63812 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[FRL–5930–1]

RIN 2050–AC62

Oil Pollution Prevention and

Response; Non-Transportation Related

Onshore and Offshore Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or the Agency) proposes to

revise the Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

requirements, found at 40 CFR part 112,

to reduce its information collection

burden. Proposed revisions would: give

facility owners or operators flexibility to

use alternative formats for SPCC Plans;

allow the use of certain records

maintained pursuant to usual and

customary business practices, or

pursuant to the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

program, to be used in lieu of records

mandated by the SPCC requirements;

reduce the information required to be

submitted after certain spill events; and

extend the period in which SPCC Plans

must be reviewed and evaluated. EPA

also proposes to amend the Facility

Response Plan (FRP) requirements,

found at 40 CFR 112.20, for two

purposes. First, EPA proposes to

provide a method to calculate storage

capacity when certain facilities have

tanks which contain mixtures of process

water/waste water with 10% or less of

oil. This calculation is for the sole

purpose of determining whether a

facility has sufficient capacity to subject

it to the requirement in § 112.20 to

prepare an FRP. Second, EPA proposes

to amend the FRP requirements to

clarify that the Integrated Contingency

Plan format may be acceptable for an

FRP. EPA believes that none of the

proposed changes will have an adverse

impact on public health or the

environment. This is so because the

proposal would maintain the same

standards of environmental protection

that the rule now affords while reducing

its information collection burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before February 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

proposed rule should be submitted in

triplicate, by U.S. mail, to the

Superfund Docket, at 401 M St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460 (mail code

5203G). The docket is physically located

at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal

Gateway 1, Arlington, Virginia 22202,

Suite 105. Comments physically

delivered to EPA by any means other

than U.S. mail should go to the

Arlington address. The docket number

for the proposed rule is #SPCC–7.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to EPA at

‘‘superfund.docket@epamail.epa.gov.’’

Files should be sent in ascii format. The

record supporting this rulemaking is

contained in the Superfund Docket and

is available for inspection, by

appointment only, between the hours of

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays.

Appointments to review the docket can

be made by calling 703–603–9232. As

provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable

fee may be charged for copying services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugo Paul Fleischman, Oil Program

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, at 703–603–8769; or the RCRA/

Superfund Hotline at 800–424–9346 (in

the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area,

703–412–9810). The

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD) Hotline number is 800–553–7672

(in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan

area, 703–412–3323).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contents of this preamble are as follows:

I. Introduction

II. Request for Comment and Discussion of

Proposed Revisions

III. Summary of Supporting Analyses

I. Introduction

A. Regulated Entities

Entities Potentially Regulated by this

Proposal Include:

Category NAICS codes

Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing .......................................... NAICS 324.

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ................................................... NAICS 42271.

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction .......................................... NAICS 2111111.

Transportation (including Pipelines), Warehousing, and Marinas ............ NAICS 482–486/488112–48819/4883/48849/492–493/71393.

Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution ..................... NAICS 2211.

Other Manufacturing ................................................................................. NAICS 31–33.

Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental and Leasing .................................. NAICS 4471/5321.

Heating Oil Dealers .................................................................................. NAICS 454311.

Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying ........................ NAICS 2121/2123/213114/213116.

Heavy Construction .................................................................................. NAICS 234.

Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges ........................................ NAICS 6111–6113.

Hospitals/Nursing and Residential Care Facilities ................................... NAICS 622–623.

Crop and Animal Production .................................................................... NAICS 111–112.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. It lists the types

of entities of which EPA is now aware

that could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility could be regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine

the criteria in §§ 112.1 and 112.20 of

title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

B. Statutory Authority

Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water

Act (CWA or the Act) requires the

President to issue regulations

establishing procedures, methods,

equipment, and other requirements to

prevent discharges of oil from vessels

and facilities and to contain such

discharges. 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C). The

President has delegated the authority to

regulate non-transportation-related

onshore facilities under section

311(j)(1)(C) of the Act to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA

or the Agency). Executive Order (E.O.)

12777, section 2(b)(1), 56 FR 54757

(October 22, 1991), superseding

Executive Order 11735, 38 FR 21243. By

this same E.O., the President has

delegated similar authority over

transportation-related onshore facilities,

deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT),
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63813

and authority over other offshore

facilities, including associated

pipelines, to the U.S. Department of the

Interior (DOI). A Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI,

and DOT effective February 3, 1994, has

redelegated the responsibility to

regulate certain offshore facilities

located in and along the Great Lakes,

rivers, coastal wetlands, and the Gulf

Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA.

(E.O. 12777 § 2(I) regarding authority to

redelegate.) The MOU is included as

Appendix B to 40 CFR part 112. An

MOU between the Secretary of

Transportation and the EPA

Administrator, dated November 24,

1971 (36 FR 24080), established the

definitions of non-transportation-related

facilities and transportation-related

facilities. The definitions from the 1971

MOU are included as Appendix A to 40

CFR part 112.

C. 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 preparation

and implementation of the Spill

Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. It was

originally promulgated on December 11,

1973 (38 FR 34164), under the authority

of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. The

regulation established spill prevention

procedures, methods, and equipment

requirements for non-transportationrelated onshore and offshore facilities

with aboveground oil storage capacity

greater than 1,320 gallons (or greater

than 660 gallons in a single container),

or buried underground oil storage

capacity greater than 42,000 gallons.

Regulated facilities are also limited to

those that, because of their location,

could reasonably be expected to

discharge oil in harmful quantities into

the navigable waters of the United

States or adjoining shorelines.

The SPCC requirements have been

amended a number of times. On August

29, 1974, the regulation was amended to

set out the Agency’s policies on civil

penalties for violation of section 311

requirements. 39 FR 31602. On March

26, 1976, the rule was again amended,

primarily to clarify the criteria for

determining whether or not a facility is

subject to regulation. 41 FR 12567.

Other revisions made in the March 26,

1976, rule clarified that the SPCC Plan

must be in written form and specified

the procedures for development of SPCC

Plans for mobile facilities.

Implementation of the regulation

since the 1976 revision indicated the

need for other changes, primarily to

clarify and simplify the rule. Therefore,

on May 20, 1980, the Agency proposed

further revisions to the SPCC rule. 45 FR

33814. The 1980 proposal was never

finalized because the Agency believed

these proposed changes needed

additional justification. However,

continuing experience with

administering the program provided

that justification and demonstrated a

need for clarifications to 40 CFR 112.7.

Accordingly, on October 22, 1991, the

Agency proposed certain changes to 40

CFR 112.7 similar to those proposed in

1980. 56 FR 54612.

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 notification 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. To date, the proposal has not

been finalized.

On November 4, 1992 (57 FR 52705),

the Agency promulgated a revision to

the civil penalty provisions for

violations occurring prior to the

enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of

1990 (OPA). On March 11, 1996, EPA

rescinded that penalty provision

because it no longer accurately reflected

the penalties provided for under section

311(b) of the Act, as amended by OPA.

61 FR 9646.

On February 17, 1993, the Agency

again proposed further clarifications of

and technical changes to the SPCC rule,

and facility response plan 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. To date, the prevention

requirements in the 1993 proposal have

not been finalized.

In 1996, EPA concluded a survey of

SPCC facilities. EPA used the results of

that survey to help develop this

proposed rule. The survey results are

part of the administrative record for this

rulemaking.

The purpose of this proposal is to

reduce the information collection

burden now imposed by the prevention

requirements in the SPCC rule and the

response requirements in the FRP rule

without creating an adverse impact on

public health or the environment. It

supplements the 1991 and 1993

proposals. The earlier proposals remain

pending, except for the withdrawal in

this notice of the proposed 1991

definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan.’’ A revised

definition of that term is being

reproposed today. EPA will, after

considering public comments,

promulgate a rule finalizing this

proposal. In that rule, EPA will also

finalize the 1991 and 1993 proposals.

EPA is not seeking additional comments

on either the 1991 or 1993 proposals.

II. Request for Comment and Discussion

of Proposed Revisions

A. Request for Comment

EPA proposes to reduce the

information collection burden of the

SPCC rule through program changes. In

connection with these proposed

changes, EPA requests public comment

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. EPA requests comments on

these possible measures in order to

discover additional ways to reduce the

information collection burden of the

rule. Conversely, EPA also seeks

comments on measures not now

required that would enhance the

environmental protection the SPCC rule

provides. Both of these requests for

public comments are for the purpose of

securing information to develop

possible future rules or policies, and are

not for the purpose of developing a final

rule implementing this proposed rule.

Lastly, for purposes of developing a

final rule, EPA is considering whether

any change is justified in the level of

storage capacity which subjects a

facility to the requirement to prepare an

SPCC Plan. Currently, a facility with a

total aboveground storage capacity of

1,320 gallons or less of oil, but that has

a single container with a capacity in

excess of 660 gallons of oil is subject to

SPCC requirements. EPA is considering

eliminating the provision in the current

rule that requires a facility having a

container with a storage capacity in

excess of 660 gallons to prepare an

SPCC 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, thereby eliminating the need for

facilities with less than that capacity to

prepare an SPCC Plan. EPA invites

public comment on this issue and

supporting data where available.
63814 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

B. Proposed Program Revisions

Specific proposed revisions are

discussed below.

40 CFR 112.2

On October 22, 1991, EPA proposed a

definition for ‘‘SPCC Plan or Plan.’’ 56

FR 54612, 54632. Today, EPA is

withdrawing that proposal in favor of a

revised definition. The proposed rule

would describe an SPCC Plan, and

would allow an Integrated Contingency

Plan or a State plan that meets all the

requirements of part 112 to be counted

as an SPCC Plan, if it is sequentially

cross-referenced from the requirement

in § 112.7 to the page(s) of the

equivalent requirement in the other

plan. The Regional Administrator may

accept any other format if it: (1) meets

all regulatory requirements in the SPCC

rule; and, (2) is sequentially crossreferenced by SPCC rule provision to

the page(s) of the equivalent

requirement in the other plan. The

proposed change would allow facilities

new flexibility in formatting an SPCC

Plan. A new facility developing an

SPCC Plan would have the opportunity

to use the most convenient acceptable

format. Existing facilities could also

elect to use one of the proposed

alternative formats. EPA contemplates

that at least two types of formats could

be used in addition to the format

prescribed in § 112.7, and would amend

the rule to include those formats as

acceptable examples. The formats are

discussed below.

Integrated Contingency Plans or ICPs.

One format that would be allowed is an

Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP)

prepared in accordance with the notice

published at 61 FR 28642, June 5, 1996.

The intent of the ICP is to provide a

mechanism for consolidating multiple

plans that facilities may have prepared

to comply with various regulations into

one functional emergency response

plan.

The ICP was developed for facilities

to integrate emergency response plan

requirements. 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.

State Plans and Requirements.

Approximately 20 States have oil spill

prevention requirements pursuant to

State law. Included in those

requirements is often the responsibility

to prepare an SPCC-like plan. The

proposed rule would allow an owner or

operator of a facility flexibility to

prepare a State SPCC-like plan in lieu of

a Federal SPCC Plan if the State plan

meets all the regulatory requirements

contained in part 112. Like ICPs, State

plans would also have to be crossreferenced sequentially from the Federal

SPCC requirement in part 112 to the

plan page(s) containing the equivalent

requirement. In cases where an owner or

operator of a facility chooses to prepare

a State plan containing only some of the

elements required in the Federal plan,

the State plan would have to: (1) contain

elements that are equal to or more

stringent than Federal SPCC

requirements; (2) be sequentially crossreferenced by SPCC rule provision to

the page(s) of the equivalent Plan

provision; and, (3) be supplemented by

elements that meet the remainder of the

EPA requirements contained in part

112.

40 CFR 112.4(a)

Section 112.4(a) requires that an

owner or operator of a facility subject to

the SPCC rule provide certain

information to EPA after a discharge of

1,000 gallons of oil into or upon the

navigable waters of the United States or

adjoining shorelines in a single event, or

when two reportable spills of any size

occur within any twelve month period.

Reportable spills are defined at 40 CFR

110.3. 61 FR 7419, February 28, 1996.

EPA proposes to reduce the information

that an owner or operator must report

pursuant to § 112.4(a). The Agency

proposes to require that the owner or

operator would report: (1) the name of

the facility; (2) the name(s) of the owner

or operator of the facility; (3) the

location of the facility; (4) a description

of the facility, including maps, flow

diagrams, and topographical charts; (5)

the cause of the spill(s), including a

failure analysis of system or subsystem

in which the failure occurred; (6)

corrective actions and/or

countermeasures taken, including an

adequate description of equipment

repairs and/or replacements; (7)

additional preventive measures taken or

contemplated to minimize the

possibility of recurrence; and, (8) such

other information as the Regional

Administrator may reasonably require

pertinent to the Plan or spill event. EPA

would eliminate from the rule the need

to always submit: (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.

EPA believes that the information that

would be eliminated from a post-spill

report is not always necessary in order

to accurately assess the spill or to

require appropriate corrective action.

The Regional Administrator would still

retain discretion to require information

that is specified by the current rule in

a post-spill report, or any other

information as he/she finds necessary.

The reporting requirements under 40

CFR part 110 would still apply to any

discharge of oil to navigable waters or

adjoining shorelines that is ‘‘harmful’’

as specified in § 110.3.

40 CFR 112.5(b)

An owner or operator of a facility

subject to the SPCC regulations must

review and evaluate a facility’s SPCC

plan at least once every three years from

the date the facility becomes subject to

40 CFR part 112. EPA is proposing to

extend the period in which an owner or

operator must conduct this review and

evaluation from at least once every three

years to at least once every five years.

EPA is proposing this change because it

believes that it would have the effect of

reducing the record keeping burden,

thus saving time and money for

facilities, while causing no harm to the

environment. A facility owner or

operator would still have to amend an

SPCC Plan whenever there is a change

in facility design, construction,

operation, or maintenance which

materially affects the facility’s potential

for discharge of oil into or upon the

navigable waters of the United States or

adjoining shorelines. 40 CFR 112.5(a).

Therefore, absent such changes, an

SPCC plan should continue to provide

adequate protection against discharges

for a five year period.

In its 1991 proposal to amend the

SPCC rule, EPA solicited comments on

whether owners or operators of facilities

should have to affix a signed and dated

statement to the SPCC Plan indicating

that the triennial review has taken place

and whether or not amendment of the

Plan is required. EPA did not at that

time propose a rule change. 56 FR

54612, 54616, 54629, October 22, 1991.

Today, EPA is implementing that

request for comments with a proposed

rule change that would provide that an

owner or operator must certify

completion of the review and

evaluation. An owner or operator, for

purposes of this certification, includes

any person with authority to fully

implement the Plan, e.g., a facility

manager. The certification would entail

little additional information collection

burden as it would merely note

completion of the review and evaluation

process at least once every five years.

See 5 CFR 1320.7(j)(1). It would be

maintained with the Plan at the facility,

and would provide EPA with written

proof that the owner or operator has

complied with the rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63815

40 CFR 112.7 Introduction

EPA is proposing to amend the

introduction to § 112.7 so that its

language conforms to the newly

proposed definition of an SPCC Plan in

§ 112.2. See the above discussion. The

change to the introduction would

merely track language in proposed

§ 112.2 to allow facilities flexibility to

use certain alternative formats in lieu of

the format prescribed in the SPCC rule,

such as the ICP format, certain State

formats, or other formats acceptable to

the Regional Administrator.

40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D)

EPA is proposing to amend

§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D), which applies to

bulk storage tanks (onshore), excluding

production facilities. Section

112.7(e)(2)(iii) authorizes the drainage

of rainwater from the 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. 40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(A)–(D). The

change would allow the use of records

recording stormwater bypass events

which are required to be 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

NPDES ‘‘standard conditions’’ allows

for excusable bypasses under certain

conditions. 40 CFR 122.41(m)(2), (3),

and (4). One of the conditions is that the

permittee must provide notice of the

bypass event. 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3).

Under 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2), the permittee

must maintain records of all such

bypass events for at least three years

from the date of the report. These permit

conditions for notification and record

keeping serve the same objective as the

SPCC rule requirement in

§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D), and the

documentation is therefore acceptable to

satisfy the SPCC requirement.

Furthermore, the proposed change

would reduce the information collection

burden imposed by the SPCC rule.

Owners or operators would no longer be

required to maintain duplicate records

of the same event pursuant to different

regulatory programs.

This proposed change would also

affect the information collection burden

imposed by § 112.7(e)(5)(ii)(A). This

section requires inspection of diked

areas in onshore oil production facilities

prior to drainage as provided in

§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(B), (C), and (D). By the

cross reference to the record keeping

requirements in § 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D), the

requirement to maintain adequate

records of such events is included.

Therefore, when those records of bypass

event notification are maintained at

onshore oil production facilities

pursuant to NPDES permitting

conditions as discussed above,

duplicative record keeping under part

112 would be unnecessary.

40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(vi)

Section 112.7(e)(2)(vi) requires

periodic integrity testing of

aboveground tanks, taking into account

tank design (floating roof, etc.), and

using such techniques as hydrostatic

testing, visual inspection, or a system of

non-destructive shell thickness testing.

It further requires maintenance of

comparison records when appropriate.

Tank supports and foundations should

be included in these inspections. In

addition, the rule requires that the

outside of the tank should be frequently

observed by operating personnel for

signs of deterioration, leaks which

might cause a spill, or accumulation of

oil inside diked areas.

EPA proposes 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. Among

such usual and customary business

records are those maintained pursuant

to API Standards 653 and 2610.

API Standard 653 concerns tank

inspection, repair, alteration, and

reconstruction. It is considered the

predominant standard for aboveground

tank inspection and its provisions are

based on tank design principles found

in API Standards 620 and 650. API

Standard 653 calls for owners or

operators of tanks and associated

systems to maintain a complete record

file consisting of construction, repair/

alteration history, and inspection

history records. Construction records

include nameplate information,

drawings, specifications, construction

complete reports, and any results of

material tests and analyses. Repair/

alteration history includes all data

accumulated on a tank from the time of

its construction with regard to repairs,

alterations, replacements, and service

changes. Inspection history includes all

measurements taken, the condition of

all parts inspected, and a record of all

examinations and tests.

API Standard 2610 concerns design,

construction, operation, maintenance,

and inspection of terminal and tank

facilities. It incorporates the

requirements of many different

standards for tanks into one document.

The Standard recommends that records

should be kept of the activities

conducted pursuant to the Standard. It

recommends that periodic inspection

and preventive maintenance should be

conducted on all transfer systems to

control leaks. Accurate inventory

records may be maintained and

periodically reconciled for indication of

possible leakage from tanks and piping

systems. It further calls on the operator

to keep complete maintenance records

for all equipment within a terminal.

40 CFR 112.7(e)(8)

EPA proposes to amend § 112.7(e)(8)

to provide that usual and customary

business records, such as records

maintained pursuant to API Standards

653 and 2610, would suffice to meet the

requirements of the section. The

revision would have the effect of

reducing the information collection

burden of the SPCC rule. See the

discussion concerning usual and

customary business practices above.

The section requires that inspections

required by part 112 be in accordance

with written procedures developed for

the facility by the owner or operator.

These written procedures and a record

of inspections, signed by the

appropriate supervisor or inspector,

must be made a part of the SPCC Plan

and maintained for a period of three

years.

40 CFR 112.20(f)(4)

The owner or operator of any nontransportation-related onshore facility

that, because of its location could be

expected to cause substantial harm to

the environment by discharging oil in

harmful quantities into or on the

navigable waters of the United States or

adjoining shorelines, is required to

prepare and submit a facility response

plan to EPA. To determine whether a

facility could cause substantial harm, an

owner or operator of a facility must

review the criteria listed in Appendix C

of the rule and base his/her

determination on those criteria. A

facility that transfers oil over water to or

from vessels and that has a total oil

capacity greater than or equal to 42,000

gallons would meet the substantial harm

criteria and be required to prepare and

submit a response plan as required by

§ 112.20 to the appropriate Regional

Administrator. Any other facility with a

capacity of one million gallons or more

would evaluate the criteria in 40 CFR

112.20(f)(1)(ii)(A)–(D) and work through

the flowchart in Appendix C to

determine whether it is a substantial

harm facility.
63816 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

EPA proposes to add a new paragraph

to § 112.20(f) to provide a method to

calculate the oil storage capacity of

aboveground tanks containing a mixture

of process water/waste water with 10%

or less of oil. EPA is proposing this

change because it believes that the harm

due to spills from tanks that contain

90% or more of process water/waste

water is roughly proportional to their oil

content. Discharges from tanks

containing process water/waste water

and 10% or less oil will cause less harm

to the environment than tanks

containing a greater proportion of oil.

Facilities that are required to prepare

and submit facility response plans must

do so because of the substantial harm

that discharges of oil from those

facilities might cause. That substantial

harm is predicated, at least in part, on

a storage capacity determination. If

there is a smaller percentage of oil in a

tank, there will be less likelihood of

great harm. Therefore, EPA believes that

the entire capacity of process water/

waste water tanks with 10% or less of

oil should not be counted in the

capacity necessary to subject a facility to

the requirement to prepare a facility

response plan. Only the oil portion of

the storage capacity in process water/

waste water of 10% or less oil would be

counted. EPA believes that an oil

threshold capacity to determine

substantial harm calculations of 10% or

less in tanks containing process water/

waste water is a reasonable one. It is

reasonable because it exempts lower

risk facilities, from which discharges

would not reach substantial harm levels,

from having to prepare facility response

plans.

The proposed rule change, however,

would have no effect on the calculations

necessary to determine whether to

prepare an SPCC Plan. Calculation of

capacity under the SPCC rule of tanks

containing mixtures of process water/

waste water and oil would continue to

be done as it is now. No change is

necessary in SPCC capacity calculations

because SPCC Plans are designed for

prevention purposes, not response.

While harm might result from

discharges from these SPCC facilities, it

would not reach the substantial harm

level. Finally, this proposed change

would not apply to the oil capacity

determination for substantial harm

saline process water/waste water from

oil drilling, production, or workover

facilities because discharges from such

facilities have a greater likelihood of

causing environmental damage than

facilities that do not handle saline

water.

Pursuant to the proposed rule, a

facility owner or operator would

determine the percentage of oil in the

process or waste water in a tank. If the

percentage of oil varies over a period of

time, the owner or operator would use

the highest percentage of oil for

purposes of the capacity calculation. If

the capacity of oil is 10% or less, the

owner or operator would multiply the

percentage of oil by the capacity of the

tank or container. If appropriate, the

owner or operator would then add the

volume of oil calculated to the total

capacity of any other oil storage tank or

container with 100% oil or mixtures of

oil and process or waste water above the

10% amount to determine its total

capacity for the substantial harm

determination of § 112.20(f).

40 CFR 112.20(h)

EPA proposes to amend § 112.20(h) to

clarify that an Integrated Contingency

Plan (ICP) prepared in accordance with

the notice published at 61 FR 28642,

June 5, 1996 is an acceptable format for

a facility response plan. The ICP was

developed for facilities to integrate

emergency response plan requirements.

The intent of the ICP is to provide a

mechanism for consolidating multiple

plans that facilities may have prepared

to comply with various regulations into

one functional emergency response

plan. Like the proposed requirements

for SPCC Plans, the FRP rule already

provides for cross-referencing.

Similarly, an owner or operator who

uses the ICP format must meet all of the

regulatory requirements of the FRP rule

for that format to be an acceptable

substitute for the present FRP format.

EPA does not contemplate that the

use of an ICP or other format would

reduce the information collection

burden of the FRP rule, but it would

simplify compliance with multiple

applicable statutes and rules.

Appendix C

EPA also proposes to amend

Appendix C to this part to reflect

changes proposed in § 112.20(f)(4). EPA

also proposes to amend section 2.1 of

Appendix C to state the correct capacity

that subjects a facility to FRP

requirements if it transfers oil over

water to or from a vessel. That capacity

in section 2.1 of Appendix C should

read ‘‘greater than or equal to 42,000

gallons * * *’’ as specified in

§ 112.20(f)(1)(I).

III. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review and the requirements of

the E.O. The E.O. defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in E.O. 12866.

Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866,

it has been determined that this

proposed rule is a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because it raises

novel legal or policy issues. Such issues

include proposed measures which

would relieve some facilities of

regulatory mandates and could change

the manner in which facilities comply

with remaining mandates. Therefore,

this action was submitted to OMB for

review. Changes made in responses to

the OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, requires that a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis be performed for all

rules that are likely to have a significant

adverse impact on a substantial number

of small entities. EPA has determined

that this proposed rule would not have

a significant adverse impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it would impose few if any new

burdens, and overall would

substantially reduce existing burdens on

small businesses. Therefore, I certify

that this proposed rule is not expected

to have a significant adverse impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Thus, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

is necessary.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule will

be submitted for approval to OMB as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Information

Collection Request (ICR) documents
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63817

have been prepared by EPA (EPA ICR

no. EPA 0328.06 and 1630.04) and

copies may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;

Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling

202–260–2740. These ICRs are also

available for viewing or downloading at

EPA’s ICR Internet site at http://

www.epa.gov/icr.

EPA does not collect the information

required by the Oil Pollution Prevention

regulation (i.e., the SPCC Plan) on a

routine basis. SPCC Plans ordinarily

need not be submitted to EPA, but must

be maintained at the facility.

Preparation, implementation, and

maintenance of an SPCC Plan by the

facility helps prevent oil discharges, and

mitigates the environmental damage

caused by such discharges. Therefore,

the primary user of the data is the

facility.

Although the facility is the primary

data user, EPA also uses the data in

certain situations. EPA primarily uses

SPCC Plan data to ensure that facilities

comply with the regulation. This

includes design and operation

specifications, and inspection

requirements. EPA reviews SPCC Plans:

(1) When facilities submit the Plans

because of certain oil discharges, and (2)

as part of EPA’s inspection program.

Note however, that the proposed rule

would eliminate the necessity to submit

the entire Plan after certain discharges,

and merely retain the requirement that

it be maintained at the facility. State and

local governments also use the data,

which are not necessarily available

elsewhere and can greatly assist local

emergency preparedness planning

efforts. Preparation of the information

for affected facilities is required

pursuant to section 311(j)(1) of the Act

as implemented by 40 CFR part 112.

Through this rulemaking, EPA

proposes to reduce the reporting and

record keeping burden for facilities

regulated under the SPCC regulation by:

(1) expanding the format of an

acceptable SPCC plan to include plans

prepared to meet State or other Federal

standards (i.e., State plans, Integrated

Contingency Plans, etc.); (2) extending

the period of time that a facility must

review its Plan from at least once every

three years to at least once every five

years; and (3) reducing the reporting

requirements in the event of certain

reportable oil spills and the record

keeping requirements relating to certain

discharges of rainwater from a diked

area. In addition to the program changes

outlined above, EPA is also proposing to

decrease the information collection

burden calculated for the SPCC rule so

that the information collection burden

incurred by persons in the normal

course of their business activities would

no longer be attributed to the part 112

burden.

To quantify the effect of these

proposed changes on reducing burden

to the regulated community, EPA relied,

in part, on data gathered through the

1995 SPCC survey. EPA developed a

series of analyses using the survey data

including the paper EPA produced in

1996 entitled ‘‘Effectiveness of EPA’s

SPCC Program on Spill Risk.’’ The

results of the analysis show that

compliance with several specific SPCC

provisions appears to reduce both the

number and the amount of oil that

migrates outside of a facility’s

boundaries. Facility practices such as

tank leak detection, spill overfill

protection, pipe external protection, and

secondary containment, also appear to

reduce the number and magnitude of oil

spills. The results also indicate that a

facility’s compliance with even one

SPCC measure may serve as a general

indicator of a facility owner’s/operator’s

awareness of the importance of other

spill prevention and control measures.

The net annual public reporting and

record keeping burden for this

collection of information, as proposed,

for newly regulated facilities is

estimated to range from 37.1 to 53.5

hours, with an average burden of 39.2

hours, including time for reviewing

instructions and gathering the data

needed. The net annual public reporting

and record keeping burden for facilities

already regulated by the Oil Pollution

Prevention regulation is estimated to

range from 3.7 to 9.5 hours, with an

average burden of 4.0 hours. These

average annual burden estimates take

into account the varied frequencies of

response for individual facilities

according to characteristics specific to

those facilities, including frequency of

oil discharges and facility modification.

Under the proposed rule, an estimated

446,498 existing and newly regulated

facilities are subject to the information

collection requirements of this proposed

rule during the first year of the

information collection period. The net

annualized capital and start-up costs

average $0.3 million, and net

annualized labor and operation and

maintenance costs are $49.8 million.

The present information collection

burden of the SPCC rule averages

2,557,194 hours per year for the

information collection period. Through

this rulemaking EPA proposes to reduce

that burden by approximately 864,471

hours. This proposed reduction would

result in an average annual burden of

1,692,723 hours.

In addition to the modifications the

Agency is proposing to make to the

SPCC rule, the Agency is also proposing

to modify the information collection

requirements of the Facility Response

Plan (FRP) regulation as part of this

rulemaking effort. The FRP rule (40 CFR

112.20–112.21) requires that owners and

operators of facilities that could cause

‘‘substantial harm’’ to the environment

by discharging oil into navigable waters

or adjoining shorelines prepare plans for

responding, to the maximum extent

practicable, to a worst case discharge of

oil, to substantial threat of such a

discharge, and, as appropriate, to

discharges smaller than worst case

discharges. Each FRP is submitted to the

Agency, which in turn, reviews and

approves plans from facilities identified

as having the potential to cause

‘‘significant and substantial harm’’ to

the environment from oil discharges.

Other low-risk, regulated facilities are

not required to prepare FRPs but are

required to document their

determination that they do not meet the

‘‘substantial harm’’ criteria.

Through this rulemaking, EPA

proposes to reduce the reporting and

record keeping burden for facilities

regulated under the FRP rule by adding

a paragraph to § 112.20(f) to provide a

method to calculate the oil storage

capacity of aboveground tanks

containing a mixture of process water/

waste water with 10 percent or less of

oil. EPA also proposes to amend

§ 112.20(h) to clarify that an Integrated

Contingency Plan prepared in

accordance with the notice published at

61 FR 28642, June 5, 1996, is an

acceptable format for an FRP; and to

amend section 2.1 of Appendix C to

state the correct capacity that subjects a

facility to FRP requirements if it

transfers oil over water or to or from a

vessel.

The Agency anticipates that only the

first proposed change will have an

appreciable impact on the burden to the

regulated community. The Agency

expects that the number of facilities

subject to the requirements to develop

an FRP and maintain the plan on a yearto-year basis will slightly decrease as a

result of the proposed process water/

waste water calculation. In the current

ICR, EPA estimated that 5,400 facilities

would be required to develop and

submit FRPs and 4,482 of these facilities

were large facilities (i.e., facilities with

storage capacity greater than one million

gallons). Of these 4,482 facilities, EPA

estimated that approximately 250

facilities in the industrial manufacturing

category would be excluded from the

FRP requirements as a result of the

proposal. Although these facilities have
63818 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

already incurred costs to develop an

FRP, the facilities would no longer incur

costs associated with maintaining the

Plan or retaining outside response

contractors in the event of an oil spill.

The 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

record keeping requirements of the FRP

rule after adjusting for compliance with

other Federal and State regulations. The

present information collection burden of

the FRP rule averages 376,599 hours a

year. Through this rulemaking EPA

proposes to reduce that burden by

approximately 24,190 hours. This

proposed reduction would result in an

annual average burden of 352,409 hours.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates and the supporting analyses

used to develop burden estimates, and

any suggested methods for further

minimizing respondent burden,

including the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the Information Collection Request to

the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington,

D.C. 20460 or E-mail

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov; and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk

Officer for EPA.’’ Include the ICR

number in any correspondence. Since

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60

days after December 2, 1997, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it by January 2,

1998. The final rule will respond to any

OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

D. Differentiation Between Classes of

Oils

Pursuant to Public Law 104–55, 33

U.S.C. 2720, enacted November 20,

1995, most Federal agencies (including

EPA) must, in the issuance or

enforcement of any regulation or the

establishment of any interpretation or

guideline relating to the transportation,

storage, discharge, release, emission, or

disposal of a fat, oil, or grease, consider

differentiating between and establishing

separate classes for animal fats and oils

and greases, fish and marine mammal

oils, and oils of vegetable origin (as

opposed to petroleum and other oils and

greases). EPA has considered whether

differentiation between and

establishment of separate classes of oils

is appropriate for this proposed rule and

concluded that it is not. This conclusion

is based on the fact that the EPA

proposal would reduce the information

collection burden for all classes of

facilities. Achievement of that goal does

not require differentiation among

classes of oils.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Pursuant to section 202 of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (the

Act) of 1995, enacted March 22,1995,

Federal agencies must prepare a

statement to accompany any rule in

which the estimated costs of State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, will be $100

million or more in any one year. Section

205 of the Act requires agencies to select

the most cost-effective and leastburdensome alternative that achieves

the objective of the rule and that is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 of the Act requires an

agency to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small government that

may be significantly impacted by the

rule. Small governments would not be

significantly impacted by this proposed

rule, therefore, it is not necessary to

establish a plan pursuant to section 203.

In fact, the proposed rule would reduce

the information collection burden on

small governments that have facilities

which are subject to the SPCC rule.

EPA has determined that this

proposed rule does not include a

Federal mandate that would result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

either to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector in any one year. This

determination is based on the fact that

the proposed rule would impose no new

mandates, and would reduce costs to

the private sector, while imposing no

new costs on State, local, or tribal

governments. Thus today’s proposal is

not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the Act.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under § 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is required to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) which are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. In those cases where

the Act applies and where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the Act requires the Agency to

provide Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards.

Without necessarily deciding whether

the Act applies here, EPA invites

comment on the potential use of

voluntary consensus standards in this

rulemaking. In particular, as noted

above, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR

112.7(e)(2)(vi) and (e)(8) to provide that

the records maintained pursuant to

usual and customary business practices

would suffice to meet the recordkeeping

requirements of the sections. While not

specifically referenced in the proposed

regulation, usual and customary

business records would include those

maintained pursuant to American

Petroleum Institute (API) Standards 653

and 2610. The Agency proposes this

flexible approach to be consistent with

the goal of reducing the recordkeeping

requirements of this regulation. EPA

invites public comment on the Agency’s

proposal as well as identification and

information about other standards, and

in particular, voluntary consensus

standards, which the Agency should

consider.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

Environmental protection, Fire

prevention, Flammable materials,

Materials handling and storage, Oil

pollution, Oil spill prevention, Oil spill

response, Petroleum, Reporting and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63819

record keeping requirements, Tanks,

Water pollution control, Water

resources.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 112 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 112—OIL POLLUTION

PREVENTION

1. The authority citation for part 112

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C 1321 and 1361; E.O.

12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991

Comp., p. 351.

2. Section 112.2 is amended by

adding the definition ‘‘Spill Prevention,

Control, and Countermeasure Plan;

SPCC Plan; or Plan’’ in alphabetical

order to read as follows:

§ 112.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure Plan; SPCC Plan; or

Plan means the document required by

§ 112.3 that details the equipment,

manpower, procedures, and steps to

prevent, control, and provide adequate

countermeasures to an oil spill. The

Plan is a written description of the

facility’s compliance with the

procedures in this part. It is prepared in

writing and in accordance with the

format specified in § 112.7, or in the

format of a plan prepared pursuant to

State law, or in another format

acceptable to the Regional

Administrator. If an owner or operator

of a facility chooses to prepare a plan

using either the Integrated Contingency

Plan format or a State format or any

other format acceptable to the Regional

Administrator, such plan must meet all

of the requirements in § 112.7, and be

sequentially cross-referenced from the

requirement in § 112.7 to the page(s) of

the equivalent requirement in the other

plan.

* * * * *

3. Section 112.4 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8)

to read as follows:

§ 112.4 Amendment of SPCC Plans by

Regional Administrator.

(a) * * *

(1) Name of the facility;

(2) Name(s) of the owner or operator

of the facility;

(3) Location of the facility;

(4) Corrective action and/or

countermeasures taken, including an

adequate description of equipment

repairs and/or replacements;

(5) Description of the facility,

including maps, flow diagrams, and

topographical maps;

(6) The cause(s) of such spill(s),

including a failure analysis of system or

subsystem in which the failure

occurred;

(7) Additional preventive measures

taken or contemplated to minimize the

possibility of recurrence; and

(8) Such other information as the

Regional Administrator may reasonably

require pertinent to the Plan or spill

event.

* * * * *

4. Section 112.5 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

§ 112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasure Plans by

owners or operators.

* * * * *

(b) Notwithstanding compliance with

paragraph (a) of this section, owners and

operators of facilities subject to

§ 112.3(a), (b), or (c) shall certify

completion of a review and evaluation

of the SPCC Plan at least once every five

years from the date such facility

becomes subject to this part. * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 112.7 is amended by

revising the last sentence of the

introductory text; and by revising

paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D), and the last

sentence of paragraphs (e)(2)(vi), and

(e)(8) to read as follows:

§ 112.7 Guidelines for the preparation and

implementation of a Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasure Plan.

* * * The complete SPCC Plan shall

follow the sequence outlined below,

unless it is in another format acceptable

to the Regional Administrator, such as

one described in § 112.2, and include a

discussion of the facility’s conformance

with the appropriate guidelines listed:

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) * * *

(D) Adequate records are kept of such

events, such as records required

pursuant to permits issued in

accordance with §§ 122.41(j)(2) and

122.41(m)(3) of this chapter.

* * * * *

(vi) * * * Records of inspections

maintained pursuant to usual and

customary business practices will

suffice for purposes of this paragraph.

* * * * *

(8) * * * Records of inspections

maintained pursuant to usual and

customary business practices will

suffice for purposes of this paragraph.

* * * * *

6. Section 112.20 is amended by

adding paragraph (f)(4) and by revising

the first sentence of paragraph (h) to

read as follows:

§ 112.20 Facility response plans.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(4) To determine the capacity of a

facility storing process water/waste

water with oil concentrations of 10% or

less, for purposes of paragraphs (f)(1)(i)

and (ii) of this section (except for saline

process water/waste water from an oil

drilling, production, or workover

facility), the following calculations shall

be used:

(i) Determine the percentage of oil in

the process water/waste water of a tank

or container. If the percentage of oil

varies over a period of time, the highest

percentage shall be used;

(ii) If the percentage of oil is 10% or

less, multiply the percentage of oil by

the capacity of the tank or container;

(iii) If appropriate, add the amount

calculated in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and

(4)(ii) of this section to the total capacity

of any other oil tank or storage container

containing 100% oil or mixtures of oil

and process water/waste water above

10%;

(iv)(A) A facility that transfers oil over

water to or from vessels and has a

storage capacity of oil greater than or

equal to 42,000 gallons will be

considered a facility that could cause

substantial harm to the environment by

discharging oil to the navigable waters

or adjoining shorelines.

(B) A facility with a capacity of 1

million gallons or greater shall continue

through the criteria in appendix C of

this part to determine whether the

facility could cause substantial harm to

the environment by discharging oil to

the navigable waters or adjoining

shorelines.; and

(v) A facility that has completed the

calculations required by this paragraph

and does not meet the substantial harm

threshold will not have to prepare and

submit a response plan unless directed

to do so by the Regional Administrator.

* * * * *

(h) A response plan shall follow the

format of the model facility-specific

response plan included in Appendix F

to this part, unless an equivalent

response plan has been prepared to

meet State or other Federal

requirements. * * *

* * * * *

7. Appendix C to part 112 is amended

by revising section 2.0 and the first

sentence of section 2.1 to read as

follows:
63820 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Appendix C to Part 112—Substantial

Harm Criteria

* * * * *

2.0 Description of Screening Criteria for the

Substantial Harm Flowchart

A facility that has the potential to cause

substantial harm to the environment in the

event of a discharge must prepare and submit

a facility-specific response plan to EPA in

accordance with appendix F to this part. To

determine the capacity of a facility storing

process water/waste water with oil

concentrations of 10% or less (except for

saline process water/waste water from an oil

drilling, production, or workover facility),

the respondent shall use the method

prescribed in § 112.20(f)(4). A description of

the screening criteria for the substantial harm

flowchart is provided below:

2.1 Non-Transportation-Related Facilities

With a Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater

Than or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where

Operations Include Over-Water Transfers of

Oil.

A non-transportation-related facility with a

total oil storage capacity greater than or equal

to 42,000 gallons that transfers oil over water

to or from vessels must submit a response

plan to EPA. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–31574 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P