Source: https://regulations.vlex.com/vid/clean-water-act-hazardous-729717341
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 10:42:00
Document Index: 269989833

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 151', 'art 112', 'art 112', 'art 112', 'art 122', 'art 68', 'art 112', 'art 165', 'art 170', 'art 262', 'arts 264', 'art 280', 'art 355', 'art 370', 'art 430', 'art 1910', 'arts 46', 'arts 171', 'arts 700', 'art 2', 'art 68', 'art 112', 'art 165', 'art 165', 'art 165', 'art 165', 'art 170', 'art 262', 'art 172', 'arts 264', 'arts 264', 'art 280', 'art 355', 'art 370', 'art 370', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 46', 'art 47', 'art 48', 'art 50', 'art 56', 'art 57']

Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention - June 25, 2018 - Regulations - VLEX 729717341
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)
Pages 29499-29520
FR Doc No: 2018-13470
40 CFR Part 151
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024; FRL-9979-83-OLEM
RIN 2050-AG87
proposing to establish no new requirements under Clean Water Act (CWA), section 311. This section directs the President to issue regulations to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances from onshore and offshore facilities, and to contain such discharges. On July 21, 2015, EPA was sued for failing to comply with the alleged duty to issue regulations to prevent and contain CWA hazardous substance discharges. On February 16, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Consent Decree between EPA and the litigants that required EPA to sign a notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to the issuance of hazardous substance regulations, and take final action after notice and comment on said notice. Based on an analysis of the frequency and impacts of reported CWA HS discharges and the existing framework of EPA regulatory requirements, the Agency is not proposing additional regulatory requirements at this time. This proposed action is intended to comply with the Consent Decree and to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment on EPA's proposed approach to satisfy the CWA requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2018.
OLEM-2018-0024, ``Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Discharge Prevention Action'' at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov/. The EPA may publish any comments received on its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey Yonce, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2288, email protected.
What is the statutory authority for this proposed action?
Does this proposed action apply to me?
A list of entities that could be affected by requirements established under CWA section 311(j)(1)(C) is provided in Table 1:
Table 1--Potentially Affected Entities
Wired and Wireless Telecommunications........... 51711, 51721.
Oil and Gas Extraction.......................... 21111.
Water Supply and Irrigation Systems............. 22131.
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.............. 42491.
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 2211.
Support Activities for Crop Production.......... 11511.
Warehousing and Storage......................... 4931.
Food Manufacturing.............................. 311.
Chemical Manufacturing.......................... 325.
Other Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods.... 424.
Mining and Quarrying............................ 21.
Utilities....................................... 22.
Construction.................................... 23.
Manufacturing................................... 31-33.
Wholesale and Retail Trade...................... 42, 44-45.
Transportation and Warehousing.................. 48-49.
Other........................................... 11, 51-56, 61-62, 71-
72, 81, 92.
What is the purpose of this proposed action?
Statutory Authority and Delegation of Authority
CWA section 311(j)(1)(C) directs the President to issue regulations establishing procedures, methods, and equipment; and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and HS from vessels and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain such discharges.\1\ The President
has delegated the authority to regulate non-transportation-related onshore facilities and offshore facilities landward of the coastline, under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA to EPA.\2\
\1\ 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C).
\2\ Under Executive Order 12777(b)(1), the Department of the Interior has redelegated the authority to regulate non-
transportation-related offshore facilities landward of the coastline to EPA (see 40 CFR part 112, Appendix B). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and EPA (36 FR 24080, November 24, 1971) established the definitions of transportation- and non-transportation-related facilities. An MOU among EPA, DOI, and DOT, effective February 3, 1994, has redelegated the responsibility to regulate certain offshore facilities from DOI to EPA.
The term ``hazardous substance'' is defined in CWA section 311(a)(14). Section 311(b)(2)(A) authorizes regulations designating HS, which when discharged in any quantity into jurisdictional waters,\3\ present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches.
\3\ The CWA 311 jurisdiction applies to discharges or substantial threats of discharges into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone; in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (``jurisdictional waters''). See 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(1) and 33 U.S.C. 1321(c).
Once a chemical was designated as a CWA HS, as described in Section II.C, the corresponding quantity was established by regulation under the authority of CWA section 311(b)(4).\4\ The CWA prohibits discharges of CWA HS in quantities that may be harmful in section 311(b)(3).
\4\ CWA section 311(b)(4) provides for the President to, by regulation, determine for the purposes of this section, those quantities of oil and any hazardous substances, the discharge of which may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States, including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.
On July 21, 2015, the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, People Concerned About Chemical Safety, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit \5\ against EPA for failing to comply with the alleged duty to issue regulations to prevent and contain CWA HS spills from non-transportation-related onshore facilities, including aboveground storage tanks, under CWA section 311(j)(1)(C).
\5\ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Environmental Justice Health Alliance from Chemical Policy Reform v. EPA, 15-cv-5705 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015).
On February 16, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Consent Decree between EPA and the litigants establishing a schedule under which EPA is to sign ``a notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to the issuance of the Hazardous Substance Regulations'' and take final action after notice and comment on said notice.\6\
\6\ Envtl. Justice Health All. for Chem. Reform v. U.S. EPA, No. 15-cv-05075, ECF No. 46 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016).
The public input received is available in the docket.\7\
\7\ A summary of the input is available on the EPA website at: https://www.epa.gov/rulemaking-preventing-hazardous-substance-spills/summary-public-input-clean-water-act-cwa-hazardous, as well as in the docket for this proposal: Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-
We intend to supplement the information that this action is based on with an additional information collection. This information collection would be a voluntary survey of U.S. states, tribes, and territories that would request information on the number and type of facilities with CWA HS onsite; historical discharges of CWA HS; the ecological and human health impacts of those discharges; and existing state, territory, and Tribal programs that address discharge prevention of CWA HS. EPA anticipates using the results of the survey to further inform this regulatory action.\8\
\8\ On September 21, 2017, EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 44178) that identified plans to submit an information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval, and provided a 60-day public comment period.
Next, EPA identified an analytical framework of discharge prevention, containment, and mitigation provisions,
or program elements, commonly found in discharge and accident prevention regulatory programs. EPA then conducted a review of existing EPA regulatory programs to determine which regulations, such as NPDES, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Risk Management Program (RMP), and others include these program elements and also apply to CWA HS.
CWA HS Discharge History and Impacts Analysis
EPA analyzed CWA HS discharges reported to the National Response Center (NRC) \9\ over a 10-year period to estimate the frequency of CWA HS discharges and to understand the reported impacts of these discharges to communities that were potentially affected.\10\ 40 CFR 117.21 requires immediate notification to the NRC once the person in charge of a vessel or an offshore or onshore facility has knowledge of a discharge of a designated CWA HS from the facility in quantities equal to or exceeding, in any 24-hour period, the reportable quantity.
\9\ The NRC is the designated federal point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges and releases into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories. The NRC maintains a national database of these reports.
\10\ EPA recognizes that historical CWA HS discharges do not predict future incidents. EPA reviewed the CWA HS discharge history to gain insight into the frequency and impact of past CWA HS discharges.
During 2007-2016, the NRC received reports of 285,867 releases of all kinds (including for example of oil, chemical, radiological, biological to a variety of media). EPA then further analyzed the data to identify discharges of CWA HS that impacted water from facilities in EPA's regulatory jurisdiction. Based on the NRC database review \11\ and recognizing the data limitations discussed further in Section III.A.3, EPA identified 9,416 reports of CWA HS discharges out of the total received (3.3 percent) for this time period. Of these CWA HS discharge reports, the Agency further refined the analysis by identifying 3,140 reports that were reported to have reached water (see discussion below on NRC data limitations). Within that universe, 2,491 (less than one percent of the reports) were identified as CWA HS discharges reported to have originated from non-transportation-related sources.
\11\ This review is described in detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024) for this proposed action.
EPA further analyzed the NRC data to examine how many of the CWA HS discharges to water from non-transportation-related facilities had reported impacts. This information was supplemented with reported impact data for identified CWA HS discharges from the National Toxic Substance Incidents Program (NTSIP).\12\ Impacts reported to NRC and NTSIP include evacuations, injuries, hospitalizations, fatalities, waterway closures, and water supply contamination. A total of 117 CWA HS discharge reports (4.7 percent) included one or more of these impacts out of the 2,491 identified CWA HS discharges to water, reported as originating from non-transportation-related sources over the 10-year period analyzed.
\12\ The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's NTSIP collects and combines information from many resources to protect people from harm caused by spills and leaks of toxic substances. NTSIP gathers information about harmful spills into a central place. People can use NTSIP information to help prevent or reduce the harm caused by toxic substance incidents. NTSIP can also help experts when a release does occur. See https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ntsip/ for additional information.
Table 2--Most Frequently Discharged CWA HS
Number of Number w/
CWA HS CAS No. Chemical class discharges impacts
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).... 1336-36-3 Organic................... 1,322 21
Sulfuric Acid (>80%)................ 7664-93-9 Acid...................... 185 14
Sodium Hydroxide.................... 1310-73-2 Base...................... 147 4
Ammonia............................. 7664-41-7 Weak Base................. 112 18
Benzene............................. 71-43-2 Organic................... 91 8
Hydrochloric Acid................... 7647-01-0 Acid...................... 91 9
Chlorine (liquid/solid)............. 7782-50-5 Base...................... 81 13
Sodium Hypochlorite................. 7681-52-9 Base...................... 81 1
Toluene............................. 108-88-3 Organic................... 38 1
Phosphoric Acid..................... 7664-38-2 Acid...................... 34 0
Styrene............................. 100-42-5 Organic................... 21 1
Nitric Acid (fuming)................ 7697-37-2 Acid...................... 19 4
Potassium Hydroxide................. 1310-58-3 Base...................... 18 0
Total........................... .............. .......................... 2,240 94
Discharge History Limitations
Furthermore, the analysis conducted focused on those discharges that impacted water, but no additional determination was conducted to determine if the waters impacted were jurisdictional.\13\
\13\ Jurisdictional waters include navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, or the waters of the contiguous zone or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
Discharge Impact Limitations
Additional Efforts To Gather Data
Analysis of Existing Regulatory Programs
The Agency assessed current discharge prevention practices and technologies based on a review of existing EPA and other Federal regulatory programs.\14\ To further inform this analysis, EPA also reviewed state regulatory programs and industry standards, which are sometimes incorporated into state or Federal regulations as requirements. The purpose of this regulatory review was to identify common discharge and accident prevention, control and mitigation provisions that would serve to prevent, contain, or mitigate CWA HS discharges. EPA also analyzed past CWA HS discharges to determine what program elements could prevent or minimize impacts from these types of discharges in the future. Finally, EPA considered stakeholder input from the 2016 public meetings when identifying program elements (e.g., secondary containment and inspections, and downstream water notifications). See section II.E for a description of the early stakeholder input opportunities for this action.
\14\ Indiana's Department of Environmental Management took a similar approach when developing a report of aboveground storage tank rules and regulations. See IDEM's Report of Aboveground Storage Tank Rules and Regulations Pursuant to SEA 312; November 2015. https://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/files/ast_rules_overview.pdf.
EPA identified a framework of discharge prevention, containment, and mitigation provisions, or program elements, commonly found in discharge and accident prevention regulatory programs. These program elements are listed in Table 3 and discussed below and in the Background Information Document (BID).\15\
\15\ The analysis did not include administrative provisions, such as recordkeeping, which would normally be included in a regulatory program.
Table 3--Program Elements and Associated Provisions
Program elements Sample owner/operators requirements
Safety Information............ Maintain and review Safety Data
Hazard Review................. Review materials and operations at a
facility, identify potential CWA HS
discharge scenarios, and address
them. Examples of resulting hazard
mitigation measures could include
storage container compatibility,
engineering controls (e.g.,
uninterrupted power source) to
address expected weather events,
overfill prevention, explosion-
proof requirements, and facility
Mechanical Integrity.......... Conduct preventive maintenance
inspections, including process
equipment, and implement
Personnel Training............ Conduct initial and periodic
personnel training for employees
and contractors on proper facility
operations, including any discharge
prevention, mitigation, and
response practices.
Incident Investigations....... Investigate CWA HS discharge causes,
identify ways to prevent
recurrence, document findings, and
implement appropriate corrective
Compliance Audits............. Review and document compliance with
regulatory requirements. This could
be an in-house or third-party
Secondary Containment......... Install and maintain secondary
containment or diversionary
structures to prevent a CWA HS
discharge from reaching a waterway.
Requirements could include
specifications for size
requirements, freeboard for
precipitation, and imperviousness.
Emergency Response Plan....... Develop an emergency response plan
that includes information and
procedures needed in the event of a
discharge to mitigate the impacts
of the discharge, ensure the safety
of responders and facility
personnel, and to notify potential
Coordination with State and Coordinate with state and local
Local Responders. responders on response and
notification procedures prior to a
CWA HS discharge.
Incident investigations examine the causes of a discharge after it has occurred. Lessons learned from incident investigations can then be applied to inform future prevention activities, and may result in improvements to
operational methods, process design, or preventative maintenance procedures with the goal of preventing future CWA HS discharges. Incident investigation requirements may include conducting the investigation, documenting the findings, developing procedures to address the findings, and sharing the results with relevant employees.
Coordinating Emergency Response Plan With State and/or Local Responders
EPA analyzed the Federal programs and corresponding regulations identified in Table 4, focusing on these program elements, to better understand the existing regulatory requirements, practices, and technologies currently used at facilities to prevent CWA HS discharges. These regulatory programs were selected because they include discharge or accident prevention requirements and were identified as regulating at least some CWA HS; or regulating at least some facilities that produce, store, or use CWA HS. For example, the SPCC rule in 40 CFR part 112 was reviewed because more than 50 percent of the 2,491 identified CWA HS discharges in the NRC data were discharges of PCBs, reported as present in transformer oil. Storage and handling of transformer oil is subject to the SPCC rule when a facility meets the applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 112.
Page 29506
Table 4--Reviewed Federal Programs and Corresponding Regulations
Federal programs/regulations Authorizing Regulations
NPDES Multi-Sector General CWA............... 40 CFR part 122.
Permit (MSGP) for Industrial
Stormwater (2015).
RMP Rule........................ Clean Air Act 40 CFR part 68.
SPCC Rule....................... CWA............... 40 CFR part 112.
Pesticide Federal 40 CFR part 165,
Management and Disposal. Insecticide, 40 CFR part 170.
Worker Protection Fungicide, and
Standard.. Rodenticide Act.
For Generators of Resource 40 CFR part 262;
Hazardous Waste. Conservation and 40 CFR parts 264
For Hazardous Waste Recovery Act and 265.
Treatment, Storage, and (RCRA).
Requirements for Underground RCRA.............. 40 CFR part 280.
Storage Tanks (USTs).
Emergency Planning Emergency Planning 40 CFR part 355;
and Notification. and Community 40 CFR part 370.
Hazardous Chemical Right-to-Know Act
Reporting. (EPCRA).
Pulp, Paper, and Paper Board CWA, CAA.......... 40 CFR part 430.
Effluent Guidelines.
Process Safety Occupational 29 CFR part 1910.
Management (PSM). Safety and Health
Hazardous Waste Act.
Response (HAZWOPER)..
Plans (EAPs).
MSHA Regulations................ Federal Mine 30 CFR parts 46-
Safety and Health 48, 50, 56-57.
Act (Mine Act).
Pipeline Hazardous Materials Hazardous 49 CFR parts 171-
Safety Administration (PHMSA) Materials 185.
Regulations. Transportation
Act (HMTA).
Department of Interior/Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Surface Mining Control and SMCRA............. 30 CFR parts 700-
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) 999.
NPDES MSGP for Industrial Stormwater (2015)
This review focused on the provisions in one industrial stormwater general permit, the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, issued by EPA in 2015.\16\ The MSGP is a general permit that is available to facilities that do not discharge to a state with NPDES permitting authority. Because many states model their industrial stormwater permits after EPA's permit, it was used to identify prevention requirements likely to be present in NPDES industrial stormwater permits issued by states.
\16\ EPA focused on stormwater permits for this review because the requirements apply where stormwater from an industrial property has the potential to discharge to a waterway. The MSGP's requirements apply to all pollutants present in the regulated stormwater discharge, including all toxic pollutants, conventional pollutants, and non-conventional pollutants. As such, the MSGP controls what this notice refers to as CWA HS. Further, the MSGP permit is representative of stormwater permits in general.
The 2015 MSGP for Industrial Stormwater includes discharge
prevention and response measures to minimize stormwater contamination (see part 2.1.2.4 of the MSGP). These requirements include plainly labeling containers susceptible to spillage or leakage to encourage proper handling and facilitate rapid response if spills or leaks occur; and implementing procedures for material storage and handling, including the use of secondary containment and barriers between material storage and traffic areas, or a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas.
Applicability criteria. The industrial sectors and activities covered by the MSGP are listed in Appendix D of the permit, while another version of that list of industries is included in Appendix N. The permit is meant to control and minimize pollutants in stormwater discharges associated with specific categories of industrial activities. This permit is available only to facilities that meet the eligibility criteria described in the MSGP where EPA is the permitting authority. Regulated facilities under the jurisdiction of authorized states are expected to be subject to similar provisions in a state-
issued NPDES permit.
The term ``pollutant'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 as ``dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.'' The definition of pollutant is considered to include all CWA HS.
RMP Rule (40 CFR Part 68)
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. The RMP requirements apply to facilities that have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. Therefore, the requirements in the rule apply to processes. A process means any activity involving a regulated substance including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or onsite movement of such substances, or combination of these activities. For example, 40 CFR 68.25 requires that, for each process at the stationary source, the facility owner/
operator analyze and report worst-case release scenarios.
SPCC Rule (40 CFR Part 112)
Applicability criteria. The SPCC Rule applies to any owner or operator of a non-transportation-related onshore or offshore facility engaged in drilling, producing, gathering, storing, processing, refining, transferring, distributing, using, or consuming oil and oil products, which, due to its location, could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful. The rule applies to facilities with an aboveground storage capacity of more than 1,320 gallons of oil (except farms \17\), or a completely buried storage capacity of more than 42,000 gallons of oil. The rule has a number of exemptions, such as an exemption for containers used for wastewater treatment.
\17\ Farms are exempt under two circumstances: (1) If the farm has less than 6,000 gallons of aboveground storage and no reportable oil discharge history; or (2) has 2,500 gallons or less of aboveground storage, regardless of reportable oil discharge history.
While the SPCC Rule applies only to oil, it regulates oil mixed with other substances, including a CWA HS. The definition of oil can be found in 40 CFR 112.2: ``Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: Fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.''
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. Some SPCC requirements apply facility-wide and some apply to specific equipment. For example, 40 CFR 112.7(f) requires that all oil-handling personnel must be trained in the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent discharges; discharge procedure protocols; applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations; general facility operations; and the contents of the facility SPCC Plan. Alternatively, the integrity testing and inspection provisions found at 40 CFR 112.8(c)(6) apply to bulk storage containers.
Page 29508
Pesticide Management Regulation (Pesticide Management and Disposal, 40 CFR Part 165)
The Pesticide Management and Disposal regulation establishes standards for pesticide containers and repackaging as well as label instructions to ensure the safe use, reuse, disposal, and adequate cleaning of the containers. Pesticide registrants and refillers (who are often distributors or retailers) must comply with the regulations, and pesticide users must follow the label instructions for cleaning and handling empty containers. Specifically, the Pesticide Management Regulation at part 165 establishes standards and requirements for pesticide containers, repackaging pesticides, and pesticide containment structures (Sec. 165.1). Twenty-one states implement pesticide containment regulations in lieu of federal containment regulations in 40 CFR part 165.
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. Most requirements in 40 CFR part 165 apply to containers and pesticide manufacturers are responsible for meeting these requirements. For example, 40 CFR 165.25(a) and 165.45(a) require pesticide containers to meet certain DOT packaging requirements even if the pesticide is not a DOT hazardous material. Similarly, Sec. 165.65(e) requires visual inspection of a refillable container before repackaging a pesticide product into it, to determine whether the container meets the necessary criteria with respect to continued container integrity, required markings, and openings.
The regulation also includes requirements that apply to the area where stationary containers are stored and/or pesticide dispensing areas. For example, 40 CFR 165.85 provides design and capacity requirements for secondary containment structures at these areas. The requirements at Sec. 165.90(a)(1) further state that containment structures must be managed in a manner that prevents pesticides or materials containing pesticides from escaping from the containment structure.
Pesticide Worker Protection Standard (Pesticide Agricultural Work Protection Standard, 40 CFR Part 170)
RCRA Generators Regulation (Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR Part 262)
This RCRA Rule establishes cradle-to-grave hazardous waste management standards for generators of hazardous waste as defined by Sec. 260.10. These generator regulations ensure that hazardous waste is appropriately identified and handled in a manner that protects human health and the environment, while minimizing interference with daily business operations.
Applicability criteria. The RCRA Generators Regulation applies to generators of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes, defined in Sec. 261.3, may include specifically ``listed'' hazardous wastes, or ``characteristic'' hazardous wastes evaluated based on four criteria (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity). Some listed hazardous wastes are CWA HS (e.g., toluene), and some CWA HS would meet criteria for characteristic hazardous wastes at certain concentrations if the CWA HS were present as waste. RCRA regulations apply only to waste materials (as opposed to raw materials or intermediate products). This rule establishes different requirements for very small, small, and large quantity generators of hazardous waste.
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. Some provisions apply to facility areas. For example, 40 CFR 262.252 requires that all subject areas must be equipped with an internal communications or alarm system, a device to summon emergency assistance, portable fire extinguishers and other fire/spill control equipment, and adequate volumes of water or foam-producing equipment. Other provisions apply to packages. For example, Sec. 262.31 requires that the generator must label each package of hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable DOT regulations on hazardous materials (49 CFR part 172).
RCRA TSD Regulations (Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265)
Applicability criteria. The standards apply to owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is defined in Sec. 261.3. Hazardous wastes may include specifically ``listed'' hazardous wastes; or ``characteristic'' hazardous wastes, which are identified as hazardous based on four criteria (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity.) Some listed hazardous wastes are CWA HS (e.g., toluene); and some CWA HS would meet criteria for characteristic hazardous wastes at certain concentrations, if the CWA HS were being discarded and thus a waste. A facility includes all contiguous land, structures, and appurtenances on or in the land used for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste.
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. The standards in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 include facility-wide requirements, such as good housekeeping provisions, as well as unit-specific design and operating criteria. A single facility may consist of several types of operational units (e.g., containers, tank systems, surface impoundments, waste piles, landfills,
incinerators). The unit-specific technical requirements are designed to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the environment. For example, Sec. 264.184 includes container-specific requirements governing design and operating requirements for storage area containment systems.
UST Rule (Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks, 40 CFR Part 280)
Applicability criteria. These requirements are specific to UST systems greater than 110 gallons in capacity that store either petroleum or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances. All designated CWA HS are also defined as CERCLA hazardous substances. Specific parts of the regulation (e.g., Sec. 280.42) apply to hazardous substance UST systems and petroleum UST systems, both defined in 40 CFR 280.12.
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. Some requirements apply to equipment. For example, the compatibility requirements at 40 CFR 280.32 state that UST systems must be made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored in the UST system. Other requirements apply to areas or processes. For example, areas directly surrounding the tanks are protected by requirements such as the spill and overfill control measures in Sec. 280.30, which calls for the constant monitoring of transfer operations.
EPCRA Planning Rule (Emergency Planning and Notification, 40 CFR Part 355)
The EPCRA planning rule requires regulated facilities to provide information necessary for developing and implementing state and local emergency response plans. It also requires emergency notification in the event of a release of a regulated chemical. The facility owner/
operator must designate a facility representative who will participate in the local emergency planning process as a facility emergency response coordinator, and provide notice to the LEPC (Sec. 355.20(b)).
EPCRA Reporting Rule (Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370)
For all other hazardous chemicals, 10,000 pounds. A hazardous chemical is defined by OSHA HazCom at 29 CFR 1910.1200(c) and Sec. 1910.1200(c) defines chemical. This definition includes all CWA HS.
Equipment or operations at which requirements apply. The hazardous chemical reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 370 apply to individual chemicals rather than process equipment. For example, regulated facilities must submit an SDS for the subject chemicals to the LEPC, the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), and the local fire department as described in Sec. Sec. 370.30 to 370.33.
Pulp and Paper Effluent Guidelines (Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Effluent Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 430)
The requirements at 40 CFR part 430 were promulgated as part of the ``Cluster Rule'' for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry; are authorized by the CWA and CAA; and establish requirements under multiple statutes for multiple environmental media. The Cluster Rule was included in EPA's review of existing requirements because it includes BMPs for spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine in Sec. 430.03, which includes spill prevention and control measures and the requirement to develop a BMP Plan.
Although the analysis of existing EPA regulations is the basis for this proposal, EPA reviewed other Federal regulations with prevention requirements that may be applicable to CWA HS. For more information about these requirements, see Background Information Document: Review of Relevant Federal and State Regulations; Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0024.
cir Emergency Action Plans (EAPs), 29
CFR 1910.38
cir Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM), 29 CFR 1910.119
cir Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER), 29 CFR 1910.120
cir HazCom, 29 CFR 1910.1200
cir Training and Retraining of Miners Engaged in Shell Dredging or Employed at Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface Clay, Colloidal Phosphate, or Surface Limestone Mines (Training, Sand and Gravel Mines), 30 CFR part 46
cir Hazard Communication (HazCom), 30 CFR part 47
cir Training and Retraining of Miners (Training), 30 CFR part 48
cir Notification, Investigation, Reports and Records of Accidents, Injuries, Illnesses, Employment, and Coal Production in Mines (Accident Notification), 30 CFR part 50
cir Safety and Health Standards--Surface Metal and Nonmetal Mines, 30 CFR part 56
cir Safety and Health Standards--Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines, 30 CFR part 57
State Programs and Industry Standards
EPA also identified state regulatory programs,\18\ which regulate the proper handling and storage of chemicals to prevent accidents and discharges, and industry standards that establish technology standards and recommend practices prudent for proper operation and maintenance. A review of these state programs and industry standards is presented in the BID.
\18\ Fourteen states have regulatory programs; multiple programs in the same state are noted in parentheses: CA (3), DE, GA, IL, IN (2), ME, MA (2), MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, and WV.
EPA cross-referenced the regulatory requirements for the Federal programs in Table 4--Reviewed Federal Programs and Corresponding Regulations with the nine program elements in Table 3--Program Elements and Associated Provisions to identify existing regulatory programs that include discharge prevention, control, and mitigation provisions. The relevance of each EPA/Federal program and corresponding regulations to the cross-referenced program elements and their associated provisions is summarized in Table 5--Review of EPA and Other Federal Regulations for Program Elements, and is discussed in detail in the BID available in the docket for this proposal.\19\ For each regulatory program, this high-level analysis documents provisions related to each of the nine program elements identified.
\19\ See Background Information Document: Review of Relevant Federal and State Regulations; Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024.
The analysis indicates that, for all nine program elements, there are existing cumulative EPA regulatory requirements under various programs for accident and discharge prevention relevant to CWA HS. Similarly, existing cumulative requirements under Federal regulatory programs administered by other Federal agencies and departments (i.e., OSHA, MSHA, PHMSA, and OSMRE) reflect, under various accident and discharge prevention programs, all nine program elements. This information is summarized in detail in the BID. For example, Table 5--
Review of EPA and Other Federal Regulations for Program Elements shows that hazard review and emergency response planning provisions are the two most frequently addressed program elements; these were identified in seven of eight EPA regulations and in all of the other Federal programs reviewed.
GRAPHIC TIFF OMITTED TP25JN18.009
The analysis focused on those provisions within the existing EPA, and other Federal, regulatory framework that address to varying degrees, either
directly or indirectly, the identified program elements for CWA HS. The compliance auditing program element is addressed by one EPA regulatory program (RMP) and one other Federal regulation (the OSHA Process Safety Management standard). Mechanical integrity and personnel training are addressed by seven of eight EPA programs and by three of the other Federal programs reviewed. Secondary containment provisions are included in six of eight EPA regulations and three additional Federal programs reviewed. The remaining program elements (i.e., safety information; incident investigations; and coordination with state and local responders) are addressed by approximately half of the Federal regulations reviewed.
Of the 11 EPA regulations reviewed, three programs include requirements to identify safety information for chemicals used or stored on-site--the Pesticide Worker Protection Standard, the RMP Rule and the EPCRA Reporting Rule.
A general hazard review and identification of process hazards is required by four EPA regulatory programs--the 2015 MSGP for Industrial Stormwater, RMP Rule, SPCC Rule and RCRA TSD Regulations. Four programs, the MSGP for Industrial Stormwater, SPCC Rule, RCRA TSD Regulations and EPCRA Reporting Rule, require description of process technology or equipment for risk identification. The 2015 MSGP for Industrial Stormwater requires permitted facilities to assess potential hazards, implement control measures to minimize discharge based on identified hazards, and compile a list of the industrial activities exposed to stormwater. The RMP Rule requires facilities, depending on applicability, to either develop a hazard review or a process hazard analysis. The SPCC Rule requires that regulated facilities develop spill prevention, control and countermeasure plans that include a review of equipment and processes with a reasonable potential for failure.
Compatibility of stored materials with tanks and equipment is required by five EPA regulatory programs--Pesticides Management Regulation, the SPCC Rule, RCRA Generators Regulation, RCRA TSD Regulations, and the UST Rule. Most of the regulatory programs have a general requirement that tanks or equipment (or tank lining) must be compatible with the stored material. The Pesticides Management Regulation requires compatibility of containers and pesticides stored by referring to and requiring compliance with the DOT Hazardous Materials Packaging Regulations, and also requires that each stationary pesticide container and its appurtenances are resistant to extreme changes in temperature and constructed of materials that are adequately thick to not fail and that are resistant to corrosion, puncture, or cracking. This requirement is included because material incompatibility can result in corrosion, which implicitly requires pesticide storage facilities to incorporate hazard review in order to satisfy the requirement.
Five of the reviewed EPA regulations (MSGP for Industrial Stormwater, RMP Rule, SPCC Rule, RCRA TSD Regulations, and Pulp and Paper Effluent Guidelines,) have a general mechanical integrity program element requirement, eight require inspections and testing, and seven require corrective action as a result of these inspections and tests. For example, the 2015 MSGP for Industrial Stormwater addresses a mechanical integrity program element and requires maintenance of non-
structural control measures (e.g., ensuring availability of spill response supplies, maintenance training). The SPCC Rule requires that facilities' SPCC
Plans include inspections and mechanical integrity.
These regulations frequently outline prescribed content that must be covered in the employee and/or contractor training. These training programs typically require training related to safe operation of equipment as well as emergency response procedures when a spill occurs. For example, the RCRA TSD and Generators Regulations require that facility personnel are trained in hazardous waste management procedures, including equipment monitoring, automatic waste feed cut-
off systems, alarm systems, response to fires or explosions, response to ground-water contamination incidents, and emergency shutdown of operations. Similarly, the Pesticide Worker Protection Standard requires training for pesticide handlers to include safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, including general procedures for spill cleanup. The MSGP for Industrial Stormwater (2015) has a general requirement for permit holders to develop training on the procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, spills, and other releases.
These seven EPA regulations require secondary containment for equipment in order to prevent discharges to jurisdictional waters. Only one regulation, SPCC Rule, allows for active or passive secondary containment. Another four of the seven regulations--MSGP for Industrial Stormwater, SPCC Rule, RCRA TSD Regulations, and Pulp and Paper Effluent Guidelines--allow an alternative to containment to be used to prevent released material from reaching water. For example, MSGP for Industrial Stormwater (2015) allows for a ``similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants.''
These eight EPA regulations require either the emergency response program element or at least one of its sub-elements. Of these, four generally require emergency response plans for discharges or accidental releases--RMP Rule, SPCC Rule, RCRA Generators Regulation, and RCRA TSD Regulations. Both RCRA regulations require that facilities develop contingency plans, which describes the actions that must be taken in response to unplanned release of hazardous waste. The SPCC Rule requires that in addition to spill prevention, facilities must include certain response plan elements to assist with a responding to an oil discharge. The RMP Rule requires facilities to develop an emergency response plan for accidental release.
Seven of the eight EPA regulations reviewed for the emergency response plan element require that facilities plan
immediate actions in the event of a discharge. For example, the MSGP for Industrial Stormwater regulation requires permitted facilities to develop plans for effective response to spills, including procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, spills, and other releases and to execute such procedures as soon as possible. The RMP Plan requires the emergency response plan to include immediate procedures and measures for emergency response after an accident. Four of the reviewed EPA programs also include procedures to ensure personnel safety, such as evacuation. RCRA Generators and TSD Regulations both require evacuation plans for personnel, while the Pesticide Worker Protection Standard requires that employers provide emergency assistance for handlers that have experienced a potential pesticide exposure.
Coordination of Emergency Response Program With State/Local Responders
Table 6--Most Frequently Discharged CWA HS and Relevant Federal
CWA HS Relevant regulations
PCBs (CAS No. 1336-36-3)............... NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Stormwater (Toxic Pollutant).
SPCC Rule (commonly mixed with
transformer oil).
OSHA Regulations.\a\
PHMSA Hazardous Material
Sulfuric Acid (CAS No. 7664-93-9)...... NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Sodium Hydroxide (CAS No. 1310-73-2)... NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Ammonia (CAS No. 7664-41-7)............ NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Benzene (CAS No. 71-43-2).............. NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Stormwater (Priority/Toxic
Pesticide Regulations.\b\
Hydrochloric Acid (CAS No. 7647-01-0).. NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)........... NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Sodium Hypochlorite (CAS No. 7681-52-9) NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Toluene (CAS No. 108-88-3)............. NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Phosphoric Acid (CAS No. 7664-38-2).... NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Styrene (CAS No. 100-42-5)............. NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Nitric Acid (CAS No. 7697-37-2)........ NPDES MSGP for Industrial
Potassium Hydroxide (CAS No. 1310-58-3) NPDES MSGP for Industrial
\a\ All instances of ``OSHA Regulations'' indicate that the CWA HS is
covered under either EAPs (29 CFR 1910.38), PSM (29 CFR 1910.119),
HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120), or HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200).
\b\ ``Pesticide Regulations'' indicates that the substance has a
commercial use of pesticides.
For other regulatory programs, applicability may depend on other criteria in addition to chemical identity. Requirements for USTs apply to CWA HS when present in UST systems greater than 110 gallons in capacity. PHMSA Hazardous Materials Regulations specify integrity requirements for packages used to ship hazardous materials, including CWA HS. Therefore, when CWA HS are stored in packages intended for shipment, the packages must meet certain design criteria that may also serve to prevent discharges of CWA HS. These regulatory programs are cited in Table 6, and the complexities of assessing their
prevention advantages for CWA HS are discussed in the BID.
Alternative Regulatory Options Considered
Targeted Prevention Requirements
EPA identified program elements that could be effective in preventing CWA HS discharges resulting from the other four categories of reported causes. These program elements were considered, both individually and in various combinations, as an alternative regulatory option.
Table 7--Cause Data for Identified CWA HS Discharges
CWA HS discharges Program element that could
Reported cause category \a\ discharges with reported potentially prevent this type of
impacts discharge
Unknown/Illegal Dumping/Other.............. 1,357 74 Unknown--not enough information.
None--illegal dumping violates
Equipment Failure.......................... 563 17 Hazard Review.
Natural Phenomenon......................... 321 4 Hazard Review.
Operator Error............................. 204 10 Hazard Review.
Fire, explosion............................ 46 12 Hazard Review.
Total.................................. 2,491 117 ...................................
\a\ EPA used NRC incident descriptions to categorize the incident cause.
Provisions for any of the four program elements described above, as well as others identified in Table 3, could be included in a targeted regulatory approach. However, these provisions were frequently identified in both the EPA and other Federal regulatory programs reviewed. EPA believes there would be only minimal incremental value in requiring these provisions in a new regulation. Additionally, the benefits of any of the targeted provisions described above may not justify the associated costs.\20\ For more information on the potential costs and benefits associated with regulatory options considered for this action, see the economic analysis, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis; Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Discharge Prevention,'' available in the docket and the summary of the economic analysis in section V.A. of this action.
\20\ Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) section 1(a) states that in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.
EPA requests comments on whether it should adopt a narrowly targeted regulatory approach to prevent CWA HS discharges. Commenters who support targeted prevention requirements should provide information and data that identify which program elements to include and why, the costs and advantages of such an approach, ways to minimize any regulatory redundancies, and any other information that would support the promulgation of new, targeted prevention provisions. Furthermore, EPA requests comments on whether a targeted regulatory approach should allow a facility to substitute alternative prevention measures for specific targeted requirements (e.g., a situation where secondary containment is not practicable, a facility could substitute a separate prevention measure that achieves the same effect).
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with regulatory options considered for this action. This analysis, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis; Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Discharge Prevention,'' is available in the docket.
Table 8--Summary of Unit Costs
Option 1: Proposed Option 2: Prevention Option 3: Targeted
Type of cost action program prevention requirements
3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7%
Hazard Review (Recurring)..... 0 0 19-15,900 20-17,300 19-15,900 20-17,300
Mechanical Integrity (Initial 0 0 348-98,800 349-99,400 348-98,800 349-99,400
and Recurring)...............
Incident Investigations 0 0 40-14,600 42-15,300 0 0
(Recurring)..................
Compliance Audits (Recurring). 0 0 46-10,800 45-10,600 0 0
Secondary Containment 0 0 3,000-43,100 3,570-51,200 3,000-43,100 3,570-51,200
(Initial)....................
Emergency Response Plan, ERP) 0 0 770 914 0 0
Coordination of ERP with State 0 0 (*) (*) 0 0
* Included in cost of ERP.
Table 9--Summary of Monetized Damages
Impact category Average annual damages
Impact cases (millions, 2016
Human Health............................. Injuries (w/o hospitalizations).. 1.2 $0.001
Hospitalizations................. 4.1 0.2
Fatalities....................... 0.3 3.1
Other.................................... Evacuations...................... 211.9 0.04
Sheltering-in-Place.............. n.e. n.e.
Waterway Closures................ n.e. n.e.
Water Supply Contamination....... n.e. n.e.
Environmental Impacts............ n.e. n.e.
Lost Productivity................ n.e. n.e.
Emergency Response Costs......... n.e. n.e.
Transaction Costs................ n.e. n.e.
Property Value Impacts *......... n.e. n.e.
Total................................ ................................. 217.5 3.3
* Property value impacts overlap with human health and other impact categories.
EPA believes the benefits would not justify the costs in any alternative other than the proposed alternative.\21\ The benefits of the provisions are to reduce the likelihood and severity of CWA hazardous substance discharges and their associated impacts on human health and the environment. Table 9 gives estimates of baseline damages from hazardous substance discharges. Annualized damages are estimated as $3.3 million (2016$) and represent human health impacts and evacuations. Nonmonetized baseline damages include impacts such as shelter-in-place events, waterway closures, and lost productivity. The estimated annualized unit costs of proposed provisions vary widely, from less than $100 to tens of thousands of dollars (Table 8). However, existing regulatory programs already require many of the prevention and mitigation actions proposed by Options 2 and 3. Even a robust regulatory program where none existed before would not be expected to completely eliminate all risk.
\21\ Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), section 1(b)(6), each agency shall assess both the costs and benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.
Identifying Facilities With CWA HS
To estimate the universe of facilities that would potentially be subject to a rule preventing CWA HS discharges, EPA first estimated the number of facilities with CWA HS onsite. Information in EPCRA Tier II reports was used to identify facilities with CWA HS onsite, because these reports contain information about many chemicals, of which CWA HS are a subset. EPA reviewed Tier II reports submitted in 16 states and extrapolated the data nationally based on NAICS codes and United States Census data. EPA estimates there are approximately 108,000 potentially affected facilities nationally. For additional details on this methodology, alternatives considered, and the results, please see Section 3 and Appendix B of the RIA available in the docket for this action.\22\
\22\ See Regulatory Impact Analysis; Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Discharge Prevention; Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024.
Proximity to Jurisdictional Waters
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in Section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action proposes no regulatory requirements.
FR Doc. 2018-13470 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am