Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans for High-Hazard Flammable Trains, 45079-45083 [2014-17762]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45079
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
§ 179.204 Individual specification
requirements applicable to DOT–117 tank
car tanks.
§ 179.204–1
§ 179.204–4
Applicability.
Each tank built under these
specifications must conform to either
the requirements of §§ 179. 204–1
through 179.204–10, or the performance
standard requirements of § 179.204–11.
§ 179.204–3
Type.
(a) General. The tank car must either
be designed to the DOT 117
specification or conform to the
performance specification prescribed in
§ 179.204–11.
(b) Approval. The tank car design
must be approved by the Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer, Federal Railroad
Administration, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, and
must be constructed to the conditions of
that approval in accordance with
§ 179.13.
(c) Design. The design must meet the
individual specification requirements of
§ 179.204.
Thickness of plates.
The wall thickness after forming of
the tank shell and heads must be, at a
minimum, 7⁄16 of an inch AAR TC–128
Grade B, in accordance with § 179.200–
7(b).
§ 179.204–5 Tank head puncture
resistance system.
§ 179.204–8
The DOT 117 specification tank car
must have a tank head puncture
resistance system. The full height head
shields must have a minimum thickness
of 1⁄2 inch.
§ 179.204–6
Thermal protection systems.
The DOT 117 specification tank car
must have a thermal protection system.
The thermal protection system must be
designed in accordance with § 179.18
and include a reclosing pressure relief
device in accordance with § 173.31 of
this subchapter.
§ 179.204–7
A1011 steel or equivalent; and flashed
around all openings so as to be weather
tight. The exterior surface of a carbon
steel tank and the inside surface of a
carbon steel jacket must be given a
protective coating.
Jackets.
The entire thermal protection system
must be covered with a metal jacket of
a thickness not less than 11 gauge
Bottom outlets.
If the tank car is equipped with a
bottom outlet, the handle must be
removed prior to train movement or be
designed with protection safety
system(s) to prevent unintended
actuation during train accident
scenarios.
§ 179.204–9
Top fittings protection.
The tank car tank must be equipped
per AAR Specifications Tank Cars,
appendix E paragraph 10.2.1 (IBR, see
§ 171.7 of this subchapter).
§ 179.204–10
DOT 117 design.
The following is an overview of design
requirements for a DOT Specification
117 tank car.
DOT
specification
Insulation
Bursting
pressure
(psig)
Minimum plate
thickness
(inches)
Test
pressure
(psig)
Bottom
outlet
117A100W ...
Optional .........................................................................................
500
7/16
100
Optional.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 179.204–11 Performance standard
requirements.
(a) Approval. Design, testing, and
modeling results must be reviewed and
approved by the Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer, Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Approval to operate at 286,000
gross rail load (GRL). In addition to the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the tank car design must be
approved, and the tank car must be
constructed to the conditions of an
approval issued by the Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer, FRA, in accordance with
§ 179.13.
(c) Puncture resistance.
(1) Minimum side impact speed: 9
mph when impacted at the longitudinal
and vertical center of the shell by a rigid
12-inch by 12-inch indenter with a
weight of 286,000 pounds.
(2) Minimum head impact speed: 17
mph when impacted at the center of the
head by a rigid 12-inch by 12-inch
indenter with a weight of 286,000
pounds.
(d) Thermal protection systems. The
tank car must be equipped with a
thermal protection system. The thermal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:37 Jul 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
protection system must be designed in
accordance with § 179.18 and include a
reclosing pressure relief device in
accordance with § 173.31 of this
subchapter.
(e) Bottom outlet. If the tank car is
equipped with a bottom outlet, the
handle must be removed prior to train
movement or be designed with
protection safety system(s) to prevent
unintended actuation during train
accident scenarios.
(f) Top fittings protection.
(1) New construction. The tank car
tank must be equipped per AAR
Specifications Tank Cars, appendix E
paragraph 10.2.1 (IBR, see § 171.7 of this
subchapter).
(2) Existing tank cars. Existing tank
car tanks may continue to rely on the
equipment installed at the time of
manufacture.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 23,
2014, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2014–17764 Filed 7–31–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 130 and 174
[Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0105 (HM–251B)]
RIN 2137–AF08
Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill
Response Plans for High-Hazard
Flammable Trains
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
PMHSA is issuing this
ANPRM in conjunction with a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM)—
Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank
Car Standards and Operational Controls
for High-Hazard Flammable Trains
(2137–AE91), which PHMSA is also
publishing today. In this ANPRM,
PHMSA, in consultation with the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
seeks comment on potential revisions to
its regulations that would expand the
applicability of comprehensive oil spill
response plans (OSRPs) to high-hazard
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01AUP3.SGM
01AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45080
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact
the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
Benedict, (202) 366–8553, Standards
and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Karl
Alexy, (202) 493–6245, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Federal
Railroad Administration; or Roberta
Stewart, (202) 493–1345, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
flammable trains (HHFTs) based on
thresholds of crude oil that apply to an
entire train consist.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2014–0105 (HM–251B) by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System;
U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: To the Docket
Management System; Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this notice at the beginning
of the comment. To avoid duplication,
please use only one of these four
methods. All comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.
Docket: For access to the dockets to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket
Operations Office located at U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
USC 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to
facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of
names is completely optional. Whether
or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely filed comments will be fully
Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), directs the
President, at section 311(j)(1)(C) (33
U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)) and section
311(j)(5) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)),
respectively, to issue regulations
‘‘establishing procedures, methods, and
equipment and other requirements for
equipment to prevent discharges of oil 1
and hazardous substances from vessels
and from onshore facilities and offshore
facilities, and to contain such
discharges.’’ OPA directs the President
to issue regulations requiring owners
and operators of certain vessels and
onshore and offshore oil facilities to
develop, submit, update and in some
cases obtain approval of OSRPs. 33
U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), Pub. L. 101–380
(1990). The authority to regulate
transportation-related onshore facilities
(i.e., motor carriers and railways) was
later delegated to PHMSA’s predecessor
agency, the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA).
On June 17, 1996, RSPA published a
final rule issuing requirements that meet
the intent of the FWPCA (61 FR 30533).
This rule adopted requirements for
packaging, communication, spill
response planning, and response plan
implementation intended to prevent and
contain spills of oil during
transportation. Regarding spill response
planning, a basic OSRP is required for
oil shipments in a packaging having a
capacity of 3,500 gallons or more and a
comprehensive OSRP is required for oil
1 For purposes of 49 CFR Part 130, oil means oil
of any kind or in any form, including, but not
limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse,
and oil mixed with the wastes other than dredged
spoil. 49 CFR 130.5. This includes non-petroleum
oil such as animal fat, vegetable oil, or other non-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:40 Jul 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shipments in a package containing more
than 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels).
RSPA clarified that the purpose of an
OSRP is to ensure that personnel are
trained and available and equipment is
in place to respond to an oil spill, and
that procedures are established before a
spill occurs, so that required
notifications and appropriate response
actions will follow quickly when there
is a spill. Neither the basic nor the
comprehensive OSRP is required to
address response on a vehicle- or
location-specific basis. A nationwide,
regional or other generic plan is
acceptable, provided that it covers the
range of spill scenarios that the owner
or operator foreseeably could encounter.
Thus, scenarios ranging from a minor
discharge to a ‘‘worst-case discharge,’’
must be addressed, as well as the range
of topographical and climatological
conditions the owner or operator may
face. The OSRP also must describe the
response when the discharge results
from, or is accompanied by, a
complicating condition, such as
explosion or fire. RSPA outlined that a
comprehensive OSRP must, at a
minimum, address the following:
(1) Range of response scenarios that
foreseeably could occur;
(2) Qualified individual, the alternate
qualified individual, and all other
personnel with a role in spill response;
(3) Training, including drills, required
for each of these persons;
(4) Equipment necessary for response
to the maximum extent practicable in
each of the identified scenarios;
(5) Means by which the availability of
personnel and equipment will be
ensured to respond to a spill to the
maximum extent practicable;
(6) Governmental officials and others
to be notified in the event of a spill, and
the notification procedure to be
followed;
(7) Means for communicating among
responsible personnel and between
personnel and officials during a
response; and
(8) Procedures to be followed during
a response.
The following table outlines the
specific differences between a basic and
comprehensive OSRP. The shaded rows
of the table indicate requirements that
are not part of the basic OSRP, but are
included in the comprehensive OSRP.
petroleum oil. Ethanol is not included in this
definition.
E:\FR\FM\01AUP3.SGM
01AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Request for Public Comment
As discussed above, we believe that
most, if not all, of the rail community
transporting oil, including crude oil
transported as a hazardous material, is
subject to the basic OSRP requirement
of 49 CFR 130.31(a), based on the
understanding that most, if not all, rail
tank cars being used to transport crude
oil have a capacity greater than 3,500
gallons. However, a comprehensive
OSRP for shipment of oil is only
required when the oil is in a quantity
greater than 42,000 gallons per package.
Accordingly, the number of railroads
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:40 Jul 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
required to have a comprehensive OSRP
is much lower, or possibly non-existent,
because a very limited number of rail
tank cars in use would be able to
transport a volume of 42,000 gallons in
a single package.2
In setting the current OSRP threshold
quantities, RSPA relied on the FWPCA
mandate for regulations requiring a
comprehensive OSRP to be prepared by
an owner or operator of an onshore
2 The 2014 AAR’s Universal Machine Language
Equipment Register (UMLER) numbers showed 5
tank cars listed with a capacity equal to or greater
than 42,000 gallons, and none of these cars were
being used to transport oil or petroleum products.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
45081
facility that, ‘‘because of its location,
could reasonably be expected to cause
substantial harm to the environment by
discharging into or on the navigable
waters, adjoining shorelines, or
exclusive economic zone.’’ 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5)(C)(iv). For a more detailed
discussion of RSPA’s codification of the
OSRP requirements into the HMR and
the corresponding mandates from the
FWPCA which were the baseline for
such regulations, see the background
section of RSPA’s June 17, 1996, final
rule (61 FR 30532). In that final rule,
RSPA discussed a 1,000,000-gallon
threshold that would apply to
E:\FR\FM\01AUP3.SGM
01AUP3
EP01AU14.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
45082
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
shipments rather than packages as an
option. Specifically, RSPA stated,
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Conversely, the 1,000,000-gallon threshold
adopted by EPA [Environmental Protection
Agency] is contingent on several factors,
including restrictive provisions that the
facility may not transfer oil over water to or
from vessels and that the facility’s proximity
to a public drinking water intake must be
sufficiently distant to assure that the intake
would not be shut down in the event of a
discharge. Further, the EPA threshold refers
to the capacity not of a single fixed storage
tank, but of the entire facility, including
barrels and drums stored at the facility. In
summary, this example also is not analogous
to hazards routinely encountered during
transportation by railway and highway.
During the June 28, 1993 public meeting,
the ‘‘substantial harm’’ threshold was
discussed at length, but participants did not
agree on what volume of oil reasonably could
cause substantial harm to the marine
environment. Also, the 42,000-gallon
threshold is supported by a number of
comments to the docket citing its use by the
EPA in related sections of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Consequently, RSPA
believes its determination to use a threshold
value of 42,000 gallons in a single packaging
is appropriate and reasonable.
In the past, and in the absence of
agreement among participants in the
rulemaking process on a volume of oil
that could reasonably be expected to
cause substantial harm to the
environment, we stated that 42,000
gallons in a single packaging is a
reasonable quantity of liquid for a
finding of substantial harm. As
discussed in the June 17, 1996, RSPA
final rule, an incident involving the
transportation of 1,000,000 gallons of
crude oil could cause substantial harm,
even if not in a single packaging. This
finding is consistent with Facility
Response Plans (FRPs) for ‘‘substantial
harm’’ sites (see 40 CFR 112.20 and
112.21). FRP facilities require an
approved plan for one million gallons or
more of oil storage capacity, or transfers
of oil over water in vessels that have oil
storage capacities of 42,000 gallons or
more. While a single tank car is not
likely to hold 42,000 gallons of crude
oil, the increasing reliance on HHFTs 1
poses a risk that was not considered
when RSPA made its determination on
that threshold.
The consequences, including
environmental impacts, of a derailment
of an HHFT have been demonstrated in
´
recent train accidents in Lac Megantic,
Quebec, Canada; Aliceville, AL; and
1 In today’s NPRM 2137–AE91, the proposed
definition for an HHFT in section 171.8 is: 20 or
more carloads in a single train of a Class 3
flammable liquid. This definition does not include
combustible liquids.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:40 Jul 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Casselton, ND.2 On January 23, 2014, in
response to its investigation of the Lac´
Megantic accident,3 the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
issued three recommendations to
PHMSA. Of note here is Safety
Recommendation (SR) R–14–5,4 which
requested that PHMSA revise the spill
response planning thresholds prescribed
in 49 CFR Part 130 to require
comprehensive OSRPs that effectively
provide for the carriers’ ability to
respond to worst-case discharges
resulting from accidents involving unit
trains or blocks of tank cars transporting
oil and petroleum products. In this
recommendation, the NTSB raised a
concern that, ‘‘Because there is no
mandate for railroads to develop
comprehensive plans or ensure the
availability of necessary response
resources, carriers have effectively
placed the burden of remediating the
environmental consequences of an
accident on local communities along
their routes.’’ In light of these accidents
and NTSB SR R–14–5, PHMSA is now
re-examining whether it is more
appropriate to consider the train in its
entirety when setting the threshold for
comprehensive OSRPs.
Considering the typical 30,000-gallon
capacity rail tank car used for the
transport of crude oil, a 1,000,000-gallon
threshold for oil on a train would
translate to requiring a comprehensive
OSRP for trains composed of
approximately thirty-five cars of crude
oil; all of the aforementioned train
accidents involved train consists 5 with
more than 70 tank cars of crude oil, and
PHMSA expects the business practices
for HHFTs would result in train consists
that exceed 35 crude oil cars. Using a
42,000 gallon per train consist
threshold, PHMSA expects that a train
consist with two crude oil carloads
would trigger the requirement for
comprehensive OSRPs; PHMSA seeks
comment below on what impact that
would have on current business
practices for shipping crude oil by rail.
In order to inform a potential future
NPRM that would adjust threshold
quantities to trigger comprehensive
OSRP requirements for HHFTs, PHMSA
seeks comments on the questions below.
The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the ANPRM, explain
2 For more extensive discussion of recent
accidents involving crude oil transportation by rail,
please see the NPRM for 2137–AE91, published
today.
3 https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetesinvestigations/rail/2013/R13D0054/R13D0054.asp.
4 https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2014/R14-004-006.pdf.
5 A train consist is considered the rolling stock,
exclusive of the locomotive, making up a train.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the reason for any recommended
change, include supporting data, and
explain the source, methodology, and
key assumptions of the supporting data.
1. When considering appropriate
thresholds for comprehensive OSRPs, which
of the following thresholds would be most
appropriate and provide the greatest
potential for increased safety? What
thresholds would be most cost-effective?
a. 1,000,000 gallons or more of crude oil
per train consist;
b. An HHFT of 20 or more carloads of
crude oil per train consist;
c. 42,000 gallons of crude oil per train
consist; or
d. Another threshold.
2. In exploring the applicability of
comprehensive OSRP requirements to trains
carrying large volumes of crude oil, are the
requirements of comprehensive OSRPs clear
enough for railroads and shippers to
understand what would be required of them?
If not, what greater specificity should be
added?
3. In exploring the applicability of
comprehensive OSRP requirements to trains
carrying large volumes of crude oil, are there
elements that should be added, removed, or
modified from the comprehensive OSRP
requirements? Please consider the regulations
covering other modes of transporting crude
oil (such as pipelines), and the relevant
differences between modes of operation, in
your response.
4. What costs might be incurred in
developing comprehensive OSRPs and
submitting them to FRA for approval? To the
extent possible, please provide detailed
estimates.
5. What costs might be incurred to procure
or contract for resources to be present to
remove discharges? In these estimates, what
are your assumptions about the placement of
equipment along the track, types of
equipment, and maximum time to contain a
worst-case discharge?
6. What costs might be incurred to conduct
training, drills, and equipment testing? To
the extent possible, please provide detailed
estimates.
7. It is assumed that most railroads and
shippers currently have basic OSRPs in
place. What, if any, aspects beyond the basic
plan requirements do these plans voluntarily
address? To what extent do current plans
meet the comprehensive OSRP requirements,
including procurement or contracting for
resources to be present to respond to
discharges?
8. To what extent should recent
commitments to the Secretary of
Transportation’s ‘‘Call to Action,’’ and other
voluntary industry actions, inform the
exploration of additional planning
requirements for trains carrying large
volumes of crude oil? For example, how
should voluntary emergency response
equipment inventories and hazardous
material training efforts be factored into the
exploration of additional planning
requirements? Should PHMSA require that
resources be procured to respond on a per
route basis, or at the state/county/city/etc.
level? What is the rationale for your
response?
E:\FR\FM\01AUP3.SGM
01AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
9. Should PHMSA require that the basic
and/or the comprehensive OSRPs be
provided to State Emergency Response
Commissions (SERCs), Tribal Emergency
Response Commissions (TERCs), Fusion
Centers, or other entities designated by each
state, and/or made available to the public?
Should other federal agencies with
responsibilities for emergency response
under the National Contingency Plan (e.g.
U.S. Coast Guard, EPA) also review and
comment on the comprehensive OSRP with
PHMSA?
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 23,
2014, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2014–17762 Filed 7–31–14; 8:45 am]
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:40 Jul 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
45083
E:\FR\FM\01AUP3.SGM
01AUP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45079-45083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17762]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 130 and 174
[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0105 (HM-251B)]
RIN 2137-AF08
Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans for High-Hazard
Flammable Trains
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PMHSA is issuing this ANPRM in conjunction with a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM)--Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car
Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains
(2137-AE91), which PHMSA is also publishing today. In this ANPRM,
PHMSA, in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
seeks comment on potential revisions to its regulations that would
expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans
(OSRPs) to high-hazard
[[Page 45080]]
flammable trains (HHFTs) based on thresholds of crude oil that apply to
an entire train consist.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2014-0105 (HM-251B) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you provide.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office located at U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 USC 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
filed comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please
contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Benedict, (202) 366-8553,
Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Karl Alexy, (202) 493-6245,
Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad
Administration; or Roberta Stewart, (202) 493-1345, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended by the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), directs the President, at section
311(j)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)) and section 311(j)(5) (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5)), respectively, to issue regulations ``establishing
procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment
to prevent discharges of oil \1\ and hazardous substances from vessels
and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain
such discharges.'' OPA directs the President to issue regulations
requiring owners and operators of certain vessels and onshore and
offshore oil facilities to develop, submit, update and in some cases
obtain approval of OSRPs. 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), Pub. L. 101-380 (1990).
The authority to regulate transportation-related onshore facilities
(i.e., motor carriers and railways) was later delegated to PHMSA's
predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of 49 CFR Part 130, oil means oil of any kind
or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil,
sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with the wastes other than dredged
spoil. 49 CFR 130.5. This includes non-petroleum oil such as animal
fat, vegetable oil, or other non-petroleum oil. Ethanol is not
included in this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 17, 1996, RSPA published a final rule issuing requirements
that meet the intent of the FWPCA (61 FR 30533). This rule adopted
requirements for packaging, communication, spill response planning, and
response plan implementation intended to prevent and contain spills of
oil during transportation. Regarding spill response planning, a basic
OSRP is required for oil shipments in a packaging having a capacity of
3,500 gallons or more and a comprehensive OSRP is required for oil
shipments in a package containing more than 42,000 gallons (1,000
barrels).
RSPA clarified that the purpose of an OSRP is to ensure that
personnel are trained and available and equipment is in place to
respond to an oil spill, and that procedures are established before a
spill occurs, so that required notifications and appropriate response
actions will follow quickly when there is a spill. Neither the basic
nor the comprehensive OSRP is required to address response on a
vehicle- or location-specific basis. A nationwide, regional or other
generic plan is acceptable, provided that it covers the range of spill
scenarios that the owner or operator foreseeably could encounter. Thus,
scenarios ranging from a minor discharge to a ``worst-case discharge,''
must be addressed, as well as the range of topographical and
climatological conditions the owner or operator may face. The OSRP also
must describe the response when the discharge results from, or is
accompanied by, a complicating condition, such as explosion or fire.
RSPA outlined that a comprehensive OSRP must, at a minimum, address the
following:
(1) Range of response scenarios that foreseeably could occur;
(2) Qualified individual, the alternate qualified individual, and
all other personnel with a role in spill response;
(3) Training, including drills, required for each of these persons;
(4) Equipment necessary for response to the maximum extent
practicable in each of the identified scenarios;
(5) Means by which the availability of personnel and equipment will
be ensured to respond to a spill to the maximum extent practicable;
(6) Governmental officials and others to be notified in the event
of a spill, and the notification procedure to be followed;
(7) Means for communicating among responsible personnel and between
personnel and officials during a response; and
(8) Procedures to be followed during a response.
The following table outlines the specific differences between a
basic and comprehensive OSRP. The shaded rows of the table indicate
requirements that are not part of the basic OSRP, but are included in
the comprehensive OSRP.
[[Page 45081]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AU14.007
Request for Public Comment
As discussed above, we believe that most, if not all, of the rail
community transporting oil, including crude oil transported as a
hazardous material, is subject to the basic OSRP requirement of 49 CFR
130.31(a), based on the understanding that most, if not all, rail tank
cars being used to transport crude oil have a capacity greater than
3,500 gallons. However, a comprehensive OSRP for shipment of oil is
only required when the oil is in a quantity greater than 42,000 gallons
per package. Accordingly, the number of railroads required to have a
comprehensive OSRP is much lower, or possibly non-existent, because a
very limited number of rail tank cars in use would be able to transport
a volume of 42,000 gallons in a single package.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 2014 AAR's Universal Machine Language Equipment Register
(UMLER) numbers showed 5 tank cars listed with a capacity equal to
or greater than 42,000 gallons, and none of these cars were being
used to transport oil or petroleum products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In setting the current OSRP threshold quantities, RSPA relied on
the FWPCA mandate for regulations requiring a comprehensive OSRP to be
prepared by an owner or operator of an onshore facility that, ``because
of its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm
to the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters,
adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone.'' 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5)(C)(iv). For a more detailed discussion of RSPA's
codification of the OSRP requirements into the HMR and the
corresponding mandates from the FWPCA which were the baseline for such
regulations, see the background section of RSPA's June 17, 1996, final
rule (61 FR 30532). In that final rule, RSPA discussed a 1,000,000-
gallon threshold that would apply to
[[Page 45082]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shipments rather than packages as an option. Specifically, RSPA stated,
Conversely, the 1,000,000-gallon threshold adopted by EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] is contingent on several factors,
including restrictive provisions that the facility may not transfer
oil over water to or from vessels and that the facility's proximity
to a public drinking water intake must be sufficiently distant to
assure that the intake would not be shut down in the event of a
discharge. Further, the EPA threshold refers to the capacity not of
a single fixed storage tank, but of the entire facility, including
barrels and drums stored at the facility. In summary, this example
also is not analogous to hazards routinely encountered during
transportation by railway and highway.
During the June 28, 1993 public meeting, the ``substantial
harm'' threshold was discussed at length, but participants did not
agree on what volume of oil reasonably could cause substantial harm
to the marine environment. Also, the 42,000-gallon threshold is
supported by a number of comments to the docket citing its use by
the EPA in related sections of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Consequently, RSPA believes its determination to use a threshold
value of 42,000 gallons in a single packaging is appropriate and
reasonable.
In the past, and in the absence of agreement among participants in
the rulemaking process on a volume of oil that could reasonably be
expected to cause substantial harm to the environment, we stated that
42,000 gallons in a single packaging is a reasonable quantity of liquid
for a finding of substantial harm. As discussed in the June 17, 1996,
RSPA final rule, an incident involving the transportation of 1,000,000
gallons of crude oil could cause substantial harm, even if not in a
single packaging. This finding is consistent with Facility Response
Plans (FRPs) for ``substantial harm'' sites (see 40 CFR 112.20 and
112.21). FRP facilities require an approved plan for one million
gallons or more of oil storage capacity, or transfers of oil over water
in vessels that have oil storage capacities of 42,000 gallons or more.
While a single tank car is not likely to hold 42,000 gallons of crude
oil, the increasing reliance on HHFTs \1\ poses a risk that was not
considered when RSPA made its determination on that threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In today's NPRM 2137-AE91, the proposed definition for an
HHFT in section 171.8 is: 20 or more carloads in a single train of a
Class 3 flammable liquid. This definition does not include
combustible liquids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consequences, including environmental impacts, of a derailment
of an HHFT have been demonstrated in recent train accidents in Lac
M[eacute]gantic, Quebec, Canada; Aliceville, AL; and Casselton, ND.\2\
On January 23, 2014, in response to its investigation of the Lac-
M[eacute]gantic accident,\3\ the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) issued three recommendations to PHMSA. Of note here is Safety
Recommendation (SR) R-14-5,\4\ which requested that PHMSA revise the
spill response planning thresholds prescribed in 49 CFR Part 130 to
require comprehensive OSRPs that effectively provide for the carriers'
ability to respond to worst-case discharges resulting from accidents
involving unit trains or blocks of tank cars transporting oil and
petroleum products. In this recommendation, the NTSB raised a concern
that, ``Because there is no mandate for railroads to develop
comprehensive plans or ensure the availability of necessary response
resources, carriers have effectively placed the burden of remediating
the environmental consequences of an accident on local communities
along their routes.'' In light of these accidents and NTSB SR R-14-5,
PHMSA is now re-examining whether it is more appropriate to consider
the train in its entirety when setting the threshold for comprehensive
OSRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more extensive discussion of recent accidents involving
crude oil transportation by rail, please see the NPRM for 2137-AE91,
published today.
\3\ https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2013/R13D0054/R13D0054.asp.
\4\ https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2014/R-14-004-006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the typical 30,000-gallon capacity rail tank car used
for the transport of crude oil, a 1,000,000-gallon threshold for oil on
a train would translate to requiring a comprehensive OSRP for trains
composed of approximately thirty-five cars of crude oil; all of the
aforementioned train accidents involved train consists \5\ with more
than 70 tank cars of crude oil, and PHMSA expects the business
practices for HHFTs would result in train consists that exceed 35 crude
oil cars. Using a 42,000 gallon per train consist threshold, PHMSA
expects that a train consist with two crude oil carloads would trigger
the requirement for comprehensive OSRPs; PHMSA seeks comment below on
what impact that would have on current business practices for shipping
crude oil by rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A train consist is considered the rolling stock, exclusive
of the locomotive, making up a train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to inform a potential future NPRM that would adjust
threshold quantities to trigger comprehensive OSRP requirements for
HHFTs, PHMSA seeks comments on the questions below. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the ANPRM, explain the reason
for any recommended change, include supporting data, and explain the
source, methodology, and key assumptions of the supporting data.
1. When considering appropriate thresholds for comprehensive
OSRPs, which of the following thresholds would be most appropriate
and provide the greatest potential for increased safety? What
thresholds would be most cost-effective?
a. 1,000,000 gallons or more of crude oil per train consist;
b. An HHFT of 20 or more carloads of crude oil per train
consist;
c. 42,000 gallons of crude oil per train consist; or
d. Another threshold.
2. In exploring the applicability of comprehensive OSRP
requirements to trains carrying large volumes of crude oil, are the
requirements of comprehensive OSRPs clear enough for railroads and
shippers to understand what would be required of them? If not, what
greater specificity should be added?
3. In exploring the applicability of comprehensive OSRP
requirements to trains carrying large volumes of crude oil, are
there elements that should be added, removed, or modified from the
comprehensive OSRP requirements? Please consider the regulations
covering other modes of transporting crude oil (such as pipelines),
and the relevant differences between modes of operation, in your
response.
4. What costs might be incurred in developing comprehensive
OSRPs and submitting them to FRA for approval? To the extent
possible, please provide detailed estimates.
5. What costs might be incurred to procure or contract for
resources to be present to remove discharges? In these estimates,
what are your assumptions about the placement of equipment along the
track, types of equipment, and maximum time to contain a worst-case
discharge?
6. What costs might be incurred to conduct training, drills, and
equipment testing? To the extent possible, please provide detailed
estimates.
7. It is assumed that most railroads and shippers currently have
basic OSRPs in place. What, if any, aspects beyond the basic plan
requirements do these plans voluntarily address? To what extent do
current plans meet the comprehensive OSRP requirements, including
procurement or contracting for resources to be present to respond to
discharges?
8. To what extent should recent commitments to the Secretary of
Transportation's ``Call to Action,'' and other voluntary industry
actions, inform the exploration of additional planning requirements
for trains carrying large volumes of crude oil? For example, how
should voluntary emergency response equipment inventories and
hazardous material training efforts be factored into the exploration
of additional planning requirements? Should PHMSA require that
resources be procured to respond on a per route basis, or at the
state/county/city/etc. level? What is the rationale for your
response?
[[Page 45083]]
9. Should PHMSA require that the basic and/or the comprehensive
OSRPs be provided to State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs),
Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs), Fusion Centers, or
other entities designated by each state, and/or made available to
the public? Should other federal agencies with responsibilities for
emergency response under the National Contingency Plan (e.g. U.S.
Coast Guard, EPA) also review and comment on the comprehensive OSRP
with PHMSA?
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 23, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2014-17762 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
