Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPA-1997-0002-0071
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-07-01T04:00Z

SPCC­
7­
3­
8
OPA­
1997­
0002­
0071
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
IN
1993
FOR
SPILL
PREVENTION
ISSUES
IN
THE
SPILL
PREVENTION
CONTROL
AND
COUNTERMEASURE
(SPCC)
RULEMAKING
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
Table
of
Contents
Response
to
Comments
Received
in
1993
for
Spill
Prevention
Issues
in
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(SPCC)
Rulemaking
Section
Page
Introduction
3
1.
Authority
to
Require
Preparation
of
Plans
­
§112.1(
f)
5
2.
Plan
Amendment
by
the
RA
­
§112.4(
a)
8
3.
Submission
of
a
Plan
that
contains
a
deviation
­
§112.7(
a)(
2)
9
4.
Contingency
Planning
­
§112.7(
d)(
1)
11
5.
Employee
Training
­
§112.7(
f)
12
6.
Brittle
fracture
evaluation
­
§112.7(
i)
18
7.
Facility
Security
22
8.
Corrosion
Protection
22
9.
Lightning
Strike
Protection
23
10.
Leak
Detection
23
11.
Certification
of
Tank
Installation
Plans
24
12.
General
Comments
24
3
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
of
this
Document
The
purpose
of
this
document
is
to
respond
to
comments
received
on
the
1993
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(SPCC)
proposed
rule
(58
FR
8824,
February
17,
1993,
40
CFR
part
112).
These
proposed
revisions
are
in
addition
to
revisions
to
part
112
proposed
in
1991
and
1997.

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
an
SPCC
Plan.
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).
The
regulation
established
spill
prevention
procedures,
methods,
and
equipment
requirements
for
non­
transportation­
related
onshore
and
offshore
facilities
with
aboveground
storage
capacity
greater
than
1,320
gallons
(or
greater
than
660
gallons
in
a
single
container),
or
completely
buried
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
quantities
that
may
be
harmful,
into
the
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States
or
adjoining
shorelines,
or
that
affect
certain
natural
resources.

On
October
22,
1991,
(56
FR
54612)
we
proposed
changes
in
the
applicability
of
the
SPCC
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
CWA
section
311
made
by
amendments
to
the
CWA
in
1977
and
1978.
Those
proposed
revisions,
as
modified,
are
included
in
this
final
rule.

On
February
17,
1993
(58
FR
8824),
we
again
proposed
clarifications
of
and
technical
changes
to
the
SPCC
rule,
as
well
as
facility
response
plan
(FRP)
requirements
to
implement
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
of
1990
(OPA).
The
proposed
SPCC
changes
included
clarifications
of
certain
requirements,
authorization
for
the
EPA
Regional
Administer
(RA)
to
require
Plan
preparation
at
otherwise
exempt
facilities,
prevention
training,
and
requirements
for
brittle
fracture
evaluation.
All
FRP
comments
were
summarized
in
a
June
1994
Comment
Response
Document.
The
FRP
requirements
of
the
1993
proposal
were
promulgated
on
July
1,
1994
(59
FR
47384)
and
codified
at
40
CFR
112.20­
21.
The
SPCC
requirements,
as
modified,
are
finalized
today.
4
Organization
of
this
Comment
Response
Document
We
first
identified
the
issues
in
the
June
1994
Comment
Response
Document
that
were
related
to
the
SPCC
provisions,
rather
than
to
the
FRP
provisions.
Comments
on
proposed
revisions
related
to
the
SPCC
issues
were
not
given
complete
responses
at
the
time
because
we
deferred
action
on
those
proposals.
We
carefully
reviewed
the
issues
and
the
letters
received
in
the
public
docket,
and
developed
the
categories
shown
in
the
Table
of
Contents.
For
each
category
in
this
document,
we
provide
summaries
of
the
issue
and
the
points
raised
by
the
commenters.
These
summaries
are
supplemented,
where
necessary,
by
quotations
from
the
letters
to
reflect
the
nuances
of
certain
comments
that
could
not
be
adequately
captured
through
summarization.
After
summarizing
the
issue
and
comments,
we
provide
a
response
to
each
of
the
comments
or
group
of
similar
comments
on
each
issue.
The
document
is
arranged
into
sections
according
to
the
issues
listed
in
the
Table
of
Contents.

We
identify
each
comment
by
a
comment
number.
The
comment
numbers
were
assigned
in
the
public
docket
when
the
letter
was
received.
For
this
document,
the
comments
we
selected
from
each
letter
include
only
those
addressing
SPCC
issues.
5
1.
Authority
to
Require
Preparation
of
Plans
­
§112.1(
f)

Background:
Section
112.1(
d)
exempts
certain
facilities
from
the
requirement
to
prepare
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan.
In
1993,
we
proposed
to
add
§112.1(
g)
(redesignated
as
§112.1(
f)
in
the
final
rule)
to
allow
the
Regional
Administrator
(RA)
to
require
an
otherwise
exempted
facility,
that
is
subject
to
EPA
jurisdiction
under
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
prepare
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan.

Comments:
Appeals
process.
Requests
an
appeals
process
for
owners
and
operators
(1141
and
1220),
and
others
(1139,
1171,
1173)
requested
time
frames
within
which
the
RA
must
act.
Suggests
that
the
proposed
implementation
times
(six
months
for
Plan
preparation
and
one
year
for
Plan
implementation)
may
be
too
short
to
be
practicable.
(1208)

Authority,
standards.
Questions
our
authority
to
require
Plan
preparation
by
otherwise
exempted
facilities,
and
requests
standards
for
requiring
Plans.
(1137,
1167,
1208,
1220,
L1,
and
L19)
Suggests
that
If
EPA
requires
Plan
preparation
by
otherwise
exempt
facilities,
we
should
clarify
that:
(1)
it
only
intends
to
cover
underground
storage
tanks
currently
included
in
the
SPCC
program,
(2)
this
expansion
is
not
intended
to
be
used
against
facilities
with
aboveground
storage
less
than
1,320
gallons
total
facility
storage
or
660
gallons
in
a
single
tank,
(3)
it
will
only
require
underground
storage
tank
facilities
to
comply
with
basic
SPCC
requirements,
and
(4)
it
will
maintain
the
preliminary
determination
scheme
discussed
on
page
8844,
second
full
paragraph.
Also
notes
that
SPCC
deficiency
notices
are
sometimes
inadequate.
(L1)

Response
Plans.
Concerned
that
§112.1(
g)
would
allow
the
Regional
Administrator
to
require
a
small
facility
to
prepare
a
response
plan
in
addition
to
an
SPCC
Plan.
(1172)

Technical
expertise.
Opposes
the
provision
because
of
the
authority
given
to
the
RA:
"Paragraph
112.1(
g)
allows
the
Regional
Administrator
to
require
the
operator
to
prepare
an
SPCC
plan
even
if
a
Professional
Engineer
determines
such
a
plan
is
not
technically
required.
The
Regional
Administrator
is
a
political
appointee
without
technical
training.
Further,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
not
have
visited
the
facility.
Typically,
the
Agency
personnel
making
a
visit
is
not
a
Professional
Engineer.
Accordingly,
the
proposed
Paragraph
(g)
allows
a
non­
professional
person
or
engineer
to
override
a
technical
decision
on
the
basis
of
people
not
eligible
to
certify
an
SPCC
plan."
(955)

Underground
Storage
Tank
(UST)
program.
Suggests
that
in
order
to
address
environmental
concerns
not
adequately
addressed
under
the
UST
regulation,
we
should
revise
the
UST
program
rather
than
the
SPCC
program.
(1155)
6
Response:
Appeals
process.
We
agree
that
an
appeals
process
is
appropriate
for
this
section.
Therefore
we
have
included
a
new
paragraph
(f)(
5)
to
include
such
a
process,
and
have
provided
time
frames
for
the
process.
The
appeals
process
is
modeled
upon
proposed
§112.4(
f),
which
we
reproposed
in
1991
and
have
finalized
today.

Authority.
EPA
has
adequate
authority
under
section
311
of
the
CWA
to
require
any
facility
within
its
jurisdiction
to
prepare
a
Plan
that
could
because
of
its
location,
cause
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
This
authority
is
broad
enough
to
encompass
the
storage
or
use
capacity
of
any
exempted
facility
within
EPA's
jurisdiction,
regardless
of
size.

Standard
to
use
authority.
RAs
may
invoke
this
section
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
Act
on
a
case­
specific
basis
when
it
is
needed
to
prevent
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b),
and
thus
protect
the
environment.
While
we
expect
to
use
this
section
sparingly,
it
is
necessary
to
address
gaps
in
other
regulatory
regimes
that
might
best
be
remedied
by
requiring
a
facility
to
have
an
SPCC
Plan.
Factors
the
RAs
may
consider
in
making
a
determination
that
a
facility
needs
an
SPCC
Plan
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
facility,
the
presence
of
secondary
containment,
the
discharge
history
of
the
facility,
and
the
proximity
of
the
facility
to
sensitive
environmental
areas
such
as
wetlands,
parks,
or
wildlife
refuges.
An
example
of
the
use
of
this
section
might
be
when
a
facility
is
exempted
from
SPCC
rules
because
its
storage
capacity
is
below
the
regulatory
threshold,
but
the
facility
has
been
the
cause
of
repeated
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
The
RA
might
require
an
entire
Plan,
or
might
only
require
a
partial
Plan
addressing
secondary
containment,
for
example,
to
prevent
future
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

Partial
Plans.
We
clarify
that
the
RA
may
require
partial
Plans
to
cover
situations
where
the
preparation
of
only
a
partial
Plan
may
be
necessary,
such
as
to
supplement
an
existing
document
other
than
a
Plan
or
to
address
a
particular
environmental
threat.
The
decision
to
require
a
Plan
(or
partial
Plan)
could
be
based
on
the
presence
of
environmental
concerns
not
adequately
addressed
under
UST
or
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
regulations,
or
due
to
other
relevant
environmental
factors.
The
section
may
be
invoked
when
the
RA
determines
it
is
necessary
to
"carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
Act."

The
decision
to
require
a
partial
Plan
is
separate
from
a
decision
to
require
an
amendment
to
a
Plan.
In
one
case,
the
assumption
is
that
a
Plan
doesn't
exist;
in
the
other,
that
an
existing
Plan
needs
amendment.

Response
Plans.
Section
112.1(
f)
applies
only
to
the
total
or
partial
preparation
of
an
SPCC
Plan.
It
does
not
authorize
the
Regional
Administrator
to
require
you
to
prepare
a
facility
response
plan.
We
have
withdrawn
a
proposal
(see
1993
proposed
7
§112.7(
d)(
1))
which
would
have
required
you
to
prepare
a
response
plan
when
your
SPCC
facility
lacked
secondary
containment.
Therefore,
most
facilities
will
incur
no
response
planning
costs.
Instead,
if
your
facility
lacks
secondary
containment,
you
must
prepare
a
contingency
plan
following
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
109,
and
otherwise
comply
with
§112.7(
d).
As
a
result,
requirements
to
prepare
a
facility
response
plan
are
contained
solely
in
§112.20,
and
not
§112.1(
f).

Technical
expertise.
PEs
may
work
for
the
RA,
but
even
if
such
is
not
the
case,
the
RA
has
the
expertise
to
determine
when
a
facility
should
have
an
SPCC
Plan.
The
decision
to
require
an
SPCC
Plan
from
an
otherwise­
exempt
facility
will
be
made
on
technical,
not
political
grounds.
The
authority
we
give
to
the
RA
under
§112.1(
f)
will
be
used
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA
and
protect
the
environment.
Factors
the
RA
may
consider
in
making
a
determination
that
a
facility
needs
an
SPCC
Plan
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
facility,
and
the
proximity
of
the
facility
to
sensitive
environmental
areas
such
as
wetlands,
parks,
wildlife
refuges,
etc.
For
example,
the
RA
may
use
this
authority
to
require
plan
preparation
by
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
that
has
had
repeated
discharges
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

UST
program.
The
comment
suggesting
revision
of
the
UST
program
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
document.
8
2.
Plan
Amendment
by
the
Regional
Administrator
­
§112.4(
a)

Background:
Section
112.3(
e)
requires
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
make
the
Plan
available
to
the
RA
for
onsite
review
during
normal
working
hours.
The
revision
to
§112.4
proposed
in
1993
would
give
the
RA
authority
to
require
the
facility
to
submit
information
at
any
time,
and
to
provide
the
RA
authority
to
require
that
the
owner
or
operator
amend
the
Plan
after
on­
site
review.

Comments:
Appeals
process.
Calls
for
an
appeals
process
for
owners
and
operators.
(1172,
1198,
1220)

Information
submission
authority.
Questions
the
broad
authority
given
to
the
RA.
Stresses
the
cost
to
facilities
and
suggests
the
need
for
the
RA
to
show
good
cause.
(955,
1137,
1172
1208,
1220,
1224)

Inconsistencies.
"By
authorizing
the
various
RA
to
pick­
and­
choose
specific
measures
deemed
necessary
at
a
specific
site,
inconsistencies
will
arise
leading
to
overly
stringent
and/
or
improperly
implemented
spill
provisions
in
addition
to
establishing
site­
specific
competitive
disadvantages.
Moreover,
the
choice
of
changes
in
the
design
and
implementation
of
spill
prevention
measures
should
be
left
to
the
facility
owner.
Industry
has
the
broad
expertise
to
determine
costeffective
spill
prevention
controls
and
processes."
(1137)

Multiple
Plans.
Concerned
that
the
RA
might
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
submit
Plans
for
all
of
his
facilities.
(1167)

Technical
evaluation
skills.
The
RA
is
not
a
Professional
Engineer
(PE)
and
does
not
have
the
technical
skills
to
decide
the
need
for
the
Plan.
(955)

Response:
Appeals
process.
We
agree
that
an
appeals
process
is
appropriate,
and
have
provided
for
it
in
§112.4(
f).

Information
submission
authority.
We
agree
that
the
proposal
to
give
the
RA
the
authority
to
require
§112.4(
a)
information
at
any
time
was
vague,
and
have
therefore
withdrawn
that
provision.
We
will
only
require
such
information
after
the
discharges
specified
in
this
section.
We
will
consider
cost
factors
in
our
site­
specific
amendment
decisions.

Multiple
Plans.
We
have
withdrawn
the
proposal
to
provide
the
RA
with
authority
to
require
submission
of
the
information
required
in
§112.4(
a),
including
the
Plan,
at
any
time
because
we
believe
the
proposal
was
vague.
9
Technical
evaluation
skills.
PEs
and
others
with
technical
expertise
work
for
the
RA,
and
help
him
make
amendment
decisions.

3.
Submission
of
a
Plan
that
contains
a
deviation
­
§112.7(
a)(
2)

Background:
In
§112.7(
a)(
2),
we
proposed
to
allow
deviations
from
the
requirements
of
§§
112.7(
c),
112.8,
112.9,
112.10,
and
112.11,
as
long
as
the
facility
owner
or
operator
described
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
discussed
alternative
methods,
provided
equivalent
protection,
and
submitted
the
SPCC
Plan
to
the
RA.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
"This
requirement
appears
to
be
in
order."
(1170,
1208)

Opposition
to
proposal.

Burdensome.
"If
upon
inspecting
a
facility,
EPA
believes
that
a
waiver
is
unjustified,
it
can
examine
the
merits
of
the
waiver
in
the
context
of
that
facility's
compliance
with
the
SPCC
rules.
We
believe
that
it
is
unduly
burdensome
to
require
regulated
facilities
to
prepare
a
justification
and
submit
a
plan
to
EPA
for
every
waiver
of
the
technical
requirements."
(1198)

Unnecessary.
Opposes
submission
of
the
entire
Plan
because
it
is
unnecessary.
The
Plan
has
already
been
certified
by
a
PE.
(955,
1063,
1145,
1218,
1239,
L1)

Appeals
process,
RA
oversight.
"Alternative
methods
should
not
trigger
the
need
to
provide
administratively
burdensome
notification.
The
choice
of
preventative
systems
in
the
design
and
implementation
of
spill
prevention
measures
should
be
left
to
the
facility
owner,
who
has
the
broad
expertise
to
determine
cost­
effective
spill
prevention
controls
and
processes.
We
oppose
the
proposed
provision
which
provides
the
RA
authority
to
require
equivalent
protection.
If,
however,
the
Agency
chooses
to
promulgate
this
provision,
[the
commenter]
recommends
that
the
Agency
include
an
appeal
process."
(1137)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.
However,
we
agree
with
the
opposing
commenters
that
submission
of
a
deviation
to
the
Regional
Administrator
is
not
necessary
and
have
deleted
the
proposed
requirement.
We
take
this
step
because
we
believe
that
the
requirement
for
good
engineering
practice
and
current
inspection
and
reporting
procedures
(for
example,
§112.4(
a)),
followed
by
the
possibility
of
required
amendments,
are
adequate
to
review
Plans
and
to
detect
the
flaws
in
them.
Upon
submission
of
required
information,
or
upon
on­
site
review
of
a
Plan,
if
the
RA
decides
that
any
portion
of
a
Plan
is
inadequate,
he
may
require
an
10
amendment.
See
§112.4(
d).
If
you
disagree
with
his
determination
regarding
an
amendment,
you
may
appeal.
See
§112.4(
e).

Appeals
process,
RA
oversight.
We
agree
that
there
should
be
an
appeals
process
and
have
provided
it
within
§§
112.1(
f)
and
112.4(
f).
RAs
are
to
follow
the
principles
of
good
engineering
practice
and
not
overrule
a
deviation
unless
it
is
clear
that
such
deviation
fails
to
afford
equivalent
environmental
protection.
This
does
not
mean
that
the
deviation
must
achieve
"mathematical
equivalency,"
as
one
commenter
pointed
out.
But
it
does
mean
equivalent
protection
of
the
environment.
We
encourage
innovative
techniques,
but
such
techniques
must
also
protect
the
environment.
Technical
deviations,
like
other
substantive
technical
portions
of
the
Plan
requiring
the
application
of
engineering
judgment,
are
subject
to
PE
certification.
We
also
believe
that
in
general
PEs
will
seek
to
protect
themselves
from
liability
by
only
certifying
measures
that
do
provide
equivalent
environmental
protection.
But
the
RA
must
still
retain
the
authority
to
require
amendments
for
deviations,
as
he
can
with
other
parts
of
the
Plan
certified
by
a
PE.
11
4.
Contingency
Planning
­
§112.7(
d)(
1)

Background:
When
the
installation
of
structures
or
equipment
in
§112.7(
c)
is
not
practicable,
under
current
§112.7(
d)(
1),
the
facility
owner
or
operator
must
provide
a
"strong
oil
spill
contingency
plan
following
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
109."
In
1993,
we
proposed
to
replace
the
reference
to
a
strong
oil
spill
contingency
plan
with
a
reference
to
the
facility
response
plan,
as
described
in
§112.20.

Comments:
Opposition
to
proposal.
Opposes
the
proposed
change
because
it
is
unnecessary,
burdensome,
and
beyond
Congressional
intent
in
OPA.
(1063,
1198,
1208)

Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
the
present
contingency
plan
arrangements
are
sufficient
to
protect
the
environment
and
that
a
facility
response
plan
as
described
in
§112.20
is
therefore
unnecessary
for
most
SPCC
facilities.
We
agree
that
structures
or
equipment
might
achieve
the
same
or
equivalent
protection
as
response
planning
for
some
SPCC
facilities.
Therefore,
we
are
withdrawing
that
part
of
the
1993
proposal
(i.
e.,
proposed
§112.7(
d)(
1))
requiring
submission
of
a
facility
response
plan
and
are
retaining
the
current
contingency
planning
provisions,
which
require
a
contingency
plan
following
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
109.
We
also
believe
that
response
plans
should
be
reserved
for
higher
risk
facilities,
as
provided
in
§112.20.
12
5.
Employee
Training
­
§112.7(
f)

Background:
In
1993,
we
proposed
to
limit
the
applicability
of
the
training
requirements
to
only
those
facilities
that
transfer
large
amounts
of
oil.
We
further
proposed
that
employees
involved
in
"oil­
handling
activities"
be
required
to
receive
8
hours
of
facility
specific
training
within
one
year
and
4
hours
of
refresher
training
In
subsequent
years.
Training
for
new
employees
would
be
required
within
one
week
of
employment.
We
also
proposed
to
specify
the
areas
in
which
employees
should
be
trained
to
include:
training
in
correct
equipment
operation
and
maintenance,
general
facility
operations,
discharge
prevention
laws
and
regulations,
and
the
contents
of
the
facility's
SPCC
Plan.
Finally,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
annual
unannounced
drills.

Comments:
Applicability
of
training
requirements
­
employees.

Support
for
proposal.
Supports
mandatory
training
of
personnel
at
facilities
that
transfer
oil.
(1171,
1173)

Opposition
to
proposal.

Burden
and
cost.
Several
commenters
pointed
out
that
they
must
follow
training
requirements
of
other
programs.
(1095,
1137,
1148
1150,
1169,
1198,
and
L1)
"Complying
with
regulatory
requirements
of
the
various
training
programs
in
the
environmental
arena
have
become
very
difficult
at
large
manufacturing
facilities.
The
administrative
burden
and
cost
to
develop
and
implement
the
training
programs,
and
productivity
losses
associated
with
the
time
the
employee
is
being
trained
are
substantial.
A
typical
[commenter]
facility
may
have
up
to
50
employees
that
are
involved
with
oil­
handling
(i.
e.,
the
transfer
of
oil
from
one
location
to
another).
At
a
typical
hourly
rate
of
$25,
the
cost
can
exceed
$10,000
per
facility,
excluding
the
substantial
cost
associated
with
productivity
losses.
The
overwhelming
administrative
burden
and
cost
associated
with
employee
training
reinforces
the
importance
that
it
be
required
for
only
those
situations
where
environmental
benefits
and
risk
are
the
greatest."
(1137)

Employer
discretion.
Employees
should
be
trained
according
to
their
specific
job
responsibilities
(the
approach
taken
by
the
USCG)
rather
than
the
facility's
size
or
type
and
that
the
owner
or
operator
should
determine
the
best
training
practices
for
the
facility.
(1135,
1137,
1140,
1146,
1148,
1153,
1155,
1169,
1170,
1196,
1198,
1219)
Depending
on
the
task,
some
employees
may
not
obtain
the
appropriate
level
of
training
in
8
13
hours,
while
others
may
receive
more
information
than
necessary.
(1093,
1135,
1198,
1231,
1232)

Applicability
of
training
requirements
­
facilities.

Support
for
proposal.
Supports
the
proposed
training
requirements
and
adds
that
such
requirements
would
be
beneficial
to
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities,
not
just
those
that
meet
the
specified
oil
transfer
quantity
thresholds.
(1140,
1153)

Opposition
to
proposal.

Threshold
too
low.
The
oil
transfer
threshold
should
be
raised.
(1165,
1172,
1208,
1217,1218)
"To
specify
the
amount
of
training
and
to
require
unannounced
drills
is
unnecessarily
and
prohibitively
expensive.
[We]
recommend
that
EPA
continue
the
guidelines
in
the
existing
40
CFR
Part
112
(40
CFR
§112.5(
e)(
10)),
but
in
the
event
training
requirements
must
be
adopted,
then
remain
with
the
standards
set
forth
in
the
rule
proposal
of
October
21,
1991.
In
the
event
the
training
requirements
being
proposed
in
the
February
17,
1993,
notice
are
necessary,
then
increase
the
threshold
limit
so
as
to
avoid
inadvertently
imposing
the
requirement
for
training
on
a
small
[facility]."
(1172)
The
volume
triggers
proposed
in
§112.7
are
not
in
keeping
with
Oil
Pollution
Act
(OPA)
criteria.
(1208)

Threshold
too
high.
The
threshold
should
be
lowered.
(1171,
1173,
1245)
Supports
requirements
for
mandatory
training,
but
feels
that
lowering
the
threshold
would
increase
the
number
of
facilities
that
would
be
subject
to
the
regulation
and,
therefore,
reduce
the
potential
for
spills.
(1171,
1173)
Because
the
hose
connection/
disconnection
step
of
the
oil
transfer
process
results
in
most
spills,
frequent
small
transfers
are
potentially
more
dangerous
than
one
large
transfer
operation.
(1245)

Complex
operations.
Unclear
about
what
is
meant
by
"complex
operations."
(1153)

Content
of
training.
Training
should
include
instruction
in
the
implementation
of
the
facility
response
plan.
(1153)

Effect
of
1993
proposal.
Questions
whether
the
training
requirements
specified
in
§112.7(
f)
in
the
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(NPRM)
replace
those
proposed
in
the
October
22,
1991,
revisions
to
the
SPCC
rule.
No
training
is
specified
for
employees
of
facilities
not
meeting
the
oil
transfer
quantities
and
frequencies
cited
in
the
NPRM.
(1142)

Suggested
exemptions.
14
Extraction
industries.
Pipeline
transportation
of
oil
is
quite
safe;
therefore,
oil
extraction
industries
should
be
exempted
from
the
increased
training
requirements.
(955,
1220)

Nonmarine
terminals.
Requests
exemption
for
small
nonmarine
terminals.
(1215)

Small
facilities.
Because
of
the
relatively
small
turnover
of
employees
at
small
facilities,
these
facilities
should
be
exempt,
and
such
exemptions
could
be
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
according
to
site­
specific
factors.
(1153,
1167,
L1)
"The
eight­
hour
training
requirement
contemplated
in
the
proposal
is
too
much
for
the
vast
majority
of
independent
petroleum
marketers.
The
smaller
scale
of
marketer
facilities
does
not
necessitate
such
extensive
training....[
the
commenter]
suggests
EPA's
training
proposal
apply
only
to
substantial
harm
facilities
and
that
EPA
accept
existing
forms
of
training
currently
required
as
a
substitute
or
supplement.
If
EPA
insists
on
requiring
training
for
all
facilities
that
meet
the
transfer
threshold,
[we]
would
reiterate
the
above
request
to
accept
other
forms
of
training
as
a
substitute
or
supplement,
and
suggest
that
small
"mom
and
pop"
facilities,
whose
employees
tend
to
be
constant,
are
not
required
to
undertake
annual
training
refreshers."
(L1)

Timing
of
employee
training.

Opposition
to
proposal.

Alternate
time
frames.
Opposes
the
proposed
requirement
for
training
within
the
first
week
of
employment
for
new
employees.
Requiring
additional
training
beyond
that
which
is
required
by
other
agencies
within
the
first
week
of
employment
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible.
Suggests
the
following
time
frames:
30
days
(1150,
1215),
45­
60
days
(1169),
90
days
(1063,
1095),
or
180
days
(1137,
1196,
1198).

Before
involvement
in
oil­
handling
operations.
EPA
should
specify
only
that
training
be
provided
before
the
employee
becomes
involved
in
oil­
handling
operations.
(1135,
1146,
1155,
1232)

Cost.
Creating
training
materials
and
holding
the
proposed
training
would
take
too
much
time
and
cost
too
much.
(1137,
1207,
1217,
1219)

Current
requirements
adequate.
The
current
training
requirements
and
those
proposed
in
the
October
22,
1991,
revisions
to
the
SPCC
training
requirements
are
sufficient.
(1172,
1208,
1217)
15
Employer
discretion.
"[
The
commenter]
recommends
that
EPA
not
mandate
a
specific
frequency
of
training.
EPA
should
allow
owners
the
flexibility
to
initiate
training
at
intervals
frequent
enough
to
assure
adequate
understanding
of
the
SPCC
plan
by
their
employees."
(1137)
The
duration
of
the
training
should
be
left
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility.
(1093,
1231)

Employee
turnover.
Four
hours
per
year
for
refresher
training
is
unnecessary
for
facilities
without
employee
turnover
or
without
changes
in
operations.
(1135,
1198)

Length
of
training.
Eight
hours
of
training
would
not
be
suitable
for
all
employees
at
all
facilities;
some
would
require
more
than
8
hours,
others
less.
(1093,
1135,
1140,
1146,
1153,
1169,
1198,
1208,
1231)
The
amount
of
training
should
be
based
on
the
size,
capacity,
and
location
of
the
facility
rather
than
on
the
type
of
operations
(i.
e.,
transfers)
that
occur
at
the
facility.
(1148,
1170)
Facilities
with
engineered
safety
systems
should
be
subject
to
reduced
training
requirements.
(1198)
Eight
hours
of
training
is
excessive
when
added
to
the
current
training
that
is
already
required
at
SPCC­
regulated
facilities,
especially
for
most
smaller
independent
petroleum
marketers.
(955,
1198,
1208,
L1)

Response
capability.
We
should
eliminate
the
proposed
training
requirements
and
instead
require
facilities
to
demonstrate
the
ability
of
the
employees
to
respond
to
an
oil
discharge.
(1170,
1198,
1199)

Transfers.
We
should
limit
the
term
"transfer"
to
exclude
transfers
from
storage
containers
to
units
that
combust
or
utilize
the
oil,
because
the
movement
of
oil
to
boilers
may
not
pose
as
great
a
risk
of
release
compared
with
other
transfer
operations.
(1198)
We
should
clarify
the
meaning
of
"transfer
...
oilin
a
singleoperation"
in
proposed
§112.7(
f)(
1).
(1155,
1248)

Unannounced
drills.
Criticizes
the
proposal
to
require
annual
unannounced
drills.
(1093,
1146,
1155,
1169,
1172,
1199,
1218,
1231)
The
requirement
should
be
limited
to
personnel
involved
in
spill
response.
(1093,
1199,
1218,
1231)
The
facility
operator
should
decide
when
drills
are
needed.
(1146,
1155)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.

Applicability
of
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
training
requirements
should
apply
to
all
facilities,
large
or
small,
including
all
those
that
store
or
use
oil,
regardless
of
the
amount
of
oil
transferred
in
any
particular
time.
Training
may
help
avert
human
error,
which
is
a
principal
cause
of
oil
discharges.
"Spills
from
ASTs
may
occur
as
a
16
result
of
operator
error,
for
example,
during
loading
operations
(e.
g.,
vessel
or
tank
truck
­
AST
operation),
or
as
a
result
of
structural
failure
(e.
g.,
brittle
fracture)
because
of
inadequate
maintenance
of
the
AST."
EPA
Liner
Study,
at
14.
We
have
therefore
retained
the
applicability
of
training
to
all
facilities.
The
1993
proposal
would
have
limited
training
requirements
to
only
certain
facilities
which
received
or
transferred
over
the
proposed
amount
of
oil.
Facilities
which
receive
or
transfer
less
than
the
proposed
amount
might
also
have
discharges
which
could
have
been
averted
through
required
training.
Also
the
proposed
rule
would
have
exempted
many
facilities
that
use
rather
than
store
oil
from
its
scope.
Therefore,
we
have
provided
in
the
rule
that
all
facilities,
whether
bulk
storage
facilities
or
facilities
that
merely
use
oil,
must
train
oil­
handling
employees
because
all
facilities
have
the
potential
for
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b),
and
training
is
necessary
to
avert
such
a
discharge.

We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
training
is
only
necessary
for
personnel
who
will
use
it
to
carry
out
the
requirements
of
this
rule.
Therefore
revised
paragraph
(f)(
1)
provides
that
only
oil­
handling
personnel
are
subject
to
training
requirements,
as
we
proposed
in
1993.
"Oil­
handling
personnel"
is
to
be
interpreted
according
to
industry
standards,
but
includes
employees
engaged
in
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
oil
storage
containers
or
the
operation
of
equipment
related
to
storage
containers
and
emergency
response
personnel.
We
do
not
interpret
the
term
to
include
secretaries,
clerks,
and
other
personnel
who
are
never
involved
in
operation
or
maintenance
activities
related
to
oil
storage
or
equipment,
oil
transfer
operations,
emergency
response,
countermeasure
functions,
or
similar
activities.

You
may
incorporate
SPCC
training
requirements
into
already
existing
training
programs
required
by
other
Federal
or
State
law
at
your
option
or
may
conduct
SPCC
training
separately.

You
must
document
that
you
have
conducted
required
training
courses.
Such
documentation
must
be
maintained
with
the
Plan
for
three
years.

Complex
operations.
In
the
1993
preamble,
we
noted
that
the
complexity
of
operations
includes
such
factors
as
the
number
of
tanks
and
transfer
points,
throughput,
and
the
presence
of
sophisticated
pumping
or
switching
equipment
at
regulated
facilities.

Content
of
training.
Content
of
training.
Specifying
a
minimum
list
of
training
subjects
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
facility
employees
are
aware
of
discharge
prevention
procedures
and
regulations.
As
suggested
by
a
commenter,
we
have
added
knowledge
of
discharge
procedure
protocols
to
the
list
of
training
subjects
because
such
training
will
help
avert
discharges.
Therefore,
we
have
specified
that
training
must
include,
at
a
minimum:
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
equipment
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
oil;
discharge
procedure
protocols;
applicable
pollution
control
laws,
rules,
and
regulations;
general
facility
operations;
and,
the
contents
of
the
facility
Plan.
17
As
noted
above,
we
require
response
training
for
facilities
that
must
submit
response
plans,
but
such
training
is
not
necessary
for
all
SPCC
facilities.

In
response
to
the
utility
commenter
who
asserted
that
utility
employees
do
not
need
to
be
trained
in
the
maintenance
of
oil
storage
tanks
because
such
maintenance
does
not
involve
the
transfer
and
handling
of
oil,
we
note
that
training
must
address
relevant
maintenance
activities
at
the
facility.
If
there
is
no
transfer
and
handling
of
oil,
such
topic
need
not
be
covered
in
training.

Effect
of
1993
proposal.
The
1993
proposal
superseded
the
1991
proposal.

Timing
of
employee
training.
We
agree
with
commenters
who
thought
it
desirable
to
leave
the
timing
and
number
of
hours
of
training
of
oil­
handling
employees,
including
new
employees,
to
the
employer's
discretion.
"Proper
instruction"
of
oil­
handling
employees,
as
required
in
the
rule,
means
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
or
at
a
frequency
sufficient
to
prevent
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).
This
standard
will
allow
facilities
more
flexibility
to
develop
training
programs
better
suited
to
the
particular
facility.
While
the
rule
requires
annual
discharge
prevention
briefings,
we
also
agree
that
the
annual
briefings
required
are
not
drills.
In
any
case,
the
SPCC
rules
do
not
require
drills,
as
explained
below.

For
purposes
of
the
rule,
it
is
not
necessary
to
define
a
"new
employee"
because
all
oilhandling
personnel
are
subject
to
training
requirements,
whether
new
or
not.
You
do,
however,
have
discretion
as
to
the
timing
of
that
training,
so
long
as
the
timing
meets
the
requirements
of
good
engineering
practice.

Unannounced
drills.
We
agree
that
the
proposed
requirement
is
unnecessary
because
drills
are
already
required
at
FRP
facilities,
which
are
higher
risk
facilities.
Therefore,
there
are
no
new
costs.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
risk
at
all
SPCC
facilities
approaches
the
same
level
as
at
FRP
facilities.
18
6.
Brittle
fracture
evaluation
­
§112.7(
i)

Background:
In
1993,
we
proposed
to
require
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
evaluate
a
field­
constructed
tank
for
risk
of
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture,
if
the
tank
undergoes
repair,
alteration,
or
a
change
in
service.
Evaluation
would
be
accomplished
by
adherence
to
industry
standards
contained
in
American
Petroleum
Institute
(API)
Standard
653,
entitled
"Tank
Inspection,
Repair,
Alteration,
and
Reconstruction."
In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
we
mentioned
that
as
an
alternative
to
incorporation
of
Section
3
of
API
Standard
653,
we
considered
requiring
all
tanks
to
undergo
a
full
hydrostatic
test
to
determine
their
potential
for
brittle
fracture.

Comments:
Support
for
proposal.
Agrees
that
brittle
fracture
evaluation
should
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
contained
in
API
Standard
653.
These
commenters
did
not
support
hydrostatic
testing
as
an
alternative.
Shopfabricated
tanks
do
not
require
an
evaluation
for
brittleness.
(1149,1150,
1169,
1172,
1198,
1208,
L1)

Opposition
to
proposal.

Secondary
containment.
Opposes
the
proposal
on
the
basis
that
the
evaluation
was
unnecessary
for
small
volume
tanks
and
tanks
with
secondary
containment.
(1173)

Small
facilities.
Small
facilities
should
be
exempted
from
the
proposed
requirement.
(1167)

Additional
measures.
Recommends
additional
(i.
e.,
in
addition
to
evaluation
for
brittle
fracture)
protective
measures
for
incorporation
into
the
proposal,
specifically
undertank
liners,
and
hydrostatic
testing
of
tanks.
(1200)

Alternatives
to
brittle
fracture.

API
standards.
Industry
standards
specify
when
and
where
owners
or
operators
should
use
specific
tests.
API
Standard
653
allows
the
owner
or
operator
the
flexibility
to
implement
a
number
of
options
for
identifying
and
preventing
problems
which
ultimately
lead
to
a
tank
integrity
failure.
(67)
We
should
adopt
the
inspection
provisions
of
API
Standard
653
since
it
is
specifically
for
aboveground
tanks
storing
petroleum
and
suggests
intervals
for
internal
and
external
inspections.
(71)
API
Standard
653
is
a
more
appropriate
starting
point
than
API
Standard
650
for
determining
material
toughness.
Standard
653
concerns
tank
inspection,
repair,
alteration,
and
reconstruction
and
addresses
brittle
fracture
concerns.
(102)
19
Change
in
service.
Asks
for
clarification
of
the
term
"change
in
service."
(1141,
1167,
1198,
1225)
Disagrees
that
a
tank
evaluation
is
necessary
with
every
change
of
service.
(L8)

Field
erected
tank.
Asks
for
clarification
of
the
term
"field­
erected
tank."
(955)

Other
catastrophes.
We
should
incorporate
API
Standard
653
into
our
rules
to
accommodate
the
possibility
of
tank
failures
other
than
through
brittle
fracture.
(1149)

Alteration,
Repair.
Asks
for
clarification
of
the
terms
"alteration"
or
"repair,"
so
that
they
excludes
ordinary
day­
to­
day
maintenance
activities,
which
are
conducted
to
maintain
the
functional
integrity
of
the
tank
and
do
not
weaken
the
tank.
The
definitions
should
not
include
the
term
"or
related
equipment"
to
conform
with
API
Standard
653.
(1093,
1198,
1231)

Steel­
bolted
tanks.
Such
testing
is
unnecessary
for
steel­
bolted
tanks
because
they
are
too
thin
to
be
subject
to
brittle
fracture
since
material
properties
are
uniform
through
the
thickness.
(955,
1218,
1220,
1199)

Response:
Support
for
proposal.
We
appreciate
commenter
support.

Additional
measures.
We
will
consider
under­
tank
liners
as
a
possibility
for
a
future
rulemaking.
Hydrostatic
testing
of
tanks
is
a
possible
method
now
for
integrity
testing
in
combination
with
visual
inspection.

Applicability.
The
requirement
to
evaluate
field­
constructed
tanks
for
brittle
fracture
whenever
a
field­
constructed
aboveground
container
undergoes
repair,
alteration,
reconstruction,
or
change
in
service
is
necessary
because
brittle
fracture
may
cause
sudden
and
catastrophic
tank
failure,
resulting
in
potentially
serious
damage
to
the
environment
and
loss
of
oil.
The
requirement
must
be
applicable
to
large
and
small
facilities
alike,
because
all
the
field­
constructed
aboveground
containers
have
a
risk
of
failure.
The
presence
or
absence
of
secondary
containment
does
not
eliminate
the
need
for
brittle
fracture
evaluation
because
the
intent
of
the
rule
is
to
prevent
a
discharge
whether
or
not
it
will
be
contained.

The
requirement
for
evaluation
of
a
field­
constructed
aboveground
container
must
be
undertaken
when
the
container
undergoes
a
repair,
alteration,
reconstruction,
or
change
in
service
that
might
affect
the
risk
of
a
discharge
or
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture,
or
when
a
discharge
or
failure
has
already
occurred
due
to
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe.
Catastrophic
failures
are
failures
which
may
result
from
events
such
as
lightning
strikes,
dangerous
seismic
activity,
etc.
As
a
result
of
a
catastrophic
failure,
the
entire
contents
of
a
container
may
be
discharged
to
the
environment
in
the
same
way
as
if
brittle
fracture
had
occurred.
20
Steel­
bolted
tanks.
While
the
requirement
applies
to
all
field­
constructed
aboveground
containers,
if
you
can
show
that
the
evaluation
is
unnecessary
for
your
steel­
bolted
tanks,
you
may
deviate
from
the
requirement
under
§112.7(
a)(
2)
if
you
can
explain
your
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provide
equivalent
environmental
protection.
We
note
that
portions
of
steel­
bolted
tanks,
such
as
the
bottom
or
roof,
may
be
welded,
and
therefore
subject
to
brittle
fracture.

Alteration.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
will
not
include
the
term
"or
related
equipment"
in
the
definition
of
"alteration"
to
conform
with
API
Standard
653,
which
does
not
include
alterations
of
related
equipment
as
a
criterion
for
brittle
fracture
evaluation.
"Alteration"
means
any
work
on
a
container
involving
cutting,
burning,
welding,
or
heating
operations
that
changes
the
physical
dimensions
or
configurations
of
the
container.
Typical
examples
include
the
addition
of
manways
and
nozzles
greater
than
12­
inch
nominal
pipe
size
and
an
increase
or
decrease
in
tank
shell
height.

Alternatives
to
brittle
fracture
evaluation.
We
have
eliminated
the
incorporation
by
reference
to
API
Standard
653
from
the
rule.
We
have
also
therefore
withdrawn
proposed
Appendix
H,
the
API
Standard
653
brittle
fracture
flowchart.
We
believe
that
API
Standard
653
is
an
acceptable
standard
to
test
for
brittle
fracture.
However,
an
incorporation
by
reference
of
any
standard
might
cause
the
rule
to
be
instantly
obsolete
should
that
standard
change
or
should
a
newer,
better
method
emerge.
A
potential
standard
might
also
apply
only
to
a
certain
subset
of
facilities
or
equipment.
Therefore,
as
with
most
other
requirements
in
this
part,
if
you
explain
your
reasons
for
nonconformance,
alternative
methods
which
afford
equivalent
environmental
protection
may
be
acceptable
under
§112.7(
a)(
2).
If
acoustic
emission
testing
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection
it
may
be
acceptable
as
an
alternative.
That
decision,
in
the
first
instance,
is
one
for
the
Professional
Engineer
and
owner
or
operator.

Change
in
service.
A
"change
in
service"
is
a
change
from
previous
operating
conditions
involving
different
properties
of
the
stored
product
such
as
specific
gravity
or
corrosivity
and/
or
different
service
conditions
of
temperature
and/
or
pressure.

Field
erected
tank.
A
field­
erected
tank
or
container
is
one
that
is
assembled
outside
of
a
factory
at
the
location
of
its
intended
use.
A
field­
constructed
container
cannot
be
shipped
partially
or
fully­
constructed,
and
must
be
fabricated
at
the
job
site.
It
is
to
be
contrasted
with
a
shop­
constructed
tank
which
is
assembled
in
a
factory
and
shipped
to
the
job
site
completely
assembled,
but
may
need
minor
modifications
in
the
field.

Other
catastrophes.
In
response
to
the
comment,
we
added
"or
other
catastrophe"
after
the
words
"brittle
fracture"
to
indicate
that
failures
of
other
kinds
might
require
evaluation.
21
Repair.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
and
will
not
include
the
term
"or
related
equipment"
in
the
definition
of
"repair"
to
conform
with
API
Standard
653,
which
does
not
include
repairs
of
related
equipment
as
a
criterion
for
a
brittle
fracture
evaluation.

"Repair"
means
any
work
necessary
to
maintain
or
restore
a
container
to
a
condition
suitable
for
safe
operation.
Typical
examples
include
the
removal
and
replacement
of
material
(such
as
roof,
shell,
or
bottom
material,
including
weld
metal)
to
maintain
container
integrity;
the
re­
leveling
or
jacking
of
a
container
shell,
bottom,
or
roof;
the
addition
of
reinforcing
plates
to
existing
shell
penetrations;
and
the
repair
of
flaws,
such
as
tears
or
gouges,
by
grinding
or
gouging
followed
by
welding.
We
understand
that
some
repairs
(such
as
repair
of
tank
seals),
alterations,
or
changes
in
service
will
not
cause
a
risk
of
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture;
therefore,
we
have
amended
the
rule
to
refer
to
those
repairs,
alterations,
or
changes
in
service
that
affect
the
risk
of
a
discharge
or
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture.
22
7.
Facility
Security
Background:
In
1993,
we
requested
information
on
the
need
for
security
measures
(in
addition
to
those
in
§112.7(
e)(
9))
to
mitigate
the
potential
for
discharges.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
renumbered
§112.7(
e)(
9)
as
§112.7(
g).

Comments:
Security
provisions
in
the
rule
are
adequate
and
additional
security
measures
are
unnecessary.
(1169,1198)
Any
additional
security
measures
should
be
based
on
site­
specific
factors
and
left
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
certifying
engineer.
(1169,
1171,
1173)

Response:
We
agree,
and
have
not
added
additional
security
measures,
but
we
have
increased
the
flexibility
of
the
provision
to
allow
greater
consideration
of
site­
specific
factors.
Additional
comments
on
security
are
addressed
in
the
Response
to
Comments
document
for
the
1991
proposal.

8.
Corrosion
Protection
Background:
In
1993,
we
requested
comment
and
cost
information
on
the
effectiveness
of
cathodic
protection
and
other
corrosion
protection
methods
for
preventing
leaks.

Comments:
Support
for
a
requirement.
Supports
a
requirement
for
corrosion
protection
if
portions
of
the
aboveground
tank
are
in
contact
with
soil.
(1150,
1200)

Opposition
to
a
requirement.
"...
existing
practices/
standards
are
adequate
to
identify
potential
areas
of
concern
with
tank
bottoms
and
that
cathodic
protection
should
be
one
option
available
to
the
facility
in
developing
a
cost­
effective
tank
management
approach."
(1169)
New
regulations
are
unnecessary.
(1198)

Cost.
"[
The
commenter]
is
employing
cathodic
protection
as
a
means
of
controlling
corrosion
of
the
external
(soil
side)
bottom
of
new
aboveground
storage
tanks
and
the
soil
side
of
new
replacement
bottoms
of
exiting
tanks.
Cathodic
protection
is
used
to
supplement
select
sand
bottom
padding
used
to
support
the
tank
bottom.
The
select
sand
and
cathodic
protection
are
installed
within
the
envelope
of
a
secondary
containment
liner.
Unit
cost
for
providing
and
installing
the
cathodic
protection
portion
of
this
system
varies
inversely
with
tank
size,
ranging
from
approximately
$1.00
to
$2.00
per
square
foot
of
tank
bottom
area.
A
significant
drawback
to
this
design
is
the
prohibitive
cost
to
repair
or
replace
the
cathodic
protection
system
once
installed.
Cathodic
protection
can
be
retrofitted
to
existing
tanks
in
the
absence
of
impervious
secondary
containment
liners
at
lesser
unit
cost
due
to
flexibility
of
system
design
and
combination
of
multiple
tanks
into
one
position
scheme.
However,
these
systems
are
rendered
ineffective
if
impervious
secondary
containment
liners
are
installed."
(1148)
23
Response:
We
appreciate
the
comments.
We
are
not
adding
additional
provisions
to
require
corrosion
protection
for
aboveground
containers
at
this
time.
We
will
consider
these
comments
for
a
future
rulemaking.

9.
Lightning
Strike
Protection
Background:
Lightning
strikes
and
fires
resulting
from
the
strikes
can
contribute
to
the
discharge
of
oil.
In
1993,
we
requested
comment
on
the
costs
and
benefits
of
installing
protection
systems
on
Aboveground
Storage
Tanks
(ASTs).

Comments:
Mandatory
lightning
strike
protection
is
unnecessary.
(1148,
1169,
1198,
1224)
The
low
incidence
of
damage
to
tanks
from
lightning
would
mean
that
such
requirements
would
not
be
cost
effective.
(1148,
1224)

Response:
We
appreciate
the
comments
and
will
consider
them
in
a
future
rulemaking.

10.
Leak
Detection
Background:
We
noted
in
the
1993
preamble
that
early
detection
of
small
oil
leaks
could
alert
owners
or
operators
to
needed
repairs
or
mitigation
measures,
prevent
damage
to
the
environment,
and
save
on
costs
of
cleanup.
We
requested
comment
and
cost
effectiveness
information
on
leak
detection
methods
for
ASTs,
such
as
ultrasonic
testing
and
inventory
reconciliation,
and
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
testing
underground
piping
for
leaks.

Comments:
Support
for
requirement.
With
regard
to
leak
testing
of
underground
piping
associated
with
tanks,
the
requirements
of
API
570
should
be
followed.
(1148)
"By
the
argument
presented
in
this
comment,
it
is
suggested
that
the
most
practical
and
cost
effective
method
to
prevent
bottom
leaks
in
large
tanks
is
a
combination
of
leak
detection
equipment
in
new
tanks
and
tank
inspection
for
all
tanks."
(1149)
Inventory
reconciliation
and
periodic
conductivity
testing
should
be
required
for
ASTs,
as
well
as
periodic
hydrostatic
testing
of
all
underground
piping.
(1171,
1173)
A
study
on
leak
detection
methods
for
ASTs
should
be
conducted
and
that
hydrostatic
testing
of
underground
piping
for
leaks
should
be
required.
(1200)

Opposition
to
requirement.
"[
The
commenter]
recommends
that
the
EPA
permit
alternatives
to
internal
tank
inspections
in
the
final
rule
in
order
to
allow
facilities
the
flexibility
to
address
site­
specific
conditions."
(1169)
Additional
leak
detection
requirements
are
unnecessary,
particularly
for
viscous
fuel
oils.
(1198)
Inventory
reconciliation
is
not
an
accurate
or
reliable
method
of
leak
detection.
(1198,
1149,
1148,
1206)
24
Response:
We
appreciate
the
comments
and
will
consider
them
in
a
future
rulemaking.

11.
Certification
of
Tank
Installation
Plans
Background:
In
1993,
we
requested
comment
on
methods
that
would
ensure
the
proper
installation
of
ASTs
(e.
g.,
certification
of
tank
installation
plans
and/
or
monitoring
of
installation
by
a
PE
or
other
qualified
individual).
A
PE
is
required
to
review
and
certify
the
SPCC
Plan,
but
the
SPCC
requirements
do
not
address
specific
facility
procedures
such
as
tank
installation.
The
UST
regulations
(40
CFR
280.20(
e))
require
certification
of
compliance
with
proper
installation
practices
and
certification
of
the
qualifications
of
tank
installers.

Comments:
American
Petroleum
Institute
(API)
standards.
Tanks
are
constructed
in
accordance
with
API
standards
and
these
standards
are
sufficient.
Support
for
requiring
qualified
individuals
to
ensure
proper
tank
design
and
installation
plans.
(1148,
1149,
1200)

UST
program.
Certification
for
ASTs
should
follow
the
UST
program.
(1169)

Unnecessary.
Additional
certification
programs
are
unnecessary.
(L6,
L8)

Response:
We
appreciate
the
comments
and
will
consider
them
in
a
future
rulemaking.

12.
General
Comments
Comments:
Other
technical
considerations.
The
"other
technical
considerations,"
which
were
not
proposed
but
listed
in
the
1993
Preamble,
should
not
be
requirements
because
they
would
have
little
environmental
benefit
and
substantial
costs.
(1058,
1137,
1172)
The
impacts
from
many
of
the
problems
considered
in
the
"other
technical
considerations"
can
be
mitigated
by
proper
secondary
containment.
(1208)

Response:
Other
technical
considerations.
We
appreciate
these
comments
and
will
consider
them
in
a
future
rulemaking.