|
 |
|
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related
Facilities
[Federal Register: June 30, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 127)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40775-40817]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jn00-19]
[[Page 40775]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 112
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related
Facilities; Final Rule
[[Page 40776]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[FRL-6707-6]
RIN 2050-AE64
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related
Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, EPA is amending the
Facility Response Plan requirements in the Oil Pollution Prevention
regulation for non-transportation-related facilities. The main purpose
of these amendments is to provide a more specific methodology for
planning response resources that can be used by an owner or operator of
a facility that handles, stores, or transports animal fats and
vegetable oils. EPA has issued this rule in response to legislation
which requires the Agency to issue regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2000.
ADDRESSES: You may review materials concerning this rulemaking in the
Superfund Docket, Suite 105, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal
Gateway I, Arlington, VA 22202. You may inspect the docket (Docket
Number SPCC-9P) between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays; and you may make an appointment to review
the docket by calling 703-603-9232. You may copy a maximum of 266 pages
from any regulatory docket at no cost. If the number of pages copied
exceeds 266, however, you will be charged an administrative fee of $25
and a charge of $0.15 per page for each page after 266. The docket will
mail materials to you if you are outside of the Washington, DC
metropolitan area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Davis, Oil Program Center,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 703-603-8823
(davis.barbara@epamail.epa.gov); 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 preamble is organized in the following
outline:
I. Introduction
A. Regulated Entities
B. Statutory Authority
1. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Clean Water Act
2. Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
3. Appropriations Act
C. Background of this Rulemaking
1. The Agency's Jurisdiction
2. Coordination with the United States Coast Guard
3. 1994 Facility Response Plan Rule
4. Petition for Reconsideration
5. FRP-Related Requests
6. 1999 Proposed Rule
II. Discussion of Issues
A. Response Planning Scenarios
B. Planning Response Resources
C. Higher Volume Port Areas
D. Evaluation of Toxicity and Biodegradation
E. Application of Executive Order 13101 (Purchasing)
F. Other Issues
1. Recovery Capacity
2. Use of Mechanical Dispersal Equipment
3. No-Action Option
4. FRP Preparation
G. Agency Decision on the Requests for Modification of the FRP
Rule
III. Bibliography
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: OMB Review
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
C. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
D. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
A. Regulated Entities
Entities Potentially Regulated by this Rule Include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starch and Vegetable Fats and Oils NAICS 31122.
Manufacturing.
Warehousing and Storage................... NAICS 493.
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing. NAICS 324.
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals..... NAICS 42271.
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction NAICS 211111.
Transportation, Pipelines, and Marinas.... NAICS 482-486/488112-48819/
4883/48849/492/71393.
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, NAICS 2211.
and Distribution.
Other Manufacturing....................... NAICS 31-33.
Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental and NAICS 4471/5321.
Leasing.
Heating Oil Dealers....................... NAICS 454311.
Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral Mining NAICS 2121/2123/213114/
and Quarrying. 213116.
Heavy Construction........................ NAICS 234.
Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges NAICS 6111-6113.
Hospitals/Nursing and Residential Care NAICS 622-623.
Facilities.
Crop and Animal Production................ NAICS 111-112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``NAICS'' refers to the North American Industry Classification
System, a method of classifying various facilities. The NAICS was
adopted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico on January 1, 1997 to
replace the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. This table
is not exhaustive, but rather it provides a guide for you. Other types
of entities not listed in the table could also be subject to the
regulation. To determine whether this action affects your facility, you
should carefully examine the criteria in Sec. 112.1 and Sec. 112.20 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility,
consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
B. Statutory Authority
1. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (Public Law 101-380)
to expand oil spill 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). Section 4202(a) of OPA amends the Clean Water Act (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
[[Page 40777]]
hazardous substance'' (i.e., a facility response plan or FRP). This
requirement applies to any offshore facility and to 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'' (i.e., a ``substantial harm'' facility).
Section 311(j)(1)(A) of the CWA authorizes the President to issue
regulations establishing methods and procedures for removal of
discharged oil, and section 311(j)(1)(C) 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. By Executive Order 12777 (56
FR 54757-70, October 22, 1991), the President has delegated to EPA the
authority to regulate non-transportation-related onshore facilities
under sections 311(j)(1)(A) and (C) and 311(j)(5) of the CWA. The
President has delegated similar authority over transportation-related
onshore facilities, deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT). Within DOT, the USCG is responsible for
developing requirements for vessels and marine transportation-related
facilities.
2. Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
Congress enacted the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA) (33
U.S.C. 2720) on November 20, 1995. Under this law, most Federal
agencies must, in the issuance or enforcement of any regulation or the
establishment of any interpretation or guideline relating to the
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a
fat, oil, or grease, differentiate among and establish separate classes
for animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine mammal oils, and
oils of vegetable origin (as opposed to petroleum and other oils and
greases). The Federal agency must consider the differences in the
physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the
environmental effects, of the classes.
3. Appropriations Act
Under the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public
Law 105-276), which was signed into law on October 21, 1998, Congress
directed EPA to issue regulations amending 40 CFR part 112 to comply
with the requirements of EORRA.
C. Background of This Rulemaking
1. The Agency's Jurisdiction
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOT and EPA, dated
November 24, 1971, established the definitions of non-transportation-
related facilities and transportation-related facilities. The
definitions in the 1971 MOU are in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 112.
2. Coordination With the United States Coast Guard
In today's rule, EPA is modifying the existing FRP rule for non-
transportation-related facilities that handle, store, and transport
animal fats and vegetable oils. Today the Coast Guard is also modifying
its rule for marine-transportation-related facilities that handle,
store, and transport animal fats and vegetable oils. The two agencies
have worked together closely to ensure uniformity in the proposed and
final regulations whenever possible. Each agency's requirements are
appropriate to the universe of facilities that it regulates. The two
rules reflect the similarities and differences in the nature and
activities of facilities regulated by the two agencies.
3. 1994 Facility Response Plan Rule
On February 17, 1993, EPA (``we'') published a proposed rule (58 FR
8824-8879) to revise the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, which we
originally promulgated under the Clean Water Act, to address the OPA
facility response plan requirements. We received a total of 1282
comments on the proposed rule. We considered these comments in
developing the 1994 final rule. On July 1, 1994, we published the FRP
rule (59 FR 34070-340136) amending 40 CFR part 112 to add new planning
requirements for worst case discharges to implement section 311(j)(5)
of the CWA, as amended by OPA. Under the authority of section
311(j)(1)(A) and (C) of the CWA, we also required planning for small
and medium discharges of oil, as appropriate.
a. The Clean Water Act applies to non-petroleum oils. The
definition of ``oil'' includes oil of any kind or in any form,
including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse,
and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. 33 U.S.C.
1321(a)(1). In the preamble to the 1994 FRP rule (59 FR 34070-34136,
July 1, 1994), we noted that for the purpose of CWA section 311(j)
planning, the CWA includes non-petroleum oils. The non-petroleum oils
regulated by part 112 include animal fats, such as lard and tallow;
vegetable oils, such as corn oil, rapeseed oil, and soy bean oil; and
other non-petroleum oils, such as coal tar, turpentine, and silicon
fluids. See the definition of ``oil'' at 40 CFR 112.2.
b. Different rule requirements for non-petroleum oils. In the
preamble to the 1994 FRP rule, we agreed with commenters that certain
response equipment and strategies used for petroleum oil spills may be
inappropriate for non-petroleum oil. Therefore, we adopted requirements
giving more flexibility in estimating response resources to an owner or
operator of a facility that handles, stores, or transports non-
petroleum oil. We used the USCG approach to determine response
resources for worst case discharges of non-petroleum oil. We required
the owner or operator of a non-petroleum oil facility to: (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 (according to Table 1 of
appendix E to part 112), and that the equipment and other resources
will be able to respond within the required times; and (4) ensure the
availability of required resources by contract or other approved means.
Unlike our requirements for the owner or operator of a petroleum oil
facility, we did not limit the owner or operator of a non-petroleum oil
facility to using emulsification or evaporation factors in appendix E
(the Equipment Appendix) to calculate response resources. In the 1994
FRP rule, we added section 7.7 to Appendix E to reflect these changes
from the 1993 proposal. We stated that when there were results from
research on such factors as emulsification or evaporation of non-
petroleum oil, we might make additional changes (59 FR 34070, 34088,
July 1, 1994. Based on our examination of recent research, in today's
rule we have included these factors for the owner or operator of a
facility that handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable
oils. Owners or operators of facilities that handle, store, or
transport non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils
are not limited to using the emulsification or evaporation factors in
appendix E.
4. Petition for Reconsideration
As described in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 17227-
17267, April 8, 1999), by a letter dated August 12, 1994, we received a
``Petition for Reconsideration and Stay of Effective
[[Page 40778]]
Date'' of the OPA-mandated final FRP rule as the rule applies to
facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable
oils. The petition was submitted on behalf of seven agricultural
organizations (``the Petitioners''): the American Soybean Association,
the Corn Refiners Association, the National Corn Growers Association,
the Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, the National Cotton Council,
the National Cottonseed Products Association, and the National Oilseed
Processors Association.
On October 20, 1997, we denied the petition to amend the FRP rule
(62 FR 54508-54543). We found that the petition did not substantiate
most claims that animal fats and vegetable oils differ from petroleum
oils in properties and effects and concluded that the facts did not
support a further differentiation between these groups of oils under
the FRP rule. Instead, we found that a worst case discharge or
substantial threat of discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils to
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone
could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the
environment, including wildlife that may be killed by the discharge. We
pointed out that the FRP rule already provides for different response
planning requirements for petroleum and non-petroleum oils, including
animal fats and vegetable oils. We disagreed with Petitioners' claim
that all animal fats and vegetable oils are readily biodegradable and
noted that when biodegradation does occur in the environment, it can
lead to oxygen depletion and death of fish and other aquatic organisms.
We also disagreed with Petitioners' claim that all animal fats and
vegetable oils are non-toxic when spilled into the environment and
should therefore be placed in a separate category from other ``toxic''
non-petroleum oils. Information and data we reviewed from other sources
indicate that some animal fats and vegetable oils, their components,
and their degradation products are toxic. Furthermore, we emphasized
that toxicity is only one way that oil spills cause environmental
damage. Most immediate environmental effects are physical effects, such
as coating animals and plants with oil, suffocating aquatic organisms
from oxygen depletion, and destroying food supply and habitats. We
noted that toxicity is not one of the criteria in determining which on-
shore facilities are high-risk and must prepare response plans. Rather,
the criteria for determining high-risk facilities are certain facility
and locational characteristics, because we expect that spills of oil
from facilities with these characteristics may cause substantial harm
to the environment.
5. FRP-Related Requests
On January 16, 1998, we received a request from the Animal Fat/
Vegetable Oil Coalition to modify the FRP rule as it applies to
facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable
oils. We met with Coalition representatives on April 6, 1998 to clarify
their request. On April 9, 1998, we received a second request amending
two items in the previous request. The requests asked us to revise the
FRP rule by creating a separate category for response planning for
animal fat and vegetable oil facilities and a separate part of the
Appendix with procedures for these facilities. The requests also
included suggested language for the revised rule. These requests are
addressed in section II.G of today's preamble.
6. 1999 Proposed Rule
On April 8, 1999, we published a proposed rule to amend the FRP
requirements at 40 CFR part 112 (64 FR 17227-17267). The main purpose
of the proposal was to provide a more specific methodology for planning
response resources that can be used by an owner or operator of a
facility that handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable
oils. We issued the proposal in response to Public Law 105-276, October
18, 1998, which requires us to amend part 112. We requested public
comments on the usefulness of the new procedure and tables for
determining response equipment needs for animal fat and vegetable oil
facilities. On May 18, 1999 (64 FR 26926-26927), we extended the public
comment period through June 9, 1999. We received one comment supporting
the proposed methodology and no comments specifically opposing the
proposed methodology.
In Section II of today's preamble, we discuss comments received on
major issues. In the Docket for this rulemaking (SPCC-9P), you will
find a detailed Response to Comments document addressing all comments
and supporting analyses. As shown in the Response to Comments document,
we received no adverse comments on the definitions proposed in
Sec. 112.2 or the definitions (and groups of oils) proposed in appendix
E. As described in section II.G of today's preamble, we have finalized
those definitions as proposed, except for minor editorial changes.
In today's rule, we have also finalized most of the minor editorial
changes that we included in the proposal, except that we did not change
``spill'' to the word ``discharge'' everywhere that it appears in
appendix E and other sections of the rule. Although ``discharge'' is
the term that is defined and used in the Clean Water Act, we did not
make this change in phrases such as ``spill prevention and response''
and ``oil spill removal organization.''
II. Discussion of Issues
A. Response Planning Scenarios
In today's rule, EPA is retaining the requirement to plan for three
specific scenarios for oil discharges: small (2,100 gallons or less),
medium (between 2,100 and 36,000 gallons), and worst case. Most
discharges are small or medium. 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.
Discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils less severe than a worst
case scenario may pose a serious threat to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, especially from the cumulative effects of several
discharges, and can cause other adverse effects (62 FR 54508-54543,
October 20, 1997).
The preamble to the April 8, 1999 proposal stated that EPA proposed
to keep the same response planning levels for animal fats and vegetable
oils, although EPA proposed to add separate sections for those oils.
Several commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal to require three
planning scenarios for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities;
instead, they suggested that planning should be required only for worst
case discharges, under the authority of OPA. One commenter agreed that
planning for commonly occurring discharges is most valuable, and
asserted that most commonly occurring discharges of vegetable oils are
small; the commenter suggested planning for small and worst case
discharges only so that EPA and Coast Guard rules are consistent.
Another commenter supported EPA's proposal for three planning
scenarios.
In the preamble to the 1994 FRP rule, EPA noted that although
planning for several discharge amounts is not specifically mandated
under OPA, EPA has broad regulatory authority under CWA section
311(j)(1)(C) for such a requirement. The Agency also made this point in
the denial of the petition (62 FR 54508, 54509, October 20, 1997) and
in the proposed rule (67 FR 17227, 17229, April 8, 1999). We also
believe that EPA has regulatory authority under CWA section
311(j)(1)(A) for such a requirement.
[[Page 40779]]
A primary purpose of OPA was to expand oil spill prevention and
preparedness activities. Different personnel and equipment may be
necessary to respond to small, medium, and worst case discharges. In
our review of FRPs submitted for animal fat and vegetable oil
facilities, we found several facilities that show clear differences for
the three planning scenarios. For example, a facility may use its own
personnel and equipment to respond to a small discharge, call in an Oil
Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) to assist the facility during a
medium discharge, and allow a worst case discharge to be handled
entirely by the OSRO. Planning can increase the effectiveness of
response actions and can significantly reduce the spread of spilled
oil, the environmental impacts of such spills, and cleanup costs.
Commenters have not questioned these assertions.
EPA and the USCG regulate facilities with different physical
activities and different response schemes, and the requirements of each
agency are appropriate for the universe of facilities regulated by that
agency. Specifically, each of the agencies addresses the activities for
the facilities under its jurisdiction. EPA's non-transportation-related
facilities generally have a greater potential for large discharges than
USCG-regulated facilities. The worst case discharge from an EPA-
regulated facility (generally the capacity of the largest bulk storage
tank) is often greater by an order of magnitude or more than the worst
case discharge from a USCG-regulated facility (determined by the piping
capacity and flow rate for loading and unloading a vessel). Based on
information about animal fat and vegetable oil FRPs provided to the EPA
Regions, the mean worst case discharge (WCD) is approximately 2.0
million gallons; the median WCD is approximately 1.2 million gallons;
and the largest WCD is over 20 million gallons. For Coast Guard-
regulated facilities that handle only animal fats and vegetable oils,
the mean worst case discharge was over 22,000 gallons; the median WCD
was about 10,000 gallons; and the largest worst case discharge was less
than 153,000 gallons.
EPA-regulated facilities also tend to have a larger number of oil
transfers than USCG-regulated facilities, and they have a significant
potential for small and medium discharges. Because of the greater
diversity of structures and processes, oil can discharge in many ways
and in a range of volumes at EPA-regulated facilities. At these
facilities, there is a wide range of activities, and many parameters
can affect discharges. Causes of oil discharges at EPA-regulated
facilities can include tank failure, deterioration of tanks or valves,
facility transfers to or from tank cars or tank trucks, and discharges
from processing units. At USCG-regulated facilities, however,
discharges usually result from human error or equipment failure. The
discharge volume associated with these transfer activities is
determined primarily by pump rate and pipe diameter and covers a
narrower range than discharge volumes at EPA-regulated facilities.
We have examined discharge data for animal fats and vegetable oils
to determine whether the distribution of different discharge volumes
for these oils is similar to the pattern for all oils. In the FRP rule,
the planning volumes for discharges other than a worst case discharge
are based on an analysis of the Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS), which contains data on discharges from all sources. These data
showed that the average reported discharge for all oils is 1,300
gallons, and 99.5 percent of the discharges of all oils were less than
approximately 36,000 gallons. Thus, in the existing FRP rule the
planning volume of 2,100 gallons rule or less for small discharges
represents a realistic planning quantity. (See the Proposed FRP rule,
58 FR 8824, 8836, February 17, 1993).
We also reviewed data from the USCG's Marine Safety Information
System, which provided some information that is not readily available
in ERNS. Specifically, the database enabled us to identify which
discharges are from EPA-regulated, non-transportation-related
facilities. During the period 1992 to 1998, we found 28 reported non-
petroleum oil discharges from non-transportation-related facilities or
from the non-transportation segment of a transportation facility. The
volume of these non-petroleum discharges ranged from 1 gallon to 7,500
gallons. Most discharges (24) were less than 1,000 gallons and only
four were greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons. Fifty percent of the
discharges were less than 20 gallons and 93 percent were less than
1,500 gallons.
According to these data, the distribution of quantities discharged
for animal fats and vegetable oils is comparable to that for all other
oils. In our proposed rule (67 FR 17227-17267, April 8, 1999), we
requested comment on the reliability of these data and whether they are
representative of discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils at other
facilities. We requested that States or other parties who have data
about the discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils provide this
information to assist our rulemaking efforts. No commenter provided
data on discharge volume distribution.
The FRP rule also provides for facilities where the range of
possible discharge scenarios is small. Under today's rule, as under the
pre-existing rule, a smaller 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 for small or medium discharges.
Furthermore, case-by-case deviations may be allowed if they afford
equal environmental protection.
To summarize, our response planning scenarios differ from those of
the USCG. Unlike EPA, the USCG requires response planning for animal
fats and vegetable oils at marine transportation-related facilities
only for a worst case discharge and an Average Most Probable Discharge
(the equivalent of EPA's small discharge). This difference, however, is
the result of differences in the universe, nature, and characteristics
of the facilities regulated by each agency. Each agency's requirements
are appropriate to the universe of facilities that it regulates. Our
existing information shows similar properties, effects, and discharge
volume for animal fats and vegetable oils and other oils at EPA-
regulated facilities. We conclude that our response planning scenario
requirements for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities should be
consistent with our response planning scenario requirements for
petroleum facilities. We believe that such planning will be most useful
for regulated facilities in helping to protect the environment.
B. Planning Response Resources
The primary changes to FRP requirements for animal fat and
vegetable oil facilities in today's rule involve the addition of
section 10.0 and Tables 6 and 7 to appendix E. Proposed ssction 10.0
described the approach for calculating planning volumes for a worst
case discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils. We proposed the two
new tables specifically for animal fats and vegetable oils, Table 6 for
Removal Capacity Planning and Table 7 for Emulsification Factors.
Several commenters supported the creation of separate provisions for
animal fat and vegetable oil facilities. One commenter supported the
proposed methodology, including Table 6, and the emulsification factors
for animal fats and vegetable oils (Table 7). The commenter stated that
Table 6 accounts for the potential for natural degradation of oil as
spilled animal fats and vegetable oils undergo changes as well as
percentages of loss and recovery
[[Page 40780]]
which will aid in response planning. No commenters opposed our approach
in Section 10 or provided data suggesting different values for Tables 6
and 7. Today we are finalizing the proposed methodology and tables.
In the preamble to the USCG's proposed rule (64 FR 17222-17227,
April 8, 1999), the USCG asked for public comment on the
appropriateness of EPA's Tables 6 and 7 for animal fat and vegetable
oil facilities. The animal fat and vegetable oil industry provided no
comments indicating support of or opposition to the tables. In the
interest of affording maximum flexibility to the regulated community,
the USCG is offering the use of EPA's planning volume tables as an
option, but not a requirement, in its final rule that is also published
in today's Federal Register. The USCG notes that the use of these
tables may allow certain facilities to provide a more appropriate level
of response resources to mitigate an oil spill.
We have documented that the methodology in section 10 and Tables 6
and 7 is supported by recent scientific studies. These studies are
summarized in the preamble of the proposed FRP rule (64 FR 17227,
17240, April 8, 1999). To arrive at the numbers in Table 6, we examined
numerous studies on the fate and effects of animal fats and vegetable
oils in the environment (62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997).
Experiments using three vegetable oils (olive oil, sunflower oil, and
linseed oil) demonstrated that natural degradation occurred at a rate
of between 3 and 8 percent per day (Mudge et al., 1994). At some stage
during the degradation process, the oils polymerized and degradation
rates were reduced to less than 1 percent per day. With polymerization,
soybean oil and sunflower oil form a concrete-like aggregate with soil
and sand that cannot be readily degraded by bacteria and may remain in
the environment for many years after they are spilled (Minnesota, 1963;
Mudge, 1995, 1997a, 1997b). Petroleum oils also undergo oxidation and
polymerization reactions and can form tars that persist in the
environment for years. Animal fats and vegetable oils can also be
transformed by other chemical reactions, such as hydrolysis.
Other reports are also summarized in the proposed FRP rule.
Preliminary data from a study, which is being conducted for EPA by
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, estimates that at 25 deg.C, at least 20
to 25 percent of crude soybean oil was biodegraded after 25 days, and
at least 15 to 39 percent of the crude canola oil was biodegraded after
365 days, depending on pH (Venosa and Alleman, Personal Communication,
1999). At 10 deg.C, less biodegradation occurred. During
biodegradation, an increase in toxicity was observed, using the
Microtox test (ASTM, 1997).
Several studies described in the proposed FRP rule indicate that
the degradation of animal fats and vegetable oils depends on a variety
of factors. Factors that affect the biodegradation of oils include pH,
dispersal of oil, dissolved oxygen, presence of nutrients, soil type,
type of oil, and the concentration of undissociated fatty acids in
water (Ratledge, 1994; Venosa et al., 1996; Salanitro et al., 1997).
Based on the above information, we estimated that approximately 20
percent of the volume of a Group B animal fat or vegetable oil may be
lost due to natural processes.
To evaluate the reasonableness of the recovery rates in Table 6 to
appendix E, we have examined field data on recovery rates for
discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils. According to the Coast
Guard's Marine Safety Information System, for 664 discharges of animal
fats and vegetable oils between 1984 and 1999 responded to by the Coast
Guard, the data indicated that 39.9 percent of animal fats and
vegetable oils discharged to the water were recovered. Similarly, 86.9
percent of the animal fats and vegetable oils discharged to land were
recovered. The data did not account for the amount of water or solids,
including soil or debris, that may have been in the recovered material.
We believe that these recovery rates are consistent with the planned
recovery rates in today's rule. We also note that today's rule requires
temporary storage of twice the effective daily recovery capacity.
In today's FRP rule, we are finalizing this methodology as
proposed. The methodology recognizes those differences that exist in
the physical and chemical properties of petroleum oils and animal fats
and vegetable oils. While most properties of these classes of oils are
similar, some petroleum oils volatilize to a greater extent than most
animal fats and vegetable oils, and some animal fats and vegetable oils
can biodegrade more rapidly than petroleum oils under certain
conditions. These properties are criteria that we considered in
differentiating classes of oils under EORRA. The similarities and
differences in properties and effects of petroleum oils and animal fats
and vegetable oils are discussed further in 62 FR 54508-54543, October
20, 1997; the supporting Technical Document, which is available in the
Docket; and in the proposed rule.
Although we recognize that degradation is affected by many factors
and conditions that are specific to each spill, we are using the
percentages of loss and recovery in Table 6 to aid in response
planning. According to Table 6, facilities must plan to recover from
the water approximately 15 percent of the total oil discharged during a
3-day period of sustained operations in the Rivers and Canals operating
environment. Due to the narrowness of many of these operating
environments, the spilled oil is more likely to become stranded on the
shoreline. Facilities must plan to recover approximately 20 percent of
the oil discharged during a 4-day period of sustained operations in the
Nearshore, Inland, and Great Lakes operating environments. Because of
the open nature of these operating environments, there will be a
greater opportunity for on-water recovery before the oil is stranded on
the shoreline.
In today's rule, we are also finalizing Table 7, which presents
emulsification factors to account for the increases in volume that
result when discharged oil forms emulsions. When an emulsion is formed
in the environment, the oil changes appearance, and its viscosity can
increase by many orders of magnitude (USDOC/NOAA, 1994). Removal of the
oil becomes harder because of the increased difficulty in pumping
viscous fluids with up to fivefold increases in volume.
Studies that apply to emulsification of animal fats and vegetable
oils are described in the preamble of the proposed FRP rule. While
there is no simple method for determining the tendency of oils to form
emulsions in the environment, one study demonstrated that canola oil
and crude oils have similar tendencies for emulsification in cold
temperature tests (Allen and Nelson, 1983). Another study indicated
that certain crude and refined vegetable oils form emulsions, ranging
from 10 to 32 percent (Calanog et al., 1999). On the hydrophilic-
lipophilic balance (HLB) scale that characterizes the solubility of
emulsifiers, some petroleum oils, vegetable oils, and animal fats have
a similar range of HLB values in water-in-oil and oil-in-water
emulsions used in commercial products (Knowlton and Pearce, 1993).
Based on similarities in chemical and physical characteristics of
petroleum oils and animal fats and vegetable oils that have been
detailed in the proposed FRP rule and in our earlier evaluation (62 FR
54508-54543, October 20, 1997), we are finalizing Table 7. The
emulsification factors for animal fats and vegetable oils in Table 7
are similar
[[Page 40781]]
to those of petroleum oils in corresponding oil groups.
Today's rule also includes a provision for response capability caps
or limits on the quantity of response resources which individual owners
or operators are required to contract for in advance. Caps were
developed during the USCG Vessel Response Plan and FRP rules and the
1994 EPA FRP rule to recognize the limits of available technology and
private oil spill removal contractors in specific operating areas. The
USCG and EPA response planning regulations provide for the increase of
caps on contracted response resources at five year intervals. Caps were
initially established on February 18, 1993 for all operating areas and
were increased by 25 percent on February 18, 1998 for EPA-regulated
facilities. The 1998 caps remain in effect for the purposes of this
rule until the February 18, 2003 caps are developed.
The methodology in today's FRP rule will also reduce the
information collection burden for some facilities by providing specific
tables that an owner or operator may use to calculate response
resources. Many owners or operators of animal fat and vegetable oil
facilities have been using Tables 2 and 3 in the existing FRP
regulation, even though they were not required to use them. These
tables were developed to establish the planning volume and the planned
response resources for petroleum oil discharges, including on-water
recovery and onshore recovery of petroleum oils. Using the new Tables 6
and 7 in today's rule, some facility owners or operators will now be
able to plan for a lower level of response resources. Our approach also
maintains flexibility for an owner or operator to use an alternative
methodology or approach as long as such methodology or approach
achieves equivalent environmental protection.
In this rule, we have redesignated sections 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 of
the 1994 rule as sections 11.0, 12.0 and 13.0, respectively.
C. Higher Volume Port Areas
Under sections 7.2.3 and 7.7.4 of appendix E of the existing FRP
rule, response resources identified in the FRP must be located so that
they are capable of arriving at the scene of a discharge within the
time specified for different response tiers. Tiering of response
resources allows for the timely and orderly arrival of response
resources and allows for the identification of response resources from
outside the area of the facility to meet the planning requirements.
Each response tier corresponds to the on-water recovery capacity
necessary to respond to a percentage of the worst case discharge.
EPA recognizes the value of planning for the rapid arrival of
response resources and the increased availability of response resources
in certain areas where higher volumes of oil are handled, stored, and
transported. For higher volume port areas, the response resources must
arrive on-scene within six hours for Tier 1, 30 hours for Tier 2, and
54 hours for Tier 3. The arrival times for all other operating areas
(including the Great Lakes, Inland, Nearshore, and Rivers and Canals)
are 12 hours for Tier 1, 36 hours for Tier 2, and 60 hours for Tier 3.
The arrival times are the same for petroleum and non-petroleum
facilities, including animal fat and vegetable oil facilities.
In Appendix E of the proposed rule (64 FR 17227-17267, April 8,
1999), we proposed to continue to apply these arrival times to
petroleum oil facilities in section 7.2.3 and to animal fat and
vegetable oil facilities in section 10.2.3. We did not propose any
changes to the response times for any facilities. Section 10.2.3 of
appendix E in the proposed rule (64 FR 17227-17267, April 8, 1999)
would require that animal fat and vegetable oil facilities calculate
the required on-water recovery capacity of the response resources
needed for each tier, and we included a formula to do so.
The commenters did not comment on the recovery capacity
calculations, but they did comment on the response arrival times, which
we did not propose to change. Commenters requested that we eliminate
references to higher volume port areas and the 6-hour response times
for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities in higher volume port
areas. They suggested that because we designated higher volume port
areas based on the location of petroleum oil facilities, the faster
response times for facilities near these port areas should not apply to
animal fat and vegetable oil facilities. We acknowledge that the
designated higher volume port areas in our rule are based on the
increased availability of response resources in areas where a higher
volume of petroleum oils are handled, stored, and transported. Because
the same equipment is generally used in responses to spills of
petroleum oils and animal fats and vegetable oils with similar
characteristics, these areas usually have the greatest availability of
response resources for discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils.
CWA section 311(j)(5), as amended by OPA, requires facilities that
prepare FRPs to ensure by contract or other approved means the
availability of resources to remove a worst case discharge to the
maximum extent practicable. Higher volume port areas have a greater
number of response contractors and resources nearby. Therefore, we
estimated a shorter response time for facilities in higher volume port
areas compared with facilities located in all other operating areas. We
believe that the increased availability of response contractors and
reduced response times is likely to reduce damage to the environment
resulting from discharges with little if any additional costs.
We believe that the availability of response equipment at higher
volume port areas and the shortened response times (relative to other
areas) is appropriate for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities
located in these higher volume port areas. We did not create any new
higher volume port areas based solely on the amount of animal fats and
vegetable oils stored or shipped in the United States. Oil type is one
factor that affects the performance of oil recovery equipment such as
skimmers. Other factors are oil condition, oil viscosity; winds, waves,
currents; air and sea temperatures; slick thickness, and the presence
of debris (Schultze, 1999). The equipment that is used in responding to
discharges of petroleum oils is generally the same equipment that is
used to respond to discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils.
In May 1999, the USCG completed a study on the availability of
response equipment (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999). This study examined among
other issues the availability of mechanical recovery equipment in
geographic areas of the United States and higher volume port areas.
Based on our review of this report and our own analysis, we have
determined that at most higher volume port areas the average estimated
daily recovery capacity at Tier 1 is 511,627 barrels per day. We have
determined that based on our review of 14 non-higher volume port areas,
the average estimated daily recovery capacity at Tier 1 is 481,345
barrels per day. We conclude that greater amounts of response equipment
are still found in higher volume port areas compared to other operating
areas and that shortened response times are appropriate in higher
volume port areas.
In the face of statutory mandates under OPA, the response community
apparently has made a concerted effort to increase the response
resources in other operating areas. In the future, EPA may examine
whether the expanded availability of resources in non-higher volume
port areas warrants a reduction in the response times in these
operating areas.
[[Page 40782]]
The arrival times in today's FRP rule do not depend on the type of
oil spilled. We believe that the equipment needed to respond to spills
of animal fats and vegetable oils is generally the same as equipment
needed to respond to spills of petroleum oils that have similar
characteristics, such as viscosity and specific gravity.
We examined data on all FRPs submitted by animal fat and vegetable
oil facilities, and found that about 30 percent of such facilities are
in higher volume port areas. We believe those facilities can achieve
more rapid response times than facilities in other areas. The data show
that facilities in higher volume port areas are located within 6 hours
or less of at least one USCG-classified level D or level E OSRO. Most
animal fat and vegetable oil facilities located in higher volume port
areas are near several USCG-classified level D or level E OSROs. All
other animal fat and vegetable oil facilities who submitted FRPs are
located within 12 hours of such an OSRO. Thus, all the facilities can
meet the required FRP arrival times for response resources. In addition
to a contract with an OSRO, the owner or operator of a facility can
ensure the availability of necessary personnel and equipment within
appropriate response times by other approved means. Under unique
circumstances when appendix E of our rule is inappropriate for a
particular facility, the owner or operator and the Regional
Administrator (RA) may arrive at alternative methods for determining
appropriate response resources. To date, no animal fat and vegetable
oil facilities have suggested to RAs that these response times cannot
be met or that alternative methods of determining resources are
appropriate while maintaining equivalent levels of environmental
protection.
For these reasons, we are finalizing sections 7.2.3 and 10.2.3 of
appendix E as proposed.
D. Evaluation of Toxicity and Biodegradation
One commenter submitted two sets of comments with attachments
describing the toxicity, biodegradation, and performance
characteristics of certain animal fat and vegetable oil products. The
papers attached to the comments had not been submitted to EPA
previously in response to our Notice and Request for Data (59 FR 53742-
53745, October 26, 1994) or as part of the Petition and requests to
modify the FRP rule. The commenter stated that there is an emerging
body of science that confirms differences among types of oils with
respect to biodegradation and aquatic toxcity.
The papers attached to the comments and our evaluations of the
papers were peer reviewed by EPA scientists in other offices. Peer
reviewers were chosen from within EPA, because of the initial need to
maintain the confidentiality of material in one of the studies
submitted, and because of the expertise of the peer reviewers, who are
recognized for their extensive experience and knowledge of the types of
tests described in the papers and the interpretation of test results.
After peer reviewers were selected, the commenter submitted another
letter granting permission to place the confidential study in the
docket and allow limited distribution of the study for rulemaking. The
detailed evaluations and peer review comments can be found in the
Docket.
Summary of our findings
Although toxicity and biodegradation were not specified in the 1994
FRP rule provisions or in the 1999 proposed FRP revisions as risk
factors and do not form the basis for requirements to prepare FRPs, we
have evaluated both sets of comments and attachments thoroughly. In the
FRP rule, facility and locational characteristics are the basis for
identifying certain high risk facilities that could reasonably be
expected to cause substantial harm in the environment. We re-examined
our earlier evaluation of the properties, environmental fate, and
effects of spilled animal fats and vegetable oils to determine whether
the additional material submitted by commenters would alter our
recommendations on the type and quantity of resources needed for
planning effective oil spill response and whether response planning
requirements should be modified for facilities that handle, store, or
transport animal fats and vegetable oils. After a careful evaluation of
these comments and papers, we found that the proposed response planning
requirements appropriately reflect the similarities and differences in
properties and effects of petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable
oils, and other non-petroleum oils. We considered the impact of these
similarities and differences among classes of oils on planning for
effective response to oil spills.
Several of the papers that were submitted with the comments support
the findings of our earlier evaluation (62 FR 54508-54543, October 20,
1997). None of the papers refutes our conclusion that response planning
is essential for insuring efficient responses and minimizing the
environmental harm from spills of animal fats and vegetable oils.
Although we carefully considered all of the materials submitted, some
papers did not provide adequate data to support their conclusions or
allow full evaluation of the methods, their implementation, or validity
and interpretation of results. The papers generally do not address
physical effects of spilled oil, which are usually the most immediate
and devastating effects.
One of the comment attachments contains EPA methods that were
already discussed in detail and included in appendix I, Table 3 of our
earlier evaluation; this table compared acute aquatic testing methods
in our earlier evaluation (62 FR 54508, 54539, October 20, 1997).
Another comment attachment includes ``Chemical Fate Testing Guidelines
for Part 796.'' ``New Fate, Transport and Transformation Tests'' in the
835 series, which replace the tests in the 796 series, apply to toxic
substances and pesticides regulated under the Toxic Substances Control
Act and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. These
tests are not requirements of the 1994 FRP rule or the proposed
revisions, which were promulgated under the Clean Water Act as amended
by the Oil Pollution Act. Nevertheless, we evaluated the results of
these tests and their relevance to oil spills. As noted above, we found
nothing to support modification of our proposed requirements for animal
fat and vegetable oil facilities.
Uses and Chemical Composition of Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
Some of the papers that were submitted with the comments discuss
expanding inedible uses of animal fats and vegetable oils, thus
underscoring our finding that many animal fats and vegetable oils are
not used as food but for inedible uses. In 1992, approximately 20.8
billion pounds of animal fats and vegetable oils were consumed in the
United States, including over 14.8 billion pounds for edible uses and
more than 5.9 billion pounds for inedible uses, such as soap, paint or
varnish, feed, resins and plastics, lubricants, fatty acids, and other
products (Hui, 1996; 62 FR 54508, 54510, October 20, 1997). These
inedible products often contain additives or contaminants.
Several papers submitted with the comments discuss the importance
of additives in developing vegetable oil-based products for new
applications and show that the presence of additives can have a
profound effect on biodegradation and toxicity of these products under
given test conditions.
[[Page 40783]]
According to the materials submitted, additives can comprise as much as
20 percent of a lubricant. Such lubricants can differ greatly from the
original vegetable oil in properties, toxicity, and environmental fate.
Additives can include metals, emulsifiers, and perhaps dispersants that
can greatly influence the toxicity and spread of spilled oil and hinder
its recovery.
Physical Properties of Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
Many of the properties described in the papers submitted with
comments were addressed in our previous evaluation comparing the
properties of petroleum oils with animal fats and vegetable oils (62 FR
54508-54543, October 20, 1997). These properties are closely linked to
performance characteristics of certain products and applications. They
include specific gravity, flash point, pour point, viscosity, and vapor
pressure. We found that petroleum oils, animal fats, and vegetable oils
share common properties and produce similar environmental effects
(Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 1975; USDOI, 1994; Frink, 1994). For
further information on the properties of petroleum oils, animal fats
and vegetable oils, see 62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997, and the
supporting Technical Document.
In our earlier evaluation, we also discussed the physical,
chemical, and biological processes that transform animal fats and
vegetable oils, including their oxidation (62 FR 54508-54543, October
20, 1997). We described the toxic effects of some oxidation products
and the rancidity that results from oxidation of unsaturated fatty
acids. Because of the similarity in properties of petroleum and non-
petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, many of the
same methods are used for their containment, removal from the aquatic
environment, and cleanup from shorelines (see 62 FR 54508-54543,
October 20, 1997, and supporting Technical Document).
Most of the papers attached to the comments focus on performance
characteristics of vegetable oil-based products for specific
applications, particularly lubricants. While some of these
characteristics, such as the ability to withstand friction and wear,
relate to performance standards for certain applications, other
characteristics are consistent with the properties we discussed in our
earlier evaluation (62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997). Several
papers state that the additives that are utilized to overcome these
limitations can be toxic or affect biodegradation of the vegetable oil-
based product.
Toxicity
Earlier Consideration of Toxicity and Other Effects
The physical and toxic effects of animal fats and vegetable oils
and petroleum oils, their constituents, and transformation products are
discussed in detail in 62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997 and the
supporting Technical Document. Among our findings are the following:
We emphasized that toxicity is only one of several
mechanisms by which oil spills cause environmental damage. The
deleterious environmental effects of spills of petroleum oils and non-
petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, are produced
through physical contact and destruction of food sources as well as
toxic contamination. Nearly all of the most immediate and devastating
environmental effects from oil spills--such as smothering of fish or
coating of birds and mammals and their food with oil--are physical
effects related to the physical properties of oils and their physical
interactions with living systems (Hartung, 1995).
Our evaluation contained extensive discussion and tables
comparing the toxic effects of animal fats and vegetable oils with
petroleum oils. We described studies of the acute lethality of
petroleum oils and animal fats and vegetable oils and other types of
acute toxicity that can compromise the ability of animals in the wild
to escape their predators. We discussed the range of chronic toxic
effects that can be manifested by animals exposed to animal fats and
vegetable oils. We summarized studies of mussels that show exposure to
certain vegetable oils can cause mortality, growth inhibition, effects
on shells and shell lining, and decreases in foot extension activity
that is essential to survival. We detailed the effects of toxic
constituents of animal fats and vegetable oils, including specific
fatty acids and oxidation products formed by processing, heating,
storage, or reactions in the environment.
We described the limitations of the acute lethality
(LC50) laboratory tests that had been submitted with the
August 12, 1994 petition. We found major deficiencies in the manner in
which the tests were conducted, rendering the results highly
questionable. Furthermore, these acute lethality tests measured only
the death of organisms and did not describe acute toxic effects just
short of lethality, such as serious irreversible damage. They also fail
to measure long-term effects experienced by organisms and ecosystems or
toxicity to other organisms or life-stages or toxicity under other
environmental conditions. We asserted that these tests do not determine
safe levels, but rather the concentrations of oil that kill half the
organisms under a given set of experimental conditions. We discussed
serious questions about the relevance of LC50 laboratory
results to spills in the environment that have been raised by
scientific experts, including the National Academy of Sciences.
We stated that while low levels of certain animal fats and
vegetable oils or their components may be essential constituents of the
diet of humans and wildlife, adverse effects occur from exposure to
high levels of these chemicals.
Report on Acute Lethality Tests (LC50) Submitted by
Commenter
The only toxicity studies submitted by the commenter are acute
lethality (LC50) tests. Our evaluations of these studies are
detailed in the Response to Comments document and supporting analyses.
The acute lethality tests submitted by the commenter provide additional
examples of the toxicity of base oils (primary stocks used to formulate
lubricants) and products based on vegetable oils. We discussed the
limitations of acute lethality tests in detail in our earlier
evaluation (see 62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997, and supporting
Technical Document) and summarize them below.
Acute Lethality Tests of Vegetable-Based Oil Sample BIO 25-30
The Parametrix report, which was developed for Agro Management
Group and provided by Colorado State University, described an
LC50 value of 8,766 mg/l for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) exposed to various concentrations of a vegetable-based Oil
Sample BIO 25-30 in an acute range-finding toxicity test. In a 96-hour
acute definitive toxicity test, a No Observed Effect Concentration
(NOEC) of 5,000 mg/l; a Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC) of
10,000 mg/l; and an LC50 of 7,320 mg/l for Oil Sample BIO
25-30 were reported. The test protocols listed in the report are
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, EPA/600/4-90/027F, August
1993 (hereafter referred to as ``ORD Methods''). According to the
report, the tests deviate from protocols in ways that raise doubts
about the validity of the test results.
[[Page 40784]]
Apparently, similar studies for petroleum oils were not conducted.
Instead, the report compares the results of its tests on the vegetable-
based oil sample with lower toxicity values reported in two papers, one
that measured the LC50 of oil shale process water and its
inorganic constituents in 96-hour tests with rainbow trout, and a
second that determined the maximum safe limit for one type of crude oil
in a 90-day study with cutthroat trout. Results of the tests on Oil
Sample BIO 25-30, however, cannot be easily compared with the toxicity
values derived from tests that were conducted using different
experimental conditions, species, toxicity endpoints, and other
factors. Because many factors influence toxicity, comparison of
toxicity based on measurements of survival times, mortality, rates or
fixed-time LC50 values are inadequate to establish the
existence or magnitude of a toxic effect (Abel, 1996).
The report submitted with the comments contains: no information
about sample preparation; no description of acclimation or aeration
procedures, no information on feeding; no data describing the number of
rainbow trout killed at each concentration of test material; no data on
the actual concentration of parent compound or breakdown products in
the test vessels and their change over time; no data on the period of
time that dissolved oxygen was below the required level or observations
on the effect of low oxygen on the rainbow trout in the test; no
measurements of pH and temperature; no discussion of whether the
vessels were covered; and, no statistical analysis of the data,
including standard deviations, confidence limits, and slope of the
dose-response curve. The absence of these data precludes evaluation of
the accuracy of the LC50 determination. Among the
deficiencies noted in the report are the following:
1. Unknown methods of sample preparation. The method of sample
preparation is especially critical for oily substances. The report
contains no description of sample preparation, no data on oil particle
size, and no data on the concentration of the parent chemical and its
breakdown products during the course of the tests. Thus, it is not
clear what fractions or concentrations were actually tested, how these
fractions or concentrations changed over time, or how such changes
affected test results. Oil-in-water dispersions are usually unstable
under the conditions of static tests, such as those described in the
report (NAS, 1985a).
2. Unknown concentrations of test material encountered by fish
during the test. Because the actual concentrations of the parent
chemical and degradation products were not measured, the
LC50 estimated in the test corresponds to unknown
concentrations of the parent chemical and its degradation products. The
tests appear to have relied on nominally designated concentrations
(i.e., concentrations estimated, but not measured), which EPA and the
peer reviewers believe is a highly questionable approach. The report
contains no data on actual chemical concentrations of the chemical or
its breakdown product, a critical determination in static tests where
concentrations are affected by changes in oil-water partitioning
through solubilization, chemical transformation, or the loss of oil
through degradation or adsorption onto the test chambers or fish (Rand
and Petrocelli, 1985; NAS, 1985a). While ORD Methods, which are cited
in the report as the protocol used, allow gentle aeration of test
solutions, they require that the concentration of test material not
vary more than 20 percent at any treatment level during the exposure
period. In the absence of measurements of actual chemical
concentrations to which the fish were exposed or data proving that the
test material does not volatilize or degrade, the tests would be
considered invalid according to these guidelines.
3. Oxygen depletion. The toxicity of a chemical may be masked by
depletion of oxygen when the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is high in
the test solution, particularly in static tests (Rand and Petrocelli,
1985). The Parametrix report admits that the dissolved oxygen
concentrations fell below the levels required by ORD Methods cited as
the test protocol (USEPA/ORD, 1993). It cannot be determined whether
rainbow trout were killed in the test by oxygen depletion or by
toxicity. Aeration apparently was initiated at 72 hours for the range
finding test and 48 hours for the definitive test, but the report
contains no discussion of the aeration procedures, including whether
all test vessels were aerated or how vigorous the aeration was.
4. Lack of statistical analysis of data. Because of the lack of
data on the proportion of rainbow trout that died at each concentration
level, and the failure to describe the method used to estimate the
LC50 and provide a statistical analysis of the data, the
accuracy of the LC50 cannot be determined. Statistical
analyses, including confidence intervals and slope of the dose-response
curve, are specified by the ORD Methods (USEPA/ORD, 1993). While the
report states that no rainbow trout died at the lowest three
concentrations of oil in the definitive test, and that the lowest
observed effect concentration (LOEC) exceeded the LC50, it
is unclear when they died, or whether all trout died in the two groups
exposed to the highest concentrations of oil. According to ORD Methods,
additional lower concentration groups are added to an LC50
study when the mortality is 100 percent in the highest concentration
groups within 1 hour of the start of the test.
Acute Lethality Toxicity Tests of Several Vegetable Oil-Based Products
and Other Products
The International Lubricants, Inc. (ILI)--University of Idaho
report summarizes aquatic toxicity tests that were conducted by
Parametrix for a number of products, apparently using ORD Methods.
Although the study contains material labeled as ``confidential,'' ILI
has authorized limited distribution of the report for purposes of EPA
rulemaking. As requested by ILI, the report is maintained in the docket
for public inspection, but not copying.
According to the report, acute lethality tests (LC50
tests) with rainbow trout showed ``negligible toxicity'' for some
vegetable oil-based products unless the formulations contained certain
ingredients. The LC50, BOD, and COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
were reported for about 25 products, but critical information
supporting the findings of the tests (for example, sample preparation,
dissolved oxygen throughout the course of the test, response data for
various concentrations, and statistical analyses) were not included in
the report. Apparently only the 96-hour aquatic toxicity test with
rainbow trout was conducted, although several other protocols were
listed in the report. The report also includes two tables on toxicity
that apparently represent hypotheses or rely on data that are not
included in the report.
Acute Lethality Toxicity Tests of Lubricants
Hydraulic Oils. One paper attached to the comments describes
LC50 values obtained in 96-hour rainbow trout tests using
five concentrations of test material and a control (Galvain et al.,
1994). Trout were exposed to various concentrations of an oil-water
dispersion created by using a central cylinder-housed propeller system
to simulate physical dispersion of oil by waves and currents. While the
paper
[[Page 40785]]
summarizes information about these oils, it does not include important
details about the implementation of the protocol in individual tests or
groups of tests (such as oil particle size) that are essential for
evaluating the accuracy of the determination of LC50 values.
For vegetable oils, the LC50 ranged from 633 parts per
million (ppm) to >5000 ppm; LC50 values were 389 ppm to
>5000 ppm, 80 ppm to >5000 ppm, and >5000 ppm for mineral oil,
polyglycol, and synthetic ester, respectively. The paper states that
the aquatic toxicity is caused by additives.
Lubricating Oils. A paper on lubricating oils that is attached to
the comments emphasizes that a biodegradable product is not necessarily
environmentally friendly (Baggot, 1992). Biodegradability must be
combined with test data on potential human and environmental toxicity
and bioaccumulation of the product, its components, or related
substances to support its environmental benefits. Additives that can
improve performance characteristics of a product may increase its human
and environmental toxicity. Some substances partially biodegrade into
products that are more toxic to aquatic life than the original
substances. Tests are available to evaluate the toxicity of substances
to aquatic organisms and soil organisms and the potential toxicity of
substances to animals and humans.
European Laws, Requirements, Standards, and Guidelines. The
commenter described the increasing interest in biodegradable lubricants
in Europe and provided information on European requirements but did not
specify how those standards should make a difference in our rule.
Several papers describe European standards and guidelines, but do not
provide specific information on toxicity and other effects. Two papers
explain the Blue Angel standards, used in Germany, for base fluids and
finished lubricants (Mang, 1993; Korff and Fessenbecker, 1992).
Relevance of Acute Lethality Tests to Oil Spills in the Environment and
to the FRP Rule
Some papers attached to the comments describe results of acute
lethality (LC50) tests for vegetable oil-based products,
base fluids, and additive systems (Parametrix, 1997; ILI and University
of Idaho, 1996; Galvain et al., 1994). Our earlier evaluation of the
properties, fate, and effects of animal fats and vegetable oils
detailed the limitations of this type of testing (62 FR 54508, 54515-
54516, October 20, 1997, and supporting Technical Document).
Acute lethality tests measure only the death of organisms and
usually provide no data on toxic effects other than death (NAS, 1985a;
Rand and Petrocelli, 1985; Klaassen et al., 1986). Animals that survive
a toxic response nevertheless may suffer irreversible damage (NAS,
1985c). As we stressed in our earlier evaluation, such tests do not
describe other acute toxic effects, long-term effects, effects on
ecological communities or changes in predator-prey relationships,
toxicity to other organisms or life-stages, or toxicity under other
environmental conditions (62 FR 54508, 54516, October 20, 1997). The
LC50 (lethal concentration 50) value or LD50
(lethal dose 50) value does not describe a ``safe'' level, but rather a
level of test material at which 50 percent of test organisms are killed
under the experimental conditions of the test (Rand and Petrocelli,
1985; Klaassen et al., 1986). A high LC50 value indicates
low acute lethal toxicity, because a large concentration of chemical is
needed to cause 50 percent mortality.
Even if the acute lethality tests were conducted properly--and we
have described significant doubts about the manner in which some of
these studies were performed--serious questions remain about the
relevance of the LC50 laboratory results to spills in the
environment. We described these considerations in detail in our earlier
evaluation (62 FR 54508, 54515-54516, October 20, 1997, and supporting
Technical Document) and will discuss them briefly here.
The methods used in the Parametrix tests and similar tests are
designed for effluents, not for oils with limited water solubility. The
water-soluble fraction that is typically used in static tests does not
simulate the dynamic changes that occur between the aqueous and oil
phases unique to each spill (NAS, 1985a). In methods that attempt to
simulate some types of oil spills by creating oil-water dispersions,
the size of the oil particles in the test profoundly affects the
composition and toxicity results. Only one paper attached to the
comments used an oil-water dispersion method, and it did not report the
size of oil particles (Galvain et al., 1994).
The many test variables that influence estimates of
LC50--the nature of the chemicals or mixtures tested; test
parameters (for example, route of administration, frequency and
duration of exposure, mixing energy, temperature, salinity, static vs.
flow-through systems, duration of observations); and biological factors
(for example, species selected for testing, sex, age or life-stage,
weight, contamination history of the organism)--rarely reflect the
conditions that occur following a spill (Rand and Petrocelli, 1985;
NAS, 1985a; Wolfe/USEPA, 1986; Abel, 1996). Oil concentrations from
spills in the environment can be virtually unlimited and may well
exceed LC50 concentrations. If environmental conditions were
identical to those in the experiment, concentrations in the
LC50 range would be expected to kill half of the organisms
with sensitivity similar to rainbow trout. Among more sensitive aquatic
populations, lethality would be even greater.
Furthermore, EPA reemphasizes that toxicity is only one way that
oils can harm the environment. The most immediate and devastating
environmental harm is often produced by physical effects, such as
coating of plants and animals and suffocation (see 62 FR 54508, 54511,
October 20, 1997). EPA has found that vegetable oils, animal fats, and
petroleum oils share common properties and produce similar effects when
spilled in the environment. The papers submitted with the comments do
not acknowledge the importance of physical effects, although an earlier
Petition by some of the same Commenters admitted that the physical
effects of spilled animal fats and vegetable oils can harm the
environment.
The comments, and papers attached to them, ignore the long-term
effects of spills of animal fats and vegetable oils. Some animal fats
and vegetable oils, their components, or breakdown products remain in
the environment for years. Whether or not the oil persists in the
environment, spilled oil can have long-lasting deleterious
environmental effects. By contaminating food sources, reducing breeding
animals and plants that provide future food, contaminating nesting
habitats, and reducing reproductive success through contamination and
reduced hatchability of eggs, oil spills can cause long-term effects
years later even if the oil remains in the environment for relatively
short periods of time.
Our earlier evaluation of the effects and fate of animal fats and
vegetable oils spilled in the environment pointed out that they have a
broad range of properties that influence their effects and persistence
in the environment and that the presence of other compounds or other
factors can affect the environmental fate and effects of oils (62 FR
54508, 54523, October 20, 1997). Although the papers that were
submitted with the comments discussed vegetable oil-based products,
these
[[Page 40786]]
formulations usually contain many other compounds that may be toxic or
affect the toxicity of the oil or alter its persistence. For example,
several papers attached to the comments showed that additives that were
necessary for adequate performance of some lubricants often increased
the aquatic toxicity and altered the biodegradability of the oil,
according to the tests reported in the papers (Galvain et al., 1994;
Korff and Fessenbecker, 1992; Baggot, 1992; Rhodes, 1996). According to
the papers, some formulations contain as much as 20 percent additives,
including barium and lead compounds, lithium soaps, emulsifiers, and
perhaps dispersants. The presence of toxic substances in a vegetable
oil-based lubricant casts significant doubt on claims that all
vegetable oils and products derived from them are non-toxic.
Unlike the European guidelines and German laws described in these
papers that apply to specific uses of oils, EPA's 1994 FRP rule and
today's FRP rule revisions, which were promulgated under the Clean
Water Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, apply to planning for
responses to oil spills. The 1994 FRP rule and today's FRP rule
revisions apply to facilities that transfer large volumes of oil over
water or handle, store, or transport 1 million gallons of oil or more
and meet other criteria indicating that their discharges could
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment.
The rule does not require performance standards for various
applications or tests that are described in the papers submitted with
the comments.
Furthermore, EPA's 1994 FRP rule and today's FRP rule revisions are
on a vastly different scale from the European regulations described in
the submitted papers. According to one paper attached to the comments,
German lubricant demand is predicted to rise to about 115,000 to
170,000 tons per year, the equivalent of approximately 32.2 million
gallons to 47.6 million gallons total for all German lubricants, if
favorable conditions occur. By comparison, vegetable oil and animal fat
facilities under EPA's jurisdiction have estimated a worst case
discharge of as much as 20 million gallons from a single spill. The
volume of oil discharged from two spills of this size is nearly as
great as the maximum German lubricant demand projected for an entire
year.
Biodegradation
Earlier Consideration of Biodegradation and Other Transformation
Processes
We detailed the chemical and biological processes affecting animal
fats and vegetable oils in the environment and described the
environmental fate of animal fats and vegetable oils in actual spills
in our earlier evaluation (62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997).
Several articles submitted by the commenters further support EPA's
earlier findings.
EPA has found that:
While some animal fats and vegetable oils degrade rapidly
under certain conditions, others persist in the environment years after
the oil is spilled.
The process of biodegradation can cause environmental
harm. When biodegradation occurs in the environment, it can lead to
oxygen depletion and suffocation of fish and other aquatic organisms.
Oxygen depletion can result from reduced oxygen exchange across the
air-water surface below the spilled oil, or from the high BOD by
microorganisms degrading oil (Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 1975; Mudge,
1995). Under certain conditions, some animal fats and vegetable oils
present a greater risk to aquatic organisms than other oils spilled in
the environment, as indicated by their greater BOD (Groenewold et al.,
1982; Institute, 1985; Crump-Wiesner and Jennings, 1975; 62 FR 54508,
54512-54513, October 20, 1997). While the higher BOD of vegetable oils
is associated with greater biodegradability by microorganisms using
oxygen, it also reflects the increased likelihood of oxygen depletion
and suffocation of aquatic organisms under certain environmental
conditions. Oil that is spilled in inland waters, such as small rivers
and streams, may be especially harmful if there are limited oxygen
resources in the water body and little dispersal of the oil.
Every spill is different. How long the vegetable oil or
animal fat remains in the environment after it is spilled, what
proportion of the oil degrades and at what rate, what products are
formed, and where the oil and its products are transported and
distributed, are determined by the properties of the oil itself and
those of the environment where the oil is spilled. Factors such as pH
(acidity), temperature, oxygen concentration, dispersal of oil, the
presence of other chemicals, soil characteristics, nutrient quantities,
and populations of various microorganisms at the location of the spill
profoundly affect the degradation of oil.
Some products formed by biodegradation and other
transformation processes are more toxic than the original oils and
fats. Toxicity can also decrease or remain unchanged by biodegradation.
We have summarized the toxic effects of animal fats and vegetable oils,
their constituents, and degradation products in our earlier evaluation
(see 62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997).
Spilled animal fats and vegetable oils can cause long-term
deleterious environmental effects even if they remain in the
environment for relatively short periods of time, because they destroy
existing and future food sources, reduce breeding animals and plants,
and contaminate eggs and nesting habitats. Adverse effects of spilled
animal fats and vegetable oils include physical effects, such as
coating and suffocation, oiling of the food supply, and toxicity.
Spilled oils can also produce rancid odors, foul shorelines, clog water
treatment plants, and catch fire when ignition sources are present.
Real-world examples demonstrate the deleterious effects of
spills of animal fats and vegetable oils and show that some animal fats
and vegetable oils, their components, and breakdown products remain in
the environment many years after a spill (see 62 FR 54508-54543,
October 20, 1997).
Study Submitted by Commenter on Biodegradability of Certain Lubricants,
Lubricant Additives, and Formulations Containing Telomer
In the ILI-University of Idaho study submitted by the commenter,
biodegradability was measured in water and soil for a variety of
compounds, including ILI telomers and other base stocks, lubricants,
lubricant additives, gear oils, hydraulic fluids, and cutting fluids.
Most of the products were based on vegetable oils, and some of them
were compared to mineral base oils. The study report notes that the
meaning of the term ``biodegradable'' is not exact and that
biodegradability tests measure the disappearance of a certain amount of
test material in a given period of time. It discusses persistence tests
for three classifications of biodegradability (primary, ultimate, and
inherent).
The ILI-University of Idaho report describes the results of two
environmental persistence tests--the EPA Shake Flask Test and the OECD
301B Modified Sturm Test, two 28-day tests that measure ultimate
biodegradability. The report states that over 100 samples in nine
separate groups underwent testing using the EPA Shake Flask Test, and
limited testing with two base stocks, two lubricants, and one standard
was performed using the OECD 301B Modified Sturm test. A method was
also developed to test soil biodegradation, and a different rank order
for biodegradation in soil and water was noted. The report considers
[[Page 40787]]
the ``passing level'' as 60 percent biodegradation (40 percent
remaining) after 28 days in the EPA Shake Flask test or 70 percent
biodegradation (30 percent remaining) after 28 days, with 10 to 40
percent biodegradation in 10 days, for the Modified Sturm test. For
many products, less than 40 percent of the oil remained in the aqueous
system after 28 days. The results are based on atypical estimation
techniques that involve correction of the curve using canola standards,
despite wide variation (5-38 percent after 28 to 40 days) among the six
standard canola curves, and fitting an unusual polynomial to the data.
The curves shown in the report indicate that except for one
lubricant, at least 65 percent of every product tested remained after 4
days--a period of time that is used to plan for equipment for responses
to oil spills at certain facilities. For canola standards, an average
of 70 percent, ranging from 40-95 percent, remained at 4 days.
Studies of Biodegradability of Lubricants Submitted by Commenter
Hydraulic Oils. One paper attached to the comments describes the
development of vegetable oil-based hydraulic products for use as
lubricants for situations in which the lubricant may inadvertently leak
into the environment (Galvain et al., 1994). The paper lists some
physical properties of the selected vegetable oil and formulated
product and discusses performance concerns. Most of the paper describes
performance tests, including bench tests, full pump tests, and field
tests, that measure the effectiveness of the products in certain
applications of lubricants. It emphasizes that any claim of
environmental acceptability must be specific and supported by
appropriate technical documentation. The paper states that most
petroleum-based lubricants are environmentally acceptable by various
standards and proposes criteria for a vegetable-oil based lubricant
that passes most of the company performance tests. The paper describes
two biodegradation tests of mineral oils and three other types of base
oils that have been employed for lubricants--vegetable oils,
polyglycols, and synthetic esters. Vegetable oils and a number of
synthetic esters that were tested met the proposed criterion (>60
percent conversion to CO2 in 28 days), while mineral oil
formulations did not meet this criterion despite exhibiting some
biodegradation.
Lubricants, Lubricating Oils, and Industrial Lubricants. One paper
submitted with the comments describes the use of different additives to
improve the performance of rapeseed oil and synthetic esters as
lubricant base fluids, and the regulations affecting the use of
additives (Korff and Fessenbecker, 1992). Lubricants described in the
paper contain as much as 2-3 percent additives. The paper reports that
certain additives allowed these fluids to achieve the same performance
as mineral oil-based products. It describes different combinations of
additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, and pour point
depressants, that were investigated for their ability to overcome
performance problems that have limited the use of rapeseed oil in
lubricants. The paper explains that lubricants were developed to
balance technical requirements and potential negative impacts by
additives on biodegradability or ecotoxicological properties.
Another paper attached to the comments points out trends in the
application of environmental legislation that promote the development
of biodegradable lubricants in Germany and other European countries
(Mang, 1993). Biodegradable lubricants represented 2 percent of the
market share of lubricants in Germany in 1992. The paper forecast that
they would soon occupy 10-15 percent of the demand for German
lubricants.
Another paper submitted with the comments describes the ``real
issues'' that must be evaluated to convincingly demonstrate that a
lubricant reduces environmental impact (Baggot, 1992). It summarizes
properties, performance characteristics, and other information about
some types of oils that can be used in lubricants, but does not present
detailed data from individual laboratory tests. The paper defines
biodegradation as the decomposition of substances by biological
systems.
The paper emphasizes that a biodegradable product is not
necessarily environmentally friendly and cautions against
unsubstantiated claims. It notes that advertisers have promoted the
spurious notion that biodegradable products somehow automatically
reduce the impact on the environment. Biodegradability tests measure
the fate of a substance, not its impact. Some substances partially
biodegrade into products that are more toxic to aquatic life than the
original substances. Justifying the environmental benefits of a product
requires relevant test data on biodegradability; mammalian toxicity;
ecotoxicity; and bioaccumulation of the product, its components, or
related substances. These data should demonstrate that the product is
not likely to be hazardous in environmental media that it may pollute.
In principle, a full life cycle analysis of the manufacture,
packaging, distribution, product use, and recycling or disposal of base
fluid and additives should be performed before comparing environmental
impacts of products. In practice, the evaluation generally focuses on
the use part of the life cycle and potential impact from environmental
contamination that may result from use or disposal.
To determine the biodegradability of different substances, results
from biodegradability tests are compared with certain accepted
standards. Tests of lubricants generally require the use of an
emulsifier, because lubricants are usually not water soluble and often
are a complex mixture of base fluids and chemical additives. While the
technical limitations of some biodegradable fluids can be partially
overcome by including additives in the product formulation, these
additives may reduce the biodegradability of a product and can increase
a product's human and environmental toxicity. Any kind of environmental
contamination should be avoided and all spills and leaks cleaned up.
Another paper submitted with the comments appears to be a handout
from a presentation on industrial lubricants (Rhodes, 1996). The paper
lists considerations associated with biodegradable fluids. It describes
lubricant composition, showing that the base stock can comprise 80-100
percent of the lubricant, while additives are 0-20 percent of the
lubricant. Additives can be detrimental to the environmental
acceptability of biodegradable fluid. Available or potential additives
in biodegradable lubricants include viscosity modifiers, anti-oxidants,
pour point modifiers, rust inhibitors, non-ferrous metal protectants,
anti-wear and friction modifiers, extreme pressure additives,
dispersants, detergents, and emulsifiers.
Relevance of Biodegradability Tests to Oil Spills in the Environment
and to FRP Rule
As we have noted, biodegradability tests are not specified in the
1994 or today's revised FRP rule and do not form the basis for
requirements to prepare FRPs. Several papers refer to ``passing EPA
tests'' or ``EPA criteria'' or a ``passing level'' of 40 percent
material remaining at 28 days. These tests are not requirements of the
1994 or today's revised FRP rule, and do not address important
mechanisms by which oils cause environmental harm. The tests described
in the papers and reports were not developed to implement Clean Water
Act requirements, but as test
[[Page 40788]]
guidelines for pesticides and toxic substances regulated under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These guidelines have been harmonized with
some European guidelines. Several guidelines include recent versions of
tests that are listed in the reports that were attached to comments.
(See Fate, Transport, and Transformation Test Guidelines OPPTS 835.3110
Ready Biodegradability (EPA/OPPTS, 1998a) for six methods that permit
screening of chemicals in an aerobic aqueous medium, including Modified
Sturm Test; Ministry of International Trade and Industry test, Japan;
and Closed Bottle test; OPPTS 835.3200 (EPA/OPPTS, 1998b) for the Zahn-
Wellens/EMPA Test, and OPPTS 835.3210 for the Modified SCAS Test (EPA/
OPPTS, 1998c).)
The 21-day or 28-day period used in the biodegradability tests in
the papers attached to the comments has little relevance to prompt
responses to oil spills or to the planning requirements of the FRP
rule. Environmental effects can begin immediately after a discharge. To
minimize environmental damage and reduce the spread of spilled oil, the
FRP rule requires the first tier of response equipment to arrive within
6 to 12 hours of the discharge. FRP requirements for estimating the
response equipment needed to recover oil from water and from the
shoreline are based on responses during the first 3 to 4 days after a
discharge, when the most immediate deleterious environmental effects
occur. Nevertheless, bioremediation can be useful for long-term cleanup
of some shoreline spills under carefully controlled conditions.
Spills of petroleum oils, animal fats and vegetable oils, and other
non-petroleum oils have immediate and devastating physical effects,
such as coating and suffocation, that injure and kill animals and
plants, destroy food supplies and habitat, and eliminate breeding
plants and animals. Some animal fats and vegetable oils and their
components and breakdown products can also produce toxic effects and
form compounds that linger in the environment. Thus, an oil spill can
cause environmental damage even if all of the spilled oil is
transformed completely into a harmless product in 28 days.
Even small discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils can produce
significant environmental damage. For facilities that meet the FRP
criteria, however, the volumes of the discharges may be very large
indeed. EPA regulates vegetable oil/animal fat facilities with worst
case discharges as large as 20 million gallons.
Reports submitted by one commenter show that 60-70 percent of most
of the products tested degrade after 28 days. If the conditions in the
area of the spill were similar to those in the laboratory tests,
300,000 to 400,000 gallons of oil would remain in the environment after
28 days if 1 million gallons of vegetable oils or animal fats were
discharged.
Too often the term ``biodegradability'' has been misapplied to
suggest the complete breakdown of a compound with formation of harmless
products. In fact, the tests employed measure only the partial
degradation of a compound over a given period of time. They do not
analyze effects during biodegradation or consider toxicity or other
deleterious effects of the breakdown products or their influence on
persistence. Thus, applying the term ``biodegradable'' appropriately
requires understanding the time period, conditions, and extent of
biodegradability. Criteria have been established for various types of
biodegradability tests.
While the papers submitted by the commenter describe
biodegradability tests and performance results that are not required
under the FRP rule, many support EPA's previous findings about the
properties, fate, and effects of animal fats and vegetable oils (see 62
FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997). For example, one paper attached to
the comments recognizes that various tests and criteria have been
developed (Baggot, 1992). It urges accurate definitions of
biodegradability, including conditions related to the term. Other
statements in the paper strongly support our earlier findings that
deleterious effects can be produced even by biodegradable oils. The
paper asserts that a biodegradable product is not necessarily
environmentally friendly and that biodegradability tests measure only
the fate of a substance and not its environmental impact.
In our previous evaluation, we found that while some animal fats
and vegetable oils degrade rapidly under certain conditions, others
persist in the environment years after the oil is spilled. We examined
the immediate physical effects, such as coating and suffocation, that
can be produced by spills of animal fats and vegetable oils, other non-
petroleum oils, and petroleum oils. Utilization of oxygen by
microorganisms during biodegradation can deplete oxygen and suffocate
aquatic organisms. Even if the exposure period is relatively short,
spilled oil can result in long-term effects. We warned--and the paper
submitted with the comments affirms--that biodegradation can lead to
the formation of products that are more toxic than the original
substance (Baggot, 1992). We also emphasized that biodegradation and
other transformation processes are not limited to animal fats and
vegetable oils; petroleum oils and other non-petroleum oils also
biodegrade and are transformed in the environment.
We disagree with some statements in the paper submitted with the
comments that imply that biodegradability data, combined with toxicity
data, are sufficient to support claimed environmental benefits of a
product (Baggot, 1992). While these considerations are important, they
do not consider other important effects of oil spills--the devastating
environmental consequences of physical effects, such as coating and
suffocation, that can occur with spills of any type of oil, the
interference of oil spills with vital water treatment, or other impacts
of spilled oil. Nor do they address fundamental concerns raised by the
National Academy of Sciences and others about the relevance of
laboratory test results to actual oil spills (NAS, 1985a). That spills
of animal fats and vegetable oils can cause environmental harm through
physical effects has been acknowledged in the previous Petition
submitted by the same commenter on behalf of some of the same
associations (62 FR 54508, 54527, October 20, 1997). EPA has further
elaborated upon the environmental harm that can result from physical
effects of oils in the Agency Decision Document and supporting
documents regarding that Petition (62 FR 54508-54543, October 20, 1997,
and supporting Technical Document).
Several other papers and reports submitted with the comments
contain incorrect premises about the environmental damage that can be
caused by biodegradable oils. Unlike the previous paper (Baggot, 1992),
these papers and reports do not acknowledge that oils can cause damage
when spilled in the environment regardless of whether they are
``biodegradable'' (Galvain et al., 1994; Mang, 1992; Rhodes, 1996; ILI-
University of Idaho, 1996). As our earlier evaluation demonstrated,
rapid biodegradation of an oil does not insure that spills of the oil
will do no harm. When biodegradation does occur in the environment, it
can lead to oxygen depletion and death of fish and other aquatic
organisms. Oxygen depletion can result from reduced oxygen exchange
across the air-water surface below the spilled oil or from the high
biological oxygen demand by microorganisms degrading oil (Crump-
[[Page 40789]]
Wiesner and Jennings, 1975; Mudge, 1995).
Whether biodegradation of a vegetable oil or animal fat occurs when
the oil is spilled in the environment, how long the oil remains in the
environment after it is spilled, what proportion of the oil is degraded
and at what rate, what products are formed, and where the oil and its
products are transported and distributed, are determined by the
properties of the oil itself and those of the environment where the oil
is spilled. Factors such as pH (acidity), temperature, oxygen
concentration, dispersal of oil, the presence of other chemicals, soil
characteristics, nutrient quantities, and populations of various
microorganisms at the location of the spill profoundly influence the
degradation of oil (Ratledge, 1994; Venosa et al., 1996; Salanitro et
al., 1997; NAS, 1985b).
While the focus of several papers, reports, and other materials
submitted with the comments is on the performance of lubricants rather
than the technical issues that relate directly to EPA's FRP regulation,
they underscore the importance of preventing spills of vegetable oils
and responding effectively to oil spills when they occur. The papers
show that vegetable oil-based lubricants require additives in order to
perform satisfactorily as lubricants in many applications and that
additives can alter the toxicity and biodegradability of the product
(Galvain et al., 1994; Korff and Fessenbecker, 1992; Mang, 1993;
Baggot, 1992; Rhodes, 1996). When oil is spilled in the environment,
species in the area of the oil spill are at risk from exposure to all
of the components of the formulation--the vegetable oil base fluid,
antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, anti-wear and friction modifiers,
pour point depressants, viscosity modifiers, and other additives or
contaminants.
Among the additives described in the papers submitted with the
comments are lead and barium compounds, phenolic and aminic
antioxidants, lithium soaps, emulsifiers, and perhaps dispersants
(Korff and Fessenbecker, 1992; Mang, 1993; Rhodes, 1996; ILI and
University of Idaho, 1996). Emulsifiers can alter the toxicity and
transformation of oils in the environment. They can complicate the
recovery of oil spills, expand the amount of material that must be
recovered, greatly decrease the effectiveness of recovery operations,
and increase recovery costs.
According to one paper attached to the comments, dispersants and
detergents are being developed for use in lubricants (Rhodes, 1996).
Dispersants that may be authorized for oil spill response are on the
Product Schedule of the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.905--
subpart J--Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals). The use of
dispersants for oil spill response in inland areas is limited by their
toxicity and adverse environmental effects. Similar effects may well
occur when lubricants containing such additives are spilled in the
environment. If a facility discharges 1 million gallons of lubricant
containing 20 percent additives, some 200,000 gallons of additives
would be discharged into the environment. These compounds may have a
profound effect on the behavior of oil in the environment, and some of
them can inhibit the microorganisms that biodegrade oil.
E. Application of Executive Order 13101 (Purchasing)
Background. The President signed Executive Order 13101, ``Greening
the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal
Acquisition,'' on September 14, 1998. The Executive Order directs all
Executive agencies to use the principles and concepts in EPA Guidance
on Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services, in
addition to pilot and demonstration projects, in identifying and
purchasing environmentally preferable products and services.
``Environmentally preferable'' refers to products or services that have
a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when
compared with competing products or services. In addition to promoting
environmentally preferable purchasing, the Executive Order encourages
agencies to purchase bio-based products.
Comment. One commenter pointed out that Executive Order 13101
includes biobased products such as animal fats and vegetable oils. The
commenter stated that through this Executive Order, the Federal
government has recognized the environmentally preferable
characteristics of animal fats and vegetable oils and has set out an
action plan to substitute their use for other, less desirable products.
The commenter believed that the same differences in characteristics
that are used to promote the use of biobased products as
environmentally preferred products should be recognized by EPA when
regulating those products.
Response. EPA has developed guidance for identifying
environmentally preferable products (USEPA/OPPTS, 1999). The guidance
describes five guiding principles for applying environmentally
preferable purchasing in the Federal government. These principles
include: (1) Environmental considerations should become part of the
normal purchasing practice, consistent with such traditional factors as
product safety, price, performance, and availability; (2) Consideration
of environmental preferability should begin early in the acquisition
process and be rooted in the ethic of pollution prevention, which
strives to eliminate or reduce, up-front, potential risks to human
health and the environment; (3) A product or service's environmental
preferability is a function of multiple attributes from a life cycle
perspective; (4) Determining environmental preferability might involve
comparing environmental impacts; in comparing environmental impacts,
Federal agencies should consider the reversibility and geographic scale
of the environmental impacts, the degree of difference among competing
products or services, and the overriding importance of protecting human
health; and (5) Comprehensive, accurate, and meaningful information
about the environmental performance of products or services is
necessary in order to determine environmental preferability.
The guidance notes that bio-based products may also be
environmentally preferable. However, Federal purchasers should not
assume that all bio-based products are automatically environmentally
preferable. As with other products, agencies should consider a range of
environmental impacts associated with bio-based products when making
purchasing decisions. In some cases, factors such as pesticide use or
high water consumption might make a bio-based product less
environmentally preferable.
The guidance also includes a menu of environmental attributes. The
impact of products and services on natural resources use, including
ecosystem impacts; human health and ecological stressors, including
conventional pollutants released to water and other stressors; and
hazard factors, including aquatic toxicity, are among the attributes
considered.
Executive Order 13101 and the EPA Guidance apply to government
procurement of products and services rather than to planning
requirements for effective response to oil spills. In our detailed
comparison of the properties and effects of petroleum oils and animal
fats and vegetable oils, we found that these oils share many of the
properties of petroleum oils and produce many of the same environmental
effects when discharged into the environment. Not only can animal fats
and vegetable oils cause harmful environmental impacts at
[[Page 40790]]
the time of a discharge, but their adverse environmental effects may
continue long after the discharge.
Furthermore, the properties of these bio-based products do not
affect the probability that they might be discharged when they are
handled, stored, or transported. Increasing the effectiveness of oil
spill response through planning, as mandated by OPA, will reduce
environmental harm and can reduce overall costs. Environmental benefits
include avoided cleanup costs, value of lost product, avoided natural
resource damages, and avoided property damage as a result of the
mitigation of the severity of spills (USEPA, 1994).
F. Other Issues
1. Recovery Capacity
We also received a comment regarding section 6.0 of appendix E,
which describes the process that facilities follow to determine the
effective daily recovery capacity needed for oil recovery devices. The
commenter stated that a sufficient body of measured and compared data
does not exist for the recovery capacities for petroleum oils and
animal fats and vegetable oils. Therefore, the commenter stated that we
can only apply the recovery capacities for petroleum oils to animal
fats and vegetable oils until a body of data for animal fats and
vegetable oils indicates otherwise.
We agree. In section 6.0 we did not propose to use different
recovery capacities for devices depending on the type of oil, or to
make any other revisions to the section. The same methods and types of
equipment are often used to respond to spills of petroleum oils and
animal fats and vegetable oils with comparable properties (see 62 FR
54508-54543 October 20, 1997, and supporting Technical Document).
Because of the similarity in properties, we would anticipate similar
recovery capacities for devices that recover petroleum oils and animal
fats and vegetable oils. Therefore, as the commenter suggests, we will
continue to use the same criteria to determine recovery capacities for
devices that are used to recover all types of oil.
2. Use of Mechanical Dispersal Equipment
Some commenters urged us to modify the 1994 FRP rule to clarify
that ``other appropriate equipment'' includes mechanical dispersal
equipment. We disagree that this change is necessary. We specifically
discussed the use of mechanical dispersal devices in our 1997 Denial of
Petition requesting amendment of the FRP rule (62 FR 54508, 54528,
October 20, 1997). Although the use of such devices may be considered
in response to an actual spill under certain conditions (e.g., river
currents are too high for the effective use of a boom), specifically
allowing the use of these devices alone in response planning does not
meet the intent of OPA. The intent of OPA was for industry to plan for
and secure the equipment and resources needed to respond to and remove
a worst case discharge of oil, which may be a discharge of 1 million
gallons or greater for a large animal fat or vegetable oil facility.
Mechanical dispersal of the animal fat or vegetable oil into the
water column could shut down or negatively impact drinking water
intakes because of flavor changes and odors, reduce cooling efficiency
in cooling waters of power plants, contaminate food from receiving
waters, increase BOD levels, violate water quality standards, cause
sludges, and adversely impact benthic organisms and the resulting food
chain in inland areas (62 FR 54508, 54528, October 20, 1997). Oil
dispersed by mechanical means may resurface and cause further
environmental damage in the same area or a different area depending on
the characteristics of the water body.
In our denial of the Petition, we also provided an example of the
ineffective use of mechanical dispersal to respond to a spill of
rapeseed oil in Vancouver Harbor (Smith and Herunter, 1989; 62 FR
54508, 54525-54526, October 20, 1997). After an attempt to disperse the
thick oil with multiple passes of small tug, booms were set up to
contain the oil and skimmer boats recovered the oil. The authors of the
paper emphasized that containing and recovering the spilled oil as soon
as possible is critical to minimizing environmental damage, such as the
death of oiled birds in the harbor. They urged the use of booms,
testing transfer lines, having spill detection equipment in place,
training on-site personnel, and reporting spills immediately as
essential measures in reducing environmental harm.
Section 10.7.3 of appendix E in today's rule (section 7.7.3 of the
1994 FRP rule) requires that the owner or operator of the facility
identify the response resources that are available by contract or other
approved means. The equipment described in the response plan must
include: (1) boom or other containment methods; (2) appropriate
recovery devices; and, (3) other appropriate equipment necessary to
respond to a discharge involving the type of oil carried. Other
appropriate equipment can be described in the FRP, but only to
supplement appropriate containment and recovery devices.
We have received no additional data from commenters that
demonstrate the effectiveness of mechanical dispersal in supplementing
appropriate containment and recovery devices for responses to
discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils. We believe that such
equipment will generally be ineffective in supplementing containment
and recovery devices that are appropriate for responses to discharges
of animal fats and vegetable oils and that it may well lead to
environmental damage and other adverse effects, as described above.
However, we believe that the FRP may describe mechanical dispersal
equipment as appropriate to supplement containment and recovery devices
in those cases where the facility owner or operator demonstrates the
effectiveness of such equipment in supplementing appropriate
containment and recovery devices for responses to discharges of animal
fats and vegetable oils from the facility and shows that the use of
such equipment will not increase environmental harm or produce other
adverse effects, or when the relevant Area Contingency Plan identifies
such equipment as appropriate for supplementing containment and
recovery devices for responses to discharges of animal fats and
vegetable oils from the facility.
We have refrained from being too prescriptive in defining or naming
particular types of equipment in the regulation wherever possible to
avoid limiting technology and innovation by responders. If you need
advice about recovery devices, we recommend that you consult your trade
association, local OSRO, or the appropriate EPA Regional office.
3. No-Action Option
Some commenters urged us to acknowledge that no action may be
appropriate in certain circumstances.
We disagree. Although a ``no action'' option may be considered in
response to an actual spill under certain conditions, such an option is
not appropriate for planning purposes. The intent of OPA is for
industry to plan for and secure the equipment and resources needed to
respond to a worst case discharge, which may be a discharge of 1
million gallons or greater for a large vegetable oil facility.
The commenters are confusing requirements for preparedness and
planning with the actual response. As we have emphasized repeatedly,
nothing in the response planning regulations is intended to limit the
actions of the owner or operator of the
[[Page 40791]]
facility, provided that those actions are in accordance with the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
the Area Contingency Plan (ACP), and the Regional Contingency Plan and
that the actions are approved by the OSC . See 64 FR 17227, 17235,
April 8, 1999, 62 FR 54508, 54528, October 20, 1997, 59 FR 34070-34136,
July 1, 1994.
4. FRP Preparation
In today's rule we are finalizing Sec. 112.20(a)(4) as proposed.
One commenter agreed with EPA's proposal. A second commenter asked for
clarification of the need to prepare and submit a plan following the
proposed requirements. Other commenters supported EPA's timeframe for
resubmission of FRPs or the Agency's provision of a specific compliance
schedule. The preamble of today's rule clarifies the need for
preparation and submission of a plan.
Facilities with Approved Plans. Section 112.20(a)(4)(i) of the
proposed rule would provide that if you are the owner or operator of an
animal fat or vegetable oil facility with an approved FRP, you would
not need to prepare or submit a revised plan, except as otherwise
required by paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Sec. 112.20. 64 FR 17227,
17253, April 9, 1999. Under Sec. 112.20(d), an owner or operator of a
facility subject to the FRP rule is required to revise and resubmit the
revised portion of the response plan within 60 days of a facility
change that materially may affect the response to a worse case
discharge. Such a material change requiring a revision includes: a
change in the facility's configuration that materially alters the
information included in the response plan; a change in the type of oil
handled, stored, or transferred that materially alters the required
response resources; a material change in capabilities of the oil spill
removal organizations that provide equipment and personnel to respond
to certain discharges of oil; a material change in the facility spill
prevention and response equipment or emergency response procedures;
and, any other changes that materially affect the implementation of the
response plan.
We agree with the second commenter's interpretation that the owner
or operator of an animal fat or vegetable oil facility whose FRP has
been approved by EPA need not submit a new one, except as required by
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. It may be beneficial,
however, for an owner or operator with an approved plan to perform a
recalculation using the new methodology, because EPA believes that the
new methodology for calculating response resources for animal fat and
vegetable oil facilities in today's rule may reduce the response
resources required for some facilities. In addition, owners or
operators of animal fat or vegetable oil facilities, as do all owners
or operators subject to the FRP rule, need to be aware of the
requirement to revise a plan and resubmit the revised portion if there
is a material change at the facility as outlined above and in
Sec. 112.20(d). As such, an owner or operator of an animal fat or
vegetable oil facility with an approved FRP plan for which a
recalculation with the new methodology results in a change in the
required response equipment or a change in resources that an OSRO will
provide to the facility in response to a worst-case discharge, will
need to revise the plan and the revised portion will need to be
submitted to the Regional Administrator. We expect that this may occur
in a number of cases even for facilities with approved plans, because
the use of the new methodology in appendix E, section 10 may result in
fewer resources required to respond to a worst case discharge for some
facilities, and, thus, there may be an incentive to perform the
recalculation due to the potential for reduced costs.
Facilities with Plans that Have Been Submitted to the Regional
Administrator. We disagree with the commenter's interpretation that a
facility owner or operator automatically must submit a new plan if the
5-year duration period for the approved plan has expired. Section
112.20(a)(4)(ii) of today's rule provides that the owner or operator of
an animal fat or vegetable oil facility who has submitted a response
plan but has not obtained EPA approval (either because the facility is
not a significant and substantial harm facility for which approval is
required or because the Agency has not yet acted on the final approval)
must review the submitted plan and determine whether it meets or
exceeds the requirements of today's rule for animal fat and vegetable
oil facilities. If a recalculation using the new methodology indicates
that the existing plan meets or exceeds the rule requirements, there is
no need to resubmit the plan. Although not required by today's rule, we
believe that it may be useful for an owner or operator of an animal fat
or vegetable oil facility who has conducted a recalculation under the
new methodology to keep evidence of that recalculation with his or her
plan. If the plan must be revised, however, then the owner or operator
must submit an amended plan that meets or exceeds the applicable
requirements to the Regional Administrator within 90 days after today's
date.
Newly Regulated Facilities. We agree with the second commenter's
interpretation that the owner or operator of a newly regulated animal
fat and vegetable oil facility that commences operations after the
effective date of the rule must prepare and submit a plan in accordance
with Sec. 112.20(a)(2)(ii). If there are planned or unplanned changes
in facility characteristics that subject an existing facility to
regulation under Sec. 112.20(f)(1), the owner or operator of that
facility must prepare and submit a plan in accordance with paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section, as appropriate. The plan must meet
or exceed the applicable requirements of today's rule.
Facilities Amending Existing Plans. We agree with the second
commenter's interpretation that a facility that is amending an existing
plan because of material changes must submit a new plan that complies
with the requirements of today's rule. This requirement is discussed
further in the above section on Facilities with Approved Plans.
The facility owner or operator amending an existing plan must
determine whether the existing plan meets or exceeds the requirements
of today's rule. If the plan does not meet or exceed the requirements
established in the rule, the owner or operator must revise and submit
revised portions of an amended plan that meet or exceed the applicable
requirements to the Regional Administrator in accordance with
Sec. 112.20(d).
We disagree with the commenter's interpretation that a facility
owner or operator is always required to recalculate oil spill response
resources, although recalculation will often be necessary. Other
approaches for determining the adequacy of response resources, such as
comparing factors that are multiplied in the recalculation, may be
possible, as long as the owner or operator can show that these
approaches can ensure that the plan meets or exceeds the applicable
provisions of today's rule.
One commenter asked for clarification of the need to prepare and
submit a plan following the proposed requirements. Plan preparation and
submission depends on the adequacy of plan resources. Recalculation of
response resources using the revised methodology described in appendix
E, section 10, may or may not be necessary. After reviewing relevant
factors used in the methodology, you
[[Page 40792]]
may find that your plan already meets or exceed the requirements of
today's rule. If such is the case, you do not need to amend your plan.
If your plan does not meet or exceed the requirements of today's rule,
you must prepare and submit revised portions of your plan. Whenever you
submit changes to your plan, you must provide the EPA-issued facility
identification number as required by Sec. 112.20(d)(3).
G. Agency Decision on the Requests for Modification of the FRP Rule
As part of this rulemaking, we have considered the requests that
were submitted by the Animal Fat/Vegetable Oil Coalition on January 16,
1998, and amended on April 9, 1998. We agree in whole or in part with
some items in the requests and disagree with others. Today's rule
reflects our decision.
The requests ask us to revise the FRP rule by creating a separate
category for response planning for animal fat and vegetable oil
facilities and a separate Appendix with procedures for these
facilities. The requests also include suggested language for the
revised rule. Some requests for changes, particularly those requests
that were also major issues considered in today's rule, are discussed
below. The other requested changes and our decisions concerning them
are in the Response to Comments document, which is available in the
Docket for this rule.
Request. Move definitions of animal fats and vegetable
oils. Move the definitions of animal fats and vegetable oils from the
preamble and Appendix E of the 1994 FRP rule to the definitions
section, i.e., Sec. 112.2, and modify the language slightly.
Decision. We agree. In today's rule, we are finalizing the
definitions as proposed. Commenters also supported the change.
Request. Clarify applicability dates. Clarify the
applicability dates by which animal fat and vegetable oil facilities
must comply with the rule.
Decision. We agree. Today's rule incorporates the applicability
dates as proposed. In section II.F.4 of the preamble, we have discussed
in detail the requirements for preparation and submission of FRPs.
Request. Create separate regulatory provisions for animal
fat and vegetable oil facilities. Create separate regulatory provisions
for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities.
Decision. We agree. In today's rule, we are retaining separate
provisions for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities. Commenters
supported this aspect of the proposal rule.
Request. Create categories of animal fats and vegetable
oils that recognize physical characteristics. Modify the FRP rule to
reflect the non-persistence of animal fats and vegetable oils.
Decision. We agree in part and disagree in part. We agree that
persistence varies greatly according to the nature of the oil and
environmental conditions. We changed the rule to reflect that decision.
We disagree that all animal fats and vegetable oils are non-persistent.
In today's rule, we eliminated the terms ``persistent'' and ``non-
persistent'' for animal fats and vegetable oils. We also created new
groups, i.e., groups ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' for animal fats and
vegetable oils, based on specific gravity. Commenters supported these
rule revisions.
Request. Create specific planning requirements for animal
fat and vegetable oil facilities. Create specific planning requirements
based on the type of animal fat or vegetable oil handled at the
facility.
Decision. We agree with the need to create specific planning
requirements for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities. As discussed
in Section II.B of today's preamble, we proposed a new methodology for
determining response resources needed for spills of animal fats and
vegetable oils. One commenter supported the methodology, and others
supported the creation of specific planning requirements for these
facilities. In today's FRP rule, we have finalized the methodology as
proposed, except for clarification and editorial changes.
Request. Modify criteria for determining significant and
substantial harm. Adopt criteria that are identical to those in the
Coast Guard's proposed rule for facility response plans for marine-
transportation-related facilities.
Decision. We disagree and are denying this request. We received
several comments requesting this change and one comment supporting the
criteria for substantial harm and significant and substantial harm as
proposed. A comparison between the EPA rule and Coast Guard rule shows
that most differences in the listed criteria result primarily from
differences between the facilities regulated by each agency. Some
factors listed in the EPA rule, such as a lack of secondary
containment, are relevant to EPA-regulated facilities, which are
generally onshore, but may be less effective for preventing spills from
reaching navigable waters in marine-transportation-related facilities
regulated by the Coast Guard. The EPA rule requires consideration of
oil storage capacity as a significant and substantial harm criterion,
while Coast Guard criteria include the type and quantity of oil
handled. This difference in the two rules reflects the greater volumes
of oil that are generally stored at EPA-regulated facilities (often an
order of magnitude or more greater than Coast Guard-regulated
facilities), the more varied activities, and greater number and types
of transfers. If the type of oil is an important consideration, the
Regional Administrator has broad discretion to consider other site-
specific characteristics and environmental factors that are related to
protecting the environment in the EPA rule.
Request. Require plans only for worst case discharge.
Modify the FRP rule to require planning for a worst case discharge
only, as required by OPA.
Decision. We disagree and are denying this request. 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''). Under authority of section 311(j)(1)(A) and (C) of the
CWA, the 1994 FRP rule and today's rule also require planning for a
small and medium discharge of oil, as appropriate.
We have discussed the rationale for retaining planning requirements
for small, medium, and worst case discharges (59 FR 34070-34136, July
1, 1994; 62 FR 54508, 54509, October 20, 1997; 62 FR 17227, 17229,
17235-17236, April 8, 1999). EPA strongly believes that planning for
small and medium discharges, which comprise about 95 percent of all
discharges, is vital for environmental protection. Personnel and
equipment needed for responses to small, medium, and worst case
discharges are often different.
We received comments supporting one, two, or three planning levels.
We have detailed the differences between facilities regulated by EPA
and Coast Guard and our rationale for requiring three response planning
levels in the preamble of today's rule in section II.A. In today's
rule, we are retaining planning requirements for small, medium, and
worst case discharges.
Request. Proposed elimination of references to higher
volume port areas
[[Page 40793]]
and 12-hour response time for all areas. Modify the rule by eliminating
reference to Higher Volume Port Areas, including the 6-hour response
time requirements, on the basis that these port areas were identified
in connection with the location of petroleum facilities, and the
concept of Higher Volume Port Areas has no relation to the location of
animal fat and vegetable oil facilities.
Decision. We disagree and are denying this request. The
availability of response equipment that is used for spills of animal
fats and vegetable oils as well as petroleum oils is usually greatest
in Higher Volume Port Areas. Response times are designed to reduce
environmental harm from spills and allow the orderly arrival of
response equipment so that it can be deployed effectively in spill
response. We received several comments supporting elimination of this
requirement and one comment supporting its retention. Our reasons for
retaining this requirement are described in the proposed rule (64 FR
17227-17267, April 8, 1999) and summarized in the preamble in II.C. In
today's rule, we have finalized this requirement as proposed.
Request. Clarification of Use of Mechanical Dispersal
Equipment. Modify the rule to clarify that ``other appropriate
equipment'' includes mechanical dispersal equipment.
Decision. We disagree and are denying this request. The mechanical
dispersion option does not meet the intent of OPA for planning
purposes. The intent of OPA was for industry to plan for and secure the
equipment and resources needed to respond to a worst case discharge,
which may be a discharge of 1 million gallons or greater for a large
vegetable oil facility. Mechanical dispersal of an animal fat or
vegetable oil into the water column can produce a host of adverse
impacts on drinking water intakes and aquatic organisms. A detailed
discussion of our previous denials of this request and the rationale
for our decision is in the preamble in section II. F.2.
Request. No Action Option. Modify the rule to include the
no action option.
Decision. We disagree and deny the request. Although the no action
option may be considered in response to an actual spill under certain
conditions, i.e., river currents too high for the effective use of a
boom, the no action option would not meet the intent of OPA for
planning purposes. It would allow a large amount of oil to remain in
the environment, which would in turn cause immediate physical effects
to resources that could extend for considerable distances as the oil
spreads. This oil would have the potential to remain in the environment
for long periods of time. We have emphasized repeatedly that nothing in
the response planning regulations is intended to limit the actions of
the owner or operator of the facility, provided that those actions are
in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), the Area Contingency Plan (ACP), and the
Regional Contingency Plan and that the actions are approved by the OSC
(see 62 FR 54508, 54528, October 20, 1997). We have rejected this
request for a ``no action'' planning option before (62 FR 54508-54543,
October 20, 1997). Our reasons for continuing to deny it are described
in the preamble in section II.F.3.
III. Bibliography
Abel, P.D. (1996). Water Pollution Biology. Taylor and Francis,
London, pp. 113-163.
Allen, A. and W.G. Nelson. (1983). Canola Oil As a Substitute for
Crude Oil in Cold Water Tests. Spill Technology Newsletter. January-
February, 1983, pp. 4-10.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1997). Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Section 11. Water and Environmental. Volume
11.04, Designation D 5660-96. Standard Test Method for Assessing the
Microbial Detoxification of Chemically Contaminated Water and Soil
Using a Toxicity Test with a Luminescent Marine Bacterium, pp. 235-242.
Baggot, J.E. (1993). Biodegradability of Lubricating Oils: A Case
Study. Institute of Petroleum, pp. 47-54; undated, but appears to be
approximately 1992 and before August 1993, based on references in the
article. (Submitted by commenter.)
Calanog, S. A., J.Y. Chen, and R.F. Toia. (1999). Preliminary
Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Non-Petroleum Oils in the Aquatic
Environment.
Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 597-605.
Crump-Wiesner, H. J. and A. L. Jennings. (1975). Properties and
Effects of Nonpetroleum Oils. Pro. of 1975 Conference on Prevention and
Control of Pollution. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, pp.
29-32.
Frink, L. (1994). Statement on Regulatory Standards for the
Transportation of Edible Oil. Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research, Inc.,
January 30, 1994.
Galvain, M.P., V.M. Cheng, A.A. Wessol, P. Baudouin, M.T.
Benkinney, and N.J. Novick. (1994). Biodegradable and Nontoxic
Hydraulic Oils. Conference of Societe des Ingenieurs de l'Automobile,
May 4 and 5, 1994. (Submitted by commenter.)
Groenewold, J.C., R.F. Pico, and K.S. Watson. (1982). Comparison of
BOD Relationships for Typical Edible and Petroleum Oils. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 54, number 4, April 1982,
pp. 398-405.
Hartung, R. (1995). Assessment of the Potential for Long-Term
Toxicological Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Birds and
Mammals. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler, and J.S. Hughes, Editors, Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 693-725.
Hui, Y.H. (1996). Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Edible
Oil and Fat Products: General Application. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, pp. 1-280, 397-439.
International Lubricants Inc., Seattle, Washington and University
of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. (1996). Biodegradability of Environmentally
Responsible Lubricants Containing HEAR-Oil-Based Telomer, Lubricant
Additives and Formulations Containing Telomer, Final Report, USDA
Grant: 93-COOP-1-8654. Undated, but appears to be 1996 or later, based
on references. (Submitted by commenter.)
Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc. (1985). Treatment of
Wastewaters from Food Oil Processing Plants in Municipal Facilities.
October 1985, pp. 1-18.
Klaassen, C. D., M. O. Amdur, and J. Doull. (1986). Casarett And
Doull's Toxicology. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, Third
Edition, pp. 11-98, 519-635.
Korff, J. and A. Fessenbecker. (1992). Additives for Biodegradable
Lubricants. Presented at NLGI meeting in October 1992, Hilton Head
Island, South Carolina. (Submittted by commenter.)
Knowlton, J. and S. Pearce. (1993). Emulsions In: Handbook of
Cosmetic Science and Technology. Elsevier Advanced Technology, Oxford,
First Edition, pp. 21-32, 95-118, 528-529.
Mang, T. (1992). Environmentally Harmless Lubricants; Current
Status and Relevant German Environmental Legislation. Presented at
NLGI's 59th Annual Meeting, October 1992, Hilton Head Island, SC; NLGI
Spokesman, September 1993, pp. 233-239. (Submitted by commenter.)
Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish.
(1963). Waterfowl Mortality Caused by Oil Pollution of the Minnesota
and Mississippi Rivers in 1963. In: Proceedings of the 20th
[[Page 40794]]
Annual Meeting of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee,
pp. 149-177.
Mudge, S. M. (1995). Deleterious Effects from Accidental Spillages
of Vegetable Oils. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin. Volume 2,
number 2/3, pp. 187-191.
Mudge, S. M. (1997a). Presentation, Third International Ocean
Pollution Symposium, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Ft.
Pierce, Florida, April 6-11, 1997.
Mudge, S. M. (1997b). Can Vegetable Oils Outlast Mineral Oils in
the Marine Environment? Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 34, number 3,
p. 213.
Mudge, S.M., H. Saunders, and J. Latchford. (1994). Degradation of
Vegetable Oils in the Marine Environment. In: Countryside Commission
for Wales Report, CCW, Bangor, pp. 1-41.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1985a). Oil in the Sea--
Inputs, Fates and Effects. Chemical and Biological Methods. National
Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 89-269.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1985b). Oil in the Sea--
Inputs, Fates and Effects. Fates. National Academy Press, Washington
DC, pp. 270-368.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1985c). Oil in the Sea--
Inputs, Fates and Effects. Effects. National Academy Press, Washington
DC, pp. 369-547.
Rand, G. M. and S. R. Petrocelli. (1985). Fundamentals of Aquatic
Toxicology: Methods and Applications. Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, New York, pp. 1-109, 124-163.
Ratledge, C. (1994). Biodegradation of Oils, Fats, and Fatty Acids.
In: C. Ratledge, Editor, Biochemistry of Microbial Degradation. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 89-141.
Rhodes, B.N. (1996). Biodegradable Industrial Lubricants: A Primer.
USB Technical Advisory Panel Meeting, May 15, 1996; International
Lubricants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. (Submitted by commenter.)
Parametrix, Inc. (1997). Toxicity Evaluation of Oil Sample BIO 25-
30 to Oncorhynchus mykiss. Prepared for Agro Management Group, November
1997.
Salanitro, J.P., P. Dorn, M. Huesemann, K.O. Moore, I.A. Rhodes,
L.M.R. Jackson, T.E. Vipond, M.M. Western, and H.L. Wisniewski. (1997).
Crude Oil Hydrocarbon Bioremediation and Soil Ecotoxicity Assessment.
Environ. Sci. Technol. Volume 31, pp. 1769-1776.
Schultze, R., Editor. (1999). The World Catalog of Oil Spill
Response Products (7th edition, 1999), page 2-3, World Catalog Joint
Venture.
Smith, D.W. and S.M. Herunter. (1989). Birds Affected by a Canola
Oil Spill in Vancouver Harbour, February 1989. Spill Technology
Newsletter, October-December 1989, pp. 3-5.
U.S. Coast Guard. (1999). Response Plan Equipment Caps Review: Are
Changes to Current Mechanical Recovery, Dispersant, and In Situ Burn
Equipment Requirements Practicable?, Unpublished Report, Chapter 3,
Assessment of the Impact of Mechanical Recovery Improvements on
Response Capability.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (1994). Options for Minimizing
Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Spill Response. NOAA and American
Petroleum Institute, September 1994, pp. 2-11, 122-124.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS). (1994). Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994.
FWS Memorandum from Peter H. Albers, Leader, Contaminant Ecology Group
to Oil Spill Response Coordinator, December 29, 1993. U.S. Department
of the Interior (USDOI), Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). FWS Letter from
Michael J. Spear, Assistant Director, Ecological Services, to Ms. Ana
Sol Gutierrez, Research and Special Projects Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, April 11, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research
and Development (ORD). (1993). Methods for Measuring the Aquatic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms. EPA/600/4-90/027F, Fourth Edition, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
August 1993, pp. 1-132, 200-218.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Emergency Response
Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. (1994). The
Regulatory Impact Analysis of Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulation (40 CFR part 112) to Implement the Facility Response
Planning Requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. March 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). (1998a). Fate, Transport and
Transformation Test Guidelines. OPPTS 835.3110, Ready Biodegradability.
EPA 712-C-98-076, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., January 1998, pp. 1-53.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). (1998b). Fate, Transport and
Transformation Test Guidelines. OPPTS 835.3200, Zahn-Wellens/EMPA Test.
EPA 712-C-98-084, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., January 1998, pp. 1-8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). (1998c). Fate, Transport and
Transformation Test Guidelines. OPPTS 835.3210, Modified SCAS Test. EPA
712-C-98-0, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
January 1998, pp. 1-5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). (1999). Final Guidance on
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Venosa, A.D., M.T. Suidan, B.A. Wrenn, K.L. Strohmeier, J.R.
Haines, B.L. Eberhart, D. King, and E. Holder. (1996). Bioremediation
of an Experimental Oil Spill on the Shoreline of Delaware Bay. Environ.
Sci. Technol. Volume 30, pp. 1764-1775.
Venosa, A.D. and B. Alleman. (1999). Preliminary Results of
Laboratory Experiments on the Biodegradability and Change in Toxicity
of Vegetable Oils During Aerobic Biodegradation. Personal Communication
to B. Davis. January 21, 1999.
Wolfe, D.A. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
(1986). Source of Organic Contaminants in the Marine Environment: Ocean
Disposal and Accidental Spills. In: C.S. Giam and H.J.M. Dou, Editors,
Strategies and Advanced Techniques for Marine Pollution Studies:
Mediterranean Sea. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 237-288.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: OMB Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735-51744, October 4, 1993),
we must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. 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 the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
[[Page 40795]]
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 new legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Under CWA section 311(o), States
are free to impose additional requirements, including more stringent
requirements, that pertain to response planning for facilities that may
have discharges of oil to navigable waters. The FRP regulation which we
are revising in today's rule already recognizes that States may require
facilities to prepare response plans. 40 CFR 112.20(h). Moreover, we
have acknowledged that the number of States requiring preparation of
response plans which are similar to or which overlap with the Agency's
regulation has increased. 62 FR 7769, 7774 (Feb. 20, 1997). This rule
does not preempt State law or regulations. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. EPA has determined
that the regulatory changes in this rule will not have a
disproportionate impact on minorities and low-income populations. This
rule will only affect the environmental standards of a small number of
regulated entities that use or store large volumes of animal fats or
vegetable oils that are located throughout all communities, not only in
low income or minority communities. In addition, today's rule revisions
will have a positive environmental effect for neighboring communities
by helping affected facilites to plan for effective responses to oil
discharges.
D. Executive Order 13045 Children's Health
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19883-19888, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. We have no
data that indicate that the types of risks resulting from animal fat or
vegetable oil discharges have a disproportionate effect on children,
and do not have reason to believe that they do so.
E. Executive Order 13084 Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input into development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. EPA believes that no tribal
governments are included in its FRP-regulated community. Our records
indicate that none of the animal fat and vegetable oil FRP facilities
subject to this revised rule are located within Indian Lands.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
[[Page 40796]]
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is any
business which is independently owned and operated and not dominant in
its field as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations
under section 3 of the Small Business Act; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
In this rulemaking, we are adding a methodology that can be used by
facilities to plan for the appropriate volume of response resources
needed for a worst case discharge of an animal fat or vegetable oil,
similar to the existing methodology provided for petroleum oils. As a
result, the overall economic effect of this regulation has been
determined to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden for
facilities that are required to prepare and maintain plans for the
discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils because they no longer will
be required to provide additional documentation to support their
determinations. Furthermore, we believe that some facilities could
realize additional cost savings as a result of calculations performed
in estimating the appropriate amount of response planning resources
needed to respond to a worst case discharge based on new information
provided in proposed Tables 6 and 7. We have therefore concluded that
today's final rule will not increase the regulatory burden for any
small entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This determination is based on the
fact that the revisions are designed to clarify the requirements for
certain facilities that store animal fats and vegetable oils to comply
with the FRP rule. The revisions are designed to decrease the current
reporting or recordkeeping burden and cost for these facilities and do
not impose any additional requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments for similar reasons. Furthermore,
based on a survey of FRPs submitted to EPA, we did not identify any
small governments that would be affected by this rulemaking. For these
reasons, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We prepared Information Collection Request (ICR)
documents (EPA ICR No. 1630.05), and you may obtain a copy by
contacting Sandy Farmer, OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2137); Ariel Rios Building; 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460, by email at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling 202-260-2740. You may also
view or download these ICRs at our ICR Internet site at http://
www.epa.gov/icr. The information collection requirements are not
effective until OMB approves them.
The FRP rule (40 CFR 112.20-21) requires that owners or operators
of facilities that could cause ``substantial harm'' to the environment
by discharging oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
prepare plans for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a
worst case discharge of oil, to a substantial threat of such a
discharge, and, as appropriate, to discharges smaller than worst case
discharges. All facilities subject to this requirement must submit
their plans to EPA. In turn, we review and approve plans submitted by
facilities identified as having the potential to cause ``significant
and substantial harm'' to the environment from oil discharges. Other
facilities are not required to prepare FRPs but are required to
document their determination that they do not meet the ``substantial
harm'' criteria.
Through this final rulemaking, we are reducing the reporting and
recordkeeping burden for facilities that are regulated under the FRP
rule due to the storage of animal fats and vegetable oils by clarifying
response planning requirements for these facilities. Specifically, we
are finalizing our proposal to add a new methodology to allow
facilities to calculate planning
[[Page 40797]]
volumes for a worst case discharge of animal fats or vegetable oils
similar to the methodology provided for discharges of petroleum oils.
Currently these facilities are required to identify in their plans the
procedures used to determine the appropriate amount of resources needed
to respond to a worst case discharge of a non-petroleum oil. As a
result, we believe that the overall economic effect of this final rule
will be to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden for these
facilities.
In addition, we are allowing case-by-case deviations for facility
response planning levels. In the proposed rulemaking, we solicited
comment on whether to allow facilities to combine response planning at
either the small and medium stage, or the medium and large stage for
discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils. Based on those comments
(see section II. A of this preamble), and on our own study of the
different types of response plans, we have decided to retain all three
planning levels. We estimated the cost savings from eliminating a
response planning level to be minimal, because our Regional
Administrators already give consideration to unique facility
characteristics during their review of FRPs in allowing plan
deviations.
EPA has information to suggest that certain bulk storage facilities
may store large quantities of both petroleum oils and animal fats/
vegetable oils in the same tanks but at different times. We have not
included these facilities within the scope of our economic analysis for
this rule, because the goal of this regulation is to address response
planning requirements for those facilities storing only animal fats or
vegetable oils. We believe that facilities which store both types of
oils in the same tanks at different times should follow the response
planning requirements for petroleum oils.
We do not expect the number of facilities that are subject to the
requirements to develop an FRP and maintain the plan on a year-to-year
basis to change as a result of this rulemaking. In the current ICR, we
estimate that 5,465 facilities would be required to develop and submit
FRPs. Of these 5,465 facilities, we estimate that approximately 63
facilities (owned or operated by approximately 34 companies) are
required to develop and submit FRPs because of the storage of animal
fats and vegetable oils. We have previously estimated that it requires
between 99 and 132 hours for facility personnel in a large facility
(i.e., total storage capacity greater than 1 million gallons) and
between 26 and 46 hours for personnel in a medium facility (i.e., total
storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons and less than or equal to
1 million gallons) to comply with the annual, subsequent-year reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of the FRP rule. We have also estimated
that a newly regulated facility will require between 253 and 293 hours
to prepare a plan in the first year. We estimate that the present
information collection burden of the FRP rule for facilities that are
regulated due to the storage of animal fats and vegetable oils to be
approximately 6,867 hours a year. Through this rulemaking, we are
reducing that burden by approximately five hours for a large facility
and two hours for a medium facility. This proposed reduction would
result in an annual average burden of 6,587 hours.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
required to perform the following tasks: (1) Review instructions; (2)
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; (3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; (4) train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of information; (5) search data
sources; (6) complete and review the collection of information; and (7)
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. In the
proposed rule, we requested comments on our need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and the accuracy of the
supporting analyses used to develop the burden estimates. We also
requested suggestions on methods for further minimizing respondent
burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. No
comments were received on either of these issues.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''). Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards such as materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. We received
no comments on this aspect of the rulemaking.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective July 31, 2000.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Fire prevention, Flammable materials,
Materials handling and storage, Oil pollution, Oil spill response,
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tanks, Water
pollution control, Water resources.
Dated: May 24, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 112 as follows:
PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
1. The authority citation for part 112 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777
(October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.
2. Amend Sec. 112.2 to add the following definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
[[Page 40798]]
Sec. 112.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal fat means a non-petroleum oil, fat, or grease of animal,
fish, or marine mammal origin.
* * * * *
Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not petroleum-
based, including but not limited to: Fats, oils, and greases of animal,
fish, or marine mammal origin; and vegetable oils, including oils from
seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.
* * * * *
Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form, including but not
limited to crude oil, fuel oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil refuse, and
refined products.
* * * * *
Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat of vegetable origin,
including but not limited to oils and fats derived from plant seeds,
nuts, fruits, and kernels.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 112.20 by:
a. adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as set forth below;
b. revising the phrase ``section 10'' to read ``section 13'' in the
second sentence of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B);
c. revising the word ``spill'' to read ``discharge'' in paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)(D);
d. revising the word ``spills'' to read ``discharges'' in paragraph
(f)(3)(i); and
e. revising the words ``spill'' and ``spilled'' to read
``discharge'' and ``discharged'', respectively, wherever they appear in
paragraph (h).
Sec. 112.20 Facility response plans.
(a) * * *
(4) Preparation and submission of response plans--Animal fat and
vegetable oil facilities. The owner or operator of any non-
transportation-related facility that handles, stores, or transports
animal fats and vegetable oils must prepare and submit a facility
response plan as follows:
(i) Facilities with approved plans. The owner or operator of a
facility with a facility response plan that has been approved under
paragraph (c) of this section by July 31, 2000 need not prepare or
submit a revised plan except as otherwise required by paragraphs (b),
(c), or (d) of this section.
(ii) Facilities with plans that have been submitted to the Regional
Administrator. Except for facilities with approved plans as provided in
paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, the owner or operator of a
facility that has submitted a response plan to the Regional
Administrator prior to July 31, 2000 must review the plan to determine
if it meets or exceeds the applicable provisions of this part. An owner
or operator need not prepare or submit a new plan if the existing plan
meets or exceeds the applicable provisions of this part. If the plan
does not meet or exceed the applicable provisions of this part, the
owner or operator must prepare and submit a new plan by September 28,
2000.
(iii) Newly regulated facilities. The owner or operator of a newly
constructed facility that commences operation after July 31, 2000 must
prepare and submit a plan to the Regional Administrator in accordance
with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. The plan must meet or exceed
the applicable provisions of this part. The owner or operator of an
existing facility that must prepare and submit a plan after July 31,
2000 as a result of a planned or unplanned change in facility
characteristics that causes the facility to become regulated under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, must prepare and submit a plan to the
Regional Administrator in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) or
(iv) of this section, as appropriate. The plan must meet or exceed the
applicable provisions of this part.
(iv) Facilities amending existing plans. The owner or operator of a
facility submitting an amended plan in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this section after July 31, 2000, including plans that had been
previously approved, must also review the plan to determine if it meets
or exceeds the applicable provisions of this part. If the plan does not
meet or exceed the applicable provisions of this part, the owner or
operator must revise and resubmit revised portions of an amended plan
to the Regional Administrator in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section, as appropriate. The plan must meet or exceed the applicable
provisions of this part.
* * * * *
Sec. 112.21 [Amended]
4. Amend Sec. 112.21 by revising the phrase ``section 10'' to read
``section 13'' in the second sentence of paragraph (c).
Appendix C to Part C--[Amended]Appendix C to Part C--[Amended]
5. Amend Appendix C to part 112 by:
a. revising the phrase ``section 10'' to read ``section 13''
wherever it appears;
b. revising the word ``spill'' to read ``discharge'' in sections
2.3 and 2.4, and the last sentence of section 2.5;
c. revising the word ``Spills'' to read ``Discharges'' in the
heading of section 2.5;
d. revising the word ``spill'' to read ``discharge'' in paragraph 5
of Attachment C-II;
e. revising the word ``spilled'' to read ``discharged'' in section
1.1 of Attachment C-III;
f. revising the word ``spill'' to read ``discharge'' in section
3.2(1) of Attachment C-III; and
g. revising Attachment C-I to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 40799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.061
Appendix D to Part 112--[Amended]
[[Page 40800]]
Appendix D to Part 112--[Amended]
6. Amend Appendix D to part 112 by revising the phrase ``section
10'' to read ``section 13'' in the second sentence of section 1.4, and
by revising the word ``spill'' to read ``discharge'' in section 2.2.3
of Attachment D-1.
7. Amend Appendix E to Part 112 as follows:
a. Revising section 1.0 and sections 1.2.1 through 1.2.8 and adding
sections 1.2.9 and 1.2.10;
b. Revising sections 2.0, 2.3.1, and 2.6;
c. Revising sections 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.3.1, and 3.3.3 and adding
sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2;
d. Revising sections 4.0, 4.2, and 4.4 through 4.7 and adding
sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2;
e. Revising sections 5.0, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8;
f. Revising sections 6.0, 6.3, and 6.3.1;
g. Revising sections 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.3, 7.7,
7.7.1, 7.7.2, 7.7.3, and 7.7.5;
h. Revising sections 8.0, 8.1 and 8.2 and adding sections 8.2.1,
8.3, 8.3.1, 8.3.2, and 8.3.3;
i. Revising sections 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 and adding sections
9.2.1 and 9.4 through 9.7;
j. Revising sections 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3;
k. Adding sections 10.2.1 through 10.2.4, sections 10.3.1 through
10.3.3, and section 10.4;
l. Adding sections 10.5 and 10.5.1 through 10.5.5;
m. Adding sections 10.6 and 10.6.1 through 10.6.3;
n. Adding sections 10.7 and 10.7.1 through 10.7.5;
o. Adding sections 11.0 through 11.2;
p. Adding sections 12.0 through 12.3; and
q. Adding sections 13.0 through 13.3.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 112--Determination and Evaluation of Required
Response Resources for Facility Response Plans
1.0 Purpose and Definitions
* * * * *
1.2 Definitions.
1.2.1 Animal fat means a non-petroleum oil, fat, or grease of
animal, fish, or marine mammal origin. Animal fats are further
classified based on specific gravity as follows:
(1) Group A--specific gravity less than 0.8.
(2) Group B--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.8 and
less than 1.0.
(3) Group C--specific gravity equal to or greater than 1.0.
1.2.2 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.
1.2.3 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, other than an animal fat or vegetable
oil, with a specific gravity less than 0.8.
1.2.4 Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not
petroleum-based, including but not limited to: fats, oils, and
greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; and vegetable
oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.
1.2.5 Ocean means the nearshore area.
1.2.6 Operating area means Rivers and Canals, Inland,
Nearshore, and Great Lakes geographic location(s) in which a
facility is handling, storing, or transporting oil.
1.2.7 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.
1.2.8 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, other than an animal fat or vegetable
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.
1.2.9 Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat of
vegetable origin, including but not limited to oils and fats derived
from plant seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels. Vegetable oils are
further classified based on specific gravity as follows:
(1) Group A--specific gravity less than 0.8.
(2) Group B--specific gravity equal to or greater than 0.8 and
less than 1.0.
(3) Group C--specific gravity equal to or greater than 1.0.
1.2.10 Other definitions are included in Sec. 112.2, section 1.1
of Appendix C, and section 3.0 of Appendix F.
2.0 Equipment Operability and Readiness
* * * * *
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 13, for general availability of documents).
* * * * *
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 sections 4.3 and 9.3 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.
* * * * *
3.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Small Discharges--
Petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and
vegetable oils
* * * * *
3.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) must also consider planning quantities for the
transportation-related transfer portion of the facility.
3.2.1 Petroleum oils. The USCG planning level that corresponds
to EPA's ``small discharge'' is termed ``the average most probable
discharge.'' A USCG rule found at 33 CFR 154.1020 defines ``the
average most probable discharge'' as the lesser of 50 barrels (2,100
gallons) or 1 percent of the volume of the worst case discharge.
Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or transport
petroleum oils must compare oil discharge volumes for a small
discharge and an average most probable discharge, and plan for
whichever quantity is greater.
3.2.2 Non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable
oils. Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or
transport non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable
oils must plan for oil discharge volumes for a small discharge.
There is no USCG planning level that directly corresponds to EPA's
``small discharge.'' However, the USCG (at 33 CFR 154.545) has
requirements to identify equipment to contain oil resulting from an
operational discharge.
[[Page 40801]]
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 discharge;
* * * * *
3.3.3 Oil storage capacity for recovered oily material
indicated in section 12.2 of this appendix.
4.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Medium
Discharges--Petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils other than animal
fats and vegetable oils
* * * * *
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.
4.2.1 Petroleum oils. The USCG planning level that corresponds
to EPA's ``medium discharge'' is termed ``the maximum most probable
discharge.'' The USCG rule found at 33 CFR part 154 defines ``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 that handle,
store, or transport petroleum oils must compare calculated discharge
volumes for a medium discharge and a maximum most probable
discharge, and plan for whichever quantity is greater.
4.2.2 Non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable
oils. Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or
transport non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable
oils must plan for oil discharge volumes for a medium discharge. For
non-petroleum oils, there is no USCG planning level that directly
corresponds to EPA's ``medium discharge.''
* * * * *
4.4 Because rapid control, containment, and removal of oil are
critical to reduce discharge 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 13, for availability) and the applicable ACP.
Although 40 CFR part 112 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 12.2 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 12.2 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. Sections 7
and 10 of this appendix describe the method to determine the
necessary response resources. Worksheets are provided as Attachments
E-1 and E-2 at the end of this appendix to simplify the procedures
involved in calculating the planning volume for response resources
for the worst case discharge.
* * * * *
5.3 Oil discharge 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 as follows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 (in Tier 2 (in Tier 3 (in
hours) hours) hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port areas................................................. 6 30 54
Great Lakes.............................................................. 12 36 60
All other river and canal, inland, and nearshore areas................... 12 36 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 discharge 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 or sections 10.2 and 10.3 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.
* * * * *
5.5 A facility owner or operator shall identify the
availability of temporary storage capacity to meet section 12.2 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.
* * * * *
5.7 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 13, for availability), and the applicable ACP. Refer to this
guidance document for the number of days and geographic areas (i.e.,
operating
[[Page 40802]]
environments) specified in Table 2 and Table 6 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, 3, 6, and 7 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
* * * * *
6.3 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 discharge conditions or tests using American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F 631-99, F 808-83
(1999), or an equivalent test approved by EPA as deemed appropriate
(see Appendix E to this part, section 13, 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 13.2.16 in F 631-99; or actual performance data); and
U--Hours per day that equipment can operate under discharge
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.
* * * * *
7.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst Case Discharge--
Petroleum Oils and Non-Petroleum Oils Other Than Animal Fats and
Vegetable Oils
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 other than animal fats and vegetable 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 1.2.3 and 1.2.8
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.
* * * * *
7.4 A response plan must identify response resources with fire
fighting capability. The owner or operator of 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. The
facility owner or operator shall 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.
* * * * *
7.5.2 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 13,
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.
* * * * *
7.6.3 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. The facility owner or
operator shall 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 Non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable
oils. The procedures described in sections 7.7.1 through 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 other than animal fats and
vegetable oils. Refer to section 11 of this appendix for information
on the limitations on the use of chemical agents for inland and near
shore areas.
7.7.1 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and
vegetable oils must provide information in his or her plan that
identifies:
(1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case
discharge 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 oils other than animal fats and
vegetable oils 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 oils other than animal fats and
vegetable oils 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.
* * * * *
[[Page 40803]]
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 other than animal
fats and vegetable 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. The owner or operator shall 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 fires
of these oils. 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 Response Resources Required for Small Discharges--
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
8.1 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 of animal
fats or vegetable oils. 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.
8.2 Complexes that are regulated by EPA and the USCG must also
consider planning quantities for the marine transportation-related
portion of the facility.
8.2.1 The USCG planning level that corresponds to EPA's ``small
discharge'' is termed ``the average most probable discharge.'' A
USCG rule found at 33 CFR 154.1020 defines ``the average most
probable discharge'' as the lesser of 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) or
1 percent of the volume of the worst case discharge. Owners or
operators of complexes that handle, store, or transport petroleum
oils must compare oil discharge volumes for a small discharge and an
average most probable discharge, and plan for whichever quantity is
greater.
8.3 The response resources shall, as appropriate, include:
8.3.1 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 discharge;
8.3.2 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 a discharge; and
8.3.3 Oil storage capacity for recovered oily material
indicated in section 12.2 of this appendix.
9.0 Determining Response Resources Required for Medium
Discharges--Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
9.1 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 animal
fats or vegetable oils 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.
9.2 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
calculated discharge volumes for a medium discharge and a maximum
most probable discharge, and plan for whichever quantity is greater.
9.2.1 Owners or operators of complexes that handle, store, or
transport animal fats or vegetable oils must plan for oil discharge
volumes for a medium discharge. For non-petroleum oils, there is no
USCG planning level that directly corresponds to EPA's ``medium
discharge.'' Although the USCG does not have planning requirements
for medium discharges, they do have requirements (at 33 CFR 154.545)
to identify equipment to contain oil resulting from an operational
discharge.
9.3 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 1.1 of Appendix C to this part.
9.4 Because rapid control, containment, and removal of oil are
critical to reduce discharge 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
9.1 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.
9.5 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'' (59 FR 14713-22,
March 29, 1994) and the applicable ACP. Although 40 CFR part 112
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.
9.6 The plan must indicate the availability of temporary
storage capacity to meet section 12.2 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.
9.7 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 12.2 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.
10.0 Calculating Planning Volumes for a Worst Case Discharge--
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils.
10.1 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 physical, chemical, and biological processes,
potential increases in volume due to emulsification, and the
potential for deposition of oil on the shoreline or on sediments.
The response planning procedures for animal fats and vegetable oils
are discussed in section 10.7 of this appendix. You may use
alternate response planning procedures for animal fats and vegetable
oils if those procedures result in environmental protection
equivalent to that provided by the procedures in section 10.7 of
this appendix.
10.2 The following procedures must be used by a facility owner
or operator in determining the required on-water oil recovery
capacity:
10.2.1 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
(Groups A, B, C); and the facility's specific operating area. See
sections 1.2.1 and
[[Page 40804]]
1.2.9 of this appendix for the definitions of animal fats and
vegetable oils and groups thereof. 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 6 of this appendix to determine
the percentages of the total volume to be used for removal capacity
planning. Table 6 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.
10.2.2 The on-water oil recovery volume shall, as appropriate,
be adjusted using the appropriate emulsification factor found in
Table 7 of this appendix. Facilities that handle, store, or
transport oil from different 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.
10.2.3 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 a discharge. For all other rivers and
canals, inland, near shore areas, and the Great Lakes, these tiers
are 12, 36, and 60 hours.
10.2.4 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 6 of this appendix. The facility owner or
operator shall identify and ensure, by contract or other approved
means as described in Sec. 112.2, the availability 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 1998 must
make arrangements to identify and ensure, by contract or other
approved means as described in Sec. 112.2, the availability of
additional capacity to be under contract by 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 oil
storage capacity.
10.3 The procedures discussed in sections 10.3.1 through 10.3.3
of this appendix must be used to calculate the planning volume for
identifying shoreline cleanup capacity (for Groups A and B oils).
10.3.1 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
(Groups A or B); 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 6 of this
appendix must be used to determine the percentages of the total
volume to be used for shoreline cleanup resource planning.
10.3.2 The shoreline cleanup planning volume must be adjusted
to reflect an emulsification factor using the same procedure as
described in section 10.2.2 of this appendix.
10.3.3 The resulting volume shall be used to identify an oil
spill removal organization with the appropriate shoreline cleanup
capability.
10.4 A response plan must identify response resources with fire
fighting capability appropriate for the risk of fire and explosion
at the facility from the discharge or threat of discharge of oil.
The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or
transports Group A or B 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. The facility owner or operator shall 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 to work with the fire department for Group A
or B 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.
10.5 The following is an example of the procedure described in
sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this appendix. A facility with a 37.04
million gallon (881,904 barrel) capacity of several types of
vegetable oils is located in the Inland Operating Area. The
vegetable oil with the highest specific gravity stored at the
facility is soybean oil (specific gravity 0.922, Group B vegetable
oil). The facility has ten aboveground oil storage tanks with a
combined total capacity of 18 million gallons (428,571 barrels) and
without secondary containment. The remaining facility tanks are
inside secondary containment structures. The largest aboveground oil
storage tank (3 million gallons or 71,428 barrels) has its own
secondary containment. Two 2.1 million gallon (50,000 barrel) tanks
(that are not connected by a manifold) are within a common secondary
containment tank area, which is capable of holding 4.2 million
gallons (100,000 barrels) plus sufficient freeboard.
10.5.1 The worst case discharge for the facility is calculated
by adding the capacity of all aboveground vegetable oil storage
tanks without secondary containment (18.0 million gallons) plus the
capacity of the largest aboveground storage tank inside secondary
containment (3.0 million gallons). The resulting worst case
discharge is 21 million gallons or 500,000 barrels.
10.5.2 With a specific worst case discharge identified, the
planning volume for on-water recovery can be identified as follows:
Worst case discharge: 21 million gallons (500,000 barrels) of Group
B vegetable oil
Operating Area: Inland
Planned percent recovered floating vegetable oil (from Table 6,
column Near shore/Inland/Great Lakes): Inland, Group B is 20%
Emulsion factor (from Table 7): 2.0 Planning volumes for on-water
recovery:
21,000,000 gallons x .2 x 2.0 = 8,400,000 gallons or 200,000
barrels.
Determine required resources for on-water recovery for each of the
three tiers using mobilization factors (from Table 4, column Inland/
Near shore/Great Lakes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland operating area Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning volume on water.................. .15 .25 .40
Estimated Daily Recovery Capacity (bbls).. 30,000 50,000 80,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.5.3 Because the requirements for On-Water Recovery Resources
for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 for Inland Operating Area exceed the caps
identified in Table 5 of this appendix, the facility owner will
contract for a response of 12,500 barrels per day (bpd) for Tier 1,
25,000 bpd for Tier 2, and 50,000 bpd for Tier 3. Resources for the
remaining 17,500 bpd for Tier 1, 25,000 bpd for Tier 2, and 30,000
bpd for Tier 3 shall be identified but need not be contracted for in
advance.
10.5.4 With the specific worst case discharge identified, the
planning volume of onshore recovery can be identified as follows:
Worst case discharge: 21 million gallons (500,000 barrels) of Group
B vegetable oil
[[Page 40805]]
Operating Area: Inland
Planned percent recovered floating vegetable oil from onshore (from
Table 6, column Near shore/Inland/Great Lakes): Inland, Group B is
65%
Emulsion factor (from Table 7): 2.0
Planning volumes for shoreline recovery:
21,000,000 gallons x 0.65 x 2.0 = 27,300,000 gallons or 650,000
barrels
10.5.5 The facility owner or operator shall, as appropriate,
also identify or contract for quantities of boom identified in the
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 13, 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 adversely affected in
the event of a worst case discharge.
10.6 The procedures discussed in sections 10.6.1 through 10.6.3
of this appendix must be used to determine appropriate response
resources for facilities with Group C oils.
10.6.1 The owner or operator of a facility that handles,
stores, or transports Group C 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.
10.6.2 Response resources identified in a response plan for a
facility that handles, stores, or transports Group C oils under
section 10.6.1 of this appendix shall be capable of being deployed
on scene within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge.
10.6.3 A response plan must identify response resources with
fire fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that
handles, stores, or transports Group C 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. The owner or operator
shall 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 C 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.
10.7 The procedures described in sections 10.7.1 through 10.7.5
of this appendix must be used to determine appropriate response plan
development and evaluation criteria for facilities that handle,
store, or transport animal fats and vegetable oils. Refer to section
11 of this appendix for information on the limitations on the use of
chemical agents for inland and near shore areas.
10.7.1 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports animal fats and vegetable oils must provide
information in the response plan that identifies:
(1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case
discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils to the maximum extent
practicable; and
(2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to locate,
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
10.7.2 An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores,
or transports animal fats and vegetable oils must ensure that any
equipment identified in a response plan is capable of operating 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.
10.7.3. The owner or operator of a facility that handles,
stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable oils 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 animal fat
or vegetable oil carried; and
(3) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a
discharge involving the type of oil carried.
10.7.4 Response resources identified in a response plan
according to section 10.7.3 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.
10.7.5 A response plan must identify response resources with
fire fighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that
handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable 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. The owner
or operator shall 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 animal fat and
vegetable 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.
11.0 Determining the Availability of Alternative Response Methods
11.1 For chemical agents 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. Not all of these State-approved dispersants are listed
on the NCP Product Schedule.)
11.2 Identification of chemical agents in the plan does not
imply that their use will be authorized. Actual authorization will
be governed by the provisions of the NCP and the applicable ACP.
12.0 Additional Equipment Necessary to Sustain Response Operations
12.1 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 animal
fats or vegetables oils 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.
12.2 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.
12.3 A facility owner or operator shall ensure that response
planning includes the capability to arrange for disposal of
recovered oil products. Specific disposal procedures will be
addressed in the applicable ACP.
13.0 References and Availability
13.1 All materials listed in this section are part of EPA's
rulemaking docket and are located in the Superfund Docket, 1235
Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway 1, Arlington, Virginia
22202, Suite 105 (Docket Numbers SPCC-2P, SPCC-3P, and SPCC-9P). The
docket is available for inspection
[[Page 40806]]
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays.
Appointments to review the docket can be made by calling 703-
603-9232. Docket hours are subject to change. As provided in 40 CFR
part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying services.
13.2 The docket will mail copies of materials to requestors who
are outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Materials may be
available from other sources, as noted in this section. As provided
in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying
services. 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.
13.3 Documents
(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 53990-91, 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 14713-22, March 29, 1994.). The
guidance is available in the Superfund Docket (see sections 13.1 and
13.2 of this appendix).
(3) ASTM Standards. ASTM F 715, ASTM F 989, ASTM F 631-99, ASTM
F 808-83 (1999). The ASTM standards are available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
(4) Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities,
Interim Final Rule. Published by USCG, DOT at 58 FR 7330-76,
February 5, 1993.
8. Amend the Tables to Appendix E to Part 112 by revising Table 2
and adding Tables 6 and 7 to read as follows:
Table 2 to Appendix E.--Removal Capacity Planning Table for Petroleum Oils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spill location Rivers and canals Near shore/Inland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The response resource considerations for non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils are
outlined in section 7.7 of this appendix.
Note: Group 5 oils are defined in section 1.2.8 of this appendix; the response resource considerations are
outlined in section 7.6 of this appendix.
* * * * *
Table 6 to Appendix E.--Removal Capacity Planning Table for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spill location Rivers and canals Near shore/Inland Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability of on-water oil 3 days 4 days
recovery -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------- Percent Percent Percent Percent
Percent recovered recovered Percent recovered recovered
Oil group \1\ natural floating oil from natural floating oil from
loss oil onshore loss oil onshore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A........................... 40 15 45 50 20 30
Group B........................... 20 15 65 30 20 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Substances with a specific gravity greater than 1.0 generally sink below the surface of the water. Response
resource considerations are outlined in section 10.6 of this appendix. The owner or operator of the facility
is responsible for determining appropriate response resources for Group C oils including locating oil on the
bottom or suspended in the water column; containment boom or other appropriate methods for containing oil that
may remain floating on the surface; and dredges, pumps, or other equipment to recover animal fats or vegetable
oils from the bottom and shoreline.
Note: Group C oils are defined in section 1.2.1 and 1.2.9 of this appendix; the response resource procedures are
discussed in section 10.6 of this appendix.
Table 7 to Appendix E.--Emulsification Factors for Animal Fats and
Vegetable Oils
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil Group 1:
Group A...................................................... 1.0
Group B...................................................... 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Substances with a specific gravity greater than 1.0 generally sink
below the surface of the water. Response resource considerations are
outlined in section 10.6 of this appendix. The owner or operator of
the facility is responsible for determining appropriate response
resources for Group C oils including locating oil on the bottom or
suspended in the water column; containment boom or other appropriate
methods for containing oil that may remain floating on the surface;
and dredges, pumps, or other equipment to recover animal fats or
vegetable oils from the bottom and shoreline.
Note: Group C oils are defined in section 1.2.1 and 1.2.9 of this
appendix; the response resource procedures are discussed in section
10.6 of this appendix.
[[Page 40807]]
9. Amend the attachments to Appendix E by revising Attachment E-1
and Attachment E-1 Example and adding Attachment E-2 and Attachment E-2
Example to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.062
[[Page 40808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.063
[[Page 40809]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.064
[[Page 40810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.065
[[Page 40811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.066
[[Page 40812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.067
[[Page 40813]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.068
[[Page 40814]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.069
[[Page 40815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN00.070
[[Page 40816]]
10. Amend Appendix F to Part 112 and the attachments to Appendix F
by revising the phrase ``section 10'' to read ``section 13'' wherever
it appears.
11. Appendix F to Part 112 is further amended as follows:
a. Revise section 1.1, section 1.3 (A)(5), (6) and (7), and section
1.3.4.1;
b. Revise the first sentence of section 1.4.2 and sections 1.4.3
and 1.4.4 (12);
c. Revise sections 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.1.1, and 1.5.1.2;
d. Revise sections 1.6, 1.6.1, and 1.6.2;
e. Revise sections 1.7 and 1.7.1, the introductory text of section
1..7.1.1, and the introductory text of section 1.7.3;
f. Revise section 1.8.2 (B), section 1.8.3; and
g. Revise the introductory text of attachment F-1. The revised text
reads as follows:
Appendix F To Part 112--Facility-Specific Response Plan
* * * * *
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
discharge. 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
discharge 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) partial
3. Spill Response Notification Form (Section 1.3.1) partial
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
* * * * *
1.3 Emergency Response Information
(A) * * *
(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
discharges, 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 discharge 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.
* * * * *
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 discharge 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 discharged material;
(3) Discharge 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.
* * * * *
1.4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
The vulnerability analysis shall address the potential effects
(i.e., to human health, property, or the environment) of an oil
discharge. * * *
* * * * *
1.4.3 Analysis of the Potential for an Oil Discharge
Each owner or operator shall analyze the probability of a
discharge occurring at the facility. This analysis shall incorporate
factors such as oil spill history, horizontal range of a potential
discharge, 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
discharges. 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
* * * * *
(12) Description(s) of how each oil discharge was detected.
* * * * *
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 discharge, as appropriate. A multi-level planning
approach has been chosen because the response actions to a discharge
(i.e., necessary response equipment, products, and personnel) are
dependent on the magnitude of the discharge. 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 discharge 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 discharge
scenarios that may contribute to a small or medium discharge. 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:
[[Page 40817]]
(1) Size of the discharge;
(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, drainage);
(5) Location of the material discharged (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 discharge pathway.
* * * * *
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 discharge detection by personnel and a
discussion of automated discharge 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 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 discharge 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 discharges; 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 discharge event and the time frame to
update the plan must be described.
1.7.1 Response Resources for Small, Medium, and Worst Case Discharges
1.7.1.1 Once the discharge 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 discharge 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 discharges must be discussed. At a minimum, the following
items must be addressed: * * *
* * * * *
1.7.3 Containment and Drainage Planning
A proper plan to contain and control a discharge through
drainage may limit the threat of harm to human health and the
environment. This section shall describe how to contain and control
a discharge through drainage, including: * * *
* * * * *
1.8.2 Facility Drills/Exercises
(A) * * *
(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 discharge in the area if
the plan was utilized for response to the discharge and the
objectives of the Exercise were met and were properly evaluated,
documented, and self-certified.
* * * * *
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 the USCG Office of Response (G-MOR) at (202) 267-0518 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.
* * * * *
1.9 Diagrams
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(H) direction of discharge flow from discharge points.
* * * * *
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, Mail Code: PM-
2822, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington D.C. 20503.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-13976 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|
