RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
DOCUMENT
FOR
THE
1997
SPILL
PREVENTION,
CONTROL,
AND
COUNTERMEASURE
PLAN
RULEMAKING
Oil
Program
Center
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1
Table
of
Contents
Response
to
Comments
Document
for
the
1997
Proposed
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
Plan
Requirements
Section
Page
Introduction
..........................................................
2
1.
Applicability
­
Oil
Used
Operationally
................................
4
2.
New
Comments
for
Old
Proposals...................................
8
3.
Information
forFutureRulemaking
.................................
13
4.
Threshold
Issues
­
§112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
(ii)
............................
15
5.
§§
112.2
and
112.7
Introduction
­
Alternative
Plan
Formats
..............
25
6.
Information
Submitted
After
Certain
Discharges
­
§112.4(
a)
..............
34
7.
Five­
Year
Plan
Review
and
Certification
­
§112.5(
b)
...................
40
8.
Use
of
Business
Records
­
§§
112.7(
e),
112.8(
c)(
3)(
iv),
and
112.9(
b)(
1)
....
46
9.
Capacity
of
Facilities
Storing
Process
Water/
Wastewater
for
Response
Plan
Purposes
­
proposed
§112.20(
f)(
4)
............................
54
10.
Facility
Response
Plan
Format
­
§112.20(
h)
..........................
55
11.
Supporting
Analyses
............................................
57
12.
Miscellaneous
Comments
........................................
61
2
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
of
this
Document
The
purpose
of
this
document
is
to
respond
to
comments
received
on
the
1997
proposed
rule
(62
FR
63812,
December
2,
1997)
to
revise
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
and
Response
rule,
also
known
as
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(SPCC)
rule
(40
CFR
part
112),
promulgated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
proposed
revisions
are
in
addition
to
revisions
previously
proposed
to
part
112
in
1991
and
1993.
We
proposed
the
1997
revisions
primarily
to
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
SPCC
Plan
requirements.

Background
of
this
Rulemaking
Part
112
of
40
CFR
outlines
requirements
for
both
prevention
of
and
response
to
oil
spills.
The
prevention
aspect
of
the
rule
requires
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
SPCC
plans.
This
rulemaking
affects
mainly
SPCC
requirements.
Response
requirements
are
largely
unchanged
at
this
time,
except
for
a
proposal
that
clarifies
acceptability
of
alternative
response
plan
formats.
The
SPCC
requirements
were
originally
promulgated
on
December
11,
1973
(38
FR
34164)
under
the
authority
of
section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA
or
the
Act).
Regulated
facilities
are
also
limited
to
those
that,
because
of
their
location
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
in
quantities
that
may
be
harmful
into
the
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States
or
adjoining
shorelines,
or
that
affect
certain
natural
resources.

The
SPCC
requirements
have
been
amended
a
number
of
times.
On
October
22,
1991,
the
Agency
proposed
certain
changes
to
40
CFR
112.7.
The
October
1991
proposed
revisions
involved
changes
in
the
applicability
of
the
regulation
and
the
required
procedures
for
the
completion
of
SPCC
plans,
as
well
as
the
addition
of
a
facility
provision.
The
proposed
rule
also
reflected
changes
in
the
jurisdiction
of
section
311
of
the
Act
made
by
amendments
to
the
Act
in
1977
and
1978.
Those
proposed
revisions,
as
modified,
are
finalized
in
this
rule.

On
February
17,
1993,
the
Agency
again
proposed
clarifications
of
and
technical
changes
to
the
SPCC
rule,
and
facility
response
requirements
to
implement
OPA.
58
FR
8824.
The
proposed
changes
to
the
SPCC
prevention
requirements
included
clarifications
of
certain
requirements,
contingency
plans
for
facilities
without
secondary
containment,
prevention
training,
and
methods
of
determining
whether
a
tank
would
be
subject
to
brittle
fracture.
The
facility
response
plan
requirements
of
the
1993
proposal
were
promulgated
on
July
1,
1994
(59
FR
47384)
and
codified
at
40
CFR
112.20­
21.
The
prevention
requirements,
as
modified,
are
finalized
in
this
rule.
3
In
1996,
we
concluded
a
survey
of
SPCC
facilities.
We
used
the
results
of
that
survey
to
develop
the
December
2,
1997
proposed
rule
(62
FR
63812).
The
survey
results
are
part
of
the
administrative
record
for
this
rulemaking.

The
purpose
of
the
1997
proposal
was
to
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
now
imposed
by
the
prevention
requirements
in
the
SPCC
rule
without
creating
an
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
the
environment.
We
also
proposed
changes
in
information
collection
requirements
for
facility
response
plans,
but
withdraw
them
in
this
rulemaking.
The
1997
SPCC
proposals,
as
modified,
are
finalized
in
this
rule.

Organization
of
this
Comment
Response
Document
To
develop
this
document,
we
first
carefully
reviewed
the
letters
received
by
the
public
docket
and
identified
relevant
issues
raised
by
the
commenters
based
on
the
content
of
the
proposed
rule.
We
then
grouped
the
issues
according
to
categories
and
subcategories.
We
address
the
major
points
made
in
the
comments
and
respond
to
them.
We
include
several
comment
excerpts
and
responses
pertaining
to
each
issue.
In
most
cases,
we
do
not
include
comment
excerpts
that
simply
state
support
for
our
proposed
revisions.
Instead,
we
list
the
letter
number
of
each
general
supporting
comment
in
the
Comments
section
for
each
category.
The
letter
numbers
were
assigned
to
each
letter
in
accordance
with
when
the
letter
was
received
by
the
public
docket.

The
comment
excerpts
that
are
included
in
this
document
are
taken
verbatim
from
the
comment
letters
received
by
the
public
docket.
In
some
cases,
multiple
commenters
submitted
the
same
comment.
We
indicate
this
by
including
the
multiple
commenter
numbers
with
the
excerpt.
We
group
the
comments
that
make
similar
statements
and
provide
one
response
for
the
group.
We
respond
to
the
remaining
comments
individually.
4
1.
Applicability
­
Oil
Used
Operationally
Background:
In
the
1991
preamble,
we
addressed
the
fact
that
certain
facilities
may
have
equipment,
such
as
electrical
transformers,
that
contain
significant
quantities
of
oil
for
operational
purposes
rather
than
for
storage.
We
stated
that
such
oil­
filled
equipment
is
not
be
subject
to
the
bulk
storage
container
provisions
in
proposed
§112.8(
c)
and
§112.9(
c)
because
the
primary
purpose
of
this
equipment
is
not
the
storage
of
oil
in
bulk.
However,
we
also
stated
that
oil­
filled
equipment
must
meet
other
applicable
SPCC
requirements,
including
the
general
requirements
of
§112.7.
We
also
indicated
that
the
oil
storage
capacity
of
the
equipment
must
be
included
in
calculating
the
total
oil
storage
capacity
of
the
facility
to
determine
whether
the
facility
is
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule.
In
1991,
we
also
asked
commenters
to
identify
possible
operational
uses
of
oil,
other
than
electrical
transformers,
that
may
not
currently
use
secondary
containment
as
a
common
industry
practice,
and
that
should
not
be
subject
to
bulk
storage
provisions.

Comments:
Integrity
testing.
It
is
inappropriate
to
require
facilities
to
integrity
test
electrical
devices.
(18,
65)
Because
"...
electrical
devices
are
drained,
opened
(and
in
some
cases,
physically
entered)
and
inspected
during
scheduled
preventative
maintenance.
The
purpose
of
this
inspection
is
to
ensure
that
the
internal
electrical
components
deliver
the
required
efficiencies
in
voltage/
amperage
conversion
or
circuit
protection.
When
the
dielectric
fluid
is
replaced
in
the
device,
it
is
processed
using
a
vacuum
and
filter
press
procedure
to
ensure
that
all
entrained
moisture
is
removed
from
the
oil.
This
enhances
the
dielectric
properties
of
the
oil
and
removes
any
traces
of
water
that
could
become
reactive
when
the
device
is
energized.
An
additional
benefit
of
this
process
is
to
virtually
eliminate
the
potential
for
moisture­
induced
corrosion
of
the
interior
of
the
device.
Oil
samples
are
collected
from
substation
equipment
at
specified
time
intervals
and
evaluated
for
moisture
and
dissolved
gas
content."
(18)
"Integrity
testing
for
electrical
equipment
should
not
be
required
because
there
is
no
established
integrity
test
that
is
appropriate
for
such
equipment.
Moreover,
performing
an
integrity
test
would
require
taking
the
equipment
out
of
service,
which
could
create
a
disruption
in
the
supply
of
electricity.
In
addition,
integrity
testing
of
electrical
equipment
serves
no
useful
purpose.
Unlike
tanks,
where
regular
filling
and
emptying
can
mask
the
presence
of
a
leak,
dielectric
fluid
is
rarely
added
to
electrical
equipment.
Therefore,
any
leak
would
soon
manifest
itself
as
a
drop
in
the
level
of
dielectric
fluid
in
the
unit.
Finally,
integrity
testing
would
serve
little
purpose
because
the
use
of
electrical
equipment
is
equivalent
to
continuous
integrity
testing;
a
leak
will
lead
to
equipment
failure.
Because
any
significant
loss
of
fluid
interrupts
the
flow
of
electricity,
any
significant
fluid
loss
is
detected
quickly."
(65)

Response
plans
­
electrical
equipment.
"There
is
also
no
reason
to
apply
all
of
the
requirements
of
an
OPA
response
plan
to
electrical
equipment
when
secondary
containment
is
impractical
for
Facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
program.
The
OPA
5
regulations
are
designed
to
apply
to
Facilities
containing
millions
of
gallons
of
oil,
and
it
makes
little
sense
to
apply
these
requirements
to
facilities
orders
of
magnitude
smaller.
Preparation
of
an
OPA
plan
is
a
detailed
and
costly
endeavor
requiring
the
determination
of
a
worst
case
discharge,
a
hazard
and
vulnerability
analysis,
tiered
planning
scenarios,
and
compliance
with
complicated
requirements
regarding
the
location
and
testing
of
response
equipment,
response
times
and
personnel
qualification
and
training.
Last,
the
OPA
rules
require
that
covered
facilities
must
have
response
equipment
under
contract
for
a
worst
case
discharge.
Because
the
number
of
certified
response
organizations
is
small,
having
one
on
retainer
can
be
extremely
costly.
These
measures
are
simply
not
appropriate
for
electrical
distribution
systems,
which
do
not
pose
the
same
risk
as
oil
transfer
and
storage
facilities
and
which
are
already
being
adequately
addressed
by
the
utilities'
current
response
plans."
(65)

Risk­
based
approach
to
applicability.
"NMPC
currently
addresses
such
facilities
on
a
risk­
prioritized
basis
such
that
those
deemed
to
have
a
high
risk
of
discharging
oil
to
navigable
waters
have
a
specific
SPCC
plan,
but
those
deemed
to
have
medium
or
low
risk
are
addressed
more
generically.
The
majority
of
substations
are
considered
to
be
of
medium
to
low
risk.
"
(19)
"The
equipment
containing
significant
oil
can
be
inspected
for
its
adjacency
to
traffic.
If
the
risk
of
vehicular
impact
is
high,
traffic
barriers
can
be
constructed
to
prevent
collisions.
This
process
will
vastly
reduce
the
most
common
cause
of
a
release.
During
the
above
inspections,
a
determination
can
be
made
to
decide
if
some
equipment
should
be
protected
with
secondary
containment.
Also
during
the
inspections,
the
equipment
can
be
checked
for
any
areas
of
concern.
Should
a
problem
be
identified,
measures
can
be
taken
to
mitigate
the
problem.
A
general
spill
prevention
response
procedure
can
be
written
for
distribution
equipment,
and­
corresponding
training
be
given,
so
employees
can
take
measures
to
prevent
spills
and
can
respond
appropriately
to
a
spill.
(Note:
SPCC
training
is
already
given
to
these
employees
for
substation
equipment.)
Also
note
that
distribution
equipment
is
currently
labeled
with
an
emergency
call
number
should
a
passerby
note
anything
peculiar."
(32)

Secondary
containment
­
impracticability.
"(
T)
he
demonstration
of
this
impracticability
is
primarily
based
upon
the
fire
pool
hazard
that
would
be
created
by
containing
oil
at
the
base
of
an
electrical
device,
and
the
electrical
hazard
created
by
pooling
rainwater
around
an
energized
device.
However,
another
consideration
is
the
access
restrictions
to
essential
equipment
that
would
be
imposed
by
the
installation
of
spill
containment
structures.
The
overhead
work
clearances
at
the
majority
of
substations
are
severely
restricted
due
to
the
low
electrical
busses
that
conduct
current
to
and
from
the
electrical
devices.
Therefore,
the
larger
substation
equipment
is
mounted
on
sledge
runners
to
enable
the
device
to
be
skidded
under
the
overhead
bus
if
necessary.
Installation
of
a
containment
basin
around
a
device
would
require
that
the
device
be
lifted
clear
of
the
basin
wall
prior
to
removal
or
installation.
This
would
pose
an
electrical
safety
hazard
to
the
individual
operating
the
crane,
as
well
other
individuals
in
the
vicinity."
We
6
should
allow
facilities
to
substitute
absorbent
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
or
spill
diversionary
structures.
(18)
"Because
electrical
equipment
is
electrified,
water
must
be
able
to
drain
away
from
the
equipment
to
avoid
shock
and
fire
hazards.
This
makes
secondary
containment
impracticable
at
many
electrical
equipment
locations.
"
(65)

State
rules.
"AST's
containing
mineral
oil
are
exempt
under
Colorado
AST
regulations."
(32)
"The
State
(Michigan)
recognizes
the
distinction
between
the
use
of
operating
fluid
in
electrical
equipment
and
the
storage
of
oil
in
tanks
or
other
containers.
EPA
should
likewise
exclude
this
equipment
from
inclusion
into
the
SPCC
regulations
based
on
the
industry

s
excellent
safety
record
and
the
fact
that
the
use
of
dielectric
fluid
in
electrical
equipment
does
not
constitute
"storage"
or
"consumption"
of
oil."
(76)

Use
of
oil.
We
lack
jurisdiction
to
regulate
the
operational
use
of
oil,
especially
in
electrical
transformers,
substations,
and
other
equipment.
The
regulation
is
meant
to
apply
only
to
facilities
that
have
the
potential
to
cause
catastrophic
harm
to
the
environment
in
the
event
of
an
oil
spill,
which
would
not
include
any
spill
event
resulting
from
oil
used
in
electrical
equipment.
(18,19,
20,
31,
32,
35,
57,
60,
65,
69,
70,
76,
L1)

Response:
Integrity
testing.
We
have
distinguished
the
bulk
storage
of
oil
from
the
operational
use
of
oil.
We
define
"bulk
storage
container"
in
the
final
rule
to
mean
any
container
used
to
store
oil.
The
storage
of
oil
may
be
prior
to
use,
while
being
used,
or
prior
to
further
distribution
in
commerce.
For
clarity,
we
have
specifically
excluded
oilfilled
electrical,
operating,
or
manufacturing
equipment
from
the
definition.
In
both
§§
112.7(
d)
and
112.8(
c)(
6),
integrity
testing
requirements
apply
only
to
bulk
storage
containers.
Therefore,
oil­
filled
electrical,
operating,
or
manufacturing
equipment
is
not
subject
to
the
integrity
testing
requirement.

Response
plans
­
electrical
equipment.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
most
SPCC
facilities
should
not
have
to
prepare
response
plans
nor
should
electrical
facilities
be
subject
to
the
requirements
for
bulk
storage
facilities.
Section
112.7(
d)
of
the
final
rule
does
not
require
preparation
of
a
facility
response
plan
when
a
facility
lacks
secondary
containment.
A
contingency
plan
following
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
109
and
compliance
with
the
other
provisions
of
§112.7(
d)
is
sufficient.

Risk­
based
approach
to
applicability.
A
facility
with
oil­
filled
equipment
might
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
Therefore,
the
prevention
of
discharges
from
such
facility
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
statute.
The
discharge
prevention
measures
employed
at
such
a
facility
will
be
dictated
by
good
engineering
practice.

Secondary
containment
­
impracticability.
Facilities
that
use
oil
operationally
include
electrical
substations,
facilities
containing
electrical
transformers,
and
certain
hydraulic
7
or
manufacturing
equipment.
The
requirements
for
bulk
storage
containers
may
not
always
apply
to
these
facilities
since
the
primary
purpose
of
this
equipment
is
not
the
storage
of
oil
in
bulk.
Facilities
with
equipment
containing
oil
for
ancillary
purposes
are
not
required
to
provide
the
secondary
containment
required
for
bulk
storage
facilities
(§
112.8(
c))
nor
for
onshore
production
facilities
(§
112.9(
c))
for
this
equipment,
nor
implement
the
other
provisions
of
§112.8(
c)
or
§112.9(
c).
Oil­
filled
equipment
must
meet
other
SPCC
requirements,
for
example,
the
general
requirements
and
the
requirements
of
§112.7,
including
§112.7(
c),
to
provide
appropriate
containment
and/
or
diversionary
structures
to
prevent
discharged
oil
from
reaching
a
navigable
watercourse.
The
general
requirement
for
secondary
containment,
which
can
be
provided
by
various
means
including
drainage
systems,
spill
diversion
ponds,
etc.,
will
provide
for
safety
and
also
the
needs
of
section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CWA.

State
rules.
State
laws
may
have
different
applicability
standards
than
the
SPCC
rule.
Dielectric
fluid
(along
with
any
other
oil
based
fluid
found
in
electrical
equipment)
is
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program
based
on
the
SPCC
definition
of
oil,
which
includes
oil
of
any
kind
or
in
any
form.
Our
rule
includes
the
"use"
and
"consumption"
of
oil
as
a
basis
for
applicability.

Use
of
oil.
We
disagree
that
operational
equipment
is
not
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule.
We
have
amended
§112.1(
b)
to
clarify
that
using
oil,
for
example
operationally,
may
subject
a
facility
to
SPCC
jurisdiction
as
long
as
the
other
applicability
criteria
apply,
for
example,
oil
storage
capacity,
or
location.
Such
a
facility
might
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
Therefore,
the
prevention
of
discharges
from
such
facility
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
statute.

In
addition,
a
facility
may
deviate
from
any
inapplicable
or
inappropriate
SPCC
requirements,
or
from
most
applicable
requirements,
if
the
owner
or
operator
explains
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection
by
some
other
means.
See
§112.7(
a)(
2).
See
also
§112.7(
d).
8
2.
New
Comments
for
Old
Proposals
Background:
In
the
1997
proposal,
we
stated
that
we
would
finalize
the
1991
and
1993
proposals
without
seeking
additional
comments
on
those
proposals.

Comments:
Support
for
additional
comments
or
reproposal.
(6,
7,
11,
17,
24,
26,
37,
41,
49,
50,
52,
58,
61,
70,
74,
77).

Burden.
The
1991
proposal
"...
would
increase
the
burdens
on
small
tank
batteries
and
other
facilities
­
arguably,
to
a
greater
degree
than
the
current
proposal
reduces
the
burdens.
At
this
point,
the
Agency
might
consider
republishing
the
whole
spill
prevention
rule
so
that
the
public
can
view
the
proposed
changes
in
a
comprehensive
manner."
(64)

Industry
standards.
"...(
M)
uch
has
changed
since
the
1991
proposal
was
issued.
Many
API
standards
and
recommended
practices
applicable
to
aboveground
storage
tank
operation
have
been
revised
since
that
time.
These
revisions
have
further
strengthen
the
industry's
goal
of
environmental
protection."
(37)
"Standards,
specifications,
and
recommended
practices
for
aboveground
tank
operations,
terminals,
and
exploration
and
production
tank
operations
have
been
revised
and
updated
by
the
American
Petroleum
Institute.
Because
of
the
time
that
has
elapsed,
the
changes
in
operational
procedures
of
the
oil
and
gas
industry
which
have
improved
the
degree
of
environmental
protection,
and
the
new
information
EPA
obtained
from
their
tank
survey,
RMOGA
urges
EPA
to
re­
publish
the
spill
prevention
rule
40
CFR
112
in
its
entirety
incorporating
all
proposed
changes
as
a
draft
for
comment."
(49)
We
should
repropose
the
changes
because
of
the
following
industry
standards
that
have
been
developed
since
the
1991
proposal:
Std
620,
Design
and
Construction
of
Large,
Welded,
Low­
Pressure
Storage
Tanks,
9th,
ed,
1996;
Std
650,
Welded
Steel
Tanks
for
Oil
Storage,
9th
ed,
1993;
Std
653,
Tank
Inspection,
Repair,
Alteration,
and
Reconstruction,
2nd
ed,
1995;
Std
2000,
Venting
Atmospheric
and
Low­
Pressure
Storage
Tanks;
Nonrefrigerated
and
Refrigerated,
4th
ed,
1992;
Std
2015,
Safe
Entry
and
Cleaning
of
Petroleum
Storage
Tanks,
5th
ed,
1994;
and,
Recommended
Practice
2350,
Overfill
Protection
for
Petroleum
Storage
Tanks,
2nd
ed,
1996;
In
addition,
API
Standard
2610,
Design,
Construction,
Operation,
Maintenance
and
Inspection
of
Terminal
and
Tank
Facilities,
first
published
in
1994,
provides
a
comprehensive
guide
to
the
best
industry
practices
for
terminal
design,
construction,
inspection,
maintenance,
repair,
and
environmental
protection.
Similarly,
specifications
and
recommended
practices
for
exploration
and
production
tanks
have
been
revised
during
the
six­
year
period,
including:
Spec.
12B,
Specification
for
Bolted
Tanks
for
Storage
of
Production
Liquids,
14th
ed,
1995;
Spec.
12D,
Specification
for
Field
Welded
Tanks
for
Storage
of
Production
Liquids,
10th
ed,
1994;
Spec.
9
12F,
Specification
for
Shop
Welded
Tanks
for
Storage
of
Production
Liquids,
11th
ed,
1994;
Spec.
12P,
Specification
for
Fiberglass
Reinforced
Plastic
Tanks,
2nd
ed,
1995;
and,
Recommended
Practice
12R1,
Recommended
Practice
for
Setting,
Maintenance,
Inspection,
Operation
and
Repair
of
Tanks
in
Production
Service,
5th
ed,
1997."
(58)

More
recent
events.
Hopes
that
EPA
"...
considers
the
oil
and
gas
industry
and
standard
industry
operating
practices
have
changed
significantly
since
1913
and
that
a
prescriptive
regulation
is
not
necessary.
(6)

1995
Survey,
Liner
Study,
Cooperative
Program.
Commenters
felt
that
additional
comments
should
be
allowed
on
the
1991
and
1993
proposals
before
finalization
because
of
changes
and
developments
in
our
policy
and
information
since
the
time
of
proposal.
(17,
24,
26,
41,
50,
58,
61,
77)
These
events
include
"...
over
six
years
of
additional
[EPA]
experience
with
the
basic
SPCC
program,
new
studies
(e.
g.
EPA's
1996
"Liner
Study"
report
to
Congress),
revisions
and
additions
to
applicable
industry
initiatives
and
standards
(e.
g.
API's
Standard
653
and
Recommended
Practice
2350),
and
significant
maturing
of
the
Facility
Response
Plan
Program."
(24,
50)
"The
1997
proposed
rules
indicate
that
significant
information
was
obtained
from
a
recently
completed
industry
SPCC
survey.
This
information
should
be
presented
to
industry
if
it
includes
justification
for
the
previously
proposed
rule
revisions."
(77)

"The
EPA
should
republish
those
provisions
from
the
1991
proposal
it
plans
to
adopt
along
with
its
conclusions
from
the
1995
survey
and
allow
the
affected
industry
sectors
to
evaluate
those
conclusions.
For
example,
the
survey
results
appear
to
suggest
that
the
current
SPCC
plan
program
is
effective
in
reducing
spills,
spill
volumes,
and
offsite
migration
of
oil.
MEDC
doubts
that
such
results
support
adding
high­
cost
burdens
to
lowrisk
operations.
MEDC
is
also
concerned
that
the
survey
understates
the
number
of
small
exploration
and
production
facilities,
a
factor
which
could
distort
economic
analysis
of
the
effect
of
a
rule."
(17)
"...
EPA
owes
the
parties
potentially
affected
by
adoption
of
the
1991
proposals
the
chance
to
review
the
survey
results
along
with
any
analysis
EPA
has
performed
of
those
results
to
justify
rules
from
the
1991
proposal."
This
is
important
because
the
current
proposal
provides
regulatory
relief
to
large
facilities
and
not
the
more
numerous
smaller
facilities,
which
the
survey
may
have
mischaracterized.
(26)

Personnel
changes.
Objects
to
our
plan
to
finalize
the
1991
and
1993
SPCC
plan
rule
proposals
without
additional
comment
because
of
industry
personnel
changes
and
new
personnel,
new
companies,
changes
in
spill
prevention
10
standards,
equipment,
practices
and
procedures,
and
the
need
to
plan,
budget
and
arrange
for
the
financing
of
compliance.
Identifies
two
significant
developments
since
the
1991
and
1993
proposals:

"A.
New
companies
have
entered
the
industry
since
1993
and
1991.
Since
a
significant
number
of
facilities
affected
by
these
rules
may
not
have
been
in
existence
at
the
time
they
were
released,
they
should
not
be
subjected
to
the
imposition
of
costly
new
requirements
without
the
opportunity
for
notice
and
comment.

B.
There
have
been
significant
personnel
changes
in
industry
positions
responsible
for
facility
spill
prevention
operations.
Industry
representatives
began
working
with
EPA
on
the
proposed
SPCC
Plan
revised
regulations
in
1987.
Since
that
time,
most
of
the
industry
personnel
involved
in
that
effort,
or
in
reviewing
drafts
for
their
companies,
have
retired
or
moved
to
other
positions.
There
have
been
tremendous
reductions
in
company
personnel
throughout
the
industry.
(Note:
Since
1984,
more
than
475,000
persons
have
left
their
employment
in
the
petroleum
industry.)"

New
personnel
at
petroleum
facilities
need
the
opportunity
to
review
and
understand
the
proposed
1991
and
1993
regulations
and
evaluate
their
impact,
financial
and
otherwise,
on
the
companies
they
work
for,
on
the
operations
for
which
they
have
responsibility,
and
on
the
budgets
they
must
obtain
to
comply.
(52)

Regulatory
changes.
We
should
solicit
additional
comments
before
finalizing
the
proposals
because
of
changes
in
regulatory
and
statutory
issues
since
1991
and
1993.
(17,
26,
41,
50,
58,
61,
77)

FRP
rule.
Some
commenters
believed
that
the
implementation
of
the
Facility
Response
Plan
(FRP)
rule
alone
requires
us
to
solicit
additional
comments
concerning
the
SPCC
proposals.
"The
current
regulatory
reduction
proposals
acknowledge
the
relationship
between
SPCC
plans
and
FRPs.
MEDC
believes
that
in
writing
and
implementing
FRPs
many
large,
high­
risk
facilities
have
made
improvements
in
their
spill
prevention
and
control
plans.
The
FRP
program
has
changed
materially
the
oil
spill
risk
posed
by
oil
storage
tanks
and
its
impact
should
be
taken
into
account."
(17)
We
should
acknowledge
developments
in
compliance
provisions
since
1991
before
promulgating
the
new
SPCC
rules.
(26,
77)
"Since
1991
EPA
has
proposed
and
adopted
rules
identifying
higher­
risk
facilities
and
requiring
them
to
develop
and
implement
FRPs
under
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
of
1990.
The
current
proposal
recognizes
the
close
11
relationship
between
SPCC
plans
and
FRPs
by
allowing
facility
operators
to
use
one
plan
for
both,
either
an
integrated
contingency
plan
or
an
equivalent
state
plan.
IPAA
believes
that
in
writing
and
implementing
FRPs,
many
operators
of
large,
high­
risk
facilities
have
had
to
implement
improvements
in
spill
prevention
and
control.
Those
facility
changes
require
EPA
to
reconsider
the
basis
for
its
1991
SPCC
plan
proposals
because
the
universe
of
regulated
facilities
has
changed
significantly."
(26)
Because
of
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
amendments
and
significant
maturing
of
the
Facility
Response
Plan
program,
review
and
comment
are
needed
before
the
promulgation
of
the
1991
and
1993
proposals.
(41,
50,
58)
Requirements
from
the
FRP
program
and
planned
regulations
under
the
SPCC
proposal
are
redundant,
may
be
unnecessary
and
need
further
evaluation.
(41,
58)
"The
current
proposal,
allowing
integrated
contingency
plans
(ICPs)
or
other
state
plans,
acknowledges
the
close
relationship
between
the
SPCC
plan
and
FRP
programs.
Even
though
one
program
addresses
spill
prevention
and
the
other
addresses
spill
response,
the
facility
analysis
for
the
FRP
also
serves
the
needs
of
spill
prevention
by
identifying
risks.
We
believe
that
the
process
of
implementing
FRPs
at
the
highest
risk
facilities
has,
as
part
of
the
process,
also
helped
improve
spill
prevention
efforts."
(58)

Response
plan
requirement.
Promulgation
of
the
1991
and
1993
proposals
may
require
small
facilities
to
adopt
OPA
response
plans.
"Before
imposing
such
requirements
on
the
industry,
it
would
be
appropriate
to
determine
what
number
of
releases
to
navigable
water
take
place
as
a
result
of
a
lack
of
response
planning
at
small,
non­
OPA
facilities
that
may
have
a
SPCC
plan
with
secondary
containment
in
place
but
not
the
appropriate
spill
response
equipment
or
trained
personnel."
(6)

Time
lapse.
Other
Agency
events
necessitate
additional
public
comments.
(41,
58,
61)
"The
significant
time
lapse
since
(the
1991
and
1993)
proposals
­­
along
with
amendments
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
and
EPA's
recommendation
to
Congress
in
1996
to
establish
the
Oil
Cooperative
Program
­­
strongly
suggested
that
EPA
had
abandoned
its
intent
to
finalize
the
1991
and
1993
proposals.
We
believe
that
actions
(EPA's
intent
to
establish
an
Oil
Cooperative
Program;
the
data
collected
by
EPA's
facility
survey;
changes
made
to
regulatory
requirements;
and
revisions
to
industry
standards)
taken
since
these
proposals
mandate
that
EPA
review
the
need
for
additional
changes
to
the
program.
We
strongly
recommend
that
EPA
not
finalize
the
earlier
proposals
without
first
allowing
further
review
and
comment,
especially
since
many
of
the
proposed
changes
may
no
longer
be
necessary."
(58)
"...(
T)
he
passage
of
time
and
intervening
events,
in
particular,
the
President's
directive
on
burden
reduction
and
the
Agency's
own
1995
SPCC
Survey."
(70)
12
Response:
Additional
comments
or
reproposal.
It
is
not
necessary
to
repropose
the
1991
and
1993
proposals
because
of
mere
passage
of
time.
We
received
numerous
comments
on
every
side
of
most
issues.
In
developing
this
final
rule,
we
have
considered
changes
that
have
taken
place
in
the
oil
industry,
industry
standards,
and
regulations
that
may
affect
the
SPCC
rule.
We
have
also
considered
changes
in
the
various
industries
which
comprise
the
universe
of
SPCC
facilities
which
have
occurred
since
our
original
proposals.
We
encourage
the
use
of
industry
standards
to
implement
the
rule,
without
incorporating
any
particular
standard
into
the
rule,
thereby
averting
possible
obsolescence
of
those
standards.
We
used
the
results
of
our
1995
SPCC
facility
survey
to
develop
our
1997
proposed
rule.
These
results
are
also
part
of
the
administrative
record
for
this
rulemaking.
We
have
also
considered
and
responded
to
all
of
the
comments
received
in
1991
and
1993
in
their
respective
Comment
Response
Documents
or
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule.

The
Oil
Cooperative
Program
does
not
affect
the
substantive
provisions
of
the
rule,
but
merely
encourages
facilities
to
go
beyond
the
rule
in
effecting
environmental
enhancements.

FRP
rule.
Only
a
small
subset
of
facilities
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program,
i.
e.,
approximately
6,
000
facilities,
are
also
subject
to
FRP
requirements.
Recognizing
the
impact
of
FRPs,
we
have
exempted
those
facilities
from
some
of
the
requirements
of
the
SPCC
rule,
for
example,
information
on
emergency
procedures
(§
112.7(
a)(
4)
and
(5)).

We
also
recognize
the
impact
of
other
rules,
for
example
State
rules,
the
Federal
rules
governing
solid
waste
(i.
e.,
the
RCRA
rules),
and
rules
governing
permitted
discharges
into
waters
of
the
United
States
(National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
or
NPDES).
We
permit
facilities
to
use
as
SPCC
Plans,
in
whole
or
in
part,
plans
that
were
drafted
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
these
and
other
authorities.
Those
plans
must
meet
all
Federal
requirements
or
be
supplemented
so
that
they
do,
and
crossreferenced
to
the
applicable
Federal
requirement.
As
a
result,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
repropose
the
1991
and
1993
SPCC
proposals
for
additional
public
comment
regarding
recent
regulatory
issues.

Personnel
changes.
In
developing
this
final
rule,
as
noted
above,
we
have
considered
changes
that
have
taken
place
in
the
oil
industry,
industry
standards,
and
regulations
that
may
affect
the
SPCC
rule.
For
the
past
26
years,
owners
and
operators
of
regulated
facilities
have
been
responsible
for
training
their
personnel
in
applicable
regulations,
such
as
40
CFR
part
112.
Such
responsibility
is
in
effect
now,
and
will
continue
under
the
revised
rule.
New
companies
and
new
personnel
of
those
companies
are
on
notice
as
to
applicable
rules
and
proposals.
They
have
also
had
the
13
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
1997
proposal.
Furthermore,
we
have
considered
cost
implications
for
all
three
proposals
which
we
are
finalizing
today.

Response
plan
requirements.
We
have
no
plans
to
require
SPCC
facilities
for
which
secondary
containment
is
not
practicable
to
develop
response
plans.
Therefore
we
have
withdrawn
§112.7(
d)
as
proposed
in
1993.
Only
a
contingency
plan
following
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
109
and
compliance
with
other
provisions
of
§112.7(
d)
is
necessary
when
secondary
containment
is
impracticable.
Only
onshore
facilities
that
meet
the
criteria
of
substantial
harm
and/
or
significant
and
substantial
harm
facilities
need
to
comply
with
the
FRP
requirements
in
40
CFR
112.20­
21.

3.
Information
for
Future
Rulemaking
Background:
In
our
1997
proposal,
we
requested
comments
on
new
standards,
technologies,
or
approaches
that
have
been
developed
since
the
enactment
of
OPA
which
would
reduce
the
burden
of
other
SPCC
rule
requirements,
without
compromising
environmental
protection.
We
requested
these
comments
in
order
to
discover
additional
ways
to
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
rule.
In
addition,
we
requested
comments
on
measures
not
required
by
the
SPCC
rule
that
would
enhance
the
environmental
protection
that
the
rule
provides.
Our
purpose
for
requesting
these
comments
was
to
secure
information
for
developing
possible
future
rules
or
policies,
not
developing
this
final
rule.

Comments:
Cathodic
protection.
Cathodic
protection
should
be
required
for
all
new
steel
tank
bottoms
and
piping
in
contact
with
the
soil
or
other
backfill
material.
(39)

Double­
walled
or
vaulted
tanks.
Technological
improvements
in
AST
design
standards,
particularly
in
the
standards
for
smaller
ASTs,
have
greatly
reduced
or
totally
eliminated
the
potential
for
environmental
contamination
the
SPCC
requirements
were
designed
to
address.
Technological
advancements
include
concrete
encased
doubled–
walled
tanks,
secondary
containment,
overfill
and
spill
prevention
devices,
flow
restriction
and
fuel
shut­
off
equipment,
Early
Warning
Fire
Detection
equipment,
and
interstitial
monitoring.
(36)

Integrity
testing
­
robotic
inspection.
We
should
amend
the
rule
to
require
that
all
aboveground
bulk
oil
storage
tanks
should
be
subject
to
periodic
integrity
inspection
and
testing
at
a
minimum
of
once
every
five
years
and
should
use
such
techniques
as
internal
in­
service
robotic
inspection
of
tank
bottoms.
(54)

Secondary
containment.
"Given
that
API
Bulletin
16D
has
been
implemented
throughout
the
oil
and
gas
industry
since
1974
and
the
vast
majority
of
oil
and
gas
production
facilities
...
are
protected
by
diking
or
secondary
containment
it
is
14
unnecessary
for
EPA
to
propose
such
far
reaching
and
extremely
expensive
administrative
requirements."
(6)

Tank
manufacturers.
The
involvement
of
the
Underwriters
Laboratories,
Inc
(UL)
and
Underwriters
Laboratories
of
Canada
(ULC)
would
appear
to
be
logical
inclusions
in
the
objectives
of
implementing
the
entire
OPA
objectives.
"A
specific
example
of
a
proposed
requirement
that
would
immediately
enhance
the
environmental
protection
the
SPCC
rule
provides
without
generating
any
Agency
burden
would
be
to
stipulate
that
every
tank
manufacturer
is
required
to
notify
existing
and
prospective
end­
users
of
the
need
to
comply
with
the
program.
This
can
easily
be
done
via
the
point­
of­
sale
invoice
generated
by
the
tank
manufacturer
which
can
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
as
a
source
document
for
auditing
purposes."
(73)

Response:
We
appreciate
these
comments
and
will
consider
them
for
future
rulemaking.
Today's
final
rule
encourages
facilities
to
use
industry
practices,
standards,
and
procedures.
We
also
encourage
the
use
of
innovative
technology
that
meets
rule
requirements.

Cathodic
protection.
Cathodic
protection
or
coatings
is
already
required
for
all
new
completely
buried
steel
tank
bottoms
(§
112.8(
c)
4)).
New
or
replaced
buried
piping
installations
must
also
be
protected
with
a
protective
wrapping
and
coating
(§
112.8(
d)(
1)).

Tank
manufacturers.
While
we
believe
it
may
be
desirable
for
tank
manufacturers
to
advise
purchasers
of
their
equipment
of
the
need
to
comply
with
SPCC
rules,
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
comply,
whether
the
manufacturer
notifies
him
or
not.
As
noted
above,
such
a
requirement
would
increase
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
rule.
15
4.
Threshold
Issues
­
§112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
(ii)

Background:
In
1997,
we
asked
for
comments
as
to
whether
any
change
in
the
level
of
storage
capacity
which
subjects
a
facility
to
this
rule
is
justified.
We
noted
that
we
were
considering
eliminating
the
provision
that
requires
a
facility
having
a
container
with
a
storage
capacity
in
excess
of
660
gallons
to
prepare
a
Plan,
as
long
as
the
total
capacity
of
the
facility
remained
at
1,
320
gallons
or
less.
The
effect
of
such
a
change
would
be
to
raise
the
threshold
for
regulation
to
an
aggregate
aboveground
storage
capacity
greater
than
1,320
gallons.
We
did
not
at
that
time
suggest
or
propose
any
underground
storage
tank
threshold
change.

Comments:
Support
for
current
threshold.
The
revision
would
"...
reduce
the
burden
of
reporting
for
facilities
storing
as
few
as
25
55­
gallon
drums
and
not
increase
risks
to
the
environment.
It
is
our
understanding
that
the
intent
of
the
volume
restrictions
is
based
on
what
volume
would
cause
a
"significant"
environmental
impact.
It
is
highly
improbable
that
numerous
individual
55­
gallon
drums
(or
similar
capacity
containers)
would
fail
simultaneously
causing
a
significant
environmental
impact.
"
(41,
47,
61,
77)

Support
for
proposal.

Clarity
and
consistency.
The
change
would
create
consistency
in
the
rule
by
applying
one
standard
of
applicability
(i.
e.
total
capacity).
(14)
It
would
clarify
the
requirements
of
the
rule.
(30)

Cost.
Supports
elimination
of
the
660
gallon
provision
due
to
the
relatively
high
cost
to
prepare
and
implement
a
Plan
as
well
as
the
relatively
small
risk
posed
by
such
containers.
The
660
gallon
provision
is
a
burden
on
small
businesses
that
must
design
an
SPCC
plan
for
their
storage
tanks.
(2,
5,
6,
7,
9,
10,
13,
15,
28,
29,
30,
32,
36,
38,
42,
43,
45,
46,
48,
49,
53,
58,
64,
66,
71,
74,
75,
L2
)

Farms.
"...(
T)
he
proposed
increase
in
storage
capacity
for
a
single
container
size
to
1320
gallons
from
660
gallons
is
a
move
in
the
right
direction
for
our
member
cooperatives
and
their
patrons.
We
feel
that
in
most
if
not
all
cases
that
this
increase
in
the
size
of
tanks
will
have
no
negative
effect
on
the
safety
of
the
environment."
(71)

Fewer
measures
necessary.
Supports
a
higher
threshold
because
"...
oil
spills
from
containers
of
less
than
660
gallons
can
generally
be
controlled
with
less
extensive
spill
prevention
procedures,
methods,
and
equipment
than
are
required
under
40
CFR
part
112."
(46)

Less
environmental
risk.
"...(
T)
he
costs
of
preparing
extensive
SPCC
Plans
(including
the
cost
of
hiring
a
registered
professional
engineer)
may
at
times
be
16
an
unnecessary
burden
for
such
facilities,
given
the
quantities
of
oil
actually
stored.
HC&
S
believes
that
the
requirement
to
maintain
an
SPCC
Plan
should
be
based
on
the
environmental
risk
posed
by
the
facility
rather
than
being
strictly
based
upon
the
total
storage
capacity
available."
(46)
"The
$2500
average
cost
to
US
WEST
for
a
single
SPCC
plan
far
outweighs
the
true
risk
to
the
environment
since
the
likelihood
of
a
spill
is
so
improbable."
Outlines
the
various
safety
devices
equipped
on
such
tanks,
declaring
that
these
devices
provide
excellent
spill
prevention.
(48)
The
present
660
gallon
criterion
promotes
the
installation
of
tanks
smaller
than
660
gallons.
This
results
in
increased
deliveries
to
keep
the
tanks
filled,
which
therefore
increases
the
probability
of
spills
associated
with
delivery
and
filling
events.
(59)
"(
T)
he
current
provision
discourages
pollution
prevention
and
efficient
material
management.
EPA
pollution
prevention
guidance
recommends
the
use
of
larger
containers
to
reduce
waste
generation
and
reduce
possibility
of
stormwater
contamination
from
possible
spills
and
leaks.
This
will
also
benefit
used
oil
recycling
by
encouraging
the
use
of
larger
containers
for
accumulation
storage,
by
not
having
to
worry
about
being
required
to
prepare
a
written
SPCC
Plan."
(L4)

Other
programs.
The
proposed
rule
change
would
not
result
in
a
decrease
in
environmental
protection
because
of
other
existing
oil
spill
prevention
programs
or
plans.
(29,
32,
79,
83,
L1)

Hazardous
material
disclosure.
The
proposed
change
is
justifiable
due
to
local
hazardous
material
disclosure
laws
that
require
facilities
with
certain
thresholds
of
chemicals
to
prepare
a
Plan
that
includes
an
emergency
response
procedure.
(L1)

NPDES.
"(
W)
ith
the
national
storm
water
program
fully
in
place
and
actively
being
implemented
by
either
EPA
or
the
states,
oil­
containing
tanks
are
now
generally
subject
to
storm
water
pollution
prevention
best
management
practices
designed
to
prevent
releases
to
storm
water
and
the
environment."
(83)

Reduced
duplication.
The
rule
change
would
reduce
"duplication
with
other
federal
and
local
regulations
aimed
at
preventing
and
preparing
for
a
release
or
spill
of
oil."
(L1)

Small
business.
"We
believe
a
number
of
small
businesses,
both
petroleum
marketers
and
non­
marketers,
would
benefit
from
the
proposal
and
be
given
reasonable
regulatory
relief.
For
example,
there
are
countless
numbers
of
small,
temporary
storage
tanks
at
construction
sites
which
are
there
for
a
short
duration
of
time
that,
we
believe,
should
not
be
required
to
carry
out
a
SPCC
Plan."
(78)
17
Technological
improvements.
"...(
T)
echnological
improvements
in
aboveground
storage
tank
(AST)
design
standards
and
the
mandates
of
state/
county
fire
codes
and
state
or
local
environmental
agencies
already
provide
sufficient
spill
prevention
and
control
for
small
ASTs.
(36)
"...(
T)
echnological
improvements
in
AST
design
standards,
particularly
for
smaller
ASTs,
have
outpaced
the
SPCC
plan
requirement
and
caused
it
to
become
superfluous.
The
majority
of
technological
improvements
in
AST
system
design
over
the
past
twenty­
five
years
have
been
prompted
by
fire
safety
interests,
and
include
secondary
containment,
overfill
spill­
prevention
equipment,
insulation,
inventory
control,
and
release
detection
equipment.
These
improvements,
although
aimed
at
preventing
the
spread
of
fire
by
containing
any
released
oil,
have
the
dual
benefit
of
preventing
spills
or
releases
and
subsequent
environmental
contamination.
Whereas
in
the
past
ASTs
equipped
with
these
improvements
were
not
commonly
available,
today
ASTs
smaller
than
1,300
gallons
are
being
manufactured
with
these
technological
improvements.
In
addition,
smaller
ASTs
are
`shop
built'
or
factory
fabricated
rather
than
field­
erected,
resulting
in
an
increased
quality
of
construction
and
a
reduced
likelihood
of
tank
failure."
(75)

Alternative
threshold
suggestions.

2,001
gallons.
"...(
T)
he
total
capacity
threshold
of
1,
320
gallons
should
be
increased.
Many
agricultural
retailers
operate
with
two
1,000­
gallon
tanks.
However,
these
tanks
are
only
in
use
for
that
part
of
the
year
in
season.
If
the
agency
is
serious
about
providing
relief
to
small
businesses,
it
would
also
provide
agricultural
service
and
input
providers
­­
as
well
as
farmers
themselves
­­
a
total
capacity
threshold
of
2001
gallons."
(53)

2,500
gallons.
"With
the
increasing
size
of
farm
equipment,
larger
tank
sizes
are
necessary
for
efficiencies
and
we
concur
with
the
need
for
increased
tank
size.
We
would
propose
that
this
upper
limit
be
increased
to
2500
gallons.
Larger
tanks
would
require
less
frequent
fueling
and
handling,
and
could
actually
be
safer
by
reducing
the
number
of
times
a
tank
needs
to
be
filled."
(71)

10,000
gallons.
"...(
E)
xclude
all
facilities
where
individual
oil­
containing
units
have
a
capacity
of
10,000
gallons
or
less.
This
is
based
on
the
Agency's
own
survey
of
facilities
potentially
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulations
("
Analysis
of
the
Relationship
Between
Facility
Characteristics
and
Oil
Spill
Risk"),
and
the
electric
utility
industry's
record
of
infrequent
discharges
of
dielectric
fluid
to
navigable
waters.
EPA's
survey
categorizes
facilities
storing
less
than
10,
000
gallons
of
oil
as
`small'.
The
summary
of
the
regression
analysis
in
Exhibit
2
begins
at
10,000
gallons
implying
that
those
units
are
not
of
regulatory
concern.
The
annual
number
of
discharges
to
navigable
waters
from
the
oil
storage
18
facilities
exceeds
by
orders
of
magnitude
the
extremely
low
number
of
comparable
discharges
from
electrical
equipment.
These
data
are
a
clear
indication
that
"small"
capacity
tanks
and
containers
(10,000
gallons
and
less)
do
not
pose
a
risk
that
justifies
regulation
and
inclusion
within
the
SPCC
program."
(70,
76)

Electrical
equipment.

15,000
gallons.
(27,
31,
35,
69,
70)
"...(
T)
he
number
of
spills
from
electrical
equipment
is
negligible.
Furthermore,
spills
that
have
occurred
from
this
equipment
are
not
a
significant
threat
to
the
environment.
In
addition,
electrical
equipment
sites
typically
have
a
gravel
pit,
which
help
absorb
and
contain
any
spill
that
may
occur.
In
general,
electrical
equipment
tanks
and
containers
of
this
nature
do
not
pose
significant
risks
to
the
environment
sufficient
to
warrant
being
included
in
the
SPCC
program."
(27)
"Oil­
filled
equipment
has
stringent
construction
requirements
resulting
in
very
low
spill
rates.
EPA
recognized
the
insignificance
of
this
equipment
in
its
survey
of
Characteristics
and
Oil
Spill
Risk"
(1996,
p.
1).
The
Agency
concluded
`that
facilities
with
larger
storage
capacity
are
likely
to
have
a
greater
number
of
oil
spills,
larger
volumes
of
oil
spilled,
and
greater
cleanup
costs.
'"
(35)
EPA
should
"...
adopt
a
general
tank
threshold
of
10,000
gallons
(for
non­
electrical
equipment)
and
a
single
unit
threshold
of
15,000
gallons
for
electrical
equipment.
Considerable
EPA
data
supports
this
change.
EPA
has
concluded
from
the
survey
data
"that
facilities
with
larger
storage
capacity
are
likely
to
have
a
greater
number
of
oil
spills,
larger
volumes
of
oil
spilled,
and
greater
cleanup
costs."
(65)

Lower
threshold.

110
gallons.
"DOT
consistency
dictates
setting
the
threshold
capacity
at
110
gallons
i.
e.,
2­
55
gallon
drums.
This
change
would
bring
EPA
into
consistency
with
DOT.
Additionally,
E&
P
facilities
include
small
containers
e.
g.,
110
gallons
when
the
plan
threshold
is
attained.
Further,
as
indicated
in
40
CFR
part
110,
oil
spills
even
causing
a
sheen
are
devastating.
Thus,
sheens
from
home
heating
oil
tanks
are
every
bit
as
important
as
sheens
from
crude
oil
tanks.
We
recommend
reducing
the
threshold
of
applicability
to
110
gallons
of
oil."
(8)

250
gallons.
"The
current
thresholds
should
remain
and
the
only
alteration
should
be
the
modification
of
the
"navigable
waterway
to
be
inclusive
rather
than
exclusive;
therefore,
the
new
rule
would
state:
"a
facility
with
a
single
container
of
250
gallons
(rather
than
660
gallons),
an
19
aggregate
of
1,
320
gallons
OR
is
considered
potentially
harmful
to
the
navigable
OR
ground/
drinking
water
resources
as
determined
by
the
appropriate
authority,
must
prepare
and
implement
a
certified
SPCC
Plan."
(73)

No
aggregate
threshold,
container
threshold
only.
The
threshold
should
be
"changed
from
a
facility
basis
to
a
tank
basis
and
that
the
threshold
be
set
at
660
gallons
per
tank.
...
First,
determination
of
SPCC
plan
applicability
is
simpler
if
a
per­
tank
limit
is
established,
as
the
need
to
calculate
an
aggregate
oil
volume
is
eliminated.
This
makes
applicability
of
the
rule
easier
to
understand
and
is
particularly
important
for
smaller
facilities.
Secondly,
small
tanks
pose
less
risk
to
the
environment
because
of
their
limited
volume.
Experience
demonstrates
that
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
multiple
tanks
will
fail
simultaneously.
Therefore,
we
believe
this
threshold
change
would
not
reduce
the
effectiveness
of
the
SPCC
plans."
(41,
47,
61)

Completely
buried
tanks
­
63,000­
gallon
threshold.
"Many
service
stations
exceed
this
capacity,
as
they
commonly
store
three
grades
of
gasoline
in
underground
storage
tanks
(USTs)
of
15,000
gallons
each.
A
separate
regulatory
program
for
USTs,
established
by
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
Subtitle
I
and
fully
implemented
as
of
December
1998,
makes
application
of
the
SPCC
rule
unnecessary.
Additionally,
we
believe
that
the
SPCC
requirements
were
not
intended
to
address
service
stations.
Thus,
increasing
the
threshold
to
approximately
63,000
gallons
or
1,500
barrels
would
be
appropriate."
(41)

Exemption
­
electrical
equipment.
OPA
rules
are
"designed
to
apply
to
facilities
containing
millions
of
gallons
of
oil,
and
it
make
little
sense
to
apply
these
requirements
to
facilities
orders
of
magnitude
smaller."
(31)
Urges
a
complete
exclusion
of
electrical
equipment
from
the
SPCC
program.
(69)

Minimum
container
size.
De
minimis
container
sizes
should
exist
and
these
containers
should
be
excluded
from
calculating
aggregate
on­
site
storage
capacity.
Suggestions
for
a
minimum
container
size
ranged
from
55
gallons
to
25,000
gallons.
The
majority
of
these
commenters
favored
either
a
greater
than
55
gallon
or
greater
than
660
gallon
threshold.
(38,
41,
47,
51,
58,
61,
77)

Less
than
55
gallons.
We
should
establish
a
de
minimis
volume
that
would
allow
containers
with
a
storage
capacity
of
less
than
55
gallons
to
be
exempted
from
the
calculation
of
total
facility
storage
capacity.
"...(
T)
his
would
eliminate
the
burden
of
quantifying
oil
and
oil
mixtures
in
small
containers
such
as
pails
and
carboys.
In
addition,
guidance
should
be
provided
with
regard
to
which
oilcontaining
machines
and
systems
within
facilities
are
to
be
counted
in
20
calculating
total
facility
storage
capacity.
A
de
minimis
threshold
should
be
considered
in
this
case
as
well."
(51)

660
gallons.
Aggregate
storage
capacity
determinations
for
SPCC
plan
requirements
should
not
exist
and
any
container
below
660
gallons
should
be
considered
de
minimis.
"Containerization
is
a
key
factor
in
limiting
spills
and
that
individual
container
size
rather
than
the
aggregate
size
of
all
oil
containers
is
an
appropriate
indicator
of
spill
potential.
Small
containers,
such
as
those
less
than
660
gallons,
pose
less
environmental
risk
than
large
containers
in
the
event
of
a
discharge.
It
is
also
unlikely
that
multiple
small
containers
will
fail
simultaneously;
therefore,
EPA
is
not
reducing
the
effectiveness
of
SPCC
plans
by
changing
the
volume
threshold."
(47,
61)

Greater
than
660
gallons.
"...(
T)
he
lack
of
a
size
limitation
raised
the
question
of
whether
individual,
small
containers
(e.
g.,
55­
gallon
drums)
had
to
be
addressed
in
a
SPCC
plan.
API
continues
to
believe
that
such
small
containers
need
not
be
addressed,
and
it
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
the
bulk
storage
tanks
be
defined
as
those
with
a
capacity
greater
than
660
gallons."
(41,
58)

Other
factors.
"Other
factors
should
also
be
considered,
such
as
in
the
FRP
applicability
­
owner
history
of,
spills,
proximity
to
surface
waters,
type
of
oil,
etc."
(40)

Permanently
connected
containers.
"Clarification
is
needed
as
to
whether
small
containers
that
are
not
permanently
connected
to
any
user,
such
as
55
gallon
drums,
are
to
be
included
in
the
total
plant
capacity.
We
have
been
lead
to
believe,
by
a
representative
from
your
Agency,
that
drums
and
small
containers
that
are
not
"hard
piped"
do
not
have
to
be
included
in
the
SPCC
Plan.
For
example,
transitory
drums,
whose
inventory
is
variable,
would
not
be
considered
as
part
of
the
storage
capacity.
In
other
words,
only
tanks
and
other
immobile
containers
that
are
a
permanent
part
of
the
facility
would
be
subject
to
the
capacity
determination
and
have
to
be
covered
by
the
SPCC
Plan."
(38)

Risk­
based
approach.
Urges
a
risk­
based
approach
instead
of
a
storage
capacity
approach
to
SPCC
regulation.
(40,
46,
73,
L3)
"...(
A)
facility
may
exceed
the
1,
320­
gallon
threshold,
yet
may
represent
a
comparatively
low
environmental
risk
due
to
the
amount
of
time
such
storage
capacity
is
actually
in
use
(according
to
the
Agricultural
Retailers
Association,
oil
storage
capacity
at
many
agricultural
operations
may
be
in
use
for
less
than
half
of
the
year).
Other
facilities
may
have
storage
capacity
for
more
than
1,
320
gallons
of
oil,
but
may
utilize
only
a
fraction
of
that
capacity
for
inventory
control
purposes
(e.
g.,
an
operator
may
choose
to
use
only
500
gallons
of
storage
capacity
in
a
1,
500­
gallon
gasoline
tank
to
ensure
that
the
stored
gasoline
is
used
before
it
`goes
bad';
the
actual
volume
of
storage
capacity
in
use
at
any
time
can
be
easily
monitored
based
on
inventory
records).
Facilities
near
the
660­
gallon
and/
or
21
1,320­
gallon
thresholds
are
generally
smaller
businesses
with
limited
resources
(for
example,
small
farmers),
and
the
costs
of
preparing
extensive
SPCC
Plans
(including
the
cost
of
hiring
a
registered
professional
engineer)
may
at
times
be
an
unnecessary
burden
for
such
facilities,
given
the
quantities
of
oil
actually
stored.
HC&
S
believes
that
the
requirement
to
maintain
an
SPCC
Plan
should
be
based
on
the
environmental
risk
posed
by
the
facility
rather
than
being
strictly
based
upon
the
total
storage
capacity
available."
(46)
"Numerous
attempts
have
been
made
by
the
AST
industry
and
endusers
who
wish
to
avoid
the
burdens
of
properly
preparing
a
site,
primarily
due
to
economic
reasons,
to
simply
state
the
`site
is
exempt.
'
Numerous
manufacturers
now
produce
fuel
containers
of
650
gallons
designed
to
avoid
compliance,
whether
the
site
is
adjacent
to
a
navigable
waterway
or
not.
Furthermore,
the
recent
revelation
in
the
December
7­
11,
1997
UFC
hearings
in
Tucson,
Arizona
where
an
insurance
carrier
complained
about
350
national
pollution/
property
damage
sites
for
a
single
AST
manufacturer
indicate
that
the
problem
is
epidemic,
not
isolated!
Most
name­
brand
tank
manufacturers
produce
a
`listed'
tank
of
250
gallons;
naturally,
six
of
these
250­
gallon
assemblies
would
exceed
the
1,
320­
gallon
threshold
currently
proposed.
However,
five
of
the
250­
gallon
assemblies
would
not
qualify
for
the
threshold
and
yet
the
risk
would
be
nearly
identical
dependent
upon
the
design
of
the
tank."
(73)

Response:
Exemption
­
electrical
equipment.
We
disagree
that
operational
equipment
is
not
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule.
We
have
amended
§112.1(
b)
to
clarify
that
using
oil,
for
example
operationally,
may
subject
a
facility
to
SPCC
jurisdiction
as
long
as
the
other
applicability
criteria
apply,
for
example,
oil
storage
capacity,
or
location.
Such
a
facility
might
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
Therefore,
the
prevention
of
discharges
from
such
facility
falls
within
the
scope
of
CWA
section
311.
The
definition
of
"facility"
in
OPA
section
1001(
9)
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

However,
we
have
distinguished
the
bulk
storage
of
oil
from
the
operational
use
of
oil.
We
define
"bulk
storage
container"
in
the
final
rule
to
mean
any
container
used
to
store
oil.
The
storage
of
oil
may
be
prior
to
use,
while
being
used,
or
prior
to
further
distribution
in
commerce.
For
clarity,
we
have
specifically
excluded
oil­
filled
electrical,
operating,
or
manufacturing
equipment
from
the
definition.

Facilities
that
use
oil
operationally
include
electrical
substations,
facilities
containing
electrical
transformers,
and
certain
hydraulic
or
manufacturing
equipment.
The
requirements
for
bulk
storage
containers
may
not
always
apply
to
these
facilities
since
the
primary
purpose
of
this
equipment
is
not
the
storage
of
oil
in
bulk.
Facilities
with
equipment
containing
oil
for
ancillary
purposes
are
not
required
to
provide
the
secondary
containment
required
for
bulk
storage
facilities
(§
112.8(
c))
and
onshore
production
facilities
(§
112.9(
c)),
nor
implement
the
other
provisions
of
§112.8(
c)
or
§112.9(
c).
Oil­
filled
equipment
must
meet
other
SPCC
requirements,
for
example,
the
general
requirements
of
this
part,
including
§112.7(
c),
to
provide
appropriate
22
containment
and/
or
diversionary
structures
to
prevent
discharged
oil
from
reaching
a
navigable
watercourse.
The
general
requirement
for
secondary
containment,
which
can
be
provided
by
various
means
including
drainage
systems,
spill
diversion
ponds,
etc.,
will
provide
for
safety
and
also
the
needs
of
section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CWA.

In
addition,
a
facility
may
deviate
from
any
inapplicable
or
inappropriate
SPCC
requirements,
or
from
most
applicable
requirements,
if
the
owner
or
operator
explains
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection
by
some
other
means.
See
§112.7(
a)(
2).
See
also
§112.7(
d).

Minimum
container
size.
In
response
to
comments,
we
are
introducing
a
minimum
container
size
to
use
for
calculation
of
the
capacity
of
aboveground
storage
tanks
or
completely
buried
containers.
The
55
gallon
container
is
the
most
widely
used
commercial
bulk
container,
and
these
containers
are
easily
counted.
Containers
below
55
gallons
in
capacity
are
typically
end­
use
consumer
containers.
Fifty­
five
gallon
containers
are
also
the
lowest
size
bulk
container
that
can
be
handled
by
a
human.
Containers
above
that
size
typically
require
equipment
for
movement
and
handling.
We
considered
a
minimum
container
size
of
one
barrel.
However,
a
barrel
or
42
gallons
is
a
common
volumetric
measurement
size
for
oil,
but
is
not
a
common
container
size.
Therefore,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
institute
a
42
gallon
minimum
container
size.

You
need
only
count
containers
of
55
gallons
or
greater
in
the
calculation
of
the
regulatory
threshold.
You
need
not
count
containers,
like
pints,
quarts,
and
small
pails,
which
have
a
storage
capacity
of
less
than
55
gallons.
Some
SPCC
facilities
might
therefore
drop
out
of
the
regulated
universe
of
facilities.
You
should
note,
however,
that
EPA
retains
authority
to
require
any
facility
subject
to
its
jurisdiction
under
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA
to
prepare
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan,
or
applicable
part,
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
Act.

While
some
commenters
had
suggested
a
higher
threshold
level,
we
believe
that
inclusion
of
containers
of
55
gallons
or
greater
within
the
calculation
for
the
regulatory
threshold
is
necessary
to
ensure
environmental
protection.
If
we
finalized
a
higher
minimum
size,
the
result
in
some
cases
would
be
large
amounts
of
aggregate
capacity
that
would
not
be
counted
for
SPCC
purposes,
and
would
therefore
be
unregulated,
posing
a
threat
to
the
environment.
We
believe
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
apply
SPCC
or
FRP
rules
requiring
measures
like
secondary
containment,
inspections,
or
integrity
testing,
to
containers
smaller
than
55
gallons
storing
oil
because
a
discharge
from
these
containers
generally
poses
a
smaller
risk
to
the
environment.
Furthermore,
compliance
with
the
rules
for
these
containers
could
be
extremely
burdensome
for
an
owner
or
operator
and
could
upset
manufacturing
operations,
while
providing
little
or
no
significant
increase
in
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment.
Many
of
these
smaller
containers
are
constantly
being
emptied,
replaced,
and
relocated
so
that
23
serious
corrosion
will
likely
soon
be
detected
and
undetected
leaks
become
highly
unlikely.
While
we
realize
that
small
discharges
may
harm
the
environment,
depending
on
where
and
when
the
discharge
occurs,
we
believe
that
this
measure
will
allow
facilities
to
concentrate
on
the
prevention
and
containment
of
discharges
of
oil
from
those
sources
most
likely
to
present
a
more
significant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

Effect
on
Facility
Response
Plan
facilities.
The
exemption
for
containers
of
less
than
55
gallons
applies
to
the
calculations
of
storage
capacity
both
for
SPCC
purposes
and
for
FRP
purposes
because
the
exemption
applies
to
all
of
part
112.
Therefore,
a
few
FRP
facilities
might
no
longer
be
required
to
have
FRPs.
The
calculations
for
planning
levels
for
worst
case
discharges
would
also
be
affected.

Permanently
connected
containers.
It
is
irrelevant
for
storage
capacity
calculations
whether
the
container
is
permanently
connected
by
piping
or
otherwise.
Mobile
containers
or
fixed
containers
both
pose
the
same
risk
of
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

Regulatory
thresholds.
We
have
decided
to
raise
the
current
regulatory
threshold,
as
discussed
in
the
1997
preamble,
to
an
aggregate
threshold
of
over
1,
320
gallons.
We
believe
that
raising
the
regulatory
threshold
is
justified
because
our
Survey
of
Oil
Storage
Facilities
(published
in
July
1996,
and
available
on
our
web
site
at
www.
epa.
gov/
oilspill)
points
to
the
conclusion
that
several
facility
characteristics
can
affect
the
chances
of
a
discharge.
First,
the
Survey
showed
that
as
the
total
storage
capacity
increases,
so
does
the
propensity
to
discharge,
the
severity
of
the
discharge,
and
the
costs
of
cleanup.
Likewise,
the
Survey
also
pointed
out
that
as
the
number
of
tanks
increases,
so
does
the
propensity
to
discharge,
the
severity
of
the
discharge,
and
the
costs
of
cleanup.
Finally,
the
Survey
showed
that
as
annual
throughput
increases,
so
does
the
propensity
to
discharge,
the
severity
of
the
discharge,
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
the
costs
of
the
cleanup.

The
threshold
change
will
have
several
benefits.
The
threshold
increase
will
result
in
a
substantial
reduction
in
information
collection.
Some
smaller
facilities
will
no
longer
have
to
bear
the
costs
of
an
SPCC
Plan.
EPA
will
be
better
able
to
focus
its
regulatory
oversight
on
facilities
that
pose
a
greater
likelihood
of
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b),
and
a
greater
potential
for
injury
to
the
environment
if
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
results.

We
raise
the
regulatory
threshold
realizing
that
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
from
small
facilities
may
be
harmful,
depending
on
the
surrounding
environment.
Among
the
factors
remaining
to
mitigate
any
potential
disasters
are
that
small
facilities
no
longer
required
to
have
SPCC
Plans
are
still
liable
for
cleanup
costs
and
damages
24
from
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
We
encourage
those
facilities
exempted
from
today's
rule
to
maintain
SPCC
Plans.
Likewise,
we
encourage
new
facilities
which
are
exempted
from
the
rule
to
develop
Plans.
We
believe
that
SPCC
Plans
have
utility
and
benefit
for
both
the
facility
and
the
environment.
But,
we
will
no
longer
by
regulation
require
Plans
from
exempted
facilities.

While
we
believe
that
the
Federal
oil
program
is
best
focused
on
larger
risks,
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
may
still
decide
that
smaller
facilities
warrant
regulation
under
their
own
authorities.
In
accord
with
this
philosophy,
we
note
that
this
Federal
exemption
may
not
relieve
all
exempted
facilities
from
Plan
requirements
because
some
States,
local,
or
tribal
governments
may
still
require
such
facilities
to
have
Plans.
While
we
are
aware
that
some
States,
local,
or
tribal
governments
have
laws
or
policies
allowing
them
to
set
requirements
no
more
stringent
than
Federal
requirements,
we
encourage
States,
local,
or
tribal
governments
to
maintain
or
lower
regulatory
thresholds
to
include
facilities
no
longer
covered
by
Federal
rules
where
their
own
laws
or
policies
allow.
We
believe
CWA
section
311(
o)
authorizes
States
to
establish
their
own
oil
spill
prevention
programs
which
can
be
more
stringent
than
EPA's
program.

Alternative
thresholds.
We
continue
to
believe
that
a
facility
with
a
storage
or
use
capacity
greater
than
1,320
gallons
should
be
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule
and
be
required
to
prepare
and
implement
a
prevention
plan.
We
believe
that
SPCC
Plans
help
to
prevent
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
and
resulting
cleanups
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
our
presentation
of
survey
results
was
intended
to
imply
that
storage
capacity
below
10,000
gallons
is
not
of
regulatory
concern.
The
Survey
shows
that
the
predicted
relationship
between
total
tank
capacity
and
annual
spill
volume
remains
the
same
for
facilities
storing
less
than
10,000
gallons
as
those
storing
more.
Because
we
believe
that
the
same
preventive
measures
are
applicable
for
most
facilities,
we
apply
those
measures
to
all
regulated
SPCC
facilities.
Where
those
measures
are
not
applicable,
the
owner
or
operator
may
deviate
from
the
requirement
if
he
provides
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection.
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
2).

Completely
buried
tanks
­
threshold.
We
proposed
no
changes
in
the
threshold
for
completely
buried
tanks.
We
note,
however,
that
such
tanks
that
are
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281
are
no
longer
subject
to
part
112.

Regulatory
safeguard.
When
a
particular
facility
that
is
below
today's
threshold
becomes
a
hazard
to
the
environment
because
of
its
practices,
or
for
other
reasons
to
effectuate
the
Clean
Water
Act,
the
Regional
Administrator
may,
under
a
new
rule
provision,
require
that
facility
to
prepare
and
implement
an
25
SPCC
Plan.
See
§112.1(
f).
This
provision
acts
as
a
safeguard
to
an
environmental
threat
from
any
exempted
facility.

Risk­
based
approach,
other
factors.
We
believe
that
a
program
based
on
potential
storage
capacity
is
necessary,
rather
than
a
risk­
based
approach,
because
the
potential
storage
capacity
may
be
changed,
at
the
owner's
or
operator's
option.
A
facility
with
a
storage
capacity
above
the
threshold
amount
poses
sufficient
risk
to
the
environment
to
warrant
an
SPCC
Plan
due
to
the
amount
of
oil
which
could
be
discharged.
The
SPCC
rules
adopt
a
risk­
based
approach
in
that
they
seek
to
prevent
threats
to
the
environment
based
on
the
risk
of
a
potential
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
If
any
requirement
is
inappropriate
for
any
facility,
the
owner
or
operator
may
explain
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provide
equivalent
environmental
protection.
26
5.
§§
112.2
and
112.7
Introduction
­
Alternative
Plan
Formats
Background:
In
1991,
we
proposed
a
definition
for
"SPCC
plan
or
Plan."
In
1997,
we
withdrew
the
1991
proposed
definition
in
favor
of
a
revised
definition.
The
revised
definition
would
describe
an
SPCC
plan
and
would
allow
any
alternative
format
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator
if
it:
(1)
meets
all
regulatory
requirements
in
the
SPCC
rule;
and
(2)
is
cross­
referenced
by
SPCC
rule
provision
to
the
equivalent
requirement
in
the
other
plan.
We
proposed
to
amend
both
§112.2
and
the
introduction
to
§112.7
to
effect
this
change.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
"Reynolds
wholeheartedly
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
alternative
plans
to
meet
SPCC
Plan
requirements.
Use
of
plans
such
as
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
or
equivalent
State
plans
which
meet
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
112
will
satisfy
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
SPCC
program
and
facilitate
safe,
efficient
incident
prevention
and
response
activities."
(10,
11,
14,
17,
22,
23,
26,
28,
32,
34,
37,
38,
41,
42,
45,
51,
55,
56,
58,
65,
66,
67,
71,
73,
74,
79,
80,
82,
83,
84,
L1,
L5).

Opposition
to
proposal.

Substantive
requirements.
"The
last
two
sentences
in
the
proposed
definition
of
SPCC
plan
in
section
112.2
contain
substantive
requirements
and
should
therefore
be
deleted
and
relocated
to
section
112.7
which
is
there
in
reference.
(3)
"In
the
past
an
SPCC
plan
was
a
written
description
of
physical
measures
taken
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
oil,
the
release
of
which
could
possibly
impact
a
navigable
water;
or
as
in
112.5(
a)
a
plan
amendment
is
required
if
changes
are
made
to
`Facility
design,
construction,
operation
and
maintenance
which
materially
affects
the
facility's
potential
for
the
discharge
of
oil
into
or
upon
the
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States.
'
The
definition
proposed
today
is
far
reaching,
requiring
`details
of
equipment,
manpower,
procedures
and
steps
to
prevent,
control
and
provide
adequate
countermeasures
to
an
oil
spill.
'
"
(6)

Other
problems.
"It
is
my
opinion
that
the
ICP
concept
is
over­
rated.
...
How
is
an
Engineer
to
certify
an
ICP?
...
Sequential
cross­
referencing
could
be
a
nightmare.
The
EPA
requires
that
they
review
and
approve
state
plans
for
USTs;
are
they
not
requiring
approval
of
each
State
Plan
for
oil
spills?"
(40)

API
D16
format.
"While
being
able
to
use
an
ICP
or
a
State
Plan
will
help
consolidate
plans
and
eliminate
duplication,
we
are
concerned
that
the
proposal
unduly
constrains
the
plan
formats
by
restricting
it
to
ICP
format
or
State
Plans.
Since
1974,
E&)
operations
have
successfully
implemented
the
API
format
(API
Bulletin
D16).
...
RMOGA
encourages
EPA
to
allow
the
continued
use
of
the
API
D16
format
for
small,
non­
OPA­
90
facilities...."
(8,
49)
27
Cross­
referencing.

Support
for
cross­
referencing.
"The
requirement
to
sequentially
cross­
reference
the
alternative
plan
ensures
that
it
is
substantively
equivalent
to
the
guidelines
prescribed
in
Section
112.7.
Any
further
requirement
to
obtain
the
Regional
Administrator's
approval
of
a
sequentially
cross­­
referenced
plan
would
be
an
exercise
in
redundancy
at
odds
with
the
purpose
of
this
proposal
to
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
SPCC
rule."
(21)

Opposition
to
cross­
referencing.
"With
no
requirement
to
submit
SPCC
Plans
to
the
Agency
for
review
and/
or
approval,
the
cross­
referencing
creates
an
additional
administrative
burden
with
no
recognizable
benefit.
As
long
as
the
single
comprehensive
plan
contains
elements
which
comply
with
the
§
112.7
regulations,
there
should
be
no
need
for
a
cross­
referencing
requirement.
The
burden
should
be,
and
is,
on
the
regulated
entity
to
comply
with
the
regulations
through
the
preparation
of
SPCC
Plans
as
appropriate."
(43)

Editorial
suggestion.
"On
page
18
in
§112.2,
the
phrase
`...
be
sequentially
cross­
referenced…
should
be
`...
be
cross­
referenced...,
since
it
is
not
clear
which
sequence
in
which
plan
is
being
referred
to.
The
ICP
guidance
refers
to
`matrices,
which
is
a
slightly
different
approach
than
cross­
referencing."
(16)

Level
of
cross­
referencing.
"At
what
level
is
a
cross­
reference
required?
112.7
or
112.7(
a);
112.7(
c)
or
112.7(
c)(
1)
or
112.7(
c)(
1)(
I)?
What
if,
at
the
lowest
level,
the
cross­
reference
is
at
two
or
more
locations
in
the
other
format?
(e.
g,
112.7(
e)(
1)(
ii)
­
Existing
plant
drainage
may
be
discussed
in
one
section
of
the
ICP
but
the
responsibility
to
review
proposed
construction
of
new
catchment
basins
may
be
located
in
another
section
of
the
ICP?
"
(40)

EPA
approval
of
format.

Should
not
be
required.
Equivalent
formats
that
are
consistent
with
40
CFR
112.7
requirements
are
acceptable
SPCC
plans
that
should
not
require
the
approval
of
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
rule
as
it
is
presently
written
does
not
properly
reflect
this
sentiment,
and
therefore
we
should
clarify
it.
(21,
41,
47,
52,
58,
61,
77)

Editorial
suggestion
­
compliance.
"The
plan
is
required
to
comply
with
the
regulation,
but
is
not
a
written
document
of
compliance.
Compliance
is
determined
by
comparing
the
contents
of
the
plan
with
the
regulations."
(47,
61)
28
Integrated
Contingency
Plans
(ICPs).
Supports
proposal
to
include
the
ICP
as
an
example
of
an
acceptable
SPCC
plan
format.
(3,
7,
21,
40,
41,
48,
51,
52,
58)
Use
of
a
single
plan
in
situations
where
a
single
entity
operates
a
number
of
facilities
that
are
similar
in
design
would
substantially
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
on
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
facilities
while
maintaining
the
same
level
of
environmental
protection.
Using
a
single
plan
would
reduce
the
burdens
associated
with
plan
maintenance
without
any
reduction
in
environmental
protection.
(31)
Burden
would
not
be
reduced.
"...
(T)
he
ICP
concept
is
over­
rated.
If
operators
want
to
prepare
a
consolidated
training
plan
and
a
consolidated
response
plan,
they
have
always
had
the
right
to
do
so."
(7,
40)
.

Extent
of
integration.
"In
the
event
one
selects
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
format,
will
it
be
required
to
include
all
related
plans
at
a
facility
or
will
partial
integration
at
the
selection
of
the
facility
be
acceptable?
The
proposal
appears
to
be
silent
on
this
point.
Michelin
suggests
that
the
rules
be
written
to
state
that
facilities
will
have
the
flexibility
of
partial
integration
to
avoid
the
potential
reservations
a
preparer
may
have
for
undertaking
the
much
greater
task
of
producing
a
totally
unified
plan
in
one
project."
(3)

Information
collection
burden.
"EPA
does
not
contemplate
that
the
use
of
an
ICP
or
other
format
would
reduce
the
information
collection
burden,
but
it
would
simplify
compliance
with
multiple
applicable
statutes
and
rules.
Unfortunately,
"information
collection"
(and
updating,
verification,
validation,
display,
organization,
structure,
presentation,
analysis,
storage
and
archiving
of
the
massive
amount
of
information
after
collection)
is
ninety­
nine
percent
of
the
burden
(especially
costs)
of
compliance;
actual
spill
emergencies
occupy
the
remaining
one
percent.
The
statement
conflicts
with
another
statement
on
page
1:
`...
the
proposal
would
maintain
the
same
standards
of
environmental
protection
while
reducing
its
information
collection
burden.
'"
(16)

Multi­
facility
plans
(electric
utilities
and
other
operational
users
of
oil.
Supports
our
approval
of
a
facility
area
response
plan
format
as
an
alternative
to
site­
specific
SPCC
plans.
(18,
20,
31,
35,
57,
60,
61,
65,
69,
70)
In
order
to
avoid
misinterpretation
at
the
EPA
regions
and
state
levels,
the
regulation
should
specifically
mention
the
allowance
of
system­
wide
response
plans
for
electrical
equipment.
(57)

Electrical
equipment
(area­
wide
response
plans).
The
EERP
is
"...
a
document
that
describes
the
utility's
procedures
for
responding
to
releases
of
dielectric
fluid
from
electrical
equipment.
This
type
of
plan
would
describe
the
positioning
of
response
crews
and
equipment,
identify
procedures
for
contacting
response
contractors
if
needed,
and
describe
the
procedures
that
spill
responders
would
use
to
contain
a
spill
and
summon
additional
assistance
if
necessary.
The
scope
of
the
proposed
EERP
would
not
address
every
aspect
of
an
SPCC
plan
29
or
an
OPA
response
plan
because
those
programs
were
designed
to
apply
to
oil
storage
and
transfer
facilities.
However,
as
we
have
described
in
the
past,
the
risks
posed
by
electrical
equipment
are
de
mini
mis,
when
the
totally
enclosed
nature
and
structural
strength
of
the
equipment,
its
operational
characteristics,
and
its
spill
history
are
properly
taken
into
account."
(20,
31)

The
following
characteristics
of
electrical
equipment
require
that
such
equipment
be
subject
to
different
SPCC
requirements,
documented
in
area
response
plans
in
lieu
of
site­
specific
SPCC
plans:

1.
Electrical
equipment
is
built
to
more
stringent
standards
than
typical
tanks.
2.
Most
units
are
effectively
self­
monitoring
because
the
release
of
dielectric
fluid
results
in
an
interruption
in
the
transmission
of
electric
power.
3.
Dielectric
fluid
is
infrequently
added
to
or
removed
from
electrical
equipment,
practically
eliminating
transfer­
related
releases.
4.
The
mineral
oil
contained
in
electrical
equipment
has
substantially
lower
toxicity
than
fuel
oils.
Also,
there
are
very
few
soluble
components
in
mineral
oil,
minimizing
its
potential
to
damage
aquatic
ecosystems.
5.
All
utilities
with
electric
distribution
systems
have
mobile
crews
that
are
trained
and
equipped
to
respond
to
releases
from
electrical
equipment.
When
a
release
is
reported
or
detected
through
inspection
or
alarm,
a
crew
is
dispatched
to
the
facility.
6.
Many
utilities
not
only
have
these
systems
in
place,
but
also
have
them
documented
in
the
form
of
policies,
response
plans,
or
response
manuals.
(31)

"The
equipment
containing
significant
oil
can
be
inspected
for
its
adjacency
to
traffic.
If
the
risk
of
vehicular
impact
is
high,
traffic
barriers
can
be
constructed
to
prevent
collisions.
This
process
will
vastly
reduce
the
most
common
cause
of
a
release.
During
the
above
inspections,
a
determination
can
be
made
to
decide
if
some
equipment
should
be
protected
with
secondary
containment.
Also
during
the
inspections,
the
equipment
can
be
checked
for
any
areas
of
concern.
Should
a
problem
be
identified,
measures
can
be
taken
to
mitigate
the
problem.
A
general
spill
prevention
response
procedure
can
be
written
for
distribution
equipment,
and
corresponding
training
be
given,
so
employees
can
take
measures
to
prevent
spills
and
can
respond
appropriately
to
a
spill.
(Note:
SPCC
training
is
already
given
to
these
employees
for
substation
equipment.)
Also
note
that
distribution
equipment
is
currently
labeled
with
an
emergency
call
number
should
a
passerby
note
anything
peculiar."
(32)

"The
plan
is
recommended
to
include:
(1)
Identification
of
all
facilities
containing
electrical
equipment
subject
to
the
Plan;
(2)
The
location
of
available
equipment
30
to
respond
to
releases
of
dielectric
fluid
for
electrical
equipment
(the
equipment
may
be
located
at
the
facilities,
in
mobile
response
units,
or
in
one
or
more
central
locations);
(3)
The
training
of
employees
to
identify,
characterize,
and
respond
to
releases
of
dielectric
fluid;
(4)
The
identification
of
equipment,
personnel,
and/
or
contractors
to
respond
to
releases
of
dielectric
fluid;
and,
(5)
Procedures
for
notification,
internal
and
where
applicable,
the
National
Response
Center,
state
and
local
authorities.
'
(60)

Paperwork
reduction.
"Significant
reductions
in
the
paperwork
requirements
of
the
SPCC
regulation
could
be
made
if
EPA
allowed
the
use
of
response
plans
for
electrical
equipment,
which
electric
utilities
already
have
in
place,
in
lieu
of
site­
specific
SPCC
plans."
(31,
35)

Other
formats.
Asks
for
clarification
concerning
whether
we
would
allow
different
formats,
in
addition
to
the
ICP,
to
be
acceptable
for
SPCC
purposes.
(3,
8,
21,
30,
31,
41,
42,
47,
48,
49,
52,
58,
61)
Any
alternate
formats
should
be
allowed
so
long
as
these
formats
are
consistent
with
the
requirements
outlined
in
40
CFR
112.7.
(42,
47,
61)

State
plans.
"In
an
effort
to
comply
with
the
President's
regulatory
reform
directive,
the
Company
urges
the
Agency
to
allow
alternative
spill
plan
formats
and
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
to
be
used
to
fulfill
the
requirements
of
the
SPCC
regulations.
Michigan
law
requires
facilities
to
prepare
and
implement
a
spill
control
plan
if
they
meet
the
applicability
requirements
of
the
Michigan
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Protection
Act,
Part
5,
Spillage
of
Polluting
Materials.
The
applicability
requirements
are
similar
to
those
of
the
SPCC
regulations.
Requiring
facilities
to
prepare
an
additional
plan
would
not
be
justified
under
the
President's
regulatory
reform
directive
nor
the
paperwork
reduction
requirements
of
the
SPCC
regulation.
(76)

EPA
approval.
"The
EPA
requires
that
they
review
and
approve
state
plans
for
USTs;
are
they
not
requiring
approval
of
each
State
Plan
for
oil
spills?
How
about
a
list
of
States
with
such
plans
or
approved
plans?"
(40)

SWPPP.
Commenters
urge
"the
Agency
to
consider
the
applicability
of
a
NPDES
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(SWPPP)
as
an
acceptable
format
since
spill
prevention
and
response
is
an
integral,
and
critical
part
of
a
SWPPP."
(30,
42)

Tank
manufacturers.
"Section
112.2
Definitions
"Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
Plan;
SPCC
Plan;
or
Plan
means
the
document.....
The
Plan
is
a
written
document......
It
is
prepared
in
writing
and
in
accordance
with
the
format
specified.....
If
a
tank
manufacturer
or
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
chooses
to
prepare
a
plan
using
either
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
format
or
a
State
format
or
any
31
other
format
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
such
plan
must
meet
all
of
the
requirements
in
section
112.7,
and
be
sequentially
cross­
referenced
from
the
requirement
in
section
112.7
to
the
page(
s)
of
the
equivalent
requirement
in
the
other
plan.
Rationale.
As
previously
submitted
by
SPC
Corp,
a
key
component
in
implementing
a
cost­
effective,
easily­
audited
national
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
program
is
the
participation
of
the
tank
manufacturing
community;
this
would
immeasurably
increase
the
US
EPA

s
database
while
correctly
linking
tank
purchase,
installation
and
owner/
operator
maintenance
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
program.
Non­
compliance
discovery/
corrective
action
could
be
expedited
under
this
format
as
well."
Suggests
a
modification
of
the
rule
to
place
the
initial
responsibility
for
information
upon
the
tank
manufacturer
much
like
the
requirement
in
UST
regulations.
This
would
"...
remove
the
confusion
of
who
must
comply
by
generating
a
database
for
the
Agency
which
will
place
all
existing
and
new
owner/
operators
on
notice
to
inquire
about
compliance.
Simply
put,
at
the
point
of
sale,
the
tank
manufacturer
will
reference
on
his/
her
invoice
the
need
to
contact
the
appropriate
federal,
state
and/
or
local
agency
and
REGISTER
the
tank
with
site
specific
information
such
as
gallonage,
type
of
tank
construction
(singlewall/
bare
steel
versus
protected
tank,
e.
g.)
In
addition,
the
tank
manufacturers
will
independently
provide
the
Agency
with
an
historical
data
base
with
the
pertinent
information
as
previously
outlined
so
that
the
Agency
may
notify
end­
users
of
the
need
to
implement
an
SPCC
or
FRP
Plan."
(73)

Written
plans.
"First,
on
page
18
in
the
above
document,
§112.2
Definitions,
`written
description

should
be
further
annotated
as
meaning
`text,
graphs,
charts,
maps,
photos,
and
tables,
on
whatever
media,
including
floppy,
CD,
hard
drive,
and
tape
storage
that
allows
the
document
to
be
easily
accessed,
comprehended,
distributed,
viewed,
updated
and
printed...
'
This
phraseology
supports
the
various
initiatives
underway
to
automate
plans
in
electronic
format.
(This
phrasing
should
also
be
applied
to
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan,
the
Facility
Response
Plan,
and
any
other
plan
to
be
subsumed
within
an
ICP.)"
(16)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.

Substantive
requirements.
We
have
transferred
all
of
the
proposed
substantive
requirements
in
the
1997
proposed
definition
of
"SPCC
Plan"
to
the
introduction
of
this
section.
We
did
this
because
we
agree
with
commenters
(see
the
comments
on
the
definition
of"
SPCC
Plan"
in
§112.2)
that
definitions
should
not
contain
substantive
requirements.

Acceptable
formats.
We
agree
that
any
equivalent
prevention
plan
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator
qualifies
as
an
SPCC
Plan
as
long
as
it
meets
all
Federal
requirements
(including
certification
by
a
Professional
Engineer),
and
is
crossreferenced
from
the
requirement
in
part
112
to
the
page
of
the
equivalent
plan.
We
do
32
not
agree
that
we
should
specify
acceptable
formats.
We
will
give
examples
of
those
acceptable
formats,
but
those
examples
are
not
meant
to
be
exhaustive.

Examples
of
an
"equivalent
prevention
plan"
might
be,
for
instance,
an
Integrated
Contingency
Plan,
a
State
plan,
a
Best
Management
Practice
Plan
(which
is
a
component
of
the
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan),
or
other
plan
that
meets
all
the
requirements
of
part
112
and
is
supplemented
by
a
cross­
reference
section
identifying
the
location
of
elements
in
part
112
to
the
equivalent
requirement
in
the
other
plan.
If
the
equivalent
prevention
plan
has
no
requirement
that
a
Professional
Engineer
certify
it,
it
will
be
necessary
to
secure
proper
certification
from
the
Professional
Engineer
to
comply
with
the
SPCC
rule.

Another
example
of
an
equivalent
plan
might
include
a
multi­
facility
plan
for
operating
equipment.
This
type
of
plan
is
intended
for
electrical
utility
transmission
systems,
electrical
cable
systems,
and
similar
facilities
which
might
aggregate
equipment
located
in
diverse
areas
into
one
plan.
Examples
of
operating
equipment
containing
oil
include
electrical
equipment
such
as
substations,
transformers,
capacitors,
buried
cable
equipment,
and
oil
circuit
breakers.

A
general,
multi­
facility
plan
for
operational
equipment
used
in
various
manufacturing
processes
containing
over
the
threshold
amount
of
oil
might
also
be
acceptable
as
an
SPCC
Plan.
Examples
of
operating
equipment
used
in
manufacturing
that
contains
oil
include
small
lube
oil
systems,
fat
traps,
hydraulic
power
presses,
hydraulic
pumps,
injection
molding
machines,
auto
boosters,
certain
metalworking
machinery
and
associated
fluid
transfer
systems,
and
oil
based
heaters.
Whenever
you
add
or
remove
operating
equipment
in
your
Plan
that
materially
affects
the
potential
for
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b),
you
must
amend
your
Plan.
40
CFR
112.5(
a).

Multi­
facility
plans
would
include
all
elements
required
for
individual
plans.
Sitespecific
information
would
be
required
for
all
equipment
included
in
each
plan.
However,
the
site­
specific
information
might
be
maintained
in
a
separate
location,
such
as
a
central
office,
or
an
electronic
data
base,
as
long
as
such
information
was
immediately
accessible
to
responders
and
inspectors.
If
you
keep
the
information
in
an
electronic
data
base,
you
must
also
keep
a
paper
or
other
backup
that
is
immediately
accessible
for
emergency
response
purposes,
or
for
EPA
inspectors,
in
case
the
computer
is
not
functioning.
Where
you
place
that
site­
specific
information
would
be
a
question
of
allowable
formatting,
as
is
the
question
of
what
is
an
"equivalent"
plan;
an
issue
subject
to
RA
discretion.

Still
another
example
of
an
equivalent
plan
might
be
a
Best
Management
Practice
Plan
(BMP)
plan
prepared
under
an
NPDES
permit,
if
the
plan
provides
protections
equivalent
to
SPCC
Plans.
Not
all
BMP
plans
will
qualify,
as
some
BMP
plans
might
33
not
provide
equivalent
protection.
NPDES
permits
without
BMP
plans
would
not
qualify.

BMP
plans
are
additional
conditions
which
may
supplement
effluent
limitations
in
NPDES
permits.
Under
section
402(
a)(
1)
of
the
CWA,
BMP
plans
may
be
imposed
when
the
Administrator
determines
that
such
conditions
are
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
the
Act.
See
40
CFR
122.44(
k).
CWA
section
304(
e)
authorizes
EPA
to
promulgate
BMP
plans
as
effluent
limitations
guidelines.
NPDES
rules
provide
for
BMP
plans
when:
authorized
under
section
304(
e)
of
the
CWA
for
the
control
of
toxic
pollutants
and
hazardous
substances;
numeric
limitations
are
infeasible;
or,
the
practices
are
reasonably
necessary
to
achieve
effluent
limitations
and
standards
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.

Cross­
referencing.
We
agree
that
the
term
"sequential"
cross­
referencing
may
be
confusing,
and
have
therefore
deleted
it
in
favor
of
a
requirement
to
provide
crossreferencing
We
disagree
that
cross­
referencing
provides
no
benefit.
With
the
wide
variation
now
allowed
in
differing
formats,
we
need
cross­
referencing
so
that
an
inspector
can
tell
whether
the
Plan
meets
Federal
requirements,
and
whether
it
is
complete.
In
addition,
in
order
for
an
owner
or
operator
to
do
his
own
check
to
ensure
that
his
facility
meets
all
SPCC
requirements,
he
must
go
through
the
exercise
of
comparing
his
Plan
to
each
SPCC
requirement.
Cross­
referencing
in
the
context
of
the
rule
means
indicating
the
relationship
of
a
requirement
in
the
new
format
to
an
SPCC
requirement.
The
cross­
referencing
must
identify
the
Federal
section
and
paragraph
for
each
section
of
the
new
format
it
fulfills,
for
example,
§112.8(
c)(
3).
Note
the
crossreferencing
table
we
have
provided
for
your
convenience
in
section
II.
A
of
today's
preamble.

An
equivalent
Plan
might
be
a
Plan
following
the
SPCC
sequence
in
effect
before
this
final
rule
became
effective.
If
you
choose
to
use
the
sequence
of
the
rule
currently
in
effect,
you
may
do
so,
but
you
must
cross­
reference
the
requirements
in
the
revised
rule
to
the
sequence
used
in
your
Plan.
We
have
provided
a
table
in
section
IV.
A
of
today's
preamble
to
help
you
cross­
reference
the
requirements
more
easily.
If
the
only
change
you
make
is
the
addition
of
cross­
referencing,
you
need
not
have
a
Professional
Engineer
certify
that
change.

EPA
approval
of
format.
Any
format
that
contains
all
the
required
elements
of
an
SPCC
Plan
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection
would
be
presumptively
acceptable.
The
final
decision
on
what
is
an
"equivalent"
plan,
however,
would
be
at
the
discretion
of
the
Regional
Administrator.
"Equivalence"
would
not
mean
that
an
alternate
format
would
be
the
mirror
image
of
an
SPCC
Plan,
but
it
would
have
to
contain
all
the
required
elements
of
an
SPCC
Plan.
Required
elements
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
provisions
for
a
written
plan,
secondary
containment
or
a
contingency
plan
following
40
CFR
part
109,
equivalent
inspections
and
tests,
security,
personnel
34
training,
and
certification
of
the
plan
by
a
Professional
Engineer.
Acceptance
of
an
equivalent
plan
does
not,
however,
imply
any
type
of
approval
or
submission
process.
As
before,
SPCC
Plans
are
generally
not
submitted
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
Regional
Administrator
could
accept
an
equivalent
prevention
plan
if
it:
(1)
meets
all
regulatory
requirements
in
the
SPCC
rule;
and
(2)
is
supplemented
by
a
crossreference
section
identifying
requirements
listed
in
part
112
to
the
equivalent
requirements
in
the
other
prevention
plan.
Partial
use
of
other
equivalent
prevention
plans
is
also
acceptable,
if
the
plan
is
supplemented
by
elements
that
meet
the
remainder
of
the
EPA
requirements
contained
in
part
112.

Editorial
suggestion
­
compliance.
We
agree
that
the
Plan
does
not
document
compliance,
but
merely
spill
prevention
measures
and
have
deleted
the
sentence
noting
that
the
Plan
documents
compliance
with
the
rules.
Compliance
is
determined
by
comparing
the
contents
of
the
Plan
with
the
regulations.

Integrated
Contingency
Plans
(ICPs).
If
an
owner
or
operator
uses
the
ICP
format,
total
or
partial
integration
of
other
Plans
is
acceptable,
at
the
owner's
or
operator's
option.
We
never
said
that
use
of
the
ICP
would
reduce
the
information
collection
burden,
but
that
it
would
simplify
compliance
with
multiple
applicable
statutes
and
rules.
The
Professional
Engineer
(PE)
must
certify
the
SPCC
portion
of
the
ICP.
PE
certification
of
other
parts
of
the
ICP
is
only
necessary
if
required
by
some
other
authority.

Response
Plan.
We
disagree
that
the
proposed
definition
constitutes
a
"response
plan."
The
definition
results
in
no
substantive
changes
in
response
planning
requirements.

State
plans.
We
do
not
maintain
a
list
of
States
with
oil
discharge
prevention
programs.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
owner
or
operator
to
inform
himself
of
State
requirements.
However,
the
Office
of
Underground
Storage
Tanks
maintains
a
list
of
States
with
programs
approved
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
281.

Tank
manufacturers.
We
decline
to
make
the
requested
change
because
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility,
not
the
tank
manufacturer,
is
responsible
for
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
a
Plan.

Written
plans.
We
agree
that
a
"written"
Plan
might
also
include
texts,
graphs,
charts,
maps,
photos,
and
tables,
on
whatever
media,
including
floppy
disk,
CD,
hard
drive,
and
tape
storage,
that
allows
the
document
to
be
easily
accessed,
comprehended,
distributed,
viewed,
updated,
and
printed.
Whatever
medium
you
use,
however,
must
be
readily
accessible
to
response
personnel
in
an
emergency.
If
it
is
produced
in
a
medium
that
is
not
readily
accessible
in
an
emergency,
it
must
be
also
available
in
a
medium
that
is.
For
example,
a
Plan
might
be
electronically
produced,
but
computers
fail
and
may
not
be
operable
in
an
emergency.
For
an
electronic
Plan,
therefore,
a
35
backup
copy
must
be
readily
available
in
another
medium.
At
least
one
version
of
the
Plan
should
be
written
in
English
so
that
it
will
be
readily
understood
by
an
EPA
inspector.
36
6.
Information
Submitted
After
Certain
Discharges
­
§112.4(
a)

Background:
In
1991,
we
proposed
to
require
more
information
than
is
currently
required
in
the
rule
for
reporting
certain
discharges.
If
your
facility
discharged
more
than
1,000
gallons
in
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b),
or
discharged
oil
in
quantities
that
may
be
harmful
in
more
than
two
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
within
any
consecutive
twelve
month
period,
you
would
have
been
required
to
submit
certain
information
to
the
Regional
Administrator.

In
1993,
we
proposed
a
modification
to
§112.4(
d)(
1)
which
would
allow
the
Regional
Administrator
to
require
the
submission
of
the
listed
information
in
§112.4(
a)(
1)
at
any
time,
whether
or
not
there
had
been
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

In
1997,
we
proposed
a
reduction
of
the
amount
of
information
currently
required
by
§112.4(
a).
We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
following
information,
unless
the
Regional
Administrator
specifically
requested
it:
(1)
the
date
and
year
of
initial
facility
operation;
(2)
maximum
storage
or
handling
capacity
of
the
facility
and
normal
daily
throughput;
and,
(3)
a
complete
copy
of
the
SPCC
Plan
with
any
amendments.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
(10,
14,
23,
30,
34,
37,
41,
42,
43,
52,
55,
57,
58,
67,
71,
80,
82,
84,
L1,
L5)
"In
the
case
of
the
first
two
items,
the
agency
may
already
have
this
data,
which
is
useless
for
responding
to
the
environmental
threat.
In
the
case
of
the
SPCC
plan
submittal,
this
action
will
reduce
the
amount
of
paperwork
that
the
agency
may
try
to
plow
through
in
the
initial
phase
of
containment
or
cleanup.
The
relevant
data
of
the
SPCC
is
required
to
be
sent
to
EPA
separately
so
there
is
no
need
to
duplicate
this
information
by
sending
the
SPCC
plan."
(42)
"The
reporting
requirements
that
EPA
has
proposed
to
eliminate
are
not
necessary
as
part
of
a
postspill
report
to
accurately
assess
the
spill,
In
addition,
...
the
Regional
Administrator
has
authority
to
request
additional
information
pertinent
to
a
spill
event,
as
needed,
and
so
retains
authority
to
access
the
information
which
USEPA
is
proposing
for
elimination
from
the
rules."
(43)
"...(
M)
uch
of
the
information
required
in
reporting
a
release
according
to
the
SPCC
guidelines
is
not
necessary.
Insignificant
items
such
as
date
and
year
of
initial
operation,
and
daily
throughputs
provide
little
help
in
analyzing
a
spill
event
and
may
delay
facility
response
time.
We
agree
that
it
should
be
left
to
the
regulators
discretion
whether
they
need
to
see
an
SPCC
plan
with
an
amendment
after
a
release."
(56)

Opposition
to
proposal.

Duplicative
information.
We
should
"...
take
a
more
significant
step
to
eliminate
the
paperwork
burden
by
deleting
this
duplicative
reporting
requirement
in
its
entirety.
Spill
reports
must
be
made
for
these
same
spills
under
various
other
EPA
programs,
such
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
37
Community
Right­
to­
Know­
Act.
If
burden
reduction
without
diminishing
environmental
protection
is
the
goal,
the
deletion
of
the
spill
reporting
requirement
will
provide
the
regulated
community
with
a
substantial
measure
of
relief."
(31)
"...
(T)
he
regulations
should
not
require
persons
to
review
their
SPCC
plan
and
report
(to
the
state
and
EPA)
after
any
two
spills
to
navigable
water
in
a
12­
month
time
frame.
This
requirement
entails
production
of
much
paper
(flow
diagrams,
topographical
maps,
failure
analyses,
descriptions
of
corrective
action
measures,
repairs,
and
additional
preventive
measures,
and
a
complete
copy
of
the
SPCC
plan)
and
is
in
two
senses
duplicative.
First,
spill
reports
must
be
made
for
these
same
spills
under
various
other
EPA
programs,
such
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
Emergency
Planning
Community
Right
to
Know
Act.
Second,
EPA
often
already
has
some
of
these
documents
(e.
g.
the
SPCC
plan).
Further,
even
if
EPA
drops
the
12­
month
requirement,
the
agency
will
still
receive
information
under
the
SPCC
program
of
significant
releases
(releases
over
1000
gallons)."
(65)

Entire
Plan
needed.
"Elimination
of
the
need
to
submit
a
copy
of
the
SPCC
Plan
after
a
substantial
release
is,
with
all
due
respect,
just
plain
stupid.
How
could
the
EPA
possibly
evaluate
the
REAL
cause
of
a
spill
if
you
do
not
have
the
most
vital
piece
of
information?
This
is
silly.
At
least
require
that
they
certify
that
they
have
a
SPCC
Plan;
that
they
were,
or
were
not,
in
full
compliance
with
the
Plan
at
the
time
of
the
release;
and
the
name
of
the
certifying
engineer."
(40)

Little
consequence.
"These
post­
60
day
spill
reports
to
Regional
Administrators
do
not
appear
to
have
been
done
in
the
past.
A
query
in
the
past
to
Regional
Offices
was
unable
to
ascertain
where
such
reports
should
be
sent.
Increased
staffing
of
Regional
Offices
since
then
may
have
made
such
reporting
useful.
In
any
case,
the
reduced
reporting
is
acceptable
although
of
little
consequence."
(7)

Proposal
a
"sham."
"The
proposed
rule
provides
for
the
Regional
Administrator
[RA]
to
request
the
three
items
for
elimination.
Based
on
long
experience
with
the
Agency,
we
know
the
RA
will
request
the
data.
Accordingly,
the
proposal
is
a
sham.
Recommendation:
Do
not
modify
the
current
SPCC
plan
rule."
(8)

Calculation
of
time
for
discharge
reports
required
by
§112.4(
a).

"Block"
basis.
Support
for
block
basis.
(21,
31,
70,
76).
Urges
that
"...(
T)
he
reporting
provision
be
revised
to
specify
the
block
count.
Notification
must
still
be
provided
to
the
National
Response
Center
(NRC)
for
all
spill
events.
The
use
of
a
`block'
basis
reduces
the
reporting
burden
without
compromising
EPA's
ability
to
obtain
timely
information."
(21)
"EPA's
intent
in
the
current
rulemaking
to
clarify
the
standards
and
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
without
adversely
38
affecting
human
health
or
the
environment
would
be
further
implemented
if
EPA
makes
clear
that
the
oil
spill
reporting
requirement
specified
in
section
112.4(
a)
is
based
on
consecutive
annual
periods,
rather
than
a
rolling
basis...
The
use
of
the
"block"
basis
reduces
the
reporting
burden
without
compromising
EPA's
receipt
of
timely
information.
All
spill
events,
whenever
they
occur,
still
must
be
reported
to
the
NRC
and
the
use
of
"block"
reporting
avoids
needless
duplication.
(31)

Discharge
threshold
­
each
discharge.

25
gallons
­
each
discharge,
offsite
category.
Urges
"(
S)
etting
a
25­
gallon
threshold
for
the
multiple
spill
reporting
requirement;
Create
an
`off­
site
report'
category
(in
which
off­
site
reports
would
not
count
towards
the
two­
spills
quota;
Relax
the
reporting
requirements
for
very
minor
releases
of
petroleum
products
to
storm
drains,
or
other
man­
made
structures;
Implement
a
retraction
feature
if
the
sheen
dissipates
within
24
hours."
(65)

42
gallons
­
each
discharge.
Written
reports
should
only
be
required
if
the
spills
exceed
an
aggregate
volume
of
42
gallons.
(60,
70,
76)
"We
have
had
several
occasions
where
our
power
plants
released
very
small
amounts
of
oil,
less
than
one
pint,
twice
within
12
months
which
initiated
the
written
reporting
requirement.
In
no
case
has
the
reason
for
the
spills
been
a
recurring
problem
with
a
storage
system,
but
normally
a
release
of
a
small
amount
of
oil
from
a
lube
pipe
leak,
oil
level
sight
glass
crack,
etc.
Since
the
volume
of
a
single
spill
which
triggers
the
reporting
requirement
indicates
that
mainly
large
spills
are
of
concern
to
the
agency,
these
small
spills
create
a
reporting
burden
on
the
regulated
community
and
a
monitoring
burden
on
the
Agency.
While
we
continue
to
support
the
verbal
reporting
of
all
spills
to
navigable
water
to
the
National
Response
Center
and
the
applicable
state
and
local
authorities,
the
provision
to
provide
written
follow­
up
when
the
aggregate
volume
of
the
two
spills
is
very
small
is
unnecessary.
We
propose
that
written
follow­
up
be
provided
when
the
aggregate
volume
of
two
spills
within
a
twelve
month
period
exceeds
1
barrel
(42
gallons).
"
(60)

Discharge
threshold
­
1,000
gallon
discharges.

55
gallons.
"...(
A)
ny
discharge
in
excess
of
55
gallons
[should]
be
considered
a
reportable
incident.
This
will
create
a
database
which
accurately
reflects
the
cause
of
the
discharge,
the
corrective
action,
and
any
liabilities
or
need
for
ongoing
supervision.
To
suggest
to
the
fuel
storage
owner/
operator
community
that
thresholds
are
being
raised
to
exempt
current
carelessness
will,
most
probably
result
in
an
interpretation
that
the
Agency
does
not
have
concerns
for
39
discharges
of
less
than
1,000
gallons!
As
most
surveys
have
demonstrated
over
90%
of
discharges
are
less
than
1,000
gallons."
(73)

Maps,
flow
diagrams,
and
charts.
Opposes
mandatory
submission
of
maps,
flow
diagrams
and
charts.
(31,
60,
70,
76)
"(
T)
his
information
will
be
of
no
additional
benefit
to
the
Agency.
The
majority
of
spills
which
have
been
reported
by
AEP
are
normally
less
than
one
(1)
gallon
and
in
most
cases
less
than
one
(1)
pint.
Submitting
maps,
diagrams
and
charts
adds
bulk
to
the
report
without
added
substance.
We
recommend
that
the
owner
or
operator
have
the
option
to
submit
the
maps,
diagrams
and
charts
as
needed
to
completely
describe
the
spill
or
actions
taken."
(60)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.

Additional
information.
If
the
Regional
Administrator
requires
other
information,
for
example,
concerning
the
spill
pathway,
or
any
response
measures
taken,
this
request
is
authorized
under
renumbered
§112.4(
a)(
9),
current
§112.4(
a)(
11).

Adjoining
shorelines,
natural
resources,
affected
natural
resources.
Discharges
into
navigable
waters
are
not
the
only
discharges
reportable
for
purposes
of
this
section.
We
note
that
any
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
is
also
within
the
scope
of
this
section's
reportable
discharges.

Calculation
of
time
for
discharge
reports
required
by
§112.4(
a).
We
believe
a
"rolling"
basis
is
the
appropriate
method
to
calculate
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
for
purposes
of
the
rule
because
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
that
are
closer
in
time
are
more
likely
to
be
related
in
cause.
Discharges
that
are
more
proximate
in
time
may
indicate
a
problem
that
needs
to
be
remedied.
A
"rolling
basis"
means
that
each
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
triggers
the
start
of
a
new
twelve
month
period.
For
example,
if
discharge
#1
occurred
on
January
1,
and
if
discharge
#2
occurred
on
June
2,
discharge
#2
would
trigger
the
regulatory
submission
and
would
start
a
new
twelve
month
period.
If
discharge
#3
occurred
on
the
following
February
3,
it
would
again
trigger
a
submission,
because
discharge
#3
would
be
within
12
months
of
discharge
#2.
While
the
"rolling
basis"
would
trigger
more
regulatory
submissions
than
the
"block
basis,"
we
believe
that
it
would
enhance
environmental
protection
because
it
would
call
potential
problems
to
the
attention
of
the
Regional
Administrator
sooner,
and
allow
them
to
be
remedied
sooner
by
a
Plan
amendment
where
necessary.

"Block"
basis.
The
other
approach
would
be
to
use
a
"block"
period.
Under
this
type
of
calculation,
each
third
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
would
not
trigger
a
submission
if
it
occurred
within
12
months
of
discharge
#2,
but
it
would
start
the
beginning
of
a
new
12
month
period.
For
example,
if
discharge
#1
occurred
on
January
1,
and
discharge
#2
on
June
2,
discharge
#2
would
trigger
a
submission.
Discharge
#3
on
the
following
February
3
would
not
trigger
a
40
submission,
but
would
start
a
new
12
month
period.
The
principal
justification
for
block
reporting
is
also
that
discharges
more
closely
related
in
time
are
more
likely
to
be
related.
Our
concern
with
this
method
is
that
if
the
February
3
discharge
(i.
e.,
discharge
#3)
is
within
twelve
months
of
discharge
#2,
this
situation
could
indicate
that
there
is
a
problem
that
has
not
been
remedied,
so
the
February
3
discharge
should
trigger
a
reporting
submission.

Declaration
of
compliance.
We
also
disagree
that
a
declaration
of
compliance
by
the
owner
or
operator
is
necessary.
In
many
cases
such
a
declaration
would
only
be
selfserving
Ultimately,
whether
a
facility
is
in
compliance
with
the
rule
is
a
determination
for
the
RA
to
make.

Discharge
threshold.
42
gallons.
We
agree
that
a
higher
threshold
of
reporting
discharges
is
justifiable
because
we
believe
that
only
larger
discharges
should
trigger
an
EPA
obligation
to
review
a
facility's
prevention
efforts.
We
also
agree
that
a
higher
threshold
should
trigger
a
facility's
obligation
to
submit
information
and
possibly
have
to
take
further
prevention
measures.
Therefore,
we
have
changed
the
threshold
for
reporting
after
two
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
Under
the
revised
rule,
if
you
are
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
subject
to
this
part,
you
must
only
submit
the
required
information
when
in
any
twelve
month
period
there
have
been
two
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b),
in
each
of
which
more
than
42
U.
S.
gallons,
or
one
barrel,
has
been
discharged.
We
adopted
the
42
gallon
threshold
on
a
commenter's
suggestion.
We
believe
that
a
42
gallon
threshold
is
the
appropriate
one
to
trigger
a
facility's
information
and
possibly
to
have
to
take
further
prevention
measures.
When
multiple
discharges
occur
at
a
facility
subject
to
the
SPCC
program,
such
as
a
generating
station,
they
often
involve
the
discharge
of
very
small
amounts
of
oil,
and
these
discharges
tend
to
come
randomly
from
a
lube
pipe,
an
oil
level
sight
glass
crack,
or
some
other
apparatus,
and
do
not
normally
indicate
a
recurring
problem
with
the
container.
Having
two
or
more
of
these
small
discharges
does
not
indicate
that
the
facility's
SPCC
Plan
requires
revision.
The
other
reporting
threshold
of
1,
000
gallons
in
any
a
single
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
remains
the
same.
Facility
owners
or
operators
must
continue
to
report
to
the
National
Response
Center
discharges
of
oil
that
cause
a
sheen
or
are
in
other
ways
harmful,
as
specified
in
40
CFR
part
110.
See
the
discussion
below
under
"Sheen"
rule.

We
disagree
that
a
sheen
caused
by
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
over
the
threshold
amount
that
disappears
within
24
hours
should
not
require
submission
of
information.
The
discharge
itself
may
indicate
a
serious
problem
at
the
facility
which
needs
to
be
corrected.
The
discharge
report
may
give
us
the
information
necessary
to
require
specific
correction
measures.

Inapplicable
information.
If
a
particular
information
request
is
inapplicable,
you
may
omit
it,
but
must
explain
why
it
is
inapplicable.
41
Information
submission
at
any
time.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
1993
proposal
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
authority
to
require
submission
of
the
requested
information
in
this
section
at
any
time
is
vague,
and
have
therefore
withdrawn
that
part
of
the
proposal.
We
will
only
require
such
information
after
the
discharges
specified
in
this
section.

Maps,
flow
diagrams,
and
charts.
In
response
to
comments
which
questioned
the
usefulness
of
such
information,
we
have
modified
the
provision
regarding
maps,
flow
diagrams,
topographical
maps
(now
required
by
paragraph
(a)(
6)
of
the
current
rule)
to
clarify
that
only
the
information
necessary
to
adequately
describe
the
facility
and
discharge,
such
as
maps,
flow
diagrams,
or
topographical
maps
is
necessary
­
not
necessarily
all
of
the
information
listed
in
the
paragraph.
To
effect
this
change,
we
added
the
words
"as
necessary"
after
"topographical
maps."
"As
necessary"
means
as
determined
by
the
owner
or
operator,
subject
to
the
obligations
of
this
rule,
unless
the
RA
requests
more
information.
There
might
be
circumstances
in
which
the
owner
or
operator
would
submit
only
a
brief
description
of
the
facility
or
a
map,
for
example,
because
flow
diagrams
and
topographical
maps
were
unnecessary
to
describe
the
discharge,
and
would
not
help
the
RA
to
determine
whether
any
amendment
to
the
Plan
was
necessary
to
prevent
future
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

Maximum
storage
or
handling
capacity.
In
1997,
we
proposed
deletion
of
current
paragraph
(5)
(renumbered
as
paragraph
(4)
in
today's
final
rule),
concerning
the
maximum
storage
or
handling
capacity
of
the
facility
and
normal
daily
throughput.
We
have
reconsidered
this
proposal
and
decided
to
withdraw
it
because
the
referenced
information
is
necessary
information.
We
have
therefore
retained
the
language
in
the
rule.
Storage
capacity
and
normal
daily
throughput
are
important
indicators
of
the
impact
of
a
potential
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

Off­
site
category.
There
is
no
necessity
for
an
"off­
site"
category
of
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
because
only
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)
that
originates
in
a
facility
subject
to
this
part
counts
for
purposes
of
§112.4(
a).

"Sheen"
rule.
The
duty
imposed
by
the
CWA
to
report
to
the
National
Response
Center
all
discharges
that
may
be
harmful,
further
described
by
40
CFR
110.3,
is
unchanged.
Those
discharges
include
discharges
that
violate
applicable
water
quality
standards;
or,
cause
a
film
or
sheen
upon
or
discoloration
of
the
surface
of
the
water
or
adjoining
shorelines
or
cause
a
sludge
or
emulsion
to
be
deposited
beneath
the
surface
of
the
water
or
upon
adjoining
shorelines.

Submission
of
entire
Plan.
CWA
section
311(
m)
provides
EPA
with
the
authority
to
require
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
subject
to
section
311
to
make
reports
and
provide
information
to
carry
out
the
objectives
of
section
311;
and
CWA
section
308(
a)
42
provides
us
with
authority
to
require
the
owner
or
operator
of
any
"point
source"
to
make
such
reports
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require.
Therefore,
we
disagree
that
submission
of
the
entire
Plan
is
always
necessary
when
reporting
discharges
under
§112.4(
a).
We
believe
the
information
now
required
to
be
submitted
is
adequate
to
assess
the
cause
of
discharge
and
the
ability
of
the
facility
to
prevent
future
discharges.
If
the
RA
believes
that
the
entire
Plan
has
utility,
he
can
request
it.
However,
we
disagree
that
RAs
will
always
require
submission
of
the
Plan,
or
other
information
not
required,
as
a
matter
of
course.
RAs
may
use
their
administrative
discretion
not
to
require
the
submission
of
a
Plan
or
other
additional
information.
43
7.
Five
Year
Plan
Review
and
Certification
­
§112.5(
b)

Background:
Current
§112.5(
b)
requires
that
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
subject
to
§112.3(
a),
(b),
or
(c)
complete
a
review
and
evaluation
of
the
SPCC
Plan
at
least
once
every
three
years
from
the
date
the
facility
becomes
SPCC
regulated.
At
the
time
of
review,
the
owner
or
operator
must
amend
the
SPCC
plan
if
more
effective
control
and
prevention
technology
would
significantly
reduce
the
likelihood
of
a
spill
and
if
the
technology
has
been
field­
proven
at
that
time.
In
1997,
we
proposed
to
extend
this
review
period
from
at
least
once
every
three
years
to
at
least
once
every
five
years.
Also
in
1997,
we
proposed
that
the
owner
or
operator
must
certify
completion
of
the
review
and
evaluation.
The
certification
would
include
a
signed
and
dated
statement
that
indicates
that
the
review
has
taken
place
and
whether
or
not
amendment
of
the
Plan
is
required.
The
statement
would
be
part
of
the
Plan
or
in
a
log
or
an
appendix
to
the
Plan.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
"Reynolds
supports
changing
the
review
and
evaluation
cycle
for
SPCC
Plans
from
once
every
three
years
to
once
every
five
years.
Because
of
the
existing
requirement
to
modify
the
plan
when
substantive
facility
changes
occur,
the
increased
5
year
review
will
not
decrease
the
accuracy
and
validity
of
the
plan
information.
In
addition,
the
5
year
cycle
is
consistent
with
certain
state
review
cycles
(e.
g.,
Virginia's
Oil
Discharge
Contingency
Plan)."
(2,
3,
4,
5,
7,
14,
17,
21,
22,
23,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
32,
34,
37,
38,
42,
43,
45,
46,
48,
49,
51,
52,
55,
57,
58,
59,
65,
66,
67,
68,
70,
74,
76,
79,
80,
82,
84,
L1,
L5).

Changes
in
technology.
"Changes
in
the
regulations
or
technology
are
not
so
rapid
that
a
3­
year
review
period
is
required,
especially
for
small
facilities
which
have
storage
capacities
of
only
several
thousand
gallons."
(14)

Cost.
Because
his
facility
required
few
alterations
and
is
already
in
compliance,
"the
need
for
a
review
is
minimal
at
best."
(4)
"Implementation
of
the
proposed
five
year
review
schedule
would
save
time
and
money
by
reducing
a
facility's
recordkeeping
burden."
(5)

Other
amendments.
"...(
A)
mendments
to
a
facility's
SPCC
Plan
are
far
more
likely
to
be
initiated
due
to
changes
in
facility
design,
construction,
operation,
or
maintenance
than
by
periodic
evaluation
of
the
plan;
the
existing
requirement
to
amend
the
plan
following
such
changes,
coupled
with
a
periodic
review
at
five
year
intervals,
should
therefore
continue
to
provide
adequate
protection
against
discharges."
(46)

Reduced
recordkeeping.
The
proposal
would
reduce
the
record
keeping
burden
for
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
while
causing
no
additional
harm
to
the
environment
because
the
SPCC
plans
must
be
amended
when
a
change
in
44
facility
design
or
operation
occurs.
(10,
14,
17,
22,
27,
28,
32,
42,
46,
55,
74,
79,
L1)
"This
action
would
alleviate
an
unnecessary
burden
for
industry
while
concentrating
the
agency's
efforts
for
the
most
environmental
benefit.
In
many
medium­
sized
trucking
facilities,
one
full­
time
position
is
required
to
properly
maintain
environmental
records,
and
for
that
reason
we
would
urge
the
agency
to
finalize
this
change.
"
(42)

Response
cycle
coordination.
Supports
the
proposed
change
because
the
five
year
review
cycle
could
then
be
coordinated
with
other
permits
and
response
plans
that
are
also
on
5­
year
review
cycles.
(14,
28,
34,
74)
"...(
M)
any
facilities
have
both
SPCC
and
OPA
response
plans.
Having
a
five­
year
renewal
period
for
both
of
these
related
plans
will
make
coordination
between
the
plans
much
easier.
As
part
of
this
same
rulemaking,
EPA
is
allowing
the
preparation
of
combined
SPCC,
OPA
and/
or
state
response
plans.
Having
a
consistent
renewal
period
between
at
least
the
SPCC
and
OPA
plans
will
help
this
coordination
effort."
(74)

Tank
warranties.
"Most
current
tank
manufacturers
warranty
their
fuel
storage
tanks
from
1
to
30
years
with
20
years
being
the
typical
warranty.
Therefore,
the
longevity
of
the
warranty
should
probably
be
the
determining
factor
on
the
frequency
of
review.
If
a
site
includes
a
tank
with
a
one­
year
warranty,
it
should
be
reviewed
annually;
if
a
site
includes
tanks(
s)
with
a
warranty
of
30
years,
the
five­
year
benchmark
would
appear
to
be
a
logical
frequency."
(73)

Opposition
to
proposal.

No
benefit
to
operator.
"...
SPCC
plans
are
revised
almost
yearly
because
as
production
decreases,
the
properties
are
sold
or
combined
with
other
facilities.
Lengthening
the
review
period
is
no
benefit
to
the
operator."
(8)

No
changes.
Questions
"...
the
benefit
to
either
the
environment
or
public
health
to
be
gained
by
reviewing
the
SPCC
Plan
on
any
schedule
for
facilities
where
no
changes
are
made,
or
are
anticipated
to
be
made,
to
"...
facility
design,
construction,
operation
or
maintenance..."
that
might
affect
its
potential
to
discharge
oil.
Suggests
that
we
should
amend
the
rule
to
require
periodic
reviews
only
when
such
aforementioned
changes
are
made.
(2)
Asks
us
to
"...
clarify
whether
the
certification
referenced
in
proposed
Section
112.5
(b)
addresses
the
circumstance
in
which
a
Plan
is
reviewed
and
evaluated
but
does
not
require
revision.
If
the
Plan
is
revised,
it
will
be
certified
by
a
Professional
Engineer
pursuant
to
Section
112.3
(d)
and
a
separate
certification
that
the
review
and
evaluation
has
taken
place
would
be
redundant.
The
final
rule
should
avoid
redundant
certifications."
(3)
The
proposed
certification
language
is
confusing.
(3,
38,
47,
51,
60,
61,
65)
45
Personnel
turnover.
"If
the
EPA
is
serious
about
ensuring,
and
not
just
having
something
to
hit
O/
O
over
the
head
with
if
there
is
a
spill,
then
the
time
frame
for
reviews
should
be
shortened,
not
lengthened.
Some
of
these
guys
aren't
even
at
the
same
plant
for
two
years
or
more."
(40)

Reduced
maintenance.
"...(
C)
hanging
the
review
period
from
3
to
5
years
may
lower
the
level
of
facility
`maintenance'
of
the
SPCC
plan.
This
is
particularly
true
in
the
absence
of
any
information
about
requirements
for
a
facility
to
ensure
personnel
are
familiar
with
planning
goals
and
proposed
response
actions
and
to
address
personnel
rotations."
(72)

Completion
of
review.

Support
for
proposal.
(46,
67,
84)
"...(
T)
he
proposal
to
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
certify
completion
of
the
review
and
evaluation
in
order
to
provide
written
proof
that
the
operator
has
complied
with
the
rule.
We
believe
that
prudent
operators
will
document
such
reviews
even
without
a
specific
requirement
to
do
so,
since
it
is
difficult
to
prove
compliance
otherwise."
(46)

Opposition
to
proposal.
(8,
14,
30,
42,
80,
L4,
L5).

Negative
declarations.
"We
recommend
that
regulations
that
require
`negative
declarations'
or
certifications
of
non­
applicability
be
eliminated.
Such
certifications
are
unnecessary
record
keeping
and
their
absence
from
facility
files
may
be
considered
non­
compliance."
(L4)

No
environmental
benefit.
"Our
experience
with
the
SPCC
sent
to
the
RA
as
the
result
of
a
spill
is
the
RA
staff
is
overwhelmed
by
the
volume
of
work
so
there
is
not
even
an
acknowledgment
of
the
plan.
A
certificate
sent
to
the
RA
will
add
to
the
paperwork
burden
and
not
improve
environmental
protection.
Further,
increasing
the
SPCC
burden
will
cause
small
operators
to
discontinue
preparing
and
updating
plans,
so
the
current
working
system
will
deteriorate."
(8)
Certification
would
only
"...
add
another
layer
of
paperwork
to
the
plan
that
would
do
nothing
to
prevent
or
clean
up
contamination.
A
quick
assessment
of
some
of
our
member's
practices
indicates
that
the
plans
are
dated
as
of
each
(currently)
triennial
review
and
during
any
updates
to
the
plan
that
occur
because
of
physical
changes
to
the
facility.
The
date
indicates
the
last
time
the
plan
was
reviewed
for
accuracy.
ATA
believes
that
this
practice
should
suffice
instead
of
a
separate
statement."
(42)
Certification
would
only
add
to
the
recordkeeping
burden
and
would
have
no
apparent
positive
effects
on
the
environment.
(30,
80,
L5)
46
Unnecessary.
Certification
is
unnecessary
because
"...
the
5­
year
review
will
result
in
some
modification
or
amendment
of
the
SPCC
Plan,
and
it
will
be
apparent
that
a
review
and
evaluation
were
made.
Since
the
entire
plan
must
be
certified
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
112.3(
d),
it
is
unnecessarily
burdensome
and
redundant
to
certify
the
review
and
evaluation.
The
Agency
may
wish
to
recommend
that
a
log
sheet
be
added
as
an
appendix
to
each
plan
to
document
the
date
of
the
five­
year
review
and
evaluation
and
to
record
the
names
of
the
persons
responsible
for
the
review."
(14)

Copy
to
RA.
We
should
consider
a
requirement
for
a
copy
of
the
certification
to
be
forwarded
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
(84)
We
should
not
require
a
copy
to
the
RA.
(67)

PE
certification
instead.
"...(
C)
ertification
should
not
be
required
at
the
owner/
operator
level
(e.
g.,
plant
manager).
Environmental
engineers
at
our
facilities
review
and
update
SPCC
plans
on
a
regular
basis
and
maintain
documentation
of
the
reviews.
GM
believes
that
certification
at
this
level
is
sufficient,
as
the
facility­
level
engineers
are
most
familiar
with
the
plans
and
are
responsible
for
implementation."
(51)

PE
or
company
staff.
Either
company
staff
or
a
professional
engineer
should
be
allowed
to
perform
certification.
(3,
47,
61,
65)
"(
S)
elf
review
would
be
adequate
to
determine
if
new
features
or
changes
have
appeared
in
a
facility
which
trigger
revision
of
the
Plan."
(3)
Requests
confirmation
to
his
understanding
of
the
proposal.
(38)
Requests
clarification
regarding
who
is
eligible
to
sign
the
proposed
certification
statement.
Supports
the
idea
that
a
responsible
individual,
other
than
a
Professional
Engineer,
should
be
allowed
to
certify
that
a
Plan
has
been
reviewed
and
updated.
(47,
51,
60,
61,
65)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.

Completion
of
review.
We
disagree
that
documentation
of
completion
of
review
has
no
environmental
benefit.
Its
benefit
lies
in
the
fact
that
it
shows
that
someone
reviewed
the
Plan
to
determine
if
better
technology
would
benefit
the
facility
and
the
Plan
is
current.
Documentation
of
completion
of
review
is
necessary
whether
or
not
any
amendments
are
necessary
in
order
to
clearly
show
that
the
review
was
done.
Mere
dating
of
the
Plan
or
of
an
amendment
does
not
show
that
you
performed
the
required
review.
Documentation
of
completion
of
review
is
a
function
of
the
owner
or
operator,
whereas
certification
of
any
resulting
technical
amendment
is
a
function
of
the
PE.
We
disagree
that
documentation
of
completion
should
be
forwarded
to
the
Regional
Administrator
because
it
would
increase
the
information
collection
burden
without
an
environmental
benefit.
It
is
sufficient
that
the
review
be
done.
When
the
Regional
47
Administrator
wishes
to
verify
completion
of
review,
he
may
do
so
during
an
on­
site
inspection.

Calculation
of
time
between
reviews.
The
change
in
the
rule
from
three­
year
to
fiveyear
reviews
requires
some
explanation
as
to
when
a
review
must
be
conducted.
For
example,
a
facility
became
subject
to
the
rule
on
January
1,
1990.
The
first
three­
year
review
should
have
been
conducted
by
January
1,
1993,
the
second
by
January
1,
1996,
and
the
third
by
January
1,
1999.
The
next
review
must
be
conducted
by
January
1,
2004,
due
to
the
rule
change.
In
other
words,
an
existing
facility
must
complete
the
review
within
5
years
of
the
date
the
last
review
must
have
been
completed.
A
facility
becoming
operable
on
or
after
the
effective
date
of
the
rule
will
begin
a
five­
year
cycle
at
the
date
it
becomes
subject
to
part
112.

Editorial
change.
We
have
changed
the
word
"certification"
to
a
requirement
to
document
completion
of
the
review
to
avoid
the
legal
effect
a
certification
may
have.
The
intent
of
the
certification
proposal
was
merely
to
show
that
an
owner
or
operator
performed
a
review
of
the
Plan
every
five
years.
62
FR
63814,
December
2,
1997.
A
false
documentation
of
completion
of
review
of
the
Plan
is
a
deficiency
in
the
Plan
and
may
be
cited
as
a
violation
of
these
rules.

Five­
year
review.
We
agree
that
a
five­
year
review
period
will
make
coordination
of
review
of
related
plans,
such
as
facility
response
plans
required
by
part
112,
easier.
We
disagree
that
a
five­
year
review
period
will
lead
to
reduced
maintenance
or
increased
environmental
harm.
Amendment
of
a
Plan
will
still
be
necessary
when
a
material
change
is
made
affecting
the
facility's
potential
to
discharge
oil,
perhaps
after
certain
discharges
as
required
by
the
RA
under
§112.4(
a),
and
perhaps
after
on­
site
review
of
a
Plan
(see
§112.4(
d)).
Plus
the
Plan
must
be
implemented
at
all
times.
These
opportunities
ensure
that
Plans
will
be
current.
We
also
disagree
that
the
length
of
the
tank
warranty
should
be
the
determining
factor
for
a
technological
review.
Technology
changes
enough
within
a
five­
year
period
to
warrant
required
review
within
such
time
period
whether
or
not
other
changes
occur.
Amendments
other
than
the
fiveyear
review
amendments
may
not
be
based
on
the
need
to
learn
of
improved
technology.
Those
amendments
might
result
from
deficiencies
in
the
Plan,
on
the
need
to
make
repairs,
or
to
remedy
the
cause
of
a
discharge.

Changes
of
personnel
Changes
of
personnel
at
a
facility
do
not
affect
the
responsibility
to
perform
the
requirements
of
this
section.

How
to
document
completion
of
review.
You
must
add
documentation
of
completion
of
review
either
at
the
beginning
or
the
end
of
the
Plan,
or
maintain
such
documentation
in
a
log
book
appended
to
the
Plan
or
other
appendix
to
the
Plan.
You
may
document
completion
in
one
of
two
ways.
If
amendment
of
the
Plan
is
necessary,
then
you
must
state
as
much,
and
that
review
is
complete.
This
statement
is
necessary
because
Plan
48
amendments
may
result
either
from
five­
year
review
or
from
material
changes
at
the
facility
affecting
its
potential
for
discharge,
or
from
on­
site
review
of
the
Plan.
There
is
no
way
to
know
which
circumstance
causes
the
amendment
without
some
explanation.
If
no
amendments
are
necessary,
you
must
document
completion
of
review
by
merely
signing
a
statement
that
you
have
completed
the
review
and
no
amendments
are
necessary.
You
may
use
the
words
suggested
in
the
rule
to
document
completion,
or
make
any
similar
statement
to
the
same
effect.

Time
line
for
amendment
implementation.
We
agree
with
commenters
(see
comments
on
proposed
§112.5(
a))
that
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
Plan
amendments
require
more
time
than
proposed.
The
same
rationale
applies
to
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
amendments
required
due
to
five­
year
reviews.
Therefore,
we
will
require
adherence
to
the
time
lines
laid
down
in
§112.5(
b)
for
amendments.
Currently,
§112.5(
b)
requires
that
Plan
amendments
be
prepared
within
six
months.
It
is
silent
as
to
timelines
for
implementation.
Therefore,
we
have
revised
the
rule
to
clarify
that
amendments
must
be
implemented
as
soon
as
possible,
but
within
the
next
six
months.
This
is
the
current
standard
for
implementation
of
certain
other
amendments.
See,
for
example,
§§
112.3(
a)
and
112.4(
e).
We
note
that
§112.3(
f)
allows
you
to
request
an
extension
of
time
to
prepare
and
implement
an
amendment.

Who
documents
review.
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility,
or
a
person
at
a
management
level
with
sufficient
authority
to
commit
the
necessary
resources,
must
document
completion
of
review.
49
8.
Use
of
Business
Records
­
§§
112.7(
e),
112.8(
c)(
3)(
iv),
and
112.9(
b)(
1)

Background:
In
1997,
we
proposed
to
amend
§112.7(
e)(
8)
(redesignated
as
§112.7(
e)
in
the
final
rule)
to
provide
that
records
of
inspections
maintained
pursuant
to
usual
and
customary
business
practices
would
suffice
for
purposes
of
the
rule.
We
also
proposed
to
amend
two
particular
sections
(current
§§
112.7(
e)(
2)(
iii)(
D)
and
112.7(
e)(
2)(
vi).
These
written
procedures
and
a
record
of
inspections,
signed
by
the
appropriate
supervisor
or
inspector,
must
be
maintained
for
three
years.

Section
112.7(
e)(
2)(
vi)
of
the
current
rule
(redesignated
as
§112.8(
c)(
6)
of
the
final
rule)
requires
periodic
integrity
testing
of
aboveground
tanks,
taking
into
account
tank
design
and
using
such
techniques
as
hydrostatic
testing,
visual
inspection,
or
a
system
of
non­
destructive
shell
thickness
testing.
It
also
requires
the
maintenance
of
comparison
records.
In
1997,
we
proposed
to
amend
§112.7(
e)(
2)(
vi)
to
provide
that
usual
and
customary
business
records
would
suffice
to
meet
the
record
keeping
requirements
of
the
section.

Current
§112.7(
e)(
1)
authorizes
the
drainage
of
rainwater
from
a
diked
area
into
a
storm
drain
or
an
effluent
discharge
that
empties
into
an
open
water
course,
lake,
or
pond,
and
bypasses
the
in­
plant
treatment
system
if
four
conditions
are
met
(see
§112.7(
e)(
1)(
i)­(
iv)).
In
1997,
we
proposed
to
amend
§112.7(
e)(
2)(
iii)(
D)
(redesignated
in
the
new
rule
as
§112.8(
c)(
3))
to
allow
the
use
of
records
recording
stormwater
bypass
events
kept
under
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
permit.
In
the
NPDES
regulations,
"bypass"
is
defined
to
mean
the
"intentional
diversion
of
waste
streams
from
any
portion
of
a
treatment
facility"
(40
CFR
122.41(
m)(
1)(
I)).

The
NPDES
regulations
set
forth
conditions
that
all
NPDES
permits
must
contain
(40
CFR
122.21).
One
of
these
"standard
conditions"
allows
for
excusable
bypasses
under
certain
conditions
(40
CFR
122.41(
m)(
2)­(
4)).
Specifically,
40
CFR
122.41(
m)(
3)
and
40
CFR
122.41(
j)(
2)
require
that
the
NPDES
permittee
provide
notice
of
the
bypass
event
and
maintain
records
of
all
such
bypass
events
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
of
report,
respectively.
These
NPDES
permit
conditions
for
notification
and
record
keeping
serve
the
same
objective
as
the
SPCC
rule
requirement
in
§112.3(
c)(
3),
and
the
documentation
is
therefore
acceptable
to
satisfy
the
SPCC
requirement.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
"Reynolds
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
amend
40
CFR
112.7(
e)(
8)
to
allow
the
use
of
customary
business
records,
such
as
those
maintained
pursuant
to
API
standards
653
and
2610,
to
satisfy
recordkeeping
and
inspection
requirements.
Reynolds
believes
that
the
Agency
has
taken
a
sound
approach
in
proposing
streamlined
reporting/
recordkeeping
requirements
for
this
important
program."
(10,
14,
17,
21,
28,
37,
42,
55,
56,
57,
60,
76,
80,
82,
84,
L1,
and
L5)
Support
for
final
§112.8(
c)(
3)).
(30,
41,
42,
52,
57,
67,
76,
80,
L5)
50
Confluence
between
API
standards
and
CWA
requirements.
"Current
regulations
require
that
aboveground
tanks
be
periodically
inspected
for
signs
of
damage
or
deterioration
that
could
cause
a
spill
or
leak.
API
Standard
653
is
considered
the
predominant
standard
for
aboveground
tank
inspection
and
API
Standard
2610
concerns
recordkeeping
for
inspections
and
preventive
maintenance.
CWA
recordkeeping
regulations
require
much
the
same
information
as
the
API
Standards
provide,
therefore
a
company
with
records
resulting
from
following
the
two
API
Standards
already
has
the
information
required
under
the
CWA."
(42)

Cost,
duplication.
The
proposed
rule
would
eliminate
the
need
for
facilities
to
keep
duplicate
records.
(37,
56,
57,
80,
L5)
The
proposal
would
help
larger
facilities
with
both
SPCC
plan
and
FRP
obligations
or
a
discharge
permit
for
a
wastewater
treatment
plant.
(17)
The
proposed
change
would
provide
some
cost
savings
through
the
elimination
of
redundant
inspections.
(21)

Opposition
to
proposal.

API
records
inapplicable.
"...
API
standards
are
not
applied
to
Exploration
and
Production
[E&
P]
tanks.
The
majority
of
E&
P
tanks
are
either
bolted
or
welded
steel
tanks.
Some
old
fields
still
use
redwood
stave
tanks."
(7)
"Typically,
E&
P
tanks
are
200
to
1000
bbl
capacity.
They
can
be
inspected
under
API
Standard
653,
however,
that
is
not
done
since
in
old
fields,
the
cost
could
not
be
sustained.
The
economic
life
of
the
field
would
be
shortened
by
at
least
3
years.
Additionally,
there
is
no
need
to
make
such
a
rigorous
inspection
since
E&
P
tanks
seldom
sustain
catastrophic
failures.
Most
oil
spills
from
E&
P
tanks
are
the
result
of
storm
damage
or
human
error.
Spending
precious
funds
on
wasteful
inspections
simply
deprives
the
public
of
domestic
fuel
and
adds
to
the
quantity
transported
by
ship
(which
are
much
more
prone
to
spills)."
(8)
API
Standards
653,
2610,
620
and
650
are
"...
voluntary
standards
and
many
of
the
records
discussed
concerning
those
standards
are
not
commonly
kept
by
smaller
oil
and
gas
companies.
To
remedy
this
problem,
we
suggest
that
those
requirements
be
changed
to
include
the
phrase,
`when
available'."
(26)

No
consequence.
"I
am
aware
of
no
requirement
in
Missouri
nor
of
any
industry
in
Missouri
which
reports
discharge
of
stormwaters
from
secondary
containment
enclosure.
This
provision,
therefore,
is
of
no
consequence
in
Missouri."
(7)
51
Redundancy.
"GLCC
appreciates
EPA
recognizing
the
redundancy
of
the
SPCC
requirements
with
current
NPDES
requirements."
(56)

Form
of
records.

API
and
other
voluntary
standards.
"...(
A)
note
or
comment
should
follow
40
CFR
§112.7(
e)(
8)
stating
that
usual
and
customary
business
records
may
include
those
maintained
pursuant
to
appropriate
API
and/
or
other
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
inclusion
of
such
guidance
will
make
it
easier,
in
years
to
come,
for
regulated
entities
to
understand
the
intent
of
the
Agency
with
respect
to
the
recordkeeping
requirements
without
the
need
to
locate
a
copy
of
this
Federal
Register
notice.
Ash
Grove
also
believes
that
the
placement
of
such
guidance
in
the
rule
itself
will
better
meet
the
apparent
intent
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
(as
described
on
page
63818
of
the
Proposed
Rule),
whether
or
not
the
Act
applies
in
this
instance."
(15)

NPDES
records.
We
should
allow
the
use
of
records
maintained
pursuant
to
NPDES
permits
to
suffice
for
the
requirements
in
§112.7(
e)(
8).
(4,
21,
30,
42,
56,
57,
67,
80,
L5)

RCRA/
SPCC
confluence.
"(
C)
omparison
of
the
requirements
under
sections
112
and
(40
CFR)
264/
265
indicate
that
there
is
little
difference
between
the
requirements
of
these
sections."
(81)

UL
Standards.
Re
integrity
testing
"Therefore,
the
methods
of
testing
can
be
easily
determined
by
referencing
the
method
used
by
Underwriters
Laboratories
to
validate
both
the
primary
and
secondary
containments
of
each
assembly.
The
use
of:
pneumatic
(pressure),
hydrostatic,
vacuum,
sonar,
tracer
gas,
any
combination
of
two
of
the
aforementioned
methodologies
or
another
method
as
determined
by
either
the
listing
authority
or
authority­
having
jurisdiction
will
be
considered
acceptable
for
purposes
of
this
section."
(73)

"...
In
addition
to
the
aforementioned
Standards,
please
accept
those
standards
for
the
storage
of
Flammable
and
Combustible
Liquids
developed
by
Underwriters
Laboratories,
Inc.
(UL)
and
Underwriters
Laboratories
of
Canada.
These
will
include
standards
for
construction,
design,
performance,
testing,
maintenance
and
all
facets
of
storage
of
materials
in
accordance
with
the
Oil
Pollution
Act,
including
UL
Standard
142
for
Bare
Steel
Aboveground
Tanks,
UL
Subject
2080
for
Fire­
Resistant
Tanks,
UL
Standard
2085
for
Protected
Aboveground
Storage
Tanks
and
UL
Subject
2245
for
At/
Below­
Grade
Aboveground
Storage
Tanks
(Vaults).
The
Agency
could
easily
canvass
this
proposal
by
participating
in
the
UL
IAG
forum
previously
mentioned.
Please
note
that
inclusion
of
these
Standards
and
Subjects
will
include
the
use
of
an
52
auditing
mechanism
that
might
conceivably
reduce
the
information­
collection
burden/
historical
difficulties
for
the
Agency."
(73)

"In
addition,
a
new
controversy
relative
to
the
merits
of
a
UL
Subject
2244,
Systems
Listing
wherein
both
the
storage
tank
and
all
its
accessories
are
evaluated
and
certified
in
the
form
of
a
listing
label
would
appear
to
be
logically
worth
consideration
by
the
US
EPA.
While
regulatory
authorities
traditionally
support
the
Systems
Listing
and
Industry
opposes
the
Systems
Listing,
perhaps
the
involvement
of
US
EPA
can
Provide
a
significant
input
to
resolving
this
new
factor
in
evaluating
fuel
storage."
(73)

Use
optional.
"As
long
as
the
tanks
and
secondary
containments
are
inspected
and
maintained,
the
format
used
to
document
these
events
is
not
important.
Utilizing
an
existing
document,
such
a
departmental
maintenance
log
would
be
more
than
adequate
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
compiled
with
the
regulatory
obligations.
Furthermore,
using
an
established
plant
procedure
will
be
less
confusing
for
the
individuals
involved
and
more
readily
retrievable
when
requested."
(38)
"...(
I)
t
should
be
clarified
that
facilities
are
not
required
to
use
the
API
Standards
listed
in
the
preamble.
Facilities
should
be
allowed
to
continue
to
use
a
format
specifically
designed
for
documenting
SPCC
requirements."
(51)

FRP
record
retention
period.
"Since
the
record
retention
provision
pertaining
to
Facility
Response
Plans
(FRP)
is
contained
in
the
model
included
in
Appendix
F
(Section
1.
8.
1)
and
not
in
Section
112.20
itself,
it
is
not
clear
whether
the
five
year
reference
is
a
guideline
or
a
requirement.
Even
assuming
that
the
five
year
reference
is
a
requirement,
it
is
unclear
as
to
why
FRP
records
should
be
retained
for
a
period
two
years
longer
than
the
SPCC
records.
Retention
of
inspection
records
allows
EPA
to
review
a
facility's
past
records.
As
such,
this
retention
period
should
not
be
a
function
of
the
size
of
the
facility.
The
same
retention
period
should
apply
to
all
facilities.
TVA,
therefore,
recommends
that
the
proposed
rule
clarify
whether
the
records
retention
requirement
is
intended
to
apply
to
records
generated
as
a
result
of
inspections
required
in
FRPs.
If
so,
a
three
year
retention
period
should
apply
to
those
records
generated
as
a
result
of
facility
self­
inspections
specified
in
Section
1.
8.
1
of
Appendix
F."
(21)

Maintenance
with
Plan.
Criticizes
the
provision
that
records
must
be
made
a
part
of
the
Plan
as
burdensome
and
no
benefit
to
the
environment.
(14,
21,
27,
35,
41,
52,
58,
61,
70,
84)
"PM
records
are
much
better
kept
in
a
special
PM
notebook,
which
is
often
equipment­
specific.
It
would
be
awkward
and
administratively
burdensome
for
a
facility,
particularly
a
small
facility,
to
either
file
the
PM
report
in
the
SPCC
Plan
or
to
reproduce
the
PM
report
and
physically
insert
it
into
the
SPCC
Plan.
It
would
be
far
better
to
simply
include
in
the
SPCC
Plan
a
reference
to
the
fact
that
PM
inspections
53
are
performed,
that
they
are
usual
and
customary,
and
include
the
location
of
the
completed
records
(e.
g.,
maintenance
supervisor's
office).
This
issue
is
particularly
critical
for
records
demonstrating
compliance
with
employee
training
requirements
at
40
CFR
112.7(
e)(
10).
The
best
location
for
such
records
is
in
the
employee
personnel
files,
not
an
SPCC
Plan."
(14)

NPDES
rules.
Seeks
clarification
on
proposed
"adoption
by
reference"
of
NPDES
rules.
(23,
29,
31,
43,
47,
60,
61,
70,
83)

No
SPCC
regulation
­
NPDES
instead.
"AFIA
believes
an
exception
should
be
created
for
reporting
and
recording
dike
bypasses
of
112.7(
e)(
2)(
iii)(
D)
relating
to
animal
and
vegetable
oil
storage,
requiring
such
reporting
and
recording
only
if
required
by
NPDES
stormwater
permits."
(23)

No
NPDES
requirements
either.
"Release
of
uncontaminated
rainwater
from
containment
areas
should
not
be
subject
to
monitoring
and
notification
requirements
of
the
NPDES
program."
(29)

NPDES
rules
sometimes
inapplicable.
"...(
T)
he
NPDES
regulations
contain
requirements
which
should
not
apply
to
SPCC
facilities,
including
the
condition
that
the
permittee
must
provide
notice
of
a
bypass
event."
(43)

Receipt
and
understanding.
"...(
A)
s
a
matter
of
usual
and
customary
business
records
that
the
owner/
operator
of
the
SPCC
Plan/
FRP
site
be
required
to
sign
a
document
acknowledging
receipt
and
understanding
of
the
appropriate
plan.
This
would
indicate
that
the
site
had
been
properly
reviewed,
the
owner/
operator
informed
and
that
the
liability
to
maintain
and
supervise
the
site
had
been
specifically
acknowledged.
No
cause
should
be
promoted
that
an
SPCC
Plan
is
certified,
forwarded
to
the
site
and
placed
on
a
shelf
without
review
or
acknowledgment."
(73)

Requirement
or
recommendation.
"EPA
should
clarify
in
the
final
rule
that
references
in
the
preamble
to
requirements
for
periodic
integrity
testing
of
aboveground
tanks
and
inspections
are
only
voluntary
recommendations
in
the
current
regulation
and
are
not
required.
EPA
erroneously
refers
to
periodic
integrity
testing
of
aboveground
tanks
and
inspections
as
required
activities
(see
page
63815,
middle
column
under
the
heading
"40
CFR
112.7(
e)(
2)(
vi)
and
page
63815,
right
column
under
the
heading
"40
CFR
112.7(
e)(
8))."
(47,
61,
74)

States.
"If
the
states
maintain
the
regulation
as
it
currently
stands,
it
will
only
negate
the
Agency's
current
efforts
in
these
proposed
revisions
to
the
requirement.
The
Company
is
concerned
about
the
regulatory
burden
this
may
create
if
each
state
maintains
the
current
regulation,
or
makes
the
decision
to
develop
more
stringent
regulations."
(48)
54
Usual
and
customary
business
records.
Requests
clarification
regarding
the
definition
of
"usual
and
customary
business
records"
as
written
in
the
proposed
rule.
(14,
15,
38,
51,
81)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.

Applicability
­
§112.8(
c)(
3).
This
paragraph
applies
to
discharges
of
rainwater
from
diked
areas
that
may
contain
any
type
of
oil,
including
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
The
only
purpose
of
this
paragraph
is
to
offer
a
recordkeeping
option
so
that
you
do
not
have
to
create
a
duplicate
set
of
records
for
SPCC
purposes,
when
adequate
records
created
for
NPDES
purposes
already
exist.

Applicability
­
§112.9(
b)(
1).
We
believe
that
this
requirement
must
be
applicable
to
both
large
and
small
facilities
to
help
prevent
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
The
risk
of
such
a
discharge
and
the
accompanying
environmental
damage
may
be
devastating
whether
it
comes
from
a
large
or
small
facility.
We
disagree
that
the
recordkeeping
is
burdensome.
If
you
are
an
NPDES
permittee,
you
may
use
the
stormwater
drainage
records
required
pursuant
to
40
CFR
122.41(
j)(
2)
and
122.41(
m)(
3)
for
SPCC
purposes,
thereby
reducing
the
recordkeeping
burden.

Discharge
records
necessary
­
§112.8(
c)(
3).
Only
records
of
discharges
"that
may
be
harmful"
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
110
are
required.
A
discharge
"that
may
be
harmful"
includes
a
discharge
that
violates
applicable
water
quality
standards,
or
which
causes
a
film
or
sheen
upon
or
discoloration
of
the
surface
of
the
water
or
adjoining
shorelines
or
which
causes
a
sludge
or
emulsion
to
be
deposited
beneath
the
surface
of
the
water
or
upon
adjoining
shorelines.

Engineering
methods
­
§112.9(
b)(
1).
"Equivalent"
measures
referenced
in
the
rule
might,
depending
on
good
engineering
practice,
include
using
structures
such
as
stand
pipes
designed
to
handle
flow­
through
conditions
at
water
flood
oil
production
operations,
where
large
volumes
of
water
may
be
directed
to
oil
storage
tanks
if
water
discharge
lines
on
oil­
water
separators
become
plugged.
Any
alternate
measures
must
provide
environmental
protection
equivalent
to
the
rule
requirement.

Form
of
records.
Records
of
inspections
and
tests
required
by
this
rule
may
be
maintained
in
electronic
or
any
other
format
which
is
readily
accessible
to
the
facility
and
to
EPA
personnel.
Usual
and
customary
business
records
may
be
those
ordinarily
used
in
the
industry,
including
those
made
under
API
standards,
Underwriters'
Laboratories
standards,
NPDES
permits,
a
facility's
QS­
9000
or
ISO­
14000
system,
or
any
other
format
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
If
you
choose
to
use
records
associated
with
compliance
with
industry
standards,
such
as
Underwriters'
Laboratories
standards,
you
must
closely
review
the
inspection,
testing,
and
record
keeping
requirements
of
this
rule
to
ensure
that
any
records
kept
in
accordance
with
55
industry
standards
meets
the
intent
of
the
rule.
Some
standards
have
limited
record
keeping
requirements
and
may
only
address
a
particular
aspect
of
container
fabrication,
installation,
inspection,
and
operation
and
maintenance.
The
intent
of
the
rule
is
that
you
will
not
have
to
maintain
duplicate
sets
of
records
when
one
set
has
already
been
prepared
under
industry
or
regulatory
purposes
that
also
fully
suffices
for
SPCC
purposes.
The
use
of
these
alternative
record
formats
is
optional;
you
are
not
required
to
use
them,
but
you
may
use
them.

FRP
record
retention
period.
We
recognize
that
the
record
retention
periods
will
differ
under
the
revised
rule
for
SPCC
facilities
as
opposed
to
response
facilities.
We
may
consider
a
uniform
record
retention
period
in
the
future
for
all
types
of
facilities.

Maintenance
with
Plan.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
maintain
records
as
part
of
the
Plan.
Therefore,
today's
rule
allows
"keeping"
of
the
records
"with"
the
Plan,
but
not
as
part
of
it.
In
the
current
rule,
such
records
"should
be
made
part
of
the
SPCC
Plan...."
40
CFR
112.7(
e)(
8).
Because
you
continually
update
these
records,
this
change
will
eliminate
the
need
to
amend
your
Plan
each
time
you
remove
old
records
and
add
new
ones.
You
still
retain
the
option
of
making
these
records
a
part
of
the
Plan
if
you
choose.

NPDES
rules.
We
are
not
adopting
the
NPDES
rules
for
SPCC
purposes,
but
are
only
offering
an
alternative
for
recordkeeping.
The
intent
of
the
rule
is
that
you
may,
if
you
choose,
use
the
NPDES
stormwater
discharge
records
in
lieu
of
records
specifically
created
for
SPCC
purposes.
We
are
not
incorporating
the
NPDES
requirements
into
our
rules
by
reference.

Receipt
and
understanding.
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
already
is
responsible
for
Plan
preparation
and
implementation.
The
Plan
must
have
the
full
approval
of
management
at
a
level
of
authority
to
commit
the
necessary
resources.
Such
approval
must
be
documented
in
the
Plan
by
signature
of
the
owner
or
operator.

Records
required.
The
rule
permits
use
of
usual
and
customary
business
records,
and
covers
all
of
the
inspections
and
tests
required
by
this
part
as
well
as
any
ancillary
records.
"Inspections
and
tests"
include
not
only
inspections
and
tests,
but
schedules,
evaluations,
examinations,
descriptions,
and
similar
activities
required
by
this
part.
After
publication
of
this
rule,
we
will
list
all
of
the
inspections
and
tests
required
by
part
112
on
our
website
(www.
epa.
gov/
oilspill).
The
applicability
of
each
inspection
and
test
will
depend
on
the
exercise
of
good
engineering
practice,
because
not
every
one
will
be
applicable
to
every
facility.

Requirement
or
recommendation.
We
have
always
interpreted
and
enforced
our
rules
as
mandatory
requirements.
56
States.
Both
the
States
and
EPA
have
authority
to
regulate
containers
storing
or
using
oil.
Some
States
have
exercised
that
authority
while
others
have
not.
We
do
not
preempt
State
rules,
and
defer
to
State
law
that
is
more
stringent
than
part
112.

Time
period.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
maintenance
of
records
for
three
years
is
sufficient
for
SPCC
purposes,
since
that
period
will
allow
for
meaningful
comparisons
of
inspections
and
tests
taken.
We
note,
however,
that
certain
industry
standards,
for
example
API
Standards
570
and
653,
may
specify
record
maintenance
for
more
than
three
years.

Usual
and
customary
business
records.
Usual
and
customary
business
records
are
those
records
normally
used
in
commerce.
57
9.
Capacity
of
Facilities
Storing
Process
Water/
Wastewater
for
Response
Plan
Purposes
­
proposed
§112.20(
f)(
4)

Background:
In
1997,
we
proposed
to
add
a
new
paragraph
to
§112.20(
f)
to
provide
a
method
for
facility
response
plan
purposes
to
calculate
the
oil
storage
capacity
of
storage
containers
storing
a
mixture
of
process
water/
wastewater
with
10%
or
less
of
oil.
This
proposal
for
certain
systems
that
treat
process
water/
wastewater
would
be
applicable
at
certain
facilities
required
to
prepare
a
facility
response
plan.
It
would
have
no
effect
on
facilities
required
to
prepare
response
plans
because
they
transfer
oil
over
water
and
have
a
total
oil
storage
capacity
greater
than
or
equal
to
42,000
gallons.
Likewise,
the
proposal
would
have
no
effect
on
the
method
of
calculating
capacity
for
purposes
of
SPCC
Plans.
Under
the
proposal,
we
would
not
count
the
entire
capacity
of
process
water/
wastewater
containers
with
10%
or
less
of
oil
in
the
capacity
calculation
to
determine
whether
a
facility
must
prepare
a
facility
response
plan.
We
only
would
count
the
oil
portion
of
that
process
water/
wastewater
contained
in
§112.20(
f)(
2),
and
therefore
response
planning
is
not
necessary.

Today,
we
are
withdrawing
the
proposal
because
it
is
no
longer
necessary.
It
is
unnecessary
because
we
have
exempted
from
part
112
any
facility
or
part
thereof
(except
at
oil
production,
oil
recovery,
and
oil
recycling
facilities)
used
exclusively
for
wastewater
treatment
and
not
to
satisfy
any
requirement
of
part
112.
See
the
discussion
under
§112.1(
d)(
6).
The
exemption
in
§112.1(
d)(
6)
applies
to
the
types
of
facilities
treating
wastewater
that
would
have
been
allowed
to
calculate
a
reduced
storage
capacity
if
the
percentage
of
oil
in
the
mixture
were
10
percent
or
less.
58
10.
Facility
Response
Plan
Format
­
§112.20(
h)

Background:
In
1997,
we
proposed
to
amend
the
requirements
for
formatting
of
a
facility
response
plan
to
clarify
that
an
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
(ICP)
or
other
plan
format
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator
is
allowable
to
serve
as
a
facility
response
plan
if
it
meets
all
facility
response
plan
requirements.
Our
intent
was
to
track
language
in
the
SPCC
rule
allowing
the
Regional
Administrator
similar
authority
to
accept
differing
formats
for
SPCC
Plans.
However,
the
Regional
Administrator
already
has
the
authority
to
accept
differing
formats
for
response
plans,
and
the
existing
facility
response
plan
requirements
already
provide
for
cross­
referencing.
See
§112.20(
h).
Therefore,
new
rule
language
was
unnecessary,
and
the
proposal
tracked
current
language.
Today,
we
have
made
only
a
minor
editorial
change
in
rule
language.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
"Similarly
we
support
the
Agency's
proposal
to
allow
the
ICP
as
an
FRP."
(14,
41,
45,
47,
51,
56,
58,
61,
73).

Any
format.
Any
equivalent
format,
not
just
the
ICP
format,
should
be
an
acceptable
format
for
a
FRP
"...
so
long
as
the
alternative
format
meets
all
regulatory
requirements
and
includes
an
appropriate
cross­
reference."
(14,
41,
47,
51,
58,
61)

ICP
format
beneficial.
This
inclusion
would
simplify
compliance
with
the
FRP
rules
because
it
would
"consolidate
plans
and
eliminate
duplication."
(41)
"...(
P)
reparation
and
use
of
an
ICP
or
other
format
would
not
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
FRP
rule,
but
would
simplify
compliance
with
multiple
applicable
statutes
and
rules."
(45)
Supports
"...
EPA's
intent
for
a
FRP
that
is
equivalent
to
the
existing
requirements
without
requiring
approval
from
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator."
(47,
58,
61)
The
use
of
the
ICP
as
an
acceptable
format
for
a
FRP
would
reduce
the
burden
on
industry
while
maintaining
the
same
level
of
environmental
protection.
(65)

No
change.
The
proposed
rule
language
did
not
include
any
changes.
(14,
21,
41,
47,
58,
61)

Acceptable
formats.
"Because
of
earlier
jurisdictional
interpretations
by
EPA
regional
offices,
EPA
should
clarify
that
the
use
of
such
an
equivalent
format
for
the
SPCC
Plan
or
FRP
does
not
require
the
approval
of
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator."
(47,
52,
58,
61)

Editorial
suggestion.
"A
response
plan
shall
follow
the
format
of
the
model
facilityspecific
response
plan
included
in
Appendix
F
to
this
part,
unless
(i)
an
equivalent
response
plan
has
been
prepared
to
meet
state
or
other
Federal
requirements,
or
(ii)
an
59
ICP
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
notice
published
at
61
Fed.
Reg.
28642,
June
5,
1996."
(21)

PE
certification.
Suggests
revised
second
sentence
in
40
CFR
112.3(
d)
to
allow
a
PE
"to
more
easily
certify
the
SPCC
portion
of
an
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
(ICP)."
With
these
changes
an
ICP
will
now
"...
discuss
the
preventive
structures
such
as
tanks,
berms,
containments,
and
process
systems
of
the
SPCC
plan,
which
a
PE
can
easily
review,
quantify,
and
certify
in
accordance
with
their
license,
as
well
as
the
imprecise
response
theory
for
oil
and
hazardous
materials
releases,
fire
fighting
and
other
emergency
plans
which
are
not
within
the
scope
of
a
PE
certification."
(63)
"As
previously
submitted
relative
to
SPCC
Plans,
SPC
Corp
suggests
that
Facility
Response
Plans
may
be
prepared
by
qualified
individuals
such
as
tank/
equipment
representatives,
licensed
technicians,
personnel
with
significant
experience
in
composition
of
SPCC
and/
or
FRP
Plans
who
submit
their
draft
plans
to
independent
PE's
for
certification
in
order
to
reduce
the
financial
burden
to
the
owner/
operator.
The
existing
interpretation
often
requires
a
PE
to
physically
inspect
the
site
to
the
extent
that
certification
fees
can
outweigh
the
purchase
price
of
innovative
and
safe
onsite
equipment.
Certainly
the
Agency
does
not
want
to
see
these
"soft
costs"
discourage
the
implementation
of
a
secure
and
safe
sight."
(73)

Response:
Acceptable
formats.
It
is
not
necessary
for
the
rule
to
mention
the
ICP
or
any
other
format
specifically
because
the
rule
already
allows
the
Regional
Administrator
flexibility
to
accept
any
format
that
meets
all
Federal
requirements.
Any
format
that
contains
all
the
required
elements
of
a
response
plan
would
be
presumptively
acceptable.
See
§112.20(
h).
You
may
use
the
ICP,
a
State
response
plan,
or
other
format
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
at
your
option.
We
do
not
require
use
of
any
alternative
format,
but
merely
give
you
the
option
to
do
so.

Editorial
suggestion.
We
added
the
words
"acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator"
in
the
first
sentence
after
the
words
"response
plan."

No
change.
The
commenters
are
correct
that
the
proposed
rule
is
identical
to
the
current
rule.
The
current
rule
allows
the
submission
of
an
"equivalent
response
plan
that
has
been
prepared
to
meet
State
or
other
Federal
requirements."

Partially
acceptable
formats.
You
have
the
option
to
integrate
any
or
all
parts
of
an
ICP
with
your
response
plan.
This
gives
you
flexibility
in
formatting.
Similar
to
SPCC
Plans,
the
Regional
Administrator
may
accept
partial
use
of
alternative
formats.

PE
certification.
PE
certification
is
only
required
for
the
SPCC
portion
of
any
ICP.
60
11.
Supporting
Analyses
Background:
For
the
1997
proposed
rule,
we
performed
supporting
regulatory
analyses
in
accordance
with
Executive
Order
12866,
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
the
Edible
Oil
Regulatory
Reform
Act,
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act,
and
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act.

Comments:
Costs.
Operates
and
maintains
numerous
aboveground
storage
tanks,
of
which
"...
approximately
20%
have
a
storage
capacity
greater
than
660
gallons,
but
less
than
1,
320
gallons.
The
majority
of
U
S
WEST
facilities
only
contain
one
AST
at
any
particular
site.
When
these
tanks
are
constructed,
they
often
remain
intact
for
many
years
without
a
construction
disturbance
or
a
need
of
any
repair.
The
average
cost
to
the
Company
to
develop
an
SPCC
plan
for
these
tanks
has
been
approximately
$2,500.
U
S
WEST
corporate
policy
also
makes
responsible
environmental
management
a
company
priority.
In
doing
so,
the
Company
frequently
inspects
all
tanks
during
operations
reviews
and
audits."
(48)

Small
facilities.
Costs
do
not
vary
significantly
by
size
of
facility.
(31)
Questions
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rules
on
small
entities.
(7,
52)
We
certified
that
the
October
22,
1991
and
the
December
2,
1997
proposed
rulemakings
would
not
have
a
significant
adverse
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
and
that
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
was
done.
(7)

Disagreements
with
economic
analyses.

Electrical
equipment
facilities.
EPA
does
not
intend
to
regulate
substations
because
"...
EPA
has
not
included
substations
in
its
calculations
of
burden
imposed
by
SPCC
regulations
for
the
1991,
1996,
as
well
as
the
December
19,
1997
submittal
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget."
(57)
We
must
recalculate
the
costs
associated
with
compliance
because
we
have
significantly
underestimated
the
number
of
electric
utility
facilities
that
would
be
subject
to
the
rules
if
their
scope
included
electrical
equipment.
(70)

Information
collection
­
FRP
rule.
"(
T)
he
Agency
has
previously
estimated
that
it
requires
approximately
118
hours
for
facility
personnel
in
a
"large,
consumption
facility"
to
comply
with
the
annual
subsequent
year
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
of
the
FRP
rule
after
adjusting
for
compliance
with
other
Federal
and
State
regulations.
CasChem
believes
this
estimate
to
be
low.
CasChem
is
not
a
"large,
consumption
facility".
For
CasChem,
the
FRP
development
and
approval
process
has
been
frustrating.
Over
the
years
the
facility
has
developed
a
comprehensive
DPCC/
SPCC/
DCR.
BMP
Plan
to
incorporate
New
Jersey­
specific
and
federal
requirements.
The
Plan
has
been
developed
and
maintained
primarily
by
one
environmental
engineer
with
heavy
reliance
on
outside
consulting
61
expertise.
Our
current
FRP
is
being
revised
at
this
time
to
improve
formatting
and
to
provide
more
details.
This
effort
alone
will
take
more
than
118
hours
to
complete
at
a
cost
of
more
than
$50,000.
We
anticipate
future
annual
estimates
for
FRP
maintenance
to
require
more
than
118
hours."
(84)

Requests
for
Differentiation.

Electrical
equipment
facilities.
"The
data
presented
in
this
report
suggests
that
it
would
perhaps
be
more
appropriate
to
consider
mineral
oil
dielectric
fluids
as
more
akin
to
food
grade
oils
rather
than
to
petroleum­
based
fuels.
This
argument
is
made
based
on
comparisons
of
PAH,
metals
and
BTEX
concentrations,
as
well
as
overall
toxic
effects
exhibited
by
the
two
classes
of
materials.
Consequently,
a
release
of
dielectric
fluid
to
the
environment
does
not
have
the
same
types
of
short­
term
or
long­
term
impacts
as
less
refined
fuel­
type
oils.
This
claim
has
been
substantiated
through
observations
documented
during
and
after
the
response
action
to
the
August
1993
dielectric
fluid
release
at
Entergy's
Roland
Road
substation
near
Little
Rock,
Arkansas­­
one
of
the
two
incidents
alluded
to
in
the
introduction
to
these
comments."
(18)

Requests
for
Use
of
Other
Sources
in
Analyses.

Animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
"It
is
important
for
EPA
to
recognize
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oil
spills
can
not
reasonably
be
expected
to
cause
substantial
harm
to
the
environment.
Documented
spill
records
indicate
that
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
account
for
only
0.
4
percent
of
the
oil
spill
incidents
in
U.
S.
waters,
and
only
0.
02
percent
of
those
involved
releases
of
over
1,000
gallons.
EPA
must
agree
the
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
industry
not
only
has
an
excellent
safety
record,
but
is
committed
to
prevention
of
oil
spills
and
protecting
the
environment.
...
...(
T)
he
feed
industry,
SIC
code
2048,
is
regulated
by
EPA's
stormwater
runoff
regulation.
Feed
industry
facilities
already
administer
management
and
engineering
controls
for
the
reduction
and
prevention
of
pollutant
loading
in
storm
water.
Pollution
prevention
plans
detail
spill
prevention,
clean
up,
housekeeping
and
maintenance
programs
to
safeguard
stormwater
becoming
loaded
with
any
pollutants
from
the
grounds
of
the
facility."
(23)

Costs
­
electrical
equipment
facilities.
Has
approximately
3,
500
transmission
and
distribution
electrical
equipment
installations
potentially
subject
to
the
40
CFR
Part
112
rule.
"Insofar
as
cost
of
compliance,
generation
of
site­
specific
oil
spill
prevention
control
and
countermeasure
(SPCC)
plans
for
these
facilities
has
been
estimated
to
average
$4000
per
facility,
for
a
total
cost
for
plan
generation
of
approximately
$14
million.
In
addition,
imposing
the
requirement
for
secondary
containment
on
Entergy's
electrical
equipment
installations
would
require
expenditures
estimated
at
$30,000
per
installation,
for
a
total
cost
in
excess
of
62
$100
million.
Costs
of
plan
maintenance,
including
the
current
triennial
evaluation
and
possible
professional
engineer
recertification
of
the
site­
specific
plans,
are
uncertain,
but
would
possibly
approach
$2
million
per
year.
In
light
of
the
extremely
low
spill
rates
occurring
from
oil­
filled
electrical
devices
at
Entergy
facilities;
such
costs,
which
would
ultimately
be
shouldered
by
our
customers,
are
unjustified.
It
should
be
noted
that
for
the
time
period
encompassing
years
1993
through
1997,
oil
releases
at
Entergy
electrical
substations
totaled
seventy
incidents.
Discounting
spills
of
less
than
one
hundred
gallons,
this
number
drops
to
twenty­
five.
Of
these
releases,
two
incidents
impacted
waters
of
the
United
States.
These
numbers
translate
to
two
occurrences
per
17,
500
facility­
years."
(18)

Dielectric
fluids.
We
should
"...
consider
information
contained
within
the
Electric
Power
Research
lnstitute's
Mineral
Insulation
Oil
Characterization
Report.
This
document
was
submitted
with
the
USWAG
comments.
While
Entergy
is
aware
of
the
Agency's
recently
published
decision
document
regarding
regulation
of
vegetable
oils
and
animal
fats
under
the
Part
112
rule,
this
technical
information
should
not
be
discounted
when
evaluating
what
constitutes
a
prudent
course
of
action
for
addressing
releases
of
mineral
oil
dielectric
fluid.
The
EPRI
study
provides
an
in­
depth
comparison
of
the
chemical/
physical
characteristics
of
mineral
oil­
based
dielectric
fluids
compared
with
gasoline
and
diesel
oil."
(18)
Our
recognition
that
"...
electrical
equipment
is
fundamentally
different
from
other
oil­
storage
equipment
is
an
important
step
in
crafting
regulations
appropriate
to
this
area."
(65)

Response:
Costs.
We
recognize
that
electrical
equipment
is
not
bulk
storage
and
do
not
regulate
it
as
such.
However,
electrical
equipment
remains
subject
to
the
general
requirements
of
the
rule,
including
secondary
containment.
If
secondary
containment
is
not
practicable,
you
may
instead
provide
a
contingency
plan.
The
final
rule
also
allows
for
equivalent
prevention
plans,
which
might
include
a
multi­
facility
plan,
that
will
enable
certain
firms
to
economize
on
the
preparation
of
plans
for
similar
types
of
facilities.
We
are
also
no
longer
going
to
regulate
facilities
having
a
total
oil
storage
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less,
but
that
have
a
single
aboveground
container
in
excess
of
660
gallons.
We
will
have
a
regulatory
threshold
of
greater
than
1,320
gallons
instead.
Nor
will
we
regulate
containers
smaller
than
55
gallons.
Therefore,
the
compliance
burden
for
the
smallest
facilities
will
end.
In
summary,
however,
we
estimate
the
burden
of
the
rule
using
a
model
facility
approach,
which
differentiates
compliance
costs
by
facility
size.
We
recognize
that
some
facilities
may
actually
incur
higher
costs,
while
others
incur
lower
costs,
than
estimated
for
each
model
facility.
We
did
perform
a
small
business
analysis
for
our
1991
proposed
rulemaking,
which
was
included
in
our
economic
impact
analysis
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
(January
1991).
The
commenter
is
correct,
though,
that
we
did
not
perform
a
formal
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
for
our
1997
proposed
63
rulemaking
because
the
proposed
revisions
were
deregulatory
in
nature
and
posed
no
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

Electrical
equipment
facilities.
Substations
are
included
in
the
scope
of
the
SPCC
rule,
and
we
have
included
them
in
our
burden
calculations
for
the
final
rule.
Our
1996
SPCC
renewal
ICR
adjusted
upwards
the
burden
estimate
for
utilities
for
the
number
of
SPCCregulated
electrical
equipment
based
on
similar
comments
received
during
that
renewal
period.

Information
collection
­
FRP
rule.
We
acknowledge
the
final
comment
concerning
the
information
collection
burden
for
response
facilities,
but
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rulemaking
because
the
proposed
revision
to
§112.20(
f)
has
been
withdrawn.
We
will
consider
your
comment
in
future
reviews
of
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
FRP
rule.

Requests
for
Differentiation.
Because
at
the
present
time
EPA
has
not
proposed
differentiated
requirements
for
public
notice
and
comment,
the
requirements
for
facilities
storing
or
using
all
classes
of
oil
will
remain
the
same.
We
have,
however,
established
separate
rule
sections
for
facilities
storing
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
We
also
have
published
an
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
seeking
comments
on
how
we
might
differentiate
requirements
for
facilities
storing
or
using
the
various
classes
of
oil.
64
FR
17227,
April
8,
1999.
After
considering
these
comments,
if
there
is
adequate
justification
for
differentiation,
we
will
propose
a
rule.

Requests
for
Use
of
Other
Sources
in
Analyses
Dielectric
fluids.
We
have
reviewed
the
document
mentioned.
We
will
also
consider
it
in
our
upcoming
proposed
rule
to
consider
differentiated
requirements
for
facilities
storing
or
using
different
types
of
oils.
64
12.
Miscellaneous
Comments
Applicability.
We
should
provide
guidance
to
clarify
the
applicability
of
SPCC
plan
regulations
at
40
CFR
112.3(
a).
"...(
I)
n
relation
to
`due
to
their
location,
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
in
harmful
quantities
into
navigable
waters
or
adjoining
shore
lines.
'
What
does
`due
to
location'
mean?
What
does
"reasonably
expected"
mean?"
(L4)

Applicable
items.
Section
112.7,
"Guidelines
for
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
a
Spill
Prevention
Control
and
Countermeasure
Plan,"
should
read
as
follows:
"The
complete
SPCC
plan
shall
follow
the
sequence
outline
below,
but
listing
only
applicable
items,
unless
it
is
in
another
format
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
such
as
described
in
112.2,
and
include
a
discussion
of
the
facility's
conformance
with
the
appropriate
guidelines
listed."
"This
change
is
intended
to
clarify
that
SPCC
plans
are
only
required
to
contain
a
citation
of
all
112.7
items
that
are
applicable,
rather
than
list
all
non­
applicable
items
too
and
explain
why.
This
will
simplify
SPCC
plan
preparation
and
avoid
violation
notices
about
missing
non­
applicable
items.
(44)

Burden
reduction.
"In
the
supplemental
December
1997
proposal,
EPA
has
done
so
in
certain
respects
by
proposing
a
few
amendments
to
the
SPCC
and
OPA
rules.
While
these
efforts
are
certainly
laudatory,
they
fail
to
address
the
basic
problem
with
the
SPCC
program,
which
is
the
Agency's
attempt
to
impose
a
"one­
size­
fits­
all"
regulatory
program
on
facilities
that
differ
by
orders
of
magnitude
in
size,
characteristics,
method
of
operation,
and
risk
to
the
environment."
(31)
"Such
burdens
can
be
reduced
a
lot
more
by
having
the
SPCC
Plan
actually
written
as
a
plan....
Simply
put,
a
Plan
should
tell
someone
how
to
do
something,
not
how
it
is
being
done
or
what
they
should
consider
doing
or
what
they
are
not
doing!"
(40)

Certification
by
other
environmental
professionals.
We
should
accept
other
environmental
professionals
for
Plan
certification.
(33,
44,
62,
63,
64,
73)
"The
Environmental
Professional
who
provides
certification
for
review
of
and
amendment
to
the
SPCC
Plan
should
be
familiar
with
40
CFR
112,
the
facility,
and
the
facility's
operations.
The
DFW
Airport
Board
anticipates
that
the
Environmental
Professional
responsible
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
SWPPP
would
also
be
responsible
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
SPCC
Plan."
(33)
"...(
I)
t
is
also
timely
to
consider
the
addition
of
another
professional
group
(other
than
Professional
Engineers)
to
sign­
off
on
the
appropriate
documentation.
Specifically,
we
are
proposing
the
new
provisions
state
the
inclusion
of
either
a
Professional
Engineer
or
a
Master­
Level
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
as
authorized
signators."
The
commenter
continued
to
describe
the
qualifications
of
a
Master­
Level
CHMM
as
well
as
point
out
that
other
Federal
agencies,
such
as
the
DOE,
DOT,
Corps
of
Engineers
and
branches
of
the
DOD,
that
have
recognized
the
benefits
of
CHMMs.
(62)
Endorses
the
eligibility
of
other
qualified
individuals
to
certify
a
Plan.
If
a
facility
"...
does
not
have
a
registered
professional
65
engineer
for
a
particular
state,
it
must
hire
one,
at
some
cost,
to
review
the
plans
prepared
by
internal,
non­
PE
staff.
Questar
believes
that
this
cost
is
unnecessary
since
good
engineering
practice,
like
best
management
practices
in
water
pollution
control,
are
not
the
exclusive
province
of
the
engineer.
Questar
further
believes
that
individuals
who
are
familiar
with
particular
facilities
and
with
the
local
meteorology,
who
understand
the
operations
of
the
facilities
and
who
are
familiar
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
112,
can
(and
should)
develop
spill
prevention
plans.
The
qualification
of
the
PE,
while
valuable
in
many
other
respects,
is
unnecessary
for
this
pursuit."
(64)
Suggests
that
the
site
preparation
of
the
SPCC
plan
be
expanded
to
include
"...
qualified
individuals
such
as
representatives
of
the
tank
manufacturer,
licensed
technicians,
personnel
with
significant
experience
in
composition
of
SPCC
or
FRP
Plans
who
submit
their
draft
plans
to
independent
PE's
for
certification
in
order
to
reduce
the
financial
burden
to
the
owner/
operator.
The
existing
interpretation
often
requires
a
PE
to
physically
inspect
the
site
to
the
extent
that
certification
fees
can
outweigh
the
purchase
price
of
innovative
and
safe
equipment.
Certainly
the
Agency
does
not
want
to
see
these
"soft
costs"
discourage
the
implementation
of
a
secure
and
safe
site."
(73)

Completely
buried
tanks.
"Update
portions
dealing
with
underground
storage
tanks
as
they
are
now
covered
by
other
regulations."
(40)
"The
EPA
includes
underground
storage
tank
(UST)
capacity
in
the
applicability
section
and
the
bulk
storage
tank
section
of
the
rule.
40
CFR
112,
implemented
in
1973,
is
an
above
ground
storage
tank
(AST)
rule
while
40
CFR
280,
implemented
in
1988,
is
a
UST
rule.
The
newer
40
CFR
280
rule
very
clearly
establishes
UST
construction,
spill
prevention,
and
release
detection
standards
which
are
more
detailed
and
more
stringent
than
the
older
SPCC
rule.
FPC
requests
the
EPA
acknowledge
the
replacement
of
the
UST
portions
of
the
SPCC
rule
by
40
CFR
280
by
removing
the
duplicative
and
confusing
sections
of
40
CFR
112,
specifically,
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
I),
112.7(
e)(
2)(
iv),
and
112.7(
e)(
2)(
v)
should
be
deleted."
(63)

"Delegated"
States.
We
should
urge
delegated
states
to
change
their
corresponding
regulations
to
match
our
regulations
so
that
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
changes
in
the
SPCC
plan
can
be
fully
realized.
(67)

Endorsed
comments.

API.
Supports
proposed
revisions,
refers
us
to
API
comments
submitted
on
the
1997
proposal,
which
proposed
additional
revisions
in
regard
to
underground
storage
tank
thresholds.
(24,
50)

USWAG.
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(USWAG)
member
endorses
the
comments
filed
on
its
behalf
under
separate
cover.
(35)
Supports
comments
submitted
by
the
USWAG,
the
Edison
Electric
Institute,
the
American
Public
Power
Association,
and
the
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association
66
(collectively,
"USWAG"),
on
the
subject
proposed
rule.
Reiterates
support
for
the
USWAG
comments
previously
submitted
on
the
1991
and
1993
SPCC
proposals
(56
Fed.
Reg.
54612
and
58
Fed.
Reg.
8824,
respectively).
(69)

FRP
applicability.
"For
Facility
Response
Plans,
require
that
the
Plan
identify
those
locations
from
which
a
release
can
be
monitored,
and
those
locations
where
access
to
the
river
can
be
achieved
for
the
equipment
necessary
to
contain
and
to
recover
a
release.
That
way
the
response
people/
contractor
knows
where
to
go.
These
locations
should
be
identified
by
name,
by
directions
from
major
streets
(so
that
information
can
be
conveyed
by
telephone,
by
map,
and
by
the
ETA
after
a
release
based
on
no
less
than
three
flow
conditions
(low
flow,
typical
flow,
high­
water
flow).
I
have
developed
a
means
to
estimate
the
center­
of­
stream
flow
rate
at
any
point
in
time.
The
width
of
selected
bridges
downstream
are
measured
and
a
chart
prepared
giving
the
flow
rate
based
on
how
long
it
takes
an
object
to
float
under
the
bridge.
I
recommend
6­
inch
pieces
of
2
by
4
painted
fluorescent
orange
along
with
a
large
flashlight
and
a
watch
with
a
second
hand."
(40)
Recommends
that
40
CFR
112.20(
e),
which
requires
facilities
not
otherwise
subject
to
facility
response
planning
regulation
to
certify
non­
applicability,
be
deleted.
(L4)

Inspection
periods.
Asks
that
"...
this
section
of
the
regulatory
text
describe
in
more
specific
terms
the
inspection
periods
to
be
once
a
year.
This
will
aid
in
the
elimination
of
collapsed
AST's
in
2
or
3
years
after
the
last
integrity
testing
further
reducing
the
threat
or
potential
of
a
threat
of
environmental
impact
subject
to
AST's
collapsing."
(1)

Integrity
testing.
Suggests
"1.
A
maximum
interval
for
testing
of
tanks,
etc.
needs
to
be
specified,
such
as
not
less
than
5
years
on
tanks
10
years
old
or
older;
2.
It
needs
to
be
clarified
if
the
visual
inspection
means
an
internal
inspection;
and,
3.
It
needs
to
be
clarified
if
these
periodic
inspections
must
be
conducted
by
or
under
the
direction
of
a
qualified
professional
engineer
(especially
when
structural
and
foundation
inspections
are
a
part
of
the
work
­
that
is
engineering
work)."
(40)

Loading
areas.
Disagrees
with
the
proposed
40
CFR
112.7(
h)(
2).
"(
V)
ery
few
facilities
provide
such
containment.
Most
facilities
depend
on
continuous
attendance
during
loading/
unloading
and
the
use
of
drip
pans
or
buckets
to
prevent
spills
of
any
size
at
the
truck
or
tank
car.
Requiring
secondary
containments
for
tank
car
and
tank
truck
loading
areas
is
a
very
costly
requirement
especially
for
small
businesses
which
has
very
little
payback
in
terms
of
spill
prevention
beyond
present
practices."
(7)

Points
out
two
situations
where
the
rule
provisions
on
loading
areas
poses
a
burden
on
facilities:
(1)
An
industrial
facility
has
a
1,
500
gallon
aboveground
storage
tank
for
the
collection
of
used
oil
generated
during
equipment
maintenance.
A
4,
500
gallon
single
compartment
tanker
truck
comes
three
times
a
year
to
ship
the
used
oil
to
a
recycler.
According
to
U.
S.
EPA
interpretation,
the
facility
would
have
to
provide
4,
500
gallons
of
67
containment
for
a
bulk
tanker
truck
for
an
aboveground
tank
that
is
only
1,
500
gallons
in
volume.;
and,
(2)
An
industrial
facility
has
three
500
gallon
tanks
to
provide
diesel
fuel
at
different
locations
around
the
plant.
One
500
gallon
tank
provides
fuel
to
a
diesel
pump
that
is
a
back­
up
system
for
the
plant's
fire
protection.
The
other
two
500
gallon
tanks
are
used
to
fuel
plant
vehicles.
Each
of
the
three
tanks
is
filled
approximately
once
or
twice
each
year
from
a
4,
500
gallon
single
compartment
tanker
truck.
According
to
U.
S.
EPA
interpretation,
the
facility
would
have
to
provide
4,
500
gallons
of
containment
in
three
separate
locations
for
three
500
gallon
aboveground
tanks.
Installation
of
containment
structures
for
tanker
trucks
is
costly,
requires
significant
space,
and
typically
raises
issues
of
handling
collected
storm
water.
The
current
rules
are
burdensome
for
these
facilities
where
small
volume
transfers
occur
on
an
infrequent
basis."
"A
requirement
for
written
procedure
regarding
loading/
unloading
operations
could
be
included
in
the
SPCC
Plan
in
lieu
of
providing
containment
for
the
tanker
truck
...
Although
this
method
may
create
additional
paperwork,
the
overall
economic
burden
to
the
facility
is
significantly
reduced,
yet
a
similar
level
of
environmental
protection
is
provided."
(12)

"Clarify
112.7(
e)(
4)
or
define
"Rack".
Most
unloading
and
many
loading
points
are
not
an
actual
rack
but
a
coupling
outside
the
tank
containment
area.
Many
SPCC
Plans
[do]
not
address
the
potential
of
a
spill
from
such
locations."
(40)
"Also
regarding
racks,
the
use
of
the
largest
compartment
of
the
vehicle
is
reasonable
for
unloading,
but
may
fall
way
short
for
loading
considerations
­
the
potential
spill
would
be
the
capacity
of
the
tank.
The
containment
required
for
both
instances
should
be
based
on
the
fact
that
such
operations
should
be
attended
and
controlled.
The
secondary
containment
should
be
a
function
of
flow
rates,
time
to
respond,
and
the
fail­
safe
features
of
the
response
action."
(40)
Bulk
petroleum
loading/
unloading
at
trucking
facilities
are
considered
"in
transport"
and
therefore
are
under
USDOT
regulations,
not
SPCC.
Cities
January
6,
1998
publication
of
the
List
of
Regulated
Substances
and
Thresholds
for
Accidental
Release
Prevention;
Amendments
(63
FR
640).
Explains
that
the
volume
of
spills
from
such
unloading
operations
are
small,
and
compliance
under
SPCC
requirements
would
involve
enormous
costs.
(42)

"...(
M)
ember
cooperatives,
in
addition
to
secondary
containment
for
these
tanks,
are
required
to
install
a
containment
system
in
loading
and
unloading
areas
where
there
is
no
catchment
basin,
treatment
facility,
or
a
quick
drainage
system
to
handle
spills
as
per
112.7(
e)(
4)(
ii).
This
means
a
concrete
spill
pad
for
company­
use
tanks
such
as
two­
1000
gallon
tanks
must
have
the
capacity
to
hold
whatever
the
maximum
capacity
of
the
largest
tank
truck
compartment
(typically
600
gallons).
Small
tank
sites
are
required
to
go
through
all
the
steps
in
developing
a
SPCC
plan
as
would
a
larger
petroleum
storage
facility.
This
simply
does
not
make
sense
and
is
highly
resented
by
the
smaller
operators.
There
needs
to
be
a
more
simple,
less
expensive
way
of
doing
this
for
the
small
operator."
(71)
68
More
information.
"Enforce
the
Rule
you've
got!
I
can't
drive
40
miles
without
seeing
tanks
without
secondary
containment.
Require
the
O/
O
submit
a
letter
to
the
EPA
stating
that
they
have
a
SPCC
Plan
for
each
facility
over
the
threshold,
and
state
who
is
the
certifying
engineer.
That
list
can
be
checked
against
registrations
of
above
ground
tanks
now
required
by
at
least
some
of
the
states.
Also,
it
is
one
thing
to
ignore
the
rule,
another
to
falsify
information."
(40)

Oil,
definition
of.
We
should
publish
a
specific
definition
of
oil
to
reflect
the
method
of
calculating
the
storage
capacity
for
tanks
containing
oil/
water
mixtures
for
potential
substantial
harm
facilities.
Wants
a
revised
definition
in
order
to
"...
clarify
what
types
of
substances
actually
qualify
as
oil
under
these
rules.
The
current
definition
is
broad
and
ambiguous.
Manufacturing
facilities
use
many
kinds
of
solvents
and
machining
fluids.
Many
are
derived
from
a
petroleum
base.
Under
the
current
definition,
such
solvents
as
napthas,
hexane,
mineral
spirits,
toluene
and
xylene
could
be
considered
oil.
General
Motors
believes
that
this
is
not
the
intent
of
the
SPCC
rules,
and
that
solvents
should
not
be
included
in
the
definition
of
oil."
(51)

PE­
related
issues.

Mandatory
requirements,
PEs.
Concerned
that
elements
of
the
previous
proposed
rules
for
the
SPCC
Program,
such
as
the
1991
proposed
rules,
are
"...
not
consistent
with
this
tenor
of
conciliation
and
flexibility.
E.
g.,
making
the
guidance
in
40
CFR
112.7
mandatory
and
requiring
third
party
professional
engineers
for
certification
is
proceeding
in
a
direction
opposite
to
that
which
the
subject
proposed
rule
goes
and,
we
emphasize,
opposite
to
that
which
we
should
be
going."
(14)

PE
notification.
"Require
that
the
certifying
PE
be
notified
when
a
reportable
spill
occurs,
when
changes
are
made
to
the
secondary
containment
system,
when
a
tank
or
loading/
unloading
point
is
added,
or
when
a
tank
is
replaced
with
a
larger
tank."
(40)

Secondary
containment.
Surprised
that
the
revised
proposal
did
not
address
40
CFR
112.7(
c),
which
requires
secondary
containment,
including
the
walls
and
floor,
to
be
impervious
to
oil
for
72
hours.
The
associated
compliance
costs
for
this
proposed
requirement
well
exceed
any
possible
benefit
and
it
would
be
a
detriment.
(32)

Accumulation
of
storm
water.
"Specify
what
`an
accumulation
of
storm
water
means'.
The
1991
proposed
rule
noted
the
25­
year
return,
24­
hour
duration
storm.
This
is
on
the
order
of
6
to
8
inches
of
rain
at
many
facilities
in
the
midwest
and
southeast.
Many
facilities
only
have
a
12
inch
curb
and
cannot
contain
more
than
a
2
or
3
inchrainfallwithout
their
secondary
containment
being
insufficient
for
the
largest
tank."
(40)
69
Available
secondary
containment.
"Specify
who
is
to
calculate
the
available
containment,
the
plant
operator
or
the
certifying
engineer.
Plant
operators
often
do
not
deduct
for
the
footprint
of
other
tanks
within
the
containment,
or
do
not
allow
for
precipitation
off
of
roofs
or
drainage
onto
the
site.
One
client
installed
a
new
culvert
under
railroad
tracks
to
triple
the
containment
capacity.
The
problem
was
that
the
product
was
asphaltic
cement
that
would
have
to
flow
through
any
standing
water
in
the
pipes
and
equalize
out
before
over­
topping
the
first
containment
area.
Also,
the
final
free­
board
was
only
1
inch."
(40)

Double­
walled
tanks.
"
We
have
recently
upgraded
the
storage
tanks
at
this
facility.
Each
of
the
four
(4)
buried
tanks
has
been
removed.
Each
system
was
more
than
20
years
old
and
represented
a
potential
source
of
contamination
to
the
groundwater.
Four
new
above­
ground
double
walled
storage
vaults
have
been
installed
with
all
the
extra
bells
and
whistles:
leak
detection
systems,
high
and
low
level
alarms,
and
overspill
protection.
The
present
situation
is
much
more
environmentally
friendly.
The
potential
for
a
spill
is
less
today
than
ever
before.
HOWEVER,
according
to
the
proposed
rule,
the
U.
S.
Army
will
now
be
required
to
have
a
"PE
certified"
spill
plan
on
hand."
(L3)

Impermeability.
"EPA
should
confirm
that
the
term
"impervious"
to
oil
for
72
hours
means
that
the
containment
system
ensures
that
oil
is
not
discharged
to
navigable
waters
within
72
hours,
a
determination
to
be
based
on
good
engineering
practice."
(70)

Impracticability.
"The
EPA
should
modify
the
proposal
to
eliminate
elements
that
are
impracticable
(i.
e.,
secondary
containment
for
electrical
equipment)
or
that
impose
undue
costs
compared
with
the
avoided
risk
(i.
e.,
certification
by
an
independent,
rather
than
in­
house
engineer;
preparation
of
an
OPA
response
plan
where
secondary
containment
is
impractical)."
(70)

Manmade
structures.
"The
EPA
should
modify
the
risk
criteria
to
ensure
that
only
facilities
that
pose
a
real
risk
of
harm
to
navigable
waters
are
covered
by
the
program
(i.
e.,
the
fact
that
oil
may
create
a
sheen
on
the
water
is
not
the
type
of
"harm"
envisioned
by
the
statute
and
regulatory
costs
should
not
be
imposed
to
avoid
minimal
or
theoretical
risks;
manmade
structures
that
serve
operational
purposes
should
be
considered
in
evaluating
the
risk
posed
by
a
facility)."
(70)

Secondary
containment,
changes
in.
"Require
that
the
plant
operator
sign­
off
on
a
memo
to
the
file
whenever
the
capacity
of
the
secondary
containment
system
is
decreased
either
temporarily
or
permanently.
The
memo
should
list
contingency
plans,
temporary
containment
measures
or
mitigating
measures
(e.
g.,
reduce
tank
volumes).
This
happens
quite
often
when
some
construction
is
going
on
inside
the
70
containment
­
sometimes
even
to
the
point
that
no
significant
secondary
containment
capacity
remains
in
place."
(40)

Sufficient
freeboard.
"Specify
a
required
freeboard.
Many
people
check
the
capacity
but
fail
to
recognize
that
if
the
final
freeboard
is
only
1
or
2
inches
then
oil
may
be
released."
(40)

"Should
to
Shall
to
Must
"Clarification.
"Ford
believes
that
absent
`shall',
all
`should'
language
represents
agency
preference
and
possibly,
good
practice.
There
may
be
other
ways
to
accomplish
the
same
thing.
Thus,
only
`shalls'
indicate
regulatory
requirements
and
inflexibility."
(44)
"Although
there
is
some
merit
to
the
agency's
legal
interpretation
of
this
matter
(in
interpreting
should
to
mean
shall
because
of
the
mandatory
language
of
112.3)
we
believe
that
changing
this
language
to
reflect
all
shalls
throughout
the
rule
is
unnecessary.
PNM
believes
that
such
a
change
would
eliminate
the
needed
flexibility
that
implementation
of
this
rule
demands
due
to
the
differences
in
facility
age
and
design."
(79)

Tank
manufacturer
liability.
"...
(T)
he
tank
manufacturer
remains
the
most
knowledgeable
entity
in
how
his/
her
tank
design
complies
with
all
pertinent
UST
or
AST
requirements.
Therefore,
failure
to
inform
a
prospective
client
could
naturally
result
in
a
subrogated
liability
against
the
tank
manufacturer.
Such
a
movement
is
already
taking
place
as
demonstrated
in
the
December
7­
11,
1997
Uniform
Fire
Code
Hearings
in
Tucson,
Arizona."
(73)

Warning
lights,
etc.
We
should
reconsider
40
CFR
112.7(
h)(
2).
(7)

Response:
Applicability.
The
issue
of
whether
a
facility
can
due
to
its
location
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
in
harmful
quantities
into
navigable
waters
or
adjoining
shore
lines
is
in
the
first
instance
a
judgment
requiring
application
of
good
engineering
practice.
See
§112.1(
b).
If
the
RA
disagrees
with
the
facility's
determination,
he
may
require
the
preparation
of
either
a
total
or
partial
plan.
See
§112.1(
f).

Applicable
items.
For
a
discussion
on
applicable
items
in
an
SPCC
Plan,
see
§112.7(
a)(
2)
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
See
also
the
discussion
on
good
engineering
practice
under
§112.3(
d).

Burden
reduction.
We
disagree
that
the
rule
does
not
do
anything
to
reduce
the
record
keeping
or
the
information
collection
burden.
Burden
is
reduced
by
approximately
40%
over
the
current
rule.
We
believe
that
performance
standards,
rather
than
design
standards,
are
preferable,
because
they
give
a
facility
flexibility
to
accomplish
prevention
requirements
in
the
most
efficient
way.
71
Certification
by
other
environmental
professionals.
See
the
discussion
under
§112.3(
d)
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Completely
buried
tanks.
For
a
discussion
on
the
applicability
of
the
SPCC
rule
to
completely
buried
tanks,
see
the
discussion
under
§112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
in
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

"Delegated"
States.
We
note
that
we
do
not
delegate
our
authority
under
the
SPCC
program
to
States.
For
a
discussion
of
State
prevention
rules,
see
§112.7(
j)
of
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

FRP
applicability.
The
issue
concerning
§112.20(
e)
is
covered
in
the
Comment
Response
Document
for
the
1993
final
rule.

Inspection
periods.
For
a
discussion
of
the
merits
of
prescribed
inspection
frequencies
or
the
use
of
industry
standards,
see
section
IV.
J
of
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Integrity
testing.
We
address
integrity
testing
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
in
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
See
§§
112.7(
d)
and
112.8(
c)(
6).

Loading
areas.
For
a
discussion
on
loading
areas,
see
§112.7(
h)
in
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
See
also
40
CFR
part
112,
Appendix
A,
section
II.(
I).

More
information.
We
disagree
that
we
should
require
the
owner
or
operator
to
submit
a
letter
to
the
EPA
stating
that
he
has
an
SPCC
Plan
for
each
facility
over
the
threshold,
and
stating
who
is
the
certifying
engineer.
This
information
may
be
ascertained
by
onsite
inspection.

Oil,
definition
of.
Should
you
have
any
question
about
a
specific
substance,
you
should
contact
the
appropriate
Regional
SPCC
program.
See
also
the
discussion
concerning
the
definition
under
§112.2
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

PE­
related
issues.
See
the
discussion
under
section
IV.
D
and
§112.3(
d)
of
today's
preamble
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Mandatory
requirements,
PEs.
We
disagree
that
we
are
"going
in
the
wrong
direction"
by
clarifying
that
the
rules
are
mandatory.
We
note
that
we
are
not
requiring
a
third
party
PE
for
certification.
See
the
discussion
under
section
IV.
D
and
§112.3(
d)
of
today's
preamble
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
72
PE
notification.
We
address
PE­
related
issues
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
under
section
IV.
D
and
§112.3(
d)
and
in
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Secondary
containment.
We
address
secondary
containment
issues
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
in
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
See
§§
112.7(
c),
112.7(
h)(
1),
112.8(
c)(
2),
112.8(
c)(
11),
112.9(
c)(
2),
and
112.10(
c).

Accumulation
of
storm
water.
Concerning
"sufficient
freeboard"
see
the
discussion
under
§112.8(
c)(
2)
in
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Available
secondary
containment.
We
address
secondary
containment
issues
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
in
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
See
§§
112.7(
c),
112.7(
h)(
1),
112.8(
c)(
2),
112.8(
c)(
11),
112.9(
c)(
2),
and
112.10(
c).
See
also
the
discussion
concerning
the
definition
of
"storage
capacity"
at
§112.2
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Impermeability.
See
the
discussion
under
§§
112.7(
c)
and
112.8(
c)(
2)
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Manmade
structures.
See
also
the
discussion
under
§112.1(
d)(
1)(
i)
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Sufficient
freeboard.
Concerning
"sufficient
freeboard"
see
the
discussion
under
§112.8(
c)(
2)
in
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

"Should
to
Shall
to
Must
"Clarification.
For
a
discussion
of
the
"should
to
shall
to
must"
editorial
clarification,
see
section
IV.
C
of
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.

Tank
manufacturer
liability.
Tank
manufacturer
liability
is
an
issue
for
the
courts,
not
this
rulemaking.

Warning
lights,
etc.
We
address
warning
lights
in
the
preamble
to
today's
final
rule
and
in
the
1991
Comment
Response
Document.
See
§112.7(
h)(
2).
