[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20084-20094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10997]
[[Page 20083]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 154 and 155
Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans, and Response Equipment for
Hazardous Substances; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 20084]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 154 and 155
[CGD 94-032 and 94-048]
RIN 2115-AE87 and 2115-AE88
Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans, and Response Equipment
for Hazardous Substances
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is soliciting comments relating to proposed
regulations requiring response plans for: certain tank vessels
operating on the navigable waters of the United States or any marine
transportation-related (MTR) facility that, because of its location,
could reasonably be expected to cause substantial or significant and
substantial harm to the environment by discharging a hazardous
substance. These regulations are mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA 90), which requires the President to issue regulations
requiring the preparation of hazardous substance response plans. The
purpose of requiring response plans is to minimize the impact of a
discharge or release of hazardous substances into the navigable waters
of the United States.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council [G-LRA-2/3406] (CGD 94-032, 94-048), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the above address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LT Cliff Thomas, Standards Evaluation and Development Division (G-MES),
(202) 267-1099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in the
early stages of this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses, identify this specific advance notice (CGD 94-032, 94-048),
and the specific section of the action being addressed or the issue to
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment.
Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of
comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. All comments will be considered in drafting the notice
of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard plans to hold a public meeting in Washington, DC
regarding this proposed rulemaking between 45 to 60 days after
publication of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). This
meeting will be conducted for the purpose of receiving views on what
should be regulated and what appropriate regulations would be. The date
and time will be announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Persons may request additional public meetings by writing to the Marine
Safety Council at the address under addresses. The request should
include the reasons why a meeting would be beneficial. If it determines
that an additional opportunity for oral presentations will aid this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold another public meeting at a time
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information. The principal persons involved in drafting
this document are LT Cliff Thomas, Standards Evaluation Division,
(G-MES), LCDR Walter (Bud) Hunt, Response Division, (G-MRO), and
Jacqueline Sullivan, Project Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel.
Background and Purpose
1. General
Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA) [33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)], as amended by section 4202(a) of OPA
90, requires owners or operators of tank vessels, offshore facilities,
and onshore facilities that could reasonably by expected to cause
substantial harm to the environment to prepare and submit plans for
responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case
discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a
hazardous substance. Section 4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 establishes an
implementation schedule for these requirements with regard to oil.
Under section 4202(b)(4), an owner or operator of a tank vessel or
facility for which a response plan was required under 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) and which handled, stored, or transported oil was required
to be operating in compliance with an approved response plan by August
18, 1993. However, section 4202(b)(4) did not establish a compliance
date requiring response plans for hazardous substances. For the
purposes of this ANPRM, discharge and release are synonymous.
2. Oil Response Plan Regulations
The Coast Guard issued two separate interim final rules (IRS) on
February 5, 1993: one requiring response plans for tank vessels
carrying oil in bulk as cargo (VRP IFR) [33 CFR 155] and another
requiring response plans for MTR facilities that handle, store, or
transport oil in bulk (FRP IFR) [33 CFR 154]. These IFRs define many
concepts such as ``marine transportation-related facility,'' ``maximum
extent practicable,'' and ``worst case discharge.'' The rules also
provide a specific format for response plans; however, they allow for
deviations from this format as long as the required information is
included and there is a cross reference sheet identifying its location.
The Coast Guard is considering using these concepts or modifying them
as necessary in the regulations for response plans for hazardous
substances.
3. Tank Vessels
The VRP IFR for oil uses the definition of ``tank vessel'' in 46
U.S.C. 2101. The same definition applies for purposes of implementing
the OPA 90 provisions for hazardous substance response plans. This
definition applies the requirement for hazardous substance response
plans to all tank vessels that carry hazardous substances in bulk as
cargo. Offshore supply vessels (OSVs) and certain fishing and fish
tender vessels are exempt from the requirements for hazardous substance
response plans because, in accordance with section 5209(b) of the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 1992 [Pub L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039 at
5076], they are not considered tank vessels for the purposes of any
law.
The VRP IFR for oil establishes three categories for tank vessels:
manned vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo, unmanned tank barges
carrying oil as a primary cargo, and vessels carrying oil as a
secondary cargo. The Coast Guard is considering applying this scheme
for categorizing tank vessels to regulations requiring hazardous
substance response plans.
[[Page 20085]]
4. Marine Transportation Related Facilities
OPA 90 requires hazardous substance response plans for any offshore
facility or any onshore facility that, because of its location, could
reasonably be expected to cause substantial or significant and
substantial harm to the environment by discharging a hazardous
substance. In Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, the President divided the
responsibility for implementing the provisions of OPA 90 regarding
hazardous substance response plans among various Federal agencies.
Through a series of delegations, the Coast Guard was granted the
authority to implement hazardous substance response plan requirements
for fixed and mobile onshore MTR facilities and for deepwater ports.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was granted the authority to
regulate fixed onshore non-transportation-related facilities. The
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was granted the
authority to regulate onshore non-marine transportation-related
facilities (i.e., pipelines, motor carriers, and railways). The
Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) was granted
the authority to regulate offshore facilities and associated pipelines,
other than deepwater ports subject to the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974.
That segment of the MTR facility that is over water is considered
to be an ``offshore facility'' under the FWPCA. Under E.O. 12777, this
segment is under the purview of MMS. A memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the Department of Interior (DOI), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the EPA establishing Federal jurisdictional
boundaries for offshore facilities became effective on February 3, 1994
[59 FR 9494; February 28, 1994]. To avoid any confusion caused by the
definition of ``offshore facility'', MMS coordinated an effort to
establish jurisdictional boundaries for oil spill prevention and
control, response planning, and response equipment inspection
activities. The Secretary of the Interior redelegated DOI's functions
under section 2(i) of E.O. 12777 to give the EPA jurisdiction over non-
transportation-related offshore facilities landward of the coast line
and to give DOT jurisdiction over transportation-related offshore
facilities located landward of the coast line. This MOU does not
include jurisdictional boundaries for oil spill financial
responsibility.
The FRP IFR for oil defines an MTR facility as any onshore
facility, including piping and structures used for the transfer or oil
to or from a vessel and any deepwater port subject to regulation under
33 CFR part 150. This definition includes not only large fixed onshore
facilities but also tank trucks, marinas, and railroad tank cars that
transfer oil to or from vessels where the vessel has a capacity of 250
barrels of oil or more. This definition, modified by substituting the
phrase ``hazardous substance'' for the word ``oil'', could be applied
to regulations requiring hazardous substance response plans.
As Coast Guard-regulated fixed onshore MTR facility is generally a
segment of a larger facility or complex. The FRP IFR for oil describes
a complex as a facility that contains portions which are regulated by
two or more Federal agencies. Onshore non-transportation related fixed
facilities, which can be part of a complex, are already covered by a
web of existing statutes and regulations at the Federal, state, and
local levels that address preparedness for, and response to, hazardous
substance releases. One of the purposes of this ANPRM is to address any
potential gaps in the coverage of these facilities and to prevent
imposing duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting regulations.
OPA 90 makes the distinction between onshore facilities that could
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment
(substantial harm facilities) and facilities that could reasonably be
expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment
(significant and substantial harm facilities). Response plans must be
prepared and submitted for both types of MTR facilities; however,
response plans for significant and substantial harm MTR facilities also
must be reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard.
Under the FRP IFR for oil, all MTR facilities, including mobile
facilities, that are capable of transferring oil in bulk to or from
vessels with a capacity of 250 barrels or more, and MTR facilities that
are specifically so designated by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port
(COTP) are classified as substantial harm facilities. However, within
this set of substantial harm facilities, there is a subset of
significant and substantial harm facilities. Significant and
substantial harm facilities are fixed onshore MTR facilities, capable
of transferring oil in bulk to or from vessels with a capacity of 250
barrels or more, deepwater ports, or facilities that are specifically
so designated by the COTP. Mobile MTR facilities are not considered to
be significant and substantial harm facilities unless so designated by
the COTP.
The terms substantial harm facility and significant and substantial
harm facility, as defined in the FRP IFR for oil, could be used in the
FRP response plan regulations for hazardous substances if the phrase
``hazardous substances'' were substituted for the word ``oil'' in the
definitions of those terms.
The Coast Guard considered developing criteria for designation of
facilities that handle, store, or transport hazardous substances as
substantial harm and as significant and substantial harm facilities
that would be different from those criteria used in the oil FRP IFR.
The criteria considered would reflect the prospect that discharges of
hazardous substances present a different type and degree of potential
damage to human health and the environment than oil discharges.
EPA uses the concept of a ``reportable quantity'' to set the amount
of a discharge of a hazardous substance which requires the releaser to
report the discharge to the government. Section 117.1 of 40 CFR defines
``reportable quantity'' as that quantity that may be harmful and is a
violation of section 311(b)(3) of the FWPCA [33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)] when
discharged into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, the
contiguous zone, or in conjunction with activities under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.] or Deepwater
Ports Act of 1974 [33 U.S.C. 1501 through 1524]. Table 117.3 of 40 CFR
lists the reportable quantities of substances designated as hazardous
substances under section 311(b)(4) of the FWPCA [33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(4)].
One criterion considered was to designate an MTR facility that
handles, stores, or transports a hazardous substance in an amount
exceeding the reportable quantity of that hazardous substance as a
substantial harm facility. A criterion considered in designating
significant and substantial harm facilities was to identify facilities
that handle, store, or transport hazardous substances above 10 times
the reportable quantity. Alternately, facilities could be designated as
significant and substantial harm facilities if they handle, store, or
transport hazardous substances 100 times above the reportable quantity.
Using the concept of a reportable quantity to define what
constitutes a substantial harm facility, and distinguishing it from a
significant and substantial harm facility has the advantage of building
a regulatory
[[Page 20086]]
structure with a concept that incorporates quantifiable values that
already exist and are based on rational decisions through the
rulemaking process. The added advantage is that the public, industry,
and Coast Guard are familiar with these concepts. However, it may also
result in selection criteria that are unnecessarily complicated and
that are not consistent with those established in the FRP IFR for oil.
Additionally, the reportable quantity concept may not be applicable to
non-FWPCA hazardous chemicals. It is also not clear that using this
criteria will appreciably increase the likelihood of predicting the
harm that may occur to the environment in the event of a discharge of
hazardous substances from the MTR portion of a complex facility.
The applicability criteria established in 33 CFR 154.1015 for the
FRP oil regulations will be considered in drafting hazardous substances
response planning regulations. These criteria build on two existing
regulatory regimes which include pollution prevention regulations for
oil and hazardous substances and response planning regulations for oil
spills.
The applicability in 33 CFR 154.1015 is based on the ability of a
facility to transfer to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels
or more. The determination of substantial harm and significant and
substantial harm is associated with the capacity of an MTR facility and
its proximity to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as other factors such as a
facility's proximity to public and commercial water supply intakes and
to areas of economic importance and environmental sensitivity. Such
determining factors are as relevant for hazardous substances as they
were for oils.
Using the FRP applicability for oil for hazardous substances would
provide that all MTR facilities that are capable of transferring to or
from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more could reasonably
be expected to experience a release of a hazardous substance, into or
on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or EEZ, which would
result in substantial harm to the environment. All MTR facilities would
be classified as substantial harm facilities. Fixed MTR facilities
would be classified as significant and substantial harm facilities. As
in the FRP IFR, the COTP would have the authority to upgrade an MTR
facility classification to substantial harm or significant and
substantial harm. An owner or operator of an MTR facility who does not
agree with the initial classification would be provided with a process
to request review of the MTR facility's classification by the COTP
using the appeal process established in 33 CFR 154.1075.
5. Defining Hazardous Substances
OPA 90 does not define the term ``hazardous substance,'' but relies
on the existing definition of hazardous substance in section 311(a) of
the FWPCA [33 U.S.C. 1321(a)]. Section 311(a) defines ``hazardous
substance'' as ``any substance designated pursuant to subsection (b)(2)
[33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(2)] of this section.'' Under section 311(b)(2), the
EPA Administrator is tasked with developing, issuing, and revising a
list of hazardous substances which may affect natural resources or
present imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare,
including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and
beaches. The EPA Administrator has designated 296 chemicals as
hazardous substances under the FWPCA. The list of hazardous substances
is located at 40 CFR part 116.
Section 1321(j)(5) of title 33 of the U.S.C., as amended by section
4202(a) of OPA 90, requires the Coast Guard to issue response plan
regulations for those hazardous substances designated under the FWPCA.
The Coast Guard notes that a number of dangerous chemicals other than
those designated as hazardous substances are carried in bulk as cargo
in the marine environment.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has begun to address
response plan requirements for hazardous chemicals. Its intention is to
use the basic guidelines for vessels contained in Regulation 26 of
Annex I of MARPOL as a model for such requirements. The approach
proposed here is consistent with that under consideration by IMO.
6. Maximum Extent Practicable and Worst Case Discharge
OPA 90 requires vessels and facilities to prepare and submit plans
for responding, ``to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case
discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge.'' For
regulatory purposes, both maximum extent practicable and worst case
discharge are defined in the VRP and FRP regulations for oil. These
concepts could be applied to the requirements for response plans for
hazardous substances.
For vessels, the worst case discharge is defined at 33 CFR 155.1020
as ``a discharge in adverse weather conditions of a vessel's entire oil
cargo.'' For facilities, the worst case discharge is defined to mean
``in the case of an onshore facility and deepwater port, the largest
foreseeable discharge [of oil] in adverse weather conditions * * *''
The FRP IFR provides at 33 CFR 154.1029 a formula for calculating the
worst case discharge for each facility. By substituting the phrase
``hazardous substances,'' in lieu of ``oil'', the definitions of worst
case discharge for vessels and facilities could be applied to the
hazardous substance regulations.
For vessels and facilities, maximum extent practicable is ``the
planned capability to respond to a worst case discharge in adverse
weather.'' Maximum extent practicable is tied to a quantity of
equipment and personnel needed to respond to a worst case discharge. It
recognizes the limits on available current technology and private
response capabilities and places a limit or cap on the worst case
discharge volumes for which an owner or operator must plan to respond.
However, this cap does not limit the amount of response resources which
owners or operators may have to provide during an actual spill
response.
For oil, planning to respond to the maximum extent practicable
generally implies planning for the containment and recovery of spilled
oil. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that the concept of
containment and recovery does not apply to all hazardous substances.
Some hazardous substances that are released in the water will not be
recoverable. For the hazardous substance regulations, planning to
respond to the maximum extent practicable will require planning to
protect the public health and safety, facility and vessel personnel,
responders, and the environment. This protection may require planning
for actions other than containment and recovery of discharged hazardous
substances. Through rulemaking, the Coast Guard would be able to
determine what types of response strategies would be required to
address releases of the various types of hazardous substances. The
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) appears to be
the most effective method for determining the appropriateness of a
response to a hazardous substance release. CAMEO is a computer program
used by many response organizations to properly prepare for and respond
to a hazardous substance release. It was developed by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA, and the National
Safety Council. It is kept current by frequent updates, is widely used,
and is readily available.
[[Page 20087]]
7. Average Most Probable Discharge and Maximum Most Probable Discharge
Although OPA 90 requires the issuance of regulations that address
only the worst case discharge from a vessel or a facility, the VRP and
FRP IFRs for oil require owners or operators to plan also for the
average most probable discharges and the maximum most probable
discharges. These concepts were developed to address the majority of
the spills that occur on vessels and at facilities--spills which are
significantly lower in volume than the worst case discharge volume
required to be addressed in response plans by OPA 90.
In the VRP IFR for oil, the average most probable discharge is
defined as a discharge of 50 barrels of oil from the vessel during
transfer operations. The maximum most probable discharge is a discharge
of (1) 2,500 barrels of oil for vessels with an oil cargo capacity
equal to or greater than 25,000 barrels; or (2) 10 percent of the
vessel oil cargo capacity if less than 25,000 barrels.
If the FRP IFR for oil, the average most probable discharge is
defined as a discharge of the lesser of 50 barrels or 1 percent of the
volume of a worst case discharge. The maximum most probable discharge
is the discharge of the lesser of 1,200 barrels or 10 percent of the
volume of a worst case discharge.
The concepts for the average and maximum most probable discharge in
the VRP and FRP IFRs for oil could be applied to the regulations
requiring response plans for hazardous substances; however, the
definitions of the terms may need to be modified to specifically
address the differences inherent in hazardous substances. These
definitions in the oil regulations are based on historical spill data
of the volumes of oil discharged into the marine environment. For
hazardous substance response plan regulations, the definitions may need
to be modified to reflect the historical data for the volumes of
hazardous substances that have been released in the marine environment
provided that the data is reliable.
8. Other Response Plan Requirements
Section 4202(a) of OPA 90 requires both oil and hazardous substance
response plan regulations to address issues such as plan review and
approval; consistency with the National Contingency Plan and Area
Contingency Plans; identification of the qualified individual;
identification by contract or other approved means of private response
resources; description of training, equipment testing, drills, and
responsibilities of vessel and facility personnel; periodic updating of
plans; and resubmission and approval after each significant change of a
plan. These issues and others (i.e., plan format) are addressed in the
VRP and FRP IFRs for oil and could be handled similarly for the
hazardous substance response plan regulations.
9. Developing Effective Response Plans
A key element in developing effective response plans for hazardous
substances is the development of an approach for addressing the
different types of hazardous chemicals. In addition to the 296
hazardous substances regulated by the FWPCA, there are a number of
additional hazardous chemicals that are not designated as hazardous
substances by the EPA under FWPCA but that are transported in bulk in
the marine environment. Effective response planning should include all
hazardous chemicals carried in bulk, not just those determined as
hazardous substances by the EPA. The Coast Guard is interested in the
views of the regulated community and the general public with respect to
response plans for hazardous chemicals not regulated under the FWPCA.
Discussion of Areas of Regulation Under Consideration
Regulations covering the following areas are being considered to
implement the response plan requirements of section 311(j) of the
FWPCA. Comments and suggestions from interested parties are invited.
1. Response Plans
(a) Response plans for MTR facilities would be submitted to the
cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP) for approval.
(b) Response plans for vessels would be submitted to the Commandant
(G-MEP), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC for approval.
(c) Each plan may be required to contain the following information:
--Emergency notification procedures.
--Vessel-specific or facility-specific information.
--Name of qualified individual.
--List and location of release response and fire extinguishing
equipment (including equipment on board the vessel or equipment located
at the facility).
--Response personnel, job descriptions for key positions, and their
training.
--Cargo or commodity hazard identification.
--Emergency response guidelines for each hazardous substance (i.e.,
containment, cleanup, or other appropriate response measures).
--Emergency response guidelines for different scenarios (i.e., large
and small, fires and explosions, collision, grounding, salvage
operations, piping failure, releases in sensitive or populated areas,
offshore and shoreside releases, etc.).
--Salvage operations (vessels only).
--Lightering capabilities (vessels only).
--Waste disposal.
--Worker health and safety.
--Threats to environment or public health and safety.
--Identification of sensitive areas and resources to protect sensitive
areas (facilities only).
(d) Response plans would be required to be consistent with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) [40 CFR part 300], as required by 33
U.S.C. 1321(c)(2), and the Area Contingency Plan (ACP) as required by
section 311(j)(4) of the FWPCA [33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(4)], as amended by
section 4202(a) of OPA 90.
All plans may be required to follow a general format. Certain
aspects of the response plan for vessels, such as on board emergency
response procedures would be ``generic'' in form, regardless of the
vessel's port of call. These generic aspects would form the main
``core'' of the response plan. Information that is unique to a port of
call, however, such as clean up contractors or local contracting
representatives, would be included in the response plan as appendices.
(e) A qualified individual would have to be identified in the
response plan. A ``qualified individual'' is a representative of a
vessel or facility with written authority to engage in contracting with
response companies and to activate necessary funds from the owner or
operator to carry out cleanup activities. This individual should have
sufficient training to direct response contractors pending the arrival
of a company representative. The qualified individual must have the
means for immediate communication with the appropriate Federal official
and the persons providing personnel and equipment for release response.
(f) A communications network, such as a release response telephone
list, would be required to identify which parties must be contacted
(i.e., Federal agencies, contractors, a call-up tree) and how those
communications would be established.
(g) Vessel and facility owners or operators would be required to
identify and ensure by contract or other approved means, the
availability of private personnel and equipment necessary to respond to
a release. When
[[Page 20088]]
appropriate, the Coast Guard would provide guidelines regarding what
type and amounts of equipment are required for an average most
probable, maximum most probable, and worst case discharge.
The Coast Guard would maintain an oversight and enforcement role in
verifying the contractual availability of equipment and personnel
between pollution contractors and owners or operators of tank vessels
or facilities. The local COTP representative would determine that local
contractors possess the necessary qualifications and resources to
address hazardous substance releases for which they are contracted. In
addition, the Coast Guard could review the contract arrangements
between the vessel or facility and contractor for the interim period
when the response plans are submitted but not yet approved.
(h) The plan would be required to address training, equipment
testing, periodic unannounced drills, and the response actions of
vessel or facility personnel. The regulations would specify criteria
describing acceptable levels for approval. For vessels, response
actions and persons assigned would be listed in the ship's station
bills and muster list, which is currently required under 46 CFR subpart
35.10--Fire and Emergency Requirements.
(i) Response plans would be submitted for initial approval as well
as for approval of each significant change. Significant changes would
include changes in a vessel's or facility's configuration; changes in
hazardous substance handled, stored, or transported; changes in the
name and authority of a person in charge; changes of the owners or
operators (depending on who received approval of the plan); or changes
in the identification of cleanup operators.
(j) Response plans would be required to be updated periodically.
2. Response Equipment
The response planning requirements for the response equipment would
address the following areas:
(a) The type, quantity, and capacity of response equipment to be
carried on tank vessels or staged at locations ashore.
(b) The periodic inspection of response equipment, including the
standards of inspection.
(c) The method for enforcement, whether through required
recordkeeping or other means.
The regulations regarding vessel and facility response plans for
discharges of hazardous substances may closely parallel those
regulations for vessel and facility response plans for discharges of
oil. Because the physical properties of these various hazardous
substances are different from those of oil, alternative cleanup
measures will need to be considered.
3. Federal Response and Contingency Plan Requirements
OPA 90 is the latest of a series of statutes that regulate
hazardous chemicals. An onshore facility is required to comply with
numerous planning requirements associated with the handling, storage,
transportation, and manufacturing of various hazardous chemicals. The
following discussion is a brief summary of the various Federal planning
requirements for hazardous chemicals.
Section 311(j)(5)(c) of the FWPCA [33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(c)], as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), sets forth certain
minimum requirements for vessel and facility response plans for FWPCA
hazardous substances. The plans must--
--Be consistent with the requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and Area Contingency Plans
(ACPs);
--Identify the qualified individual having full authority to implement
response actions, and require immediate communications between that
individual and the appropriate Federal official and the persons
providing response personnel and equipment;
--Identify and ensure 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 (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;
--Be updated periodically; and
--Be resubmitted for approval of each significant change.
In the case of onshore facilities, the OPA 90 Conference Report
recognizes that a ``substantial number of facilities that handle, store
or transport hazardous substances are subject to emergency planning
requirements under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, and other Federal statutes.'' [H.R.
Rep. No. 101-653, 101st Cong. 2nd Sess. 1990 at p. 151] Additionally,
the Conference Report recognizes that chemical emergency planning
requirements are in effect for communities under the Emergency Planning
and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The Report also states that
the President should select onshore facility response plans in a manner
that will avoid duplicative or conflicting response plan review
requirements and should ensure that such plans are coordinated with the
community emergency planning effort under EPCRA.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 264, subpart D issued under RCRA
establish requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste
facilities to use in developing facility-specific contingency plans.
The plans must include response procedures; a list of all persons
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 upon which local police departments, fire departments,
hospitals, contractors, and State and local emergency response teams
have agreed to coordinate emergency services. The regulations pertain
to facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes as
defined in 40 CFR 261.3. Hazardous wastes include characteristics
wastes (see 40 CFR part 261, subpart C) and listed wastes (see 40 CFR
part 261, subpart D).
EPCRA or Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA)
EPCRA requires Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to
develop local emergency response plans for their community and review
them at least annually. Under EPCRA, facilities are required to notify
the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC) if they have ``extremely hazardous
substances'' (see 40 CFR part 355 for a list of the 360 ``extremely
hazardous substances'') present above threshold planning quantities. In
addition, upon request of the SERC or LEPC, the facility is required to
provide the LEPC with any information necessary to develop and
[[Page 20089]]
implement the LEPC plan. Local emergency response plans must identify
regulated facilities; describe procedures, equipment, and personnel to
respond to releases; and include evacuation plans. Because of this
requirement that certain facilities participate in emergency planning
under EPCRA, it is likely that some overlap may exist with OPA 90
response plan requirements. In addition, under some state EPCRA laws
facilities are required to prepare contingency plans.
Clean Air Act
Under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, owners
and operators of stationary sources with ``regulated substances'' above
specified threshold quantities will be required to prepare risk
management plans (RMPs), which must include a hazard assessment
(including, among other things, an evaluation of worst-case accidental
releases), a prevention program, and a response program. Owners and
operators are to provide a copy of the RMPs to the State, local
planning and response authorities, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board. The list of ``regulated substances'' promulgated
under section 112(r) authority includes a diverse array of toxins (77),
flammables (63), and high explosives [see 59 FR 4493; January 31,
1994].
Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA requires that the hazard assessment
evaluate worst case accidental releases, estimate potential release
quantities, and determine downwind effects including potential
exposures to affected populations. Owners or operators must also
develop an emergency response program that includes specific actions to
be taken in response to a release including procedures for notifying
the public and response agencies, emergency health care, and employee
training measures. EPA is currently developing regulations to implement
the new CAA RMP requirements. In addition, some states already have RMP
rules in place that require facilities to develop emergency plans.
In addition, section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, as amended, indicates
that stationary sources have a general duty in the same manner and to
the same extent as under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to--
--Identify hazards that may result from accidental releases of
regulated substances or other extremely hazardous substances;
--Design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are
necessary to prevent releases; and
--Minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.
Section 112(r)(1) imposes upon owners and operators of facilities
emergency response duties for a broad range of hazardous chemicals not
restricted to a named list. Also under CAA section 112(r)(9), the EPA
Administrator may issue an administrative order to seek such judicial
relief as is necessary to abate an actual or threatened accidental
release when the Administrator determines there may be an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health or the environment.
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
OSHA has several sets of standards that envision some form of
emergency response planning for facilities that handle, store, or
transport hazardous substances. These requirements are directed mostly
at the protection of facility employees and emergency responders. The
OSHA Process Safety Management Standard (see 29 CFR 1910.119) requires
the preparation of emergency response plans under 29 CFR 1910.38(a) or
29 CFR 1910.120 for employers to prevent or minimize the consequences
of catastrophic releases of certain chemicals in the workplace.
Employers must develop formal process safety management program for
facility processes that involve a listed highly hazardous substance at
or above the threshold quantity. The list of highly hazardous
substances (see 29 CFR 191.119) includes 125 toxic and reactive
chemicals as well as several mixtures. The program covers employee
participation, process safety information, process hazard analysis,
operating procedures, training, contractors, pre-start up review,
mechanical integrity, hot work permits, management of change, incident
investigation, emergency planning and response, and compliance audits.
The EPA/OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER) Standard (see 29 CFR 1910.120) establishes requirements for
employers and organizations to protect the safety and health of workers
involved in such operations. The operations covered by this standard
are cleanups at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, corrective actions
and routine hazardous waste operations at RCRA treatment, storage, or
disposal (TSD) facilities, and emergency response operations without
regard to location. Employers must implement a written safety and
health program that includes an organizational work plan, site
evaluation and control, information and training, personal protective
equipment, monitoring, medical surveillance, decontamination
procedures, and an emergency response program. The HAZWOPER list of
substances is broad and includes all 296 FWPCA hazardous substances.
Coordination of Planning Requirements
The issue of coordinating multiple contingency planning
requirements in an attempt to minimize duplication on the regulated
community is a focal point of the recently published Presidential
review of Federal agency authorities and coordination responsibilities
for release prevention, mitigation, and response required by section
112(r)(10) of CAA. EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office, in cooperation with the National Response Team, conducted a
study titled A Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous Materials
Accident Safety (EPA550-R-93-002) to fulfill the Congressional mandate.
The review concludes that, while achieving its statutory goals, the
existing regulatory scheme is both complex and costly.
With respect to contingency planning, the report notes that the
previously mentioned statutes were enacted independently of one another
resulting in inconsistent components in the regulatory process. Some
planning requirements are more stringent than others; some require
specific technical features; and some require submission of the
contingency plans for Federal or State and local review. Also, because
different statutes address slightly different hazards using different
lists of substances, the number and type of facilities required to
develop these plans varies. Moreover, there is seldom harmony in the
required formats or elements of particular plans. Although the study
team did not find many actual conflicts among planning requirements,
there were numerous differences in terminology and emphases: these
differences have resulted in facilities preparing multiple plans to
ensure compliance.
To provide relief for the redundant and overlapping federal
response planning requirements faced by facility operators, under the
leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National
Response Team is producing guidance on an integrated planning approach
which would ultimately result in the ability to prepare one plan to
cover multiple federal response planning requirements, thereby reducing
burden and cost for the regulated community. The ``One Plan'' guidance
is being developed
[[Page 20090]]
through a cooperative effort among numerous NRT agencies, state and
local officials, and industry and community representatives. Response
plans developed in accordance with One Plan guidance will be acceptable
to the federal agencies responsible for reviewing and/or approving
response plans developed to comply with the following regulations:
(a) EPA Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure and Facility Response Plan Requirements)--40
CFR part 112;
(b) MMS Facility Responses Plan Regulation--30 CFR part 254;
(c) RSPA Pipeline Response Plan Regulation--49 CFR part 194;
(d) USCG Facility Response Plan Regulation--33 CFR part 154,
Subpart F;
(e) EPA Risk Management Programs Regulation--40 CFR part 68
(proposed);
(f) OSHA Emergency Action Plan Regulation--29 CFR 1910.38(a);
(g) OSHA Process Safety Standard--29 CFR 1910.119;
(h) OSHA HAZWOPER Regulation--29 CFR 1910.120; and
(i) EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Contingency Planning
Requirement--40 CFR part 264, Subpart D, 40 CFR part 265, Subpart D,
and 40 CFR 279.52.
The integrated contingency planning approach is an effective way to
ensure response procedures are coordinated throughout the facility and
to avoid duplicative and potentially conflicting plans. The One Plan
format does not change the actual planning requirements imposed by
federal statute. The Coast Guard fully expects that any future
hazardous substance response planning requirements resulting from this
ANPRM will be accommodated within a facility's ``One Plan''.
Analysis reveals that there may be a significant degree of overlap
between the types of facilities and chemicals that would be regulated
under prospective OPA 90 requirements and those under existing response
planning requirements. However, the specific intent of OPA 90, with
respect to hazardous substances, is to address the discharge or
substantial threat of a discharge of a limited number and type of
substances (i.e., FWPCA hazardous substances) to U.S. surface waters.
The other regulatory programs discussed previously, for the most part,
have slightly different emphases in terms of the type of chemicals
covered, the primary media considered (e.g., air, land, water), and the
general purpose of the regulation (i.e., protection of the environment,
protection of workers, etc.).
The existence of these related planning requirements provide an
opportunity for the promulgation of regulations which allow a certain
degree of flexibility in the way owners or operators meet the OPA 90
statutory requirements. The Coast Guard requests comment on specific
examples of how existing Federal and State planning requirements can be
shown to satisfy one or more of the OPA 90 mandates. The Coast Guard
also requests comment on which OPA 90 requirements may not be
adequately addressed in existing plans and how such requirements can be
implemented in the least burdensome manner. For example, if the Coast
Guard accepted a plan prepared to meet State or other Federal
requirements (or the Federal baseline standard mentioned previously) as
long as it was adopted to meet OPA 90 requirements and cross-referenced
in an appropriate manner, would owners or operators still choose to
develop a separate plan?
The Coast Guard will provide the responses to this ANPRM to other
Federal agencies so that these agencies may develop options to satisfy
the OPA 90 mandate while minimizing the burden on facility owners and
operators.
Assessment
At this early stage in the rulemaking process, the Coast Guard
anticipates that any final rule may be considered a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) under E.O. 12866. The Coast Guard
anticipates that any final rule will also require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It is
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11030; February 26, 1979).
This rulemaking may have a substantial effect on States that have
or are developing response plan requirements. It may also affect
domestic and international shipment of hazardous substances to and from
the United States and may generate substantial public interest and
controversy. The primary economic impact of these regulations would be
on those tank vessel and facility owners that would have to comply with
any new requirements. These vessels would include approximately 270
tank vessels and 540 tank barges carrying hazardous materials: these
figures represent the number of these vessels that called in United
States waters in 1990. The Coast Guard estimates that this regulation
would affect 300 MTR facilities. In addition, these regulations may
also impact private hazardous substance release response contractors
and spill cooperatives.
Several alternative methods of implementing the rulemaking for
vessel response plans have been identified. These include the
following: (1) Requiring response plans for specific tank vessels based
on factors such as vessel route, capacity, or product carried; (2)
requiring generic response plans for all tank vessels, with port
specific appendices; and (3) requiring individualized response plans
for each tank vessel and each facility.
The full extent of the economic and operational impact cannot be
quantified at this time. A primary purpose of this advance notice is to
help the Coast Guard to develop the rule and determine the cost of any
new requirements, to the extent that they exceed current legal and
regulatory requirements or current industry practice. The Coast Guard
anticipates that the public response to this advance notice will assist
it in writing proposed rule and a draft regulatory impact analysis.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) Small business and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
Because specific requirements have not yet been proposed, the Coast
Guard is currently unable to determine the effect of regulations upon
small entities. Accordingly, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
discussing the impact of this anticipated rulemaking on small entities
has not been prepared. However, the Coast Guard anticipates that there
is a potential significant impact on a substantial number of small
businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and State and local
governments. The Coast Guard expects that the comments received on this
advance notice will assist it in determining the number of affected
small entities, and in weighing the impacts of various regulatory
alternatives for the purpose of drafting these regulations.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of
[[Page 20091]]
Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that contains a
collection-of-information requirement to determine whether the
practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its
collection. Collection-of-information requirements include reporting,
recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar requirements.
The Coast Guard cannot yet estimate the paperwork burden associated
with this rulemaking because no regulations have been drafted. However,
at a future stage, the Coast Guard may require that tank vessel and
facility owners and operators maintain records of response plan
approvals and equipment inspections which would be available upon
request to the Coast Guard as well as developing and maintaining
response plans. The Coast Guard expects that comments received on this
advance notice will assist it in estimating the potential paperwork
burden, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Once estimated, the Coast Guard will submit this proposed
recordkeeping requirement to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for approval.
Federalism
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive
Order 12612. Based on the information available to it at this time, the
Coast Guard is unable to determine whether this rulemaking would have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment. Some standardization of vessel response plan
requirements is necessary because affected vessels move from port to
port in the national marketplace and separate regulations and plans for
each port would be economically burdensome and potentially unsafe.
Some standardization of the MTR facility response plans may also be
necessary. MTR facilities may be regulated by other Federal agencies,
and some States may impose their own response planning requirements.
OPA 90 prohibits Federal preemption. Many facilities operate in the
national marketplace and excessive variation in the requirements would
be economically burdensome and potentially unsafe. The Coast Guard
specifically seeks public comment on the federalism implications of
this proposal.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environment impact of this
anticipated rulemaking and expects that it should have a positive
impact on the environment by ensuring that hazardous substance response
planning has been conducted by owners or operators of tank vessels and
facilities for the purpose of enhancing preparedness to contain and
recover releases of these products. Before a proposed rule is
published, an environment analysis will be prepared in accordance with
Coast Guard requirements, COMDTINST M16475.1B. That document, which
will describe the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed
rulemaking, will be placed in the docket for inspection or copying at a
location indicated in the proposed rule. The Coast Guard invites
comments addressing possible effects this proposal may have on the
human environment, or on potential inconsistencies with any Federal,
State, or local law or administrative determinations relating to the
environment. A final determination regarding the possible need for an
environmental assessment will be made after receipt of relevant written
comments.
Questions
To adequately address the issues discussed in this advance notice,
additional information is needed. Responses to the following questions
would be particularly useful in developing a future Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM).
Reponse Plans
1. Are there any historical data existing on hazardous substance
discharges in the marine environment (e.g., causes of discharges,
resulting injuries or fatalities, number of hazardous substances
discharged, volume of discharges, need to evacuate, and resulting
natural resource and property damage? If so, where can such data be
found? Are there any restrictions on the accessibility of this data?
2. Are there any data regarding the effectiveness of hazardous
substance response planning in terms of preventing occurrences of
casualties and incidents, reducing the volume of releases after the
occurrences of casualties and incidents, improving containment and
recovery, if possible, and avoiding injuries and fatalities)?
3. How many companies operate tank vessels that carry, or
facilities that store or transport hazardous substances? On the
average, how many vessels or facilities are operated by a single
company?
4. How should response plans for non-FWPCA hazardous chemicals
which are carried in bulk (e.g., noxious liquid substances as listed in
Annex II of MARPOL) be addressed?
5. How many different types of hazardous substances are carried
during a single voyage? How many different types of hazardous
substances are handled, stored, or transported by a single MTR
facility?
6. What are appropriate hazardous substance storage and throughout
thresholds for selecting facilities that could cause substantial harm
to the environment and for selecting the subset of those facilities
that could reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial
harm to the environment? Should the Coast Guard use the capacity of a
vessel calling at an MTR facility as a means of selecting facilities
that could reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial
harm to the environment?
7. Should the CAMEO program be used to determine the appropriate
response strategies for the various hazardous substances which may be
involved in a potential release? What alternative guidance is
available? Would you consider it more appropriate? If so, why?
8. For MTR facilities that are part of an onshore non-
transportation related fixed facility complex, are there potential
conflicts in the areas of hazardous substances regulated and the amount
of a worst case discharge?
9. Are there potential gaps in existing Federal regulatory coverage
for hazardous substance response plans for the onshore non-
transportation fixed facility portion of an MTR complex?
10. What information should be required in the tank vessel and
facility response plans?
11. Should the information provided in response plans for vessels
carrying hazardous substances and for facilities handling hazardous
substances vary depending on the type of substances transported? How
should substances be classified? Should each class of hazardous
substance have a different plan? Should vessel owners and facility
owners have a separate plan for each product they handle or should they
have product groups within the plan? How would response strategies
differ for the various types of hazardous substances?
12. Should all FWPCA hazardous substance be regulated at the same
threshold or should thresholds for individual substances be set based
upon the specific considerations associated with each substance? Should
the threshold level be based upon the reportable quantity (i.e.,
quantities of hazardous substances that may be harmful as set forth in
40 CFR 117.3, the
[[Page 20092]]
discharge of which is a violation of section 311(b)(3) of the FWPCA [33
U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)] and requires notice as set forth in 40 CFR 117.21
for the substance) or a multiple of the reportable quantity? What would
be an appropriate multiplier for such a determination?
13. How should the concept of ``responding to the maximum extent
practicable'' be applied for purposes of planning the response to a
worst case discharge of a hazardous substance? Should it be the same
for hazardous substances as it is for oil in 33 CFR parts 154 and 155?
14. How many U.S. companies provide response services for hazardous
substance releases and in what geographic areas would these services be
available? What response capabilities do these services have in terms
of amount and type of equipment and personnel available?
15. How should the concept of ``contracts or other approved means''
be applied for the purposes of planning the response to a worst case
discharge of a hazardous substance? What aspects of hazardous substance
spill response may warrant treatment different form oil spill
responses? What role do public responders (e.g., local fire department
personnel) play in response to releases of FWPCA hazardous substances
and how should their involvement be reflected in the planning
requirements?
16. What format should be used for the response plans?
17. For vessel response plans, what information should be required
in the ``core plans'' and in port specific annexes?
18. How often should the response plans be reviewed and updated by
vessel and facility owners and the Coast Guard? Should there be any
other reviewing entity? Should the frequency of review be dependent on
the type of substance transported?
19. Where should the response plans be kept on an unmanned tank
barge or a tank barge that is at anchor or underway? Should the plans
be kept on board a towboat when engaged in towing a barge with a
hazardous substance in bulk as cargo?
20. Are there vessels and facilities which have voluntarily
prepared response plans addressing a potential release of a hazardous
substance? Are there response plans for hazardous substances which were
prepared in response to other U.S. or international regulations or
policies?
21. Should the owner or operator of a facility that has already
prepared an emergency or contingency plan under Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [Pub. L.
99-499, 100 Stat. 1613] or other applicable statute (EPCRA, RCRA, CAA,
and HAZWOPER) be permitted to amend that plan to incorporate hazardous
substance response plan provisions to comply with the requirements of
OPA 90?
22. If requested, the owner or operator of a facility must submit
Tier Two information forms to local authorities with jurisdiction over
the facility under Title III of SARA. Could the Title III, Tier Two
form be supplemented to comply with the requirements of OPA 90
regulations?
23. Should the term ``qualified individual'' be define differently
from its definition in oil response plan regulations? If so, why?
24. In addition to navigating the vessel, should the vessel crew be
required to do more than attempt to control or stop the discharge and
report it to the proper authorities?
25. Should hazardous substance response contractors listed by a
vessel or a facility (as a condition of approval of the vessel's or
facility's plan) be required to develop a local response plan
consistent with the Area Contingency Plan?
26. How should worst case discharges be determined for an MTR
facility? Should it be the same for hazardous substances as it is for
oil? If not, upon what should this determination be based? Should worst
case discharge quantities be based on probable accident or incident
scenarios and resulting releases?
27. How should adverse weather be defined and considered in
determining a worst case discharge of a FWPCA hazardous substance? How
might weather concerns differ when responding to a hazardous substance
discharge versus an oil discharge? For example, could a lack of wind,
rain, and strong currents result in a riskier situation when a
discharge of a hazardous substance is involved because of the potential
for the substance to accumulate due to lack of dispersion?
28. What should the definition of average most probable and maximum
most probable discharge be for vessels and facilities?
29. Do discharges that are smaller than a worst case discharge
dictate different response strategies and resource commitments?
30. What is an appropriate response action for releases of
hazardous substances as defined in the National Contingency Plan [40
CFR 300.5] as minor, medium, major, or catastrophic releases, or for a
worst case discharge, as defined in section 311(a) of the FWPCA [33
U.S.C. 1321(a)], as amended by section 4201 of OPA 90? How would the
appropriate response action be determined? Would it be measured by
distance from the release, distance from the closest equipment
launching facility, type of substance discharged, or by another means?
Should response action planning requirements reflect consideration of
the hazardous substance properties and hazards?
31. Should vessel damage stability and general arrangement plans be
maintained off the vessel as well as on board for salvage and
firefighting purposes? Where should they be located (i.e., Coast Guard
Marine Safety Center, local COTP, classification societies)? How
accessible should they be?
32. Should each vessel owner be required to maintain a response
plan for each U.S. port of call? Should the vessel owner or agent
representative in each port maintain a local plan which would be
sufficient for the vessels calling under his control?
33. What involvement, if any, should State or local authorities
have in the review or approval of vessel and facility response plans?
34. Using the definition of ``tank vessel'' in 46 U.S.C. 2101, what
impact will these regulations have on vessels that carry limited
quantities of hazardous substances in bulk as cargo or cargo residue
(passenger, cargo, or miscellaneous vessels)? Should any vessels be
exempt from these requirements? If so, what types, tonnages, and
capacities should these exemptions cover and why?
35. For certain classes of materials should the response plan
include evacuation and public notification procedures for areas
affected by the release as appropriate? How should plans address
threats to public health and safety, including bodies of water used for
drinking supplies? How should plans address threats to air quality?
36. Should a facility be required to plan for possible releases of
all hazardous substances carried by vessels calling at the facility
even if the facility does not typically handle those substances?
37. What type of response equipment should be required at
facilities? To what size discharge, if any, should the facility be
prepared to respond?
38. Should dispersion modeling (air and water) be required? Should
a minimum standard be set? What models are available to estimate the
dispersion of hazardous substances in the air or water?
39. Following an incident, what requirements should be in place for
[[Page 20093]]
taking samples of the water and the air? Should response plans include
requirements for air and water sampling?
Carriage and Inspection of Response and Firefighting Equipment
40. What types and how much hazardous substance response equipment
and firefighting equipment currently are carried on board tank vessels
or located at facilities?
41. Should all vessels required to have response plans also be
required to carry response equipment? Should some vessels be exempt
from equipment requirements?
42. What firefighting equipment would be necessary to have on board
a vessel or staged at a facility to respond to a possible fire
associated with the discharge of hazardous substances? Would the type
of equipment needed vary dependent upon the type of substance
discharged? What are the various firefighting options?
43. What equipment other than response and firefighting equipment
(e.g., transfer equipment, rescue equipment, and monitoring equipment)
should be addressed in response plans to prevent or mitigate a
potential hazardous substance release?
44. What response equipment is appropriate for vessels or manned
tank barges to carry, if any? Would the type of response equipment
needed vary dependent upon the type of substances carried?
45. What response equipment should be carried on board unmanned
tank barges, if any?
46. What are the appropriate capabilities of the equipment?
47. Should MTR facilities be required to have response equipment
staged at the facility?
48. If facilities are not required to stage equipment at the
facility, how much time should be allowed to bring response resources
to the facility?
49. How large a discharge should the response equipment be capable
of handling?
50. What equipment-inspection requirements are appropriate?
51. What equipment needs to be inspected?
52. Should the inspection be the responsibility of the owner or
operator and who should be required to maintain a record of that
inspection?
53. Should spot inspections of the equipment be made by Coast Guard
personnel as part of the vessel and facility inspection?
54. Should third-party inspection be used?
55. What action should be taken if required equipment is missing or
in disrepair?
56. What inspection requirements are appropriate for equipment
maintained by a cooperative or an independent organization?
57. Should the required equipment be approved by the Coast Guard?
58. Should the area of the vessel's operation or the regional
availability of support equipment affect the on board equipment-
carriage requirements?
59. Should tank barges in the same tow or fleeting area be
permitted to share equipment?
60. How should response equipment be deployed on unmanned tank
barges? Who should deploy the response equipment?
61. If containment boom is required, how much should be carried?
Should it be sufficient to completely encircle the vessel?
62. Should plans require an assessment of a local port's municipal
capabilities to respond to a hazardous substance release, including
firefighting capabilities?
63. What involvement, if any, should State or local authorities
have in the approval or inspection of response equipment?
64. Are there methods available to rate the capabilities of the
response and containment equipment?
65. Should frequency of inspections be the same as in the existing
oil response planning regulations?
66. How would compliance with this proposed regulation impact
compliance with other existing hazardous substance requirements?
67. Is there sufficient response equipment available to respond to
a worse case discharge? What, if any, caps should be placed on
equipment requirements?
68. Where is response equipment currently located? How should
required response times take into consideration the location of the
equipment? Are the response times established in the VRP and FRP IFRs
for oil appropriate for hazardous substance response planning in rivers
and canals, inland, nearshore, offshore, ocean, and Great Lakes waters?
If not, what other response times are appropriate?
Training
69. At the present time, what type of training do vessel and
facility personnel receive in the worker safety and response aspects to
hazardous substance releases? How many vessel and facility personnel
receive such training?
70. What training in the use of response equipment should be
required for vessel and facility personnel?
71. Should the Coast Guard or another entity certify providers of
this training?
72. Who should be required to have response training (i.e.,
licensed, unlicensed, deck or engine department personnel on board
vessels) among the vessel's crew and the facility's employees?
73. Should mariners be required to have their licenses or merchant
mariners' documents endorsed to show that the mariners have completed
emergency response training?
74. How can mariners and facility personnel demonstrate completion
of emergency response training?
75. What training in the implementation of the required response
plans should be included?
76. What specialized firefighting training should be required for
the crew of vessels carrying hazardous substances and personnel of
facilities that handle, store, or transport hazardous substances? How
will the training vary dependent upon the type of substances
transported by the vessel or handled, stored, or transported by the
facility?
77. What level of training will be required for qualified
individuals and responders?
78. Should hazardous substance response contractors be separately
classified by the Coast Guard? if yes, what should the criterion be?
Drills
79. Should drills be required in accordance with existing
regulations, i.e., as required in 33 CFR parts 154 and 155?
80. Should the Coast Guard adopt the National Preparedness for
Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidelines for hazardous substances?
81. Should there be a requirement to maintain a record of drills
conducted? Assuming records of drills will be required, where should
they be maintained? Should they be maintained on board vessels and at
facilities?
82. How should drill performance be measured?
83. What should the drill requirements be and should they be
different for different classes of substances?
84. How should drill performance be measured? What should be
considered acceptable performance (i.e., notification time, response
mobilization time, etc.)?
Economic Issues
85. What would be the economic impact of requiring each tank vessel
and facility to develop and implement a hazardous substance release
response plan? How would this impact vary
[[Page 20094]]
dependent upon the type of hazardous substances transported or handled?
86. How much would it cost to develop a hazardous substance
response plan, as described in this ANPRM, for single tank vessel or
facility? How would this cost vary depending upon the size and type of
tank vessel or facility? How would this cost vary by type of hazardous
substance transported, handled, or stored?
87. Would the per vessel or per facility cost to develop a response
plan for a fleet or tank vessels or group of facilities be lower than
the cost to prepare a response plan for a single vessel or facility?
88. What would be the cost to owners and operators of vessels and
facilities to annually review and update response plans?
89. What would be the economic impact for tank vessel or facility
owners or operators of maintaining on board or on site specialized
firefighting equipment?
90. What would be the economic impact on tank vessel or facility
owners or operators of reviewing and updating hazardous substance
release response plans?
91. What would be the economic impact on tank vessel or facility
owners or operators of maintaining on board or on site hazardous
substance release response equipment?
92. What would be the economic impact of these requirements on
small entities, as defined by section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 605(b)]?
93. What would be the economic impact for tank vessel and facility
owners or operators of maintaining contracts with release response
companies in each port they utilize?
94. What would be the economic impact on the cleanup industry of
enhancing hazardous substance response capabilities?
95. How much would it cost annually for a facility or tank vessel
to retain the services of a hazardous substance spill response
contractor to address its worst case discharge? How would this cost
vary by size and type of facility or vessel?
96. What would be the economic impact of requiring tank vessel and
facility owners or operators to train and drill personnel in worker
safety and release response?
Comments are not limited to the preceding questions and are invited
on any aspect of implementing the response planning requirements for
hazardous substance releases and the carriage of response and
firefighting equipment.
Dated: April 24, 1996.
Robert E. Kramek,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 96-10997 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M