Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule-Amendments, 58784-58832 [E9-27156]
Download as PDF
58784
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584; FRL–8979–8]
RIN 2050–AG16
Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule—
Amendments
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On December 5, 2008, EPA
amended the Spill Prevention Control,
and Countermeasures (SPCC) rule to
provide increased clarity with respect to
specific regulatory requirements, to
tailor requirements to particular
industry sectors, and to streamline
certain rule requirements. The Agency
subsequently delayed the effective date
of these amendments to January 14,
2010, to allow the Agency time to
review the amendments to ensure that
they properly reflect consideration of all
relevant facts. EPA also requested
public comment on the delay of the
effective date and its duration, and on
the December 2008 amendments.
Having reviewed the record for the
amendments and the additional
comments, EPA has decided to make
only limited changes to the
amendments. With respect to the
majority of the December amendments,
EPA is either taking no action or
providing minor technical corrections.
EPA is, however, removing the
following provisions in the December
2008 amendments: the exclusion of
farms and oil production facilities from
the loading/unloading rack
requirements; the exemption for
produced water containers at an oil
production facility; and the alternative
qualified facility eligibility criteria for
an oil production facility.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
January 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OPA–2007–0584, contains the
information related to this rulemaking,
including the response to comment
document. All documents in the docket
are listed in the index at https://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available, such as Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the Public Reading Room is
202–566–1744, and the telephone
number to make an appointment to view
the docket is 202–566–0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil
Information Center at 800–424–9346 or
TDD at 800–553–7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil
Information Center at 703–412–9810 or
TDD 703–412–3323. For more detailed
information on specific aspects of this
final rule, contact either Vanessa E.
Principe at 202–564–7913
(principe.vanessa@epa.gov), or Mark W.
Howard at 202–564–1964
(howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460–0002, Mail
Code 5104A.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of this preamble are:
I. General Information
II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Final
Rule
III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of
Authority
IV. Background
V. This Action
A. Final Amendments Effective without
Change
1. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)
2. Pesticide Application Equipment and
Related Mix Containers
3. Applicability of Mobile Refueler
Requirements to Farm Nurse Tanks
4. Residential Heating Oil Containers
5. Definition of Facility
6. Facility Diagram
7. Loading/Unloading Racks
8. General Secondary Containment
9. General Secondary Containment for
Non-Transportation-Related Tank Trucks
10. Security
11. Integrity Testing
12. Integrity Testing Requirements for
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
13. Oil Production Facilities
a. Definition of Production Facility
b. Modifications to § 112.9 for Drilling and
Workover Facilities
c. Exemption for Certain Intra-Facility
Gathering Lines
d. Flowlines and Intra-facility Gathering
Lines
(i) Compliance Alternative in Lieu of
Secondary Containment for Flowlines
and Intra-facility Gathering Lines
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(ii) Contingency Plan for Flowlines and
Intra-facility Gathering Lines
(iii) Requirements for a Flowline and IntraFacility Gathering Line Maintenance
Program
e. Flow-Through Process Vessels
(i) Exemption from Sized Secondary
Containment for Flow-Through Process
Vessels
(ii) Additional Requirements in Lieu of
Sized Secondary Containment for FlowThrough Process Vessels
(iii) Reportable Discharge from FlowThrough Process Vessels
f. Alternative Compliance Measures for
Produced Water Containers
g. Clarification of the Definition of
Permanently Closed Containers
14. Man-made Structures
15. Wind Turbines
16. Technical Corrections
B. Technical Corrections to Provisions of
the December 2008 Amendments
1. Tier I Qualified Facilities and Appendix
G Plan Template
2. Underground Emergency Diesel
Generator Tanks at Nuclear Power
Stations
3. SPCC Plan Preparation and
Implementation for New Oil Production
Facilities
4. Compliance Date Provisions Specific to
Farms
C. Provisions Removed from Final Rule
1. Exclusions for Oil Production Facilities
and Farms from Loading/Unloading Rack
Requirements
2. Alternative Qualified Facility Eligibility
Criteria for an Oil Production Facility
3. Exemption for Produced Water
Containers
D. Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order—13132 Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children from Environmental Health &
Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
On December 5, 2008, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or the Agency) amended the Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to address
a number of issues raised by the
regulated community (73 FR 74236).
EPA is now amending the December
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2008 amendments to make technical
corrections. In addition, EPA has
decided to remove three provisions from
the SPCC rule it had adopted in
December 2008. In all other respects, the
amendments have not been changed.
The following provisions, which are
intended to clarify, tailor, and
streamline certain requirements for
those facility owners or operators who
are required to prepare and implement
an SPCC Plan (or ‘‘Plan’’), will become
effective without modification:
• Exemption for hot-mix asphalt
(HMA);
• Exemption for pesticide application
equipment and related mix containers,
regardless of ownership or where used,
that may currently be subject to the
SPCC rule when crop oil or adjuvant oil
is added to pesticide formulations;
• Exemption for residential heating
oil containers, which applies to
aboveground containers, as well as
completely buried heating oil
containers, at single-family residences,
including those located at farms;
• Clarification that the definition of
mobile refueler includes a nurse tank,
which is a mobile/portable container
used at farms to store and transport fuel
for transfers to or from farm equipment
(such as tractors and combines) to other
bulk storage containers (such as
containers used to provide fuel to
wellhead/relift pumps) at the farm;
• Amendment of the definition of
‘‘facility’’ to clarify that contiguous or
non-contiguous buildings, properties,
parcels, leases, structures, installations,
pipes, or pipelines may be considered
separate facilities, and to reaffirm that
the ‘‘facility’’ definition governs the
applicability of 40 CFR part 112;
• Amendment of the facility diagram
requirement at § 112.7(a)(3) to clarify
how containers, fixed and mobile, are
identified on the facility diagram. EPA
also clarified that where facility
diagrams become complicated due to
the presence of multiple fixed oil
storage containers or complex piping/
transfer areas at a facility, the owner or
operator can include that information
separately in the SPCC Plan in an
accompanying table or key. For any
mobile or portable containers located in
a certain area of the facility, an owner
or operator can mark the area on the
diagram, as well as indicate the
potential range in number of containers
and the anticipated contents and
capacities of the mobile or portable
containers;
• Definition of the term ‘‘loading/
unloading rack,’’ and clarification that
this definition governs the applicability
of the provisions for facility tank car
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
and tank truck loading/unloading racks
at § 112.7(h);
• Amendment of the general
secondary containment requirements at
§ 112.7(c) to clarify the scope of
secondary containment so that an owner
or operator need only take into
consideration the typical failure mode,
and most likely quantity of oil that
would be discharged, consistent with
current Agency guidance. This
amendment also provides additional
examples of prevention systems for
onshore facilities found at § 112.7(c)(1);
• Extension of the exemption from
the sized secondary containment
requirement for mobile refuelers
provided in the December 2006 SPCC
rule amendments (71 FR 77266,
December 26, 2006) to nontransportation-related tank trucks at a
facility subject to the SPCC rule;
• Amendment of the facility security
requirements at § 112.7(g) to allow an
owner or operator of a facility to tailor
his security measures to the facility’s
specific characteristics and location;
• Amendment of the requirements at
§§ 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) to allow
an owner or operator to consult and rely
on industry standards to determine the
appropriate qualifications for personnel
performing tests and inspections, as
well as the type and frequency of
integrity testing required for a particular
container size and configuration;
• Amendment of the integrity testing
requirements at § 112.12(c)(6) for an
owner or operator of a facility that
handles certain types of animal fats and
vegetable oils (AFVOs) so as to provide
the Professional Engineer (PE) or an
owner or operator self-certifying an
SPCC Plan with the flexibility to
determine the scope of integrity testing
that is appropriate for containers that
store AFVOs, based on compliance with
certain FDA regulations and other
criteria relating to container
construction and configuration;
• Amendment of the definition of
‘‘production facility’’ to be consistent
with the amended definition of
‘‘facility’’;
• Clarification that drilling and
workover activities are not subject to the
provisions at § 112.9;
• Alternative compliance option for
flow-through process vessels at oil
production facilities requiring general
secondary containment and additional
oil spill prevention measures in lieu of
the sized secondary containment
requirements that would apply to this
equipment;
• Definition of the term ‘‘produced
water container’’, and an alternative
compliance option for these containers
at oil production facilities requiring
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58785
general secondary containment, a PEcertified process or procedure designed
to remove free-phase oil that
accumulates on the surface of the
produced water container, and
additional oil spill prevention measures
in lieu of the sized secondary
containment requirements that would
apply to these containers;
• Exemption for certain intra-facility
gathering lines subject to requirements
of the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s (DOT’s) pipeline
regulations in 49 CFR parts 192 or 195;
• Specific requirements for a
flowline/intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program and an alternative
compliance option of contingency
planning for flowlines and intra-facility
gathering lines in lieu of the general
secondary containment requirements;
and
• Clarification of the definition of
‘‘permanently closed’’ as it applies to oil
production facilities and containers
present at an oil production facility.
The following provisions of the 2008
amendments will become effective with
technical corrections:
• Exemption for underground oil
storage tanks that supply emergency
diesel generators at nuclear power
generation facilities, revising the
provision to state that the exemption
applies ‘‘provided that such a tank is
subject to any Nuclear Regulatory
Commission provision regarding design
and quality criteria, including but not
limited to* * *’’ (emphasis added);
• Designation of a subset of qualified
facilities (‘‘Tier I qualified facilities’’)
with a set of streamlined SPCC rule
requirements. The owner or operator of
a Tier I qualified facility has the option
to complete a self-certified SPCC Plan
template (found in Appendix G to 40
CFR part 112) in lieu of a full SPCC
Plan. In § 112.6 and the Appendix G
SPCC Plan template, technical
corrections include clarifications and
corrections of typographical and
formatting errors; and,
• Amendment of the compliance date
provision for new oil production
facilities, so that it applies to new oil
production facilities that begin
operations after November 10, 2010.
This change is necessary to align with
the current compliance date for other
facilities.
In this notice, EPA is also removing the
paragraphs in § 112.3 specific to farms
because on June 19, 2009 EPA
established the same compliance dates
for farms as for all other facilities (74 FR
29136); such differentiated provisions
are no longer necessary.
Additionally, EPA was particularly
interested in receiving comments on
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58786
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
these provisions as indicated in the
February 2009 notice. After
consideration of all relevant facts and
public comments, EPA is removing the
following provisions which were
promulgated on December 5, 2008 from
the SPCC regulation:
• The exemption for certain produced
water containers that do not contain oil
in amounts that may be harmful as
certified by a PE; and
• The alternative criteria for an oil
production facility to be eligible to selfcertify an SPCC Plan as a qualified
facility.
The Agency is also removing the
specific exclusion of oil production
facilities and farms from the loading/
unloading rack requirements at
§ 112.7(h). Finally, EPA commits to
continue inter-Agency discussions with
DOT to clarify jurisdiction over facilities
as described in the joint memorandum
‘‘Jurisdiction over Breakout Tanks/Bulk
Storage Tanks (Containers) at
Transportation-Related and NonTransportation-Related Facilities’’
(February 4, 2000).
This rulemaking marks the
completion of the SPCC action proposed
on October 15, 2007 (72 FR 58378),
finalized on December 5, 2008 (73 FR
74236), and for which the Agency
considered public comments again in
February 2009 (74 FR 5900, February 3,
2009). Hereafter, comments addressing
the December 5, 2008 amendments will
be referred to as ‘‘comments from the
2009 comment period.’’ However, EPA
recognizes that because of the changes
in this action, and specifically
provisions that have been removed from
the December 2008 Amendments,
facilities may need additional time to
comply with the SPCC amendments. For
example, owners or operators of
facilities with marginal wells may need
a PE to certify amendments to their
SPCC Plan if the facility does not meet
the qualified facility eligibility criteria.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding
the final amendments to the December
5, 2008 rule and the delay of the
effective date, the Agency will propose
to extend the compliance date.
II. Entities Potentially Affected by This
Final Rule
Industry sector
NAICS Code
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Oil Production ..................................................................................................................................................................
Farms ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Electric Utility Plants ........................................................................................................................................................
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries .....................................................................................................................
Chemical Manufacturing ..................................................................................................................................................
Food Manufacturing .........................................................................................................................................................
Manufacturing Facilities Using and Storing Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils ................................................................
Metal Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................................
Other Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................................
Real Estate Rental and Leasing ......................................................................................................................................
Retail Trade .....................................................................................................................................................................
Contract Construction ......................................................................................................................................................
Wholesale Trade ..............................................................................................................................................................
Other Commercial ............................................................................................................................................................
Transportation ..................................................................................................................................................................
Arts Entertainment & Recreation .....................................................................................................................................
Other Services (Except Public Administration) ...............................................................................................................
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ..........................................................................................................................
Education .........................................................................................................................................................................
Hospitals & Other Health Care ........................................................................................................................................
Accommodation and Food Services ................................................................................................................................
Fuel Oil Dealers ...............................................................................................................................................................
Gasoline stations .............................................................................................................................................................
Information Finance and Insurance .................................................................................................................................
Mining ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Warehousing and Storage ...............................................................................................................................................
Religious Organizations ...................................................................................................................................................
Military Installations .........................................................................................................................................................
Pipelines ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Government .....................................................................................................................................................................
The list of potentially affected entities
in the above table may not be
exhaustive. The Agency’s goal is to
provide a clear guide for readers to
consider regarding entities that
potentially could be affected by this
action. However, this action may affect
other entities not listed in this table. If
you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding section titled FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
III. Statutory Authority and Delegation
of Authority
Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(1)(C), requires the President to
issue regulations establishing
procedures, methods, equipment, and
other requirements to prevent
discharges of oil to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines from vessels and
facilities and to contain such discharges.
The President delegated the authority to
regulate non-transportation-related
onshore facilities to EPA in Executive
Order 11548 (35 FR 11677, July 22,
1970), which was superseded by
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
211111
111, 112
2211
324
325
311, 312
311, 325
331, 332
31–33
531–533
441–446, 448, 451–454
23
42
492, 541, 551, 561–562
481–488
711–713
811–813
4247
61
621, 622
721, 722
45431
4471
51, 52
212
493
813110
928110
4861, 48691
92
Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757,
October 22, 1991). An MOU between
DOT and EPA (36 FR 24080, November
24, 1971) established the definitions of
transportation-related and nontransportation-related facilities. An
MOU between EPA, the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), and
DOT (59 FR 34102, July 1, 1994) redelegated the responsibility to regulate
certain offshore facilities from DOI to
EPA.
IV. Background
The SPCC rule was originally
promulgated on December 11, 1973 (38
FR 34164). On July 17, 2002, EPA
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
published a final rule amending the
SPCC rule, formally known as the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR
part 112). The July 2002 rule
amendments (67 FR 47042) included
revisions to the requirements for SPCC
Plans and for Facility Response Plans
(FRPs). It also included new subparts
outlining the requirements for various
classes of oil; revised the applicability
of the regulation; amended the
requirements for completing SPCC
Plans; and made other modifications.
After publication of these rule
amendments, several members of the
regulated community filed legal
challenges to certain aspects.1 All of the
issues raised in the litigation have now
been resolved; EPA published
clarifications in the Federal Register to
several aspects of the amended rule (69
FR 29728, May 25, 2004).2 In a separate
Federal Register notice, the Agency
published a final rule announcing the
vacatur of the July 17, 2002 definition
of ‘‘navigable waters’’ in 40 CFR part
112,3 and restoring it back to the
regulatory definition promulgated by
EPA in 1973 (73 FR 71941, November
26, 2008).
Concerns were also raised about the
ability to implement certain aspects of
the July 2002 rule amendments. As a
result, EPA proposed additional
amendments to the SPCC rule in
December 2005 and finalized them in
December 2006 to address a number of
issues, including those pertaining to
certain ‘‘qualified’’ facilities, qualified
oil-filled operational equipment, motive
power containers, mobile refuelers,
removal of provisions inapplicable to
AFVOs, and the compliance date for
farms (71 FR 77266, December 26,
2006). Additionally, EPA made
available the SPCC Guidance for
Regional Inspectors in December 2005.
This guidance document is intended to
assist regional inspectors, as well as
members of the regulated community, in
reviewing the implementation of the
SPCC rule at a regulated facility. The
guidance document is designed to
1 American Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571
F.Supp. 2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008). The only issue
resolved through litigation was the challenge to the
definition of navigable waters in the July 2002 rule
amendment.
2 Several comments requested that the Agency
codify the clarifications as part of the December
2008 rulemaking. To the extent the subject matter
of the clarification were reflected in the rulemaking,
the Agency either incorporated the clarification in
the regulatory text or reaffirmed the Agency’s
position in the preamble. See 73 FR 74236,
December 5, 2008.
3 This action was taken in accordance with an
order issued by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) in American
Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp.2d 165
(D.D.C. 2008).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
provide more detail about the rule’s
applicability, to help clarify the role of
the inspector in reviewing and
evaluating a facility owner or operator’s
compliance with the performance-based
SPCC requirements, and to provide a
consistent national policy on several
SPCC-related issues. The guidance is
available on the Agency’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/emergencies. EPA
intends to revise this guidance to
address the regulatory amendments in
this action and the December 2006
amendments (71 FR 77266, December
26, 2006). EPA welcomes comments
from the regulated community and the
public on the guidance document at any
time. Instructions for submitting
comments are provided on the EPA
Office of Emergency Management Web
site.
On December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74236),
EPA again amended the SPCC rule to
clarify certain provisions, to tailor
requirements to particular industry
sectors, and to streamline certain rule
requirements. These requirements were
to become effective on February 3, 2009.
However, the effective date of the
December 2008 rulemaking was delayed
for 60 days from February 3, 2009 to
April 4, 2009, in accordance with the
January 20, 2009 White House
memorandum entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Review,’’ and the January 21, 2009
memorandum from the Office of
Management and Budget entitled
‘‘Implementation of Memorandum
Concerning Regulatory Review’’ (M–09–
08, January 21, 2009 OMB
memorandum). (These memoranda are
available for review in the docket for
this rulemaking.) The Agency took this
action to ensure that the rule properly
reflected consideration of all relevant
facts. Accordingly, EPA requested
public comment on the delay of the
effective date and its duration, and
further comment on the regulatory
amendments contained in the final rule
amendments (74 FR 5900, February 3,
2009). On April 1, 2009, the Agency
further delayed the effective date of the
December 2008 rulemaking until
January 14, 2010 (74 FR 14736). The
Agency took this action to allow
sufficient time to address the comments
received on the February 3, 2009 notice.
EPA is now promulgating several
limited revisions to the December 2008
amendments as a result of the Agency’s
review of comments and consideration
of all relevant facts.
Section V of this notice describes
EPA’s action on the December 2008
amendments. For a complete discussion
of the comments received during the
2009 comment period, see Comment
and Response Document for 2008 Final
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58787
SPCC Amendments, Comment Period
Ending March 2009, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Furthermore, EPA has extended the
dates for preparing or amending, and
implementing revised SPCC Plans in 40
CFR 112.3(a), (b), and (c) in a rule
published on June 19, 2009 (74 FR
29136). In that action, the Agency also
established dates for the owners and
operators of farms to prepare or amend
their SPCC Plans, and implement those
Plans.
V. This Action
A. Final Amendments Effective Without
Change
EPA has not modified the following
provisions of the December 2008
amendments (73 FR 74236, December 5,
2008):
• Exemptions for HMA and HMA
containers, pesticide application
equipment and related mix containers,
and heating oil containers at singlefamily residences, including those
located at farms;
• Clarification that the definition of
mobile refueler includes a nurse tank at
farms;
• Amended definition of ‘‘facility’’ to
clarify the existing flexibility associated
with describing a facility’s boundaries;
• Amended facility diagram
requirements to provide additional
flexibility;
• A definition of ‘‘loading/unloading
rack’’ to clarify the oil transfer
equipment subject to the provisions for
facility tank car and tank truck loading/
unloading racks, as well as amended
provisions for this equipment;
• Amended general secondary
containment requirements to provide
more clarity;
• Exemption of non-transportationrelated tank trucks from the sized
secondary containment requirements;
• Amended security requirements;
• Amended integrity testing
requirements to allow greater flexibility
in the use of industry standards;
• Amended integrity testing
requirements for containers that store
AFVOs and meet certain criteria;
• Amended definition of ‘‘production
facility’’;
• Clarification that drilling and
workover activities are not subject to the
provisions at § 112.9;
• Exemption for certain intra-facility
gathering lines at oil production
facilities from the SPCC requirements;
• More prescriptive requirements for
a flowline/intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program for all oil
production facilities and an alternative
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58788
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
compliance option of contingency
planning for flowlines and intra-facility
gathering lines in lieu of all secondary
containment;
• Alternative compliance option for
flow-through process vessels at oil
production facilities to comply with the
general secondary containment
requirements and additional oil spill
prevention measures in lieu of the sized
secondary containment requirements;
• A definition of ‘‘produced water
container’’;
• Alternative compliance option to
sized secondary containment for
produced water containers that includes
general secondary containment, a PEcertified process or procedure designed
to remove free-phase oil that
accumulates on the surface of the
produced water container, and
additional oil spill prevention measures;
• Clarification of the definition of
‘‘permanently closed’’ as it applies to an
oil production facility; and
• Technical corrections.
This preamble discusses each of these
provisions, and any related comments
received during the 2009 comment
period that raise substantive policy
issues, in more detail below. For a
complete discussion of the comments
received in 2009, see Comment and
Response Document for 2008 Final
SPCC Amendments, Comment Period
Ending March 2009, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
1. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA exempted HMA and HMA
containers from SPCC rule applicability.
HMA is a blend of asphalt cement (AC)
and aggregate material, such as stone,
sand, or gravel, which is formed into
final paving products. All types of
asphalt, including HMA, are petroleum
products.
EPA exempted HMA from SPCC rule
applicability by adding a new paragraph
(8) under the general applicability
section, § 112.1(d), and modifying
§ 112.1(d)(2) so that the capacity of
HMA containers is not counted toward
the facility’s oil storage capacity
calculation. EPA took this action based
on the fact that this material is unlikely
to flow as a result of the entrained
aggregate, such that there would be very
few circumstances, if any, in which a
discharge of HMA would have the
potential to reach navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines. This is particularly
of concern at facilities subject to the
SPCC requirements solely because of the
presence of HMA. See Section V.A of
the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
74240 for more information about this
amendment.
EPA received one comment that
recommended that EPA also extend the
exemption to other products like
paraffin wax, asphalt cement, certain
resins, and various animal fats, and
suggested the exemption be based on
the unique ‘‘self-containing’’
characteristics of all these materials and
the low probability of a spill reaching
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. The Agency disagrees with
this comment. As EPA discussed in the
December 5, 2008 amendments, these
materials, unlike HMA, do have the
potential to discharge in quantities that
may be harmful into navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, because they are
generally stored at elevated
temperatures, and thus are capable of
flowing if there is a release from the
container. Conversely, HMA is unlikely
to flow as a result of the entrained
aggregate. The commenter did not
provide new or compelling data
supporting their position. Further, it
should be noted that the SPCC rule only
applies to facilities that, due to their
location, can reasonably be expected to
discharge oil to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines. In determining
whether there is a reasonable
expectation of discharge, an owner or
operator of a facility may consider the
nature and flow properties of the oils
handled at the facility. If a facility
owner or operator determines that there
is no reasonable expectation of a
discharge of oil to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines from every single
oil container at the facility (excluding
exempt containers), then the facility
would not be subject to the rule’s
requirements. However, if the facility
owner or operator determines that any
oil container (excluding exempt
containers) may have a reasonable
expectation of a discharge of oil to
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, then the facility is subject to
the rule provisions.
Other comments generally supported
the amendments to the exemption for
HMA and HMA containers. Based on
this and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no changes to this
provision.
2. Pesticide Application Equipment and
Related Mix Containers
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA added a new paragraph (10) under
the general applicability section,
§ 112.1(d), to exempt all pesticide
application equipment and related mix
containers regardless of ownership or
where used when crop oil or adjuvant
oil is added to the pesticide
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
formulation. EPA also modified
§ 112.1(d)(2) so that the capacity of
pesticide application equipment and
related mix containers is not counted
toward the facility’s oil storage capacity
calculation. Pesticide application
equipment includes ground boom
applicators, airblast sprayers, and
specialty aircraft containers/equipment
that are used to apply measured
quantities of pesticides to crops and/or
soil. Related mix containers are those
used to mix pesticides with water and,
as needed, adjuvant oils, just prior to
loading into the application equipment.
EPA adopted this exemption because
this type of pesticide use and related
mix containers are already subject to
regulation under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as codified in 40 CFR part 165,
to assure the safe use (including
discharge), reuse, storage, and disposal
of pesticide containers. Containers (55
U.S. gallons or greater in capacity)
storing oil prior to mixing it with a
pesticide, or containers used to store
pesticides that contain oil (after mixing
occurs), are considered bulk storage
containers and are not exempt under the
SPCC rule. See Section V.B of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74240
for more information about this
amendment.
Comments generally supported the
exemption for pesticide application
equipment and related mix containers.
Based on this and review of all relevant
facts, the Agency is making no change
to this provision.
3. Applicability of Mobile Refueler
Requirements to Farm Nurse Tanks
In Section V.B. of the preamble to the
December 2008 amendments (73 FR
74241, December 5, 2008), EPA clarified
that the definition of mobile refueler, as
promulgated in the December 2006
amendments to the SPCC rule (71 FR
77266, December 26, 2006), includes a
nurse tank, which is a mobile/portable
container used at farms to store and
transport fuel for transfers to or from
farm equipment (such as tractors and
combines) to other bulk storage
containers (such as containers used to
provide fuel to wellhead/relift pumps)
at the farm. A nurse tank is often
mounted on a trailer for transport
around the farm, and thus its function
is consistent with that of a mobile
refueler. A nurse tank, like other types
of mobile refuelers, is exempt from the
sized secondary containment
requirements at §§ 112.8(c)(2) and
112.12(c)(2), but is still subject to the
general secondary containment
requirements at § 112.7(c).
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comments generally supported the
clarification regarding the applicability
of mobile refueler requirements to farm
nurse tanks. Based on this and review
of all relevant facts, the Agency is
making no change to this clarification.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
4. Residential Heating Oil Containers
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA added a new paragraph (9) under
the general applicability section,
§ 112.1(d), to exempt from SPCC
applicability containers that are used to
store oil for the sole purpose of heating
single-family residences (including a
residence at a farm). EPA also modified
§ 112.1(d)(2) so that the capacity of
single-family residential heating oil
containers is not counted toward facility
aggregate oil storage capacity. Thus, the
owner or operator is not required to
count any residential heating oil
container (i.e., those at non-commercial
buildings) as part of the facility’s
aggregate storage capacity for the
purpose of determining SPCC
applicability, and no SPCC
requirements will apply to these exempt
containers. The SPCC requirements
continue to apply, however, to oil
containers used to heat other nonresidential buildings within a facility,
because the exemption covers only
residential heating oil containers at
single family residences. See Section
V.C of the December 5, 2008 notice at
73 FR 74243 for more information about
this amendment.
Comments generally supported the
amendments to the exemption for
residential heating oil containers. The
Agency did not intend for the presence
of heating oil containers at a singlefamily residence to, by itself, trigger
SPCC applicability. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency
is making no change to this provision.
5. Definition of Facility
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA amended the definition of
‘‘facility,’’ as found in § 112.2. (EPA
defined both ‘‘facility’’ and ‘‘production
facility’’ at § 112.2 in the July 2002
amendments to the SPCC rule (67 FR
47042, July 17, 2002).) EPA modified
the definition of ‘‘facility’’ in three
ways: (1) To clarify that this definition
alone governs the applicability of 40
CFR part 112; (2) to clarify that
containers can be aggregated or
disaggregated (i.e., counted separately),
based on various factors in defining the
‘‘facility’’ (in other words, the owner or
operator has the discretion to identify
which contiguous or non-contiguous
buildings, properties, parcels, leases,
structures, installations, pipes, or
pipelines make up the facility); and (3)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
to add the qualifier ‘‘oil’’ before the term
‘‘waste treatment.’’
EPA maintains that under this
provision, the owner or operator defines
the boundaries of his facility, except as
noted below. A facility may or may not
be subject to the SPCC rule depending
on how the facility owner or operator
aggregates buildings, structures or
equipment and associated storage or
type of activity. EPA recognizes that this
provision clarifies that a facility owner/
operator may determine that he is no
longer subject to the SPCC
requirements. However, an owner or
operator may not characterize a facility
so as to simply avoid applicability of the
rule (for example, defining separate
facilities around oil storage containers
that are located side-by-side or within
close proximity, and are used for the
same purpose). See Section V.D of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74244
for more information about this
amendment.
Comments generally supported the
amendments to the definition of
‘‘facility.’’ Based on this and review of
all relevant facts, the Agency is making
no change to this provision.
6. Facility Diagram
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA revised the requirement that the
facility diagram include the location
and contents of each container to
provide additional flexibility. EPA
amended § 112.7(a)(3) to clarify that the
facility diagram must include all fixed
containers (that is, those containers that
are not mobile or portable). For any
mobile or portable containers (such as
drums or totes), a facility owner or
operator must mark the storage area on
the facility diagram for these containers.
For the purposes of this provision,
‘‘storage area’’ means the location of
their out-of-service containers or
designated storage area, primary storage
area, or areas where mobile or portable
containers are most frequently located.
The facility owner or operator may mark
the number of containers, contents and
capacity of each container either on the
facility diagram or in a separate
description in the SPCC Plan. If the total
number of mobile or portable containers
changes, the owner or operator need
only include an estimate in the Plan of
the number of mobile or portable
containers, the anticipated contents, and
capacities of the mobile or portable
containers maintained at the facility in
the Plan.
EPA also required that certain intrafacility piping (i.e., gathering lines)
exempted from the SPCC requirements
in the December 2008 action be
identified on the facility diagram and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58789
marked as ‘‘exempt.’’ This will help
facility and EPA personnel define the
jurisdictional boundaries at the facility
and provide emergency response
personnel with information that can be
used to identify hazards during a spill
response activity. However, EPA has not
required that all containers exempted
from the rule be marked on the facility
diagram because in many cases, it
would be impracticable. For example,
the mobility of motive power containers
and mobile/portable containers with a
capacity of less than 55 U.S. gallons
makes them difficult to accurately
represent on a facility diagram. See
Section V.E of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74246 for more
information about this amendment.
Comments generally supported the
amendments to the facility diagram
provision. One commenter claimed that
his facility diagrams identify
underground storage tanks, but do not
label them as exempt from the SPCC
requirements. The comment argued that
marking them as ‘‘exempt’’ would be an
unnecessary expense. The requirement
to identify exempt USTs was finalized
in July 2002 (67 FR 47042, July 17,
2002) and so antedates the December
2008 amendments; thus the comment is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
However, in response, we would note
that the facility diagram can be
supplemented with a table or log that
indicates which USTs are exempt from
the SPCC requirements. Based on this
and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this
provision.
7. Loading/Unloading Racks
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA finalized a definition for the term
‘‘loading/unloading rack,’’ which
governs whether a facility’s oil transfer
equipment and areas are subject to
§ 112.7(h). Under this provision, the
requirements described at § 112.7(h)
only apply to oil transfer areas of a
regulated facility where a loading/
unloading rack, as defined in § 112.2, is
located. EPA modified the definition to
provide more clarity, and to indicate
that a loading/unloading arm is an
essential component of a loading/
unloading rack. Other components that
may be found at a loading or unloading
rack are described in the definition.
Equipment present at a loading/
unloading area where a pipe stand
connects to a tank car or tank truck via
a flexible hose, which is not equipped
with a loading or unloading arm, is not
considered a loading/unloading rack as
defined by the December 2008
amendments.
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58790
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
EPA also changed all references from
loading/unloading ‘‘area’’ to loading/
unloading ‘‘rack,’’ including
modifications to the language in
§ 112.7(h)(1), and corrected the word
‘‘break’’ to ‘‘brake’’ in § 112.7(h)(2).
Finally, EPA clarified that § 112.7(h)
applies to a loading/unloading rack
associated with a container that is
exempted from the rule, such as
underground storage tanks (USTs) that
are subject to all of the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a
State program approved under part 281.
Additionally, EPA clarified that transfer
areas (equipped with dispensers or
other transfer equipment) that are
associated with exempted USTs, at an
otherwise regulated SPCC facility, are
subject to the requirements of § 112.7(c).
See Section V.F of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74248 for more
information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with the comment that
EPA’s definition of ‘‘loading/unloading
rack’’ does not apply to a flexible hose
used to load and/or unload oil from a
tanker truck or railcar unless the flexible
hose is connected to a loading/
unloading arm. The Agency does not
intend this definition to include areas
where loading or unloading is achieved
using only flexible hoses. However, the
presence of flexible hoses on oil transfer
equipment does not always indicate that
the equipment is exempt from the
definition of loading/unloading rack
because some top and bottom loading/
unloading racks consist of a
combination of steel loading arms
connected by flexible hoses.
Comments generally supported the
‘‘loading/unloading rack’’ definition and
amendments to the requirements for a
‘‘loading/unloading rack.’’ Based on this
and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to these
provisions.
8. General Secondary Containment
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA amended the general secondary
containment requirement at § 112.7(c) in
three ways:
• By adding text regarding the
method, design and capacity of
secondary containment— to make it
clear that the scope of the general
secondary containment requirements
takes into consideration the typical
failure mode, and most likely quantity
of oil that would be discharged,
consistent with EPA guidance (SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors);
• By specifically referencing both
active and passive measures of
secondary containment to make it clear
that general containment requirements
allows for the use of both active and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
passive secondary containment
measures to prevent a discharge to
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. Active containment
measures are those that require
deployment or other specific action by
an operator. These measures may be
deployed either before an activity
involving the handling of oil starts, or
in reaction to a discharge, as long as the
active measure is designed to prevent an
oil discharge from reaching navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines. Passive
measures are permanent installations
and do not require deployment or action
by the owner or operator. The design
and capacity flexibility described in
paragraph § 112.7(c) is specifically for
equipment and containers subject to this
paragraph and not for other secondary
containment provisions of this rule;
and.
• By including the following
additional examples of prevention
systems for onshore facilities: drip pans,
sumps, and collection systems. Drip
pans are typically used to isolate and
contain small drips or leaks until the
source of the leak is repaired. They are
commonly used with product
dispensing containers (such as drums),
when uncoupling hoses after bulk
transfer operations, and for pumps,
valves, and fittings. Sumps and
collection systems generally involve a
permanent pit or reservoir connected to
troughs/trenches that collect oil. By
expanding the list of examples of
secondary containment methods/
prevention systems found in
§ 112.7(c)(1), EPA intended to increase
the clarity and better represent current
prevention practices. EPA emphasizes
that the list of containment methods/
prevention systems are examples only;
other containment methods may be
used, consistent with good engineering
practice. See Section V.H of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74261
for more information about this
amendment.
As EPA discussed in the December 5,
2008 amendments, the Plan preparer
should include enough detail in the
SPCC Plan to describe the efficacy of the
measures used to comply with the
general secondary containment
requirements (see the SPCC Guidance
for Regional Inspectors, Chapter 4).
While EPA does not require that
calculations be kept in the Plan, it
recommends the facility owner or
operator maintain them such that if
questions arise during the inspection,
the calculations which serve as the basis
for the capacity of the secondary
containment system will be readily
available for review.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments generally supported the
amendments to the general secondary
containment requirements. Based on
this and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to these
provisions.
9. General Secondary Containment for
Non-Transportation-Related Tank
Trucks
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA extended the exemption from the
sized secondary containment
requirements provided to mobile
refuelers in the December 2006
amendments (71 FR 77266, December
26, 2006) to non-transportation-related
tank trucks at a facility subject to the
SPCC rule. Other non-transportationrelated tanker trucks may be transferring
non-fuel oils (i.e., transformer oils,
lubrication oils, or certain AFVOs) and
operate similarly to mobile refuelers;
therefore, they may not be able to
comply with the sized secondary
containment requirements. Specifically,
EPA amended §§ 112.6(a)(3)(ii),
112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.12(c)(2),
and 112.12(c)(11) to include the phrase
‘‘except mobile refuelers and other nontransportation-related tank trucks.’’
Such non-transportation-related tank
trucks include those used to store and
transport fuel, crude oil, condensate,
non-petroleum, or other oils for transfer
to or from bulk storage containers; for
example, a truck used to refill oil-filled
equipment at an electrical substation or
a pump truck at an oil production
facility. Under this approach, the
general secondary containment
requirements at § 112.7(c) still apply.
See Section V.I of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74262 for more
information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the exemption from the
sized secondary containment
requirements for non-transportationrelated tank trucks at a facility subject
to the SPCC rule. One comment noted
that the exemption from sized
secondary containment should be
rescinded, given the use of truck and
skid mounted tanks as storage
containers at temporary sites and the
high risks associated with these tanks.
EPA disagrees with the comment. As
stated in the preamble to the December
5, 2008 amendments, the Agency
concluded that it is generally not
practicable to provide sized secondary
containment for non-transportationrelated tank trucks because they are
moving from location to location within
a facility. A non-transportation-related
tank truck that only operates in a single
or fixed location within the facility (i.e.,
it does not move within the facility for
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
purposes of transferring oil) is not
eligible for this provision and would
still be subject to the sized secondary
containment requirement. Based on this
and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this
provision.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
10. Security
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA amended the facility security
requirements at § 112.7(g) to be
performance-based and allow an owner
or operator of a facility to tailor its
security measures to the facility’s
specific characteristics and location.
This provision extended the streamlined
security requirements that EPA
provided to qualified facilities in the
December 2006 SPCC rule amendments
(71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) to all
facilities subject to the security
requirements.
Specifically, EPA modified the
security requirements at § 112.7(g) to
allow an owner or operator to design the
security arrangements at the facility to
address the specific circumstances that
apply. This provision allows an owner
or operator to describe in his SPCC Plan
how he will:
• Secure and control access to all oil
handling, processing and storage areas;
• Secure master flow and drain
valves;
• Prevent unauthorized access to
starter controls on oil pumps;
• Secure out-of-service and loading/
unloading connections of oil pipelines;
and
• Address the appropriateness of
security lighting to both prevent acts of
vandalism and assist in the discovery of
oil discharges.
A facility owner or operator is
required to document in the SPCC Plan
how these security measures are
implemented. These requirements
replace the more prescriptive fencing
and other requirements, previously
found in § 112.7(g)(1) through (5).
Because the revised requirements at
§ 112.7(g) apply to all facilities
(excluding oil production facilities),
EPA removed the security requirements
previously found at § 112.6(c)(3) for
qualified facilities; the provision would
be redundant. See Section V.J of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74263
for more information about this
amendment.
Comments generally supported the
amendments to the provision for
security requirements. Based on this
and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this
provision.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
11. Integrity Testing
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA amended the requirements at
§§ 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) to
provide flexibility in complying with
the bulk storage container integrity
testing requirements. Specifically, EPA
modified the provision to allow an
owner or operator to consult and rely on
industry standards to determine the
appropriate qualifications for tank
inspectors/testing personnel and the
type and frequency of integrity testing
required for a particular container size
and configuration. Thus, EPA extended
the streamlined bulk storage container
integrity testing requirement that EPA
provided to qualified facilities in the
December 2006 SPCC rule amendments
(71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) to all
facilities subject to the integrity testing
provision.
Specifically, EPA replaced the
previous regulatory requirements at
§§ 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) with the
requirement for a facility owner or
operator to:
• Test/inspect each aboveground
container for integrity on a regular
schedule and whenever material repairs
are made.
• Determine, in accordance with
industry standards, the appropriate
qualifications of personnel performing
tests and inspections and the frequency
and type of testing and inspections,
which take into account container size,
configuration, and design.
These revised provisions allow, for
example, an owner or operator to adopt
visual inspections for certain types of
containers, as outlined in industry
standards, to satisfy the integrity testing
requirements without the need for
environmental equivalence
determinations certified by a PE.
However, EPA notes that certain
containers may not fall within the scope
of an industry standard or may not have
an applicable industry standard; in this
case, the owner or operator of the
facility may develop an environmentally
equivalent inspection and testing
program in accordance with
§ 112.7(a)(2) to comply with the
integrity testing requirements described
in §§ 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) (for
more information, see Chapter 7 of the
SPCC Guidance for Regional
Inspectors). In the case of a Tier II
qualified facility, the environmentally
equivalent integrity testing program will
require PE certification. See
§ 112.6(b)(3)(i) and 112.6(b)(4) for more
information on PE certification of
environmental equivalence for Tier II
qualified facilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58791
An owner or operator is still required
to keep comparison records (records of
inspections and tests kept under usual
and customary business practices will
suffice) and to inspect the container’s
supports and foundations. The owner or
operator must also conduct frequent
inspection of the outside of the
container for signs of deterioration,
discharges, or accumulation of oil inside
diked areas. Because the revised
requirements at §§ 112.8(c)(6) and
112.12(c)(6) apply to all facilities
(excluding oil production facilities),
EPA removed the integrity testing
requirements previously found at
§ 112.6(c)(4) for qualified facilities. See
Section V.K of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74264 for more
information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with the comments
supporting the provision for integrity
testing requirements. However, several
comments generally opposed these
amendments, and one comment
questioned the need for more flexibility
with regard to the integrity testing
requirements. EPA recognizes that
certain containers do not have
applicable industry standards and notes
that the rule already provides flexibility
to integrity testing in that the owner or
operator can rely on a PE to provide an
environmentally equivalent method of
integrity testing in § 112.7(a)(2).
Nonetheless, the December 2008
amendments address broader concerns
with the integrity testing requirements
by revising the rule text under
§§ 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6). No new
or compelling information or data was
provided by comments that supported
changing EPA’s position. Based on this
and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this
provision.
12. Integrity Testing Requirements for
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA differentiated the integrity testing
requirements at § 112.12(c)(6) for an
owner or operator of a facility that
handles certain types of AFVOs.
Specifically, EPA provided the PE or an
owner or operator self-certifying an
SPCC Plan with the flexibility to use a
visual inspection program for integrity
testing for containers that store AFVOs
and that meet certain criteria identified
in § 112.12(c)(6)(ii). This flexibility
applies to those bulk storage containers
that are subject to the applicable
sections of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulation 21 CFR
part 110, Current Good Manufacturing
Practice in Manufacturing, Packing or
Holding Human Food, as well as meet
the following additional criteria: (1) The
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58792
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
containers are elevated; (2) the
containers are made from austenitic
stainless steel; (3) the containers have
no external insulation; and (4) the
containers are shop-built. That is, an
owner or operator with containers
meeting these criteria can use visual
inspection of these containers
equivalent to industry standards, in lieu
of the revised integrity testing
requirements found at § 112.12(c)(6)(i),
without having to document the reasons
for using an environmentally equivalent
measure in accordance with
§ 112.7(a)(2). The owner or operator is
required to document the procedures for
inspections and testing in the SPCC
Plan, including those for AFVO bulk
storage containers that are eligible for
the differentiated requirements
described in this provision.
EPA does not require that an owner or
operator use this alternative compliance
option. This alternative provides
additional flexibility in meeting the
provisions set forth in § 112.12(c)(6) to
address stakeholder concerns. EPA
recognizes that certain types of
containers do not have applicable
industry standards. The December 2008
amendments revised the SPCC rule to
provide an environmentally equivalent
approach to comply with the integrity
testing requirements for AFVO
containers or have a PE provide an
environmentally equivalent method of
integrity testing in accordance with
§ 112.7(a)(2). See Section V.K of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74264
for more information about this
amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the differentiated integrity
testing requirements for an owner or
operator of a facility that handles certain
types of AFVOs. One comment
requested greater flexibility in
determining the appropriate integrity
testing measures for bulk AFVO storage
containers, including an extension of
the inspection frequency for tanks
storing AFVO. The owner or operator
can identify the appropriate integrity
testing measures for bulk AFVO storage
containers following either
§ 112.12(c)(6)(i) or § 112.12(c)(6)(ii).
Additional flexibility may be achieved
when a PE provides an environmentally
equivalent method of integrity testing in
accordance with § 112.7(a)(2). The SPCC
rule requires that inspections of AFVO
bulk storage containers be conducted on
a regular schedule, but does not
otherwise specify an inspection
frequency for these containers. The
owner or operator can identify the
appropriate inspection frequency for the
AFVO containers and document the
inspection frequency in the SPCC Plan.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
No new or compelling information or
data was provided by comments that
would cause the Agency to change its
position. Thus, based on this and review
of all relevant facts, the Agency is
making no change to this provision.
13. Oil Production Facilities
Since its original promulgation in
1973, the SPCC rule has included
differentiated requirements for oil
production facilities (§ 112.9), as
compared to other types of facilities
(§§ 112.8, 112.10, 112.11, and 112.12).
Based on issues presented by the
regulated community, in the December
2008 amendments EPA adopted certain
revisions that further streamline, tailor
or clarify the SPCC requirements for oil
production facilities (see Section V.M of
the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR
74270). EPA has decided not to modify
the following provisions: amended
definition of ‘‘production facility’’;
clarification that drilling and workover
activities are not subject to the
provisions at § 112.9; exemption from
the SPCC requirements for certain intrafacility gathering lines subject to the
DOT pipeline regulations in 49 CFR
parts 192 or 195; specific requirements
for a flowline/intra-facility gathering
line maintenance program and an
alternative compliance option of
contingency planning for flowlines and
intra-facility gathering lines at oil
production facilities in lieu of
secondary containment requirements;
an alternative compliance option for
flow-through process vessels at oil
production facilities that requires
general secondary containment and
additional oil spill prevention measures
in lieu of the sized secondary
containment requirements; definition of
‘‘produced water container’’ and
alternative compliance measures for
these containers which requires general
secondary containment, a process or
procedure certified by a PE designed to
remove free-phase oil on the surface of
the produced water container and
compliance with additional oil spill
prevention measures in lieu of sized
secondary containment requirements;
and clarification of the definition of
‘‘permanently closed’’ as it applies to an
oil production facility.
a. Definition of Production Facility
Consistent with the revisions to the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ (as described in
Section V.D of the December 2008
amendments (73 FR 74236)), EPA also
modified the definition of ‘‘production
facility.’’ A ‘‘production facility’’ is a
type of ‘‘facility’’ as defined in § 112.2.
With the December 2008 amendments,
EPA added a sentence at the end of the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
definition to clarify that while only the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ governs the
overall applicability of 40 CFR part 112,
the definition of ‘‘production facility’’ is
used to determine which sections of the
rule may apply at a particular facility.
(The sections for administrative and
general rule requirements continue to
apply at all facilities under 40 CFR part
112.) This change to the definition of
production facility addresses concerns
raised during litigation challenging the
July 2002 rule amendments and
discussed in the May 25, 2004 Federal
Register notice (69 FR 29728). EPA also
modified the phrase ‘‘and located in a
single geographical oil or gas field
operated by a single operator’’ to clarify
that a production facility ‘‘is located in
an oil or gas field.’’ This is consistent
with the revisions to the definition of
‘‘facility’’ that emphasize the flexibility
in how a facility owner or operator can
determine the boundaries of a facility.
See Section V.M.1 of the December 5,
2008 notice at 73 FR 74270 for more
information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the revisions to the
definition of ‘‘production facility.’’ One
comment, however, suggested that the
Agency refer specifically to petroleum
oil in the definition, to clarify that the
term does not apply to vegetable oil
production facilities. EPA disagrees
with the comment; the addition of the
term ‘‘petroleum’’ is unnecessary
because the definition itself makes clear
that the type of facilities addressed
under ‘‘production facility’’ are those
involved with petroleum crude oil
production and not any other type of oil
production, such as AFVO production.
EPA’s intent has always been that the
definition of production facility
addresses petroleum crude oil
production, extraction, recovery, lifting,
stabilization, separation or treatment
and associated storage or measurement.
For example, the definition includes
terms associated with petroleum crude
oil production, such as gathering lines
and flowlines, which are associated
with upstream petroleum crude oil/gas
production, not AFVO production or
processing facilities. Furthermore, the
definition specifies that certain
structures, piping, or equipment be
located in an oil or gas field. The term
‘‘oil or gas field’’ is used exclusively in
upstream crude oil and gas production,
not in AFVO production; therefore the
definition of production facility does
not apply to AFVO production facilities.
Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this provision.
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
b. Modifications to § 112.9 for Drilling
and Workover Facilities
To clarify that drilling and workover
activities are not subject to the
provisions at § 112.9, in the December
2008 amendments, EPA revised the title
of § 112.9 to read ‘‘Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan
requirements for onshore oil production
facilities (excluding drilling and
workover facilities).’’ EPA also amended
the introductory sentence of the section
accordingly. See Section V.M.2 of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74272
for more information about this
amendment.
Comments generally supported the
amendments to § 112.9 for drilling and
workover facilities. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency
is making no change to this provision.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
c. Exemption for Certain Intra-Facility
Gathering Lines
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA provided an exemption for intrafacility gathering lines subject to DOT
requirements at 49 CFR parts 192
(Transportation of Natural and Other
Gas by Pipeline) or 195 (Transportation
of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline). EPA
recognizes that the DOT requirements
for pipelines may be similar in scope to
the SPCC regulations, so that
compliance with certain DOT
requirements is considered
environmentally equivalent to certain
SPCC requirements. For example, DOT
has the statutory authority over onshore
gas or hazardous liquid gathering lines
in a non-rural area, as well as ‘‘regulated
rural gathering lines’’ (including certain
gathering lines in or within one-quarter
mile of environmentally sensitive rural
areas, defined as ‘‘unusually sensitive
areas’’), and certain low-stress pipelines
transporting hazardous liquids. While
many gathering lines are under DOT’s
statutory authority, only a subset of
them is subject to the DOT regulatory
requirements.
EPA recognizes that gathering lines
can be outside the Agency’s jurisdiction
because they ‘‘transport’’ oil outside of
an oil production facility. EPA has
jurisdiction over non-transportationrelated facilities, which includes
pipelines used to move oil within a
facility. Any inter-facility pipeline,
including a gathering line, that
transports oil between facilities or from
a facility to a vessel, or from a facility
to a transportation-related pipeline
facility, such as a transmission line, or
a pipeline breakout tank, when used for
this purpose, is considered
transportation-related and is therefore
outside EPA’s jurisdiction and not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
subject to the SPCC rule. However, the
definition of ‘‘facility,’’ as it applies to
the SPCC rule is flexible. Depending
upon how an owner/operator defines
his facility under the SPCC rule, an oil
production facility may also include
intra-facility gathering lines.
While gathering lines within the
SPCC facility boundaries are intrafacility piping, EPA maintained the term
intra-facility gathering lines because it is
a term that is well recognized within the
production sector. For those intrafacility gathering lines that are regulated
by DOT under 49 CFR part 192 or 195,
EPA exempted them from the SPCC
requirements. In other words, the
exemption is for intra-facility gathering
lines present at a facility where the
piping otherwise is subject to both EPA
and DOT jurisdiction and regulations.
EPA’s focus with the SPCC rule is the
regulation of oil storage and handling at
facilities engaged in activities related to
drilling, producing, gathering,
processing, refining, storing,
transferring, distributing and using oil,
while DOT’s focus is to regulate
transportation-related pipelines.
Although EPA has jurisdiction over
these lines, EPA has concluded that it
is appropriate to defer to DOT’s
regulations, when applicable to intrafacility gathering lines, in lieu of EPA’s
requirements. At the same time, the
Regional Administrator has the option
under § 112.1(f) to require owners and
operators of facilities, including those
with exempt intra-facility gathering
lines, to prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan or any applicable part, if a
determination is made that it is
necessary to prevent a discharge of oil
into navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines.
Only intra-facility gathering lines that
are subject to these DOT regulations are
eligible for the exemption. Intra-facility
gathering lines located at a facility that
are not subject to the regulatory
requirements at 49 CFR parts 192 or 195
remain subject to the requirements at 40
CFR part 112. Other non-transportationrelated equipment and piping at an oil
production facility (such as flowlines),
remain subject to the SPCC
requirements. In addition, this
exemption requires that owners or
operators of a facility identify and mark
as ‘‘exempt’’ on the facility diagram the
location of exempt piping. This
requirement will assist facility and EPA
personnel in defining the boundaries of
EPA and DOT jurisdiction and provide
response personnel with information
used to identify potential hazards
during a spill response activity. See
Section V.M.4.a of the December 5, 2008
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58793
notice at 73 FR 74273 for more
information about this amendment.
Comments generally supported the
exemption for intra-facility gathering
lines subject to the regulatory
requirements at 49 CFR parts 192 or
195. Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this provision.
d. Flowlines and Intra-Facility
Gathering Lines
EPA is making no changes to the
following provisions related to flowlines
and intra-facility gathering lines.
(i) Compliance Alternative in Lieu of
Secondary Containment for Flowlines
and Intra-Facility Gathering Lines
EPA has determined that secondary
containment is, in most cases,
impracticable for flowlines and intrafacility gathering lines. Therefore, in the
December 2008 amendments, the
Agency revised § 112.7(c) to provide an
optional compliance alternative
consisting of contingency planning and
a written commitment of manpower,
equipment, and materials in lieu of the
general secondary containment
requirements for flowlines and intrafacility gathering lines that are subject to
the SPCC regulation. The Agency
tailored the requirements in an effort to
provide additional compliance options
and enhance environmental protection.
See Section V.M.4.b of the December 5,
2008 notice at 73 FR 74274 for more
information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the provision of an
alternative option to the secondary
containment requirements for flowlines
and intra-facility gathering lines at an
oil production facility. A few comments
specifically opposed any reduction in
secondary containment requirements,
but no new or compelling information
or data was provided by comments that
supported revising the requirements.
While EPA understands that flowlines
and intra-facility gathering lines are
typically a source of discharges,
secondary containment is often
impracticable. In the December 2008
amendments, EPA provided an
alternative compliance option to
secondary containment which combines
the development of a contingency plan
and a written commitment of
manpower, equipment, and materials to
respond to discharges from flowlines
and intra-facility gathering lines. In
addition, EPA has also established
requirements to add specificity to the
flowline and intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program. Finally, if this
method of spill prevention does not
accomplish the goal of protecting
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58794
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, under § 112.1(f) the RA may
request that the facility amend the SPCC
Plan and provide secondary
containment for this piping.
Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this provision.
(ii) Contingency Plan for Flowlines and
Intra-Facility Gathering Lines
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA revised §§ 112.7(c) and 112.9(d)(3)
to provide a compliance alternative to
the general secondary containment
requirements under § 112.7(c) for
flowlines and intra-facility gathering
lines at an oil production facility.
Specifically, in lieu of general
secondary containment, a facility owner
or operator may opt to develop and
implement an oil spill contingency plan
in accordance with 40 CFR part 109
(Criteria for State, Local and Regional
Oil Removal Contingency Plans) and
prepare a written commitment of
manpower, equipment, and materials
required to expeditiously control and
remove any quantity of oil discharged
that may be harmful, without having to
make an impracticability determination
for each piece of piping. The Agency
amended this provision in an effort to
provide additional compliance options
and enhance environmental protection.
The use of a contingency plan does not
relieve the owner or operator of liability
associated with an oil discharge to
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
that violates the provisions of Section
311(b)(3) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
1321(b)(3). EPA also amended § 112.7(a)
to make it clear that the contingency
plan provisions under § 112.9(d)(3) are
not subject to the environmental
equivalence provision. See Section
V.M.4.c of the December 5, 2008 notice
at 73 FR 74275 for more information
about this amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the provision to require an
oil spill contingency plan in lieu of
general secondary containment.
However, one comment suggested that a
contingency plan should not be used in
lieu of secondary containment, because
the purpose of the SPCC rule is to
prevent spills, not to clean them up after
they occur. While EPA understands that
although these lines can be the source
of discharges, the Agency also
recognizes that secondary containment
is often impracticable. EPA has
provided an alternative compliance
option to secondary containment which
combines the development of a
contingency plan and a written
commitment of manpower, equipment,
and materials to respond to discharges.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
In addition, EPA has also established
requirements to add specificity to the
flowline and intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program. These additional
measures are intended to enhance the
primary integrity of the flowlines and
intra-facility gathering lines to prevent
the discharges of oil in the first place,
and thus, EPA is not solely relying on
a contingency plan. Finally, if this
method of spill prevention does not
accomplish the goal of protecting
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, then under § 112.1(f), the RA
has the authority to request that the
facility amend the SPCC Plan and
provide secondary containment for this
piping.
Another comment suggested that the
burden for this alternative option is
excessive. EPA disagrees. First, as
already noted, this alternative provision
for flowlines and intra-facility gathering
lines is optional; some facilities may
choose to provide secondary
containment for these lines. Flowlines
and intra-facility gathering lines can be
a source of discharges and when
secondary containment is not provided
then it is appropriate for the facility to
have a contingency plan and a written
commitment of manpower, equipment,
and materials in place to respond to
these discharges. Additionally, by
removing the need to determine
impracticability, the Agency has
reduced the burden to allow for
contingency planning for these
flowlines and intra-facility gathering
lines. Therefore, EPA has concluded
that the requirements are not excessive.
Furthermore, by removing the
requirement that a PE make the
determination of impracticability
(§ 112.7(d)), the cost of preparing a
contingency plan should decrease.
Another comment suggested that in
lieu of the secondary containment
requirements for flowlines and intrafacility gathering lines, EPA should
require annual physical inspections of
the lines and installation of isolation
valves on the ends of lines. EPA agrees
that some form of enhanced inspection
program is appropriate to assure the
primary integrity of the flowlines and
intra-facility gathering lines and to
implement a contingency plan.
However, EPA has concluded that
inspection frequency is a site-specific
determination and setting a prescriptive
(‘‘one-size fits all’’) timeframe is
inappropriate. Although the Agency
agrees that the installation of isolation
valves may be appropriate in some
cases, it did not include this as a
requirement because it may be
impracticable for some oil production
facilities. However, an owner or
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operator may choose to install isolation
valves as an environmentally equivalent
measure to comply with the flowline/
intra-facility gathering line maintenance
requirements in accordance with
§ 112.7(a)(2).
No new or compelling information or
data was provided by comments that
support modification of the provision.
Based on this and review of all relevant
facts, the Agency is making no change
to this provision.
(iii) Requirements for a Flowline and
Intra-Facility Gathering Line
Maintenance Program
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA revised the requirement for an
owner or operator to prepare and
implement a written flowline and intrafacility gathering line maintenance
program under § 112.9(d)(4) to add
specificity to the existing provision.
This provision specifies that the
requirements apply to nontransportation-related intra-facility
gathering lines, as well as to flowlines
at an oil production facility. Intrafacility gathering lines pose the same
potential for discharge as flowlines. EPA
never intended to regulate the two types
of piping differently. In response to
industry concerns, EPA has established
requirements to add specificity to the
existing flowline/intra-facility gathering
line maintenance program provision,
because there are no industry standards
for maintenance of this equipment. The
Agency believes that an effective
flowline maintenance program is
necessary to detect a discharge in a
timely manner so that the oil discharge
response operations described in the
contingency plan may be implemented
effectively. Additionally, eliminating
the requirement for secondary
containment necessitates more
prescriptive requirements for discharge
prevention to ensure the integrity of the
primary containment of the pipe itself.
Finally, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to establish a minimum set
of requirements for a flowline and intrafacility gathering line maintenance
program in order to facilitate consistent
compliance. Under the amended
provisions, a maintenance program
must address procedures to:
• Ensure that such flowlines and
intra-facility gathering lines and
associated valves and equipment are
compatible with the type of production
fluids, their potential corrosivity,
volume, and pressure, and other
conditions expected in the operational
environment.
• Visually inspect and/or test
flowlines and intra-facility gathering
lines and associated appurtenances on a
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
periodic and regular schedule for leaks,
oil discharges, corrosion, or other
conditions that could lead to a discharge
as described in § 112.1(b). The
frequency and type of testing must
allow for the implementation of a
contingency plan, as described under
part 109 of this chapter, if there is no
secondary containment.
• Take corrective action or make
repairs to any flowlines and intrafacility gathering lines and associated
appurtenances as indicated by regularly
scheduled visual inspections, tests, or
evidence of a discharge.
• Promptly remove or initiate actions
to stabilize and remediate any
accumulations of oil discharges
associated with flowlines, intra-facility
gathering lines, and associated
appurtenances.
The Agency concludes that if the
requirement for general secondary
containment for these lines is
eliminated, then some minimal
prescriptive requirements for discharge
prevention to ensure the integrity of the
primary containment of the pipe itself
are appropriate. However, the facility
owner or operator may deviate from the
flowline and intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program requirements if an
environmentally equivalent alternative
measure is implemented in accordance
with § 112.7(a)(2). EPA recognizes that
other Federal or State requirements may
be environmentally equivalent to certain
SPCC requirements, including the
flowline and intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program requirement. An
environmental equivalence
determination is subject to review and
certification by a PE. An effective
flowline and intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program includes timely
detection of an oil discharge so that
response operations described in the
contingency plan may be implemented
effectively. See Section V.M.4.d of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74276
for more information about this
amendment.
A comment suggested that the
amended requirements for a flowline
and intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program are excessive. The
Agency disagrees. As noted previously,
if the requirement for general secondary
containment is eliminated, then some
minimal requirements that add
specificity to the flowline and intrafacility gathering line maintenance
program are appropriate, particularly
since there are no industry standards for
the maintenance of flowlines and intrafacility gathering lines. To the extent
that an owner and operator of a facility
cannot comply with this provision, he
can deviate from these requirements if
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
an environmentally equivalent
alternative is implemented in
accordance with § 112.7(a)(2). No new
or compelling information or data was
provided in comments that would cause
the Agency to change its position. Based
on this and review of all relevant facts,
the Agency is making no change to this
provision.
e. Flow-Through Process Vessels
EPA is making no changes to the
following provisions related to flowthrough process vessels.
(i) Exemption From Sized Secondary
Containment for Flow-Through Process
Vessels
Flow-through process vessels, such as
horizontal or vertical separation vessels
(for example, a heater-treater, free-water
knockout, gun-barrel, etc.) have the
primary purpose of separating the oil
from other fractions (water and/or gas)
and sending the separated fluid streams
to the appropriate container. In the
December 2008 amendments, EPA
revised the requirements in § 112.9(c)(2)
to remove the requirement to provide
sized secondary containment for flowthrough process vessels at oil
production facilities without making an
impracticability determination, and to
allow the facility owner or operator the
option to comply with the alternate
requirements in § 112.9(c)(5) instead
(see Section ii, below).
EPA agrees with concerns regarding
the impracticability of providing sized
secondary containment around certain
flow-through process vessels at
production facilities. EPA also
recognizes that similar flow-through
process equipment at non-production
facilities are not subject to the more
stringent sized secondary containment
and inspection requirements for bulk
storage containers; only the general
secondary containment requirements at
§ 112.7(c) apply. However, due to the
unattended (and in some cases remote)
nature of oil production operations, EPA
concluded that it was appropriate to
require additional measures in lieu of
sized secondary containment for this
equipment. Thus, in the December 2008
amendments, EPA provided an
alternative compliance option to
address these concerns.
It is important to note that although
the Agency provided an option that
allows the owner and operator to not
provide sized secondary containment
for flow-through process vessels at oil
production facilities, the general
secondary containment requirement of
§ 112.7(c) still applies to these vessels.
See Section V.M.5.a of the December 5,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58795
2008 notice at 73 FR 74277 for more
information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the provision to exempt
flow-through process vessels from the
sized secondary containment
requirement. However, two comments
suggested that any exemption from the
secondary containment requirement for
flow-through process vessels would
cause a greater risk for discharges of
harmful quantities of oil to reach
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. EPA agrees that some form
of secondary containment is required for
these vessels. EPA also agrees that sized
secondary containment is generally
preferable to general secondary
containment because these flow-through
process vessels operate at unattended
facilities and often at remote locations.
However, there are instances where
providing such sized secondary
containment is not always practicable.
To address this concern, EPA provided
the owner or operator with a choice to
comply with either the sized secondary
containment requirements, or the
general secondary containment
requirements along with additional
measures for inspection and corrective
action. These compliance options allow
the owner or operator to tailor the SPCC
Plan to meet the facility’s operational
needs while maintaining environmental
protection.
No new or compelling information or
data was provided in comments that
supported modification of the provision.
Based on this and review of all relevant
facts, the Agency is making no change
to this provision.
(ii) Additional Requirements in Lieu of
Sized Secondary Containment for FlowThrough Process Vessels
Oil production facilities are generally
unattended. EPA recognizes that process
equipment at other types of facilities is
typically attended during hours of
operation and there is a greater potential
to immediately discover and correct a
discharge. Therefore, in the December
2008 amendments, EPA required
additional measures for flow-through
process vessels at oil production
facilities that do not have sized
secondary containment. EPA provided
requirements in § 112.9(c)(5) that
include the following: Periodic
inspection and/or testing for leaks,
corrosion, or other conditions that could
lead to a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b); corrective action or repairs to
flow-through process vessels and any
associated components as indicated by
regularly scheduled visual inspections,
tests, or evidence of an oil discharge;
and prompt removal or initiation of
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58796
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
actions to stabilize and remediate any
accumulations of oil discharges
associated with flow-through process
vessels. See Section V.M.5.b of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74278
for more information about this
amendment.
Comments generally supported the
additional requirements in lieu of sized
secondary containment for flow-through
process vessels. One comment,
however, suggested that the risk of
discharge from flow-through process
vessels is so low that there should be no
additional requirements. EPA disagrees
with the comment because flow-through
process vessels contain oil and therefore
pose a potential threat of a discharge
(e.g., failure of a dump valve).
Additionally, this alternative
compliance option removes the sized
secondary containment specification for
flow-through process vessels that are
located at unmanned facilities, which
are often remotely located, and
constantly operating. Therefore, EPA
has established alternative prevention
measures along with the general
secondary containment requirement in
order to maintain environmental
protection. However, the Agency
provided the owner or operator with a
choice to comply with either the sized
secondary containment requirements, or
the general secondary containment
requirements along with the additional
measures for inspection and corrective
action. Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this provision.
(iii) Reportable Discharge From FlowThrough Process Vessels
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA finalized a provision to require that
if an oil production facility owner or
operator has a discharge as described in
§ 112.9(c)(5)(iv) from a flow-through
process vessel, then he must ensure that
all flow-through process vessels using
general secondary containment comply
with the sized secondary containment
requirements of § 112.9(c)(2) and
periodic inspection requirements of
paragraph (c)(3) within six months of
the discharge discovery. A discharge, as
described in § 112.9(c)(5)(iv), is either a
single discharge of more than 1,000 U.S.
gallons of oil or two discharges within
any twelve month period, each of more
than 42 U.S. gallons of oil. The amount
of oil specified in this criterion refers to
the amount of the discharge that
actually reaches navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, not the total
amount of the discharge released from
the container. Owners and operators do
not need to include the amount of oil
discharges that are the result of natural
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
disasters, acts of war, or terrorism when
evaluating this criterion. See Section
V.M.5.c of the December 5, 2008 notice
at 73 FR 74279 for more information
about this amendment.
No comments specific to reportable
discharges from flow-through process
vessels were received in the 2009
comment period. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency
is making no change to this provision.
f. Alternative Compliance Measures for
Produced Water Containers
Produced water containers are
typically located within a tank battery at
an oil production facility where they are
used to store well fluids that result after
marketable crude oil is separated from
the fluids extracted from the reservoir
and prior to disposal, subsequent use
(e.g., re-injection or beneficial reuse), or
further treatment. Under normal
operating conditions, a layer of oil may
be present on top of the fluids in these
produced water containers. The amount
of oil by volume observed in produced
water containers varies, but based on
EPA’s understanding, is generally
estimated to range from less than one to
up to ten percent, and can be greater.
These produced water containers are
typically at the end of the oil treatment
process and often accumulate
emulsified oil not captured in the
separation process.4
In the December 5, 2008 SPCC rule
amendments, EPA adopted two
alternatives for produced water
containers at oil production facilities.
Under the first alternative, EPA
exempted produced water containers at
oil production facilities from the
requirements of the SPCC rule if a PE
certified, as part of the SPCC Plan, that
the contents of a produced water
container, if completely discharged,
would not contain oil in amounts that
may be harmful (as described in 40 CFR
part 110) based on the efficiency of the
oil/water separation technology used.
Under this alternative, the capacity of
the exempted containers would not
count towards the facility aggregate oil
storage capacity. EPA is removing this
exemption. See the discussion in
section V.C.3 of this notice.
For those produced water containers
that were not eligible for the exemption,
the facility owner/operator could
4 Considerations for the Regulation of Onshore
Oil Exploration and Production Facilities Under the
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Regulation (40 CFR part 112)) found in the docket
for this rulemaking at EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584–
0015; and Supplemental DOE Information Relating
to Oil and Gas Industry Relief from Some SPCC
Requirements, found in the docket for this
rulemaking at EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584–0175.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comply with the general secondary
containment requirements in lieu of
sized secondary containment and
conduct visual inspections,
maintenance and corrective action, if a
PE described in the SPCC Plan and
certified that a practice was established
that was designed to remove the amount
of free-phase oil from the produced
water container on a scheduled and
routine basis. These containers would
count toward the aggregate oil storage
capacity. If the production facility had
certain types of oil discharges or failed
to meet the requirements of this part of
the rule, the facility would no longer be
eligible for the exemption or the
streamlined requirements. EPA also
promulgated a definition of produced
water container to clarify which
containers were eligible for these rule
provisions.
In this action, EPA is not making any
changes to the definition of produced
water container in § 112.2 or the
alternative compliance measures for
produced water containers in lieu of
sized secondary containment as
finalized in the December 5, 2008
notice. The alternative measures to
sized secondary containment
requirements and inspections under
§ 112.9(c)(2) and (c)(3) for produced
water containers include: compliance
with general secondary containment
requirements; implementation of a
procedure or process to remove freephase oil (e.g., skimming program) as
certified by a PE; visual inspection;
corrective action or repairs to the
container; and prompt removal or
remediation of oil discharges.
EPA acknowledges comments that
expressed general support for, as well as
opposition to, the alternatives for
produced water containers finalized in
the December 2008 notice (73 FR 74236,
December 5, 2008). Good general
secondary containment practices can be
successfully implemented in lieu of
sized secondary containment, if such
practices are designed by a PE in
consideration of site-specific factors and
in combination with additional oil spill
prevention practices including
inspections, procedures to minimize the
amount of free-phase oil in the
container, and procedures to remove/
remediate discharged oil. The Agency
acknowledges that skimming operations
at produced water containers may
operate similarly to separation
operations at flow-through process
vessels when free phase oil is being
removed or recovered from them on a
regular basis. Therefore, including the
additional compliance measures for
produced water containers with
procedures to minimize the amount of
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
free-phase oil, including remediation
and inspections, is appropriate and
consistent with alternative compliance
options provided for other bulk storage
containers (i.e., flow-through process
vessels) which separate oil and water
mixtures. As with flow-through process
vessels at oil production facilities, EPA
remains concerned that these produced
water containers are typically located at
unattended, often remote facilities, and
therefore has retained the additional
provisions for maintenance, inspection,
and remediation to maintain
environmental protection. The Agency
agrees with comments that expressed
concern regarding the threat of
discharges from produced water
containers. Oil may be present not only
in free phase, but also in other forms,
such as in a dissolved phase, emulsion
or sludge at the bottom of the produced
water container. EPA is addressing these
concerns by retaining the additional
spill prevention measures in addition to
general secondary containment for these
containers.
A comment noted that it is common
practice to locate produced water bulk
storage containers with other bulk
storage containers in the tank battery
surrounded by sized secondary
containment. EPA agrees that some oil
production facilities already provide
sized secondary containment around
their bulk storage containers, including
around their produced water containers.
Engineered secondary containment
measures, such as dikes or berms, are
particularly appropriate for oil
production facilities (including
produced water containers) since these
facilities can be remotely located and
are often unattended, and thus there
may be delays in detecting and
mitigating an oil spill. In fact, the data
referenced in comments show that a
number of spills from produced water
containers were specifically contained
by a sized secondary containment berm
or other man-made structure which
prevented the migration of the fluids
offsite and to waters. Therefore, the
alternative measures for produced water
containers under § 112.9(c)(6) are
optional. An owner or operator may
choose to comply with the sized
secondary containment requirements in
§ 112.9(c)(2) along with the inspection
requirements in § 112.9(c)(3). However,
because the alternative removal
procedure is essential for reducing the
amount of free-phase oil in the
produced water container, if it is not
implemented as described in the Plan or
no records are maintained, then the
owner/operator must comply with
§ 112.9(c)(2) and (c)(3).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
Additionally, if the facility
experiences a discharge of more than
1,000 U.S. gallons of oil in a single
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or
discharges more than 42 U.S. gallons of
oil in each of two discharges as
described in § 112.1(b), occurring within
any twelve month period (excluding
discharges that are the result of natural
disasters, acts of war, or terrorism) from
a produced water container, then the
facility owner or operator may no longer
take advantage of this alternative option
and must comply with the sized
secondary containment requirements at
§ 112.9(c)(2) and the inspection
requirements at § 112.9(c)(3) within six
months. Section 112.9(c)(6)(v) has been
retained to provide this requirement. As
stated in the December 2008
amendments, a produced water
container must already comply with
§ 112.9(c)(1) and § 112.9(c)(4) and
therefore these requirements were not
added to § 112.9(c)(6)(v). See Section
V.M.7.b of the December 5, 2008 notice
at 73 FR 74287 for more information
about this amendment.
Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this provision or to the
definition of produced water container.
g. Clarification of the Definition of
Permanently Closed Containers
In the preamble to the December 2008
amendments, the Agency addressed
concerns expressed by the regulated
community over the requirements for
permanently closing a container, as
described in the definition of
‘‘permanently closed’’ at § 112.2. There,
EPA clarified that the permanent
closure requirements under the SPCC
rule are separate and distinct from the
closure requirements in regulations
promulgated under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Consequently, an oil
production facility does not have to
undergo the expense of permanent
closure under 40 CFR part 264 or 265
of RCRA, because the drilling fluids,
produced waters, and other wastes
associated with the exploration,
development, or production of crude oil
are not subject to those regulations. See
Section V.M.8 of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74290 for the full text
of this preamble clarification.
No comments were received in the
2009 comment period addressing the
clarifying language and therefore, EPA
maintains its position on this
clarification.
14. Man-Made Structures
In the preamble to the December 2008
amendments, EPA clarified that,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58797
consistent with statements made in the
preamble to a 1976 amendment to the
SPCC rule (41 FR 34164, December 11,
1976), manmade features, such as
drainage control structures and dikes,
cannot be used to conclude that there is
no reasonable expectation that a
discharge from the facility will reach
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. That is, if there is a
reasonable expectation that a discharge
from the facility would reach navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines in the
absence of such containment or other
structures, the facility is subject to the
SPCC requirements. However, EPA
noted that it may be appropriate for a
facility owner or operator to consider
man-made structures (for example,
dikes, equipment, buildings, basements
or other containment structures) to
determine how to comply with the
SPCC rule. See Section V.N of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74292
for the full text of this preamble
clarification.
EPA agrees with the comment that
generally supported the clarifications on
man-made structures. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency
is making no change to this clarification.
15. Wind Turbines
In the preamble to the December 2008
amendments, EPA clarified that wind
turbines meet the definition of oil-filled
operational equipment adopted in the
December 2006 SPCC rule amendments
(71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006).
Thus, the alternative compliance option
provided for this type of equipment in
§ 112.7(k) is available for wind turbines,
to the extent that the wind turbines
meet the oil storage capacity threshold
in the rule. The amendments to the
SPCC rule promulgated in December
2006 allow owners and operators of
facilities with qualified oil-filled
operational equipment the option of
preparing an oil spill contingency plan
and a written commitment of
manpower, equipment, and materials to
expeditiously control and remove any
oil discharged that may be harmful
without having to make an individual
impracticability determination as
required in § 112.7(d). If an owner or
operator chooses this option, he is also
required to establish and document an
inspection or monitoring program for
this qualified oil-filled operational
equipment to detect equipment failure
and/or a discharge in lieu of providing
secondary containment. See Section V.P
of the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR
74294 for the full text of this preamble
clarification.
No comments were received in the
2009 comment period on the
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58798
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
clarification and therefore, EPA
maintains its position.
16. Technical Corrections
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA corrected the text of the
introductory paragraph of § 112.3 to
move the phrase ‘‘in writing’’ after
‘‘must prepare’’ and then insert the
phrase ‘‘and implement’’ after the
phrase ‘‘in writing,’’ in order to make it
explicit that a facility owner or operator
must prepare and implement an SPCC
Plan.
EPA also amended the introductory
paragraph of § 112.12 to delete the
phrase ‘‘(excluding a production
facility).’’ This amendment corrected an
inadvertent omission when EPA
removed several sections in Subpart C
of 40 CFR part 112 that were
inappropriate for AFVOs in the
December 2006 amendments to the
SPCC rule (71 FR 77266, December 26,
2006).
Finally, the Agency amended the
regulation to include ‘‘U.S.’’ before
gallons in several places, to indicate that
the Agency means the U.S. gallon unit
of measure and not the Imperial unit of
measure. See Section V.Q of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74294
for more information about these
technical corrections.
Comments generally supported the
technical corrections. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency
is making no change to these provisions.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
B. Technical Corrections to Provisions of
the December 2008 Amendments
EPA is correcting the text of several of
the provisions promulgated on
December 5, 2008. These corrections
further clarify or update the provisions
of the December 2008 amendments
without making substantive changes to
the regulatory requirements.
1. Tier I Qualified Facilities and
Appendix G Plan Template
As required in the December 2008
amendments, a Tier I qualified facility
must meet all of the eligibility criteria
for qualified facilities promulgated by
EPA in December 2006 (71 FR 77266,
December 26, 2006), as well as not have
any aboveground oil storage container
with a capacity greater than 5,000 U.S.
gallons. EPA developed this individual
container capacity criterion in order to
link any streamlined requirements with
a reduced potential for oil discharge.
The selection of the maximum
individual aboveground container
capacity threshold of 5,000 U.S. gallons
is consistent with the applicable
industry consensus standard that calls
for varying levels of inspection
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
requirements based on container size
and configuration.
EPA designated qualified facilities
that have an individual aboveground oil
storage container with a capacity greater
than 5,000 U.S. gallons as Tier II
qualified facilities. Although the
organization of the regulatory text in
§ 112.6 was modified to accommodate
the tiered approach, the requirements
for Tier II qualified facilities remained
the same as promulgated on December
26, 2006 (71 FR 77266).
The December 2008 amendments
eliminated and/or modified several
SPCC requirements for Tier I qualified
facilities. For example, the facility
diagram requirements (§ 112.7(a)(3)) and
certain provisions that generally do not
apply to facilities that store or handle
smaller volumes of oil, such as
requirements for transfers at loading
racks (§ 112.7(h)) were removed. The list
of applicable rule provisions for Tier I
qualified facilities is included in
§ 112.6(a)(3).
The Tier I self-certification
requirement is similar in scope to that
required for an owner or operator of a
Tier II qualified facility who chooses to
self-certify an SPCC Plan (as
promulgated in December 2006, 71 FR
77266). Consistent with the current
requirement for qualified facilities, the
owner or operator of a Tier I qualified
facility is also allowed to self-certify any
technical amendments to the Plan under
§ 112.6(a)(2), and document this
certification in the Plan template (or
some other equivalent Plan).
The December 2008 amendments
provided the owner or operator of a Tier
I qualified facility with the option to
complete a self-certified SPCC Plan
template (found in Appendix G to 40
CFR part 112) in lieu of a full SPCC
Plan. The owner or operator can
complete the SPCC Plan template,
which is comprised of a set of
streamlined SPCC rule requirements,
and implement those streamlined
requirements, to comply with the SPCC
regulation. The SPCC Plan template for
Tier I qualified facilities is intended to
facilitate the development of SPCC
Plans at Tier I qualified facilities. Once
completed and certified by the owner or
operator, the Plan template serves as the
SPCC Plan for the facility. As for any
facility subject to the SPCC rule, the
owner or operator must maintain a
written copy of the Plan—which in this
case would be the completed and selfcertified SPCC Plan template—at the
facility or at the nearest field office if
the facility is attended less than four
hours per day (§ 112.3(e)(1)).
The Agency emphasizes that use of
the Plan template approach is optional.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
An owner or operator of a Tier I
qualified facility can choose to prepare
and implement either a full PE-certified
SPCC Plan or a self-certified SPCC Plan
following all of the requirements of
§ 112.6(b) (for a Tier II qualified facility)
in order to comply with the
requirements under 40 CFR part 112.
See Section V.G of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74256 for more
information about these technical
corrections.
EPA is now further clarifying the
earlier amendments, as well as
correcting typographical and formatting
errors in the following sections of the
Appendix G SPCC Plan Template:
• Introduction—in the second
sentence, the term ‘‘meet’’ was replaced
by ‘‘addresses’’ for clarity; and a
sentence was added to clarify that an
owner or operator should follow State
and local requirements (such as for
permitting, design and construction)
and obtain professional assistance, as
appropriate;
• Section I, Self-Certification
Statement (§ 112.6(a)(1))—points 3c and
3d are combined and edited for
increased clarity. The phrase ‘‘By
completing this Plan template’’ was
removed because this text is
unnecessary; with this revision, EPA
clarifies that completing the template
represents the preparation of a Plan, but
not its implementation.
• Section II, Record of Plan Review
and Amendments. In the Five Year
Review (§ 112.5(b)) paragraph, EPA
inserted the term ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ for
clarity.
• Table G–2 Oil Storage Containers
and Capacities—In the footnote to the
table, EPA inserted the word
applicability to the phrase ‘‘qualified
facility applicability threshold’’ for
clarity.
• Table G–3 Secondary Containment
and Oil Spill Control—EPA added the
phrase ‘‘cleanup occurs’’ which was
unintentionally not printed in the
Federal Register notice for the December
2008 amendments;
• Table G–5 Inspections, Testing,
Recordkeeping and Personnel
Training—EPA added the word ‘‘bulk’’
to clarify that this provision only
applies to aboveground bulk storage
containers; added citations that were
inadvertently omitted; corrected
typographical errors; and removed an
unnecessary blank row;
• Section A, Onshore Facilities
(excluding production) (112.8(b)
through (d). 112.12(b) through (d)). The
title of this section was amended to
correct a typographical error.
• Table G–10 General Rule
Requirements for Onshore Facilities—
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
EPA added the requirement for manual
activation of pumps or ejectors and
inspection of accumulations prior to
discharge, a rule requirement that was
unintentionally omitted from this Table;
fixed typographical errors; added the
word ‘‘bulk’’ to clarify that certain
provisions only apply to aboveground
bulk storage containers; and defined the
table border;
• Table G–11 General Rule
Requirements for Onshore Oil
Production Facilities—EPA defined the
table border;
• Table G–15 Checklist of
Development and Implementation
Criteria for State, Local and Regional Oil
Removal Contingency Plans (§ 109.5)—
EPA removed inappropriate checkboxes
and reformatted the table to be
consistent with the other tables in
Appendix G; and
• Table G–20 Information provided to
the National Response Center in the
Event of a Discharge—EPA deleted an
unnecessary blank row.
Additionally, EPA is providing
technical corrections in § 112.6 and
Appendix G to amend the selfcertification requirements that refer to
produced water containers, as discussed
further in Section A.13.f and C.3 of this
notice. EPA is also adding extra space
in many of the tables and formatting
them so that each table begins on a new
page.
EPA’s amendments to the SPCC rule
will have no effect on whether a facility
owner or operator must use a PE to meet
the State or local requirements, because
the SPCC rule does not pre-empt any
State or local requirements. In States
where the engineer licensing boards
have prohibited SPCC Plan selfcertification, the owner or operator must
have a PE certify the Plan. Although this
may limit the relief for Tier II qualified
facilities, the owner/operator can
develop and certify a Tier I qualified
facility Plan to comply with the SPCC
rule and have a PE certify the SPCC Plan
to meet the state requirements.
2. Underground Emergency Diesel
Generator Tanks at Nuclear Power
Stations
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA exempted from SPCC applicability
underground oil storage tanks deferred
from regulation under 40 CFR part 280,
as originally promulgated, that supply
emergency diesel generators at nuclear
power generation facilities licensed by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and that meet the NRC design
criteria and quality assurance criteria.
EPA amended § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and
§ 112.1(d)(4) to include an exemption
applicable to both tanks that are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
completely buried and tanks that are
below-grade and vaulted. Under NRC
regulations, a nuclear power generation
facility must meet certain design criteria
to ensure that the plant will be operated
in a manner protective of the public’s
health and safety, including a
requirement to provide redundant
standby power systems (see 10 CFR part
50, Appendix A). These NRC design
criteria cover the design, fabrication,
installation, testing and operation of
structures, systems and components
important to safety. NRC Regulatory
Guide 1.137 describes an acceptable
method to comply with NRC
requirements regarding fuel oil systems
for standby diesel generators and
assurance of adequate fuel-oil quality.
See Section V. O. of the December 5,
2008 notice at 73 FR 74293 for more
information.
The Agency agrees with comments
supporting the exemption for emergency
diesel generator tanks at nuclear power
stations. EPA has further amended
§ 112.1(d)(4) to clarify that this
exemption applies to ‘‘any underground
oil storage tanks including below-grade
vaulted tanks, deferred under 40 CFR
part 280, as originally promulgated, that
supply emergency diesel generators at a
nuclear power generation facility
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, provided that such a tank
is subject to any Nuclear Regulatory
Commission provision regarding design
and quality criteria, including but not
limited to, 10 CFR part 50.’’ (Emphasis
added to show modified wording.) EPA
has concluded that this revision makes
this provision easier to understand. EPA
has also amended § 112.1(d)(2)(i) to
include the phrase ‘‘including but’’
before ‘‘not limited to 10 CFR part 50’’
for consistency.
3. SPCC Plan Preparation and
Implementation for New Oil Production
Facilities
The variables associated with the start
of operations and the employment of
green completion techniques at new oil
production facilities could lead to
significant changes in necessary storage
capacity and facility design. In the
December 2008 amendments, therefore,
EPA finalized an amendment to allow a
new oil production facility a period of
six months after the start of operations
to prepare and implement an SPCC
Plan. EPA excluded oil production
facilities from the current requirements
at § 112.3(b)(1), and added a new
paragraph at § 112.3(b)(3) to require the
owner or operator of a new oil
production facility to prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan six months
after the start of operations. See Section
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58799
V.M.3 of the December 5, 2008 notice at
73 FR 74272 for more information about
this amendment.
This provision does not apply to
drilling or workover activities at
existing oil production facilities.
Drilling and workover operations are
subject to the requirements at § 112.3(c)
for mobile facilities, and facility owners
or operators may implement a general
SPCC Plan. This provision also does not
apply to an existing oil production
facility in which a new well is drilled,
and added to the existing tank battery/
facility. In this case, the facility owner
or operator must amend the SPCC Plan
in accordance with § 112.5(a), which
requires the Plan to be amended within
six months of the facility change, and
implemented within six months of the
amendment.
EPA agrees with comments
supporting the provision to allow new
oil production facilities six months to
prepare and implement a Plan. On June
19, 2009 (74 FR 29136), EPA amended
the compliance date for the amended
SPCC rule to November 10, 2010. When
the December 2008 amendments were
promulgated, the provision applied at a
new oil production facility that began
operations after July 1, 2009, which was
the applicable compliance date. In this
action, EPA is making a technical
correction to change the compliance
date to November 10, 2010, to align with
the current SPCC Plan preparation and
implementation compliance date for all
other facilities.
4. Compliance Date Provisions Specific
to Farms
EPA is removing the paragraphs in
§ 112.3 specific to farms (the current
§ 112.3(a)(2) and (b)(2)) because on June
19, 2009 EPA established the same the
compliance dates for farms as for all
other facilities (74 FR 29136); such
differentiated provisions are no longer
necessary.
This amendment does not remove any
regulatory requirement for owners or
operators of facilities, including farms,
in operation before August 16, 2002, to
develop, implement and maintain an
SPCC Plan in accordance with the SPCC
regulations then in effect. Such facility
owners and operators continue to be
required to maintain (that is, keep onsite and implement) their Plans during
the interim until the November 10, 2010
date for revising and implementing their
Plans under the new amendments.
C. Provisions Removed From Final Rule
After review of comments received
and consideration of all relevant facts,
EPA is removing three of the provisions
promulgated on December 5, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58800
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
These are described in the section
below.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
1. Exclusions for Oil Production
Facilities and Farms From Loading/
Unloading Rack Requirements
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA specifically excluded onshore oil
production facilities and farms from the
loading/unloading rack requirements at
§ 112.7(h). This is because the Agency
believed, and comments supported, that
loading and unloading racks are not
typically associated with these types of
facilities. See Section V.F.3 of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74251
for more information about this
amendment.
Based on review of comments and
consideration of all relevant facts, EPA
is removing the specific exclusion for
farms and oil production facilities from
the loading/unloading rack
requirements of § 112.7(h). Thus, EPA
agrees with comments received on this
amendment stating that certain facilities
(i.e., farms and oil production facilities)
should not be treated differently than
other facilities, even if loading/
unloading racks are not typically
associated with these types of facilities.
In particular, the new definition for
loading/unloading rack (finalized in
December 2008 at § 112.2) clarifies the
type of equipment that is subject to the
requirements at § 112.7(h), eliminating
the uncertainty that may have existed at
farms and oil production facilities. For
facilities (including farms and oil
production facilities) that do not have a
loading/unloading rack as defined in
§ 112.2, the provisions at § 112.7(h) do
not apply; therefore, a specific exclusion
for facilities based on the assumption
that they do not have loading/unloading
racks is unnecessary.
EPA does not believe there is any
basis to specifically exclude loading/
unloading racks from the requirements
at § 112.7(h) simply because they are not
typically associated at a facility within
a specific industry sector.
2. Alternative Qualified Facility
Eligibility Criteria for an Oil Production
Facility
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA finalized a provision that provided
alternative criteria to identify qualified
facilities in the onshore oil production
sector. The alternative qualified facility
eligibility criteria for an oil production
facility were: (1) No more than two
producing wells per single tank battery
if the facility has an injection well; or
no more than four producing wells per
single tank battery with no injection
wells at the facility; (2) each well
produces no more than ten barrels of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
crude oil per day; and (3) the facility has
not had a single discharge as described
in § 112.1(b) exceeding 1,000 U.S.
gallons or two discharges as described
in § 112.1(b) each exceeding 42 U.S.
gallons within any twelve month period
in the three years prior to Plan
certification, or since becoming subject
to 40 CFR part 112 if the facility has
been in operation for less than three
years. EPA developed these alternative
criteria because most oil production
facilities would not be eligible as Tier I
or Tier II qualified facilities that would
allow them the option to self-certify
their SPCC Plans because they generally
exceed the maximum oil storage
capacity criterion.
In this action, EPA is removing the
alternative qualified facility eligibility
criteria provision for oil production
facilities in the December 2008
amendments (as described in Section
V.M.6, 73 FR 74280) by amending
§ 112.3 to remove (g)(2)(i) and (ii), and
revising (g)(2). Paragraph 112.3(g)(2) is
amended to state that: ‘‘A Tier II
qualified facility is one that has had no
single discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) exceeding 1,000 U.S. gallons
or no two discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) each exceeding 42 U.S.
gallons within any twelve month period
in the three years prior to the SPCC Plan
self-certification date, or since becoming
subject to this part if the facility has
been in operation for less than three
years (other than discharges as
described in § 112.1(b) that are the
result of natural disasters, acts of war,
or terrorism), and has an aggregate
aboveground oil storage capacity of
10,000 U.S. gallons or less.’’
EPA is taking this action based on
review of all comments received,
including those comments that raised
serious questions with this specific
exclusion and consideration of all
relevant facts. In particular, the Agency
has reconsidered its decision and
concluded that the alternative qualified
facility eligibility criteria for onshore oil
production facilities will not effectively
protect the environment from discharges
of oil in quantities that may be harmful.
The Agency also believes a PE should be
involved in the development and
certification of an SPCC Plan, unless the
oil production facility is eligible to selfcertify their Plans based on the qualified
facilities criteria finalized in December
2006, because they typically have
complex equipment and store large
quantities of oil. These facilities are of
further concern because they typically
have operations in which oil flows
continuously in unattended, remote
locations and therefore pose an
environmental threat.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Allowing unrestricted oil storage
capacity undermines the existing
qualified facility eligibility criteria and
may pose an environmental risk. Many
small oil production facilities produce
low quantities of oil on a daily basis.
EPA intended to provide these small oil
production facilities an alternative
approach to the existing 10,000 U.S.
gallon aggregate aboveground oil storage
capacity qualified facility eligibility
criteria. The qualified facility eligibility
criterion limits the oil storage capacity,
restricting this option to only those
facilities with a smaller discharge
potential. Although a small oil
production facility produces low
quantities of oil on a daily basis, the
Agency recognizes that the accumulated
quantity stored can far exceed 10,000
U.S. gallons. Consequently, the Agency
has determined that the alternative
qualified facility eligibility criteria for
oil production facilities are not as
protective of the environment as the
qualified facility criteria promulgated
on December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77266).
Based upon EPA’s understanding of
the particular aboveground oil storage
container capacities and the nature of
the fluids handled at certain small oil
production facilities, the Agency has
concluded that the criteria established
in the December 2008 amendments
specific for oil production facilities are
not an appropriate basis to determine
whether an owner or operator of such a
facility is a ‘‘qualified facility,’’ and be
eligible to self-certify his SPCC Plan.
The alternative eligibility criteria in the
December 2008 amendments for oil
production facilities (73 FR 74236) do
not serve to identify a qualified facility
consistent with the approach
promulgated in the December 26, 2006
amendments (71 FR 77266), which
focused on facilities with small oil
storage capacities.
The ten barrels or fewer of oil per day
production rate criterion was used in
the December 2008 rulemaking because
it is consistent with the definition of a
‘‘stripper well,’’ as codified under the
CWA in 1979 (see 40 CFR 435.60) and
used by the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission (IOGCC).5 These
wells are often referred to as ‘‘marginal
wells.’’ This criterion limits the total
flowrate of oil at the facility, but it does
not restrict the storage capacity. An oil
production facility with only marginal
wells may accumulate large amounts of
oil in a relatively short period of time
due to the large amount of oil and water
5 See Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission, 2006: ‘‘Marginal Wells: Fuels for
Economic Growth’’, p. 4 (defining ‘‘stripper wells’’
as wells that produce 10 barrels of oil per day or
less).
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mixtures typically stored at stripper
well facilities. Without a limit on
storage capacity, the Agency is
concerned this approach increases the
likelihood that relatively high-volume
facilities will self-certify their SPCC
Plan without the spill prevention
benefits afforded by PE review and
certification. This may also lead to
certain oil production facilities that
could reasonably be expected to cause
substantial harm to the environment,
and therefore subject to FRP
requirements under 40 CFR 112.20, to
potentially qualify to self-certify SPCC
Plans under the alternative criteria.
Finally, the production rate criterion
does not include the associated fluids,
such as produced water, which typically
contains oil. Marginal or stripper wells
are often older and near the end of their
production life. The fraction of
produced water generated by each
stripper well may be far greater than
that generated by other producing wells
and will likely require significant
storage container capacity prior to reinjection or removal from the facility.
The Agency agrees with the comment
that stated there may be containers
storing produced water and oil in large
quantities (e.g., up to one million
gallons) at oil production facilities
qualifying under these alternative
criteria. The Agency has determined
that establishing a threshold for the
production rate per well does not limit
the amount of oil storage, including oils
in associated fluids.
The alternative qualified facility
eligibility criteria for production
facilities includes more complicated
facilities that may pose a higher risk of
oil discharge. EPA intended the
alternative qualified facility criteria for
oil production facilities to identify
simple, uncomplicated operations
consistent with the approach used for
all other qualified facilities. EPA
reconsidered the type and scale of
operations and the equipment involved
at those oil production facilities that
may meet the alternative criteria, and
concluded that they are generally more
complex than the non-production
facilities eligible under the qualified
facility approach in the December 26,
2006 amendments (71 FR 77266).
Although there may be some
similarities across oil production
facilities, each is unique and tailored to
address factors, such as the oil field,
production rate, type of fluid, location
on a platform or onshore, fluid
viscosity, separation process, and type
of water injection or disposal. Given
these factors, an oil production facility’s
configuration and degree of complexity
is variable, regardless of flow rate.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
EPA agrees with the comment that
stated that a small production facility is
not necessarily less complex than any
other oil production facility. Small oil
production operations often require the
same equipment, including pumping
well heads, pump jacks, flowlines,
separators, heater-treaters, crude oil and
produced water containers, fittings,
headers, valves, electrical lines and
electrical motors. Failure of any of this
equipment may cause an oil discharge.
In the December 2008 amendments,
EPA finalized a criterion that allows the
owner or operator of a facility with no
more than two producing wells per
single tank battery and an injection well
the option to self-certify his SPCC Plan.
After review of relevant facts and
comments, the Agency now has
concluded that an oil production facility
with injection wells, regardless of the
number of producing oil wells, is more
complex than the intended simplicity
inherent in the qualified facility
eligibility criteria. An oil production
facility with injection would have
equipment in addition to that found in
the tank battery. One or more injection
wells are typically used to inject
produced water underground for
disposal or to enhance recovery of the
oil. The underground injection process
adds additional piping to the oil
production facility design and layout.
The injection well process typically
consists of piping extending from a
produced water container to the
injection wellhead, valves, and pumps
and may include tank level indicators,
floats, flow controls, and actuators/
switches. This additional equipment
offers more opportunity for a potential
oil discharge.
By setting a maximum number of
wells as part of the alternative eligibility
criteria, the Agency intended to increase
the likelihood these wells were colocated with the tank battery or in
relatively close proximity. However, an
oil production facility with up to four
wells may have long flowlines.
Flowlines and intra-facility gathering
lines may extend for long distances to
reach a tank battery, may cross or be
located closer to a navigable waterway
or adjoining shorelines than the tank
battery, and often runs over land owned
by an entity other than the owner or
operator of the oil production facility.
The Agency has concluded that the
criterion that limits the number of wells
does not necessarily restrict the lengths
of these lines, particularly with the
amendment to the definition of
‘‘facility,’’ which provides the owner or
operator of the facility with flexibility in
defining the oil production facility, such
that a formal PE certification and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58801
review, particularly for the flowline and
intra-facility gathering line maintenance
program, at these facilities is likely
appropriate. Furthermore, the Agency
recognizes that because there is
currently no industry standard for
flowline maintenance, the need for a PE
to develop a flowline and intra-facility
gathering line maintenance program in
accordance with good engineering
practice is even more significant.
As EPA stated in the preamble of the
December 2006 final rule, facilities
handling smaller amounts of oil are
typically simpler in layout and
operation. Most facilities with an oil
storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less
are in industrial sectors that are end
consumers of oil (i.e., farms, real estate,
rental and leasing, retail trade,
construction). These facilities generally
tend to use oil on-site for heating
purposes, or to fuel emergency power
generators or heavy machinery. The
configuration of the oil-related
equipment tends to be relatively
standard and simple. Oil is commonly
stored in a few bulk storage containers
which are often bought off-the-shelf
from a tank manufacturer or installer
(e.g., standard UL–142 tanks) and
connected with few short lengths of
piping (see December 26, 2006, 71 FR
77270). This is generally not the case at
oil production facilities. Therefore, for
the reasons discussed above, the
alternative qualified facility criteria for
oil production facilities finalized in the
December 2008 final rule did not
achieve the result of limiting the
eligibility to self-certify SPCC Plans to
those facilities with simple
configurations and operations.
The volume of oil discharged from
production facilities is increasing. As
described in EPA’s study of the oil
production sector (found in the docket
for this rulemaking at EPA–HQ–OPA–
2007–0584–0015), there were 401,072
marginal oil wells (i.e., wells producing
up to 10 barrels per day) operating in
2005. The percent of marginal oil wells
varies by State, from approximately 15
percent in South Dakota, to 100 percent
in several Appalachian and midWestern States. While individual
production rates may be small (an
average of 2.2 barrels per day), marginal
wells collectively represent a
significant, and growing, share of U.S.
oil production, due to the overall
decline in domestic production,
particularly from onshore fields. Again,
as described in EPA’s study of the oil
production sector, according to the
Department of Energy, as of 2005, about
19 percent of crude oil produced in the
U.S. came from marginal wells. In the
lower 48 States, marginal wells
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58802
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
represented approximately 30 percent of
onshore oil production in 2003.6
The SPCC regulation is based on oil
storage capacity and the potential for
discharges of oil in quantities that may
be harmful to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines. The Agency has
concluded that small oil production
facilities (i.e., those comprised of
marginal wells) have and can continue
to pose a threat of an oil discharge to
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. EPA has reviewed the spill
data for the oil production sector
contained in its study of the exploration
and production sector (Considerations
for the Regulation of Onshore Oil
Exploration and Production Facilities
Under the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Regulation (40 CFR
part 112)) found in the docket for this
rulemaking at EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–
0584–0015). While these data do not
characterize the extent of environmental
damage caused by oil discharges from
small oil production facilities, they
demonstrate that the volume of oil
discharged from onshore oil production
facilities are increasing, and the number
of oil discharges on a yearly basis has
remained the same, despite a decline in
crude oil production. In addition, oil
production facilities are often
unattended, and typically located in
remote areas, which potentially
increases the risk of environmental
damage from an oil discharge.
Therefore, the combination of the
potential for oil storage capacity greater
than the 10,000 U.S. gallons threshold,
identified risk factors and spill history
leads EPA to conclude that these
facilities need the benefit of PE review
and certification of their SPCC Plans.
Furthermore, information received by
the Agency from other sources, which
are summarized in the docket in EPA’s
‘‘Preliminary Assessment of SPCC
Compliance Costs and Energy Impacts
on Oil Production and Exploration’’:
Overall Conclusions and Response to
Comments (EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584–
0173), indicate increased spill potential
due to equipment failure as oil
production equipment ages, particularly
if maintenance has been inadequate.
Much of the U.S. oil production
infrastructure has been in place for
decades. Marginal wells, in particular,
are often older wells nearing the end of
their production life, and may have
older equipment that may be more
prone to failure.
6 Considerations for the Regulation of Onshore
Oil Exploration and Production Facilities Under the
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Regulation (40 CFR part 112)) found in the docket
for this rulemaking at EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584–
0015, see page 9.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
EPA recognizes that several comments
expressed general support for the
alternative qualified facility eligibility
criteria for an oil production facility.
However, upon reconsideration of all
relevant facts, including comments
opposing the approach, EPA has
decided for the reasons explained in
detail above to remove the provisions
related to alternative qualified facility
eligibility criteria for an oil production
facility in the final rule.
3. Exemption for Produced Water
Containers
In this action, EPA is amending or
removing all rule elements associated
with the exemption for produced water
containers in the December 2008
amendments (Section V.M.7, 73 FR
74285) as described below:
• Amending § 112.1 to remove
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(F) and (d)(12);
• Amending § 112.3 by removing
paragraph (d)(1)(vi) and designating
paragraph (d)(1)(vii) as (d)(1)(vi).
• Amending § 112.5 by removing
paragraphs (b) and (c), revising
paragraph (d) to remove reference to
deleted paragraphs, and redesignating
paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (b)
and (c);
• Amending § 112.6 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1)(vii), (b)(1)(vii),
(b)(3)(iii), and (b)(4)(ii) to remove
references to the produced water
container exemption and associated
appurtenances downstream from the
container;
• Amending § 112.7 by revising
paragraph (a)(3) to remove reference to
produced water containers;
• Amending § 112.9 by revising
paragraph § 112.9(c)(6); and
• Revising the reference to produced
water containers in Appendix G—Tier I
Qualified Facility SPCC Plan Template.
EPA is taking this action after
reviewing all of the relevant facts and
all of the comments received on this
issue for the October 2007 proposed rule
(72 FR 58378 October 15, 2007) and the
December 2008 amendments (73 FR
74236 and 74 FR 5900 February 3,
2009). Several comments expressed
support for the exemption, with one
comment arguing that regulation of
produced water is outside the SPCC
rule’s jurisdiction. EPA also received
comments that opposed the exemption
for produced water containers. Based on
this review, the Agency has determined
that the exemption for produced water
containers would not effectively protect
the environment from discharges of
quantities of oil that may be harmful.
Comments submitted during the 2009
comment period also pointed out that
the provisions for produced water
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
containers were confusing and
unnecessary, with one comment stating
that the exemption lacked a supportable
rationale. Other comments noted that
discharges from produced water
containers contain oil, and discharges
occur and can cause harm. These
comments are discussed in more detail
below.
Containers with no oil are not subject
to the SPCC rule. The Agency agrees
with comments that a fluid containing
no oil is not subject to the SPCC
requirements. A container that does not
hold oil is not regulated under the SPCC
rule; therefore, a specific exemption for
produced water containers that holds no
oil is unnecessary. However, EPA notes
that generally, produced water
containers may contain oil in sufficient
quantity to cause a harmful discharge.
In fact, the Agency received relatively
little specific information on whether
there are unique characteristics to
differentiate produced water containers
from other bulk storage containers
found at onshore oil production
facilities, and none that warrant
differentiated treatment.
Produced water containers typically
contain oil. Several comments
expressed support for an exemption of
produced water containers from SPCC
regulation. These comments stated that
produced water containers should not
be subject to the rule. Most of the
comments received, however, focused
on the composition of the produced
water mixture and noted that produced
water generally contains varying
quantities of oil. While none of the
comments offered detailed information
on the amount of free-phase oil
measured in produced water containers
as requested by EPA, they generally
confirm that the presence of oil in
produced water is not exceptional, but
rather can be expected as a matter of
regular operations at oil production
facilities. Oil may be recovered even
after the produced water has undergone
several separations at the onshore
production facility, prior to reinjection
of the produced water into the
geological formation. Comments point
out that produced water containers have
an oil layer floating on top of the water.
One comment indicated that produced
water contains about 0.1 percent oil, but
did not indicate whether this fraction
represents oil dissolved or suspended in
the produced water mixture and
whether produced water containers may
accumulate additional oil as a freephase layer. Information received by the
Agency from other sources, which are
summarized in the docket (EPA–HQ–
OPA–2007–0584–0015 and EPA–HQ–
OPA–2007–0584–0175), indicates that
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
while the fraction of oil dissolved or
suspended within the aqueous phase
may be low, additional oil is often
found as a free-phase layer floating at
the surface of the produced water
container. In the event of a discharge,
the aqueous phase of the produced
water mixture may serve to carry the oil
farther overland and into waters than
cases where crude oil alone is
discharged.
The Agency received no additional
data on the efficiency of separators
typically found at onshore oil
production facilities or comments on
how the separation efficiency may vary
over time. The Agency agrees that
residence time is a key factor in
achieving separation of the crude oil
from other well fluids. Many oil
production facilities rely on
gravitational separation and long
retention times to separate and recover
the crude oil. Based on information
reviewed by the Agency, included in the
docket to the rule, separation equipment
found at onshore oil production
facilities are not perfectly efficient at
separating oil from the produced fluids
and residual oil may remain with the
produced water and further separate in
quiescent conditions present in the
produced water container. Furthermore,
separation equipment likely becomes
less efficient with age and use, thus
allowing more oil into a produced water
container. It is therefore not exceptional
for a layer of oil to accumulate in a
produced water container.
In some cases, produced water
containers are used as part of the
separation process. In the preamble to
the December 2008 amendments, EPA
suggested that produced water
containers may be similar to flow
through-process equipment when they
are used as separators (71 FR 74288,
December 5, 2008). However, one
comment pointed out that produced
water containers are typically
atmospheric storage tanks, whereas,
process vessels have a pressure rating
above atmospheric. EPA agrees with the
comment and acknowledges that
produced water containers are typically
used as storage containers at the end of
the separation process. Produced water
containers are bulk storage containers
and, therefore, are subject to the bulk
storage container requirements under
§ 112.9(c). However, the Agency
acknowledges that owners and operators
of these containers may use a process to
remove free-phase oil on a regular basis.
To address this, the Agency is retaining
the option for owners and operators of
produced water containers to comply
with alternative measures in lieu of
sized secondary containment when a PE
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
describes in the Plan and certifies a
procedure or process to remove freephase oil (e.g., a skimming program) has
been established and the facility
complies with general secondary
containment requirements; visual
inspection; corrective action or repairs
to the container; and prompt removal or
remediation of oil discharges from
produced water containers. For a further
discussion of the alternative compliance
option for produced water containers,
see section V.A.13.f of this notice.
Produced water containers are a
source of oil discharges. EPA agrees
with comments arguing that spill data
shows that produced water containers
are a source of oil discharges from
onshore oil production facilities. The
Agency’s analysis of spill notification
data compiled by the National Response
Center (NRC) for the period of 2000
through 2005, for example, identified
314 oil discharges described as having
originated from tanks, including over a
quarter specifically described as
involving produced water containers,
compared to 20 percent from crude oil
stock tanks (the remaining 55 percent
involved tanks holding unspecified
fluids). The Agency believes that
additional discharges may have been
reported to State and local authorities.
Produced water containers may be
equally or even more likely to fail than
other containers in the tank battery.
Information reviewed by the Agency
and presented in the public docket
(EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584–0015)
showed corrosion as a common cause of
oil and produced water discharges at
onshore oil production facilities. The
higher salt content of produced water
fluids as compared to crude oil may
lead to the increased corrosion rate of
metallic components of the produced
water storage system. The oil
production process is configured to
send continuously flowing and treated
well fluids to the storage containers,
with the produced water containers
often located at the end of that process.
The Agency’s review of the
circumstances of past oil discharges
reported to the NRC shows that
produced water containers often receive
the additional well fluids when
treatment equipment or appurtenances
fail or when a pumper’s scheduled visit
is delayed, thereby increasing the
amount of oil entering the produced
water container and the probability that
the tank will overflow, or otherwise
discharge oil to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines.
Discharges of produced water can
cause harm. Produced water can cause
harm to surface waters, flora, fauna, and
other sensitive resources and
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58803
ecosystems. As described in the
Summary of DOE Comments and EPA
Response (EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–1486–
0175), and the Considerations for the
Regulation of Onshore Oil Exploration
and Production Facilities Under the
Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Regulation (40 CFR
part 112) (EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–1486–
0015) the impacts of produced water
discharges are similar to the impacts
observed following other oil discharges.
Additionally, the co-location of oil
production facilities with other land
users, including farmers and ranchers,
raises additional concern over potential
contamination of water resources that
are essential to agricultural production.
One comment expressed concern that
produced water could contaminate
surface waterways, groundwater and
drinking water; kill fish, birds, and
wildlife; and cause severe health effects
in humans and impact wildlife habitats.
The comment also noted that it takes
only a small amount of oil to affect a
large area of water. EPA agrees with this
comment. Under 40 CFR part 110, a
discharge of oil in such quantities as
‘‘may be harmful’’ is defined as one that
may violate applicable water quality
standards; or cause a film or sheen upon
or discoloration of the surface of the
water or adjoining shorelines; or cause
a sludge or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the water or upon
adjoining shorelines. In the Federal
Register notice published when EPA
provided revisions to 40 CFR part 110,
EPA stated that ‘‘[e]vidence from
reviews of laboratory studies further
demonstrates that very small amounts of
oil, e.g., less than 1 mg/L (1 ppm) can
have lethal and sublethal effects on a
wide variety of organisms.’’ (52 FR
10716, April 2, 1987). Therefore, even if
a produced water container has a very
small amount of oil, the container still
holds the potential to cause harm.
Upon reconsideration of all relevant
facts, including comments opposing the
approach (as described above), EPA has
decided for the reasons explained in
detail above to remove the provisions
related to the produced water containers
exemption in the final rule.
D. Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline
Facilities
In Section V.M.9 of the December
2008 amendments (73 FR 74291,
December 5, 2008), EPA provided
preamble discussion regarding EPA and
DOT jurisdiction. In this notice, EPA is
further clarifying the jurisdiction
between EPA and DOT to address
confusion within the regulated
community and to note that future interAgency discussions in the appropriate
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58804
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
forum on this issue will continue. The
Agency continues to base its
jurisdictional boundaries on Executive
Order 12777 and the 1971
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between DOT and EPA (36 FR 24080,
November 24, 1971). Under Executive
Order 12777, EPA has jurisdiction over
non-transportation-related onshore and
offshore facilities and DOT has
jurisdiction over transportation-related
onshore and offshore facilities. Under
the 1971 MOU (See Appendix A of part
112), transportation-related activities
regulated by DOT and nontransportation-related activities
regulated by EPA are defined.
Equipment, operations, and facilities
are subject to DOT jurisdiction when
they are engaged in activities subject to
DOT jurisdiction. If those same facilities
are also engaged in activities subject to
EPA jurisdiction (such facilities are
considered a ‘‘complex’’), such activities
would subject the equipment, operation,
or facility to EPA jurisdiction, as well.
‘‘Complex’’ is defined at § 112.2 as a
‘‘facility possessing a combination of
transportation-related and nontransportation-related components that
is subject to the jurisdiction of more
than one Federal agency under section
311(j) of the Clean Water Act.’’ This
definition was promulgated in 1994 (59
FR 34070, July 1, 1994) when EPA first
required certain facility owners and
operators to prepare FRPs to respond to
a worst-case discharge of oil and to a
substantial threat of such a discharge.
During the development of the FRP rule,
EPA and other Federal agencies with
jurisdiction under OPA and E.O. 12777
(including DOT) met to create an
implementation strategy that minimized
duplication, wherever practicable and
recognized State oil pollution
prevention and response programs. One
of the critical outgrowths of these efforts
was the development of a definition for,
and a consistent approach to regulate
‘‘complexes.’’ The jurisdiction over a
component of a complex is determined
by the activity involving that
component. An activity at one time
might subject a facility to one agency’s
jurisdiction, while a different activity at
the same facility using the same
structure, container or equipment might
subject the facility to the jurisdiction of
another agency.
Owners and operators have
questioned how to determine whether a
container (e.g., a breakout tank), an
activity (e.g., drag reducing agent
storage/injection or other transfer
activities) or a facility (e.g., a terminal
or a pipeline facility) is considered
‘‘transportation-related’’ or ‘‘nontransportation-related,’’ and,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
subsequently, whether DOT and/or EPA
regulatory requirements apply. To
clarify jurisdiction, particularly
regarding jurisdiction over breakout
tanks and activities at certain facilities,
in February 2000, EPA and DOT signed
a joint memorandum, ‘‘Jurisdiction over
Breakout Tanks/Bulk Storage Tanks
(Containers) at Transportation-Related
and Non-Transportation-Related
Facilities’’ (February 4, 2000). Industry
has raised questions and concerns about
duplicative jurisdiction in the joint
memorandum and for other oil storage
containers and activities not specifically
addressed by it. EPA will continue to
work with DOT/PHMSA to provide
such clarification and to minimize dual
regulation, where appropriate.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB’s
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
rulemaking. In addition, EPA prepared
a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of the
potential costs and benefits associated
with this action entitled, ‘‘Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the 2008 and 2009
Final Amendments to the Oil Pollution
Prevention Regulations (40 CFR part
112)’’ (October 20, 2009). A copy of the
RIA is available in the docket for this
rulemaking and is briefly summarized
below.
EPA estimated the combined
economic impact of the December 2008
amendments and the changes made to it
in this action. The SPCC rule
requirements at 40 CFR part 112, as
amended in July 2002 (67 FR 47042,
July 17, 2002) is the baseline to estimate
the potential cost savings to regulated
facilities associated with these
amendments. The RIA compares the
compliance costs for owners and
operators facilities affected by the 2008
and 2009 amendments to the costs
associated with the 2002 SPCC rule
revisions. EPA estimated cost savings
from the following rule elements: (1)
Exempt hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and
HMA containers; (2) exempt pesticide
application equipment and related mix
containers when crop oil or adjuvant oil
is added to pesticide formulations; (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
clarify the applicability of mobile
refueler requirements to farm nurse
tanks; (4) exempt residential heating oil
containers, including those located at
farms; (5) amend the definition of
‘‘facility’’ to clarify the currently
existing flexibility associated with
describing a facility’s boundaries; (6)
amend the facility diagram requirement
to provide additional clarity; (7) define
‘‘loading/unloading rack’’; (8) provide
streamlined requirements for a subset of
qualified facilities; (9) amend the
general secondary containment
requirement to provide more clarity;
(10) extend the regulatory relief
provided to mobile refuelers in 2006 to
non-transportation-related tank trucks at
facilities subject to the SPCC rule; (11)
amend the security requirements; (12)
amend the integrity testing requirements
to allow a greater amount of flexibility
in the use of industry standards; (13)
amend the integrity testing requirements
for containers that store AFVOs that
meet certain criteria; (14) tailor a
number of requirements at oil
production facilities; and (15) exempt
underground oil storage tanks at nuclear
power generation facilities. EPA also
provided clarification in the preamble to
the December 2008 amendments on two
additional issues identified by the
regulated community: (1) The
consideration of man-made structures in
determining how to comply with the
SPCC rule requirements and (2) the
applicability of the rule to wind
turbines for electricity generation.
For each of these components,
excluding those that only provide
clarity, EPA estimated potential cost
savings to regulated facilities that may
result from reductions in compliance
costs. The main steps used to estimate
the compliance cost impacts of the rule
amendments are:
• Develop the baseline universe of
SPCC-regulated facilities;
• Estimate the number of facilities
affected by the rule amendments;
• Estimate changes in unit
compliance cost for each regulated
facility affected by the rule;
• Estimate total compliance cost
savings to owners and operators of
potentially affected facilities; and
• Annualize compliance cost savings
over a ten-year period, 2010 through
2019, and discount the estimates using
three and seven percent discount rates.
In its RIA, EPA uses four key
assumptions:
1. Cost minimization behavior applies
to all owners and operators of facilities
that qualify for the reduced regulatory
requirements, whereby all those affected
would seek burden relief.
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2. Consistent with EPA’s guidelines
for conducting economic analyses, all
existing owners and operators of
facilities are in full compliance with the
July 17, 2002 amendments to the SPCC
rule (67 FR 47042).
3. Owners and operators of existing
SPCC-regulated facilities would forgo
compliance activities offered as
alternatives where there is only a onetime initial investment because they
would have already incurred the onetime cost. For example, EPA assumes
that an owner or operator of an existing
facility who qualifies for reduced
security requirements under the rule
amendment that allows facility owners
or operators to tailor their security
measures to the facility’s specific
characteristics and location, would have
already provided the security measures
under the July 2002 rule amendments or
demonstrated environmental
equivalence for tailored security
measures. Therefore, owners and
operators of existing facilities would not
take advantage of the provided
alternative.
4. Compliance is nationally
consistent, although EPA recognizes
that there is variability in State
regulations and the distribution of
affected facilities.
Exhibit 1 presents the estimated cost
savings for each rule provision and for
the rule amendments in total. For
several rule amendments, such as the
security requirements and facilities
handling AFVOs, EPA did not have data
on the number of affected facilities
within a general industry sector; thus, it
developed three scenarios to evaluate a
range of cost savings.7 EPA estimates
that the total cost savings for this action
is about $95 million on an annualized
basis (2007$). The total cost savings
estimates range from a low of about $92
million to a high of about $100 million
on an annualized basis (2007$).These
estimates are not necessarily additive,
given that they do not account for
interactions that might exist among the
various components of the rule.8
The oil production sector and farms
will benefit from multiple components
of the 2008 and 2009 amendments.
Specifically, farms will benefit from the
exemption of pesticide application
equipment, the exemption of residential
heating oil containers, the clarification
58805
to the facility diagram requirements, the
streamlined requirements for Tier I
qualified facilities, the final
amendments to the security
requirements, and the amendments to
integrity-testing requirements. The total
cost savings to farm owners and
operators from these amendments are
estimated at $13 million on an
annualized basis (2007$).
The oil production sector will also
benefit from a number of the revisions
to the SPCC rules, including the
clarification to the facility diagram
requirements, the streamlined
requirements for Tier I qualified
facilities, the six-month delay in SPCC
Plan preparation and implementation,
the alternative measures for flowthrough process vessels and produced
water containers in lieu of sized
secondary containment requirements.
The total savings to owners and
operators of oil production facilities
from all of the amendments that affect
this sector are estimated at $35 million
on an annualized basis (2007$).
EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COST SAVINGS FOR THE REGULATORY AMENDMENTS
Annualized cost savings ($2007,
in millions, 7% discount rate)
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Rule component/scenario
Hot-Mix Asphalt:
Exempt HMA containers .................................................................................................................................
Farms:
Exempt pesticide application equipment and related mix containers
Applicability of Mobile Refueler Requirements to Farm Nurse Tanks ...........................................................
Residential Heating Oil Containers:
Exempt single-family residential heating oil containers .................................................................................
Definition of Facility:
Revise the definition of ‘‘facility’’ ....................................................................................................................
Facility Diagram:
Revise facility diagram requirement ...............................................................................................................
Loading/Unloading Racks:
Define ‘‘loading/unloading rack’’ .....................................................................................................................
Tier I Qualified Facilities:
Provide streamlined requirements for Tier I qualified facilities ......................................................................
General Secondary Containment:
Revisions to the general secondary containment provision ..........................................................................
General Secondary Containment for Non-Transportation-Related Tank Trucks:
Extend regulatory relief for mobile refuelers to the non-transportation-related tank trucks ..........................
Security Requirements:
Revise security requirements 2 .......................................................................................................................
Integrity Testing:
Amend the integrity testing requirements to allow a greater amount of flexibility in the use of industry
standards at all facilities.
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oil:
Amend integrity testing requirements for AFVO containers that meet certain criteria 3 ................................
Oil Production Facilities:
Six-month delay for Plan preparation and implementation ............................................................................
Exempt flowlines and gathering lines from secondary containment ..............................................................
Flow-through process vessels ........................................................................................................................
7 For example, to develop a range for the number
of affected AFVO facilities, EPA contacted industry
experts who determined that 40 percent to 90
percent of containers at AFVO facilities are made
of stainless steel and almost all containers have
bottom drainage. Therefore, based on professional
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
judgment, the Agency considered three scenarios:
40% (low), 65% (medium) and 90% (high) of all
AFVO facilities would have food oil tanks that are
eligible.
8 Certain industry sectors are affected by multiple
rule provisions. As a result, taking advantage of one
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$8.
$4.
$2.
No cost impact.
$3.
No cost impact.
$24.
No cost impact.
No cost impact.
$9.
$11.
$2.
$24.
No net cost impact.
$7.
revised provision might preclude a facility from
benefiting from another amendment. The six-month
delay is specifically designed to allow time for the
facility oil production operations to stabilize in
order to avoid the need for multiple certifications
of the Plan by a PE.
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58806
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COST SAVINGS FOR THE REGULATORY AMENDMENTS—Continued
Annualized cost savings ($2007,
in millions, 7% discount rate)
Rule component/scenario
Alternative compliance measures for produced water containers .................................................................
Man-Made Structures:
Consider manmade structures in determining SPCC rule applicability .........................................................
Nuclear Power Stations:
Exempt underground oil storage tanks at nuclear power generation facilities ..............................................
Wind turbines:
Clarify applicability of the rule to wind turbines used to produce electricity ..................................................
Total .........................................................................................................................................................
2 Mid-point
3 Mid-point
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
No cost impact.
Less than $1.
No cost impact.
$95.
estimate (50% of farms affected). Cost savings might be higher or lower using different assumptions.
estimate (65% of facilities affected). Cost savings might be lower using different assumptions.
EPA recognizes that the economic
analysis is constrained by limited
availability of data and information. The
SPCC regulation does not have a
notification requirement for regulated
facilities and thus, EPA relies on State
information; Federal and proprietary
databases; and information from
industry experts as a basis for the cost
information included in the analysis.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements for this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The Information Collection Request
(ICR) document prepared by EPA has
been assigned EPA ICR number 0328.15.
EPA does not collect the information
required by the SPCC rule on a routine
basis. SPCC Plans ordinarily need not be
submitted to EPA, but must generally be
maintained at the facility. Preparation,
implementation, and maintenance of an
SPCC Plan by the facility owner or
operator helps prevent oil discharges to
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
and mitigate the environmental damage
caused by such discharges. Therefore,
the primary user of the data is facility
personnel. While EPA may, from time to
time, request information under these
regulations, such requests are not
routine.
Although facility personnel are the
primary data user, EPA also uses the
data in certain situations. In particular,
EPA reviews SPCC Plans: (1) When it
requests a facility owner or operator to
submit required information in the
event of certain discharges of oil or to
evaluate an extension request; and (2) as
part of EPA’s inspection program. State
and local governments also may use the
data, which are not necessarily available
elsewhere and can greatly assist local
emergency preparedness efforts.
Preparation of the information for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
No cost savings estimated.
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
affected facilities is required under
section 311(j)(1) of the CWA, as
implemented by 40 CFR part 112.
EPA estimates that in the absence of
the December 2008 final rule and the
changes made in this action,
approximately 623,000 existing facilities
would be subject to the SPCC rule in
November 2010 and would be expected
to have SPCC Plans. In addition, EPA
estimates that approximately 17,400
new facilities would become subject to
the SPCC requirements during that year,
resulting in a total of about 640,000
regulated facilities in 2010.9
Under the December 2008 and 2009
amendments, EPA is: exempting the
storage capacity of containers solely
containing HMA, residential heating oil
containers at single-family residences,
pesticide application equipment and
related mix containers, and
underground oil storage tanks at nuclear
power generation facilities from the
SPCC requirements; amending the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ to clarify that
contiguous or non-contiguous buildings,
properties, parcels, leases, structures,
installations, pipes, or pipelines may be
considered separate facilities, and to
specify that the ‘‘facility’’ definition,
rather than the ‘‘production facility’’
definition, governs the applicability of
40 CFR part 112; amending the facility
diagram requirement to provide
additional clarity for all facilities;
providing a definition for the term
‘‘loading/unloading rack,’’ which
determines whether a facility is subject
to the provisions at § 112.7(h); providing
an option that allows a subset of
qualified facilities (Tier I) to complete
and implement an SPCC Plan template
(Appendix G to 40 CFR part 112) in
order to comply with the SPCC rule
requirements; amending the general
secondary containment requirements to
9 To estimate the number of SPCC-regulated
facilities in 2010, EPA used the estimated number
of facilities for 2005 (571,000) and applied annual,
industry-specific growth rates that resulted in about
640,000 facilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provide more clarity; exempting nontransportation-related tank trucks from
the sized secondary containment
requirements; modifying the security
requirements to allow an owner or
operator to tailor its security measures
to the facility’s specific characteristics
and location, which are the same as
those provided for qualified facilities, as
promulgated in December 2006;
replacing the current integrity testing
requirements with the requirements
provided for qualified facilities, as
promulgated in December 2006;
providing flexibility in the rule for
determining the scope of integrity
testing that is appropriate for containers
that store AFVOs that are intended for
human consumption and that meet
other criteria; and finally, streamlining
the requirements for oil production
facilities by modifying the definition of
production facility to be consistent with
the amendments to the definition of
facility, extending the timeframe by
which a new oil production facility
must prepare and implement an SPCC
Plan, providing an alternative option for
flow-through process vessels at oil
production facilities to comply with the
general secondary containment
requirements and additional oil spill
prevention measures in lieu of the sized
secondary containment requirements,
providing an alternative option for
produced water containers to comply
with general secondary containment
and additional oil spill prevention
measures including a PE certified
program to remove free-phase oil from
the surface of the produced water
container in lieu of the sized secondary
containment requirements, establishing
more specific requirements for the
flowline/intra-facility gathering line
maintenance program, providing an
alternative compliance option for
contingency planning in lieu of
secondary containment for flowlines
and intra-facility gathering lines at oil
production facilities, providing an
exemption for certain intra-facility
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
gathering lines that are regulated by
DOT, and clarifying the definition of
‘‘permanently closed’’ as it applies to an
oil production facility.
Under the 2008 and 2009 final
amendments, an estimated 640,000
regulated facilities are subject to the
SPCC information collection
requirements of this rule in 2010.10 The
Agency estimates that as a result of
these amendments to tailor, clarify, and
streamline certain SPCC requirements,
the reporting and recordkeeping burden
would decrease by approximately 1.3
million hours. The rule amendments
would reduce capital and operation and
management costs by approximately
$7.5 million on an annualized basis.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved
information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this final rule on small entities, a
small entity is defined as: (1) a small
business as defined in the U.S. Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201—the SBA
defines small businesses by category of
business using North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes,
and in the case of farms and oil
production facilities, which constitute a
large percentage of the facilities affected
by this rule, generally defines small
businesses as having less than $0.5
million to $27.5 million per year in
sales receipts, depending on the
10 To estimate the number of SPCC-regulated
facilities in 2010, EPA used the estimated number
of facilities for 2005 (571,000) and applied annual
industry-specific growth rates.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
industry, or 500 or fewer employees,
respectively; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic
impacts of the December 2008
amendments and the changes made in
this action on small entities, the Agency
certifies that this action would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule
on small entities’’ (5 U.S.C. 603 and
604). Thus, an agency may certify that
a rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise
has a positive economic effect on all of
the small entities subject to the rule.
Under the 2008 and 2009
amendments, the following issues are
addressed: exempt HMA and HMA
containers, pesticide application
equipment and related mix containers,
residential heating oil containers at
single-family residences, and
underground oil storage tanks at nuclear
power generation facilities from the
SPCC requirements; amend the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ to clarify the
flexibility associated with the existing
definition in describing a facility’s
boundaries; clarify how containers,
fixed and mobile, are identified on the
facility diagram; define ‘‘loading/
unloading rack’’ to clarify whether a
facility is subject to the SPCC rule
requirements of § 112.7(h); streamline
the requirements for a subset of
qualified facilities (Tier I qualified
facilities); amend the general secondary
containment requirements to provide
more clarity; exempt nontransportation-related tank trucks from
the sized secondary containment
requirements; amend the facility
security requirements to allow an owner
or operator to tailor security measures to
a facility’s specific characteristics and
location, which are the same as those
provided for qualified facilities, as
promulgated in December 2006; replace
the current integrity testing
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58807
requirements with the regulatory
requirements for a qualified facility
promulgated in December 2006; provide
flexibility in the rule to determine the
scope of integrity testing that is
appropriate for containers that store
AFVOs that are intended for human
consumption and that meet other
criteria; and initiate a number of
amendments to tailor the requirements
for oil production facilities to address
concerns raised by the oil production
sector, respectively.
Overall, EPA estimates that the
December 2008 amendments and the
revisions made in this action will
reduce annual compliance costs by
approximately $95 million on an
annualized basis (2007$) for owners and
operators of affected facilities. Total
costs were annualized over a 10-year
period using a seven percent discount
rate. EPA derived these savings by
estimating the number of facilities
affected by each 2008 and 2009
amendment; identifying the specific
behavioral changes that may occur (for
example, choosing to prepare an SPCC
Plan template instead of a full SPCC
Plan); estimating the unit costs of
compliance under the baseline and
amended scenarios; and applying the
change in unit costs to the projected
number of affected facilities.
EPA has therefore concluded that this
rule will relieve regulatory burden for
small entities and therefore, certify that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to state, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58808
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the rule
an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this action
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. The
December 2008 final rule and the
changes made in this action would
reduce compliance costs on owners and
operators of affected facilities by
approximately $95 million on an
annualized basis (2007$), although EPA
acknowledges this total estimate is
derived from analyses of individual
major components of the rule that are
not necessarily additive, given that they
do not account for interactions that may
exist among the various components.
Thus, this rule amendment is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule
amendment contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. As
explained above, the effect of the rule
amendment will be to reduce burden for
facility owners and operators, including
certain small governments that are
subject to the rule.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
E. Executive Order—13132 Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
The December 2008 amendments and
the changes made in this action do not
have federalism implications. It would
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Under CWA
section 311(o), States may impose
additional requirements, including more
stringent requirements, relating to the
prevention of oil discharges to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines. EPA
recognizes that some States have more
stringent requirements (56 FR 54612,
October 22, 1991). This rule amendment
will not preempt State law or
regulations. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This action does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule
amendment will not significantly or
uniquely affect communities of Indian
trial governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
Although the combined impact of the
December 2008 final rule and of the
changes made in this action is
economically significant, it is not
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
subject to the Executive Order because
the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action
presents a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The overall effect of the
action is to decrease the regulatory
burden on facility owners or operators
subject to its provisions.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards, such
as materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The owner or operator of a facility
subject to the SPCC rule has the
flexibility to consider applicable
industry standards in the development
of an SPCC Plan, in accordance with
good engineering practice. However,
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards, as it does not set or
incorporate by reference any one
specific technical standard. Therefore,
the NTTAA does not apply.
J. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA
has determined that this action will not
have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. The
overall effect of the action is to decrease
the regulatory burden on facility owners
or operators subject to its provisions,
while increasing the level of compliance
with the SPCC program requirements,
which should provide greater
environmental protection.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) because it will likely
result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. This
rule will be effective on January 14,
2010.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Animal
fats and vegetable oils, Hot-mix asphalt,
Farms, Flammable and combustible
materials, Integrity testing, Loading
racks, Materials handling and storage,
Natural gas, Oil pollution, Oil and gas
exploration and production, Oil spill
response, Oil spill prevention, Penalties,
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Secondary containment,
Security, Tanks, Unloading racks, Water
pollution control, Water resources.
Dated: November 5, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PART 112—OIL POLLUTION
PREVENTION
1. The authority citation for part 112
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C.
2720; and E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.
Subpart A—[Amended]
■
■
■
■
■
2. Amend § 112.1 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (d)(2)(i);
b. By removing paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F);
c. By revising paragraph (d)(4); and
d. By removing paragraph (d)(12)
§ 112.1
General applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2)(i) The completely buried storage
capacity of the facility is 42,000 U.S.
gallons or less of oil. For purposes of
this exemption, the completely buried
storage capacity of a facility excludes
the capacity of a completely buried
tank, as defined in § 112.2, and
connected underground piping,
underground ancillary equipment, and
containment systems, that is currently
subject to all of the technical
requirements of part 280 of this chapter
or all of the technical requirements of a
State program approved under part 281
of this chapter, or the capacity of any
underground oil storage tanks deferred
under 40 CFR part 280 that supply
emergency diesel generators at a nuclear
power generation facility licensed by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
subject to any Nuclear Regulatory
Commission provision regarding design
and quality criteria, including, but not
limited to, 10 CFR part 50. The
completely buried storage capacity of a
facility also excludes the capacity of a
container that is ‘‘permanently closed,’’
as defined in § 112.2 and the capacity of
intra-facility gathering lines subject to
the regulatory requirements of 49 CFR
part 192 or 195.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Any completely buried storage
tank, as defined in § 112.2, and
connected underground piping,
underground ancillary equipment, and
containment systems, at any facility,
that is subject to all of the technical
requirements of part 280 of this chapter
or a State program approved under part
281 of this chapter, or any underground
oil storage tanks including below-grade
vaulted tanks, deferred under 40 CFR
part 280, as originally promulgated, that
supply emergency diesel generators at a
nuclear power generation facility
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, provided that such a tank
is subject to any Nuclear Regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
58809
Commission provision regarding design
and quality criteria, including, but not
limited to, 10 CFR part 50. Such
emergency generator tanks must be
marked on the facility diagram as
provided in § 112.7(a)(3), if the facility
is otherwise subject to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 112.3 as follows:
a. By designating paragraph (a)(1) as
paragraph (a), and removing paragraph
(a)(2);
■ b. By revising the newly designated
paragraph (a);
■ c. By removing paragraph (b)(2), and
designating paragraph (b)(3) as (b)(2);
■ d. By revising paragraph (b)(1) and the
newly designated paragraph (b)(2);
■ e. By removing paragraph (d)(1)(vi),
and designating paragraph (d)(1)(vii) as
(d)(1)(vi);
■ f. By revising the newly designated
paragraph (d)(1)(vi);
■ g. By revising paragraph (g)(2).
■
■
§ 112.3 Requirement to prepare and
implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) If your onshore or offshore facility
was in operation on or before August 16,
2002, you must maintain your Plan, but
must amend it, if necessary to ensure
compliance with this part, and
implement the Plan no later than
November 10, 2010. If your onshore or
offshore facility becomes operational
after August 16, 2002, through
November 10, 2010, and could
reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you
must prepare and implement a Plan on
or before November 10, 2010.
(b)(1) If you are the owner or operator
of an onshore or offshore facility
(excluding oil production facilities) that
becomes operational after November 10,
2010, and could reasonably be expected
to have a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), you must prepare and
implement a Plan before you begin
operations.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an oil production facility that becomes
operational after November 10, 2010,
and could reasonably be expected to
have a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), you must prepare and
implement a Plan within six months
after you begin operations.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) That, if applicable, for a produced
water container subject to § 112.9(c)(6),
any procedure to minimize the amount
of free-phase oil is designed to reduce
the accumulation of free-phase oil and
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58810
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the procedures and frequency for
required inspections, maintenance and
testing have been established and are
described in the Plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) A Tier II qualified facility is one
that has had no single discharge as
described in § 112.1(b) exceeding 1,000
U.S. gallons or no two discharges as
described in § 112.1(b) each exceeding
42 U.S. gallons within any twelve
month period in the three years prior to
the SPCC Plan self-certification date, or
since becoming subject to this part if the
facility has been in operation for less
than three years (other than discharges
as described in § 112.1(b) that are the
result of natural disasters, acts of war,
or terrorism), and has an aggregate
aboveground oil storage capacity of
10,000 U.S. gallons or less.
■ 4. Amend § 112.5 as follows:
■ a. By removing paragraphs (b) and (c)
and designating paragraph (d) as
paragraph (b)
■ b. By revising the newly designated
paragraph (b); and
■ c. By designating paragraph (e) as
paragraph (c).
§ 112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan by
owners or operators.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Notwithstanding compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section, complete a
review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan
at least once every five years from the
date your facility becomes subject to
this part; or, if your facility was in
operation on or before August 16, 2002,
five years from the date your last review
was required under this part. As a result
of this review and evaluation, you must
amend your SPCC Plan within six
months of the review to include more
effective prevention and control
technology if the technology has been
field-proven at the time of the review
and will significantly reduce the
likelihood of a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) from the facility. You must
implement any amendment as soon as
possible, but not later than six months
following preparation of any
amendment. You must document your
completion of the review and
evaluation, and must sign a statement as
to whether you will amend the Plan,
either at the beginning or end of the
Plan or in a log or an appendix to the
Plan. The following words will suffice,
‘‘I have completed review and
evaluation of the SPCC Plan for (name
of facility) on (date), and will (will not)
amend the Plan as a result.’’
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
5. Revise § 112.6 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(vii);
b. By revising paragraph (b)(1)(vii);
c. By revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii);
and
■ d. By revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii);
■
■
■
■
§ 112.6 Qualified Facilities Plan
Requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) The Plan does not deviate from
any requirement of this part as allowed
by § 112.7(a)(2) and 112.7(d) or include
measures pursuant to § 112.9(c)(6) for
produced water containers and any
associated piping; and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) The Plan does not deviate from
any requirement of this part as allowed
by § 112.7(a)(2) and 112.7(d) or include
measures pursuant to § 112.9(c)(6) for
produced water containers and any
associated piping, except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section; and
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(iii) Produced Water Containers. Your
Plan may not include any alternative
procedures for skimming produced
water containers in lieu of sized
secondary containment pursuant to
§ 112.9(c)(6), unless they have been
reviewed and certified in writing by a
Professional Engineer, as provided in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(4) * * *
(ii) As described in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, the facility owner or
operator may not self-certify measures
as described in § 112.9(c)(6) for
produced water containers and any
associated piping. Such measures must
be reviewed and certified, in writing, by
a licensed Professional Engineer, in
accordance with § 112.3(d)(1)(vi).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 112.7 as follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(3)
introductory text; and
■ b. By revising paragraph (h)
introductory text.
§ 112.7 General requirements for Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plans.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Describe in your Plan the physical
layout of the facility and include a
facility diagram, which must mark the
location and contents of each fixed oil
storage container and the storage area
where mobile or portable containers are
located. The facility diagram must
identify the location of and mark as
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
‘‘exempt’’ underground tanks that are
otherwise exempted from the
requirements of this part under
§ 112.1(d)(4). The facility diagram must
also include all transfer stations and
connecting pipes, including intrafacility gathering lines that are
otherwise exempted from the
requirements of this part under
§ 112.1(d)(11). You must also address in
your Plan:
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Facility tank car and tank truck
loading/unloading rack (excluding
offshore facilities).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—[Amended]
7. Amend § 112.9 by revising
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
■
§ 112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan Requirements for
onshore oil production facilities (excluding
drilling and workover facilities).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) Produced water containers. For
each produced water container, comply
with § 112.9(c)(1) and (c)(4); and
§ 112.9(c)(2) and (c)(3), or comply with
the provisions of the following
paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (v):
(i) Implement, on a regular schedule,
a procedure for each produced water
container that is designed to separate
the free-phase oil that accumulates on
the surface of the produced water.
Include in the Plan a description of the
procedures, frequency, amount of freephase oil expected to be maintained
inside the container, and a Professional
Engineer certification in accordance
with § 112.3(d)(1)(vi). Maintain records
of such events in accordance with
§ 112.7(e). Records kept under usual and
customary business practices will
suffice for purposes of this paragraph. If
this procedure is not implemented as
described in the Plan or no records are
maintained, then you must comply with
§ 112.9(c)(2) and (c)(3).
(ii) On a regular schedule, visually
inspect and/or test the produced water
container and associated piping for
leaks, corrosion, or other conditions that
could lead to a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b) in accordance with good
engineering practice.
(iii) Take corrective action or make
repairs to the produced water container
and any associated piping as indicated
by regularly scheduled visual
inspections, tests, or evidence of an oil
discharge.
(iv) Promptly remove or initiate
actions to stabilize and remediate any
accumulations of oil discharges
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
twelve month period from a produced
water container subject to this subpart
(excluding discharges that are the result
of natural disasters, acts of war, or
terrorism) then you must, within six
months from the time the facility
becomes subject to this paragraph,
ensure that all produced water
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
containers subject to this subpart
comply with § 112.9(c)(2) and (c)(3).
*
*
*
*
*
8. Revise Appendix G to Part 112 to
read as follows:
■
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.000
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
associated with the produced water
container.
(v) If your facility discharges more
than 1,000 U.S. gallons of oil in a single
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or
discharges more than 42 U.S. gallons of
oil in each of two discharges as
described in § 112.1(b) within any
58811
ER13NO09.002
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.001
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58812
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58813
ER13NO09.003
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.004
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58814
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58815
ER13NO09.005
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.006
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58816
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58817
ER13NO09.007
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.008
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58818
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58819
ER13NO09.009
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.010
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58820
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58821
ER13NO09.011
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.012
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58822
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58823
ER13NO09.013
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
ER13NO09.015
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.014
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58824
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58825
ER13NO09.016
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.017
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58826
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58827
ER13NO09.018
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.019
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58828
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58829
ER13NO09.020
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.021
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
58830
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
58831
ER13NO09.022
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
58832
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E9–27156 Filed 11–12–09; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM
13NOR3
ER13NO09.023
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 218 (Friday, November 13, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58784-58832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27156]
[[Page 58783]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 112
Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Rule--Amendments; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 58784]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584; FRL-8979-8]
RIN 2050-AG16
Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule--Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 5, 2008, EPA amended the Spill Prevention Control,
and Countermeasures (SPCC) rule to provide increased clarity with
respect to specific regulatory requirements, to tailor requirements to
particular industry sectors, and to streamline certain rule
requirements. The Agency subsequently delayed the effective date of
these amendments to January 14, 2010, to allow the Agency time to
review the amendments to ensure that they properly reflect
consideration of all relevant facts. EPA also requested public comment
on the delay of the effective date and its duration, and on the
December 2008 amendments. Having reviewed the record for the amendments
and the additional comments, EPA has decided to make only limited
changes to the amendments. With respect to the majority of the December
amendments, EPA is either taking no action or providing minor technical
corrections. EPA is, however, removing the following provisions in the
December 2008 amendments: the exclusion of farms and oil production
facilities from the loading/unloading rack requirements; the exemption
for produced water containers at an oil production facility; and the
alternative qualified facility eligibility criteria for an oil
production facility.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPA-2007-0584, contains the information related to this rulemaking,
including the response to comment document. All documents in the docket
are listed in the index at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, such as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone
number to make an appointment to view the docket is 202-566-0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center at 800-424-9346
or TDD at 800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil
Information Center at 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this final rule, contact
either Vanessa E. Principe at 202-564-7913 (principe.vanessa@epa.gov),
or Mark W. Howard at 202-564-1964 (howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460-0002, Mail Code 5104A.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are:
I. General Information
II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Final Rule
III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of Authority
IV. Background
V. This Action
A. Final Amendments Effective without Change
1. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)
2. Pesticide Application Equipment and Related Mix Containers
3. Applicability of Mobile Refueler Requirements to Farm Nurse
Tanks
4. Residential Heating Oil Containers
5. Definition of Facility
6. Facility Diagram
7. Loading/Unloading Racks
8. General Secondary Containment
9. General Secondary Containment for Non-Transportation-Related
Tank Trucks
10. Security
11. Integrity Testing
12. Integrity Testing Requirements for Animal Fats and Vegetable
Oils
13. Oil Production Facilities
a. Definition of Production Facility
b. Modifications to Sec. 112.9 for Drilling and Workover
Facilities
c. Exemption for Certain Intra-Facility Gathering Lines
d. Flowlines and Intra-facility Gathering Lines
(i) Compliance Alternative in Lieu of Secondary Containment for
Flowlines and Intra-facility Gathering Lines
(ii) Contingency Plan for Flowlines and Intra-facility Gathering
Lines
(iii) Requirements for a Flowline and Intra-Facility Gathering
Line Maintenance Program
e. Flow-Through Process Vessels
(i) Exemption from Sized Secondary Containment for Flow-Through
Process Vessels
(ii) Additional Requirements in Lieu of Sized Secondary
Containment for Flow-Through Process Vessels
(iii) Reportable Discharge from Flow-Through Process Vessels
f. Alternative Compliance Measures for Produced Water Containers
g. Clarification of the Definition of Permanently Closed
Containers
14. Man-made Structures
15. Wind Turbines
16. Technical Corrections
B. Technical Corrections to Provisions of the December 2008
Amendments
1. Tier I Qualified Facilities and Appendix G Plan Template
2. Underground Emergency Diesel Generator Tanks at Nuclear Power
Stations
3. SPCC Plan Preparation and Implementation for New Oil
Production Facilities
4. Compliance Date Provisions Specific to Farms
C. Provisions Removed from Final Rule
1. Exclusions for Oil Production Facilities and Farms from
Loading/Unloading Rack Requirements
2. Alternative Qualified Facility Eligibility Criteria for an
Oil Production Facility
3. Exemption for Produced Water Containers
D. Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order--13132 Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211--Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
On December 5, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
the Agency) amended the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) rule to address a number of issues raised by the regulated
community (73 FR 74236). EPA is now amending the December
[[Page 58785]]
2008 amendments to make technical corrections. In addition, EPA has
decided to remove three provisions from the SPCC rule it had adopted in
December 2008. In all other respects, the amendments have not been
changed. The following provisions, which are intended to clarify,
tailor, and streamline certain requirements for those facility owners
or operators who are required to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan (or
``Plan''), will become effective without modification:
Exemption for hot-mix asphalt (HMA);
Exemption for pesticide application equipment and related
mix containers, regardless of ownership or where used, that may
currently be subject to the SPCC rule when crop oil or adjuvant oil is
added to pesticide formulations;
Exemption for residential heating oil containers, which
applies to aboveground containers, as well as completely buried heating
oil containers, at single-family residences, including those located at
farms;
Clarification that the definition of mobile refueler
includes a nurse tank, which is a mobile/portable container used at
farms to store and transport fuel for transfers to or from farm
equipment (such as tractors and combines) to other bulk storage
containers (such as containers used to provide fuel to wellhead/relift
pumps) at the farm;
Amendment of the definition of ``facility'' to clarify
that contiguous or non-contiguous buildings, properties, parcels,
leases, structures, installations, pipes, or pipelines may be
considered separate facilities, and to reaffirm that the ``facility''
definition governs the applicability of 40 CFR part 112;
Amendment of the facility diagram requirement at Sec.
112.7(a)(3) to clarify how containers, fixed and mobile, are identified
on the facility diagram. EPA also clarified that where facility
diagrams become complicated due to the presence of multiple fixed oil
storage containers or complex piping/transfer areas at a facility, the
owner or operator can include that information separately in the SPCC
Plan in an accompanying table or key. For any mobile or portable
containers located in a certain area of the facility, an owner or
operator can mark the area on the diagram, as well as indicate the
potential range in number of containers and the anticipated contents
and capacities of the mobile or portable containers;
Definition of the term ``loading/unloading rack,'' and
clarification that this definition governs the applicability of the
provisions for facility tank car and tank truck loading/unloading racks
at Sec. 112.7(h);
Amendment of the general secondary containment
requirements at Sec. 112.7(c) to clarify the scope of secondary
containment so that an owner or operator need only take into
consideration the typical failure mode, and most likely quantity of oil
that would be discharged, consistent with current Agency guidance. This
amendment also provides additional examples of prevention systems for
onshore facilities found at Sec. 112.7(c)(1);
Extension of the exemption from the sized secondary
containment requirement for mobile refuelers provided in the December
2006 SPCC rule amendments (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) to non-
transportation-related tank trucks at a facility subject to the SPCC
rule;
Amendment of the facility security requirements at Sec.
112.7(g) to allow an owner or operator of a facility to tailor his
security measures to the facility's specific characteristics and
location;
Amendment of the requirements at Sec. Sec. 112.8(c)(6)
and 112.12(c)(6) to allow an owner or operator to consult and rely on
industry standards to determine the appropriate qualifications for
personnel performing tests and inspections, as well as the type and
frequency of integrity testing required for a particular container size
and configuration;
Amendment of the integrity testing requirements at Sec.
112.12(c)(6) for an owner or operator of a facility that handles
certain types of animal fats and vegetable oils (AFVOs) so as to
provide the Professional Engineer (PE) or an owner or operator self-
certifying an SPCC Plan with the flexibility to determine the scope of
integrity testing that is appropriate for containers that store AFVOs,
based on compliance with certain FDA regulations and other criteria
relating to container construction and configuration;
Amendment of the definition of ``production facility'' to
be consistent with the amended definition of ``facility'';
Clarification that drilling and workover activities are
not subject to the provisions at Sec. 112.9;
Alternative compliance option for flow-through process
vessels at oil production facilities requiring general secondary
containment and additional oil spill prevention measures in lieu of the
sized secondary containment requirements that would apply to this
equipment;
Definition of the term ``produced water container'', and
an alternative compliance option for these containers at oil production
facilities requiring general secondary containment, a PE-certified
process or procedure designed to remove free-phase oil that accumulates
on the surface of the produced water container, and additional oil
spill prevention measures in lieu of the sized secondary containment
requirements that would apply to these containers;
Exemption for certain intra-facility gathering lines
subject to requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT's) pipeline regulations in 49 CFR parts 192 or 195;
Specific requirements for a flowline/intra-facility
gathering line maintenance program and an alternative compliance option
of contingency planning for flowlines and intra-facility gathering
lines in lieu of the general secondary containment requirements; and
Clarification of the definition of ``permanently closed''
as it applies to oil production facilities and containers present at an
oil production facility.
The following provisions of the 2008 amendments will become effective
with technical corrections:
Exemption for underground oil storage tanks that supply
emergency diesel generators at nuclear power generation facilities,
revising the provision to state that the exemption applies ``provided
that such a tank is subject to any Nuclear Regulatory Commission
provision regarding design and quality criteria, including but not
limited to* * *'' (emphasis added);
Designation of a subset of qualified facilities (``Tier I
qualified facilities'') with a set of streamlined SPCC rule
requirements. The owner or operator of a Tier I qualified facility has
the option to complete a self-certified SPCC Plan template (found in
Appendix G to 40 CFR part 112) in lieu of a full SPCC Plan. In Sec.
112.6 and the Appendix G SPCC Plan template, technical corrections
include clarifications and corrections of typographical and formatting
errors; and,
Amendment of the compliance date provision for new oil
production facilities, so that it applies to new oil production
facilities that begin operations after November 10, 2010. This change
is necessary to align with the current compliance date for other
facilities.
In this notice, EPA is also removing the paragraphs in Sec. 112.3
specific to farms because on June 19, 2009 EPA established the same
compliance dates for farms as for all other facilities (74 FR 29136);
such differentiated provisions are no longer necessary.
Additionally, EPA was particularly interested in receiving comments
on
[[Page 58786]]
these provisions as indicated in the February 2009 notice. After
consideration of all relevant facts and public comments, EPA is
removing the following provisions which were promulgated on December 5,
2008 from the SPCC regulation:
The exemption for certain produced water containers that
do not contain oil in amounts that may be harmful as certified by a PE;
and
The alternative criteria for an oil production facility to
be eligible to self-certify an SPCC Plan as a qualified facility.
The Agency is also removing the specific exclusion of oil production
facilities and farms from the loading/unloading rack requirements at
Sec. 112.7(h). Finally, EPA commits to continue inter-Agency
discussions with DOT to clarify jurisdiction over facilities as
described in the joint memorandum ``Jurisdiction over Breakout Tanks/
Bulk Storage Tanks (Containers) at Transportation-Related and Non-
Transportation-Related Facilities'' (February 4, 2000).
This rulemaking marks the completion of the SPCC action proposed on
October 15, 2007 (72 FR 58378), finalized on December 5, 2008 (73 FR
74236), and for which the Agency considered public comments again in
February 2009 (74 FR 5900, February 3, 2009). Hereafter, comments
addressing the December 5, 2008 amendments will be referred to as
``comments from the 2009 comment period.'' However, EPA recognizes that
because of the changes in this action, and specifically provisions that
have been removed from the December 2008 Amendments, facilities may
need additional time to comply with the SPCC amendments. For example,
owners or operators of facilities with marginal wells may need a PE to
certify amendments to their SPCC Plan if the facility does not meet the
qualified facility eligibility criteria. Because of the uncertainty
surrounding the final amendments to the December 5, 2008 rule and the
delay of the effective date, the Agency will propose to extend the
compliance date.
II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry sector NAICS Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil Production............................... 211111
Farms........................................ 111, 112
Electric Utility Plants...................... 2211
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries.... 324
Chemical Manufacturing....................... 325
Food Manufacturing........................... 311, 312
Manufacturing Facilities Using and Storing 311, 325
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils..............
Metal Manufacturing.......................... 331, 332
Other Manufacturing.......................... 31-33
Real Estate Rental and Leasing............... 531-533
Retail Trade................................. 441-446, 448, 451-454
Contract Construction........................ 23
Wholesale Trade.............................. 42
Other Commercial............................. 492, 541, 551, 561-562
Transportation............................... 481-488
Arts Entertainment & Recreation.............. 711-713
Other Services (Except Public Administration) 811-813
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals........ 4247
Education.................................... 61
Hospitals & Other Health Care................ 621, 622
Accommodation and Food Services.............. 721, 722
Fuel Oil Dealers............................. 45431
Gasoline stations............................ 4471
Information Finance and Insurance............ 51, 52
Mining....................................... 212
Warehousing and Storage...................... 493
Religious Organizations...................... 813110
Military Installations....................... 928110
Pipelines.................................... 4861, 48691
Government................................... 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of potentially affected entities in the above table may
not be exhaustive. The Agency's goal is to provide a clear guide for
readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be
affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities
not listed in this table. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of Authority
Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), 33
U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), requires the President to issue regulations
establishing procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to
prevent discharges of oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
from vessels and facilities and to contain such discharges. The
President delegated the authority to regulate non-transportation-
related onshore facilities to EPA in Executive Order 11548 (35 FR
11677, July 22, 1970), which was superseded by Executive Order 12777
(56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991). An MOU between DOT and EPA (36 FR
24080, November 24, 1971) established the definitions of
transportation-related and non-transportation-related facilities. An
MOU between EPA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and DOT (59
FR 34102, July 1, 1994) re-delegated the responsibility to regulate
certain offshore facilities from DOI to EPA.
IV. Background
The SPCC rule was originally promulgated on December 11, 1973 (38
FR 34164). On July 17, 2002, EPA
[[Page 58787]]
published a final rule amending the SPCC rule, formally known as the
Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112). The July 2002
rule amendments (67 FR 47042) included revisions to the requirements
for SPCC Plans and for Facility Response Plans (FRPs). It also included
new subparts outlining the requirements for various classes of oil;
revised the applicability of the regulation; amended the requirements
for completing SPCC Plans; and made other modifications. After
publication of these rule amendments, several members of the regulated
community filed legal challenges to certain aspects.\1\ All of the
issues raised in the litigation have now been resolved; EPA published
clarifications in the Federal Register to several aspects of the
amended rule (69 FR 29728, May 25, 2004).\2\ In a separate Federal
Register notice, the Agency published a final rule announcing the
vacatur of the July 17, 2002 definition of ``navigable waters'' in 40
CFR part 112,\3\ and restoring it back to the regulatory definition
promulgated by EPA in 1973 (73 FR 71941, November 26, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp. 2d 165
(D.D.C. 2008). The only issue resolved through litigation was the
challenge to the definition of navigable waters in the July 2002
rule amendment.
\2\ Several comments requested that the Agency codify the
clarifications as part of the December 2008 rulemaking. To the
extent the subject matter of the clarification were reflected in the
rulemaking, the Agency either incorporated the clarification in the
regulatory text or reaffirmed the Agency's position in the preamble.
See 73 FR 74236, December 5, 2008.
\3\ This action was taken in accordance with an order issued by
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
(D.D.C.) in American Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp.2d
165 (D.D.C. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns were also raised about the ability to implement certain
aspects of the July 2002 rule amendments. As a result, EPA proposed
additional amendments to the SPCC rule in December 2005 and finalized
them in December 2006 to address a number of issues, including those
pertaining to certain ``qualified'' facilities, qualified oil-filled
operational equipment, motive power containers, mobile refuelers,
removal of provisions inapplicable to AFVOs, and the compliance date
for farms (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006). Additionally, EPA made
available the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors in December 2005.
This guidance document is intended to assist regional inspectors, as
well as members of the regulated community, in reviewing the
implementation of the SPCC rule at a regulated facility. The guidance
document is designed to provide more detail about the rule's
applicability, to help clarify the role of the inspector in reviewing
and evaluating a facility owner or operator's compliance with the
performance-based SPCC requirements, and to provide a consistent
national policy on several SPCC-related issues. The guidance is
available on the Agency's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/emergencies.
EPA intends to revise this guidance to address the regulatory
amendments in this action and the December 2006 amendments (71 FR
77266, December 26, 2006). EPA welcomes comments from the regulated
community and the public on the guidance document at any time.
Instructions for submitting comments are provided on the EPA Office of
Emergency Management Web site.
On December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74236), EPA again amended the SPCC rule
to clarify certain provisions, to tailor requirements to particular
industry sectors, and to streamline certain rule requirements. These
requirements were to become effective on February 3, 2009. However, the
effective date of the December 2008 rulemaking was delayed for 60 days
from February 3, 2009 to April 4, 2009, in accordance with the January
20, 2009 White House memorandum entitled ``Regulatory Review,'' and the
January 21, 2009 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget
entitled ``Implementation of Memorandum Concerning Regulatory Review''
(M-09-08, January 21, 2009 OMB memorandum). (These memoranda are
available for review in the docket for this rulemaking.) The Agency
took this action to ensure that the rule properly reflected
consideration of all relevant facts. Accordingly, EPA requested public
comment on the delay of the effective date and its duration, and
further comment on the regulatory amendments contained in the final
rule amendments (74 FR 5900, February 3, 2009). On April 1, 2009, the
Agency further delayed the effective date of the December 2008
rulemaking until January 14, 2010 (74 FR 14736). The Agency took this
action to allow sufficient time to address the comments received on the
February 3, 2009 notice. EPA is now promulgating several limited
revisions to the December 2008 amendments as a result of the Agency's
review of comments and consideration of all relevant facts.
Section V of this notice describes EPA's action on the December
2008 amendments. For a complete discussion of the comments received
during the 2009 comment period, see Comment and Response Document for
2008 Final SPCC Amendments, Comment Period Ending March 2009, a copy of
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Furthermore, EPA has extended the dates for preparing or amending,
and implementing revised SPCC Plans in 40 CFR 112.3(a), (b), and (c) in
a rule published on June 19, 2009 (74 FR 29136). In that action, the
Agency also established dates for the owners and operators of farms to
prepare or amend their SPCC Plans, and implement those Plans.
V. This Action
A. Final Amendments Effective Without Change
EPA has not modified the following provisions of the December 2008
amendments (73 FR 74236, December 5, 2008):
Exemptions for HMA and HMA containers, pesticide
application equipment and related mix containers, and heating oil
containers at single-family residences, including those located at
farms;
Clarification that the definition of mobile refueler
includes a nurse tank at farms;
Amended definition of ``facility'' to clarify the existing
flexibility associated with describing a facility's boundaries;
Amended facility diagram requirements to provide
additional flexibility;
A definition of ``loading/unloading rack'' to clarify the
oil transfer equipment subject to the provisions for facility tank car
and tank truck loading/unloading racks, as well as amended provisions
for this equipment;
Amended general secondary containment requirements to
provide more clarity;
Exemption of non-transportation-related tank trucks from
the sized secondary containment requirements;
Amended security requirements;
Amended integrity testing requirements to allow greater
flexibility in the use of industry standards;
Amended integrity testing requirements for containers that
store AFVOs and meet certain criteria;
Amended definition of ``production facility'';
Clarification that drilling and workover activities are
not subject to the provisions at Sec. 112.9;
Exemption for certain intra-facility gathering lines at
oil production facilities from the SPCC requirements;
More prescriptive requirements for a flowline/intra-
facility gathering line maintenance program for all oil production
facilities and an alternative
[[Page 58788]]
compliance option of contingency planning for flowlines and intra-
facility gathering lines in lieu of all secondary containment;
Alternative compliance option for flow-through process
vessels at oil production facilities to comply with the general
secondary containment requirements and additional oil spill prevention
measures in lieu of the sized secondary containment requirements;
A definition of ``produced water container'';
Alternative compliance option to sized secondary
containment for produced water containers that includes general
secondary containment, a PE-certified process or procedure designed to
remove free-phase oil that accumulates on the surface of the produced
water container, and additional oil spill prevention measures;
Clarification of the definition of ``permanently closed''
as it applies to an oil production facility; and
Technical corrections.
This preamble discusses each of these provisions, and any related
comments received during the 2009 comment period that raise substantive
policy issues, in more detail below. For a complete discussion of the
comments received in 2009, see Comment and Response Document for 2008
Final SPCC Amendments, Comment Period Ending March 2009, a copy of
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
1. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA exempted HMA and HMA
containers from SPCC rule applicability. HMA is a blend of asphalt
cement (AC) and aggregate material, such as stone, sand, or gravel,
which is formed into final paving products. All types of asphalt,
including HMA, are petroleum products.
EPA exempted HMA from SPCC rule applicability by adding a new
paragraph (8) under the general applicability section, Sec. 112.1(d),
and modifying Sec. 112.1(d)(2) so that the capacity of HMA containers
is not counted toward the facility's oil storage capacity calculation.
EPA took this action based on the fact that this material is unlikely
to flow as a result of the entrained aggregate, such that there would
be very few circumstances, if any, in which a discharge of HMA would
have the potential to reach navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
This is particularly of concern at facilities subject to the SPCC
requirements solely because of the presence of HMA. See Section V.A of
the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74240 for more information about
this amendment.
EPA received one comment that recommended that EPA also extend the
exemption to other products like paraffin wax, asphalt cement, certain
resins, and various animal fats, and suggested the exemption be based
on the unique ``self-containing'' characteristics of all these
materials and the low probability of a spill reaching navigable waters
or adjoining shorelines. The Agency disagrees with this comment. As EPA
discussed in the December 5, 2008 amendments, these materials, unlike
HMA, do have the potential to discharge in quantities that may be
harmful into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, because they are
generally stored at elevated temperatures, and thus are capable of
flowing if there is a release from the container. Conversely, HMA is
unlikely to flow as a result of the entrained aggregate. The commenter
did not provide new or compelling data supporting their position.
Further, it should be noted that the SPCC rule only applies to
facilities that, due to their location, can reasonably be expected to
discharge oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. In
determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of discharge, an
owner or operator of a facility may consider the nature and flow
properties of the oils handled at the facility. If a facility owner or
operator determines that there is no reasonable expectation of a
discharge of oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines from every
single oil container at the facility (excluding exempt containers),
then the facility would not be subject to the rule's requirements.
However, if the facility owner or operator determines that any oil
container (excluding exempt containers) may have a reasonable
expectation of a discharge of oil to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, then the facility is subject to the rule provisions.
Other comments generally supported the amendments to the exemption
for HMA and HMA containers. Based on this and review of all relevant
facts, the Agency is making no changes to this provision.
2. Pesticide Application Equipment and Related Mix Containers
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA added a new paragraph (10)
under the general applicability section, Sec. 112.1(d), to exempt all
pesticide application equipment and related mix containers regardless
of ownership or where used when crop oil or adjuvant oil is added to
the pesticide formulation. EPA also modified Sec. 112.1(d)(2) so that
the capacity of pesticide application equipment and related mix
containers is not counted toward the facility's oil storage capacity
calculation. Pesticide application equipment includes ground boom
applicators, airblast sprayers, and specialty aircraft containers/
equipment that are used to apply measured quantities of pesticides to
crops and/or soil. Related mix containers are those used to mix
pesticides with water and, as needed, adjuvant oils, just prior to
loading into the application equipment. EPA adopted this exemption
because this type of pesticide use and related mix containers are
already subject to regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as codified in 40 CFR part 165, to assure
the safe use (including discharge), reuse, storage, and disposal of
pesticide containers. Containers (55 U.S. gallons or greater in
capacity) storing oil prior to mixing it with a pesticide, or
containers used to store pesticides that contain oil (after mixing
occurs), are considered bulk storage containers and are not exempt
under the SPCC rule. See Section V.B of the December 5, 2008 notice at
73 FR 74240 for more information about this amendment.
Comments generally supported the exemption for pesticide
application equipment and related mix containers. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency is making no change to this
provision.
3. Applicability of Mobile Refueler Requirements to Farm Nurse Tanks
In Section V.B. of the preamble to the December 2008 amendments (73
FR 74241, December 5, 2008), EPA clarified that the definition of
mobile refueler, as promulgated in the December 2006 amendments to the
SPCC rule (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006), includes a nurse tank,
which is a mobile/portable container used at farms to store and
transport fuel for transfers to or from farm equipment (such as
tractors and combines) to other bulk storage containers (such as
containers used to provide fuel to wellhead/relift pumps) at the farm.
A nurse tank is often mounted on a trailer for transport around the
farm, and thus its function is consistent with that of a mobile
refueler. A nurse tank, like other types of mobile refuelers, is exempt
from the sized secondary containment requirements at Sec. Sec.
112.8(c)(2) and 112.12(c)(2), but is still subject to the general
secondary containment requirements at Sec. 112.7(c).
[[Page 58789]]
Comments generally supported the clarification regarding the
applicability of mobile refueler requirements to farm nurse tanks.
Based on this and review of all relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this clarification.
4. Residential Heating Oil Containers
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA added a new paragraph (9)
under the general applicability section, Sec. 112.1(d), to exempt from
SPCC applicability containers that are used to store oil for the sole
purpose of heating single-family residences (including a residence at a
farm). EPA also modified Sec. 112.1(d)(2) so that the capacity of
single-family residential heating oil containers is not counted toward
facility aggregate oil storage capacity. Thus, the owner or operator is
not required to count any residential heating oil container (i.e.,
those at non-commercial buildings) as part of the facility's aggregate
storage capacity for the purpose of determining SPCC applicability, and
no SPCC requirements will apply to these exempt containers. The SPCC
requirements continue to apply, however, to oil containers used to heat
other non-residential buildings within a facility, because the
exemption covers only residential heating oil containers at single
family residences. See Section V.C of the December 5, 2008 notice at 73
FR 74243 for more information about this amendment.
Comments generally supported the amendments to the exemption for
residential heating oil containers. The Agency did not intend for the
presence of heating oil containers at a single-family residence to, by
itself, trigger SPCC applicability. Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no change to this provision.
5. Definition of Facility
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA amended the definition of
``facility,'' as found in Sec. 112.2. (EPA defined both ``facility''
and ``production facility'' at Sec. 112.2 in the July 2002 amendments
to the SPCC rule (67 FR 47042, July 17, 2002).) EPA modified the
definition of ``facility'' in three ways: (1) To clarify that this
definition alone governs the applicability of 40 CFR part 112; (2) to
clarify that containers can be aggregated or disaggregated (i.e.,
counted separately), based on various factors in defining the
``facility'' (in other words, the owner or operator has the discretion
to identify which contiguous or non-contiguous buildings, properties,
parcels, leases, structures, installations, pipes, or pipelines make up
the facility); and (3) to add the qualifier ``oil'' before the term
``waste treatment.''
EPA maintains that under this provision, the owner or operator
defines the boundaries of his facility, except as noted below. A
facility may or may not be subject to the SPCC rule depending on how
the facility owner or operator aggregates buildings, structures or
equipment and associated storage or type of activity. EPA recognizes
that this provision clarifies that a facility owner/operator may
determine that he is no longer subject to the SPCC requirements.
However, an owner or operator may not characterize a facility so as to
simply avoid applicability of the rule (for example, defining separate
facilities around oil storage containers that are located side-by-side
or within close proximity, and are used for the same purpose). See
Section V.D of the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74244 for more
information about this amendment.
Comments generally supported the amendments to the definition of
``facility.'' Based on this and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this provision.
6. Facility Diagram
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA revised the requirement that
the facility diagram include the location and contents of each
container to provide additional flexibility. EPA amended Sec.
112.7(a)(3) to clarify that the facility diagram must include all fixed
containers (that is, those containers that are not mobile or portable).
For any mobile or portable containers (such as drums or totes), a
facility owner or operator must mark the storage area on the facility
diagram for these containers. For the purposes of this provision,
``storage area'' means the location of their out-of-service containers
or designated storage area, primary storage area, or areas where mobile
or portable containers are most frequently located. The facility owner
or operator may mark the number of containers, contents and capacity of
each container either on the facility diagram or in a separate
description in the SPCC Plan. If the total number of mobile or portable
containers changes, the owner or operator need only include an estimate
in the Plan of the number of mobile or portable containers, the
anticipated contents, and capacities of the mobile or portable
containers maintained at the facility in the Plan.
EPA also required that certain intra-facility piping (i.e.,
gathering lines) exempted from the SPCC requirements in the December
2008 action be identified on the facility diagram and marked as
``exempt.'' This will help facility and EPA personnel define the
jurisdictional boundaries at the facility and provide emergency
response personnel with information that can be used to identify
hazards during a spill response activity. However, EPA has not required
that all containers exempted from the rule be marked on the facility
diagram because in many cases, it would be impracticable. For example,
the mobility of motive power containers and mobile/portable containers
with a capacity of less than 55 U.S. gallons makes them difficult to
accurately represent on a facility diagram. See Section V.E of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74246 for more information about this
amendment.
Comments generally supported the amendments to the facility diagram
provision. One commenter claimed that his facility diagrams identify
underground storage tanks, but do not label them as exempt from the
SPCC requirements. The comment argued that marking them as ``exempt''
would be an unnecessary expense. The requirement to identify exempt
USTs was finalized in July 2002 (67 FR 47042, July 17, 2002) and so
antedates the December 2008 amendments; thus the comment is outside the
scope of this rulemaking. However, in response, we would note that the
facility diagram can be supplemented with a table or log that indicates
which USTs are exempt from the SPCC requirements. Based on this and
review of all relevant facts, the Agency is making no change to this
provision.
7. Loading/Unloading Racks
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA finalized a definition for the
term ``loading/unloading rack,'' which governs whether a facility's oil
transfer equipment and areas are subject to Sec. 112.7(h). Under this
provision, the requirements described at Sec. 112.7(h) only apply to
oil transfer areas of a regulated facility where a loading/unloading
rack, as defined in Sec. 112.2, is located. EPA modified the
definition to provide more clarity, and to indicate that a loading/
unloading arm is an essential component of a loading/unloading rack.
Other components that may be found at a loading or unloading rack are
described in the definition. Equipment present at a loading/unloading
area where a pipe stand connects to a tank car or tank truck via a
flexible hose, which is not equipped with a loading or unloading arm,
is not considered a loading/unloading rack as defined by the December
2008 amendments.
[[Page 58790]]
EPA also changed all references from loading/unloading ``area'' to
loading/unloading ``rack,'' including modifications to the language in
Sec. 112.7(h)(1), and corrected the word ``break'' to ``brake'' in
Sec. 112.7(h)(2). Finally, EPA clarified that Sec. 112.7(h) applies
to a loading/unloading rack associated with a container that is
exempted from the rule, such as underground storage tanks (USTs) that
are subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or
a State program approved under part 281. Additionally, EPA clarified
that transfer areas (equipped with dispensers or other transfer
equipment) that are associated with exempted USTs, at an otherwise
regulated SPCC facility, are subject to the requirements of Sec.
112.7(c). See Section V.F of the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74248
for more information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with the comment that EPA's definition of ``loading/
unloading rack'' does not apply to a flexible hose used to load and/or
unload oil from a tanker truck or railcar unless the flexible hose is
connected to a loading/unloading arm. The Agency does not intend this
definition to include areas where loading or unloading is achieved
using only flexible hoses. However, the presence of flexible hoses on
oil transfer equipment does not always indicate that the equipment is
exempt from the definition of loading/unloading rack because some top
and bottom loading/unloading racks consist of a combination of steel
loading arms connected by flexible hoses.
Comments generally supported the ``loading/unloading rack''
definition and amendments to the requirements for a ``loading/unloading
rack.'' Based on this and review of all relevant facts, the Agency is
making no change to these provisions.
8. General Secondary Containment
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA amended the general secondary
containment requirement at Sec. 112.7(c) in three ways:
By adding text regarding the method, design and capacity
of secondary containment-- to make it clear that the scope of the
general secondary containment requirements takes into consideration the
typical failure mode, and most likely quantity of oil that would be
discharged, consistent with EPA guidance (SPCC Guidance for Regional
Inspectors);
By specifically referencing both active and passive
measures of secondary containment to make it clear that general
containment requirements allows for the use of both active and passive
secondary containment measures to prevent a discharge to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines. Active containment measures are those
that require deployment or other specific action by an operator. These
measures may be deployed either before an activity involving the
handling of oil starts, or in reaction to a discharge, as long as the
active measure is designed to prevent an oil discharge from reaching
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Passive measures are
permanent installations and do not require deployment or action by the
owner or operator. The design and capacity flexibility described in
paragraph Sec. 112.7(c) is specifically for equipment and containers
subject to this paragraph and not for other secondary containment
provisions of this rule; and.
By including the following additional examples of
prevention systems for onshore facilities: drip pans, sumps, and
collection systems. Drip pans are typically used to isolate and contain
small drips or leaks until the source of the leak is repaired. They are
commonly used with product dispensing containers (such as drums), when
uncoupling hoses after bulk transfer operations, and for pumps, valves,
and fittings. Sumps and collection systems generally involve a
permanent pit or reservoir connected to troughs/trenches that collect
oil. By expanding the list of examples of secondary containment
methods/prevention systems found in Sec. 112.7(c)(1), EPA intended to
increase the clarity and better represent current prevention practices.
EPA emphasizes that the list of containment methods/prevention systems
are examples only; other containment methods may be used, consistent
with good engineering practice. See Section V.H of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74261 for more information about this amendment.
As EPA discussed in the December 5, 2008 amendments, the Plan
preparer should include enough detail in the SPCC Plan to describe the
efficacy of the measures used to comply with the general secondary
containment requirements (see the SPCC Guidance for Regional
Inspectors, Chapter 4). While EPA does not require that calculations be
kept in the Plan, it recommends the facility owner or operator maintain
them such that if questions arise during the inspection, the
calculations which serve as the basis for the capacity of the secondary
containment system will be readily available for review.
Comments generally supported the amendments to the general
secondary containment requirements. Based on this and review of all
relevant facts, the Agency is making no change to these provisions.
9. General Secondary Containment for Non-Transportation-Related Tank
Trucks
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA extended the exemption from
the sized secondary containment requirements provided to mobile
refuelers in the December 2006 amendments (71 FR 77266, December 26,
2006) to non-transportation-related tank trucks at a facility subject
to the SPCC rule. Other non-transportation-related tanker trucks may be
transferring non-fuel oils (i.e., transformer oils, lubrication oils,
or certain AFVOs) and operate similarly to mobile refuelers; therefore,
they may not be able to comply with the sized secondary containment
requirements. Specifically, EPA amended Sec. Sec. 112.6(a)(3)(ii),
112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.12(c)(2), and 112.12(c)(11) to include
the phrase ``except mobile refuelers and other non-transportation-
related tank trucks.'' Such non-transportation-related tank trucks
include those used to store and transport fuel, crude oil, condensate,
non-petroleum, or other oils for transfer to or from bulk storage
containers; for example, a truck used to refill oil-filled equipment at
an electrical substation or a pump truck at an oil production facility.
Under this approach, the general secondary containment requirements at
Sec. 112.7(c) still apply. See Section V.I of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74262 for more information about this amendment.
EPA agrees with comments supporting the exemption from the sized
secondary containment requirements for non-transportation-related tank
trucks at a facility subject to the SPCC rule. One comment noted that
the exemption from sized secondary containment should be rescinded,
given the use of truck and skid mounted tanks as storage containers at
temporary sites and the high risks associated with these tanks. EPA
disagrees with the comment. As stated in the preamble to the December
5, 2008 amendments, the Agency concluded that it is generally not
practicable to provide sized secondary containment for non-
transportation-related tank trucks because they are moving from
location to location within a facility. A non-transportation-related
tank truck that only operates in a single or fixed location within the
facility (i.e., it does not move within the facility for
[[Page 58791]]
purposes of transferring oil) is not eligible for this provision and
would still be subject to the sized secondary containment requirement.
Based on this and review of all relevant facts, the Agency is making no
change to this provision.
10. Security
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA amended the facility security
requirements at Sec. 112.7(g) to be performance-based and allow an
owner or operator of a facility to tailor its security measures to the
facility's specific characteristics and location. This provision
extended the streamlined security requirements that EPA provided to
qualified facilities in the December 2006 SPCC rule amendments (71 FR
77266, December 26, 2006) to all facilities subject to the security
requirements.
Specifically, EPA modified the security requirements at Sec.
112.7(g) to allow an owner or operator to design the security
arrangements at the facility to address the specific circumstances that
apply. This provision allows an owner or operator to describe in his
SPCC Plan how he will:
Secure and control access to all oil handling, processing
and storage areas;
Secure master flow and drain valves;
Prevent unauthorized access to starter controls on oil
pumps;
Secure out-of-service and loading/unloading connections of
oil pipelines; and
Address the appropriateness of security lighting to both
prevent acts of vandalism and assist in the discovery of oil
discharges.
A facility owner or operator is required to document in the SPCC
Plan how these security measures are implemented. These requirements
replace the more prescriptive fencing and other requirements,
previously found in Sec. 112.7(g)(1) through (5). Because the revised
requirements at Sec. 112.7(g) apply to all facilities (excluding oil
production facilities), EPA removed the security requirements
previously found at Sec. 112.6(c)(3) for qualified facilities; the
provision would be redundant. See Section V.J of the December 5, 2008
notice at 73 FR 74263 for more information about this amendment.
Comments generally supported the amendments to the provision for
security requirements. Based on this and review of all relevant facts,
the Agency is making no change to this provision.
11. Integrity Testing
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA amended the requirements at
Sec. Sec. 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) to provide flexibility in
complying with the bulk storage container integrity testing
requirements. Specifically, EPA modified the provision to allow an
owner or operator to consult and rely on industry standards to
determine the appropriate qualifications for tank inspectors/testing
personnel and the type and frequency of integrity testing required for
a particular container size and configuration. Thus, EPA extended the
streamlined bulk storage container integrity testing requirement that
EPA provided to qualified facilities in the December 2006 SPCC rule
amendments (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) to all facilities subject
to the integrity testing provision.
Specifically, EPA replaced the previous regulatory requirements at
Sec. Sec. 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) with the requirement for a
facility owner or operator to:
Test/inspect each aboveground container for integrity on a
regular schedule and whenever material repairs are made.
Determine, in accordance with industry standards, the
appropriate qualifications of personnel performing tests and
inspections and the frequency and type of testing and inspections,
which take into account container size, configuration, and design.
These revised provisions allow, for example, an owner or operator
to adopt visual inspections for certain types of containers, as
outlined in industry standards, to satisfy the integrity testing
requirements without the need for environmental equivalence
determinations certified by a PE. However, EPA notes that certain
containers may not fall within the scope of an industry standard or may
not have an applicable industry standard; in this case, the owner or
operator of the facility may develop an environmentally equivalent
inspection and testing program in accordance with Sec. 112.7(a)(2) to
comply with the integrity testing requirements described in Sec. Sec.
112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6) (for more information, see Chapter 7 of
the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors). In the case of a Tier II
qualified facility, the environmentally equivalent integrity testing
program will require PE certification. See Sec. 112.6(b)(3)(i) and
112.6(b)(4) for more information on PE certification of environmental
equivalence for Tier II qualified facilities.
An owner or operator is still required to keep comparison records
(records of inspections and tests kept under usual and customary
business practices will suffice) and to inspect the container's
supports and foundations. The owner or operator must also conduct
frequent inspection of the outside of the container for signs of
deterioration, discharges, or accumulation of oil inside diked areas.
Because the revised requirements at Sec. Sec. 112.8(c)(6) and
112.12(c)(6) apply to all facilities (excluding oil production
facilities), EPA removed the integrity testing requirements previously
found at Sec. 112.6(c)(4) for qualified facilities. See Section V.K of
the December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74264 for more information about
this amendment.
EPA agrees with the comments supporting the provision for integrity
testing requirements. However, several comments generally opposed these
amendments, and one comment questioned the need for more flexibility
with regard to the integrity testing requirements. EPA recognizes that
certain containers do not have applicable industry standards and notes
that the rule already provides flexibility to integrity testing in that
the owner or operator can rely on a PE to provide an environmentally
equivalent method of integrity testing in Sec. 112.7(a)(2).
Nonetheless, the December 2008 amendments address broader concerns with
the integrity testing requirements by revising the rule text under
Sec. Sec. 112.8(c)(6) and 112.12(c)(6). No new or compelling
information or data was provided by comments that supported changing
EPA's position. Based on this and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this provision.
12. Integrity Testing Requirements for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils
In the December 2008 amendments, EPA differentiated the integrity
testing requirements at Sec. 112.12(c)(6) for an owner or operator of
a facility that handles certain types of AFVOs. Specifically, EPA
provided the PE or an owner or operator self-certifying an SPCC Plan
with the flexibility to use a visual inspection program for integrity
testing for containers that store AFVOs and that meet certain criteria
identified in Sec. 112.12(c)(6)(ii). This flexibility applies to those
bulk storage containers that are subject to the applicable sections of
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation 21 CFR part 110,
Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing or
Holding Human Food, as well as meet the following additional criteria:
(1) The
[[Page 58792]]
containers are elevated; (2) the containers are made from austenitic
stainless steel; (3) the containers have no external insulation; and
(4) the containers are shop-built. That is, an owner or operator with
containers meeting these criteria can use visual inspection of these
containers equivalent to industry standards, in lieu of the revised
integrity testing requirements found at Sec. 112.12(c)(6)(i), without
having to document the reasons for using an environmentally equivalent
measure in accordance with Sec. 112.7(a)(2). The owner or operator is
required to document the procedures for inspections and testing in the
SPCC Plan, including those for AFVO bulk storage containers that are
eligible for the differentiated requirements described in this
provision.
EPA does not require that an owner or operator use this alternative
compliance option. This alternative provides additional flexibility in
meeting the provisions set forth in Sec. 112.12(c)(6) to address
stakeholder concerns. EPA recognizes that certain types of containers
do not have applicable industry standards. The December 2008 amendments
revised the SPCC rule to provide an environmentally equivalent approach
to comply with the integrity testing requirements for AFVO containers
or have a PE provide an environmentally equivalent method of integrity
testing in accordance with Sec. 112.7(a)(2). See Section V.K of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74264 for more information about this
amendment.
EPA agrees with comments supporting the differentiated integrity
testing requirements for an owner or operator of a facility that
handles certain types of AFVOs. One comment requested greater
flexibility in determining the appropriate integrity testing measures
for bulk AFVO storage containers, including an extension of the
inspection frequency for tanks storing AFVO. The owner or operator can
identify the appropriate integrity testing measures for bulk AFVO
storage containers following either Sec. 112.12(c)(6)(i) or Sec.
112.12(c)(6)(ii). Additional flexibility may be achieved when a PE
provides an environmentally equivalent method of integrity testing in
accordance with Sec. 112.7(a)(2). The SPCC rule requires that
inspections of AFVO bulk storage containers be conducted on a regular
schedule, but does not otherwise specify an inspection frequency for
these containers. The owner or operator can identify the appropriate
inspection frequency for the AFVO containers and document the
inspection frequency in the SPCC Plan. No new or compelling information
or data was provided by comments that would cause the Agency to change
its position. Thus, based on this and review of all relevant facts, the
Agency is making no change to this provision.
13. Oil Production Facilities
Since its original promulgation in 1973, the SPCC rule has included
differentiated requirements for oil production facilities (Sec.
112.9), as compared to other types of facilities (Sec. Sec. 112.8,
112.10, 112.11, and 112.12). Based on issues presented by the regulated
community, in the December 2008 amendments EPA adopted certain
revisions that further streamline, tailor or clarify the SPCC
requirements for oil production facilities (see Section V.M of the
December 5, 2008 notice at 73 FR 74270). EPA has decided not to modify
the following provisions: amended definition of ``production
facility''; clarification that drilling and workover activities are not
subject to the provisions at Sec. 112.9; exemption from the SPCC
requirements for certain intra-facility gathering lines subject to the
DOT pipeline regulations in 49 CFR parts 192 or 195; specific
requirements for a flowline/intra-facility gathering line maintenance
program and an alternative compliance option of contingency planning
for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines at oil production
facilities in lieu of secondary containment requirements; an
alternative compliance option for flow-through process vessels at oil
production facilities that requires general secondary containment and
additional oil spill prevention measures in lieu of the sized secondary
containment requirements; definition of ``produced water container''
and alternative compliance measures for these containers which requires
general secondary containment, a process or procedure certified by a PE
designed to remove free-phase oil on the surface of the produced water
container and compliance with additional oil spill prevention measures
in lieu of sized secondary containment requirements; and clarification
of the definition of ``permanently closed'' as it applies to an oil
production facility.
a. Definition of Production Facility
Consistent with the revisions to the definition of ``facility'' (as
described in Section V.D of the December 2008 amendments (73 FR
74236)), EPA also modified the definition of ``production facility.'' A
``production facility'' is a type of ``facility'' as defined in Sec.
112.2. With the December 2008 amendments, EPA added a sentence at the
end of the definition to clarify that while only the definition of
``facility'' governs the overall applicability of 40 CFR part 112, the
definition of ``production facility'' is used to determine which
sections of the rule may apply at a particular facility. (The sections
for administrative and general rule requirements continue to apply at
all facilities under 40 CFR part 112.) This change to the definition of
production facility addresses concerns raised during litigation
challenging the July 2002 rule amendments and discussed in the May 25,
2004 Federal Register notice (69 FR 29728). EPA also modified the
phrase ``and located in a single geographical oil or gas field operated
by a single operator'' to clarify that a production facility ``is
located in an oil or gas field.'' This is consiste