Search
Our Site:

SPCC: Spill Response

December 2, 2005

EPA proposes deadlines extension, publishes guidance document

EPA has proposed another extension of the deadlines for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) compliance. The new deadline is October 31, 2007, for amending SPCC plans and for implementing the plans. The previous compliance dates for affected terminals were February 17, 2006, for amending an existing SPCC plan, and August 18, 2006, for implementing the plan. The two compliance dates have now been combined into one deadline. In its notice issued last week, EPA is also proposing to streamline requirements for qualified facilities, qualified oil-filled operational equipment, and airport mobile refuelers. In addition, the proposal offers a separate extension of the compliance date for farms, and it removes certain SPCC requirements for animal fats and vegetable oils. Although the extension of the compliance dates was announced as a proposed rule, it is a virtual certainty that the extension will remain unchanged in the final rule.

On December 2, EPA published its long-awaited SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors. This document contains valuable information that facilities will need to review as they prepare to comply with EPA's new rules. It covers topics such as applicability, environmental equivalence, secondary containment and impracticability, and integrity testing, as well as the role of the inspector in the review of these provisions. Among the items included in the document are: model SPCC plans for both production and bulk storage facilities; model contingency plans; and national SPCC inspection checklists.

For additional information on the proposed amendments and to review the guidance document, visit EPA's Oil Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/index.htm

ILTA Comments on Coast Guard's Proposed Terminal Chemical Hazardous Substance Spill Response Rule

June 29, 2000

Docket Management Facility
(USCG-1999-5705)
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room PL-401
400 7th Street, S.W. (5304W)
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

Submitted by fax to Docket Mgt. Facility at 202-493-2251

In Re: In Re: 33 CFR 154, Federal Register, March 31, 2000; pp. 17416-434
Proposed Rule
Marine Transportation-Related Facility
Response Plans for Hazardous Substances 33 CFR 154, Federal Register, March 31, 2000; pp. 17416-434
Proposed Rule
Marine Transportation-Related Facility
Response Plans for Hazardous Substances

Comments of the Independent Liquid Terminals Association
Comments of the Independent Liquid Terminals Association
1133 15th Street, N.W., #650, Washington, DC 20005 1444 "I" Street, N.W., #400, Washington, DC 20005

To U.S. Coast Guard:

The Independent Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA), an international trade association with more than 75 Member companies that operate more than 360 bulk liquid terminals in the United States, submits the following comments on the proposed rule requiring release response plans for hazardous substances for marine transportation-related facilities.

ILTA has reviewed the regulations and commends the U.S. Coast Guard for the excellent job it has done in preparing these regulations. There still are, however, a few concerns that we have on which we are submitting these comments.

§154.2021 - What are the requirements for qualified individuals (QI) and alternate qualified individuals and what is their authority?

Our concern again is that the QI requirements and Alternate QI requirements of this section may be difficult to meet for small companies with one or more small terminals. At most, there may be 2, 3, or 4 people, including the owner or operator, employed per terminal.

ILTA Recommendation:
ILTA Recommendation:
The USCG should make the regulation clear that the owner or operator of a small facility may contract for both QI and Alternate QI services, but that the party fulfilling that responsibility must possess the authority and capabilities set forth in the regulation, and must have personal knowledge of any facility and the chemicals at any such facility at which the contractor is to serve as a QI or Alternate QI. The USCG should make the regulation clear that the owner or operator of a small facility may contract for both QI and Alternate QI services, but that the party fulfilling that responsibility must possess the authority and capabilities set forth in the regulation, and must have personal knowledge of any facility and the chemicals at any such facility at which the contractor is to serve as a QI or Alternate QI.

We suggest this because the QI or the Alternate QI assumes immense responsibility, as set forth in paragraph (c) of §154.2022, in addition to the possibility of possessing the training to be able to act as an Incident Commander.

If the USCG anticipates that any budget cuts or reductions in force will not afford the agency the necessary number of personnel to carry out this section within the current time constrictions, the USCG should provide for allowing facilities with interim operating authorization additional time beyond 2 years to operate. That is to say they should be allowed to conduct hazardous substance operations beyond 2 years, and until the USCG can properly review and approve or disapprove a company's plan.

(b) (Plan contents) Notification procedures
(b)(1) Prioritized list of individuals to call when a spill occurs

Wow! The list contains at least 10 parties that must be called. How long will it take a person who is undergoing the trauma of suffering a release or a spill to make these calls? What ever happened to the initial concept of having to make only one call to a key government agency who would then help the guy out and make calls to other agencies, and only one call to another terminal employee who would assist in making calls to other key terminal personnel. A guy at a spill -- and they usually happen at night when few, if any, helpers are around -- has only two hands and one telephone.

ILTA Recommendation:
We have the technology, we have the mental capacity. Let’s work together to make notification quick, and not an all-day chore. We have the technology, we have the mental capacity. Let’s work together to make notification quick, and not an all-day chore.  

(b)(4) (b)(4) (Plan contents) the form created by the facility to report releases. (Plan contents) the form created by the facility to report releases.

ILTA Recommendation:
ILTA Recommendation:
In the sample format provided in the proposed rule, after item (iii), Incident Description and under Types of Information, companies should not use the word "Cause" because of legal implications. The remaining words, "Source of the incident," should be changed to "Source of the release." In the sample format provided in the proposed rule, after item (iii), Incident Description and under Types of Information, companies should not use the word "Cause" because of legal implications. The remaining words, "Source of the incident," should be changed to "Source of the release."

Also, if the format is followed, in the same item (iii), Incident Description, Types of Information, it would seem more logical to put the date of the incident and the time in lines following each other, and to put these two items first. Also, time might be divided into two lines -- the time the incident was discovered and the time the incident occurred, if known.

In the same item (iii), Incident Description, Types of Information, the word "storage tank" is listed. This seems to assume that releases will come only from a storage tank since no other type of equipment that can be a source of a release is listed. Since the Coast Guard's principal authority covers releases from the marine transportation-related (MTR) area (transfers at the dock and from piping and pipelines running from the dock manifold to the first valve inside of the dike), the form probably should include references instead to "Equipment (tank, dock-to-terminal pipe, facility  pipe, etc.)" and "Equipment liquid capacity." Further along in our comments, we discuss USCG's references to "in-line tanks" and "breakout tanks" in the regulated marine transportation-related area. While such tanks may be common in the MTR area at chemical plants, such an array of tanks is not common at the MTR area in bulk liquid terminals.

Further, some of the information requested on the form could only be provided after a spill has occurred -- some of it only after cleanup has begun or even been completed. We know of companies that have been fined because their release reporting was one-half hour to an hour late. In one instance, the discharge was from piping and the person reporting was having difficulty in determining the volume that had been discharged because he did not know when the release had started and was trying to make this determination. When releases occur, the first priority should be to alert response personnel and authorities and let others gather data later.

Accurate data, if available, is important and useful to responders. However, unlike oil, hazardous substances releases may pose more harm to personnel than an oil discharge. Further, many of these products can be sinkers or miscible in water. Thus, it may be very difficult to immediately assess such things as the quantity in water, damage in dollars, evacuations, fatalities, and injuries, among others. Perhaps the form should be divided into two parts. The first part would be critical information immediately necessary for responders and goverment officials, if available. The second part would be data needed for other after-the-fact purposes.

Under section (c) Worst case discharge impact, (1) Planning volume calculation, the terminology in the (c)(1) table should be defined in Definitions, §154.2020. The terms to be defined are:

1. "in-line tank" (these are not typical at a bulk liquid terminal in the MTR area);

2. "break-out tank(s)" (these are not typical at a bulk liquid terminal in the MTR area); Reason: Multi-product (chemical and petroleum) terminals, now subject to changing Office of Pipeline Safety rules, have storage tanks not located on or along the marine dock to piping or pipeline that are labeled "breakout tanks." Further, the term "in-line tank" may be used in some areas and facilities and not in others, so its meaning should be set forth to clarify what it means and does in this rule. While the preamble makes it amply clear that the USCG's area of jurisdiction is over such tanks in the MTR area, the rules are not so clear in expressing this.

3. What the term "transfer system" means and where exactly it is located (in the MTR area) should be more clearly specified in the rules, particularly for multi-product complex terminals.  Reason: Complex, multi-product (chemical and petroleum) terminals have personnel trying to comply with overlapping regulations with similarly confusing terminology and conflicting terminology from at least four, and possibly more, Federal agencies. Multi-product terminals have transfer systems that transfer to tank ships and barges, tank trucks, tank rail cars, and chemical and petroleum pipelines.

4. Under table item (iv), Planning Volume, does "transfer system tank capacity" include the capacity of the storage tank to which or from which product is being transferred, or does it mean ONLY any in-line tank or breakout tank located along the piping or pipeline running from the dock manifold to the first valve inside the diking or before an EPA regulated storage tank if there is no diking? This is not clear in the rule. Further, the terminology, "transfer system tank capacity," sounds as if it refers to all of the storage tanks that are a part of the terminal storage system. I am sure that this is not what is meant by the terminology, but it is not clear.

Under section (c) Worst case discharge impact, (2) Identifying endpoints, (3) Determining the distances to air and water endpoints, and (4) Developing diagrams of impacted areas, the provisions seems to require a degree of skill and sophistication not typically found at waterside terminals and facilities. Terminals, largely, are not equipped to do this work in-house and it will have to be contracted out. There should be a recommended formula or system for contractors to use so that the process is uniform from facility to facility. We see this as a problem for both large (facilities with many substances) and small (facilities with not a lot of money) terminals.

Section (d) Facility discharge mitigation procedures requires facilities to engage in an extensive, time consuming, and penetrating planning process. Most likely, at most facilities, this planning will have to be contracted out for it to be done in time.

Section (f) Risk-based decision support process requires facilities to engage in extensive risk assessment activities for which the personnel at facilities largely do not possess the professional skills to perform, nor the time to perform if they do have the skills. Again, this activity will have to be contracted out by most facilities.

Section (g) Response resources, (1) (v) Firefighting resources - 24 hours. (A) and (B), says that if the facility determines that adequate local firefighting resources exist, then you do not have to ensure by contract this response resource. Some facilities may be located in areas where the local firefighting resources might be estimated to be inadequate and where there are no professional firefighting companies near enough to hire by contract. Further, the facility may be so small that it does not have enough personnel to establish its own in-house firefighting team. (B) further requires the facility ". . . to verify that adequately trained resources are retained for (to fight) hazardous substance fires."

In certain geographic locations, such a requirement may be impossible for facilities to meet. How does the USCG plan to enforce this requirement if a facility shows that it tried but cannot meet it? If a facility cannot comply, does the USCG plan to shut down that facilityIn certain geographic locations, such a requirement may be impossible for facilities to meet. How does the USCG plan to enforce this requirement if a facility shows that it tried but cannot meet it? If a facility cannot comply, does the USCG plan to shut down that facility?

§154.2040 What appendices must I include in my plan?

Under (a) Chemical-specific appendix, would including a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each substance a facility handles in the appendix meet the requirements of this section? With respect to (b) Hazardous substance-specific appendix, would MSDS meet this requirement or is it necessary to use the Chemical Hazards Response Information System (CHRIS) or similar system?

Conclusion

In conclusion, ILTA believes that many facilities are not aware of the time commitment and financial challenge that preparation to attempt to comply with these proposed regulations presents. In surveying

Members and other groups, we feel that the complexity of complying, and therefore the amount of time in which to accomplish compliance, is underestimated by regulated parties.

In our comments above, we have noted several critical areas in which we believe bulk liquid terminals will have to contract out to complete the compliance requirements. To successfully accomplish this, and to assure that the costs are covered in company budgets, we believe additional time will be needed to comply. Therefore, ILTA further recommends the following:

1. That facilities be given 2 years from the effective date of the final rule in which to prepare their response plans instead of the 6 months as proposed.

2. That facilities that submit their plan within 1 year of the effective date of the final rule be awarded a regulatory incentive by the USCG if they meet this goal.

3. The extent of many of the dire requirements of the proposed rule, while explained in the preamble to the rule, is not clearly expressed in the rule itself. The preamble will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and therefore the import and impact of these requirements will be lost on future readers of the rule. Make the preamble into a Guidance Document.

For example, the rule does not express clearly that the Qualified Individual (QI) to be provided by a company in the proposed rule is expected to meet the requirements of a spill response Incident Commander and have extensive OSHA Incident Commander training and other chemical facility and spill response training. I think this will come as a surprise to many owners of small facilities who may fulfill the role of QI under a USCG oil spill plan where the role of QI is largely that of obligating funds for cleanup.

ILTA appreciates this opportunity afforded to us to comment on these regulations. If the USCG has any questions with regard to our comments, please advise us and we will provide additional information.

Sincerely,
John Prokop
President and Counsel

cc: ILTA Board of Directors