Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 112 Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities; Final Rule

Wednesday, July 17, 2002

Part II

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47042 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: The official record for this A. Statutory Authority AGENCY rulemaking is located in the Superfund B. Background of This Rulemaking Docket at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, III. Summary of Major Rule Provisions 40 CFR Part 112 Crystal Gateway 1, Arlington, Virginia IV. Discussion of Issues A. Reorganization of the Rule [FRL–7241–5] 22202, Suite 105. The docket numbers for the final rule are SPCC–1P, SPCC– B. Plain Language Format RIN 2050–AC62 C. ‘‘Should to Shall to Must’’ Clarification 2P, and SPCC–7. The record supporting D. Professional Engineers (PEs) this rulemaking is contained in the Oil Pollution Prevention and 1. State Registration Superfund Docket and is available for Response; Non-Transportation-Related 2. PEs Employed by the Facility inspection by appointment only, Onshore and Offshore Facilities 3. Completion of Testing between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 4. Site Visits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Monday through Friday, excluding legal E. Electrical Facilities and Other Agency (EPA). holidays. You may make an Operational Users of Oil ACTION: Final rule. appointment to review the docket by F. Discretionary Provisions calling 703–603–9232. You may copy a G. Design Capabilities of Drainage Systems, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection maximum of 100 pages from any Other than Production Facilities Agency (EPA or the Agency or we) is regulatory docket at no cost. If the H. Compliance Costs amending the Oil Pollution Prevention number of pages exceeds 100, however, I. Contingency Planning and Notification regulation promulgated under the we will charge you $0.15 for each page J. Reproposal K. Industry Standards authority of the Clean Water Act. This after 100. The docket will mail copies of rule includes requirements for Spill V. Section by Section Analysis (Includes: materials to you if you are outside of the Background, Comments, and Response to Prevention, Control, and Washington, DC metropolitan area. Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and for Comments) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses Facility Response Plans (FRPs). The Hugo Paul Fleischman, Oil Program A. Executive Order 12866—OMB Review final rule includes new subparts Center, U.S. Environmental Protection B. Executive Order 12898—Environmental outlining the requirements for various Justice classes of oil; revises the applicability of Agency, at 703–603–8769 ([email protected]); or the C. Executive Order 13045—Children’s the regulation; amends the requirements Health for completing SPCC Plans; and makes RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800–424– 9346 (in the Washington, DC D. Executive Order 13175—Consultation other modifications. The final rule also and Coordination with Indian Tribal metropolitan area, 703–412– contains a number of provisions Governments designed to decrease regulatory burden 9810)([email protected]). The E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism on facility owners or operators subject Telecommunications Device for the Deaf F. Executive Order 13211—Energy Effects to the rule, while preserving (TDD) Hotline number is 800–553–7672 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act environmental protection. We expect (in the Washington, DC metropolitan H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that today’s rule will reduce the area, 703–412–3323). You may wish to I. Paperwork Reduction Act paperwork burden associated with visit the Oil Program’s Internet site at J. National Technology Transfer and SPCC requirements by approximately www.epa.gov/oilspill. Advancement Act 40%. We have also made the regulation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The K. Congressional Review Act easier to understand and use. contents of this preamble are as follows: I. Entities Affected by This Rule DATES: This rule is effective August 16, I. Entities Affected by This Rule Entities Potentially Regulated by this Rule 2002. II. Introduction Include:

CATEGORY NAICS Codes

Crop and Animal Production ...... 111–112. Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction ...... 211111. Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying ...... 2121/2123/213114/213116. Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution ...... 2211. Heavy Construction ...... 234. Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing ...... 324. Other Manufacturing ...... 31–33. Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ...... 42271. Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental and Leasing ...... 4471/5321. Heating Oil Dealers ...... 454311. Transportation (including Pipelines), Warehousing, and Marinas ...... 482–486/488112–48819/4883/48849/ 492–493/71393. Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges ...... 6111–6113. Hospitals/Nursing and Residential Care Facilities ...... 622–623.

‘‘NAICS’’ refers to the North for readers regarding entities likely to be the criteria in §§ 112.1 and 112.20 of American Industry Classification regulated by this action. It lists the types title 40 of the Code of Federal System, a method of classifying various of entities of which we are now aware Regulations and of today’s rule, which facilities. The NAICS was adopted by that could potentially be regulated by explain the applicability of the rule. If the United States, Canada, and Mexico this action. Other types of entities not you have questions regarding the on January 1, 1997 to replace the listed in the table could also be applicability of this action to a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) regulated. To determine whether your particular entity, consult the person code. This table is not intended to be facility could be regulated by this listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION exhaustive, but rather provides a guide action, you should carefully examine CONTACT section.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47043

II. Introduction rulemaking affects SPCC and FRP 112.21. We have finalized the proposed requirements. The SPCC requirements 1993 prevention requirements, with A. Statutory Authority were originally promulgated on modifications, in this rule. Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water December 11, 1973 (38 FR 34164), under In 1996, EPA completed a survey and Act (CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, the authority of section 311(j)(1)(C) of analysis of SPCC facilities. The survey requires the President to issue the Act. The regulation established spill was designed to ensure that data on the regulations establishing procedures, prevention procedures, methods, and sampled facilities could be statistically methods, equipment, and other equipment requirements for non- extrapolated to the nation as a whole for requirements to prevent discharges of transportation-related onshore and all facilities regulated by EPA’s SPCC oil from vessels and facilities and to offshore facilities with aboveground regulation. We used the results of that contain such discharges. The President storage capacity greater than 1,320 survey and analysis to develop a has delegated the authority to regulate gallons (or greater than 660 gallons in a proposed rule affecting SPCC facilities non-transportation-related onshore single container), or completely buried on December 2, 1997. 62 FR 63812. The facilities under section 311(j)(1)(C) of oil storage capacity greater than 42,000 survey and analytical results are part of the Act to the U.S. Environmental gallons. Regulated facilities were also the administrative record for this Protection Agency. Executive Order limited to those that, because of their rulemaking. 12777, section 2(b)(1), (56 FR 54757, location could reasonably be expected The purpose of the 1997 proposal was October 22, 1991), superseding to discharge oil in harmful quantities to reduce the information collection Executive Order 11735, 38 FR 21243. By into the navigable waters of the United burden imposed by the prevention this same Executive Order, the President States or adjoining shorelines. requirements in the SPCC rule and the has delegated similar authority over We have amended the SPCC FRP rule without creating an adverse transportation-related onshore facilities, requirements a number of times, and impact on public health or the deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S. those amendments are described in an environment. We also proposed changes Department of Transportation (DOT), October 22, 1991 Federal Register in information collection requirements and authority over other offshore proposed rule. 56 FR 54612. In the for facility response plans, but have facilities, including associated October 1991 document, in addition to withdrawn them in this rulemaking. pipelines, to the U.S. Department of the the description of past amendments, Those changes would have affected the Interior (DOI). A Memorandum of EPA proposed new revisions that calculation of storage capacity at certain Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI, involved changes in the applicability of facilities for response plan purposes. 62 and DOT effective February 3, 1994, has the regulation and the required FR 63816. However, see new redelegated the responsibility to procedures for the completion of SPCC § 112.1(d)(6). The 1997 SPCC proposals, regulate certain offshore facilities Plans, as well as the addition of a as modified, are finalized in this rule. located in and along the Great Lakes, facility notification provision. The On April 8, 1999, we proposed rivers, coastal wetlands, and the Gulf proposed rule also reflected changes in revision to facility response plan Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA. the jurisdiction of section 311 of the Act requirements. 64 FR 17227. The main See Executive Order 12777, section 2(i) made by amendments to the Act in 1977 purpose of the proposal was to provide regarding authority to redelegate. The and 1978. We have finalized some of a more specific methodology for MOU is included as Appendix B to 40 those proposed revisions, with planning response resources that can be CFR part 112. An MOU between the modifications, in this rule. used by an owner or operator of a Secretary of Transportation and the EPA On February 17, 1993, we again facility that handles, stores, or Administrator, dated November 24, proposed clarifications of and technical transports animal fats and vegetable 1971 (36 FR 24080), established the changes to the SPCC rule. We also oils. We finalized that proposal on June definitions of non-transportation-related proposed facility response planning 30, 2000. 65 FR 40776. The final rule and transportation-related facilities. The requirements to implement the Oil included four new definitions that are definitions from the 1971 MOU are Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). 58 FR applicable to all of part 112. included as Appendix A to 40 CFR part 8824. The proposed changes to the 112. SPCC rule included clarifications of III. Summary of Major Rule Provisions certain requirements, response plans for For your convenience, we have B. Background of This Rulemaking facilities without secondary developed a table showing a summary Part 112 of 40 CFR outlines the containment, prevention training, and of the major revisions in this rule. The requirements for both the prevention of methods of determining whether a tank table does not always use exact rule and the response to oil spills. The would be subject to brittle fracture. We text, but summarizes rule provisions. prevention aspect of the rule requires promulgated the facility response For exact rule text, see 40 CFR part 112 preparation and implementation of Spill planning requirements of the 1993 (2000) for text of the current rule; for Prevention, Control, and proposal on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34070), exact text of the revised rule, see the Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. This and they are codified at 40 CFR 112.20– rule text following this preamble.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

Section 112.1: General Applicability

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47044 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.1(b): Explains that the SPCC rule applies § 112.1(b): Explains that the SPCC rule ap- § 112.1(b): The revised rule clarifies that to owners or operators of facilities that drill, plies to owners or operators of facilities that users of oil are also subject to the rule. It produce, gather, store, process, refine, trans- drill, produce, gather, store, process, refine, also expands the scope of the rule to con- fer, distribute, or consume oil and oil prod- transfer, distribute, use, or consume oil and form with the expanded jurisdiction in the ucts, and might reasonably be expected to oil products, and might reasonably be ex- amended Clean Water Act. discharge oil in harmful quantities into or pected to discharge oil in quantities that upon navigable waters of the United States may be harmful into or upon navigable wa- or adjoining shorelines. ters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, or waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or Deepwater Port Act, or affecting certain natural resources. § 112.1(d)(2)(i): Section 112.1(d)(2) exempts § 112.1(d)(2)(i): Section 112.1(d)(2) exempts § 112.1(d)(2)(i): The revised rule provides that from the rule a facility which meets both cri- from the rule a facility which meets both cri- completely buried tanks subject to all of the teria specified in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and (ii). The teria specified in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and (ii). technical requirements of parts 280 or 281 first criterion, found in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) is: the The first criterion, § 112.1(d)(2)(i) is: the do not count in the calculation of the 42,000 completely buried storage capacity of the fa- completely buried storage capacity of the gallon threshold. It also clarifies that perma- cility is 42,000 gallons or less of oil. The facility is 42,000 gallons or less of oil. For nently closed tanks do not count in the cal- threshold applies to storage capacity con- purposes of this exemption, the completely culation of that threshold. The threshold tained in operating equipment as well as to buried storage capacity of a facility does continues to apply to storage capacity con- storage capacity contained in tanks. not include the capacity of completely bur- tained in operating equipment as well as to ied tanks, as defined in § 112.2, that are storage capacity contained in tanks. currently subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or all of the technical requirements of a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. Also, the completely buried storage capacity of a facility does not include the capacity of completely buried tanks that are ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in § 112.2. The threshold applies to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity contained in tanks. § 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The second criterion, found in § 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The second criterion found in § 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The revised rule raises the § 112.1(d)(2)(ii) is: the storage capacity, § 112.1(d)(2)(ii) is: the aboveground storage threshold for aboveground storage capacity which is not buried, of the facility is 1,320 capacity of the facility is 1,320 gallons or by eliminating the provision that triggers the gallons or less of oil, provided that no single less of oil. For purposes of this exemption, requirement to prepare and implement an container has a storage capacity of greater only containers of oil with a capacity of 55 SPCC Plan if any single container has a than 660 gallons. The threshold applies to gallons or greater are counted. The above- capacity greater than 660 gallons. It main- storage capacity contained in operating ground storage capacity of a facility does tains the greater than 1,320 gallon thresh- equipment as well as to storage capacity in not include the capacity of containers that old. The revised rule also establishes a de containers. are ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in minimis container capacity size to calculate 112.2. The threshold applies to storage ca- aboveground storage capacity. Only con- pacity contained in operating equipment as tainers with a capacity of 55 gallons or well as to storage capacity in containers. greater are counted in the calculation of aboveground storage capacity. The revised rule clarifies that permanently closed containers do not count in the calculation of aboveground storage capacity. The threshold continues to apply to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity in containers. § 112.1(d)(4): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.1(d)(4): Exempts from the SPCC re- § 112.1(d)(4): Completely buried storage tanks quirements completely buried storage subject to all of the technical requirements tanks, as defined in § 112.2, as well as con- of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program ap- nected underground piping, underground proved under 40 CFR part 281 are no ancillary equipment, and containment sys- longer required to comply with SPCC provi- tems, when such tanks are subject to all of sions, except for the facility diagram. EPA the technical requirements of 40 CFR part estimates that under this new rule, most 280 or a State program approved under 40 gasoline service stations will drop out of the CFR part 281, except that such tanks must SPCC program. be marked on the facility diagram as required by § 112.7(a)(3), if the facility is otherwise subject to this part. § 112.1(d)(5): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.1(d)(5): The revised rule exempts con- § 112.1(d)(5): In response to comments, EPA tainers with a storage capacity of less than has established a minimum size container 55 gallons of oil from all SPCC require- for purposes of the regulatory threshold. ments. Containers with a storage capacity of less than 55 gallons of oil are exempt from all SPCC requirements.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47045

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.1(d)(6): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.1(d)(6): Exempts any facility or part § 112.1(d)(6): A facility or part thereof used thereof from the rule, if used exclusively for exclusively for wastewater treatment will no wastewater treatment and not used to meet longer be subject to prevention planning un- any other requirement of part 112. The pro- less it is used to meet part 112 require- duction, recovery, or recycling of oil is not ments. wastewater treatment for purposes of this paragraph. § 112.1(f): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.1(f): Notwithstanding any regulatory ex- § 112.1(f): This amendment gives the Re- emptions, the Regional Administrator may gional Administrator authority to require require that the owner or operator of any fa- preparation of an entire SPCC plan, or ap- cility subject to EPA jurisdiction under sec- plicable part, by an owner or operator of a tion 311(j) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), facility exempted from SPCC requirements prepare and implement an SPCC Plan, or when it becomes necessary to achieve the any applicable part, to carry out the pur- purposes of the CWA. This authority will be poses of the CWA. The rule includes notice exercised on a case-by-case basis. The de- and appeal provisions. cision to require a Plan could be based on the presence of environmental concerns not adequately addressed under other regulations, or other relevant environmental factors, for example, discharge history.

Section 112.2—Definitions

§ 112.2—definition of facility: No counterpart in § 112.2—definition of facility: ‘‘Facility’’ is de- § 112.2—definition of facility: The revised rule current rule. fined as any mobile or fixed, onshore or off- clarifies that a facility may be as small as a shore building, structure, installation, equip- piece of equipment, for example, a tank, or ment, pipe, or pipeline used in oil well drill- as large as a military base. ing operations, oil production, oil refining, oil storage, oil gathering, oil transfer, oil distribution, and waste treatment, or in which oil is used. . . .’’

Section 112.3: Requirement to prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

§ 112.3(a): An owner or operator of an onshore § 112.3(a): An owner or operator (O/O) of an § 112.3(a): For those facilities already in oper- or offshore facility in operation on or before onshore or offshore facility in operation on ation on the effective date of the rule, an January 10, 1974, that has had a discharge or before August 16, 2002, that has had a owner or operator of a facility subject to the to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or, rule must prepare an SPCC Plan within the or, due to its location, could reasonably be due to its location, could reasonably be ex- current time frame of six months. He may expected to have a discharge to navigable pected to have a discharge as described in take up to an additional six months to im- waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare § 112.1(b), must prepare a written Plan in plement the Plan. The revised rule extends and fully implement an SPCC Plan, in writing accordance with § 112.7 and any other ap- this same time frame to amendments nec- and in accordance with § 112.7. The owner plicable section within 6 months of the ef- essary to bring the Plan into compliance or operator must prepare the Plan within 6 fective date of the rule, and implement it as with rule revisions. An owner or operator of months, and fully implement it as soon as soon as possible, but not later than within 1 a facility becoming operational after August possible, but not later than within 1 year. year of the effective date of the rule. The O/ 16, 2002 through August 18, 2003 must O of facility that becomes operational after prepare and implement a Plan not later August 16, 2002 through August 18, 2003 than August 18, 2003. must prepare and implement a Plan not later than August 18, 2003. § 112.3(b): The owner or operator of an on- § 112.3(b): The owner or operator of an on- § 112.3(b): The owner or operator of a facility shore and offshore facility that becomes shore or offshore facility that becomes that becomes operational after August 18, operational after January 10, 1974, and that operational after August 18, 2003, and 2003 must now prepare and implement an has had a discharge to navigable waters or could reasonably be expected to have a SPCC Plan before beginning operations. adjoining shorelines, or could reasonably be discharge as described in § 112.1(b), from The time frame in the current rule is up to 6 expected to have a discharge to navigable that facility, must prepare and implement an months for Plan preparation and up to 6 waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare SPCC Plan before beginning operations. months more for Plan implementation. an SPCC Plan. Unless the owner or operator is granted an extension of time to prepare and implement the Plan by the Regional Ad- ministrator, he must prepare the Plan within 6 months and fully implement it as son as possible, but not later than within 1 year.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47046 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.3(d): No SPCC Plan is effective to satisfy § 112.3(d): No SPCC Plan is effective to sat- § 112.3(d): The revised rule adds specificity to the requirements of the SPCC rule unless it isfy the requirements of the SPCC rule un- the PE’s attestation. The specificity includes has been reviewed and certified by a Reg- less it has been reviewed and certified by a a requirement that the PE consider applica- istered Professional Engineer (PE). By PE. By means of this certification the PE at- ble industry standards and certify that the means of this certification the PE, having ex- tests that: (i) he is familiar with the require- Plan is prepared in accordance with part amined the facility and being familiar with the ments of the SPCC rule; (ii) he or his agent 112 requirements. Presently, the PE must provisions of the SPCC rule, attests that the has visited and examined the facility; (iii) attest only that the Plan has been prepared SPCC Plan has been prepared in accord- the Plan has been prepared in accordance in accordance with good engineering prac- ance with good engineering practices. The with good engineering practice, including tice. The revised rule allows an agent of the PE’s certification does not relieve the owner consideration of applicable industry stand- PE to visit and examine the facility in place or operator of an onshore or offshore facility ards, and with the requirements of the of the PE, but the PE must review the of his duty to prepare and fully implement the SPCC rule; (iv) procedures for required in- agent’s work, and certify the Plan. Plan in accordance with all applicable re- spections and testing have been estab- quirements. lished; and, (v) the Plan is adequate for the facility. The PE’s certification does not relieve the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility of his duty to prepare and fully implement the Plan in accordance with all applicable requirements. § 112.3(e): An owner or operator of a facility for § 112.3(e): An owner or operator of a facility § 112.3(e): The revised rule requires the facil- which an SPCC Plan is required must main- for which an SPCC Plan is required must ity owner or operator to maintain a copy of tain a complete copy of the Plan at the facil- maintain a complete copy of the Plan at the the Plan at the facility if it is attended at ity if the facility is attended as least 8 hours facility if the facility is attended at least 4 least 4 hours a day, in contrast to the cur- per day, or at the nearest field office if the fa- hours per day, or at the nearest field office rent requirement to maintain it at the facility cility is not so attended, and must make the if the facility is not so attended, and must if it is attended at least 8 hours a day. Plan available to the Regional Administrator make the Plan available to the Regional for on-site review during normal working Administrator for on-site review during nor- hours. mal working hours. § 112.3(f): The Regional Administrator may au- § 112.3(f): The Regional Administrator may § 112.3(f): The revised rule provides for exten- thorize an extension of time for the prepara- authorize an extension of time for the prep- sion for amendments of the Plan, as well as tion and implementation of an SPCC Plan, aration and implementation of an SPCC the entire Plan. when he finds that the owner or operator Plan, or any amendment thereto, when he cannot comply with all SPCC requirements finds that the owner or operator cannot as a result of either nonavailability of quali- comply with all SPCC requirements as a re- fied personnel, or delays in construction or sult of either nonavailability of qualified per- equipment delivery beyond his control and sonnel, or delays in construction or equip- without his fault, or the fault of his agents or ment delivery beyond his control and with- employees. The rule also specifies what the out his fault, or the fault of his agents or letter requesting an extension must contain. employees. The rule also specifies what the letter requesting an extension must contain.

Section 112.4: Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan by Regional Administrator

§ 112.4(a): Whenever an SPCC facility has: (1) § 112.4(a): Whenever an SPCC facility has: § 112.4(a): We have revised the geographic discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gallons of (1) discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gal- scope of the rule in accordance with the oil into or upon the navigable waters of the lons of oil in a single discharge as de- CWA amendments, by using the phase United States or adjoining shorelines in a sin- scribed in § 112.1(b), or (2) discharged ‘‘discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ We gle discharge to navigable waters or adjoin- more than 42 U.S. gallons of oil, as de- also raised the threshold for reporting two ing shorelines, or (2) discharged oil in harm- scribed in § 112.1(b), in each of 2 dis- discharges as described in § 112.1(b), from ful quantities, as defined in 40 CFR part 110, charge, within any 12-month period, the a ‘‘reportable’’ quantity under the Clean into or upon the navigable waters of the owner or operator of the facility must submit Water Act, to a threshold of more than 42 United States or adjoining shorelines in each to the RA, within 60 days from the time the U.S. gallons, or 1 barrel, in each of those of 2 discharges to navigable waters or adjoin- facility becomes subject to this section, 8 discharges. The 1,000 gallon threshold for ing shorelines, reportable under section different items of information, plus addi- a single discharge as described in 311(b)(5) of the Clean Water Act, within any tional information pertinent to the Plan if the § 112.1(b) remains unchanged. We also re- 12-month period, the owner or operator of RA requests it. duced the amount of information that must the facility must submit to the Regional Ad- minimally be submitted to the RA. ministrator (RA), within 60 days from the time the facility becomes subject to this section, 10 different items of information, plus additional information pertinent to the Plan if the RA requests it. § 112.4(b): Section 112.4 does not apply until § 112.4(b): Section 112.4 does not apply until § 112.4(b): Section 112.3 in the revised rule the expiration of the time permitted for the the expiration of the time permitted for the allows more time for some facilities for preparation and implementation of the Plan preparation and implementation of the Plan preparation and implementation of a Plan, under § 112.3. under § 112.3. or any amendments thereto, than in the 1991 proposed rule. Therefore, the implementation of the requirements of § 112.4 is postponed until the new time frames in § 112.3 have passed.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47047

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.4(c): The owner or operator is required to § 112.4(c): The owner or operator is required § 112.4(c): The revised rule changes the re- provide the same information he provided to to provide the same information he pro- quirement from notification to the State EPA, under § 112.4(a), to the State agency in vided to EPA, under § 112.4(a), to the State agency in charge of water pollution control charge of water pollution control activities in agency in charge of oil pollution control ac- activities to notification to the State agency and for the State in which the facility is lo- tivities in the State in which the facility is lo- in charge of oil pollution control activities. cated at the same time he provides it to EPA. cated at the same time he provides it to There may be more than one such agency After receiving that information, the State EPA. After receiving that information, the in some States. agency may conduct a review and make rec- State agency or agencies may conduct a ommendations to the Regional Administrator review and make recommendations to the as to further procedures, methods, equipment Regional Administrator as to further proce- and other requirements for equipment nec- dures, methods, equipment and other re- essary to prevent and to contain discharges quirements for equipment necessary to pre- of oil from the facility. vent and to contain discharges of oil from the facility. § 112.4(d): This section allows the Regional Ad- § 112.4(d): This section allows the Regional § 112.4(d): The revised rule provides that the ministrator to require a facility owner or oper- Administrator to require a facility owner or Regional Administrator may require Plan ator to amend his Plan after review of mate- operator to amend his Plan after review of amendment after on-site review of the Plan. rials the owner or operator submits under materials the owner or operator submits § 112.4 (a) and (c). under § 112.4 (a) and (c), or after on-site review of the Plan.

Section 112.5: Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan by owners or operators

§ 112.5(b): This section requires an owner or ≤§ 112.5(b): This section requires an owner or § 112.5(b): The revised rule changes the pe- operator to review his Plan at least every 3 operator to review his Plan at least every 5 riod of review for SPCC Plans from 3 to 5 years from the date a facility becomes sub- years from the date a facility becomes sub- years. It also requires documentation of ject to the SPCC rule. As a result of this re- ject to the SPCC rule; or for an existing fa- completion of the review and evaluation. view and evaluation, the owner or operator cility, 5 years from the date the last review must amend the SPCC Plan within 6 months was required under this part. The owner or of the review to include more effective pre- operator must amend the SPCC Plan within vention and control technology if: (1) Such 6 months of the review to include more ef- technology will significantly reduce the likeli- fective prevention and control technology if: hood of a discharge to navigable waters or (1) Such technology will significantly reduce adjoining shorelines from the facility; and (2) the likelihood of a discharge as described in if such technology has been field-proven at § 112.1(b) from the facility; and (2) if such the time of the review. technology has been field-proven at the time of the review. Implementation of amendments is required within 6 months following amendment. The owner or operator must document completion of the review and evaluation, and must sign a statement as to whether he will amend the Plan, either at the beginning or end of the Plan or in a log or an appendix to the Plan. The following will suffice, ‘‘I have completed review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan for (name of facility) on (date), and will (will not) amend the Plan as a result.’’ § 112.5(c): This section requires that a Profes- § 112.5(c): This section requires that a Profes- § 112.5(c): The revised rule clarifies that a sional Engineer certify any amendments to sional Engineer certify any technical Professional Engineer must certify only an SPCC Plan. amendments to an SPCC Plan. technical amendments. PE certification is not required for non-technical amendments, like changes to phone numbers, names, etc.

Section 112.7: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan general requirements. We have reorganized § 112.7 of the current regulation into §§ 112.7, 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, 112.11, 112.12, 112.13, 112.14, and 112.15 of the final rule based on facility type and type of oil.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47048 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.7: This section specifies that a Plan must § 112.7: This section specifies that a Plan § 112.7: The revised rule allows differing for- be prepared in accordance with good engi- must be prepared in accordance with good mats for the Plan, other than the one format neering practices, and have the full approval engineering practices, and have the full ap- now specified. While you may use the for- of management at a level with authority to proval of management at a level with au- mat specified in the rule, you may also use commit the necessary resources. The SPCC thority to commit the necessary resources. other formats, such as State plans, Inte- Plan must follow the sequence specified in The SPCC Plan must follow the sequence grated Contingency Plans, and any other the rule, and include a discussion of the fa- specified in the rule, and include a discus- formats acceptable to the Regional Admin- cility’s conformance with the requirements of sion of the facility’s conformance with the istrator. If you use another format, you must the rule. requirements of the rule. If you do not fol- cross-reference its provisions to the require- low the sequence specified in the rule, you ment listed in the SPCC rule. Also, if you must prepare an equivalent prevention Plan use another format, you must ensure that acceptable to the Regional Administrator the format includes all applicable SPCC re- that meets all applicable requirements, and quirements, or you must supplement that you must supplement it with section cross- format to include all applicable SPCC re- referencing the location of requirements list- quirements. ed in the SPCC rule to the equivalent requirements in the other prevention plan. § 112.7(a)(2): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.7(a)(2): This provision explicitly allows § 112.7(a)(2): The revised rule explicitly allows deviations from most of the rule’s sub- deviations from most of the rule’s substantive requirements (except for secondary stantive requirements (except for secondary containment requirements), provided that containment requirements), provided that you explain your reasons for nonconform- you explain your reasons for nonconformance with the requirement, and provide ance with the requirement, and provide equivalent environmental protection with an equivalent environmental protection with an alternate measure. If the Regional Adminis- alternate measure. If the Regional Adminis- trator determines that the alternate measure trator determines that the alternate measure described in your Plan does not provide described in your Plan does not provide equivalent protection, he may require that equivalent protection, he may require that you amend the Plan. you amend your Plan. § 112.7(a)(3): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.7(a)(3): This section requires a facility § 112.7(a)(3): The facility diagram must in- owner or operator to describe the physical clude completely buried tanks exempted layout of the facility and include a facility from other SPCC requirements. diagram in the Plan. § 112.7(c): This section is the general provision § 112.7(c): This section is the general provi- § 112.7(c): The revised rule maintains the cur- requiring secondary containment. sion requiring secondary containment. rent standard that dikes, berms, or retaining walls must be ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ to contain oil. We withdrew the proposed standard that such secondary containment must be impermeable for 72 hours. § 112.7(d): When it is not practicable to install § 112.7(d): When it is not practicable to install § 112.7(d): The revised rule adds new require- secondary containment at your facility, this secondary containment at your facility, this ments for periodic integrity testing of con- section requires that you explain why and section requires that you explain why and tainers, and periodic integrity and leak test- provide a strong oil spill contingency plan in provide a strong oil spill contingency plan in ing of valves and piping. We clarify that if your SPCC Plan. The contingency plan must your SPCC Plan. The contingency plan you have submitted a facility response plan follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 109. must follow the provisions of 40 CFR part under § 112.20 for a facility, you need not You must also provide in your SPCC Plan a 109. You must also provide in your SPCC provide for that facility either a contingency written commitment to manpower, equipment Plan a written commitment to manpower, plan following the provisions of part 109, and materials required to expeditiously con- equipment and materials required to expe- nor a written commitment of manpower, trol and remove any harmful quantity of oil ditiously control and remove any quantity of equipment, and materials required to expe- discharged. oil discharged that may be harmful; conduct ditiously control and remove any quantity of periodic integrity testing of the containers; oil discharged that may be harmful. and, conduct periodic integrity and leak testing of the valves and piping. § 112.7(e)(8): This section requires that the § 112.7(e): This section requires that the § 112.7(e): The revised rule allows use of owner or operator conduct required inspec- owner or operator conduct required inspec- usual and customary business records to tions in accordance with written procedures tions and tests in accordance with written serve as a record of tests or inspections, in- developed for the facility. The owner or oper- procedures developed by him or by the cer- stead of keeping duplicate records. It also ator must maintain these written procedures tifying engineer for the facility. The owner or allows the owner or operator to keep those and a record of inspections, signed by the operator must maintain these written proce- records as an appendix to the Plan, or in a appropriate supervisor or inspector, as part of dures and a record of inspections and tests, separate log, etc., with the Plan, rather than the SPCC Plan, and maintain them for a pe- signed by the appropriate supervisor or in- requiring that those records be a part of the riod of 3 years. spector, with the SPCC Plan, and maintain Plan. The rule also acknowledges that the them for a period of 3 years. Records of in- certifying engineer, as well as the owner or spections and tests kept pursuant to usual operator, has a role in the development of and customary business practices are suffi- inspection procedures. cient for purposes of the rule.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47049

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.7(e)(10): The owner or operator of a facil- § 112.7(f): The owner or operator of a facility, § 112.7(f): The revised rule mandates training ity is responsible for properly instructing per- at a minimum, must train oil-handling per- only for oil-handling employees, instead of sonnel in the operation and maintenance of sonnel in the operation and maintenance of all employees. It specifies additional topics equipment to prevent the discharges of oil equipment to prevent the discharge of oil; for the training of these employees. It also and applicable pollution control laws, rules, discharge procedure protocols; applicable specifies that discharge prevention briefings and regulations. An owner or operator must pollution control laws, rules, and regula- must be conducted at least once a year, in- designate a person at each facility who is actions; general facility operations; and, the stead of at ‘‘intervals frequent enough to countable for oil discharge prevention and contents of the facility Plan. An owner or assure adequate understanding of the who reports to facility management. An operator must designate a person at each SPCC Plan for that facility.’’ owner or operator must schedule and con- facility who is accountable for oil discharge duct discharge prevention briefings for oper- prevention and who reports to facility man- ating personnel at intervals frequent enough agement. An owner or operator must to assure adequate understanding of the schedule and conduct discharge prevention SPCC Plan for that facility. Such briefings briefings for oil-handling personnel at least must highlight and describe known dis- once a year to assure adequate under- charges to navigable waters or adjoining standing of the SPCC Plan for that facility. shorelines, or failures, malfunctioning compo- Such briefings must highlight and describe nents, and recently developed precautionary known discharges as described in measures. § 112.1(b), or failures, malfunctioning components, and recently developed precautionary measures.

§ 112.7(i): No counterpart in current rule ...... § 112.7(i): This section requires evaluation for § 112.7(i): The brittle fracture requirement was field-constructed aboveground containers triggered by the Ashland Oil tank collapse undergoing repair, alteration, reconstruction, in 1988 due to brittle fracture. or change in service that might affect the risk of a discharge or failure due to fracture or other catastrophe. It also requires such evaluation when there has actually been a discharge or failure due to brittle fracture or other catastrophe.

Section 112.8: Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production facilities).

§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii): This section establishes sub- § 112.8(c)(3): This section establishes sub- § 112.8(c)(3): The revised rule allows records stantive requirements for stormwater drain- stantive requirements for stormwater drain- required by NPDES permit regulations to age from diked areas, and recordkeeping re- age from diked areas, and recordkeeping record stormwater bypass events to be quirements for stormwater bypass events. requirements for stormwater bypass events. used for SPCC purposes in lieu of events The revised rule provides that records re- records specifically prepared for purpose. quired under permits issued in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi- nation Systems (NPDES) rules are sufficient for recording stormwater bypass events. § 112.7(e)(2)(vi): This provision requires that § 112.8(c)(6): The revised rule requires that § 112.8(c)(6): The revised rule requires that aboveground containers be subject to peri- aboveground containers be tested for integ- an owner or operator test aboveground odic integrity testing, taking into account tank rity on a regular schedule, and when mate- containers for integrity on a regular sched- design (floating roof, etc.) and using such rial repairs are done. The frequently and ule, and when material repairs are done. techniques as hydrostatic testing, visual in- type of testing must take into account con- The rationale for adding a testing require- spection, or a system of non-destructive shell tainer size and design (floating roof, skid- ment when material repairs are done is that thickness testing. The owner or operator mounted, elevated, partially buried, for ex- material repairs might increase the potential must keep comparison records where appro- ample). The owner or operator must com- for oil discharges. Usual and customary priate, and must include tank supports and bine visual inspection with another testing business records may be used for the pur- foundations in these inspections. In addition, technique such as hydrostatic testing, radio- pose of integrity testing, instead of records operating personnel must frequently inspect graphic testing, ultrasonic testing, acoustic specifically created for this purpose. the outside of the container for signs of dete- emissions testing, or other system of non- rioration, leaks, or accumulation of oil inside destructive shell testing. The owner or oper- diked areas. ator must keep comparison records and must include tank supports and foundations in these inspections. In addition, operating personnel must frequently inspect the outside of the container for signs of deterioration, leaks, or accumulation of oil inside diked areas. Records of inspections and tests kept pursuant to usual and customary business practices are sufficient for purposes of the rule.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47050 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued

Current SPCC rule Revised SPCC rule Comment

§ 112.7(e)(3)(i): This section requires that bur- § 112.8(d)(1): This section requires that buried § 112.8(d)(1): The revised rule requires that ied piping installations have protective wrap- piping that is installed or replaced on or all buried piping that is installed or replaced ping and coating and cathodic protection, if after August 16, 2002 must have protective on or after August 16, 2002 must have pro- soil conditions warrant. wrapping and coating and cathodic protec- tective wrapping and coating and cathodic tion, or otherwise satisfy the corrosion pro- protection, or otherwise satisfy the corro- tection provisions for piping in 40 CFR part sion protection provisions for piping in 40 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved CFR part 281. under 40 CFR part 281, for all soil conditions.

Section 112.9: Requirements for onshore oil production facilities.

§ 112.7(e)(5)(ii): This section provides require- § 112.9(b)(1): This section provides require- § 112.9(b)(1): The revised rule provides that ments for stormwater drainage events. ments for stormwater drainage events. records required by NPDES permit regulations are allowable to record stormwater bypass events for SPCC purposes in lieu of records specifically generated for that purpose. § 112.7(e)(5)(iii)(B): This section requires sec- § 112.9(c)(2): This section requires secondary § 112.9(c)(2): The revised rule clarifies that ondary containment for onshore production containment for onshore production facilities. the secondary containment must include facilities. sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation.

IV. Discussion of Issues definitions, and general requirements rule and the equivalent requirements in for all facilities. Subparts B and C your Plan. To assist you in preparing Below is a discussion of the major outline the requirements for different this cross-reference, the following table issues for which we solicited comments types of facilities storing and using lists each requirement in the revised in the 1991, 1993, and 1997 proposals. different types of oils. Subpart B is for rule, provides the corresponding We also discuss the use of industry facilities storing or using petroleum oils paragraph of the current rule, and leaves standards to comply with the rule. or other non-petroleum oils, except a space where you can show the Following these issues, we discuss the those oils covered by subpart C. Subpart location of the provision in your Plan. revisions to each section and the major C is for facilities storing or using animal We have put this rule, including the comments received, as well as responses fats and oils and greases, or fish and table below, on our website for your to those comments. A detailed Response marine mammal oils; and, oils of convenience. You may download it for to Comments document addressing all vegetable origin, including oils from your use. See our Web site at comments is also part of this rulemaking seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels. Subpart www.epa.gov/oilspill. and may be found in the administrative D is for response requirements. Under the revised rule, § 112.7 sets record for this rule. If you have already prepared an SPCC out the general requirements for SPCC A. Reorganization of the Rule Plan, you were required to follow the Plans for all facilities and all types of sequence of § 112.7 of the current rule, oil. Sections 112.8 to 112.11 set out the Background prior to today’s revisions. Today, we are SPCC Plan requirements for petroleum In 1991, EPA proposed to reorganize reorganizing that portion of the rule into oil and for non-petroleum oils other the SPCC rule based on facility type. §§ 112.7 through 112.15, based on than animal fats and vegetable oils. The purpose of that proposed facility type and type of oil. Under the Sections 112.12 to 112.15 set out the reorganization was to clarify SPCC Plan introduction to § 112.7 of today’s rule, if SPCC Plan requirements for animal fats requirements for different types of your Plan does not follow the revised and oils and greases, and fish and facilities. In this rulemaking, we are sequence, you must supplement it with marine mammal oils; and for oils of dividing the rule into subparts. Subpart a section cross-referencing the location vegetable origin, including oils from A consists of an applicability section, of requirements listed in the revised seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.

Revised rule Current rule Description of rule Page

§ 112.7 ...... § 112.7 ...... General requirements for SPCC Plans for all facilities and all oil ...... types. § 112.7(a) ...... § 112.7 ...... General requirements; discussion of facility’s conformance with ...... rule requirements; deviations from Plan requirements; facility characteristics that must be described in the Plan; spill reporting information in the Plan; emergency procedures. § 112.7(b) ...... § 112.7(b) ...... Fault analysis ...... § 112.7(c) ...... § 112.7(c) ...... Secondary containment ...... § 112.7(d) ...... § 112.7(d) ...... Contingency planning ...... § 112.7(e) ...... § 112.7(e)(8) ...... Inspections, tests, and records ...... § 112.7(f) ...... § 112.7(e)(10) ...... Employee training and discharge prevention procedures ...... § 112.7(g) ...... § 112.7(e)(9) ...... Security (excluding oil production facilities) ...... § 112.7(h) ...... § 112.7(e)(4) ...... Loading/unloading (excluding offshore facilities) ...... § 112.7(i) ...... n/a ...... Brittle fracture evaluation requirements ...... § 112.7(j) ...... § 112.7(e) ...... Conformance with State requirements ......

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47051

Revised rule Current rule Description of rule Page

§ 112.8 § 112.12 ...... § 112.7(e)(1) ...... Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production facili- ...... ties). § 112.8(a), § 112.12(a) ...... n/a ...... General and specific requirements ...... § 112.8(b), § 112.12(b) ...... § 112.7(e)(1) ...... Facility drainage ...... § 112.8(c), § 112.12(c) ...... § 112.7(e)(2) ...... Bulk storage containers ...... § 112.8(d), § 112.12(d) ...... § 112.7(e)(3) ...... Facility transfer operations, pumping, and facility process ...... § 112.9, § 112.13 ...... § 112.7(e)(5) ...... Requirements for onshore production facilities ...... § 112.9(a), § 112.13(a) ...... n/a ...... General and specific requirements ...... § 112.9(b), § 112.13(b) ...... § 112.7(e)(5)(ii) ...... Oil production facility drainage ...... § 112.9(c), § 112.13(c) ...... § 112.7(e)(5)(iii) ...... Oil production facility bulk storage containers ...... § 112.9(d), § 112.13(d) ...... § 112.7(e)(5)(iv) ...... Facility transfer operations, oil production facility ...... § 112.10, § 112.14 ...... § 112.7(e)(6) ...... Requirements for onshore oil drilling and workover facilities ...... § 112.10(a), § 112.14(a) ...... n/a ...... General and specific requirements ...... § 112.10(b), § 112.14(b) ...... § 112.7(e)(6)(i) ...... Mobile facilities ...... § 112.10(c), § 112.14(c) ...... § 112.7(e)(6)(ii) ...... Secondary containment—catchment basins or diversion struc- ...... tures. § 112.10(d), § 112.14(d) ...... § 112.7(e)(6)(iii) ...... Blowout prevention (BOP). § 112.11, § 112.15 ...... § 112.7(e)(7) ...... Requirements for offshore oil drilling, production, or workover fa- ...... cilities. § 112.11(a), § 112.15(a) ...... n/a ...... General and specific requirements ...... § 112.11(b), § 112.15(b) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(ii) ...... Facility drainage ...... § 112.11(c), § 112.15(c) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(iii) ...... Sump systems ...... § 112.11(d), § 112.15(d) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(iv) ...... Discharge prevention systems for separators and treaters ...... § 112.11(e), § 112.15(e) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(v) ...... Atmospheric storage or surge containers; alarms ...... § 112.11(f), § 112.15(f) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(vi) ...... Pressure containers; alarm systems ...... § 112.11(g), § 112.15(g) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(vii) ...... Corrosion protection ...... § 112.11(h), § 112.15(h) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(viii) ...... Pollution prevention system procedures ...... § 112.11(i), § 112.15(i) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(ix) ...... Pollution prevention systems; testing and inspection ...... § 112.11(j), § 112.15(j) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(x) ...... Surface and subsurface well shut-in valves and devices ...... § 112.11(k), § 112.15(k) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(xi) ...... Blowout prevention ...... § 112.11(l), § 112.15(l) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(xiv) ...... Manifolds ...... § 112.11(m), § 112.15(m) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(xv) ...... Flowlines, pressure sensing devices ...... § 112.11(n), § 112.15(n) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(xvi) ...... Piping; corrosion protection ...... § 112.11(o), § 112.15(o) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(xvii) ...... Sub-marine piping; environmental stresses ...... § 112.11(p), § 112.15(p) ...... § 112.7(e)(7)(xviii) ...... Inspections of sub-marine piping ......

In 1995, Congress enacted the Edible FR 17227, April 8, 1999. If after C. ‘‘Should to Shall to Must’’ Oil Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA), 33 considering these comments, there is Clarification U.S.C. 2720. That statute mandates that adequate justification for differentiation Background most Federal agencies differentiate among the requirements for those between and establish separate classes facilities, we will propose rule changes. EPA has always considered that for various types of oils, specifically: B. Plain Language Format § 112.3 of the SPCC rule requires that animal fats and oils and greases, and SPCC Plans be prepared in accordance fish and marine mammal oils; oils of We have rewritten the SPCC rule in a with § 112.7, which in turn requires that vegetable origin; petroleum oils, and plain language format to make it clearer Plans be prepared in accordance with other non-petroleum oils and greases. In and easier to use. A plain language good engineering practice. However, differentiating between these classes of format includes maximum use of the clarification of the current rule is oils, Federal agencies are directed to consider differences in the physical, active voice; short, clear sentences; and, necessary because of confusion on the chemical, biological, and other in this rule, a summary table of the part of some facility owners or operators properties, and in the environmental major regulatory changes. This format is who have interpreted the current rule’s effects, of the classes. In response to part of the Agency’s ongoing efforts in use of the words ‘‘should’’ and EORRA, as noted above, we have regulatory reinvention. While we have ‘‘guidelines’’ in § 112.7 as an indication divided the requirements of the rule by made substantive changes in some that compliance with the applicable subparts for facilities storing or using provisions, the plain language changes provisions of the rule is optional. The the various classes of oils listed in that are only editorial. The plain language rule used the words ‘‘should’’ and act. format used in today’s rule may appear ‘‘guidelines’’ to provide flexibility for Because at the present time EPA has different from other rules, but it facilities with unique circumstances. not proposed differentiated SPCC establishes binding, enforceable legal Those circumstances might be such that requirements for public notice and requirements. mandated regulatory provisions would comment, the requirements for facilities In this preamble, as in the rule text, not be in accord with good engineering storing or using all classes of oil will we often use the pronoun ‘‘he’’ as a practice. Therefore, the rule gave remain the same. However, we have generic term. ‘‘He’’ does not necessarily facilities the opportunity to provide published an advance notice of mean a man; it may be a woman, or in alternative methods that achieve proposed rulemaking seeking comments some cases, a business organization equivalent environmental protection, or on how we might differentiate among when referring to an owner or operator. to show that the provisions were the requirements for the facilities inapplicable based on specific storing or using various classes of oil. 64 circumstances.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47052 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

In 1991, we proposed to clarify that mandatory and what is discretionary. hardship for small production facilities. misunderstanding by generally Instead, some recommendations are As noted above, EPA has always substituting ‘‘shall’’ in place of discussed in the preamble to this interpreted the ‘‘shoulds’’ as ‘‘musts.’’ ‘‘should’’ throughout the reorganized document, while others can be found in Further, when a particular requirement rule. In today’s final rule, we have separate guidance documents or policy is not feasible for a particular facility, editorially changed ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘must’’ in statements. When the rule or preamble under § 112.7(a)(2) that facility may furtherance of the Agency’s ‘‘plain is silent, or no published guidance or explain the reasons for nonconformance language’’ objectives. The ‘‘shall’’ to policy documents exist, we will with the requirement, and provide ‘‘must’’ is not a substantive change, but generally use industry standards as alternate measures that achieve merely an editorial change. Nor will the guidance for rule compliance. equivalent environmental protection. change add to the information collection PE certification. While we generally D. Professional Engineers (PEs) burden. We have always included agree that certification by a PE should requirements prefaced by ‘‘should’’ in show that all necessary equipment and Background. In the preamble to the the information collection burden for planning are in place, we reserve the 1991 proposal (56 FR 54618), EPA the rule. We will continue to provide right to make a determination that posed several questions to commenters flexibility for an owner or operator who additional measures may be necessary regarding how PEs could help to can explain his reasons for to comply with the rule. EPA made it implement the SPCC Plan. An owner or nonconformance with rule clear in proposed § 112.3(d), which is operator of a facility is required to requirements, and can provide alternate finalized today, that a PE certification secure the certification of a PE on an measures from those specified in the does not relieve the owner or operator SPCC Plan, and on technical rule, which achieve equivalent of the duty to prepare and fully amendments to the Plan. By means of environmental protection. Section implement an SPCC Plan in accordance this certification, the PE attests that the 112.7(a)(2) will provide such flexibility. with the rule’s requirements. Plan or the amendment has been In the exercise of our authority to Substantive change. We disagree that prepared in accordance with good inspect facilities and SPCC Plans, we the change is either substantive or engineering practice. contrary to legislative intent. Section reserve the right to find that such 1. State Registration alternate methods do not provide 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act authorizes the equivalent environmental protection. In President and, through delegation, EPA, Background. We solicited comments such cases, we would require the owner to establish ‘‘procedures, methods, and on the advantages and disadvantages or operator of the facility to amend the equipment and other requirements for associated with the PE being registered SPCC Plan to provide equivalent equipment to prevent discharges of oil in the State in which the facility is environmental protection. and hazardous substances from vessels located. EPA noted that ‘‘a requirement Comments. Guidance. Several and from onshore facilities and offshore that a PE be licensed in the State in commenters supported the proposed facilities, and to contain such which the facility is located would change. One asked that discretionary discharges.’’ That authority is ample to allow the State licensing board to more provisions might be better placed in a provide the basis for a mandatory SPCC easily address the actions of the PE separate guidance document. Several rule, that is, a rule that establishes under its jurisdiction, and that the PE commenters were concerned that there ‘‘requirements * * * to prevent may have greater familiarity with the are no guidance documents outlining discharges.’’ State and local requirements related to equivalency as provided in proposed We also disagree that the proposed the facility under review.’’ 56 FR 54619. § 112.7(a)(2) and that it may be rule failed to provide proper notice and Comments. Favorable comments. impossible to prove equivalency to EPA. comment. The preamble to the 1991 Several commenters supported a PE certification. Other commenters proposed rule fully explained the requirement that the PE be registered in suggested that if the Professional rationale for the proposed change (56 FR the State in which the facility is located. Engineer (PE) certified the Plan as 54620, October 22, 1991), and numerous The rationales often expressed were adequate for the facility, then the commenters responded. Furthermore, that: (1) Letting any PE certify any SPCC mandated requirements were we have always interpreted and Plan effectively removed the PE from unnecessary, as he would have enforced our rules as mandatory the supervision of the State board; and, determined that all appropriate requirements. (2) familiarity with the State and local equipment and planning is in place. EPA recognizes, however, that this requirements related to the facility as Substantive change. Some clarification may result in certain well as the State itself are essential for commenters argued that the proposal owners or operators of regulated viable SPCC Plans. One commenter was a substantive change, contrary to facilities recognizing for the first time suggested that when an out-of-State PE legislative intent, and that we failed to that they have been and are subject to prepares the Plan, the Plan should bear give opportunity for proper notice and various provisions of part 112. Such the seal of the PE who prepared the Plan comment, as required by the owners and operators should, of course, along with the seal of a PE registered in Administrative Procedure Act. take all necessary steps to come into the State in which the facility is located, Small production facilities. One compliance with this part as soon as assuring that the proposed Plan commenter suggested that the possible. In exercising its prosecutorial conforms to any additional State clarification should not apply to small discretion, the Agency always takes into requirements. production facilities, defined as those account the good faith and efforts to Opposing comments. Opposing with less than 3000 barrels of storage comply of an owner or operator who has commenters argued that: (1) A State capacity, because those facilities would been in noncompliance with applicable licensing board will address the actions suffer severe hardship as a result. laws and regulations when deciding of an engineer regardless of the Response to comments. Guidance. whether or not to take an enforcement engineer’s location when he applies his EPA agrees with the comment that action. seal; (2) suggestions that the potential recommendations have no place in this Small production facilities. We liability of the engineer might be limited rule because we do not wish to confuse disagree that the ‘‘should’’ to ‘‘must’’ if the engineer holds an out-of-State the regulated public as to what is change will generally pose a severe license are specious; (3) SPCC Plan

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47053

preparation is a Federal activity, Plans, EPA noted that some the proposal to require the PE to therefore, it is unnecessary to have State organizations objected to the proposals disclose his relationship to the facility registration; and, (4) such a requirement as ‘‘challenging the integrity of owner, the facility improvements would reduce the available pool of professional engineers.’’ 56 FR 54619. owner, or the facility landowner. Such qualified PEs. One commenter We also pointed out that some disclosure would add no environmental volunteered that the proposal was professional organizations believe that protection to the SPCC certification ‘‘superfluous’’ because the practice of such requirements ‘‘would impose process. Administrative action to correct engineering in a State without being substantial costs without enhancing the abuses would be a better approach. We professionally registered in that State is integrity of the certification process.’’ 56 believe that most PEs, whether unlawful in most States. FR 54619. independent or employees of a facility, Response to comments. We agree with Comments. Favorable comments. being professionals, will uphold the commenters that it is unnecessary that Several commenters supported a integrity of their profession and only the PE be registered or licensed in the requirement that the PE not be an certify Plans that meet regulatory State in which the facility is located employee of the facility or not have a requirements. We also agree that an in- because any abuses will be corrected by direct financial interest in it. The house PE may be the person most the licensing jurisdiction. We also agree rationales most often asserted were: (1) familiar with the facility. EPA believes that such a requirement might A Plan would better satisfy regulatory that a restriction of in-house PE unnecessarily reduce the availability of objectives and better serve the public; certification might place an undue and PEs and increase the cost of certification (2) the Plan would be less subject to unnecessary financial burden on owners without any tangible benefits. The compromise by other factors; (3) Plan or operators of facilities by forcing them professional liability of a PE would certification is less likely to be a coerced to hire an outside engineer. likely be unaffected by the place of his or superficial effort, and undue registration. When State law precludes a economic and moral pressures would be 3. Completion of Testing PE from applying his seal if he is not avoided; (4) more cooperative efforts Background. The Agency proposed licensed in that State, the question of among regulatory bodies, engineers, and that the PE must attest that required State registration becomes moot. the facility would be possible; (5) more testing has been completed and the Plan However, that is not the case in every economic and effective Plan meets the requirements of the regulation State. development is assured; and, (6) more for the facility. This proposal was We also disagree that if a PE is not competent and more professional Plan advanced to ‘‘promote the Agency’s licensed in the State, he will be development is guaranteed. intent in the original promulgation of unfamiliar with State and local Opposing comments. Opposing § 112.3(d) that SPCC Plans be certified requirements for the facility. Any PE commenters asserted that: (1) Such a by a Registered Professional Engineer may become familiar with both Federal proposal would limit the availability of exercising independent judgment.’’ 56 and State and local requirements for a PEs, leading to delays in Plan FR 54619. These new requirements were facility. Therefore, to require that the PE certification; (2) administrative action to to be met when a new Plan is prepared be registered in the State in which the correct abuses would be a better after promulgation of the rule, or when facility is located would impose approach; and, (3) such an approach an existing Plan is amended, under unnecessary financial burdens on the insults the ethical integrity of PE. One § 112.5. facility and would challenge the commenter suggested that ‘‘to suppose a Comments. Favorable comments. One integrity of the PE. Such a requirement facility employee would break the law commenter supported a requirement would also reduce the pool of PEs and jeopardize his license to practice that the PE attest to the completion of available for facilities. his profession and do it more willingly testing and that the Plan meets than an ‘‘independent’’ engineer has no regulatory requirements. 2. PEs Employed by the Facility basis in fact’; (4) an in-house PE may be Opposing comments. Some opposing Background. EPA asked whether the the person most familiar with the commenters believed that the PE should rule should specify that the PE not be facility; (5) the proposal would place an ‘‘enumerate all the inspections and tests an employee of the facility or have any undue and unnecessary financial that have been completed, plus those other direct financial interest in the burden on the owner or operator of a that should be completed before the facility. This request for comment had facility by forcing him to hire an outside facility commences operations and its origin in a U.S. General Accounting engineer; and, (6) it is uncertain those that should be undertaken Office (GAO) report issued on February whether an independent PE can afford periodically after it commences 22, 1989, ‘‘Inland Oil Spills: Stronger the insurance necessary to certify his operations.’’ Others believed that Regulation and Enforcement Needed to work given that the liability incurred completion of required testing is the Avoid Future Incidents’’ (GAO/RCED– might run into the millions of dollars. responsibility of the operator and not 89–65).’’ The GAO report recommended Compromise position. One the PE. Another commenter believed that EPA evaluate the advantages and commenter suggested that a compromise such a requirement would be disadvantages of requiring facilities to position might be that the PE who impossible, because ‘‘required testing obtain certifications from independent certifies the Plan would be required to may take up to a year to complete.’’ engineers. EPA noted that ‘‘not having disclose in the Plan certification his Response to comments. EPA agrees the PE otherwise associated with the relationship to the facility owner, the that the PE is not responsible for facility may avoid any potential facility improvements owner, and the certifying that all required testing has conflicts of interest or appearance of facility landowner. been completed. Rather, such conflicts of interest that could arise from Response to comments. We agree that responsibility belongs to the owner or allowing an employee of a regulated a proposal to restrict certification by a operator of the facility. Testing may be party to certify a SPCC Plan.’’ 56 FR PE employed by a facility or having a ongoing long after the Plan is certified. 54619. On the other hand, for both the financial interest in it would limit the The PE is responsible for certifying that issues of whether to require State availability of PEs, possibly leading to the Plan is adequate and meets all registration and whether to allow PEs delays in Plan certification. Therefore, regulatory requirements, including employed by the facility to certify SPCC we will not adopt it. Nor do we favor enumeration of all tests that have been

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47054 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

completed, plus those that should be nature, certification is impractical. One particular equipment, and the integrity completed before the facility commenter asked for clarification that of containment at the facility. Therefore, commences operations and those that the certification of an existing Plan is even if a PE has inspected many should be undertaken periodically after sufficient until the Plan update is facilities of a particular type, that fact it commences operations. Therefore, we required. Another suggested that the does not eliminate the need for a site are changing the proposed requirement rule should only require that the PE be visit at each facility. After the site visit, to a requirement in which the PE attests familiar with the operation and design the PE will have to devise appropriate that the procedures for required of the type of facility, and that he would inspection and testing standards based inspections and testing have been have visited and examined one or more on the facility’s unique characteristics. established, and the Plan is adequate for facilities of this type. E. Electrical Facilities and Other the facility. See the discussion of Response to comments. In general. Operational Users of Oil § 112.3(d), below. EPA agrees that the rule should not necessarily require a site visit by a Background. In 1991, we proposed 4. Site Visits certifying PE, but we believe that a site that certain facilities having equipment Background. We stated that EPA visit should occur before the PE certifies containing oil that is used for ‘‘believes the current regulatory the Plan. We have modified proposed operational purposes, such as electrical language (e.g., requiring the engineer to § 112.3(d)(ii) to reflect this position. The transformers, would not have to comply examine the facility) clearly requires the PE’s agent may perform the visit. We with secondary containment certifying Engineer to visit the facility agree that customary engineering requirements and certain other prior to certifying the SPCC Plan.’’ We practice allows someone under the PE’s provisions proposed in §§ 112.8(c) and added that the proposed change employ such as an engineering 112.9(d) because such facilities are not ‘‘clarifies this requirement by specifying technician, technologist, graduate bulk storage facilities. EPA asked for that the Professional Engineer must be engineer, or other qualified person to comment on this and also asked physically present to examine the prepare preliminary reports, studies, commenters to identify other possible facility.’’ 56 FR 54619. and evaluations after visiting the site. operational uses of oil, other than Comments. Favorable comments. Then the PE could legitimately certify electrical transformers, that may not Many commenters favored the the Plan. Nevertheless, in all cases the currently use secondary containment as requirement that the PE make a site visit PE must ensure that his certification a common industry practice and that prior to certifying a Plan. Those represents an exercise of good should not be subject to bulk storage commenters called such a visit engineering judgment. If that requires a provisions. 56 FR 54623. ‘‘absolutely necessary.’’ Some argued personal site visit, the PE must visit the Comments. Use of oil. Numerous that a generic plan prepared by an facility himself before certifying the commenters, especially in the electric engineer who has never seen the facility Plan. utility industry, asserted that EPA has is unacceptable. Particular cases. EPA agrees that a PE no jurisdiction to regulate the Opposing comments. Opposing site visit requirement might be operational use of oil generally, or commenters asserted that such visits impractical at electrical substations, due specifically in electrical transformers, only involve additional costs and to their large number. However, the PE substations, and other equipment. Some duplication of efforts without any need not go. One of his agents may go, manufacturers of other products agreed. tangible benefits. Many opposing and he may review the agent’s work. We They argued that the legislative history commenters argued that customary disagree with commenters who believe of the Act showed no Congressional engineering practice includes the use of that a site visit is unnecessary at small intent for such regulation. However, engineering technicians, technologists, facilities and temporary storage many commenters asked EPA graduate engineers, and others to facilities. Site visits are necessary for specifically to clarify this jurisdictional prepare preliminary reports, studies, those facilities to ensure Plan adequacy issue. and evaluations. After preparation of and to prevent discharges. Response to comments. Use of oil. We these documents, the PE would then EPA has interpreted the current rule disagree that operational equipment is perform a careful review of all pertinent language to contain a requirement that not subject to the SPCC rule. We have material and then sign and seal the the PE examine the facility. Because of amended § 112.1(b) to clarify that using appropriate plans and drawings. Other the uncertainty concerning the nature of oil, for example operationally, may commenters argued that such a this requirement, however, we will not subject a facility to SPCC jurisdiction as requirement would be impractical, require documentation of a site visit by long as the other applicability criteria particularly at electrical substations, a PE or his agent until after the effective apply, for example, oil storage capacity, due to their large number. date of this rule. We disagree that the or location. Such a facility might Particular cases. One commenter rule should only require that the PE be reasonably be expected to discharge oil urged that small facilities be exempted familiar with the operation and design as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, the from the site visit requirement where ‘‘a of the type of facility. We also disagree prevention of discharges from such determination is made that sufficient that merely because the PE has visited facility falls within the scope of the documentation of site characteristics is and examined one or more facilities of statute. available for plan certification.’’ That a particular type that no site visit is However, we have distinguished the commenter noted that in many necessary. A facility may have bulk storage of oil from the operational instances sufficient information is individual characteristics that differ use of oil. We define ‘‘bulk storage available from topographic maps, aerial from those of its type in general, and a container’’ in the final rule to mean any photographs, soil surveys, hydrologic site visit by a PE or agent may be container used to store oil. The storage studies, engineering and construction necessary to detect those characteristics of oil may be prior to use, while being reports, and local operating personnel to and accommodate them in the Plan. used, or prior to further distribution in eliminate the need for site visits prior to Such individual characteristics include commerce. For clarity, we have certification. Another commenter urged geographic conditions, possible flow specifically excluded oil-filled an exemption for temporary storage paths, facility design and construction, electrical, operating, or manufacturing facilities because given their emergency type of containers, product stored, equipment from the definition.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47055

Facilities that use oil operationally damage to underground piping.’’ Other factors. One commenter include electrical substations, facilities Individual proposals will be discussed suggested that other factors such as containing electrical transformers, and under their relevant sections in this proximity to navigable waters or certain hydraulic or manufacturing preamble. Large facilities were defined environmentally sensitive areas, as well equipment. The requirements for bulk for this purpose as facilities with more as the use of good engineering practices storage containers may not always apply than 42,000 gallons of SPCC-regulated should be considered in the regulation to these facilities since the primary storage capacity. Conversely, we asked of facilities. The commenter argues that purpose of this equipment is not the whether such provisions should be these factors might avoid overburdening storage of oil in bulk. Facilities with discretionary for smaller facilities. The a large facility with a low potential for equipment containing oil for ancillary rationale expressed in the question was impact on a navigable water or purposes are not required to provide the EPA believes that ‘‘larger volumes of oil exempting a small facility with a high secondary containment required for stored at a facility increase the chances potential for impact on a navigable bulk storage facilities (§ 112.8(c)) and of a spill occurring, and that spills from water. onshore production facilities large-capacity facilities may be greater Discretionary provisions. Favorable (§ 112.9(c)), nor implement the other in magnitude than those from smaller commenters. Numerous commenters provisions of § 112.8(c) or § 112.9(c). facilities, thus posing a greater potential favored discretionary provisions in the Oil-filled equipment must meet other threat to the waters of the United interest of maintaining flexibility in the SPCC requirements, for example, the States.’’ program, noting that what may be general requirements of this part, EPA also requested comments on two appropriate for one facility may not be including § 112.7(c), to provide other practices it proposed as appropriate for another. Some appropriate containment and/or recommendations, but did not include commenters favored applying diversionary structures to prevent in rule text. Those practices were: (1) discretionary provisions to small discharged oil from reaching a navigable ‘‘That owners and operators of facilities facilities only, leaving the provisions as watercourse. The general requirement affix a signed and dated statement to the requirements for larger facilities. Discretionary provisions. Opposing for secondary containment, which can SPCC Plan indicating that the revision commenters. Some commenters argued be provided by various means including has taken place and whether or not that discretionary provisions are drainage systems, spill diversion ponds, amendment of the Plan is required;’’ inappropriate in a rule as a matter of etc., will provide for safety and also and, (2) ‘‘That owners and operators of principle because they complicate meet the needs of section 311(j)(1)(C) of onshore facilities other than production mandatory rule documents and the CWA. EPA will continue to evaluate facilities state the design capabilities of enforcement, and they confuse the whether the general secondary their drainage system in the SPCC Plan regulated community. Yet others urged containment requirements found in if the system is relied upon to control that such provisions were unnecessary § 112.7(c) should be modified for small spills or leaks.’’ Concerning the first in any case because they believe that no electrical and other types of equipment practice, see also the discussion under which use oil for operating purposes. risks exist for which the discretionary § 112.5(b) of today’s rule. The rationale provisions were proposed. We intend to publish a notice asking for for these recommendations was that additional data and comment on this Response to comments. We will ‘‘these provisions may not for all discuss specific comments under the issue. facilities achieve the standard of In addition, a facility may deviate discussion of specific sections. See provisions based on good engineering from most SPCC requirements, if the section IV.G of today’s preamble for a practice, which is the basic standard of owner or operator explains his reasons discussion of the ‘‘Design Capabilities of the regulation. EPA, however believes for nonconformance and provides Drainage Systems, other than equivalent environmental protection by that implementation of these provisions Production Facilities.’’ Our general some other means. See § 112.7(a)(2). See at most facilities would contribute to the discussion follows. also § 112.7(d). facilities’ overall effort to prevent oil Large or small facility regulation, in discharge and to mitigate those spills general. We have decided not to F. Discretionary Provisions that may occur.’’ The Agency also asked regulate facilities differently based Background. In the preamble to the whether some of these provisions merely on storage capacity, provided 1991 proposal (at 56 FR 54616), we should be mandatory. that the capacity is above the regulatory asked for comments as to whether the Comments. Large or small facility threshold of over 1,320 gallons. This provisions proposed as regulation, in general. EPA received a decision is based on environmental recommendations in rule text should be number of comments on this issue, reasons. Small discharges of oil that made requirements. We then noted that some directed towards regulation of reach the environment can cause we were ‘‘particularly interested in larger and smaller facilities in general, significant harm. Sensitive receiving comments and information on and others toward specific provisions environments, such as areas with the advisability of establishing’’ certain proposed. Some commenters believed diverse and/or protected flora and provisions as ‘‘requirements for large that larger facilities could better bear the fauna, are vulnerable to small spills. facilities, but as recommendations for costs of regulation than smaller EPA noted in a recent denial of a small facilities.’’ These provisions were: facilities, some of which were petition for rulemaking: ‘‘Small spills of (1) Proposed § 112.8(d)(4)—‘‘that financially marginal and might go out of petroleum and vegetable oils and animal facilities have all buried piping tested business as a result of environmental fats can cause significant environmental for integrity and leaks annually or have regulation. damage. Real-world examples of oil buried piping monitored monthly in Storage capacity level. Commenters spills demonstrate that spills of accordance with the provisions of 40 suggested different storage capacity petroleum oils and vegetable oils and CFR part 280.’’ We also recommended levels at which to differentiate large animal fats do occur and produce that records of testing or monitoring be from small facilities. Those suggestions deleterious environmental effects. In kept for five years.; and, (2) proposed ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 gallons some cases, small spills of vegetable oils § 112.8(d)(5)—‘‘that facilities post in storage capacity. Many, however, can produce more environmental harm vehicle weight restrictions to prevent supported the 42,000-gallon level. than numerous large spills of petroleum

VerDate Jun<13>2002 19:44 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 17JYR2 47056 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

oils.’’ 62 FR 54508, 54530, October 20, production facilities describe the design current rule will incur minimal 1997. Describing the outcome of one capabilities of their drainage systems in additional cost due to the revisions in small spill of 400 gallons of rapeseed oil the SPCC Plan if the system is relied this rule. Many of the provisions we into Vancouver Harbor, we noted that ‘‘ upon to control spills or leaks. 56 FR proposed in 1991 that commenters * * * 88 oiled birds of 14 species were 54616, October 22, 1991. See also believed were too costly were not recovered after the spill, and half of section IV.F of today’s preamble for a finalized in this rule. In addition, in them were dead. Oiled birds usually are discussion of other ‘‘Discretionary today’s rule, we have provided not recovered for 3 days after a spill, Provisions.’’ flexibility in several ways. Many of the when they become weakened enough to Comments. Favorable comments. provisions we proposed in 1991 that be captured. Of the survivors, half died Commenters favoring such a commenters believed were too costly during treatment. The number of requirement asserted that such a were not finalized in this rule. In casualties from the rapeseed oil spills description would help identify all addition, in the deviation provision, was probably higher than the number of paths of escape for discharges at a § 112.7(a)(2), we permit you to birds recovered, because heavily oiled facility, assess the spill retention substitute alternate measures that birds sink and dying or dead birds are capacity of the facility’s containment provide equivalent environmental captured quickly by raptors and system, and identify the risks to the protection if you can explain a reason scavengers.’’ 62 FR 54525. public of a discharge. Those for nonconformance with the prescribed A small discharge may also cause commenters generally believed that the requirement. We also rely on the use of harm to human health or life through Professional Engineer should develop industry standards in many provisions, threat of fire or explosion, or short-or the description for the Plan. rather than mandating any particular long-term exposure to toxic Opposing comments. Commenters procedure, or any particular monitoring components. opposing making the recommendation a or inspection schedule. We assume that Other factors. Finally, EPA notes that requirement argued that it was most facilities follow industry the rule affords flexibility to an owner unnecessary because the rules already standards, and therefore will not incur or operator of a facility to design a Plan require certain descriptions of design additional costs for many provisions based on his specific circumstances. It capabilities of drainage systems. They where they do. We recognize, however, allows him to choose methods that best asserted that such a requirement would that to the extent any facility does not protect the environment. It permits be redundant in that if a drainage follow current industry standards, it deviations from most of the mandatory system is relied upon to control spills or might incur additional costs. substantive requirements of the rule leaks, then it must have design Furthermore, we are finalizing other when the facility owner or operator can capabilities to control such spills or provisions in this rule which will demonstrate a reason for leaks. reduce burden in other ways and will nonconformance, and can provide Response to comments. The question exempt certain facilities from having to equivalent environmental protection by of description of the design capabilities prepare an SPCC or FRP Plan. EPA has other means. Consequently, both small of drainage systems for onshore also prepared an assessment of the costs and large facilities have the opportunity facilities other than production facilities of rule compliance, which is discussed to reduce costs by alternative methods is adequately covered by rules in part VI.F (Regulatory Flexibility Act) if they can maintain environmental pertaining to drainage. See, for example, of this preamble, and we have included protection. Because smaller facilities §§ 112.7(a)(3) and (4), 112.7(b), 112.8(b), the specific comments related to costs may require less complex plans than and 112.10(c). Therefore, we will not and our responses in relevant sections larger ones, their costs may be less. promulgate any additional requirements of this preamble. Discretionary provisions. We agree on this subject. These provisions I. Contingency Planning and that discretionary provisions have no generally require that a facility owner or Notification place in this rule because we do not operator design the facility drainage wish to confuse the regulated system to prevent discharges, or if Background. We requested comments community and complicate enforcement prevention fails, to contain the in the 1991 preamble on spill by blurring what is mandatory and what discharge within the facility. contingency planning needs (at 56 FR is discretionary. We will provide 54615) and on proposed facility guidance or policy statements on H. Compliance Costs notification requirements (at 56 FR various issues, as necessary, that will Background. We provided an 54614). You will find a detailed incorporate some or all of these extensive discussion of the costs and discussion of contingency requirements recommendations. In the absence of benefits of the proposed 1991 rule. 56 and facility notification requirements such guidance or policy statements, you FR 54628–54629, October 22, 1991. We (§ 112.7(d) and proposed § 112.1(e)) in should look to current industry requested comments in the 1991 Section V of today’s preamble. On those standards for guidance on technical preamble concerning the new subjects, we briefly summarize the issues. See also our discussion of compliance costs associated with the comments and our responses below. industry standards and good proposed rule. Comments. Contingency planning. engineering practice under section IV.K Comments. EPA received numerous Many commenters supported the 1991 of today’s preamble and under comments on this issue. The proposal. Opposing commenters § 112.3(d) in section V of today’s overwhelming majority of commenters suggested that such planning should be preamble. asserted that the proposed rule would discretionary because not all facilities impose costs that few could bear. Many need such planning, or that facilities be G. Design Capabilities of Drainage argued that such costs were unnecessary allowed to use contingency plans Systems, Other than Production or should be applied to large facilities prepared for other purposes. Others Facilities only. thought the proposal was premature as Background. In the 1991 preamble, Response to comments. EPA we had not at the time finalized we asked for comments on, but did not considered cost factors in finalizing the response planning requirements in propose, a provision that owners or requirements in this rule. We believe § 112.20. Some said that contingency operators of onshore facilities other than that facilities in compliance with the planning was not practicable because

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47057

the costs are too high, but these implementation of the Facility Response of substantial harm and/or significant commenters did not provide specific Plan (FRP) rule alone requires us to and substantial harm facilities need to cost estimates. solicit additional comments concerning comply with the FRP requirements in 40 Notification. A number of the SPCC proposals. CFR 112.20–21. commenters favored the proposal, Response: Additional comments or including some industry commenters. reproposal. We believe it is unnecessary K. Industry Standards Most industry commenters opposed the to repropose the 1991 and 1993 Throughout the rule we generally proposal either in part or in its entirety. proposals because of mere passage of allow for the application of industry Commenters who opposed the proposal time. We received numerous comments standards where the standards are both in its entirety asserted that it was on every side of most issues. In specific and objective, and their unnecessary, largely because they developing this final rule, we have application may reduce the risk of believed the information sought might considered changes that have taken discharges to and impacts to the be better obtained from other sources, place in the oil industry, industry environment. We recognize that as such as State sources or SARA Title III standards, and regulations that may technology advances, specific standards reports. affect the SPCC rule. We have also change. By referencing industry Response to comments. Contingency considered changes in the various standards throughout the preamble, we planning. Contingency planning is industries which comprise the universe anticipate that the underlying necessary whenever you determine that of SPCC facilities which have occurred requirements of the rule itself will a secondary containment system for any since our original proposals. We change as new technology comes into part of the facility that might be the encourage the use of industry standards use without the need for further cause of a discharge as described in to implement the rule, without amendments. We believe that industry § 112.1(b) is not practicable. This incorporating any particular standard standards today represent good requirement applies whether the facility into the rule, thereby averting possible engineering practice and generally are is manned or unmanned, urban or rural, obsolescence of those standards. We environmentally protective. However, as and for large and small facilities. used the results of our 1995 SPCC under the current rule, if an industry Because we have not finalized either the facility survey to develop our 1997 standard changes in a way that would 1991 or 1993 contingency plan proposed rule. These results are also increase the risk of a discharge as proposals, there are no new costs. We part of the administrative record for this described in § 112.1(b), EPA will apply note that we finalized response rulemaking. We considered all the and enforce standards and practices that planning requirements in 1994. comments we received in 1997, even if protect the environment, rather than the Contingency plans prepared for other they dealt with issues proposed in 1991 less protective industry standard. purposes are acceptable for SPCC or 1993. We have also considered and Under the terms of this rule, when purposes if they satisfy all SPCC responded to all of the comments there is no specific and objective requirements. received in 1991 and 1993 in their industry standard that applies to your Notification. Withdrawal of proposal. respective Comment Response facility (for example, whether there is We have decided to withdraw the Documents or in the preamble to today’s no standard or a standard that uses the proposed facility notification final rule. terms ‘‘as appropriate,’’ ‘‘often,’’ requirement because we are still Personnel changes. In developing this ‘‘periodically,’’ and so forth), you considering issues associated with final rule, as noted above, we have should instead follow any specific and establishing a paper versus electronic considered changes that have taken objective manufacturer’s instructions for notification system, including issues place in the oil industry, industry the use and maintenance or installation related to providing electronic standards, and regulations that may of the equipment, appurtenance, or signatures on the notification. Should affect the SPCC rule. For the past 26 container. If there is neither a specific the Agency in the future decide to move years, owners and operators of regulated and objective industry standard nor a forward with a facility notification facilities have been responsible for specific and objective manufacturer’s requirement, we will repropose such training their personnel in applicable instruction that applies, then it is the requirement. regulations, such as 40 CFR part 112. duty of the PE under § 112.3(d) to Such responsibility is in effect now, and establish such specific and objective J. Reproposal will continue under the revised rule. standards for the facility and, under Background: In the 1997 proposal, we New companies and new personnel of § 112.3(d), he must document these stated that we would finalize the 1991 those companies are on notice as to standards in the Plan. If the PE requires and 1993 proposals without seeking applicable rules and proposals. They the use of a specific standard for additional comments on those have also had the opportunity to implementation of the Plan, the owner proposals. comment on the 1997 proposal. or operator must also reference that Comments: Some commenters Furthermore, we have considered cost standard in the Plan. suggested that we repropose the 1991 implications for all three proposals Throughout this preamble, we list proposal ‘‘so that the public can view which we are finalizing today. industry standards that may assist an the proposed changes in a Response plan requirements. We have owner or operator to comply with comprehensive manner.’’ Other no plans to require SPCC facilities for particular rules. The list of those commenters suggested that the time that which secondary containment is not standards is merely for your has elapsed, the changes in operational practicable to develop response plans. information. They may or may not apply procedures of the oil and gas industry However, we have withdrawn § 112.7(d) to your facility, but we believe that their which have improved the degree of as proposed in 1993. Only a inclusion is helpful because they environmental protection, and the new contingency plan following the generally are applicable to the topic information EPA obtained from its tank provisions of 40 CFR part 109 and referenced. The decision in every case survey, justified reproposal. Others compliance with other provisions of as to the applicability of any industry cited changes in oil industry personnel § 112.7(d) is necessary when secondary standard will be one for the PE. as a reason to repropose the rule. Some containment is impracticable. Only For your convenience, we are commenters believed that the onshore facilities that meet the criteria including a list of organizations below

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47058 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that may be helpful in the identification and explanation of industry standards.

Name Address Phone # Web Site/E-mail

American National Standards Institute 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 212–642–4900 www.ansi.org (ANSI). 10036. 212–398–0023 [email protected] fax. American Petroleum Institute (API)...... 1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 202–682–8000 www.api.org 20005. 202–682–8232 [email protected] fax. [email protected] American Society of Mechanical Engi- Three Park Avenue New York, NY 800–843–2763 www.asme.org neers (ASME). 10016–5990. 973–882–1717 [email protected] fax. American Society for Nondestructive PO Box 28518, 1711 Arlingate Lane 800–222–2768 www.asnt.org Testing (ASNT). Columbus, OH 43228–0518. 614–274–6899 fax American Society for Testing and Mate- 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 610–832–9585 www.astm.org rials (ASTM). Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. 610–832–9555 [email protected]. fax. Building Officials and Code Administra- 4051 West Flossmoor Road Country 708–799–2300 .. www.bocai.org tors (BOCA) International. Club Hills, IL 60478. 708–799–4981 [email protected]. fax. International Code Council (ICC) ...... 5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 708 Falls 703–931–4533 www.intlcode.org Church, VA 22041. 703–379–1546 [email protected]. fax. International Conference of Building Offi- 5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 888–699–0541 www.icbo.org cials (ICBO). 90601–2298. 888–329–4220 fax. International Fire Code Institute (IFCI) ... 5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 562–699–0124 www.ifci.org 90601–2298. 562–699–8031 [email protected] fax. Manufacturers Standardization Society 127 Park Street, N.E. Vienna, VA 703–281–6613 www.mss-hq.com of The Valve and Fittings Industry Inc. 22180–4602. 703–281–6671 [email protected] (MSS). fax. National Association of Corrosion Engi- 1440 South Creek Drive Houston, TX 281–228–6200 www.nace.org neers (NACE). 77084. 281–228–6300 fax National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park PO Box 9101 617–770–3000 www.nfpa.org (NFPA). Quincy, MA 02269–9101. 617–770–0700 [email protected] fax. Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) ...... P.O. Box 2380 Tulsa, OK 74101–2380 918–494–9696 www.pei.org 918–491–9895 [email protected]. fax. Southern Building Code Congress Inter- 900 Montclair Road Birmingham, AL 205–591–1853 www.sbcci.org national (SBCCI). 35213–1206. 205–591–0775 [email protected] fax. Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) ..... P.O. Box Drawer 28510 San Antonio, 210–684–5111 www.swri.org TX 78228–0510. [email protected] Steel Tank Institute (STI) ...... 570 Oakwood Road Lake Zurich, IL 847–438–8265 .. www.steeltank.com 60047. 847–438–8766 [email protected] fax. Underwriters Laboratories (UL)...... 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL 847–272–8800 www.ul.com 60062–2096. 847–272–8129 [email protected] fax. Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA) 300 N. Main St. #25 Fallbrook, CA 760–723–6911 www.wfca.com 92028. 760–723–6912 [email protected] fax.

V. Section by Section Analysis Section 112.1(a)(1)—General shorelines. The final rule extends the (Includes: Background, Comments, and Applicability of the Rule geographic scope of EPA’s authority Response to Comments) Background. We have redesignated beyond discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines to include a Subpart A—Applicability, definitions, § 112.1(a) as § 112.1(a)(1) due to the discharge into or upon the waters of the and general requirements for all addition of a new paragraph (a)(2). In contiguous zone, or in connection with facilities 1991, we proposed changes in § 112.1(a) to conform to the 1977 CWA activities under the Outer Continental Background. In the reformatted rule, amendments. Those amendments Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port subpart A defines the applicability of extended the geographic scope of EPA’s Act of 1974, or that may affect natural part 112, provides definitions applicable authority under CWA section 311. resources belonging to, appertaining to, to all subparts, and prescribes general Formerly the geographic scope of the or under the exclusive management requirements that are applicable to all rule extended only to navigable waters authority of the United States (including facilities subject to part 112. of the United States and adjoining resources under the Magnuson Fishery

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47059

Conservation and Management Act). Section 112.1(b)—Facilities Covered by the President (and EPA, through Hereinafter, a discharge as described the Rule—Non-Transportation-Related delegation in Executive Order 12777, 56 above in quantities that may be harmful Facilities FR 54757, October 22, 1991) to issue is also referred to as ‘‘a discharge as Background. We have redesignated regulations consistent with the National described in § 112.1(b).’’ this section to add four new paragraphs. Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Comments. Geographic scope of rule. This section describes generally the type Contingency Plan, and consistent with One commenter wrote to support the of facilities which are subject to the maritime safety and with marine and geographic extension of the rule, noting SPCC rule. navigation laws, which establish that the extended definition ‘‘will allow In 1991, EPA proposed changes in ‘‘procedures, methods, and equipment for more clarity in determining which § 112.1(b) to reflect changes in the and other requirements for equipment to facilities are subject to SPCC geographic scope of EPA’s authority prevent discharges of oil and hazardous requirements.’’ substances from vessels and from Natural resources. Another under CWA section 311, as described in the discussion under § 112.1(a)(1). EPA onshore and offshore facilities, and to commenter was concerned that the contain such discharges.’’ This language also proposed to change the phrase extension of the rule to facilities with authorizes the President to issue oil ‘‘harmful quantities’’ to ‘‘quantities that the potential to affect natural resources spill prevention rules which pertain to may be harmful, as described in part ‘‘would bring under the scope of 40 CFR onshore facilities and offshore facilities 110.’’ Amendments to the CWA also 112 a significant number of operating and not just ‘‘equipment.’’ facilities which did not previously reflected the broadening of quantities In order to fulfill the statutory require SPCC plans.’’ Still another that may be harmful to include those mandate, it is necessary to regulate the commenter proposed limiting the scope not only harmful to the ‘‘public health facilities from which discharges of natural resource jurisdiction under or welfare,’’ but also to the environment. emanate. Moreover, although the term the rule to resources under the Comments. Facilities. Several ‘‘facility’’ is not defined in the statute, Magnuson Fishery and Conservation commenters argued that EPA both ‘‘onshore facility’’ and ‘‘offshore Act to avoid ‘‘another unnecessary jurisdiction, under statutory authority, facility’’ are defined terms in CWA workload on the judicial system over does not extend to facilities, merely to section 311. They have also been the years.’’ requirements for oil spill prevention defined terms in the SPCC rule since its Response to comments. Geographic and containment equipment. The inception in 1974. In the 1991 proposal, scope of rule. EPA believes that the commenters’ argument noted that the EPA proposed a definition of ‘‘facility’’ geographic extension of the rule to agree statute doesn’t mention jurisdictional to implement the CWA. That definition with statutory amendments is the criteria relating to proximity to water or was based on a Memorandum of proper course, and has finalized the rule oil storage capacity, only EPA rules do. Understanding (MOU) between the as proposed. Therefore, the commenters argued, if Secretary of Transportation and the EPA Natural resources. Limiting the scope EPA is successful in its assertion of Administrator dated November 24, 1971 of natural resource jurisdiction under facility regulation, then every pipe, (36 FR 24080). The MOU, which has the rule to natural resources under the valve, meter, and flange on the wellsite been published as Appendix A to part Magnuson Fishery Conservation and along with tubing and casing in the 112 since December 11, 1973 (38 FR Management Act would be inconsistent hole, stock tanks, drainage ditches, and 34164, 34170), defines in detail what with this statutory language. We also roads are all subject to EPA jurisdiction constitutes a facility. Thus, there has believe that few, if any new facilities, and specifications. More importantly, long been a common understanding of will be subject to the rule because of its they argued, every facility, in every the term. That understanding has been extension to facilities with the potential industry, which at some time or other reinforced by frequent use of the term in to affect certain natural resources. We handles oil or hazardous substances context within the SPCC rule since it believe that most affected facilities are could be subject to EPA rules became effective in 1974. To promote either already subject to the rule, or not concerning its spill prevention and clarity and to maintain all definitions in subject to our jurisdiction due to a containment procedures, methods, or one place, the proposed definition has Memorandum of Understanding equipment. been finalized in this rulemaking. between EPA, the U.S. Department of Use of oil. Numerous commenters, While section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. especially in the electric utility may not explicitly mention Department of the Interior (DOI), which industry, asserted that EPA has no jurisdictional criteria, section 311(b) of assigns jurisdiction over most of those jurisdiction to regulate the operational the Act does. Section 311(b) establishes facilities to DOT or DOI. See 40 CFR use of oil generally, or specifically in as the policy of the United States that part 112, Appendix B. electrical transformers, substations, and there shall be ‘‘no discharges of oil or Editorial changes and clarifications. other equipment. Some manufacturers hazardous substances into or upon the While revisions to the rule published of other products agreed. They argued navigable waters of the United States, today are not retroactive, any violation that the legislative history of the Act adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the of the current rule which occurs before showed no Congressional intent for waters of the contiguous zone, or in the effective date of today’s rule is such regulation. However, many connection with activities under the subject to enforcement and penalties. commenters asked EPA specifically to Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or clarify this jurisdictional issue. the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or Section 112.1(a)(2)—Number and Distance to navigable waters. Two which may affect natural resources Gender commenters proposed that we exempt belonging to, appertaining to, or under Background. We added a new from the rule facilities more than one the exclusive management authority of § 112.1(a)(2) to make clear that words in mile from surface waters or those the United States (including resources the singular include the plural, and located outside the coastal zone. under the Magnuson Fishery words in the masculine include the Response to Comments: Facilities. We Conservation and Management Act).’’ feminine, and vice versa. This disagree that our authority does not Thus, the location or ‘‘jurisdictional’’ amendment is for clarification purposes extend to facilities. Section 311(j)(1)(C) criteria contained in § 112.1(b) are only. of the statute authorizes and requires appropriate for inclusion in the rule.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47060 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Use of oil. We disagree that of discharge in quantities that may be are required to be drained and, while operational equipment is not subject to harmful from the facility. A facility that awaiting temporary closure, are no the SPCC rule. We have amended is more than one mile from navigable threat to the environment through oil § 112.1(b) to clarify that using oil, for waters might well fit within that spills. Another commenter urged that example operationally, may subject a standard. For example, piping or temporary storage facilities should be facility to SPCC jurisdiction as long as drainage from that facility might lead exempted from the SPCC rule, and the other applicability criteria apply, for directly to navigable water. If handled under the Facility Response example, oil storage capacity, or discharged oil may reach or does reach Plan (FRP) rules, found at 40 CFR location. Such a facility might navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, 112.20–21. A third commenter argued reasonably be expected to discharge oil or protected resources, the distance that frac tanks, used to store oil for the as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, the which the discharged oil travels is short periods of time while maintenance prevention of discharges from such irrelevant. or workover operations are underway, facility falls within the scope of the Editorial changes and clarifications. should be exempted from the rule statute. In the proposed rule, this paragraph was because their use is of short duration However, we have distinguished the designated as §§ 112.1(b) and and does not necessarily increase the bulk storage of oil from the operational 112.1(b)(1). We have combined the potential for discharge. Another use of oil. We define ‘‘bulk storage paragraphs and added two new commenter stated that it would be container’’ in the final rule to mean any paragraphs. The new paragraphs impractical to maintain an up-to-date container used to store oil. The storage describe the types of containers subject SPCC Plan for temporary storage at of oil may be prior to use, while being to the rule, which in addition to the two remote parts of a large mining operation. used, or prior to further distribution in paragraphs we already proposed, better Response to comments. If a tank is not commerce. For clarity, we have describe those containers. We also permanently closed, it is still available specifically excluded oil-filled changed plural references in the for storage and the possibility of a electrical, operating, or manufacturing proposal to singular throughout the discharge as described in § 112.1(b), equipment from the definition. section. remains. Nor does a short time period of Facilities that use oil operationally storage eliminate the possibility of such include electrical substations, facilities Section 112.1(b)(1)—Aboveground a discharge. Therefore, a prevention containing electrical transformers, and Storage Containers plan is necessary. A tank closed for a certain hydraulic or manufacturing Background. We added this paragraph temporary period of time may contain equipment. The requirements for bulk to clarify that aboveground storage oil mixed with sludge or residues of storage containers may not always apply containers are a subset of the containers product which could be discharged. to these facilities since the primary subject to the rule. In 1991, we noted Discharges from these facilities could purpose of this equipment is not the that containers used for standby storage, cause severe environmental damage storage of oil in bulk. Facilities with temporary storage, or containers that are during such temporary storage and are equipment containing oil for ancillary not permanently closed, are subject to therefore subject to the rule. As to the purposes are not required to provide the the rule. We also noted that bunkered argument that it is impractical to secondary containment required for tanks and partially buried tanks are maintain an up-to-date Plan for bulk storage facilities (§ 112.8(c)) and subject to the rule. The inclusion of this temporary facilities at remote parts of onshore production facilities paragraph and paragraph (b)(2), which mining sites, we disagree. Plans for such (§ 112.9(c)), nor implement the other refers to completely buried tanks, storage are analogous to or may be Plans provisions of § 112.8(c) or § 112.9(c). completes the universe of containers for mobile facilities, which may be Oil-filled equipment must meet other subject to the rule. general Plans, but still provide SPCC requirements, for example, the environmental protection against a general requirements of this part, Section 112.1(b)(2)—Completely Buried discharge as described in § 112.1(b). including § 112.7(c), to provide Tanks Editorial changes and clarifications. appropriate containment and/or Background. We added this paragraph In the proposed rule, this paragraph was diversionary structures to prevent to clarify that completely buried tanks designated as § 112.1(b)(2). We have discharged oil from reaching a navigable are a subset of the containers subject to redesignated it as § 112.1(b)(3). watercourse. The general requirement the rule. See also the discussion under Section 112.1(b)(4)—Bunkered, Partially for secondary containment, which can § 112.1(b)(1). be provided by various means including Buried, and Vaulted Tanks drainage systems, spill diversion ponds, Section 112.1(b)(3)—Standby, Background. In 1991, we proposed to etc., will provide for safety and also the Temporary, or Seasonal Storage clarify that bunkered tanks, partially needs of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Facilities buried tanks, and tanks in subterranean CWA. Background. We proposed in 1991 to vaults are considered aboveground In addition, a facility may deviate clarify that tanks used for standby, tanks for purposes of the SPCC rule. The from any inappropriate SPCC temporary, or seasonal storage, or that tanks or containers in these facilities are requirements, if the owner or operator are not otherwise permanently closed, a subset of the facilities described in explains his reasons for are subject to the SPCC rule. The § 112.1(b)(1). The Agency explained that nonconformance and provides Agency noted that such tanks are not compared to completely buried tanks, equivalent environmental protection by permanently closed and can reasonably discharges from these tanks are more some other means. See § 112.7(a)(2). See be expected to experience a discharge as likely to enter surface waters regulated also § 112.7(d). described in § 112.1(b). 56 FR 54617. under the CWA. 56 FR 54626. Distance to navigable waters. We do The facilities described in § 112.1(b)(3) Comments. Partially buried and not believe that any rule which exempts are a subset of the facilities described in bunkered tanks. A commenter suggested facilities beyond any particular distance § 112.1(b)(1) and (b)(2). that partially buried and bunkered tanks meets the intent of the statute. The Comments. One commenter asserted should be considered underground locational standard in the rule is that temporarily closed tanks should be storage tanks (USTs) and regulated whether there is a reasonable possibility exempted from the rules because they under that program because ten percent

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47061

or more of the product is below grade form (item 12) contains information on March 11, 1996, because it no longer either in the tank or in the pipeline. The regarding corrosion protection for steel accurately reflected the penalties commenter argued that tanks in tanks and steel piping which would be provided for under section 311(b) of the compliance with the UST program, relevant for SPCC purposes. Other items Act, as amended by OPA. 61 FR 9646. found at 40 CFR part 280, would not on the form may also be relevant for Therefore, we have reserved § 112.6 for pose a significant threat to the SPCC purposes. We are, however, future use. environment. In fact, the commenter excluding from the rule completely Comments. One commenter suggested argued, they might be less likely to buried storage tanks (including that Federal agencies are subject to civil cause a spill than one in compliance connected underground piping, penalties which are imposed under the with the SPCC rule. The commenter underground ancillary equipment, and CWA—including fines. further argued that dual regulation containment systems) that are currently Response to comments. EPA disagrees would be unnecessarily burdensome subject to all of the technical that Federal agencies are subject to without providing any additional requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or 281. penalties or fines under the CWA environmental protection. See § 112.1(d)(4). because the Federal government is not Vaulted tanks. Several commenters Vaulted tanks. Vaulted tanks are a ‘‘person’’ under sections 311(a)(7) or asserted that since vaulted tanks are generally excluded from the scope of 40 502 of the CWA. Only ‘‘persons’’ already regulated by fire and safety CFR part 280. The definition of (including owners or operators and authorities, they should not be regulated ‘‘underground storage tank’’ at 40 CFR persons in charge) are subject to such under the SPCC program. Others argued 280.12(i) excludes from its scope a penalties. Therefore, although Federal that vaulted tanks meeting the technical ‘‘storage tank situated in an agencies must comply with requirements of 40 CFR part 280, or underground area (such as a basement, requirements of a CWA section 311 rule which have engineering controls cellar, mineworking, drift, shaft, or in accordance with CWA section 313, designed to contain product released tunnel) if the storage tank is situated they are not subject to civil or criminal from failure or overfill, should likewise upon or above the surface of the floor.’’ penalties or fines. See U.S. Department be exempted from the SPCC rule. These These tanks might reasonably of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 618 commenters asserted that a discharge experience a discharge as described in (1992) (because the CWA does not from such tanks would not reach water. § 112.1(b). Therefore, it is reasonable define ‘‘person’’ to include the United Response to comments. Partially that they be within the scope of part States, the civil penalty provisions are buried and bunkered tanks. We disagree 112. Merely because these tanks are the not applicable). that partially buried tanks and bunkered subject of local fire and safety tanks should be considered completely regulations does not guarantee that there Section 112.1(d)—Exemptions From buried tanks, and therefore excluded will be adequate environmental Applicability from SPCC provisions. The rules differ protection to prevent a discharge as Section 112.1(d)(1)—Exemptions Based in important aspects. Tanks which are described in § 112.1(b), because that is on Jurisdiction partially underground pose a risk of a not the purpose of those regulations. Section 112.1(d)(1)(i)—Exemptions discharge as described in § 112.1(b), Such codes may provide lesser Based on Location which could have an adverse impact on protection than part 112. For example, navigable water, adjoining shorelines, or NFPA 30:2–3.4.3(b) specifically Background. In 1991, we described affected resources. Some tanks that are indicates that a dike need only provide the facilities, equipment, and operations not completely buried contain containment for the largest tank, while that are exempt from the SPCC rule engineering controls designed to part 112 requires freeboard for because they are not subject to the prevent discharges. However, such precipitation. jurisdiction of EPA under section controls may fail due to human or Editorial changes and clarifications. 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. These facilities mechanical error and cause severe In the proposed rule, this paragraph was include those which, due to their environmental damage. Such tanks may designated as § 112.1(b)(3). We have location, could not be reasonably suffer damage caused by differential redesignated it as § 112.1(b)(4). Section expected to have a discharge as corrosion of buried and non-buried 112.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule uses the described in § 112.1(b). surfaces greater than completely buried term ‘‘aboveground storage containers,’’ In making the determination of tanks, which could cause a discharge as in place of ‘‘aboveground storage tanks.’’ whether there is a reasonable possibility described in § 112.1(b). See 56 FR 54630. We continue to use of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), Such tanks are also not subject to ‘‘containers’’ in the final rule. We we proposed that you may consider secondary containment requirements deleted the word ‘‘subterranean,’’ which only the geographical and locational under part 280 or a State program modified vaulted tanks in the proposed aspects of the facility (such as proximity approved under 40 CFR part 281. There rule, because vaulted tanks are to navigable waters or adjoining may also be accidents during loading or considered aboveground tanks under shorelines, land contour, drainage, etc.). unloading operations, or overfills this rule whether they are subterranean We proposed that you could not resulting in a discharge to navigable or not. consider manmade structures such as waters and adjoining shorelines. dikes, equipment, or other structures Furthermore, a failure of such a tank Section 112.1(c)—Federal Agencies— which may serve to restrain, hinder, or (caused by accident or vandalism) Applicability of Rule otherwise contain a discharge as would be more likely to cause a Background. In 1991, we republished described in § 112.1(b), in making that discharge as described in § 112.1(b). We the already existing provisions of same determination. will, however, accept UST program § 112.1(c), which provide that agencies, Comments. Geographic scope of rule. forms, e.g., the Notification for departments, and instrumentalities of One commenter agreed that the Underground Storage Tanks, EPA Form the Federal government are subject to extension of the geographic scope of the 7530–1, or approved State program the rule to the same extent as any rule will allow for more clarity in equivalents, insofar as such forms person, except for the provisions determining which facilities are subject contains information relevant to the relating to civil penalties. The provision to SPCC requirements. The commenter SPCC program. For example, the UST relating to civil penalties was rescinded added that the inclusion of natural

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47062 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

resources sets the stage for the the United States. Once a prohibited reasonably be expected to have a implementation of Natural Resource discharge of oil occurs and affects such discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ Damage Assessments, as required by the natural resources, the NRDA provisions The proposed phrase in the last Oil Pollution Act of 1990. of OPA sections 1002(b)(2)(A) and 1006 sentence of the paragraph which read, Manmade structures. Other apply. The National Oceanographic and ‘‘* * * which may serve to restrain, commenters argued that EPA should Atmospheric Administration has hinder, contain, or otherwise prevent a modify its rules to provide that a facility promulgated a set of regulations which discharge of oil from reaching navigable with no reasonable possibility of govern the process for conducting waters of the United States or adjoining discharge because of some combination NRDAs under the OPA. 15 CFR part shorelines. * * *’’ becomes ‘‘*** of natural and manmade features, which 990. which may serve to restrain, hinder, are present for operational rather than Manmade structures. To allow contain, or otherwise prevent a pollution prevention purposes, should consideration of manmade structures discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ be excluded from the scope of the rule. (such as dikes, equipment, or other Another commenter urged that the rule structures) to relieve a facility from Section 112.1(d)(1)(ii)—Exemptions allow consideration of manmade being subject to the rule would defeat its Based on Function—DOT structures where the structures are preventive purpose. Because manmade Background. In 1991, we republished, inherent in the design of the facility and structures may fail, thus putting the without substantive change, the current serve functional and operational environment at risk in the event of a exemption for equipment or operations purposes distinct from the containment discharge, there is an unacceptable risk of vessels or transportation-related of oil spills. in using such structures to justify onshore and offshore facilities that are Groundwater. Another commenter relieving a facility from the burden of subject to the authority and control of argued that Congress intended for EPA preparing a prevention plan. Secondary the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop SPCC requirements that containment structures should be part of (DOT). While we received no comments prevent releases to groundwater, in the prevention plan. on the proposal, we believe that this addition to requirements that prevent Groundwater. EPA agrees with the provision merits a few words to clarify releases to navigable water. At a commenter that groundwater underlying the understanding of the regulated minimum, that commenter argued, a facility that is directly connected community. The Executive Order (EO) § 112.1(d)(1)(i) should contain language hydrologically to navigable waters could implementing the Act assigns regulatory stating that clear hydrologic connections trigger the requirement to produce an jurisdiction to three Federal agencies between groundwater underlying a SPCC Plan based on geographic or based on the function of facilities. facility and navigable waters require a locational aspects of the facility. See the Section 2(b)(1) of EO 12777 (56 FR facility to develop and implement an discussion below for tanks regulated 54757, October 22, 1991) delegates to SPCC Plan. Yet another commenter, in under 40 CFR part 280 or under a State the Administrator of EPA authority in opposing exemption of USTs from the program approved under 40 CFR part section 311(j)(1)(C) relating to the SPCC program noted that groundwater 281. establishment of procedures, methods, eventually becomes surface water. The EPA does not agree with the and equipment, and other requirements commenter added that, hydrologically, commenter that 40 CFR part 280 and a for equipment to prevent and to contain oil released into underground waters State program approved under 40 CFR discharges of oil and hazardous may migrate to surface water within part 281 (the rules governing most substances from non-transportation- minutes or months. The commenter completely buried tanks) lack adequate related onshore facilities. Section 2(b)(2) argued that in the absence of emergency emergency response provisions for of the EO delegates similar authority to response provisions, some USTs could regulated tanks and piping. 40 CFR part contain discharges of oil and hazardous damage the nation’s ground and surface 280 and State programs approved under substances from vessels and water resources. 40 CFR part 281 require corrective transportation-related onshore facilities Response to comments. Geographic action, reporting, and recordkeeping and deepwater ports to the Secretary of scope of rule. We also believe that few, requirements for any release from Transportation. Section 2(b)(3) of the EO if any, new facilities will be subject to regulated tanks and piping. Also, 40 delegates similar authority for offshore the rule because of its extension to CFR parts 280 and 281 require various facilities, including associated facilities with the potential to affect measures intended to prevent pipelines, other than deepwater ports, to certain natural resources. We believe contamination that could result from the Secretary of the Interior. A that most affected facilities are either releases from regulated tanks and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) already subject to the rule, or not subject piping. Although groundwater among EPA, DOT, and the U.S. to our jurisdiction due to a underlying a facility may eventually Department of the Interior (DOI), found Memorandum of Understanding connect hydrologically to navigable at Appendix B to part 112, redelegated between EPA, the U.S. Department of waters, the requirements of 40 CFR part from DOI to EPA the responsibility for Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. 280 and State programs approved under non-transportation-related offshore Department of the Interior (DOI), which 40 CFR part 281 are intended to address facilities located landward of the assigns jurisdiction over most of those the prevention of releases from coastline. Similarly the MOU facilities to DOT or DOI. See 40 CFR underground storage tanks that might redelegated from DOI to DOT the part 112, Appendix B. have an impact on groundwater and to responsibility for transportation-related We have amended this provision to be require rapid response and corrective offshore facilities, including pipelines, consistent with the revised statutory action at such sites if they compromise landward of the coastline. language found in sections 311(b)(1) and groundwater quality. In 1993, we proposed a definition for (c)(1)(A) of the CWA. This rule focuses Editorial changes and clarifications. the term ‘‘complex,’’ which is a facility on preventing discharges to navigable The proposed phrase in the first possessing a combination of waters, adjoining shorelines, the sentence which read, ‘‘* * * could not transportation-related and non- exclusive economic zone, and natural reasonably be expected to discharge oil transportation-related components that resources belonging to, appertaining to, as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this is subject to the jurisdiction of more or under the exclusive jurisdiction of part,’’ becomes ‘‘* * * could not than one Federal agency under section

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47063

311(j) of the Clean Water Act. We Otherwise, if you engage in activities revision corrects an incorrect citation to published that definition on July 1, subjecting your facility to the the 1971 MOU between EPA and DOT. 1994. 59 FR 34097. A commenter on the jurisdiction of two agencies, your Section 112.1(d)(1)(iii)—Exemptions definition of ‘‘breakout tank’’ (see also facility would be subject to the more Based on Function—DOT and DOI discussion below on ‘‘breakout tank’’) stringent of rules if there were to be a asked for guidance as to which agency, conflict or an inconsistency in those Background. We have added a new DOT or EPA, regulates such tanks. rules. For example, a facility with paragraph to the applicability section of Because of confusion in the regulated breakout tanks used solely to relieve the rule to note the jurisdictional community over which Federal agencies surges in a pipeline, and not having changes resulting from an MOU have jurisdiction in complexes, we another non-transportation-related between DOT, DOI, and EPA discuss the issue below. activity or component, would not be redelegating certain functions. The Complexes. ‘‘Complex’’ is defined at required to have an SPCC Plan. MOU was published on July 1, 1994 (at § 112.2 as a ‘‘facility possessing a Which activity would be subject to 59 FR 34102). The addition of this combination of transportation-related DOT jurisdiction and which activity paragraph is not a substantive change in and non-transportation-related which would be subject to EPA the rules, but merely an editorial components that is subject to the jurisdiction is defined by the MOU in revision to mark the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of more than one Federal Appendix A to part 112. The definitions respective agencies in this rule. It agency under section 311(j) of the Clean in the MOU are keyed to the delegations complements the other paragraphs in Water Act.’’ The jurisdiction over a of authority in EO 12777. § 112.1(d)(1) that describe facilities component of a complex is determined Because regulatory jurisdiction is which are not subject to EPA jurisdiction. Due to the MOU, the by the activity occurring at that predicated upon the owner’s or referenced facilities, equipment, and component. An activity might at one operator’s activities at the facility, an operations of DOT and DOI in time subject a facility to one agency’s owner or operator might have questions § 112.1(d)(1)(iii), like the facilities, jurisdiction, and a different activity at concerning that jurisdiction at his equipment, and operations described in the same facility using the same facility. To clarify regulatory § 112.1(d)(1)(i) and (ii), are not subject structure or equipment might subject jurisdiction, in February 2000, EPA and to EPA jurisdiction under section the facility to the jurisdiction of another DOT signed a policy memorandum that 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. They are not agency. described how the two agencies would Equipment, operations, and facilities subject to EPA jurisdiction either work together to bring their respective are subject to DOT jurisdiction when because of their location, in the case of regulations into alignment and, they are engaged in activities subject to DOI facilities, or because of their ultimately, to eliminate overlapping DOT jurisdiction. If those facilities are activities, which are strictly jurisdiction over tanks when possible. also engaged in activities subject to EPA transportation-related, in the case of jurisdiction, such activities would Recently, DOT informed EPA of a DOT facilities. subject the equipment, operation, or voluntary initiative to collect EO 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, facility to EPA jurisdiction. An example information from industry on breakout 1991) delegates to DOI, DOT, and EPA of an activity subject to EPA jurisdiction tanks, beginning in December 2001. In various responsibilities identified in would be the loading or unloading of oil anticipation of receiving the new tank section 311(j) of the CWA. Sections into a tank truck or railcar. Under an information, DOT is considering 2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of EO 12777 MOU between EPA and DOT (See updating the National Pipeline Mapping assigned to DOI spill prevention and Appendix A of part 112), transportation- System (NPMS) data standards to reflect control, contingency planning, and related activities regulated by DOT and the guidelines for tank data equipment inspection activities non-transportation-related activities submissions. Operators’ data associated with offshore facilities. regulated by EPA are defined. The MOU submissions will include the location of Section 311(a)(11) of the CWA defines provides that highway vehicles and each tank farm with breakout tanks, the term ‘‘offshore facility’’ to include railroad cars which are used for the information about each tank, and facilities of any kind located in, on, or transport of oil in interstate or intrastate information about the accuracy of the under navigable waters of the United commerce and the equipment and data. The data will be depicted as a States. By using this definition, the appurtenances related thereto, and geospatial location in a digital file or a traditional DOI role of regulating equipment used for the fueling of point located on a USGS 1:24,000 facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf locomotive units, as well as the rights- topographic quad map. was expanded by EO 12777 to include of-way on which they operate, are In addition to upgrading the NPMS, inland lakes, rivers, streams, and any considered transportation-related DOT is training its inspectors in tank other inland waters. activities, subject to DOT jurisdiction. inspection. In the President’s Fiscal Under section 2(i) of EO 12777, DOI Another example of activities that Year 2002 budget request, DOT redelegated, and EPA and DOT might be considered a complex and expressed its intent to make tanks a accepted, the functions vested in DOI by therefore subject to both sets of rules is priority in its compliance program, sections 2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of that of a breakout tank which is used for particularly where the tanks are in the EO. DOI redelegated to EPA the both transportation and non- sensitive areas. DOT and EPA have responsibility for non-transportation- transportation purposes. It is the activity agreed to provide cross-training of their related offshore facilities located to which the tank is put that determines respective personnel. As the two landward of the coastline. To DOT, DOI jurisdiction. If you are an owner or agencies proceed with tank oversight redelegated responsibility for operator of a complex, while you may plans, the goal is to ensure that every transportation-related facilities, not choose which agency will regulate tank is regulated and no tank is subject including pipelines, located landward your facility, you may choose not to to overlapping regulations from two of the coastline. DOT retained engage in activities which would subject agencies. jurisdiction for deepwater ports and the your facility to the jurisdiction of a Editorial changes and clarifications. associated seaward pipelines. DOI particular agency if you do not wish to ‘‘EPA Administrator’’ becomes retained jurisdiction over facilities, comply with that agency’s rules. ‘‘Administrator of EPA.’’ Another including pipelines, located seaward of

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47064 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

the coastline, except for deepwater ports systems that are part of a wastewater piping, underground ancillary and associated seaward pipelines. For treatment facility regulated under equipment, and containment system. purposes of the MOU, the term section 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water Therefore, any of these tank systems ‘‘coastline’’ means ‘‘the line of ordinary Act; equipment or machinery that may be potentially subject to the SPCC low water along that portion of the coast contains regulated substances for program. which is in direct contact with the open operational purposes such as hydraulic Definitions. EPA proposed to define sea and the line marking the seaward lift tanks and electrical equipment an UST as any tank which is completely limit of inland waters.’’ tanks; and, UST systems whose capacity covered with earth. Part 280 includes a is 110 gallons or less. Also, part 280 broader definition of underground Section 112.1(d)(2)—Other Exemptions does not provide for regulation of USTs storage tanks, and includes partially Section 112.1(d)(2)(i)—Completely storing animal fats and vegetable oils. buried and bunkered tanks. Partially Buried Storage Tanks Currently Subject All of these facilities remain potentially buried tanks and bunkered tanks are to all of the Technical Requirements of subject to the SPCC program. excluded from the definition of 40 CFR PART 280 or State Programs Tanks deferred from compliance with ‘‘completely buried tank’’ in part 112, Approved under 40 CFR PART 281 part 280 rules. Other facilities with and are considered aboveground storage storage capacity subject to part 280 are tanks (ASTs) for purposes of the rule, as Background. Part 280 and approved deferred from current compliance with are tanks in vaults. These tanks are not State programs. In 1991, we proposed to most of the technical requirements of included in today’s exemption because exempt from the underground storage that part, including: wastewater compared to completely buried tanks, capacity of facilities in the SPCC rule treatment tank systems; any UST partially buried and bunkered tanks are the storage capacity of buried systems containing radioactive material more likely to cause a discharge as underground storage tanks (USTs) that are regulated under the Atomic described in § 112.1(b). currently subject to all of the technical Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et Although most USTs will be exempt requirements of 40 CFR part 280. We seq.); any UST system that is part of an from the SPCC rule (see the above proposed this change as § 112.1(d)(2)(i) emergency generator system at a nuclear discussion on § 112.1(d)(4)), a facility in 1991. We did not at the time include power generation facility regulated by might have non-exempt USTs for which approved State programs in the proposal the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it must prepare a facility SPCC Plan. If because in 1991 few if any States had under 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A; part of your facility is subject to the such programs. In 40 CFR part 281 airport hydrant fuel distribution rule, you must mark the location and (published on September 23, 1988 at 53 systems; UST systems with field- contents of all containers, including FR 37212), EPA established regulations constructed tanks; and, any UST system exempt and non-exempt USTs, on the whereby a State could receive EPA that stores fuel solely for use by an facility diagram. 40 CFR 112.1(d)(4). approval for its State program to operate emergency power generator. All of these The rationale for this requirement is to in lieu of the Federal program. In order facilities remain potentially subject to help response personnel to easily to obtain EPA program approval under the SPCC program. identify dangers from either fire or part 281, a State program must Tanks excluded from part 280 UST explosion, or physical impediments demonstrate that its requirements are no definition. Excluded from the definition during spill response activities. In less stringent than the corresponding of ‘‘underground storage tank’’ or addition, facility diagrams may be Federal regulations set forth in part 280, ‘‘UST’’ in part 280 are a: (1) Farm or referred to in the event of design and that it provides adequate residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less modifications. 56 FR 54626. enforcement of these requirements. capacity used for storing motor fuel for Capacity calculations. To calculate Thus, we have decided to exempt also noncommercial purposes; (2) tank used the 42,000-gallon threshold which the storage capacity of USTs subject to for storing heating oil for consumptive subjects a facility operating a all of the technical requirements of State use on the premises where stored; (3) completely buried tank to the SPCC UST programs which EPA has septic tank; (4) pipeline facility rule, you may exclude the storage approved. By January 2000, EPA had (including gathering lines) regulated capacity of any completely buried tank approved 27 State programs, plus under: (a) the Natural Gas Pipeline currently subject to all of the technical programs in the District of Columbia Safety Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. App. 1671, requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of and Puerto Rico. The rationale for et seq.), (b) the Hazardous Liquid an approved State program under 40 exempting the storage capacity of these Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. CFR part 281. Thus we expect you will facilities from the SPCC regime is App. 2001, et seq.), or (c) which is an count few completely buried tanks because 40 CFR part 280 and the intrastate pipeline facility regulated containing petroleum products in that approved State programs under 40 CFR under State law comparable to the calculation. You must count the part 281 provide comparable provisions of the Natural Gas Pipeline capacity of completely buried tanks environmental protection for the Safety Act of 1968 or the Hazardous containing products which are not purpose of preventing discharges as Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979; (5) regulated under part 280 or an approved described in § 112.1(b). surface impoundment, pit, pond, or State program under part 281, or which Facilities with storage capacity not lagoon; (6) storm-water or wastewater are not currently subject to all of its subject to part 280 or deferred from its collection system; (7) flow-through technical requirements. provisions. process tank; (8) liquid trap or Permanently closed tanks. In 1991, Storage capacity not subject to part associated gathering lines directly EPA proposed that the underground 280. Some UST facilities have storage related to oil or gas production and storage capacity of a facility does not capacity that is not subject to part 280, gathering operations; or, (9) storage tank include the capacity of underground for example: any UST system holding situated in an underground area (such tanks that are ‘‘permanently closed’’ as hazardous wastes listed or identified as a basement, cellar, mineworking, defined in § 112.2. Under today’s rule, under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the storage tank you may exclude the capacity of tanks Disposal Act, or a mixture of such is situated upon or above the surface of that are permanently closed, as defined hazardous wastes and other regulated the floor. An UST system includes the in § 112.2, in completely buried tank substances; wastewater treatment tank tank itself, connected underground capacity calculations.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47065

Comments. Completely buried storage protection to the SPCC program. While requirements (found at 40 CFR 280.61), tanks. Favorable comments. not all aspects of the programs are an owner or operator must take Commenters overwhelmingly favored identical, the UST program ensures immediate action to prevent further eliminating dual regulation of ASTs and protection against discharges as release of the regulated substance and USTs. Most agreed that the UST described in § 112.1(b), and protection must identify and mitigate fire, program provides protection of the environment. Therefore, dual explosion, and vapor hazards. comparable to the SPCC program. regulation is unnecessary. In response to Reporting and recordkeeping. In Several argued that all USTs as defined commenters asserting that UST rules addition to the reporting requirements in part 280, which includes partially lack provisions concerning contingency mentioned above, there are numerous buried and bunkered tanks, should be planning; emergency response; certain reporting and recordkeeping exempted. Others argued that tanks recordkeeping requirements; and other requirements in the rules governing deferred under the UST program should alleged deficiencies, we disagree. The underground storage tanks. Among be exempted from the SPCC program. UST rules have numerous safeguards these are: corrective action plans; Another commenter suggested that addressing the commenter’s issues. documentation of corrosion protection piping connecting exempted USTs to Partially buried tanks and bunkered equipment; documentation of UST regulated ASTs should be exempted tanks. We disagree that partially buried system repairs; and, information from the SPCC rules. The commenter tanks and bunkered tanks should be concerning recent compliance with added that if such piping is subject to considered completely buried tanks, release detection requirements. Thus, leak detection requirements for USTs and therefore excluded from SPCC the UST rules have significant reporting under 40 CFR part 280, then it should provisions. Such tanks may suffer and recordkeeping requirements, remain exclusively under UST rules and damage caused by differential corrosion including specific requirements related be exempted from SPCC rules. of buried and non-buried surfaces to spills and overfills. Opposing comments. Several greater than completely buried tanks, Transportation rules. In addition to commenters, however, opposed the which could cause a discharge as the EPA UST rules, the U.S. Department proposed exemption of USTs from the described in § 112.1(b). Such tanks are of Transportation has hazardous SPCC program. Those commenters also not subject to secondary material regulations related to driver argued that the SPCC rules are not containment requirements under part training, emergency preparation, and duplicative. They asserted that UST 280 or a State program approved under incident reporting and emergency rules lack provisions concerning 40 CFR part 281. There may also be response. Training regulations, for contingency planning; emergency accidents during loading or unloading example, can be found at 49 CFR part response; periodic training of personnel operations, or overfills resulting in a 172, and loading and unloading to deal with emergencies; maintenance discharge to navigable waters and regulations can be found at 49 CFR of records regarding inspections and adjoining shorelines. Furthermore, a 177.834 and 49 CFR 177.837. These tests; maintenance of records regarding failure of such a tank (caused by regulations apply, for example, to truck discharges to navigable waters or accident or vandalism) would be more drivers delivering gasoline or diesel fuel adjoining shorelines; diking of fuel likely to cause a discharge as described to gas stations with underground storage transfer areas; fuel transfer area in § 112.1(b). tanks. operational procedures; illumination of Contingency planning. While it is true Section 112.1(f). Finally, as a fuel transfer areas; stormwater drainage that UST rules do not require safeguard, today’s rule (see § 112.1(f) in system design; posting of vehicle weight contingency planning, spills and today’s preamble) provides the Regional restrictions in areas where there is overfills of USTs resulting in a Administrator with the authority to underground piping and/or design of discharge to the environment are much require any facility subject to EPA underground piping to withstand less likely as a result of those rules. An jurisdiction under section 311 of the vehicular loadings; a requirement for an owner or operator of an underground CWA, regardless of threshold or other application of ‘‘good engineering storage tank subject to 40 CFR part 280 regulatory exemption, to prepare and practice,’’ in other words, no or a State program approved under 40 implement an SPCC Plan when requirements that the design and CFR part 281 was required to install necessary to further the purposes of the construction of a UST system be spill and overfill prevention equipment Act. overseen by a Professional Engineer; a no later than December 22, 1998. 40 Regulatory jurisdiction. To eliminate requirement that management sign the CFR 280.20 and 280.21. The use of this any possible confusion over regulatory Plan; and, ‘‘other topics enumerated in equipment will greatly reduce the jurisdiction, we explain in this 40 CFR 112.7.’’ One commenter noted likelihood of both small and large preamble (see the above background that since groundwater becomes surface releases or discharges of petroleum to discussion) which containers in a water eventually, whether within the environment through surface spills facility are subject to 40 CFR part 280 minutes or months, the absence of or overfilling underground storage or a State program approved under 40 emergency provisions in the UST tanks. In addition, the UST rules place CFR part 281 and which are subject to program might cause environmental a general responsibility on the owner or part 112. problems. Another commenter argued operator to ensure that discharges due to Piping, ancillary equipment, and that the new regulatory scheme would spilling and overfilling do not occur. containment systems. EPA has modified be confusing because a facility might See 40 CFR 280.30. the scope of the proposed exemption for have some containers subject to SPCC Emergency response and release completely buried tanks (which are and some that are not, as well as reporting. The UST rules also have excluded from the scope of the SPCC containers that may be subject to State several requirements related to rule if they are subject to all of the regulation. emergency response and release or technical requirements of 40 CFR part Response to comments. Completely discharge reporting. The UST rules 280 or a State program approved under buried storage tanks. As we noted generally require that releases of 40 CFR part 281) by clarifying that the above, in the discussion of regulated substances be reported to the exemption includes the connected § 112.1(d)(1)(i), the UST program implementing agency within 24 hours. underground piping, underground provides comparable environmental As part of the initial response ancillary equipment, and containment

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47066 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

systems, in addition to the tank itself. 62 FR 63813. We noted that we were Response to comments. Minimum This modification is consistent with the considering eliminating the provision in container size. In response to comments, definition of underground storage tank the current rule that requires a facility we are introducing a minimum system found at 40 CFR 280.12. In having an aboveground container in container size. The 55 gallon container addition, this clarification is responsive excess of 660 gallons to prepare an is the most widely used commercial to the comment which asked that the SPCC Plan, as long as the total bulk container, and these containers are piping be included in the exemption. aboveground capacity of the facility easily counted. Containers below 55 Deferred tanks. We disagree that we remained at 1,320 gallons or less. The gallons in capacity are typically end-use should not regulate tanks which are effect of such a change would be to raise consumer containers. Fifty-five gallon deferred from compliance with any of the threshold for regulation to an containers are also the lowest size bulk the technical requirements of 40 CFR aboveground storage capacity greater container that can be handled by a part 280 or a State program approved than 1,320 gallons. human. Containers above that size under 40 CFR part 281. These are In 1991, EPA also proposed that the typically require equipment for containers from which a discharge as aboveground storage capacity of a movement and handling. We considered described in § 112.1(b) may occur, and facility does not include the capacity of a minimum container size of one barrel. thus are properly subject to the SPCC aboveground storage containers that are However, a barrel or 42 gallons is a rule. Furthermore, if they were not ‘‘permanently closed’’ as defined in common volumetric measurement size regulated by SPCC rules, they may, in § 112.2. for oil, but is not a common container some instances, not be regulated at all. Comments. Minimum size container. size. Therefore, it would not be Effect on Facility Response Plan Numerous commenters suggested a de appropriate to institute a 42 gallon facilities. The exemption for completely minimis size for containers to be used minimum container size. buried tanks subject to all the technical for AST capacity calculations. Most of You need only count containers of 55 requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a the suggestions came in the context of gallons or greater in the calculation of State program approved under 40 CFR the discussion of the proposed the regulatory threshold. You need not part 281 applies to the calculation of definition of ‘‘bulk storage tank.’’ count containers, like pints, quarts, and storage capacity both for SPCC purposes Suggestions for a minimum size ranged small pails, which have a storage and for Facility Response Plan (FRP) from over 55 gallons to 25,000 gallons. capacity of less than 55 gallons. Some purposes because the exemption applies The bulk of the commenters favored SPCC facilities might therefore drop out to all of part 112. Therefore, a few FRP either a greater than 55-gallon number, of the regulated universe of facilities. facilities with large capacity completely or a greater than 660-gallon figure. You should note, however, that EPA buried tanks subject to 40 CFR part 280 Regulatory thresholds. Higher retains authority to require any facility or a State program approved under 40 threshold. Commenters offered subject to its jurisdiction under section CFR part 281 might no longer be numerous threshold levels in both 1991 311(j) of the CWA to prepare and required to have FRPs. Calculations for and 1997. Suggestions for the regulatory implement an SPCC Plan, or applicable planning levels for worst case threshold in 1991 ranged from greater part, to carry out the purposes of the discharges will also be affected. than 1,320 gallons to 120,000 gallons. Act. However, the Regional Administrator Many commenters, particularly utilities, While some commenters had retains authority to require the owner or favored thresholds in the 10,000– suggested a higher threshold level, we operator of any non-transportation- 42,000-gallon range. In 1997, when EPA believe that inclusion of containers of related onshore facility to prepare and suggested it might consider a greater 55 gallons or greater within the submit a FRP after considering the than 1,320-gallon threshold, many calculation for the regulatory threshold factors listed in § 112.20(f)(2). See commenters favored that suggestion. is necessary to ensure environmental § 112.20(b)(1). Others urged thresholds ranging up to protection. If we finalized a higher Editorial changes and clarifications. 15,000 gallons. minimum size, the result in some cases ‘‘Underground storage tanks’’ becomes Lower threshold. A few commenters would be large amounts of aggregate ‘‘completely buried storage tanks.’’ The suggested lowering the threshold. capacity that would not be counted for phrase ‘‘does not include’’ becomes Commenters suggested threshold levels SPCC purposes, and would therefore be ‘‘excludes.’’ We have amended the rule of 110 and 250 gallons. The general unregulated, posing a threat to the to clarify that facilities must be subject rationale for these suggestions was that environment. We believe that it is not to ‘‘all of’’ the technical requirements of oil spills causing even a sheen can be necessary to apply SPCC or FRP rules 40 CFR part 280 or of a State program devastating. Therefore, these requiring measures like secondary approved under 40 CFR part 281 to commenters reasoned that sheens from containment, inspections, or integrity qualify for the SPCC exemption. If a home heating oil tanks of 110 gallons, testing, to containers smaller than 55 facility is subject to some, but not all of i.e., two 55-gallon drums, are every bit gallons storing oil because a discharge the UST requirements, it may be subject as important as sheens from crude oil from these containers generally poses a to the SPCC rule. Facilities in this tanks. An advocate for a lower threshold smaller risk to the environment. category include those which are noted that manufacturers now sell, Furthermore, compliance with the rules excluded from UST requirements, or market, and produce fuel containers of for these containers could be extremely deferred from compliance with some or 650 gallons designed to avoid burdensome for an owner or operator all of those requirements. compliance with the rule, whether the and could upset manufacturing site is adjacent to navigable waterways operations, while providing little or no Section 112.1(d)(2)(ii)—AST Threshold, or not. The commenter added that most significant increase in protection of Minimum Container Size, Permanently manufacturers market or sell a ‘‘listed’’ human health or the environment. Many Closed Tanks tank of 250 gallons, and that under of these smaller containers are Background. Regulatory thresholds. In current rules, five of these tanks would constantly being emptied, replaced, and the 1997 preamble, we asked for not subject a facility to the SPCC rule, relocated so that serious corrosion will comment as to whether any change in yet the risk would be nearly identical to likely soon be detected and undetected the level of storage capacity which one larger tank of 1,250 gallons leaks become highly unlikely. While we subjects a facility to this rule is justified. depending upon the design of the tank. realize that small discharges may harm

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47067

the environment, depending on where § 112.1(b). We encourage those facilities specifically to the facilities subject to and when the discharge occurs, we exempted from today’s rule to maintain MMS requirements. Until October 22, believe that this measure will allow SPCC Plans. Likewise, we encourage 1991, the date of the 1991 proposed facilities to concentrate on the facilities becoming operable in the rule, responsibility for the establishment prevention and containment of future with storage or use capacity of procedures, methods, and equipment discharges of oil from those sources below the regulatory threshold to and other requirements for equipment to most likely to present a more significant develop Plans. We believe that SPCC prevent and to contain discharges of oil risk to human health and the Plans have utility and benefit for both from offshore facilities, including environment. the facility and the environment. But, associated pipelines, other than Effect on Facility Response Plan we will no longer by regulation require deepwater ports subject to the facilities. The exemption for containers Plans from exempted facilities. Deepwater Ports Act, was delegated to of less than 55 gallons applies to the While we believe that the Federal oil EPA. Under EO 12777 (56 FR 54747, calculations of storage capacity both for program is best focused on larger risks, October 22, 1991), responsibility for the SPCC purposes and for FRP purposes State, local, or tribal governments may establishment of procedures, methods, because the exemption applies to all of still decide that smaller facilities and equipment and other requirements part 112. Therefore, a few FRP facilities warrant regulation under their own for equipment to prevent and to contain might no longer be required to have authorities. In accord with this discharges of oil from offshore facilities, FRPs. The calculations for planning philosophy, we note that this Federal including associated pipelines, other levels for worst case discharges would exemption may not relieve all exempted than deepwater ports subject to the also be affected. facilities from Plan requirements Deepwater Ports Act, was redelegated to Regulatory thresholds. We have because some States, local, or tribal the U.S. Department of the Interior decided to raise the current regulatory governments may still require such (DOI). These facilities are generally threshold, as discussed in the 1997 facilities to have Plans. While we are offshore oil production or exploration preamble, to an aggregate threshold of aware that some States, local, or tribal facilities. over 1,320 gallons. We believe that governments have laws or policies raising the regulatory threshold is allowing them to set requirements no In 1994, in another Memorandum of justified because our Survey of Oil more stringent than Federal Understanding (MOU) found in Storage Facilities (published in July requirements, we encourage States, Appendix B of part 112, EPA, DOI, and 1996, and available on our Web site at local, or tribal governments to maintain DOT redelegated the responsibility to www.epa.gov/oilspill) points to the or lower regulatory thresholds to regulate non-transportation-related conclusion that several facility include facilities no longer covered by offshore facilities located in and along characteristics can affect the chances of Federal rules where their own laws or the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, a discharge. First, the Survey showed policies allow. We believe that CWA and the Gulf Coast barrier islands from that as the total storage capacity section 311(o) authorizes States to DOI to EPA. increases, so does the propensity to establish their own oil spill prevention Because of the redelegation of discharge, the severity of the discharge, programs which can be more stringent responsibility, some DOI facilities again and the costs of cleanup. Likewise, the than EPA’s program. became subject to the jurisdiction of Survey also pointed out that as the Regulatory safeguard. When a EPA under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the number of tanks increases, so does the particular facility that is below today’s Act. We added a reference to the MOU propensity to discharge, the severity of threshold becomes a hazard to the in the rule. the discharge, and the costs of cleanup. environment because of its practices, or Finally, the Survey showed that as when needed for other reasons to carry Comments. Most commenters favored annual throughput increases, so does out the Clean Water Act, the Regional the proposed exemption because they the propensity to discharge, the severity Administrator may, under a new rule believed that MMS orders, notices, and of the discharge, and, to a lesser extent, provision, require that facility to regulations require oil spill prevention the costs of the cleanup. prepare and implement an SPCC Plan. and contingency planning equivalent to The threshold change will have See § 112.1(f). This provision acts as a the environmental protection several benefits. The threshold increase safeguard to an environmental threat envisioned by EPA’s rules. Two will result in a substantial reduction in from any exempted facility. commenters, both States, opposed the information collection associated with Editorial changes and clarifications. proposal. One was concerned with the rule overall. Some smaller facilities The reference to ‘‘underground storage MMS’ ‘‘historic treatment of identified will no longer have to bear the costs of tanks’’ was deleted because it is violations.’’ The other suggested that the an SPCC Plan. EPA will be better able unnecessary. A reference to the more stringent of EPA or MMS to focus its regulatory oversight on exemption of certain ‘‘completely regulations apply. facilities that pose a greater likelihood buried’’ storage tanks from the rules is Response to comments. We have of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), contained in § 112.1(d)(4). retained our original proposal, except and a greater potential for injury to the for the editorial revision, because we environment if a discharge as described Section 112.1(d)(3)—Minerals believe that MMS will provide in § 112.1(b) results. Management Service Facilities We raise the regulatory threshold Background. In 1991, EPA proposed equivalent environmental protection for realizing that discharges as described in to exempt from the SPCC rule facilities the facilities under its jurisdiction. § 112.1(b) from small facilities may be subject to Minerals Management Service MMS regulations require adequate spill harmful, depending on the surrounding (MMS) Operating Orders, notices, and prevention, control, and environment. Among the factors regulations. The rationale for the 1991 countermeasures that are directed more remaining to mitigate any potential proposal was to avoid redundancy in specifically to the facilities subject to disasters are that small facilities no regulation, based on EPA’s analysis that MMS requirements. longer required to have SPCC Plans are MMS Operating Orders require adequate Editorial changes and clarifications. still liable for cleanup costs and spill prevention, control, and The term ‘‘Operating Orders’’ becomes damages from discharges as described in countermeasures that are directed more ‘‘regulations.’’

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47068 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Section 112.1(d)(4)—Completely Buried should be exempted from the rule, if ‘‘petroleum, oil, nonbiodegradable Storage Tanks used exclusively for wastewater cutting oil, or products of mineral oil Background. This paragraph is a treatment and not used to meet any origin in amounts that will cause companion paragraph to § 112.1(d)(2)(i) other requirement of part 112. We have interference or pass through. 40 CFR for purposes of SPCC exemption. As in therefore amended the rule to reflect 403.5(b)(6). EPA believes that the GPR that agreement. No longer subject to the and the more specific categorical § 112.1(d)(2)(i), we have also exempted rule would be wastewater treatment pretreatment standards, some of which connected underground piping, facilities or parts thereof such as allow indirect dischargers to adopt a underground ancillary equipment, and treatment systems at POTWs and BMP as an alternative way to meet containment systems subject to all of the industrial facilities treating oily pretreatment standards, will work to technical requirements of part 280 or a wastewater. prevent the discharge of oil from State program approved under 40 CFR Many of these wastewater treatment wastewater treatment systems into part 281. We also added a clause noting facilities or parts thereof are subject to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines that these exempted tanks must be NPDES or state-equivalent permitting by way of a POTW. marked on the facility diagram as requirements that involve operating and However, if a wastewater facility or provided in § 112.7(a)(3), if the facility maintaining the facility to prevent part thereof is used for the purpose of is otherwise subject to this part. See the discharges. 40 CFR 122.41(e). The storing oil, then there is no exemption, discussion above concerning NPDES or state-equivalent process and its capacity must be counted as part § 112.1(d)(2)(i). ensures review and approval of the of the storage capacity of the facility. Editorial changes and clarifications. facility’s: plans and specifications; Any oil storage capacity associated with ‘‘Underground storage tanks’’ becomes operation/maintenance manuals and or incidental to these wastewater ‘‘completely buried storage tanks.’’ We procedures; and, Stormwater Pollution treatment facilities or parts thereof also reference 40 CFR part 281. Prevention Plans, which may include continues to be subject to part 112. At Section 112.1(d)(5)—Minimum Size Best Management Practice Plans (BMP). permitted wastewater treatment Exemption Many affected facilities are subject to facilities, storage capacity includes bulk a BMP prepared under an NPDES storage containers, hydraulic equipment Background. This is a new section we permit. Some of those plans provide associated with the treatment process, added in response to comments protections equivalent to SPCC Plans. containers used to store oil which feed pertaining to the regulatory threshold/ BMPs are additional conditions which an emergency generator associated with minimum container size issue discussed may supplement effluent limitations in wastewater treatment, and slop tanks or above. This section clarifies that any NPDES permits. Under section 402(a)(1) other containers used to store oil aboveground or completely buried of the CWA, BMPs may be imposed resulting from treatment. Some flow container with capacity of less than 55 when the Administrator determines that through treatment such as oil/water gallons is not subject to the rule. It is a such conditions are necessary to carry separators have a storage capacity companion rule to § 112.1(d)(2)(ii) for out the provisions of the Act. See 40 within the treatment unit itself. This purposes of SPCC exemption. See the CFR 122.44(k). CWA section 304(e) storage capacity is subject to the rule. discussion above concerning authorizes EPA to promulgate BMPs as An example of a wastewater treatment § 112.1(d)(2)(ii). effluent limitations guidelines. NPDES unit that functions as storage is a Section 112.1(d)(6)—Wastewater rules provide for BMPs when: treatment unit that accumulates oil and Treatment Facility Exemption authorized under section 304(e) of the performs no further treatment, such as CWA for the control of toxic pollutants a bulk storage container used to separate Background. In 1991, EPA proposed and hazardous substances; numeric oil and water mixtures, in which oil is various changes to § 112.1(d) concerning limitations are infeasible; or, the stored in the container after removal of exemptions to part 112, and received practices are reasonably necessary to the water in the separation/treatment comments on its proposals. Among achieve effluent limitations and process. those comments was one suggesting an standards to carry out the purposes of We do not consider wastewater exemption for certain treatment the CWA. In addition, each NPDES or treatment facilities or parts thereof at an systems. state equivalent permit for a wastewater oil production, oil recovery, or oil Comments. One commenter suggested treatment system must contain recycling facility to be wastewater that the ‘‘§ 112.1 exceptions should be operation and maintenance treatment for purposes of this expanded to include facility storage and requirements to reduce the risk of paragraph. These facilities generally treatment tanks associated with ‘non- discharges. 40 CFR 122.41(e). lack NPDES or state-equivalent permits contact cooling water systems’ and/or Additionally, some wastewater is and thus lack the protections that such ‘storm water retention and treatment pretreated prior to discharge to a permits provide. Production facilities systems.’ Although these tanks are permitted wastewater treatment facility. are normally unmanned and therefore designed to remove spilled oil from The CWA authorizes EPA to establish lack constant human oversight and manufacturing operations and parking pretreatment standards for pollutants inspection. Produced water generated lot runoff, the concentration of oil in the that pass through or interfere with the by the production process normally water at any given time would be operation of POTWs. The General contains saline water as a contaminant insignificant. These tanks are typically Pretreatment Regulations (GPR), which in the oil, which might aggravate very large, i.e., in excess of 100,000 set for the framework for the environmental conditions in addition to gallons, and are typically not contained implementation of categorical the toxicity of the oil in the case of a by diked walls or impervious surfaces. pretreatment standards, are found at 40 discharge. GM believes the cost to contain these CFR part 403. The GPR prohibit a user Additionally, the goal of an oil structures could be better spent on other from introducing a pollutant into a production, oil recovery, or oil recycling SPCC regulatory requirements.’’ POTW which causes pass through or facility is to maximize the production or Response to comments. We agree with interference. 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1). More recovery of oil, while eliminating the commenter that certain wastewater specifically, the GPR also prohibit the impurities in the oil, including water, treatment facilities or parts thereof introduction into of POTW of whereas the goal of a wastewater

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47069

treatment facility is to purify water. and operation and maintenance wanted copies of the notifications EPA Neither an oil production facility, nor provisions. would receive, and at least one an oil recovery or oil recycling facility suggested requiring updates. One Proposed § 112.1(e)—Facility treats water, instead they treat oil. For commenter suggested that we gather the Notification purposes of this exemption, produced information through representative water is not considered wastewater and Background. In 1991, EPA proposed sampling at on-site surveys. Another treatment of produced water is not to require that any facility subject to its commenter suggested that we use spill considered wastewater treatment. jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act reports already submitted because it Therefore, a facility which stores, treats, which also meets the regulatory storage makes more sense to regulate those or otherwise uses produced water capacity threshold notify the Agency on facilities whose practices have led to a remains subject to the rule. At oil a one-time basis of its existence. CWA spill. drilling, oil production, oil recycling, or section 311(m) provides EPA with the Applicability. Other commenters oil recovery facilities, treatment units authority to require the owner or criticized the fact that the proposal subject to the rule include open oil pits operator of a facility subject to section would have been applicable to facilities or ponds associated with oil production 311 to make reports and provide which were not subject to the SPCC operations, oil/water separators (gun information to carry out the objectives rule. Their solution was to limit barrels), and heater/treater units. Open of section 311. Any owner or operator applicability to facilities currently oil pits or ponds function as another who failed to notify or knowingly regulated under part 112. form of bulk storage container and are submitted false information in a Terrorism. One commenter suggested not used for wastewater treatment. Open notification would be subject to a civil that the aggregation of such strategic oil pits or ponds also pose numerous penalty. This type of notice is separate information in an easily accessed data environmental risks to birds and other from the notice required at 40 CFR 110.3 base like a facility notification data base wildlife. of discharges which may be harmful to could provide an intelligence windfall Examples of wastewater treatment the public health or welfare or the to terrorists and other enemies of our facilities or parts thereof used to meet a environment. We did not propose any nation. part 112 requirement include an oil/ changes to the notice requirements in Small facilities. Commenters for small water separator used to meet any SPCC § 110.3. facilities argued that facility notification requirement. Oil/water separators used We proposed that facility notification would cause a deluge of notifications to to meet SPCC requirements include oil/ include, among other items, information be sent to EPA with little or no water separators used as general facility concerning the number, size, storage environmental benefit. Some of these secondary containment (i.e., § 112.7(c), capacity, and locations of ASTs. The commenters suggested exempting small secondary containment requirements for proposal would have exempted facilities at various levels of storage loading and unloading (i.e., § 112.7(h)), information regarding the number and capacity, for example, 42,000 gallons or and for facility drainage (i.e., § 112.8(b) size of completely buried tanks, as 100,000 gallons. or § 112.9(b)). defined in § 112.2, from the notification Notification time line. In particular, Whether a wastewater treatment requirement. The rationale for commenters questioned various aspects facility or part thereof is used notification was that submission of this of the proposal. Many questioned the exclusively for wastewater treatment information would be needed to help us necessity of providing the information (i.e., not storage or other use of oil) or identify our universe of facilities and to within the proposed two months time used to satisfy a requirement of part 112 help us administer the Oil Pollution frame. Some commenters suggested will often be a facility specific Prevention Program by creating a data other time periods ranging from ‘‘more determination based on the activity base of facility-specific information. We than two months’’ to 18 months. associated with the facility or part also asked for comments regarding the However, the bulk of the commenters thereof. Only the portion of the facility form on which notification would be favored a six month period for facility (except at an oil production, oil submitted, and on various possible notification if notification were to be recovery, or oil recycling facility) used items of information that could be required. Others favored a ‘‘phase-in’’ of exclusively for wastewater treatment included besides the ones proposed. the requirements. and not used to meet any part 112 Lastly, we asked for comments on Who must notify. Some commenters requirement is exempt from part 112. alternate forms of facility notification. asked who must notify, the owner or Storage or use of oil at such a facility 56 FR 54614–15. operator. They noted that these might be will continue to be subject to part 112. Comments. Favorable comments. A different persons. One commenter Although we exempt wastewater number of commenters favored the suggested that the operator of the treatment facilities or parts thereof from proposal, including some industry facility, the owner of any improvements the rule under certain circumstances, a commenters. These commenters stated at the facility, and the owner of the land mixture of wastewater and oil still is that there was generally no current at the facility should be required to ‘‘oil’’ under the statutory and regulatory procedure whereby EPA can identify the submit facility notification. The definition of the term (33 U.S.C. universe of sites subject to the SPCC commenter argued that the United 1321(a)(1) and 40 CFR 110.2 and 112.2). rule, and that an inventory of these States government is the landowner Thus, while we are excluding from the facilities is necessary. most prejudiced by the absence of a scope of the rule certain wastewater Opposing comments. Most industry requirement of landowner involvement treatment facilities or parts thereof, a commenters opposed the proposal in the preparation of an SPCC plan discharge of wastewater containing oil either in part or in its entirety. because an owner or operator can to navigable waters or adjoining Sources of information. Commenters prepare a minimal SPCC Plan and not shorelines in a ‘‘harmful quantity’’ (40 who opposed the proposal in its entirety even inform the landowner of it. CFR part 110) is prohibited. Thus, to asserted that it was unnecessary, largely Location issues. Others questioned the avoid such discharges, we would expect because they believed the information proposed requirement for the name, owners or operators to comply with the sought might be better obtained from address, and zip code of the facility, applicable permitting requirements, other sources, such as State sources or arguing that provision of such including best management practices SARA Title III reports. Some States information was not always possible,

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47070 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

especially in remote rural areas. Some longitude of the facility; location of impose more stringent standards noted that drilling rigs move from environmentally sensitive areas and relating to prevention of oil discharges, location to location as often as every few potable water supplies; presence of or none at all. EPA encourages States to months. Commenters suggested secondary containment; spill history; set up their own oil pollution alternatives such as use of longitude and leak detection equipment and alarms; prevention programs because we believe latitude, or the Universal Transverse age of the tanks; potential for adverse that oil pollution prevention efforts Mercator system, or a mailing address. weather; and, for field verification should be a joint Federal-State effort. Storage capacity. A number of purposes, a requirement to have storage Industry standards. Under this rule, a commenters had concerns about the facilities placarded or similarly facility is required to at least consider requirement for the total number and identified. Most commenters opposed the use of all relevant measures, size of ASTs, and the total AST capacity the inclusion of additional items. including the use of industry standards, of the facility. Commenters noted that Several supported these additions as as a way to implement those measures. there was no space on the form for well as the addition of other The requirement comes in the language containers less than 250 gallons. Other information, particularly information of revised § 112.3(d)(1)(iii) requiring the commenters asked if additions to concerning tank materials, methods of PE to attest that ‘‘the Plan has been storage capacity would trigger a new construction (for example, field-or shop- prepared in accordance with good notification. Some commenters believed erected) and substance stored. engineering practice, including that storage capacity could be measured Response to comments. Withdrawal of consideration of applicable industry by SARA Title III information. proposal. We have decided to withdraw standards, and with the requirements of Distance to navigable waters. The the proposed facility notification this part.’’ A facility should use industry proposed requirement to detail the requirement because we are still standards whenever possible in distance to the nearest navigable water considering issues associated with preparing and implementing its SPCC elicited many comments. Some establishing a paper versus electronic Plan, and should discuss their use in commenters noted that there was no notification system, including issues Plans. While facility owners or definition of navigable waters on the related to providing electronic operators should look to specific form, making it difficult for some signatures on the notification. Should industry standards as a guide for responders to answer the question. the Agency in the future decide to move preparing SPCC Plans, we do not Others asserted that making the forward with a facility notification believe that incorporating specific determination on distance to navigable requirement, we will repropose such standards into this rule is appropriate. waters was a difficult one due to requirement. Such incorporation freezes standards litigation concerning the definition of into rules, which may swiftly become the term. Yet other commenters thought Section 112.1(e)—Proposed as outdated or obsolete. that we should specify a minimum § 112.1(f)—Compliance With Other distance to navigable waters, on the Laws Editorial changes and clarifications. theory that only facilities within a Background. While today’s rule is The new introductory language is, ‘‘This certain distance would have a substantially similar to the current one, part establishes requirements for the reasonable possibility of discharge to EPA suggested in the 1991 preamble preparation and implementation of Spill such waters. that facility owners consider industry Prevention, Control, and Classification of facilities. One standards in preparing SPCC Plans. 56 Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans.’’ The commenter noted that exploration and FR 54617. new language covers all SPCC production facilities rarely have Dun & Comments. State rules. Several States requirements, both general and specific. Bradstreet numbers, and that the wrote to ask EPA to be as consistent That language replaces ‘‘This part information received from Dun & with current State rules as possible. One provides for * * *.’’ The phrase ‘‘Plans Bradstreet might be irrelevant for our industry commenter complained that prepared in accordance with §§ 112.7, purposes. Regarding the reporting of EPA rules were more stringent than 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11’’ was Standard Industrial Classification codes some State rules. Other industry eliminated because new introductory (SIC) (now replaced by North American commenters opposed either State or language makes it unnecessary. Industry Classification System (NAICS) Federal regulation, or both. Section 112.1(f)—Proposed as codes), commenters asserted that EPA Industry standards. Several § 112.1(g)—Plans for Exempted used inaccurate codes, that no codes commenters wrote to urge that EPA Facilities were listed for edible oil facilities, and incorporate industry standards into the that the codes listed were misleading in rule, on the theory that if EPA wants to Background. This is a new section, that they did not cover all possible require these standards, they must be proposed in 1993, that allows the industries regulated. incorporated into the rule. Others wrote Regional Administrators (RAs) to Use of oil. Permanently closed to urge the inclusion of specific require preparation of entire an SPCC containers. Facilities using primarily standards, such as fire codes or steel Plan, or applicable part, by the owner or oil-filled equipment, not bulk storage tank codes. operator of an otherwise exempted containers, asked whether they too were Response to comments. State rules. facility, that is subject to the jurisdiction covered by the notification proposal. Section 311(o)(2) of the CWA of EPA under section 311(j) of the CWA. Other commenters asked for specifically provides that nothing in The proposal stems from the 1988 clarification as to whether permanently section 311 ‘‘shall be construed as Interagency SPCC Task Force and closed tanks were covered by the preempting any State or political subsequent GAO report, ‘‘Inland Oil proposal. subdivision thereof from imposing any Spills’’ (GAO/RCED–89–65). Possible additional items. There were requirements or liability with respect to Comments. Authority. One numerous comments on various the discharge of oil * * *.’’ We are commenter called the proposal additional items for which EPA had aware that Federal rules often set the ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ and feared requested comment, but which were not standard for State rules, and at least set political use of the authority. Some included in the proposal. Possible a floor for State rules. Under CWA commenters questioned EPA authority additional items included: latitude and section 311(o)(2), States are free to for the proposal.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47071

Standard to use authority. One require a partial Plan addressing Section 112.2—Definitions commenter favored the proposal and secondary containment, for example, to Background. Definitions proposed in suggested that we look at additional prevent future discharges as described 1993 and 1999, and promulgated in the physical characteristics of the facility in in § 112.1(b). Facility Response Plan rule of 1994 and order to make a determination to require Partial Plans. We clarify that the RA 2000 are reprinted in the rule for the the owner or operator to prepare an may require partial Plans to cover convenience of the reader. No SPCC Plan. Other commenters asserted situations where the preparation of only substantive changes were made to those that the standards for requiring Plans a partial Plan may be necessary, such as definitions and they are not discussed need to be specified, or that ‘‘good to supplement an existing document further in this preamble, except where cause’’ be the standard. other than a Plan or to address a we made editorial changes in today’s Response Plans. One commenter particular environmental threat. The rule. The discussion for those editorial urged a ‘‘vastly abbreviated’’ version of decision to require a Plan (or partial changes, and for proposed definitions this section in the event that the Plan) could be based on the presence of that were not already finalized in the Regional Administrator requires a small environmental concerns not adequately 1994 and 2000 FRP rule, follows. Appalachian facility to prepare a facility addressed under UST or NPDES response plan in addition to an SPCC Adverse Weather regulations, or due to other relevant Plan, because the ‘‘extensive environmental factors. The section may Editorial changes and clarifications. requirements outlined in the appendices be invoked when the RA determines it We have made slight editorial changes and attachments have little is necessary to ‘‘carry out the purposes to this definition, none of which are applicability’’ to a small Appalachian of the Act.’’ substantive. In the first sentence, the oil field storage facility. The commenter phrase ‘‘will be considered’’ becomes The decision to require a partial Plan added that the availability of secondary ‘‘must be considered.’’ In the second is separate from a decision to require an containment at most Appalachian sentence, the phrase ‘‘as appropriate’’ is facilities mitigates many of the amendment to a Plan. In one case, the placed in parentheses. requirements of the complete response assumption is that a Plan doesn’t exist; plan which is directed towards large oil in the other, that an existing Plan needs Alteration storage tanks. amendment. Background. In 1993, we proposed a Appeals process. Other commenters Response Plans. Section 112.1(f) definition of ‘‘alteration’’ in conjunction called for an appeals process, and applies only to the total or partial with the proposed rule for ensuring specification of time frames within preparation of an SPCC Plan. It does not against brittle fracture. We proposed the which the RA must act. authorize the Regional Administrator to definition of ‘‘alteration’’ to mean ‘‘any Response to comments. Authority. require you to prepare a facility work on a tank or related equipment EPA believes that it has adequate response plan. We have withdrawn a involving cutting, burning, welding, or authority under section 311 of the CWA proposal (see 1993 proposed heating operations that changes the to require any facility within its § 112.7(d)(1)) which would have physical dimensions or configuration of jurisdiction to prepare a Plan that could required you to prepare a response plan a tank.’’ because of its location, cause a when your SPCC facility lacked Comments. One commenter suggested discharge as described in § 112.1(b). secondary containment. Therefore, most that we conform the proposed definition This authority is broad enough to facilities will incur no response of ‘‘alteration’’ with the API 653 encompass the storage or use capacity of planning costs. Instead, if your facility definition, specifically deleting the any exempted facility within EPA’s lacks secondary containment, you must phase ‘‘or related equipment.’’ jurisdiction, regardless of size. prepare a contingency plan following Response to comments. Related Standard to use authority. RAs may the provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and equipment. We agree with the invoke this section to carry out the otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). As a commenter and will not include the purposes of the Act on a case-specific result, requirements to prepare a facility term ‘‘or related equipment’’ in the basis when it is needed to prevent a response plan are contained solely in definition to conform with API Standard discharge as described in § 112.1(b), and § 112.20, and not § 112.1(f). 653, which does not include alterations thus protect the environment. While we of related equipment as a criterion for expect to use this section sparingly, it is Appeals process. We agree that an appeals process is appropriate for this brittle fracture evaluation. In the necessary to address gaps in other preamble to the 1993 proposal, we gave regulatory regimes that might best be section. Therefore we have added a new paragraph (f)(5) to include such a examples of alteration that included the remedied by requiring a facility to have addition of manways and nozzles an SPCC Plan. Factors the RAs may process, and have provided time frames for the process. The appeals process is greater than 12-inch nominal pipe size consider in making a determination that and an increase or decrease in tank shell a facility needs an SPCC Plan include, modeled upon current § 112.4(f), which we reproposed in 1991 and have height. 58 FR 8843. but are not limited to, the physical Industry Standards. An industry finalized today. characteristics of the facility, the standard that may be helpful in presence of secondary containment, the Editorial changes and clarifications. understanding the definition of discharge history of the facility, and the We deleted the proposed requirement to ‘‘alteration’’ is API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank proximity of the facility to sensitive ‘‘submit’’ a Plan in paragraph (f)(2), Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and environmental areas such as wetlands, because we only require submission of Reconstruction.’’ parks, or wildlife refuges. An example Plans in certain circumstances, such as Editorial changes and clarifications. of the use of this section might be when when there has been a discharge(s) as ‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’ a facility is exempted from SPCC rules described in § 112.1(b) over the because its storage capacity is below the threshold amount provided for in Breakout tank regulatory threshold, but the facility has § 112.4(a), and the RA believes that Background. We proposed this been the cause of repeated discharges as submission of the Plan is necessary. We definition and the definition of ‘‘bulk described in § 112.1(b). The RA might do not require Plan submission as a storage tank’’ in 1991 to clarify the require an entire Plan, or might only general rule. distinction between facilities regulated

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47072 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

by DOT and EPA. Breakout tanks are exclude electrical equipment from the Completely Buried Tank—Proposed as used mainly to compensate for pressure definition because such equipment is ‘‘Underground Storage Tank’’ surges or to control and maintain not bulk storage. Other commenters Background. In 1991, we proposed pressure through pipelines. They are asked for a minimum size to which the adding a definition for ‘‘underground also sometimes used for bulk storage. definition should apply. storage tank.’’ It differed from the These tanks are frequently in-line, and Response to comments. We agree that Underground Storage Tank (UST) may be regulated by EPA, DOT, or both. electrical equipment is not bulk storage. program definition in 40 CFR part 280 When a breakout tank is used for both See the above discussion on the because it excluded tanks which are storage and for pipeline control, it applicability of the rule to electrical and partially buried or bunkered, as well as becomes in itself a ‘‘complex,’’ and is other operating equipment under some other tanks or containers included regulated as such. See the discussion on § 112.1(b). See also the definition of within the part 280 definition, such as ‘‘complexes’’ in today’s preamble at ‘‘bulk storage container’’ in § 112.2. For containers storing certain hazardous § 112.1(d)(1)(ii). a discussion of minimum size Comments. A number of commenters substances. Partially buried and containers to which the rule applies, see suggested that EPA adopt the DOT bunkered tanks still have a potential to the discussion under § 112.1(d)(2)(ii). definition of breakout tank. Another discharge oil into navigable waters, commenter asked for guidance as to Editorial changes and clarifications. adjoining shorelines, or affecting natural which agency, DOT or EPA, regulates ‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container’’ because resources. Therefore, we proposed to such tanks. ‘‘container’’ is more accurate. Many retain those tanks within our regulatory Response to comments. On the containers storing oil are not tanks, but jurisdiction, while we proposed to suggestion of commenters, EPA has provide bulk storage. A bulk storage exclude all completely buried tanks adopted a modified version of the DOT container may be either aboveground, storing petroleum that are subject to all definition in 49 CFR 195.2. This partially buried, bunkered, or of the technical requirements of the UST revision promotes consistency in the completely buried. program (40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part DOT and EPA definitions to aid the The definition of ‘‘bulk storage 281). regulators and regulated community. container’’ adopted in today’s rule We modified the DOT definition by Comments. Consistency with the should not be confused with the definition of underground tanks in 40 substituting the word ‘‘oil’’ for definitions of ‘‘container’’ used in ‘‘hazardous liquid,’’ because our rules CFR part 280. One commenter several fire codes. Sometimes those supported the proposal. A number of apply only to oil. We also use in the codes limit a container to one below a definition the term ‘‘container’’ rather commenters thought that the definitions certain size. See for example, the BOCA of underground tanks in parts 112 and than just ‘‘tank’’ to cover any type of National Fire Prevention Code, section container. This terminology is 280 should be consistent. F–2302.1 (1999) and NFPA 30 section Vaulted tanks. Commenters divided consistent with other terminology used 1–6 (1996). The definition adopted in in this rule. on whether subterranean vaulted tanks today’s rule is broader than the should be considered ASTs or USTs. A breakout tank that is used only to definitions in the codes in that it is not relieve surges in an oil pipeline system The commenter opposing the treatment limited to a particular amount of storage of subterranean vaulted tanks as ASTs or to receive and store oil transported by capacity. a pipeline for reinjection and continued in the UST definition argued that transportation by pipeline is subject We also clarify in today’s rule that discharges from those tanks pose no only to DOT jurisdiction. When that oil-filled electrical, operating, or threat to the environment or public same breakout tank is used for other manufacturing equipment is not a bulk health. purposes, such as a process tank or as storage container. Response to comments. Consistency a bulk storage container, it is no longer Bunkered Tank with the definition of underground solely within the definition of breakout tanks in 40 CFR part 280. We disagree tank, and may be subject to EPA or other Background. We proposed this that the scope of the part 112 exclusion jurisdiction with the new use. definition in 1991 to clarify that for underground tanks should be EPA and DOT also signed a joint bunkered tanks are a subset of partially consistent with the scope of the memorandum dated February 4, 2000, buried tanks, and as such, subject to definition of ‘‘underground storage clarifying regulatory jurisdiction on part 112 as aboveground tanks. tank’’ in part 280. The programs are breakout tanks. That memorandum is Comments. One commenter wrote designed for different purposes, available to the public upon request. It that the definition is ‘‘undecipherable therefore, the definitions used will is also available on our Web site at and should be rewritten.’’ The necessarily differ. To eliminate http://www.epa.gov/oilspill under the commenter wrote that the definition confusion with the part 280 definition, ‘‘What’s New’’ section. should be, ‘‘Bunkered tank means a we have changed the proposed part 112 partially buried tank, the portion of definition of ‘‘underground storage Bulk Storage Container—Formerly Bulk tank’’ to ‘‘completely buried tank’’ in Storage Tank which lies above grade is covered with earth, sand, gravel, asphalt, or other this final rule. Background. Along with ‘‘breakout material.’’ Part 280 includes within its UST tank,’’ we proposed this definition in definition tanks which have a volume 1991 to help clarify the distinctions Response to comments. EPA agrees up to ninety percent above the surface between facilities regulated by EPA and that the commenter’s proposed of the ground, which are considered those regulated by DOT. The proposed definition is clearer, and we have used aboveground tanks for part 112 definition was originally for ‘‘bulk it with slight editorial changes. purposes. Part 280 also regulates storage tank.’’ As explained below, we Editorial changes and clarifications. underground storage tanks containing changed the definition to ‘‘bulk storage We added a sentence to the definition hazardous substances, while the SPCC container.’’ noting that bunkered tanks are a subset program regulates only facilities storing Comments. Many electric utility of aboveground storage containers for or using oil as defined in CWA section commenters urged that EPA explicitly purposes of this part. 311. The SPCC program regulates

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47073

facilities with relatively large accord with the coverings noted in the (NPDES) discharges. The rationale was completely buried storage capacity, definition of ‘‘bunkered tank.’’ In the that any potential environmental while the bulk of facilities regulated second sentence, the word impacts of these discharges have been under part 280 are small capacity ‘‘subterranean’’ was deleted from considered in the issuance of a facility’s facilities such as gasoline filling ‘‘subterranean vaults’’ because all NPDES permit and there is no reason to stations. The SPCC program also vaulted tanks, whether subterranean or subject such facilities to dual regulation. regulates other types of containers and aboveground, are counted as Response to comments. A discharge facilities which part 280 excludes, such aboveground tanks for purposes of this includes, but is not limited to, any as: tanks used for storing heating oil for rule. ‘‘spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, consumptive use on the premises where emitting, emptying, or dumping,’’ of oil. Contiguous Zone stored; certain pipeline complexes A discharge as described in § 112.1(b) where oil is stored; and, oil-water Background. The definition of need not reach the level of an imminent separators. ‘‘contiguous zone’’ was proposed in danger to affected lands, waters, or Vaulted tanks. Aboveground vaulted 1991 to conform with 1978 amendments resources to be a discharge. It includes tanks are clearly ASTs. While to the CWA, and the 1990 amendments any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, subterranean vaulted tanks may be to the National Oil and Hazardous emitting, emptying, or dumping of any completely below grade, they may not Substances Pollution Contingency Plan amount of oil no matter where it occurs. be completely covered with earth. (NCP) dealing with the scope of It may not be a reportable discharge Because of their design, they pose a discharges. EPA received no substantive under 40 CFR part 110 if oil never threat of discharge into the comments. Thus, we have finalized the escapes the secondary containment at environment, and are thus excluded proposed definition. the facility and is promptly cleaned up. from our definition of completely buried The contiguous zone is the area that If the discharge escapes secondary tank. Subterranean vaulted tanks are extends nine miles seaward from the containment, it may become a discharge also excluded from the part 280 UST outer limit of the territorial sea. A as described in § 112.1(b), and if that definition of underground tank if the presidential proclamation of December happens, the discharge must then be storage tank is situated upon or above 17, 1988 (No. 5928, 54 FR 777, January reported to the National Response the surface of the floor in an 9, 1989) extended the territorial seas of Center. underground are providing enough the United States to 12 nautical miles Foreseeable or chronic point source space for physical inspection of the from the baselines of the United States discharges that are permitted under exterior of the tank. Therefore, if as determined in accordance with section 402 of the CWA, and that are subterranean tanks were excluded from international law. However, the either due to causes associated with the our definition of completely buried proclamation provided that nothing manufacturing or other commercial tank, they would likely not be regulated therein ‘‘extends or otherwise alters activities in which the discharger is at all, and thereby be likely to pose a existing federal or state law or any engaged or due to the operation of the greater threat to the environment. jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or treatment facilities required by the Other completely buried tanks obligations derived therefrom * * *.’’ NPDES permit, are to be regulated under excluded from the part 280 UST the NPDES program. Other oil definition. Tanks in underground rooms Contract or Other Approved Means discharges in reportable quantities are or above the floor surface, or in other Editorial changes and clarifications. subject to the requirements of section underground areas such as basements, We corrected the title of the definition 311 of the CWA. Such spills or cellars, mine workings, drifts, shafts, or to read ‘‘contract or other approved discharges are governed by section 311 tunnels are also not considered USTs for means,’’ in place of ‘‘contract or other even where the discharger holds a valid purposes of the part 280 definition. The approved.’’ We also changed some and effective NPDES permit under CWA purpose of the part 112 definition is to plural references to singular ones. section 402. Therefore, a discharge of oil clarify that these are tanks that are to a publicly owned treatment work Discharge technically underground but that, in a (POTW) would not be a discharge under practical sense, are no different from Background. The 1991 proposed the § 112.2 definition if the discharge is aboveground tanks. They are situated so changes to the definition of ‘‘discharge’’ in compliance with the provisions of the that, to the same extent as tanks reflected changes to the statutory permit; or resulted from a circumstance aboveground, physical inspection for definition in the 1978 amendments to identified and reviewed and made a part leaks is possible. Also, some of these the CWA. For clarity, the words ‘‘of oil’’ of the public record with respect to a tanks are designed such that in case of were added in the first sentence because permit issued or modified under section a discharge, oil would escape to the definition applies only to discharges 402; or if it were a continuous or navigable waters or adjoining of oil. anticipated intermittent discharge from shorelines, a result which our program Comments. One commenter asked for a point source, identified in a permit or seeks to prevent. a clarification of the term ‘‘discharge.’’ permit application under section 402, Editorial changes and clarifications. The commenter asked whether a drop of which is caused by events occurring The words ‘‘completely below grade and diesel fuel that fell onto the outside within the scope of relevant operating or ***’’ were added to the first sentence casing of a tank during refilling would treatment systems. 33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2); of the definition. The purpose of that be considered a ‘‘discharge,’’ even if the 40 CFR 117.12. Otherwise, the discharge revision was to distinguish completely oil did not reach the ground. Other is subject to the provisions of section buried tanks from partially buried and commenters recommended that the 311 of the CWA as well as the bunkered tanks, which break the grade definition include at least an imminent unpermitted discharge prohibition of of the land, but are not completely danger that the spilled material would section 301(a) of the CWA. 33 U.S.C. below grade. We further clarify that reach a navigable waterway. Another 1311(a). such tanks may be covered not only commenter asked EPA to exempt from Editorial changes and clarifications. with earth, but with sand, gravel, the definition those discharges regulated We have revised the citation for the asphalt, or other material. The under the CWA, such as National River and Harbor Act of 1899 so that it clarification brings the definition into Pollutant Discharge Elimination System refers only to the U.S. Code, and have

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47074 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

deleted the reference to the Statutes at types of activities being carried on at the practice, double-walled piping is the Large. facility. appropriate method of secondary Electrical or operational equipment. containment according to good Facility We disagree with commenters who engineering practice. In determining Background. Because we regulate maintained that electrical equipment whether to install double-walled piping facilities in the SPCC rule, we proposed ‘‘using’’ oil as opposed to ‘‘storing’’ it versus an alternative method of a definition of ‘‘facility’’ in 1991. It is should not fall within the definition of secondary containment, you could based on the Memorandum of ‘‘facility’’ in part 112. Section consider such factors as the additional Understanding (MOU) between the 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA, which effectiveness of double-walled piping in Secretary of DOT and the EPA authorizes EPA to promulgate the SPCC preventing discharges, the technical Administrator, dated November 24, rule, does not distinguish between the aspects of cathodically protecting any 1971 (36 FR 24080). A discussion of the storage and the usage of oil. The section buried double-walled piping system, the types of facilities covered is found in simply authorizes EPA, as delegated by cost of installing double-walled pipe, Appendix A to this rule. the President, to establish and the potential fire and safety hazards Comments. Facility boundaries. One ‘‘requirements to prevent discharges of of double-walled pipes. Earthen or commenter asked for clarification as to oil * * * from onshore and offshore natural structures may be acceptable if whether the facility is the petroleum facilities, and to contain such discharges they contain and prevent discharges as storage site or a single tank at the site. ***.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C). Nor do described in § 112.1(b), including Electrical or operational equipment. the definitions of ‘‘onshore facility’’ or containment that prevents discharge of Utility commenters argued that ‘‘offshore facility’’ in sections 311(a)(10) oil through groundwater that might electrical equipment is not a facility of the CWA distinguish between the use cause a discharge as described in because no oil is being stored in the or storage of oil. Although the definition § 112.1(b). What is practical for one equipment. of ‘‘facility’’ in section 1001(9) of the facility, however, might not work for Buried pipelines, gathering lines, OPA is limited by the ‘‘purpose’’ of the another. flowlines, waste treatment equipment. facility, no such limitation appears in Mobile or fixed facilities. Either One commenter urged that buried CWA section 311. Moreover, EPA mobile or fixed equipment might be the pipelines at mining sites should be believes that although much of the source of a discharge as described in excluded from the definition because electrical equipment may arguably § 112.1(b), and therefore both are ‘‘use’’ oil, in effect the oil is ‘‘stored’’ in such pipelines are often put in place included within the definition of the equipment because it remains in the without recording their location. The ‘‘facility.’’ Section 112.3(c) of this rule equipment for such long time frames. commenter added that typically the already provides that it is not necessary We added language to the definition to lines are emptied and abandoned as part to amend your Plan each time a mobile clarify that such types of equipment are of final reclamation. Other commenters facility moves to a new site. facilities subject to the SPCC rule Editorial changes and clarifications. urged the exclusion of gathering lines whether they are storing or using oil. In the first sentence we added the words and flowlines from the definition Therefore, we revised the definition to ‘‘oil gathering, oil processing, oil because of the cost of providing include the words ‘‘or in which oil is transfer, oil distribution’’ to the list of secondary containment and contingency used.’’ However, we note that a facility activities listed. The added activities planning for such lines. Another which contains only electrical track the activities listed in § 112.1(b). commenter protested the inclusion of equipment is not a bulk storage facility. We also clarify that a vessel or a public waste treatment as a possible activity Buried pipelines, gathering lines, vessel is not a facility or part of a covered under the definition, and flowlines, waste treatment equipment. facility. We deleted the word ‘‘may’’ in therefore the rule. Buried pipelines that carry oil at mining the second sentence of the definition Mobile or fixed facilities. One sites are part of a facility unless they are regarding site-specific factors of facility commenter urged that mobile permanently closed as defined in boundaries, because it is redundant equipment be excluded from the § 112.2. Such pipelines may otherwise with the inclusion of the words, definition because the commenter be the source of a discharge as described ‘‘including, but not limited to.’’ believed that the SPCC Plan would in § 112.1(b). Likewise, the same otherwise have to be amended each time rationale applies to gathering lines and Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive the mobile equipment is moved. flowlines, and waste treatment Environments Response to Comments. Facility equipment. Note that any facility or part Editorial changes and clarifications. boundaries. A facility includes any thereof used exclusively for wastewater We made four editorial changes. We building, structure, installation, treatment and not to satisfy any part 112 deleted the word ‘‘either’’ in the first equipment, pipe or pipeline in oil well requirement is exempted from the rule. sentence because it is unnecessary. drilling operations, oil production, oil The production, recovery, or recycling ‘‘Endangered/threatened species’’ refining, oil storage, and waste of oil is not considered wastewater becomes ‘‘endangered or threatened treatment, or in which oil is used at a treatment for purposes of the rule. See species.’’ We also deleted the colon in site, whether it is mobile or fixed. It may § 112.1(d)(6). the last sentence because it is also include power rights of way While such gathering lines, flowlines, unnecessary. ‘‘Discharges of oil’’ connected to the facility. The extent of and waste treatment equipment are becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ the facility will vary according to the subject to secondary containment circumstances of the site. It may be as requirements, the appropriate method of Maximum Extent Practicable small as a single container or as large as secondary containment is an Editorial changes and clarifications. all of the structures and buildings on a engineering question. Double-walled In the first sentence the phrase ‘‘the site. Some specific factors to use in piping may be an option, but is not limitations used to determine’’ becomes determining the extent of a facility may required by these rules. The owner or ‘‘within the limitations used to be the ownership or operation of those operator and Professional Engineer determine.’’ In the beginning of second buildings, structures, equipment, certifying the Plan should consider sentence, ‘‘It considers * * *.’’ becomes installations, pipes or pipelines, or the whether pursuant to good engineering ‘‘It includes* * *.’’

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47075

Navigable Waters different purposes, and merely because (3) other non-petroleum oils and Background. We proposed a revision an activity or function is regulated for greases. Animal fats include fats, oils, of the definition of ‘‘navigable waters’’ one purpose (for example, NPDES) does and greases of animal origin (for in 1991. The rationale was to have the not mean that regulation for another example, lard and tallow), fish (for part 112 definition track the definition purpose is redundant. The purpose of a example, cod liver oil), or marine of ‘‘navigable waters’’ in 40 CFR part permit discharge system is waste mammal origin (for example, whale oil). 110, which deals with the discharge of treatment and management. The Vegetable oils include oils of vegetable oil. purpose of the SPCC rule is oil pollution origin, including oils from seeds, nuts, Comments. Clarification of the prevention. fruits, and kernels. Examples of vegetable oils include: corn oil, meaning of navigable waters, maps. A Offshore Facility number of commenters asked for a rapeseed oil, coconut oil, palm oil, soy Background. EPA proposed in 1991 to bean oil, sunflower seed oil, cottonseed clarification of the definition of revise the definition of ‘‘offshore oil, and peanut oil. Other non- navigable waters because of the facility’’ to conform with the CWA and petroleum oils and greases include coal difficulty of determining which waters NCP definitions. tar, creosote, silicon fluids, pine oil, fall within the definition. Some asked Comments. EPA or DOI jurisdiction. turpentine, and tall oils. Petroleum oils for EPA maps to aid in this One commenter noted that if the include crude and refined petroleum determination. definition of offshore facility is taken in products, asphalt, gasoline, fuel oils, Navigability, legal authority. Other context with the definition of navigable mineral oils, naphtha, sludge, oil refuse, commenters believed that the definition waters, then many facilities traditionally and oil mixed with wastes other than related to navigability. Some thought subject to EPA jurisdiction would dredged spoil. the definition was legally unsupportable become subject to DOI authority. EORRA requires that Federal agencies because it is so broad. One commenter CWA definition. Another commenter establish separate classes for at least suggested that the term be limited to suggested that the EPA definition these three types of oils. It further unobstructed streams that free flow at should instead be that contained in requires agencies to differentiate least fourteen consecutive days per year. CWA section 311(a)(11). between those classes of oil in relation Wetlands. Another commenter Response to comments. EPA or DOI to their environmental effects, and their believed that the definition should not jurisdiction. The 1994 Memorandum of physical, chemical, biological, and other apply to wetlands because SPCC Understanding between DOI, DOT, and characteristics. EPA has provided new protections are not needed when EPA addresses the jurisdictional issue to subparts within part 112 to facilitate wetlands are regulated under a permit which the commenter refers, differentiation between the categories of program. transferring to EPA those non- oil listed in EORRA. In an advance Response to comments. Clarification transportation-related offshore facilities notice of proposed rulemaking, of the meaning of navigable waters, landward of the coastline. published on April 8, 1999 (64 FR maps. In this definition, we clarify what CWA definition. EPA agrees with the 17227), we requested ideas on how to we mean by navigable waters by commenter urging that the EPA differentiate among the SPCC describing the characteristics of definition track the statutory definition. requirements for facilities storing or navigable waters and by listing The part 112 definition, except for using the various categories of oil. These examples of navigable waters. We also minor editorial changes, is identical to ideas for further differentiation will be note in the definition that certain waste the CWA definition. There is no considered in a future rulemaking. treatment systems are not navigable difference between the substance of the Today’s amendments to the definition waters. part 112 definition and the CWA and the creation of subparts have no We are unable to provide a map to definition. effect on information collection, because identify all navigable waters because not Editorial changes and clarifications. we already include all types of oil in our all such waters have been identified on Permanently moored vessels and other information collection burden a map. However, the rule provides former transportation equipment. We calculations. Similarly, the definition guidelines as to where such waters may also note that barges which store oil, imposes no new requirements, because be found. and have been determined by the Coast all oils have always been subject to the Navigability, legal authority. Guard to be permanently moored, are no substantive requirements of the rule. Navigable waters are not only waters on longer vessels, but storage containers Comments. What is oil. Several which a craft may be sailed. Navigable that are part of an offshore facility. commenters favored the proposed 1991 waters include all waters with a past, Likewise, a container, whether onshore definition, which is identical to the present, or possible future use in or offshore, which was formerly used for current definition. Some asked for interstate or foreign commerce, transportation, such as a truck or clarification as to its scope, particularly including all waters subject to the ebb railroad car, which now is used to store in reference to animal and vegetable and flow of the tide. Navigable waters oil, is no longer used for a oils, synthetic oils, mineral oils, and also include intrastate waters which transportation purpose, and is a bulk petroleum derivatives. could affect interstate or foreign storage container. Specific substances. Others asked commerce. The case law supports a about specific substances like aromatic Oil broad definition of navigable waters, hydrocarbons and asphaltic cement. such as the one published today, and Background. In 1991, EPA reprinted One commenter asked if bilge water is that definition does not necessarily the definition of oil without suggesting oil. depend on navigability in fact. any changes. In response to Edible Oil Authority. Some commenters Wetlands. We disagree that SPCC Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA) of 1995 suggested that EPA’s authority did not regulation of wetlands is redundant. (33 U.S.C. 2720) requirements, we have extend beyond petroleum-based oils. The definition includes wetlands, as reworded the definition to include the Exclusions. Some commenters sought defined in § 112.2 and discussed below, categories of oil included in EORRA. exclusions from the definition, generally because wetlands are waters of the Those categories are: (1) Petroleum oils, based on contentions that certain oils United States. Different programs serve (2) animal fats and vegetable oils; and, (such as vegetable oils) are not harmful

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47076 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

to the environment if discharged. One facilities storing or using different types Oils can foul shorelines and beaches. commenter suggested a definition based of oil. Oil discharges can create rancid odors. on the liquidity of oil, founded on a Exclusions. While States may choose Rancid odors may cause both health rationale that solid or gaseous oils do to regulate all oils or some oils, the impacts and environmental impacts. For not pose a threat to waters of the United CWA definition is designed to prevent example, the 1991 Wisconsin Butter States when discharged at a fixed the discharge of all oils. Fire and Spill resulted in a discharge of facility. Another commenter urged that A definition based on liquidity would melted butter and lard. After the we exempt refined petroleum products exclude solid oils, such as certain cleanup was largely completed, the from the definition because releases animal fats, a result that would be Wisconsin Department of Natural from many of these products are inconsistent with Congressional intent. Resources declared as hazardous regulated by other statutes, such as the Concerning gaseous oils, see our substances the thousands of gallons of Solid Waste Disposal Act. One State discussion on Highly volatile liquids melted butter that ran offsite and the commenter noted that animal and below. mountain of damaged and charred meat vegetable oils are not subject to While releases or discharges of some products spoiling in the hot sun and regulation under that State’s statutes refined petroleum products may be creating objectionable odors. The regulating oil. regulated under the Solid Waste Wisconsin DNR stated that these Oil mixed with wastes or hazardous Disposal Act as waste products, that products posed an imminent threat to substances. Others asked for program is dedicated more to waste human health and the environment. 62 clarification as to whether mixed management, and does not regulate FR 54526. substances, used oil, and waste oils storage of non-waste oil. Highly volatile liquids. We do not were oil. All oils, including animal fats and consider highly volatile liquids that Part 280 definition. One commenter vegetable oils, can harm the volatilize on contact with air or water, noted the difference in definitions environment in many ways. Oil can coat such as liquid natural gas, or liquid between the part 112 definition and the the feathers of birds, the fur of mammals petroleum gas, to be oil. Such definition in 40 CFR part 280. and cause drowning and hypothermia substances do not violate applicable Response to comments. What is oil. and increased vulnerability to starvation water quality standards, do not cause a EPA interprets the definition of oil to and predators from lack of mobility. reportable film or sheen or discoloration Oils can act on the epithelial tissue of include all types of oil, in whatever upon the surface of water or adjoining fish, accumulate on gills, and prevent form, solid or liquid. That includes shorelines, do not cause a sludge or respiration. The oil coating of surface synthetic oils, mineral oils, vegetable emulsion to be deposited beneath the waters can interfere with natural oils, animal fats, petroleum derivatives, surface of the water or upon adjoining processes, oxygen diffusion/reaeration etc. shorelines, and are not removable. Specific substances. As to certain and photosynthesis. Organisms and Therefore, there would be no reportable specific substances, asphaltic cement is algae coated with oil may settle to the discharge as described in 40 CFR 110.3. oil because it is a petroleum-based bottom with suspended solids along Oil mixed with wastes or hazardous product and exhibits oil-like with other oily substances that can substances. Oil means oil of any kind or characteristics. A discharge of asphaltic destroy benthic organisms and interfere in any form, including, but not limited cement may violate applicable water with spawning areas. to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, quality standards, or cause a film or Oils can increase biological or or marine mammal origin; vegetable sheen or discoloration of the water or chemical oxygen demand and deplete oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or the water of oxygen sufficiently to kill fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and emulsion to be deposited beneath the fish and other aquatic organisms. greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, surface of the water or upon adjoining Oils can cause starvation of fish and sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil shorelines. Aromatic hydrocarbons may wildlife by coating food and depleting or may not be oil, depending on their the food supply. Animals that ingest refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other physical characteristics and large amounts of oil through than dredged spoil. Part 280 definition. The definition of environmental effects. Some aromatic contaminated food or preening petroleum in 40 CFR part 280 is a subset hydrocarbons are hazardous substances. themselves may die as a result of the of the part 112 definition of ‘‘oil.’’ The Bilge water that contains sufficient oil ingested oil. Animals can also starve part 112 definition of oil is broader than such that its discharge would violate the because of increased energy demands the part 280 definition of petroleum standards set out in 40 CFR 110.3 is needed to maintain body temperature because part 112 regulates all types of considered oil. The percentage of oil when they are coated with oil. oils, whereas part 280 regulates only concentration in the water is not Oils can exert a direct toxic action on petroleum. determinative for the purpose of the fish, wildlife, or their food supply. Oils definition or the discharge standards. can taint the flavor of fish for human Oil drilling, production, or workover Authority. We disagree that our consumption and cause intestinal facilities (offshore) authority only extends to petroleum- lesions in fish from laxative properties. Background. See the definition of based oils. Our interpretation is Tainted flavor of fish used for human ‘‘production facility,’’ into which this consistent with Congressional intent as consumption and the causation of definition has been merged. expressed in section 311(a)(1) of the rancid odors are public health or CWA, which extends to all types of oils welfare concerns within the scope of Oil Production Facilities (Onshore) in any form. EPA’s definition tracks that our rules. Tainted flavor of fish used for Background. See the definition of statutory definition. Our revised human consumption may indicate a ‘‘production facility,’’ into which this definition also reflects EORRA disease in the fish which could render definition has been merged. requirements for differentiation. EORRA them inedible and thus have a did not expand or contract the universe substantial impact on the fishermen Onshore Facility of substances that are oils, it only who harvest them and communities Background. As proposed, we deleted required differentiation, when who may rely on them for a food as unnecessary surplus the reference to necessary, between the requirements for supply. the facility not being transportation-

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47077

related. There were no substantive which are no longer capable of storing container is permanently closed and no comments. or using oil. longer used for the storage of oil. In permanently closed containers and Containers that are only closed Partially Buried Tank facilities, physical changes have been temporarily may be returned to storage Background. In 1991, EPA proposed made so that storage capacity or use is purposes and thus may present a threat the definition of ‘‘partially buried tank’’ rendered impossible. Therefore, the of discharge. Therefore, they will to clarify the distinction between definition describes those changes continue to be subject to the rule. partially buried tanks and underground which must have occurred before a Waste disposal. Reference to waste storage tanks. We have renamed container or facility is ‘‘permanently disposal in accordance with Federal and underground tanks in this rule as closed.’’ State rules in proposed § 112.2(o)(1) was ‘‘completely buried tanks,’’ i.e., those Comments. In general. Several deleted as unnecessary surplus. EPA tanks completely covered with earth. commenters favored the proposed agrees that other programs adequately Partially buried tanks are subject to the definition. Others opposed it as handle waste disposal. SPCC rule the same as aboveground unnecessary, believing that ‘‘if a tank is Non-oil products. Containers that containers. not used for the storage of oil, it simply store products other than oil and never Comments. One commenter wrote is not subject to the provisions of the store oil, are not subject to the SPCC that the definition as proposed was SPCC regulations.’’ Finally, several rule whether they are ‘‘permanently ‘‘undecipherable’’ and should be commenters suggested that the closed’’ as defined or not. If the rewritten. That commenter suggested definition specifically exclude containers sometimes store oil and another definition for clarity. Two other temporarily closed tanks. sometimes store non-oil products, they commenters suggested that we adopt the Waste disposal. Several commenters are subject to the rule. part 280 UST definition for partially urged that the part of the proposal that Connecting lines. We agree with the buried tank, which includes any tank dealt with waste disposal be deleted commenter’s assumed definition of system such as tank and piping which because waste disposal is already connecting lines. Connecting lines that has a volume of 10 percent or more covered under other programs and have been emptied of oil, and have been beneath the surface of the ground. should not be a concern of spill disconnected and blanked off, are Response to comments. We agree that prevention unless flowable oil is part of considered permanently closed. the definition could be clearer and have the waste. clarified it. We decline to adopt the part Non-oil products. One commenter Explosive vapors. We deleted 280 UST definition (at 40 CFR 280.12) asked for clarification that a container proposed § 112.2(o)(2) on the suggestion and to classify partially buried tanks as which is no longer used for oil but is of commenters that references to completely buried tanks, because they used for some non-oil product be explosive vapors are an OSHA matter are not. The UST definition might also considered permanently closed. and inappropriate for EPA rules. We exclude some tanks or containers which Connecting lines. Another commenter modified proposed § 112.2(o)(3) to would be covered by the SPCC asked for clarification as to the meaning eliminate the reference to signs warning definition. The UST definition includes of connecting lines. The commenter that ‘‘vapors above the LEL are not tanks whose volume (including the assumed that connecting lines means present,’’ because the operator cannot volume of underground pipes connected the sections of pipe that run between guarantee that warning remains correct. thereto) are 10 percent or more beneath the tank and the nearest block valve. To help prevent a buildup of explosive the surface of the ground. The SPCC Explosive vapors. Numerous vapors, we have revised the definition definition of ‘‘partially buried tank’’ commenters urged that EPA delete any to provide that ventilation valves need contains no volume percentage and rules dealing with explosive vapors on not be closed. We agree with applies to any tank that is partially the theory that such vapors are commenters that a sign might be inserted or constructed in the ground, regulated by the Occupational Health misleading and dangerous. but not entirely below grade, and not and Safety Administration (OSHA) Retroactivity. We believe that completely covered with earth. program and other programs. Many of containers that have been permanently Editorial changes and clarifications. these same commenters suggested that closed according to the standards We clarify that partially buried tanks placing a sign on a tank indicating that prescribed in the rule qualify for the may be covered not only with earth, but it has been freed of gas is not a good designation of ‘‘permanently closed,’’ with sand, gravel, asphalt, or other safety practice because gas might whether they have been closed before or material. The clarification brings the subsequently build up within the tank after the effective date of the rule. definition into accord with the with catastrophic results. Containers that cannot meet the coverings noted in the definition of Retroactivity. Several commenters standards prescribed in the rule will not ‘‘bunkered tank.’’ We added a sentence suggested that the requirements for a qualify as permanently closed. We to the definition noting that partially tank to be permanently closed should disagree that the cost of such closure is buried tanks are considered not be applied retroactively to tanks prohibitive. We have simplified the aboveground storage containers for previously removed from service. The proposal and deleted the proposed purposes of this part. rationale was that the cost would be requirement to render the tank free of prohibitive, although commenters did explosive vapor. Therefore, costs are Permanently Closed not provide specific cost estimates, and lower. To clarify when a container has Background. EPA proposed a that it might cause confusion as to been closed, we have amended the rule definition of ‘‘permanently closed’’ in which tanks would have to be included to require that the sign noting closure 1991 to clarify the scope of facilities and in facility capacity calculations. These show the date of such closure. The date tanks or containers excluded from commenters also asserted that such of such closure must be noted whether coverage under the SPCC rule. tanks have been abandoned and empty, it occurred before or after the effective Permanently closed containers are those sometimes for many years, and pose no date of this provision. Some States and containers which are no longer capable threat of discharge. localities require a permit for tank of storing or using oil. Permanently Response to comments. In general. A closure. A document noting a State closed facilities are those facilities definition is necessary to clarify when a closure inspection may serve as

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47078 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

evidence of container closure if it is navigable waters is not practicable for quick availability of response dated. flowlines and gathering lines. equipment. Industry standards. Industry Wells and separators. Other DOT definition. We changed the standards that may be useful to effect commenters also argued for the proposed definition to be more the permanent closure of containers or exemption of wells and separators. consistent with the DOT definition, facilities include: (1) National Fire DOT definition. Another commenter found at 49 CFR 195.2, in response to Protection Association (NFPA) 30, urged consistency between the proposed a commenter who urged consistency in ‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids EPA definition and the DOT definition EPA and DOT definitions. We added the Code’’; (2) Building Officials and Code found at 49 CFR 195.2. uses of the piping and equipment Administrators International (BOCA), Single oil or gas field, single operator. detailed in DOT rule to our proposal, for ‘‘National Fire Prevention Code’’; (3) One commenter asserted that the example, ‘‘production, extraction, American Petroleum Institute (API) inclusion of the phrases ‘‘in a single oil recovery, lifting, stabilization, Standard 2015, ‘‘Safe Entry and or gas field’’ and ‘‘operated by a single separation, or treating’’ of oil. The terms Cleaning of Petroleum Storage Tanks’’; operator’’ in the definition is ‘‘separation equipment,’’ used in the and, (4) API Recommended Practice confounding. The commenter urged that proposed definition of ‘‘oil production 1604, ‘‘Removal and Disposal of Used the producing segment of the industry facilities (onshore)’’, and ‘‘workover Underground Petroleum Storage needs to be able to combine facilities equipment,’’ used in the proposed Tanks.’’ into one SPCC Plan with an definition of ‘‘oil drilling, production, or identification of the wells to which that Editorial changes and clarifications. workover facilities (offshore)’’, were Plan applies. The commenter ‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’ We combined into a generic ‘‘equipment.’’ questioned whether the inclusion of the revised the introduction to the However, we also modified the word ‘‘single’’ would preclude an definition to remove the phrase ‘‘that proposed definition to reflect EPA has been closed’’ because the definition operator’s ability to do so. Natural gas. Another commenter jurisdiction. We added the word would have been circular with that ‘‘structure,’’ which was not in the DOT language. Instead the introduction asked for clarification that natural gas processing facilities are not subject to definition, to cover necessary parts of a references the events which must have production facility. We also added occurred in order for a container to meet rules for oil facilities. Response to comments. Flowlines and examples of types of piping, structures, the definition. gathering lines. Wells and separators. and equipment. These examples are not Person EPA disagrees that flowlines and an exclusive list of the possible piping, structures, or equipment covered under Background. The definition of gathering lines, as well as wells and separators, should be excluded from the the definition. The new definition ‘‘person’’ proposed in 1991 was encompasses all those facilities that substantively unchanged from the definition. These structures or equipment are integral parts of would have been covered under both current rule. former proposed definitions. As we Comments. We received one comment production facilities and should proposed in 1991, and as in the current which urged that we should make clear therefore be included in the definition. rule, we have retained geographic and that the United States is bound by every We also disagree with the argument that ownership limitations. provision of these rules. because the installation of structures Response to comments. See the and equipment to prevent discharges Single oil or gas field, single operator. discussion above (at § 112.1(c)) for the around gathering lines and flowlines ‘‘A single geographical oil or gas field’’ applicability of the rule to Federal may not be practicable, EPA will be may consist of one or more natural agencies and facilities. flooded with contingency plans. First of formations containing oil. The all, secondary containment may be determination of its boundaries is area- Production Facility practicable. In § 112.7(c), we list sorbent specific. Such formation may underlie Background. The definition of materials, drainage systems, and other one or many facilities, regardless of ‘‘production facility’’ replaces two equipment as possible forms of whether any natural or man-made definitions in the proposed rule, i.e., Oil secondary containment systems. We physical geographical barriers on the drilling, production, or workover realize that in many cases, secondary surface intervene such as a mountain facilities (offshore), proposed § 112.2(j), containment may not be practicable. If range, river, or road. We disagree that and Oil production facilities (onshore), secondary containment is not the term ‘‘a single operator’’ is proposed § 112.2(k). We replaced the practicable, you must provide in your confusing. An ‘‘owner’’ or ‘‘operator’’ is two proposed definitions with the SPCC Plan a contingency plan following defined in § 112.2 as any ‘‘person revised definition for editorial brevity as the provisions of part 109, and owning or operating an onshore facility the proposed definitions contained otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). We or an offshore facility, and in the case many identical elements. This editorial have deleted the proposed 1993 of any abandoned offshore facility, the effort effects no substantive changes in provision that would have required you person who owned or operated or the requirements for the particular types to provide contingency plans as a matter maintained such facility immediately of production facilities. Each facility of course to the Regional Administrator. prior to abandonment.’’ A ‘‘person’’ is must follow the requirements applicable Therefore, you will rarely have to not restricted to a single natural person. to that facility, which is generally based submit a contingency plan to EPA. The ‘‘Person’’ is a defined term in the rule on its operations, for example, a contingency plan you do provide in (at § 112.2) which includes an workover facility. your SPCC Plan when secondary individual, firm, corporation, Comments. Flowlines and gathering containment is not practicable for association, or partnership. lines. Several commenters suggested flowlines and gathering lines should Nothing in the definition would that flowlines and gathering lines rely on strong maintenance, corrosion preclude an owner or operator from should be deleted from the definition protection, testing, recordkeeping, and combining elements of a production because they believed that the inspection procedures to prevent and facility into one SPCC Plan with an installation of structures and equipment quickly detect discharges from such identification of the wells to which that to prevent discharged oil from reaching lines. It should also provide for the Plan applies.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47079

Natural gas. Because natural gas is trigger a brittle fracture evaluation Spill Prevention, Control, and not oil, natural gas facilities that do not include the removal and replacement of Countermeasure Plan, SPCC Plan or store or use oil are not covered by this material (such as roof, shell, or bottom Plan rule. However, you should note, that material, including weld metal) to Background. In 1997, we reproposed drip or condensate from natural gas maintain tank integrity; the re-leveling the definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ and production is an oil. The storage of such or jacking of a tank shell, bottom, or withdrew the 1991 proposal. The 1997 drip or condensate must be included in roof; the addition of reinforcing plates to proposal would broaden the acceptable the calculation of oil stored or used at existing shell penetrations; and the formats of SPCC Plans, eliminating the the facility. repair of flaws, such as tears or gouges, requirement that the Plan meet the Editorial changes and clarifications. by grinding or gouging followed by format or sequence formerly specified in One commenter suggested that the welding. The definition of ‘‘repair’’ also the rule. definitions proposed were ambiguous includes reconstruction. Reconstruction Comments. Editorial changes and because of the use of the words ‘‘may means the work necessary to reassemble clarifications. One commenter suggested include.’’ We have eliminated the a container that has been dismantled that the last two sentences in the potential ambiguity caused by the words and relocated to a new site. We have proposed definition should be deleted ‘‘may include’’ by revising the amended the definition to reflect that because they contain substantive definition with the words ‘‘Production ordinary, day-to-day maintenance that requirements, and relocated to § 112.7. facility means.’’ does not weaken the integrity of the Another commenter thought that the Regional Administrator container will not trigger the brittle SPCC definition should be revised to fracture evaluation requirement. say that the Plan documents spill Background. In 1991, we proposed a Related equipment. We agree with the definition of ‘‘Regional Administrator’’ prevention measures and not commenter and will not include the compliance with the rule, because that was substantively unchanged from term ‘‘or related equipment’’ in the the current rule. In the final rule, we compliance is determined by comparing definition to conform with API Standard the contents of the Plan with the rules. have deleted language concerning the 653, which does not include repairs of ‘‘designee’’ of the EPA Regional Response Plan. A few commenters related equipment as a criterion for a opposed the definition on the theory Administrator because the language is brittle fracture evaluation. unnecessary. Since the Regional that it constitutes a type of response Industry standards. Industry Administrator has authority to delegate plan. Those commenters argued that the standards that may be helpful in most functions, the term ‘‘designee’’ is thrust of the definition should be on understanding the definition of repair almost always implied. When he does spill containment, not paperwork. (and reconstruction) include API not have authority to delegate a Acceptable formats. Many Standard 653, ‘‘Tank Inspection, Repair, function, the term ‘‘designee’’ is commenters favored the proposal. Alteration, and Reconstruction.’’ likewise unnecessary. We received no Several suggested various formats that Editorial changes and clarifications. substantive comments. might qualify such as Integrated ‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’ Contingency Plans, State Plans, Repair Spill Event Electrical Equipment Area Response Background. In 1993, we proposed a Plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention definition of ‘‘repair’’ in conjunction Background. In 1991, we proposed to Plans, and others. One commenter with the proposed rule for brittle modify the definition of ‘‘spill event’’ to thought that EPA should specify fracture evaluation. correspond to the changes described in acceptable formats. Several commenters Comments. Ordinary maintenance. the applicability section of this rule (i.e., suggested that various formats such as Two commenters asked for clarification § 112.1(b)) relating to the expanded Integrated Contingency Plans and State of the term ‘‘repair,’’ so that it would scope of CWA jurisdiction. Plans are presumptively acceptable. exclude ordinary day-to-day Comments. One commenter opposed Response to comments. Response maintenance activities which are the definition without explaining why. Plan. We disagree that the proposed conducted to maintain the functional Several commenters argued that the definition constitutes a ‘‘response plan.’’ integrity of the tank. Another asked that definition should apply only to The definition results in no substantive the infinitive ‘‘to maintain’’ be deleted discharges to navigable waters. changes in response planning from the definition of repair so that Response to comments. We have requirements. evaluation for brittle fracture would not withdrawn the proposed definition of Acceptable formats. We agree that any be required after ordinary, day-to-day ‘‘spill event,’’ and have also deleted the equivalent prevention plan acceptable maintenance. term from the rule. We take this action to the Regional Administrator qualifies Related equipment. Another because the term is not mentioned in as an SPCC Plan as long as it meets all commenter suggested that we conform the CWA and is unnecessary. The term Federal requirements (including the proposed definition of ‘‘repair’’ with is unnecessary because the word certification by a Professional Engineer), the API 653 definition, specifically ‘‘discharge’’ is adequate. ‘‘Discharge’’ is and is cross-referenced from the deleting the phase ‘‘or related the term used in the CWA. A discharge requirement in part 112 to the page of equipment.’’ as described in § 112.1(b) is the same as the equivalent plan. We do not agree Response to comments. Ordinary a spill event. As to the comment on EPA that we should specify acceptable maintenance. Some repairs in the jurisdiction, we disagree that our formats. We will give examples of those nature of ordinary maintenance that do jurisdiction should apply only to acceptable formats, but those examples not weaken the integrity of the container discharges to navigable waters because are not meant to be exhaustive. might not necessitate brittle fracture the CWA establishes our jurisdiction Examples of an ‘‘equivalent evaluation. ‘‘Repair’’ means any work beyond navigable waters (see the prevention plan’’ might be, for instance, necessary to maintain or restore a discussion under § 112.1(b)), and we an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP), a container or related equipment to a have the responsibility to protect the State plan, a Best Management Practice condition suitable for safe operation. environment within the scope of our Plan (which is a component of the Typical examples of a repair that would statutory jurisdiction. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan),

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47080 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

or other plan that meets all the accessible to responders and inspectors. SPCC rule; and (2) is supplemented by requirements of part 112 and is If you keep the information in an a cross-reference section identifying supplemented by a cross-reference electronic data base, you must also keep requirements listed in part 112 to the section identifying the location of a paper or other backup that is equivalent requirements in the other elements in part 112 to the equivalent immediately accessible for emergency prevention plan. Partial use of other requirement in the other plan. We response purposes, or for EPA equivalent prevention plans is also repeat EPA’s commitment to the ICP inspectors, in case the computer is not acceptable, if the plan is supplemented format, and encourage owners or functioning. Where you place that site- by elements that meet the remainder of operators to use it. If the equivalent specific information would be a the EPA requirements contained in part prevention plan has no requirement that question of allowable formatting, as is 112. a Professional Engineer certify it, it will the question of what is an ‘‘equivalent’’ Written Plans. We agree that a be necessary to secure proper plan; an issue subject to RA discretion. ‘‘written’’ Plan might also include texts, certification from the Professional Still another example of an equivalent graphs, charts, maps, photos, and tables, Engineer to comply with the SPCC rule. plan might be a Best Management on whatever media, including floppy An equivalent Plan might be a Plan Practice Plan (BMP) plan prepared disk, CD, hard drive, and tape storage, following the SPCC sequence in effect under an NPDES permit, if the plan that allows the document to be easily before this final rule became effective. If provides protections equivalent to SPCC accessed, comprehended, distributed, you choose to use the sequence of the Plans. Not all BMP plans will qualify, as viewed, updated, and printed. Whatever rule currently in effect, you may do so, some BMP plans might not provide medium you use, however, must be but you must cross-reference the equivalent protection. NPDES permits readily accessible to response personnel requirements in the revised rule to the without BMP plans would not qualify. in an emergency. If it is produced in a sequence used in your Plan. We have BMP plans are additional conditions medium that is not readily accessible in provided a table in section IV.A of which may supplement effluent an emergency, it must be also available today’s preamble to help you cross- limitations in NPDES permits. Under in a medium that is. For example, a Plan reference the requirements more easily. section 402(a)(1) of the CWA, BMP might be electronically produced, but If the only change you make is the plans may be imposed when the computers fail and may not be operable addition of cross-referencing, you need Administrator determines that such in an emergency. For an electronic Plan not have a Professional Engineer certify conditions are necessary to carry out the or Plan produced in some other that change. provisions of the Act. See 40 CFR medium, therefore, a backup copy must Another example of an equivalent 122.44(k). CWA section 304(e) be readily available on paper. At least plan might include a multi-facility plan authorizes EPA to promulgate BMP one version of the Plan should be for operating equipment. This type of plans as effluent limitations guidelines. written in English so that it will be plan is intended for electrical utility NPDES rules provide for BMP plans readily understood by an EPA inspector. transmission systems, electrical cable when: authorized under section 304(e) Editorial changes and clarifications. systems, and similar facilities which of the CWA for the control of toxic The word ‘‘guidelines’’ was replaced might aggregate equipment located in pollutants and hazardous substances; with ‘‘requirements,’’ as proposed in diverse areas into one plan. Examples of numeric limitations are infeasible; or, 1991. EPA agrees with the relocation of operating equipment containing oil the practices are reasonably necessary to the last two sentences of the definition. include electrical equipment such as achieve effluent limitations and Therefore, we have transferred those substations, transformers, capacitors, standards to carry out the purposes of sentences to the introduction of § 112.7, buried cable equipment, and oil circuit the CWA. in order to maintain the principle that breakers. Any format that contains all the definitions should not contain A general, multi-facility plan for required elements of an SPCC Plan and substantive requirements. We have also operational equipment used in various provides equivalent environmental changed the last sentence which was manufacturing processes containing protection would be presumptively proposed as ‘‘* * * provide adequate over the threshold amount of oil might acceptable. The final decision on what countermeasures to an oil spill’’ to read also be acceptable as an SPCC Plan. is an ‘‘equivalent’’ plan, however, ‘‘* * * provide adequate Examples of operating equipment used would be at the discretion of the countermeasures to a discharge.’’ We in manufacturing that contains oil Regional Administrator. ‘‘Equivalence’’ agree that the Plan does not document include small lube oil systems, fat traps, would not mean that an alternate format compliance, but merely spill prevention hydraulic power presses, hydraulic would be the mirror image of an SPCC measures and have deleted the sentence pumps, injection molding machines, Plan, but it would have to contain all noting that the Plan documents auto boosters, certain metalworking the required elements of an SPCC Plan. compliance with the rules. Compliance machinery and associated fluid transfer Required elements include, but are not is determined by comparing the systems, and oil based heaters. limited to, provisions for a written plan, contents of the Plan with the Whenever you add or remove operating secondary containment or a contingency regulations. equipment in your Plan that materially plan following 40 CFR part 109, affects the potential for a discharge as equivalent inspections and tests, Storage capacity described in § 112.1(b), you must amend security, personnel training, and Background. In 1991, we proposed a your Plan. 40 CFR 112.5(a). certification of the plan by a definition of ‘‘storage capacity’’ to Multi-facility plans would include all Professional Engineer. Acceptance of an clarify that it includes the total capacity elements required for individual plans. equivalent plan does not, however, of a container capable of storing oil or Site-specific information would be imply any type of approval or oil mixtures. We explained that because required for all equipment included in submission process. As before, SPCC the percentage of oil in a mixture is each plan. However, the site-specific Plans are generally not submitted to the determined by the operator and can be information might be maintained in a Regional Administrator. The Regional changed at will, the total capacity of a separate location, such as a central Administrator could accept an container is considered in determining office, or an electronic data base, as long equivalent prevention plan if it: (1) applicability under this part, regardless as such information was immediately meets all regulatory requirements in the of whether the container is filled with

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47081

oil or a mixture of oil and another because of its integral design, for exempted such facilities or parts thereof substance, as long as a discharge from example electrical equipment or other from the rule. However, note that such container could violate the interior component might take up space, certain parts of such facilities may harmful quantity standards in 40 CFR then the shell capacity of the container continue to be subject to the rule. See part 110. is reduced to the volume the container the discussion under § 112.1(d)(6). Comments. In general. One might hold. When the integral design of Secondary containment containers. commenter strongly favored the a container has been altered by actions Containers which are used for proposal. such as drilling a hole in the side of the secondary containment and not storage Standard of measurement. One container so that it cannot hold oil or use, are not counted as storage commenter asserted that volume was above that point, shell capacity remains capacity. the proper measure of storage capacity, the measure of storage capacity because Editorial changes and clarifications. not total capacity. Another commenter such alteration can be altered again at We use the word ‘‘container’’ instead of suggested a ‘‘working capacity’’ will to restore the former storage ‘‘tank or container,’’ because a tank is a standard. Other commenters argued that capacity. When the alteration is an type of container. We have clarified the the definition should apply only to action such as the installation of a definition to provide that the storage containers meeting the definition of a double bottom or new floor to the capacity of a container is the volume of bulk storage tank, and that only the oil container, the integral design of the oil that the container could hold, and storage capacity of the container be container has changed, and may result have therefore substituted the words considered. Similarly, a commenter in a reduction in shell capacity. We ‘‘shell capacity’’ of the container for asserted that the ‘‘design capacity’’ of a disagree that operating volume should ‘‘total capacity.’’ This is merely a container is what should count as be the measurement, because the clarification, and not a substantive storage capacity because electrical operating volume of a tank can be change. We also deleted the words ‘‘for equipment or other interior components changed at will to below its shell might reduce the volume of oil capable purposes of determining applicability of capacity. this part,’’ because the words were of being stored. The keys to the definition are the unnecessary. We also deleted the last Exclusions—small containers; waste availability of the container for drilling, phrase of the proposed definition, treatment facilities, secondary producing, gathering, storing, ‘‘whether the tank or container is filled containment containers. Small processing, refining, transferring, with oil or a mixture of oil and other containers. Most commenters were distributing, using, or consuming oil, opposed to the proposed definition and whether it is available for one of substances,’’ because the contents of the because they either wanted an exclusion those uses or whether it is permanently container do not affect the definition of for small containers or because they closed. Containers available for one of its shell capacity. wanted an exclusion for containers the above described uses count towards Transportation-related and non- containing de minimis amounts of oil. storage capacity, those not used for transportation-related These commenters argued that small these activities do not. Types of containers would not present a containers counted as storage capacity Background. In 1991, we reproposed significant threat of discharge. would include some flow-through the current definition of Waste treatment facilities. The separators, tanks used for ‘‘emergency’’ ‘‘transportation-related and non- rationale of commenters supporting an storage, transformers, and other oil- transportation-related.’’ We received no exemption for waste treatment filled equipment. comments on the proposal. Therefore, containers was that some containers had Exclusions—small containers; waste we have promulgated the definition as non-usable space at the top of the treatment facilities. Small containers. proposed. container; also some containers contain This definition is applicable to both United States only trace amounts of oil. Therefore, for large and small storage and use example, storage tanks used to store or capacity. Owners or operators of small Background. In 1991, we proposed to treat wastewaters are likely to have to be facilities above the regulatory threshold revise the definition of ‘‘United States’’ considered when determining storage are subject to the rule, and need to know to conform to the definition enacted in capacity since many wastewaters have how to calculate their storage or use the 1978 amendments to the CWA. We incidental oil content prior to treatment. capacity. received no comments on this proposal. They also argued that the definition However, in the applicability section Therefore, we have promulgated the would subject publicly owned treatment of the rule, we have excluded containers definition as proposed. works (POTWs) to the rule because of less than 55 gallons from the scope Vessel tanks used to control stormwater surges of the SPCC rule, addressing the might contain small amounts of oil from comments of those commenters who Background. In 1991, we reproposed runoff from parking lots and city streets. argued for a minimum container size. the current definition of vessel. We Secondary containment containers. See § 112.1(d)(5). A container above that received no comments on this proposal. Some commenters argued that the size that is available for use or storage Therefore, we have promulgated the definition would apply to tanks used to containing even small volumes of oil definition as proposed. We note that a provide secondary containment when must be counted in storage capacity. barge or other watercraft that has been determining the storage capacity of a Waste treatment facilities. We agree determined by the Coast Guard to be facility. with the commenter that a facility or permanently moored to the shore, and Response to comments. Standard of part thereof (except at an oil production, used for storage, is no longer being used measurement. In most instances the oil recovery, or oil recycling facility) as a vessel, and does not fit within the shell capacity of a container will define used exclusively for wastewater definition of vessel. Rather, it becomes its storage capacity. The shell capacity treatment system and not to meet any a bulk storage container counted as (or nominal or gross capacity) is the part 112 requirement should not be storage capacity. The same concept is amount of oil that a container is considered storage capacity because found in the rules for mobile facilities designed to hold. If a certain portion of wastewater treatment is neither use nor at § 112.3(c), which provides that SPCC a container is incapable of storing oil storage of oil. Therefore, we have Plans apply to mobile facilities only

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47082 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘while the facility is in a fixed (non- Commenters suggested compliance and one half years before the effective transportation) operating mode.’’ periods ranging from 60 days to 7 years. date of this rule, and fully implemented Many commenters clustered around the it no later than three years before the Wetlands suggestion that a 6 month phase-in effective date of this rule. Assuming that Background. In 1991, we proposed a period be allowed. Many others he still has not prepared a Plan on the definition of ‘‘wetlands’’ to define the suggested compliance by the next three- effective date of the rule, he must term as used in the definition of year review, as required by § 112.5(b) at prepare and fully implement a Plan ‘‘navigable waters.’’ The definition of that time. immediately that meets the wetlands conforms to the definition in Extensions. Several commenters requirements of the revised rule. He is 40 CFR part 110 relating to the asked that extensions of time to prepare subject to penalties for violation of discharge of oil. and implement Plans be automatic if current § 112.3(b) until he does so, and Comments. Several commenters Plans must be in effect prior to the the penalties would accrue from the opposed the definition because they commencement of operations. Another time the original deadlines passed believe that it includes a series of suggested that extension requests be before the effective date of this rule. The examples which may or may not be considered ‘‘routine.’’ owner or operator of a facility which correct. They also alleged that the Acquired facilities. One commenter became operational four years before the definition fails to implement the 1987 asked how we would treat acquired effective date of the rule, and who U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands facilities, whether as new or continuing prepared and fully implemented his Manual or the documents implementing operation facilities. Plan in compliance with current that Manual. Another commenter asked Start of operations. One commenter § 112.3(b), must amend his Plan within for EPA clarification of what is a asked when operations start, stating that 6 months of the effective date of this wetland, given the ‘‘vague and arguable is not always a clearly defined time. The rule to meet the requirements of the notion of a wetland.’’ commenter suggested that instead of revised rule, and fully implement the Response to comments. The examples requiring a prepared and implemented amended Plan as soon as possible, but listed in the definition are intended to Plan, we should allow that a response no later than one year after the effective help the reader with guidelines to team be in place. date of the rule. identify wetlands. While the examples Small facilities. One commenter An owner or operator whose facility generally represent types of wetlands, asserted that the time line for Plan became operational 7 months before the they are not intended to be a categorical preparation and implementation was effective date of the rule is an owner or listing of such wetlands. There may be unreasonable for small facilities, and operator of a facility currently in examples listed that under some asked that facilities with under 10,000- operation and is therefore subject to circumstances do not constitute gallon capacity be allowed to operate current § 112.3(b). He should have wetlands. We believe that the 1987 while developing and implementing a prepared his Plan one month before the Wetlands Manual is a useful source Plan. effective date of this rule. If he did, he material for wetlands guidance. It would Response to comments. Time period will have 6 months from the effective be impossible to specify in a rule every to prepare and implement a Plan. We date of this rule to amend that Plan to type of situation where wetlands occur. have been persuaded by commenters meet the requirements of the revised The examples listed in the definition are that a longer phase-in period than 60 rule, and must fully implement the not exclusive, but provide help in days is required for facilities currently amended Plan as soon as possible, but clarifying what may be a wetland. in operation or about to become within one year of the effective date of operational within one year after the this rule. If he has not prepared a Plan Section 112.3 Introduction effective date of this rule. by the effective date of the current rule Background. We have added an Facilities currently in operation. For a as required, then he must prepare and introduction to § 112.3 as an editorial facility in operation on the effective date fully implement a Plan immediately that device to simplify the language in the of this rule, we changed the dates in the meets the requirements of the revised paragraphs of this section. proposed rule for preparation and rule. He is subject to penalties for implementation of plans from 60 days to violation of current § 112.3(b) until he Section 112.3(a)—Time Line for a maximum of one year to accord with does so. Preparation and Implementation of the time frames in the current rule. The An owner or operator whose facility Plans for Existing Facilities owner or operator of a facility in became operational 4 months before the Background. In 1991, we proposed to operation on the effective date of this effective date of this rule is also an require owners or operators of onshore rule will have 6 months to amend his owner or operator of a facility currently and offshore facilities in operation 60 Plan and must fully implement any in operation on the effective date of this days after the effective date of this final amendment as soon as possible, but rule and therefore subject to the current rule to ‘‘maintain a prepared and fully within one year of the effective date of rule. However, in this case, the 6-month implemented facility SPCC Plan. . . . ’’ the rule at the latest. The owner or deadline to prepare a Plan under the We proposed giving these owners or operator of a facility which has had a current § 112.3(b) has not yet passed. operators 60 days from the date the final discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or Therefore, the owner or operator is rule was published to revise their reasonably could be expected to have subject to the Plan preparation and existing Plans and implement the one, already has an obligation to prepare implementation deadlines in § 112.3(a) revisions. The proposed rule also and implement a Plan. of the revised rule. He now has 6 reflected the expanded geographic scope For example, an owner or operator months from the effective date of this of the rule provided by CWA whose facility became operational four rule to prepare a Plan that meets the amendments. years before the effective date of this requirements of this rule. If he had Comments. Time period to prepare rule is the owner or operator of a facility already prepared a Plan under current and implement a Plan. A number of currently in operation on the effective § 112.3(b), he has 6 months from the commenters favored the proposal. Many date of this rule. He is therefore subject effective date of this rule to amend that more favored a ‘‘phase-in’’ period, or a to current § 112.3(b), and should have Plan. In either case, he must fully longer period within which to comply. prepared his Plan no later than three implement the Plan (or amended Plan)

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47083

as soon as possible after the 6-month Extensions. While we have extended start of operations be required to Plan preparation deadline of this rule, the time period for compliance, we prepare and fully implement Plans but no later than one year after the understand that some facilities may still before beginning operations. Our effective date of this rule. need extensions of time to comply. rationale was that our experience The owner or operator of a facility in Extensions may be necessary to secure showed that many types of failures operation on the effective date of this necessary manpower or equipment, or occur during or shortly following rule who is required to have prepared or to construct necessary structures. If you facility startup and virtually all implemented an SPCC Plan, but has not, are an owner or operator and an prevention, containment, and remains subject to penalties for extension is necessary, you may seek countermeasure practices are a part of violation of current SPCC regulations. one under § 112.3(f). If no Plan the facility design or construction. Such owner or operator is consequently amendments are necessary after you Comments. Many commenters subject to civil penalties for a violation review today’s rule, you must maintain suggested various phase-in periods, as of current § 112.3 if the time has expired your current Plan and cross-reference its discussed above. for preparation or implementation of his elements to the redesignated Response to comments. We believe Plan. requirements. that our original rationale is still correct. Facilities becoming operational Acquired facilities. For SPCC Experience with the implementation of within one year after the effective date purposes, we consider acquired this regulation shows that many types of of the rule August 13, 2003. If you begin facilities as facilities that are already failures occur during or shortly operations after the effective date of the operating rather than new facilities following startup and that virtually all rule through one year after the effective because these facilities must already prevention, containment, and date of this rule August 16, 2002, you have SPCC Plans if they exceed countermeasure practices are part of the facility design or construction. will have until one year from the applicable thresholds. Start of operations. Start of operations Therefore, it can be beneficial to the effective date of this rule to prepare and is when you begin to store or use oil at environment and carries out the intent implement your Plan. In other words, if a facility. Often this may be a testing or of the statute if a facility Plan is the rule becomes effective on January 1, calibration period prior to start up of prepared and implemented before and you begin operations on January 2, normal operations. With the extended startup. However, to provide sufficient you must prepare and implement your time line we have provided, no response notice to new facilities that a Plan must Plan by January 1 of the following year. team is required, but such a team may be prepared and implemented before If you begin operations on June 30, you be a good engineering practice. At a beginning operations, we have delayed still have until January 1 of the minimum, you must prepare and implementation of this section until one following year to prepare and implement a Plan as required by this year after the effective date this rule. If implement your plan. If you begin rule. you begin operations within one year of operations on December 31, you still Small facilities. With the extended the effective date of this rule, you must have until January 1 (the next day) of time line we have provided, all comply with the requirements in the following year to prepare and facilities, large or small, have adequate § 112.3(a). However, if you begin implement your Plan. The rationale for notice and time in which to prepare and operations more than one year after the the time frame in the rule is that you implement a Plan. effective date of this rule, your facility will have had notice of the Plan Editorial changes and clarifications. would be ‘‘new’’ and you would have to preparation and implementation We deleted the first sentence of the prepare and implement an SPCC Plan requirements from the publication date proposed rule from the final rule before you begin operations. If you need of the rule, a period of 30 days plus one because it is unnecessary. It is an extension to comply, you may seek year. In addition, you would already unnecessary because the obligation to one under § 112.3(f). have had notice of the general have prepared a Plan is incurred under Editorial changes and clarifications. requirement for preparation of an SPCC current section § 112.3(b) for the owner The phrase ‘‘* * * could reasonably be Plan from the current part 112 or operator of a facility in operation expected to discharge oil, as described regulations. Therefore, the owner or before the effective date of this rule. For in § 112.1(b) of this part* * *’’ becomes operator of a facility planning to become the owner or operator of a facility that ‘‘could reasonably be expected to have operational within one year after the becomes operational on or after the a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ effective date of this rule should start effective date of this rule, revised working on his Plan in time to have it § 112.3 provides the time period within Section 112.3(c)—Time Line for fully implemented within the year. which he must prepare and implement Preparation and Implementation of New facilities. The owner or operator a Plan. The deleted sentence read, Plans for Mobile Facilities of a facility that becomes operational ‘‘Owners or operators of onshore Background. In 1991, we proposed more than one year after the effective facilities that become operational after that owners or operators of onshore and date of this rule must prepare and September 16, 2002, and could be offshore mobile facilities be required to implement a Plan before beginning reasonably be expected to discharge oil have a prepared and implemented Plan operations. as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this part, before beginning operations. Since A year phase-in period is in line with shall prepare a facility SPCC Plan in existing mobile facilities are a subset of legitimate business and investment accordance with § 112.7, and in existing facilities, we generally assume expectations. It allows a reasonable accordance with any of the following that these facilities already have a Plan period of time for facilities to undertake sections that apply to the facility: in place, as the rule now requires. 40 necessary constructions, purchases of §§ 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11.’’ CFR 112.3(c). Both new and existing equipment, or to effect changes of mobile facilities would therefore have to procedures. And again, the general Section 112.3(b)—Time Line for comply with the rule requiring a fully requirement for preparation of a Plan Preparation and Implementation of prepared and implemented Plan before already exists in part 112, so new Plans for New Facilities beginning operations. facilities should already have been Background. In 1991, we proposed Comments. In general. One aware of the need for a Plan. that new facilities contemplating the commenter believed that requiring Plans

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47084 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

for mobile facilities is unworkable the PE attest that he is familiar with the presence of those written procedures because their physical surroundings are requirements of part 112, that he has which require testing. subject to change. Another commenter visited the facility, that the Plan has Non-technical changes. Most supported our proposal to allow general been prepared in accordance with good supported the idea that non-technical Plans for mobile facilities. engineering practice and the changes to a Plan (for example, the Multi-well drilling programs. One requirements of part 112, that required emergency contact list, phone numbers, commenter asked if Plan updates would testing has been completed, and that the or names) need not have PE be required in a field where a multi-well Plan is adequate for the facility. certification. drilling program is underway. The Comments. Certification requirement. Time limit for PE certification. One commenter suggested that updates Most commenters supported a commenter suggested a time limit of should be required only after the certification requirement for PEs. Some three years or less on PE certification, drilling program is complete. opposed it on grounds that if all the suggesting that the PE should be Response to comments. In general. components of the Plan were specified required to reinspect the premises We agree that the physical surroundings by rule, then certification is periodically, preferably annually, to of mobile facilities are subject to change. unnecessary. One U.S. territory, U.S. ascertain that the Plan continues to be However, we disagree that changing Samoa, noted that it doesn’t register implemented. physical surroundings should exempt PEs, arguably making compliance with PE costs. Some commenters argued mobile facilities from the rule. Mobile the rule difficult for owners or operators that requiring an independent or outside facilities may have ‘‘general’’ Plans and of facilities in Samoa. PE for Plan certification would be need not prepare a new Plan each time Other commenters thought a PE extremely expensive for facilities the facility is moved to a new site. certification requirement was located in remote areas. These When a mobile facility is moved, it must unnecessarily burdensome and costly commenters were principally concerned be located and installed using the spill for small facilities, but did not provide that we did not fully account for the prevention practices outlined in the cost estimates. One commenter asserted cost to a facility owner or operator for Plan for the facility. that PE certification should not be a PE to visit each facility before Mobile facilities currently in required for small facilities, due mainly certifying a Plan. Requiring the use of an operation are assumed to have to the prohibitive cost. The commenter independent or outside PE could be implemented Plans already, because also maintained that most small burdensome to facility owners or they are currently legally required to do facilities have tanks that are required by operators. so. Both new and existing mobile State or local law to have the Response to Comments. Certification facilities must have Plans prepared and Underwriters Laboratory Seal of requirement. PE certification of all fully implemented before operations Approval and to have submitted a facilities, both large and small, is may begin. If after your review of detailed plan for review and approval to necessary because a discharge as today’s rule, you decide that no the fire marshal prior to installation. described in § 112.1(b) from any size amendment to your Plan is necessary, Certification by other environmental facility may be harmful, and PE review except for cross-referencing, you may professionals. Several commenters and certification of a Plan may help continue to operate under your existing suggested that certification could be prevent that discharge. We disagree that Plan, but you must promptly cross- effected by another environmental PE certification is prohibitively costly reference the provisions in the Plan to professional, rather than a PE, or by for small facilities. A Plan certified by the new format. Extension requests another environmental professional a PE may well save the owner or under § 112.3(f) are also available for with PE oversight. operator money due to improved facility mobile facilities under the proper Good engineering practice. One operations and decreased likelihood of conditions. commenter noted that EPA specified in discharge, thus averting potentially Multi-well drilling programs. It is not the 1991 preamble that the application costly cleanups. Because a Plan for a necessary to amend the Plan every time of good engineering practice will require smaller facility is likely to be less you drill a well in a field containing that appropriate provisions of complicated than a Plan for a larger multiple wells. A general Plan will applicable codes, standards, and facility, PE certification costs should suffice. regulations be incorporated into the likewise be lower for a smaller facility. Editorial changes and clarifications. SPCC Plan for a particular facility. 56 In our Information Collection Request, We deleted the phrase ‘‘using good FR 54617–18. The commenter added, estimated total costs for a new facility engineering practice,’’ in the third however, that we do not define ‘‘good to prepare and begin implementation of sentence of the paragraph because good engineering practice’’ for this program, a Plan, including PE certification costs, engineering practice is required of all and urged EPA to specify in more detail are $2,201 for a small facility, $2,164 for Plans. See the introduction to § 112.7. as to its understanding of the term. a medium facility, and $2,540 for a large Therefore, the phrase was unnecessary. Testing. Some commenters wrote that facility. This cost is incurred only in the it would be better for the PE to year that the facility first becomes Section 112.3(d)—Certification by enumerate all the inspections and tests subject to the rule. This one-time cost Professional Engineers that have been completed, plus those incurred by a small facility is less than Background. The current rule only that should be completed before the 1.5 percent of the average annual requires that the Professional Engineer facility commences operations and revenue for small facilities in all (PE), having examined the facility and those that should be undertaken industry categories. The cost for the PE being familiar with the provisions of periodically after it commences certification alone would represent even part 112, attest by means of his operations. A few commenters objected less than that. As shown in Chapter 5 of certification that the Plan has been to the proposed requirement that the PE the Economic Analysis for this prepared in accordance with good attest that required testing has been rulemaking, the average annual revenue engineering practices. In 1991, we completed, suggesting instead that the for the smallest regulated facilities proposed to add specificity to the operator is responsible for completion of (under the current rule) ranges from meaning of the certification testing. Another commenter suggested $150,000 to $6,833,000, depending on requirements for a PE. We proposed that that the PE be allowed to attest to the the industry category. For example,

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47085

farms with annual revenue between authority to discipline licensed PEs who for their implementation, which is the $100,000 and $249,999 have an average fail to comply with State laws and sole responsibility of the owner or annual revenue per farm of $161,430, requirements. Other environmental operator. However, the PE may include and $2,201 (the one-time cost to prepare professionals may not have similar in the Plan a schedule for testing, with and implement a Plan) represents only expertise nor be held to similar specific time frames for the completion 1.36 percent of that annual revenue. Of standards as the licensed PE. of that testing. See also the discussion course, under the revised rule many of It is not always necessary for a PE to in today’s preamble (at section IV.D.3) these small facilities will not be visit the facility. Therefore, we have on ‘‘Completion of Testing.’’ regulated by the SPCC program at all. revised § 112.3(d) to a allow site visit by Non-technical changes. PE A PE’s certification of a Plan means either the PE or his agent. Often it will certification is not required for items that the PE is certifying that the be sufficient if the PE reviews the work that do not require engineering facility’s equipment, design, of other engineering professionals who judgment, such as telephone numbers; construction, and maintenance have visited the facility. Someone names on lists; some, but not all, procedures used to implement the Plan would have to visit the facility, but not product changes (see the response to are in accordance with good engineering necessarily the PE. Nevertheless, in all comments of § 112.5(a)); ownership practices. And this is important because cases the PE must ensure that his changes; or, any other changes not good engineering practices are likely to certification represents an exercise of requiring engineering judgment. prevent discharges. PE certification, to good engineering judgment. If that Time limit for PE certification. We be effective for SPCC purposes, must be requires a personal site visit, the PE disagree that there should be a time completed in accordance with the law must visit the facility himself before limit on PE certification because the of the State in which the PE is working. certifying the Plan. rule ensures that the PE reviews the For example, some States require a PE Good engineering practice. As we Plan at appropriate times. Thus, current to apply his seal to effectuate a noted in the 1991 preamble (at 56 FR PE certifications remain valid. But new certification. Others do not. 54617–18), good engineering practice certifications after the effective date of We also disagree that small facilities ‘‘will require that appropriate this rule must include the required need not have PE certification for SPCC provisions of applicable codes, attestations. If you are an owner or Plans when the tanks are certified by the standards, and regulations be operator you must review your Plan at Underwriters Laboratory. A Plan incorporated into the SPCC Plan for a least every five years (under revisions consists of more than a certified tank. It particular facility.’’ We agree with the made in today’s rule), and amend it if contains provisions for secondary commenter that the rule needs more new technology is warranted. Also, you containment, integrity testing, and other specificity in this regard. Therefore, we must amend your Plan to conform with measures to prevent discharges. Those have amended § 112.3(d)(1)(iii) to any applicable rule requirements, or at provisions require PE certification to specifically include consideration of any time you make any change in ensure that they meet the requirements applicable industry standards as an facility design, construction, operation, of the rule and that the Plan is effective element of the PE’s attestation that the or maintenance that materially affects to prevent discharges. Plan has been prepared in accordance its potential for a discharge as described Finally, by modifying the with good engineering practice. We in § 112.1(b). All material amendments applicability provision in § 112.1(d)(2), reiterate today, as we did in 1991, that require PE certification. Therefore, we are today exempting many small consideration of applicable industry because a Plan will likely require one or facilities from the requirement to standards is an essential element of more amendments requiring PE review prepare and implement a Plan at all, good engineering practice. Industry and certification, a time limit on PE thus saving all prospective PE costs. standards include industry regulations, certifications is unnecessary. See In response to the commenter from standards, codes, specifications, § 112.5(c). Samoa, who noted that territory does recommendations, recommended Other PE issues. As to other PE issues, not register PEs, the rule would allow an practices, publications, bulletins, and as noted above (see section IV.D.2 of SPCC facility there to hire a PE licensed other materials. (See § 112.7(a)(1) and this preamble), the PE need not be in some other State or U.S. territory. (j).) The owner or operator must independent of the facility. Nor is there Certification by other environmental specifically document any industry a requirement that he not have a professionals. Certification by a PE, standard used in a Plan to comply with financial interest in it. We believe the rather than by another environmental this section. The documentation should professional integrity of a PE and the professional is necessary to ensure the include the name of the industry professional oversight of boards application of good engineering standard, and the year or edition of that licensing PEs are sufficient to prevent judgment. A PE must obtain a Bachelor standard. However, as discussed above, any abuses. of Engineering degree from an we have chosen not to incorporate It is not necessary that the PE be accredited engineering program, pass specific industry standards into the rule. licensed in the same State as the facility two comprehensive national Testing. The proposed rule would because the SPCC program is national in examinations, and demonstrate an have required the PE to certify that scope and therefore State expertise is acceptable level (usually four additional required testing was completed. We unnecessary. While States may years) of engineering experience. A have been persuaded by comments that prescribe more stringent requirements licensed engineer is also required to the requirement should be that than EPA, a PE may familiarize himself practice engineering solely within his procedures for inspections and tests with any particular requirements a State areas of competence and to protect the have been established, not necessarily may impose and address them in the public health, safety, and welfare. All completed, because the PE is not Plan. See § 112.7(j). Furthermore, licensed PEs, no matter who their normally present at time of completion. violations of PE ethics may be handled employer, are required by State laws Nor do we believe it is necessary to by the licensing board of the PE’s state and codes of ethics to discharge their impose a requirement that the PE no matter where the work is done. engineering responsibilities accurately oversee all testing because the PE only EPA maintains that a site visit is and honestly. Furthermore, State shares responsibility with the owner or necessary, but the visit may be by either governments have and do exercise the operator for establishing procedures, not the PE or his agent, so long as a visit by

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47086 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

an agent is consistent with good facility. Several commenters questioned his duties. Therefore, the term is engineering practice. A visit by the PE’s the meaning of ‘‘nearest field office.’’ unnecessary. agent can generally be sufficient given Plan availability. Several commenters Section 112.3(f)—Extension of Time that the PE will oversee and be favored the proposal. One commenter responsible for his agent’s work. suggested that we amend the rule to Background. In 1991, we proposed to PE costs. We note that we did not provide that the Plan be available allow only new facilities to apply for propose a requirement for an ‘‘without advance notice,’’ so that it extensions of time to comply with the independent PE, but requested would be fully implemented at all requirements of part 112. The current comments on it. In the final rule, we times, not just when an inspection is rule allows any facility to apply for an require either the PE or the PE’s agent impending. One commenter thought extension, including existing fixed and to visit and examine the facility before that the Plan should always be located mobile facilities. The rationale for the PE certifies the Plan. An agent might at the facility, whether manned or not, limiting extension requests to new include an engineering technician, perhaps protected by a laminated cover, facilities was that existing fixed and technologist, graduate engineer, or other and at ‘‘appropriate control centers.’’ mobile facilities have had since 1974 to qualified person to prepare preliminary State and local agencies. Another comply with the rule. reports, studies, and evaluations after commenter suggested that the Plan be Comments. Automatic extensions. visiting the site. The PE, after reviewing filed with the local fire department and Several commenters suggested that we the agent’s work, could then LEPC (Local Emergency Planning automatically grant extension requests if legitimately certify the Plan. Also, in the Committee) to facilitate public review. we are to require a Plan to be in effect final rule, we allow the PE to be an One State suggested there be a Federal prior to commencement of operations. employee of the facility as well as requirement that the Plan also be filed Existing Plan requirements. Another registered in a different State than the with the State. commenter criticized the proposed facility is located, in order to approve a Response to comments. Nearest field requirement to submit the existing Plan Plan. The rationale is that SPCC work is office, normal working hours. The term with each extension request, because national in scope and therefore State ‘‘nearest field office’’ in paragraph (e)(1) EPA’s review of the Plan cannot expertise is unnecessary. means the office with operational practically be an element of the Editorial changes and clarifications. responsibility for the facility, or the extension granting process. Another ‘‘Registered Professional Engineer’’ emergency response center for the commenter suggested that the language becomes ‘‘licensed Professional facility, because those locations ensure in paragraph (f)(3) would be better if it Engineer.’’ The first sentence of the accessibility for personnel who need to said that the existing Plan’s provisions paragraph was proposed as, ‘‘No SPCC respond in case of a discharge. The term remain in effect until they are Plan shall be effective to satisfy the ‘‘normal working hours’’ in paragraph superseded by changes proposed by the requirements of this part unless it has (e)(2) refers to the working hours of the facility, because these words better been reviewed by a Registered facility or the field office, not EPA. reflect the intention of the rule. Professional Engineer.’’ We revised it to Plan availability. Today we have Amendments. Several commenters read, ‘‘A licensed Professional Engineer finalized the 1991 proposal that the Plan urged EPA to allow extensions for must review and certify a Plan for it to must be available at the facility if it is preparation and implementation of Plan be effective to satisfy the requirements normally attended at least four hours amendments. of this part.’’ This revision is due to the per day, or at the nearest field office if Response to comments. Automatic fact that PEs are licensed by States. it is not so attended. A Plan must extensions. Automatic extension always be available without advance requests are not justifiable because we Section 112.3(e)—Location and notice, because an inspection might not have extended the time within which Availability of Plan be scheduled. You are not required to most facilities have to prepare and Background. In 1991, we proposed locate a Plan at an unattended facility implement Plans. See § 112.3(a), (b), and that the Plan be available at the facility because of the difficulty that might (c). Also, under the revised rule, you if the facility is normally manned at ensue when emergency personnel try to may request an extension for the least four hours a day, in lieu of the find the Plan. However, you may keep preparation and implementation of any current requirement that the Plan be a Plan at an unattended facility. If you Plan, or amendment to any Plan. See available if the facility is manned eight do not locate the Plan at the facility, you § 112.3(f). hours a day. If the facility is not must locate it at the nearest field office. Existing Plan requirements. We have attended at least four hours a day, the State and local agencies. You are not broadened the scope of extension Plan would have to be available at the required to file or locate a Plan with a requests to any facility that can justify nearest field office. State Emergency Response Commission the request, because for every type of The rationale for the change is that or Local Emergency Planning facility there may be cases in which an some facilities interpreted the eight Committee or other State or local agency extension can be justified. Existing fixed hour requirement not to apply to a because the distribution would and mobile facilities may experience facility that is only operating seven and unjustifiably increase the information delays in construction or equipment one-half hours per day, with a half an collection burden of the rule, and not all delivery or may lack qualified hour deducted for lunch. The committees or agencies may want copies personnel, and these circumstances may availability of a Plan can be extremely of SPCC Plans. Should a State wish to be beyond the control of, and without useful in preventing and mitigating require filing of a Federal SPCC Plan the fault of, the owner or operator. We discharges, therefore it must be with a State or local committee or also agree with the commenter that the available most of the time at attended agency, it may do so. No Federal submission of the entire Plan as a matter facilities. requirement is necessary. of course is unnecessary to evaluate Comments. Editorial changes and Editorial changes and clarifications. each extension request. Therefore, we clarifications. Several commenters In paragraph (e)(2), we deleted the term have amended the rule to provide that questioned the meaning of ‘‘normal ‘‘or authorized representative’’ after the Regional Administrator may request working hours,’’ asking whose hours ‘‘Regional Administrator,’’ because the your Plan if he deems it appropriate. that meant, those of EPA or those of the Regional Administrator may delegate But we do not believe that he will

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47087

always do so. It may be necessary under submission of the information required when reporting discharges under some circumstances. The Regional in § 112.4(a)(1) and to require Plan § 112.4(a). We believe the information Administrator also retains discretion to amendments at any time is vague and now required to be submitted is request the Plan after on-site review, or does not provide adequate notice to the adequate to assess the cause of after certain discharges. See § 112.4(a)(9) regulated community. discharge and the ability of the facility and (d). We disagree with the Submission of entire Plan. One to prevent future discharges. If the RA commenter’s proposed rewrite of the commenter thought that meaningful believes that the entire Plan has utility, owner or operator’s obligations while review of the information submitted was he can request it. However, we disagree the request is pending because the better impossible without the entire Plan. Two that RAs will always require submission policy is to require compliance with the commenters believed that EPA would of the Plan, or other information not rest of the rule that is not affected by the always request the information it required, as a matter of course. RAs may extension request, rather than saying proposed to eliminate. use their administrative discretion not that the existing Plan continues in Discharge threshold. Other to require the submission of Plan effect. commenters proposed a higher information or other additional Amendments. We have also added a threshold for having to report a information. provision for an extension of time to discharge than is currently required by Discharge threshold. 42 gallons. We prepare and implement an amendment § 112.4(a). Those thresholds ranged from agree that a higher threshold of to the Plan, as well as an entire Plan. We 25–55 gallons. One commenter reporting discharges is justifiable believe that there may be cases in which suggested that we relax the reporting because we believe that only larger an extension can be justified for a Plan requirement for very minor releases of discharges should trigger an EPA amendment because the same petroleum products. Another suggested obligation to review a facility’s extenuating circumstances may apply. that if the discharge causes a sheen that prevention efforts. We also agree that a Editorial changes and clarifications. dissipates within 24 hours, there should higher threshold should trigger a In paragraph (f)(3), ‘‘letter of request’’ be no obligation to report. facility’s obligation to submit Maps, flow diagrams, and charts. becomes ‘‘written extension request.’’ In information and possibly have to take Several commenters suggested that we the last sentence of that paragraph, further prevention measures. Therefore, eliminate the requirement to submit ‘‘with respect to’’ becomes ‘‘related to.’’ we have changed the threshold for maps, flow diagrams, and charts reporting after two discharges as Section 112.4(a)—Reporting Certain because those documents ‘‘add nothing described in § 112.1(b). Under the Discharges to EPA useful to the inquiry.’’ revised rule, if you are the owner or Background. In 1991, we proposed to Off-site category. Another commenter operator of a facility subject to this part, require more information than is suggested that we create an ‘‘off-site’’ you must only submit the required currently required in the rule for category of spill reports for discharges information when in any twelve month reporting certain discharges. If your reported by a facility that are in a water period there have been two discharges facility discharged more than 1,000 body adjacent to the reporter’s facility, as described in § 112.1(b), in each of gallons in a discharge as described in or for discharges that originate off-site, which more than 42 U.S. gallons, or one § 112.1(b), or discharged oil in but migrate to the facility. quantities that may be harmful in more Calculation of time for discharge barrel, has been discharged. We adopted than two discharges as described in reports required by § 112.4(a). Several the 42 gallon threshold on a § 112.1(b) within any consecutive commenters suggested that we calculate commenter’s suggestion. We believe that twelve month period, you would have the time for the submission of discharge a 42 gallon threshold is the appropriate been required to submit certain reports required by § 112.4(a) on a one to trigger a facility’s information information to the Regional ‘‘block’’ basis, rather than a ‘‘rolling’’ and possibly to have to take further Administrator. basis. prevention measures. When multiple In 1993, we proposed a modification discharges occur at a facility subject to Response to Comments to § 112.4(d)(1) which would allow the the SPCC program, such as a generating Regional Administrator to require the Information submission at any time. station, they often involve the discharge submission of the listed information in We agree with the commenter that the of very small amounts of oil, and these § 112.4(a)(1) at any time, whether or not 1993 proposal to give the Regional discharges tend to come randomly from there had been a discharge as described Administrator authority to require a lube pipe, an oil level sight glass in § 112.1(b). submission of the requested information crack, or some other apparatus, and do In 1997, we proposed a reduction of in this section at any time is vague, and not normally indicate a recurring the amount of information currently have therefore withdrawn that part of problem with the container. Having two required by § 112.4(a). We proposed to the proposal. We will only require such or more of these small discharges does eliminate the following information, information after the discharges not indicate that the facility’s SPCC Plan unless the Regional Administrator specified in this section. requires revision. The other reporting specifically requested it: (1) The date Submission of entire Plan. CWA threshold of 1,000 gallons in any a and year of initial facility operation; (2) section 311(m) provides EPA with the single discharge as described in maximum storage or handling capacity authority to require an owner or § 112.1(b) remains the same. of the facility and normal daily operator of a facility subject to section We disagree that a sheen caused by a throughput; and, (3) a complete copy of 311 to make reports and provide discharge as described in § 112.1(b) over the SPCC Plan with any amendments. information to carry out the objectives the threshold amount that disappears Comments. In general. Most of section 311; and CWA section 308(a) within 24 hours should not require commenters favored the 1997 proposal. provides us with authority to require the submission of information. The Several commenters opposed the owner or operator of any ‘‘point source’’ discharge itself may indicate a serious proposal. to make such reports as the problem at the facility which needs to Information submission at any time. Administrator may reasonably require. be corrected. The discharge report may One commenter argued that the 1993 Therefore, we disagree that submission give us the information necessary to proposal allowing EPA to require of the entire Plan is always necessary require specific correction measures.

VerDate Jun<13>2002 19:44 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 17JYR2 47088 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘Sheen’’ rule. The duty imposed by period. If discharge #3 occurred on the Editorial changes and clarifications. If the CWA to report to the National following February 3, it would again a particular information request is Response Center all discharges that may trigger a submission, because discharge inapplicable, you may omit it, but must be harmful, further described by 40 CFR #3 would be within 12 months of explain why it is inapplicable. Several 110.3, is unchanged. Those discharges discharge #2. While the ‘‘rolling basis’’ plural nouns like ‘‘names’’ and ‘‘causes’’ include discharges that violate would trigger more regulatory become singular. Wherever the phrase applicable water quality standards; or, submissions than the ‘‘block basis,’’ we ‘‘and/or’’ appears, we have revised the cause a film or sheen upon or believe that it would enhance phrase to read ‘‘and.’’ In 1997’s discoloration of the surface of the water environmental protection because it proposed § 112.4(a)(6), redesignated as or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge would call potential problems to the § 112.4(a)(7), ‘‘spill’’ becomes or emulsion to be deposited beneath the attention of the Regional Administrator ‘‘discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ surface of the water or upon adjoining sooner, and allow them to be remedied In 1997’s proposed § 112.4(a)(8), shorelines. sooner by a Plan amendment where redesignated as § 112.4(a)(9), ‘‘spill Maps, flow diagrams, and charts. In necessary. event’’ becomes ‘‘discharge.’’ response to comments which ‘‘Block’’ basis. The other approach questioned the usefulness of such Section 112.4(b)—Applicability of would be to use a ‘‘block’’ period. Under § 112.4 information, we have modified the this type of calculation, each third provision regarding maps, flow discharge as described in § 112.1(b) Background. Under current § 112.4(b), diagrams, topographical maps (now would not trigger a submission if it the § 112.4 requirements for spill required by paragraph (a)(6) of the occurred within 12 months of discharge reporting do not apply until the current rule) to clarify that only the #2, but it would start the beginning of expiration of the time permitted for the information necessary to adequately a new 12 month period. For example, if preparation and implementation of a describe the facility and discharge, such discharge #1 occurred on January 1, and Plan pursuant to § 112.3(a), (b), (c), and (f). In 1991, we proposed that § 112.4 as maps, flow diagrams, or discharge #2 on June 2, discharge #2 would not apply until the expiration of topographical maps is necessary—not would trigger a submission. Discharge the time permitted for the preparation necessarily all of the information listed #3 on the following February 3 would and implementation of a Plan under in the paragraph. To effect this change, not trigger a submission, but would start § 112.3(f) only. Section 112.3(f) is the we added the words ‘‘as necessary’’ after a new 12 month period. The principal time period in which you are permitted ‘‘topographical maps.’’ ‘‘As necessary’’ justification for block reporting is also to prepare and implement a Plan under means as determined by the owner or that discharges more closely related in operator, subject to the obligations of an extension request. time are more likely to be related. Our We proposed to delete the references this rule, unless the RA requests more concern with this method is that if the information. There might be to § 112.3(a), (b) and (c) because the February 3 discharge (i.e., discharge #3) current time periods allowed in these circumstances in which the owner or is within twelve months of discharge #2, operator would submit only a brief paragraphs for the preparation and this situation could indicate that there description of the facility or a map, for implementation of the Plan (before is a problem that has not been remedied, example, because flow diagrams and commencement of operation for new so the February 3 discharge should topographical maps were unnecessary to facilities or mobile facilities, or after the trigger a reporting submission. describe the discharge, and would not effective date of the rule for other help the RA to determine whether any Maximum storage or handling existing facilities) were proposed for amendment to the Plan was necessary to capacity. In 1997, we proposed deletion deletion. Because future facilities would prevent future discharges as described of current paragraph (5) (renumbered as generally have a Plan prepared and in § 112.1(b). paragraph (4) in today’s final rule), implemented before beginning Off-site category. There is no concerning the maximum storage or operations, there was no longer a need necessity for an ‘‘off-site’’ category of handling capacity of the facility and to temporarily relieve facilities of spill discharges as described in § 112.1(b) normal daily throughput. We have reporting obligations under § 112.4(a), because only a discharge as described in reconsidered this proposal and decided unless the Regional Administrator § 112.1(b) that originates in a facility to withdraw it because the referenced granted an extension under § 112.3(f) to subject to this part counts for purposes information is necessary information. prepare and implement a Plan. We of § 112.4(a). We have therefore retained the language received no comments on this proposal. Calculation of time for discharge in the rule. Storage capacity and normal In today’s rule, however, we have reports required by § 112.4(a). We daily throughput are important revised § 112.3 to extend the time lines believe a ‘‘rolling’’ basis is the indicators of the impact of a potential for certain facilities to prepare and appropriate method to calculate a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). implement Plans. To accord with this discharge as described in § 112.1(b) for Additional information. If the change, we are maintaining the purposes of the rule because discharges Regional Administrator requires other approach under current § 112.4(b) to as described in § 112.1(b) that are closer information, for example, concerning provide that the § 112.4 spill reporting in time are more likely to be related in the spill pathway, or any response requirements will not apply until the cause. Discharges that are more measures taken, this request is expiration of the time permitted for the proximate in time may indicate a authorized under renumbered initial preparation and implementation problem that needs to be remedied. A § 112.4(a)(9), current § 112.4(a)(11). of a Plan under § 112.3(a), (b), (c), and ‘‘rolling basis’’ means that each Adjoining shorelines, natural (f). Today, we have also revised discharge as described in § 112.1(b) resources, affected natural resources. § 112.3(a) to provide an extended time triggers the start of a new twelve month Discharges into navigable waters are not line for preparing a Plan amendment period. For example, if discharge #1 the only discharges reportable for and § 112.3(f) to provide for an occurred on January 1, and if discharge purposes of this section. We note that extension request for an amendment to #2 occurred on June 2, discharge #2 any discharge as described in § 112.1(b) a Plan. Therefore, we have also revised would trigger the regulatory submission is also within the scope of this section’s § 112.4(b) to provide that the obligation and would start a new twelve month reportable discharges. to submit information as required by

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47089

§ 112.4(a) does not arise until the learn of discharges reported to EPA and clause empowering the RA to approve expiration of the time permitted for the to make recommendations as to further the Plan or require amendment. initial preparation and implementation procedures, methods, equipment, and We also proposed in 1993 allowing of the Plan under § 112.3, but not for other requirements that might prevent the RA to require submission of the any amendments to the Plan. We did such discharges at the reporting facility. information listed in § 112.4(a) at any not previously propose to relieve We can only implement State agency time. The rationale to get this facilities of § 112.4 reporting suggestions that are within the scope of information was to prevent discharges requirements during Plan amendments our authority under section 311 of the from happening, in addition to seeking or extensions for Plan amendments. An CWA. to correct the conditions that may have amendment may or may not be directly In general. The commenter is correct caused the discharge. See the related to the cause of the discharge as that the SPCC program is a Federal background and response to comments described in § 112.1(b), and therefore program, but we believe that in working under § 112.4(a) for a discussion of this may have little relevance to the duty to with the States, we can improve the proposal. submit discharge reports to EPA. Federal program through coordination Comments. Regional Administrator with State oil pollution prevention approval of Plans. Several commenters Section 112.4(c)—Supplying Discharge criticized the idea of RA approval of the Information to the States programs. Therefore, we believe that the information provided to States is neither Plan on the theory that it is an Background. In 1991, we proposed redundant nor unnecessary. Nor is the unwarranted intrusion into the manner that you must provide the same section misleading; it clearly states the in which operators do business. Another discharge information that you submit obligation of the owner or operator. urged an appeal process if EPA approval to the Regional Administrator under of Plans is required. State agency review. We modified the § 112.4(a) to the State agency in charge Plan information and amendments. 1991 proposal on the commenters’ of oil pollution control activities. The One commenter argued that allowing suggestion to include notice to any current rules require that you provide EPA to require submission of the appropriate State agency in charge of oil that information to the State agency in information required in § 112.4(a) at any charge of water pollution control pollution control activities, since there time and to require Plan amendments at activities. may be more than one such agency in any time is vague and does not provide Comments. Legal authority. One some States and all may have need for adequate notice to the regulated commenter suggested that we have no the information. We do not list such community. Several commenters were legal authority for the proposal. Another agencies in the rule, as a commenter concerned that EPA would commenter asserted that EPA could suggested, because the names and inconsistently require overly stringent only implement State agency jurisdiction of the State agencies are measures in some Plans or might require recommendations if those subject to change. It is the reporter’s amendments unrelated to discharge recommendations fell within the scope obligation to learn which State agencies potential or which were financially of the SPCC rule. receive the discharge reports. Most unreasonable. Two commenters urged a In general. Several commenters States publish documents on an ongoing time limit on EPA decision making suggested the proposal was redundant basis, similar to the Federal Register, following submission of required and unnecessary, because only EPA which publicize relevant regulatory information. Another commenter was regulates the SPCC program, not the information. concerned that no provision required PE States. We do not provide State agencies certification of amendments required by State agency review. One commenter, funds to review these discharge reports EPA. a State, favored the proposal and noted due to budgetary constraints. While we Response to comments. Regional that more than one State agency has assume that many States review these Administrator approval of Plans. We statutory jurisdiction over oil pollution reports carefully, we cannot require have deleted the provision that would control in that State. That State and them to do so. Thus, this action is not have allowed RA approval of Plans. We another suggested that all relevant State an unfunded mandate from the Federal have decided not to create a new class agencies receive the information. One government to the States. But if States of SPCC Plans which require EPA commenter suggested that EPA should do review the reports, they do so at their approval, either Plans submitted identify the appropriate State agency to own expense. following certain discharges as required which notice is due. One commenter Editorial changes and clarifications. by § 112.4(a) or Plans with contingency thought the proposed change was In the last sentence of the paragraph, plans, because we do not believe such misleading. Another commenter, a ‘‘discharges of oil’’ becomes approval is necessary in order to ensure State, suggested that EPA provide the ‘‘discharges.’’ effective Plans. States money to review the submitted Section 112.4(d)—Amendment of Plans Plan information and amendments. discharge information. Required by the Regional Administrator We agree that allowing EPA to require Response to comments. Legal submission of the information required authority. We have ample legal Background. In 1991, we proposed in § 112.4(a) at any time, and thereafter authority to finalize this rule. A similar that after review of materials under to require Plan amendments, is vague, rule has been in effect since 1974. 112.4(a), the Regional Administrator and therefore we have withdrawn that Section 311(j)(1) of the CWA authorizes (RA) might require amendment of the part of the proposal. Furthermore, it is the Federal government (and EPA SPCC Plan. We also proposed that the unnecessary because sections 308 and through delegation) to establish RA might require Plan amendment after 311(m) of the CWA already provides us ‘‘procedures, methods, and equipment reviewing contingency plan materials with adequate authority to request and other requirements for equipment to submitted for approval. See proposed necessary Plan information. prevent discharges of oil. * * *’’ § 112.7(d), 1991. While the RA will not have authority Section 112.4(c) of this rule is a In 1993, we proposed that the RA under this section to approve Plans, he procedure to help prevent discharges would also have authority to require has authority to require Plan that fall within the scope of that Plan amendment after on-site review of amendment. We will strive to be as statutory provision. It enables States to the Plan. In addition, we proposed a timely as possible in reviewing the

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47090 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

information when submitted, and next paragraph, making such reference a day-to-day basis. One commenter making decisions on any required redundant. suggested that small facilities with less amendments. A time limit on the RA’s Editorial changes and clarifications. than 5,000 gallon-capacity should be decision making authority would be We have changed the proposed exempted from the need to amend their unnecessary because a facility may requirement to mail a copy of the notice Plans for the listed acts. Another continue to operate under its existing to the registered agent of a corporation commenter asserted that instead of Plan while the RA’s decision is pending. to a requirement that such notice be being required to amend their Plans While we will consider cost in our effected only if the registered agent is before changes are made, operators decision making, amendments may be known to EPA. The notification should be encouraged to incorporate required on a case-specific basis to help requirement for registered agents now new procedures into their SPCC Plans to prevent discharges. Any technical tracks the notification requirement for prevent and contain potential amendment required would require PE registered agents in § 112.1(f). Because discharges which might result from certification. See § 112.5(c) . we have withdrawn the proposed performing needed repairs and Editorial changes and clarifications. requirement that a corporation submit replacements. The rationale for the We have deleted reference to the RA’s that agent’s name or address in the suggestion was that operators will then approval of the submitted Plan in submission of information required by not ‘‘save up’’ potential amendments proposed paragraph (d)(2), because the § 112.4(a), such agent may not be known due to the burden of preparing an RA will not have authority to approve to EPA. In the last sentence of the final amendment. a Plan. He does, however, have rule, ‘‘amendment of the Plan’’ becomes Material changes. Many commenters authority to require Plan amendment ‘‘amended Plan.’’ offered opinions on the examples of material changes listed in the rule for under today’s revision of § 112.4(d). Section 112.4(f)—Appeals of Required which amendments would be required. Amendments Section 112.4(e)—Notification and Some suggested that the rule should Implementation of Required Background. In 1991, we reproposed read that these are only examples of Amendments the current appeals procedures for changes that may trigger amendment. Background. In 1991, we reproposed required Plan amendments. We received Several commenters suggested that the current notification provision no substantive comments. Therefore, we decommissioning a tank should not concerning required Plan amendments, have promulgated the procedures as trigger an amendment because ‘‘as a and the time lines for implementation of proposed. tank is removed, so is the requirement Editorial changes and clarifications. those amendments. for an SPCC Plan.’’ Another commenter We deleted language concerning the Comments. Who receives notice. One noted that changing a product in a tank ‘‘designee’’ of the EPA Administrator or cleaning a tank should not be commenter wanted EPA to notify because it is unnecessary. Current railroads directly, instead of their considered commissioning or delegations allow the Administrator to decommissioning a tank. One registered agents, because of the time lag delegate this function. commenter suggested that an that might occur between the time the amendment to the Plan should be agent received notice and the owner or Section 112.5(a)—Plan Amendment by required when there is a change of operator of the facility received notice. an Owner or Operator product stored within the tank. Another commenter urged that we also Background. In 1991, we proposed to Documenting no change or certain provide notice to the facility operator, require that an owner or operator amend activities. Another commenter suggested the facility improvement owner, and the the Plan before making any change in that a log book might be used instead of facility landowner. His rationale for facility design, construction, operation, a Plan amendment to document such expanded notice was that a major or maintenance materially affecting the ‘‘routine activities’’ and measures taken problem may be addressed by the facility’s potential for the discharge of to maintain the spill prevention and operator or EPA, without the knowledge oil into the waters of the United States response integrity of the facility. Several and/or consent of the facility unless the RA granted an extension. We commenters suggested that an identical improvements owner and the facility also listed some examples of facility replacement of tanks or other equipment landowner. changes which would require Plan should not be considered a material Appeals procedure. One commenter amendment, noting that these examples change and therefore amendment suggested that we include a reference to were not an exclusive list. should not be required. A utility the appeal procedure for amendments in Comments. When amendment is commenter asked that facilities be this section. necessary. Several commenters favored allowed to accumulate minor Response to comments. Who receives the proposal. Others provided differing modifications for a period of 6 months, notice. In reply to the railroad standards for amending Plans. A then update the Plan. commenter, the rule requires notice number of commenters suggested that EPA approval. Another commenter only to the owner or operator of the no amendments should be necessary suggested that we clarify that EPA facility, and the registered agent, if any when a facility change results in a approval of an amendment made under and if known. Notice from EPA to the decrease in the volume stored or a this section is not required. facility improvements owner and decrease in the potential for an oil spill. Time line for amendment landowner is unnecessary because these Another suggested a standard that implementation. Numerous commenters matters can and should be handled amendments should be made ‘‘when opposed the proposed requirement that between the facility owner or operator there are indicia of problems.’’ A a Plan be amended before any material and the owner or operator of the commenter suggested a standard that no changes are made. Commenters improvements or the landowner. amendments would be required except suggested various alternative Appeals procedure. We have not for those changes which would cause amendment time lines ranging from 90 included a reference to the appeals the spill potential to exceed the Plan’s days to six months following such procedures for required amendments in capabilities because day-to-day changes changes, with a cluster of commenters this section because the appeals do not affect the worst case spill and the around the six months alternative. procedures follow immediately in the Plan should not have to be amended on Others suggested that the Plan be

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47091

amended at fixed time points such as alike to prevent discharges after material is a change from previous operating before a design is physically changes. conditions involving different implemented, before startup of Material changes. A material change properties of the stored product such as operations, after modifications, before is one that may either increase or specific gravity or corrosivity and/or new or modified equipment is in decrease the potential for a discharge. different service conditions of operation, or when changes are made. We agree with the commenter that the temperature and/or pressure. Therefore, One commenter said that rule language rule should be worded to indicate that we have amended the rule to add ‘‘or should be clarified to note that the RA the examples are for illustration only, service’’ after the phrase ‘‘changes of may specify a time period longer than because the items in the list may not product.’’ six months to implement an always trigger amendments, and Documenting no change or certain amendment. because the list is not exclusive. Only activities. We agree that a log book may Response to comments. When changes which materially affect be used to document non-material, amendment is necessary. We agree with operations trigger the amendment routine activities. However, this is not the commenter who suggested that we requirement. Ordinary maintenance or an appropriate substitute for maintain the current standard for non-material changes which do not amendment when you make material amendments, i.e., when there is a affect the potential for the discharge of changes at the facility. change that materially affects the oil do not. EPA approval. We agree with the facility’s potential to discharge oil. This We disagree that decommissioning of commenter’s suggestion that EPA position accords with our stance on a container that results in permanent approval of an amendment is not when Plans should be prepared and closure of that container is not a required. However, if the RA is not implemented. See § 112.3. The other material amendment. Decommissioning satisfied that your amendment satisfies a container could materially decrease suggested standards too narrowly limit the requirements of these rules, he may the potential for a discharge and require the changes which would trigger Plan require further amendment of your Plan. Plan amendment, unless such Time line for amendment amendment. We believe that an decommissioning brings the facility implementation. We agree with amendment is necessary when a facility below the regulatory threshold, making commenters that we should not require change results in a decrease in the the preparation and implementation of Plan amendment before material volume stored or a decrease in the a Plan no longer a requirement. We also changes are made. Therefore, we have potential for an oil spill because EPA believe that the oversight of a revised the proposed rule to provide a needs this information to determine Professional Engineer is necessary to maximum of six months for Plan compliance with the rule. For example, ensure that the container is in fact amendment, and a maximum of six the amount of secondary containment properly closed. more months for amendment required depends on the storage We agree that replacement of tanks, implementation. This is the current capacity of a container. Decreases might containers, or equipment may not be a standard. We note that § 112.3(f) allows also affect the way a facility plans material change if the replacements are the RA to authorize an extension of time emergency response measures and identical in quality, capacity, and to prepare and implement an training procedures. A lesser capacity number. However, a replacement of one amendment under certain might require different response tank with more than one identical tank circumstances. measures than a larger capacity. The resulting in greater storage capacity is a Editorial changes and clarifications. training of employees might be affected material change because the storage The phrase in the first sentence which because the operation and maintenance capacity of the facility, and its read, ‘‘potential to discharge oil as of the facility might be affected by a consequent discharge potential, have described in § 112.1(b) of this part,’’ lesser storage capacity. increased. becomes ‘‘potential for a discharge as Likewise, a standard requiring Changes of product. We have added described in § 112.1(b). ‘‘Tanks’’ amendment ‘‘when there are indicia of to the list of examples, on a becomes ‘‘containers.’’ ‘‘Commission or problems’’ is too vague and leaves commenter’s suggestion, ‘‘changes of decommission’’ becomes problems unaddressed which may result product.’’ We added ‘‘changes of ‘‘commissioning or decommissioning.’’ in a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). product’’ because such change may A standard requiring an amendment materially affect facility operations and Section 112.5(b)—Periodic Review of only when the change would cause the therefore be a material change. An Plans spill potential to exceed the Plan’s example of a change of product that Background. In 1991, we reproposed capabilities (because day-to-day changes would be a material change would be a the current rule, which requires that the do not affect the worst case spill) would change from storage of asphalt to storage owner or operator review the Plan at have the effect of leaving no of gasoline. Storage of gasoline instead least every three years, and amend it if documentation of amendments which of asphalt presents an increased fire and more effective control and prevention might affect discharges which do not explosion hazard. A switch from storage technology would significantly reduce reach the standard of ‘‘worst case spill.’’ of gasoline to storage of asphalt might the likelihood of a spill, and if the While we encourage facilities to result in increased stress on the technology had been field-proven at the incorporate new procedures into Plans container leading to its failure. Changes time of the review. which would help to prevent of product involving different grades of In 1997, we withdrew the 1991 discharges, amendments are still gasoline might not be a material change proposal, and instead proposed a five- necessary when material changes are and thus not require amendment of the year review time frame, with the same made to document those new Plan if the differing grades of gasoline technological conditions. In 1997, we procedures, and thus facilitate the do not substantially change the also proposed that the owner or operator enforcement of the rule’s requirements. conditions of storage and potential for certify that he had performed the We disagree that a small facility should discharge. review. be exempt from making amendments for A change in service may also be a Comments. Five-year review. Most material changes. Amendments may be material change if it affects the potential commenters favored the change from necessary at large or small facilities for a discharge. A ‘‘change in service’’ three-to five-year review. Some

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47092 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

commenters noted that a five-year required by the RA under § 112.4(a), and beginning or the end of the Plan, or review period would make it easier to perhaps after on-site review of a Plan maintain such documentation in a log coordinate reviews of related plans, (see § 112.4(d)). Plus the Plan must be book appended to the Plan or other such as facility response plans required implemented at all times. These appendix to the Plan. You may by part 112. A few opposed it, preferring opportunities ensure that Plans will be document completion in one of two the current three-year review period. current. We also disagree that the length ways. If amendment of the Plan is They believed that five-year review of the tank warranty should be the necessary, then you must state as much, might lead to reduced maintenance and determining factor for a technological and that review is complete. This consequent environmental harm, review. Technology changes enough statement is necessary because Plan especially in the absence of any within a five-year period to warrant amendments may result either from requirements for a facility to ensure that required review within such time period five-year review or from material personnel are familiar with planning whether or not other changes occur. changes at the facility affecting its goals and proposed response actions, Amendments other than the five-year potential for discharge, or from on-site including personnel who are rotated. review amendments may not be based review of the Plan. There is no way to One commenter suggested that the on the need to learn of improved know which circumstance causes the longevity of a tank warranty should be technology. Those amendments might amendment without some explanation. the determining factor in the length of result from deficiencies in the Plan, on If no amendments are necessary, you review time. Another suggested that the need to make repairs, or to remedy must document completion of review by there should be no particular time the cause of a discharge. merely signing a statement that you period prescribed because the Calculation of time between reviews. have completed the review and no requirement for an amendment The change in the rule from three-year amendments are necessary. You may whenever a material change is made is to five-year reviews requires some use the words suggested in the rule to sufficient. explanation as to when a review must document completion, or make any Completion of review. Commenters be conducted. For example, a facility similar statement to the same effect. split almost evenly on the proposed became subject to the rule on January 1, Who documents review. The owner or requirement for certification of 1990. The first three-year review should operator of the facility, or a person at a completion of the review. Opponents of have been conducted by January 1, management level with sufficient the certification proposal believed 1993, the second by January 1, 1996, authority to commit the necessary generally that it is unnecessary and the third by January 1, 1999. The resources, must document completion paperwork that will not benefit the next review must be conducted by of review. environment. One commenter suggested January 1, 2004, due to the rule change. Time line for amendment that instead of documenting completion In other words, an existing facility must implementation. We agree with of review, a facility might instead date complete the review within 5 years of commenters (see comments on proposed the Plan to show review and date each the date the last review must have been § 112.5(a)) that the preparation and amendment. One commenter thought completed. A facility becoming operable implementation of Plan amendments that the certifications should have to be on or after the effective date of the rule require more time than proposed. The forwarded to the Regional will begin a five-year cycle at the date same rationale applies to the Administrator. Others asked whether it becomes subject to part 112. preparation and implementation of the certification could be documented Completion of review. We disagree amendments required due to five-year in a log book, instead of in the Plan. that documentation of completion of reviews. Therefore, we will require Another commenter asked at what review has no environmental benefit. Its adherence to the time lines laid down management level certification should benefit lies in the fact that it shows that in § 112.5(b) for amendments. Currently, be required. One commenter believed someone reviewed the Plan to § 112.5(b) requires that Plan that Plans amended due to five-year determine if better technology would amendments be prepared within six reviews should not require owner or benefit the facility and the Plan is months. It is silent as to time lines for operator certification because any current. Documentation of completion implementation. Therefore, we have amendments to the Plan have to be of review is necessary whether or not revised the rule to clarify that reviewed and certified by a PE. Another any amendments are necessary in order amendments must be implemented as commenter noted that no specific to clearly show that the review was soon as possible, but within the next six language was provided for the done. Mere dating of the Plan or of an months. This is the current standard for certification. One commenter urged that amendment does not show that you implementation of certain other the PE should be allowed to document performed the required review. amendments. See, for example, that no change is necessary after Documentation of completion of review §§ 112.3(a) and 112.4(e). We note that reviewing planned changes, or that is a function of the owner or operator, § 112.3(f) allows you to request an further study is required, or that an whereas certification of any resulting extension of time to prepare and amendment is necessary. technical amendment is a function of implement an amendment. Response to comments. Five-year the PE. We disagree that documentation Editorial changes and clarifications. review. We agree that a five-year review of completion should be forwarded to We have changed the word period will make coordination of review the Regional Administrator because it ‘‘certification’’ to a requirement to of related plans, such as facility would increase the information document completion of the review to response plans required by part 112, collection burden without an avoid the legal effect a certification may easier. We disagree that a five-year environmental benefit. It is sufficient have. The intent of the certification review period will lead to reduced that the review be done. When the proposal was merely to show that an maintenance or increased Regional Administrator wishes to verify owner or operator performed a review of environmental harm. Amendment of a completion of review, he may do so the Plan every five years. 62 FR 63814, Plan will still be necessary when a during an on-site inspection. December 2, 1997. A false material change is made affecting the How to document completion of documentation of completion of review facility’s potential to discharge oil, review. You must add documentation of of the Plan is a deficiency in the Plan perhaps after certain discharges as completion of review either at the and may be cited as a violation of these

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47093

rules. ‘‘Spill event,’’ in the second deletion of this provision, and have Written Plans. We agree that a sentence, becomes ‘‘discharge as deleted it. ‘‘written’’ Plan might also include texts, described in § 112.1(b). graphs, charts, maps, photos, and tables, Section 112.7 Introduction and (a)(1)— on whatever media, including floppy Section 112.5(c)—PE Certification of General Eequirements disk, CD, hard drive, and tape storage, Technical Amendments Background. In 1991, we reproposed that allows the document to be easily Background. In 1991, we proposed the introduction to § 112.7 to clarify that accessed, comprehended, distributed, that all amendments to the Plan must be the rule requires mandatory action, and viewed, updated, and printed. Whatever certified by a PE with the exception of that it is not just a guideline. In 1997, medium you use, however, must be changes to the contact list. The current we reproposed a definition of SPCC readily accessible to response personnel rule requires certification of all Plan that included some substantive in an emergency. If it is produced in a amendments. requirements. As noted above (see the medium that is not readily accessible in Comments. A few commenters ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ definition in § 112.2), an emergency, it must be also available suggested that the value of PE those substantive requirements have in a medium that is. For example, a Plan certification for amendments does not been transferred from the definition of might be electronically produced, but justify the cost. Another commenter ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ in § 112.2 to this section. computers fail and may not be operable questioned when recertification of the Section 112.7(a)(1) requires a in an emergency. For an electronic Plan entire Plan was required, rather than discussion of the facility’s conformance or Plan produced in some other just the amendment in question. Several with the listed requirements in the rule. medium, therefore, a backup copy must Comments. For a discussion of the commenters suggested that the be readily available on paper. At least ‘‘should to shall to must’’ comments and recertification requirement be limited to one version of the Plan should be response to those comments, see the those changes that materially affect the written in English so that it will be discussion above under that topic in facility’s potential to discharge oil. readily understood by an EPA inspector. Response to comments. It is the section IV.C of this preamble. responsibility of the owner or operator Cross-referencing. Several Editorial changes and clarifications. to document completion of review, but commenters criticized the requirement We have transferred all of the proposed completion of review and Plan for sequential cross-referencing set forth substantive requirements in the 1997 amendment are two different processes. in the 1997 proposed definition of proposed definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ to PE certification is not necessary unless ‘‘SPCC Plan,’’ alleging that it is the introduction of this section. We did the Plan is amended. confusing and provides no benefit. this because we agree with commenters We believe that PE certification is Another commenter asked how detailed (see the comments on the definition of necessary for any technical amendment the cross-referencing must be. ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ in § 112.2) that definitions that requires the application of good Written Plans. Another commenter should not contain substantive engineering practice. We believe that proposed that a ‘‘written’’ Plan might requirements. the value of such certification justifies also include texts, graphs, charts, maps, We have revised the introduction to the cost, in that good engineering photos, and tables, on whatever media, § 112.7 to facilitate use of the active practice is essential to help prevent including floppy disk, CD, hard drive, voice and to clearly note that the owner discharges. Therefore, we have amended and tape storage that allows the or operator, except as specifically noted, the rule to require PE certification for document to be easily accessed, is responsible for implementing the technical changes only. Non-technical comprehended, distributed, viewed, rule. changes not requiring the exercise of updated, and printed. We also deleted language requiring a good engineering practice do not require Response to comments. Cross- ‘‘carefully thought-out’’ SPCC Plan. PE certification. Such non-technical referencing. We agree that the term Such language is unnecessary because changes include but are not limited to ‘‘sequential’’ cross-referencing may be the Plan must be prepared in such items as: changes to the contact confusing, and have therefore deleted it accordance with good engineering list; more stringent requirements for in favor of a requirement to provide practices. Another editorial revision in stormwater discharges to comply with cross-referencing. We disagree that the introduction is the change from NPDES rules; phone numbers; product cross-referencing provides no benefit. ‘‘level with authority’’ in the last changes if the new product is With the wide variation now allowed in sentence of proposed § 112.7(a) to ‘‘level compatible with conditions in the differing formats, we need cross- of authority.’’ A third revision is a existing tank and secondary referencing so that an inspector can tell change from ‘‘format’’ to ‘‘sequence.’’ containment; and, any other changes whether the Plan meets Federal We have transferred the part of the which do not materially affect the requirements, and whether it is sentence proposed in 1991 dealing with facility’s potential to discharge oil. If the complete. In addition, in order for an the sequence of the Plan in § 112.7(a)(1) owner or operator is not sure whether owner or operator to do his own check to the introduction of § 112.7. the change is technical or non-technical, to ensure that his facility meets all SPCC For consistency with response plan he should have it certified. requirements, he must go through the language in § 112.20(h), the language in exercise of comparing his Plan to each the introduction referring to alternative Former Section 112.7(a)(1)—Certain SPCC requirement. Cross-referencing in SPCC formats has been revised to read pre-1974 Discharges the context of the rule means indicating ‘‘equivalent Plan acceptable to the Background. In 1991, we proposed to the relationship of a requirement in the Regional Administrator.’’ The response delete § 112.7(a), which required a new format to an SPCC requirement. plan language in § 112.20(h) on description of certain discharges to The cross-referencing must identify the ‘‘equivalent response plans’’ has also navigable waters or adjoining shorelines Federal section and paragraph for each been revised to include the ‘‘acceptable which occurred prior to the effective section of the new format it fulfills, for to the Regional Administrator’’ language date of the rule in 1974, because that example, § 112.8(c)(3). Note the cross- included in the introduction to § 112.7. information was no longer relevant. 56 referencing table we have provided for For a discussion of possible SPCC FR 54620. We received several your convenience in section II.A of this formats, see the discussion under the comments supporting the proposed preamble. definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan,’’ above.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47094 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

We deleted the term ‘‘sequentially Comments. Some commenters questioned how the RA will determine cross-referenced’’ because we agree that supported the 1991 proposal. But others if the deviation will cause harm to the it may be misunderstood, and instead had concerns. environment, and therefore lack use the term ‘‘cross-referencing’’ in the Applicability—1991. Some equivalency. If such a provision is revised rule. As noted above, cross- commenters suggested that the Agency included, the commenter asked for an referencing means identifying the should add language to the rule making appeals process similar to the one requirement in the new format to the clear that a facility may deviate from the suggested in § 112.20(c). section and paragraph of the SPCC express requirements of the rule and RA oversight—1993. One commenter requirement. We have also substituted may substitute alternatives based on favored the 1993 proposal. Opposing the word ‘‘part’’ for ‘‘section’’ where good engineering practice. The commenters believed that submission of ‘‘cross-referencing’’ and meeting commenters added that we should make deviations to the RA is unnecessary ‘‘equivalent requirements’’ are clear that the equivalency provision in because PE certification ensures the mentioned. We make this change § 112.7(a)(2) does not require application of good engineering because the rule requires compliance mathematical equivalency of every practice. with any applicable provision in the requirement, but merely the Secondary containment. Several part, not merely § 112.7. We also clarify achievement of substantially the same commenters suggested that we explicitly say that equivalent protection should be that the discussion of your facility’s level of overall protection from the risk defined to allow a compacted earthen conformance with the requirements of discharge at the facility as the specific floor and compacted earthen dike to listed (see § 112.7(a)(1)) means the requirement seeks to achieve. Another commenter was concerned that proving provide secondary containment. The requirements listed in part 112, not the equivalence of measures to the rationale for the comment was that other merely the requirements listed in satisfaction of Regional officials may be methods of secondary containment may § 112.7. difficult. One commenter urged us to be prohibitively expensive and We also note that if the Plan calls for expressly state that PEs may substitute unnecessary to protect against spills in additional facilities or procedures, alternatives based on good engineering primarily rural areas. One commenter methods, or equipment not yet fully practice. suggested that we should clarify that the operational, you must discuss these RA oversight—1991. One commenter language of § 112.7(c) applies only to oil items in separate paragraphs, and must opposed the provision allowing the RA storage areas. explain separately the details of to overrule waivers/equivalent Response to comments. Applicability. installation and operational start-up. measures. As noted above, we withdrew We generally agree with the commenter The discussion must include a schedule the proposal to allow the RA to that an owner or operator should have for the installation and start-up of these explicitly overrule waivers. Instead we flexibility to substitute alternate items. substituted a proposed procedure measures providing equivalent whereby the RA could require you to environmental protection in place of Section 112.7(a)(2)—Deviations from amend your Plan. One commenter express requirements. Therefore, we Plan Requirements feared that PEs would be reluctant to have expanded the proposal to allow deviations from the requirements in Background. In 1991, we proposed to certify alternate technologies due to the § 112.7(g), (h)(2) and (3), or (i), as well allow deviations from the requirements threat of potential liability. Deviation submission. One as subparts B, and C, except for the listed in § 112.7(c) and in §§ 112.8, commenter opposed the proposed listed secondary containment provisions 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11, as long as the requirement to submit a Plan deviation in § 112.7 and subparts B and C. The owner or operator explained the reason and urged its deletion to make it proposed rule already included possible for nonconformance and provided consistent with the rest of the SPCC deviations for any of the requirements equivalent environmental protection by rule. The commenter argued that the listed in §§ 112.7(c), 112.8, 112.9, another means. The proposal was deviation and Plan have already been 112.10, and 112.11. We have expanded intended to implement the requirement certified by a PE, and there is no reason this possibility of deviation to include for ‘‘good engineering practice’’ which for EPA to be asked to second guess that the new subparts we have added for is a cornerstone of the rule, and to certification in every case. The various classes of oils. We take this step provide flexibility in meeting the rule’s commenter also asserted that it is because we believe that the application requirements. We clearly noted in the unduly burdensome to require regulated of good engineering practice requires rule that the Regional Administrator facilities to prepare a justification and the flexibility to use alternative would have the authority to overrule submit a Plan to EPA for every waiver measures when such measures offer any deviation. of the technical requirements. Another equivalent environmental protection. In 1993, we reproposed the section, commenter questioned why the entire This provision may be especially eliminating language referring to the Plan should be submitted to the RA for important in differentiating between Regional Administrator’s (RA’s) review. The commenter suggested that requirements for facilities storing, authority to overrule deviations. only the portion or portions of the Plan processing, or otherwise using various Instead, we proposed that whenever you that do not conform to the standard types of oil. proposed a deviation, you would have requirements should be submitted, A deviation may be used whenever an to submit the entire Plan to the RA with adding that this step would help EPA to owner or operator can explain his a letter explaining how your Plan minimize the resources needed to reasons for nonconformance, and contained equivalent environmental review such waivers. One commenter provide equivalent environmental protection measures in lieu of those suggested that the choice of preventive protection. Possible rationales for a explicitly required in the rule. The RA systems in the design and deviation include when the owner or would have authority under the 1993 implementation of spill prevention operator can show that the particular proposal to require amendment of the measures should be left to the facility requirement is inappropriate for the Plan if he determined that the measures owner or operator. The commenter facility because of good engineering described in the deviation did not opposed giving the RA authority to practice considerations or other reasons, provide equivalent protection. require equivalent protection because he and that he can achieve equivalent

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47095

environmental protection in an alternate found at §§ 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), allowed for the general and specific manner. For example, a requirement 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), secondary containment provisions listed that may be essential for a facility 112.12(c)(11), 112.13(c)(2), and above because § 112.7(d) contains the storing gasoline may be inappropriate 112.14(c), are not practicable. Those necessary requirements when you find for a facility storing asphalt; or, the measures are expressly tailored to that secondary containment is not owner or operator may be able to address the lack of secondary practicable. We have amended both this implement equivalent environmental containment at a facility. They include paragraph and § 112.7(d) to clarify this. protection through an alternate requirements to: explain why secondary Instead, the contingency planning and technology. An owner or operator may containment is not practicable; conduct other requirements in § 112.7(d) apply. consider cost as one of the factors in periodic integrity testing of bulk storage Deviations are also not available for the deciding whether to deviate from a containers; conduct periodic integrity general recordkeeping and training particular requirement, but the alternate and leak testing of valves and piping; provisions in § 112.7, as these provided must achieve environmental provide in the Plan a contingency plan requirements are meant to apply to all protection equivalent to the required following the provisions of 40 CFR part facilities, or for the provisions of measure. The owner or operator must 109; and, provide a written commitment § 112.7(f) and (j). We already provide ensure that the design of any alternate of manpower, equipment, and materials flexibility in the manner of device used as a deviation is adequate to expeditiously control and remove any recordkeeping by allowing the use of for the facility, and that the alternate quantity of oil discharged that may be ordinary and customary business device is adequately maintained. In all harmful. Therefore, when an owner or records. Training and a discussion of cases, the owner or operator must operator seeks to deviate from compliance with more stringent State explain in the Plan his reason for secondary containment requirements, rules are essential for all facilities. nonconformance. We wish to be clear § 112.7(d) will be the applicable Therefore, we do not allow deviations that we do not intend this deviation ‘‘deviation’’ provision, not § 112.7(a)(2). for these measures. provision to be used as a means to avoid Deviation submission. We agree with Secondary containment. Regarding compliance with the rule or simply as the commenter that submission of a the secondary containment an excuse for not meeting requirements deviation to the Regional Administrator requirements, the requirement in the owner or operator believes are too is not necessary and have deleted the § 112.7(c) applies not only to oil storage costly. The alternate measure chosen proposed requirement. We take this step areas, but also to operational areas of the must represent good engineering because we believe that the requirement facility where a discharge may occur. practice and must achieve for good engineering practice and Section 112.7(c) may apply to any area environmental protection equivalent to current inspection and reporting of the facility where a discharge is the rule requirement. Technical procedures (for example, § 112.4(a)), possible. Other secondary containment deviations, like other substantive followed by the possibility of required provisions in this part have more technical portions of the Plan requiring amendments, are adequate to review particular applicability, e.g., the application of engineering judgment, Plans and to detect the flaws in them. §§ 112.7(h)(1), 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), are subject to PE certification. Upon submission of required 112.9(c)(2),112.10(c), and their information, or upon on-site review of a counterparts in subpart C. We decline to In the preamble to the 1991 proposal Plan, if the RA decides that any portion specify that a compacted earthen floor (at 56 FR 54614), we noted that ‘‘*** of a Plan is inadequate, he may require and compacted earthen dike will always aboveground storage tanks without an amendment. See § 112.4(d). If you satisfy the secondary containment secondary containment pose a disagree with his determination requirements. Those methods may, particularly significant threat to the regarding an amendment, you may however, be acceptable if there is no environment. The Phase One appeal. See § 112.4(e). potential for oil to migrate through the modifications would retain the current RA oversight. Once an RA becomes compacted earthen floor or dike through requirement for facility owners or aware of a facility’s SPCC Plan as a groundwater to cause a discharge as operators who are unable to provide result of an on-site inspection or the described in § 112.1(b). certain structures or equipment for oil submission of required information, he Editorial changes and clarifications. spill prevention, including secondary is to follow the principles of good ‘‘Equivalent protection’’ becomes containment, to prepare facility-specific engineering practice and not overrule a ‘‘equivalent environmental protection’’ oil spill contingency plans in lieu of the deviation unless it is clear that such throughout the paragraph. prevention systems.’’ In keeping with deviation fails to afford equivalent Section 112.7(a)(3)—Facility this position, we have deleted the environmental protection. This does not Characteristics That Must be Described proposed deviation in § 112.7(a)(2) for mean that the deviation must achieve in the Plan the secondary containment ‘‘mathematical equivalency,’’ as one requirements in §§ 112.7(c) and (h)(1); commenter pointed out. But it does Background. In 1991, we proposed a and for proposed §§ 112.8(c)(2), mean equivalent protection of the new section that would require you to 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c); as environment. We encourage innovative describe the essential characteristics of well as for the new sections which are techniques, but such techniques must your facility in the Plan. Those the counterparts of the proposed also protect the environment. We also characteristics are discussed below. In sections, i.e., §§ 112.12(c)(2), believe that in general PEs will seek to the description, you would also be 112.12(c)(11), 112.13(c)(2), and protect themselves from liability by only required to provide a facility diagram 112.14(c), because a more appropriate certifying measures that do provide that included the location and contents deviation provision already exists in equivalent environmental protection. of all tanks, regardless of whether the § 112.7(d). Section § 112.7(d) contains But the RA must still retain the tanks are subject to all the provisions of the measures which a facility owner or authority to require amendments for 40 CFR part 280 or a State program operator must undertake when the deviations, as he can with other parts of approved under 40 CFR part 281, or secondary containment required by the Plan certified by a PE. otherwise subject to part 112. The § 112.7(c) or (h)(1), or the secondary Not covered under the deviation rule. rationale for the diagram was that it containment provisions in the rule Deviations under § 112.7(a)(2) are not would assist in response actions.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47096 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Responders would have a means to Another asserted that it would not be because supplying site specific spill and know where all containers are, to help possible to give estimates of oil clean-up information for a mobile ensure their safety in conducting a potentially discharged from flowlines or source that will move from one site to response action and aid in the gathering systems. One commenter another is not feasible. protection of life and property. argued that mobile facilities should be Some opposing commenters believed Comments. General description of exempt from this requirement because that the proposal would preclude characteristics. Two commenters asked the exact site information changes with bioremediation. Others believed that it that the requirements proposed for Plan the movement of equipment. was too costly. One commenter characteristics be listed on a facility Possible spill pathways. Two suggested that the ‘‘costs associated basis rather than a tank basis because commenters wrote that the proposed with off-site disposal of oil-saturated otherwise the proposal would be too requirement ‘‘could be an infinite soil from a typical secondary resource intensive. The commenters did number and serves no useful purpose.’’ containment facility after a contained not provide cost estimates. One commenter asked that the spill event will cost an operator as much Facility diagram. Two commenters requirement be replaced by a as $4,700, calculated at the cost of $90 supported the proposal. Opposing requirement to describe the most likely per ton of removed soil for commenters asserted that the diagram spill pathways to navigable water. transportation and disposal fees and the would be too costly and add little to the Spill prevention measures (including associated leachate and waste analysis Plan. One commenter said that the loading areas and transfers). One but excluding the internal costs requirement was redundant because commenter suggested that the beginning associated with the actual excavation many States require the same thing. of the paragraph be revised to read, work.’’ Other commenters believed that Two commenters opposed marking the ‘‘Secondary containment’’ instead of we have no authority to ask the question contents of the tanks because those ‘‘Spill prevention measures. . . .’’ See because the subject matter is regulated contents may change frequently, also the discussion on loading areas either by State law or another Federal requiring Plan amendment each time. under § 112.7(h). program, such as the solid waste One commenter suggested that instead Spill controls and secondary program. One commenter asked for an the facility maintain a separate list of containment. One commenter thought exemption for mobile facilities from this tank contents when changes occur that this paragraph should refer to requirement. frequently over a short span of time to ‘‘other drainage control features and the Contact list. Several commenters eliminate the need to constantly amend equipment they protect.’’ favored the proposal. One commenter the diagram. Other commenters Spill countermeasures. One suggested that the list name the cleanup requested a de minimis exemption for commenter suggested that this contractor with whom the facility has a small containers for the diagram, paragraph be revised to read, relationship, not merely the name of any suggesting levels of 660 gallons or less. ‘‘Prevention, control, or countermeasure cleanup contractor. Some of these commenters suggested features, other than secondary One commenter favored the inclusion that the diagram be discretionary for containment and drainage control, and of local emergency planning contacts in storage volumes of less than 10–15,000 the equipment which they protect.’’ the required information. Another gallons. Other commenters asked Another commenter argued that mobile opposed it as duplicative of information whether exempt materials would have drilling and workover rigs either on or in the HAZWOPER Plan. A commenter to be marked as to content, for example, off shore should be exempt from this requested an exemption for mobile products which are not oil. Some requirement because supplying site facilities. Another commenter believed believed that the inclusion of otherwise specific spill and clean-up information we lack authority to request the exempt containers in the diagram was for a mobile source that will move from information. One commenter suggested unreasonable. One commenter one site to another is not feasible. One that the list be restricted to Federal or suggested the diagram should include commenter suggested that the State agencies that must be notified in transfer stations and connecting pipes. contingency planning requirements in case of the accidental discharge of oil. Another commenter asked for this paragraph, as well as in § 112.7(b) Another commenter argued that mobile clarification that underground tanks, and (d)(1), seem unnecessarily complex drilling and workover rigs either on or whether subject to SPCC or not, need to because the same basic information off shore should be exempt from this be included in the diagram. seems to be required in several different requirement because supplying site Unit-by-unit storage capacity. Several places in the proposed regulation. The specific spill and clean-up information commenters asked for clarification of commenter went on to suggest that EPA for a mobile source that will move from the meaning of the term ‘‘unit-by-unit consolidate these requirements. Another one site to another is not feasible. One storage capacity.’’ Many commenters commenter suggested that this commenter suggested that this asked for specification of a minimum paragraph should be deleted and paragraph should be deleted and size, and some suggested sizes, ranging removed to a response plan section removed to a response plan section from 660 gallons to 10,000 gallons. which he suggested, because the which he suggested, because the Type and quantity of oil stored. We information called for requires response information called for requires response received one comment on this item. The information. information. commenter opposed the information Disposal of recovered materials. Two Downstream water suppliers. Several requirement because ‘‘the way a tank is commenters supported the proposal in commenters suggested that the proposed used changes often and the adequacy of general, but one suggested that it is not requirement to include information on response to an accidental discharge does feasible nor useful to discuss particular downstream water suppliers who must not depend on the type of oil stored.’’ alternatives. One of the favorable be contacted in case of a discharge to Estimates of quantity of oils commenters suggested that we should navigable waters should be limited to potentially discharged. The few encourage recycling of spilled oil rather those ‘‘who might reasonably be affected comments we received opposed this than mere disposal. Another commenter by a discharge.’’ Others asked that the information requirement. One argued that mobile drilling and downstream distance be specified. They commenter argued that the item workover rigs either on or off shore added that private wells should be requests a ‘‘prediction’’ of future events. should be exempt from this requirement excluded from the notice. Several

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47097

commenters asked how they might Inspectors and personnel new to the may or may not be a material change. identify such suppliers. Yet others facility need to know the location of all See the discussion on § 112.5(a). believed that such notification was the containers subject to the rule. The Facility diagram—De minimis responsibility of local emergency facility diagram may also help first containers. We have established a de response agencies. responders to determine the pathway of minimis container size of less than 55 Response to comments. General the flow of discharged oil. If responders gallons. You do not have to include description of characteristics. The know possible pathways, they may be containers less than 55 gallons on the following characteristics must be able to take measures to control the flow facility diagram. described on a per container basis: the of oil. Such control may avert damage Facility diagram—Transfer stations, storage capacity of the container, type of to sensitive environmental areas; may connecting pipes, and USTs. We agree oil in each container, and secondary protect drinking water sources; and may that all facility transfer stations and containment for each container. The help responders to prevent discharges to connecting pipes that handle oil must other characteristics may be described other conduits leading to a treatment be included in the diagram, and have on a facility basis. We disagree that facility or navigable waters. Diagrams amended the rule to that effect. This these requirements are too resource may assist Federal, State, or facility inclusion will help facilitate response intensive. The major new requirement personnel to avoid certain hazards and by informing responders of the location in § 112.7(a)(3) is the facility diagram. to respond differently to others. of this equipment. The location of all Based on site inspections and The facility diagram is necessary for containers and connecting pipes that professional judgment, we estimate unit all facilities, large or small, because the store oil (other than de minimis costs for compliance with this section to rationale is the same for both. While containers) must be marked, including be $33 for a small facility, $39 for a some States may require a diagram, USTs and other containers not subject to medium facility, and $5 for a large others do not. SPCC is a Federal SPCC rules which are present at SPCC facility. Large facilities are assumed to program specifying minimum facilities. Again, this is necessary to already have a diagram that may be requirements, which the States may facilitate response by informing responders of the location of these attached to the SPCC Plan. The other supplement with their own more containers. items mentioned in § 112.7(a)(3)— stringent requirements. We note that Unit-by-unit storage capacity. For storage capacity of each container, State plans may be used as SPCC Plans prevention measures, discharge clarity, we have changed the term in if they meet all Federal requirements, § 112.7(a)(3)(i), ‘‘unit-by-unit’’ storage controls, countermeasures, disposal thus avoiding any duplication of effort methods, and the contact list—are capacity, to ‘‘type of oil in each if the State facility diagram meets the container and its storage capacity.’’ As already required under the current rule requirements of the Federal one. or required by good engineering noted earlier, this requirement applies Facility diagram—container contents. practice. As described in the only to containers of 55 gallons or The facility diagram must include all Information Collection Request for this greater. fixed (i.e., not mobile or portable) rule, the cost of Plan preparation Type and quantity of oil stored. We includes these items, e.g., field containers which store 55 gallons or have eliminated proposed investigations to understand the facility more of oil and must include § 112.7(a)(3)(ii) because it repeats design and to predict flow paths and information marking the contents of information requested in revised potential harm, regulatory review, and those containers. If you store mobile § 112.7(a)(3)(i). We ask for information spill prevention and control practices. containers in a certain area, you must concerning storage capacity and type of Providing information on a container- mark that area on the diagram. You may oil stored in each container in that specific basis helps the facility to mark the contents of each container paragraph. prioritize inspections and maintenance either on the diagram of the facility, or Estimates of quantity of oils of containers based on characteristics on a separate sheet or log if those potentially discharged. We have such as age, capacity, or location. It also contents change on a frequent basis. eliminated proposed § 112.7(a)(3)(iii) helps inspectors to prioritize Marking containers makes for more because it repeats information sought in inspections of higher-risk containers at effective prevention, planning, § 112.7(b) regarding ‘‘a prediction of the a facility. Container-specific information management, and response. For direction, rate of flow, and total quantity helps an inspector verify the capacity example, a responder may take one type of oil which could be calculation to determine whether a Plan of emergency measure for one type of discharged***.’’ We will address the is needed; and, helps to formulate oil, and another measure for another substantive comments under the contingency planning if such planning type. As noted above, oils differ in their discussion of that paragraph. is necessary. risk of fire and explosion. Gasoline is Possible spill pathways. We have Facility diagram. The facility diagram highly flammable and volatile. It eliminated proposed § 112.7(a)(3)(iv) is important because it is used for presents the risk of fire and inhalation because the proposal repeats effective prevention, planning, of vapors when discharged. On the other information sought in § 112.7(b) management (for example, inspections), hand, motor oil is not highly flammable, regarding ‘‘a prediction of the direction, and response considerations and we and there is no inhalation of vapors rate of flow, and total quantity of oil therefore believe that it must be part of hazard associated with its discharge. which could be discharged.* * *’’ the Plan. The diagram will help the In an emergency, the responder may Again, we will address the substantive facility and emergency response not have container content information comments under the discussion of that personnel to plan for emergencies. For unless it is clearly marked on a diagram, paragraph. example, the identification of the type log, or sheet. For emergency response Spill prevention measures. We have of oil in each container may help such purposes, we also encourage, but do not revised this paragraph to read personnel determine the risks when require you to mark on the facility ‘‘discharge prevention measures.’’ We conducting a response action. Some oils diagram containers that store CWA disagree with the commenter that the present a higher risk of fire and hazardous substances and to label the paragraph should be labeled ‘‘secondary explosion than other less flammable contents of those containers. When the containment.’’ The term ‘‘discharge oils. contents of an oil container change, this prevention measures’’ is better because

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47098 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

it encompasses both secondary materials are managed in an preparedness, and response purposes. containment and other discharge environmentally sound manner. Proper Furthermore, it is an appropriate prevention measures. disposal also assists response efforts. If question for all facilities, including Spill controls and secondary a facility lacks adequate resources to mobile facilities, because it is necessary containment. We have revised this dispose of recovered oil and oil- to prepare for discharges and to aid in paragraph to refer to ‘‘discharge’’ contaminated material during a prompt cleanup when they occur. controls. In response to a commenter, response, it limits how much and how Having a Plan which contains a contact we have also included a reference to quickly oil and oil-contaminated list of response organizations is a drainage controls in the paragraph material is recovered, thereby increasing procedure and method to contain a because drainage systems or the risk and damage to the environment. discharge of oil as specified in CWA diversionary ponds might be an We disagree that this paragraph section 311(j)(1)(C). However, we have alternative means of secondary would preclude bioremediation efforts, eliminated references to specific State containment. See § 112.7(c)(1)(iii) and as some commenters suggested. and local agencies in the event of (v). Bioremediation may be a method of discharges in favor of a reference to ‘‘all Spill countermeasures. We disagree proper disposal. The paragraph merely appropriate State and local agencies.’’ that the paragraph should be revised to requires that you discuss the methods ‘‘Appropriate’’ means those State and read, ‘‘Prevention, control, or employed to dispose of recovered local agencies that must be contacted countermeasure features, other than materials; it does not require that due to Federal or State requirements, or secondary containment and drainage materials recovered be ‘‘disposed’’ of in pursuant to good engineering practice. control, and the equipment which they any particular manner nor is it an You may not always be required to protect,’’ because we believe that the independent requirement to properly notify fire departments, local emergency language we proposed, as revised, better dispose of materials. Thus, there is no planning committees (LEPCs), and State captures the information we are seeking. infringement on or duplication of any emergency response commissions Our revised language refers to other State or Federal program or (SERCs), nor as an engineering practice discovery, response, and cleanup, regulatory authority. Because it does do they always need to receive direct which are features that are absent from nothing more than require that you notice from the facility in the event of the commenter’s suggestion, and for explain the method of disposal of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). which a discussion in the Plan is recovered materials, we also disagree At times they might, but they might also necessary in order to be prepared for that this provision is too costly. Also, receive notice from other sources, such any discharges. we assume that good engineering as the National Response Center. Other We disagree that either onshore or practice will in many cases include a State and local agencies might also need offshore mobile drilling and workover discussion of such disposal already. By notice from you. rigs should be exempted from this describing those methods in the Plan, requirement because the information We have added the word ‘‘Federal’’ to you help ensure that the facility has the list of all appropriate contact necessary to this requirement is not done the appropriate planning to be able agencies because there are times when always site specific, and may be to dispose of recovered materials, you must notify EPA of certain included in a general plan for a mobile should a discharge occur. We support discharges. See § 112.4(a). There might facility. the recycling of spilled oil to the extent also be requirements under Federal We also disagree that the information possible, rather than its disposal. For statutes other than the CWA, for notice required in this paragraph is redundant purposes of this rule, disposal of in such emergencies. of information required in §§ 112.7(b) recovered materials includes recycling and 112.7(d)(1). Each of the sections of those materials. We disagree that either onshore or mentioned requires discrete and We disagree that either onshore or offshore mobile drilling and workover different information. Section offshore mobile drilling and workover rigs should be exempted from this 112.7(a)(3)(iv) requires information rigs should be exempted from this requirement because the information concerning a facility’s and a contractor’s requirement because the information necessary to this requirement is not capabilities for discharge discovery, necessary to this requirement is not always site specific, and may be response, and cleanup. Section 112.7(b) always site specific, and may be included in a general plan for a mobile requires information concerning the included in a general plan for a mobile facility. potential consequences of equipment facility. We disagree that the information failure. Section 112.7(d)(1) requires a Contact list. In response to a should be placed in a response section, contingency plan following the comment, we have amended the rule to because most SPCC facilities are not provisions of part 109, which includes require that the cleanup contractor required to have response plans, and the coordination requirements with listed must be the one with whom the information is necessary to prepare for governmental oil spill response facility has an agreement for response response to an emergency. organizations. that ensures the availability of the Downstream water suppliers. We have We disagree that the information necessary personnel and equipment deleted the reference to ‘‘downstream should be placed in a response section, within appropriate response times. An water suppliers’’ (i.e., intakes for because most SPCC facilities are not agreement to respond may include a drinking and other waters) because required to have response plans, and the contract or some less formal facilities may have no way to identify information is necessary to prepare for relationship with a cleanup contractor. such suppliers. We agree with discharge discovery, response, and No formal written agreement to respond commenters that identifying such cleanup. is required by the SPCC rule, but if you suppliers is more a function of State and Disposal of recovered materials. This do have one, you must discuss it in the local emergency response agencies. We provision applies to all facilities, Plan. note, however, that facilities that must including mobile facilities, because We have ample authority to ask for prepare response plans under § 112.20 proper disposal of recovered materials information concerning emergency must discuss in those plans the helps prevent a discharge as described contacts under the CWA because it is vulnerability of water intakes (drinking, in § 112.1(b) by ensuring that the relevant to the statute’s prevention, cooling, or other).

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47099

Editorial changes and clarifications. responders and others, and any other because most SPCC facilities are not In the introduction to paragraph (a)(3), instructions necessary to facilitate required to have a response plan, and ‘‘physical plant’’ becomes ‘‘physical notification of a discharge as described the procedures to be used when a layout.’’ ‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘containers.’’ in § 112.1(b). If properly noted, the discharge occurs are necessary to In proposed paragraph (a)(3)(vi), information and procedures in the Plan prepare for an emergency. Because this redesignated as paragraph (a)(3)(iii), should enable a person reporting a information would repeat information ‘‘spill controls’’ becomes ‘‘discharge or discharge to accurately describe contained in a response plan submitted drainage controls.’’ In proposed information concerning that occurrence under § 112.20, we have excluded from paragraph (a)(3)(vii), redesignated as to the proper persons in an emergency. the requirements of this paragraph those paragraph (a)(3)(iv), ‘‘spill Any information or procedure not facilities which have submitted countermeasures for spill discovery’’ applicable will not have to be used. response plans. See § 112.20(h)(3)(i)- becomes ‘‘countermeasures for Available information on a discharge (ix). discharge discovery.’’ In proposed must be reported. Applicable Section 112.7(b)—Fault Analysis paragraph (a)(3)(ix), redesignated as procedures must be followed. And of paragraph (a)(3)(vi), ‘‘discharge to course, any information that is not Background. In 1991, we proposed navigable waters’’ becomes ‘‘discharge available cannot be reported. only editorial changes to this paragraph as described in § 112.1(b).’’ State requirements. While it is dealing with fault analysis. The possible that this information may be proposal would require an analysis of Section 112.7(a)(4)—Spill Reporting duplicative of State requirements, the the major types of failures possible in a Information in the Plan duplication is eliminated to the extent facility, including a prediction of the Background. In 1991, we proposed that you use your State SPCC Plan for direction, rate of flow, and total quantity that documentation in this paragraph be Federal SPCC purposes. Where there is of oil that could be discharged as a sufficient to enable a person reporting a no State requirement, there is no result of each such failure. spill to provide essential information to duplication. Comments. Applicability. One organizations on the contact list. Response plan exemption. We commenter wrote that the language in Comments. Several commenters had disagree that this paragraph should be the first sentence of the proposed rule editorial comments, suggesting the rule placed in a response section, because is less clear than current regulations. refer to ‘‘information’’ rather than most SPCC facilities are not required to The commenter asserted that the ‘‘documentation’’ on the theory that have response plans, and the proposed revision, perhaps documentation refers to a past event, information is necessary to prepare for inadvertently, does not specify the whereas the rule contemplates a future response to an emergency. However, if sections to which the certain event. One commenter suggested that your facility has prepared and ‘‘situations’’ apply. The commenter the section be qualified to indicate that submitted a response plan to us under suggested that current language is a form for collecting spill report § 112.20, there is no need to document clearer and specifically focuses limited information be included in the Plan, or this information in your SPCC Plan, resources on situations for which there for ‘‘small size facilities’’ in the because it is already contained in the is a reasonable potential for discharge. HAZWOPER reporting matrix. Another response plan. See § 112.20(h)(1)(i)- The commenter argued that limited commenter suggested that a properly (viii). Therefore, we have amended the resources should not be consumed in prepared SPCC Plan would assist the rule to exempt those facilities with developing flow rate, direction and person reporting the spill to provide the response plans from the requirements of quantity predictions in the SPCC Plan requested information. One commenter this paragraph. for situations without a reasonable asserted the proposed rule was Editorial changes and clarifications. potential for discharge to navigable duplicative of State requirements. We changed ‘‘address’’ to ‘‘address or waters. Several commenters suggested that not location’’ because some facilities do not Several commenters asserted that the all of the information will be available have an exact address. ‘‘Spill’’ and fault analysis required by this paragraph or applicable for a person reporting a ‘‘spilled’’ becomes ‘‘discharge as is ‘‘too involved for small operators.’’ discharge. One commenter suggested described in § 112.1(b)’’ or ‘‘discharged’’ They suggested that only development that this paragraph should be deleted as appropriate in the context, of responses to obvious scenarios, such and removed to a response plan section ‘‘discharge’’ being a defined term. as tank rupture, should be required. which he suggested, because the ‘‘Spill’’ or ‘‘spilled’’ are not defined Commenters from the utility industry information called for requires response terms. ‘‘The affected medium’’ becomes suggested that electrical equipment information. ‘‘all affected media.’’ facilities should be exempt from the Response to comments. requirements in this paragraph. One Documentation. We agree with Section 112.7(a)(5)—Emergency commenter believed that mobile commenters that the word Procedures facilities should be exempt from the ‘‘documentation’’ is inappropriate Background. In 1991, we proposed requirements in the paragraph because because it refers to a past event. this paragraph to ensure that portions of the exact site information changes with Accordingly, as suggested by the Plan describing procedures to be the movement of equipment. commenters, we have revised the rule to used in emergency circumstances are Failure factors. One commenter provide for ‘‘information and organized in a manner to make them suggested that the rule should also focus procedures’’ that would assist the readily usable in an emergency. on small discharges, not just ‘‘major’’ reporting of discharges as described in Comments. One commenter suggested discharges. Another commenter asked § 112.1(b). ‘‘Information’’ refers to the that this paragraph should be deleted for clarification as to what is a ‘‘major facts which you must report, and and removed to a response plan section failure’’ and to what degree of ‘‘procedures’’ refers to the method of which he suggested, because the sophistication the pathway prediction reporting those facts. Such procedures information called for requires response must be made. Another commenter must address whom the person relating information. suggested that the rule should the information should call, in what Response to comments. We disagree adequately describe how detailed the order the caller should call potential this paragraph should be deleted analysis of potential spill pathways

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47100 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

should be. Another suggested that it Spill pathways. The level of analysis removal of an oil discharge in most would be impossible to give estimates of concerning spill pathways will depend cases. oil potentially discharged from on the geographic characteristics of the We also noted that for some facilities flowlines or gathering systems. facility’s site and the possibility of a such as electrical substations, Response to comments. Applicability. discharge as described in § 112.1(b) that compliance with this section might not We agree with the commenter that equipment failure might cause. be practicable. We said that since their current language is clearer and will However, the Professional Engineer purpose was not the storage of oil in retain it. We therefore modified the first should focus on the most obvious spill bulk, they did not need to comply with sentence contained in the proposed pathways. the secondary containment rule. We agree that the Plan must only Because this information is facility requirements designed for bulk storage discuss potential failure situations that specific, the owner or operator of a tanks in §§ 112.8(c) and 112.9(d), but might result in a discharge from the mobile facility will not be able to detail only the secondary containment facility, not any failure situation. The spill pathways in the general Plan for requirements in § 112.7(c), and that the rule requires that when experience the facility each time the facility moves. § 112.7(c) requirement for secondary indicates a reasonable potential for However, the owner or operator must containment might be satisfied by failure of equipment, the Plan must provide management practices in the various means including drainage contain certain information relevant to general Plan that provide for systems, spill diversion ponds, etc. We those failures. ‘‘Experience’’ includes containment of discharges in spill added that the alternative requirements the experience of the facility and the pathways in a variety of geographic contained in proposed § 112.7(d) would industry in general. conditions likely to be encountered. In fulfill the intent of the CWA when a We disagree that the requirement is case of a discharge at a particular facility could not provide secondary too difficult for owners or operators of facility, the owner or operator would containment due to the impracticability small or mobile facilities, or of flowlines then take appropriate action to contain of installation. 56 FR 54621. or gathering lines, or of electrical or remove the discharge. For example, Comments. Editorial changes and equipment facilities, or other users of the Plan may provide that a rig must be clarifications. Several commenters oil. We believe that a Professional positioned to minimize or prevent suggested that the reference to Engineer may evaluate the potential risk discharges as described in § 112.1(b); or prevention of discharges to ‘‘surface of failure for the aforementioned it may provide for the use of spill pans, waters’’ be changed to prevention of facilities and equipment and predict drip trays, excavations, or trenching to discharges to ‘‘navigable waters.’’ with a certain degree of accuracy the augment discharge prevention. Contingency planning. One result of a failure from each. We note Editorial changes and clarifications. commenter suggested revising the rules that since we have raised the regulatory We made minor editorial changes in the to allow the use of the contingency plan threshold, this requirement will not be proposal’s second sentence that reflect a contemplated in § 112.7(d) instead of applicable to many smaller facilities. plain language format. We revised the secondary containment measures. Failure factors. To comply with this phrase in the proposed second sentence Another commenter asserted that a section, you need only address ‘‘major of the paragraph from ‘‘each major type contingency plan is not an acceptable equipment’’ failures. A major equipment of failure’’ to ‘‘each type of major substitute for secondary containment failure is one which could cause a equipment failure.’’ and advocated that all facilities be discharge as described in § 112.1(b), not required to have secondary Section 112.7(c)—Secondary a minor failure possibility. To help containment. Containment. clarify the type of equipment failures Applicability of requirement. the rule contemplates, we have added Background. The SPCC Task force Numerous electric utility commenters examples of other types of failures that concluded that aboveground storage suggested that secondary containment would trigger the requirements of this tanks without secondary containment was impractical for their facilities paragraph. Such other equipment could pose a particularly significant because it might cause a safety hazard. failures include failures of loading/ threat to the environment. We noted in Instead, they argued for the use of unloading equipment, or of any other the 1991 preamble that the proposed contingency planning. One commenter equipment known to be a source of a rule modifications would ‘‘retain the asserted that secondary containment at discharge. The analysis required will current requirement for facility owners sites used for the maintenance and depend on the experience of the facility or operators who are unable to provide operation of the air traffic control and how sophisticated the facility certain structures or equipment for oil system was also impracticable because equipment is. If your facility has spill prevention, including secondary those sites are often very small, isolated, simpler equipment, you will have less containment, to prepare facility-specific unmanned, and visited only on a to detail. If you have more sophisticated contingency plans in lieu of prevention quarterly basis. Another commenter equipment, you will have to conduct a systems.’’ 56 FR 54614. asked that wastewater treatment tanks more detailed analysis. If your facility’s In 1991, we proposed to modify the be exempted from the secondary experience or industry experience in current standard that dikes, berms, or containment requirement because their general indicates a higher risk of failure retaining walls must be ‘‘sufficiently use is not to store oil, but to treat water. associated with the use of that impervious.’’ We proposed that the Other containers not used for storage, equipment, your analysis will also have current ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ but other purposes might include to be more detailed. This rationale and standard for secondary containment be stormwater surge tanks, activated sludge analytic detail are also applicable to replaced with a standard requiring that aeration tanks, equalization basins, electrical equipment facilities and other the entire containment system, dissolved and inducted air floatation facilities that do not store oil, but including walls and floor, must be tanks, oil/water separators, sludge contain it for operational use. Again, the impervious to oil for 72 hours. The digesters, etc. Another commenter urged required explanation will be tailored to rationale was that a containment system that all oil-filled equipment located in a the type of equipment used and the that is impervious to oil for 72 hours 25-year floodplain be required to have experience with that equipment. would allow time for discovery and secondary containment.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47101

One commenter asked that we clarify of oil to surface waters should be Containment or impermeability. Other that the secondary containment replaced with a standard of preventing commenters asserted that the rule requirement in this section does not the escape of oil to ‘‘the environment’’ should address containment rather than apply to the following equipment at or to ‘‘navigable waters.’’ Others asked impermeability because they assert that onshore production facilities: flowlines for clarification of the term the point of a containment structure is because of the prohibitive cost of ‘‘impervious,’’ asserting that it is a ‘‘to keep the discharge from reaching the construction for miles of lines; fired qualitative term that requires definition waters of the United States.’’ In the vessels because of the danger of pooling by engineering standards. One same vein, two commenters asked EPA spilled oil around an ignition source; commenter requested that if an to clarify that the leaching of small and, pressurized vessels because a leak impervious containment system cannot amounts of oil that does not reach the from such vessel might be sprayed be provided, that facilities be required water table or surface waters meets the beyond the area that a reasonable dike to assure that conduits that may cause impermeability requirement, while a might enclose. One commenter substantial migration of free products third asked that we clarify that we are suggested that all in-use hydraulic are appropriately monitored for concerned only with horizontal rather equipment such as cranes, jacks, discharges. Another commenter asked than vertical discharges of oil. elevators, forklifts, etc., be exempted us to specify acceptable liner materials, Sufficient freeboard. See the from the secondary containment in lieu of a total imperviousness comments to § 112.8(c)(2) under this requirement because it would be requirement. topic. impractical to provide structures for Costs. One commenter suggested that Response to comments. Contingency such equipment. Others suggested that our industry cost estimate for the planning. A contingency plan should mobile facilities should be exempt from proposed 1991 regulations—of $441 not be used routinely as a substitute for the secondary containment requirement million in the first year and $71.8 secondary containment because we because it would be infeasible to million each subsequent year—was believe it is normally environmentally provide it. Similarly, one commenter erroneously low, but did not provide his better to contain oil than to clean it up suggested that the requirement was own cost estimates. The commenter after it has been discharged. Secondary infeasible for production facilities due came to this conclusion by calculating containment is intended to contain to their sometimes remote locations or compliance cost estimates for the discharged oil so that it does not leave difficult terrain and soil conditions. Yet following requirements: 72-hour the facility and contaminate the another commenter wanted us to clarify impermeability for secondary environment. The proper method of that underground piping is not subject containment and diked areas, and secondary containment is a matter of to the rule’s secondary containment installation of containment systems at good engineering practice, and so we do provisions. all truck loading locations. The not prescribe here any particular One commenter asserted that mining commenter estimated the cost of the method. Under part 112, where sites should be exempted from the effects of two proposed items for New secondary containment is not secondary containment requirement York oil and gas producers, not all us practicable, you may deviate from the because the containment requirements producers, at in excess of $78 million; requirement, provide a contingency would be ‘‘excessive’’ for such sites and he estimated the cost of the proposed 72 plan following the provisions of 40 CFR result in ‘‘little resultant net hour oil impermeability requirement at part 109, and comply with the other environmental benefit.’’ A commenter $48 million, and if earthen dikes and requirements of § 112.7(d). For bulk representing various small facilities diked areas cannot meet the secondary storage containers, those requirements asked for exemption from the containment standards at truck loading include both periodic integrity testing of requirement on the basis that the risk is areas, at least $30 million. the containers and periodic integrity lower for those facilities. Alternate impermeability standards. and leak testing of the valves and Methods of secondary containment. Commenters suggested a number of piping. You must also provide a written As to methods of secondary alternate impermeability standards. One commitment of manpower, equipment, containment, several commenters urged commenter suggested a standard that and materials to expeditiously control that the existence of ‘‘natural’’ the containment system be impervious and remove any quantity of oil structures and/or drainage could meet to oil and water for 72 hours. Another discharged that may be harmful. this requirement. Other commenters commenter suggested that the standard Applicability of requirement. suggested that vaulted tanks or double- apply only in environmentally sensitive Secondary containment is best for most walled tanks in themselves meet the areas. Some suggested that the standard facilities storing or using oil because it secondary containment requirement. should be inapplicable at facilities that is the most effective method to stop oil One commenter suggested that we are staffed around the clock, seven days from migrating beyond that remove sorbent materials or booms from a week. One commenter suggested a containment. We believe that secondary the list of acceptable secondary phase-in of the requirement. Some containment is preferable to a containment structures because they are thought that the impermeability contingency plan at manned and not a substitute for impervious dikes standard should not apply to heavier unmanned facilities because it prevents and impoundment floors. oils, particularly number 5 and 6 oils. discharges as described in § 112.1(b). At 72-hour impermeability standard. We Alternate time frames. Others unmanned facilities, it may be even received numerous comments on the suggested differing time standards in more important because of the lag in proposed 72-hour impermeability lieu of 72 hours such as 24 hours at time before a discharge may be standard. Several commenters favored manned facilities, 36 hours or increased discovered. Notwithstanding what may the standard. Many were opposed. Of inspections, ‘‘as soon as practicable,’’ be difficult terrain, we believe that some the opponents, some favored the current ‘‘for the duration of the response,’’ or no form of secondary containment is standard that the dikes, berms or time limit at all. One commenter asked practicable at most facilities, including retaining walls be ‘‘sufficiently when the 72 hours begins to run, remote production facilities. In fact, it impervious’’ to contain spilled oil. whether it begins at the time of the may often be more feasible in remote or Other commenters thought that the discovery of the discharge or the time of rural areas because there are fewer space proposed requirement to prevent escape occurrence. limitations in such areas. For example,

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47102 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

at some remote mobile or production including containment that prevents flexibility in how he prevents a facilities, owners or operators dig discharge of oil to groundwater that is discharge as described in § 112.1(b), and trenches and line them for containment connected to navigable water. What is any method of containment that or retention of drilling fluids. practical for one facility, however, achieves that end is sufficient. Should Technologies used at offshore facilities might not work for another. If secondary such containment fail, the owner or to catch or contain oil may also containment is not practicable, then the operator must immediately clean up any sometimes be used onshore. facility must provide a contingency plan discharged oil. While some types of secondary following the provisions of 40 CFR part Similarly, because the purpose of the containment (for example, dikes or 109, and otherwise comply with ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ standard is to berms) may not be appropriate at certain § 112.7(d). prevent discharges as described in facilities, other types (for example, Double-walled or vaulted tanks. The § 112.1(b), dikes, berms, or retaining diversionary systems or remote term ‘‘vaulted tank’’ has been used to walls must be capable of containing oil impounding) might. However, we describe both double-walled tanks and preventing such discharges. recognize and repeat, as we noted in the (especially those with a concrete outer Discharges as described in § 112.1(b) 1991 preamble, that some or perhaps all shell) and tanks inside underground may result from direct discharges from types of secondary containment for vaults, rooms, or crawl spaces. While containers, or from discharges from certain facilities with equipment that double-walled or vaulted tanks are containers to groundwater that travel contain oil, such as electrical subject to secondary containment through the groundwater to navigable equipment, may be contrary to safety requirements, shop-fabricated double- waters. Effective containment means factors or other good engineering walled aboveground storage tanks that the dike, berm, or retaining wall practice considerations. There might be equipped with adequate technical spill must be capable of containing oil and other equipment, like fired or and leak prevention options might sufficiently impervious to prevent pressurized vessels, for which safety provide sufficient equivalent secondary discharges from the containment system considerations also preclude some or all containment as that required under until it is cleaned up. The same holds types of secondary containment. § 112.7(c). Such options include overfill true for container floors or bottoms; they Some facilities or equipment that use alarms, flow shutoff or restrictor must be able to contain oil to prevent a but do not store oil may or may not, as devices, and constant monitoring of discharge as described in § 112.1(b). a matter of good engineering practice, product transfers. In the case of vaulted However, ‘‘effective containment’’ does employ secondary containment. Such tanks, the Professional Engineer must not mean that liners are required for facilities might include wastewater determine whether the vault meets the secondary containment areas. Liners are treatment facilities, whose purpose is requirements for secondary containment an option for meeting the secondary not to store oil, but to treat water. Other in § 112.7(c). This determination should containment requirements, but are not facilities that may not find the include an evaluation of drainage required by the rule. requirement practicable are those that systems and of sumps or pumps which use oil in equipment such as hydraulic could cause a discharge of oil outside If you are the owner or operator of a equipment. Similarly, flowlines must the vault. Industry standards for vaulted facility subject to this part, you must have a program of maintenance to tanks often require the vaults to be prepare a Plan in accordance with good prevent discharges. See § 112.9(d)(3). liquid tight, which if sized correctly, engineering practice. A complete The maintenance program may or may may meet the secondary containment description of how secondary not include secondary containment. requirement. containment is designed, implemented, Owners or operators of underground There might also be other examples of and maintained to meet the standard of piping must have some form of such alternative systems. sufficiently impervious is necessary. In corrosion protection, but do not Completely buried tanks. Completely order to document that secondary necessarily have to use secondary buried tanks, other than those exempted containment is sufficiently impervious containment for that purpose. from this rule because they are subject and sufficiently strong to contain oil As stated above, for a facility where to all technical Federal or State UST until it is cleaned up, the Plan must secondary containment is not requirements, are subject to the describe how the secondary practicable, the owner or operator is not secondary containment requirement. We containment is designed to meet that exempt from the requirement, but may realize that the concept of freeboard for standard. A written description of the instead provide a contingency plan and precipitation is inapplicable to sufficiently impervious standard is not take other measures required under secondary containment for completely only necessary for design and § 112.7(d). For most facilities, however, buried tanks. The requirement for implementation, but will aid owners or including small facilities, mobile secondary containment may be satisfied operators of facilities in determining facilities, production facilities, mining in any of the ways listed in the rule or which practices will be necessary to sites, and any other facilities that store their equivalent. maintain the standard of sufficiently or use oil, we believe that secondary 72-hour impermeability standard. We impervious. Control and/or removal of containment is generally necessary and are withdrawing the proposal for the 72- vegetation may be necessary to maintain appropriate to prevent a discharge as hour impermeability standard and will the impervious integrity of the described in § 112.1(b). Without retain the current standard that dikes, secondary containment. Repairs of secondary containment, discharges from berms, or retaining walls must be excavations or other penetrations containers would often reach navigable sufficiently impervious to contain oil. through secondary containment will waters or adjoining shorelines, or affect We agree with commenters that the need to be conducted in accordance natural resources. purpose of secondary containment is to with good engineering practices in order Methods of secondary containment. contain oil from escaping the facility to maintain the standard of sufficiently The appropriate method of secondary and reaching the environment. The impervious. The owner or operator containment is an engineering question. rationale for the 72-hour standard was should monitor such imperviousness for Earthen or natural structures may be to allow time for the discovery and effectiveness, in order to be sure that the acceptable if they contain and prevent removal of an oil spill. An owner or method chosen remains impervious to discharges as described in § 112.1(b), operator of a facility should have contain oil.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47103

Costs. We note that we have include: (1) NFPA 30; (2) BOCA, response to oil spills without approval withdrawn the proposed 72 hour National Fire Prevention Code; and, (3) by the Regional Administrator. The standard, and afford various secondary API Standard 2610, ‘‘Design, owner or operator of a facility would containment options, including earthen Construction, Operation, Maintenance, also have been required to provide a dikes and diked areas, if they contain and Inspection of Terminal and Tank written commitment of manpower, and prevent discharges as described in Facilities.’’ equipment, and materials required to § 112.1(b). Therefore, there are no new Editorial changes and clarifications. quickly control and remove any costs. We disagree with the commenters In the introduction to paragraph (c), quantity of oil that may be discharged. who asserted that we underestimated ‘‘structures or equipment to prevent 1993 proposal. In 1993, we modified the cost to comply with the secondary discharged oil from reaching a navigable the 1991 proposal for a facility that containment and truck loading and water course’’ becomes ‘‘structures or lacks secondary containment to require unloading area requirements. The equipment to prevent a discharge as a facility response plan as described in revised rule, like the current rule, does described in § 112.1(b).’’ This wording § 112.20, instead of the specific not require a specific impermeability for change reflects the expanded scope of requirements proposed in 1991. The dikes and does not require a specific the CWA as reflected in § 112.1(b) and response plan would not be submitted method of secondary containment at is clearer than the proposed language. In to the Regional Administrator for his loading and unloading areas, and this the second sentence of the paragraph, review, unless otherwise required, but flexibility is reflected in our cost we deleted the words ‘‘permeate, drain, would be maintained at the facility with estimates. We noted in our 1991 infiltrate, or otherwise’’ from the the SPCC Plan. Supplemental Cost/Benefit Analysis sentence because they were Comments. 1991 comments. Many that secondary containment for bulk unnecessary. The word ‘‘escape’’ in that commenters supported the 1991 storage tanks is estimated to cost $1,000 sentence is sufficient. Also in that proposal. Opposing commenters for small facilities; $6,400 for medium sentence, the reference to ‘‘escape to suggested that such planning should be facilities; and $63,000 for large facilities. surface waters’’ becomes ‘‘escape from discretionary because not all facilities Unit cost estimates were developed for the containment system.’’ This language need such planning, or that facilities be a broad mix of facilities (e.g., farms, more clearly reflects the intent of the allowed to use contingency plans bulk petroleum terminals) in each size rule that secondary containment should prepared for other purposes. Others category by experienced engineers with keep oil from escaping from the facility thought the proposal was premature as firsthand knowledge of the Oil Pollution and reaching navigable waters or we had not at the time finalized Prevention Regulation and the adjoining shorelines. In paragraph response planning requirements in operations of onshore SPCC-regulated (c)(2)(i), ‘‘curbing, drip pans’’ becomes § 112.20. One commenter argued that facilities. Because our cost estimates ‘‘curbing or drip pans.’’ we should delete all of the contingency must be representative of the many In response to the commenter’s planning requirements in § 112.7(d) at types of facilities that are regulated, they question, we note that a primary the point when we require an owner or will underestimate the costs for some containment system is the container or operator to prepare a response plan. facility types and overestimate the costs equipment which holds oil or in which Some said that contingency planning for others. Facilities were assumed to oil is used. was not practicable because the costs are too high, but commenters did not construct secondary containment Section 112.7(d)—Contingency Planning systems of impervious soil capable of provide cost estimates. Several holding 110 percent of the largest tank. Background. 1991 proposal. In 1991, commenters criticized the proposed In that analysis, we estimated that 78 we proposed to add several new requirement that the contingency plan percent and 88 percent of the regulated requirements to the contingency be submitted to the Regional community were already in compliance planning requirement in § 112.7(d). Administrator, calling it duplicative, with these requirements, respectively, First, we proposed that a facility time-consuming, and unnecessary. Two and would not be affected by the without secondary containment be commenters suggested that the proposed rule change. required to test a tank for integrity every Contingency Plan prepared under RCRA Since we last performed these five years. In contrast, our 1991 rules would suffice. Representatives of analyses, API has issued several proposal for § 112.8(c)(6) provided for small facilities asked for a small facility industry standards, including API 653 testing at least every 10 years for a tank exemption. Others asked for and 2610, which address many of the with secondary containment. In clarification of what a ‘‘written provisions in the SPCC rule. As a result, addition, we proposed to require a commitment’’ of manpower, equipment, the final rule relies on current industry facility without secondary containment and materials meant. Several standards and practices, where feasible. to conduct integrity and leak testing of commenters asked if PE certification of In the final rule, we withdrew the valves and piping at least annually. We the contingency plan was necessary. proposed 72-hour impermeability also proposed that the contingency plan One commenter opposed any standard for secondary containment and be submitted to the Regional requirement to provide contingency maintained the current requirement that Administrator for approval. planning for buried tanks, piping, or dikes, berms, and oil retaining walls Instead of referring to 40 CFR part 109 valves for which secondary containment must be sufficiently impervious to for contingency plan requirements as cannot be provided. contain oil. As a result, the final rule the current rule does, the 1991 proposal Integrity and leak testing. Several reflects current industry standards and added specific requirements including a commenters supported the proposed we assume poses no additional description of response plans; personnel integrity and leak testing requirements. requirements on industry. needs; methods of mechanical Others opposed them, some on the basis Sufficient freeboard. See the Response containment; removal of spilled oil; that facilities already inspect their tanks to Comments in § 112.8(c)(2) for a and, access to and availability of regularly. Various commenters discussion of this topic. sorbents, booms, and other equipment. suggested exemptions for small Industry standards. Industry Additionally, the proposal would have containers or containers that are entirely standards that may assist an owner or required that the Plan not rely on within buildings. Electrical utilities operator with secondary containment dispersants and other chemicals for argued that the requirement was

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47104 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

inapplicable for them because they do an alternative that provides ‘‘equivalent oil discharge and rapid response by the not store oil and that such testing would environmental protection.’’ However, facility to prevent that discharge. Part cause disruption in electrical service. we believe that the secondary 109 was originally promulgated to assist Mining interests likewise asked for an containment requirement in § 112.7(d) State and local government oil spill exemption on the basis that they only is an important component in response agencies to prepare oil removal store small amounts of oil and the preventing discharges as described in contingency plans in the inland requirements would be very expensive, § 112.1(b) and is environmentally response zone, where EPA provides the but did not provide specific cost preferable to a contingency plan On-Scene Coordinator. The basic estimates. Various commenters asked prepared under 40 CFR part 109. Thus, criteria for contingency planning listed for clarification of the term ‘‘integrity we do not believe it is appropriate to in § 109.5 apply to any SPCC regulated testing,’’ and its applicability. Others allow an owner or operator to consider facility that has adequately justified the asked for clarification as to methods of costs or economic impacts in any impracticability of installing secondary testing. Some argued that testing of determination as to whether he can containment, irrespective of whether it valves and gathering lines would be satisfy the secondary containment is a government agency or the facility is expensive and result in shut-downs of requirement. Instead, the owner or located in the coastal (U.S. Coast Guard) operations. None of these commenters operator may only provide a or inland (EPA) response zone. Because provided specific cost estimates. contingency Plan in his SPCC Plan and the contingency plan involves good 1993 proposal. One commenter otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). engineering practice and is technically a argued that the response plan proposal Therefore, the purpose of a material part of the Plan, PE was beyond our statutory authority. determination of impracticability is to certification is required. Others argued that the proposal was examine whether space or other A contingency plan prepared under expensive and lacking in environmental geographic limitations of the facility RCRA rules might suffice for purposes benefit. One commenter said that the would accommodate secondary of the rule if the plan fulfills the installation of structures or measures containment; or, if local zoning requirements of part 109, and the PE achieving equivalent protection should ordinances or fire prevention standards certifies that such plan is adequate for be sufficient to avert the need for a or safety considerations would not the facility. If the RCRA contingency response plan. Another suggested that allow secondary containment; or, if plan satisfies some but not all SPCC the current rule, which specifies use of installing secondary containment would requirements, you must supplement it a strong oil spill contingency plan defeat the overall goal of the regulation so that it does. following 40 CFR part 109, is adequate. to prevent discharges as described in We note that the preamble to the 1993 One commenter asked for an exemption § 112.1(b). proposed rule (at 58 FR 8841) suggested for facilities in areas historically not We disagree that facility response that response plans would not have to subject to natural disasters. Electrical planning is beyond our statutory be submitted to the Regional utility commenters asked for an authority, it is a procedure or method to Administrator unless ‘‘otherwise exemption because they argued that a remove discharged oil. See section required by the rest of today’s proposed response plan was unnecessary for 311(j)(1)(A) of the CWA. However, rule.’’ However, proposed § 112.7(a)(2) facilities that use, but do not store, oil. while we disagree that such planning is would have required that the owner or Response to comments. Planning expensive and lacking in environmental operator submit to the Regional requirements. We note that we did not benefit, we agree that the current Administrator any Plan containing a finalize the 1991 or 1993 contingency contingency plan arrangements which proposed deviation, including a planning proposals. Thus there are no reference 40 CFR part 109 should be deviation for the general secondary new costs for such planning. sufficient to protect the environment, containment requirements in § 112.7(c). Under the current rule, contingency and that a facility response plan as In any case, we agree with commenters planning is necessary whenever you described in § 112.20 is therefore that the contingency plan (or any other determine that a secondary containment unnecessary for a facility that is not deviation) should not have to be system for any part of the facility that otherwise subject to § 112.20. We agree submitted to the Regional Administrator might be the cause of a discharge as with the commenter that structures or for his review and approval because we described in § 112.1(b) is not equipment might achieve the same or believe that it is sufficient that the practicable. This requirement applies equivalent protection as response contingency plan (or other deviation) be whether the facility is manned or planning for some SPCC facilities. available for on-site inspection. We have unmanned, urban or rural, and for large Therefore, we are withdrawing that part therefore withdrawn that part of the and small facilities. In response to of the 1993 proposal related to response proposal. See also the discussion on comment, we have revised the rule to planning in proposed § 112.7(d)(1), but § 112.7(a)(2). exempt from the contingency planning are retaining the current contingency Integrity and leak testing. In response requirement any facility which has planning provisions, which require a to a commenter who asked for a submitted a response plan under contingency plan following the clarification of integrity testing, § 112.20 because such a response plan is provisions of 40 CFR part 109. We also ‘‘integrity testing’’ is any means to more comprehensive than a contingency believe that response plans should be measure the strength (structural plan following part 109. reserved for higher risk facilities, as soundness) of the container shell, We believe that it may be appropriate provided in § 112.20. bottom, and/or floor to contain oil and for an owner or operator to consider In following the provisions of part may include leak testing to determine costs or economic impacts in 109, you must address the oil removal whether the container will discharge oil. determining whether he can meet a contingency planning criteria listed in Facility components that might cause a specific requirement that falls within 40 CFR 109.5 and ensure that all discharge as described in § 112.1(b) the general deviation provision of response actions are coordinated with include containers, piping, valves, or § 112.7(a)(2). We believe so because governmental oil spill response other equipment or devices. Integrity under this section, the owner or organizations. The absence of secondary testing includes, but is not limited to, operator will still have to utilize good containment will place extreme testing foundations and supports of engineering practices and come up with importance on the early detection of an containers. Its scope includes both the

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47105

inside and outside of the container. It We have eliminated the proposed operations may not be adequate to also includes frequent observation of the frequency of the testing, both for protect all uses. 40 CFR 109.5(d). outside of the container for signs of containers and for valves and piping, in Industry standards. Industry deterioration, leaks, or accumulation of favor of testing according to industry standards that may assist an owner or oil inside diked areas. Such testing is standards. Instead, we require operator with the integrity testing of also applicable to valves and piping. See ‘‘periodic’’ integrity testing of containers, and the integrity and leak API Standard 653 for further containers, and ‘‘periodic’’ integrity and testing of piping and valves include: (1) information on this term. leak testing of valves and piping. API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank Inspection, Leak testing for purposes of the rule ‘‘Periodic’’ testing means testing Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction’’; is testing to determine the liquid according to a regular schedule (2) API Recommended Practice 575, tightness of valves and piping and consistent with accepted industry ‘‘Inspection of Atmospheric and Low- whether they may discharge oil. standards. We believe that use of Pressure Tanks’’; (3) API Standard 570, Facilities that store oil, whether they are industry standards, which change over ‘‘Piping Inspection Code (Inspection, mines or other businesses, are required time, will prove more feasible than Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of In- to employ integrity testing for their bulk providing a specific and unchanging Service Piping Systems)’’; (4) American storage containers, and integrity and regulatory requirement. As required by Society of Mechanical Engineers leak testing for their valves and piping, § 112.8(c)(6), integrity testing of (ASME) B31.3, ‘‘Process Piping’’; (5) to help prevent discharges. Containers containers must be accomplished by a ASME 31.4, ‘‘Liquid Transportation that do not store oil, but merely use oil, combination of visual testing and some Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid are not subject to the requirement. other technique. Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, We reaffirm the applicability of Written commitment. A ‘‘written and Alcohols’’; (6) Steel Tank Institute integrity and leak testing to both large commitment’’ of manpower, equipment, Standard SP001–00, ‘‘Standard for and small facilities, because we believe and materials means either a written Inspection of In-Service Shop such testing requirements help prevent contract or other written documentation Fabricated Aboveground Tanks for discharges as described in § 112.1(b) at showing that you have made provision Storage of Combustible and Flammable those facilities. However, we have for those items for response purposes. Liquids’’; and, (7) Underwriters modified our proposal in response to Such commitment must be shown by: Laboratory (UL) Standard 142, ‘‘Steel comments to only require such testing the identification and inventory of Aboveground Tanks for Flammable and on a periodic basis instead of at a applicable equipment, materials, and Combustible Liquids.’’ prescribed frequency. Integrity and leak supplies which are available locally and Editorial changes and clarifications. testing requirements are also applicable regionally; an estimate of the In the introductory paragraph, ‘‘tanks’’ for containers and valves and piping equipment, materials, and supplies becomes ‘‘containers.’’ We revised the that are entirely within buildings, or which would be required to remove the first sentence of the introduction which within mines, because in either case, maximum oil discharge to be now reads, ‘‘When it is determined such containers, or valves and piping anticipated; and, development of ***,’’ to read, ‘‘If you determine may become the source of a discharge as agreements and arrangements in ***.’’ Later in that sentence we described in § 112.1(b). We have revised advance of an oil discharge for the change the words ‘‘demonstrate such the rule to reflect that the requirement acquisition of equipment, materials, and impracticability’’ to ‘‘explain why such applies only to onshore and offshore supplies to be used in responding to measures are not practicable,’’ in bulk storage facilities. Therefore, a such a discharge. 40 CFR 109.5(c). referencing the impracticability of facility with only oil-filled electrical, The commitment also involves secondary containment. Also, in the operating, or manufacturing equipment making provisions for well defined and first sentence of the introduction, we need not conduct such testing nor incur specific actions to be taken after clarify that the requirement for any costs for such testing. For other discovery and notification of an oil contingency planning and other types of facilities, we disagree that discharge including: specification of an measures is applicable when secondary testing of valves and gathering lines oil discharge response operating team containment is not practicable under would be prohibitively costly. In 1991, consisting of trained, prepared, and §§ 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), we estimated tank integrity testing and available operating personnel; 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), 112.12(c)(11), leak testing costs of buried piping. We predesignation of a properly qualified 112.13(c)(2), and 112.14(c), as well as estimated the costs as $465 per tank, oil discharge response coordinator who § 112.7(c) and (h)(1). Additionally in $155 for equipment, and $310 for is charged with the responsibility and that sentence, the reference to ‘‘prevent installation. Small facilities were delegated commensurate authority for discharged oil from reaching navigable assumed to have no buried piping. directing and coordinating response waters’’ becomes ‘‘to prevent a Medium sized facilities were assumed operations and who knows how to discharge as described in § 112.1(b),’’ to bear first year costs for tank request assistance from Federal conforming the geographic scope of the installation and testing of $4,704 and authorities operating under current rule to the CWA. At the end of the subsequent year costs of $1,449. Large national and regional contingency paragraph we clarify that when facilities were assumed to incur a first plans; a preplanned location for an oil secondary containment is not year cost of $11,313, and subsequent discharge response operations center practicable, the contingency plan and year costs of $3,519. We assume that and a reliable communications system written commitment must be provided this provision represents a negligible for directing the coordinated overall in the Plan, rather than to the Regional additional burden because most response actions; provisions for varying Administrator. We also clarify that if facilities are already testing such valves degrees of response effort depending on you have submitted a facility response and gathering lines according to the severity of the oil discharge; and, plan under § 112.20 for a facility, you industry standards as a matter of good specification of the order of priority in need not provide for that facility either engineering practice. We believe that if which the various water uses are to be a contingency plan following the such testing is done in accordance with protected where more than one water provisions of part 109, nor a written industry standards, costs will be use may be adversely affected as a result commitment of manpower, equipment, minimized. of an oil discharge and where response and materials required to expeditiously

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47106 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

control and remove any quantity of oil commenters objected to the cost of a and similar activities required by this discharged that may be harmful. five-year record retention requirement. part. After publication of this rule, we In paragraph (d)(1), ‘‘A strong oil spill One commenter favored a two-year will list all of the inspections and tests contingency plan following the record maintenance period. Several required by part 112 on our website provision of 40 CFR part 109 * * *.’’ favored a phase-in period if five years (www.epa.gov/oilspill). The becomes ‘‘An oil spill contingency plan were to be required so that three-year applicability of each inspection and test following the provisions of part 109 records could be brought into will depend on the exercise of good ***.’’ The word ‘‘strong’’ is compliance with the rule. One engineering practice, because not every unnecessary because in any case the commenter favored a requirement that one will be applicable to every facility. contingency plan must follow the records be maintained in accordance provisions of part 109. with other State and Federal agency Form of records. Records of In paragraph (d)(2), we did not requirements to avoid additional and inspections and tests required by this finalize the proposed recommendation unnecessary costs. rule may be maintained in electronic or for the operator to consider financial 1997 comments. Maintenance with any other format which is readily capability in making his written Plan. A number of commenters accessible to the facility and to EPA commitment of manpower, equipment, criticized the proposal that records must personnel. Usual and customary and materials because we do not wish be maintained as part of the Plan, rather business records may be those to confuse the regulated community than maintained with the Plan, ordinarily used in the industry, with discretionary requirements in a considering that proposal burdensome including those made under API mandatory rule. Finally, we changed the and providing no benefit to the standards, Underwriters’ Laboratories reference in paragraph (d)(2) from ‘‘to environment. standards, NPDES permits, a facility’s expeditiously control and remove any Form of records. Several commenters QS–9000 or ISO–14000 system, or any asked that we clarify that use of records harmful quantity of oil discharged’’ to other format acceptable to the Regional maintained under the API standards read ‘‘to expeditiously control and Administrator. If you choose to use remove any quantity of oil discharged cited is not required. Another commenter noted that many smaller records associated with compliance that may be harmful.’’ We made this with industry standards, such as change to refer to the statutory standard companies do not use API standards, Underwriters’ Laboratories standards, referring to a quantity of oil ‘‘that may and that use of such records should be you must closely review the inspection, be harmful.’’ allowed ‘‘when available.’’ Several commenters urged that we state that testing, and recordkeeping requirements Section 112.7(e)—Inspections, Tests, records kept under the NPDES program of this rule to ensure that any records and Records might suffice for the SPCC program. kept in accordance with industry Background. In 1991, we proposed Other commenters asked whether standards meets the intent of the rule. that records and inspections and test records in other formats might be Some standards have limited results be kept for a period of five years. acceptable, such as under a facility’s recordkeeping requirements and may Current rules require record, inspection, QS–9000 or ISO–14000 system, or under only address a particular aspect of and test results be maintained for three standards promulgated by the container fabrication, installation, years. We also proposed that such Underwriters’ Laboratories. Other inspection, and operation and records might be maintained with the commenters discussed use of NPDES maintenance. The intent of the rule is Plan, instead of being part of the Plan. stormwater bypass records. We will talk that you will not have to maintain In 1997, we returned to the three-year about those records under the duplicate sets of records when one set record maintenance period in our new discussion of § 112.8(c)(3)(iv). has already been prepared under Time period. Most commenters proposal. In 1997, we also proposed that industry or regulatory purposes that also usual and customary business records, favored the proposal to retain the current three-year time period for fully suffices for SPCC purposes. The such as records maintained under API use of these alternative record formats is Standards 653 and 2610, would suffice maintenance of records. optional; you are not required to use to meet the requirements of this section. Response to comments. Maintenance them, but you may use them. Finally we proposed that such records with Plan. We agree with commenters be made a part of the Plan. that it is not necessary to maintain Time period. We agree with Comments. 1991 comments. records as part of the Plan. Therefore, commenters that maintenance of records Maintenance with Plan. Most today’s rule allows ‘‘keeping’’ of the for three years is sufficient for SPCC commenters favored the proposal that records ‘‘with’’ the Plan, but not as part purposes, since that period will allow records might be maintained with the of it. In the current rule, such records for meaningful comparisons of Plan, rather than as part of it. Two ‘‘should be made part of the SPCC Plan inspections and tests taken. Therefore, commenters thought the requirements ***.’’ 40 CFR 112.7(e)(8). Because you there will be no new costs. We note, should apply generally only to large continually update these records, this however, that certain industry facilities. change will eliminate the need to standards, for example API Standards Form of records. One commenter amend your Plan each time you remove 570 and 653, may specify record urged use of electronic records. old records and add new ones. You still maintenance for more than three years. Records required. Still another asked retain the option of making these that we list all inspections and tests records a part of the Plan if you choose. Editorial changes and clarifications. required by part 112. One commenter Records required. The rule permits As proposed in 1991, we affirm that the asked for a requirement to keep records use of usual and customary business certifying engineer, as well as the owner and tests of all major repairs and of records, and covers all of the or operator, may be a person who employee training. inspections and tests required by this develops inspection procedures. We Time period. Most commenters part as well as any ancillary records. also affirm that the provision applies to favored retaining the current three-year ‘‘Inspections and tests’’ include not only both ‘‘inspections’’ and ‘‘tests’’ time period to maintain records, inspections and tests, but schedules, undertaken. The tests are usually believing it is adequate. Some evaluations, examinations, descriptions, integral parts of the inspections.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47107

Section 112.7(f)—Employee Training facility operations, discharge prevention annual spill prevention briefings, as and Discharge Prevention Procedures laws and regulations, and the contents opposed to the current requirement to Background. In 1991, we proposed of the facility’s SPCC Plan. Finally, the hold such briefings ‘‘at intervals that you conduct training exercises and proposal would require that you frequent enough to assure adequate that you train new employees within conduct unannounced drills, at least understanding of the SPCC Plan.’’ They their first week of work. The rationale annually, in which oil-handling argued that the current standard is for these provisions was that a high personnel would participate. adequate. Some commenters suggested Comments. 1991 comments. percentage of discharges are caused by that we require additional training in Applicability of training requirements. operator error; therefore, training and these briefings such as emergency Numerous commenters suggested that briefings might help prevent many response training, or training the training requirements should apply discharges and promote a safer facility. concerning Plan changes. only to personnel involved in the 1993 comments. Applicability of This rationale was based on program operation or maintenance of equipment. training requirements. In 1993, many experience and studies EPA undertook. They argued that the training commenters asked for clarification of The 1995 SPCC Survey found that requirements need not apply to clerks, what ‘‘oil-handling’’ personnel meant. operator error was the most common secretaries, and similar employees who Some thought the requirements for spill cause for facilities in 9 of the 19 are not involved in the physical training should be limited to those industry categories that reported having operations of the facility. They also employees engaged in response spills. Also, the August 1994 draft argued that we failed to sufficiently activities. Others questioned what ‘‘on report of the EPA Aboveground Oil account for training costs in our average’’ meant in determining the Storage Facilities Workgroup called economic analysis. Another commenter threshold applicability of the rule. Still ‘‘Soil and Ground Water Contamination asked for a small facility exemption others asked what ‘‘a single operation’’ from Aboveground Oil Storage from training requirements. meant. Some asked that the Facilities: A Strategic Study’’ presented Another commenter asked that requirements be limited to facilities data on causes of discharges from two facilities be allowed to incorporate with potential to cause ‘‘substantial studies. Both studies showed that error SPCC training requirements into already harm’’ to the environment. Others asked during product transfer activities is one existing training programs required by that the requirements be relaxed for of the biggest known causes of other Federal or State law. One facilities with equipment that reduce discharges at AST facilities. Two other commenter suggested that the rule the potential for discharges. Some studies also support our contention: include a requirement that owners or suggested differing gallon thresholds for Carter, W.J., ‘‘How API Viewed the operators document each training the applicability of the training Needs for Aboveground Storage Tanks,’’ session and spill response drill requirements. One commenter suggested Tank Talk, Vol. 7, July/August 1992, conducted, and to maintain those that training be limited to those p.2.; and U.S. EPA, ‘‘The Technical records for five years. employees involved in emergency Background Document to Support the Timing of employee training. Some response or countermeasure activities. Implementation of OPA Response Plan commenters favored the proposed One commenter asked for an exemption Requirements,’’ Emergency Response provision for yearly training exercises from this requirement for small Division, Office of Solid Waste and and suggested that the training be facilities. Another commenter asked for Emergency Response, February 1993, coordinated with local oil spill response an exemption for extraction facilities, p.4–19. organizations or Local Emergency because, he argued, they have few spills. In 1993, we proposed to qualify the Planning Committees (LEPCs) whenever Another commenter suggested that the applicability of the training possible. One commenter cautioned that 1991 proposal was adequate. requirements to only those facilities that the annual training should not be Timing of employee training. Some transfer or receive greater than or equal considered a full scale SPCC drill. commenters favored the proposed to 10,000 gallons of oil in a single Opposing commenters suggested no requirement for eight-hour annual operation more than twice per month on time period for such exercises, or training, with four-hour refresher average, or greater than or equal to alternative periods, such as every two or training in subsequent years. Others 50,000 gallons in a single operation three years. opposed it, arguing that employer more than once a month on the average. Likewise, many commenters opposed discretion in this matter will ensure a We further proposed that you require the provision relating to the training of better result. that employees involved in ‘‘oil- new employees within one week of Likewise many commenters opposed handling activities,’’ such as the employment. Opposing commenters the requirement that new employees be operation or maintenance of oil storage argued generally that such a trained within one week of tanks or the operation of equipment recommendation is impractical, and employment, arguing instead for related to storage tanks, receive eight called for employer discretion in employer discretion. Some commenters hours of facility specific training within scheduling training. Others suggested suggested alternate frequencies other one year of the effective date of the rule varying time periods in lieu of one than one week, ranging from ‘‘prior to or at the date that your facility becomes week. Those suggestions ranged from assuming duties’’ to up to six months subject to the requirement. In one month to one year, with alternatives after hiring. subsequent years, each employee would suggested such as ‘‘as soon as practical,’’ Content of training. A few be required to undergo four hours of ‘‘prior to operation but before one year,’’ commenters supported the specification refresher training. ‘‘within one week of job assignment,’’ ‘‘a of training subjects. Some commenters Our 1993 proposal would require more reasonable time period,’’ ‘‘after suggested that we require training in the training for new employees within one training,’’ and ‘‘until the next annual proper operation and maintenance of week of employment. We also proposed training for all employees.’’ One facility equipment and knowledge of to specify the areas in which you would commenter asked that we define the spill procedure protocols. A utility be required to train employees to term ‘‘new employee.’’ commenter objected to the proposal that include: training in correct equipment Discharge prevention briefings. Many its employees be trained in maintenance operation and maintenance, general commenters criticized the proposal for of oil storage tanks, because its

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47108 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

maintenance activities do not involve Division, Office of Solid Waste and prevent a discharge as described in the transfer or handling of oil and Emergency Response, February 1993, § 112.1(b). This standard will allow therefore fall outside the scope of the p.4–19. We have therefore retained the facilities more flexibility to develop rule. Alternatively, the commenter applicability of training to all facilities. training programs better suited to the suggested, those employees should be The 1993 proposal would have limited particular facility. While the rule given a lower level of ‘‘awareness’’ training requirements to only certain requires annual discharge prevention training. One commenter suggested facilities which received or transferred briefings, we also agree that the annual inclusion of response training. over the proposed amount of oil. briefings required are not drills. In any Unannounced drills. Some Facilities which receive or transfer less case, the SPCC rules do not require commenters favored the proposal and than the proposed amount might also drills, as explained below. suggested that actual discharge have discharges which could have been For purposes of the rule, it is not experience should be given credit as a averted through required training. Also necessary to define a ‘‘new employee’’ drill. One commenter suggested a the proposed rule would have exempted because all oil-handling personnel are frequency schedule for various types of many facilities that use rather than store subject to training requirements, drills. oil from its scope. Therefore, we have whether new or not. You do, however, Some commenters criticized the provided in the rule that all facilities, have discretion as to the timing of that proposal for at least yearly whether bulk storage facilities or training, so long as the timing meets the unannounced drills. One commenter facilities that merely use oil, must train requirements of good engineering suggested that the frequency of the drills oil-handling employees because all practice. should be at the operator’s discretion. facilities have the potential for a Discharge prevention briefings. Commenters argued that, if required at discharge as described in § 112.1(b), and Annual discharge prevention briefings all, drills should only be applicable to training is necessary to avert such a are necessary, but there should be more operational or response personnel. Two discharge. frequent briefings where appropriate. commenters said that a requirement for We agree with the commenter that Such briefings are necessary to refresh unannounced drills for all employees training is only necessary for personnel employees’ memories on facility Plan would require them to conduct at least who will use it to carry out the provisions and to update employees on eight or more drills a year. Another requirements of this rule. Therefore the latest prevention and response commenter suggested training instead of revised paragraph (f)(1) provides that techniques. Training must include the drills, because of the potential for drills only oil-handling personnel are subject contents of the facility Plan. Although it to cause expensive shutdowns. to training requirements, as we is desirable, we disagree that we should Response to comments. Applicability proposed in 1993. Thus there are no require SPCC briefings to include of training requirements. We believe new training costs because we have emergency response training. That that training requirements should apply always required such training of oil- training is already required for those to all facilities, large or small, including handling personnel. ‘‘Oil-handling facilities which must prepare response all those that store or use oil, regardless personnel’’ is to be interpreted plans. of the amount of oil transferred in any according to industry standards, but particular time. Training may help avert includes employees engaged in the Content of training. Specifying a human error, which is a principal cause operation and maintenance of oil minimum list of training subjects is of oil discharges. ‘‘Spills from ASTs storage containers or the operation of necessary to ensure that facility may occur as a result of operator error, equipment related to storage containers employees are aware of discharge for example, during loading operations and emergency response personnel. We prevention procedures and regulations. (e.g., vessel or tank truck—AST transfer do not interpret the term to include As suggested by a commenter, we have operation), or as a result of structural secretaries, clerks, and other personnel added knowledge of discharge failure (e.g., brittle fracture) because of who are never involved in operation or procedure protocols to the list of inadequate maintenance of the AST.’’ maintenance activities related to oil training subjects because such training EPA Liner Study, at 14. The 1995 SPCC storage or equipment, oil transfer will help avert discharges. Therefore, Survey found that operator error was the operations, emergency response, we have specified that training must most common spill cause for facilities in countermeasure functions, or similar include, at a minimum: the operation 9 of the 19 industry categories that activities. and maintenance of equipment to reported having spills. Also, the August You may incorporate SPCC training prevent the discharge of oil; discharge 1994 draft report of the EPA requirements into already existing procedure protocols; applicable Aboveground Oil Storage Facilities training programs required by other pollution control laws, rules, and Workgroup called ‘‘Soil and Ground Federal or State law at your option or regulations; general facility operations; Water Contamination from may conduct SPCC training separately. and, the contents of the facility Plan. As Aboveground Oil Storage Facilities: A You must document that you have noted above, we require response Strategic Study’’ presented data on conducted required training courses. training for facilities that must submit causes of discharges from two studies. Such documentation must be response plans, but such training is not Both studies showed that error during maintained with the Plan for three necessary for all SPCC facilities. product transfer activities is one of the years. In response to the utility commenter biggest known causes of discharges at Timing of employee training. We who asserted that utility employees do AST facilities. Two other studies also agree with commenters who thought it not need to be trained in the support our contention: Carter, W.J., desirable to leave the timing and maintenance of oil storage tanks because ‘‘How API Viewed the Needs for number of hours of training of oil- such maintenance does not involve the Aboveground Storage Tanks,’’ Tank handling employees, including new transfer and handling of oil, we note Talk, Vol. 7, July/August 1992, p.2.; and employees, to the employer’s discretion. that training must address relevant U.S. EPA, ‘‘The Technical Background ‘‘Proper instruction’’ of oil-handling maintenance activities at the facility. If Document to Support the employees, as required in the rule, there is no transfer and handling of oil, Implementation of OPA Response Plan means in accordance with industry such topic need not be covered in Requirements,’’ Emergency Response standards or at a frequency sufficient to training.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47109

Unannounced drills. The proposed some places. Another argued that fences we agree. When you use a fence to yearly frequency for unannounced drills should be topped with barbed wire, or protect a facility, the design of the fence is also unnecessary because such drills otherwise designed to deter vandalism. should deter vandalism. Methods of are already required at FRP facilities, Starter controls on pumps. Several deterring vandals might include barbed which are higher risk facilities. We do commenters argued that the wire or other devices. If any type of not believe that the risk at all SPCC requirements to lock starter controls on fence is impractical, you may, under facilities approaches the same level as at all pumps and to locate them at a site § 112.7(a)(2), explain your reasons for FRP facilities. Therefore, we are not accessible only to authorized personnel nonconformance and provide equivalent finalizing this proposal, and there are no are duplicative and do not deter vandals environmental protection by some other new costs. or other unauthorized personnel. means. Editorial changes and clarifications. Another commenter urged us to exclude Valves. Revised § 112.7(g)(2) requires We changed the title from ‘‘Personnel, large facilities from the locking you to ensure that the master flow and training, and spill prevention requirement because the potential for drain valves and other valves permitting procedures,’’ to ‘‘Personnel, training, losing keys or having the locks become outward flow of the container’s contents and discharge prevention procedures.’’ inoperative due to freezing conditions is have adequate security measures. The In paragraph (f)(1), ‘‘discharges of oil’’ great. A third commenter suggested that current rule requires that such valves be becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ In paragraph the requirement should apply to securely locked in the closed position (f)(2), ‘‘line management’’ becomes facilities, and not to pumps. when in non-operating or non-standby ‘‘facility management,’’ and ‘‘oil spill Loading/unloading connections. One status. Today’s revised rule allows prevention’’ becomes ‘‘discharge commenter urged that the blank- security measures other than locking prevention.’’ In paragraph (f)(3), ‘‘spill flanging requirement apply to facilities drain valves or other valves permitting prevention briefings’’ becomes that are not in service for six months or outflow to the surface. Manual locks ‘‘discharge prevention briefings.’’ Also more, rather than to connections of oil may be preferable for valves that are not in paragraph (f)(3); ‘‘operating piping. The rationale was that larger electronically or automatically personnel’’ becomes ‘‘oil-handling’’ facilities have seasonal or contractual controlled. Such locks may be the only personnel,’’ to be consistent with variations in use of lines, pumps, racks, practical way to ensure that valves stay language in paragraph (f)(1); and, ‘‘spill and connections. Therefore, it would be in the closed position. For electronically events’’ becomes ‘‘discharges as costly and impractical to blank off lines controlled or automated systems, no described in § 112.1(b).’’ only to reopen them in the seventh manual lock may be necessary. The rule month. Accordingly, the rule should, gives you discretion in the method of Section 112.7(g)—Security (Excluding per the commenter, recognize normal securing valves. We believe that this oil Production Facilities) operating procedures at such facilities flexibility is necessary due to changes in Background. In 1991, we proposed to and allow flexibility. Another technology and in the use of manual turn into a recommendation the current commenter requested that ‘‘quick and electronic valving. requirement that a facility should be disconnect’’ fittings qualify as a method Starter controls on pumps. We fully fenced, and gates locked and/or of secure capping. disagree that the requirements to have guarded when the facility is not in Response to comments. Applicability the starter control locked in the off production or is unattended. We of requirements. We asked in the 1991 position and be accessible only to proposed to require that the master flow preamble (at 56 FR 54616) for comments authorized personnel are redundant. and drain valves (or other valves that as to whether provisions proposed as Restricting access to such pumps will permit direct outward flow of the discretionary measures or prevents unauthorized personnel from tanks’ contents) have adequate security recommendations should be made accidentally opening the starter control. to ensure that they remain in a closed requirements. We were concerned These measures are necessary to prevent position when in non-operating or non- whether these proposed measures discharges at small as well as large standby status. Thus, the proposal represented good engineering practice facilities because the threat of discharge would allow more flexibility in the for all facilities. Specific comments are is the same regardless of the size of the method of securing the valves than the discussed below. In the case of container, and a small discharge may be current rule, which requires that such proposed § 112.7(g)(1) and (5) as harmful to the environment. If the valves be ‘‘securely locked.’’ requirements, we have decided to retain potential for losing keys, weather The current rule requires that loading/ the requirements as requirements rather conditions such as frequent freezing, or unloading connections be securely than convert those paragraphs into other engineering factors render such a capped or blank-flanged when not in recommendations as proposed. We have measure infeasible, you may use the service or standby-service ‘‘for an done this because we believe that deviation provisions in § 112.7(a)(2) if extended time.’’ We proposed in 1991 to fencing, facility lighting, and the other you can explain your reasons for clarify that ‘‘an extended time’’ means measures prescribed in the rule to nonconformance and provide equivalent six months or more, based on our prevent vandalism are elements of good environmental protection by some other Regional experience. engineering practice in most facilities, means. Comments. Editorial changes and including mobile facilities. Where they Loading/unloading connections. In clarifications. One commenter asked for are not a part of good engineering response to comment, we have decided the meaning of ‘‘plant’’ as used in practice, we have amended the to retain the current time line in proposed § 112.7(g)(1). proposed provision allowing deviations, § 112.7(g)(4), i.e., ‘‘an extended time,’’ Applicability of requirement. One § 112.7(a)(2), to include the provisions instead of specifying a six-month time commenter urged an exemption from all in § 112.7(g). line, due to the need for operational security provisions for mobile facilities, Fences. Fencing helps to deter flexibility at facilities. We define ‘‘an because such facilities are manned 24 vandals and thus prevent the discharges extended time’’ in reference to industry hours a day while in operation. that they might cause. In response to the standards or, in the absence of such Fences. One commenter argued that commenter who argued that fences standards, at a frequency sufficient to fences should not be required for all should be topped with barbed wire, or prevent any discharge. The appropriate facilities, because it is not practicable in otherwise designed to deter vandalism, method of securing or blank flanging of

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47110 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

these connections is a matter of good Editorial changes and clarifications. inspection of trucks or cars for engineering practice, and might include One commenter asked for a clarification discharges are necessary to help prevent ‘‘quick disconnect fittings’’ as a possible of the term ‘‘quick drainage system.’’ discharges. If you can justify a deviation deviation under § 112.7(a)(2). In any Another commenter recommended for secondary containment requirement case, a secure cap is one equipped with that instead of mandatory containment in paragraph (h)(1) on the basis that it some kind of lock or secure closure requirements, a facility be allowed to is not practicable from an engineering device to prevent vandalism. We show that procedures are in place to standpoint, you must provide a disagree that the requirements of this ensure that personnel are present at all contingency plan and take other actions paragraph should apply to the owner or times to supervise tank truck loading to comply with § 112.7(d). If you seek to operator of a facility instead of the and unloading. Additionally, that deviate from any of the requirements in owner or operator of the piping because commenter recommended that all new paragraphs (h)(2) or (3), you must a facility might place only some piping or renovated loading/unloading areas explain your reasons for out of service for a period of time, and provide, at a minimum, curbing, sloped nonconformance, as provided in let other piping remain in service. concrete, trenching, tanks, or basins § 112.7(a)(2), and provide measures Therefore, the owners or operators of which could contain at least five affording equivalent environmental some piping might escape the percent by volume of the largest protection. requirements of the rule and be more compartment of the tank car or truck. We disagree that a contingency plan likely to discharge oil. For existing facilities, that commenter (whether labeled ‘‘strong’’ or otherwise) Industry standards. Industry suggested that containment might is a preferable alternative to secondary standards that may assist an owner or contain a lesser volume, provided that containment. Secondary containment is operator with security purposes include: the entire area is constructed of preferable because it may prevent a (1) API Standard 2610, Design, impervious material, no reported discharge that may be harmful as Construction, Operation, Maintenance, releases have occurred, and that described in § 112.1(b). A contingency and Inspection of Terminal and Tank loading/unloading activities are plan is a plan for action when such Facilities; and, (2) NFPA 30A, supervised. discharge has already occurred. Alarm or warning systems. One Automotive and Marine Service Station However, as noted earlier, if secondary commenter asked whether the Code, Flammable and Combustible containment is not practicable, you requirement to provide a warning light Liquids Code. must provide a contingency plan and or physical barrier system, or warning take other actions as required by Editorial changes and clarifications. signs, applied to tank batteries or just § 112.7(d). EPA will continue to We agree that the term ‘‘plant’’ has no plants. Another suggested that a vehicle evaluate the issue of whether the clear meaning. Therefore, in paragraph brake interlock system or similar system provisions for secondary containment (g)(1), we have substituted the term might work just as well. Still another found in § 112.7(h)(1) should be ‘‘facility’’ in its place, which is a suggested the use of wheel chocks modified or revised. We intend to defined term in these rules. Also in that during tank truck transfers. publish a notice asking for additional paragraph, the phrase ‘‘handling, Vehicle drain closure. Two data and comment on this issue. processing and storing oil’’ becomes commenters opposed the proposed We disagree that the section regulates ‘‘handling, processing or storing oil.’’ In requirement that vehicle drains and activities already under the purview of paragraph (g)(2), ‘‘tank’’ becomes outlets be examined for leakage and if the U.S. Department of Transportation. ‘‘container.’’ In paragraph (g)(3), necessary repaired to prevent liquid We regulate the environmental aspects ‘‘pumps’’ becomes ‘‘pump.’’ In leaks during transit. They argued that of loading/unloading transfers at non- paragraph (g)(5), the phrase the facility owner had little or no transportation-related facilities, which ‘‘Consideration should be given to:’’ is control over trucks that were owned by are legitimately part of a prevention deleted. We revise the sentence to read, others which loaded or unloaded at a plan. DOT regulates other aspects of ‘‘Provide facility lighting commensurate facility and could not ensure their those transfers, such as safety measures. with the type and location of the facility compliance with the rules. Other State or Federal law. We have that will assist in the: * * *’’ Response to comments. In general. withdrawn, as unnecessary, proposed Section 112.7(h)—Loading/Unloading This section is applicable to any non- § 112.7(h)(1), which would have (Excluding Offshore Facilities) transportation-related or terminal required that facilities meet the facility where oil is loaded or unloaded minimum requirements of Federal and Background. In 1991, we reproposed from or to a tank car or tank truck. It State law. Those requirements apply the current discharge prevention applies to containers which are whether they are mentioned or not. requirements for loading/unloading aboveground (including partially buried Secondary containment. As noted racks. tanks, bunkered tanks, or vaulted tanks) above, the requirement for secondary Comments. In general. Several or completely buried (except those containment applies to all facilities, commenters opposed the proposal on exempted by this rule), and to all whether with aboveground or the basis that a requirement for a strong facilities, large or small. All of these completely buried containers. This contingency plan would be a preferable facilities have a risk of discharge from includes production facilities and small and more effective alternative. Another transfers. Our Survey of Oil Storage facilities. The method of secondary commenter asked that we clarify that Facilities (published in July 1996) containment must be one of those listed only facilities routinely used for loading showed that as annual throughput in the rule (see § 112.7(c)), or some or unloading of tanker trucks from or increases, so does the propensity to similar system that provides equivalent into aboveground bulk storage tanks are discharge, the severity of the discharge, environmental protection. The choice of subject to this provision. One and, to a lesser extent, the costs of the method is one of good engineering commenter believed that the proposed cleanup. Throughput increases are often practice. However, in response to rule regulates items which ‘‘should be associated with transfers of oil. comments, we note that sumps and drip covered’’ by DOT rules governing The requirements contained in this pans are a listed method of secondary loading, unloading, and vehicle section, including those for secondary containment for offshore facilities. A inspection. containment, warning systems, and catchment basin might be an acceptable

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47111

form of retention pond for an onshore the loading/unloading area to some that we allow testing by acoustic facility. Whatever method is means of secondary containment or emission testing. implemented, it must be capable of returns the oil to the facility. For Response to comments. Applicability. containing the maximum capacity of § 112.7(h)(1), if secondary containment The requirement to evaluate field- any single compartment of a tank car or is not practicable, you must provide a constructed tanks for brittle fracture tank truck loaded or unloaded in the contingency plan following the whenever a field-constructed facility. A discharge from the maximum provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and aboveground container undergoes capacity of any single compartment of a otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). Also, repair, alteration, reconstruction, or tank car or tank truck includes a in paragraph (h)(1), ‘‘tank truck’’ change in service is necessary because discharge from the tank car or tank truck becomes ‘‘tank car or tank truck.’’ In brittle fracture may cause sudden and piping and hoses. This is the largest paragraph (h)(2), ‘‘prevent vehicular catastrophic tank failure, resulting in amount likely to be discharged from the departure,’’ becomes ‘‘prevent vehicles potentially serious damage to the oil storage vehicle. A requirement that from departing.’’ In paragraph (h)(3), environment and loss of oil. The secondary containment be able to hold ‘‘leakage’’ becomes ‘‘discharge.’’ requirement must be applicable to large only five percent of a potential ‘‘Discharge’’ is a broader term, of which and small facilities alike, because all the discharge when procedures are in place ‘‘leakage’’ is a subset. Also in that field-constructed aboveground to prevent discharges fails to protect the paragraph, ‘‘examine’’ becomes containers have a risk of failure. The environment if there is human error in ‘‘inspect.’’ presence or absence of secondary one of those procedures. In case of containment does not eliminate the discharge, the secondary containment Section 112.7(i)—Brittle Fracture need for brittle fracture evaluation system must be capable of preventing a Evaluation because the intent of the rule is to discharge from that maximum capacity Background. In 1993, we proposed to prevent a discharge whether or not it compartment to the environment. As require that you evaluate your field- will be contained. While the mentioned above, if secondary constructed tanks for brittle fracture if requirement applies to all field- containment is not practicable, you may those tanks undergo repair, alteration, or constructed aboveground containers, if be able to deviate from the requirement a change in service. You would have you can show that the evaluation is if you provide a contingency plan and been required to evaluate those tanks by unnecessary for your steel-bolted tanks, otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). adherence to industry standards you may deviate from the requirement Alarm or warning systems. The contained in American Petroleum under § 112.7(a)(2) if you can explain requirement to provide a warning light Institute (API) Standard 653, entitled your reasons for nonconformance and or other physical barrier system applies ‘‘Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, provide equivalent environmental to the loading/unloading areas of and Reconstruction.’’ The rationale was protection. We note that portions of facilities. We have amended the rule on to help prevent the failure of field- steel-bolted tanks, such as the bottom or the suggestion of a commenter to constructed tanks due to brittle fracture, roof, may be welded, and therefore include ‘‘vehicle brake interlock such as the four million gallon subject to brittle fracture. The requirement for evaluation of a system’’ and ‘‘wheel chocks.’’ The aboveground Ashland Oil tank failure field-constructed aboveground container examples listed in the rule of potential which occurred in January 1988. warning systems are merely illustrative. must be undertaken when the container Comments. Applicability. Several Any other alarm or warning system undergoes a repair, alteration, commenters favored the proposal. One which serves the same purpose and reconstruction, or change in service that suggested that we incorporate API performs effectively will also suffice to might affect the risk of a discharge or Standard 653 into our rules to meet this requirement. failure due to brittle fracture, or when Vehicle drain closure. We believe that accommodate the possibility of tank a discharge or failure has already the requirement to check vehicles for failures other than through brittle occurred due to brittle fracture or other discharge is important to help prevent fracture. One commenter opposed the catastrophe. Catastrophic failures are discharges. If the check were not done, proposal on the basis that the evaluation failures which may result from events the entire contents of the vehicle might was unnecessary for small volume tanks such as lightning strikes, dangerous be discharged. We further believe that and tanks with secondary containment. seismic activity, etc. As a result of a the responsibility for compliance with Other commenters argued that such catastrophic failure, the entire contents proposed § 112.7(h)(3), as well as with testing was unnecessary for steel-bolted of a container may be discharged to the all provisions of the rule, continues to tanks because such tanks are too thin to environment in the same way as if rest with the owner or operator of the be subject to brittle fracture since brittle fracture had occurred. facility when those vehicles are loading material properties are uniform through ‘‘Repair’’ means any work necessary or unloading oil at the facility. the thickness. One commenter asked to maintain or restore a container to a Industry standards. Industry that small facilities be exempted from condition suitable for safe operation. standards that may assist an owner or the proposed requirement. Typical examples include the removal operator with loading and unloading Editorial changes and clarifications. and replacement of material (such as areas include: (1) NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable Two commenters asked what the term roof, shell, or bottom material, including and Combustible Liquids Code’’; and, ‘‘change in service’’ means. Others weld metal) to maintain container (2) API Standard 2610, ‘‘Design, asked for clarification of the term ‘‘field- integrity; the re-leveling or jacking of a Construction, Operation, Maintenance, erected tank.’’ Another asked for container shell, bottom, or roof; the and Inspection of Terminal and Tank clarification of the term ‘‘repair,’’ so that addition of reinforcing plates to existing Facilities.’’ it would exclude ordinary day-to-day shell penetrations; and the repair of Editorial changes and clarifications. maintenance activities which are flaws, such as tears or gouges, by In paragraph (h)(1), for clarity, ‘‘plant’’ conducted to maintain the functional grinding or gouging followed by is changed to ‘‘facility.’’ The phrase ‘‘to integrity of the tank and do not weaken welding. We understand that some handle spills’’ becomes ‘‘to handle the tank. repairs (such as repair of tank seals), discharges.’’ A ‘‘quick drainage system’’ Alternatives to brittle fracture alterations, or changes in service will is a device which drains oil away from evaluation. One commenter suggested not cause a risk of failure due to brittle

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47112 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

fracture; therefore, we have amended has been a discharge from the container, address all SPCC requirements in your the rule to refer to those repairs, whether or not there has been a Plan. You must include in your Plan a alterations, reconstruction, or changes complete failure of the container due to complete discussion of conformance in service that affect the risk of a brittle fracture or catastrophe. When a with the applicable requirements and discharge or failure due to brittle container has failed completely and will other effective discharge prevention and fracture. be replaced, no brittle fracture or containment procedures listed in part ‘‘Alteration’’ means any work on a catastrophe evaluation is necessary. The 112 or any applicable more stringent container involving cutting, burning, evaluation is only applicable when the State rule, regulation, or guideline. If a welding, or heating operations that original container remains, but the requirement is not applicable to a changes the physical dimensions or physical condition of the container has particular type of facility, we believe configurations of the container. Typical changed due to repair, alteration, or that it is important for an owner or examples include the addition of change in service. operator to explain why. manways and nozzles greater than 12- Consistency in rules. As noted above, inch nominal pipe size and an increase Section 112.7(j)—State Rules you may now use a State plan as a or decrease in tank shell height. Background. In the introduction to substitute for an SPCC Plan when the Alternatives to brittle fracture § 112.7(e) of the current rule, an owner evaluation. We have eliminated the or operator is required to discuss in the State plan meets all Federal incorporation by reference to API Plan his conformance with § 112.7(c), requirements and is cross-referenced. Standard 653 from the rule. We have plus other applicable parts of § 112.7, When you use a State plan that does not also therefore withdrawn proposed other effective spill prevention and meet all Federal requirements, it must Appendix H, the API Standard 653 containment procedures or, if more be supplemented by sections that do brittle fracture flowchart. We believe stringent, with State rules, regulations, meet all Federal requirements. At times that API Standard 653 is an acceptable and guidelines. In our 1991 proposal, EPA will have rules that are more standard to test for brittle fracture. we limited the required discussion of stringent than States rules, and some However, an incorporation by reference ‘‘other effective spill prevention and States may have rules that are more of any standard might cause the rule to containment procedures’’ to those listed stringent than those of EPA. If you be instantly obsolete should that in §§ 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11, follow more stringent State rules in your standard change or should a newer, or if more stringent, with State rules, Plan, you must explain that is what you better method emerge. A potential regulations, and guidelines. are doing. standard might also apply only to a Comments. Cross-referencing of Federal and State regulation. Both the certain subset of facilities or equipment. requirements. One commenter argued States and EPA have authority to Therefore, as with most other that the proposed requirements should regulate containers storing or using oil. requirements in this part, if you explain be more clearly limited to those sections We believe State authority to regulate in your reasons for nonconformance, which are applicable to the facility in this area and establish spill prevention alternative methods which afford question. For example, the commenter programs is supported by section 311(o) equivalent environmental protection asserted, ‘‘requirements in § 112.8 of the CWA. Some States have exercised may be acceptable under § 112.7(a)(2). If ‘* * *onshore facilities (excluding their authority to regulate while others acoustic emission testing provides production facilities)’ should not (by the have not. We believe that State SPCC equivalent environmental protection it requirement in § 112.7(i)) be applied to programs are a valuable supplement to may be acceptable as an alternative. any portion of any production facility.’’ our SPCC program. That decision, in the first instance, is Consistency in rules. Two States Preemption. We do not preempt State one for the Professional Engineer and urged that our rules be as consistent as rules, and defer to State rules, owner or operator. possible with rules in the States. regulations, and guidelines that are Industry standards. Industry Another State urged that we grant more stringent than part 112. standards that may assist an owner or reciprocity to State-approved Plans operator with brittle fracture evaluation which have been reviewed under equal Editorial changes and clarifications. include: (1) API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank or greater adequacy criteria. One To simplify the rule language, we have Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and commenter complained that EPA rules amended the proposed rule to state that Reconstruction’’; and, (2) API are in some cases more stringent than you must discuss all applicable Recommended Practice 920, some State rules. requirements in the Plan instead of ‘‘Prevention of Brittle Fracture of Federal and State regulation. Two listing all of the sections individually. Pressure Vessels.’’ commenters argued against any State The phrase ‘‘sections of the Plan shall Editorial changes and clarifications. A regulation in the SPCC area to avoid include* * *’’ becomes ‘‘include in ‘‘field-constructed aboveground duplication. Conversely, another your Plan***.’’ ‘‘Spill’’ becomes container’’ is one that is assembled or commenter argued against any Federal ‘‘discharge.’’ reassembled outside the factory at the regulation because the States are better Subpart B—Requirements for location of its intended use. A ‘‘change qualified to regulate in the SPCC arena. Petroleum Oils or Other Non-petroleum in service’’ is a change from previous Preemption. Another State requested Oils, Except Animal Fats and Vegetable operating conditions involving different that EPA strive to have similar programs Oils properties of the stored product such as as the States, or at the least not to specific gravity or corrosivity and/or preempt the States in the regulation of Background. As noted above, we have different service conditions of SPCC matters. reformatted the rule to differentiate temperature and/or pressure. The word Response to comments. Cross- between various classes of oil as ‘‘reconstruction’’ was added in the first referencing of requirements. In response mandated by EORRA. Subpart B sentence to conform with the text in API to the commenter who believed that prescribes particular requirements for Standard 653. The words ‘‘discharge or’’ proposed § 112.7(i) (redesignated in an owner or operator of a facility that were added prior to ‘‘failure’’ and today’s rule as § 112.7(j)) might require stores or uses petroleum oils or non- ‘‘brittle fracture failure’’ to make clear him to discuss inapplicable petroleum oils, except for animal fats that evaluation is necessary when there requirements, we note that you must and vegetable oils.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47113

Introduction to Section 112.8 Response to comments. Applicability. phrase ‘‘handle such leakage’’ becomes Background. We have inserted an We disagree that we should limit the ‘‘control such discharge.’’ We deleted introduction to § 112.8 so that we could scope of this section to facilities having the phrase ‘‘or other positive means,’’ list the requirements of that section in areas with the potential to receive because it is confusing when compared the active voice. Those requirements, discharges greater than 660 gallons or with the text of § 112.7(a)(2). Under except as specifically noted, apply to areas with tanks regulated under these § 112.7(a)(2), you have the flexibility to the owner or operator of an onshore rules. Small discharges (that is, of 660 use alternate measures ensuring facility (except a production facility). gallons or less) as described in equivalent environmental protection. The introduction does not result in any § 112.1(b) from diked storage areas can The word ‘‘examine’’ becomes substantive change in requirements. cause great environmental harm. See ‘‘inspect.’’ section IV. F of this preamble for a Section 112.8(b)(2)—Diked Storage Section 112.8(a)—General discussion of the effects of small Areas—Valves Used; Inspection of Requirements—Onshore Facilities discharges. We disagree that this section Retained Stormwater (Excluding Production Facilities) should apply only to areas with tanks Background. This is a new provision regulated under these rules because this Background. In 1991, we reproposed that merely references the general rule applies to regulated facilities, not the current rule on the type of valves requirements which all facilities subject merely areas with regulated tanks or that must be used to drain diked storage to this part must meet and the specific other containers. A facility may contain areas. The rule also addresses requirements that facilities subject to operating equipment within a diked inspection of retained stormwater. this section must meet. It does not result storage area which could cause a Comments. Innovative devices. Two in any change to substantive discharge as described in § 112.1(b). commenters believed that the rule requirements. We disagree that the requirement is would apparently preclude the use of Editorial changes and clarifications. not practical for facilities with site-wide innovative containment devices to ‘‘Spill prevention’’ in the 1991 proposal containment, or that have substantial control discharges from containment becomes ‘‘discharge prevention.’’ We stormwater draining onto and across the dikes, such as imbiber beads. These also deleted from the titles of each site. Where oil/water separators, beads are inside a small cylinder that paragraph the words ‘‘onshore’’ and underflow uncontrolled discharge filters releases from a containment area. ‘‘excluding production facilities’’ devices, or other positive means provide The beads are inserted where a valve because the entire section applies to equivalent environmental protection as would be placed and allow water to onshore facilities and excludes the discharge restraints required by this pass, but prevent release of oil by production facilities from its scope. section, you may use them, if you closing on contact. Another commenter Finally, the proposed requirement to explain your reasons for asked that the rule allow oil-water ‘‘address’’ general and specific nonconformance. See § 112.7(a)(2). gravity separation systems instead of requirements and procedures becomes However, you must still ensure that no valves. ‘‘meet’’ those requirements and oil will be discharged when using PE certification. One commenter procedures. alternate devices. suggested that a section should be De minimis amounts of oil. This rule added to the rule requiring that Section 112.8(b)(1)—Diked Storage Area is concerned with a discharge of oil that Professional Engineers be required to Drainage would become a discharge as described certify the design and construction of Background. In 1991, we reproposed in § 112.1(b). When oil is present in the stormwater drainage system and the the current rule (§ 112.7(e)(1)(i)) on water in an amount that cannot be sanitary sewer system, because the facility drainage from diked areas. perceived by the human eye, the Professional Engineer is in the best Comments. Applicability. One discharge might not meet the position to prepare the spill commenter asked that we limit the description provided in 40 CFR 110.3. containment parts of the SPCC Plan. scope of this section to facilities having Therefore, such a discharge might not be Response to comments. Innovative areas with the potential to receive a discharge in a quantity that may be devices. This rule does not preclude discharges greater than 660 gallons or harmful, and therefore not a reportable innovative devices that achieve the areas with tanks regulated under these discharge under part 110. However, a same environmental protection as rules. Another commenter said that for discharge which is invisible to the manual open-and-closed design valves. facilities with site-wide containment, or human eye might also contain If you do not use such valves, you must that have substantial stormwater components (for example, dissolved explain why. The provision for draining onto and across the site, the petroleum components) which would deviations in § 112.7(a)(2) allows requirement is not practical and may violate applicable water quality alternatives if the owner or operator justify reliance on contingency plans standards, making it a reportable states his reasons for nonconformance, instead of containment. That discharge. Therefore, we are keeping the and if he can provide equivalent commenter, and another, suggested that language as proposed, other than environmental protection by some other certain devices may reduce the potential making some editorial changes. means. However, you may not use of a significant spill of floating or other Industry standards. Industry flapper-type drain valves to drain diked products that can be separated by standards that may assist an owner or areas. And if you use alternate devices gravity, such as oil/water separators, operator with facility drainage include: to substitute for manual, open-and- underflow uncontrolled discharge (1) NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and closed design valves, you must inspect devices, and other apparatus. Combustible Liquids Code’’; and (2), and may drain retained stormwater, as De minimis amounts of oil. One API Standard 2610, ‘‘Design, provided in § 112.8(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and commenter thought it would be Construction, Operation, Maintenance, (iv), if your facility drainage drains impossible to ensure no oil would be and Inspection of Terminal and Tank directly into a watercourse, lake, or discharged into water from diked areas. Facilities.’’ pond bypassing the facility treatment The rationale was that oil can be present Editorial changes and clarifications. system. in water in an amount below the ‘‘Spill or other excessive leakage of oil’’ PE certification. PE certification is perception threshold of the human eye. and ‘‘leakage’’ become ‘‘discharge.’’ The already required for the design of

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47114 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

stormwater drainage and sanitary sewer and immediate clean-up of spills within environmental protection under systems by current rules because those such areas. Another commenter urged § 112.7(a)(2). systems are a technical element of the that we clarify that oil/water separators Areas subject to periodic flooding. We Plan. Therefore, we are keeping the meet the requirement for drainage agree with the commenter that the language as proposed. control and secondary containment current requirement should remain a Editorial changes and clarifications. because such units, when properly sized requirement and not be converted into In the first sentence, we deleted the and operated, meet the requirements of a recommendation. We are convinced phrase ‘‘as far as practical’’ because it is good engineering practice for preventing by the argument that catchment basins confusing when compared to the text of discharges of oil. One commenter will not work during flood events and § 112.7(a)(2). Under § 112.7(a)(2), if the suggested that in rural areas where may cause significant environmental requirement is not practical, you have electrical equipment is widely spaced, it damage. We also agree with the the flexibility to use measures ensuring may be more practical to provide for commenter that any drainage system equivalent environmental protection. In individual secondary containment should be engineered so that minimal the second sentence, we clarify that the rather than site-wide diversion facilities. amounts of contaminated water are wastewater treatment plant mentioned Other commenters suggested that the retained in areas subject to periodic therein is an ‘‘on-site wastewater drainage requirements in urban areas flooding. Therefore, we have retained treatment plant.’’ Also in that sentence, would be impossible to meet for the current requirement. We also we clarify that you must inspect and transformers located in vaults in large recommend, but do not require that ‘‘may drain’’ retained stormwater, as office and apartment buildings, and ponds, lagoons, or other facility provided in § 112.8(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and underneath urban streets because there drainage systems with the potential for (iv). Finally, in the last sentence, we is no space at such sites to construct the discharge not be located in areas subject clarify that drained retained stormwater sort of drainage control structures to periodic flooding. must be ‘‘uncontaminated.’’ required by the rule. Editorial changes and clarifications. Areas subject to periodic flooding. We agree that the wording ‘‘potential for Section 112.8(b)(3)—Drainage Into discharge’’ meets the intent of the rule Secondary Containment; Areas Subject One commenter argued that the proposed recommendation should be better than ‘‘potential for to Flooding contamination’’ and have made that retained as a requirement because it is change. Background. In 1991, we proposed to highly unlikely that catchment basins clarify that only undiked areas that are would operate effectively during a flood Section 112.8(b)(4)—Diversion Systems located such that they have a reasonable event, and that these facilities could Background. In 1991, we proposed potential to be contaminated by an oil cause significant harm to the discharge are required to drain into a that diversion systems must retain oil in environment. Another commenter the facility, rather than return it to the pond, lagoon, or catchment basin. We suggested that drainage systems for explained that a good Plan should seek facility after it has been discharged. existing facilities be engineered (even if Comments. One commenter asked for to separate reasonably foreseeable it requires pumping of contaminated sources of contamination and non- a clarification that oil ‘‘retained’’ in a water to a higher level for storage prior facility does not leave the facility contamination. to treatment) so that minimal amounts We also proposed to make a boundaries. A second commenter of contaminated water are retained in recommendation of the current suggested that oil be either retained areas subject to periodic flooding. requirement that catchment basins not within the facility or returned to the be located in areas subject to periodic Response to comments. Applicability. facility, whichever is applicable. The flooding. We disagree that the rule language commenter further suggested that the Comments. One commenter should become a recommendation diversion system apply only to the supported the proposal. because we believe that it is important petroleum areas of the facility such as Editorial changes and clarifications. to control the potential discharges the tanks, pipes, racks, and diked areas One commenter suggested that the rule rule addresses. Where a drainage system because drainage from the rest of the should be worded to refer to systems is infeasible, if you explain your reasons facility should not be contaminated and ‘‘with a potential for discharge,’’ rather for nonconformance, you may provide thus should not have to be diverted. than with a ‘‘potential for equivalent environmental protection by Response to comments. The rule contamination.’’ an alternate means. accomplishes the aim of retaining Applicability. Two commenters In response to the commenter who within the facility minimal amounts of argued that the secondary containment questioned the applicability of this contaminated water in undiked areas provisions of this paragraph should paragraph to areas under aboveground subject to periodic flooding. It is better ‘‘remain a recommendation as opposed piping and loading/unloading areas, we that a diversion system retain rather to a regulation,’’ because a requirement note that both areas are subject to the than allow oil to leave the facility, thus is impracticable for drainage systems rule’s requirements if they are undiked. enhancing the prevention goals of the from pipelines that move product Alternatives. The rule does not limit rule. Furthermore, it should be easier to throughout the facility. you to the use of drainage trenches for retain discharged oil rather than retrieve Alternatives. One commenter said that undiked areas. Other forms of secondary oil that has been discharged from the the rule should not be limited to containment may be acceptable. The facility. Therefore, we agree with the drainage trenches, and that the owners rule only prescribes requirements for commenter that ‘‘retained’’ oil is oil that and operators of facilities should have a the drainage of diked areas, but does not never leaves the facility. We also agree free choice of design. Another mandate the use of diked areas. that the rule applies only to drainage commenter suggested that if areas under However, if you do use diked areas, the from the ‘‘petroleum’’ (or other oil) areas aboveground piping and loading/ rule prescribes minimum requirements of the facility such as tanks, pipes, unloading areas are regulated under this for drainage of those areas. Also, if the racks, and diked areas, because the section, the operation should have the requirement is not practical, you may purpose of the SPCC rule is to prevent option of providing spill control by explain your reasons for discharges of oil, not of all runoff committing to the regular inspection of, nonconformance and provide equivalent contaminants. Amendment of the rule

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47115

language is unnecessary because all of Another commenter argued that the the passage of water, with structural the rule applies only to ‘‘petroleum’’ or proposed rule should be eliminated components having the capability of ‘‘oil’’ areas of the facility. Therefore, we because it is duplicative of stormwater resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic have promulgated the rule language as regulations. One commenter urged that loads, and with the capability to resist proposed with a minor editorial change. the rule require that no facilities for oil effects of buoyancy (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)); Editorial changes and clarifications. or hazardous substances be sited in (2) tanks must be adequately anchored We clarify that the reference to the floodplains. Another commenter to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral engineering of facility drainage is a requested that the rule require that: (1) movement of the structure resulting reference to paragraph (b)(3). A facility should identify whether it is from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic in a floodplain in the SPCC Plan; (2) if loads and the effects of buoyancy (40 Section 112.8(b)(5)—Natural Hydraulic it is in a floodplain, the Plan should CFR 60.3(c)(3)); for structures that are Flow, Pumps address minimum FEMA standards; intended to be made watertight below Background. In 1991, we reproposed and, (3) if a facility does not meet the base flood level, a Registered substantively the current rule (see minimum FEMA standards, the Plan Professional Engineer must develop § 112.7(e)(1)(v)) concerning hydraulic should address appropriate and/or review the structural design, flow and pump transfer for drainage precautionary and mitigation measures specifications, and plans for waters. for potential flood-related discharges. construction, and certify that they have Comments. We received one editorial The commenter also suggested that we been prepared in accordance with comment regarding a grammatical error consider requiring facilities in areas accepted standards and practice (40 CFR in the proposal. The commenter subject to 500-year events to address 60.3(c)(4)); and, tanks must not suggested that the second sentence of minimum FEMA standards. A second encroach within the adopted regulatory the proposal read, ‘‘If pump transfer is commenter supported a requirement for floodway unless it has been needed, two ‘‘lift’’ pumps shall be special considerations in the Plan for demonstrated that the proposed provided, and at least one of the pumps facilities in areas subject to flooding. encroachment would not result in any shall be permanently installed when That commenter also suggested that we increase in flood levels within the such treatment is continuous.’’ We define ‘‘areas subject to flooding,’’ and community during the occurrence of the received no substantive comments. noted that other Federal rules (i.e., base flood discharge (40 CFR 60.3(d)). Editorial changes and clarifications. RCRA) define this as the 25-year Additionally, the NFIP has specific We deleted the first sentence from the floodplain. Another commenter thought standards for coastal high hazard areas. proposed rule because it is a the term ‘‘areas subject to flooding’’ See 40 CFR 60.3(e)(4). recommendation. We are not including should be explained in terms of a 100- Section 112.8(c)(1)—Construction of recommendations in this rule so as to year flood event. A final comment noted and Materials Used for Containers avoid confusion in the regulated that the preamble spoke to a community as to what is required and recommendation that facilities address Background. In 1991, we reproposed what is not. We agree with the precautionary measures if they are without substantive change current commenter’s editorial suggestion located in areas subject to flooding, § 112.7(e)(2)(i), which requires that no regarding the second sentence, and have while the recommendation text spoke to tank be used for the storage of oil unless amended the rule accordingly. In the requirements for events that occur its material and construction are last sentence of the proposal, the phrase during a period of flooding. The compatible with the material stored and ‘‘oil will be prevented from reaching commenter urged reconciliation of the the conditions of storage such as navigable waters of the United States, differing language. pressure and temperature. The only adjoining shorelines, or other waters Response to comments. We deleted changes we proposed were editorial. We that would be affected by discharging this recommendation because it is more also proposed a new recommendation oil as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this appropriately addressed in FEMA rules that the construction, materials, part’’ becomes ‘‘ to prevent a discharge and guidance, including the definitions installation, and use of tanks conform as described in § 112.1(b).***’’ the commenters referenced. We disagree with relevant industry standards such as Response to comments. We have that the proposed recommendation API, NFPA, UL, or ASME standards, corrected the grammatical error. should be made a requirement because which are required in the application of flood control plans and design good engineering practice for the Proposed Section 112.8(b)(6)— capabilities for discharge systems are construction and operation of the tank. Additional Requirements for Events that provided for under the stormwater Comments. Several commenters asked Occur During a Period of Flooding regulations, and further Federal that the proposal be recast as a Background. In 1991, we proposed a regulations would be duplicative. recommendation rather than a rule, new recommendation that facilities Other Federal rules also apply, arguing that the words of the proposal, should address the need to comply with making further SPCC rules unnecessary. when taken in conjunction with Federal, State, and local governmental Oil storage facilities are considered § 112.7(a) language requiring the use of requirements in areas subject to structures under the National Flood good engineering practice in the flooding. We noted that this Insurance Program (NFIP), and therefore preparation of Plans, were recommendation was consistent with such structures are subject to the contradictory. A commenter noted that Federal Emergency Management Agency Regulations for Floodplain Management § 112.8(c)(1) recommends that materials, (FEMA) rules found at 44 CFR part 60 at 44 CFR 60.3. Some of the specific construction, and installation of tanks for aboveground storage tanks located in NFIP standards that may apply for adhere to industry standards ‘‘which are flood hazard areas. aboveground storage tanks include the required in the application of good Comments. One commenter suggested following: (1) tanks must be designed so engineering practice for the construction that exploration and production tanks that they are elevated to or above the and operation of the tank.’’ The located in flood plain areas should be base flood level (100-year flood) or be commenter asserted that since it is clear adequately secured through proper designed so that the portion of the tank in the preamble that the Agency’s intent mechanical or engineering methods to below the base flood level is watertight is to make the use of industry standards reduce the chance of loss of product. with walls substantially impermeable to a recommendation rather than a

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47116 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

requirement, the rule should be The use of the phrase ‘‘such as pressure Seventy-two-hour impermeability modified to reflect that. Another and temperature’’ already indicates that standard. Similar to the comments commenter supported the proposal as a these are only some examples of such directed toward the proposed requirement on the theory that all tanks conditions. requirements for secondary containment should be required to meet industry in § 112.7(c), some commenters objected Section 112.8(c)(2)—Secondary standards. A third commenter asked for to the proposed 72-hour impermeability Containment—Bulk Storage Containers clarification as to whether we intended standard. See the comments and a recommendation or a requirement. Background. In 1991, we reproposed response to comments for § 112.7(c) One commenter asked that we current secondary containment above. specifically reference steel storage tank requirements with several significant Response to comments. Secondary systems standards in the rule. additions. We gave notice in the containment, in general. A primary Response to comments. Requirement preamble (at 56 FR 54622–23) that containment system is the container or v. recommendation. The first sentence ‘‘sufficient freeboard’’ is freeboard equipment in which oil is stored or of the proposed rule indeed sufficient to contain precipitation from used. Secondary containment is a contemplated a requirement, i.e., that no a 25-year storm event. We also proposed requirement for all bulk storage container may be used for the storage of in rule language that diked areas must facilities, large or small, manned or oil unless its material and construction be sufficiently impervious to contain unmanned; and for facilities that use are compatible with the material stored spilled oil for at least 72 hours. The oil-filled equipment; whenever and the conditions of storage, such as current standard is that such diked areas practicable. Such containment must at pressure or temperature. The second must be ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ to least provide for the capacity of the sentence, which was clearly a contain spilled oil. largest single tank with sufficient recommendation, has been deleted from Comments. Secondary containment, freeboard for precipitation. A discharge the rule because we have decided to in general. One commenter asked for as described in § 112.1(b) from a small remove all recommendations from the clarification of what ‘‘primary facility may be as environmentally rule language. Rules are mandates, and containment system’’ means. One devastating as such a discharge from a we do not wish to confuse the regulated commenter opposed the requirement for large facility, depending on the community as to what actions are secondary containment on the grounds surrounding environment. Likewise, a mandatory and what actions are that impervious containment of a discharge from a manned facility needs discretionary. The Professional Engineer volume greater than the largest single to be contained just as a discharge from must, pursuant to § 112.3(d)(1)(iii), tank may not be necessary for all tanks, an unmanned one. A phase-in of these certify that he has considered applicable and that existing facilities may find it requirements is not appropriate because industry standards in the preparation of difficult to retrofit. In this vein, another secondary containment is already the Plan. While he must consider such commenter asked for a phase-in of the required under current rules. When standards, use of any particular requirements, and a third asked for secondary containment is not standards is a matter of good variance provisions so that a facility practicable, the owner or operator of a engineering practice. would not have to make small additions facility may deviate from the Industry standards. Industry to its secondary containment for requirement under § 112.7(d), explain standards that may assist an owner or minimum environmental benefit. the rationale in the Plan, provide a operator with the material and Another commenter argued that the contingency plan following the construction of containers include: (1) requirement should be applied to large provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and API Standard 620, ‘‘Design and facilities only. One commenter believed otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). Construction of Large Welded Low- that the proposal duplicates NPDES Because a pit used as a form of Pressure Storage Tanks’’; (2) API stormwater rules. Two commenters secondary containment may pose a Standard 650, ‘‘Welded Steel Tanks for believed the requirement should apply threat to birds and wildlife, we Oil Storage’’; (3) Steel Tank Institute only to unmanned facilities. See also the encourage an owner or operator who (STI) F911, ‘‘Standard for Diked comments and response to comments uses a pit to take measures to mitigate Aboveground Steel Tanks’’; (4) STI concerning secondary containment in the effect of the pit on birds and Publication R931, ‘‘Double Wall the discussion of § 112.7(c), above. wildlife. Such measures may include Aboveground Storage Tank Installation Sufficient freeboard. Several netting, fences, or other means to keep and Testing Instruction’’; (5) UL commenters said that the standard of a birds or animals away. In some cases, Standard 58, ‘‘Standard for Steel 25-year storm event might be difficult to pits may also cause a discharge as Underground Tanks for Flammable and determine without extensive described in § 112.1(b). The discharge Combustible Liquids’’; (6) UL Standard meteorological studies. Other may occur when oil spills over the top 142, ‘‘Steel Aboveground Tanks for commenters asked for clarification of of the pit or when oil seeps through the Flammable and Combustible Liquids’’; the terms ‘‘sufficient’’ and ‘‘freeboard,’’ ground into groundwater, and thence to (7) UL Standard 1316, ‘‘Standard for or of the phrase ‘‘sufficient freeboard.’’ navigable waters or adjoining Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Likewise, several commenters asked for shorelines. Therefore, we recommend Underground Storage Tanks for clarification of the Agency’s position that an owner or operator not use pits Petroleum Products’’; and, (8) Petroleum that sufficient freeboard would be that in an area where such pit may prove a Equipment Institute (PEI) which would withstand a 25-year storm source of such discharges. Should the Recommended Practice 200, event. Two commenters suggested a oil reach navigable waters or adjoining ‘‘Recommended Practices for standard of 110% of tank capacity. shorelines, it is a reportable discharge Installation of Aboveground Storage Other commenters suggested under 40 CFR 110.6. Systems for Motor Vehicle Fueling.’’ alternatives for the 25-year storm event, We disagree that the rule is Editorial changes and clarifications. such as a 24-hour, 10 year rain; or a 24- duplicative of NPDES rules. Forseeable ‘‘Bulk storage tanks’’ becomes ‘‘bulk hour, 25-year storm. Another or chronic point source discharges that storage containers.’’ We deleted the commenter suggested the adequacy of are permitted under CWA section 402, abbreviation ‘‘etc.’’ from the end of the freeboard should be left flexible on a and that are either due to causes paragraph because it is unnecessary. facility-specific basis. associated with the manufacturing or

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47117

other commercial activities in which the and retain the current standard that § 112.7(d), if secondary containment is discharger is engaged or due to the diked areas must be sufficiently not practicable, you may provide a operation of treatment facilities required impervious to contain oil. We take this contingency plan in your SPCC Plan by the NPDES permit, are to be step because we agree with commenters and otherwise comply with that section. regulated under the NPDES program. that the purpose of secondary In the last sentence, ‘‘plant’’ becomes ‘‘Classic spill’’ situations are subject to containment is to contain oil from ‘‘facility.’’ Also in that sentence, the the requirements of CWA section 311. reaching waters of the United States. phrase ‘‘so that a spill could terminate Such spills are governed by section 311 The rationale for the 72-hour standard ***’’ becomes ‘‘so that any even where the discharger holds a valid was to allow time for the discovery and discharge will terminate.* * *’’ and effective NPDES permit under removal of an oil spill. We believe that Section 112.8(c)(3)—Drainage of section 402. 52 FR 10712, 10714. an owner or operator of a facility should Rainwater Therefore, the typical bulk storage have flexibility in how to prevent facility with no permitted discharge or discharges as described in § 112.1(b), Background. In 1991, we reproposed treatment facility would not be under and that any method of containment the current rule on drainage of the NPDES rules. that achieves that end is sufficient. rainwater, incorporating the CWA The secondary containment Should such containment fail, an owner standard, i.e., ‘‘that may be harmful,’’ requirements of the rule apply to bulk or operator must immediately clean up into the proposal. storage containers and their purpose is any discharged oil. Similarly, we intend In 1997, we proposed that records to help prevent discharges as described that the purpose of the ‘‘sufficiently required under NPDES §§ 122.41(j)(2) in § 112.1(b) by containing discharged impervious’’ standard is to prevent and 122.41(m)(3) would suffice for oil. NPDES rules, on the other hand, discharges as described in § 112.1(b) by purposes of this section, so that you may at times require secondary ensuring that diked areas can contain oil would not have to prepare duplicate containment, but do not always. and are sufficiently impervious to records specifically for SPCC purposes. Furthermore, NPDES rules may not prevent such discharges. The proposed change would also apply always apply to bulk storage facilities. Industry standards. Industry to records maintained regarding Therefore, the rule is not always standards that may assist an owner or inspection of diked areas in onshore oil duplicative of NPDES rules. Where it is operator with secondary containment production facilities prior to drainage. duplicative, an owner or operator of a for bulk storage containers include: (1) See 112.9(b)(1). facility subject to NPDES rules may use NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible Comments. 1991 comments. One that portion of his Best Management Liquids Code’’; (2) BOCA, National Fire commenter in 1991 suggested that we Practice Plan as part of his SPCC Plan. Prevention Code; (3) API Standard 2610, allow use of NPDES records for Sufficient freeboard. An essential part ‘‘Design Construction, Operation, purposes of this section. Another of secondary containment is sufficient Maintenance, and Inspection of commenter suggested that records of freeboard to contain precipitation. Terminal and Tank Facilities’’; and, (4) discharges that do not violate water Whatever method you use to calculate Petroleum Equipment Institute quality standards are unnecessary. the amount of freeboard that is Recommended Practice 200, 1997 comments. Many commenters ‘‘sufficient’’ must be documented in the ‘‘Recommended Practices for favored the 1997 proposal. One Plan. We believe that the proper Installation of Aboveground Storage commenter opposed the proposal if the standard of ‘‘sufficient freeboard’’ to Systems for Motor Vehicle Fueling.’’ records were not to be required by contain precipitation is that amount Editorial changes and clarifications. NPDES. Specifically, the commenter necessary to contain precipitation from In the first sentence, ‘‘spill’’ becomes sought an exemption for discharges of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. That ‘‘discharge.’’ Also in that sentence, rainwater containing animal fats and standard allows flexibility for varying ‘‘contents of the largest single tank’’ vegetable oils if such discharges are not climatic conditions. It is also the becomes ‘‘capacity of the largest single regulated under NPDES rules. The standard required for certain tank container.’’ This is merely a clarification commenter believed that an exception systems storing or treating hazardous and has always been the intent of the should be created for reporting and waste. See, for example, 40 CFR rule. The contents of a container may recording dike bypasses of 265.1(e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii). While we vary from day to day, but the capacity § 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D) relating to animal believe that 25-year, 24-hour storm remains the same. In discussing fats and vegetable oil storage, only event standard is appropriate for most capacity, we noted in the 1991 preamble requiring such reporting and recording facilities and protective of the that ‘‘the oil storage capacity (emphasis if required by an NPDES stormwater environment, we are not making it a added) of the equipment, however, must permit, because in all cases discharge of rule standard because of the difficulty be included in determining the total contaminated stormwater is not and expense for some facilities of storage capacity of the facility, which permitted. Asking why EPA should securing recent information concerning determines whether a facility is subject regulate stormwater bypass events if the such storm events at this time. Recent to the Oil Pollution Prevention stormwater is not contaminated, the data does not exist for all areas of the regulation.’’ 56 FR 54623. We discuss commenter argued that if stormwater United States. Furthermore, available this capacity in the context of the permits do not require reporting and data may be costly for small operators general requirements for secondary recording of dike bypass events, then to secure. Should recent and containment. Thus, it is clear that we EPA should not require an added tier of inexpensive information concerning a have always intended capacity to be the regulation under SPCC Plans. Other 25-year, 24-hour storm event for any determinative factor in both subjecting a commenters thought that EPA was part of the United States become easily facility to the rule and in determining adopting by reference the NPDES rules accessible, we will reconsider proposing the need for secondary containment. and sought clarification on the issue. such a standard. We also deleted the phrase ‘‘but they Response to comments. We agree with Seventy-two-hour impermeability may not always be appropriate’’ from the first 1991 commenter mentioned standard. As noted above, we have the third sentence of the paragraph above and proposed that change in decided to withdraw the proposal for because it is confusing when compared 1997. We disagree with the second 1991 the 72-hour impermeability standard to the text of § 112.7(d). Under commenter that records of discharges

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47118 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that do not violate water quality complained that the proposal included recommendation that such buried tanks standards are unnecessary. Such records no discussion of cathodic protection for be subject to regular ‘‘leak testing.’’ show that the facility has complied with tank bottoms in contact with soil or fill Proposed § 112.8(c)(4). Leak testing for the rule. materials. Others thought facilities with purposes of this paragraph is testing to We are not adopting the NPDES rules underground tanks subject to part 112 ensure liquid tightness of a container for SPCC purposes, but are only offering should be required to develop a and whether it may discharge oil. We an alternative for recordkeeping. The corrosion protection plan consistent specified leak testing in the proposal, intent of the rule is that you may, if you with 40 CFR part 280, the rules for the instead of pressure testing, in order to choose, use the NPDES stormwater Underground Storage Tanks Program. be consistent with many State discharge records in lieu of records Leak testing. Several commenters regulations and because the technology specifically created for SPCC purposes. opposed the proposed recommendation on such testing was rapidly evolving. 56 We are not incorporating the NPDES for leak testing, arguing that owner/ FR at 54623. requirements into our rules by operator discretion should be retained. We are modifying the leak testing reference. One commenter suggested that practices recommendation to make it a This paragraph applies to discharges for annual integrity testing and for the requirement. We agree with the of rainwater from diked areas that may installation of pipes under 40 CFR part commenter who argued that such testing contain any type of oil, including 280 should be changed from should be mandatory because animal fats and vegetable oils. The only recommended practices to required recommendations may not often be purpose of this paragraph is to offer a practices because recommendations followed. Appropriate methods of recordkeeping option so that you do not with standards are not usually followed. testing should be selected based on good have to create a duplicate set of records Response to comments. Corrosion engineering practice. Whatever method for SPCC purposes, when adequate protection. We agree in principle that all and schedule for testing the PE selects records created for NPDES purposes completely buried tanks should have must be described in the Plan. Testing already exist. some type of corrosion protection, but under the standards set out in 40 CFR Editorial changes and clarifications. as proposed, we will only extend that part 280 or a State program approved In the introduction to the paragraph requirement to new completely buried under 40 CFR part 281 is certainly (c)(3), ‘‘drainage of rainwater’’ becomes metallic storage tanks. Because acceptable (as we suggested in the ‘‘drainage of uncontaminated corrosion protection is a feature of the proposed rule). ‘‘Regular testing’’ means rainwater.’’ In paragraph (c)(3)(ii), current rule (see § 112.7(e)(2)(iv)), the testing in accordance with industry which read, ‘‘* * * run-off rainwater requirement applies to completely standards or at a frequency sufficient to ensures compliance with applicable buried metallic tanks installed on or prevent leaks. water quality standards and will not after January 10, 1974. The requirement Editorial changes and clarifications. cause a discharge as described in 40 is enforceable because it is a procedure The first sentence of the proposed rule CFR part 110’’ becomes ‘‘*** or method to prevent the discharge of was deleted because it was surplus, and retained rainwater to ensure that its oil. See section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA. contained no mandatory requirements. presence will not cause a discharge as Most owners or operators of completely It merely noted that completely buried described in § 112.1(b).’’ Also in that buried storage tanks will be exempted metallic storage tanks represent a paragraph, we deleted the phrase from part 112 under this rule because potential for undetected spills. ‘‘Buried ‘‘applicable water quality standards’’ such tanks are subject to all of the installation’’ becomes ‘‘completely because such standards are technical requirements of 40 CFR part buried metallic storage tank,’’ to accord encompassed within the phrase ‘‘a 280 or a State program approved under with the definition in § 112.2. We clarify discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ 40 CFR part 281. Those tanks subject to that a ‘‘new’’ installation is one installed 40 CFR part 280 or a State program Section 112.8(c)(4)—Completely Buried on or after January 10, 1974, the approved under 40 CFR part 281 will Tanks; Corrosion Protection effective date of the SPCC rule, by follow the corrosion protection deleting the word ‘‘new’’ and Background. In 1991, we reproposed provisions of that rule, which provides substituting the date. We deleted the the current rule requiring that new comparable environmental protection. phrase ‘‘or other effective methods,’’ completely buried metallic storage tank Those that remain subject to the SPCC because it is confusing when compared installations (i.e., installed on or after regulation must comply with this to the text of § 112.7(a)(2). Under January 10, 1974) must be protected paragraph. § 112.7(a)(2), if you explain your reasons from corrosion by coatings, cathodic The rule requires corrosion protection for nonconformance, you may use protection, or effective methods for completely buried metallic tanks by alternate methods providing equivalent compatible with local soil conditions. a method compatible with local soil environmental protection. We recommended that such buried conditions. Local soil conditions might tanks be subjected to regular leak include fill material. The method of Section 112.8(c)(5)—Partially Buried or testing. The rationale for the such corrosion protection is a question Bunkered Tanks; Corrosion Protection recommendation was that testing of good engineering practice which will Background. In 1991, we proposed technology was rapidly advancing and vary from facility to facility. You should changing the current requirement to we wanted more information on such monitor such corrosion protection for avoid using partially buried metallic technology before making the effectiveness, in order to be sure that the tanks into a recommendation. We recommendation a requirement. We also method of protection you choose proposed that if you do use such tanks, stated a desire to be consistent with remains protective. See § 112.8(d)(1) for that you must protect them from many State rules. a discussion of corrosion protection for corrosion. Comments. Corrosion protection. One buried piping. Comments. One commenter argued commenter supported the proposal for Leak testing. The current SPCC rule that the rule should only apply to new corrosion protection. Another thought a contains a provision calling for the tanks. requirement for corrosion protection ‘‘if ‘‘regular pressure testing’’ of buried Response to comments. Requirement soil conditions warrant’’ would be metallic storage tanks. 40 CFR v. recommendation. Due to the risk of unenforceable. A third commenter 112.7(e)(2)(iv). We proposed in 1991 a discharge caused by corrosion, we

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47119

decided to keep the current requirement Applicability of integrity testing. agree with commenters that testing to not use partially buried metallic Some asked for an exemption for tanks according to industry standards is tanks, unless the buried section of such inside buildings. Others asked for an preferable, and thus will maintain the tanks are protected from corrosion. The exemption for number 5 and 6 fuel oils, current standard of regularly scheduled requirement to not use such tanks, and asphalt, because such oils are heavy testing instead of prescribing a unless they are protected from and would not flow very far. Some particular period for testing. Industry corrosion, applies to all partially buried commenters believed the requirement standards may at times be more specific metallic tanks, installed at any time. should not apply to small facilities and more stringent than our proposed Editorial changes and clarifications. because it is ‘‘not standard industry rule. For example, API Standard 653 Bunkered tanks are a subset of partially practice’’ to conduct these tests at small provides specific criteria for internal buried tanks, and are included within facilities. Another commenter stated inspection frequencies based on the the rule to clarify that it applies to all that while most large corporations calculated corrosion rate, rather than an partially buried tanks. We did not perform testing at some frequency, most arbitrary time period. API Standard 653 finalize the proposed phrase ‘‘or other smaller businesses do not. The allows the aboveground storage tank effective methods,’’ because it is commenter suggested that exemptions (AST) owner or operator the flexibility confusing when compared to the text of because of size or quantity of oil stored to implement a number of options to § 112.7(a)(2). Under § 112.7(a)(2), if you should not be granted because the identify and prevent problems which explain your reasons for smaller facilities generally are more in ultimately lead to a loss of tank nonconformance, you may use alternate need of testing. integrity. It establishes a minimum and methods providing equivalent Several commenters suggested that maximum interval between internal environmental protection. The proposed integrity testing should be waived for inspections. It requires an internal AST recommendation that ‘‘partially buried tanks which can be visually inspected inspection when the estimated or bunkered metallic tanks be avoided, on the bottom and all sides, such as corrosion rate indicates the bottom will since partial burial at the earth can tanks located off the ground on crates, have corroded to 0.1 inches. Certain cause rapid corrosion of metallic and which have secondary containment. prevention measures taken to prevent a surfaces, especially at the earth/air One commenter asked that the discharge from the tank bottom may interface’’ becomes a requirement to requirement apply only when the tank affect this action level (thickness). Once ‘‘not use partially buried or bunkered is used to store corrosive materials or this point has been reached, the owner metallic tanks for the storage of oil where the tank has failed within the last or operator has to make a decision, unless you protect the buried section of five years. Other commenters asked for depending on the future service and a phase-in of the requirement. Utilities the tank from corrosion.’’ operating environment of the tank, to asked that the requirement not apply to either replace the whole tank, line the Section 112.8(c)(6)—Integrity Testing electrical equipment because no bottom, add cathodic protection, replace methods exist for integrity testing of Background. In 1991, we proposed the tank bottom with a new bottom, add such equipment, and because the that integrity testing for bulk storage a release prevention barrier, or some primary reason for failure of such tanks be conducted at least every ten combination of the above. equipment is not corrosion, but Another benefit from the use of years and when material repairs are mechanical failure. industry standards is that they specify conducted. We gave several examples of Material repairs. Several commenters when and where specific tests may and ‘‘material repairs’’ in the preamble. The asked for clarification as to the meaning may not be used. For example, API current requirement for such testing is of ‘‘material repairs.’’ Standard 653 is very specific as to when that it be ‘‘periodic.’’ We also proposed Method of testing. Some commenters radiographic tests may be used and that visual inspection, as a method of favored visual inspection only because when a full hydrostatic test is required testing, must be combined with some it might be used more frequently than after shell repairs. Depending on shell other method, because visual testing any other method of testing. Another material toughness and thickness a full alone is insufficient for an integrity test. commenter asked for clarification if hydrotest is required for certain shell 56 FR at 54623. visual inspection meant inspection of repairs. Allowing a visual inspection in In 1997, we added a proposed both the interior and exterior of a tank. these cases risks a tank failure similar to sentence to the rule which would allow Another commenter suggested that we the 1988 Floreffe, Pennsylvania event. the use of usual and customary business augment integrity testing procedures Testing on a ‘‘regular schedule’’ means records for integrity testing. We with procedures to test the tank bottom testing per industry standards or at a suggested that records maintained under for settlement and corrosion, and to test frequency sufficient to prevent API Standards 653 and 2610 would roof supports. discharges. Whatever schedule the PE suffice for this purpose. Business records. Most commenters selects must be documented in the Plan. Comments. 10-year integrity testing in favored the proposal to allow use of Applicability of integrity testing. general. One commenter asked for a usual and customary business records Integrity testing is essential for all clarification of the term ‘‘integrity for integrity testing and other purposes. aboveground containers to help prevent testing.’’ Several commenters favored Some commenters argued that the discharges. Testing will show whether the proposal for ten-year integrity suggested API Standards were corrosion has reached a point where testing. Other commenters opposed the unfamiliar to many owners and repairs or replacement of the container requirement or favored turning it into a operators. is needed. Prevention of discharges is recommendation. Several commenters Response to comments. 10-year preferable to cleaning them up proposed testing according to accepted integrity testing in general. Integrity afterwards. Therefore, it must apply to industry standards, such as American testing is a necessary component of any large and small containers, containers Petroleum Institute (API), National Fire good prevention plan. A number of on and off the ground wherever located, Protection Association (NFPA), commenters supported a requirement and to containers storing any type of oil. Underwriters Laboratory (UL), or for such testing. It will help to prevent From all of these containers there exists American Society of Mechanical discharges by testing the strength and the possibility of discharge. Because Engineers (ASME). imperviousness of the container. We electrical, operating, and manufacturing

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47120 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

equipment are not bulk storage Standards 653 and 2610 for purposes of include a recommendation that containers, the requirement is this section, if you choose. Other usual retention systems be designed to hold inapplicable to those devices or and customary business records either the contents of an entire tank. We also equipment. 56 FR 54623. Also, as noted existing or to be developed in the future proposed to change the current by commenters, methods may not exist may also suffice. Or, you may elect to requirement to consider the feasibility for integrity testing of such devices or keep separate records for SPCC of installing external heating systems equipment. purposes. This section requires you to into a recommendation. Material repairs. The rationale for keep comparison records. Section Comments. One commenter proposed testing at the time material repairs are 112.7(e) requires retention of these that instead of requiring a retention conducted is that such repairs could records for three years. You should note, system which would hold the entire materially increase the potential for oil however, that certain industry standards contents of a tank, that an oil/water to be discharged from the tank. (for example, API Standards 570 and separator might work just as well. Examples of such repairs include 653) may specify that an owner or Another commenter opposed requiring removing or replacing the annular plate operator maintain records for longer the use of oil/water separators. As to the ring; replacement of the container than three years. proposed recommendation to consider bottom; jacking of a container shell; Industry standards. Industry use of external heating systems, one installation of a 12-inch or larger nozzle standards that may assist an owner or commenter objected to the cost which in the shell; a door sheet, tombstone operator with integrity testing include: might be incurred. One commenter replacement in the shell, or other shell (1) API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank Inspection, opposed the proposed recommendation repair; or, such repairs that might Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction’’; due to the belief that leaks in the materially change the potential for oil to (2) API Recommended Practice 575, aboveground piping can be mitigated be discharged from the container. ‘‘Inspection of Atmospheric and Low- through daily inspections and they are Method of testing. The rule requires Pressure Tanks;’’ and, (3) Steel Tank often placed within secondary visual testing in conjunction with Institute Standard SP001–00, ‘‘Standard containment. Another commenter another method of testing, because for Inspection of In-Service Shop asserted that with drainage routed to visual testing alone is normally Fabricated Aboveground Tanks for oil/water separators or holding ponds, insufficient to measure the integrity of Storage of Combustible and Flammable leak proof galleys under aboveground a container. Visual testing alone might Liquids.’’ piping were redundant and not detect problems which could lead to Editorial changes and clarifications. economically unjustified. container failure. For example, studies In the first sentence, ‘‘Aboveground Response to comments. The rule does of the 1988 Ashland oil spill suggest tanks shall be subject to integrity testing not mandate the use of any specific that the tank collapse resulted from a ***’’ becomes ‘‘Test each container separation or retention system. Any brittle fracture in the shell of the tank. for integrity * * *’’ Also in that system that achieves the purpose of the Adequate fracture toughness of the base sentence, the phrase ‘‘or a system of rule is acceptable. That purpose is to metal of existing tanks is an important non-destructive shell testing’’ becomes prevent discharges as described in consideration in discharge prevention, ‘‘or another system of non-destructive § 112.1(b) by controlling leakage. especially in cold weather. Although no shell testing.’’ The last sentence which Editorial changes and clarifications. definitive non-destructive test exists for read, ‘‘* * * the outside of the We deleted the proposed testing fracture toughness, had the tank container must be frequently observed recommendations from the rule because been evaluated for brittle fracture, for by operating personnel for signs of we do not wish to confuse the regulated example under API standard 653, and deterioration, leaks, * * *’’ becomes public as to what is mandatory and had the evaluation shown that the tank ‘‘* * * you must frequently inspect the what is discretionary. We have included was at risk for brittle fracture, the owner outside of the container for signs of only requirements in the rule. or operator could have taken measures deterioration, leaks, * * *’’ We made to repair or modify the tank’s operation that change because the requirements of Section 112.8(c)(8)—Good Engineering to prevent failure. this paragraph are the responsibility of Practice—Alarm Systems For certain smaller shop-built the owner or operator, not of ‘‘operating Background. In 1991, we reproposed containers in which internal corrosion personnel.’’ the current rule on ‘‘fail-safe’’ poses minimal risk of failure; which are ‘‘Integrity testing’’ is any means to engineering. We added a proposal to inspected at least monthly; and, for measure the strength (structural allow alternate technologies. We which all sides are visible (i.e., the soundness) of the container shell, recommended that sensing devices be container has no contact with the bottom, and/or floor to contain oil and tested in accordance with industry ground), visual inspection alone might may include leak testing to determine standards. suffice, subject to good engineering whether the container will discharge oil. Comments. Editorial changes and practice. In such case the owner or It includes, but is not limited to, testing clarifications. Several commenters operator must explain in the Plan why foundations and supports of containers. objected to the term ‘‘fail-safe’’ visual integrity testing alone is Its scope includes both the inside and engineering because they believe that sufficient, and provide equivalent outside of the container. It also includes nothing is ever fail-safe. They suggested environmental protection. 40 CFR frequent observation of the outside of using the term ‘‘in accordance with 112.7(a)(2). However, containers which the container for signs of deterioration, good engineering practice,’’ or are in contact with the ground must be leaks, or accumulation of oil inside ‘‘consistent with accepted industry evaluated for integrity in accordance diked areas. practices’’ instead. with industry standards and good Applicability. One commenter engineering practice. Section 112.8(c)(7)—Leakage; Internal thought the proposed requirement Business records. You may use usual Heating Coils should apply to large facilities only or and customary business records, at your Background. In 1991, we proposed facilities that were the cause of a option, for purposes of integrity testing that the current rule on controlling reportable spill within the preceding recordkeeping. Specifically, you may leakage through defective internal three years. One commenter suggested a use records maintained under API heating coils should be modified to phase-in of the requirement.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47121

Monitoring. One commenter substantive change in the level of commenter noted that reference to a suggested that a person must be present environmental protection required, it is spill event within a diked area is to monitor gauges when a fast response merely editorial. Finally, in the inconsistent with its definition. system is used to prevent container introductory paragraph the phrase ‘‘one Applicability. Some commenters overfilling. Another suggested that the or more of the following devices’’ thought the requirement should not requirement for alarm devices not apply becomes ‘‘at least one of the following.’’ apply to small facilities because of the to containers where an operator is Not all of the items listed under this likelihood that the discharge would be present. paragraph are devices. For example, smaller. Alternatives. One commenter regular testing of liquid sensing devices Extent and methods of cleanup. One suggested that certain ‘‘procedures’’ is a procedure. Therefore, the word commenter suggested that covering soil might suffice instead of alarm devices. ‘‘devices’’ was incomplete. In paragraph with plastic film may be an acceptable Another commenter suggested that we (i), ‘‘manned operation’’ becomes method to prevent stormwater need to be specific as to methods of ‘‘attended operation,’’ and ‘‘plants’’ contamination during remediation. testing. becomes ‘‘facilities.’’ In paragraph (iv), Some commenters suggested that where Response to comments. Applicability. the phrase ‘‘or their equivalent,’’ was a spill creates a risk of fire or explosion, Alarm system devices are necessary for deleted because it is confusing when the first priority should be to eliminate all facilities, large or small, to prevent compared with the text of § 112.7(a)(2). such threats before undertaking discharges. Such systems alert the Under § 112.7(a)(2), you may deviate cleanup. Several commenters asked owner or operator to potential container from a requirement if you explain your whether removal of accumulations of oil overfills, which are a common cause of reasons for nonconformance, and means complete removal. Some discharges. Because this is a provide equivalent environmental commenters feared that a requirement to requirement in the current rule, no protection. Proposed paragraph (v), remove oil-contaminated materials phase-in is necessary. relating to alternative technologies, was would be interpreted to mean that Monitoring. We agree with the deleted because alternative devices are cleanup of portions of the dike that are commenter that a person must be allowed under § 112.7(a)(2). oil-stained is required. The commenters present to monitor a fast response were concerned that such a cleanup system to prevent overfills and have Section 112.8(c)(9)—Effluent Disposal amended the rule accordingly. We Facilities would undermine the stability of the disagree that the requirement for alarm dike and would be unnecessary. One Background. In 1991, we reproposed commenter argued that complete devices should not apply when a person the current rule on observation of is present, because human error, removal would compound landfill effluent disposal facilities. disposal problems. Another commenter negligence, on inattention may still Comments. We received only one asked whether the rule contemplates occur in those cases, necessitating some comment which asked us to clarify that cleanup of soil contaminated by past kind of alarm device. ‘‘effluents’’ mean oil-contaminated practices. Some commenters argued that Alternatives. Under the deviation rule water collected within secondary the 72-hour requirement would at § 112.7(a)(2), you may substitute containment areas, and that ‘‘disposal preclude bioremediation. ‘‘procedures’’ or other measures that facilities’’ means ‘‘treatment facilities.’’ provide equivalent environmental Editorial changes and clarifications. 72-hour cleanup standard. Some protection as any of the alarm systems ‘‘Oil spill event’’ becomes ‘‘discharge as commenters asked how a 72-hour time mandated in the rule if you can explain described in § 112.1(b).’’ ‘‘System limit would be calculated. Those your reasons for nonconformance. upset’’ refers to an event involving a commenters suggested that the clock Industry standards. Industry discharge of oil-contaminated water. begin to run from the time of the standards that may assist an owner or ‘‘Effluent’’ means oil-contaminated discharge itself, or of its discovery. operator with alarm systems, discharge water. ‘‘Disposal facilities’’ becomes Others suggested different time periods prevention systems, and inventory ‘‘effluent treatment facilities.’’ from ‘‘immediately,’’ ‘‘as soon as control include: (1) NFPA 30, possible,’’ ‘‘within 72 hours,’’ ‘‘within ‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids Section 112.8(c)(10)—Visible Oil Leaks 96 hours,’’ or ‘‘expeditiously.’’ One Code’’; (2) API Recommended Practice Background. In 1991, we reproposed commenter suggested no time limit. 2350, ‘‘Overfill Protection for Storage the current requirement that visible oil Some commenters noted that a Tanks in Petroleum Facilities’’; and, (3) leaks must be promptly corrected. containment system might be designed API, ‘‘Manual of Petroleum Additionally, we proposed that to contain oil for more than 72 hours Measurement Standards.’’ accumulated oil or oil-contaminated before it begins to leak. Editorial changes and clarifications. materials must be removed within 72 One commenter suggested that, Throughout, ‘‘tank’’ becomes hours. The 72-hour proposal in this depending on site conditions, a 72-hour ‘‘container.’’ In the introductory paragraph was consistent with the time limit might jeopardize worker paragraph, we deleted the words ‘‘as far proposal in § 112.7(c). The rationale was health and safety. Another sought as practical’’ from the rule text because that a 72-hour time period would allow clarification on the need to clean up they are confusing when compared with time for discovery and removal of an oil small discharges as opposed to larger the text of § 112.7(a)(2). Under discharge in most cases. We suggested ones within the proposed time limit. § 112.7(a)(2), you may deviate from a in the preamble to the 1991 proposal Numerous commenters opposed this requirement if you explain your reasons that most facilities are attended at some requirement because it might preclude for nonconformance and provide time within a 72-hour time period. 56 bioremediation. Some thought it would equivalent environmental protection. FR 54621. be impossible to meet. ‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ We Comments. Editorial changes and Response to comments. Applicability. agree with the commenter that ‘‘fail- clarifications. One commenter asked for The requirement to clean up an safe’’ engineering is inappropriate and clarification of the meaning of accumulation of oil is applicable to all have substituted ‘‘in accordance with ‘‘accumulation’’ of oil. Others asked for facilities, large and small. The damage good engineering practice.’’ The change clarification of the meaning of ‘‘oil to the environment may be the same, in terminology does not imply any contaminated materials.’’ Another depending on the amount discharged.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47122 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Extent of and methods of cleanup. in the proposed rule because oil must to prevent ‘‘a discharge as described in Prevention of contamination is always accumulate on something such as § 112.1(b),’’ rather than ‘‘oil discharges.’’ the preferred alternative. If you choose, materials or soil. Therefore, the term is ‘‘A discharge as described in § 112.1(b)’’ you may spread plastic film over the redundant. Instead we refer to an is a more inclusive term, tracking the diked area if it will prevent the accumulation of oil, which includes expanded scope of the amended CWA. occurrence of an accumulation of oil. Of anything on which the oil gathers or Time limits. We decline to place a course, you must then dispose of the amasses within the diked area. Such time limitation in a definition of mobile film properly. We agree with accumulation may include oil- or portable containers. Mobile or commenters that where a discharge contaminated soil or any other oil- portable containers may be in place for creates a risk of fire or explosion, the contaminated material within the diked more than ten days and still be mobile. first priority should be to eliminate such area impairing the secondary Mobile containers that are in place for threat before undertaking cleanup. But containment system. See also the less than 10 days may still experience once that threat is removed, correction discussion of ‘‘accumulation of oil’’ a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). of the source of the discharge and included with the response to Secondary containment. In response cleanup must begin promptly. comments of § 112.9(b)(2). We have to comments, we have maintained the No matter what method of cleanup removed the term ‘‘spill event’’ from the secondary containment requirement in you choose, you must completely proposed paragraph and note that we the current rule because secondary remove the accumulation of oil. Any agree with the commenter who noted containment is necessary for mobile method that works and complies with that reference to a ‘‘spill event,’’ or ‘‘a containers for the same reason that it is all other applicable laws and regulations discharge as described in § 112.1(b),’’ necessary for fixed containers; to is acceptable. Bioremediation may be within a diked area is inconsistent with prevent discharges from becoming one acceptable method of cleanup. that concept. discharges as described in § 112.1(b). Acceptable methods will depend on Secondary containment must also be weather and other environmental Section 112.8(c)(11)—Mobile Containers designed so that there is ample conditions. We do not mean to limit Background. In 1991, we proposed to freeboard for anticipated precipitation. cleanup methods, which will depend on require that mobile tanks be positioned We have therefore amended the rule on good engineering practice. If the or located to prevent oil discharges. We the suggestion of a commenter to cleanup method you choose would recommended secondary containment provide for freeboard. We agree with the undermine the stability of the dike, you for the largest single compartment or commenter that the amount of freeboard must repair the dike to its previous tank of any mobile container. We also should be sufficient to contain a 25-year condition. recommended that these containers not storm event, but are not adopting that 72-hour cleanup standard. We have be located where they will be subject to standard because of the difficulty and deleted the 72-hour cleanup standard periodic flooding or washout. expense for some facilities in securing because it would preclude Comments. Scope of discharge recent information concerning 25-year, bioremediation. We also agree that prevention. One commenter asked that 24-hour storm events at this time. under certain circumstances, such a the rule be amended to refer to Should that situation change, we will limit might jeopardize worker health discharges to navigable waters, instead reconsider proposing such a standard in and safety. Therefore, we have of discharges. rule text. Freeboard sufficient to contain maintained the current standard that Time limits. One commenter asked precipitation is freeboard according to visible discharges must be promptly that a mobile or portable container be industry standards, or in an amount that removed. ‘‘Prompt’’ removal means defined as a container which is in place will avert a discharge as described in beginning the cleanup of any on a contiguous property for 10 days or § 112.1(b). Should secondary accumulation of oil immediately after less. containment not be practicable, you discovery of the discharge, or Secondary containment. Two may be able to deviate from the immediately after any actions to prevent commenters supported the secondary requirement under § 112.7(d). fire or explosion or other threats to containment proposals, but favored We clarify that the secondary worker health and safety, but such making them requirements instead of containment requirement relates to the actions may not be used to unreasonably recommendations. One commenter capacity of the largest single delay such efforts. The size of the asked that the secondary containment compartment or container. Permanently accumulation is irrelevant, as any recommendation for the largest single manifolded tanks are tanks that are accumulation may migrate to navigable compartment or container be modified designed, installed, or operated in such waters or adjoining shorelines. to include tanks which are manifolded a manner that the multiple containers Editorial changes and clarifications. together or otherwise have overflow function as a single storage unit. ‘‘Leaks’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ ‘‘Tank’’ capabilities. Another commenter Containers that are permanently becomes ‘‘container.’’ ‘‘Accumulation of suggested that secondary containment manifolded together may count as the oil’’ means a discharge that causes a provide freeboard sufficient to contain ‘‘largest single compartment,’’ as ‘‘film or sheen’’ in a diked area, or precipitation from a 25-year storm referenced in the rule. causes a sludge or emulsion there. See event. Floods. We deleted the proposed 40 CFR 110.3(b). The reference to Floods. Other commenters asked for a recommendation on siting of mobile violation of applicable water quality requirement that mobile tanks not be containers in this rule because we do standards in 40 CFR 110.3(b) does not located in areas subject to flooding. not wish to confuse the regulated public apply here because the rule assumes Response to comments. Scope of over what is mandatory and what is that the oil will not have reached any discharge prevention. We agree that the discretionary. These rules contain only waters of the United States or adjoining purpose of the rule is to prevent mandatory requirements. shorelines, but stays entirely within the discharges from becoming discharges as Industry standards. Industry diked area of the facility. The term ‘‘oil- described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, in standards that may assist an owner or contaminated materials’’ is not used in response to comment, we have modified operator with secondary containment the rule. We eliminate the term ‘‘oil- the proposed rule to require positioning for mobile containers include: (1) NFPA contaminated materials’’ that was used or locating mobile or portable containers 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47123

Liquids Code’; and, (2) BOCA, ‘‘National facilities. One commenter believed that You should consult a corrosion Fire Prevention Code.’’ the recommendation for buried piping professional before design, installation, Editorial changes and clarifications. installation to comply with 40 CFR part or repair of any corrosion protection ‘‘Spill event’’ becomes ‘‘a discharge as 280 should be a requirement, not a system. Any corrosion protection you described in § 112.1(b).’’ ‘‘Tank’’ recommendation. provide should be installed according to becomes ‘‘container.’’ We deleted the Response to comments. Aboveground relevant industry standards. When word ‘‘onshore’’ because the whole piping recommendation. While we have piping is replaced, you must protect section applies only to onshore deleted the proposed recommendation from corrosion only the replaced facilities. from the rule text because we do not section, although protection of the Section 112.8(d)(1)—Buried Piping— wish to confuse the regulated public entire line whenever possible is Facility Transfer Operations, Pumping, over what is mandatory and what is preferable. Equipping only a small and Facility Process (Onshore) discretionary, we still believe that portion of piping with corrosion (Excluding Production Facilities) piping should be placed aboveground protection may accelerate corrosion whenever possible because such rates on connected unprotected piping. Background. In 1991, we proposed a placement makes it easier to detect new recommendation that all piping While we agree that corrosion discharges. The decision to place piping installations should be placed protection might not prevent all aboveground might include aboveground wherever possible. We discharges from buried piping, it is an consideration of safety and traffic added a new proposed requirement that factors. important measure because it will help would require protective coating and to prevent most discharges. Corrosion protection. Based on EPA cathodic protection for new or replaced Double-walled piping or secondary buried piping. The current rule requires experience, we believe that all soil containment or sensitive leak detection such coating and cathodic protection conditions warrant protection of new for buried piping may be acceptable as only if soil conditions warrant. We and replaced buried piping. EPA’s cause a deviation from the requirements of explained in the preamble that we of release study indicates that the believe that all soil conditions warrant operational piping portion of an this paragraph under § 112.7(a)(2) if you protection of buried piping. We did not underground storage tank system is explain your reasons for propose to make the requirement twice as likely as the tank portion to be nonconformance with the requirement applicable to all existing piping because the source of a discharge. Piping failures and show that the means you selected of the significant possibility that are caused equally by poor provides equivalent environmental replacing all unprotected buried piping workmanship and corrosion. Metal protection to the requirement. However, might cause more discharges than it areas made active by threading have a we will not require such measures would prevent. If soil conditions high propensity to corrode if not coated because we did not propose them. and cathodically protected. See 53 FR warrant such protection for existing We have deleted the recommendation 37082, 37127, September 23, 1988; and piping, it is already required by the from the proposed rule that all buried ‘‘Causes of Release from US Systems,’’ current rule. We also proposed a new piping installations comply to the extent recommendation that buried piping September 1987, EPA 510-R–92–702. If you decide to deviate from the practicable with 40 CFR part 280, installation comply to the extent because we are excluding possible with all the relevant provisions requirement, for example, to provide an alternate means of protection other than recommendations from this rule to of 40 CFR part 280. avoid confusion with what is mandatory Comments. Aboveground piping coating or cathodic protection, you may recommendation. Two commenters do so, but must explain your reasons for and what is discretionary. Also, some favored the recommendation. Others nonconformance, and demonstrate that buried piping now subject to part 112 requested that it be modified to have all you are providing equivalent will be subject only to 40 CFR part 280 piping be aboveground only when environmental protection. A deviation or a State program approved under 40 appropriate, on the theory that some which seeks to avoid coating or cathodic CFR part 281 under this rule. See aboveground piping may become an protection, or some alternate means of § 112.1(d)(4). obstacle to motorized traffic within a buried piping protection, on the Industry standards. Industry facility, or may be a hazard to worker grounds that the soil is somehow standards that may assist an owner or safety because of the possibility of incompatible with such measure(s), will operator with corrosion protection for tripping over it. not be acceptable to EPA. buried piping installations include: (1) Corrosion protection. Several A ‘‘new’’ or ‘‘replaced’’ buried piping National Association of Corrosion commenters supported the proposal to installation is one that is installed 30 Engineers (NACE) Recommended require corrosion protection for all new days or more after the date of Practice-0169, ‘‘Control of External or replaced buried piping. One publication of this rule in the Federal Corrosion on Underground or commenter believed that corrosion Register. We have deleted the words Submerged Metallic Piping Systems’’; protection should be required, as in the ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘replaced’’ from the and, (2) STI Recommended Practice 892, current rule, only where soil conditions proposed language and substituted this ‘‘Recommended Practice for Corrosion warrant. One commenter asked for specific date so the effective date is Protection of Underground Piping clarification that the requirement for clearer to the regulated community. Networks Associated with Liquid replaced piping only applies to the Under the current rule, you have an Storage and Dispensing Systems.’’ section replaced, not necessarily to the obligation to provide buried piping entire line of piping. Another installations with protective wrapping Editorial changes and clarifications. commenter believed that corrosion and coating only if soil conditions In the second sentence of paragraph protection was inadequate to protect warrant such measures. Under the (d)(1), we included a reference to ‘‘a from discharges, and urged a revised rule, you must provide such State program approved under part 281 requirement for double-walled piping or wrapping and coating for new or of this chapter.’’ In the third sentence, secondary containment and product replaced buried piping installations ‘‘examine’’ and ‘‘examination’’ become sensitive leak detection for new regardless of soil conditions. ‘‘inspect’’ and ‘‘inspection.’’

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47124 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Section 112.8(d)(2)—Terminal ‘‘regular’’ examinations. We also every ten years. One commenter Connections recommended that you conduct annual believed that the recommendation Background. In 1991, we proposed integrity and leak testing of buried should not apply to piping of less than that when piping is not in service or is piping, or that you monitor it on a ten feet. Others asked for clarification as in standby service for 6 months or more, monthly basis. Finally, we to the type of testing contemplated. One recommended that all valves, pipes, and commenter suggested that the the terminal connection at the transfer appurtenances conform to relevant recommendation be clarified to refer point must be capped or blank-flanged industry codes, such as ASME only to oil-handling piping and and marked as to origin. The current standards. We proposed deletion from equipment, and not include buried rule requires such capping or blank- the rule of the current requirement for piping unrelated to oil operations. flanging when the piping is not in periodic pressure testing for piping Several commenters suggested that we service or is in standby service ‘‘for an where facility drainage is such that a add a requirement to the rule to conduct extended time.’’ failure might lead to a spill event. integrity and leak testing of protected Comments. One commenter Comments. Monthly examination of piping at the time of installation, supported the six-month clarification of aboveground valves, piping, and modification, construction, relocation, an ‘‘extended time.’’ Several appurtenances. One commenter or replacement, and to conduct an commenters opposed the requirement to supported the visual monthly engineering evaluation of in-service cap or blank-flange piping in standby examination proposal, but suggested unprotected underground piping every service because such piping may be that we require a more sophisticated five years. Another commenter needed to be put into service quickly method of testing every three to four suggested double-walled piping as an during an emergency to ensure safe years, such as pressure testing. Most alternative. One commenter suggested operations at the facility. The other commenters opposed monthly that the recommendation was commenter suggested that the rule be examinations, on grounds of inappropriate for vaulted tanks because reworded to say ‘‘When piping is not in impracticality. Most opposing of the configuration of the tanks. service or is not in standby service.’’ commenters urged testing on a quarterly Response to comments. Monthly Response to comments. We have or semiannual basis, or per industry inspection of aboveground valves, decided to keep the current standard of standards. Some thought the piping, and appurtenances. Inspection requiring capping or blank-flanging requirement should be a of aboveground valves, piping, and terminal connections when such piping recommendation, both for large and appurtenances must be a requirement to is not in service or is in standby for an small facilities. Electrical utility help prevent discharges. Such valves, extended time in order to maintain commenters asserted that the monthly piping, and appurtenances often are flexibility for variable facilities and testing of millions of pieces of located outside of secondary engineering conditions. We define ‘‘an equipment would be extremely containment systems, and often do not extended time’’ in reference to industry burdensome. Several commenters urged have double-wall protection or some standards or at a frequency sufficient to that the examination requirement be form of secondary containment prevent discharges. We disagree with limited to visual examination because of themselves. Therefore, any discharge commenters that the requirement the cost of other methods. from such valves, piping, and should not apply to piping that is not in Buried piping. Several commenters appurtenances is more likely to become standby service because some favored the proposed recommendation a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). discharges may be caused by loading or for annual integrity and leak testing of Examination of discharge reports from unloading oil through the wrong piping buried piping or monitoring of such the Emergency Response Notification or turning the wrong valve when the piping on a monthly basis. One System (ERNS) shows that discharges piping in question was actually out-of- commenter was concerned that the from such valves, piping, and service. Typically, piping that is in recommendation made no concession appurtenances are much more common standby service is only needed in for piping construction material, length than catastrophic tank failure or emergency situations or when there is of time in the ground, etc. Several discharges from tanks. The requirement an operational problem. In the rare commenters believed that the must be applicable to large and small situations when such piping is needed recommendation should be a facilities covered by this section that immediately, the owner or operator may requirement because piping often runs store oil, because of the same threat of remove the cap or blank-flange to return outside of secondary containment; discharge. the piping to service. buried piping cannot be inspected The requirements of this paragraph do Editorial changes and clarifications. visually; discharges are common from not apply to electrical utilities and other ‘‘Examine’’ becomes ‘‘inspect.’’ this piping; and few owners or operators facilities with oil-filled equipment conduct integrity or leak testing of such because they are not bulk storage Section 112.8(d)(3)—Pipe Supports piping. Some thought it should be a facilities. Background. In 1991, we reproposed requirement for all facilities, others just The final rule maintains the current without substantive change the current for large facilities. One commenter standard of ‘‘regular’’ inspections, on rule concerning pipe supports. thought that the requirement to inspect the suggestion of commenters who Comments. We received no comments buried piping only when exposed is noted that at some remote sites monthly on this proposal. Therefore, we have inadequate. The commenter suggested inspections are impractical, especially promulgated the provision as proposed. that the piping should be subject to in harsh weather conditions. pressure testing. The frequency of the Furthermore, we agree with commenters Section 112.8(d)(4)—Inspection of testing would be based on aquifer use. that ‘‘regular’’ inspections are Aboveground Valves and Piping Opposing commenters believed inspections conducted ‘‘in accordance Background. In 1991, we proposed annual testing or monthly monitoring with accepted industry standards,’’ that you examine all aboveground was unnecessary, generally citing cost rather than the monthly proposed valves, piping, and appurtenances on at and practicability reasons. Some standard. You must include least a monthly basis. This contrasts suggested differing time periods for appurtenances in the inspection. with the current requirement of testing, such as every three years, or Inspections may be either visual or by

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47125

other means, including pressure testing. underground piping be subject to below on weight restrictions. Some However, we do not require pressure engineering evaluations every five years, believed the proposed requirement testing or any other specific method. We but we recommend such evaluations be should be a recommendation based on agree that, subject to good engineering conducted in accordance with industry good engineering practices. One thought practice, pressure testing every three or standards to preserve flexibility in case it made no difference. One commenter four years may be warranted in addition the time frame changes with changing proposed as an alternative, marking to regular inspection of aboveground technology. such piping so it could be temporarily valves, piping, and appurtenances. If you have vaulted containers, the protected or avoided. One commenter However, we believe that regular requirement for integrity and leak suggested that it would be more prudent inspection is sufficient to help prevent testing of buried piping might be the to require signs where piping is lower discharges and will not impose any subject of a deviation under § 112.7(a)(2) than 14 feet and located such that additional requirements at this time. if those pipes, valves, and fittings come vehicles can traverse, and recommended Buried piping. We have deleted the out of the top of the container and are that, in addition to signs, verbal text of the proposed recommendation to not buried, or are encased in a double- warnings be provided. conduct annual integrity and leak walled piping system and you thereby Weight restriction posting. Several testing of buried piping or monitor significantly reduce the potential for commenters supported making this buried piping on a monthly basis from corrosion. recommendation a requirement because the rule because we do not wish to Likewise, we have deleted from rule good engineering practice will exclude confuse the regulated public over what text the recommendation that all valves, heavy equipment from crossing buried is mandatory and what is discretionary. pipes, and appurtenances conform to piping which does not have adequate This rule contains only mandatory industry standards, but we endorse its cover to protect the pipe. requirements. However, we continue to substance. Others opposed it on the grounds it endorse the recommendation as a Industry standards. Industry would restrict access to vehicles which discretionary action, and suggest that standards that may assist an owner or ‘‘have driven over the same piping for you conduct such testing according to operator with inspection and testing of a dozen or more years.’’ One commenter industry standards. valves, piping, and appurtenances thought the recommendation was We agree with a commenter that the include: (1) API Standard 570, ‘‘Piping unnecessary because local building proposed recommendation would apply Inspection Code (Inspection, Repair, codes or other standards already address only to ‘‘oil-handling’’ piping and Alteration, and Rerating of In-Service the issue of buried piping protection. valves, not all such piping and valves, Piping Systems’’; (2) API Recommended Some thought the recommendation which may be unrelated to oil activities. Practice 574, ‘‘Inspection Practices for should be a matter of PE discretion. However, no change in rule text is Piping System Components’’; (3) Several commenters thought that the necessary because the entire rule American Society of Mechanical recommendation should apply to large applies only to procedures, methods, or Engineers (ASME) B31.3, ‘‘Process facilities only because only large equipment that are involved with the Piping’’; and, (4) ASME B31.4, ‘‘Liquid facilities will have the type of tanker storage or use of oil. In response to the Transportation Systems for trucks on site which would potentially commenter who urged that the proposed Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas, damage underground piping. One recommendation not apply to buried Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols.’’ commenter thought that small facilities piping of less than 10 feet in length, we Editorial changes and clarifications. should be exempt from the believe that any buried piping, ‘‘Examine’’ and ‘‘examination’’ become recommendation. regardless of length, may cause a ‘‘inspect’’ and ‘‘inspection.’’ We have Another commenter believed that the discharge, and therefore should be deleted the reference to ‘‘operating recommendation should be restricted to tested. Double-walled piping might be personnel’’ in the first sentence because situations where it is not certain that the an acceptable alternative to integrity all of the requirements of this rule, underground piping can withstand all and leak testing or monthly monitoring. except when specifically noted anticipated vehicular traffic. Another If you choose double-walled piping as otherwise, are the responsibility of the commenter suggested that if buried an alternative, you must explain your owner or operator. piping is placed across a thoroughfare, nonconformance with the rule it should be installed with additional requirements, and explain how double- Section 112.8(d)(5)—Vehicular Traffic structural protection. The commenter walled piping provides equivalent Background. In 1991, we reproposed asserted that proper installation is a environmental protection. See the current rule concerning warnings to preventative and is a better alternative 112.7(a)(2). vehicular traffic, because of vehicle size, than a sign because signs are not always On the suggestion of commenters, we to avoid endangering aboveground heeded. have modified the proposed piping. We proposed to amend the rule One commenter suggested that recommendation for annual testing or to include avoidance of endangering posting of weight restrictions at airports monthly monitoring of buried piping ‘‘other transfer operations’’ within the in open areas would be impractical and into a requirement that you must only scope of the warning. We added a impact operations. The commenter conduct integrity and leak testing of recommendation that weight restrictions argued that the proposal was such piping at the time of installation, should be posted, as applicable, to unreasonable where some buried modification, construction, relocation, prevent damage to underground piping. piping/hydrant systems run under ramp or replacement. We believe that when Comments. Vehicular warnings. surfaces. A railroad commenter argued piping is exposed for any reason, Several commenters supported the that the recommendation is overly broad integrity and leak testing of such current requirement to warn vehicular because railroads have a large amount of exposed piping according to industry traffic to avoid endangering piping under track that is built to standards is appropriate because piping aboveground piping or other transfer withstand maximum loads from is visible at that point, and testing is operations because of vehicle size. vehicular traffic, making the posting of easier because the piping is more Others believed that any size or weight signs unnecessary and costly. One accessible. The same commenters also restrictions would unnecessarily burden commenter argued that the requirement recommended that unprotected facility operations. See the comments was inapplicable to vaulted tanks

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47126 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

because the concrete vault reduced the operator is the person with described in § 112.1(b). The risk of such risk of vehicular damage. responsibility to implement a Plan, the a discharge and the accompanying Response to comments. Vehicular mandates of the rule are properly environmental damage may be warnings. The requirement to warn addressed to him, except as specifically devastating whether it comes from a vehicular traffic so that no vehicle will noted. large or small facility. We disagree that endanger aboveground piping or other the recordkeeping is burdensome. If you oil transfer operations applies to all Section 112.9(a)—General are an NPDES permittee, you may use facilities, large or small, because Requirements—Onshore Oil Production the stormwater drainage records vehicular traffic may endanger Facilities required pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) aboveground piping or other transfer Background. This is a new provision and 122.41(m)(3) for SPCC purposes, operations at all facilities. Warnings that merely references the general thereby reducing the recordkeeping may include verbal warnings, signs, or requirements which all facilities must burden. marking and temporary protection of meet as well as the specific Engineering methods. ‘‘Equivalent’’ piping or equipment. No particular requirements that you must meet if you measures referenced in the rule might, height restriction is incorporated into are an owner or operator of a facility in depending on good engineering the rule. Rather, aboveground piping at the category of onshore oil production practice, include using structures such any height must be protected from facilities. as stand pipes designed to handle flow- vehicular traffic unless the piping is so Editorial changes and clarifications. through conditions at water flood oil high that all vehicular traffic passes The obligation to ‘‘address’’ general production operations, where large underneath the piping. In this case, or SPCC requirements becomes the volumes of water may be directed to oil where the requirement is infeasible, you obligation to ‘‘meet’’ those storage tanks if water discharge lines on may be able to use the deviation requirements. ‘‘Spill prevention’’ oil-water separators become plugged. provision in § 112.7(a)(2) if you explain becomes ‘‘discharge prevention.’’ We Any alternate measures must provide your reasons for nonconformance and also deleted the word ‘‘onshore’’ from environmental protection equivalent to provide equivalent environmental the titles of the paragraphs of this the rule requirement. protection. We have deleted the clause section because the entire section Industry standards. Industry concerning the size of vehicles that may applies only to onshore production standards that may assist an owner or endanger piping or oil transfer facilities. operator with facility drainage include operations because the owner or API Recommended Practice 51, operator may not be able to determine Proposed Section 112.9(b)—Definition— ‘‘Onshore Oil and Gas Production precisely when the size or weight of a Onshore Oil Production Facilities Practices for Protection of the vehicle would cause such Background. This proposed section Environment.’’ endangerment. was merely a reference to the old Editorial changes and clarifications. In response to commenters who definition of onshore oil production In response to the commenter’s suggested that the posting of signs is facility (see current § 112.7(e)(5)(i)), suggestion, the reference to ‘‘navigable impractical and might impact which is today incorporated within the waters’’ becomes a reference to ‘‘a operations, or would be very costly, we new definition of production facility. discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ note that you may deviate from the Therefore, the section is no longer ‘‘Central treating stations’’ becomes requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you necessary and we have deleted it. ‘‘separation and treating areas.’’ Such explain your reasons for areas might be centrally located or Section 112.9(b)(1), Proposed as nonconformance and provide equivalent located elsewhere at the facility and § 112.9(c)(1)—Dike Drains and Drainage environmental protection. might include both separation and Weight restriction posting. We deleted Background. In 1991, we reproposed treatment devices and equipment. The the proposed recommendation the current rule concerning drainage of reference to ‘‘rainwater is being concerning weight restrictions as they diked areas. drained’’ becomes ‘‘draining relate to underground piping from rule Comments. Editorial changes and uncontaminated rainwater.’’ We clarify text, but still support it when clarifications. One commenter suggested that accumulated oil on rainwater must appropriate. We include only an editorial change from discharges to be disposed of in accord with ‘‘legally mandatory items in this rule because we ‘‘navigable waters,’’ to a discharge as approved methods,’’ not ‘‘approved do not wish to confuse the regulated referenced in § 112.1(b)(1). methods.’’ public as to what is mandatory and Applicability. Another commenter Section 112.9(b)(2)—Proposed as what is discretionary. We decline to urged a small facility exemption from § 112.9(c)(2)—Drainage Ditches, make the recommendation a this requirement because the Accumulations of Oil requirement because we believe the recordkeeping involved was too appropriate posting of weight burdensome. Background. In 1991, we sought to restrictions should be a matter of good Engineering methods. One commenter clarify that oil as well as oil- engineering practice. believed that the requirement to have all contaminated soil must be removed Editorial changes and clarifications. drains closed on dikes around storage from field drainage ditches, road We deleted the references to verbal containers might preclude engineering ditches, and the like. The current rule warning or appropriate signs in the rule. methods designed to handle flow- only requires removal of an Instead, the rule contains an obligation through conditions at water flood oil ‘‘accumulation of oil.’’ We also to warn entering vehicular traffic. production operations, where large proposed that such accumulations be Warnings may be verbal, by signs, or by volumes of water may be directed to oil removed within 72 hours at the most. other appropriate methods. storage tanks if water discharge lines on Comments. Applicability. One oil-water separators become plugged. commenter asserted that this section Introduction to Section 112.9 Response to comments. Applicability. does not apply to crude oil transfers Background. We have added an We believe that this requirement must from production fields into tank trucks introduction to help rewrite the section be applicable to both large and small because any discharges in the transfer in the active voice. Since the owner or facilities to help prevent discharges as process would be caught in a small

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47127

sump or catchment basin. Another accumulation of oil, including on soil the proposal, we referenced FEMA commenter asked if this section applied and other materials, because section requirements. to cleanup of oil and oil-contaminated 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA provides EPA Comments. One commenter thought soil from diked areas. with the authority to establish this provision should be a requirement Inspection schedule. Another procedures, methods, and equipment rather than a recommendation. Another commenter suggested that we require and other requirements for equipment to commenter suggested that exploration inspections of field drainage ditches, prevent discharges of oil. The broad and production facilities located in etc., at monthly intervals and within 24 definition of ‘‘oil’’ in CWA section flood plain areas should be adequately hours of a 25-year storm event. 311(a)(1) covers ‘‘oil refuse’’ and ‘‘oil secured through proper mechanical/ Accumulations of oil and oil- mixed with wastes other than dredged engineering methods to reduce the contaminated soil. Two commenters spoil.’’ If field drainage systems allow chance of loss of product. A third argued that EPA lacks authority to the accumulation of oil on the soil or commenter suggested the following require cleanup of contaminated soil. other materials at the onshore facility specific measures to be implemented: Others asked for clarifications of the and that oil threatens navigable water or (1) Identify whether the facility is terms ‘‘accumulation’’ and ‘‘oil- adjoining shorelines, then EPA has located in a floodplain in the Plan; (2) contaminated soil.’’ Another asked what authority to establish a method or if the facility is located in a floodplain, cleanup standard EPA contemplated procedure, i.e., the removal of oil the Plan should address to what extent under this rule. The commenter contaminated soil, to prevent that oil it meets the minimum requirements of elaborated, ‘‘is accumulated oil and from becoming a discharge as described the National Flood Insurance Program contaminated soil to be removed from in § 112.1(b). The cleanup standard (NFIP); and (3) if a facility does not meet diked areas under this provision?’’ under this paragraph requires the the minimum requirements of the NFIP, 72-hour cleanup standard. Several complete removal of the contaminated the Plan should address appropriate commenters argued that the 72-hour oil, soil, or other materials, either by precautionary and mitigation measures standard for cleanup would preclude removal, or by bioremediation, or in any for potential flood-related discharges. bioremediation or other cleanup other effective, environmentally sound Response to comments. We have techniques allowed by State and local manner. deleted the recommendation because we law. Several commenters suggested 72-hour cleanup standard. We agree do not wish to confuse the regulated other time periods, including ‘‘as soon that the 72-hour cleanup standard might public over what is mandatory and what as practical,’’ ‘‘within a timely manner.’’ preclude bioremediation and have is discretionary. These rules contain Some suggested no time standard is therefore deleted it. Instead we establish only mandatory requirements. However, appropriate. Those commenters a standard of ‘‘prompt cleanup.’’ we support the substance of the generally thought that a 72-hour period ‘‘Prompt’’ cleanup means beginning the recommendation, and suggest that a might be unrealistic in certain cases. cleanup immediately after discovery of facility in an area prone to flooding Response to comments. Applicability. the discharge or immediately after any either follow the requirements of the Crude oil transfers from production actions necessary to prevent fire or NFIP or employ other methods based on fields into tank trucks or cars are explosion or other imminent threats to good engineering practice to minimize covered by the general requirements worker health and safety. damage to the facility from a flood. contained in § 112.7(c) and (h), both of Editorial changes and clarifications. which require some form of secondary ‘‘Escaped from small leaks’’ becomes Section 112.9(c)(1)—Proposed as containment. Cleanup of oil, oil- ‘‘resulted from any small discharge.’’ § 112.9(d)(1)—Materials and contaminated soil, and oil-contaminated We eliminate the term ‘‘oil- Construction—Bulk Storage Containers materials from field drainage ditches, contaminated soil’’ because oil must Background. In 1991, we reproposed road ditches, or other field drainage accumulate on something, such as the section on materials and system is covered by this paragraph. In materials or soil. We retain the term construction of bulk storage containers response to comment, we note that ‘‘accumulation of oil,’’ but elaborate on with an added recommendation that cleanup of oil from diked areas at its meaning. ‘‘Accumulation of oil’’ containers conform to relevant industry onshore production facilities is not means a discharge that causes a ‘‘film or standards. specifically covered by the rules. sheen’’ within the field drainage system, Comments. One commenter thought However, the presence of oil in diked or causes a sludge or emulsion there that the recommendation for use of areas may impair the quality of the dike (see 40 CFR 110.3(b)). An accumulation industry standards should be a or the capacity for secondary of oil includes anything on which the requirement. The commenter asked that containment, and if so, the oil must be oil gathers or amasses within the field at a date certain, all existing tanks must removed. drainage system. An accumulation of oil be upgraded to current standards, and Inspection schedule. We have may include oil-contaminated soil or that all new and reconstructed tanks retained the ‘‘regularly scheduled any other oil-contaminated material must be subject to applicable codes. intervals’’ standard for inspections. This within the field drainage system. See Another commenter suggested that the standard means regular inspections also the discussion of ‘‘accumulation of recommendation should not apply to according to industry standards or on a oil’’ included with the response to crude oil storage tanks because local schedule sufficient to prevent a comments of § 112.8(c)(10). industry standards are more discharge as described in § 112.1(b). appropriate. Whatever schedule for inspections is Proposed Section 112.9(c)(3)— Response to comments. selected must be documented in the Additional Requirements for Flood Recommendation v. requirement. We Plan. We decline to specify a specific Events are retaining the mandatory requirement interval because such an interval might Background. In 1991, we proposed a to use no container for the storage of oil become obsolete with changing new recommendation for oil production unless its material and construction are technology. facilities in areas subject to flooding. We compatible with the material stored and Accumulations of oil and oil- recommended that the Plan address the conditions of storage, as proposed. contaminated soil. We have adequate additional precautionary measures We have deleted the recommendation authority to require cleanup of an related to flooding. In the discussion of that materials, installation, and use of

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47128 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

new tanks conform with relevant comprehensive to be applied to oil confusing when compared to the text of portions of industry standards because leases, which might cover hundreds of § 112.7(d). Under § 112.7(d), if we do not wish to confuse the regulated acres. Another asked how we would secondary containment is not public over what is mandatory and what determine what is sufficient freeboard. practicable, you must provide a is discretionary. However, we endorse Drainage. One commenter thought the contingency plan following the its substance. In most cases good drainage requirement was duplicative of provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and engineering practice and liability NPDES requirements. otherwise comply with the requirements concerns will prompt the use of Response to comments. Secondary of § 112.7(d). Furthermore, you are also industry standards. See containment. The requirement applies free to provide alternate systems of § 112.3(d)(1)(iii). In addition, a to oil leases of any size. Secondary secondary containment. We do not requirement is not necessary or containment is not required for the prescribe the method. desirable because local governmental entire leased area, merely for the Section 112.9(c)(3)—Proposed as standards on construction, materials, contents of the largest single container § 112.9(d)(3)—Container Inspection and installation sometimes control in the tank battery, separation, and industry standards on these matters. treating facility installation, with Background. In 1991, we proposed Industry standards. Industry sufficient freeboard to contain that you must visually examine all standards that may assist an owner or precipitation. In response to the containers of oil at onshore production operator with materials for and comment as to how an owner or facilities at least once a year. The construction of onshore bulk storage operator might determine how much current requirement is that you examine production facilities include: (1) API freeboard is sufficient, we have revised these containers ‘‘on a scheduled Specification 12B, ‘‘Bolted Tanks for the rule to provide that freeboard periodic basis.’’ We also proposed that Storage of Production Liquids’; (2) API sufficient to contain precipitation is the you would be required to maintain the Specification 12D, ‘‘Field Welded Tanks standard. Freeboard sufficient to contain schedule and records of those for Storage of Production Liquids’; (3) precipitation is freeboard installed examinations for a period of five years, API Specification 12F, ‘‘Shop Welded according to industry standards, or in an irrespective of changes in ownership. Tanks for Storage of Production amount sufficient to avert a discharge as Comments. Frequency of inspection. Liquids’; (4) API Specification 12J, ‘‘Oil described in § 112.1(b). This standard is One commenter favored the proposal. Gas Separators’; (5) API Specification consistent with the amount of freeboard One commenter suggested quarterly 12K, ‘‘Indirect-Type Oil Field Heaters’; required in § 112.8(c)(2). rather than annual inspections. Two and, (6) API Specification 12L, ‘‘Vertical Drainage. We deleted the proposed commenters suggested triennial and Horizontal Emulsion Treaters.’’ reference to undiked areas ‘‘showing a inspections. Other commenters Editorial changes and clarifications. potential for contamination’’ because suggested a frequency in accordance ‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’ drainage from any undiked area poses a with API recommended standards. threat of contamination. When drainage Extent of inspection. Several Section 112.9(c)(2)—Proposed as from such areas is covered by commenters thought that the § 112.9(d)(2)—Secondary Containment, stormwater discharge permits, that part inspections should be external only, and Drainage of the BMP might be usable for SPCC should not necessarily include the Background. The SPCC Task force purposes. There is no redundancy in foundations and supports (as proposed) concluded that aboveground storage recordkeeping requirements, because because of the number of containers that tanks without secondary containment you can use your NPDES records for would be taken out of service with that pose a particularly significant threat to SPCC purposes. requirement. Another commenter the environment. We noted that the Industry standards. Industry asserted that inspection of foundations proposed rule modifications would standards that may assist an owner or and supports might not be possible due ‘‘retain the current requirement for operator with secondary containment at to foundation settlement or lack of space facility owners or operators who are onshore production facilities include: to perform the inspection. unable to provide certain structures or (1) API Recommended Practice 51, Response to comments. Frequency of equipment for oil spill prevention, ‘‘Onshore Oil and Gas Production inspection. We have maintained the including secondary containment, to Practices for Protection of the current standard for frequency of prepare facility-specific contingency Environment’; (2) NFPA 30, inspection because we agree that plans in lieu of prevention systems.’’ 56 ‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids inspections in accordance with industry FR 54614. In 1991, we therefore Code’; and, (3) BOCA, ‘‘National Fire standards are necessary. Those reproposed the secondary containment Prevention Code.’’ standards may change with changing requirements for onshore oil production Editorial changes and clarifications. technology, therefore, a frequency of facilities with a clarification. We ‘‘Tank battery and central treating plant ‘‘periodically and upon a regular clarified that secondary containment installations’’ becomes ‘‘tank battery, schedule’’ preserves maximum must include sufficient freeboard to separation, and treating facility flexibility and upholds statutory intent. allow for precipitation. The current rule installations.’’ ‘‘Contents of the largest Extent of inspection. We disagree that requires that drainage from undiked single tank’’ becomes ‘‘capacity of the the inspection of containers should be areas must be safely confined in a largest single container.’’ With this limited to external inspection. Internal catchment basin or holding pond. The change, this paragraph agrees with inspection is also necessary to detect proposed rule had modified this general secondary containment possible flaws that could cause a requirement to apply only to drainage requirements found in § 112.7(c). The discharge. The inspection must also from undiked areas ‘‘showing a reference to tanks ‘‘in use’’ was deleted include foundations and supports that potential for contamination.’’ because it is redundant. Containment are on or above the surface of the Comments. Secondary containment. for tanks or containers that are not ground. If for some reason it is not See the discussion under § 112.7(c) of permanently closed is already required. practicable to inspect the foundations secondary containment in general. One We deleted the phrase ‘‘if feasible, or and supports, you may deviate from the commenter suggested that the alternate systems, such as those requirement under § 112.7(a)(2), if you requirement was too vague and outlined in § 112.7(c)(1),’’ because it is explain your rationale for

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47129

nonconformance and provide equivalent Response to comments. Good language consistent with a companion environmental protection. engineering practice. We agree with the paragraph dealing with good Record maintenance. We have deleted commenter that we should retain this engineering design, i.e., § 112.8(c)(8). In the proposed requirement to maintain section as a requirement both to paragraph (c)(4)(i), ‘‘regular rounds’’ records of these inspections for five improve spill prevention and to avoid becomes ‘‘regularly scheduled rounds.’’ years, irrespective of ownership, confusion among the regulated ‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ In because it is redundant with the general community because of the similar paragraph (c)(4)(iv), the phrase ‘‘where requirement in § 112.7(e) to maintain requirement for bulk storage containers facilities are’’ becomes ‘‘where the Plan records. Section 112.7(e) requires at facilities other than production facility is.’’ Elsewhere ‘‘tank’’ becomes record maintenance for three years. facilities. Therefore, there are no new ‘‘container.’’ However, you should note that certain costs. Nevertheless, you have flexibility Section 112.9(d)(1)—Proposed as industry standards (for example, API as to which measures you use, and may § 112.9(e)(1)—Inspection of Standard 653 or API Recommended choose the least expensive alternative Aboveground Valves and Piping Practice 12R1) may specify that an listed in § 112.9(c)(4). For example, owner or operator maintain records for should vacuum protection be too costly, Background. In 1991, we proposed longer than three years. you are free to use another alternative. that you inspect monthly all Industry standards. Industry Furthermore, you may also deviate from aboveground valves and pipelines, and standards that may assist an owner or the requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if that you maintain records of such operator with inspection of containers at you can explain nonconformance and inspections for five years. The current onshore production facilities include: provide equivalent environmental requirement is that you examine such (1) API Recommended Practice 12R1, protection by some other means. We valves and pipelines ‘‘periodically on a ‘‘Recommended Practice for Setting, revised the paragraph on vacuum scheduled basis,’’ and maintain the Maintenance, Inspection, Operation, protection to clarify that the rule records of such inspections for three and Repair of Tanks in Production addresses any type of transfer from the years. Service’’; and, (2) ‘‘API Standard 653, tank, not merely a pipeline run. Comments. Editorial changes and ‘‘Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, Industry standards. Industry clarifications. One commenter asked for and Reconstruction.’’ standards that may assist an owner or clarifying language that the rule only Editorial changes and clarifications. operator with alarm systems include: (1) applied to valves and piping associated ‘‘Visually examine’’ becomes ‘‘Visually API, ‘‘Manual of Petroleum with transfer operations. inspect.’’ ‘‘All tanks’’ becomes ‘‘each Measurement Standards’’; (2) API Applicability. Two commenters asked container.’’ ‘‘Foundation and supports Recommended Practice 51, ‘‘Onshore for an exemption from the requirements of tanks above the ground surface’’ Oil and Gas Production Practices for of this paragraph for small facilities. becomes ‘‘Foundation and support of Protection of the Environment’’; (3) API Frequency of inspections. Several each container that is on or above the Recommended Practice 2350, ‘‘Overfill commenters suggested alternate surface of the ground.’’ Protection for Storage Tanks in inspection intervals, such as every six months, or every year. Another Section 112.9(c)(4)—Proposed as Petroleum Facilities’’; and, (4) NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids commenter suggested that monthly § 112.9(d)(4)—Good Engineering inspections are meaningless because Practice Code.’’ Editorial changes and clarifications. some unscrupulous operators might fill Background. In 1991, we proposed to ‘‘Fail-safe’’ engineering becomes ‘‘good out inspection reports on dates when no convert the current requirement for engineering practice,’’ because fail-safe problems are to be found. Other ‘‘fail-safe’’ engineering (which includes engineering is a misnomer. The change commenters suggested that we require a vacuum protection and other measures) in terminology does not imply any performance standard instead of a of new and old tank battery installations substantive change in the level of prescribed monthly inspection. One into a recommendation. We also environmental protection required, it is commenter suggested the proposed proposed that you reference appropriate merely editorial. See the comments, and inspections standards for § 112.9(e) industry standards. the discussion under ‘‘Editorial changes were excessive for many small facilities. Comments. One commenter asserted and clarification,’’ § 112.8(c)(8). The The commenter suggested that a that we should retain the original same reasoning applies to this standard defined by the licensed requirement to avoid confusion among paragraph. We deleted the phrase ‘‘as far Professional Engineer who certifies the the regulated community, help improve as is practical,’’ because it is confusing SPCC Plan could reflect the differing spill prevention, and because we when compared to the text of requirements that may apply under proposed a similar requirement for bulk § 112.7(a)(2). Under § 112.7(a)(2), you different equipment configurations as storage containers. Another commenter may explain your reasons for well as differing geographical and opposed the proposed recommendation nonconformance, and provide meteorological conditions. The because he believed the cost of such equivalent environmental protection by commenter added that a generalized engineering would be prohibitive. Two some other means. We deleted the performance standard should be commenters sought an exemption for recommendation to reference included that includes a minimum small facilities on the same rationale. appropriate industry standards because inspection interval, such as annual Similarly, some commenters opposed it was unnecessary. You must discuss inspection, which could be altered to the proposed recommendation on actual standards used in the Plan. meet specific facility conditions. vacuum protection because of the Section 112.3(d)(1)(iii) also requires the Recordkeeping. One commenter potential cost. None of the commenters Professional Engineer to certify that he thought a five-year record retention provided their own cost estimates. Some has considered applicable industry period is excessive. Another commenter commenters opposed the proposed standards in the preparation of the Plan. asked that we clarify that PE recommendation relating to vacuum Also in the introductory paragraph, the certification of these regular inspections protection because of the potential cost, phrase ‘‘Consideration shall be given to and records is not required. which they estimated as ‘‘in excess of providing.* * *’’ becomes, ‘‘You must Response to comments. Applicability. $100 per tank.’’ provide.* * *’’ This change makes the The rule must apply equally to large and

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47130 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

small facilities because failure to inspect Sudden change in temperature. The commenter suggested that a piping and valves at any facility might Another commenter asked for definition of the term would improve lead to a discharge as described in clarification of what ‘‘a sudden change compliance. § 112.1(b). in temperature’’ means. The commenter Response to comments. Applicability. Frequency of inspections. We have assumed that it meant a sudden drop A program of flowline maintenance is retained the current inspection that could cause system upsets. necessary to prevent discharges both at frequency of periodic inspections, but Response to comments. Applicability. large and small facilities. However, we editorially changed it to ‘‘upon a regular The rule applies to any regulated facility have deleted the proposed schedule.’’ Our decision accords with with salt water disposal if the potential recommendation regarding the specifics the comment which sought a exists to discharge oil in amounts that of the program from the rule. We took performance standard instead of a may be harmful, as defined in 40 CFR this action because we are not including prescribed monthly inspection. The 110.3. This standard is necessary to recommendations in the rule in order standard of inspections ‘‘upon a regular protect the environment. not to confuse the public over what is schedule’’ means in accordance with Sudden change in temperature. A mandatory and what is discretionary. industry standards or at a frequency sudden change in temperature means This rule contains only mandatory sufficient to prevent discharges as any abrupt change in temperature, requirements. described in § 112.1(b). Whatever either up or down, which could cause Frequency of inspections. In the frequency of inspections is selected system upsets. proposed recommendation we suggested must be documented in the Plan. Frequency of inspections. Inspections that you conduct monthly inspections Recordkeeping. We agree that a five- of these facilities must be conducted for a flowline maintenance program. We year record retention period is longer ‘‘often.’’ ‘‘Often’’ means in accordance now recommend that you conduct than necessary and have deleted the with industry standards, or more inspections either according to industry proposed requirement in favor of the frequently, if as noted, conditions standards or at a frequency sufficient to general requirement in § 112.7(e) to warrant. Whatever frequency of prevent a discharge as described in maintain records for three years. inspections is chosen must be § 112.1(b). Under § 112.3(d)(1)(iii), the However, comparison records for documented in the Plan. Professional Engineer must certify that compliance with certain industry Editorial changes and clarifications. the Plan has been prepared in standards may require an owner or ‘‘Examine’’ becomes ‘‘inspect.’’ ‘‘Oil accordance with good engineering operator to maintain records for longer discharge’’ becomes ‘‘discharge,’’ practice, including consideration of than three years. PE certification of because the term ‘‘oil’’ is redundant in applicable industry standards. these inspections and records is not the definition of ‘‘discharge.’’ Corrosion protection, flowline required. replacement. While we have deleted the Editorial changes and clarifications. Section 112.9(d)(3)—Proposed as § 112.9(e)(3)—Flowline Maintenance recommendation from rule text due to ‘‘Examine’’ becomes ‘‘inspect.’’ We reasons explained above and therefore, agree with the commenter who asked for Background. In 1991, we reproposed the rule imposes no new costs, we clarification that the rule applies only to the current requirements for flowline recommend corrosion protection, we inspections related to transfer maintenance. We proposed a recommend corrosion protection, and operations and have amended the rule recommendation, rather than a flowline replacement when necessary, to reflect that. A transfer operation is requirement, that the program include because those measures help to prevent one in which oil is moved from or into certain specifics, because of differences discharges as described in § 112.1(b). some form of transportation, storage, in the circumstances of locations, Transfer operation. A transfer equipment, or other device, into or from staffing, and design for production operation is one in which oil is moved some other or similar form of facilities. We suggested that monthly from or into some form of transportation, such as a pipeline, truck, examinations are appropriate for most transportation, storage, equipment, or tank car, or other storage, equipment, or facilities. other device, into or from some other or device. Comments. Applicability. Two similar form of transportation, such as a commenters asked for a small facility Section 112.9(d)(2)—Proposed as pipeline, truck, tank car, or other exemption for this recommendation. storage, equipment, or device. § 112.9(e)(2)—Salt Water Disposal Frequency of inspections. Several Facilities Editorial changes and clarifications. commenters suggested that the ‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ The Background. In 1991, we reproposed recommendation refer to periodic phrase ‘‘from this source’’ becomes without change the current instead of monthly examinations. ‘‘from each flowline.’’ requirements on the examination of salt Others suggested annual or quarterly water (oil field brine) disposal facilities. inspections. One commenter said that Section 112.10—Introduction—Onshore The current requirement is that you monthly inspection of gathering lines Oil Drilling and Workover Facilities examine these facilities ‘‘often.’’ buried in the colder parts of the Background. This paragraph is a new However, we have recommended Appalachian basin is impossible. one, not proposed in 1991, but weekly examination as an appropriate Corrosion protection. Several editorially added to allow us to rewrite engineering standard for most facilities. commenters asserted that the provision the section in the active voice. Since the 56 FR 54624. We noted that low for corrosion protection for the bare owner or operator is the person with temperature conditions, sudden steel pipe used for gathering line responsibility to implement a Plan, the temperature changes, or periods of low systems in the Appalachians is mandates of the rule are properly flow rates may require more frequent impossible because the cost of coated addressed to him, except as specifically inspections. lines and cathodic protection is noted. Comments. Applicability. One prohibitive. None of the commenters commenter suggested that the provided their own cost estimates. Section 112.10(a)—General and Specific requirement to examine these facilities Transfer operation. One commenter Requirements should not apply to storage facilities asked for clarification of the term ‘‘oil Background. This is a new paragraph with de minimis amounts of oil. production facility transfer operation.’’ that merely references the general

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47131

requirements which all facilities must requirements for secondary Recommended Practice 16E, ‘‘Design of meet as well as the specific containment. We received no comments Control Systems for Drilling Well requirements that facilities in this on the proposal. Therefore, we have Control Equipment’’; (2) API category must meet. promulgated it as proposed, with minor Recommended Practice 53, ‘‘Blowout Comments. One commenter asked for editorial changes. Prevention Equipment Systems for a definition of ‘‘onshore drilling and Industry standards. Industry Drilling Operations’’; (3) API workover facilities.’’ standards that may assist an owner or Specification 16A, ‘‘Drill Through Editorial changes and clarifications. operator with secondary containment at Equipment’’; and, (4) API Specification The new definition for ‘‘production onshore oil drilling and workover 16D, ‘‘Control Systems for Drilling Well facility’’ in § 112.2 includes the facilities include: (1) API Recommended Control Equipment.’’ procedures, methods, and equipment Practice 52, ‘‘Land Drilling Practices for Editorial changes and clarifications. referenced in this section, making a Protection of the Environment’’; (2) We deleted the phrase ‘‘as necessary’’ definition of ‘‘onshore drilling and NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible from the requirement, because it is workover facilities’’ unnecessary. ‘‘Spill Liquids Code’’; and, (3) BOCA, confusing when compared to the text of prevention’’ becomes ‘‘discharge ‘‘National Fire Prevention Code.’’ § 112.7(a)(2). When BOP assembly is prevention.’’ To ‘‘address’’ requirements Editorial changes and clarifications. unnecessary and therefore no alternate becomes to ‘‘meet’’ requirements. ‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ The measure is required, you may deviate words ‘‘depending on the location’’ from the requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) Section 112.10(b)—Mobile Facilities were deleted because they were if you explain your reasons for Background. In 1991, we reproposed confusing when compared with the text nonconformance. We have deleted as the current rule on the location of of § 112.7(d). If a catchment basin or surplus the last sentence of the rule mobile facilities without substantive diversion structure or other form of requiring that casing and BOP change. secondary containment is not installations must be in accordance with Comments. Editorial changes and practicable from the standpoint of good State regulatory requirements. clarifications. One commenter asked engineering practice, under § 112.7(d) Adherence to State regulatory that the requirement be limited to you must provide a contingency plan requirements is mandatory under State discharges to navigable waters. following the provisions of 40 CFR part law in any case. The phrase ‘‘is Site location. One commenter 109, and otherwise comply with expected to be encountered’’ becomes opposed the requirement on the location § 112.7(d). ‘‘may be encountered.’’ of mobile facilities because the facility contractor has absolutely no control Section 112.10(d)—Blowout Prevention Section 112.11—Introduction—Offshore over the location of the rig unit. The (BOP) Oil Drilling, Production, or Workover commenter added that the contractor is Background. In 1991, we proposed Facilities instructed by the site owner/operator that blowout prevention (BOP) assembly Background. We added an where to place the rig unit generally, would only be required ‘‘when introduction as an editorial device to and the sites are where oil and gas are necessary.’’ The rationale was that a allow us to rewrite the section in the expected to be located. The physical BOP assembly is not necessary where active voice. Because the owner or location of the well site is constructed pressure is not great enough to cause a operator is the person with by and maintained by the owner/ blowout (gauge negative) and is not responsibility to implement a Plan, the operator of the lease. The contractor has required in all cases. We noted that the mandates of the rule are properly no input as to site design nor necessity of BOP assembly hinges on the addressed to him, except as specifically responsibility for its maintenance. ‘‘history of the pressures encountered noted. Response to comments. Site location. when drilling on the oil reservoir.’’ We agree with the commenter that the When that history is unknown, BOP Section 112.11(a)—General and Specific contractor is not normally responsible assembly is required. Requirements—Offshore Oil Drilling, for site location, nor site design or Comments. Several commenters urged Production, or Workover Facilities maintenance. Such decisions are the modification of the rule to exclude well Background. This is a new paragraph responsibility of the facility owner or service jobs that may not need BOP that merely references the general operator. The owner or operator of the assembly, such as the installation of a requirements which all facilities must facility has the responsibility to locate rod pumping unit, or the batch meet as well as the specific equipment so as to prevent discharges treatment of a well with corrosion requirements that facilities in this as described in § 112.1(b). inhibitor. category must meet. Editorial changes and clarifications. Response to comments. Service jobs. Comments. State rules. One The applicable limitation on discharges Where BOP assembly is not necessary, commenter thought § 112.11 should be in the rule tracks the statute. The as for certain routine service jobs, such deleted because current State rules commenters requested that discharges as the installation of a rod pumping provide adequate spill protection in be limited to discharges to ‘‘navigable unit, or the batch treatment of a well inland water areas such as lakes, rivers, waters.’’ However, the correct scope of with corrosion inhibitor, you may and wetlands. discharge prevention is not merely deviate from the requirement under Response to comments. State rules. navigable waters, but the entire range of § 112.7(a)(2), and explain its absence in We disagree with the commenter that protected resources described in the Plan. When BOP assembly is these rules are unnecessary because not § 112.1(b). We therefore use the phrase unnecessary because pressures are not every State has rules to protect offshore ‘‘a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ great enough to cause a blowout, it is drilling, production, and workover likewise unnecessary to provide facilities. While some States may have Section 112.10(c)—Secondary equivalent environmental protection. rules, some State rules may not be as Containment—Catchment Basins or Industry standards. Industry stringent as the Federal rules. In any Diversion Structures standards that may assist an owner or case, Congress has intended us to Background. In 1991, we reproposed operator with blowout prevention establish a nationwide Federal program without substantive change the current assembly include: (1) API to protect the environment from the

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47132 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

dangers of discharges as described in rule is sufficient to prevent discharges to prevent oil discharges,’’ because it is § 112.1(b) posed by this class of as described in § 112.1(b), and therefore confusing when compared to the text of facilities. Therefore, we have retained we have deleted the ‘‘at least once a § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate from a the section, as modified. We note, year’’ standard. You must remove requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you however, that if you have a State SPCC collected oil as often as is necessary to explain your reasons for plan or other regulatory document prevent such discharges. nonconformance and provide equivalent acceptable to the Regional Editorial changes and clarifications. environmental protection. Administrator that meets all Federal ‘‘Discharging oil as described in Section 112.11(e)—Proposed as SPCC requirements, you may use it as § 112.1(b)(1)’’ becomes ‘‘having a § 112.11(f)—Atmospheric Storage or an SPCC Plan if you cross reference the discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ In Surge Containers; Alarms State or other requirements to the the second sentence, we deleted the Federal requirement. If it meets only phrase ‘‘or equivalent collection system Background. In 1991, we reproposed some, but not all Federal SPCC sufficient,’’ because it is confusing when without substantive change the current requirements, you must supplement it compared to the text of § 112.7(a)(2). paragraph on alarm systems for so that it meets all of the SPCC You may deviate from a requirement atmospheric storage or surge containers. requirements. under § 112.7(a)(2) if you explain your We received no comments. Therefore, Editorial changes and clarifications. reasons for nonconformance, and we have promulgated the rule as ‘‘Spill prevention’’ becomes ‘‘discharge provide equivalent environmental proposed, with only minor editorial prevention.’’ The obligation to protection. changes. ‘‘address’’ requirements and procedures Section 112.11(c)—Proposed as Editorial changes and clarifications. becomes the obligation to ‘‘meet’’ them. § 112.11(d)—Sump Systems ‘‘Oil discharges’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ We added the words ‘‘that activate an Proposed Section 112.11(b)—Definition Background. In 1991, we proposed to Reference; MMS Jurisdiction alarm or control the flow’’ to clarify that clarify language in current rule that a these activities, along with ‘‘otherwise’’ Background. The proposed 1991 regularly scheduled maintenance controlling discharges, are the purpose section referenced the definition of program is a monthly preventive of the sensing devices we reference in ‘‘offshore oil drilling, production, and maintenance program. the paragraph. The phrase ‘‘to activate’’ Comments. Frequency of inspections. workover facility,’’ which is now becomes ‘‘that activate,’’ and we add the One commenter recommended that a encompassed within the definition of word ‘‘otherwise’’ before ‘‘prevent semi-annual inspection and testing ‘‘production facility’’ in § 112.2. A new discharges.’’ We deleted the phrase ‘‘or program of the liquid removal system, sentence would have referenced the other acceptable alternatives,’’ because instead of monthly inspection and exemption of facilities subject to it is confusing when compared to the testing would be preferable. Minerals Management Service (MMS) text of § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate Response to comments. Frequency of Operating Orders, notices, and from a requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if inspections. We have retained the regulations from the SPCC rule. MMS you explain your reasons for current rule language requiring a jurisdiction is outlined in Appendix B nonconformance and provide equivalent ‘‘regularly scheduled’’ preventive to part 112. environmental protection. Comments. One commenter suggested maintenance program because we that we delete the reference to the believe that the frequency of Section 112.11(f)—Proposed as proposed definition and to the maintenance should be in accordance § 112.11(g)—Pressure Containers; Alarm applicability section. with industry standards or frequently Systems Response to comments. We agree. enough to prevent a discharge as Background. In 1991, we reproposed Since none of the proposed language is described in § 112.1(b). Whatever the current rule concerning pressure mandatory, we have deleted it because schedule is chosen must be documented tanks without substantive change. We we have included only mandates in this in the Plan. received no comments. Therefore, we rule so as not to confuse the regulated Editorial changes and clarifications. have promulgated the rule as proposed, public over what is required and what We deleted the phrase ‘‘or equivalent with minor editorial changes. is discretionary. method’’ from the first sentence because it is confusing when compared to the Editorial changes and clarifications. Section 112.11(b)—Proposed as text of § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate ‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘containers.’’ ‘‘Oil § 112.11(c)—Facility Drainage from a requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if discharges’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ We Background. In 1991, we reproposed you explain your reasons for deleted the phrase ‘‘or with other the current section on facility drainage nonconformance and provide equivalent acceptable alternatives to prevent with the modification to require environmental protection. discharges,’’ because it is confusing removal of collected material at least when compared to the text of once a year. The rationale was to Section 112.11(d)—Proposed as § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate from a prevent a buildup of accumulated oils. § 112.11(e)—Discharge Prevention requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you We noted that a protracted removal Systems for Separators and Treaters explain your reasons for period could lead to an accidental Background. In 1991, we reproposed nonconformance and provide equivalent excess buildup and resultant overflow. without substantive change the current environmental protection. Comments. Two commenters rule on discharge prevention systems for Section 112.11(g)—Proposed as recommended deletion of the proposed separators and treaters. We received no § 112.11(h)—Corrosion Protection requirement to remove collected oil as comments. often as necessary, but at least once a Editorial changes and clarifications. Background. In 1991, we reproposed year, because the current requirement is ‘‘Escape’’ of oil becomes ‘‘discharge’’ of the current paragraph requiring sufficient. oil. ‘‘Oil discharges’’ becomes corrosion protection for containers at Response to comments. Removal of ‘‘discharge of oil.’’ We deleted the facilities subject to this section. We collected oil. EPA agrees with the phrase from the last sentence which added a recommendation that you commenter’s suggestion that the current allows ‘‘using other feasible alternatives follow National Association of

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47133

Corrosion Engineers standards for promulgated the rule as proposed with Editorial changes and clarifications. corrosion protection. minor editorial changes. In today’s rule, we kept the Comments. Industry standards. One Editorial changes and clarifications. recordkeeping requirement, but deleted commenter suggested that we remove ‘‘As part of the SPCC Plan’’ becomes language requiring maintenance of those the last sentence, which is advisory, and ‘‘within the Plan.’’ records for five years. The effect of the addresses industry standards of the deletion is that records become subject National Association of Corrosion Section 112.11(i)—Proposed as to the general three-year recordkeeping Engineers, or make it a requirement (at § 112.11(j)—Pollution Prevention requirement. See § 112.7(e). You may least for new construction). Another Systems; Testing and Inspection keep the records as part of the Plan or commenter suggested that the rule be Background. In 1991, we reproposed may keep them with the Plan. modified to incorporate other industry the current rule on testing and Section 112.11(k)—Proposed as recommended practices relative to inspection of pollution prevention § 112.11(l)—Blowout Prevention corrosion control, such as those of STI systems. Additionally, we proposed that and API. The commenter specifically simulated spill testing must be the Background. In 1991, we reproposed recommended STI Recommended preferred method to test and inspect oil the current rule concerning blowout Practice R892–89, ‘‘Recommended spill prevention equipment and prevention without substantive change. Practice for Corrosion Protection of systems. We also proposed that Comments. One commenter suggested Underground Steel Piping Associated pollution prevention systems must be that there are occasions when blowout with Underground Storage and tested at least monthly. The current prevention is not warranted or Dispensing Systems,’’ and STI standard calls for testing and inspection impractical to implement and that there Recommended Practice 893–89, ‘‘on a scheduled periodic basis.’’ should be an exception for drilling ‘‘Recommended Practice for External Comments. Some commenters below conductor casing. Corrosion of Shop Fabricated suggested that simulation testing on a Response to comments. Alternatives. Aboveground Steel Storage Tank monthly basis is excessive. Commenters The question of whether blowout Floors.’’ suggested instead testing on a semi- prevention is warranted or impractical Response to comments. Industry annual or annual basis. or not for drilling below conductor standards. In response to the comment, casing is one of good engineering we have deleted the recommendation Response to comments. Frequency of practice. Acceptable alternatives may be because we do not wish to confuse the testing. We have retained the current permissible under the rule permitting regulated community over what is requirement for testing on a ‘‘scheduled deviations (§ 112.7(a)(2)) when the mandatory and what is discretionary. periodic basis’’ commensurate with owner or operator states the reasons for These rules contain only mandatory conditions at the facility because we nonconformance and provides requirements. We expect that facilities believe that testing should follow equivalent environmental protection. will follow industry standards for industry standards or be conducted at a corrosion protection as well as other frequency sufficient enough to prevent a Industry standards. Industry matters (see § 112.3(d)(iii)), but decline discharge as described in § 112.1(b) standards that may assist an owner or to prescribe particular standards in the rather than any prescribed time frame. operator with offshore blowout rule text because those standards are Whatever frequency is chosen must be prevention assembly and well control subject to change, and we will not documented in the Plan. systems include: (1) API Recommended incorporate a potentially obsolescent Editorial changes and clarifications. Practice 16E, ‘‘Design of Control standard into the rules. In the first sentence, ‘‘or other Systems for Drilling Well Control Industry standards. Industry appropriate regulations’’ becomes ‘‘and Equipment’’; (2) API Recommended standards suggested by a commenter any other appropriate regulations.’’ In Practice 53, ‘‘Blowout Prevention that may assist an owner or operator the second sentence, ‘‘spill testing’’ Equipment Systems for Drilling with corrosion include: (1) National becomes ‘‘simulated discharges for Operations’’; (3) API Specification 16A, Association of Corrosion Engineer testing.’’ We have deleted from the last ‘‘Drill Through Equipment’’; (4) API standards; (2) STI Recommended sentence the phrase ‘‘unless the owner Specification 16C, ‘‘Choke and Kill Practice R892, ‘‘Recommended Practice or operator demonstrates that another Systems’’; and, (5) API Specification for Corrosion Protection of Underground method provides equivalent alternative 16D, ‘‘Control Systems for Drilling Well Steel Piping Associated with protection’’ because it is confusing Control Equipment.’’ Underground Storage and Dispensing when compared to the text of Editorial changes and clarifications. Systems,’’ and, (3) STI Recommended § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate from a ‘‘BOP preventor assembly’’ becomes Practice 893, ‘‘Recommended Practice requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you ‘‘BOP assembly.’’ We deleted the last for External Corrosion of Shop explain your reasons for sentence of the paragraph referring to Fabricated Aboveground Steel Storage nonconformance and provide equivalent adherence to State rules because we are Tank Floors.’’ environmental protection. not incorporating State rules into the SPCC rule and adherence to State rules Editorial changes and clarifications. Section 112.11(j)—Proposed as is required under State law whether we ‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘containers.’’ § 112.11(k)—Surface and Subsurface state it or not. The phrase ‘‘expected to Well Shut-in Valves and Devices Section 112.11(h)—Proposed as be encountered’’ becomes ‘‘may be § 112.11(i)—Pollution Prevention Background. In 1991, we reproposed encountered.’’ System Procedures the current section concerning surface Proposed § 112.11(m)—Extraordinary Background. In 1991, we reproposed and subsurface well shut-in valves and Well Control Measures without substantive change the current devices. We proposed an additional requirements concerning written requirement that records for each well Background. In 1991, we proposed to procedures for inspecting and testing must be kept for five years. We received change the current requirements on pollution prevention equipment and no substantive comments. Therefore, we extraordinary well control measures for systems. We received no substantive have promulgated the rule as proposed, emergency conditions to comments. Therefore, we have with minor editorial changes. recommendations. The rationale was

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47134 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that we would review these measures in promulgated the rule as proposed, with to the recommendation, and subsequent the context of response planning. minor editorial changes. sentences. Comments. One commenter suggested Editorial changes and clarifications. Response to comments. We have that the paragraph should be deleted We have rewritten the rule in the active decided to delete the proposed because it is advisory, or made a voice. We also deleted the proposed recommendation because we do not requirement. recommendation because this rule wish to confuse the regulated Response to comments. In response to contains only mandatory items, and community over what is mandatory and comment, we have deleted the text of because the recommendation is what is discretionary. This rule contains the recommendations from the rules redundant. Whatever manner of only mandatory requirements. because we do not wish to confuse the protection is chosen to protect sub- Subparts C and D regulated community over what is marine piping must be discussed in the Background. In 1995, Congress mandatory and what is discretionary. Plan. enacted the Edible Oil Regulatory However, we endorse its substance. This Section 112.11(p)—Proposed as Reform Act (EORRA), 33 U.S.C. 2720. rule contains only mandatory § 112.11(r)—Inspections of Sub-Marine That statute mandates that most Federal requirements. Piping agencies differentiate between and establish separate classes for various Section 112.11(l)—Proposed as Background. In 1991, we reproposed types of oils, specifically: animal fats § 112.11(n)—Manifolds the current requirements concerning the and oils and greases, fish and marine inspection of sub-marine piping Background. In 1991, we reproposed mammal oils; oils of vegetable origin; appurtenant to facilities without the current requirements concerning and, other oils and greases, including substantive change. We received no manifolds without substantive change. petroleum and other non-petroleum comments. Therefore, we have We received no comments on the oils. In differentiating between these promulgated the rule as proposed, with proposal. Therefore, we have classes of oils, Federal agencies are minor editorial changes. promulgated the rule as proposed. directed to consider differences in the Editorial changes and clarifications. Section 112.11(m)—Proposed as physical, chemical, biological, and other The proposal to require maintenance of § 112.11(o)—Flowlines, Pressure properties, and in the environmental records for five years was deleted Sensing Devices effects, of the classes. because under § 112.7(e) of today’s rule, In 1991, EPA proposed to reorganize Background. In 1991, we reproposed all records must be kept for three years. the SPCC rule based on facility type. the current requirements concerning We clarify that you must inspect or test The rationale for that reorganization is pressure sensing devices and shut-in the piping. Because visual inspection of to clarify SPCC Plan requirements for valves for flowlines without substantive sub-marine piping may not always be different types of facilities. While we change. We received no comments on possible, we allow testing as an have reorganized the rule to provide the proposal. Therefore, we have alternative. We encourage inspection or requirements for different types of promulgated the rule as proposed. testing pursuant to industry standards facilities, we also provide requirements or at a frequency sufficient to prevent a Section 112.11(n)—Proposed as for different types of oil in this discharge as described in § 112.1(b). § 112.11(p)—Piping; Corrosion rulemaking. To make this change, we Whatever inspection schedule you Protection have divided the rule into subparts. select must be documented in the Plan. Subpart A consists of an applicability Background. In 1991, we reproposed Proposed § 112.11(s)—Written section, definitions, and general the current requirements concerning Instructions for Contractors requirements for all facilities. Subparts corrosion protection for piping B and C outline the requirements for appurtenant to the facility without Background. In 1991, we proposed to different types of oils. Subpart B is for substantive change. We also proposed to change into a recommendation the petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils, change into a recommendation the current requirement that you prepare except for animal fats and vegetable oils. current requirement that the method written instructions for contractors and Subpart C is for animal fats and oils and used, such as protective coatings or subcontractors whenever contract greases, and fish and marine mammal cathodic protection, be discussed. activities involve servicing a well, or oils; and for vegetable oils, including Comments. One commenter suggested systems appurtenant to a well or oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels. that we remove the second sentence, pressure vessel. The current rule Subpart D is for response. Subparts B which is advisory. requires that you keep the instructions and C are divided into sections to reflect Response to comments. In response to at the facility. We note in the proposed the differing types of facilities for each comment, we have deleted the rule that under certain circumstances, type of oil. Subpart D is for response recommendation to discuss the method you may require the presence of your requirements. of corrosion protection, because it is representative at the facility to intervene Therefore, as noted above, we have surplus. In your SPCC Plan, you must when necessary to prevent a discharge divided the requirements of the rule by discuss the method of corrosion as described in § 112.1(b). subparts for the various classes of oils protection you use. See 112.7(a)(1). Comments. One commenter wrote listed in EORRA. Because at the present that the proposal creates two serious time EPA has not proposed Section 112.11(o)—Proposed as problems. First, that since the contractor differentiated requirements for public § 112.11(q)—Sub-Marine Piping; is hired to perform special services, he notice and comment, the requirements Environmental Stresses is able to do his work more safely if he for facilities storing or using all classes Background. In 1991, we reproposed is allowed to direct his own activities. of oil will remain the same. However, the current requirements concerning Second, operators might expose we have published an advance notice of environmental stress against sub-marine themselves to various types of liability proposed rulemaking seeking comments piping appurtenant to facilities without by virtue of the degree of control on how we might differentiate substantive change. We received no exercised over contractors. A second requirements for facilities storing or comments. Therefore, we have commenter suggested editorial revisions using the various classes of oil. 64 FR

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47135

17227, April 8, 1999. After considering Administrator already has the authority Appendix C—Substantial Harm Criteria these comments, if there is adequate to accept differing formats for response justification for differentiation, we will plans, and the existing facility response Background. In 1997, we proposed propose a rule. plan requirements already provide for changes to Appendix C which would cross-referencing. See § 112.20(h). track proposed amendments to Proposed § 112.20(f)(4)—Capacity of Therefore, new rule language was § 112.20(f)(4) regarding calculating the Facilities Storing Process Water/ oil storage capacity of aboveground Wastewater for Response Plan Purposes unnecessary, and the proposal tracked current language. Today, we have made storage containers storing a mixture of Background. In 1997, we proposed to only a minor editorial change in rule process water/wastewater within 10% add a new paragraph to § 112.20(f) to language. or less of oil. Because we have provide a method for facility response Comments. Acceptable formats. Most withdrawn the proposed changes to plan purposes to calculate the oil commenters favored the proposal. One § 112.20(f)(4), the proposed changes to storage capacity of storage containers commenter suggested that the rule Appendix C are also unnecessary. storing a mixture of process water/ should specifically mention the ICP. Therefore, we have withdrawn the wastewater with 10% or less of oil. This Another requested that State FRP proposed changes to Appendix C, and it proposal for certain systems that treat equivalents be accepted. Several remains unchanged. process water/wastewater would be commenters criticized the proposal; one applicable at certain facilities required Appendix C—Section 2.1—Non- calling the ICP concept ‘‘over-rated.’’ to prepare a facility response plan. It Transportation-Related Facilities With a One commenter thought that the rule would have no effect on facilities Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater Than makes the ICP mandatory. Another required to prepare response plans or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where commenter noted that the proposed rule because they transfer oil over water and Operations Include Over-Water Transfer is identical to the current rule. have a total oil storage capacity greater of Oil than or equal to 42,000 gallons. Partially acceptable formats. One Likewise, the proposal would have no commenter asked if an operator would Background. We have corrected the effect on the method of calculating have to integrate all parts of an ICP with text of the first sentence in the section capacity for purposes of SPCC Plans. a response plan or if he would have the to correspond with the title, so that it Under the proposal, we would not count option to integrate parts of the ICP with reads ‘‘A non-transportation-related the entire capacity of process water/ the SPCC Plan. facility with a total oil storage capacity wastewater containers with 10% or less PE certification. One commenter greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons of oil in the capacity calculation to asked how an ICP would work, i.e., that transfers oil over water to or from determine whether a facility must whether the PE would be certifying the vessels must submit a response plan to prepare a facility response plan. We SPCC portion, the FRP portion, or both. EPA. We added the words ‘‘or equal to’’ only would count the oil portion of that Response to comments. Acceptable to track rule language found at process water/wastewater contained in formats. It is not necessary for the rule § 112.20(f)(1)(i). § 112.20(f)(2), and therefore response to mention the ICP or any other format Appendix C—Section 2.4—Proximity to planning is not necessary. specifically because the rule already Public Drinking Water Intakes at Today, we are withdrawing the allows the Regional Administrator Facilities With a Total Oil Storage proposal because it is no longer flexibility to accept any format that Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 1 necessary. It is unnecessary because we meets all Federal requirements. See Million Gallons have exempted from part 112 any § 112.20(h). You may use the ICP, a facility or part thereof (except at oil State response plan, or other format Background. We have revised the title production, oil recovery, and oil acceptable to the Regional of this section by reversing the order of recycling facilities) used exclusively for Administrator, at your option. We do the words ‘‘Storage’’ and ‘‘Oil’’ in the wastewater treatment and not to satisfy not require use of any alternative heading. We have also added the word any requirement of part 112. See the format, but merely give you the option ‘‘oil’’ to the first sentence so that it discussion under § 112.1(d)(6). The to do so. reads, ‘‘A facility with a total oil storage exemption in § 112.1(d)(6) applies to the The commenter is correct that the capacity greater than * * *.’’ types of facilities treating wastewater proposed rule is identical to the current that would have been allowed to Appendix D—Part A—Section A.2 rule. The current rule allows the (Footnote 2) calculate a reduced storage capacity if submission of an ‘‘equivalent response the percentage of oil in the mixture were plan that has been prepared to meet Background. We have revised 10 percent or less. State or other Federal requirements.’’ footnote 2 to section A.2 of Part A, Section 112.20(h)—Facility Response Partially acceptable formats. You Appendix D, to reflect the new citation Plan Format have the option to integrate any or all to the SPCC rule’s secondary Background. In 1997, we proposed to parts of an ICP with your response plan. containment requirements. amend the requirements for formatting This gives you flexibility in formatting. Similar to SPCC Plans, the Regional Appendix F—Section 1.2.7—NAICS of a facility response plan to clarify that Codes an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) or Administrator may accept partial use of other plan format acceptable to the alternative formats. Background. We have revised section Regional Administrator is allowable to PE certification. PE certification is 1.2.7 to delete the reference to Standard serve as a facility response plan if it only required for the SPCC portion of Industry Classification (SIC) codes, and meets all facility response plan any ICP. replace it with a reference to North requirements. Our intent was to track Editorial changes and clarifications. American Industry Classification language in the SPCC rule allowing the We added the words ‘‘acceptable to the System (NAICS) codes. The NAICS was Regional Administrator similar Regional Administrator’’ in the first adopted by the United States, Canada, authority to accept differing formats for sentence after the words ‘‘response and Mexico on January 1, 1997 to SPCC Plans. However, the Regional plan.’’ replace the SIC codes.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47136 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix F—Section 1.4.3 Analysis of must determine whether a regulatory million during the second year, and the Potential for an Oil Discharge action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore $74.51 million during subsequent years. subject to Office of Management and Background. We have revised the B. Executive Order 12898— Budget (OMB) review and the second and last sentences of this section Environmental Justice by replacing the word ‘‘spill’’ with requirements of the Executive Order. Executive Order 12898 requires that ‘‘discharge.’’ The order defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one that is likely each Federal agency make achieving Appendix F—Section 1.7.3 (7)— to result in a rule that may: environmental justice part of its mission Containment and Drainage Planning (1) Have an annual effect on the by identifying and addressing, as Background. We have revised economy of $100 million or more or appropriate, disproportionately high paragraph (7) of section 1.7.3 of adversely affect in a material way the and adverse human health or Appendix F to use the new citation to economy, a sector of the economy, environmental effects of its programs, the SPCC rule’s inspection and productivity, competition, jobs, the policies, and activities on minorities monitoring requirements for drainage. environment, public health or safety, or and low-income populations. EPA has State, local, or tribal governments or determined that the regulatory changes Appendix F—Section 1.8.1 Facility communities; in this rule will not have a Self-Inspection (2) create a serious inconsistency or disproportionate impact on minorities Background. We have revised section otherwise interfere with an action taken and low-income populations. or planned by another agency; 1.8.1 of Appendix F to use the new C. Executive Order 13045—Children’s (3) materially alter the budgetary citation to the SPCC rule’s Health recordkeeping requirements. The impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of revision also reflects the three-year or loan programs or the rights and Children from Environmental Health record maintenance periods for SPCC obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, records and keeps the current five-year arising out of legal mandates, the April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: period for FRP records. (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically Editorial changes and clarifications. President’s priorities, or the principles significant’’ as defined under Executive ‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘each container.’’ set forth in the Executive Order. Under the terms of Executive Order Order 12866; and, (2) concerns an Appendix F—Section 1.8.1.1—Tank 12866, it has been determined that this environmental health or safety risk that Inspection rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ EPA has reason to believe may have a Background. We have revised section because it raises novel legal or policy disproportionate effect on children. If 1.8.1.1 of Appendix F to use the new issues. Such issues include proposed the regulatory action meets both criteria, citation to the SPCC rule’s tank measures which would relieve facilities the Agency must evaluate the inspection requirements. of regulatory mandates and could environmental health or safety effects of change the manner in which facilities the planned rule on children, and Appendix F—Section 1.8.1.3 comply with remaining mandates. explain why the planned regulation is Secondary Containment Inspection Therefore, this action was submitted to preferable to other potentially effective Background. We have revised section OMB for review. Changes made in and reasonably feasible alternatives 1.8.1.1.4 of Appendix F to use the new response to OMB suggestions or considered by the Agency. EPA citation to the SPCC rule’s secondary recommendations will be documented interprets Executive Order 13045 as containment inspection requirements. in the public record. applying only to those regulatory The reduction in size of the regulated actions that are based on health or safety Appendix F—Section 1.10 Security community due to final rule revisions risks, such that the analysis required Background. We have revised section will lead to a capital cost savings of under Section 5–501 of the Order has 1.10 of Appendix F to use the new approximately $29.47 million per year. the potential to influence the regulation. citation to the SPCC rule’s security During the first year, regulated facilities This final rule is not subject to requirements. will experience an increase in total Executive Order 13045 because it is not paperwork cost burden of $21.93 economically significant as defined in Appendix F—Section 2.1(6) General million due primarily to the need to Executive Order 12866, and because the Information read the rule. In addition, certain Agency does not have reason to believe Background. We have revised facilities will recalculate their storage the environmental health or safety risks paragraph 2.1(6) to refer to NAICS codes capacity to exclude applicable addressed by this action present a in place of SIC codes. wastewater treatment systems and, disproportionate risk to children. The therefore, must amend and certify their Appendix F—Section 3.0 Acronyms Agency has no data that indicate that plans if the storage capacity threshold is the types of risks resulting from oil Background. We have deleted the still met. In certain cases, however, the discharges have a disproportionate acronym for SIC and substituted the wastewater treatment system provision effect on children, and does not have acronym for NAICS. in section 112.1(b)(6) will result in a reason to believe that they do so. facility no longer being subject to the Appendix F-Attachment F–1 Response D. Executive Order 13175—Consultation Plan Cover Sheet any Part 112 requirements. However, during the second year, total paperwork and Coordination with Indian Tribal Background. We have deleted the cost burden will decrease by about Governments reference to SIC and substituted a $60.21 million and beginning in the On November 6, 2000, the President reference to NAICS. third year following the rulemaking, the issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses total paperwork cost burden to all 67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation and regulated facilities will decrease by Coordination with Indian Tribal A. Executive Order 12866—OMB Review about $45.03 million. The result is an Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175 Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR aggregate cost savings of about $7.56 took effect on January 6, 2001, and 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency million during the first year, $89.69 revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47137

Consultation) as of that date. EPA supply, distribution, or use of energy. facilities are small facilities, and of developed this final rule, however, The overall effect of the rule is to those, nearly 27,700 are small farms. under the period when EO 13084 was in decrease the regulatory burden on This rulemaking will increase effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal facility owners or operators subject to its information collection burden for most considerations under EO 13084. provisions. facilities in the first year by Today’s rule does not significantly or approximately 0.75 million hours due G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (R.F.A.) as uniquely affect communities of Indian principally to the estimated burden each amended by the Small Business tribal governments. Overall, the rule facility will incur to read and Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of significantly reduces the regulatory understand the changes that we are 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. burden, and the few burden increases in making to the rule. However, the rule the rule do not uniquely affect Indian The R.F.A. generally requires an will also reduce the overall annual tribal governments. agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility information collection burden by nearly Nevertheless, we consulted with a analysis of any rule subject to notice 1.59 million hours a year in the second representative organization of tribal and comment rulemaking requirements year and over 1.18 million hours a year groups, the Tribal Association on Solid under the Administrative Procedure Act in the third year of the information Waste and Emergency Response. That or any other statute unless the agency collection request, much of that for the organization did not provide us with certifies that the rule will not have a small facilities that make up the large any comments. significant economic impact on a majority of our regulated universe. substantial number of small entities. E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism Further, the rule will reduce costs for Small entities include small businesses, both existing and new facilities. Executive Order 13132, entitled small organizations, and small Information collection and other ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, governmental jurisdictions. provisions in the final rule that affect 1999), requires EPA to develop an For purposes of assessing the impacts capital costs are expected to yield cost accountable process to ensure of today’s rule on small entities, small savings of about $7.56 million during ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State entity is defined as: (1) A small business the first year, $89.69 million during the and local officials in the development of as defined in the Small Business second year and $74.51 million during regulatory policies that have federalism Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 subsequent years. The rule also gives all implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have CFR 121.201—the SBA defines small facilities greater flexibility in federalism implications’’ is defined in businesses by category of business using recordkeeping and other paperwork the Executive Order to include North American Industry Classification requirements. Finally, § 112.7(a)(2) of regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct System (NAICS) codes, and in the case the rule gives small businesses and all effects on the States, on the relationship of farms and production facilities, other facilities the flexibility to use between the national government and which constitute a large percentage of alternative methods to comply with the the States, or on the distribution of the facilities affected by this rule, requirements of the rule if the facility power and responsibilities among the generally defines small businesses as explains its rationale for various levels of government.’’ having less than $500,000 in revenues nonconformance and provides This final rule does not have or 500 employees, respectively; (2) a equivalent environmental protection. federalism implications. It will not have small governmental jurisdiction that is a We have therefore concluded that substantial direct effects on the States, government of a city, county, town, today’s final rule will relieve regulatory on the relationship between the national school district or special district with a burden for all small entities. government and the States, or on the population of less than 50,000; and (3) After considering the economic distribution of power and a small organization that is any not-for- impacts of today’s final rule on small responsibilities among the various profit enterprise which is independently entities, I certify that this action will not levels of government, as specified in owned and operated and is not have a significant economic impact on Executive Order 13132. Under CWA dominant in its field. a substantial number of small entities. section 311(o), EPA believes that States In determining whether a rule has a H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act are free to impose additional significant economic impact on a requirements, including more stringent substantial number of small entities, the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates requirements, relating to the prevention impact of concern is any significant Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. of oil discharges to navigable waters. In adverse economic impact on small 104–4, establishes requirements for proposing modifications to the SPCC entities, since the primary purpose of Federal agencies to assess the effects of rule, EPA encouraged States to the regulatory flexibility analyses is to their regulatory actions on State, local, supplement the federal SPCC program identify and address regulatory and tribal governments and the private and recognized that some States have alternatives ‘‘which minimize any sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, more stringent requirements. 56 FR significant economic impact of the EPA generally must prepare a written 54612 (Oct. 22, 1991). This rule does not proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5 statement, including a cost-benefit preempt state law or regulations. Thus, U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency analysis, for proposed and final rules Executive Order 13132 does not apply may certify that a rule will not have a with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may to this rule. significant economic impact on a result in expenditures to State, local, substantial number of small entities if and tribal governments, in the aggregate, F. Executive Order 13211—Energy the rule relieves regulatory burden, or or to the private sector, of $100 million Effects otherwise has a positive economic effect or more in any one year. Before This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy on all of the small entities subject to the promulgating an EPA rule for which a action’’ as defined in Executive Order rule. This rule will significantly reduce written statement is needed, section 205 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations regulatory burden on all facilities, of UMRA generally requires EPA to That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, particularly small facilities. For identify and consider a reasonable Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May example, the rule exempts number of regulatory alternatives and 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have approximately 55,000 facilities from its adopt the least costly, most cost- a significant adverse effect on the scope. Approximately 41,300 of those effective or least burdensome alternative

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47138 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The rule also gives all facilities greater specifications, and inspection The provisions of section 205 do not flexibility in recordkeeping and other requirements. EPA reviews SPCC Plans: apply when they are inconsistent with paperwork requirements. Finally, (1) when it requests a facility to submit applicable law. Moreover, section 205 § 112.7(a)(2) of the rule gives small a Plan after certain oil discharges or to allows EPA to adopt an alternative other businesses and all other facilities the evaluate an extension request; and, (2) than the least costly, most-effective or flexibility to use alternate methods to as part of EPA’s inspection program. least burdensome alternative if the comply with the requirements of the Note that the final rule eliminates the Administrator publishes with the final rule if the facility explains its rationale previous requirement to submit the rule an explanation why that alternative for nonconformance and describes its entire Plan after certain discharges, and was not adopted. method of equivalent environmental merely retains the requirement that it be Before EPA establishes any regulatory protection. Thus, today’s rule is not maintained at the facility unless EPA requirements that may significantly or subject to the requirements of sections requests a copy. State and local uniquely affect small governments, 202 and 205 of the UMRA. governments also use the data, which including tribal governments, it must In developing this rule, EPA are not necessarily available elsewhere have developed under section 203 of nevertheless consulted with and can greatly assist local emergency UMRA a small government agency plan. representative organizations of State, preparedness efforts. Preparation of the The plan must provide for notifying local, and tribal governments. The information for affected facilities is potentially affected small governments, representative organizations were the required under section 311(j)(1) of the enabling officials of affected small Environmental Council of the States, the Act as implemented by 40 CFR part 112. governments to have meaningful and National Association of Counties, and In the absence of this final timely input in the development of EPA the Tribal Association on Solid Waste rulemaking, EPA estimates that 469,274 regulatory proposals with significant and Emergency Response. None of those facilities would have been subject to the Federal intergovernmental mandates, organizations provided us with any rule in the first year and would have and informing, educating, and advising comments. However, numerous States already prepared SPCC Plans. In small governments on compliance with and local governments did comment on addition, EPA estimates that the regulatory requirements. the rule proposals in all three proposed approximately 4,700 new facilities EPA has determined that this rule rulemakings. Those commenters would have become subject to the does not contain a Federal mandate that submitted a wide variety of comments. requirements of the rule annually. EPA may result in expenditures of $100 EPA responses to those comments may also estimates that, in the absence of million or more for State, local, and be found in this document and in the this rulemaking, the average annual tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Comment Response Documents. public reporting and recordkeeping the private sector in any one year. EPA has determined that this rule burden for this collection of information Overall, the rule reduces burden and contains no regulatory requirements that for existing and newly regulated costs on all facilities. After the first and might significantly or uniquely affect facilities would have ranged between second year, the rule is expected to small governments. As explained above, 4.9 to 13.8 hours and 39.4 to 100.4 reduce the information collection the overall effect of the rule will be to hours, respectively, depending on burden by over 1.3 million hours reduce burden and costs for regulated facility characteristics (e.g., storage annually. facilities, including small governments capacity). Approximately 55,000 facilities will that are subject to the rule. Through this rulemaking, we expect no longer be subject to the SPCC rule. to reduce both the number of regulated Of these facilities, EPA estimates that I. Paperwork Reduction Act facilities, as well as the average annual approximately 3,500 existing facilities The Office of Management and Budget burden for facilities that remain will no longer be required to maintain (OMB) has approved the information regulated. The number of regulated SPCC plans, due to the exemption for collection requirements contained in facilities will be reduced by certain wastewater treatment systems. this rule under the provisions of the approximately 55,000. The average Other revisions are expected to exempt Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. annual public reporting for facilities approximately 51,400 additional 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB already regulated by the Oil Pollution facilities 39,623 small facilities control number 2050–0021. Prevention regulation is estimated to (including 27,700 small farms). The EPA does not collect the information range between 8.6 and 12.2 hours, while exemption for completely buried required by SPCC regulation on a the burden for newly regulated facilities containers will result in approximately routine basis. SPCC Plans ordinarily is estimated to range between 35.1 and 14,000 facilities no longer subject to the need not be submitted to EPA, but must 65.2 hours as a result of this rulemaking. rule, and 37,000 more facilities with generally be maintained at the facility. These average annual burden estimates some partial information collection Preparation, implementation, and take into account the varied frequencies reduction. Further, EPA estimates maintenance of an SPCC Plan by the of response for individual facilities Information collection and capital costs facility helps prevent oil discharges, and according to characteristics specific to are expected to decrease by over $74.25 mitigates the environmental damage those facilities, including the frequency million a year in the third year of the caused by such discharges. Therefore, of oil discharges and facility SPCC information collection request. In the primary user of the data is the modification, but exclude the addition to these SPCC-related impacts, facility. While EPA may, from time to anticipated burden facilities may incur this rulemaking is estimated to result in time, request information under these in the first year to read and understand cost savings for as many as 35 facilities regulations, such requests are not the changes we are making to the rule. that are expected to no longer require routine. Under the final rule, an estimated facility response plans due to the Although the facility is the primary 419,033 existing and newly regulated wastewater treatment system data user, EPA also uses the data in facilities will be subject to the SPCC exemption. The result of the changes to certain situations. EPA primarily uses information collection requirements of the scope of the FRP information SPCC Plan data to ensure that facilities this rule during the first year of the collection requirements is a cost savings comply with the regulation. This information collection period. The net of approximately $0.23 million per year. includes design and operation annualized capital and start-up costs for

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47139

the SPCC information collection portion requirement must submit their plans to consensus standards are technical of the rule average $740,000 and net EPA. In turn, we review and approve standards such as materials annualized labor and operation and plans submitted by facilities identified specifications, test methods, sampling maintenance costs are estimated to be as ‘‘significant and substantial harm’’ to procedures, and business practices that $93.00 million for all of these facilities the environment from oil discharges. are developed or adopted by voluntary combined. Other facilities are not required to consensus standards bodies. The The information collection burden of prepare FRPs but are required to NTTAA directs EPA to provide the SPCC rule prior to this rulemaking document their determination that they Congress, through OMB, explanations averaged 2,828,150 hours per year. do not meet the ‘‘substantial harm’’ when the Agency decides not to use Under this final rule, the annual average criteria. available and applicable voluntary burden over the next three-year ICR Prior to this rulemaking, EPA consensus standards. period is estimated to be 2,208,701 estimated that it requires between 99 This rulemaking involves technical hours, resulting in a 22 percent average and 132 hours for facility personnel in standards. Throughout today’s reduction. This rulemaking will a large facility (i.e., total storage capacity preamble, EPA has emphasized that increase burden for most facilities in the greater than 1 million gallons) and owners or operators of facilities should first year (totaling approximately 3.6 between 26 and 46 hours for personnel use applicable industry standards in million hours) due principally to the in a medium facility (i.e., total storage performing tests, inspections, and in estimated burden each facility will capacity greater than 42,000 gallons and monitoring. Section 112.3(d) provides incur to read and understand the less than or equal to 1 million gallons) that a Professional Engineer must certify changes that we are making to the rule. to comply with the annual, subsequent- that the SPCC Plan has been prepared in The first-year burden also includes the year reporting and recordkeeping accordance with good engineering additional need for certain facilities to requirements of the FRP rule. We have practice, including consideration of amend and certify their SPCC plans to also estimated that prior to this applicable industry standards. We are exclude wastewater treatment volumes rulemaking newly regulated large and providing examples of specific from their oil storage capacity. Second medium facilities will require between standards in today’s preamble. year burden is expected to total 253 and 293 hours and 109 and 142 However, due to the wide variety of approximately 1.3 million hours. In hours, respectively, to prepare a plan in facilities the rule involves, few subsequent years, we estimate that the the first year. In the absence of this standards would be applicable to all overall burden will be approximately rulemaking, EPA estimates that the total regulated facilities. Also, those 1.7 million hours annually, representing number FRP facilities affected in the standards change over time. Therefore, a nearly 40 percent reduction versus the first year would have been 6,000 we are not incorporating those average annual burden from the existing and 70 new facilities. Through standards into rule text. previous information collection period. this rulemaking the estimated number of Burden means the total time, effort, or facilities required to maintain FRPs is K. Congressional Review Act financial resources expended by persons reduced to 5,965 and the number of new The Congressional Review Act, 5 to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose facilities that will be required to prepare U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small or provide information to or for a and submit FRP plans is reduced to 64 Business Regulatory Enforcement Federal agency. This includes the time facilities. This reduction in the number Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides needed to review instructions; develop, of facilities required to prepare, submit, that before a rule may take effect, the acquire, install, and utilize technology and/or maintain an FRP would result in agency promulgating the rule must and systems for the purposes of an average annual information submit a rule report, which includes a collecting, validating, and verifying collection burden reduction of 8,513 copy of the rule, to each House of information, processing and hours a year (624,252 to 615,739 hours). Congress and to the Comptroller General maintaining information, and disclosing An Agency may not conduct or of the United States. EPA has submitted and providing information; adjust the sponsor, and a person is not required to a report containing this rule and other existing ways to comply with any respond to a collection of information required information to the U.S. Senate, previously applicable instructions and unless it displays a currently valid OMB the U.S. House of Representatives, and requirements; train personnel to be able control number. The OMB control the Comptroller General of the United to respond to a collection of numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed States prior to publication of the rule in information; search data sources; in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter the Federal Register. This action is not complete and review the collection of 15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. information; and transmit or otherwise part 9 of currently approved ICR control 804(2). This rule will be effective disclose the information. numbers issued by OMB for various August 16, 2002. In addition to reducing the regulations to list the information information collection burden of SPCC requirements contained in this final List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112 facilities, this final rule also affects the rule. Environmental protection, Fire number of facilities that require an FRP. prevention, Flammable materials, The FRP rule (40 CFR 112.20–21) J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Materials handling and storage, Oil requires that owners or operators of pollution, Oil spill prevention, Oil spill facilities that could cause ‘‘substantial As noted in the December 7, 1997, response, Penalties, Petroleum, harm’’ to the environment by proposed rule, section 12(d) of the Reporting and recordkeeping discharging oil into navigable waters or National Technology Transfer and requirements, Tanks, Water pollution adjoining shorelines prepare plans for Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’). control, Water resources. responding, to the maximum extent Pub. L. 104–113, section 12(d) (15 practicable, to a worst case discharge of U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use Dated: June 28, 2002. oil, to a substantial threat of such a voluntary consensus standards in its Christine Todd Whitman, discharge, and, as appropriate, to regulatory activities unless to do so Administrator. discharges smaller than worst case would be inconsistent with applicable For the reasons set out in the discharges. All facilities subject to this law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary preamble, title 40 CFR, chapter I, part

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47140 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

112 of the Code of Federal Regulations, processing, refining, transferring, Understanding between the Secretary of is amended as follows: distributing, using, or consuming oil Transportation and the Administrator of and oil products, which due to its EPA, dated November 24, 1971 PART 112—OIL POLLUTION location, could reasonably be expected (Appendix A of this part). PREVENTION to discharge oil in quantities that may (iii) Any equipment, or operation of a 1. The authority for part 112 be harmful, as described in part 110 of vessel or onshore or offshore facility which is subject to the authority and continues to read as follows: this chapter, into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining control of the U.S. Department of Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C shorelines, or into or upon the waters of Transportation or the U.S. Department 2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, the contiguous zone, or in connection of the Interior, as defined in the 1991 Comp., p. 351. with activities under the Outer Memorandum of Understanding 2. Part 112 is amended by designating Continental Shelf Lands Act or the between the Secretary of Transportation, §§ 112.1 through 112.7 as subpart A, Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or that may the Secretary of the Interior, and the adding a subpart heading and revising affect natural resources belonging to, Administrator of EPA, dated November newly designated subpart A to read as appertaining to, or under the exclusive 8, 1993 (Appendix B of this part). follows: management authority of the United (2) Any facility which, although States (including resources under the otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of Subpart A—Applicability, Definitions, and EPA, meets both of the following General Requirements For All Facilities and Magnuson Fishery Conservation and All Types of Oils Management Act) that has oil in: requirements: (1) Any aboveground container; (i) The completely buried storage Sec. (2) Any completely buried tank as capacity of the facility is 42,000 gallons 112.1 General applicability. defined in § 112.2; or less of oil. For purposes of this 112.2 Definitions. exemption, the completely buried 112.3 Requirement to prepare and (3) Any container that is used for implement a Spill Prevention, Control, standby storage, for seasonal storage, or storage capacity of a facility excludes and Countermeasure Plan. for temporary storage, or not otherwise the capacity of a completely buried 112.4 Amendment of Spill Prevention, ‘‘permanently closed’’ as defined in tank, as defined in § 112.2, and Control, and Countermeasure Plan by § 112.2; connected underground piping, Regional Administrator. (4) Any ‘‘bunkered tank’’ or ‘‘partially underground ancillary equipment, and 112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention, buried tank’’ as defined in § 112.2, or containment systems, that is currently Control, and Countermeasure Plan by any container in a vault, each of which subject to all of the technical owners or operators. is considered an aboveground storage requirements of part 280 of this chapter 112.6 [Reserved]. container for purposes of this part. or all of the technical requirements of a 112.7 General requirements for Spill State program approved under part 281 Prevention, Control, and (c) As provided in section 313 of the Countermeasure Plans. Clean Water Act (CWA), departments, of this chapter. The completely buried agencies, and instrumentalities of the storage capacity of a facility also Subpart A—Applicability, Definitions, Federal government are subject to this excludes the capacity of a container that and General Requirements for All part to the same extent as any person. is ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in Facilities and All Types of Oils (d) Except as provided in paragraph § 112.2. (f) of this section, this part does not (ii) The aggregate aboveground storage § 112.1 General applicability. apply to: capacity of the facility is 1,320 gallons (a)(1) This part establishes (1) The owner or operator of any or less of oil. For purposes of this procedures, methods, equipment, and facility, equipment, or operation that is exemption, only containers of oil with other requirements to prevent the not subject to the jurisdiction of the a capacity of 55 gallons or greater are discharge of oil from non- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) counted. The aggregate aboveground transportation-related onshore and under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA, storage capacity of a facility excludes offshore facilities into or upon the as follows: the capacity of a container that is navigable waters of the United States or (i) Any onshore or offshore facility, ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the that due to its location, could not § 112.2. waters of the contiguous zone, or in reasonably be expected to have a (3) Any offshore oil drilling, connection with activities under the discharge as described in paragraph (b) production, or workover facility that is Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or of this section. This determination must subject to the notices and regulations of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or that be based solely upon consideration of the Minerals Management Service, as may affect natural resources belonging the geographical and location aspects of specified in the Memorandum of to, appertaining to, or under the the facility (such as proximity to Understanding between the Secretary of exclusive management authority of the navigable waters or adjoining Transportation, the Secretary of the United States (including resources shorelines, land contour, drainage, etc.) Interior, and the Administrator of EPA, under the Magnuson Fishery and must exclude consideration of dated November 8, 1993 (Appendix B of Conservation and Management Act). manmade features such as dikes, this part). (2) As used in this part, words in the equipment or other structures, which (4) Any completely buried storage singular also include the plural and may serve to restrain, hinder, contain, or tank, as defined in § 112.2, and words in the masculine gender also otherwise prevent a discharge as connected underground piping, include the feminine and vice versa, as described in paragraph (b) of this underground ancillary equipment, and the case may require. section. containment systems, at any facility, (b) Except as provided in paragraph (ii) Any equipment, or operation of a that is subject to all of the technical (d) of this section, this part applies to vessel or transportation-related onshore requirements of part 280 of this chapter any owner or operator of a non- or offshore facility which is subject to or a State program approved under part transportation-related onshore or the authority and control of the U.S. 281 of this chapter, except that such a offshore facility engaged in drilling, Department of Transportation, as tank must be marked on the facility producing, gathering, storing, defined in the Memorandum of diagram as provided in § 112.7(a)(3), if

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47141

the facility is otherwise subject to this whether the owner or operator is (as appropriate), ice conditions, part. required to prepare and implement an temperatures, weather-related visibility, (5) Any container with a storage SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The and currents within the area in which capacity of less than 55 gallons of oil. Regional Administrator must send the the systems or equipment is intended to (6) Any facility or part thereof used final determination to the owner or function. exclusively for wastewater treatment operator by certified mail or by personal Alteration means any work on a and not used to satisfy any requirement delivery. If the owner or operator is a container involving cutting, burning, of this part. The production, recovery, corporation, the Regional Administrator welding, or heating operations that or recycling of oil is not wastewater must also mail a copy of the final changes the physical dimensions or treatment for purposes of this determination to the registered agent, if configuration of the container. paragraph. any and if known, of the corporation in Animal fat means a non-petroleum (e) This part establishes requirements the State where the facility is located. oil, fat, or grease of animal, fish, or for the preparation and implementation (4) If the Regional Administrator marine mammal origin. of Spill Prevention, Control, and makes a final determination that an Breakout tank means a container used Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. SPCC SPCC Plan, or applicable part, is to relieve surges in an oil pipeline Plans are designed to complement necessary, the owner or operator must system or to receive and store oil existing laws, regulations, rules, prepare the Plan, or applicable part, transported by a pipeline for reinjection standards, policies, and procedures within six months of that final and continued transportation by pertaining to safety standards, fire determination and implement the Plan, pipeline. prevention, and pollution prevention or applicable part, as soon as possible, Bulk storage container means any rules. The purpose of an SPCC Plan is but not later than one year after the container used to store oil. These to form a comprehensive Federal/State Regional Administrator has made a final containers are used for purposes spill prevention program that minimizes determination. including, but not limited to, the storage the potential for discharges. The SPCC (5) The owner or operator may appeal of oil prior to use, while being used, or Plan must address all relevant spill a final determination made by the prior to further distribution in prevention, control, and Regional Administrator requiring commerce. Oil-filled electrical, countermeasures necessary at the preparation and implementation of an operating, or manufacturing equipment specific facility. Compliance with this SPCC Plan, or applicable part, under is not a bulk storage container. part does not in any way relieve the this paragraph. The owner or operator Bunkered tank means a container owner or operator of an onshore or an must make the appeal to the constructed or placed in the ground by offshore facility from compliance with Administrator of EPA within 30 days of cutting the earth and re-covering the other Federal, State, or local laws. receipt of the final determination under container in a manner that breaks the (f) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of paragraph (b)(3) of this section from the surrounding natural grade, or that lies this section, the Regional Administrator Regional Administrator requiring above grade, and is covered with earth, may require that the owner or operator preparation and/or implementation of sand, gravel, asphalt, or other material. of any facility subject to the jurisdiction an SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The A bunkered tank is considered an of EPA under section 311(j) of the CWA owner or operator must send a complete aboveground storage container for prepare and implement an SPCC Plan, copy of the appeal to the Regional purposes of this part. or any applicable part, to carry out the Administrator at the time he makes the Completely buried tank means any purposes of the CWA. appeal to the Administrator. The appeal container completely below grade and (1) Following a preliminary must contain a clear and concise covered with earth, sand, gravel, determination, the Regional statement of the issues and points of fact asphalt, or other material. Containers in Administrator must provide a written in the case. In the appeal, the owner or vaults, bunkered tanks, or partially notice to the owner or operator stating operator may also provide additional buried tanks are considered the reasons why he must prepare an information. The additional information aboveground storage containers for SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The may be from any person. The purposes of this part. Regional Administrator must send such Administrator may request additional notice to the owner or operator by information from the owner or operator. Complex means a facility possessing a certified mail or by personal delivery. If The Administrator must render a combination of transportation-related the owner or operator is a corporation, decision within 60 days of receiving the and non-transportation-related the Regional Administrator must also appeal or additional information components that is subject to the mail a copy of such notice to the submitted by the owner or operator and jurisdiction of more than one Federal registered agent, if any and if known, of must serve the owner or operator with agency under section 311(j) of the CWA. the corporation in the State where the the decision made in the appeal in the Contiguous zone means the zone facility is located. manner described in paragraph (f)(1) of established by the United States under (2) Within 30 days of receipt of such this section. Article 24 of the Convention of the written notice, the owner or operator Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, may provide information and data and § 112.2 Definitions. that is contiguous to the territorial sea may consult with the Agency about the For the purposes of this part: and that extends nine miles seaward need to prepare an SPCC Plan, or Adverse weather means weather from the outer limit of the territorial applicable part. conditions that make it difficult for area. (3) Within 30 days following the time response equipment and personnel to Contract or other approved means under paragraph (b)(2) of this section clean up or remove spilled oil, and that means: within which the owner or operator may must be considered when identifying (1) A written contractual agreement provide information and data and response systems and equipment in a with an oil spill removal organization consult with the Agency about the need response plan for the applicable that identifies and ensures the to prepare an SPCC Plan, or applicable operating environment. Factors to availability of the necessary personnel part, the Regional Administrator must consider include significant wave height and equipment within appropriate make a final determination regarding as specified in Appendix E to this part response times; and/or

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47142 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

(2) A written certification by the reserves, conservation areas, preserves, (v) Tributaries of waters identified in owner or operator that the necessary wildlife areas, wildlife refuges, wild and paragraphs (1)(i) through (iv) of this personnel and equipment resources, scenic rivers, recreational areas, definition; owned or operated by the facility owner national forests, Federal and State lands (vi) The territorial sea; and or operator, are available to respond to that are research national areas, heritage (vii) Wetlands adjacent to waters a discharge within appropriate response program areas, land trust areas, and (other than waters that are themselves times; and/or historical and archaeological sites and wetlands) identified in paragraph (1) of (3) Active membership in a local or parks. These areas may also include this definition. regional oil spill removal organization unique habitats such as aquaculture (2) Waste treatment systems, that has identified and ensures adequate sites and agricultural surface water including treatment ponds or lagoons access through such membership to intakes, bird nesting areas, critical designed to meet the requirements of necessary personnel and equipment to biological resource areas, designated the CWA (other than cooling ponds respond to a discharge within migratory routes, and designated which also meet the criteria of this appropriate response times in the seasonal habitats. definition) are not waters of the United specified geographic area; and/or Injury means a measurable adverse States. Navigable waters do not include (4) Any other specific arrangement change, either long- or short-term, in the prior converted cropland. approved by the Regional Administrator chemical or physical quality or the Notwithstanding the determination of upon request of the owner or operator. viability of a natural resource resulting an area’s status as prior converted Discharge includes, but is not limited either directly or indirectly from cropland by any other Federal agency, to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, exposure to a discharge, or exposure to for the purposes of the CWA, the final pouring, emitting, emptying, or a product of reactions resulting from a authority regarding CWA jurisdiction dumping of oil, but excludes discharges discharge. remains with EPA. in compliance with a permit under Maximum extent practicable means Non-petroleum oil means oil of any section 402 of the CWA; discharges within the limitations used to determine kind that is not petroleum-based, resulting from circumstances identified, oil spill planning resources and including but not limited to: Fats, oils, reviewed, and made a part of the public response times for on-water recovery, and greases of animal, fish, or marine record with respect to a permit issued shoreline protection, and cleanup for mammal origin; and vegetable oils, or modified under section 402 of the worst case discharges from onshore non- including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, CWA, and subject to a condition in such transportation-related facilities in and kernels. permit; or continuous or anticipated adverse weather. It includes the planned Offshore facility means any facility of intermittent discharges from a point any kind (other than a vessel or public source, identified in a permit or permit capability to respond to a worst case discharge in adverse weather, as vessel) located in, on, or under any of application under section 402 of the the navigable waters of the United CWA, that are caused by events contained in a response plan that meets the requirements in § 112.20 or in a States, and any facility of any kind that occurring within the scope of relevant is subject to the jurisdiction of the operating or treatment systems. For specific plan approved by the Regional Administrator. United States and is located in, on, or purposes of this part, the term discharge under any other waters. Navigable waters means the waters of shall not include any discharge of oil Oil means oil of any kind or in any the United States, including the that is authorized by a permit issued form, including, but not limited to: fats, territorial seas. under section 13 of the River and oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407). (1) The term includes: mammal origin; vegetable oils, Facility means any mobile or fixed, (i) All waters that are currently used, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or onshore or offshore building, structure, were used in the past, or may be kernels; and, other oils and greases, installation, equipment, pipe, or susceptible to use in interstate or foreign including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, pipeline (other than a vessel or a public commerce, including all waters subject synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or vessel) used in oil well drilling to the ebb and flow of the tide; oil mixed with wastes other than operations, oil production, oil refining, (ii) All interstate waters, including dredged spoil. oil storage, oil gathering, oil processing, interstate wetlands; Oil Spill Removal Organization means oil transfer, oil distribution, and waste (iii) All other waters such as intrastate an entity that provides oil spill response treatment, or in which oil is used, as lakes, rivers, streams (including resources, and includes any for-profit or described in Appendix A to this part. intermittent streams), mudflats, not-for-profit contractor, cooperative, or The boundaries of a facility depend on sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie in-house response resources that have several site-specific factors, including, potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or been established in a geographic area to but not limited to, the ownership or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or provide required response resources. operation of buildings, structures, and destruction of which could affect Onshore facility means any facility of equipment on the same site and the interstate or foreign commerce any kind located in, on, or under any types of activity at the site. including any such waters: land within the United States, other Fish and wildlife and sensitive (A) That are or could be used by than submerged lands. environments means areas that may be interstate or foreign travelers for Owner or operator means any person identified by their legal designation or recreational or other purposes; or owning or operating an onshore facility by evaluations of Area Committees (for (B) From which fish or shellfish are or or an offshore facility, and in the case planning) or members of the Federal could be taken and sold in interstate or of any abandoned offshore facility, the On-Scene Coordinator’s spill response foreign commerce; or, person who owned or operated or structure (during responses). These (C) That are or could be used for maintained the facility immediately areas may include wetlands, National industrial purposes by industries in prior to such abandonment. and State parks, critical habitats for interstate commerce; Partially buried tank means a storage endangered or threatened species, (iv) All impoundments of waters container that is partially inserted or wilderness and natural resource areas, otherwise defined as waters of the constructed in the ground, but not marine sanctuaries and estuarine United States under this section; entirely below grade, and not

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47143

completely covered with earth, sand, November 24, 1971, (Appendix A of this 2003, and could reasonably be expected gravel, asphalt, or other material. A part). to have a discharge as described in partially buried tank is considered an United States means the States, the § 112.1(b), you must prepare and aboveground storage container for District of Columbia, the implement a Plan before you begin purposes of this part. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the operations. Permanently closed means any Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana (c) If you are the owner or operator of container or facility for which: Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the an onshore or offshore mobile facility, (1) All liquid and sludge has been U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific such as an onshore drilling or workover removed from each container and Island Governments. rig, barge mounted offshore drilling or connecting line; and Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum workover rig, or portable fueling facility, (2) All connecting lines and piping oil or fat of vegetable origin, including you must prepare, implement, and have been disconnected from the but not limited to oils and fats derived maintain a facility Plan as required by container and blanked off, all valves from plant seeds, nuts, fruits, and this section. This provision does not (except for ventilation valves) have been kernels. require that you prepare a new Plan closed and locked, and conspicuous Vessel means every description of each time you move the facility to a new signs have been posted on each watercraft or other artificial contrivance site. The Plan may be a general plan. container stating that it is a permanently used, or capable of being used, as a When you move the mobile or portable closed container and noting the date of means of transportation on water, other facility, you must locate and install it closure. than a public vessel. using the discharge prevention practices Person includes an individual, firm, Wetlands means those areas that are outlined in the Plan for the facility. You corporation, association, or partnership. inundated or saturated by surface or may not operate a mobile or portable Petroleum oil means petroleum in any groundwater at a frequency or duration facility subject to this part unless you form, including but not limited to crude sufficient to support, and that under have implemented the Plan. The Plan is oil, fuel oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil normal circumstances do support, a applicable only while the facility is in refuse, and refined products. prevalence of vegetation typically a fixed (non-transportation) operating Production facility means all adapted for life in saturated soil mode. structures (including but not limited to conditions. Wetlands generally include (d) A licensed Professional Engineer wells, platforms, or storage facilities), playa lakes, swamps, marshes, bogs, and must review and certify a Plan for it to piping (including but not limited to similar areas such as sloughs, prairie be effective to satisfy the requirements flowlines or gathering lines), or potholes, wet meadows, prairie river of this part. equipment (including but not limited to overflows, mudflats, and natural ponds. (1) By means of this certification the workover equipment, separation Worst case discharge for an onshore Professional Engineer attests: equipment, or auxiliary non- non-transportation-related facility (i) That he is familiar with the transportation-related equipment) used means the largest foreseeable discharge requirements of this part ; in the production, extraction, recovery, in adverse weather conditions as (ii) That he or his agent has visited lifting, stabilization, separation or determined using the worksheets in and examined the facility; (iii) That the Plan has been prepared treating of oil, or associated storage or Appendix D to this part. in accordance with good engineering measurement, and located in a single § 112.3 Requirement to prepare and practice, including consideration of geographical oil or gas field operated by implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and applicable industry standards, and with a single operator. Countermeasure Plan. the requirements of this part; Regional Administrator means the The owner or operator of an onshore (iv) That procedures for required Regional Administrator of the or offshore facility subject to this section inspections and testing have been Environmental Protection Agency, in must prepare a Spill Prevention, established; and and for the Region in which the facility Control, and Countermeasure Plan (v) That the Plan is adequate for the is located. (hereafter ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan),’’ in facility. Repair means any work necessary to writing, and in accordance with § 112.7, (2) Such certification shall in no way maintain or restore a container to a and any other applicable section of this relieve the owner or operator of a condition suitable for safe operation, part. facility of his duty to prepare and fully other than that necessary for ordinary, (a) If your onshore or offshore facility implement such Plan in accordance day-to-day maintenance to maintain the was in operation on or before August 16, with the requirements of this part. functional integrity of the container and 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but (e) If you are the owner or operator of that does not weaken the container. must amend it, if necessary to ensure a facility for which a Plan is required Spill Prevention, Control, and compliance with this part, on or before under this section, you must: Countermeasure Plan; SPCC Plan, or February 17, 2003, and must implement (1) Maintain a complete copy of the Plan means the document required by the amended Plan as soon as possible, Plan at the facility if the facility is § 112.3 that details the equipment, but not later than August 18, 2003. If normally attended at least four hours workforce, procedures, and steps to your onshore or offshore facility per day, or at the nearest field office if prevent, control, and provide adequate becomes operational after August 16, the facility is not so attended, and countermeasures to a discharge. 2002, through August 18, 2003, and (2) Have the Plan available to the Storage capacity of a container means could reasonably be expected to have a Regional Administrator for on-site the shell capacity of the container. discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you review during normal working hours. Transportation-related and non- must prepare a Plan on or before August (f) Extension of time. (1) The Regional transportation-related, as applied to an 18, 2003, and fully implement it as soon Administrator may authorize an onshore or offshore facility, are defined as possible, but not later than August extension of time for the preparation in the Memorandum of Understanding 18, 2003. and full implementation of a Plan, or between the Secretary of Transportation (b) If you are the owner or operator of any amendment thereto, beyond the and the Administrator of the an onshore or offshore facility that time permitted for the preparation, Environmental Protection Agency, dated becomes operational after August 18, implementation, or amendment of a

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47144 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Plan under this part, when he finds that (2) Your name; in the State in which the facility is the owner or operator of a facility (3) Location of the facility; located. The Regional Administrator subject to this section, cannot fully (4) Maximum storage or handling must specify the terms of such proposed comply with the requirements as a capacity of the facility and normal daily amendment. Within 30 days from result of either nonavailability of throughput; receipt of such notice, you may submit qualified personnel, or delays in (5) Corrective action and written information, views, and construction or equipment delivery countermeasures you have taken, arguments on the proposed amendment. beyond the control and without the fault including a description of equipment After considering all relevant material of such owner or operator or his agents repairs and replacements; presented, the Regional Administrator or employees. (6) An adequate description of the must either notify you of any (2) If you are an owner or operator facility, including maps, flow diagrams, amendment required or rescind the seeking an extension of time under and topographical maps, as necessary; notice. You must amend your Plan as paragraph (f)(1) of this section, you may (7) The cause of such discharge as required within 30 days after such submit a written extension request to described in § 112.1(b), including a notice, unless the Regional the Regional Administrator. Your failure analysis of the system or Administrator, for good cause, specifies request must include: subsystem in which the failure another effective date. You must (i) A full explanation of the cause for occurred; implement the amended Plan as soon as any such delay and the specific aspects (8) Additional preventive measures possible, but not later than six months of the Plan affected by the delay; you have taken or contemplated to after you amend your Plan, unless the (ii) A full discussion of actions being minimize the possibility of recurrence; Regional Administrator specifies taken or contemplated to minimize or and another date. mitigate such delay; and (9) Such other information as the (f) If you appeal a decision made by (iii) A proposed time schedule for the Regional Administrator may reasonably the Regional Administrator requiring an implementation of any corrective require pertinent to the Plan or amendment to an SPCC Plan, send the actions being taken or contemplated, discharge. appeal to the EPA Administrator in including interim dates for completion (b) Take no action under this section writing within 30 days of receipt of the of tests or studies, installation and until it applies to your facility. This notice from the Regional Administrator operation of any necessary equipment, section does not apply until the requiring the amendment under or other preventive measures. In expiration of the time permitted for the paragraph (e) of this section. You must addition you may present additional initial preparation and implementation send a complete copy of the appeal to oral or written statements in support of of the Plan under § 112.3, but not the Regional Administrator at the time your extension request. including any amendments to the Plan. you make the appeal. The appeal must (3) The submission of a written (c) Send to the appropriate agency or contain a clear and concise statement of extension request under paragraph (f)(2) agencies in charge of oil pollution the issues and points of fact in the case. of this section does not relieve you of control activities in the State in which It may also contain additional your obligation to comply with the the facility is located a complete copy information from you, or from any other requirements of this part. The Regional of all information you provided to the person. The EPA Administrator may Administrator may request a copy of Regional Administrator under paragraph request additional information from your Plan to evaluate the extension (a) of this section. Upon receipt of the you, or from any other person. The EPA request. When the Regional information such State agency or Administrator must render a decision Administrator authorizes an extension agencies may conduct a review and within 60 days of receiving the appeal of time for particular equipment or other make recommendations to the Regional and must notify you of his decision. specific aspects of the Plan, such Administrator as to further procedures, extension does not affect your obligation methods, equipment, and other § 112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention, requirements necessary to prevent and Control, and Countermeasure Plan by to comply with the requirements related owners or operators. to other equipment or other specific to contain discharges from your facility. (d) Amend your Plan, if after review If you are the owner or operator of a aspects of the Plan for which the by the Regional Administrator of the facility subject to this part, you must: Regional Administrator has not information you submit under (a) Amend the SPCC Plan for your expressly authorized an extension. paragraph (a) of this section, or facility in accordance with the general § 112.4 Amendment of Spill Prevention, submission of information to EPA by the requirements in § 112.7, and with any Control, and Countermeasure Plan by State agency under paragraph (c) of this specific section of this part applicable to Regional Administrator. section, or after on-site review of your your facility, when there is a change in If you are the owner or operator of a Plan, the Regional Administrator the facility design, construction, facility subject to this part, you must: requires that you do so. The Regional operation, or maintenance that (a) Notwithstanding compliance with Administrator may require you to materially affects its potential for a § 112.3, whenever your facility has amend your Plan if he finds that it does discharge as described in § 112.1(b). discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gallons not meet the requirements of this part or Examples of changes that may require of oil in a single discharge as described that amendment is necessary to prevent amendment of the Plan include, but are in § 112.1(b), or discharged more than and contain discharges from your not limited to: commissioning or 42 U.S. gallons of oil in each of two facility. decommissioning containers; discharges as described in § 112.1(b), (e) Act in accordance with this replacement, reconstruction, or occurring within any twelve month paragraph when the Regional movement of containers; reconstruction, period, submit the following Administrator proposes by certified replacement, or installation of piping information to the Regional mail or by personal delivery that you systems; construction or demolition that Administrator within 60 days from the amend your SPCC Plan. If the owner or might alter secondary containment time the facility becomes subject to this operator is a corporation, he must also structures; changes of product or section: notify by mail the registered agent of service; or revision of standard (1) Name of the facility; such corporation, if any and if known, operation or maintenance procedures at

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47145

a facility. An amendment made under these items in separate paragraphs, and (iv) Countermeasures for discharge this section must be prepared within six must explain separately the details of discovery, response, and cleanup (both months, and implemented as soon as installation and operational start-up. As the facility’s capability and those that possible, but not later than six months detailed elsewhere in this section, you might be required of a contractor); following preparation of the must also: (v) Methods of disposal of recovered amendment. (a)(1) Include a discussion of your materials in accordance with applicable (b) Notwithstanding compliance with facility’s conformance with the legal requirements; and paragraph (a) of this section, complete a requirements listed in this part. (vi) Contact list and phone numbers review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan (2) Comply with all applicable for the facility response coordinator, at least once every five years from the requirements listed in this part. Your National Response Center, cleanup date your facility becomes subject to Plan may deviate from the requirements contractors with whom you have an this part; or, if your facility was in in paragraphs (g), (h)(2) and (3), and (i) agreement for response, and all operation on or before August 16, 2002, of this section and the requirements in appropriate Federal, State, and local five years from the date your last review subparts B and C of this part, except the agencies who must be contacted in case was required under this part. As a result secondary containment requirements in of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). of this review and evaluation, you must paragraphs (c) and (h)(1) of this section, (4) Unless you have submitted a response plan under § 112.20, provide amend your SPCC Plan within six and §§ 112.8(c)(2),112.8(c)(11), information and procedures in your months of the review to include more 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), Plan to enable a person reporting a effective prevention and control 112.12(c)(11),112.13(c)(2), and discharge as described in § 112.1(b) to technology if the technology has been 112.14(c), where applicable to a specific relate information on the exact address field-proven at the time of the review facility, if you provide equivalent or location and phone number of the and will significantly reduce the environmental protection by some other facility; the date and time of the likelihood of a discharge as described in means of spill prevention, control, or discharge, the type of material § 112.1(b) from the facility. You must countermeasure. Where your Plan does discharged; estimates of the total implement any amendment as soon as not conform to the applicable quantity discharged; estimates of the possible, but not later than six months requirements in paragraphs (g), (h)(2) quantity discharged as described in following preparation of any and (3), and (i) of this section, or the § 112.1(b); the source of the discharge; a amendment. You must document your requirements of subparts B and C of this description of all affected media; the completion of the review and part, except the secondary containment cause of the discharge; any damages or evaluation, and must sign a statement as requirements in paragraphs (c) and injuries caused by the discharge; actions to whether you will amend the Plan, (h)(1) of this section, and §§ 112.8(c)(2), being used to stop, remove, and mitigate either at the beginning or end of the 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), the effects of the discharge; whether an Plan or in a log or an appendix to the 112.12(c)(2), 112.12(c)(11), 112.13(c)(2), evacuation may be needed; and, the Plan. The following words will suffice, and 112.14(c), you must state the names of individuals and/or ‘‘I have completed review and reasons for nonconformance in your organizations who have also been evaluation of the SPCC Plan for (name Plan and describe in detail alternate contacted. of facility) on (date), and will (will not) methods and how you will achieve (5) Unless you have submitted a amend the Plan as a result.’’ equivalent environmental protection. If response plan under § 112.20, organize (c) Have a Professional Engineer the Regional Administrator determines portions of the Plan describing certify any technical amendment to your that the measures described in your procedures you will use when a Plan in accordance with § 112.3(d). Plan do not provide equivalent discharge occurs in a way that will environmental protection, he may § 112.6 [Reserved] make them readily usable in an require that you amend your Plan, emergency, and include appropriate § 112.7 General requirements for Spill following the procedures in § 112.4(d) supporting material as appendices. Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure and (e). (b) Where experience indicates a Plans. (3) Describe in your Plan the physical reasonable potential for equipment If you are the owner or operator of a layout of the facility and include a failure (such as loading or unloading facility subject to this part you must facility diagram, which must mark the equipment, tank overflow, rupture, or prepare a Plan in accordance with good location and contents of each container. leakage, or any other equipment known engineering practices. The Plan must The facility diagram must include to be a source of a discharge), include have the full approval of management at completely buried tanks that are in your Plan a prediction of the a level of authority to commit the otherwise exempted from the direction, rate of flow, and total quantity necessary resources to fully implement requirements of this part under of oil which could be discharged from the Plan. You must prepare the Plan in § 112.1(d)(4). The facility diagram must the facility as a result of each type of writing. If you do not follow the also include all transfer stations and major equipment failure. sequence specified in this section for connecting pipes. You must also (c) Provide appropriate containment the Plan, you must prepare an address in your Plan: and/or diversionary structures or equivalent Plan acceptable to the (i) The type of oil in each container equipment to prevent a discharge as Regional Administrator that meets all of and its storage capacity; described in § 112.1(b). The entire the applicable requirements listed in (ii) Discharge prevention measures containment system, including walls this part, and you must supplement it including procedures for routine and floor, must be capable of containing with a section cross-referencing the handling of products (loading, oil and must be constructed so that any location of requirements listed in this unloading, and facility transfers, etc.); discharge from a primary containment part and the equivalent requirements in (iii) Discharge or drainage controls system, such as a tank or pipe, will not the other prevention plan. If the Plan such as secondary containment around escape the containment system before calls for additional facilities or containers and other structures, cleanup occurs. At a minimum, you procedures, methods, or equipment not equipment, and procedures for the must use one of the following yet fully operational, you must discuss control of a discharge; prevention systems or its equivalent:

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47146 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

(1) For onshore facilities: handling personnel at least once a year and if necessary, ensure that they are (i) Dikes, berms, or retaining walls to assure adequate understanding of the tightened, adjusted, or replaced to sufficiently impervious to contain oil; SPCC Plan for that facility. Such prevent liquid discharge while in (ii) Curbing; briefings must highlight and describe transit. (iii) Culverting, gutters, or other known discharges as described in (i) If a field-constructed aboveground drainage systems; § 112.1(b) or failures, malfunctioning container undergoes a repair, alteration, (iv) Weirs, booms, or other barriers; components, and any recently reconstruction, or a change in service (v) Spill diversion ponds; developed precautionary measures. that might affect the risk of a discharge (vi) Retention ponds; or (g) Security (excluding oil production or failure due to brittle fracture or other (vii) Sorbent materials. facilities). (1) Fully fence each facility catastrophe, or has discharged oil or (2) For offshore facilities: handling, processing, or storing oil, and (i) Curbing or drip pans; or failed due to brittle fracture failure or lock and/or guard entrance gates when other catastrophe, evaluate the container (ii) Sumps and collection systems. the facility is not in production or is (d) If you determine that the for risk of discharge or failure due to unattended. installation of any of the structures or brittle fracture or other catastrophe, and (2) Ensure that the master flow and as necessary, take appropriate action. pieces of equipment listed in paragraphs drain valves and any other valves (c) and (h)(1) of this section, and (j) In addition to the minimal permitting direct outward flow of the prevention standards listed under this §§ 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), container’s contents to the surface have 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), 112.12(c)(11), section, include in your Plan a complete adequate security measures so that they discussion of conformance with the 112.13(c)(2), and 112.14(c) to prevent a remain in the closed position when in discharge as described in § 112.1(b) applicable requirements and other non-operating or non-standby status. effective discharge prevention and from any onshore or offshore facility is (3) Lock the starter control on each oil containment procedures listed in this not practicable, you must clearly pump in the ‘‘off’’ position and locate it part or any applicable more stringent explain in your Plan why such measures at a site accessible only to authorized State rules, regulations, and guidelines. are not practicable; for bulk storage personnel when the pump is in a non- containers, conduct both periodic operating or non-standby status. 3. Part 112 is amended adding subpart integrity testing of the containers and (4) Securely cap or blank-flange the periodic integrity and leak testing of the B consisting of §§ 112.8 through 112.11 loading/unloading connections of oil to read as follows: valves and piping; and, unless you have pipelines or facility piping when not in submitted a response plan under service or when in standby service for Subpart B—Requirements for Petroleum § 112.20, provide in your Plan the an extended time. This security practice Oils and Non-Petroleum Oils, Except Animal following: Fats and Oils and Greases, and Fish and also applies to piping that is emptied of Marine Mammal Oils; and Vegetable Oils (1) An oil spill contingency plan liquid content either by draining or by following the provisions of part 109 of (Including Oils from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits, inert gas pressure. and Kernels) this chapter. (5) Provide facility lighting (2) A written commitment of Sec. commensurate with the type and 112.8 Spill Prevention, Control, and manpower, equipment, and materials location of the facility that will assist in required to expeditiously control and Countermeasure Plan requirements for the: onshore facilities (excluding production remove any quantity of oil discharged (i) Discovery of discharges occurring facilities). that may be harmful. during hours of darkness, both by 112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and (e) Inspections, tests, and records. operating personnel, if present, and by Countermeasure Plan requirements for Conduct inspections and tests required non-operating personnel (the general onshore oil production facilities. by this part in accordance with written public, local police, etc.); and 112.10 Spill Prevention, Control, and procedures that you or the certifying (ii) Prevention of discharges occurring Countermeasure Plan requirements for engineer develop for the facility. You through acts of vandalism. onshore oil drilling and workover must keep these written procedures and (h) Facility tank car and tank truck facilities. a record of the inspections and tests, loading/unloading rack (excluding 112.11 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan requirements for signed by the appropriate supervisor or offshore facilities). (1) Where loading/ offshore oil drilling, production, or inspector, with the SPCC Plan for a unloading area drainage does not flow workover facilities. period of three years. Records of into a catchment basin or treatment inspections and tests kept under usual facility designed to handle discharges, Subpart B—Requirements for and customary business practices will use a quick drainage system for tank car Petroleum Oils and Non-Petroleum suffice for purposes of this paragraph. or tank truck loading and unloading Oils, Except Animal Fats and Oils and (f) Personnel, training, and discharge areas. You must design any containment Greases, and Fish and Marine Mammal prevention procedures. (1) At a system to hold at least the maximum Oils; and Vegetable Oils (Including Oils minimum, train your oil-handling capacity of any single compartment of a from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits, and Kernels) personnel in the operation and tank car or tank truck loaded or maintenance of equipment to prevent unloaded at the facility. § 112.8 Spill Prevention, Control, and discharges; discharge procedure (2) Provide an interlocked warning Countermeasure Plan requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production protocols; applicable pollution control light or physical barrier system, warning facilities). laws, rules, and regulations; general signs, wheel chocks, or vehicle break facility operations; and, the contents of interlock system in loading/unloading If you are the owner or operator of an the facility SPCC Plan. areas to prevent vehicles from departing onshore facility (excluding a production (2) Designate a person at each before complete disconnection of facility), you must: applicable facility who is accountable flexible or fixed oil transfer lines. (a) Meet the general requirements for for discharge prevention and who (3) Prior to filling and departure of the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the reports to facility management. any tank car or tank truck, closely specific discharge prevention and (3) Schedule and conduct discharge inspect for discharges the lowermost containment procedures listed in this prevention briefings for your oil- drain and all outlets of such vehicles, section.

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47147

(b) Facility drainage. (1) Restrain You may also use an alternative system watercourse, or pass the steam return or drainage from diked storage areas by consisting of a drainage trench exhaust lines through a settling tank, valves to prevent a discharge into the enclosure that must be arranged so that skimmer, or other separation or drainage system or facility effluent any discharge will terminate and be retention system. treatment system, except where facility safely confined in a facility catchment (8) Engineer or update each container systems are designed to control such basin or holding pond. installation in accordance with good discharge. You may empty diked areas (3) Not allow drainage of engineering practice to avoid by pumps or ejectors; however, you uncontaminated rainwater from the discharges. You must provide at least must manually activate these pumps or diked area into a storm drain or one of the following devices: ejectors and must inspect the condition discharge of an effluent into an open (i) High liquid level alarms with an of the accumulation before starting, to watercourse, lake, or pond, bypassing audible or visual signal at a constantly ensure no oil will be discharged. the facility treatment system unless you: attended operation or surveillance (2) Use valves of manual, open-and- (i) Normally keep the bypass valve station. In smaller facilities an audible closed design, for the drainage of diked sealed closed. air vent may suffice. areas. You may not use flapper-type (ii) Inspect the retained rainwater to (ii) High liquid level pump cutoff drain valves to drain diked areas. If your ensure that its presence will not cause devices set to stop flow at a facility drainage drains directly into a a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). predetermined container content level. (iii) Open the bypass valve and reseal watercourse and not into an on-site (iii) Direct audible or code signal it following drainage under responsible wastewater treatment plant, you must communication between the container inspect and may drain uncontaminated supervision; and (iv) Keep adequate records of such gauger and the pumping station. retained stormwater, as provided in (iv) A fast response system for paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this events, for example, any records required under permits issued in determining the liquid level of each section. bulk storage container such as digital (3) Design facility drainage systems accordance with §§ 122.41(j)(2) and computers, telepulse, or direct vision from undiked areas with a potential for 122.41(m)(3) of this chapter. gauges. If you use this alternative, a a discharge (such as where piping is (4) Protect any completely buried person must be present to monitor located outside containment walls or metallic storage tank installed on or gauges and the overall filling of bulk where tank truck discharges may occur after January 10, 1974 from corrosion by storage containers. outside the loading area) to flow into coatings or cathodic protection (v) You must regularly test liquid ponds, lagoons, or catchment basins compatible with local soil conditions. designed to retain oil or return it to the You must regularly leak test such level sensing devices to ensure proper facility. You must not locate catchment completely buried metallic storage operation. basins in areas subject to periodic tanks. (9) Observe effluent treatment flooding. (5) Not use partially buried or facilities frequently enough to detect (4) If facility drainage is not bunkered metallic tanks for the storage possible system upsets that could cause engineered as in paragraph (b)(3) of this of oil, unless you protect the buried a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). section, equip the final discharge of all section of the tank from corrosion. You (10) Promptly correct visible ditches inside the facility with a must protect partially buried and discharges which result in a loss of oil diversion system that would, in the bunkered tanks from corrosion by from the container, including but not event of an uncontrolled discharge, coatings or cathodic protection limited to seams, gaskets, piping, retain oil in the facility. compatible with local soil conditions. pumps, valves, rivets, and bolts. You (5) Where drainage waters are treated (6) Test each aboveground container must promptly remove any in more than one treatment unit and for integrity on a regular schedule, and accumulations of oil in diked areas. such treatment is continuous, and pump whenever you make material repairs. (11) Position or locate mobile or transfer is needed, provide two ‘‘lift’’ The frequency of and type of testing portable oil storage containers to pumps and permanently install at least must take into account container size prevent a discharge as described in one of the pumps. Whatever techniques and design (such as floating roof, skid- § 112.1(b). You must furnish a you use, you must engineer facility mounted, elevated, or partially buried). secondary means of containment, such drainage systems to prevent a discharge You must combine visual inspection as a dike or catchment basin, sufficient as described in § 112.1(b) in case there with another testing technique such as to contain the capacity of the largest is an equipment failure or human error hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, single compartment or container with at the facility. ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions sufficient freeboard to contain (c) Bulk storage containers. (1) Not testing, or another system of non- precipitation. use a container for the storage of oil destructive shell testing. You must keep (d) Facility transfer operations, unless its material and construction are comparison records and you must also pumping, and facility process. (1) compatible with the material stored and inspect the container’s supports and Provide buried piping that is installed conditions of storage such as pressure foundations. In addition, you must or replaced on or after August 16, 2002, and temperature. frequently inspect the outside of the with a protective wrapping and coating. (2) Construct all bulk storage container for signs of deterioration, You must also cathodically protect such container installations so that you discharges, or accumulation of oil inside buried piping installations or otherwise provide a secondary means of diked areas. Records of inspections and satisfy the corrosion protection containment for the entire capacity of tests kept under usual and customary standards for piping in part 280 of this the largest single container and business practices will suffice for chapter or a State program approved sufficient freeboard to contain purposes of this paragraph. under part 281 of this chapter. If a precipitation. You must ensure that (7) Control leakage through defective section of buried line is exposed for any diked areas are sufficiently impervious internal heating coils by monitoring the reason, you must carefully inspect it for to contain discharged oil. Dikes, steam return and exhaust lines for deterioration. If you find corrosion containment curbs, and pits are contamination from internal heating damage, you must undertake additional commonly employed for this purpose. coils that discharge into an open examination and corrective action as

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47148 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

indicated by the magnitude of the installations with a secondary means of contain discharges of fuel, crude oil, or damage. containment for the entire capacity of oily drilling fluids. (2) Cap or blank-flange the terminal the largest single container and (d) Install a blowout prevention (BOP) connection at the transfer point and sufficient freeboard to contain assembly and well control system before mark it as to origin when piping is not precipitation. You must safely confine drilling below any casing string or in service or is in standby service for an drainage from undiked areas in a during workover operations. The BOP extended time. catchment basin or holding pond. assembly and well control system must (3) Properly design pipe supports to (3) Periodically and upon a regular be capable of controlling any well-head minimize abrasion and corrosion and schedule visually inspect each container pressure that may be encountered while allow for expansion and contraction. of oil for deterioration and maintenance that BOP assembly and well control (4) Regularly inspect all aboveground needs, including the foundation and system are on the well. valves, piping, and appurtenances. support of each container that is on or During the inspection you must assess above the surface of the ground. § 112.11 Spill Prevention, Control, and the general condition of items, such as Countermeasure Plan requirements for (4) Engineer or update new and old offshore oil drilling, production, or flange joints, expansion joints, valve tank battery installations in accordance workover facilities. glands and bodies, catch pans, pipeline with good engineering practice to If you are the owner or operator of an supports, locking of valves, and metal prevent discharges. You must provide at offshore oil drilling, production, or surfaces. You must also conduct least one of the following: workover facility, you must: integrity and leak testing of buried (i) Container capacity adequate to (a) Meet the general requirements piping at the time of installation, assure that a container will not overfill listed under § 112.7, and also meet the modification, construction, relocation, if a pumper/gauger is delayed in making specific discharge prevention and or replacement. regularly scheduled rounds. containment procedures listed under (5) Warn all vehicles entering the (ii) Overflow equalizing lines between this section. facility to be sure that no vehicle will containers so that a full container can (b) Use oil drainage collection endanger aboveground piping or other overflow to an adjacent container. equipment to prevent and control small oil transfer operations. (iii) Vacuum protection adequate to oil discharges around pumps, glands, prevent container collapse during a § 112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and valves, flanges, expansion joints, hoses, pipeline run or other transfer of oil from Countermeasure Plan requirements for drain lines, separators, treaters, tanks, onshore oil production facilities. the container. (iv) High level sensors to generate and and associated equipment. You must If you are the owner or operator of an transmit an alarm signal to the computer control and direct facility drains toward onshore production facility, you must: where the facility is subject to a a central collection sump to prevent the (a) Meet the general requirements for computer production control system. facility from having a discharge as the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the (d) Facility transfer operations, oil described in § 112.1(b). Where drains specific discharge prevention and production facility. (1) Periodically and and sumps are not practicable, you must containment procedures listed under upon a regular schedule inspect all remove oil contained in collection this section. aboveground valves and piping equipment as often as necessary to (b) Oil production facility drainage. associated with transfer operations for prevent overflow. (1) At tank batteries and separation and the general condition of flange joints, (c) For facilities employing a sump treating areas where there is a valve glands and bodies, drip pans, pipe system, provide adequately sized sump reasonable possibility of a discharge as supports, pumping well polish rod and drains and make available a spare described in § 112.1(b), close and seal at stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge valves, pump to remove liquid from the sump all times drains of dikes or drains of and other such items. and assure that oil does not escape. You equivalent measures required under (2) Inspect saltwater (oil field brine) must employ a regularly scheduled § 112.7(c)(1), except when draining disposal facilities often, particularly preventive maintenance inspection and uncontaminated rainwater. Prior to following a sudden change in testing program to assure reliable drainage, you must inspect the diked atmospheric temperature, to detect operation of the liquid removal system area and take action as provided in possible system upsets capable of and pump start-up device. Redundant § 112.8(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv). You must causing a discharge. automatic sump pumps and control remove accumulated oil on the (3) Have a program of flowline devices may be required on some rainwater and return it to storage or maintenance to prevent discharges from installations. dispose of it in accordance with legally each flowline. (d) At facilities with areas where approved methods. separators and treaters are equipped (2) Inspect at regularly scheduled § 112.10 Spill Prevention, Control, and with dump valves which predominantly intervals field drainage systems (such as Countermeasure Plan requirements for fail in the closed position and where drainage ditches or road ditches), and onshore oil drilling and workover facilities. pollution risk is high, specially equip oil traps, sumps, or skimmers, for an If you are the owner or operator of an the facility to prevent the discharge of accumulation of oil that may have onshore oil drilling and workover oil. You must prevent the discharge of resulted from any small discharge. You facility, you must: oil by: must promptly remove any (a) Meet the general requirements (1) Extending the flare line to a diked accumulations of oil. listed under § 112.7, and also meet the area if the separator is near shore; (c) Oil production facility bulk storage specific discharge prevention and (2) Equipping the separator with a containers. (1) Not use a container for containment procedures listed under high liquid level sensor that will the storage of oil unless its material and this section. automatically shut in wells producing to construction are compatible with the (b) Position or locate mobile drilling the separator; or material stored and the conditions of or workover equipment so as to prevent (3) Installing parallel redundant dump storage. a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). valves. (2) Provide all tank battery, (c) Provide catchment basins or (e) Equip atmospheric storage or surge separation, and treating facility diversion structures to intercept and containers with high liquid level

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47149

sensing devices that activate an alarm or 4. Part 112 is amended by adding outside the loading area) to flow into control the flow, or otherwise prevent subpart C consisting of §§ 112.12 ponds, lagoons, or catchment basins discharges. through 112.15 to read as follows: designed to retain oil or return it to the (f) Equip pressure containers with Subpart C—Requirements for Animal Fats facility. You must not locate catchment high and low pressure sensing devices and Oils and Greases, and Fish and Marine basins in areas subject to periodic that activate an alarm or control the Mammal Oils; and for Vegetable Oils, flooding. flow. Including Oils from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits and (4) If facility drainage is not (g) Equip containers with suitable Kernels engineered as in paragraph (b)(3) of this corrosion protection. Sec. section, equip the final discharge of all (h) Prepare and maintain at the 112.12 Spill Prevention, Control, and ditches inside the facility with a facility a written procedure within the Countermeasure Plan requirements for diversion system that would, in the Plan for inspecting and testing pollution onshore facilities (excluding production event of an uncontrolled discharge, prevention equipment and systems. facilities). retain oil in the facility. 112.13 Spill Prevention, Control, and (i) Conduct testing and inspection of (5) Where drainage waters are treated Countermeasure Plan requirements for in more than one treatment unit and the pollution prevention equipment and onshore oil production facilities. systems at the facility on a scheduled 112.14 Spill Prevention, Control, and such treatment is continuous, and pump periodic basis, commensurate with the Countermeasure Plan requirements for transfer is needed, provide two ‘‘lift’’ complexity, conditions, and onshore oil drilling and workover pumps and permanently install at least circumstances of the facility and any facilities. one of the pumps. Whatever techniques other appropriate regulations. You must 112.15 Spill Prevention, Control, and you use, you must engineer facility Countermeasure Plan requirements for use simulated discharges for testing and drainage systems to prevent a discharge offshore oil drilling, production, or as described in § 112.1(b) in case there inspecting human and equipment workover facilities. pollution control and countermeasure is an equipment failure or human error systems. Subpart C—Requirements for Animal at the facility. (j) Describe in detailed records surface Fats and Oils and Greases, and Fish (c) Bulk storage containers. (1) Not and subsurface well shut-in valves and and Marine Mammal Oils; and for use a container for the storage of oil devices in use at the facility for each Vegetable Oils, including Oils from unless its material and construction are well sufficiently to determine their Seeds, Nuts, Fruits, and Kernels. compatible with the material stored and method of activation or control, such as conditions of storage such as pressure pressure differential, change in fluid or § 112.12 Spill Prevention, Control, and and temperature. Countermeasure Plan requirements for (2) Construct all bulk storage flow conditions, combination of onshore facilities (excluding production pressure and flow, manual or remote container installations so that you facilities) provide a secondary means of control mechanisms. If you are the owner or operator of an (k) Install a BOP assembly and well containment for the entire capacity of onshore facility (excluding a production the largest single container and control system during workover facility), you must: operations and before drilling below any sufficient freeboard to contain (a) Meet the general requirements for precipitation. You must ensure that casing string. The BOP assembly and the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the well control system must be capable of diked areas are sufficiently impervious specific discharge prevention and to contain discharged oil. Dikes, controlling any well-head pressure that containment procedures listed in this may be encountered while the BOP containment curbs, and pits are section. commonly employed for this purpose. assembly and well control system are on (b) Facility drainage. (1) Restrain the well. You may also use an alternative system drainage from diked storage areas by consisting of a drainage trench (l) Equip all manifolds (headers) with valves to prevent a discharge into the enclosure that must be arranged so that check valves on individual flowlines. drainage system or facility effluent any discharge will terminate and be (m) Equip the flowline with a high treatment system, except where facility safely confined in a facility catchment pressure sensing device and shut-in systems are designed to control such basin or holding pond. valve at the wellhead if the shut-in well discharge. You may empty diked areas (3) Not allow drainage of pressure is greater than the working by pumps or ejectors; however, you uncontaminated rainwater from the pressure of the flowline and manifold must manually activate these pumps or diked area into a storm drain or valves up to and including the header ejectors and must inspect the condition discharge of an effluent into an open valves. Alternatively you may provide a of the accumulation before starting, to watercourse, lake, or pond, bypassing pressure relief system for flowlines. ensure no oil will be discharged. the facility treatment system unless you: (n) Protect all piping appurtenant to (2) Use valves of manual, open-and- (i) Normally keep the bypass valve the facility from corrosion, such as with closed design, for the drainage of diked sealed closed. protective coatings or cathodic areas. You may not use flapper-type (ii) Inspect the retained rainwater to protection. drain valves to drain diked areas. If your ensure that its presence will not cause (o) Adequately protect sub-marine facility drainage drains directly into a a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). piping appurtenant to the facility watercourse and not into an on-site (iii) Open the bypass valve and reseal against environmental stresses and other wastewater treatment plant, you must it following drainage under responsible activities such as fishing operations. inspect and may drain uncontaminated supervision; and (p) Maintain sub-marine piping retained stormwater, subject to the (iv) Keep adequate records of such appurtenant to the facility in good requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), events, for example, any records operating condition at all times. You (iii), and (iv) of this section. required under permits issued in must periodically and according to a (3) Design facility drainage systems accordance with §§ 122.41(j)(2) and schedule inspect or test such piping for from undiked areas with a potential for 122.41(m)(3) of this chapter. failures. You must document and keep a discharge (such as where piping is (4) Protect any completely buried a record of such inspections or tests at located outside containment walls or metallic storage tank installed on or the facility. where tank truck discharges may occur after January 10, 1974 from corrosion by

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47150 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

coatings or cathodic protection (v) You must regularly test liquid § 112.13 Spill Prevention, Control, and compatible with local soil conditions. level sensing devices to ensure proper Countermeasure Plan requirements for You must regularly leak test such operation. onshore oil production facilities. completely buried metallic storage (9) Observe effluent treatment If you are the owner or operator of an tanks. facilities frequently enough to detect onshore production facility, you must: (a) Meet the general requirements for (5) Not use partially buried or possible system upsets that could cause the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the bunkered metallic tanks for the storage a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). of oil, unless you protect the buried specific discharge prevention and section of the tank from corrosion. You (10) Promptly correct visible containment procedures listed under must protect partially buried and discharges which result in a loss of oil this section. bunkered tanks from corrosion by from the container, including but not (b) Oil production facility drainage. coatings or cathodic protection limited to seams, gaskets, piping, (1) At tank batteries and separation and compatible with local soil conditions. pumps, valves, rivets, and bolts. You treating areas where there is a (6) Test each aboveground container must promptly remove any reasonable possibility of a discharge as for integrity on a regular schedule, and accumulations of oil in diked areas. described in § 112.1(b), close and seal at whenever you make material repairs. (11) Position or locate mobile or all times drains of dikes or drains of The frequency of and type of testing portable oil storage containers to equivalent measures required under must take into account container size prevent a discharge as described in § 112.7(c)(1), except when draining and design (such as floating roof, skid- § 112.1(b). You must furnish a uncontaminated rainwater. Prior to mounted, elevated, or partially buried). secondary means of containment, such drainage, you must inspect the diked You must combine visual inspection as a dike or catchment basin, sufficient area and take action as provided in with another testing technique such as to contain the capacity of the largest § 112.12(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv). You hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, single compartment or container with must remove accumulated oil on the ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions sufficient freeboard to contain rainwater and return it to storage or testing, or another system of non- precipitation. dispose of it in accordance with legally destructive shell testing. You must keep (d) Facility transfer operations, approved methods. (2) Inspect at regularly scheduled comparison records and you must also pumping, and facility process. (1) intervals field drainage systems (such as inspect the container’s supports and Provide buried piping that is installed drainage ditches or road ditches), and foundations. In addition, you must or replaced on or after August 16, 2002, oil traps, sumps, or skimmers, for an frequently inspect the outside of the with a protective wrapping and coating. accumulation of oil that may have container for signs of deterioration, You must also cathodically protect such resulted from any small discharge. You discharges, or accumulation of oil inside buried piping installations or otherwise must promptly remove any diked areas. Records of inspections and satisfy the corrosion protection accumulations of oil. tests kept under usual and customary standards for piping in part 280 of this business practices will suffice for (c) Oil production facility bulk storage chapter or a State program approved containers. (1) Not use a container for purposes of this paragraph. under part 281 of this chapter. If a (7) Control leakage through defective the storage of oil unless its material and section of buried line is exposed for any internal heating coils by monitoring the construction are compatible with the reason, you must carefully inspect it for steam return and exhaust lines for material stored and the conditions of deterioration. If you find corrosion contamination from internal heating storage. damage, you must undertake additional coils that discharge into an open (2) Provide all tank battery, examination and corrective action as watercourse, or pass the steam return or separation, and treating facility indicated by the magnitude of the exhaust lines through a settling tank, installations with a secondary means of damage. skimmer, or other separation or containment for the entire capacity of retention system. (2) Cap or blank-flange the terminal the largest single container and (8) Engineer or update each container connection at the transfer point and sufficient freeboard to contain installation in accordance with good mark it as to origin when piping is not precipitation. You must safely confine engineering practice to avoid in service or is in standby service for an drainage from undiked areas in a discharges. You must provide at least extended time. catchment basin or holding pond. one of the following devices: (3) Properly design pipe supports to (3) Periodically and upon a regular (i) High liquid level alarms with an minimize abrasion and corrosion and schedule visually inspect each container audible or visual signal at a constantly allow for expansion and contraction. of oil for deterioration and maintenance attended operation or surveillance needs, including the foundation and (4) Regularly inspect all aboveground station. In smaller facilities an audible support of each container that is on or valves, piping, and appurtenances. air vent may suffice. above the surface of the ground. During the inspection you must assess (ii) High liquid level pump cutoff (4) Engineer or update new and old the general condition of items, such as devices set to stop flow at a tank battery installations in accordance flange joints, expansion joints, valve predetermined container content level. with good engineering practice to glands and bodies, catch pans, pipeline (iii) Direct audible or code signal prevent discharges. You must provide at supports, locking of valves, and metal communication between the container least one of the following: gauger and the pumping station. surfaces. You must also conduct (i) Container capacity adequate to (iv) A fast response system for integrity and leak testing of buried assure that a container will not overfill determining the liquid level of each piping at the time of installation, if a pumper/gauger is delayed in making bulk storage container such as digital modification, construction, relocation, regularly scheduled rounds. computers, telepulse, or direct vision or replacement. (ii) Overflow equalizing lines between gauges. If you use this alternative, a (5) Warn all vehicles entering the containers so that a full container can person must be present to monitor facility to be sure that no vehicle will overflow to an adjacent container. gauges and the overall filling of bulk endanger aboveground piping or other (iii) Vacuum protection adequate to storage containers. oil transfer operations. prevent container collapse during a

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 47151

pipeline run or other transfer of oil from drain lines, separators, treaters, tanks, method of activation or control, such as the container. and associated equipment. You must pressure differential, change in fluid or (iv) High level sensors to generate and control and direct facility drains toward flow conditions, combination of transmit an alarm signal to the computer a central collection sump to prevent the pressure and flow, manual or remote where the facility is subject to a facility from having a discharge as control mechanisms. computer production control system. described in § 112.1(b). Where drains (k) Install a BOP assembly and well (d) Facility transfer operations, oil and sumps are not practicable, you must control system during workover production facility. (1) Periodically and remove oil contained in collection operations and before drilling below any upon a regular schedule inspect all equipment as often as necessary to casing string. The BOP assembly and aboveground valves and piping prevent overflow. well control system must be capable of associated with transfer operations for (c) For facilities employing a sump controlling any well-head pressure that the general condition of flange joints, system, provide adequately sized sump may be encountered while that BOP valve glands and bodies, drip pans, pipe and drains and make available a spare assembly and well control system are on supports, pumping well polish rod pump to remove liquid from the sump the well. stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge valves, and assure that oil does not escape. You (l) Equip all manifolds (headers) with and other such items. must employ a regularly scheduled check valves on individual flowlines. (2) Inspect saltwater (oil field brine) preventive maintenance inspection and disposal facilities often, particularly testing program to assure reliable (m) Equip the flowline with a high following a sudden change in operation of the liquid removal system pressure sensing device and shut-in atmospheric temperature, to detect and pump start-up device. Redundant valve at the wellhead if the shut-in well possible system upsets capable of automatic sump pumps and control pressure is greater than the working causing a discharge. devices may be required on some pressure of the flowline and manifold (3) Have a program of flowline installations. valves up to and including the header maintenance to prevent discharges from (d) At facilities with areas where valves. Alternatively you may provide a each flowline. separators and treaters are equipped pressure relief system for flowlines. § 112.14 Spill Prevention, Control, and with dump valves which predominantly (n) Protect all piping appurtenant to Countermeasure Plan requirements for fail in the closed position and where the facility from corrosion, such as with onshore oil drilling and workover facilities. pollution risk is high, specially equip protective coatings or cathodic If you are the owner or operator of an the facility to prevent the discharge of protection. onshore oil drilling and workover oil. You must prevent the discharge of (o) Adequately protect sub-marine facility, you must: oil by: piping appurtenant to the facility (a) Meet the general requirements (1) Extending the flare line to a diked against environmental stresses and other listed under § 112.7, and also meet the area if the separator is near shore; activities such as fishing operations. specific discharge prevention and (2) Equipping the separator with a high liquid level sensor that will (p) Maintain sub-marine piping containment procedures listed under appurtenant to the facility in good this section. automatically shut in wells producing to the separator; or operating condition at all times. You (b) Position or locate mobile drilling must periodically and according to a or workover equipment so as to prevent (3) Installing parallel redundant dump valves. schedule inspect or test such piping for a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). failures. You must document and keep (c) Provide catchment basins or (e) Equip atmospheric storage or surge containers with high liquid level a record of such inspections or tests at diversion structures to intercept and the facility. contain discharges of fuel, crude oil, or sensing devices that activate an alarm or control the flow, or otherwise prevent oily drilling fluids. 5. Part 112 is amended by designating (d) Install a blowout prevention (BOP) discharges. (f) Equip pressure containers with §§ 112.20 and 112.21 as subpart D, and assembly and well control system before adding a subpart heading as follows: drilling below any casing string or high and low pressure sensing devices Subpart D—Response Requirements during workover operations. The BOP that activate an alarm or control the assembly and well control system must flow. Sec. (g) Equip containers with suitable be capable of controlling any well-head 112.20 Facility response plans. corrosion protection. pressure that may be encountered while 112.21 Facility response training and drills/ (h) Prepare and maintain at the exercises. that BOP assembly and well control facility a written procedure within the system are on the well. Plan for inspecting and testing pollution Subpart D—Response Requirements § 112.15 Spill Prevention, Control, and prevention equipment and systems. Countermeasure Plan requirements for (i) Conduct testing and inspection of 6. Section 112.20 is amended by offshore oil drilling, production, or the pollution prevention equipment and revising the first sentence of paragraph workover facilities. systems at the facility on a scheduled (h) to read as follows: If you are the owner or operator of an periodic basis, commensurate with the § 112.20 Facility response plans. complexity, conditions, and offshore oil drilling, production, or * * * * * workover facility, you must: circumstances of the facility and any (a) Meet the general requirements other appropriate regulations. You must (h) A response plan shall follow the listed under § 112.7, and also meet the use simulated discharges for testing and format of the model facility-specific specific discharge prevention and inspecting human and equipment response plan included in Appendix F containment procedures listed under pollution control and countermeasure to this part, unless you have prepared this section. systems. an equivalent response plan acceptable (b) Use oil drainage collection (j) Describe in detailed records surface to the Regional Administrator to meet equipment to prevent and control small and subsurface well shut-in valves and State or other Federal requirements. * * oil discharges around pumps, glands, devices in use at the facility for each * valves, flanges, expansion joints, hoses, well sufficiently to determine their * * * * *

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2 47152 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix C—[Amended] c. Revising paragraph (7) and the Plan. You must include the inspection records for each container, secondary 7. Appendix C of part 112 is amended undesignated paragraph and NOTE following paragraph (7) in section 1.7.3; containment, and item of response by: equipment at the facility. You must cross- a. Revising the first sentence of d. Revising section 1.8.1; e. Revising the first two sentences of reference the records of inspections of each section 2.1; and container and secondary containment b. Revising the title and first sentence section 1.8.1.1. introductory text; required by 40 CFR 112.7(e) in the facility of section 2.4. f. Revising the next to the last response plan. The inspection record of sentence of section 1.8.1.3; Appendix C to Part 112—Substantial response equipment is a new requirement in g. Revising the next to last sentence of this plan. Facility self-inspection requires Harm Criteria section 1.10.; two-steps: (1) a checklist of things to inspect; * * * * * h. Revising paragraph (6) of section and (2) a method of recording the actual 2.1; inspection and its findings. You must note 2.1 Non-Transportation-Related Facilities i. Remove the acronym ‘‘SIC’’ in the date of each inspection. You must keep With a Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater section 3.0, and add in alphabetical facility response plan records for five years. Than or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where You must keep SPCC records for three years. Operations Include Over-Water Transfers of order the acronym ‘‘NAICS’; and. Oil j. Remove the reference to ‘‘Standard * * * * * Industrial Classification (SIC) Code’’ in A non-transportation-related facility with a 1.8.1.1. Tank Inspection total oil storage capacity greater than or equal Attachment F–1, General Information, and add in in alphabetical order a The tank inspection checklist presented to 42,000 gallons that transfers oil over water below has been included as guidance during to or from vessels must submit a response reference to ‘‘North American Industrial inspections and monitoring. Similar plan to EPA. * * * Classification System (NAICS) Code.’’ requirements exist in 40 CFR part 112, * * * * * The revisions read as follows: subparts A through C. * * * 2.4 Proximity to Public Drinking Water Appendix F to Part 112—Facility-Specific * * * * * Response Plan Intakes at Facilities with a Total Oil Storage 1.8.1.3 Secondary Containment Inspection Capacity Greater than or Equal to 1 Million * * * * * Gallons * * * * * 1.2.7 Current Operation * * * Similar requirements exist in 40 A facility with a total oil storage capacity CFR part 112, subparts A through C. * * * greater than or equal to 1 million gallons Briefly describe the facility’s operations must submit its response plan if it is located and include the North American Industrial * * * * * Classification System (NAICS) code. at a distance such that a discharge from the 1.10 Security facility would shut down a public drinking * * * * * water intake, which is analogous to a public According to 40 CFR 112.7(g) facilities are 1.4.3 Analysis of the Potential for an Oil water system as described at 40 CFR 143.2(c). required to maintain a certain level of Discharge * * * security, as appropriate. * * * * * * * * * * * This analysis shall incorporate * * * * * factors such as oil discharge history, Appendix D—[Amended] horizontal range of a potential discharge, and 2.1 General Information vulnerability to natural disaster, and shall, as * * * * * 8. Appendix D of part 112 is amended appropriate, incorporate other factors such as (6) North American Industrial by revising footnote 2 to section A.2 of tank age. * * * The owner or operator may Classification System (NAICS) Code: Enter Part A to read as follows: need to research the age of the tanks the oil the facility’s NAICS code as determined by discharge history at the facility. the Office of Management and Budget (this Appendix D to Part 112—Determination of a information may be obtained from public Worst Case Discharge Planning Volume * * * * * library resources.) * * * * * 1.7.3 Containment and Drainage Planning * * * * * Part A * * * * * * * * * * * * * (7) Other cleanup materials. 3.0 Acronyms A.2 Secondary Containment—Multiple-Tank In addition, a facility owner or operator * * * * * Facilities must meet the inspection and monitoring NAICS: North American Industrial requirements for drainage contained in 40 Classification System * * * * * CFR part 112, subparts A through C. A copy * * * * * Secondary containment is described in 40 of the containment and drainage plans that CFR part 112, subparts A through C. are required in 40 CFR part 112, subparts A Attachments to Appendix F Acceptable methods and structures for through C may be inserted in this section, Attachment F–1—Response Plan Cover Sheet containment are also given in 40 CFR including any diagrams in those plans. 112.7(c)(1). * * * * * Note: The general permit for stormwater * * * * * drainage may contain additional General Information Appendix F—[Amended] requirements. * * * * * * * * * * North American Industrial Classification 9. Appendix F of part 112 is amended System (NAICS) Code: 1.8.1 Facility Self-Inspection by: * * * * * a. Revising section 1.2.7; Under 40 CFR 112.7(e), you must include b. Revising the second and last the written procedures and records of [FR Doc. 02–16852 Filed 7–16–02; 8:45 am] sentences of section 1.4.3; inspections for each facility in the SPCC BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jun<06>2002 18:03 Jul 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JYR2.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 17JYR2