Information
Collection
Request
Burden
Study
For
Nine
FRP
Facilities
Presentation
on
Lessons
Learned
and
Recommendations
February
12,
2004
Kenneth
Davidson
Kristina
Watts
Abt
Associates
Inc.

For:
Overview
°
The
study
was
initiated
in
response
to
OMB's
terms
of
clearance
for
the
current
Facility
Response
Plan
regulation
ICR
(
FRP
ICR
No.
1630.07,
approved
May
2,
2001).

°
"
When
EPA
resubmits
the
ICR
for
renewal,
the
Agency
must
evaluate,
after
consulting
with
respondents,
the
burden
estimates
for
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements."

°
Previous
burden
estimates
were
difficult
to
collect
due
to
FRP
facility
privacy
concerns
or
lack
of
information.

°
EPA
instead
relied
on
existing
burden
and
cost
information,
combined
with
EPA
regional
staff
input
and
best
professional
judgement.

°
For
this
study,
the
contractor
interviewed
nine
substantial
harm
facilities
across
the
United
States
to
collect
burden
information,
with
the
promise
of
facility
anonymity.

°
The
study
was
designed
to
select
facilities
based
on
size,
type,
industry
sector
classification,
and
location
by
EPA
region.

°
The
study
provided
useful
information
on
the
relative
magnitude
of
burden
on
selected
facilities,
but
may
not
be
representative
of
the
entire
FRP­
regulated
universe,
due
to
small
sample
size.

°
Study
results
suggest
that
EPA's
burden
estimates
from
the
May
2,
2001
ICR
adequately
capture
industry
practices.

°
Information
regarding
other
response
issues
and
considerations
encountered
by
the
participating
facilities
was
also
documented.
Lessons
Learned
°
Most
facility
representatives
indicated
that
they
understand
the
need
for
response
plan
regulation
and
feel
that
it
is
appropriate.
They
do
not
find
FRP
maintenance
to
be
overly
burdensome.

°
Much
of
the
facility
contact
information
provided
by
the
regions
was
outdated
or
incorrect.

°
FRP
contact
information
may
include
a
P.
O.
Box
for
the
facility
address.

°
Many
facilities
complained
about
the
redundancy
of
response
plan
requirements
among
EPA,
Coast
Guard,
and
state
agencies.
Facility
representatives
may
not
fully
understand
the
differences
among
each
agency's
response
plan
requirements.

°
Slight
differences
in
requirements
among
the
different
agencies'
plans
tend
to
cause
frustration
and
confusion.
In
an
integrated
plan,
the
section
crossreferencing
the
dual
requirements
is
often
confusing
and
difficult
to
use;
it
makes
the
plan
harder
to
use.

°
Most
facility
representatives
indicated
a
lack
of
communication
with
EPA
after
FRP
submission.

°
Some
facilities
were
unclear
about
each
agency's
role
(
EPA,
State,
and
Coast
Guard)
in
spill
response
procedures
such
as
training,
drills,
and
actual
spill
response.

°
The
Emergency
Response
Action
Plan
(
ERAP)
appears
to
be
the
most
useful
section
of
the
FRP.
Facility
representatives
noted
that
it
was
the
only
part
of
the
plan
ever
actually
used.

°
Some
facilities
do
not
understand
the
relationship
between
FRP
and
SPCC.
One
facility
representative
had
not
known
until
recently
of
the
existence
of
the
facility's
SPCC
Plan,
and
another
facility's
representative
sees
a
great
deal
of
overlap
and
does
not
understand
why
two
separate
plans
are
needed.

°
There
is
currently
no
way
of
quickly
determining
which
FRP
facilities
have
ICPs.

°
Most
of
the
FRP
preparation
and
implementation
burden
falls
upon
one
person
at
each
company,
the
environmental
compliance
manager
or
equivalent.
Rates
of
compensation
vary
greatly.
Specific
Comments
from
Facility
Representatives
°
One
facility
representative
found
conflicts
between
EPA
and
state
response
planning
regulations,
involving
the
calculation
of
natural
dissipation.

°
A
facility
representative
in
Alaska
finds
EPA
FRP
guidance
less
useful
than
state
guidance.

°
One
facility
representative
feels
that
if
there
was
a
large
spill
incident,
the
state
agency
would
be
more
likely
than
EPA
to
come
to
investigate
or
aid
in
cleanup.

°
The
navigable
water
near
one
facility
that
causes
it
to
fall
under
the
"
substantial
harm"
category
is
an
intermittent
stream
which
flows
at
most
once
per
year.
The
closest
OSRO
is
about
800
miles
away,
with
a
response
time
of
approximately
24
hours.

°
A
facility
representative
received
very
thorough
reviews
of
the
FRPs
for
two
of
her
facilities.
She
said
there
were
comments
and
suggestions
laid
out
in
a
"
wonderful"
section­
by­
section
format
that
she
can
use
as
a
check­
list
in
future
revisions.

°
In
anticipation
of
an
FRP
inspection,
the
staff
at
one
facility
worked
hard
to
make
sure
all
the
areas
of
the
facility
were
ready
and
in
good
shape.
The
facility
representative
was
disappointed
when
the
inspector
only
stayed
onsite
for
2­
3
hours.
He
never
left
the
conference
room,
except
to
briefly
look
at
response
equipment
on
his
way
out.
The
inspector
did
compliment
the
facility's
plan
and
layout;
this
seemed
more
important
to
the
inspector
than
the
plan's
usefulness
to
the
company.

°
One
facility
representative
noted
that
their
contractor
did
a
poor
job
preparing
the
FRP
document,
and
was
forced
to
"
completely
overhaul"
the
plan.
Where
review
should
have
only
taken
approximately
40
hours,
it
took
two
and
a
half
months.
Recommendations
°
Develop
a
very
simple
method
for
facilities
to
submit
new
information
when
a
contact
person,
phone
number,
facility
name,
etc.
changes.
Upon
receipt
of
an
FRP,
regions
should
verify
that
contact
information
is
accurate
and
complete.

°
Require
facilities
to
provide
their
physical
address,
and
ensure
that
this
address
is
recorded
in
regional
FRP
contact
databases.

°
Upon
receipt
of
an
FRP,
regions
should
record
whether
or
not
the
FRP
is
part
of
an
Integrated
Contingency
Plan.
This
could
be
as
simple
as
a
standardized
check
box
in
the
database.

°
Coordinate
with
Enforcement
to
ensure
that
the
reporting
requirements
of
significant
changes
in
capacity
are
being
met.

°
EPA
should
confirm
receipt
when
it
receives
a
submitted
FRP.
This
is
especially
important
for
"
substantial
harm"
facility
FRP's
that
do
not
require
EPA
approval.

°
If
EPA
determines
that
an
FRP
requires
revision,
it
should
communicate
these
revisions
in
a
timely
and
organized
manner.
We
recommend
that
regions
consider
the
FRP
review
format
Region
10
used
to
submit
comments
to
the
facility
in
Alaska.

°
Provide
clearer
outreach
and
education
emphasizing
the
unique
aspects
of
the
EPA's
FRP
requirements
and
the
SPCC
planning
requirements,
as
well
as
the
unique
aspects
of
the
FRP
requirements
compared
to
the
response
planning
requirements
of
other
agencies
(
such
as
the
Coast
Guard
and
state
agencies).
Explain
why
the
differences
between
response
planning
requirements
are
necessary.

°
Outreach
is
needed
to
inform
facilities
that
the
rule
appendices
are
binding
regulatory
material.
One
facility
representative
referred
to
the
appendices
as
"
guidance."

°
Region
10
should
investigate
the
potential
conflict
between
EPA
and
state
guidance
when
calculating
natural
dissipation.

°
More
regional
training
and
outreach
is
needed
to
educate
facility
representatives
on
each
agency's
role
and
responsibilities
in
regard
to
response
planning.

°
EPA
anticipates
that
a
number
of
large
production
facilities
may
prepare
an
FRP
for
the
first
time
during
the
three­
year
ICR
review
period.
Because
the
FRP
burden
study
did
not
capture
the
burden
associated
with
large
production
facilities,
a
new
investigation
of
this
burden
may
be
necessary.

Attachments
Exhibits
1
and
2
display
the
total
facility
burden
estimates
associated
with
the
FRP
regulations.
Exhibit
1
presents
the
one­
time
burden
associated
with
the
preparation
of
a
new
FRP.
Exhibit
2
presents
burden
associated
with
annual
FRP
maintenance.
Both
exhibits
are
taken
from
the
FRP
ICR
renewal
supporting
statement
titled,
"
Renewal
of
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Implementation
of
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
Facility
Response
Plan
Requirements
(
40
CFR
Part
112)."
EXHIBIT
1
Adjusted
Burden
and
Unit
Cost
for
New
Facilities
Required
to
Prepare
FRPs1
Size
Model
Facility
Category
Unit
Burden
(
hours)
Facility
Labor
Cost
O&
M
Costs
Capital
Cost
Total
Unit
Cost
Number
of
Facilities
Total
Burden
(
hours)
Total
O&
M
Costs
Total
Capital
Costs
Total
Cost
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Medium
Consumption
142.1
$
5,015
$
0
$
211
$
5,226
2
2
2
853
$
0
$
1,264
$
31,355
Distribution
126.9
$
4,563
$
0
$
176
$
4,738
8
8
8
3,045
$
0
$
4,212
$
113,723
Production
109.4
$
3,803
$
0
$
181
$
3,984
2
2
2
656
$
0
$
1,084
$
23,904
Large
Consumption/

Production2
293.3
$
9,731
$
0
$
389
$
10,119
23
23
24
20,528
$
0
$
27,210
$
708,353
Distribution/

Production2
253.1
$
8,542
$
0
$
305
$
8,847
31
31
31
23,534
$
0
$
28,376
$
822,806
TOTAL
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
66
67
67
48,617
$
0
$
62,147
$
1,700,141
1
Burdens
and
costs
are
adjusted
to
reflect
prior
compliance
with
State
Regulations
and
overlapping
Federal
regulations.

2
This
analysis
assumes
that
half
the
number
of
large
production
facility
owners
or
operators
required
to
prepare
an
FRP
for
the
first
time
are
included
in
the
estimate
of
new
consumption
facilities
(
10
of
70
new
consumption
facilities
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period),
and
will
therefore
incur
the
consumption
facility
preparation
burden.
The
other
half
(
10
of
93
distribution
facilities
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period)
will
incur
the
distribution
facility
preparation
burden.

EXHIBIT
2
Adjusted
Burden
and
Unit
Cost
for
Existing
Facilities
Required
to
Maintain
FRPs1
Size
Model
Facility
Category
Unit
Burden
(
hours)
Facility
Labor
Cost
O&
M
Costs
Capital
Cost
Total
Unit
Cost
Number
of
Facilities
Total
Burden
(
hours)
Total
O&
M
Costs
Total
Capital
Costs
Total
Cost
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Medium
Consumption
46.4
$
1,391
$
0
$
0
$
1,391
195
197
199
27,446
$
0
$
0
$
821,933
Distribution
26.2
$
789
$
0
$
0
$
789
652
660
668
51,945
$
0
$
0
$
1,561,258
Production
34.9
$
1,045
$
0
$
0
$
1,045
239
241
243
25,221
$
0
$
0
$
755,303
Large
Consumption
132.4
$
3,634
$
0
$
0
$
3,634
2,180
2,203
2,226
875,296
$
0
$
0
$
24,014,925
Distribution
99.2
$
2,808
$
0
$
0
$
2,808
2,892
2,923
2,954
869,709
$
0
$
0
$
24,626,024
TOTAL
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
6,158
6,224
6,290
1,849,618
$
0
$
0
$
51,779,442
1
Burdens
and
costs
are
adjusted
to
reflect
prior
compliance
with
State
Regulations
and
overlapping
Federal
regulations.
