resources for a worst case discharge and should be
changed. No data were provided by commenters to support alternative
response times for use in the distance calculations.
In today's rule, to clarify the information presented, EPA
reformats Table 3 of Appendix C. EPA used the same geographic areas for
facility location (i.e., higher volume port area, Great Lakes, and all
other river and canal, inland, and nearshore areas) as those specified
in the equipment appendix (Appendix E) to maintain consistency between
different sections of the regulation and because the facility location
directly impacts the arrival time of response resources.
The specified time intervals in Table 3 of Appendix C are to be
used only to aid in the determination of whether a facility is a
``substantial harm facility.'' Once it is determined that a plan must
be developed for the facility, the owner or operator would consult
Appendix E to determine appropriate resource levels and response times.
The specified time intervals in Table 3 of Appendix C are less than the
Tier 1 response times specified in Appendix E for the corresponding
operating areas, because EPA assumes that, for purposes of determining
whether a facility is a ``substantial harm facility,'' no response
planning has been done. This conservative assumption is only used for
screening purposes and is not used for other aspects of the rulemaking.
Owners or operators are reminded that EPA has included at
Sec. 112.20(i) of the final rule an appeals process for, among other
things, the determination of substantial harm.
EPA believes that these times accurately estimate the times needed
to respond to spills from EPA-regulated facilities that have not pre-
planned their response to spills (i.e., a facility owner or operator
who has not pre-planned response activities would be able to contact a
local spill response company, coordinate response actions, and deploy
resources within 15 or 27 hours following discovery of the spill,
depending on facility location). In general, facilities located in
higher volume port areas have a higher density of response contractors
and resources nearby. Therefore, EPA estimated a shorter time interval
for these facilities compared with facilities located in all other
operating areas.
One commenter noted an inaccuracy in the formula proposed in
Attachment C-III of Appendix C of the proposed rule, Oil Transport on
Still Water, (which converts an oil discharge volume into a surface
area), when the volume of the spilled oil is converted to units other
than cubic meters. In Attachment C-III of Appendix C of today's rule,
EPA incorporates a conversion factor into the formula to address the
inaccuracy by allowing facility owners and operators to directly input
the worst case discharge volume in gallons and to obtain a spill
surface area in square feet.
EPA requested comment on the appropriateness of using specified
distances to environmentally sensitive areas (fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments) in the substantial harm criterion. Many
commenters suggested that EPA allow a facility owner or operator to use
alternative methods or set distances to determine the appropriate
distance from the facility for screening purposes. In today's rule, the
Agency allows the use of formulas comparable to the Appendix C formula
to calculate the planning distance to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments or public drinking water intakes (see Sec. 112.20(a)(3)
and Sec. 112.20(f)(i) (B) and (C)), provided that facility owners and
operators attach documentation to the response plan cover sheet on the
reliability and analytical soundness of the comparable formula. EPA
believes that calculating a planning distance using the formulas in
Appendix C is more appropriate than using set distances to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments, because of the wide variety of
site-specific conditions that may surround a particular facility and
the various flow characteristics of water bodies.
In Sec. 112.2 of the proposed rule, EPA defined ``injury'' as ``a
measurable adverse change, either long- or short-term, in the chemical
or physical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting
either directly or indirectly from exposure to a discharge of oil, or
exposure to a product of reactions resulting from a discharge of oil.''
This definition is adopted from the Natural Resource Damage Assessments
(NRDA) rule at 43 CFR 11.14(v) to assist facility owners and operators
and RAs to determine whether a facility is located at a distance from
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments such that an oil spill
will cause ``injury.'' The Agency requested comment on the
appropriateness of defining ``injury'' in such a manner.
Several commenters stated that the definition of ``injury'' was so
broad that it would include almost every facility that stores greater
than or equal to one million gallons of oil and would result in
excessive regulation, economic burden, and unnecessary lawsuits.
Several commenters stated that EPA should limit the definition of
``injury'' so that facility owners and operators would only have to
consider the potential to cause substantial harm, rather than the
potential to cause any harm. Some commenters supported EPA's choice to
incorporate a definition of ``injury'' that was already promulgated
under other regulatory programs.
The Agency carefully considered comments on the definition of
``injury'' and consulted with NOAA and other Natural Resource Trustees
agencies as to the merits of using an alternative definition. EPA
maintains that the definition of ``injury'' is appropriate to assess
substantial harm based on the extensive experience of Natural Resource
Trustees in conducting evaluations of oil spill impacts on natural
resources. Federal officials authorized by the President and the
authorized representatives of Indian tribes and State and foreign
governments act as public trustees to recover damages to natural
resources under their trusteeship. Under the NCP, each trustee has
responsibilities for protection of resources; mitigation and assessment
of damage; and restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition
of resources equivalent to those affected. Because of the need to
maintain consistency with the NCP, the Agency believes it is
appropriate to use the definition of injury as established by the
Natural Resource Trustees for this rule. In the preamble to the NRDA
final rule (51 FR 27706), DOI indicates that the injury definition does
not measure insignificant changes and that the definition relies on
changes that have been demonstrated to adversely impact the resources
in question, or services provided by those resources. EPA notes that
there is nothing in the definition of ``injury'' that refers to the
term harm (or substantial harm), and that the term ``injury'' is not
equivalent to these terms. The potential for a spill to cause any
injury to a fish and wildlife and sensitive environment coupled with a
total oil storage capacity of greater than or equal to 1 million
gallons forms one of the substantial harm criteria. The criterion is
designed as an indicator of the potential for a discharge from a
facility to cause substantial harm to the environment.
The Agency requested comment on whether private drinking water
supplies should be included in the criteria for determination of
substantial harm. Some commenters supported the same treatment for
private water intakes as for public water supplies if the private
drinking water supplies are surface water intakes rather than
groundwater wells. One commenter recommended that the RA consider
private drinking water intakes in the determination of significant and
substantial harm. Conversely, several commenters opposed the use of
proximity to private drinking water intakes as a criterion for the
substantial harm determination because most private drinking water
intakes use groundwater. These commenters stated that such private
intakes would be difficult to identify and locate. Two commenters
suggested that EPA should define public drinking water intakes based on
the definition of ``public water systems'' at 40 CFR 143.2(c) which
excludes private water intakes.
EPA agrees with the commenters that most private drinking water
intakes are difficult to identify and that most use groundwater. In
today's rule, EPA does not include proximity to private drinking water
intakes as a criterion for use by owners or operators to identify
whether their facility is a ``substantial harm facility.'' The RA,
however, may consider a facility's proximity to private drinking water
intakes in the determination of substantial harm or significant and
substantial harm. In Appendix C to today's rule, EPA clarifies that
public drinking water intakes are analogous to ``public water systems''
as defined at 40 CFR 143.2.
Several commenters opposed the requirements to calculate a planning
distance to determine substantial harm if a facility has adequate
secondary containment. Some commenters stated that the planning
distance calculations should reflect the presence of secondary and
tertiary containment and give credit for flow reduction measures and
inspection programs. The Conference Report states that in defining a
worst case discharge as the largest foreseeable discharge at a
facility, Congress intended to describe a spill that is worse than
either the largest spill to date or the maximum probable spill for the
facility type. (Conference Report No. 101-653, p. 147.) EPA interprets
this language to mean that facility response plans should address cases
where prevention measures could fail. Indeed, as detailed in the
Technical Background Document\4\ supporting this rulemaking, in some
cases, containment systems fail resulting in the discharge of oil to
surface waters. Therefore, EPA maintains that proximity to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments and drinking water intakes must be
considered despite the presence of secondary containment. This is an
example of EPA's long established policy set forth in
Sec. 112.1(d)(1)(i), that the determination of proximity ``shall be
based solely upon a consideration of the geographical, locational
aspects of the facility (such as proximity to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, land contour, drainage, etc.) and shall exclude
consideration of manmade features such as dikes . . .'' It is also
consistent with the statutory definition of worst case discharge for
vessels, which includes the entire cargo tank capacity, whether or not
the vessel has a double hull or other spill prevention measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\The Technical Background Document to Support the
Implementation of the OPA Response Plan Requirements, U.S. EPA,
February 1993. Available for inspection in the Superfund Docket,
room M2615, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA Determination
Several commenters indicated their support for the provision in the
proposed rule that states factors that the RA may use
(Sec. 112.20(f)(2)) to determine whether a facility is a ``substantial
harm facility'' irrespective of the substantial harm criteria in
Sec. 112.20(f)(1). One of these commenters suggested that this
authority provides a system of checks and balances that should ensure
that all facilities subject to the regulation will be required to
comply. Other commenters expressed concern that the authority granted
to the RA in Sec. 112.20(b)(1) provides the RA with too much discretion
in determining whether a facility is a ``substantial harm facility.''
Some of these commenters suggested that the criteria used by the RA
should be objective and consistent with the criteria used by owners or
operators, and expressed confusion about the RA's authority to use
``other site-specific characteristics or environmental factors'' to
select facilities. One commenter indicated that, as proposed, the RA
would not be required to look at the relationship of the specified
criteria provided in Sec. 112.20(f)(1) (e.g., the RA may consider that
one criterion is enough to require a response plan to be submitted).
One commenter felt that there is insufficient justification in the
proposed rule for allowing the RA to select facilities that do not meet
the criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(1).
EPA recognizes that RAs possess unique knowledge of Region-specific
considerations that may have a bearing on whether to identify a
facility as a ``substantial harm facility.'' This RA authority is
necessary, because the OPA through E.O. 12777 directs EPA ultimately to
determine which facilities are ``substantial harm facilities'' and
``significant and substantial harm facilities.'' As such, EPA retains
the RA determination component of substantial harm selection in the
final rule. In Sec. 112.20(b)(1), EPA clarifies that if such a
determination is made, the Regional Administrator shall notify the
facility owner or operator in writing and shall provide a basis for the
determination. Further, EPA notes that an appeals process is included
to allow owners or operators the opportunity to challenge the RA's
determination.
EPA is developing a guidance document to assist the RA with the
identification of ``substantial harm facilities.'' This guidance would
outline specific screening procedures for use by RAs and will foster
consistency in the way the substantial harm factors are applied.
Further, RAs may use ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans:
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (see Appendix E to this
part, section 10, for availability) and information from the ACPs, when
available, to identify fish and wildlife and sensitive environments as
part of the substantial harm determination process.
Public Petitions
Section 112.20(f)(2)(ii) allows any person who believes that a
facility may be a ``substantial harm facility'' to provide information
to the RA through a petition for his or her use in determining whether
the facility should be required to prepare and submit a response plan.
This petition must include a discussion of how the substantial harm
factors in Sec. 112.20(f)(2)(i) apply to the facility.
Commenters in favor of allowing the public to have input in the
determination of whether a facility is a ``substantial harm facility''
argued that the public should play a larger role in the selection and
review process. However, many of these commenters argued that the
proposed procedures are too burdensome for petitioners and that the
facility owner or operator should have the responsibility to provide
the necessary information. Commenters against allowing public petitions
felt that the public petition process would be burdensome to EPA and
the regulated community. Some commenters argued that the public does
not have enough information to participate in the process.
In today's final rule, EPA establishes a process to allow the
public the opportunity to provide input on a voluntary basis and
welcomes such involvement. The Agency has decided to broaden the
language in Sec. 112.20(f)(2)(ii) from the proposed rule to clarify
that other government agencies in addition to the public may provide
information to RAs for the determination of substantial harm and that
the RA shall consider such petitions and respond in an appropriate
amount of time. The Agency believes that information provided by the
public and other government agencies will assist rather than burden the
RA. However, reviewing non-transportation- related facilities' response
plans for approval is a governmental function delegated to EPA.
EPA wishes to clarify that it is not necessary for petitioners to
determine quantitatively whether the facility meets one of the specific
criteria in Sec. 112.20(f)(1), but rather to provide a reasonable
basis, from the factors in Sec. 112.20(f)(2)(i), for asserting that the
facility may pose a risk to the environment. A petition that fails to
document the reasons why a facility should be classified as a
``substantial harm facility'' (e.g., the facility is near a drinking
water supply or a priority sensitive environment listed in an ACP, the
facility has a history of frequent spills or poor maintenance, etc.)
may not be considered by the RA. However, petitioners would not have to
provide detailed analyses and calculations. Other avenues of
participation for the public in the response planning process include
involvement in the ACP development process or participation in the
LEPC.
Determination of Significant and Substantial Harm
As discussed in Section II.A of this preamble, RAs will review
submitted plans to identify facilities that are ``significant and
substantial harm facilities'' using the substantial harm factors set
out in Sec. 112.20(f)(2), and additional significant and substantial
harm factors in Sec. 112.20(f)(3).
Several commenters supported the proposed factors to determine
significant and substantial harm, indicating that EPA's use of risk-
based screening criteria for substantial harm and significant and
substantial harm determinations would reduce the prospect of excessive
regulation for those facilities that do not pose a significant risk.
Others indicated that EPA should define more clearly the criteria that
the RA would use to determine significant and substantial harm to help
ensure consistent application of the criteria both within an EPA Region
and across EPA Regions. Several commenters suggested that EPA develop a
screening mechanism that would provide the RA with some concrete
guidelines to follow but still allow some latitude to exercise his or
her expert judgment.
EPA Headquarters has provided written guidance\5\ to Regional
personnel to assist them to determine which facilities are
``significant and substantial harm facilities.'' The guidance provides
a series of screens and instructions on how to evaluate the risk
factors included at Sec. 112.20(f)(3) of today's rule. In general, the
screens provide various combinations of the risk factors that indicate
increased levels of risk posed by a particular facility. For example, a
facility that has an oil storage capacity greater than 1 million
gallons and meets more than one of the risk-based criteria described in
Sec. 112.20(f)(1)(ii) (A) through (D) would be a ``significant and
substantial harm facility.'' The guidance document will help ensure a
greater degree of consistency in Regional determinations of
``significant and substantial harm facilities,'' but preserves the RA's
ability to make case-by-case determinations based on unique facility-
or location-specific concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\``Interim Guidance for the Determination of Significant and
Substantial Harm,'' U.S. EPA, June 15, 1993. Available for
inspection in the Superfund Docket, Room M2615, at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter noted that EPA and the USCG chose different
approaches for separating ``substantial harm facilities'' and
``significant and substantial harm facilities.'' The commenter said
that EPA's case-by-case determination of significant and substantial
harm is more subjective than the USCG's, and has the potential for
treating facility owners unequally.
EPA believes that its approach to determine substantial harm and
significant and substantial harm is consistent with the OPA and does
not diverge from the USCG's approach. The agencies' approaches are
parallel in that each accounts for the higher risk of harm associated
with transfers of high volumes of oil over water (i.e., at locations
adjacent to navigable waters). Because EPA regulates a larger and more
diverse universe of facilities than the USCG, it would be difficult to
publish a few general criteria that include the majority of high-risk
facilities without also including many low-risk facilities. Therefore,
as discussed previously, EPA decided to implement a substantial harm
selection process with two components (i.e., published criteria and an
RA determination). The OPA Conference Report explicitly states that
significant and substantial harm criteria should include, at a minimum,
oil storage capacity, location of fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments, and location of potable water supplies. (H.R. Rep. No.
101-653, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 1991 at p. 150.) These criteria are
among the elements the RAs may consider, as set forth in
Secs. 112.20(f) (1) and (2) in making the significant and substantial
harm determination. Further, where the Conference Report states that
the criteria should not result in selection of facilities based solely
on the size or age of storage tanks (See H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, 101st
Cong., 2d Sess. 1990 at p. 150), it implies that these may be among the
criteria. EPA does not agree that its case-by-case approach to identify
a ``significant and substantial harm facility'' is overly subjective.
As previously discussed, EPA has provided written guidance to Regions
on the determination of significant and substantial harm to promote a
more objective and consistent approach across all EPA Regions.
As the President's designee for regulating non-transportation-
related onshore facilities, EPA has decided that Region-specific and
facility-specific information is relevant in the determination of
significant and substantial harm, because these elements may vary
materially between Regions and facilities. For example, some facilities
may be located on karst or unstable terrain because of the presence of
underground streams or fault lines while other facilities are situated
on more stable terrain where the risk of discharge may be lower.
Some commenters argued that the RA should review and approve plans
submitted by ``substantial harm facilities.'' They indicated that
without such approval, these plans are likely to vary widely in their
capacity to assure adequate response, and may even propose
inappropriate use of dispersants or other treatment technologies.
EPA agrees that a review of plans from ``substantial harm
facilities'' may be desirable. The OPA legislative history indicates
that criteria should be developed to select for review and approval
plans for onshore facilities that could cause both significant and
substantial harm. (See H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.
1990 at p. 150.) Congress expected that only some proportion of all
submitted onshore facility response plans would be reviewed and
approved. The highest priority for EPA's use of limited resources must
be directed to those facilities on which Congress has focused. The
Agency has and will continue to undertake a limited review of all plans
to identify ``significant and substantial harm facilities.''
Submission and Resubmission Process
In Secs. 112.20(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) of the proposed rule, EPA
proposed that newly constructed or modified facilities, which become
subject to the response plan requirements, must prepare and submit a
response plan prior to the start of operations of the new facility or
modified portions of the facility. For unplanned changes that result in
a facility meeting the substantial harm screening criteria, EPA
proposed to allow the facility owner or operator six months to prepare
and submit a response plan. Several commenters urged EPA to give owners
and operators time following completion of construction or modification
to prepare and submit a response plan to EPA (implying that operations
should be allowed to proceed before submission of the response plan).
Most commenters felt that the six-month time period was sufficient for
submitting a facility response plan after unplanned changes.
EPA does not require owners or operators to prepare and submit a
plan before beginning or completing construction, but prior to the
handling, storing, or transporting of oil. An owner or operator can
prepare a plan during the construction phase, and complete and submit
it before the facility is ready to come on line. EPA recognizes that
changes to a facility's operations are common during the start-up phase
of a new facility or new component of a facility. As stated in the
proposed rule preamble (58 FR 8829), adjustments to the response plan
can be made and submitted to the Agency after an operational trial
period of 60 days. In today's final rule, the Agency adds this
recommendation as a requirement at Sec. 112.20(a)(2)(ii) and (iii)
(Sec. 112.20(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) of the proposed rule) and clarifies
that adjustments to the plan to reflect changes that occur at the
facility during the start-up phase must be submitted after an
operational trial period of 60 days. EPA believes that this revision
will ensure that the information contained in the plan is reflective of
the normal operating conditions at the facility.
Section 311(j)(5)(C) of the CWA states that facility response plans
must be updated periodically, and under section 311(j)(5)(D), EPA (as
the President's delegatee) is required to review periodically, and, if
appropriate, approve each plan for a ``significant and substantial harm
facility.'' In Sec. 112.20(g), the proposed rule provided that owners
or operators must review relevant portions of the NCP and applicable
ACP annually and revise the response plan to ensure consistency with
these plans. Section 112.20(g) of the proposed rule also proposed to
require owners or operators to update their plans periodically when
changes at the facility warrant such updates. In Sec. 112.20(c), the
proposed rule stated that the RA would review periodically response
plans for ``significant and substantial harm facilities.'' No other
specific time periods for plan review were proposed, but in the
preamble EPA solicited comments on how frequently the RA should review
approved response plans.
Several commenters suggested that the rule should provide definite
time periods for plan review, and some supported annual plan review by
each facility. Many commenters had an opinion about the frequency of
review of approved plans by the RA. Some supported a three-year time
period, but the majority preferred five years. A few commenters
expressed concern that specific reevaluation and reapproval intervals
were not part of the proposed rule.
As described in the proposed rule, the owner or operator of a
``substantial harm facility'' must review the NCP and the ACP annually
and revise the plan, if necessary, to be consistent with these
documents. (See Sec. 112.20(g)(2).) To clarify other review
requirements, EPA has reorganized Sec. 112.20(g) by removing the
requirement for periodic review and update of the plan from paragraph
(g)(1) and moving it to new paragraph (g)(3). In Sec. 112.20(c) of the
final rule, EPA revises paragraph (c)(4) to indicate that approved
plans will be reviewed by the RA periodically on a schedule established
by the RA provided that the period between plan reviews does not exceed
five years. As discussed previously, RAs may choose to stagger such
reviews to facilitate the review process. This five-year time period is
consistent with the USCG interim final rule for MTR facilities. (See 33
CFR part 154.) Within the five-year period, EPA will undertake a full
reevaluation of the plan and, if necessary, require amendments. With
regard to commenters' concerns that specific review intervals were not
identified in the proposal, periodic review is expressly required by
OPA, and EPA requested comment on what review interval would be
appropriate (See 58 FR 8828).
Proposed Sec. 112.20(d) would require owners or operators of
``significant and substantial harm facilities'' to revise and resubmit
the plan for approval within 60 days of each material change at the
facility. EPA revises Sec. 112.20(d)(1) to indicate that owners or
operators of all facilities for which a response plan is required
(``substantial harm facilities'' and ``significant and substantial harm
facilities'') must revise the plan (and resubmit relevant portions to
the RA) when there are facility changes that materially may affect the
response to a worst case discharge. This change is necessary to ensure
that EPA receives the necessary information to determine if
``substantial harm facilities'' undergo changes that could lead to
their being designated as ``significant and substantial harm
facilities.'' The requirement for the RA to review for approval changes
to plans for ``significant and substantial harm facilities'' that was
proposed at Sec. 112.20(d)(1) has been moved to new Sec. 112.20(d)(4).
Some commenters supported the 60-day time period, some thought it was
too short, and others thought it was too long. One commenter pointed
out that proposed Sec. 112.20(d)(2) implied that material changes must
be approved prior to being made. A few commenters requested
clarification on which material changes trigger resubmission, and two
commenters opposed resubmitting the entire plan, rather than a plan
amendment. EPA requested comments on the proposal in Sec. 112.20(d)(2)
that owners and operators must submit changes to the emergency
notification list to the RA as these changes occur, without
resubmitting the plan for approval. Some commenters supported the
proposal and others opposed it as an unnecessary burden.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, a material change
is one that could affect the adequacy of a facility's response
capabilities. The material changes listed in the final rule are not
inclusive, but are similar to those in the USCG regulations at 33 CFR
154.1065 for revisions that must be submitted by a MTR facility for
inclusion in an existing plan or for approval. Because of the scope of
facilities that EPA regulates, it is difficult to provide a definitive
list of all material changes that would be appropriate for regulated
facilities under all circumstances. EPA's intent in including those
changes listed in Sec. 112.20(d)(1)(i) through (iv) is to describe
those types of changes that are so significant in nature that they
should trigger revision of the response plan and submission of the new
information to EPA for review.
EPA clarifies in Sec. 112.20(d) (1) and (2) that a change in the
identity of an OSRO(s) is a material change requiring approval only if
it results in a material change in support capabilities. However, a
copy of any such change must be provided to the RA. Paragraph (d)(1)(v)
specifies that any other changes that materially affect implementation
of the response plan would trigger submission. This requirement allows
the RA discretion to determine on a site-specific basis what changes
may require submission because they materially affect implementation of
the facility's response plan. The purpose of proposed Sec. 112.20(d)(2)
was to clarify that certain changes, such as revised names or telephone
numbers, do not require RA approval but must be included in updating
the plan. To avoid confusion, the word ``prior'' has been removed in
the final rule. EPA does not intend minor changes to facility
operations (e.g., small fluctuations in the number of product
transfers) or response planning procedures (e.g., changes in the
internal alerting procedures) to trigger submission.
The 60-day time period for submitting revised portions of the plan
as a result of a material change is retained in the final rule. EPA
believes the 60-day time period is reasonable and is consistent with
the intent of the OPA, while giving facility owners or operators
flexibility to comply with the response plan requirements in a timely
manner. Furthermore, to ease the burden on facility owners or
operators, EPA revises Sec. 112.20(d)(1) in the final rule to indicate
that the owner or operator must submit only relevant portions of the
plan (i.e., those portions that were revised to reflect the material
change) and not the entire response plan. This change will facilitate
the process to revise and submit required information within 60 days of
the change. RAs will review submitted information for approval and
notify owners or operators within a reasonable time if the plan
amendments are unacceptable.
Appeals Process
In the proposed rule, the Agency requested comment on allowing the
owner or operator to participate in and appeal the RA's determination
of substantial harm and significant and substantial harm, and the
disapproval of a facility response plan.
Several commenters were concerned that lack of an appeals process
would deprive facility owners or operators of their due process. Many
commenters supported a formal appeals process, while others stated that
an exchange of information before an appeal would assist the RA in
making a final determination. Others preferred a combined appeals
process, with the first stage of an appeal involving an informal
exchange of information followed, if necessary, by a formal appeals
process (such as described in Sec. 112.4(f)) to ensure due process.
Several commenters requested a process by which a facility could be
removed from the category of substantial harm or significant and
substantial harm because of improvements at the facility that lead to
reduced risk to the environment.
EPA recognizes the importance of allowing facility owner or
operators to present relevant information, and therefore includes in
Sec. 112.20(i) of today's final rule a two-part appeals process. The
first stage allows a facility owner or operator to submit to the RA a
request for reconsideration that includes information and data to
support the request. The RA would evaluate the submitted information
and reach a decision on the facility's risk classification or the
status of plan approval (including whether changes to a facility's
worst case discharge planning volume are necessary for approval) as
rapidly as possible. EPA expects that the request for reconsideration
process will be the primary mechanism to address disputes over EPA
decisions. However, a follow-up process will also be available for
appeal of the RA's determination to the Administrator of EPA using
procedures similar to those in Sec. 112.4(f).
The appeals processes described in the preceding paragraph are also
available to owners or operators of facilities that have been
classified as substantial harm or significant and substantial harm for
some time and who believe that, because of an unplanned event (e.g., a
significant change to the ACP's list of protection priorities) or
improvements at the facility (e.g., construction of adequate secondary
containment or an improved spill history), the facility now poses a
lower risk of harm to the environment.
Certification of Non-Substantial Harm
EPA proposed in Sec. 112.20(e) to require that owners or operators
of those regulated facilities not submitting response plans complete
and maintain at the facility, with the SPCC Plan, a certification form
that indicates that the facility was determined by the owner or
operator not to be a ``substantial harm facility'' as indicated by the
flowchart contained in Appendix C.
Several commenters supported EPA's proposal to allow facilities to
self- certify when they do not meet the criteria for substantial harm
and agreed that submission of the form to EPA was unnecessary. However,
other commenters were concerned that there is no outside review or
verification of a facility owner's or operator's evaluation of the
substantial harm criteria. Those commenters suggested that the rule be
amended to require officials from EPA or some other agency (e.g., the
State water pollution control agency, the SERC, the LEPCs, or the
natural resource management agencies) review determinations and
calculations made by facility owners or operators who have not
submitted facility response plans. Others requested that EPA provide
more assistance to ensure that certification is done properly (e.g., a
hotline or guidance manual). Several commenters indicated that
completing the form was burdensome, especially to small facilities, and
questioned the benefits of completing and maintaining the form.
Today, EPA finalizes at Sec. 112.20(e) the requirement to complete
and maintain a certification form as it was proposed in the proposed
rule. EPA maintains that it is not necessary to submit the form to the
RA or other government officials. EPA believes that the certification
form does not involve a major effort to complete and has value as an
enforcement tool and as a record of awareness of response planning
requirements. Facility owners or operators can, if necessary, consult
with appropriate Regional personnel or the SPCC Information Line (202-
260-2342) for additional information on evaluating the criteria in
Sec. 112.20(f)(1) and completing accompanying certification form.
Agency agrees that verification of a facility's determination may
sometimes be appropriate. EPA anticipates that during facility
inspections, Regional personnel will review the certification form and
other information for facilities without a response plan.
Model Response Plan
Today, EPA finalizes the model response plan in Appendix F (which
has been relabeled from the proposed rule where it was called Appendix
G) with a series of minor changes. These changes are to clarify certain
provisions, improve the organization of the model plan, and ensure
greater consistency with the response plan rules of other Federal
agencies.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that owners or operators
identify and describe the duties of the facility's ``emergency response
coordinator'' in the facility response plan. This person was to be the
``qualified individual'' required by section 311(j) of the CWA, and
would have full authority, including contracting authority, to
implement removal actions. Proposed Sec. 112.20(h)(3)(ix) set out the
duties of the emergency response coordinator. The USCG's interim final
rule (58 FR 7330, February 5, 1993) requires the owner or operator to
name a ``qualified individual'' who has the duties of EPA's ``emergency
response coordinator.'' Several commenters suggested EPA and the USCG
adopt uniform terms in their final rules for identifying this
individual. One commenter specifically suggested that EPA replace
``emergency response coordinator'' with the USCG's term, ``qualified
individual.''
EPA agrees, and has changed the term ``emergency response
coordinator'' wherever it appears in today's rule to ``qualified
individual.'' Although EPA is not amending the necessary qualifications
or description of duties for the qualified individual, the Agency
stresses that the qualified individual should be able to respond
immediately (i.e., within 2 hours) to a spill at the facility.
In section 1.1 of Appendix G of the proposed rule (Appendix F in
the final rule), the Agency indicated the Emergency Response Action
Plan (ERAP) shall include a description of immediate actions, and
referenced section 1.7 of the model plan. Several commenters requested
clarification on what should be described in this section. To clarify
what constitutes a description of immediate actions, EPA has changed
the reference for immediate actions to section 1.7.1, which focuses on
the implementation of response actions. For the purpose of the ERAP,
immediate actions include, at a minimum: (1) Stopping the flow of
spilled material (e.g., securing pumps, closing valves); (2) warning
personnel; (3) shutting off ignition sources (e.g., motors, electrical
circuits, open flames); (4) initiating containment; (5) notifying the
National Response Center; and (6) notifying appropriate State and local
officials. A sample form for describing immediate actions in the plan
is also included in Appendix F.
In Sec. 112.20(h)(3)(vii) of the proposed rule, EPA proposed to
require facility owners or operators to include plans for evacuation of
facilities and surrounding communities to ensure the safety of
individuals that are at high risk in the event of a spill or other
release (this information was also to be included in the emergency
response action plan). Several commenters stated that requiring
facilities to assume primary responsibility for the development of
evacuation plans for the surrounding community is unreasonable. These
commenters stated that Federal, State, and local agencies, which have
expertise in emergency evacuation, are responsible for the preparation
and implementation of community evacuation plans.
EPA does not intend for facilities to develop community evacuation
plans, but any plans affecting the area surrounding the facility must
be referenced in the response plan. Sections 112.20 (h)(1)(vi) and
(h)(3)(vii) are revised to clarify the requirement to reference
community evacuation plans. Facility owners or operators should contact
the Fire Department and LEPC to assure coordination with existing
community evacuation plans.
In section 1.4.3 of proposed Appendix G (Appendix F in this final
rule), EPA recommended that facility owners or operators complete a
quantitative analysis of spill potential to aid in developing discharge
scenarios and response techniques, and consider factors such as tank
age, spill history, horizontal range of a potential spill, and
vulnerability to natural disasters. Several commenters stated that the
analysis was unnecessary and burdensome, and requested guidance about
the level of effort the Agency expects to be expended to analyze a
facility's spill potential (e.g., tank by tank evaluation, general site
study).
In response to commenters' concerns, EPA has reworded section 1.4.3
of the appendix by deleting the word ``quantitative'' from the
description of the spill probability analysis. This should decrease the
burden on the regulated community by giving facility owners and
operators the flexibility to determine what factors to consider and
allowing them to perform a more general analysis, including
quantitative and/or qualitative factors, using the information in
section 1.4.3 of the model plan as a guide.
In section 1.8 of Appendix G of the proposed rule, EPA proposed to
require facilities to maintain training and meeting logs in the
response plan to aid facility owners, operators, and employees in spill
prevention awareness and response requirements. Several commenters
stated that including logs within the response plan would detract from
their effectiveness. In response to these commenters' concerns, the
Agency indicates in Sec. 112.20(h)(8)(iv) and in Appendix F of the
final rule that logs may be included in the facility response plan or
kept as an annex to the plan.
To facilitate the review of response plans for complexes, EPA
requires in today's final rule that the owner or operator of a complex
identify, on the facility diagram submitted with the response plan, the
interface between portions of the complex that are regulated by
different agencies. (See section 1.9 of Appendix F.) EPA requires this
interface to be consistent with the USCG's interim final rule for MTR
facilities.
Facility Response Plan Certification
In Section III.G of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
requested comment on a requirement for certification by a Registered
Professional Engineer (PE) for certain portions of the response plan,
such as determination of worst case discharge. EPA also solicited
comment on which professions may be suitable to evaluate and certify
the contents of the response plan if EPA determines a certification
requirement is appropriate. In particular, the Agency requested comment
on the suitability of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers to perform
the plan certification function.
The Agency received many comments on the issue of certification of
response plans. In general, commenters expressed support for the
rulemaking effort and the certification provision, and sought EPA's
consideration on the suitability of different professions to review and
approve response plans. Among the remaining commenters (those not
affiliated with an environmental professional organization), almost
two-thirds felt that certification was unnecessary and cited cost, PE's
unfamiliarity with the facility, and EPA review as the major reasons
for their opposition. Some commenters indicated that, at most,
certification should be limited to construction or structural aspects
of the facility described in the response plan, because oil spill
response training and knowledge is not widespread among many
environmental professionals. Others said they would favor certification
only if an in-house employee could perform the function. In addition,
many commenters who supported the certification provision requested
that EPA develop uniform standards for certifying, ranking, and
approving the use of different types of environmental professionals.
The Agency considered these comments and has decided not to require
plan certification by an outside professional in the final rule.
Facility response plans from ``significant and substantial harm
facilities'' are already subject to review and approval by EPA. In
addition, facility owners and operators are required to certify (on the
cover sheet in Appendix F) that the information contained in the plan
is accurate. EPA believes that this certification will be sufficient to
ensure accurate and comprehensive implementation of the response plan
requirements and that additional certification would be unnecessary and
burdensome to the regulated community. This approach is consistent with
the approaches taken by RSPA and the USCG in implementing facility
response plan requirements.
Contract or Other Approved Means
In Sec. 112.2 of the proposed rule, EPA defined ``contracts or
other approved means'' to include written contractual agreements with
an OSRO(s), written certifications, active membership in an OSRO, and
other specific arrangements approved by the RA. EPA's intent in
including the fourth option was to allow the RA discretion to accept
alternate arrangements not covered by the first three mechanisms that
would also satisfy the OPA requirement to ensure the availability of
private personnel and equipment necessary to respond, to the maximum
extent practicable, to a worst case discharge.
The comments addressing this issue were mixed. Commenters, in
general, requested that EPA's definition more closely mirror the
definition used in the USCG's interim final rule for MTR facilities.
(See 33 CFR 154.1028.) Some commenters requested that EPA adopt, in
addition to the proposed language, several additional methods that the
USCG included in its definition. One method provides an alternative for
use by all MTR facilities to ensure the availability of response
resources. The method requires a document that identifies the resources
of the OSRO(s) capable of being provided within stipulated response
times in the specific geographic area; includes the parties'
acknowledgement that the OSRO(s) will commit the resources in the event
of a required response; allows the USCG to verify the availability of
documented resources; and is referenced in the response plan. Another
USCG method, acceptable for ``substantial harm facilities'' and MTR
facilities that handle, store, or transport Group 5 persistent oils and
non-petroleum oils, permits the identification of an OSRO(s) and
resources willing to respond within stipulated response times in the
specified geographic area. This method does not require a contract
between the facility and OSRO(s), but requires the OSRO(s) to supply a
letter to the facility stating its willingness to respond to a
discharge at the facility and that it has the specified resources.
Commenters explained their preference for these two methods to ensure
consistency with the USCG's interim final rule for MTR facilities,
avoid different procedures for complexes, address small contractor
financial concerns, and reduce confusion among the regulatory agencies
reviewing plans to ensure response contractor capabilities.
Several commenters supported EPA's proposed definition citing its
greater simplicity and flexibility; however, these commenters stressed
that the RA be granted broad flexibility in exercising his or her
authority to determine appropriate ``other approved means.''
In today's final rule, the definition of ``contract or other
approved means'' has been revised to replace the term ``response
contractor'' with the term ``oil spill removal organization(s)'' to
match the USCG's language. For clarification, EPA also adds a
definition for ``oil spill removal organization'' in Sec. 112.2 of
today's rule. The definition is similar to that used in the USCG's
interim final rule for MTR facilities. An OSRO is defined as an entity
that provides response resources, and includes any for-profit or not-
for-profit contractor, cooperative, or in-house response resources that
have been established in a geographic area to provide required response
resources. These changes do not alter the meaning of the term
``contract or other approved means'' as originally proposed. The EPA
definition includes four means that owners or operators can use to
ensure the availability of required response resources. The first is a
written contract with an OSRO(s) (i.e., a response contractor). The
second is for the facility owner or operator to provide and operate
facility-owned equipment. The third is active membership in an OSRO(s)
(i.e., a local or Regional oil spill response cooperative).
Finally, EPA's fourth means has the flexibility inherent in the
USCG's previously referenced methods in that it allows all regulated
facilities to propose other means of demonstrating adequate response
capability, subject to approval by the appropriate RA. Among the kinds
of instruments which an RA might find a sufficient means of ensuring
availability of required resources is a document that incorporates the
elements set out in the USCG's interim final rule for MTR facilities at
33 CFR 154.1028(a)(4) (i) through (iii). For example, an RA might find
a document sufficient to ensure availability if it identified the
response resources being provided by the OSRO(s); set out the parties'
acknowledgement that the OSRO(s) intends to commit the resources in the
event of a response; permitted EPA to verify the availability of
resources through tests, inspection, and drills/exercises; and is
referenced in the response plan.
Maximum Extent Practicable
The OPA requires that a facility response plan be developed to
respond to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of
oil. The Conference Report states that to determine maximum extent
practicable, the President should ``consider the technological
limitations associated with oil spill removal, and the practical and
technical limits of the spill response capabilities of individual
owners and operators.'' (H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.
1991 at p. 150.)
In Sec. 112.2 of the proposed rule, EPA proposed to define
``maximum extent practicable'' as ``the limitations used to determine
oil spill planning resources and response times for on-water recovery,
shoreline protection, and cleanup for worst case discharges from
onshore non-transportation-related facilities in adverse weather. The
appropriate limitations for such planning are available technology and
the practical and technical limits on an individual facility owner or
operator.''
Numerous commenters objected to EPA's definition. Many of the
commenters argued that EPA did not consider economic limits in defining
maximum extent practicable, and that Congress intended for EPA to
evaluate costs and other economic considerations in defining the term.
Two commenters suggested that EPA amend the term to include the word
``economic.'' Another commenter stated that Congress intended for the
Agency to apply the concept based on what is technologically and
economically feasible for an individual owner or operator, and EPA was
remiss in failing to engage the industry in a discussion of costs from
the industry's perspective. This last point, they argued, was
compounding the USCG's failure to engage the industry in a ``full-blown
discussion of costs'' during its Negotiated Rulemaking on the vessel
oil response plan rule. The commenter argued further that in
determining ``maximum extent practicable'' for owners and operators,
EPA was required to factor in public response resources.
One commenter said that there are so few oil spill response
organizations available that the demand for their services to meet
worst case discharge planning volumes would place an undue financial
burden on facility owners and operators who must procure those
services. Another commenter suggested a revision to the definition to
delegate authority to the RA to decide what ``maximum extent
practicable'' means. Some said that EPA should revise the definition to
make it more consistent with the USCG's.
EPA has factored costs into the definition of maximum extent
practicable through procedures contained in Appendix E to today's rule
to be used by owners or operators to determine appropriate levels of
response resources. (As discussed later in this preamble, the
requirements in Appendix E were prepared from a similar set of
instructions developed by the USCG.) For example, in determining what
is ``practicable,'' Appendix E sets caps for the facility on the amount
of response resources for which a facility owner or operator must
contract or ensure by other approved means. These caps reflect the
limits of currently available technology and private removal
capabilities, and will be adjusted upward to reflect anticipated
increases in private removal capabilities through the year 2003.
Appendix E also includes tiered arrival times for response resources so
that a facility owner or operator does not have to plan for all
required resources to be located at the facility or in its immediate
area.
With regard to the involvement of Federal response resources in
determining maximum extent practicable, EPA notes that a major
objective of the OPA amendments to section 311(j)(5) of the CWA is to
create a system in which private parties supply the bulk of response
resources needed for an oil spill response in a given area. A worst
case discharge will likely require the use of both public and private
resources. However, section 311(j)(5)(C)(iii) states specifically that
a facility owner or operator must identify and ensure by contract or
other approved means the availability of private personnel and
equipment necessary to remove to the maximum extent practicable a worst
case discharge. EPA cannot, in defining ``maximum extent practicable,''
abrogate this statutory requirement.
In response to the comment that the rule will benefit response
contractors at great cost to owners and operators, EPA notes that the
statute requires owners and operators to ensure the availability of
private resources. In setting out four ways to ensure availability
(only one of which is a written contractual agreement), EPA has
attempted to give private parties the maximum possible flexibility to
construct arrangements to meet this statutory objective.
EPA agrees with the commenters who suggested that the definition of
maximum extent practicable be made more consistent with the USCG's and
that the RA have the ability to evaluate ``maximum extent practicable''
in a given Region. Therefore, in Sec. 112.2 of the final rule, the
definition of ``maximum extent practicable'' is revised to be more
consistent with the USCG's and to include a provision on RA authority.
Other Definitional Changes
Commenters suggested that EPA and the USCG should better coordinate
certain parts of their respective regulations to allow complexes to
follow a single set of requirements. As discussed in Section I.C of
this preamble, EPA and the USCG participated in a series of cross-
agency meetings to facilitate consistency in response plan
requirements. In today's final rule, EPA has revised the definitions of
``adverse weather'' and ``contracts or other approved means'' in
Sec. 112.2 of the rule; added a definition of ``oil spill removal
organization'' in Sec. 112.2 of the rule; and revised ``Great Lakes,''
``higher volume port area,'' and ``inland area'' in Appendix C of the
rule to more closely follow the USCG's definitions in its interim final
rule for MTR facilities. In addition, EPA adds to Appendix E
definitions for the terms ``nearshore,'' ``ocean,'' ``operating area,''
and ``operating environment,'' also adopted from the USCG's interim
final rule for MTR facilities. These revisions are conforming changes
and are for the most part non-substantive. A summary of the changes
follows. (The definitions of ``contracts or other approved means'' and
``oil spill removal organization'' are discussed elsewhere in this
preamble.)
The definition of ``adverse weather'' is revised to
include references to weather conditions such as wave height, ice
conditions, temperatures, weather-related visibility, and currents
within the area in which the equipment is to function. These changes
result in an expanded definition of ``adverse weather'' that is as
consistent as possible with the USCG definition of the same term, that
incorporates relevant weather conditions which contribute to adverse
weather, and that maintains a standard against which to evaluate
weather conditions.
A definition of ``oil spill removal organization'' (OSRO)
has been added, because this term is included in the definition of
``contract or other approved means.''
The definition of ``Great Lakes'' is revised to match the
USCG's definition.
The definition of ``higher volume port area'' was revised
to add several port areas contained in the USCG's definition.
The definition of ``inland area'' was changed to remove
rivers and canals from the water bodies that are excluded in the USCG's
definition.
The definition of ``nearshore'' was added to ensure
greater consistency with the USCG's interim final rule for MTR
facilities and facilitate the use of Appendix E.
The definition of ``ocean'' as it applies to facilities in
EPA's jurisdiction was added to be consistent with the USCG's interim
final rule for MTR facilities and facilitate the use of Appendix E.
``Ocean'' describes the operating environment normally found in
nearshore areas.
The definition of ``operating area'' was added to be
consistent with the USCG's interim final rule for MTR facilities and
facilitate the use of Appendix E. ``Operating area'' means the
geographic location in which a facility is handling, storing, or
transporting oil. The four operating areas applicable to EPA's
jurisdiction are Rivers and Canals, Inland Areas, Nearshore, and Great
Lakes. The operating area classification may not be changed by the OSC
and the boundaries of each area are specified in their definition.
The definition of ``operating environment'' was added to
be consistent with the USCG's interim final rule for MTR facilities and
facilitate the use of Appendix E. ``Operating environment'' means the
conditions in which the response equipment is designed to function. The
four operating environments are Rivers and Canals, Inland Areas, Great
Lakes, and Oceans. The OSC may reclassify a specific body of water in
the ACP to better reflect conditions expected to be encountered in an
operating area during response activities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\The conditions present in each operating environment (i.e.,
significant wave height and sea state) are listed in Table 1 of
Appendix E and will normally be conditions present in each
corresponding operating area. For example, an owner or operator
whose facility is located on a river (i.e., the Rivers and Canals
operating area) will normally have to plan to respond to a spill
using equipment capable of functioning in the Rivers and Canals
operating environment, (i.e., the conditions described by a
significant wave height of less than or equal to 1 foot or a sea
state of 1). The Ocean operating environment normally describes the
conditions present in the Nearshore operating area (i.e.,
significant wave height of less than or equal to 6 feet and a sea
state between 3 and 4). While the OSC can not change the operating
area, he or she may change the operating environment for a given
location if it is determined that the new operating environment
better describes the conditions present at that location. Any
reclassification of a specific location must be done in the
appropriate ACP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These changes should eliminate confusion on the part of owners or
operators of complexes in complying with the response plan requirements
contained in today's rule, and facilitate the development of a single
plan with separate sections addressing each component of a complex
regulated by more than one agency.
Equipment Requirements
In Appendix F to the proposed rule (Appendix E in this final rule),
EPA provided methodologies to assist facility owners and operators in
determining the types and amounts of equipment and response times that
are needed to respond to spills of a given size. As discussed
previously, the methodologies were prepared from similar instructions
developed by the USCG and adapted to reflect the type and location of
facilities that EPA regulates. The Agency requested comment on the
procedures contained in Appendix F of the proposed rule for the
determination and evaluation of required response resources. In
addition, EPA solicited comment on whether the methodologies are
appropriate for planning for inland spills by owners or operators of
non-transportation-related onshore facilities.
Numerous comments were received on proposed Appendix F (Appendix E
in this final rule). In general, commenters requested that EPA and the
USCG work toward facilitating a greater degree of consistency in their
respective sets of equipment requirements. As discussed previously, a
series of cross-agency meetings were conducted to resolve differences
between the approaches taken by the various Federal agencies
implementing OPA requirements.
For reasons discussed earlier in this preamble, proposed Appendix F
has been renamed and relettered as Appendix E of today's final rule and
the mandatory nature of certain requirements has been clarified while
preserving flexibility for facilities with unique circumstances. Other
changes (including the definitional changes already discussed) have
been made to ensure consistency with Appendix C of the USCG's interim
final rule for MTR facilities. Consistency between the rulemakings will
help the regulated community to develop and implement response plans
efficiently. A discussion of the major issues raised by commenters on
the equipment appendix follows.
In the table in section 5.3 of the appendix, tiered response times
for facilities in the Great Lakes operating area were grouped with the
response times for the Higher Volume Port operating areas. Commenters
stated that EPA's tiered response times should match those used by the
USCG. To maintain consistency with the USCG, EPA has changed the Table
in section 5.3 of Appendix E. The Great Lakes have been grouped with
all other rivers, inland, and nearshore areas into Tiers 1, 2, and 3
with response times of 12, 36, and 60 hours, respectively. Conforming
changes are also included in section 7.2.3 of Appendix E.
Because of the frequency of spills to shallow waters and the need
for specialized recovery devices in these environments, EPA adds
section 5.6 to Appendix E. This section was adopted from the USCG's
interim final rule for MTR facilities and requires facility owners or
operators to ensure that resources are available for shallow water
response activities. The provisions indicate that at least 20 percent
of the on-water response equipment should be identified for operating
in water 6 feet deep or less.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that owners or operators
consider four groups of oil (the heavier oils were included in the
Group 4 oils) when evaluating response resources. Commenters stated
that EPA should adopt a separate category for oils with a specific
gravity greater than or equal to 1.0 and provide appropriate guidelines
to determine response resources for discharges of such oils. In today's
rule, EPA adds a category for Group 5 oils to the definition of
``persistent oils.'' Group 5 oils are oils with a specific gravity of
greater than or equal to 1.0. Because Group 5 oils sink or remain
suspended beneath the water's surface, the resources and techniques
that needed to respond to discharges of these types of oils are
different from those used to respond to discharges of oils that float
on water. Response resource requirements and the specific conditions
that owners and operators need to consider when planning to respond to
discharges of Group 5 oils are added in section 7.6 of Appendix E. To
ensure adequate response resource planning, EPA clarifies in section
7.2.2 of Appendix E that, in order to identify the required amount of
response equipment, facilities handling, storing, or transporting some
combination of Group 1 through 4 oils (e.g., a Group 1 oil and a Group
3 oil) must do separate calculations using the worksheet in Attachment
E-1 for each oil group on site except for those oil groups that
constitute 10 percent or less by volume of the total storage capacity
at the facility. Owners or operators must then select the oil group
that results in the largest on-water recovery volume to plan for the
amount of response resources for a worst case discharge. (Group 5 oils
should be addressed separately using the separate procedures to
determine response resources that are contained in Appendix E.)
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that owners or operators of
facilities that handle, store, or transport, non-petroleum oils
calculate an amount of response equipment by grouping all non-petroleum
oils as Group 4 oils and using the associated emulsification factors
and other parameters listed in the tables of Appendix F of the proposed
rule. Some commenters suggested that EPA establish separate response
plan requirements and selection criteria for owners or operators of
facilities that handle, store, or transport non-petroleum oils. These
commenters argued that fundamental chemical and physical differences
between petroleum and non-petroleum oils indicate the necessity for
different response techniques and equipment. Two of the commenters
stated that USCG regulations create separate response plan development
and evaluation criteria for non-petroleum oils, and one commenter
recommended that EPA adopt the USCG criteria. Some commenters stated
that for the purposes of this rulemaking, the term ``oil'' should
exclude non-petroleum oils.
EPA has determined that for the purposes of section 311(j)
planning, the OPA includes non-petroleum oils. The Agency notes that
the definition of ``oil'' in the Clean Water Act includes oil of any
kind, and that EPA uses this broad definition in 40 CFR part 110,
Discharge of Oil.
EPA agrees with commenters that certain equipment and strategies
used for petroleum oil spills may be inappropriate for non-petroleum
oil. The Agency further agrees that making its regulations match the
USCG's as nearly as practicable will reduce the prospects for confusion
among facility owners or operators--especially owners or operators of
complexes. Reducing confusion, in turn, increases compliance at the
least possible cost and expedites the development of a national oil
response planning program. Therefore, the Agency has decided to adapt
for non-transportation-related facilities under EPA jurisdiction, the
USCG approach to determine response resources for non-petroleum oils.
This adaptation means that in calculating required response
resources for non-petroleum facilities, an owner or operator will not
use emulsification or evaporation factors in Table 3 of Appendix E.
Rather, these facility owners or operators must: (1) Show procedures
and strategies for responding to the maximum extent practicable to a
worst case discharge; (2) show sources of equipment and supplies
necessary to locate, recover, and mitigate discharges; (3) demonstrate
that the equipment identified will work in the conditions expected in
the relevant geographic areas, and respond within the required times
(according to Table 1 of Appendix E); and (4) ensure the availability
of required resources by contract or other approved means. At such time
as there are results from research on such factors as emulsification or
evaporation of non-petroleum oil, additional changes may be made to the
rule for response resources for response planning for non-petroleum oil
facilities. Section 7.7 has been added to Appendix E to reflect these
changes.
Several commenters noted that the statutory definition of oil
includes a wide variety of oils, such as petroleum oils and non-
petroleum oils that can affect the environment by a variety of
mechanisms. Response strategies associated with non-petroleum oils may
differ from those associated with petroleum oils. Therefore, EPA is
providing these definitions to assist owners or operators in
distinguishing between oil types.
Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form including crude
oil, fuel oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil refuse, and refined products.
Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not
petroleum-based. It includes animal fat, vegetable oil, and other non-
petroleum oil.
Animal fat means a non-petroleum oil, fat, or grease
derived from animal oils not specifically identified elsewhere.
Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat derived
from plant seeds, nuts, kernels or fruits not specifically identified
elsewhere.
Other non-petroleum oil means a non-petroleum oil of any
kind that is not generally an animal fat or vegetable oil.
Additional changes made to the equipment requirements to match the
USCG's requirements are as follows:
Section 2.3.1 is added. This section indicates that the RA
may require owners or operators to identify in the facility response
plan boom that meets the boom criteria in Table 1 of Appendix E. If
documentation that the boom meets the Table 1 criteria is unavailable,
the RA may require that the boom be tested in accordance with ASTM
standards.
The on-water speed for determining the travel time to the
site of the discharge was adjusted from 10 knots to 5 knots in section
2.6 of Appendix E.
A provision was added to section 3.3.1 of Appendix E for
complexes with a marine transfer component to provide an amount of boom
that is equal to two times the length of the largest vessel that
transfers oil at the facility or 1,000 feet, whichever is greater. For
complexes, the non-transportation-related portion of the facility
response plan need not include reference to boom length if it is
already referenced in the MTR portion of the facility response plan.
Language was added to section 5.4 of Appendix E to
indicate that facility owners or operators whose planning volume
exceeds the caps in Table 5 of Appendix E must identify sources of
additional equipment; and clarify that facility owners or operators who
have identified USCG-classified OSROs are not required to list specific
quantities of available equipment in their response plan.
A provision was added to section 6.2 of Appendix E to
allow the RA to assign lower efficiency factors to equipment when
warranted.
A provision was added to section 6.3 of Appendix E to
allow the facility owner or operator to use equivalent tests of
effective daily recovery rates when approved by EPA.
Section 6.4 has been renumbered to 6.3.2 and provisions
added for RA determination of acceptable alternative efficiency factors
and effective daily recovery capacity.
Sections 7.4, 7.6.3, and 7.7.5 are added to clarify that
owners or operators must identify firefighting resources in addressing
response resources under the plan.
Criteria for containment boom in the ocean operating
environment were added to Table 1 of Appendix E.
EPA considered whether to adopt language in Appendix E to address
the use of dispersants and in-situ burning. Some commenters suggested
that the Agency address these response measures using Section 8 of the
USCG's Appendix C as a model. In today's final rule, EPA has included
some information from Section 8 of the USCG's Appendix C to address the
use of dispersants listed on the NCP Product Schedule. Use of
dispersants during spill response will be based on the provisions of
the NCP\7\ and applicable ACP. The USCG permits a limited offset
against required response resources if the use of dispersants or in-
situ burning is part of the response strategy. EPA will not include
such an offset for non-transportation-related facilities for two
reasons. To date, the ACPs do not allow use of dispersants in inland
waters and a facility under EPA jurisdiction in a coastal area cannot
use dispersants given the shallow water depth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Facility owners or operators may call the NCP Hotline at 202
260-2343 for information on the current NCP Product Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification of Response Capability
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA stated that it may use
various methods (including an OSRO certification or approval program)
during the plan review process to evaluate the availability and
adequacy of personnel and equipment to respond to a worst case
discharge, to the maximum extent practicable. The Agency has reviewed
the USCG OSRO classification process. This is a voluntary process
whereby OSROs can submit a description of their resources and
capabilities to the USCG National Strike Force Coordination Center and
be evaluated for classification according to their capabilities. This
process assists vessel and facility owners trying to locate appropriate
resources, and simplifies the planning process by allowing these owners
(who identify an OSRO(s) to meet response resource requirements) simply
to list the OSRO(s) and its classification in the response plan, rather
than list equipment recovery, containment, and storage resources in the
plan. The Agency specifically requested comments on the criteria to
evaluate OSRO agreements, a mechanism for approving OSROs, and the
advisability of establishing an OSRO approval process.
Most commenters agreed that EPA should establish its own OSRO
classification process or use the USCG's classification process to
streamline the development of facility response plans. Many of these
commenters agreed that EPA should coordinate with the USCG in planning
such a program, if it is to be different from the USCG's classification
process. Several commenters specifically mentioned that details of
response resources should not be required within the response plans.
These commenters felt that this information would distract from the
emergency purpose of the document. A few commenters offered additional
criteria to be used in the evaluation of response resources. In
dissent, some commenters requested a ``standardization approach'' using
performance criteria instead of a classification process.
EPA is not implementing a new OSRO classification program at this
time. Facility owners or operators can rely on the USCG OSRO
classification process or other appropriate OSRO evaluation programs in
place at the State level for defined geographic areas (e.g., State of
Washington) to identify in the plan resources to respond to a worst
case discharge, to the maximum extent practicable. However, where the
provider of response resources is not a USCG-classified OSRO (or State-
evaluated OSRO), RAs have the option to perform their own evaluation or
verification to ensure that equipment is available and is in proper
condition. In this evaluation, the RA may consider several factors
including: the proximity of response resources to the facility; the
adequacy of equipment and personnel resources; the OSRO's past
performance and safety record; the number of additional facilities the
OSRO has agreed to support; knowledge of state-of-the-art response
techniques; knowledge of local fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments and the ACP; the adequacy of the incident command
structure; record-keeping practices for personnel safety equipment; and
proficiency in spill management. This evaluation may involve visiting
such organizations to determine whether equipment is available and in
good working order. Facility owners or operators also should consider
such factors when they evaluate the capabilities of an OSRO(s) to be
listed in the response plan. RAs also may evaluate an OSRO's
capabilities (including the facility owner's equipment and response
resources when this is the case) during PREP area drills/exercises. EPA
chose not to adopt a specific classification program of its own to
avoid an additional step in the process to prepare and review facility
response plans.
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments
EPA has identified proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments as a factor in the substantial harm determination. EPA
intended for owners or operators to use Appendix D of the proposed rule
as interim guidance for the identification of environmentally sensitive
areas until ACPs were available. Several commenters urged EPA to allow
facility owners or operators to use the NCP or ACPs for the
identification of environmentally sensitive areas. Other commenters
stated that the definition of ``environmentally sensitive areas'' was
too broad, making it difficult to use in the determination of
substantial harm. Some commenters objected to the listing of particular
areas (e.g., wetlands, national monuments) as sensitive, while others
requested that additional areas (e.g., water intakes for electric
utilities and municipalities, National and State parks, and National
forests) be included in the definition of sensitive environments.
As discussed previously, EPA does not include proposed Appendix D
in this final rule. To serve the purpose of proposed Appendix D (i.e.,
to guide owners or operators in identifying fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments), EPA adds a general definition of ``fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments'' at Sec. 112.2 of the final rule
and references certain documents for further information. The
definition, adapted from the text of proposed Appendix D, reads as
follows: ``areas that may be identified by either their legal
designation or by evaluations of Area Committees (for planning) or
members of the Federal On-Scene Coordinators spill response structure
(during responses). These areas may include wetlands, National and
State parks, critical habitats for endangered/threatened species,
wilderness and natural resource areas, marine sanctuaries and estuarine
reserves, conservation areas, preserves, wildlife areas, wildlife
refuges, wild and scenic rivers, recreational areas, national forests,
Federal and State lands that are research national areas, heritage
program areas, land trust areas, and historical and archeological sites
and parks. These areas may also include unique habitats such as:
aquaculture sites and agricultural surface water intakes, bird nesting
areas, critical biological resource areas, designated migratory routes,
and designated seasonal habitats.'' To help facility owners or
operators better address required fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments concerns, EPA contributed to a governmental committee
formed by various Federal agencies to develop a consistent definition
of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. The committee was made
up of representatives from various Natural Resource Trustee agencies
and from the agencies with OPA response plan authority. After
considering comments on the EPA's proposed rule, the committee
developed an interagency guidance document based on the information
contained in Appendix D of the proposed rule. The introductory text has
been expanded to explain in more detail some environmental sensitivity
issues, and address the substance of the public comments that EPA and
the USCG received on this subject. To ensure more comprehensive
response planning and to better protect fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments, Attachment D-IV (``Vulnerability of Aquatic Ecosystems'')
and Attachment D-V (``Vulnerability Scale of Aquatic Habitats Impacted
by Oil Spills'') of proposed Appendix D have been replaced by Appendix
IV (``Sensitive Biological and Human-Use Resources'') and Appendix V
(``Ranking of Shoreline Habitats Impacted by Oil Spills''),
respectively in the DOC/NOAA guidance.
In addition, other environmental areas were added to those listed
in Appendix D, Attachment D-I (``Responsible Federal Agencies for
Specific Environmental Resources''), such as the National Forest
System, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and cultural
resources. This guidance also contains additional mailing addresses and
phone numbers of government offices where facility owners or operators
may obtain additional information. The document titled, ``Guidance for
Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments,'' was published in the Federal Register by DOC/NOAA at 59
FR 14714, March 29, 1994. In today's rule, EPA has removed the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas appendix that was proposed in the
proposed rule and references to the appendix contained in proposed
Sec. 112.20. EPA refers facility owners and operators to Appendices I,
II, and III of DOC/NOAA's guidance for guidance to identify fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments until geographic-specific annexes
to the ACPs are refined to the point where they address fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments concerns in detail. As discussed
previously, in the inland zone (as defined in 40 CFR 300.5), ACPs have
been developed and will undergo continuous refinement. Facility owners
or operators may contact the appropriate Regional office for fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments information as it becomes
available.
Worst Case Discharge
Under Sec. 112.20(h)(5) of the proposed rule, owners or operators
who must prepare a facility response plan under Sec. 112.20 must
calculate a worst case discharge quantity as described in proposed
Appendix E. (Appendix E has been relabeled as Appendix D in today's
final rule.) This worst case discharge scenario, in turn, directly
influences the quantity of spill response resources that must be
available to the facility, as outlined in Appendix D. In the proposed
rule, the determination of the worst case discharge volume is based on
the facility's oil storage capacity, with additional factors taken into
account for multiple-tank facilities with secondary containment or
adjacent to navigable waters. EPA requested comments on allowing a
reduction in the worst case discharge planning amount for facilities
with adequate secondary containment in place.
One commenter stated that no reduction should be allowed for
secondary containment, because oil spills frequently occur during
transfer operations that take place outside of secondary containment.
The commenter added that, even for those spills that occur within
contained areas, a worst case discharge scenario should assume some
failure of containment systems (as has happened historically in spills
from facilities with secondary containment). Numerous commenters
requested that EPA grant credit for secondary containment in the
formula to calculate a facility's worst case discharge, thereby
reducing the amount of response resources for which the facility would
need to plan. Many of these commenters generally supported credit for
secondary containment, because containment will reduce the quantity of
a spill that escapes from the facility and impacts the environment.
Other commenters argued that credit for secondary containment would
provide an incentive to the regulated community to enhance facility
spill prevention systems, while others contended that the probability
of both the tank and its secondary containment failing simultaneously
is extremely small.
In response to commenters' concerns, EPA has modified Appendix D to
allow a 20 percent reduction in the worst case discharge amount at
single-tank facilities for the presence of adequate secondary
containment (i.e., containment equal to 100 percent of tank capacity
plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation). The amount of this
percentage reduction is based on an analysis of the percentage of
released oil reaching navigable waters in the historical spill record
from EPA's Emergency Response Notification System database.\8\ EPA
believes that the data do not support granting a larger credit, nor do
they show that a smaller credit should be established. Historical data
illustrate that secondary containment is not always completely
effective, due to wave effects, breaches in containment walls, or
operator error (such as an open secondary containment drainage valve).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\The Technical Background Document to Support the
Implementation of the OPA Response Plan Requirements, U.S. EPA,
February 1993. Available for inspection in the Superfund Docket,
room M2615, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to multiple-tank facilities, EPA notes that it is
finalizing the proposed credit for secondary containment at these
facilities. As in the proposed rule, the calculation method in the
final rule focuses on the oil storage capacity of the largest tank
within a secondary containment area or a group of tanks permanently
manifolded together within a common secondary containment area as a
planning amount for the worst case discharge. This amount reflects a
credit for secondary containment resulting in a lesser planning amount
than the capacity of all tanks within secondary containment or the
capacity of all tanks at the facility. Facilities that lack secondary
containment would therefore be required to include the capacity of all
storage tanks without secondary containment in their worst case
discharge volume, while those facilities with credit for secondary
containment would only need to consider the capacity of the largest
tank or group of tanks within a single secondary containment area. As
such, the presence of secondary containment leads to a significant
credit that reduces the worst case discharge planning amount and the
associated response resource requirements.
Numerous commenters requested that EPA grant credit for facility
spill prevention measures and practices (other than secondary
containment) in the calculation of the worst case discharge. Specific
preventive measures mentioned by commenters include tertiary
containment, conformance with American Petroleum Institute tank
standards, automatic shutdown systems, high-level alarms, corrosion
protection, and hydrostatic testing. Many commenters generally
supported credit for specific preventive measures because of the
capacity of such measures to reduce spill size or spill migration. Many
commenters also argued that credit for other spill prevention measures
would provide incentives to the regulated community to enhance spill
prevention systems. Owners or operators would implement such measures
to decrease the worst case discharge volume, and thus, decrease
necessary expenditures for planning and response resources.
In today's final rule, EPA retains the credit for secondary
containment at the facility, but does not provide additional credits to
facilities for the presence of such preventive measures in the
calculation of the worst case discharge. Although EPA encourages
facilities to implement additional preventive measures such as those
cited by the commenters, the Agency believes that the effects of these
measures on the size and impact of a potential spill are not readily
quantifiable, nor as easily supported with historical spill evidence,
as those of secondary containment. In addition, the Agency believes
that granting credit for these prevention measures likely would require
a more detailed verification and inspection process than would granting
credit for secondary containment. Further, Congress' intent was that
planning reflect the worst case discharge, and that the private sector
be encouraged to increase its spill response capability.
In the calculation of a worst case discharge, EPA proposed to
require multiple-tank facilities with secondary containment for which
the nearest opportunity for discharge (i.e., storage tank, piping, or
flowline) is adjacent to navigable water, to incorporate an additional
10 percent factor in the calculation of the worst case discharge
quantity. (See Parts A3 and B3 of Appendix E of the proposed rule.) The
Agency proposed the 10 percent distinction in the calculation of a
worst case discharge volume between multiple-tank facilities adjacent
to navigable waters and those not adjacent to navigable waters as a
safety factor to address the potential for releases from multiple
tanks.
Many commenters opposed the use of a 110 percent planning volume
for facilities located adjacent to navigable water, because a facility
could not discharge more than 100 percent of its capacity. Some
commenters apparently did not realize that the provision only applied
to multiple-tank facilities, and argued that the 110 percent planning
volume factor should be eliminated because it is impossible for a
single tank to discharge more than 100 percent of its capacity.
EPA has considered these comments and has decided to eliminate
consideration of a facility's location adjacent to navigable waters
from the calculation of the worst case discharge. Adding an additional
10 percent to the planning volume is unnecessary, because the
emulsification table in Appendix E will account for removing material
in excess of tank capacity for all petroleum facilities for which an
owner or operator must plan under this rule. There is no need to impose
an additional cost burden on multiple-tank facility owners and
operators for proximity to navigable waters. In Appendix D of today's
final rule, the worksheets have been changed accordingly; this change
will simplify the calculation and reduce confusion in the regulated
community.
Several commenters requested that EPA clarify its definition of
``permanently manifolded tanks'' used in the calculation of a worst
case discharge volume. Several commenters expressed confusion about
whether permanently manifolded tanks connected by piping systems with
valves that are normally shut, and permanently manifolded tanks that
are separated by internal divisions in the secondary containment area,
are considered separate tanks for purposes of the worst case discharge
calculation.
The proposed definition of ``permanently manifolded tanks''
indicated that such systems were to be considered as separate tanks for
the worst case discharge calculation. However, to better clarify EPA's
intent, the definition of ``permanently manifolded tanks'' has been
modified slightly in Appendix D of the final rule. The changes make it
clear that within a common secondary containment area, interconnected
tanks are considered to be single tanks if one or more of the
manifolded tanks functions as an overflow container for another tank
(i.e., is connected by piping at the top). In this case, individual
manifolded tank volumes are not combined when calculating the worst
case discharge planning volume. The owner or operator must provide
evidence in the response plan that tanks with common piping or piping
systems are not operated as one unit.
EPA recognizes that failures associated with multiple tanks that
are hydraulically connected could result in the discharge of a greater
volume of oil than the capacity of any one of the tanks. The definition
of ``permanently manifolded tanks'' adequately accounts for this
possibility. The owner or operator of a facility with permanently
manifolded tanks would combine the capacities of all tanks manifolded
together to calculate the worst case discharge planning volume for the
facility.
Owners or operators of onshore production facilities must consider
both storage capacity and production activities in the determination of
a worst case discharge planning volume. In the proposed rule, EPA
defined production volume for production wells (producing by pumping)
as the pumping rate of the highest output well at the facility,
multiplied by 1.5 times the number of days the facility is unattended
(Appendix E, Part B). Several commenters stated that EPA had not
provided sufficient justification for requiring the calculation of the
worst case discharge planning volume to include use of the 1.5
multiplier. Commenters believed that the pumping rate of the highest
rate well could easily be determined and should not be artificially
inflated, and suggested that the multiplier be used only when the rate
of the highest rate well is unknown.
In response to commenters' concerns, EPA revised the worst case
discharge calculation in Appendix D of the final rule to require
facility owners or operators to use the 1.5 multiplier only if the rate
of the well with the highest output or the number of days the facility
is unattended cannot be estimated with certainty. EPA believes that the
use of the 1.5 multiplier is appropriate in these instances because it
provides a conservative basis upon which to incorporate these uncertain
estimates of discharge potential in the calculation of a worst case
discharge. If the facility owner or operator knows the rate of the well
with the highest output and can predict the number of days that the
facility will be unattended, then the production volume for each
production well (producing by pumping) is equal to the pumping rate of
the well, multiplied by the greatest number of days the facility will
be unattended. If the actual pumping rate will exceed the planned
pumping rate, or the facility will be unattended for longer than the
time indicated in the facility response plan, then the owner or
operator must amend the facility response plan to reflect this
operational change at the facility. The owner or operator must resubmit
the appropriate sections of the plan in accordance with
Sec. 112.20(d)(1).
In Appendix E of the proposed rule, the proposed worst case
discharge planning volume for facilities with exploratory wells or
production wells producing under pressure was the forecasted production
volume for the highest output well at the facility plus the appropriate
oil storage capacity component. The proposed rate for exploratory wells
and production wells producing under pressure was the maximum 30-day
forecasted well rate for wells 10,000 feet deep or less, or the maximum
45-day forecasted well rate for wells more than 10,000 feet deep.
Several commenters from the oil industry stated that the forecasted
well rates were unwarranted because cleanup procedures will begin
before the entire volume of the discharge reaches the environment.
Commenters suggested that EPA consider inspection frequency or time
intervals equal to the appropriate response tier as factors to
determine the worst case discharge planning volume. In considering
revisions to the proposed worst case discharge planning volume
calculation, EPA also solicited input from MMS, which is in the process
of promulgating response plan regulations for certain offshore
production facilities.
EPA compared the response efforts required and damage resulting
from discharges from production wells producing under pressure or
exploratory wells to the response efforts required and damage resulting
from discharges from storage tanks or production wells producing by
pumping. Because discharges from storage tanks or production wells are
discrete events, the volume of oil that is discharged is not influenced
by response actions after they have been discovered. For production
wells producing under pressure and exploratory wells, response efforts
can mitigate the effects of the discharge during the time it takes
response personnel to stop the flow of oil. For these reasons, EPA has
revised the calculations for worst case discharge planning volume for
facilities with exploratory wells or production wells producing under
pressure.
The final version of the appendix (Appendix D in the final rule)
requires the facility owner or operator to compare the forecasted rate
of the highest output well to the capacity of response equipment and
personnel to recover the volume of oil that could be discharged to
calculate the production volume. If the well rate would overwhelm the
response efforts, the worst case discharge planning volume would be
calculated in a manner similar to that described in the proposed rule.
(See Method A of Attachment D-1.) If the emergency response effort
would match or exceed the forecasted rate of the highest output well,
then the facility owner or operator would calculate the production
volume based on the sum of: 1) the volume of oil discharge from the
well between the time of the blowout and the expected time the response
resources are on scene and recovering oil; and 2) the volume of oil
discharged after the response resources begin operating until the spill
is stopped (adjusted for the amount of oil recovered). (See Part B of
Attachment D-2.) As in the case of production facilities with wells
producing by pumping, Part B of Appendix D requires that the
appropriate storage oil capacity also be added to the production volume
to determine the worst case discharge planning volume. EPA describes
these methods to calculate the production volume for production
facilities with wells producing under pressure or exploratory wells in
Attachment D-1, ``Methods to Calculate the Production Volumes for
Production Facilities with Exploratory Wells or Production Wells
Producing Under Pressure,'' to Appendix D.
Response Planning Levels
As part of the response planning requirements, EPA proposed in
Sec. 112.20(h)(5) that ``substantial harm facilities'' must evaluate
smaller, more probable discharge quantities for their facility response
plan in addition to the worst case discharge specified by the OPA. As
proposed, the owner or operator of a facility would plan for small
(2,100 gallons or less) and medium (between 2,100 gallons and 36,000
gallons, or ten percent of the capacity of the largest tank, whichever
is less) discharge quantities, provided that these amounts are less
than the worst case discharge amount.
EPA received comments both in support of, and opposed to, the
concept of planning for various response levels. Some commenters
indicated that the establishment of such additional planning
requirements was beyond the OPA mandate. Other commenters argued that
planning for smaller spills will be encompassed in planning for a worst
case discharge, that planning for smaller spills is a function of good
management practices and should not be regulated, or that pre-existing
SPCC Plans adequately address smaller spills.
EPA has considered these comments and decided to retain the
planning approach outlined in the proposed rule. Although planning for
several discharge amounts is not mandated specifically under OPA, EPA
has broad and ample regulatory authority under CWA section 311(j)(1)(C)
for such a requirement. The Agency believes that discharges less severe
than a worst case scenario may pose a serious threat to navigable
waters, especially from the cumulative effects of several discharges,
and that preparation to respond to smaller spills could lead to better
overall protection of the nation's navigable waters. In addition, this
three-level approach is consistent with the USCG's implementation of
planning scenarios under OPA and some State response plan rulemakings.
Various sizes of discharges can require different types and amounts
of equipment, products, and personnel, and must therefore be addressed
separately. For example, a facility may want to hire a contractor to
support response to a worst case discharge scenario, but handle
smaller, operational spills using its own personnel and equipment. To
the extent that facility personnel are better able to address immediate
actions associated with smaller spills, they will be better prepared to
initiate a response to a worst case discharge until back-up resources
arrive on-scene. Increased proficiency in handling the initial stages
of a discharge can result in significant reductions in the extent of
spill movement and associated impacts to the environment.
As many commenters recognized, planning for responses to more
commonly occurring discharges may be more beneficial to facilities than
planning for a worst case discharge that has a lower probability of
occurrence--nevertheless, EPA continues to recognize that this planning
approach may not be appropriate for all facilities, including those
where the range of possible spill scenarios is small. Under today's
final rule, as in the proposed rule, large facilities would still need
to plan for three discharge amounts, but a small facility may only need
to plan for two scenarios or a single scenario if its worst case
discharge falls within one of the specified ranges.
To address the planning requirements, the owner or operator must
consider the different types of facility-specific scenarios that may
result in discharges at the facility. To the extent possible, the
scenarios should account for the range of different operations that
take place at the facility. Appendix F of the rule contains guidance on
the development of such scenarios including a list of areas of
operation to consider (e.g., oil storage tanks, piping, vehicle
refueling areas, and tank car and tank truck loading and unloading
areas), and a list of factors that may affect response efforts at the
facility (e.g., direction of spill pathways, weather conditions, and
available response equipment). As part of this process, owners or
operators shall describe the threat posed by mobile facilities
operating on site, especially during loading or unloading operations
where the risk of a discharge is increased. Also, owners or operators
of large facilities that handle, store, or transport oil at more than
one geographically distinct location (e.g., oil storage areas at
opposite ends of a single, continuous parcel of property) shall, as
appropriate, develop separate sections of the response plans for each
area where oil is stored, used, or distributed.
Several commenters expressed confusion between the tiered planning
amounts described in proposed Sec. 112.20(h)(5) and the response tiers
in proposed Appendix F for mobilizing resources in response to a worst
case discharge. To avoid confusion in the final rule, EPA replaces the
term ``tiered planning scenarios'' with ``response planning levels'' to
describe small, medium, and worst case response planning amounts.
Drills/Exercises and Training
The proposed rule contained general requirements for response
training and drills/exercises, but did not specify what the training
and drills/exercises should entail. Specifically, proposed
Sec. 112.7(f)(1)(iii) required that all personnel involved in oil-
handling activities participate in unannounced drills/exercises, at
least annually. Proposed Sec. 112.20(h)(8)(ii) required that the
facility response plan contain a description and record of training
courses and periodic unannounced drills/exercises to be carried out
under the response plan.
Some commenters suggested that training should be required only for
employees of ``substantial harm facilities'' and that only response
personnel should be required to participate in drills/exercises. EPA
notes that a general training program is required at 40 CFR
112.7(e)(10) for all facilities subject to the rule. However, the final
rule limits the requirement for response training and drills/exercises
to facilities that must prepare a response plan.
One commenter argued that the OPA does not mandate employee
training. EPA notes that the OPA added CWA section 311(j)(5)(C) to
specify that the response plan must describe training and periodic
unannounced drills/exercises to be carried out under the plan. The
Agency interprets this requirement to mean that Congress intended for
facilities to conduct a program of training and drills/exercises for
response to oil spills.
EPA has moved some subject matter on response training and drills/
exercises from proposed Sec. 112.7 to a new Sec. 112.21 so that all
requirements relevant to implementation of the OPA (i.e., requirements
for response training) are addressed in this final rule. Requirements
for oil spill prevention training that are not necessary for the OPA
implementation will remain in proposed Sec. 112.7(f) and will be
addressed in a separate rulemaking.
To provide additional direction to the regulated community on what
constitutes an acceptable training program, EPA expands the discussion
of training in today's final rule. As set forth at Sec. 112.21,
response training must be functional in nature and commensurate with
the specific duties of each type of facility personnel with
responsibilities under the plan. A facility's training program can be
based on the USCG's Training Elements for Oil Spill Response, to the
extent applicable to facility operations, or another response training
program acceptable to the RA. The training elements are available from
Petty Officer Daniel Caras at (202) 267-6570 or fax 267-4085/4065.
As set forth in the OPA, drills/exercises are evolutions that are
designed to periodically test the ability of response personnel to
ensure the safety of the facility and to mitigate or prevent discharges
of oil. A drill/exercise program is comprised of facility drills/
exercises, including tabletop and deployment exercises, both announced
and unannounced, as well as participation in larger area drills/
exercises and evaluation of these drills/exercises. The requirement to
develop a drill/exercise program is included at Sec. 112.21. This
section references the National PREP. As described in Section I.C of
this preamble, PREP is a joint industry/government effort to establish
recognized national guidelines for conducting drills/exercises to meet
the OPA requirements. Following the PREP guidelines (see Appendix E to
this part, section 10, for availability) would satisfy a facility's
requirements for drills/exercises under this final rule. Alternately,
under Sec. 112.21(c), a facility owner or operator may develop a
program that is not based on the PREP guidelines. Such a program is
subject to approval by the RA based on the description of the program
provided in the response plan.
Descriptions of training and drills/exercises for facility
personnel engaged in oil spill response must be provided in the plan as
stated in Sec. 112.20(h)(8). To satisfy this requirement, facilities
must describe conformance with the PREP guidelines as part of their
response plan or provide a detailed description of an alternative
drill/exercise program. Lessons learned from the facility owner's or
operator's evaluation of response drills/exercises may help identify
other relevant subject areas for training. As part of the PREP
development process, the USCG, with assistance from other Federal
agencies, OSROs, and the regulated community, is preparing a reference
document to assist facility owners and operators in the evaluation of
their drills/exercises.
As described in Section II.B of this preamble, some commenters
objected to including logs for training and drills/exercises in the
response plan. EPA will not require training records and records of
drills/exercises to be included in the response plan, because that is
impracticable without constantly revising the plan. Section
112.20(h)(8)(iv) of the final rule makes it clear that the logs may be
included in the response plan or maintained as an annex to the response
plan.
C. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section lists sequentially the major changes from the proposed
rule that have been incorporated into today's final rule. The revisions
listed below result from consideration of public comments on the
proposed rule (as previously discussed, the Response to Comments
Document for the Facility Response Plan Rulemaking maintained at the
docket contains detailed summaries of, and responses to, all comments
received on the proposed rule) and from efforts to coordinate EPA and
other Federal agencies' requirements for implementing response plan
regulations under the OPA. A detailed discussion of the reasoning
behind most of these changes can be found in Section I.C or II.B of
this preamble. In addition to the major changes detailed below, EPA has
also made a series of minor editorial changes to correct typographical
and grammatical errors, to conform more closely with language from
different sections of today's rule and language from the USCG's interim
final rule for MTR facilities, and to improve the clarity of the
requirements.
As discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA will defer
finalizing changes to certain sections of the regulation as proposed in
the proposed rule. EPA plans to address these changes in a subsequent
rulemaking. Changes to the following paragraphs from the proposed rule
are not included in today's final rule: paragraphs (d)(4) and (g) of
Sec. 112.1 (General Applicability and Notification); paragraph (d) of
Sec. 112.4 (Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plan by Regional Administrator); and paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (f), (i),
and (j) of Sec. 112.7 (Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plan general requirements). Also, Appendix H (Brittle Fracture
Considerations in API Standard 653) as proposed at 58 FR 8824 is not
included in today's final rule.
Section 112.2 Definitions
In Sec. 112.2, the definitions of ``adverse weather,'' ``contract
or other approved means,'' ``maximum extent practicable,'' and ``worst
case discharge'' are revised; the definitions of ``alteration'' and
``repair'' from the proposed rule are not included; and definitions of
``fish and wildlife and sensitive environments'' and ``oil spill
removal organization'' are added.
Section 112.20 Facility Response Plans
Throughout Sec. 112.20, the term ``emergency response coordinator''
is replaced with the term ``qualified individual,'' and the term
``environmentally sensitive areas'' is replaced with the term ``fish
and wildlife and sensitive environments.''
Paragraph (a) is reorganized and revised to specify EPA's approach
to implement the facility response plan requirements of OPA and of this
final rule.
Paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii) (paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii)
from the proposed rule) are expanded to specify that for new facilities
and facilities undergoing a planned change in operations, adjustments
to the response plan to reflect changes that occur at the facility
during the start-up phase of operations must be submitted to the RA
after an operational trial period of 60 days.
Paragraph (b)(1) is revised to clarify that if the RA makes a
determination of substantial harm then he or she shall notify the
facility owner or operator in writing and shall provide a basis for the
determination.
Paragraph (c)(4) is revised to specify, for plans to be reviewed by
the RA, that the RA will review plans periodically on a schedule
established by the RA provided that the period between plan reviews
does not exceed five years.
Paragraph (d)(1) is revised to extend its applicability to all
facilities for which a response plan is required and to clarify that
only revised portions of a response plan need to be resubmitted for
approval and inclusion in the existing plan. The requirement for the RA
to review for approval changes to plans for ``significant and
substantial harm facilities'' that was proposed at Sec. 112.20(d)(1)
has been moved to new Sec. 112.20(d)(4).
Paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(2) are revised to clarify that a
change in the identity of an OSRO(s) that does not result in a material
change in support capabilities is not a material change requiring
approval but that a copy of such a change must be provided to the RA.
Paragraph (d)(2) is revised to state that certain amendments do not
require ``approval'' by the RA, rather than ``prior approval.''
Paragraph (d)(3) is added to indicate that the EPA-issued facility
identification number (where one has been assigned) must accompany any
changes to the plan that are submitted to the RA. This number is issued
when the plan was received and is included on all EPA correspondences
to the facility. Including this number on all subsequent submissions by
the facility to EPA will ensure proper tracking and handling of
information.
Paragraph (f)(1)(i) is revised to clarify that total oil storage
capacity and not total storage capacity is the criteria to be
evaluated.
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) is revised to clarify that adequate
secondary containment must account for precipitation as required by
Sec. 112.7(e)(2)(ii).
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) is revised to clarify it addresses
reportable oil spills.
Paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(B) and (f)(2)(i)(D) are revised to remove
reference to Appendix D, to add a reference to the ``Guidance for
Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments'' (see Appendix E to this part, section 10, for
availability) and the appropriate ACP, and to clarify that use of an
alternative formula does not require prior approval by the RA but that
the formula must be comparable to the appropriate formula in Appendix C
to this part. Conforming edits are made to paragraphs (a)(3) and (e).
Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) is revised to clarify that ``any person''
includes representatives from other government agencies in addition to
the public, to more accurately describe the contents of paragraph
(f)(2)(i) as factors not criteria, and to clarify that the RA shall
consider petitions and respond in an appropriate amount of time.
Paragraph (f)(3)(i) is removed to reflect the deletion of Appendix
D and because the RA already has authority under paragraph (f)(2) to
consider proximity to other areas determined to possess ecological
value. The remainder of paragraph (f)(3) is renumbered accordingly.
Paragraph (g) is reorganized by removing the requirement for
periodic review and update of the plan from paragraph (g)(1) and moving
it to new paragraph (g)(3).
Paragraph (h) is revised to clarify the mandatory nature of
Appendix F.
Paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (h)(3)(vii) are revised to clarify that
facility owners or operators need only reference but not include
community evacuation plans in the response plan.
Paragraph (h)(1)(vii) is revised to clarify that securing the
source of the discharge is among the immediate measures that must be
described in the plan.
Paragraph (h)(2) is revised to clarify that a brief description of
the type of facility (i.e., SIC Code) must be provided as part of the
basic facility information.
Paragraph (h)(3)(x) is removed and paragraph (h)(3)(i) is revised
to clarify the mandatory nature of Appendix E and allow under certain
circumstances owners or operators to make comparable arrangements for
response resources.
Paragraph (h)(5) is revised to replace the reference to tiered
response planning with a reference to response planning levels.
Conforming edits are made to Appendix F.
Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) is revised to clarify that for complexes, the
small planning quantity shall be the larger of the amounts calculated
for each component of the facility.
Paragraph (h)(8) is revised to clarify the requirements to describe
programs for drills/exercises and response training, and indicate that
logs may be kept as an annex to the response plan.
Paragraph (h)(11) is added to cross-reference the requirement at
Sec. 112.20(a)(2) to complete a response plan cover sheet provided in
Section 2.0 of Appendix F.
New Sec. 112.20(i) is added to allow owners or operators to request
reconsideration of or appeal certain decisions by the RA.
Section 112.21 Facility Response Training and Drills
New Sec. 112.21 is added to describe requirements for facility
response training and drills/exercises. The requirements for annual
drills/exercises in proposed Sec. 112.7(f)(1)(iii) are replaced by a
requirement to follow the PREP guidelines or an alternative program
acceptable to the RA. Provisions related to spill prevention training
in Sec. 112.7(f) will be finalized in a future rulemaking.
Appendix B--Memorandum of Understanding Among DOI, DOT, and EPA
The Memorandum of Understanding Among the Secretary of the
Interior, Secretary of Transportation, and Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency signed on February 3, 1994 is added at
Appendix B to 40 CFR part 112.
Appendix C--Substantial Harm Criteria
The title of the Appendix was changed from ``Determination of
Substantial Harm'' to ``Substantial Harm Criteria.''
Throughout Appendix C, the term ``environmentally sensitive areas''
is replaced with the term ``fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments,'' the term ``drinking water intake'' is replaced with the
term ``public drinking water intake,'' the language is clarified to
indicate which provisions are required, and ``alternative'' is changed
to ``comparable.''
For response time estimation purposes, in section 1.1, the
definitions of ``Great Lakes,'' ``Higher Volume Port Area,'' and
``Inland Area'' are revised.
The list of the substantial harm criteria in section 2.0 is removed
to eliminate redundancy with Sec. 112.20(f)(1) and the flowchart in
Attachment C-I to Appendix C. Section 2.1 is renamed section 2.0.
In new section 2.0, the language is clarified to indicate that the
term ``public drinking water intake'' is analogous to the term ``public
water system'' at 40 CFR 143.2(c) as described at 40 CFR part 110.
Footnotes clarifying that public drinking water intakes are analogous
to public water systems as described at 40 CFR 143.2(c) are added to
this section and Attachment C-II. The definition of ``injury'' is
removed from this section to eliminate redundancy with the definition
in Sec. 112.2.
In section 3.0, the last sentence is revised to clarify that for
facilities that do not meet the substantial harm criteria using a
comparable formula to calculate the planning distance, documentation of
the comparable formula must not only be maintained at the facility but
must be made available to EPA if requested. The first sentence in the
oil transport on moving navigable waters in Attachment C-III is revised
to include ``or a comparable formula as described in
Sec. 112.20(a)(3)'' and ``for oil transport on moving navigable
water.'' The section describing oil transport on moving navigable
waters in Attachment C-III is clarified to indicated that adverse
weather conditions shall be considered.
In Attachment C-III, a section describing a method to determine a
planning distance for tidal-influenced navigable water is added and the
appropriate cross-reference is provided. A paragraph is added to
indicate that if a facility owner or operator determines that more than
one type of navigable water applies, the planning distance calculation
must be performed for each navigable water type, and the greatest
distance must be used in the substantial harm evaluation. The third
paragraph is revised to provide an example of an instance where it
would not be necessary to calculate a planning distance for screening
purposes. The fourth paragraph of Attachment C-III is revised to
include a reference to the example for determining the planning
distance for the two types of navigable waters. The format of Table 3
is revised and further explanation of how the time intervals in Table 3
should be used to calculate a baseline planning distance is added. A
conversion constant is added to the formula for calculating the surface
area covered by an oil spill on still water. Conforming changes are
made to the description of the formula and the sample calculation.
Clarifying language is added to the description of the section on oil
transport over land. Also, language is added to clarify the term
``close proximity'' for purposes of calculating the planning distance.
Section 4.0 ``References'' is added to Appendix C.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Appendix D in the Proposed Rule)
The Environmentally Sensitive Areas appendix from the proposed rule
is removed. Instead, EPA refers owners or operators to Appendices I,
II, and III of the ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans:
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments,'' (see Appendix E to this
part, section 10, for availability) and to the appropriate ACP for
guidance in identifying fish and wildlife and sensitive environments.
Appendix D--Determination of a Worst Case Discharge (Appendix E in the
Proposed Rule)
Throughout Appendix D, the language is clarified to indicate which
provisions are required and which are provided only as guidance. The
last sentence of the first paragraph of the instructions is revised to
remove ``and its proximity to navigable waters.''
Parts A1 and B1 of the instructions for the determination of the
worst case discharge at single-tank facilities are revised to reflect
credit for adequate secondary containment.
Parts A3 and B3 of the instructions are removed and Parts A2 and B2
and explanatory notes revised to reflect elimination of the additional
10 percent factor for proximity to navigable waters and clarification
of the terms ``permanently manifolded tanks'' and ``adequate secondary
containment.''
Part B of the instructions for the determination of the worst case
discharge for production facilities is revised to reflect changes in
the calculations for production wells producing by pumping. Part B is
also revised to reflect changes in the calculations for exploratory
wells and production wells producing under pressure. Attachment D-I is
added to describe these changes.
Appendix E--Determination and Evaluation of Required Response Resources
for Facility Response Plans (Appendix F in the Proposed Rule)
The title of the Appendix was changed from ``Guidelines for
Determining and Evaluating Required Response Resources for Facility
Response Plans'' to ``Determination and Evaluation of Required Response
Resources for Facility Response Plans.''
Throughout Appendix E, the term ``environmentally sensitive areas''
is replaced with the term ``fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments'' as defined at Sec. 112.2 and references to former
Appendix D replaced with references to the Guidance for Facility and
Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments
published by DOC/NOAA in the Federal Register on March 29, 1994 and to
the appropriate ACP. The language is clarified to indicate which
provisions are required. Section 1.1 is revised to specify that this
appendix shall be used by facility owners and operators to determine
resources for the response plan and by the RA in the review of facility
response plans.
Section 1.2 is added to Appendix E, and the definitions of non-
persistent and persistent oils and non-petroleum oils from Attachment
F-2 of the proposed rule are moved into section 1.2 of Appendix E.
Group 5 oils are added to the definition of persistent oils to account
for oils that have specific gravities that are equal to or greater than
1.0. The definitions of ``nearshore,'' ``ocean,'' ``operating area,''
and ``operating environment'' are added to section 1.2 of Appendix E.
Section 1.2.8 is added to reference other definitions.
Sections 3.2 and 4.2 are revised to replace ``synonymous with''
with ``that corresponds to.''
Section 5.6 is revised to indicate that at least 20 percent of the
on-water response equipment must be capable of operating in shallow
water.
A reference to section 7.6 which describes the procedures for non-
petroleum oils is added to section 7.1.
Section 7.4 is revised to remove the 110 percent factor from the
example worst case discharge calculation. The resulting tier values are
revised accordingly.
References to the definitions and response resource considerations
for Group 5 and non-petroleum oils were added to Tables 2 and 3.
As described in Section II.B of this preamble, a series of changes
to the remaining sections of Appendix E (e.g., the addition of separate
procedures for non-petroleum oils) are made to ensure greater
consistency with the equipment instructions contained in the USCG's
interim final rule for MTR facilities.
Appendix F--Model Facility-Specific Response Plan (Appendix G in the
Proposed Rule)
The title of Appendix G, ``Standard Facility-Specific Response
Plan,'' is changed to ``Model Facility-Specific Response Plan'' in the
final rule.
Throughout Appendix F, the term ``emergency response coordinator''
is replaced with the term ``qualified individual,'' the term
``environmentally sensitive areas'' is replaced with the term ``fish
and wildlife and sensitive environments,'' the language is clarified to
indicate which provisions are required, and the language is clarified
to indicate ``oil storage capacity,'' ``oil storage tanks,'' and
``aboveground oil storage tanks'' where appropriate.
Section 1.0 is revised to specify that owners or operators of large
facilities that handle, store, or transport oil at more than one
geographically distinct location shall, as appropriate, develop
separate sections of the response plan for each storage area. The
reference for immediate actions is changed from ``(Section 1.7)
condensed'' to ``(Section 1.7.1) complete.''
Section 1.2 is revised to indicate that the home and work address
of the qualified individual(s) shall be listed in the response plan.
The list of States with EPA-approved wellhead protection programs is
replaced with an information number for the SDWA Hotline and a
definition of ``wellhead protection area'' is added.
Paragraph 4 (now paragraph 5) of the introduction to section 1.3,
Emergency Response Information, is revised to clarify which types of
emergency response personnel should be included on the personnel lists.
Section 1.3.1 is revised to include the phone number of the Regional
Response Center, to specify that the Federal OSC should be contacted,
and to remove the item requiring notification of the Area Committee
from the list. Section 1.3.2 is split into sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 and
the remainder of section 1.3 is renumbered accordingly. Also, section
1.3.2 is revised to improve clarity and to indicate that the facility
owner or operator must follow appropriate procedures contained in the
NCP and ACP to obtain approval for the use of dispersants. New section
1.3.3 is revised to include a log for basic information on equipment
testing (from section 1.3.2 of the proposed rule) and deployment drills
(from the results of required drills/exercises). Section 1.3.3 (now
1.3.4) is revised by reordering the lists and adding ``pager number''
to the facility response team list. Section 1.3.4 (now 1.3.5) is
revised to clarify that facilities must, as appropriate, reference
existing community evacuation plans.
The language in section 1.4 is revised to clarify the mandatory
nature of the hazard evaluation provisions. A definition of surface
impoundment is added to section 1.4.1. In section 1.4.2, examples of
areas of economic importance are added. Section 1.4.3 is revised to
remove the word ``quantitative.''
Section 1.5.2 is revised to remove details on the calculation of
worst case discharge planning volume to avoid redundancy with Appendix
D.
A form detailing recommended immediate actions is added to section
1.7.1.
Section 1.8 is revised to clarify the requirements to describe the
facility's drill/exercise and training programs and to reflect that
logs may be included in the response plan or kept as an annex to the
plan. Conforming changes are made to the sample logs throughout the
appendix.
Section 1.9 is revised to add provision L, that requires the owner
or operator of a complex to identify the interface between portions of
the facility that are regulated by different agencies. EPA believes
that this will help reinforce owners or operators understanding of
jurisdictional issues at certain facilities.
The response plan cover sheet is revised to a fill-in-the-blank
form. A footnote is added to explain where to locate Dun & Bradstreet
and SIC code information. Conforming changes are made to Section 2.0.
The acronyms DOC, MMS, PREP, RRC, and RSPA are added to section
3.0.
III. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
Under E.O. 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the E.O. The
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866, it has been determined that
this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it will have
an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million. An economic
analysis performed by the Agency, available for inspection in Room
M2615 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, shows that this rule would result in estimated
costs to affected facilities of greater than $100 million in the first
year. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review as required
by E.O. 12866. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
The analysis shows that the action will result in costs to the
regulated community of approximately $107.2 million during the first
year that the rule is in effect and approximately $41.6 million in each
subsequent year. The first-year, subsequent-year, and annualized costs
of the revisions to affected facilities are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.--Total Cost To Affected Facilities of the Final Rule
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Requirement First-year Subsequent- value of total
costs year costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Familiarization.... 12.2 0 1.7
Facility Response Plan.. 95.0 41.6 48.7
Total................. 107.2 41.6 50.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also expected to incur costs estimated at $1.3 million in the
first year and $1.2 million in the second year to implement the
program.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared in support of this
rule also includes an assessment of the environmental benefits
associated with the proposed revisions. This quantified benefit
estimate includes only the benefits of avoided clean-up costs, value of
lost product, avoided natural resource damages, and avoided property
damages as a result of the mitigation of the severity of spills that
occur. Other damages caused by oil spills that are not included in the
quantitative estimate, include lost profit by business, public health
risks, and foregone existence/option value. Assuming that response
plans effectively reduce oil spill damage by 30 percent, benefits that
have been quantified in the RIA are estimated to range from $20.3
million to $40.6 million depending on assumptions regarding the volume
of discharged oil that escapes secondary containment systems.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires
that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be preformed for all rules that
are likely to have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' The results of a preliminary analysis indicate that
this rule will not have significant adverse impacts on small businesses
because small businesses are unlikely to meet the criteria to prepare
and submit a response plan and are therefore unlikely to be affected by
the facility response planning requirements, which account for
virtually all of the total costs of the final rulemaking (see the
``Regulatory Impact Analysis of Revisions to the Oil Pollution
Prevention Regulation to Implement the Facility Response Planning
Requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,'' Appendix F, March
1994, available for inspection in Room M2615 at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460). Therefore,
EPA certifies that this proposed rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on small entities, and therefore that no Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is necessary.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned
control number 2050-0135.
Preparation of a response plan has an estimated first-year
reporting burden ranging from 131.75 hours to 350 hours per respondent,
averaging 194.5 hours, and an estimated first-year recordkeeping burden
ranging from 13.5 hours to 34 hours per respondent, averaging 21.5
hours. These estimates include time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Maintaining, reviewing, and updating a response plan have an estimated
annual reporting burden in subsequent years ranging from 52 hours to
161 hours per respondent, averaging 83 hours, and an estimated annual
recordkeeping burden in subsequent years ranging from two to ten hours
per respondent, averaging 4.75 hours. Facilities regulated under the
Oil Pollution Prevention rule that are not required to prepare response
plans have an estimated reporting burden ranging from 0.25 to 6.5 hours
per respondent, averaging less than one hour.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (Mail
Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers
EPA is also amending the table of currently approved information
collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various
regulations. This amendment updates the table to accurately display
those information requirements contained in this final rule. This
display of the OMB control number and its subsequent codification in
the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and
comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further notice and
comment would be unnecessary.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Fire prevention, Flammable materials,
Materials handling and storage, Oil pollution, Oil spill response,
Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tanks,
Water pollution control, Water resources.
Dated: June 15, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Parts 9 and 112 are
amended as follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVAL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345
(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.
p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,
300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a centerheading and entry to
the table in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation-Related
Onshore Facilities 112.20................................. 2050-0135
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
3. The authority citation for part 112 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361; E.O. 12777 (October 18,
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.
4. Section 112.2 is amended by removing the paragraph designations
(a) through (l), placing definitions in alphabetical order, and adding
the following new definitions in alphabetical order, to read as
follows:
Sec. 112.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Adverse weather means the weather conditions that make it difficult
for response equipment and personnel to cleanup or remove spilled oil,
and that will be considered when identifying response systems and
equipment in a response plan for the applicable operating environment.
Factors to consider include significant wave height as specified in
Appendix E to this part, as appropriate, ice conditions, temperatures,
weather-related visibility, and currents within the area in which the
systems or equipment are intended to function.
Complex means a facility possessing a combination of
transportation-related and non-transportation-related components that
is subject to the jurisdiction of more than one Federal agency under
section 311(j) of the Clean Water Act.
Contract or other approved means: (1) A written contractual
agreement with an oil spill removal organization(s) that identifies and
ensures the availability of the necessary personnel and equipment
within appropriate response times; and/or
(2) A written certification by the owner or operator that the
necessary personnel and equipment resources, owned or operated by the
facility owner or operator, are available to respond to a discharge
within appropriate response times; and/or
(3) Active membership in a local or regional oil spill removal
organization(s) that has identified and ensures adequate access through
such membership to necessary personnel and equipment to respond to a
discharge within appropriate response times in the specified geographic
areas; and/or
(4) Other specific arrangements approved by the Regional
Administrator upon request of the owner or operator.
* * * * *
Fish and wildlife and sensitive environments means areas that may
be identified by either their legal designation or by evaluations of
Area Committees (for planning) or members of the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator's spill response structure (during responses). These areas
may include wetlands, National and State parks, critical habitats for
endangered/threatened species, wilderness and natural resource areas,
marine sanctuaries and estuarine reserves, conservation areas,
preserves, wildlife areas, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers,
recreational areas, national forests, Federal and State lands that are
research national areas, heritage program areas, land trust areas, and
historical and archeological sites and parks. These areas may also
include unique habitats such as: aquaculture sites and agricultural
surface water intakes, bird nesting areas, critical biological resource
areas, designated migratory routes, and designated seasonal habitats.
Injury means a measurable adverse change, either long- or short-
term, in the chemical or physical quality or the viability of a natural
resource resulting either directly or indirectly from exposure to a
discharge of oil, or exposure to a product of reactions resulting from
a discharge of oil.
Maximum extent practicable means the limitations used to determine
oil spill planning resources and response times for on-water recovery,
shoreline protection, and cleanup for worst case discharges from
onshore non- transportation-related facilities in adverse weather. It
considers the planned capability to respond to a worst case discharge
in adverse weather, as contained in a response plan that meets the
requirements in Sec. 112.20 or in a specific plan approved by the
Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
Oil Spill Removal Organization means an entity that provides oil
spill response resources, and includes any for-profit or not-for-profit
contractor, cooperative, or in-house response resources that have been
established in a geographic area to provide required response
resources.
* * * * *
Worst case discharge for an onshore non-transportation-related
facility means the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather
conditions as determined using the worksheets in Appendix D to this
part.
5. Sections 112.20 and 112.21 are added to read as follows:
Sec. 112.20 Facility response plans.
(a) The owner or operator of any non-transportation-related onshore
facility that, because of its location, could reasonably be expected to
cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on
the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines shall prepare and submit a
facility response plan to the Regional Administrator, according to the
following provisions:
(1) For the owner or operator of a facility in operation on or
before February 18, 1993 who is required to prepare and submit a
response plan under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(Pub. L. 101-380, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) requires the submission of a
response plan that satisfies the requirements of 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)
no later than February 18, 1993.
(i) The owner or operator of an existing facility that was in
operation on or before February 18, 1993 who submitted a response plan
by February 18, 1993 shall revise the response plan to satisfy the
requirements of this section and resubmit the response plan or updated
portions of the response plan to the Regional Administrator by February
18, 1995.
(ii) The owner or operator of an existing facility in operation on
or before February 18, 1993 who failed to submit a response plan by
February 18, 1993 shall prepare and submit a response plan that
satisfies the requirements of this section to the Regional
Administrator before August 30, 1994.
(2) The owner or operator of a facility in operation on or after
August 30, 1994 that satisfies the criteria in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section or that is notified by the Regional Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section shall prepare and submit a facility
response plan that satisfies the requirements of this section to the
Regional Administrator.
(i) For a facility that commenced operations after February 18,
1993 but prior to August 30, 1994, and is required to prepare and
submit a response plan based on the criteria in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section, the owner or operator shall submit the response plan or
updated portions of the response plan, along with a completed version
of the response plan cover sheet contained in Appendix F to this part,
to the Regional Administrator prior to August 30, 1994.
(ii) For a newly constructed facility that commences operation
after August 30, 1994, and is required to prepare and submit a response
plan based on the criteria in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the
owner or operator shall submit the response plan, along with a
completed version of the response plan cover sheet contained in
Appendix F to this part, to the Regional Administrator prior to the
start of operations (adjustments to the response plan to reflect
changes that occur at the facility during the start-up phase of
operations must be submitted to the Regional Administrator after an
operational trial period of 60 days).
(iii) For a facility required to prepare and submit a response plan
after August 30, 1994, as a result of a planned change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance that renders the facility
subject to the criteria in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner
or operator shall submit the response plan, along with a completed
version of the response plan cover sheet contained in Appendix F to
this part, to the Regional Administrator before the portion of the
facility undergoing change commences operations (adjustments to the
response plan to reflect changes that occur at the facility during the
start-up phase of operations must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator after an operational trial period of 60 days).
(iv) For a facility required to prepare and submit a response plan
after August 30, 1994, as a result of an unplanned event or change in
facility characteristics that renders the facility subject to the
criteria in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator
shall submit the response plan, along with a completed version of the
response plan cover sheet contained in Appendix F to this part, to the
Regional Administrator within six months of the unplanned event or
change.
(3) In the event the owner or operator of a facility that is
required to prepare and submit a response plan uses an alternative
formula that is comparable to one contained in Appendix C to this part
to evaluate the criterion in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) or (f)(1)(ii)(C)
of this section, the owner or operator shall attach documentation to
the response plan cover sheet contained in Appendix F to this part that
demonstrates the reliability and analytical soundness of the
alternative formula.
(b)(1) The Regional Administrator may at any time require the owner
or operator of any non-transportation-related onshore facility to
prepare and submit a facility response plan under this section after
considering the factors in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. If such a
determination is made, the Regional Administrator shall notify the
facility owner or operator in writing and shall provide a basis for the
determination. If the Regional Administrator notifies the owner or
operator in writing of the requirement to prepare and submit a response
plan under this section, the owner or operator of the facility shall
submit the response plan to the Regional Administrator within six
months of receipt of such written notification.
(2) The Regional Administrator shall review plans submitted by such
facilities to determine whether the facility could, because of its
location, reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial
harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines.
(c) The Regional Administrator shall determine whether a facility
could, because of its location, reasonably be expected to cause
significant and substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil
into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, based on the
factors in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If such a determination is
made, the Regional Administrator shall notify the owner or operator of
the facility in writing and:
(1) Promptly review the facility response plan;
(2) Require amendments to any response plan that does not meet the
requirements of this section;
(3) Approve any response plan that meets the requirements of this
section; and
(4) Review each response plan periodically thereafter on a schedule
established by the Regional Administrator provided that the period
between plan reviews does not exceed five years.
(d)(1) The owner or operator of a facility for which a response
plan is required under this part shall revise and resubmit revised
portions of the response plan within 60 days of each facility change
that materially may affect the response to a worst case discharge,
including:
(i) A change in the facility's configuration that materially alters
the information included in the response plan;
(ii) A change in the type of oil handled, stored, or transferred
that materially alters the required response resources;
(iii) A material change in capabilities of the oil spill removal
organization(s) that provide equipment and personnel to respond to
discharges of oil described in paragraph (h)(5) of this section;
(iv) A material change in the facility's spill prevention and
response equipment or emergency response procedures; and
(v) Any other changes that materially affect the implementation of
the response plan.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
amendments to personnel and telephone number lists included in the
response plan and a change in the oil spill removal organization(s)
that does not result in a material change in support capabilities do
not require approval by the Regional Administrator. Facility owners or
operators shall provide a copy of such changes to the Regional
Administrator as the revisions occur.
(3) The owner or operator of a facility that submits changes to a
response plan as provided in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section
shall provide the EPA-issued facility identification number (where one
has been assigned) with the changes.
(4) The Regional Administrator shall review for approval changes to
a response plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section
for a facility determined pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section
to have the potential to cause significant and substantial harm to the
environment.
(e) If the owner or operator of a facility determines pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section that the facility could not, because
of its location, reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to
the environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, the owner or operator shall complete and maintain
at the facility the certification form contained in Appendix C to this
part and, in the event an alternative formula that is comparable to one
contained in Appendix C to this part is used to evaluate the criterion
in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) or (f)(1)(ii)(C) of this section, the owner
or operator shall attach documentation to the certification form that
demonstrates the reliability and analytical soundness of the comparable
formula and shall notify the Regional Administrator in writing that an
alternative formula was used.
(f)(1) A facility could, because of its location, reasonably be
expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging
oil into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, if it meets any of the following
criteria applied in accordance with the flowchart contained in
Attachment C-I to Appendix C to this part:
(i) The facility transfers oil over water to or from vessels and
has a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000
gallons; or
(ii) The facility's total oil storage capacity is greater than or
equal to 1 million gallons, and one of the following is true:
(A) The facility does not have secondary containment for each
aboveground storage area sufficiently large to contain the capacity of
the largest aboveground oil storage tank within each storage area plus
sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation;
(B) The facility is located at a distance (as calculated using the
appropriate formula in Appendix C to this part or a comparable formula)
such that a discharge from the facility could cause injury to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments. For further description of fish
and wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III
of the ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and
Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (see Appendix E to this part,
section 10, for availability) and the applicable Area Contingency Plan
prepared pursuant to section 311(j)(4) of the Clean Water Act;
(C) The facility is located at a distance (as calculated using the
appropriate formula in Appendix C to this part or a comparable formula)
such that a discharge from the facility would shut down a public
drinking water intake; or
(D) The facility has had a reportable oil spill in an amount
greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons within the last 5 years.
(2)(i) To determine whether a facility could, because of its
location, reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the
environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the
Regional Administrator shall consider the following:
(A) Type of transfer operation;
(B) Oil storage capacity;
(C) Lack of secondary containment;
(D) Proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments and
other areas determined by the Regional Administrator to possess
ecological value;
(E) Proximity to drinking water intakes;
(F) Spill history; and
(G) Other site-specific characteristics and environmental factors
that the Regional Administrator determines to be relevant to protecting
the environment from harm by discharges of oil into or on navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines.
(ii) Any person, including a member of the public or any
representative from a Federal, State, or local agency who believes that
a facility subject to this section could, because of its location,
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by
discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
may petition the Regional Administrator to determine whether the
facility meets the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
Such petition shall include a discussion of how the factors in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section apply to the facility in question.
The RA shall consider such petitions and respond in an appropriate
amount of time.
(3) To determine whether a facility could, because of its location,
reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the
environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, the Regional Administrator may consider the
factors in paragraph (f)(2) of this section as well as the following:
(i) Frequency of past spills;
(ii) Proximity to navigable waters;
(iii) Age of oil storage tanks; and
(iv) Other facility-specific and Region-specific information,
including local impacts on public health.
(g)(1) All facility response plans shall be consistent with the
requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300) and applicable Area Contingency
Plans prepared pursuant to section 311(j)(4) of the Clean Water Act.
The facility response plan should be coordinated with the local
emergency response plan developed by the local emergency planning
committee under section 303 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.). Upon
request, the owner or operator should provide a copy of the facility
response plan to the local emergency planning committee or State
emergency response commission.
(2) The owner or operator shall review relevant portions of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and
applicable Area Contingency Plan annually and, if necessary, revise the
facility response plan to ensure consistency with these plans.
(3) The owner or operator shall review and update the facility
response plan periodically to reflect changes at the facility.
(h) A response plan shall follow the format of the model facility-
specific response plan included in Appendix F to this part, unless an
equivalent response plan has been prepared to meet State or other
Federal requirements. A response plan that does not follow the
specified format in Appendix F to this part shall have an emergency
response action plan as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) of this section
and be supplemented with a cross-reference section to identify the
location of the elements listed in paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(10) of
this section. To meet the requirements of this part, a response plan
shall address the following elements, as further described in Appendix
F to this part:
(1) Emergency response action plan. The response plan shall include
an emergency response action plan in the format specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section that is maintained in the
front of the response plan, or as a separate document accompanying the
response plan, and that includes the following information:
(i) The identity and telephone number of a qualified individual
having full authority, including contracting authority, to implement
removal actions;
(ii) The identity of individuals or organizations to be contacted
in the event of a discharge so that immediate communications between
the qualified individual identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section
and the appropriate Federal officials and the persons providing
response personnel and equipment can be ensured;
(iii) A description of information to pass to response personnel in
the event of a reportable spill;
(iv) A description of the facility's response equipment and its
location;
(v) A description of response personnel capabilities, including the
duties of persons at the facility during a response action and their
response times and qualifications;
(vi) Plans for evacuation of the facility and a reference to
community evacuation plans, as appropriate;
(vii) A description of immediate measures to secure the source of
the discharge, and to provide adequate containment and drainage of
spilled oil; and
(viii) A diagram of the facility.
(2) Facility information. The response plan shall identify and
discuss the location and type of the facility, the identity and tenure
of the present owner and operator, and the identity of the qualified
individual identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(3) Information about emergency response. The response plan shall
include:
(i) The identity of private personnel and equipment necessary to
remove to the maximum extent practicable a worst case discharge and
other discharges of oil described in paragraph (h)(5) of this section,
and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a worst case
discharge (To identify response resources to meet the facility response
plan requirements of this section, owners or operators shall follow
Appendix E to this part or, where not appropriate, shall clearly
demonstrate in the response plan why use of Appendix E of this part is
not appropriate at the facility and make comparable arrangements for
response resources);
(ii) Evidence of contracts or other approved means for ensuring the
availability of such personnel and equipment;
(iii) The identity and the telephone number of individuals or
organizations to be contacted in the event of a discharge so that
immediate communications between the qualified individual identified in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section and the appropriate Federal official
and the persons providing response personnel and equipment can be
ensured;
(iv) A description of information to pass to response personnel in
the event of a reportable spill;
(v) A description of response personnel capabilities, including the
duties of persons at the facility during a response action and their
response times and qualifications;
(vi) A description of the facility's response equipment, the
location of the equipment, and equipment testing;
(vii) Plans for evacuation of the facility and a reference to
community evacuation plans, as appropriate;
(viii) A diagram of evacuation routes; and
(ix) A description of the duties of the qualified individual
identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, that include:
(A) Activate internal alarms and hazard communication systems to
notify all facility personnel;
(B) Notify all response personnel, as needed;
(C) Identify the character, exact source, amount, and extent of the
release, as well as the other items needed for notification;
(D) Notify and provide necessary information to the appropriate
Federal, State, and local authorities with designated response roles,
including the National Response Center, State Emergency Response
Commission, and Local Emergency Planning Committee;
(E) Assess the interaction of the spilled substance with water and/
or other substances stored at the facility and notify response
personnel at the scene of that assessment;
(F) Assess the possible hazards to human health and the environment
due to the release. This assessment must consider both the direct and
indirect effects of the release (i.e., the effects of any toxic,
irritating, or asphyxiating gases that may be generated, or the effects
of any hazardous surface water runoffs from water or chemical agents
used to control fire and heat-induced explosion);
(G) Assess and implement prompt removal actions to contain and
remove the substance released;
(H) Coordinate rescue and response actions as previously arranged
with all response personnel;
(I) Use authority to immediately access company funding to initiate
cleanup activities; and
(J) Direct cleanup activities until properly relieved of this
responsibility.
(4) Hazard evaluation. The response plan shall discuss the
facility's known or reasonably identifiable history of discharges
reportable under 40 CFR part 110 for the entire life of the facility
and shall identify areas within the facility where discharges could
occur and what the potential effects of the discharges would be on the
affected environment. To assess the range of areas potentially
affected, owners or operators shall, where appropriate, consider the
distance calculated in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section to
determine whether a facility could, because of its location, reasonably
be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging
oil into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
(5) Response planning levels. The response plan shall include
discussion of specific planning scenarios for:
(i) A worst case discharge, as calculated using the appropriate
worksheet in Appendix D to this part. In cases where the Regional
Administrator determines that the worst case discharge volume
calculated by the facility is not appropriate, the Regional
Administrator may specify the worst case discharge amount to be used
for response planning at the facility. For complexes, the worst case
planning quantity shall be the larger of the amounts calculated for
each component of the facility;
(ii) A discharge of 2,100 gallons or less, provided that this
amount is less than the worst case discharge amount. For complexes,
this planning quantity shall be the larger of the amounts calculated
for each component of the facility; and
(iii) A discharge greater than 2,100 gallons and less than or equal
to 36,000 gallons or 10 percent of the capacity of the largest tank at
the facility, whichever is less, provided that this amount is less than
the worst case discharge amount. For complexes, this planning quantity
shall be the larger of the amounts calculated for each component of the
facility.
(6) Discharge detection systems. The response plan shall describe
the procedures and equipment used to detect discharges.
(7) Plan implementation. The response plan shall describe:
(i) Response actions to be carried out by facility personnel or
contracted personnel under the response plan to ensure the safety of
the facility and to mitigate or prevent discharges described in
paragraph (h)(5) of this section or the substantial threat of such
discharges;
(ii) A description of the equipment to be used for each scenario;
(iii) Plans to dispose of contaminated cleanup materials; and
(iv) Measures to provide adequate containment and drainage of
spilled oil.
(8) Self-inspection, drills/exercises, and response training. The
response plan shall include:
(i) A checklist and record of inspections for tanks, secondary
containment, and response equipment;
(ii) A description of the drill/exercise program to be carried out
under the response plan as described in Sec. 112.21;
(iii) A description of the training program to be carried out under
the response plan as described in Sec. 112.21; and
(iv) Logs of discharge prevention meetings, training sessions, and
drills/exercises. These logs may be maintained as an annex to the
response plan.
(9) Diagrams. The response plan shall include site plan and
drainage plan diagrams.
(10) Security systems. The response plan shall include a
description of facility security systems.
(11) Response plan cover sheet. The response plan shall include a
completed response plan cover sheet provided in Section 2.0 of Appendix
F to this part.
(i)(1) In the event the owner or operator of a facility does not
agree with the Regional Administrator's determination that the facility
could, because of its location, reasonably be expected to cause
substantial harm or significant and substantial harm to the environment
by discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, or that amendments to the facility response plan are
necessary prior to approval, such as changes to the worst case
discharge planning volume, the owner or operator may submit a request
for reconsideration to the Regional Administrator and provide
additional information and data in writing to support the request. The
request and accompanying information must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator within 60 days of receipt of notice of the Regional
Administrator's original decision. The Regional Administrator shall
consider the request and render a decision as rapidly as practicable.
(2) In the event the owner or operator of a facility believes a
change in the facility's classification status is warranted because of
an unplanned event or change in the facility's characteristics (i.e.,
substantial harm or significant and substantial harm), the owner or
operator may submit a request for reconsideration to the Regional
Administrator and provide additional information and data in writing to
support the request. The Regional Administrator shall consider the
request and render a decision as rapidly as practicable.
(3) After a request for reconsideration under paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this section has been denied by the Regional Administrator,
an owner or operator may appeal a determination made by the Regional
Administrator. The appeal shall be made to the EPA Administrator and
shall be made in writing within 60 days of receipt of the decision from
the Regional Administrator that the request for reconsideration was
denied. A complete copy of the appeal must be sent to the Regional
Administrator at the time the appeal is made. The appeal shall contain
a clear and concise statement of the issues and points of fact in the
case. It also may contain additional information from the owner or
operator, or from any other person. The EPA Administrator may request
additional information from the owner or operator, or from any other
person. The EPA Administrator shall render a decision as rapidly as
practicable and shall notify the owner or operator of the decision.
Sec. 112.21 Facility response training and drills/exercises.
(a) The owner or operator of any facility required to prepare a
facility response plan under Sec. 112.20 shall develop and implement a
facility response training program and a drill/exercise program that
satisfy the requirements of this section. The owner or operator shall
describe the programs in the response plan as provided in
Sec. 112.20(h)(8).
(b) The facility owner or operator shall develop a facility
response training program to train those personnel involved in oil
spill response activities. It is recommended that the training program
be based on the USCG's Training Elements for Oil Spill Response, as
applicable to facility operations. An alternative program can also be
acceptable subject to approval by the Regional Administrator.
(1) The owner or operator shall be responsible for the proper
instruction of facility personnel in the procedures to respond to
discharges of oil and in applicable oil spill response laws, rules, and
regulations.
(2) Training shall be functional in nature according to job tasks
for both supervisory and non-supervisory operational personnel.
(3) Trainers shall develop specific lesson plans on subject areas
relevant to facility personnel involved in oil spill response and
cleanup.
(c) The facility owner or operator shall develop a program of
facility response drills/exercises, including evaluation procedures. A
program that follows the National Preparedness for Response Exercise
Program (PREP) (see Appendix E to this part, section 10, for
availability) will be deemed satisfactory for purposes of this section.
An alternative program can also be acceptable subject to approval by
the Regional Administrator.
6. Part 112 is amended by redesignating the appendix to Part 112
titled ``Memorandum of Understanding Between the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency'' as Appendix A to Part 112.
Appendices B Through F Part 112 [Added]
7. Part 112 is amended by adding Appendices B through F to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 112--Memorandum of Understanding Among the Secretary
of the Interior, Secretary of Transportation, and Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency
Purpose
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the
jurisdictional responsibilities for offshore facilities, including
pipelines, pursuant to section 311 (j)(1)(c), (j)(5), and (j)(6)(A)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-380). The Secretary of the Department of the
Interior (DOI), Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT),
and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree
to the division of responsibilities set forth below for spill
prevention and control, response planning, and equipment inspection
activities pursuant to those provisions.
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 12777 (56 FR 54757) delegates to DOI,
DOT, and EPA various responsibilities identified in section 311(j)
of the CWA. Sections 2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of E.O. 12777
assigned to DOI spill prevention and control, contingency planning,
and equipment inspection activities associated with offshore
facilities. Section 311(a)(11) defines the term ``offshore
facility'' to include facilities of any kind located in, on, or
under navigable waters of the United States. By using this
definition, the traditional DOI role of regulating facilities on the
Outer Continental Shelf is expanded by E.O. 12777 to include inland
lakes, rivers, streams, and any other inland waters.
Responsibilities
Pursuant to section 2(i) of E.O. 12777, DOI redelegates, and EPA
and DOT agree to assume, the functions vested in DOI by sections
2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of E.O. 12777 as set forth below. For
purposes of this MOU, the term ``coast line'' shall be defined as in
the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(c)) to mean ``the line of
ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in
direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward
limit of inland waters.''
1. To EPA, DOI redelegates responsibility for non-
transportation-related offshore facilities located landward of the
coast line.
2. To DOT, DOI redelegates responsibility for transportation-
related facilities, including pipelines, located landward of the
coast line. The DOT retains jurisdiction for deepwater ports and
their associated seaward pipelines, as delegated by E.O. 12777.
3. The DOI retains jurisdiction over facilities, including
pipelines, located seaward of the coast line, except for deepwater
ports and associated seaward pipelines delegated by E.O. 12777 to
DOT.
Effective Date
This MOU is effective on the date of the final execution by the
indicated signatories.
Limitations
1. The DOI, DOT, and EPA may agree in writing to exceptions to
this MOU on a facility-specific basis. Affected parties will receive
notification of the exceptions.
2. Nothing in this MOU is intended to replace, supersede, or
modify any existing agreements between or among DOI, DOT, or EPA.
Modification and Termination
Any party to this agreement may propose modifications by
submitting them in writing to the heads of the other agency/
department. No modification may be adopted except with the consent
of all parties. All parties shall indicate their consent to or
disagreement with any proposed modification within 60 days of
receipt. Upon the request of any party, representatives of all
parties shall meet for the purpose of considering exceptions or
modifications to this agreement. This MOU may be terminated only
with the mutual consent of all parties.
Dated: November 8, 1993.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
Dated: December 14, 1993.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
Dated: February 3, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
Appendix C to Part 112--Substantial Harm Criteria
1.0 Introduction
The flowchart provided in Attachment C-I to this appendix shows
the decision tree with the criteria to identify whether a facility
``could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the
environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines.'' In addition, the Regional Administrator has
the discretion to identify facilities that must prepare and submit
facility-specific response plans to EPA.
1.1 Definitions
1.1.1 Great Lakes means Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie,
and Ontario, their connecting and tributary waters, the Saint
Lawrence River as far as Saint Regis, and adjacent port areas.
1.1.2 Higher Volume Port Areas include
(1) Boston, MA;
(2) New York, NY;
(3) Delaware Bay and River to Philadelphia, PA;
(4) St. Croix, VI;
(5) Pascagoula, MS;
(6) Mississippi River from Southwest Pass, LA to Baton Rouge,
LA;
(7) Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), LA;
(8) Lake Charles, LA;
(9) Sabine-Neches River, TX;
(10) Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel, TX;
(11) Corpus Christi, TX;
(12) Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, CA;
(13) San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, and
Suisun Bay to Antioch, CA;
(14) Straits of Juan de Fuca from Port Angeles, WA to and
including Puget Sound, WA;
(15) Prince William Sound, AK; and
(16) Others as specified by the Regional Administrator for any
EPA Region.
1.1.3 Inland Area means the area shoreward of the boundary
lines defined in 46 CFR part 7, except in the Gulf of Mexico. In the
Gulf of Mexico, it means the area shoreward of the lines of
demarcation (COLREG lines as defined in 33 CFR 80.740--80.850). The
inland area does not include the Great Lakes.
1.1.4 Rivers and Canals means a body of water confined within
the inland area, including the Intracoastal Waterways and other
waterways artificially created for navigating that have project
depths of 12 feet or less.
2.0 Description of Screening Criteria for the Substantial Harm
Flowchart
A facility that has the potential to cause substantial harm to
the environment in the event of a discharge must prepare and submit
a facility-specific response plan to EPA in accordance with Appendix
F to this part. A description of the screening criteria for the
substantial harm flowchart is provided below:
2.1 Non-Transportation-Related Facilities With a Total Oil
Storage Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where
Operations Include Over-Water Transfers of Oil. A non-
transportation-related facility with a total oil storage capacity
greater than 42,000 gallons that transfers oil over water to or from
vessels must submit a response plan to EPA. Daily oil transfer
operations at these types of facilities occur between barges and
vessels and onshore bulk storage tanks over open water. These
facilities are located adjacent to navigable water.
2.2 Lack of Adequate Secondary Containment at Facilities With a
Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 1 Million
Gallons. Any facility with a total oil storage capacity greater than
or equal to 1 million gallons without secondary containment
sufficiently large to contain the capacity of the largest
aboveground oil storage tank within each area plus sufficient
freeboard to allow for precipitation must submit a response plan to
EPA. Secondary containment structures that meet the standard of good
engineering practice for the purposes of this part include berms,
dikes, retaining walls, curbing, culverts, gutters, or other
drainage systems.
2.3 Proximity to Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments
at Facilities With a Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater Than or
Equal to 1 Million Gallons. A facility with a total oil storage
capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons must submit its
response plan if it is located at a distance such that a discharge
from the facility could cause injury (as defined at 40 CFR 112.2) to
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. For further
description of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments, see
Appendices I, II, and III to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance for Facility and
Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments'' (see Appendix E to this part, section 10, for
availability) and the applicable Area Contingency Plan. Facility
owners or operators must determine the distance at which an oil
spill could cause injury to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments using the appropriate formula presented in Attachment
C-III to this appendix or a comparable formula.
2.4 Proximity to Public Drinking Water Intakes at Facilities
with a Total Storage Oil Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 1 Million
Gallons. A facility with a total storage capacity greater than or
equal to 1 million gallons must submit its response plan if it is
located at a distance such that a discharge from the facility would
shut down a public drinking water intake, which is analogous to a
public water system as described at 40 CFR 143.2(c). The distance at
which an oil spill from an SPCC-regulated facility would shut down a
public drinking water intake shall be calculated using the
appropriate formula presented in Attachment C-III to this appendix
or a comparable formula.
2.5 Facilities That Have Experienced Reportable Oil Spills in
an Amount Greater Than or Equal to 10,000 Gallons Within the Past 5
Years and That Have a Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater Than or
Equal to 1 Million Gallons. A facility's oil spill history within
the past 5 years shall be considered in the evaluation for
substantial harm. Any facility with a total oil storage capacity
greater than or equal to 1 million gallons that has experienced a
reportable oil spill in an amount greater than or equal to 10,000
gallons within the past 5 years must submit a response plan to EPA.
3.0 Certification for Facilities That Do Not Pose Substantial Harm
If the facility does not meet the substantial harm criteria
listed in Attachment C-I to this appendix, the owner or operator
shall complete and maintain at the facility the certification form
contained in Attachment C-II to this appendix. In the event an
alternative formula that is comparable to the one in this appendix
is used to evaluate the substantial harm criteria, the owner or
operator shall attach documentation to the certification form that
demonstrates the reliability and analytical soundness of the
comparable formula and shall notify the Regional Administrator in
writing that an alternative formula was used.
4.0 References
Chow, V.T. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill.
USCG IFR (58 FR 7353, February 5, 1993). This document is
available through EPA's rulemaking docket as noted in Appendix E to
this part, section 10.
Attachments to Appendix C
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TR01JY94.016
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Attachment C-II--Certification of the Applicability of the Substantial
Harm Criteria
Facility Name:---------------------------------------------------------
Facility Addresses:----------------------------------------------------
1. Does the facility transfer oil over water to or from vessels
and does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than
or equal to 42,000 gallons?
Yes ______ No ______
2. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater
than or equal to 1 million gallons and does the facility lack
secondary containment that is sufficiently large to contain the
capacity of the largest aboveground oil storage tank plus sufficient
freeboard to allow for precipitation within any aboveground oil
storage tank area?
Yes ______ No ______
3. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater
than or equal to 1 million gallons and is the facility located at a
distance (as calculated using the appropriate formula in Attachment
C-III to this appendix or a comparable formula\1\) such that a
discharge from the facility could cause injury to fish and wildlife
and sensitive environments? For further description of fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III
to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans:
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (see Appendix E to
this part, section 10, for availability) and the applicable Area
Contingency Plan.
Yes ______ No ______
4. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater
than or equal to 1 million gallons and is the facility located at a
distance (as calculated using the appropriate formula in Attachment
C-III to this appendix or a comparable formula\1\) such that a
discharge from the facility would shut down a public drinking water
intake\2\?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\If a comparable formula is used documentation of the
reliability and analytical soundness of the comparable formula must
be attached to this form.
\2\For the purposes of 40 CFR part 112, public drinking water
intakes are analogous to public water systems as described at 40 CFR
143.2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes ______ No ______
5. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater
than or equal to 1 million gallons and has the facility experienced
a reportable oil spill in an amount greater than or equal to 10,000
gallons within the last 5 years?
Yes ______ No ______
Certification
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and
that based on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for
obtaining this information, I believe that the submitted information
is true, accurate, and complete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name (please type or print)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Attachment C-III--Calculation of the Planning Distance
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The facility owner or operator must evaluate whether the
facility is located at a distance such that a discharge from the
facility could cause injury to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments or disrupt operations at a public drinking water
intake. To quantify that distance, EPA considered oil transport
mechanisms over land and on still, tidal influence, and moving
navigable waters. EPA has determined that the primary concern for
calculation of a planning distance is the transport of oil in
navigable waters during adverse weather conditions. Therefore, two
formulas have been developed to determine distances for planning
purposes from the point of discharge at the facility to the
potential site of impact on moving and still waters, respectively.
The formula for oil transport on moving navigable water is based on
the velocity of the water body and the time interval for arrival of
response resources. The still water formula accounts for the spread
of discharged oil over the surface of the water. The method to
determine oil transport on tidal influence areas is based on the
type of oil spilled and the distance down current during ebb tide
and up current during flood tide to the point of maximum tidal
influence.
1.2 EPA's formulas were designed to be simple to use. However,
facility owners or operators may calculate planning distances using
more sophisticated formulas, which take into account broader
scientific or engineering principles, or local conditions. Such
comparable formulas may result in different planning distances than
EPA's formulas. In the event that an alternative formula that is
comparable to one contained in this appendix is used to evaluate the
criterion in 40 CFR 112.20(f)(1)(ii)(B) or (f)(1)(ii)(C), the owner
or operator shall attach documentation to the response plan cover
sheet contained in Appendix F to this part that demonstrates the
reliability and analytical soundness of the alternative formula and
shall notify the Regional Administrator in writing that an
alternative formula was used.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For persistent oils or non-persistent oils, a worst case
trajectory model (i.e., an alternative formula) may be substituted
for the distance formulas described in still, moving, and tidal
waters, subject to Regional Administrator's review of the model. An
example of an alternative formula that is comparable to the one
contained in this appendix would be a worst case trajectory
calculation based on credible adverse winds, currents, and/or river
stages, over a range of seasons, weather conditions, and river
stages. Based on historical information or a spill trajectory model,
the Agency may require that additional fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments or public drinking water intakes also be
protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 A regulated facility may meet the criteria for the
potential to cause substantial harm to the environment without
having to perform a planning distance calculation. For facilities
that meet the substantial harm criteria because of inadequate
secondary containment or oil spill history, as listed in the
flowchart in Attachment C-I to this appendix, calculation of the
planning distance is unnecessary. For facilities that do not meet
the substantial harm criteria for secondary containment or oil spill
history as listed in the flowchart, calculation of a planning
distance for proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments and public drinking water intakes is required, unless
it is clear without performing the calculation (e.g., the facility
is located in a wetland) that these areas would be impacted.
1.4 A facility owner or operator who must perform a planning
distance calculation on navigable water is only required to do so
for the type of navigable water conditions (i.e., moving water,
still water, or tidal- influenced water) applicable to the facility.
If a facility owner or operator determines that more than one type
of navigable water condition applies, then the facility owner or
operator is required to perform a planning distance calculation for
each navigable water type to determine the greatest single distance
that oil may be transported. As a result, the final planning
distance for oil transport on water shall be the greatest individual
distance rather than a summation of each calculated planning
distance.
1.5 The planning distance formula for transport on moving
waterways contains three variables: the velocity of the navigable
water (v), the response time interval (t), and a conversion factor
(c). The velocity, v, is determined by using the Chezy-Manning
equation, which, in this case, models the flood flow rate of water
in open channels. The Chezy-Manning equation contains three
variables which must be determined by facility owners or operators.
Manning's Roughness Coefficient (for flood flow rates), n, can be
determined from Table 1 of this attachment. The hydraulic radius, r,
can be estimated using the average mid-channel depth from charts
provided by the sources listed in Table 2 of this attachment. The
average slope of the river, s, can be determined using topographic
maps that can be ordered from the U.S. Geological Survey, as listed
in Table 2 of this attachment.
1.6 Table 3 of this attachment contains specified time
intervals for estimating the arrival of response resources at the
scene of a discharge. Assuming no prior planning, response resources
should be able to arrive at the discharge site within 12 hours of
the discovery of any oil discharge in Higher Volume Port Areas and
within 24 hours in Great Lakes and all other river, canal, inland,
and nearshore areas. The specified time intervals in Table 3 of
Appendix C are to be used only to aid in the identification of
whether a facility could cause substantial harm to the environment.
Once it is determined that a plan must be developed for the
facility, the owner or operator shall reference Appendix E to this
part to determine appropriate resource levels and response times.
The specified time intervals of this appendix include a 3-hour time
period for deployment of boom and other response equipment. The
Regional Administrator may identify additional areas as appropriate.
2.0 Oil Transport on Moving Navigable Waters
2.1 The facility owner or operator must use the following formula
or a comparable formula as described in Sec. 112.20(a)(3) to calculate
the planning distance for oil transport on moving navigable water:
d=v x t x c; where
d: the distance downstream from a facility within which fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments could be injured or a public
drinking water intake would be shut down in the event of an oil
discharge (in miles);
v: the velocity of the river/navigable water of concern (in ft/sec)
as determined by Chezy-Manning's equation (see below and Tables 1
and 2 of this attachment);
t: the time interval specified in Table 3 based upon the type of
water body and location (in hours); and
c: constant conversion factor 0.68 secmile/hrft
(3600 sec/hr 5280 ft/mile).
2.2 Chezy-Manning's equation is used to determine velocity:
v=1.5/n x r\2/3\ x s\1/2\; where
v=the velocity of the river of concern (in ft/sec);
n=Manning's Roughness Coefficient from Table 1 of this attachment;
r=the hydraulic radius; the hydraulic radius can be approximated for
parabolic channels by multiplying the average mid-channel depth of
the river (in feet) by 0.667 (sources for obtaining the mid-channel
depth are listed in Table 2 of this attachment); and
s=the average slope of the river (unitless) obtained from U.S.
Geological Survey topographic maps at the address listed in Table 2
of this attachment.
Table 1.--Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Natural Streams
[Note: Coefficients are presented for high flow rates at or near flood
stage.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roughness
Stream description coefficient
(n)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Streams (Top Width <100 ft.)
Clean:
Straight................................................. 0.03
Winding.................................................. .04
Sluggish (Weedy, deep pools):
No trees or brush........................................ .06
Trees and/or brush....................................... .10
Major Streams (Top Width >100 ft.)
Regular section:
(No boulders/brush)...................................... .035
Irregular section:
(Brush).................................................. .05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Sources of r and s for the Chezy-Manning Equation
All of the charts and related publications for navigational waters may
be ordered from:
Distribution Branch
(N/CG33)
National Ocean Service
Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1199
Phone: (301) 436-6990
There will be a charge for materials ordered and a VISA or Mastercard
will be accepted.
The mid-channel depth to be used in the calculation of the hydraulic
radius (r) can be obtained directly from the following sources:
Charts of Canadian Coastal and Great Lakes Waters:
Canadian Hydrographic Service
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Institute
P.O. Box 8080
1675 Russell Road
Ottawa, Ontario KIG 3H6
Canada
Phone: (613) 998-4931
Charts and Maps of Lower Mississippi River
(Gulf of Mexico to Ohio River and St. Francis, White, Big Sunflower,
Atchafalaya, and other rivers):
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg District
P.O. Box 60
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Phone: (601) 634-5000
Charts of Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway to Lake
Michigan:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rock Island District
P.O. Box 2004
Rock Island, Illinois 61204
Phone: (309) 794-5552
Charts of Missouri River:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Omaha District
6014 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Phone: (402) 221-3900
Charts of Ohio River:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ohio River Division
P.O. Box 1159
Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
Phone: (513) 684-3002
Charts of Tennessee Valley Authority Reservoirs, Tennessee River and
Tributaries:
Tennessee Valley Authority
Maps and Engineering Section
416 Union Avenue
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Phone: (615) 632-2921
Charts of Black Warrior River, Alabama River, Tombigbee River,
Apalachicola River and Pearl River:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile District
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001
Phone: (205) 690-2511
The average slope of the river (s) may be obtained from topographic
maps:
U.S. Geological Survey
Map Distribution
Federal Center
Bldg. 41
Box 25286
Denver, Colorado 80225
Additional information can be obtained from the following sources:
1. The State's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or the State's
Aids to Navigation office;
2. A knowledgeable local marina operator; or
3. A knowledgeable local water authority (e.g., State water
commission)
2.3 The average slope of the river (s) can be determined from
the topographic maps using the following steps:
(1) Locate the facility on the map.
(2) Find the Normal Pool Elevation at the point of discharge
from the facility into the water (A).
(3) Find the Normal Pool Elevation of the public drinking water
intake or fish and wildlife and sensitive environment located
downstream (B) (Note: The owner or operator should use a minimum of
20 miles downstream as a cutoff to obtain the average slope if the
location of a specific public drinking water intake or fish and
wildlife and sensitive environment is unknown).
(4) If the Normal Pool Elevation is not available, the elevation
contours can be used to find the slope. Determine elevation of the
water at the point of discharge from the facility (A). Determine the
elevation of the water at the appropriate distance downstream (B).
The formula presented below can be used to calculate the slope.
(5) Determine the distance (in miles) between the facility and
the public drinking water intake or fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments (C).
(6) Use the following formula to find the slope, which will be a
unitless value: Average Slope=[(A--B) (ft)/C (miles)] x [1 mile/
5280 feet]
2.4 If it is not feasible to determine the slope and mid-
channel depth by the Chezy-Manning equation, then the river velocity
can be approximated on- site. A specific length, such as 100 feet,
can be marked off along the shoreline. A float can be dropped into
the stream above the mark, and the time required for the float to
travel the distance can be used to determine the velocity in feet
per second. However, this method will not yield an average velocity
for the length of the stream, but a velocity only for the specific
location of measurement. In addition, the flow rate will vary
depending on weather conditions such as wind and rainfall. It is
recommended that facility owners or operators repeat the measurement
under a variety of conditions to obtain the most accurate estimate
of the surface water velocity under adverse weather conditions.
2.5 The planning distance calculations for moving and still
navigable waters are based on worst case discharges of persistent
oils. Persistent oils are of concern because they can remain in the
water for significant periods of time and can potentially exist in
large quantities downstream. Owners or operators of facilities that
store persistent as well as non-persistent oils may use a comparable
formula. The volume of oil discharged is not included as part of the
planning distance calculation for moving navigable waters.
Facilities that will meet this substantial harm criterion are those
with facility capacities greater than or equal to 1 million gallons.
It is assumed that these facilities are capable of having an oil
discharge of sufficient quantity to cause injury to fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments or shut down a public drinking
water intake. While owners or operators of transfer facilities that
store greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons are not required to
use a planning distance formula for purposes of the substantial harm
criteria, they should use a planning distance calculation in the
development of facility-specific response plans.
Table 3.--Specified Time Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantial harm planning time
Operating areas (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area............ 12 hour arrival+3 hour
deployment=15 hours.
Great Lakes........................ 24 hour arrival+3 hour
deployment=27 hours.
All other rivers and canals, 24 hour arrival+3 hour
inland, and nearshore areas. deployment=27 hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6 Example of the Planning Distance Calculation for Oil
Transport on Moving Navigable Waters. The following example provides
a sample calculation using the planning distance formula for a
facility discharging oil into the Monongahela River:
(1) Solve for v by evaluating n, r, and s for the Chezy-Manning
equation:
Find the roughness coefficient, n, on Table 1 of this attachment
for a regular section of a major stream with a top width greater
than 100 feet. The top width of the river can be found from the
topographic map.
n=0.035.
Find slope, s, where A=727 feet, B=710 feet, and C=25 miles.
Solving:
s=[(727 ft--710 ft)/25 miles] x [1 mile/5280 feet]=1.3 x 10-4
The average mid-channel depth is found by averaging the mid-
channel depth for each mile along the length of the river between
the facility and the public drinking water intake or the fish or
wildlife or sensitive environment (or 20 miles downstream if
applicable). This value is multiplied by 0.667 to obtain the
hydraulic radius. The mid-channel depth is found by obtaining values
for r and s from the sources shown in Table 2 for the Monongahela
River.
Solving:
r=0.667 x 20 feet=13.33 feet
Solve for v using:
v=1.5/n x r2/3 x s1/2:
v=[1.5/0.035] x (13.33)2/3 x (1.3 x 10-4)1/2
v=2.73 feet/second
(2) Find t from Table 3 of this attachment. The Monongahela
River's resource response time is 27 hours.
(3) Solve for planning distance, d:
d=v x t x c
d=(2.73 ft/sec) x (27 hours) x (0.68 secmile/hrft)
d=50 miles
Therefore, 50 miles downstream is the appropriate planning distance
for this facility.
3.0 Oil Transport on Still Water
3.1 For bodies of water including lakes or ponds that do not
have a measurable velocity, the spreading of the oil over the
surface must be considered. Owners or operators of facilities
located next to still water bodies may use a comparable means of
calculating the planning distance. If a comparable formula is used,
documentation of the reliability and analytical soundness of the
comparable calculation must be attached to the response plan cover
sheet.
3.2 Example of the Planning Distance Calculation for Oil
Transport on Still Water. To assist those facilities which could
potentially discharge into a still body of water, the following
analysis was performed to provide an example of the type of formula
that may be used to calculate the planning distance. For this
example, a worst case discharge of 2,000,000 gallons is used.
(1) The surface area in square feet covered by an oil spill on
still water, A1, can be determined by the following formula,\2\
where V is the volume of the spill in gallons and C is a constant
conversion factor:
\2\Huang, J.C. and Monastero, F.C., 1982. Review of the State-
of-the-Art of Oil Pollution Models. Final report submitted to the
American Petroleum Institute by Raytheon Ocean Systems, Co., East
Providence, Rhode Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1=105 x V\3/4\ x C
C=0.1643
A1=105 x (2,000,000 gallons)\3/4\ x (0.1643)
A1=8.74 x 108 ft2
(2) The spreading formula is based on the theoretical condition
that the oil will spread uniformly in all directions forming a
circle. In reality, the outfall of the discharge will direct the oil
to the surface of the water where it intersects the shoreline.
Although the oil will not spread uniformly in all directions, it is
assumed that the discharge will spread from the shoreline into a
semi-circle (this assumption does not account for winds or wave
action).
(3) The area of a circle=r2
(4) To account for the assumption that oil will spread in a
semi-circular shape, the area of a circle is divided by 2 and is
designated as A2.
A2=(r2)/2
Solving for the radius, r, using the relationship A1=A2:
8.74 x 108 ft2=(r2)/2
Therefore, r=23,586 ft
r=23,586 ft5,280 ft/mile=4.5 miles
Assuming a 20 knot wind under storm conditions:
1 knot=1.15 miles/hour
20 knots x 1.15 miles/hour/knot=23 miles/hr
Assuming that the oil slick moves at 3 percent of the wind's
speed:\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Oil Spill Prevention & Control. National Spill Control
School, Corpus Christi State University, Thirteenth Edition, May
1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 miles/hour x 0.03=0.69 miles/hour
(5) To estimate the distance that the oil will travel, use the
times required for response resources to arrive at different
geographic locations as shown in Table 3 of this attachment.
For example:
For Higher Volume Port Areas: 15 hrs x 0.69 miles/hr=10.4 miles
For Great Lakes and all other areas: 27 hrs x 0.69 miles/hr=18.6
miles
(6) The total distance that the oil will travel from the point
of discharge, including the distance due to spreading, is calculated
as follows:
Higher Volume Port Areas: d=10.4+4.5 miles or approximately 15 miles
Great Lakes and all other areas: d=18.6+4.5 miles or approximately
23 miles
4.0 Oil Transport on Tidal-Influence Areas
4.1 The planning distance method for tidal influence navigable
water is based on worst case discharges of persistent and non-
persistent oils. Persistent oils are of primary concern because they
can potentially cause harm over a greater distance. For persistent
oils discharged into tidal waters, the planning distance is 15 miles
from the facility down current during ebb tide and to the point of
maximum tidal influence or 15 miles, whichever is less, during flood
tide.
4.2 For non-persistent oils discharged into tidal waters, the
planning distance is 5 miles from the facility down current during
ebb tide and to the point of maximum tidal influence or 5 miles,
whichever is less, during flood tide.
4.3 Example of Determining the Planning Distance for Two Types
of Navigable Water Conditions. Below is an example of how to
determine the proper planning distance when a facility could impact
two types of navigable water conditions: moving water and tidal
water.
(1) Facility X stores persistent oil and is located downstream
from locks along a slow moving river which is affected by tides. The
river velocity, v, is determined to be 0.5 feet/second from the
Chezy-Manning equation used to calculate oil transport on moving
navigable waters. The specified time interval, t, obtained from
Table 3 of this attachment for river areas is 27 hours. Therefore,
solving for the planning distance, d:
d=v x t x c
d=(0.5 ft/sec) x (27 hours) x (0.68 sec\mile/hr\ft)
d=9.18 miles.
(2) However, the planning distance for maximum tidal influence
down current during ebb tide is 15 miles, which is greater than the
calculated 9.18 miles. Therefore, 15 miles downstream is the
appropriate planning distance for this facility.
5.0 Oil Transport Over Land
5.1 Facility owners or operators must evaluate the potential
for oil to be transported over land to navigable waters of the
United States. The owner or operator must evaluate the likelihood
that portions of a worst case discharge would reach navigable waters
via open channel flow or from sheet flow across the land, or be
prevented from reaching navigable waters when trapped in natural or
man-made depressions excluding secondary containment structures.
5.2 As discharged oil travels over land, it may enter a storm
drain or open concrete channel intended for drainage. It is assumed
that once oil reaches such an inlet, it will flow into the receiving
navigable water. During a storm event, it is highly probable that
the oil will either flow into the drainage structures or follow the
natural contours of the land and flow into the navigable water.
Expected minimum and maximum velocities are provided as examples of
open concrete channel and pipe flow. The ranges listed below reflect
minimum and maximum velocities used as design criteria.\4\ The
calculation below demonstrates that the time required for oil to
travel through a storm drain or open concrete channel to navigable
water is negligible and can be considered instantaneous. The
velocities are:
\4\The design velocities were obtained from Howard County,
Maryland Department of Public Works' Storm Drainage Design Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For open concrete channels:
maximum velocity=25 feet per second
minimum velocity=3 feet per second
For storm drains:
maximum velocity=25 feet per second
minimum velocity=2 feet per second
5.3 Assuming a length of 0.5 mile from the point of discharge
through an open concrete channel or concrete storm drain to a
navigable water, the travel times (distance/velocity) are:
1.8 minutes at a velocity of 25 feet per second
14.7 minutes at a velocity of 3 feet per second
22.0 minutes for at a velocity of 2 feet per second
5.4 The distances that shall be considered to determine the
planning distance are illustrated in Figure C-I of this attachment.
The relevant distances can be described as follows:
D1=Distance from the nearest opportunity for discharge, X1, to
a storm drain or an open concrete channel leading to navigable
water.
D2=Distance through the storm drain or open concrete channel to
navigable water.
D3=Distance downstream from the outfall within which fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments could be injured or a public
drinking water intake would be shut down as determined by the
planning distance formula.
D4=Distance from the nearest opportunity for discharge, X2, to
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments not bordering navigable
water.
5.5 A facility owner or operator whose nearest opportunity for
discharge is located within 0.5 mile of a navigable water must
complete the planning distance calculation (D3) for the type of
navigable water near the facility or use a comparable formula.
5.6 A facility that is located at a distance greater than 0.5
mile from a navigable water must also calculate a planning distance
(D3) if it is in close proximity (i.e., D1 is less than 0.5 mile and
other factors are conducive to oil travel over land) to storm drains
that flow to navigable waters. Factors to be considered in assessing
oil transport over land to storm drains shall include the topography
of the surrounding area, drainage patterns, man-made barriers
(excluding secondary containment structures), and soil distribution
and porosity. Storm drains or concrete drainage channels that are
located in close proximity to the facility can provide a direct
pathway to navigable waters, regardless of the length of the
drainage pipe. If D1 is less than or equal to 0.5 mile, a discharge
from the facility could pose substantial harm because the time to
travel the distance from the storm drain to the navigable water (D2)
is virtually instantaneous.
5.7 A facility's proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments not bordering a navigable water, as depicted as D4 in
Figure C-I of this attachment, must also be considered, regardless
of the distance from the facility to navigable waters. Factors to be
considered in assessing oil transport over land to fish and wildlife
and sensitive environments should include the topography of the
surrounding area, drainage patterns, man-made barriers (excluding
secondary containment structures), and soil distribution and
porosity.
5.8 If a facility is not found to pose substantial harm to fish
and wildlife and sensitive environments not bordering navigable
waters via oil transport on land, then supporting documentation
should be maintained at the facility. However, such documentation
should be submitted with the response plan if a facility is found to
pose substantial harm.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TR01JY94.017
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Appendix D to Part 112--Determination of a Worst Case Discharge
Planning Volume
1.0 Instructions
1.1 An owner or operator is required to complete this worksheet
if the facility meets the criteria, as presented in Appendix C to
this part, or it is determined by the RA that the facility could
cause substantial harm to the environment. The calculation of a
worst case discharge planning volume is used for emergency planning
purposes, and is required in 40 CFR 112.20 for facility owners or
operators who must prepare a response plan. When planning for the
amount of resources and equipment necessary to respond to the worst
case discharge planning volume, adverse weather conditions must be
taken into consideration. An owner or operator is required to
determine the facility's worst case discharge planning volume from
either Part A of this appendix for an onshore storage facility, or
Part B of this appendix for an onshore production facility. The
worksheet considers the provision of adequate secondary containment
at a facility.
1.2 For onshore storage facilities and production facilities,
permanently manifolded oil storage tanks are defined as tanks that
are designed, installed, and/or operated in such a manner that the
multiple tanks function as one storage unit (i.e., multiple tank
volumes are equalized). In a worst case discharge scenario, a single
failure could cause the discharge of the contents of more than one
tank. The owner or operator must provide evidence in the response
plan that tanks with common piping or piping systems are not
operated as one unit. If such evidence is provided and is acceptable
to the RA, the worst case discharge planning volume would be based
on the capacity of the largest oil storage tank within a common
secondary containment area or the largest oil storage tank within a
single secondary containment area, whichever is greater. For
permanently manifolded tanks that function as one oil storage unit,
the worst case discharge planning volume would be based on the
combined oil storage capacity of all manifolded tanks or the
capacity of the largest single oil storage tank within a secondary
containment area, whichever is greater. For purposes of this rule,
permanently manifolded tanks that are separated by internal
divisions for each tank are considered to be single tanks and
individual manifolded tank volumes are not combined.
1.3 For production facilities, the presence of exploratory
wells, production wells, and oil storage tanks must be considered in
the calculation. Part B of this appendix takes these additional
factors into consideration and provides steps for their inclusion in
the total worst case discharge planning volume. Onshore oil
production facilities may include all wells, flowlines, separation
equipment, storage facilities, gathering lines, and auxiliary non-
transportation-related equipment and facilities in a single
geographical oil or gas field operated by a single operator.
Although a potential worst case discharge planning volume is
calculated within each section of the worksheet, the final worst
case amount depends on the risk parameter that results in the
greatest volume.
1.4 Marine transportation-related transfer facilities that
contain fixed aboveground onshore structures used for bulk oil
storage are jointly regulated by EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), and are termed ``complexes.'' Because the USCG also requires
response plans from transportation-related facilities to address a
worst case discharge of oil, a separate calculation for the worst
case discharge planning volume for USCG-related facilities is
included in the USCG IFR (see Appendix E to this part, section 10,
for availability). All complexes that are jointly regulated by EPA
and the USCG must compare both calculations for worst case discharge
planning volume derived by using the EPA and USCG methodologies and
plan for whichever volume is greater.
PART A: WORST CASE DISCHARGE PLANNING VOLUME CALCULATION FOR ONSHORE
STORAGE FACILITIES\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Storage facilities'' represent all facilities subject to
this part, excluding oil production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part A of this worksheet is to be completed by the owner or
operator of an SPCC-regulated facility (excluding oil production
facilities) if the facility meets the criteria as presented in
Appendix C to this part, or if it is determined by the RA that the
facility could cause substantial harm to the environment. If you are
the owner or operator of a production facility, please proceed to
Part B of this worksheet.
A.1 SINGLE-TANK FACILITIES
For facilities containing only one aboveground oil storage tank,
the worst case discharge planning volume equals the capacity of the
oil storage tank. If adequate secondary containment (sufficiently
large to contain the capacity of the aboveground oil storage tank
plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation) exists for the
oil storage tank, multiply the capacity of the tank by 0.8.
(1) FINAL WORST CASE VOLUME: ________ GAL
(2) Do not proceed further.
A.2 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT--MULTIPLE-TANK FACILITIES
Are all aboveground oil storage tanks or groups of aboveground
oil storage tanks at the facility without adequate secondary
containment?\2\
\2\Secondary containment is defined in 40 CFR 112.7(e)(2).
Acceptable methods and structures for containment are also given in
40 CFR 112.7(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
________ (Y/N)
A.2.1 If the answer is yes, the final worst case discharge
planning volume equals the total aboveground oil storage capacity at
the facility.
(1) FINAL WORST CASE VOLUME: ________ GAL
(2) Do not proceed further.
A.2.2 If the answer is no, calculate the total aboveground oil
storage capacity of tanks without adequate secondary containment. If
all aboveground oil storage tanks or groups of aboveground oil
storage tanks at the facility have adequate secondary containment,
ENTER ``0'' (zero).
________ GAL
A.2.3 Calculate the capacity of the largest single aboveground
oil storage tank within an adequate secondary containment area or
the combined capacity of a group of aboveground oil storage tanks
permanently manifolded together, whichever is greater, PLUS THE
VOLUME FROM QUESTION A2(b).
FINAL WORST CASE VOLUME:\3\ ________ GAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\All complexes that are jointly regulated by EPA and the USCG
must also calculate the worst case discharge planning volume for the
transportation-related portions of the facility and plan for
whichever volume is greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B: WORST CASE DISCHARGE PLANNING VOLUME CALCULATION FOR ONSHORE
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Part B of this worksheet is to be completed by the owner or
operator of an SPCC-regulated oil production facility if the
facility meets the criteria presented in Appendix C to this part, or
if it is determined by the RA that the facility could cause
substantial harm. A production facility consists of all wells
(producing and exploratory) and related equipment in a single
geographical oil or gas field operated by a single operator.
B.1 SINGLE-TANK FACILITIES
B.1.1 For facilities containing only one aboveground oil
storage tank, the worst case discharge planning volume equals the
capacity of the aboveground oil storage tank plus the production
volume of the well with the highest output at the facility. If
adequate secondary containment (sufficiently large to contain the
capacity of the aboveground oil storage tank plus sufficient
freeboard to allow for precipitation) exists for the storage tank,
multiply the capacity of the tank by 0.8.
B.1.2 For facilities with production wells producing by
pumping, if the rate of the well with the highest output is known
and the number of days the facility is unattended can be predicted,
then the production volume is equal to the pumping rate of the well
multiplied by the greatest number of days the facility is
unattended.
B.1.3 If the pumping rate of the well with the highest output
is estimated or the maximum number of days the facility is
unattended is estimated, then the production volume is determined
from the pumping rate of the well multiplied by 1.5 times the
greatest number of days that the facility has been or is expected to
be unattended.
B.1.4 Attachment D-1 to this appendix provides methods for
calculating the production volume for exploratory wells and
production wells producing under pressure.
(1) FINAL WORST CASE VOLUME: ________ GAL
(2) Do not proceed further.
B.2 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT--MULTIPLE-TANK FACILITIES
Are all aboveground oil storage tanks or groups of aboveground
oil storage tanks at the facility without adequate secondary
containment?
______ (Y/N)
B.2.1 If the answer is yes, the final worst case volume equals
the total aboveground oil storage capacity without adequate
secondary containment plus the production volume of the well with
the highest output at the facility.
(1) For facilities with production wells producing by pumping,
if the rate of the well with the highest output is known and the
number of days the facility is unattended can be predicted, then the
production volume is equal to the pumping rate of the well
multiplied by the greatest number of days the facility is
unattended.
(2) If the pumping rate of the well with the highest output is
estimated or the maximum number of days the facility is unattended
is estimated, then the production volume is determined from the
pumping rate of the well multiplied by 1.5 times the greatest number
of days that the facility has been or is expected to be unattended.
(3) Attachment D-1 to this appendix provides methods for
calculating the production volumes for exploratory wells and
production wells producing under pressure.
(A) FINAL WORST CASE VOLUME: ________ GAL
(B) Do not proceed further.
B.2.2 If the answer is no, calculate the total aboveground oil
storage capacity of tanks without adequate secondary containment. If
all aboveground oil storage tanks or groups of aboveground oil
storage tanks at the facility have adequate secondary containment,
ENTER ``0'' (zero).
________ GAL
B.2.3 Calculate the capacity of the largest single aboveground
oil storage tank within an adequate secondary containment area or
the combined capacity of a group of aboveground oil storage tanks
permanently manifolded together, whichever is greater, plus the
production volume of the well with the highest output, PLUS THE
VOLUME FROM QUESTION B2(b). Attachment D-1 provides methods for
calculating the production volumes for exploratory wells and
production wells producing under pressure.
(1) FINAL WORST CASE VOLUME:\4\ ________ GAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\All complexes that are jointly regulated by EPA and the USCG
must also calculate the worst case discharge planning volume for the
transportation-related portions of the facility and plan for
whichever volume is greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Do not proceed further.
Attachments to Appendix D
Attachment D-I--Methods to Calculate Production Volumes for Production
Facilities With Exploratory Wells or Production Wells Producing Under
Pressure
1.0 Introduction
The owner or operator of a production facility with exploratory
wells or production wells producing under pressure shall compare the
well rate of the highest output well (rate of well), in barrels per
day, to the ability of response equipment and personnel to recover
the volume of oil that could be discharged (rate of recovery), in
barrels per day. The result of this comparison will determine the
method used to calculate the production volume for the production
facility. This production volume is to be used to calculate the
worst case discharge planning volume in Part B of this appendix.
2.0 Description of Methods
2.1 Method A
If the well rate would overwhelm the response efforts (i.e.,
rate of well/rate of recovery 1), then the production
volume would be the 30-day forecasted well rate for a well 10,000
feet deep or less, or the 45-day forecasted well rate for a well
deeper than 10,000 feet.
(1) For wells 10,000 feet deep or less:
Production volume=30 days x rate of well.
(2) For wells deeper than 10,000 feet:
Production volume=45 days x rate of well.
2.2 Method B
2.2.1 If the rate of recovery would be greater than the well
rate (i.e., rate of well/rate of recovery <1), then the production
volume would equal the sum of two terms:
Production volume=discharge volume1 + discharge volume2
2.2.2 The first term represents the volume of the oil
discharged from the well between the time of the blowout and the
time the response resources are on scene and recovering oil
(discharge volume1).
Discharge volume1=(days unattended+days to respond) x (rate
of well)
2.2.3 The second term represents the volume of oil discharged
from the well after the response resources begin operating until the
spill is stopped, adjusted for the recovery rate of the response
resources (discharge volume2).
(1) For wells 10,000 feet deep or less:
Discharge volume2=[30 days--(days unattended + days to
respond)] x (rate of well) x (rate of well/rate of recovery)
(2) For wells deeper than 10,000 feet:
Discharge volume2=[45 days--(days unattended + days to
respond)] x (rate of well) x (rate of well/rate of recovery)
3.0 Example
3.1 A facility consists of two production wells producing under
pressure, which are both less than 10,000 feet deep. The well rate
of well A is 5 barrels per day, and the well rate of well B is 10
barrels per day. The facility is unattended for a maximum of 7 days.
The facility operator estimates that it will take 2 days to have
response equipment and personnel on scene and responding to a
blowout, and that the projected rate of recovery will be 20 barrels
per day.
(1) First, the facility operator determines that the highest
output well is well B. The facility operator calculates the ratio of
the rate of well to the rate of recovery:
10 barrels per day/20 barrels per day=0.5 Because the ratio is less
than one, the facility operator will use Method B to calculate the
production volume.
(2) The first term of the equation is:
Discharge volume1=(7 days + 2 days) x (10 barrels per day)=90
barrels
(3) The second term of the equation is:
Discharge volume2=[30 days--(7 days + 2 days)] x (10 barrels
per day) x (0.5)=105 barrels
(4) Therefore, the production volume is:
Production volume=90 barrels + 105 barrels=195 barrels
3.2 If the recovery rate was 5 barrels per day, the ratio of
rate of well to rate of recovery would be 2, so the facility
operator would use Method A. The production volume would have been:
30 days x 10 barrels per day=300 barrels
Appendix E to Part 112--Determination and Evaluation of Required
Response Resources for Facility Response Plans
1.0 Purpose and Definitions
1.1 The purpose of this appendix is to describe the procedures
to identify response resources to meet the requirements of
Sec. 112.20. To identify response resources to meet the facility
response plan requirements of 40 CFR 112.20(h), owners or operators
shall follow this appendix or, where not appropriate, shall clearly
demonstrate in the response plan why use of this appendix is not
appropriate at the facility and make comparable arrangements for
response resources.
1.2 Definitions.
1.2.1 Nearshore is an operating area defined as extending
seaward 12 miles from the boundary lines defined in 46 CFR part 7,
except in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, it means the
area extending 12 miles from the line of demarcation (COLREG lines)
defined in 49 CFR 80.740 and 80.850.
1.2.2 Non-persistent oils or Group 1 oils include:
(1) A petroleum-based oil that, at the time of shipment,
consists of hydrocarbon fractions:
(A) At least 50 percent of which by volume, distill at a
temperature of 340 degrees C (645 degrees F); and
(B) At least 95 percent of which by volume, distill at a
temperature of 370 degrees C (700 degrees F); and
(2) A non-petroleum oil with a specific gravity less than 0.8.
1.2.3 Non-petroleum oil is oil of any kind that is not
petroleum-based. It includes, but is not limited to, animal and
vegetable oils.
1.2.4 Ocean means the nearshore area.
1.2.5 Operating area means Rivers and Canals, Inland,
Nearshore, and Great Lakes geographic location(s) in which a
facility is handling, storing, or transporting oil.
1.2.6 Operating environment means Rivers and Canals, Inland,
Great Lakes, or Ocean. These terms are used to define the conditions
in which response equipment is designed to function.
1.2.7 Persistent oils include:
(1) A petroleum-based oil that does not meet the distillation
criteria for a non-persistent oil. Persistent oils are further
classified based on specific gravity as follows:
(A) Group 2--specific gravity less than 0.85;
(B) Group 3--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.85 and
less than 0.95;
(C) Group 4--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.95 and
less than 1.0; or
(D) Group 5--specific gravity equal to or greater than 1.0.
(2) A non-petroleum oil with a specific gravity of 0.8 or
greater. These oils are further classified based on specific gravity
as follows:
(A) Group 2--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.8 and
less than 0.85;
(B) Group 3--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.85 and
less than 0.95;
(C) Group 4--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.95 and
less than 1.0; or
(D) Group 5--specific gravity equal to or greater than 1.0.
1.2.8 Other definitions are included in Sec. 112.2, section 1.2
of Appendices C and E, and section 3.0 of Appendix F.
2.0 Equipment Operability and Readiness
2.1 All equipment identified in a response plan must be
designed to operate in the conditions expected in the facility's
geographic area (i.e., operating environment). These conditions vary
widely based on location and season. Therefore, it is difficult to
identify a single stockpile of response equipment that will function
effectively in each geographic location (i.e., operating area).
2.2 Facilities handling, storing, or transporting oil in more
than one operating environment as indicated in Table 1 of this
appendix must identify equipment capable of successfully functioning
in each operating environment.
2.3 When identifying equipment for the response plan (based on
the use of this appendix), a facility owner or operator must
consider the inherent limitations of the operability of equipment
components and response systems. The criteria in Table 1 of this
appendix shall be used to evaluate the operability in a given
environment. These criteria reflect the general conditions in
certain operating environments.
2.3.1 The Regional Administrator may require documentation that
the boom identified in a facility response plan meets the criteria
in Table 1 of this appendix. Absent acceptable documentation, the
Regional Administrator may require that the boom be tested to
demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Table 1 of this appendix.
Testing must be in accordance with ASTM F 715, ASTM F 989, or other
tests approved by EPA as deemed appropriate (see Appendix E to this
part, section 10, for general availability of documents).
2.4 Table 1 of this appendix lists criteria for oil recovery
devices and boom. All other equipment necessary to sustain or
support response operations in an operating environment must be
designed to function in the same conditions. For example, boats that
deploy or support skimmers or boom must be capable of being safely
operated in the significant wave heights listed for the applicable
operating environment.
2.5 A facility owner or operator shall refer to the applicable
Area Contingency Plan (ACP), where available, to determine if ice,
debris, and weather-related visibility are significant factors to
evaluate the operability of equipment. The ACP may also identify the
average temperature ranges expected in the facility's operating
area. All equipment identified in a response plan must be designed
to operate within those conditions or ranges.
2.6 This appendix provides information on response resource
mobilization and response times. The distance of the facility from
the storage location of the response resources must be used to
determine whether the resources can arrive on-scene within the
stated time. A facility owner or operator shall include the time for
notification, mobilization, and travel of resources identified to
meet the medium and Tier 1 worst case discharge requirements
identified in section 4.3 of this appendix (for medium discharges)
and section 5.3 of this appendix (for worst case discharges). The
facility owner or operator must plan for notification and
mobilization of Tier 2 and 3 response resources as necessary to meet
the requirements for arrival on-scene in accordance with section 5.3
of this appendix. An on-water speed of 5 knots and a land speed of
35 miles per hour is assumed, unless the facility owner or operator
can demonstrate otherwise.
2.7 In identifying equipment, the facility owner or operator
shall list the storage location, quantity, and manufacturer's make
and model. For oil recovery devices, the effective daily recovery
capacity, as determined using section 6 of this appendix, must be
included. For boom, the overall boom height (draft and freeboard)
shall be included. A facility owner or operator is responsible for
ensuring that the identified boom has compatible connectors.
3.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Small Discharges
3.1 A facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient
response resources available, by contract or other approved means as
described in Sec. 112.2, to respond to a small discharge. A small
discharge is defined as any discharge volume less than or equal to
2,100 gallons, but not to exceed the calculated worst case
discharge. The equipment must be designed to function in the
operating environment at the point of expected use.
3.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also
consider planning quantities for the transportation-related transfer
portion of the facility. The USCG planning level that corresponds to
EPA's ``small discharge'' is termed ``the average most probable
discharge.'' The USCG revisions to 33 CFR part 154 define ``the
average most probable discharge'' as a discharge of 50 barrels
(2,100 gallons). Owners or operators of complexes must compare oil
spill volumes for a small discharge and an average most probable
discharge and plan for whichever quantity is greater.
3.3 The response resources shall, as appropriate, include:
3.3.1 One thousand feet of containment boom (or, for complexes
with marine transfer components, 1,000 feet of containment boom or
two times the length of the largest vessel that regularly conducts
oil transfers to or from the facility, whichever is greater), and a
means of deploying it within 1 hour of the discovery of a spill;
3.3.2 Oil recovery devices with an effective daily recovery
capacity equal to the amount of oil discharged in a small discharge
or greater which is available at the facility within 2 hours of the
detection of an oil discharge; and
3.3.3 Oil storage capacity for recovered oily material
indicated in section 9.2 of this appendix.
4.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Medium Discharges
4.1 A facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient
response resources available, by contract or other approved means as
described in Sec. 112.2, to respond to a medium discharge of oil for
that facility. This will require response resources capable of
containing and collecting up to 36,000 gallons of oil or 10 percent
of the worst case discharge, whichever is less. All equipment
identified must be designed to operate in the applicable operating
environment specified in Table 1 of this appendix.
4.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also
consider planning quantities for the transportation-related transfer
portion of the facility. The USCG planning level that corresponds to
EPA's ``medium discharge'' is termed ``the maximum most probable
discharge.'' The USCG revisions to 33 CFR part 154 define ``the
maximum most probable discharge'' as a discharge of 1,200 barrels
(50,400 gallons) or 10 percent of the worst case discharge,
whichever is less. Owners or operators of complexes must compare
spill volumes for a medium discharge and a maximum most probable
discharge and plan for whichever quantity is greater.
4.3 Oil recovery devices identified to meet the applicable
medium discharge volume planning criteria must be located such that
they are capable of arriving on-scene within 6 hours in higher
volume port areas and the Great Lakes and within 12 hours in all
other areas. Higher volume port areas and Great Lakes areas are
defined in section 1.2 of Appendix C to this part.
4.4 Because rapid control, containment, and removal of oil are
critical to reduce spill impact, the owner or operator must
determine response resources using an effective daily recovery
capacity for oil recovery devices equal to 50 percent of the
planning volume applicable for the facility as determined in section
4.1 of this appendix. The effective daily recovery capacity for oil
recovery devices identified in the plan must be determined using the
criteria in section 6 of this appendix.
4.5 In addition to oil recovery capacity, the plan shall, as
appropriate, identify sufficient quantity of containment boom
available, by contract or other approved means as described in
Sec. 112.2, to arrive within the required response times for oil
collection and containment and for protection of fish and wildlife
and sensitive environments. For further description of fish and
wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III
to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans:
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (see Appendix E to
this part, section 10, for availability) and the applicable ACP.
While the regulation does not set required quantities of boom for
oil collection and containment, the response plan shall identify and
ensure, by contract or other approved means as described in
Sec. 112.2, the availability of the quantity of boom identified in
the plan for this purpose.
4.6 The plan must indicate the availability of temporary
storage capacity to meet section 9.2 of this appendix. If available
storage capacity is insufficient to meet this level, then the
effective daily recovery capacity must be derated (downgraded) to
the limits of the available storage capacity.
4.7 The following is an example of a medium discharge volume
planning calculation for equipment identification in a higher volume
port area: The facility's largest aboveground storage tank volume is
840,000 gallons. Ten percent of this capacity is 84,000 gallons.
Because 10 percent of the facility's largest tank, or 84,000
gallons, is greater than 36,000 gallons, 36,000 gallons is used as
the planning volume. The effective daily recovery capacity is 50
percent of the planning volume, or 18,000 gallons per day. The
ability of oil recovery devices to meet this capacity must be
calculated using the procedures in section 6 of this appendix.
Temporary storage capacity available on-scene must equal twice the
daily recovery capacity as indicated in section 9.2 of this
appendix, or 36,000 gallons per day. This is the information the
facility owner or operator must use to identify and ensure the
availability of the required response resources, by contract or
other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2. The facility owner
shall also identify how much boom is available for use.
5.0 Determining Response Resources Required for the Worst Case
Discharge to the Maximum Extent Practicable
5.1 A facility owner or operator shall identify and ensure the
availability of, by contract or other approved means as described in
Sec. 112.2, sufficient response resources to respond to the worst
case discharge of oil to the maximum extent practicable. Section 7
of this appendix describes the method to determine the necessary
response resources. A worksheet is provided as Attachment E-1 at the
end of this appendix to simplify the procedures involved in
calculating the planning volume for response resources for the worst
case discharge.
5.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also
consider planning for the worst case discharge at the
transportation-related portion of the facility. The USCG requires
that transportation-related facility owners or operators use a
different calculation for the worst case discharge in the revisions
to 33 CFR part 154. Owners or operators of complex facilities that
are regulated by EPA and the USCG must compare both calculations of
worst case discharge derived by EPA and the USCG and plan for
whichever volume is greater.
5.3 Oil spill response resources identified in the response
plan and available, by contract or other approved means as described
in Sec. 112.2, to meet the applicable worst case discharge planning
volume must be located such that they are capable of arriving at the
scene of a discharge within the times specified for the applicable
response tier listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port areas...... 6 hrs....... 30 hrs...... 54 hrs
Great Lakes................... 12 hrs...... 36 hrs...... 60 hrs
All other river and canal, 12 hrs...... 36 hrs...... 60 hrs
inland, and nearshore areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three levels of response tiers apply to the amount of time in
which facility owners or operators must plan for response resources
to arrive at the scene of a spill to respond to the worst case
discharge planning volume. For example, at a worst case discharge in
an inland area, the first tier of response resources (i.e., that
amount of on-water and shoreline cleanup capacity necessary to
respond to the fraction of the worst case discharge as indicated
through the series of steps described in sections 7.2 and 7.3 of
this appendix) would arrive at the scene of the discharge within 12
hours; the second tier of response resources would arrive within 36
hours; and the third tier of response resources would arrive within
60 hours.
5.4 The effective daily recovery capacity for oil recovery
devices identified in the response plan must be determined using the
criteria in section 6 of this appendix. A facility owner or operator
shall identify the storage locations of all response resources used
for each tier. The owner or operator of a facility whose required
daily recovery capacity exceeds the applicable contracting caps in
Table 5 of this appendix shall, as appropriate, identify sources of
additional equipment, their location, and the arrangements made to
obtain this equipment during a response. The owner or operator of a
facility whose calculated planning volume exceeds the applicable
contracting caps in Table 5 of this appendix shall, as appropriate,
identify sources of additional equipment equal to twice the cap
listed in Tier 3 or the amount necessary to reach the calculated
planning volume, whichever is lower. The resources identified above
the cap shall be capable of arriving on-scene not later than the
Tier 3 response times in section 5.3 of this appendix. No contract
is required. While general listings of available response equipment
may be used to identify additional sources (i.e., ``public''
resources vs. ``private'' resources), the response plan shall
identify the specific sources, locations, and quantities of
equipment that a facility owner or operator has considered in his or
her planning. When listing USCG-classified oil spill removal
organization(s) that have sufficient removal capacity to recover the
volume above the response capacity cap for the specific facility, as
specified in Table 5 of this appendix, it is not necessary to list
specific quantities of equipment.
5.5 A facility owner or operator shall identify the
availability of temporary storage capacity to meet section 9.2 of
this appendix. If available storage capacity is insufficient, then
the effective daily recovery capacity must be derated (downgraded)
to the limits of the available storage capacity.
5.6 When selecting response resources necessary to meet the
response plan requirements, the facility owner or operator shall, as
appropriate, ensure that a portion of those resources is capable of
being used in close-to-shore response activities in shallow water.
For any EPA-regulated facility that is required to plan for response
in shallow water, at least 20 percent of the on-water response
equipment identified for the applicable operating area shall, as
appropriate, be capable of operating in water of 6 feet or less
depth.
5.7 In addition to oil spill recovery devices, a facility owner
or operator shall identify sufficient quantities of boom that are
available, by contract or other approved means as described in
Sec. 112.2, to arrive on-scene within the specified response times
for oil containment and collection. The specific quantity of boom
required for collection and containment will depend on the facility-
specific information and response strategies employed. A facility
owner or operator shall, as appropriate, also identify sufficient
quantities of oil containment boom to protect fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments. For further description of fish and wildlife
and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III to DOC/
NOAA's ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and
Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (see Appendix E to this part,
section 10, for availability), and the applicable ACP. Refer to this
guidance document for the number of days and geographic areas (i.e.,
operating environments) specified in Table 2 of this appendix.
5.8 A facility owner or operator shall also identify, by
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the
availability of an oil spill removal organization(s) (as described
in Sec. 112.2) capable of responding to a shoreline cleanup
operation involving the calculated volume of oil and emulsified oil
that might impact the affected shoreline. The volume of oil that
shall, as appropriate, be planned for is calculated through the
application of factors contained in Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix.
The volume calculated from these tables is intended to assist the
facility owner or operator to identify an oil spill removal
organization with sufficient resources and expertise.
6.0 Determining Effective Daily Recovery Capacity for Oil Recovery
Devices
6.1 Oil recovery devices identified by a facility owner or
operator must be identified by the manufacturer, model, and
effective daily recovery capacity. These capacities must be used to
determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet the
applicable planning criteria for a small discharge, a medium
discharge, and a worst case discharge to the maximum extent
practicable.
6.2 To determine the effective daily recovery capacity of oil
recovery devices, the formula listed in section 6.2.1 of this
appendix shall be used. This formula considers potential limitations
due to available daylight, weather, sea state, and percentage of
emulsified oil in the recovered material. The RA may assign a lower
efficiency factor to equipment listed in a response plan if it is
determined that such a reduction is warranted.
6.2.1 The following formula shall be used to calculate the
effective daily recovery capacity:
R = T x 24 hours x E
where:
R--Effective daily recovery capacity;
T--Throughput rate in barrels per hour (nameplate capacity); and
E--20 percent efficiency factor (or lower factor as determined by
the Regional Administrator).
6.2.2 For those devices in which the pump limits the throughput
of liquid, throughput rate shall be calculated using the pump
capacity.
6.2.3 For belt or moptype devices, the throughput rate shall be
calculated using the speed of the belt or mop through the device,
assumed thickness of oil adhering to or collected by the device, and
surface area of the belt or mop. For purposes of this calculation,
the assumed thickness of oil will be \1/4\ inch.
6.2.4 Facility owners or operators that include oil recovery
devices whose throughput is not measurable using a pump capacity or
belt/mop speed may provide information to support an alternative
method of calculation. This information must be submitted following
the procedures in section 6.3.2 of this appendix.
6.3 As an alternative to section 6.2 of this appendix, a
facility owner or operator may submit adequate evidence that a
different effective daily recovery capacity should be applied for a
specific oil recovery device. Adequate evidence is actual verified
performance data in spill conditions or tests using American Society
of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F 631-80, F 808-83 (1988),
or an equivalent test approved by EPA as deemed appropriate (see
Appendix E to this part, section 10, for general availability of
documents).
6.3.1 The following formula must be used to calculate the
effective daily recovery capacity under this alternative:
R = D x U
where:
R--Effective daily recovery capacity;
D--Average Oil Recovery Rate in barrels per hour (Item 26 in F 808-
83; Item 13.1.15 in F 631-80; or actual performance data); and
U--Hours per day that equipment can operate under spill conditions.
Ten hours per day must be used unless a facility owner or operator
can demonstrate that the recovery operation can be sustained for
longer periods.
6.3.2 A facility owner or operator submitting a response plan
shall provide data that supports the effective daily recovery
capacities for the oil recovery devices listed. The following is an
example of these calculations:
(1) A weir skimmer identified in a response plan has a
manufacturer's rated throughput at the pump of 267 gallons per
minute (gpm).
267 gpm=381 barrels per hour (bph)
R=381 bph x 24 hr/day x 0.2=1,829 barrels per day
(2) After testing using ASTM procedures, the skimmer's oil
recovery rate is determined to be 220 gpm. The facility owner or
operator identifies sufficient resources available to support
operations for 12 hours per day.
220 gpm=314 bph
R=314 bph x 12 hr/day=3,768 barrels per day
(3) The facility owner or operator will be able to use the
higher capacity if sufficient temporary oil storage capacity is
available. Determination of alternative efficiency factors under
section 6.2 of this appendix or the acceptability of an alternative
effective daily recovery capacity under section 6.3 of this appendix
will be made by the Regional Administrator as deemed appropriate.
7.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst Case Discharge
7.1 A facility owner or operator shall plan for a response to
the facility's worst case discharge. The planning for on-water oil
recovery must take into account a loss of some oil to the
environment due to evaporative and natural dissipation, potential
increases in volume due to emulsification, and the potential for
deposition of oil on the shoreline. The procedures for non-petroleum
oils are discussed in section 7.7 of this appendix.
7.2 The following procedures must be used by a facility owner
or operator in determining the required on-water oil recovery
capacity:
7.2.1 The following must be determined: the worst case
discharge volume of oil in the facility; the appropriate group(s)
for the types of oil handled, stored, or transported at the facility
[persistent (Groups 2, 3, 4, 5) or non-persistent (Group 1)]; and
the facility's specific operating area. See sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.7
of this appendix for the definitions of non-persistent and
persistent oils, respectively. Facilities that handle, store, or
transport oil from different oil groups must calculate each group
separately, unless the oil group constitutes 10 percent or less by
volume of the facility's total oil storage capacity. This
information is to be used with Table 2 of this appendix to determine
the percentages of the total volume to be used for removal capacity
planning. Table 2 of this appendix divides the volume into three
categories: oil lost to the environment; oil deposited on the
shoreline; and oil available for on-water recovery.
7.2.2 The on-water oil recovery volume shall, as appropriate,
be adjusted using the appropriate emulsification factor found in
Table 3 of this appendix. Facilities that handle, store, or
transport oil from different petroleum groups must compare the on-
water recovery volume for each oil group (unless the oil group
constitutes 10 percent or less by volume of the facility's total
storage capacity) and use the calculation that results in the
largest on-water oil recovery volume to plan for the amount of
response resources for a worst case discharge.
7.2.3 The adjusted volume is multiplied by the on-water oil
recovery resource mobilization factor found in Table 4 of this
appendix from the appropriate operating area and response tier to
determine the total on-water oil recovery capacity in barrels per
day that must be identified or contracted to arrive on-scene within
the applicable time for each response tier. Three tiers are
specified. For higher volume port areas, the contracted tiers of
resources must be located such that they are capable of arriving on-
scene within 6 hours for Tier 1, 30 hours for Tier 2, and 54 hours
for Tier 3 of the discovery of an oil discharge. For all other
rivers and canals, inland, nearshore areas, and the Great Lakes,
these tiers are 12, 36, and 60 hours.
7.2.4 The resulting on-water oil recovery capacity in barrels
per day for each tier is used to identify response resources
necessary to sustain operations in the applicable operating area.
The equipment shall be capable of sustaining operations for the time
period specified in Table 2 of this appendix. The facility owner or
operator shall identify and ensure the availability, by contract or
other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, of sufficient oil
spill recovery devices to provide the effective daily oil recovery
capacity required. If the required capacity exceeds the applicable
cap specified in Table 5 of this appendix, then a facility owner or
operator shall ensure, by contract or other approved means as
described in Sec. 112.2, only for the quantity of resources required
to meet the cap, but shall identify sources of additional resources
as indicated in section 5.4 of this appendix. The owner or operator
of a facility whose planning volume exceeded the cap in 1993 must
make arrangements to identify and ensure the availability, by
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, for
additional capacity to be under contract by 1998 or 2003, as
appropriate. For a facility that handles multiple groups of oil, the
required effective daily recovery capacity for each oil group is
calculated before applying the cap. The oil group calculation
resulting in the largest on-water recovery volume must be used to
plan for the amount of response resources for a worst case
discharge, unless the oil group comprises 10 percent or less by
volume of the facility's total oil storage capacity.
7.3 The procedures discussed in sections 7.3.1-7.3.3 of this
appendix must be used to calculate the planning volume for
identifying shoreline cleanup capacity (for Groups 1 through Group 4
oils).
7.3.1 The following must be determined: the worst case
discharge volume of oil for the facility; the appropriate group(s)
for the types of oil handled, stored, or transported at the facility
[persistent (Groups 2, 3, or 4) or non-persistent (Group 1)]; and
the geographic area(s) in which the facility operates (i.e.,
operating areas). For a facility handling, storing, or transporting
oil from different groups, each group must be calculated separately.
Using this information, Table 2 of this appendix must be used to
determine the percentages of the total volume to be used for
shoreline cleanup resource planning.
7.3.2 The shoreline cleanup planning volume must be adjusted to
reflect an emulsification factor using the same procedure as
described in section 7.2.2 of this appendix.
7.3.3 The resulting volume shall be used to identify an oil
spill removal organization with the appropriate shoreline cleanup
capability.
7.4 A response plan must identify response resources with fire
fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility for a
facility that handles, stores, or transports Group 1 through Group 4
oils that does not have adequate fire fighting resources located at
the facility or that cannot rely on sufficient local fire fighting
resources must identify adequate fire fighting resources. It is
recommended that the facility owner or operator ensure, by contract
or other approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the availability
of these resources. The response plan must also identify an
individual located at the facility to work with the fire department
for Group 1 through Group 4 oil fires. This individual shall also
verify that sufficient well-trained fire fighting resources are
available within a reasonable response time to a worst case
scenario. The individual may be the qualified individual identified
in the response plan or another appropriate individual located at
the facility.
7.5 The following is an example of the procedure described
above in sections 7.2 and 7.3 of this appendix: A facility with a
270,000 barrel (11.3 million gallons) capacity for #6 oil (specific
gravity 0.96) is located in a higher volume port area. The facility
is on a peninsula and has docks on both the ocean and bay sides. The
facility has four aboveground oil storage tanks with a combined
total capacity of 80,000 barrels (3.36 million gallons) and no
secondary containment. The remaining facility tanks are inside
secondary containment structures. The largest aboveground oil
storage tank (90,000 barrels or 3.78 million gallons) has its own
secondary containment. Two 50,000 barrel (2.1 million gallon) tanks
(that are not connected by a manifold) are within a common secondary
containment tank area, which is capable of holding 100,000 barrels
(4.2 million gallons) plus sufficient freeboard.
7.5.1 The worst case discharge for the facility is calculated
by adding the capacity of all aboveground oil storage tanks without
secondary containment (80,000 barrels) plus the capacity of the
largest aboveground oil storage tank inside secondary containment.
The resulting worst case discharge volume is 170,000 barrels or 7.14
million gallons.
7.5.2 Because the requirements for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 for inland
and nearshore exceed the caps identified in Table 5 of this
appendix, the facility owner will contract for a response to 10,000
barrels per day (bpd) for Tier 1, 20,000 bpd for Tier 2, and 40,000
bpd for Tier 3. Resources for the remaining 7,850 bpd for Tier 1,
9,750 bpd for Tier 2, and 7,600 bpd for Tier 3 shall be identified
but need not be contracted for in advance. The facility owner or
operator shall, as appropriate, also identify or contract for
quantities of boom identified in their response plan for the
protection of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments within
the area potentially impacted by a worst case discharge from the
facility. For further description of fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments, see Appendices I, II, and III to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance
for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and
Sensitive Environments,'' (see Appendix E to this part, section 10,
for availability) and the applicable ACP. Attachment C-III to
Appendix C provides a method for calculating a planning distance to
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments and public drinking
water intakes that may be impacted in the event of a worst case
discharge.
7.6 The procedures discussed in sections 7.6.1--7.6.3 of this
appendix must be used to determine appropriate response resources
for facilities with Group 5 oils.
7.6.1 The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports Group 5 oils shall, as appropriate, identify the
response resources available by contract or other approved means, as
described in Sec. 112.2. The equipment identified in a response plan
shall, as appropriate, include:
(1) Sonar, sampling equipment, or other methods for locating the
oil on the bottom or suspended in the water column;
(2) Containment boom, sorbent boom, silt curtains, or other
methods for containing the oil that may remain floating on the
surface or to reduce spreading on the bottom;
(3) Dredges, pumps, or other equipment necessary to recover oil
from the bottom and shoreline;
(4) Equipment necessary to assess the impact of such discharges;
and
(5) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a
discharge involving the type of oil handled, stored, or transported.
7.6.2 Response resources identified in a response plan for a
facility that handles, stores, or transports Group 5 oils under
section 7.6.1 of this appendix shall be capable of being deployed
(on site) within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge to the area
where the facility is operating.
7.6.3 A response plan must identify response resources with
fire fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that
handles, stores, or transports Group 5 oils that does not have
adequate fire fighting resources located at the facility or that
cannot rely on sufficient local fire fighting resources must
identify adequate fire fighting resources. It is recommended that
the owner or operator ensure, by contract or other approved means as
described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of these resources. The
response plan shall also identify an individual located at the
facility to work with the fire department for Group 5 oil fires.
This individual shall also verify that sufficient well-trained fire
fighting resources are available within a reasonable response time
to respond to a worst case discharge. The individual may be the
qualified individual identified in the response plan or another
appropriate individual located at the facility.
7.7 The procedures described in sections 7.7.1-7.7.5 of this
appendix must be used to determine appropriate response plan
development and evaluation criteria for facilities that handle,
store, or transport non-petroleum oils. Refer to section 8 of this
appendix for information on the limitations on the use of
dispersants for inland and nearshore areas.
7.7.1 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports non-petroleum oil must provide information in his or
her plan that identifies:
(1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case
discharge of non-petroleum oils to the maximum extent practicable;
and
(2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to locate,
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
7.7.2 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports non-petroleum oil must ensure that any equipment
identified in a response plan is capable of operating in the
conditions expected in the geographic area(s) (i.e., operating
environments) in which the facility operates using the criteria in
Table 1 of this appendix. When evaluating the operability of
equipment, the facility owner or operator must consider limitations
that are identified in the appropriate ACPs, including:
(1) Ice conditions;
(2) Debris;
(3) Temperature ranges; and
(4) Weather-related visibility.
7.7.3 The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports non-petroleum oil must identify the response resources
that are available by contract or other approved means, as described
in Sec. 112.2. The equipment described in the response plan shall,
as appropriate, include:
(1) Containment boom, sorbent boom, or other methods for
containing oil floating on the surface or to protect shorelines from
impact;
(2) Oil recovery devices appropriate for the type of non-
petroleum oil carried; and
(3) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a
discharge involving the type of oil carried.
7.7.4 Response resources identified in a response plan
according to section 7.7.3 of this appendix must be capable of
commencing an effective on-scene response within the applicable tier
response times in section 5.3 of this appendix.
7.7.5 A response plan must identify response resources with
fire fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that
handles, stores, or transports non-petroleum oils that does not have
adequate fire fighting resources located at the facility or that
cannot rely on sufficient local fire fighting resources must
identify adequate fire fighting resources. It is recommended that
the owner or operator ensure, by contract or other approved means as
described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of these resources. The
response plan must also identify an individual located at the
facility to work with the fire department for non-petroleum fires.
This individual shall also verify that sufficient well-trained fire
fighting resources are available within a reasonable response time
to a worst case scenario. The individual may be the qualified
individual identified in the response plan or another appropriate
individual located at the facility.
8.0 Determining the Availability of Alternative Response Methods
8.1 For dispersants to be identified in a response plan, they
must be on the NCP Product Schedule that is maintained by EPA. (Some
States have a list of approved dispersants for use within State
waters. These State-approved dispersants are listed on the NCP
Product Schedule.)
8.2 Identification of dispersant application in the plan does
not imply that the use of this technique will be authorized. Actual
authorization for use during a spill response will be governed by
the provisions of the NCP and the applicable ACP. To date,
dispersant application has not been approved by ACPs for inland
areas or shallow nearshore areas.
9.0 Additional Equipment Necessary to Sustain Response Operations
9.1 A facility owner or operator shall, as appropriate, ensure
that sufficient numbers of trained personnel and boats, aerial
spotting aircraft, containment boom, sorbent materials, boom
anchoring materials, and other supplies are available to sustain
response operations to completion. All such equipment must be
suitable for use with the primary equipment identified in the
response plan. A facility owner or operator is not required to list
these resources, but shall certify their availability.
9.2 A facility owner or operator shall evaluate the
availability of adequate temporary storage capacity to sustain the
effective daily recovery capacities from equipment identified in the
plan. Because of the inefficiencies of oil spill recovery devices,
response plans must identify daily storage capacity equivalent to
twice the effective daily recovery capacity required on-scene. This
temporary storage capacity may be reduced if a facility owner or
operator can demonstrate by waste stream analysis that the
efficiencies of the oil recovery devices, ability to decant waste,
or the availability of alternative temporary storage or disposal
locations will reduce the overall volume of oily material storage
requirement.
9.3 A facility owner or operator shall ensure that his or her
planning includes the capability to arrange for disposal of
recovered oil products. Specific disposal procedures will be
addressed in the applicable ACP.
10.0 References and Availability
10.1 All materials listed in this section are part of EPA's
rulemaking docket, and are located in the Superfund Docket, Room
M2615, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Docket Number SPCC-2P). The docket is
available for inspection between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Appointments to review
the docket can be made by calling 202-260-3046. The public may copy
a maximum of 266 pages from any regulatory docket at no cost. If the
number of pages copied exceeds 266, however, a charge of 15 cents
will be incurred for each additional page, plus a $25.00
administrative fee. Charges for copies and docket hours are subject
to change.
10.2 The docket will mail copies of materials to requestors who
are outside the Washington D.C. metro area. Materials may be
available from other sources, as noted in this section. The ERNS/
SPCC Information line at 202-260-2342 or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline
at 800-424-9346 may also provide additional information on where to
obtain documents. To contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area, dial 703-412-9810. The
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 800-
553-7672, or, in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 703-412-3323.
10.3 Documents Referenced
(1) National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP).
The PREP draft guidelines are available from United States Coast
Guard Headquarters (G-MEP-4), 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20593. (See 58 FR 53990, October 19, 1993, Notice of Availability
of PREP Guidelines).
(2) ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and
Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (published in the Federal
Register by DOC/NOAA at 59 FR 14713, March 29, 1994). The guidance
is available in the Superfund Docket (see sections 10.1 and 10.2 of
this appendix).
(3) ASTM Standards. ASTM F 715, ASTM F 989, ASTM F 631-80, ASTM
F 808-83 (1988). The ASTM standards are available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19103-1187.
Table 1 to Appendix E--Response Resource Operating Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil Recovery Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant wave
Operating environment height\1\ Sea state
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers and Canals.................... 1 foot.. 1
Inland............................... 3 feet.. 2
Great Lakes.......................... 4 feet.. 2-3
Ocean................................ 6 feet.. 3-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boom
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use
-------------------------------------------------------
Boom property Rivers and
canals Inland Great Lakes Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Wave Height\1\..............................
1. 3. 4. 6
Sea State............................................... 1........... 2........... 2-3......... 3-4
Boom height--inches (draft plus freeboard).............. 6-18........ 18-42....... 18-42.......
42
Reserve Buoyancy to Weight Ratio........................ 2:1......... 2:1......... 2:1......... 3:1 to 4:1
Total Tensile Strength--pounds.......................... 4,500....... 15,000-20,00 15,000-20,00
0. 0. 20,000
Skirt Fabric Tensile Strength--pounds................... 200......... 300......... 300......... 500
Skirt Fabric Tear Strength--pounds...................... 100......... 100......... 100......... 125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Oil recovery devices and boom shall be at least capable of operating in wave heights up to and including the
values listed in Table 1 for each operating environment.
Table 2 to Appendix E--Removal Capacity Planning Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spill location Rivers and canals Nearshore/inland Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability of on-water oil 3 days 4 days
recovery -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------- Percent Percent
Percent recovered Percent oil Percent recovered Percent oil
Oil group\1\ natural floating onshore natural floating Onshore
dissipation oil dissipation oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Non-persistent oils............ 80 10 10 80 20 10
2. Light crudes................... 40 15 45 50 50 30
3. Medium crudes and fuels........ 20 15 65 30 50 50
4. Heavy crudes and fuels......... 5 20 75 10 50 70
Group 5 oils are defined in section 1.2.7 of this appendix; the response resource considerations are outlined in
section 7.6 of this appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Non-petroleum oils are defined in section 1.2.3 of this appendix; the response resource considerations are
outlined in section 7.7 of this appendix.
Table 3 to Appendix E--Emulsification Factors for Petroleum Oil
Groups\1\
Non-Persistent Oil:
Group 1.......... 1.0
Persistent Oil:
Group 2.......... 1.8
Group 3.......... 2.0
Group 4.......... 1.4
Group 5 oils are defined in section 1.2.7 of this appendix; the
response resource considerations are outlined in section 7.6 of
this appendix.
\1\See sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.7 of this appendix for group designations
for non-persistent and persistent oils, respectively.
Table 4 to Appendix E--On-Water Oil Recovery Resource Mobilization
Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating area Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers and Canals............................ 0.30 0.40 0.60
Inland/Nearshore Great Lakes................. 0.15 0.25 0.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These mobilization factors are for total resources mobilized, not
incremental response resources.
Table 5 to Appendix E--Response Capability Caps by Operating Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 18, 1993:
All except Rivers & 10K bbls/day.............. 20K bbls/day.............. 40K bbls/day.
Canals, Great Lakes.
Great Lakes............. 5K bbls/day............... 10K bbls/day.............. 20K bbls/day.
Rivers & Canals......... 1.5K bbls/day............. 3.0K bbls/day............. 6.0K bbls/day.
February 18, 1998:
All except Rivers & 12.5K bbls/day............ 25K bbls/day.............. 50K bbls/day.
Canals, Great Lakes.
Great Lakes............. 6.35K bbls/day............ 12.3K bbls/day............ 25K bbls/day.
Rivers & Canals......... 1.875K bbls/day........... 3.75K bbls/day............ 7.5K bbls/day.
February 18, 2003:
All except Rivers & TBD....................... TBD....................... TBD.
Canals, Great Lakes.
Great Lakes............. TBD....................... TBD....................... TBD.
Rivers & Canals......... TBD....................... TBD....................... TBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The caps show cumulative overall effective daily recovery capacity, not incremental increases.
TBD=To Be Determined.
Attachments to Appendix E
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TR01JY94.018
TR01JY94.019
TR01JY94.020
TR01JY94.021
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Appendix F To Part 112--Facility-Specific Response Plan
Table of Contents
1.0 Model Facility-Specific Response Plan
1.1 Emergency Response Action Plan
1.2 Facility Information
1.3 Emergency Response Information
1.3.1 Notification
1.3.2 Response Equipment List
1.3.3 Response Equipment Testing/Deployment
1.3.4 Personnel
1.3.5 Evacuation Plans
1.3.6 Qualified Individual's Duties
1.4 Hazard Evaluation
1.4.1 Hazard Identification
1.4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
1.4.3 Analysis of the Potential for an Oil Spill
1.4.4 Facility Reportable Oil Spill History
1.5 Discharge Scenarios
1.5.1 Small and Medium Discharges
1.5.2 Worst Case Discharge
1.6 Discharge Detection Systems
1.6.1 Discharge Detection By Personnel
1.6.2 Automated Discharge Detection
1.7 Plan Implementation
1.7.1 Response Resources for Small, Medium, and Worst Case
Spills
1.7.2 Disposal Plans
1.7.3 Containment and Drainage Planning
1.8 Self-Inspection, Drills/Exercises, and Response Training
1.8.1 Facility Self-Inspection
1.8.1.1 Tank Inspection
1.8.1.2 Response Equipment Inspection
1.8.1.3 Secondary Containment Inspection
1.8.2 Facility Drills/Exercises
1.8.2.1 Qualified Individual Notification Drill Logs
1.8.2.2 Spill Management Team Tabletop Exercise Logs
1.8.3 Response Training
1.8.3.1 Personnel Response Training Logs
1.8.3.2 Discharge Prevention Meeting Logs
1.9 Diagrams
1.10 Security
2.0 Response Plan Cover Sheet
3.0 Acronyms
4.0 References
1.0 Model Facility-Specific Response Plan
(A) Owners or operators of facilities regulated under this part
which pose a threat of substantial harm to the environment by
discharging oil into or on navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
are required to prepare and submit facility-specific response plans
to EPA in accordance with the provisions in this appendix. This
appendix further describes the required elements in Sec. 112.20(h).
(B) Response plans must be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
office. Figure F-1 of this Appendix lists each EPA Regional office
and the address where owners or operators must submit their response
plans. Those facilities deemed by the Regional Administrator (RA) to
pose a threat of significant and substantial harm to the environment
will have their plans reviewed and approved by EPA. In certain
cases, information required in the model response plan is similar to
information currently maintained in the facility's Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan as required by 40 CFR
112.3. In these cases, owners or operators may reproduce the
information and include a photocopy in the response plan.
(C) A complex may develop a single response plan with a set of
core elements for all regulating agencies and separate sections for
the non-transportation-related and transportation-related
components, as described in Sec. 112.20(h). Owners or operators of
large facilities that handle, store, or transport oil at more than
one geographically distinct location (e.g., oil storage areas at
opposite ends of a single, continuous parcel of property) shall, as
appropriate, develop separate sections of the response plan for each
storage area.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TR01JY94.022
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
1.1 Emergency Response Action Plan
Several sections of the response plan shall be co-located for
easy access by response personnel during an actual emergency or oil
spill. This collection of sections shall be called the Emergency
Response Action Plan. The Agency intends that the Action Plan
contain only as much information as is necessary to combat the spill
and be arranged so response actions are not delayed. The Action Plan
may be arranged in a number of ways. For example, the sections of
the Emergency Response Action Plan may be photocopies or condensed
versions of the forms included in the associated sections of the
response plan. Each Emergency Response Action Plan section may be
tabbed for quick reference. The Action Plan shall be maintained in
the front of the same binder that contains the complete response
plan or it shall be contained in a separate binder. In the latter
case, both binders shall be kept together so that the entire plan
can be accessed by the qualified individual and appropriate spill
response personnel. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall be made
up of the following sections:
1. Qualified Individual Information (Section 1.2) partial
2. Emergency Notification Phone List (Section 1.3.1) complete
3. Spill Response Notification Form (Section 1.3.1) complete
4. Response Equipment List and Location (Section 1.3.2) complete
5. Response Equipment Testing and Deployment (Section 1.3.3)
complete
6. Facility Response Team (Section 1.3.4) partial
7. Evacuation Plan (Section 1.3.5) condensed
8. Immediate Actions (Section 1.7.1) complete
9. Facility Diagram (Section 1.9) complete
1.2 Facility Information
The facility information form is designed to provide an overview
of the site and a description of past activities at the facility.
Much of the information required by this section may be obtained
from the facility's existing SPCC Plan.
1.2.1 Facility name and location: Enter facility name and
street address. Enter the address of corporate headquarters only if
corporate headquarters are physically located at the facility.
Include city, county, state, zip code, and phone number.
1.2.2 Latitude and Longitude: Enter the latitude and longitude
of the facility. Include degrees, minutes, and seconds of the main
entrance of the facility.
1.2.3 Wellhead Protection Area: Indicate if the facility is
located in or drains into a wellhead protection area as defined by
the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 (SDWA).\1\ The response plan
requirements in the Wellhead Protection Program are outlined by the
State or Territory in which the facility resides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A wellhead protection area is defined as the surface and
subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a
public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably
likely to move toward and reach such water well or wellfield. For
further information regarding State and territory protection
programs, facility owners or operators may contact the SDWA Hotline
at 1-800-426-4791.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2.4 Owner/operator: Write the name of the company or person
operating the facility and the name of the person or company that
owns the facility, if the two are different. List the address of the
owner, if the two are different.
1.2.5 Qualified Individual: Write the name of the qualified
individual for the entire facility. If more than one person is
listed, each individual indicated in this section shall have full
authority to implement the facility response plan. For each
individual, list: name, position, home and work addresses (street
addresses, not P.O. boxes), emergency phone number, and specific
response training experience.
1.2.6 Date of Oil Storage Start-up: Enter the year which the
present facility first started storing oil.
1.2.7 Current Operation: Briefly describe the facility's
operations and include the Standard Industry Classification (SIC)
code.
1.2.8 Dates and Type of Substantial Expansion: Include
information on expansions that have occurred at the facility.
Examples of such expansions include, but are not limited to:
Throughput expansion, addition of a product line, change of a
product line, and installation of additional oil storage capacity.
The data provided shall include all facility historical information
and detail the expansion of the facility. An example of substantial
expansion is any material alteration of the facility which causes
the owner or operator of the facility to re-evaluate and increase
the response equipment necessary to adequately respond to a worst
case discharge from the facility.
Date of Last Update: ______
Facility Information Form
Facility Name:---------------------------------------------------------
Location (Street Address):-------------------------------------------
City: ______ State: ______ Zip: ______
County: ______ Phone Number: ( ) ______
Latitude: ______ Degrees ______ Minutes ______ Seconds
Longitude: ______ Degrees ______ Minutes ______ Seconds
Wellhead Protection Area:----------------------------------------------
Owner:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owner Location (Street Address):-------------------------------------
(if different from Facility Address)
City: ______ State:______ Zip: ______
County: ______ Phone Number: ( ) ______
Operator (if not Owner):-----------------------------------------------
Qualified Individual(s): (attach additional sheets if more than one)
Name:----------------------------------------------------------------
Position:------------------------------------------------------------
Work Address:--------------------------------------------------------
Home Address:--------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Phone Number: ( )-------------------------------------
Date of Oil Storage Start-up:------------------------------------------
Current Operations:----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date(s) and Type(s) of Substantial Expansion(s):-----------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
1.3 Emergency Response Information
(A) The information provided in this section shall describe what
will be needed in an actual emergency involving the discharge of oil or
a combination of hazardous substances and oil discharge. The Emergency
Response Information section of the plan must include the following
components:
(1) The information provided in the Emergency Notification Phone
List in section 1.3.1 identifies and prioritizes the names and phone
numbers of the organizations and personnel that need to be notified
immediately in the event of an emergency. This section shall include
all the appropriate phone numbers for the facility. These numbers
must be verified each time the plan is updated. The contact list
must be accessible to all facility employees to ensure that, in case
of a discharge, any employee on site could immediately notify the
appropriate parties.
(2) The Spill Response Notification Form in section 1.3.1
creates a checklist of information that shall be provided to the
National Response Center (NRC) and other response personnel. All
information on this checklist must be known at the time of
notification, or be in the process of being collected. This
notification form is based on a similar form used by the NRC. Note:
Do not delay spill notification to collect the information on the
list.
(3) Section 1.3.2 provides a description of the facility's list
of emergency response equipment and location of the response
equipment. When appropriate, the amount of oil that emergency
response equipment can handle and any limitations (e.g., launching
sites) must be described.
(4) Section 1.3.3 provides information regarding response
equipment tests and deployment drills. Response equipment deployment
exercises shall be conducted to ensure that response equipment is
operational and the personnel who would operate the equipment in a
spill response are capable of deploying and operating it. Only a
representative sample of each type of response equipment needs to be
deployed and operated, as long as the remainder is properly
maintained. If appropriate, testing of response equipment may be
conducted while it is being deployed. Facilities without facility-
owned response equipment must ensure that the oil spill removal
organization that is identified in the response plan to provide this
response equipment certifies that the deployment exercises have been
met. Refer to the National Preparedness for Response Exercise
Program (PREP) Guidelines (see Appendix E to this part, section 10,
for availability), which satisfy Oil Pollution Act (OPA) response
exercise requirements.
(5) Section 1.3.4 lists the facility response personnel,
including those employed by the facility and those under contract to
the facility for response activities, the amount of time needed for
personnel to respond, their responsibility in the case of an
emergency, and their level of response training. Three different
forms are included in this section. The Emergency Response Personnel
List shall be composed of all personnel employed by the facility
whose duties involve responding to emergencies, including oil
spills, even when they are not physically present at the site. An
example of this type of person would be the Building Engineer-in-
Charge or Plant Fire Chief. The second form is a list of the
Emergency Response Contractors (both primary and secondary) retained
by the facility. Any changes in contractor status must be reflected
in updates to the response plan. Evidence of contracts with response
contractors shall be included in this section so that the
availability of resources can be verified. The last form is the
Facility Response Team List, which shall be composed of both
emergency response personnel (referenced by job title/position) and
emergency response contractors, included in one of the two lists
described above, that will respond immediately upon discovery of an
oil spill or other emergency (i.e., the first people to respond).
These are to be persons normally on the facility premises or primary
response contractors. Examples of these personnel would be the
Facility Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Spill Team 1, Facility Fire
Engine Company 1, Production Supervisor, or Transfer Supervisor.
Company personnel must be able to respond immediately and adequately
if contractor support is not available.
(6) Section 1.3.5 lists factors that must, as appropriate, be
considered when preparing an evacuation plan.
(7) Section 1.3.6 references the responsibilities of the
qualified individual for the facility in the event of an emergency.
(B) The information provided in the emergency response section
will aid in the assessment of the facility's ability to respond to a
worst case discharge and will identify additional assistance that
may be needed. In addition, the facility owner or operator may want
to produce a wallet-size card containing a checklist of the
immediate response and notification steps to be taken in the event
of an oil discharge.
1.3.1 Notification
Date of Last Update:---------------------------------------------------
Emergency Notification Phone List Whom To Notify
Reporter's Name:-------------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Name:---------------------------------------------------------
Owner Name:------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Identification Number:----------------------------------------
Date and Time of Each NRC Notification:--------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Phone No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. National Response Center (NRC): 1-800-424-8802
------------------
2. Qualified Individual:
------------------
Evening Phone:
------------------
3. Company Response Team:
------------------
Evening Phone:
------------------
4. Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) and/or Regional
Response Center (RRC):
------------------
Evening Phone(s):
------------------
Pager Number(s):
------------------
5. Local Response Team (Fire Dept./Cooperatives):
------------------
6. Fire Marshall:
------------------
Evening Phone:
------------------
7. State Emergency Response Commission (SERC):
------------------
Evening Phone:
------------------
8. State Police:
------------------
9. Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC):
------------------
10. Local Water Supply System:
------------------
Evening Phone:
------------------
11. Weather Report:
------------------
12. Local Television/Radio Station for Evacuation
Notification:
------------------
13. Hospitals:
------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spill Response Notification Form
Reporter's Last Name:--------------------------------------------------
First:-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.I.:------------------------------------------------------------------
Position:--------------------------------------------------------------
Phone Numbers:
Day ( ) -
Evening ( ) -
Company:---------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Type:-----------------------------------------------------
Address:---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City:------------------------------------------------------------------
State:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zip:-------------------------------------------------------------------
Were Materials Discharged? ______ (Y/N) Confidential? ______ (Y/N)
Meeting Federal Obligations to Report? ______ (Y/N) Date Called:
______
Calling for Responsible Party? ______ (Y/N) Time Called: ______
Incident Description
Source and/or Cause of Incident:---------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Incident:------------------------------------------------------
Time of Incident: ______ AM/PM
Incident Address/Location:---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearest City:________________ State: ______ County: ________ Zip:
________
Distance from City: ______ Units of Measure: ______ Direction from
City: ______
Section: ________ Township: ________ Range: ________ Borough:
________
Container Type: ______ Tank Oil Storage Capacity: ________ Units of
Measure: ______
Facility Oil Storage Capacity: ________ Units of Measure: ______
Facility Latitude: ______ Degrees ______ Minutes ______ Seconds
Facility Longitude: ______ Degrees ______ Minutes ______ Seconds
Material
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material
CHRIS Code Discharged Unit of measure Discharged in Quantity Unit of measure
quantity water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response Action
Actions Taken to Correct, Control or Mitigate Incident:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
Number of Injuries: ______ Number of Deaths: ______
Were there Evacuations? ______ (Y/N) Number Evacuated: ______
Was there any Damage? ______ (Y/N)
Damage in Dollars (approximate):---------------------------------------
Medium Affected:-------------------------------------------------------
Description:-----------------------------------------------------------
More Information about Medium:-----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Information
Any information about the incident not recorded elsewhere in the
report:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller Notifications
EPA? ______ (Y/N) USCG? ______ (Y/N) State? ______ (Y/N)
Other? ______ (Y/N) Describe: ____________
1.3.2 Response Equipment List
Date of Last Update:______
Facility Response Equipment List
1. Skimmers/Pumps--Operational Status:---------------------------------
Type, Model, and Year:-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Model Year
Number:--------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity: ________ gal./min.
Daily Effective Recovery Rate:---------------------------------------
Storage Location(s):-------------------------------------------------
Date Fuel Last Changed:----------------------------------------------
2. Boom--Operational Status:-------------------------------------------
Type, Model, and Year:-----------------------------------------------
Type Model Year
Number:--------------------------------------------------------------
Size (length): ________ ft.
Containment Area: ________ sq. ft.
Storage Location:----------------------------------------------------
3. Chemicals Stored (Dispersants listed on EPA's NCP Product
Schedule)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Treatment Storage
Type Amount purchased capacity location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were appropriate procedures used to receive approval for use of
dispersants in accordance with the NCP (40 CFR 300.910) and the Area
Contingency Plan (ACP), where applicable?______ (Y/N).
Name and State of On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) authorizing use:
______ .
Date Authorized: ______ .
4. Dispersant Dispensing Equipment--Operational Status: ______ .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response
Type and year Capacity Storage time
location (minutes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Sorbents--Operational Status:---------------------------------------
Type and Year Purchased:---------------------------------------------
Amount:--------------------------------------------------------------
Absorption Capacity (gal.):------------------------------------------
Storage Location(s):-------------------------------------------------
6. Hand Tools--Operational Status: ------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type and year Quantity Storage location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Communication Equipment (include operating frequency and
channel and/or cellular phone numbers)--Operational Status: ______
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage location/
Type and year Quantity number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Fire Fighting and Personnel Protective Equipment--Operational
Status: ______
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type and year Quantity Storage location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Other (e.g., Heavy Equipment, Boats and Motors)--Operational
Status: ______
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type and year Quantity Storage location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3 Response Equipment Testing/Deployment
Date of Last Update:________
Response Equipment Testing and Deployment Drill Log
Last Inspection or Response Equipment Test Date:-----------------------
Inspection Frequency:--------------------------------------------------
Last Deployment Drill Date:--------------------------------------------
Deployment Frequency:--------------------------------------------------
Oil Spill Removal Organization Certification (if applicable):----------
1.3.4 Personnel
Date of Last Update:________
Emergency Response Personnel
Company Personnel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Phone\1\ Response time Responsibility during response action Response training type/date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Phone number to be used when person is not on-site.
Emergency Response Contractors
Date of Last Update: ________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contractor Phone Response time Contract responsibility\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Include evidence of contracts/agreements with response contractors to ensure the availability of personnel and response equipment.
Facility Response Team
Date of Last Update: ________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Team member Response time (minutes) Phone or pager number (day/evening)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualified Individual:
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................... /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If the facility uses contracted help in an emergency response situation, the owner or operator must provide the contractors' names and review the
contractors' capacities to provide adequate personnel and response equipment.
1.3.5 Evacuation Plans
1.3.5.1 Based on the analysis of the facility, as discussed
elsewhere in the plan, a facility-wide evacuation plan shall be
developed. In addition, plans to evacuate parts of the facility that
are at a high risk of exposure in the event of a spill or other
release must be developed. Evacuation routes must be shown on a
diagram of the facility (see section 1.9 of this appendix). When
developing evacuation plans, consideration must be given to the
following factors, as appropriate:
(1) Location of stored materials;
(2) Hazard imposed by spilled material;
(3) Spill flow direction;
(4) Prevailing wind direction and speed;
(5) Water currents, tides, or wave conditions (if applicable);
(6) Arrival route of emergency response personnel and response
equipment;
(7) Evacuation routes;
(8) Alternative routes of evacuation;
(9) Transportation of injured personnel to nearest emergency
medical facility;
(10) Location of alarm/notification systems;
(11) The need for a centralized check-in area for evacuation
validation (roll call);
(12) Selection of a mitigation command center; and
(13) Location of shelter at the facility as an alternative to
evacuation.
1.3.5.2 One resource that may be helpful to owners or operators
in preparing this section of the response plan is The Handbook of
Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and
EPA. The Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures is
available from: FEMA , Publication Office, 500 C. Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3484.
1.3.5.3 As specified in Sec. 112.20(h)(1)(vi), the facility
owner or operator must reference existing community evacuation
plans, as appropriate.
1.3.6 Qualified Individual's Duties
The duties of the designated qualified individual are specified
in Sec. 112.20(h)(3)(ix). The qualified individual's duties must be
described and be consistent with the minimum requirements in
Sec. 112.20(h)(3)(ix). In addition, the qualified individual must be
identified with the Facility Information in section 1.2 of the
response plan.
1.4 Hazard Evaluation
This section requires the facility owner or operator to examine
the facility's operations closely and to predict where discharges
could occur. Hazard evaluation is a widely used industry practice
that allows facility owners or operators to develop a complete
understanding of potential hazards and the response actions
necessary to address these hazards. The Handbook of Chemical Hazard
Analysis Procedures, prepared by the EPA, DOT, and the FEMA and the
Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide (NRT-1), prepared by
the National Response Team are good references for conducting a
hazard analysis. Hazard identification and evaluation will assist
facility owners or operators in planning for potential discharges,
thereby reducing the severity of discharge impacts that may occur in
the future. The evaluation also may help the operator identify and
correct potential sources of discharges. In addition, special
hazards to workers and emergency response personnel's health and
safety shall be evaluated, as well as the facility's oil spill
history.
1.4.1 Hazard Identification
The Tank and Surface Impoundment (SI) forms, or their
equivalent, that are part of this section must be completed
according to the directions below. (``Surface Impoundment'' means a
facility or part of a facility which is a natural topographic
depression, man-made excavation, or diked area formed primarily of
earthen materials (although it may be lined with man-made
materials), which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid
wastes or wastes containing free liquids, and which is not an
injection well or a seepage facility.) Similar worksheets, or their
equivalent, must be developed for any other type of storage
containers.
(1) List each tank at the facility with a separate and distinct
identifier. Begin aboveground tank identifiers with an ``A'' and
belowground tank identifiers with a ``B'', or submit multiple sheets
with the aboveground tanks and belowground tanks on separate sheets.
(2) Use gallons for the maximum capacity of a tank; and use
square feet for the area.
(3) Using the appropriate identifiers and the following
instructions, fill in the appropriate forms:
(a) Tank or SI number--Using the aforementioned identifiers (A
or B) or multiple reporting sheets, identify each tank or SI at the
facility that stores oil or hazardous materials.
(b) Substance Stored--For each tank or SI identified, record the
material that is stored therein. If the tank or SI is used to store
more than one material, list all of the stored materials.
(c) Quantity Stored--For each material stored in each tank or
SI, report the average volume of material stored on any given day.
(d) Tank Type or Surface Area/Year--For each tank, report the
type of tank (e.g., floating top), and the year the tank was
originally installed. If the tank has been refabricated, the year
that the latest refabrication was completed must be recorded in
parentheses next to the year installed. For each SI, record the
surface area of the impoundment and the year it went into service.
(e) Maximum Capacity--Record the operational maximum capacity
for each tank and SI. If the maximum capacity varies with the
season, record the upper and lower limits.
(f) Failure/Cause--Record the cause and date of any tank or SI
failure which has resulted in a loss of tank or SI contents.
(4) Using the numbers from the tank and SI forms, label a
schematic drawing of the facility. This drawing shall be identical
to any schematic drawings included in the SPCC Plan.
(5) Using knowledge of the facility and its operations, describe
the following in writing:
(a) The loading and unloading of transportation vehicles that
risk the discharge of oil or release of hazardous substances during
transport processes. These operations may include loading and
unloading of trucks, railroad cars, or vessels. Estimate the volume
of material involved in transfer operations, if the exact volume
cannot be determined.
(b) Day-to-day operations that may present a risk of discharging
oil or releasing a hazardous substance. These activities include
scheduled venting, piping repair or replacement, valve maintenance,
transfer of tank contents from one tank to another, etc. (not
including transportation-related activities). Estimate the volume of
material involved in these operations, if the exact volume cannot be
determined.
(c) The secondary containment volume associated with each tank
and/or transfer point at the facility. The numbering scheme
developed on the tables, or an equivalent system, must be used to
identify each containment area. Capacities must be listed for each
individual unit (tanks, slumps, drainage traps, and ponds), as well
as the facility total.
(d) Normal daily throughput for the facility and any effect on
potential discharge volumes that a negative or positive change in
that throughput may cause.
Hazard Identification Tanks\1\
Date of Last Update: ________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance Stored
(Oil and Quantity Stored Maximum Capacity
Tank No. Hazardous (gallons) Tank Type/Year (gallons) Failure/Cause
Substance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Tank = any container that stores oil.
Attach as many sheets as necessary.
Hazard Identification Surface Impoundments (SIs)
Date of Last Update: ________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity Stored Maximum Capacity
SI No. Substance Stored (gallons) Surface Area/Year (gallons) Failure/Cause
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attach as many sheets as necessary.
1.4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
The vulnerability analysis shall address the potential effects
(i.e., to human health, property, or the environment) of an oil spill.
Attachment C-III to Appendix C to this part provides a method that
owners or operators shall use to determine appropriate distances from
the facility to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. Owners or
operators can use a comparable formula that is considered acceptable by
the RA. If a comparable formula is used, documentation of the
reliability and analytical soundness of the formula must be attached to
the response plan cover sheet. This analysis must be prepared for each
facility and, as appropriate, must discuss the vulnerability of:
(1) Water intakes (drinking, cooling, or other);
(2) Schools;
(3) Medical facilities;
(4) Residential areas;
(5) Businesses;
(6) Wetlands or other sensitive environments;\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Refer to the DOC/NOAA ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel
Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' (See
appendix E to this part, section 10, for availability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Fish and wildlife;
(8) Lakes and streams;
(9) Endangered flora and fauna;
(10) Recreational areas;
(11) Transportation routes (air, land, and water);
(12) Utilities; and
(13) Other areas of economic importance (e.g., beaches, marinas)
including terrestrially sensitive environments, aquatic environments,
and unique habitats.
1.4.3 Analysis of the Potential for an Oil Spill
Each owner or operator shall analyze the probability of a spill
occurring at the facility. This analysis shall incorporate factors such
as oil spill history, horizontal range of a potential spill, and
vulnerability to natural disaster, and shall, as appropriate,
incorporate other factors such as tank age. This analysis will provide
information for developing discharge scenarios for a worst case
discharge and small and medium discharges and aid in the development of
techniques to reduce the size and frequency of spills. The owner or
operator may need to research the age of the tanks and the oil spill
history at the facility.
1.4.4 Facility Reportable Oil Spill History
Briefly describe the facility's reportable oil spill\3\ history for
the entire life of the facility to the extent that such information is
reasonably identifiable, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\As described in 40 CFR part 110, reportable oil spills are
those that: (a) violate applicable water quality standards, or (b)
cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the
water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining
shorelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Date of discharge(s);
(2) List of discharge causes;
(3) Material(s) discharged;
(4) Amount discharged in gallons;
(5) Amount of discharge that reached navigable waters, if
applicable;
(6) Effectiveness and capacity of secondary containment;
(7) Clean-up actions taken;
(8) Steps taken to reduce possibility of recurrence;
(9) Total oil storage capacity of the tank(s) or impoundment(s)
from which the material discharged;
(10) Enforcement actions;
(11) Effectiveness of monitoring equipment; and
(12) Description(s) of how each oil spill was detected.
The information solicited in this section may be similar to
requirements in 40 CFR 112.4(a). Any duplicate information required by
Sec. 112.4(a) may be photocopied and inserted.
1.5 Discharge Scenarios
In this section, the owner or operator is required to provide a
description of the facility's worst case discharge, as well as a small
and medium spill, as appropriate. A multi-level planning approach has
been chosen because the response actions to a spill (i.e., necessary
response equipment, products, and personnel) are dependent on the
magnitude of the spill. Planning for lesser discharges is necessary
because the nature of the response may be qualitatively different
depending on the quantity of the discharge. The facility owner or
operator shall discuss the potential direction of the spill pathway.
1.5.1 Small and Medium Discharges
1.5.1.1 To address multi-level planning requirements, the owner or
operator must consider types of facility-specific spill scenarios that
may contribute to a small or medium spill. The scenarios shall account
for all the operations that take place at the facility, including but
not limited to:
(1) Loading and unloading of surface transportation;
(2) Facility maintenance;
(3) Facility piping;
(4) Pumping stations and sumps;
(5) Oil storage tanks;
(6) Vehicle refueling; and
(7) Age and condition of facility and components.
1.5.1.2 The scenarios shall also consider factors that affect the
response efforts required by the facility. These include but are not
limited to:
(1) Size of the spill;
(2) Proximity to downgradient wells, waterways, and drinking water
intakes;
(3) Proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments;
(4) Likelihood that the discharge will travel offsite (i.e.,
topography, Pdrainage) ;
(5) Location of the material spilled (i.e., on a concrete pad or
directly on the soil);
(6) Material discharged;
(7) Weather or aquatic conditions (i.e., river flow);
(8) Available remediation equipment;
(9) Probability of a chain reaction of failures; and
(10) Direction of spill pathway.
1.5.2 Worst Case Discharge
1.5.2.1 In this section, the owner or operator must identify the
worst case discharge volume at the facility. Worksheets for production
and non-production facility owners or operators to use when calculating
worst case discharge are presented in Appendix D to this part. When
planning for the worst case discharge response, all of the
aforementioned factors listed in the small and medium discharge section
of the response plan shall be addressed.
1.5.2.2 For onshore storage facilities and production facilities,
permanently manifolded oil storage tanks are defined as tanks that are
designed, installed, and/or operated in such a manner that the multiple
tanks function as one storage unit (i.e., multiple tank volumes are
equalized). In this section of the response plan, owners or operators
must provide evidence that oil storage tanks with common piping or
piping systems are not operated as one unit. If such evidence is
provided and is acceptable to the RA, the worst case discharge volume
shall be based on the combined oil storage capacity of all manifold
tanks or the oil storage capacity of the largest single oil storage
tank within the secondary containment area, whichever is greater. For
permanently manifolded oil storage tanks that function as one storage
unit, the worst case discharge shall be based on the combined oil
storage capacity of all manifolded tanks or the oil storage capacity of
the largest single tank within a secondary containment area, whichever
is greater. For purposes of the worst case discharge calculation,
permanently manifolded oil storage tanks that are separated by internal
divisions for each tank are considered to be single tanks and
individual manifolded tank volumes are not combined.
1.6 Discharge Detection Systems
In this section, the facility owner or operator shall provide a
detailed description of the procedures and equipment used to detect
discharges. A section on spill detection by personnel and a discussion
of automated spill detection, if applicable, shall be included for both
regular operations and after hours operations. In addition, the
facility owner or operator shall discuss how the reliability of any
automated system will be checked and how frequently the system will be
inspected.
1.6.1 Discharge Detection by Personnel
In this section, facility owners or operators shall describe the
procedures and personnel that will detect any spill or uncontrolled
discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance. A thorough
discussion of facility inspections must be included. In addition, a
description of initial response actions shall be addressed. This
section shall reference section 1.3.1 of the response plan for
emergency response information.
1.6.2 Automated Discharge Detection
In this section, facility owners or operators must describe any
automated spill detection equipment that the facility has in place.
This section shall include a discussion of overfill alarms, secondary
containment sensors, etc. A discussion of the plans to verify an
automated alarm and the actions to be taken once verified must also be
included.
1.7 Plan Implementation
In this section, facility owners or operators must explain in
detail how to implement the facility's emergency response plan by
describing response actions to be carried out under the plan to ensure
the safety of the facility and to mitigate or prevent discharges
described in section 1.5 of the response plan. This section shall
include the identification of response resources for small, medium, and
worst case spills; disposal plans; and containment and drainage
planning. A list of those personnel who would be involved in the
cleanup shall be identified. Procedures that the facility will use,
where appropriate or necessary, to update their plan after an oil spill
event and the time frame to update the plan must be described.
1.7.1 Response Resources for Small, Medium, and Worst Case Spills
1.7.1.1 Once the spill scenarios have been identified in section
1.5 of the response plan, the facility owner or operator shall identify
and describe implementation of the response actions. The facility owner
or operator shall demonstrate accessibility to the proper response
personnel and equipment to effectively respond to all of the identified
spill scenarios. The determination and demonstration of adequate
response capability are presented in Appendix E to this part. In
addition, steps to expedite the cleanup of oil spills must be
discussed. At a minimum, the following items must be addressed:
(1) Emergency plans for spill response;
(2) Additional response training;
(3) Additional contracted help;
(4) Access to additional response equipment/experts; and
(5) Ability to implement the plan including response training and
practice drills.
1.7.1.2A recommended form detailing immediate actions follows.
Oil Spill Response--Immediate Actions
1. Stop the product Act quickly to secure
flow. pumps, close valves, etc.
2. Warn personnel.. Enforce safety and
security measures.
3. Shut off Motors, electrical
ignition sources. circuits, open flames,
etc.
4. Initiate Around the tank and/or in
containment. the water with oil boom.
5. Notify NRC...... 1-800-424-8802
6. Notify OSC
7. Notify, as
appropriate
Source: FOSS, Oil Spill Response--Emergency Procedures, Revised December
3, 1992.
1.7.2 Disposal Plans
1.7.2.1 Facility owners or operators must describe how and
where the facility intends to recover, reuse, decontaminate, or
dispose of materials after a discharge has taken place. The
appropriate permits required to transport or dispose of recovered
materials according to local, State, and Federal requirements must
be addressed. Materials that must be accounted for in the disposal
plan, as appropriate, include:
(1) Recovered product;
(2) Contaminated soil;
(3) Contaminated equipment and materials, including drums, tank
parts, valves, and shovels;
(4) Personnel protective equipment;
(5) Decontamination solutions;
(6) Adsorbents; and
(7) Spent chemicals.
1.7.2.2 These plans must be prepared in accordance with Federal
(e.g., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]), State,
and local regulations, where applicable. A copy of the disposal
plans from the facility's SPCC Plan may be inserted with this
section, including any diagrams in those plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposal RCRA permit/
Material facility Location manifest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7.3 Containment and Drainage Planning
A proper plan to contain and control a spill through drainage
may limit the threat of harm to human health and the environment.
This section shall describe how to contain and control a spill
through drainage, including:
(1) The available volume of containment (use the information
presented in section 1.4.1 of the response plan);
(2) The route of drainage from oil storage and transfer areas;
(3) The construction materials used in drainage troughs;
(4) The type and number of valves and separators used in the
drainage system;
(5) Sump pump capacities;
(6) The containment capacity of weirs and booms that might be
used and their location (see section 1.3.2 of this appendix); and
(7) Other cleanup materials.
In addition, facility owners or operators must meet the inspection
and monitoring requirements for drainage contained in 40 CFR
112.7(e). A copy of the containment and drainage plans that are
required in 40 CFR 112.7(e) may be inserted in this section,
including any diagrams in those plans.
Note: The general permit for stormwater drainage may contain
additional requirements.
1.8 Self-Inspection, Drills/Exercises, and Response Training
The owner or operator must develop programs for facility
response training and for drills/exercises according to the
requirements of 40 CFR 112.21. Logs must be kept for facility
drills/exercises, personnel response training, and spill prevention
meetings. Much of the recordkeeping information required by this
section is also contained in the SPCC Plan required by 40 CFR 112.3.
These logs may be included in the facility response plan or kept as
an annex to the facility response plan.
1.8.1 Facility Self-Inspection
Pursuant to 40 CFR 112.7(e)(8), each facility shall include the
written procedures and records of inspections in the SPCC Plan. The
inspection shall include the tanks, secondary containment, and
response equipment at the facility. Records of the inspections of
tanks and secondary containment required by 40 CFR 112.7(e) shall be
cross-referenced in the response plan. The inspection of response
equipment is a new requirement in this plan. Facility self-
inspection requires two steps: (1) a checklist of things to inspect;
and (2) a method of recording the actual inspection and its
findings. The date of each inspection shall be noted. These records
are required to be maintained for 5 years.
1.8.1.1 Tank Inspection
The tank inspection checklist presented below has been included
as guidance during inspections and monitoring. Similar requirements
exist in 40 CFR 112.7(e). Duplicate information from the SPCC Plan
may be photocopied and inserted in this section. The inspection
checklist consists of the following items:
Tank Inspection Checklist
1. Check tanks for leaks, specifically looking for:
A. drip marks;
B. discoloration of tanks;
C. puddles containing spilled or leaked material;
D. corrosion;
E. cracks; and
F. localized dead vegetation.
2. Check foundation for:
A. cracks;
B. discoloration;
C. puddles containing spilled or leaked material;
D. settling;
E. gaps between tank and foundation; and
F. damage caused by vegetation roots.
3. Check piping for:
A. droplets of stored material;
B. discoloration;
C. corrosion;
D. bowing of pipe between supports;
E. evidence of stored material seepage from valves or seals; and
F. localized dead vegetation.
Tank/Surface Impoundment Inspection Log
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank or SI#
Inspector Date Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.8.1.2 Response Equipment Inspection
Using the Emergency Response Equipment List provided in section
1.3.2 of the response plan, describe each type of response
equipment, checking for the following:
Response Equipment Checklist
1. Inventory (item and quantity);
2. Storage location;
3. Accessibility (time to access and respond);
4. Operational status/condition;
5. Actual use/testing (last test date and frequency of testing);
and
6. Shelf life (present age, expected replacement date).
Please note any discrepancies between this list and the available
response equipment.
Response Equipment Inspection Log
[Use section 1.3.2 of the response plan as a checklist]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspector Date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.8.1.3 Secondary Containment Inspection
Inspect the secondary containment (as described in sections
1.4.1 and 1.7.2 of the response plan), checking the following:
Secondary Containment Checklist
1. Dike or berm system.
A. Level of precipitation in dike/available capacity;
B. Operational status of drainage valves;
C. Dike or berm permeability;
D. Debris;
E. Erosion;
F. Permeability of the earthen floor of diked area; and
G. Location/status of pipes, inlets, drainage beneath tanks,
etc.
2. Secondary containment
A. Cracks;
B. Discoloration;
C. Presence of spilled or leaked material (standing liquid);
D. Corrosion; and
E. Valve conditions.
3. Retention and drainage ponds
A. Erosion;
B. Available capacity;
C. Presence of spilled or leaked material;
D. Debris; and
E. Stressed vegetation.
During inspection, make note of discrepancies in any of the above
mentioned items, and report them immediately to the proper facility
personnel. Similar requirements exist in 40 CFR 112.7(e). Duplicate
information from the SPCC Plan may be photocopied and inserted in this
section.
1.8.2 Facility Drills/Exercises
(A) CWA section 311(j)(5), as amended by OPA, requires the
response plan to contain a description of facility drills/exercises.
According to 40 CFR 112.21(c), the facility owner or operator shall
develop a program of facility response drills/exercises, including
evaluation procedures. Following the PREP guidelines (see Appendix E
to this part, section 10, for availability) would satisfy a
facility's requirements for drills/exercises under this part.
Alternately, under Sec. 112.21(c), a facility owner or operator may
develop a program that is not based on the PREP guidelines. Such a
program is subject to approval by the Regional Administrator based
on the description of the program provided in the response plan.
(B) The PREP Guidelines specify that the facility conduct
internal and external drills/exercises. The internal exercises
include: qualified individual notification drills, spill management
team tabletop exercises, equipment deployment exercises, and
unannounced exercises. External exercises include Area Exercises.
Credit for an Area or Facility-specific Exercise will be given to
the facility for an actual response to a spill in the area if the
plan was utilized for response to the spill and the objectives of
the Exercise were met and were properly evaluated, documented and
self-certified.
(C) Section 112.20(h)(8)(ii) requires the facility owner or
operator to provide a description of the drill/exercise program to
be carried out under the response plan. Qualified Individual
Notification Drill and Spill Management Team Tabletop Drill logs
shall be provided in sections 1.8.2.1 and 1.8.2.2, respectively.
These logs may be included in the facility response plan or kept as
an annex to the facility response plan. See section 1.3.3 of this
appendix for Equipment Deployment Drill Logs.
1.8.2.1 Qualified Individual Notification Drill Logs Qualified
Individual Notification Drill Log
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Company:---------------------------------------------------------------
Qualified Individual(s):-----------------------------------------------
Emergency Scenario:----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation:------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to be Implemented:---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Table for Implementation:-----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.8.2.2 Spill Management Team Tabletop Exercise Logs Spill
Management Team Tabletop Exercise Log
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Company:---------------------------------------------------------------
Qualified Individual(s):-----------------------------------------------
Emergency Scenario:----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation:------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to be Implemented:---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Table for Implementation:-----------------------------------------
1.8.3 Response Training
Section 112.21(a) requires facility owners or operators to
develop programs for facility response training. Facility owners or
operators are required by Sec. 112.20(h)(8)(iii) to provide a
description of the response training program to be carried out under
the response plan. A facility's training program can be based on the
USCG's Training Elements for Oil Spill Response, to the extent
applicable to facility operations, or another response training
program acceptable to the RA. The training elements are available
from Petty Officer Daniel Caras at (202) 267-6570 or fax 267-4085/
4065. Personnel response training logs and discharge prevention
meeting logs shall be included in sections 1.8.3.1 and 1.8.3.2 of
the response plan respectively. These logs may be included in the
facility response plan or kept as an annex to the facility response
plan.
1.8.3.1 Personnel Response Training Logs
Personnel Response Training Log
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention training/
Name Response training/date date and number of
and number of hours hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.8.3.2 Discharge Prevention Meetings Logs
Discharge Prevention Meeting Log
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendees:-------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject/issue
identified Required action Implementation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.9 Diagrams
The facility-specific response plan shall include the following
diagrams. Additional diagrams that would aid in the development of
response plan sections may also be included.
(1) The Site Plan Diagram shall, as appropriate, include and
identify:
(A) the entire facility to scale;
(B) above and below ground bulk oil storage tanks;
(C) the contents and capacities of bulk oil storage tanks;
(D) the contents and capacity of drum oil storage areas;
(E) the contents and capacities of surface impoundments;
(F) process buildings;
(G) transfer areas;
(H) secondary containment systems (location and capacity);
(I) structures where hazardous materials are stored or handled,
including materials stored and capacity of storage;
(J) location of communication and emergency response equipment;
(K) location of electrical equipment which contains oil; and
(L) for complexes only, the interface(s) (i.e., valve or
component) between the portion of the facility regulated by EPA and
the portion(s) regulated by other Agencies. In most cases, this
interface is defined as the last valve inside secondary containment
before piping leaves the secondary containment area to connect to
the transportation-related portion of the facility (i.e., the
structure used or intended to be used to transfer oil to or from a
vessel or pipeline). In the absence of secondary containment, this
interface is the valve manifold adjacent to the tank nearest the
transfer structure as described above. The interface may be defined
differently at a specific facility if agreed to by the RA and the
appropriate Federal official.
(2) The Site Drainage Plan Diagram shall, as appropriate, include:
(A) major sanitary and storm sewers, manholes, and drains;
(B) weirs and shut-off valves;
(C) surface water receiving streams;
(D) fire fighting water sources;
(E) other utilities;
(F) response personnel ingress and egress;
(G) response equipment transportation routes; and
(H) direction of spill flow from discharge points.
(3) The Site Evacuation Plan Diagram shall, as appropriate, include:
(A) site plan diagram with evacuation route(s); and
(B) location of evacuation regrouping areas.
1.10 Security
According to 40 CFR 112.7(e)(9), facilities are required to
maintain a certain level of security, as appropriate. In this
section, a description of the facility security shall be provided
and include, as appropriate:
(1) emergency cut-off locations (automatic or manual valves);
(2) enclosures (e.g., fencing, etc.);
(3) guards and their duties, day and night;
(4) lighting;
(5) valve and pump locks; and
(6) pipeline connection caps.
The SPCC Plan contains similar information. Duplicate information
may be photocopied and inserted in this section.
2.0 Response Plan Cover Sheet
A three-page form has been developed to be completed and
submitted to the RA by owners or operators who are required to
prepare and submit a facility-specific response plan. The cover
sheet (Attachment F-1) must accompany the response plan to provide
the Agency with basic information concerning the facility. This
section will describe the Response Plan Cover Sheet and provide
instructions for its completion.
2.1 Page One--General Information
Owner/Operator of Facility: Enter the name of the owner of the
facility (if the owner is the operator). Enter the operator of the
facility if otherwise. If the owner/operator of the facility is a
corporation, enter the name of the facility's principal corporate
executive. Enter as much of the name as will fit in each section.
(1) Facility Name: Enter the proper name of the facility.
(2) Facility Address: Enter the street address, city, State, and
zip code.
(3) Facility Phone Number: Enter the phone number of the
facility.
(4) Latitude and Longitude: Enter the facility latitude and
longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds.
(5) Dun and Bradstreet Number: Enter the facility's Dun and
Bradstreet number if available (this information may be obtained
from public library resources).
(6) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: Enter the
facility's SIC code as determined by the Office of Management and
Budget (this information may be obtained from public library
resources).
(7) Largest Oil Storage Tank Capacity: Enter the capacity in
GALLONS of the largest aboveground oil storage tank at the facility.
(8) Maximum Oil Storage Capacity: Enter the total maximum
capacity in GALLONS of all aboveground oil storage tanks at the
facility.
(9) Number of Oil Storage Tanks: Enter the number of all
aboveground oil storage tanks at the facility.
(10) Worst Case Discharge Amount: Using information from the
worksheets in Appendix D, enter the amount of the worst case
discharge in GALLONS.
(11) Facility Distance to Navigable Waters: Mark the appropriate
line for the nearest distance between an opportunity for discharge
(i.e., oil storage tank, piping, or flowline) and a navigable water.
2.2 Page Two--Applicability of Substantial Harm Criteria
Using the flowchart provided in Attachment C-I to Appendix C to
this part, mark the appropriate answer to each question.
Explanations of referenced terms can be found in Appendix C to this
part. If a comparable formula to the ones described in Attachment C-
III to Appendix C to this part is used to calculate the planning
distance, documentation of the reliability and analytical soundness
of the formula must be attached to the response plan cover sheet.
2.3 Page Three--Certification
Complete this block after all other questions have been
answered.
3.0 Acronyms
ACP: Area Contingency Plan
ASTM: American Society of Testing Materials
bbls: Barrels
bpd: Barrels per Day
bph: Barrels per Hour
CHRIS: Chemical Hazards Response Information System
CWA: Clean Water Act
DOI: Department of Interior
DOC: Department of Commerce
DOT: Department of Transportation
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FR: Federal Register
gal: Gallons
gpm: Gallons per Minute
HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials
LEPC: Local Emergency Planning Committee
MMS: Minerals Management Service (part of DOI)
NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (part of DOC)
NRC: National Response Center
NRT: National Response Team
OPA: Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OSC: On-Scene Coordinator
PREP: National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program
RA: Regional Administrator
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RRC: Regional Response Centers
RRT: Regional Response Team
RSPA: Research and Special Programs Administration
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SERC: State Emergency Response Commission
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986
SI: Surface Impoundment
SIC: Standard Industrial Classification
SPCC: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures
USCG: United States Coast Guard
4.0 References
CONCAWE. 1982. Methodologies for Hazard Analysis and Risk
Assessment in the Petroleum Refining and Storage Industry. Prepared
by CONCAWE's Risk Assessment Ad-hoc Group.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1987. Siting
of HUD-Assisted Projects Near Hazardous Facilities: Acceptable
Separation Distances from Explosive and Flammable Hazards. Prepared
by the Office of Environment and Energy, Environmental Planning
Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington,
DC.
U.S. DOT, FEMA and U.S. EPA. Handbook of Chemical Hazard
Analysis Procedures.
U.S. DOT, FEMA and U.S. EPA. Technical Guidance for Hazards
Analysis: Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances.
The National Response Team. 1987. Hazardous Materials Emergency
Planning Guide. Washington, DC.
The National Response Team. 1990. Oil Spill Contingency
Planning, National Status: A Report to the President. Washington,
DC. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Offshore Inspection and Enforcement Division. 1988. Minerals
Management Service, Offshore Inspection Program: National Potential
Incident of Noncompliance (PINC) List. Reston, VA.
Attachments to Appendix F
Attachment F-1--Response Plan Cover Sheet
This cover sheet will provide EPA with basic information
concerning the facility. It must accompany a submitted facility
response plan. Explanations and detailed instructions can be found
in Appendix F. Please type or write legibly in blue or black ink.
Public reporting burden for the collection of this information is
estimated to vary from 1 hour to 270 hours per response in the first
year, with an average of 5 hours per response. This estimate
includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden
estimate of this information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden to: Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C.
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Washington D.C. 20503.
General Information
Owner/Operator of Facility:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Name:---------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address (street address or route):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City, State, and U.S. Zip Code:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Phone No.:----------------------------------------------------
Latitude (Degrees: North):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
degrees, minutes, seconds
Dun & Bradstreet Number:\1\
\1\These numbers may be obtained from public library resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest Aboveground Oil Storage Tank Capacity (Gallons):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Longitude (Degrees: West):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
degrees, minutes, seconds----------------------------------------------
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code:\1\----------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Oil Storage Capacity (Gallons):--------------------------------
Worst Case Oil Discharge Amount (Gallons):-----------------------------
Facility Distance to Navigable Water. Mark the appropriate line.-------
0-\1/4\ mile ____ \1/4\-\1/2\ mile ____ \1/2\-1 mile ____ >1 mile
____
Applicability of Substantial Harm Criteria
Does the facility transfer oil over-water\2\ to or from vessels
and does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than
or equal to 42,000 gallons?
\2\Explanations of the above-referenced terms can be found in
Appendix C to this part. If a comparable formula to the ones
contained in Attachment C-III is used to establish the appropriate
distance to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments or public
drinking water intakes, documentation of the reliability and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
analytical soundness of the formula must be attached to this form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes--------------------------------------------------------------------
No---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than
or equal to 1 million gallons and, within any storage area, does the
facility lack secondary containment\2\ that is sufficiently large to
contain the capacity of the largest aboveground oil storage tank
plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation?
Yes--------------------------------------------------------------------
No---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than
or equal to 1 million gallons and is the facility located at a
distance\2\ (as calculated using the appropriate formula in Appendix
C or a comparable formula) such that a discharge from the facility
could cause injury to fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments?\3\
\3\For further description of fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments, see Appendices I, II, and III to DOC/NOAA's ``Guidance
for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and
Sensitive Environments'' (see Appendix E to this part, section 10,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for availability) and the applicable ACP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes--------------------------------------------------------------------
No---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or
equal to 1 million gallons and is the facility located at a distance\2\
(as calculated using the appropriate formula in Appendix C or a
comparable formula) such that a discharge from the facility would shut
down a public drinking water intake?\2\--------------------------------
Yes--------------------------------------------------------------------
No---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than
or equal to 1 million gallons and has the facility experienced a
reportable oil spill\2\ in an amount greater than or equal to 10,000
gallons within the last 5 years?
Yes--------------------------------------------------------------------
No---------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and
that based on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for
obtaining information, I believe that the submitted information is
true, accurate, and complete.
Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------
Name (Please type or print):-------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-15404 Filed 6-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P