40 CFR Part 112

Wednesday,
July 17, 2002

Part II

Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 112
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response;
Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and
Offshore Facilities; Final Rule

47042

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
The official record for this
rulemaking is located in the Superfund
Docket at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Crystal Gateway 1, Arlington, Virginia
22202, Suite 105. The docket numbers
for the final rule are SPCC–1P, SPCC–
2P, and SPCC–7. The record supporting
this rulemaking is contained in the
Superfund Docket and is available for
inspection by appointment only,
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. You may make an
appointment to review the docket by
calling 703–603–9232. You may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any
regulatory docket at no cost. If the
number of pages exceeds 100, however,
we will charge you $0.15 for each page
after 100. The docket will mail copies of
materials to you if you are outside of the
Washington, DC metropolitan area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugo Paul Fleischman, Oil Program
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, at 703–603–8769
([email protected]); or the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800–424–
9346 (in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, 703–412–
9810)([email protected]). The
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) Hotline number is 800–553–7672
(in the Washington, DC metropolitan
area, 703–412–3323). You may wish to
visit the Oil Program’s Internet site at
www.epa.gov/oilspill.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of this preamble are as follows:

A. Statutory Authority

B. Background of This Rulemaking

III. Summary of Major Rule Provisions
IV. Discussion of Issues
A. Reorganization of the Rule
B. Plain Language Format
C. ‘‘Should to Shall to Must’’ Clarification
D. Professional Engineers (PEs)
1. State Registration
2. PEs Employed by the Facility
3. Completion of Testing
4. Site Visits

E. Electrical Facilities and Other

Operational Users of Oil
F. Discretionary Provisions
G. Design Capabilities of Drainage Systems,
Other than Production Facilities
H. Compliance Costs
I. Contingency Planning and Notification

J. Reproposal

K. Industry Standards

V. Section by Section Analysis (Includes:
Background, Comments, and Response to
Comments)
VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866—OMB Review
B. Executive Order 12898—Environmental
Justice
C. Executive Order 13045—Children’s
Health
D. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

F. Executive Order 13211—Energy Effects

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act
K. Congressional Review Act

I. Entities Affected by This Rule
II. Introduction

Entities Potentially Regulated by this Rule
Include:

ADDRESSES:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[FRL–7241–5]
RIN 2050–AC62

Oil Pollution Prevention and
Response; Non-Transportation-Related
Onshore and Offshore Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency or we) is
amending the Oil Pollution Prevention
regulation promulgated under the
authority of the Clean Water Act. This
rule includes requirements for Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and for
Facility Response Plans (FRPs). The
final rule includes new subparts
outlining the requirements for various
classes of oil; revises the applicability of
the regulation; amends the requirements
for completing SPCC Plans; and makes
other modifications. The final rule also
contains a number of provisions
designed to decrease regulatory burden
on facility owners or operators subject
to the rule, while preserving
environmental protection. We expect
that today’s rule will reduce the
paperwork burden associated with
SPCC requirements by approximately
40%. We have also made the regulation
easier to understand and use.
DATES: This rule is effective August 16,
2002.

I. Entities Affected by This Rule

CATEGORY

NAICS Codes

Crop and Animal Production ...........................................................................................................................
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction .................................................................................................
Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying ...............................................................................
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution ............................................................................
Heavy Construction .........................................................................................................................................
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing .................................................................................................
Other Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ..........................................................................................................
Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental and Leasing .........................................................................................
Heating Oil Dealers .........................................................................................................................................
Transportation (including Pipelines), Warehousing, and Marinas ...................................................................

111–112.
211111.
2121/2123/213114/213116.
2211.
234.
324.
31–33.
42271.
4471/5321.
454311.
482–486/488112–48819/4883/48849/
492–493/71393.
6111–6113.
622–623.

Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges ...............................................................................................
Hospitals/Nursing and Residential Care Facilities ..........................................................................................

‘‘NAICS’’ refers to the North
American Industry Classification
System, a method of classifying various
facilities. The NAICS was adopted by
the United States, Canada, and Mexico
on January 1, 1997 to replace the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code. This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. It lists the types
of entities of which we are now aware
that could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility could be regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine

the criteria in §§ 112.1 and 112.20 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and of today’s rule, which
explain the applicability of the rule. If
you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
II. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251,
requires the President to issue
regulations establishing procedures,
methods, equipment, and other
requirements to prevent discharges of
oil from vessels and facilities and to
contain such discharges. The President
has delegated the authority to regulate
non-transportation-related onshore
facilities under section 311(j)(1)(C) of
the Act to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Executive Order
12777, section 2(b)(1), (56 FR 54757,
October 22, 1991), superseding
Executive Order 11735, 38 FR 21243. By
this same Executive Order, the President
has delegated similar authority over
transportation-related onshore facilities,
deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT),
and authority over other offshore
facilities, including associated
pipelines, to the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI). A Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI,
and DOT effective February 3, 1994, has
redelegated the responsibility to
regulate certain offshore facilities
located in and along the Great Lakes,
rivers, coastal wetlands, and the Gulf
Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA.
See Executive Order 12777, section 2(i)
regarding authority to redelegate. The
MOU is included as Appendix B to 40
CFR part 112. An MOU between the
Secretary of Transportation and the EPA
Administrator, dated November 24,
1971 (36 FR 24080), established the
definitions of non-transportation-related
and transportation-related facilities. The
definitions from the 1971 MOU are
included as Appendix A to 40 CFR part
112.
B. Background of This Rulemaking
Part 112 of 40 CFR outlines the
requirements for both the prevention of
and the response to oil spills. The
prevention aspect of the rule requires
preparation and implementation of Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. This

rulemaking affects SPCC and FRP
requirements. The SPCC requirements
were originally promulgated on
December 11, 1973 (38 FR 34164), under
the authority of section 311(j)(1)(C) of
the Act. The regulation established spill
prevention procedures, methods, and
equipment requirements for nontransportation-related onshore and
offshore facilities with aboveground
storage capacity greater than 1,320
gallons (or greater than 660 gallons in a
single container), or completely buried
oil storage capacity greater than 42,000
gallons. Regulated facilities were also
limited to those that, because of their
location could reasonably be expected
to discharge oil in harmful quantities
into the navigable waters of the United
States or adjoining shorelines.
We have amended the SPCC
requirements a number of times, and
those amendments are described in an
October 22, 1991 Federal Register
proposed rule. 56 FR 54612. In the
October 1991 document, in addition to
the description of past amendments,
EPA proposed new revisions that
involved changes in the applicability of
the regulation and the required
procedures for the completion of SPCC
Plans, as well as the addition of a
facility notification provision. The
proposed rule also reflected changes in
the jurisdiction of section 311 of the Act
made by amendments to the Act in 1977
and 1978. We have finalized some of
those proposed revisions, with
modifications, in this rule.
On February 17, 1993, we again
proposed clarifications of and technical
changes to the SPCC rule. We also
proposed facility response planning
requirements to implement the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). 58 FR
8824. The proposed changes to the
SPCC rule included clarifications of
certain requirements, response plans for
facilities without secondary
containment, prevention training, and
methods of determining whether a tank
would be subject to brittle fracture. We
promulgated the facility response
planning requirements of the 1993
proposal on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34070),
and they are codified at 40 CFR 112.20–

112.21. We have finalized the proposed
1993 prevention requirements, with
modifications, in this rule.
In 1996, EPA completed a survey and
analysis of SPCC facilities. The survey
was designed to ensure that data on the
sampled facilities could be statistically
extrapolated to the nation as a whole for
all facilities regulated by EPA’s SPCC
regulation. We used the results of that
survey and analysis to develop a
proposed rule affecting SPCC facilities
on December 2, 1997. 62 FR 63812. The
survey and analytical results are part of
the administrative record for this
rulemaking.
The purpose of the 1997 proposal was
to reduce the information collection
burden imposed by the prevention
requirements in the SPCC rule and the
FRP rule without creating an adverse
impact on public health or the
environment. We also proposed changes
in information collection requirements
for facility response plans, but have
withdrawn them in this rulemaking.
Those changes would have affected the
calculation of storage capacity at certain
facilities for response plan purposes. 62
FR 63816. However, see new
§ 112.1(d)(6). The 1997 SPCC proposals,
as modified, are finalized in this rule.
On April 8, 1999, we proposed
revision to facility response plan
requirements. 64 FR 17227. The main
purpose of the proposal was to provide
a more specific methodology for
planning response resources that can be
used by an owner or operator of a
facility that handles, stores, or
transports animal fats and vegetable
oils. We finalized that proposal on June
30, 2000. 65 FR 40776. The final rule
included four new definitions that are
applicable to all of part 112.
III. Summary of Major Rule Provisions
For your convenience, we have
developed a table showing a summary
of the major revisions in this rule. The
table does not always use exact rule
text, but summarizes rule provisions.
For exact rule text, see 40 CFR part 112
(2000) for text of the current rule; for
exact text of the revised rule, see the
rule text following this preamble.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES
Current SPCC rule
Section 112.1: General Applicability

Revised SPCC rule

47043

Comment

47044

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.1(b): Explains that the SPCC rule applies
to owners or operators of facilities that drill,
produce, gather, store, process, refine, trans­
fer, distribute, or consume oil and oil prod­
ucts, and might reasonably be expected to
discharge oil in harmful quantities into or
upon navigable waters of the United States
or adjoining shorelines.

§ 112.1(b): Explains that the SPCC rule ap­
plies to owners or operators of facilities that
drill, produce, gather, store, process, refine,
transfer, distribute, use, or consume oil and
oil products, and might reasonably be ex­
pected to discharge oil in quantities that
may be harmful into or upon navigable wa­
ters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, or waters of the contiguous zone, or
in connection with activities under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act or Deepwater
Port Act, or affecting certain natural resources.
§ 112.1(d)(2)(i): Section 112.1(d)(2) exempts
from the rule a facility which meets both cri­
teria specified in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and (ii).
The first criterion, § 112.1(d)(2)(i) is: the
completely buried storage capacity of the
facility is 42,000 gallons or less of oil. For
purposes of this exemption, the completely
buried storage capacity of a facility does
not include the capacity of completely bur­
ied tanks, as defined in § 112.2, that are
currently subject to all of the technical re­
quirements of 40 CFR part 280 or all of the
technical requirements of a State program
approved under 40 CFR part 281. Also, the
completely buried storage capacity of a fa­
cility does not include the capacity of com­
pletely buried tanks that are ‘‘permanently
closed,’’ as defined in § 112.2. The threshold applies to storage capacity contained in
operating equipment as well as to storage
capacity contained in tanks.
§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The second criterion found in
§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii) is: the aboveground storage
capacity of the facility is 1,320 gallons or
less of oil. For purposes of this exemption,
only containers of oil with a capacity of 55
gallons or greater are counted. The aboveground storage capacity of a facility does
not include the capacity of containers that
are ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in
112.2. The threshold applies to storage ca­
pacity contained in operating equipment as
well as to storage capacity in containers.

§ 112.1(b): The revised rule clarifies that
users of oil are also subject to the rule. It
also expands the scope of the rule to conform with the expanded jurisdiction in the
amended Clean Water Act.

§ 112.1(d)(2)(i): Section 112.1(d)(2) exempts
from the rule a facility which meets both cri­
teria specified in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and (ii). The
first criterion, found in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) is: the
completely buried storage capacity of the fa­
cility is 42,000 gallons or less of oil. The
threshold applies to storage capacity con­
tained in operating equipment as well as to
storage capacity contained in tanks.

§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The second criterion, found in
§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii) is: the storage capacity,
which is not buried, of the facility is 1,320
gallons or less of oil, provided that no single
container has a storage capacity of greater
than 660 gallons. The threshold applies to
storage capacity contained in operating
equipment as well as to storage capacity in
containers.

§ 112.1(d)(4): No counterpart in current rule ......

§ 112.1(d)(5): No counterpart in current rule ......

§ 112.1(d)(4): Exempts from the SPCC re­
quirements completely buried storage
tanks, as defined in § 112.2, as well as con­
nected underground piping, underground
ancillary equipment, and containment sys­
tems, when such tanks are subject to all of
the technical requirements of 40 CFR part
280 or a State program approved under 40
CFR part 281, except that such tanks must
be marked on the facility diagram as re­
quired by § 112.7(a)(3), if the facility is oth­
erwise subject to this part.
§ 112.1(d)(5): The revised rule exempts con­
tainers with a storage capacity of less than
55 gallons of oil from all SPCC require­
ments.

§ 112.1(d)(2)(i): The revised rule provides that
completely buried tanks subject to all of the
technical requirements of parts 280 or 281
do not count in the calculation of the 42,000
gallon threshold. It also clarifies that perma­
nently closed tanks do not count in the cal­
culation of that threshold. The threshold
continues to apply to storage capacity con­
tained in operating equipment as well as to
storage capacity contained in tanks.

§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The revised rule raises the
threshold for aboveground storage capacity
by eliminating the provision that triggers the
requirement to prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan if any single container has a
capacity greater than 660 gallons. It main­
tains the greater than 1,320 gallon threshold. The revised rule also establishes a de
minimis container capacity size to calculate
aboveground storage capacity. Only con­
tainers with a capacity of 55 gallons or
greater are counted in the calculation of
aboveground storage capacity. The revised
rule clarifies that permanently closed con­
tainers do not count in the calculation of
aboveground storage capacity. The threshold continues to apply to storage capacity
contained in operating equipment as well as
to storage capacity in containers.
§ 112.1(d)(4): Completely buried storage tanks
subject to all of the technical requirements
of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program ap­
proved under 40 CFR part 281 are no
longer required to comply with SPCC provi­
sions, except for the facility diagram. EPA
estimates that under this new rule, most
gasoline service stations will drop out of the
SPCC program.

§ 112.1(d)(5): In response to comments, EPA
has established a minimum size container
for purposes of the regulatory threshold.
Containers with a storage capacity of less
than 55 gallons of oil are exempt from all
SPCC requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

47045

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.1(d)(6): No counterpart in current rule ......

§ 112.1(d)(6): Exempts any facility or part
thereof from the rule, if used exclusively for
wastewater treatment and not used to meet
any other requirement of part 112. The pro­
duction, recovery, or recycling of oil is not
wastewater treatment for purposes of this
paragraph.
§ 112.1(f): Notwithstanding any regulatory ex­
emptions, the Regional Administrator may
require that the owner or operator of any fa­
cility subject to EPA jurisdiction under sec­
tion 311(j) of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
prepare and implement an SPCC Plan, or
any applicable part, to carry out the pur­
poses of the CWA. The rule includes notice
and appeal provisions.

§ 112.1(d)(6): A facility or part thereof used
exclusively for wastewater treatment will no
longer be subject to prevention planning un­
less it is used to meet part 112 require­
ments.

§ 112.2—definition of facility: ‘‘Facility’’ is defined as any mobile or fixed, onshore or offshore building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe, or pipeline used in oil well drilling operations, oil production, oil refining, oil
storage, oil gathering, oil transfer, oil dis­
tribution, and waste treatment, or in which
oil is used. . . .’’

§ 112.2—definition of facility: The revised rule
clarifies that a facility may be as small as a
piece of equipment, for example, a tank, or
as large as a military base.

§ 112.1(f): No counterpart in current rule ...........

§ 112.1(f): This amendment gives the Re­
gional Administrator authority to require
preparation of an entire SPCC plan, or ap­
plicable part, by an owner or operator of a
facility exempted from SPCC requirements
when it becomes necessary to achieve the
purposes of the CWA. This authority will be
exercised on a case-by-case basis. The de­
cision to require a Plan could be based on
the presence of environmental concerns not
adequately addressed under other regula­
tions, or other relevant environmental fac­
tors, for example, discharge history.

Section 112.2—Definitions
§ 112.2—definition of facility: No counterpart in
current rule.

Section 112.3: Requirement to prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
§ 112.3(a): An owner or operator of an onshore
or offshore facility in operation on or before
January 10, 1974, that has had a discharge
to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines,
or, due to its location, could reasonably be
expected to have a discharge to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare
and fully implement an SPCC Plan, in writing
and in accordance with § 112.7. The owner
or operator must prepare the Plan within 6
months, and fully implement it as soon as
possible, but not later than within 1 year.

§ 112.3(b): The owner or operator of an onshore and offshore facility that becomes
operational after January 10, 1974, and that
has had a discharge to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines, or could reasonably be
expected to have a discharge to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare
an SPCC Plan. Unless the owner or operator
is granted an extension of time to prepare
and implement the Plan by the Regional Ad­
ministrator, he must prepare the Plan within 6
months and fully implement it as son as pos­
sible, but not later than within 1 year.

§ 112.3(a): An owner or operator (O/O) of an
onshore or offshore facility in operation on
or before August 16, 2002, that has had a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or,
due to its location, could reasonably be ex­
pected to have a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), must prepare a written Plan in
accordance with § 112.7 and any other ap­
plicable section within 6 months of the ef­
fective date of the rule, and implement it as
soon as possible, but not later than within 1
year of the effective date of the rule. The O/
O of facility that becomes operational after
August 16, 2002 through August 18, 2003
must prepare and implement a Plan not
later than August 18, 2003.
§ 112.3(b): The owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility that becomes
operational after August 18, 2003, and
could reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), from
that facility, must prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan before beginning operations.

§ 112.3(a): For those facilities already in oper­
ation on the effective date of the rule, an
owner or operator of a facility subject to the
rule must prepare an SPCC Plan within the
current time frame of six months. He may
take up to an additional six months to im­
plement the Plan. The revised rule extends
this same time frame to amendments nec­
essary to bring the Plan into compliance
with rule revisions. An owner or operator of
a facility becoming operational after August
16, 2002 through August 18, 2003 must
prepare and implement a Plan not later
than August 18, 2003.

§ 112.3(b): The owner or operator of a facility
that becomes operational after August 18,
2003 must now prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan before beginning operations.
The time frame in the current rule is up to 6
months for Plan preparation and up to 6
months more for Plan implementation.

47046

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.3(d): No SPCC Plan is effective to satisfy
the requirements of the SPCC rule unless it
has been reviewed and certified by a Reg­
istered Professional Engineer (PE). By
means of this certification the PE, having ex­
amined the facility and being familiar with the
provisions of the SPCC rule, attests that the
SPCC Plan has been prepared in accord­
ance with good engineering practices. The
PE’s certification does not relieve the owner
or operator of an onshore or offshore facility
of his duty to prepare and fully implement the
Plan in accordance with all applicable re­
quirements.

§ 112.3(d): No SPCC Plan is effective to sat­
isfy the requirements of the SPCC rule un­
less it has been reviewed and certified by a
PE. By means of this certification the PE attests that: (i) he is familiar with the require­
ments of the SPCC rule; (ii) he or his agent
has visited and examined the facility; (iii)
the Plan has been prepared in accordance
with good engineering practice, including
consideration of applicable industry stand­
ards, and with the requirements of the
SPCC rule; (iv) procedures for required in­
spections and testing have been estab­
lished; and, (v) the Plan is adequate for the
facility. The PE’s certification does not re­
lieve the owner or operator of an onshore
or offshore facility of his duty to prepare
and fully implement the Plan in accordance
with all applicable requirements.
§ 112.3(e): An owner or operator of a facility
for which an SPCC Plan is required must
maintain a complete copy of the Plan at the
facility if the facility is attended at least 4
hours per day, or at the nearest field office
if the facility is not so attended, and must
make the Plan available to the Regional
Administrator for on-site review during nor­
mal working hours.
§ 112.3(f): The Regional Administrator may
authorize an extension of time for the prep­
aration and implementation of an SPCC
Plan, or any amendment thereto, when he
finds that the owner or operator cannot
comply with all SPCC requirements as a re­
sult of either nonavailability of qualified per­
sonnel, or delays in construction or equip­
ment delivery beyond his control and without his fault, or the fault of his agents or
employees. The rule also specifies what the
letter requesting an extension must contain.

§ 112.3(d): The revised rule adds specificity to
the PE’s attestation. The specificity includes
a requirement that the PE consider applica­
ble industry standards and certify that the
Plan is prepared in accordance with part
112 requirements. Presently, the PE must
attest only that the Plan has been prepared
in accordance with good engineering prac­
tice. The revised rule allows an agent of the
PE to visit and examine the facility in place
of the PE, but the PE must review the
agent’s work, and certify the Plan.

§ 112.3(e): An owner or operator of a facility for
which an SPCC Plan is required must main­
tain a complete copy of the Plan at the facil­
ity if the facility is attended as least 8 hours
per day, or at the nearest field office if the fa­
cility is not so attended, and must make the
Plan available to the Regional Administrator
for on-site review during normal working
hours.
§ 112.3(f): The Regional Administrator may au­
thorize an extension of time for the prepara­
tion and implementation of an SPCC Plan,
when he finds that the owner or operator
cannot comply with all SPCC requirements
as a result of either nonavailability of quali­
fied personnel, or delays in construction or
equipment delivery beyond his control and
without his fault, or the fault of his agents or
employees. The rule also specifies what the
letter requesting an extension must contain.

§ 112.3(e): The revised rule requires the facil­
ity owner or operator to maintain a copy of
the Plan at the facility if it is attended at
least 4 hours a day, in contrast to the current requirement to maintain it at the facility
if it is attended at least 8 hours a day.

§ 112.3(f): The revised rule provides for exten­
sion for amendments of the Plan, as well as
the entire Plan.

Section 112.4: Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan by Regional Administrator
§ 112.4(a): Whenever an SPCC facility has: (1)
discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gallons of
oil into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines in a sin­
gle discharge to navigable waters or adjoin­
ing shorelines, or (2) discharged oil in harm­
ful quantities, as defined in 40 CFR part 110,
into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines in each
of 2 discharges to navigable waters or adjoin­
ing shorelines, reportable under section
311(b)(5) of the Clean Water Act, within any
12-month period, the owner or operator of
the facility must submit to the Regional Ad­
ministrator (RA), within 60 days from the time
the facility becomes subject to this section,
10 different items of information, plus addi­
tional information pertinent to the Plan if the
RA requests it.
§ 112.4(b): Section 112.4 does not apply until
the expiration of the time permitted for the
preparation and implementation of the Plan
under § 112.3.

§ 112.4(a): Whenever an SPCC facility has:
(1) discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gal­
lons of oil in a single discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or (2) discharged
more than 42 U.S. gallons of oil, as described in § 112.1(b), in each of 2 dis­
charge, within any 12-month period, the
owner or operator of the facility must submit
to the RA, within 60 days from the time the
facility becomes subject to this section, 8
different items of information, plus addi­
tional information pertinent to the Plan if the
RA requests it.

§ 112.4(a): We have revised the geographic
scope of the rule in accordance with the
CWA amendments, by using the phase
‘‘discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ We
also raised the threshold for reporting two
discharges as described in § 112.1(b), from
a ‘‘reportable’’ quantity under the Clean
Water Act, to a threshold of more than 42
U.S. gallons, or 1 barrel, in each of those
discharges. The 1,000 gallon threshold for
a single discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) remains unchanged. We also re­
duced the amount of information that must
minimally be submitted to the RA.

§ 112.4(b): Section 112.4 does not apply until
the expiration of the time permitted for the
preparation and implementation of the Plan
under § 112.3.

§ 112.4(b): Section 112.3 in the revised rule
allows more time for some facilities for
preparation and implementation of a Plan,
or any amendments thereto, than in the
1991 proposed rule. Therefore, the imple­
mentation of the requirements of § 112.4 is
postponed until the new time frames in
§ 112.3 have passed.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

47047

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.4(c): The owner or operator is required to
provide the same information he provided to
EPA, under § 112.4(a), to the State agency in
charge of water pollution control activities in
and for the State in which the facility is lo­
cated at the same time he provides it to EPA.
After receiving that information, the State
agency may conduct a review and make rec­
ommendations to the Regional Administrator
as to further procedures, methods, equipment
and other requirements for equipment nec­
essary to prevent and to contain discharges
of oil from the facility.

§ 112.4(c): The owner or operator is required
to provide the same information he pro­
vided to EPA, under § 112.4(a), to the State
agency in charge of oil pollution control ac­
tivities in the State in which the facility is lo­
cated at the same time he provides it to
EPA. After receiving that information, the
State agency or agencies may conduct a
review and make recommendations to the
Regional Administrator as to further proce­
dures, methods, equipment and other re­
quirements for equipment necessary to prevent and to contain discharges of oil from
the facility.
§ 112.4(d): This section allows the Regional
Administrator to require a facility owner or
operator to amend his Plan after review of
materials the owner or operator submits
under § 112.4 (a) and (c), or after on-site
review of the Plan.

§ 112.4(c): The revised rule changes the re­
quirement from notification to the State
agency in charge of water pollution control
activities to notification to the State agency
in charge of oil pollution control activities.
There may be more than one such agency
in some States.

§ 112.4(d): This section allows the Regional Ad­
ministrator to require a facility owner or oper­
ator to amend his Plan after review of materials the owner or operator submits under
§ 112.4 (a) and (c).

§ 112.4(d): The revised rule provides that the
Regional Administrator may require Plan
amendment after on-site review of the Plan.

Section 112.5: Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan by owners or operators
§ 112.5(b): This section requires an owner or
operator to review his Plan at least every 3
years from the date a facility becomes sub­
ject to the SPCC rule. As a result of this review and evaluation, the owner or operator
must amend the SPCC Plan within 6 months
of the review to include more effective pre­
vention and control technology if: (1) Such
technology will significantly reduce the likeli­
hood of a discharge to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines from the facility; and (2)
if such technology has been field-proven at
the time of the review.

§ 112.5(c): This section requires that a Profes­
sional Engineer certify any amendments to
an SPCC Plan.

≤§ 112.5(b): This section requires an owner or
operator to review his Plan at least every 5
years from the date a facility becomes sub­
ject to the SPCC rule; or for an existing fa­
cility, 5 years from the date the last review
was required under this part. The owner or
operator must amend the SPCC Plan within
6 months of the review to include more ef­
fective prevention and control technology if:
(1) Such technology will significantly reduce
the likelihood of a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) from the facility; and (2) if such
technology has been field-proven at the
time of the review. Implementation of
amendments is required within 6 months
following amendment. The owner or oper­
ator must document completion of the review and evaluation, and must sign a state­
ment as to whether he will amend the Plan,
either at the beginning or end of the Plan or
in a log or an appendix to the Plan. The fol­
lowing 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.’’
§ 112.5(c): This section requires that a Profes­
sional Engineer certify any technical
amendments to an SPCC Plan.

§ 112.5(b): The revised rule changes the pe­
riod of review for SPCC Plans from 3 to 5
years. It also requires documentation of
completion of the review and evaluation.

§ 112.5(c): The revised rule clarifies that a
Professional Engineer must certify only
technical amendments. PE certification is
not required for non-technical amendments,
like changes to phone numbers, names,
etc.

Section 112.7: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan general requirements. We have reorganized § 112.7 of the current regulation
into §§ 112.7, 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, 112.11, 112.12, 112.13, 112.14, and 112.15 of the final rule based on facility type and type of oil.

47048

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.7: This section specifies that a Plan must
be prepared in accordance with good engi­
neering practices, and have the full approval
of management at a level with authority to
commit the necessary resources. The SPCC
Plan must follow the sequence specified in
the rule, and include a discussion of the fa­
cility’s conformance with the requirements of
the rule.

§ 112.7: This section specifies that a Plan
must be prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices, and have the full ap­
proval of management at a level with au­
thority to commit the necessary resources.
The SPCC Plan must follow the sequence
specified in the rule, and include a discus­
sion of the facility’s conformance with the
requirements of the rule. If you do not fol­
low the sequence specified in the rule, you
must prepare an equivalent prevention Plan
acceptable to the Regional Administrator
that meets all applicable requirements, and
you must supplement it with section crossreferencing the location of requirements list­
ed in the SPCC rule to the equivalent re­
quirements in the other prevention plan.
§ 112.7(a)(2): This provision explicitly allows
deviations from most of the rule’s sub­
stantive requirements (except for secondary
containment requirements), provided that
you explain your reasons for nonconform­
ance with the requirement, and provide
equivalent environmental protection with an
alternate measure. If the Regional Adminis­
trator determines that the alternate measure
described in your Plan does not provide
equivalent protection, he may require that
you amend the Plan.
§ 112.7(a)(3): This section requires a facility
owner or operator to describe the physical
layout of the facility and include a facility
diagram in the Plan.
§ 112.7(c): This section is the general provi­
sion requiring secondary containment.

§ 112.7: The revised rule allows differing formats for the Plan, other than the one format
now specified. While you may use the format specified in the rule, you may also use
other formats, such as State plans, Inte­
grated Contingency Plans, and any other
formats acceptable to the Regional Admin­
istrator. If you use another format, you must
cross-reference its provisions to the require­
ment listed in the SPCC rule. Also, if you
use another format, you must ensure that
the format includes all applicable SPCC re­
quirements, or you must supplement that
format to include all applicable SPCC re­
quirements.

§ 112.7(a)(2): No counterpart in current rule ......

§ 112.7(a)(3): No counterpart in current rule ......

§ 112.7(c): This section is the general provision
requiring secondary containment.

§ 112.7(d): When it is not practicable to install
secondary containment at your facility, this
section requires that you explain why and
provide a strong oil spill contingency plan in
your SPCC Plan. The contingency plan must
follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 109.
You must also provide in your SPCC Plan a
written commitment to manpower, equipment
and materials required to expeditiously con­
trol and remove any harmful quantity of oil
discharged.

§ 112.7(e)(8): This section requires that the
owner or operator conduct required inspec­
tions in accordance with written procedures
developed for the facility. The owner or oper­
ator must maintain these written procedures
and a record of inspections, signed by the
appropriate supervisor or inspector, as part of
the SPCC Plan, and maintain them for a pe­
riod of 3 years.

§ 112.7(d): When it is not practicable to install
secondary containment at your facility, this
section requires that you explain why and
provide a strong oil spill contingency plan in
your SPCC Plan. The contingency plan
must follow the provisions of 40 CFR part
109. You must also provide in your SPCC
Plan a written commitment to manpower,
equipment and materials required to expe­
ditiously control and remove any quantity of
oil discharged that may be harmful; conduct
periodic integrity testing of the containers;
and, conduct periodic integrity and leak
testing of the valves and piping.
§ 112.7(e): This section requires that the
owner or operator conduct required inspec­
tions and tests in accordance with written
procedures developed by him or by the cer­
tifying engineer for the facility. The owner or
operator must maintain these written proce­
dures and a record of inspections and tests,
signed by the appropriate supervisor or in­
spector, with the SPCC Plan, and maintain
them for a period of 3 years. Records of in­
spections and tests kept pursuant to usual
and customary business practices are suffi­
cient for purposes of the rule.

§ 112.7(a)(2): The revised rule explicitly allows
deviations from most of the rule’s sub­
stantive requirements (except for secondary
containment requirements), provided that
you explain your reasons for nonconform­
ance with the requirement, and provide
equivalent environmental protection with an
alternate measure. If the Regional Adminis­
trator determines that the alternate measure
described in your Plan does not provide
equivalent protection, he may require that
you amend your Plan.
§ 112.7(a)(3): The facility diagram must in­
clude completely buried tanks exempted
from other SPCC requirements.
§ 112.7(c): The revised rule maintains the current standard that dikes, berms, or retaining
walls must be ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ to
contain oil. We withdrew the proposed
standard that such secondary containment
must be impermeable for 72 hours.
§ 112.7(d): The revised rule adds new require­
ments for periodic integrity testing of con­
tainers, and periodic integrity and leak test­
ing of valves and piping. We clarify that if
you have submitted a facility response plan
under § 112.20 for a facility, you need not
provide for that facility either a contingency
plan following the provisions of part 109,
nor a written commitment of manpower,
equipment, and materials required to expe­
ditiously control and remove any quantity of
oil discharged that may be harmful.

§ 112.7(e): The revised rule allows use of
usual and customary business records to
serve as a record of tests or inspections, instead of keeping duplicate records. It also
allows the owner or operator to keep those
records as an appendix to the Plan, or in a
separate log, etc., with the Plan, rather than
requiring that those records be a part of the
Plan. The rule also acknowledges that the
certifying engineer, as well as the owner or
operator, has a role in the development of
inspection procedures.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

47049

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.7(e)(10): The owner or operator of a facil­
ity is responsible for properly instructing per­
sonnel in the operation and maintenance of
equipment to prevent the discharges of oil
and applicable pollution control laws, rules,
and regulations. An owner or operator must
designate a person at each facility who is ac­
countable for oil discharge prevention and
who reports to facility management. An
owner or operator must schedule and conduct discharge prevention briefings for oper­
ating personnel at intervals frequent enough
to assure adequate understanding of the
SPCC Plan for that facility. Such briefings
must highlight and describe known dis­
charges to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, or failures, malfunctioning compo­
nents, and recently developed precautionary
measures.

§ 112.7(f): The owner or operator of a facility,
at a minimum, must train oil-handling per­
sonnel in the operation and maintenance of
equipment to prevent the discharge of oil;
discharge procedure protocols; applicable
pollution control laws, rules, and regula­
tions; general facility operations; and, the
contents of the facility Plan. An owner or
operator must designate a person at each
facility who is accountable for oil discharge
prevention and who reports to facility man­
agement. An owner or operator must
schedule and conduct discharge prevention
briefings for oil-handling personnel at least
once a year to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for that facility.
Such briefings must highlight and describe
known discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b), or failures, malfunctioning com­
ponents, and recently developed precautionary measures.

§ 112.7(f): The revised rule mandates training
only for oil-handling employees, instead of
all employees. It specifies additional topics
for the training of these employees. It also
specifies that discharge prevention briefings
must be conducted at least once a year, instead of at ‘‘intervals frequent enough to
assure adequate understanding of the
SPCC Plan for that facility.’’

§ 112.7(i): No counterpart in current rule ...........

§ 112.7(i): This section requires evaluation for
field-constructed aboveground containers
undergoing repair, alteration, reconstruction,
or change in service that might affect the
risk of a discharge or failure due to fracture
or other catastrophe. It also requires such
evaluation when there has actually been a
discharge or failure due to brittle fracture or
other catastrophe.

§ 112.7(i): The brittle fracture requirement was
triggered by the Ashland Oil tank collapse
in 1988 due to brittle fracture.

Section 112.8: Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production facilities).
§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii): This section establishes sub­
stantive requirements for stormwater drainage from diked areas, and recordkeeping re­
quirements for stormwater bypass events.

§ 112.7(e)(2)(vi): This provision requires that
aboveground containers be subject to peri­
odic integrity testing, taking into account tank
design (floating roof, etc.) and using such
techniques as hydrostatic testing, visual in­
spection, or a system of non-destructive shell
thickness testing. The owner or operator
must keep comparison records where appro­
priate, and must include tank supports and
foundations in these inspections. In addition,
operating personnel must frequently inspect
the outside of the container for signs of dete­
rioration, leaks, or accumulation of oil inside
diked areas.

§ 112.8(c)(3): This section establishes sub­
stantive requirements for stormwater drainage from diked areas, and recordkeeping
requirements for stormwater bypass events.
The revised rule provides that records re­
quired under permits issued in accordance
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi­
nation Systems (NPDES) rules are suffi­
cient for recording stormwater bypass
events.
§ 112.8(c)(6): The revised rule requires that
aboveground containers be tested for integ­
rity on a regular schedule, and when material repairs are done. The frequently and
type of testing must take into account con­
tainer size and design (floating roof, skidmounted, elevated, partially buried, for example). The owner or operator must com­
bine visual inspection with another testing
technique such as hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing, acoustic
emissions testing, or other system of nondestructive shell testing. The owner or oper­
ator must keep comparison records and
must include tank supports and foundations
in these inspections. In addition, operating
personnel must frequently inspect the outside of the container for signs of deteriora­
tion, leaks, or accumulation of oil inside
diked areas. Records of inspections and
tests kept pursuant to usual and customary
business practices are sufficient for pur­
poses of the rule.

§ 112.8(c)(3): The revised rule allows records
required by NPDES permit regulations to
record stormwater bypass events to be
used for SPCC purposes in lieu of events
records specifically prepared for purpose.

§ 112.8(c)(6): The revised rule requires that
an owner or operator test aboveground
containers for integrity on a regular sched­
ule, and when material repairs are done.
The rationale for adding a testing require­
ment when material repairs are done is that
material repairs might increase the potential
for oil discharges. Usual and customary
business records may be used for the pur­
pose of integrity testing, instead of records
specifically created for this purpose.

47050

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT SPCC RULES—Continued
Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

§ 112.7(e)(3)(i): This section requires that bur­
ied piping installations have protective wrapping and coating and cathodic protection, if
soil conditions warrant.

§ 112.8(d)(1): This section requires that buried
piping that is installed or replaced on or
after August 16, 2002 must have protective
wrapping and coating and cathodic protec­
tion, or otherwise satisfy the corrosion pro­
tection provisions for piping in 40 CFR part
280 or a State program approved under 40
CFR part 281.

§ 112.8(d)(1): The revised rule requires that
all buried piping that is installed or replaced
on or after August 16, 2002 must have pro­
tective wrapping and coating and cathodic
protection, or otherwise satisfy the corro­
sion protection provisions for piping in 40
CFR part 280 or a State program approved
under 40 CFR part 281, for all soil condi­
tions.

Section 112.9: Requirements for onshore oil production facilities.
§ 112.7(e)(5)(ii): This section provides require­
ments for stormwater drainage events.

§ 112.7(e)(5)(iii)(B): This section requires sec­
ondary containment for onshore production
facilities.

IV. Discussion of Issues
Below is a discussion of the major
issues for which we solicited comments
in the 1991, 1993, and 1997 proposals.
We also discuss the use of industry
standards to comply with the rule.
Following these issues, we discuss the
revisions to each section and the major
comments received, as well as responses
to those comments. A detailed Response
to Comments document addressing all
comments is also part of this rulemaking
and may be found in the administrative
record for this rule.
A. Reorganization of the Rule
Background
In 1991, EPA proposed to reorganize
the SPCC rule based on facility type.
The purpose of that proposed
reorganization was to clarify SPCC Plan
requirements for different types of
facilities. In this rulemaking, we are
dividing the rule into subparts. Subpart
A consists of an applicability section,

§ 112.9(b)(1): This section provides require­
ments for stormwater drainage events.

§ 112.9(b)(1): The revised rule provides that
records required by NPDES permit regula­
tions are allowable to record stormwater bypass events for SPCC purposes in lieu of
records specifically generated for that pur­
pose.
§ 112.9(c)(2): This section requires secondary § 112.9(c)(2): The revised rule clarifies that
containment for onshore production facilities.
the secondary containment must include
sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation.

definitions, and general requirements
for all facilities. Subparts B and C
outline the requirements for different
types of facilities storing and using
different types of oils. Subpart B is for
facilities storing or using petroleum oils
or other non-petroleum oils, except
those oils covered by subpart C. Subpart
C is for facilities storing or using animal
fats and oils and greases, or fish and
marine mammal oils; and, oils of
vegetable origin, including oils from
seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels. Subpart
D is for response requirements.
If you have already prepared an SPCC
Plan, you were required to follow the
sequence of § 112.7 of the current rule,
prior to today’s revisions. Today, we are
reorganizing that portion of the rule into
§§ 112.7 through 112.15, based on
facility type and type of oil. Under the
introduction to § 112.7 of today’s rule, if
your Plan does not follow the revised
sequence, you must supplement it with
a section cross-referencing the location
of requirements listed in the revised

rule and the equivalent requirements in
your Plan. To assist you in preparing
this cross-reference, the following table
lists each requirement in the revised
rule, provides the corresponding
paragraph of the current rule, and leaves
a space where you can show the
location of the provision in your Plan.
We have put this rule, including the
table below, on our website for your
convenience. You may download it for
your use. See our Web site at
www.epa.gov/oilspill.
Under the revised rule, § 112.7 sets
out the general requirements for SPCC
Plans for all facilities and all types of
oil. Sections 112.8 to 112.11 set out the
SPCC Plan requirements for petroleum
oil and for non-petroleum oils other
than animal fats and vegetable oils.
Sections 112.12 to 112.15 set out the
SPCC Plan requirements for animal fats
and oils and greases, and fish and
marine mammal oils; and for oils of
vegetable origin, including oils from
seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.

Revised rule

Current rule

Description of rule

Page

§ 112.7 ........................................

§ 112.7 ........................................

..........

§ 112.7(a) ....................................

§ 112.7 ........................................

§ 112.7(b) ....................................
§ 112.7(c) ....................................
§ 112.7(d) ....................................
§ 112.7(e) ....................................
§ 112.7(f) .....................................
§ 112.7(g) ....................................
§ 112.7(h) ....................................
§ 112.7(i) .....................................
§ 112.7(j) .....................................

§ 112.7(b) ....................................
§ 112.7(c) ....................................
§ 112.7(d) ....................................
§ 112.7(e)(8) ...............................
§ 112.7(e)(10) .............................
§ 112.7(e)(9) ...............................
§ 112.7(e)(4) ...............................
n/a ...............................................
§ 112.7(e) ....................................

General requirements for SPCC Plans for all facilities and all oil
types.
General requirements; discussion of facility’s conformance with
rule requirements; deviations from Plan requirements; facility
characteristics that must be described in the Plan; spill report­
ing information in the Plan; emergency procedures.
Fault analysis ..................................................................................
Secondary containment ...................................................................
Contingency planning ......................................................................
Inspections, tests, and records .......................................................
Employee training and discharge prevention procedures ..............
Security (excluding oil production facilities) ....................................
Loading/unloading (excluding offshore facilities) ............................
Brittle fracture evaluation requirements ..........................................
Conformance with State requirements ............................................

..........

..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

47051

Revised rule

Current rule

Description of rule

Page

§ 112.8 § 112.12 .........................

§ 112.7(e)(1) ...............................

..........

§ 112.8(a), § 112.12(a) ................
§ 112.8(b), § 112.12(b) ................
§ 112.8(c), § 112.12(c) ................
§ 112.8(d), § 112.12(d) ................
§ 112.9, § 112.13 ........................
§ 112.9(a), § 112.13(a) ................
§ 112.9(b), § 112.13(b) ................
§ 112.9(c), § 112.13(c) ................
§ 112.9(d), § 112.13(d) ................
§ 112.10, § 112.14 ......................
§ 112.10(a), § 112.14(a) ..............
§ 112.10(b), § 112.14(b) ..............
§ 112.10(c), § 112.14(c) ..............

n/a ...............................................
§ 112.7(e)(1) ...............................
§ 112.7(e)(2) ...............................
§ 112.7(e)(3) ...............................
§ 112.7(e)(5) ...............................
n/a ...............................................
§ 112.7(e)(5)(ii) ...........................
§ 112.7(e)(5)(iii) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(5)(iv) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(6) ...............................
n/a ...............................................
§ 112.7(e)(6)(i) ............................
§ 112.7(e)(6)(ii) ...........................

§ 112.10(d), § 112.14(d) ..............
§ 112.11, § 112.15 ......................

§ 112.7(e)(6)(iii) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(7) ...............................

§ 112.11(a), § 112.15(a) ..............
§ 112.11(b), § 112.15(b) ..............
§ 112.11(c), § 112.15(c) ..............
§ 112.11(d), § 112.15(d) ..............
§ 112.11(e), § 112.15(e) ..............
§ 112.11(f), § 112.15(f) ................
§ 112.11(g), § 112.15(g) ..............
§ 112.11(h), § 112.15(h) ..............
§ 112.11(i), § 112.15(i) ................
§ 112.11(j), § 112.15(j) ................
§ 112.11(k), § 112.15(k) ..............
§ 112.11(l), § 112.15(l) ................
§ 112.11(m), § 112.15(m) ............
§ 112.11(n), § 112.15(n) ..............
§ 112.11(o), § 112.15(o) ..............
§ 112.11(p), § 112.15(p) ..............

n/a ...............................................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(ii) ...........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(iii) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(iv) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(v) ...........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(vi) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(vii) .........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(viii) .........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(ix) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(x) ...........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(xi) ..........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(xiv) ........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(xv) .........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(xvi) ........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(xvii) ........................
§ 112.7(e)(7)(xviii) .......................

Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production facili­
ties).
General and specific requirements .................................................
Facility drainage ..............................................................................
Bulk storage containers ...................................................................
Facility transfer operations, pumping, and facility process .............
Requirements for onshore production facilities ...............................
General and specific requirements .................................................
Oil production facility drainage ........................................................
Oil production facility bulk storage containers ................................
Facility transfer operations, oil production facility ...........................
Requirements for onshore oil drilling and workover facilities .........
General and specific requirements .................................................
Mobile facilities ................................................................................
Secondary containment—catchment basins or diversion struc­
tures.
Blowout prevention (BOP).
Requirements for offshore oil drilling, production, or workover fa­
cilities.
General and specific requirements .................................................
Facility drainage ..............................................................................
Sump systems .................................................................................
Discharge prevention systems for separators and treaters ............
Atmospheric storage or surge containers; alarms ..........................
Pressure containers; alarm systems ...............................................
Corrosion protection ........................................................................
Pollution prevention system procedures .........................................
Pollution prevention systems; testing and inspection .....................
Surface and subsurface well shut-in valves and devices ...............
Blowout prevention ..........................................................................
Manifolds .........................................................................................
Flowlines, pressure sensing devices ..............................................
Piping; corrosion protection .............................................................
Sub-marine piping; environmental stresses ....................................
Inspections of sub-marine piping ....................................................

In 1995, Congress enacted the Edible
Oil Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA), 33
U.S.C. 2720. That statute mandates that
most Federal agencies differentiate
between and establish separate classes
for various types of oils, specifically:
animal fats and oils and greases, and
fish and marine mammal oils; oils of
vegetable origin; petroleum oils, and
other non-petroleum oils and greases. In
differentiating between these classes of
oils, Federal agencies are directed to
consider differences in the physical,
chemical, biological, and other
properties, and in the environmental
effects, of the classes. In response to
EORRA, as noted above, we have
divided the requirements of the rule by
subparts for facilities storing or using
the various classes of oils listed in that
act.
Because at the present time EPA has
not proposed differentiated SPCC
requirements for public notice and
comment, the requirements for facilities
storing or using all classes of oil will
remain the same. However, we have
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking seeking comments
on how we might differentiate among
the requirements for the facilities
storing or using various classes of oil. 64

FR 17227, April 8, 1999. If after
considering these comments, there is
adequate justification for differentiation
among the requirements for those
facilities, we will propose rule changes.
B. Plain Language Format
We have rewritten the SPCC rule in a
plain language format to make it clearer
and easier to use. A plain language
format includes maximum use of the
active voice; short, clear sentences; and,
in this rule, a summary table of the
major regulatory changes. This format is
part of the Agency’s ongoing efforts in
regulatory reinvention. While we have
made substantive changes in some
provisions, the plain language changes
are only editorial. The plain language
format used in today’s rule may appear
different from other rules, but it
establishes binding, enforceable legal
requirements.
In this preamble, as in the rule text,
we often use the pronoun ‘‘he’’ as a
generic term. ‘‘He’’ does not necessarily
mean a man; it may be a woman, or in
some cases, a business organization
when referring to an owner or operator.

..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........

C. ‘‘Should to Shall to Must’’
Clarification
Background
EPA has always considered that
§ 112.3 of the SPCC rule requires that
SPCC Plans be prepared in accordance
with § 112.7, which in turn requires that
Plans be prepared in accordance with
good engineering practice. However,
clarification of the current rule is
necessary because of confusion on the
part of some facility owners or operators
who have interpreted the current rule’s
use of the words ‘‘should’’ and
‘‘guidelines’’ in § 112.7 as an indication
that compliance with the applicable
provisions of the rule is optional. The
rule used the words ‘‘should’’ and
‘‘guidelines’’ to provide flexibility for
facilities with unique circumstances.
Those circumstances might be such that
mandated regulatory provisions would
not be in accord with good engineering
practice. Therefore, the rule gave
facilities the opportunity to provide
alternative methods that achieve
equivalent environmental protection, or
to show that the provisions were
inapplicable based on specific
circumstances.

47052

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

In 1991, we proposed to clarify that
misunderstanding by generally
substituting ‘‘shall’’ in place of
‘‘should’’ throughout the reorganized
rule. In today’s final rule, we have
editorially changed ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘must’’ in
furtherance of the Agency’s ‘‘plain
language’’ objectives. The ‘‘shall’’ to
‘‘must’’ is not a substantive change, but
merely an editorial change. Nor will the
change add to the information collection
burden. We have always included
requirements prefaced by ‘‘should’’ in
the information collection burden for
the rule. We will continue to provide
flexibility for an owner or operator who
can explain his reasons for
nonconformance with rule
requirements, and can provide alternate
measures from those specified in the
rule, which achieve equivalent
environmental protection. Section
112.7(a)(2) will provide such flexibility.
In the exercise of our authority to
inspect facilities and SPCC Plans, we
reserve the right to find that such
alternate methods do not provide
equivalent environmental protection. In
such cases, we would require the owner
or operator of the facility to amend the
SPCC Plan to provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Comments. Guidance. Several
commenters supported the proposed
change. One asked that discretionary
provisions might be better placed in a
separate guidance document. Several
commenters were concerned that there
are no guidance documents outlining
equivalency as provided in proposed
§ 112.7(a)(2) and that it may be
impossible to prove equivalency to EPA.
PE certification. Other commenters
suggested that if the Professional
Engineer (PE) certified the Plan as
adequate for the facility, then the
mandated requirements were
unnecessary, as he would have
determined that all appropriate
equipment and planning is in place.
Substantive change. Some
commenters argued that the proposal
was a substantive change, contrary to
legislative intent, and that we failed to
give opportunity for proper notice and
comment, as required by the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Small production facilities. One
commenter suggested that the
clarification should not apply to small
production facilities, defined as those
with less than 3000 barrels of storage
capacity, because those facilities would
suffer severe hardship as a result.
Response to comments. Guidance.
EPA agrees with the comment that
recommendations have no place in this
rule because we do not wish to confuse
the regulated public as to what is

mandatory and what is discretionary.
Instead, some recommendations are
discussed in the preamble to this
document, while others can be found in
separate guidance documents or policy
statements. When the rule or preamble
is silent, or no published guidance or
policy documents exist, we will
generally use industry standards as
guidance for rule compliance.
PE certification. While we generally
agree that certification by a PE should
show that all necessary equipment and
planning are in place, we reserve the
right to make a determination that
additional measures may be necessary
to comply with the rule. EPA made it
clear in proposed § 112.3(d), which is
finalized today, that a PE certification
does not relieve the owner or operator
of the duty to prepare and fully
implement an SPCC Plan in accordance
with the rule’s requirements.
Substantive change. We disagree that
the change is either substantive or
contrary to legislative intent. Section
311(j)(1)(C) of the Act authorizes the
President and, through delegation, EPA,
to establish ‘‘procedures, methods, and
equipment and other requirements for
equipment to prevent discharges of oil
and hazardous substances from vessels
and from onshore facilities and offshore
facilities, and to contain such
discharges.’’ That authority is ample to
provide the basis for a mandatory SPCC
rule, that is, a rule that establishes
‘‘requirements * * * to prevent
discharges.’’
We also disagree that the proposed
rule failed to provide proper notice and
comment. The preamble to the 1991
proposed rule fully explained the
rationale for the proposed change (56 FR
54620, October 22, 1991), and numerous
commenters responded. Furthermore,
we have always interpreted and
enforced our rules as mandatory
requirements.
EPA recognizes, however, that this
clarification may result in certain
owners or operators of regulated
facilities recognizing for the first time
that they have been and are subject to
various provisions of part 112. Such
owners and operators should, of course,
take all necessary steps to come into
compliance with this part as soon as
possible. In exercising its prosecutorial
discretion, the Agency always takes into
account the good faith and efforts to
comply of an owner or operator who has
been in noncompliance with applicable
laws and regulations when deciding
whether or not to take an enforcement
action.
Small production facilities. We
disagree that the ‘‘should’’ to ‘‘must’’
change will generally pose a severe

hardship for small production facilities.
As noted above, EPA has always
interpreted the ‘‘shoulds’’ as ‘‘musts.’’
Further, when a particular requirement
is not feasible for a particular facility,
under § 112.7(a)(2) that facility may
explain the reasons for nonconformance
with the requirement, and provide
alternate measures that achieve
equivalent environmental protection.
D. Professional Engineers (PEs)
Background. In the preamble to the
1991 proposal (56 FR 54618), EPA
posed several questions to commenters
regarding how PEs could help to
implement the SPCC Plan. An owner or
operator of a facility is required to
secure the certification of a PE on an
SPCC Plan, and on technical
amendments to the Plan. By means of
this certification, the PE attests that the
Plan or the amendment has been
prepared in accordance with good
engineering practice.
1. State Registration
Background. We solicited comments
on the advantages and disadvantages
associated with the PE being registered
in the State in which the facility is
located. EPA noted that ‘‘a requirement
that a PE be licensed in the State in
which the facility is located would
allow the State licensing board to more
easily address the actions of the PE
under its jurisdiction, and that the PE
may have greater familiarity with the
State and local requirements related to
the facility under review.’’ 56 FR 54619.
Comments. Favorable comments.
Several commenters supported a
requirement that the PE be registered in
the State in which the facility is located.
The rationales often expressed were
that: (1) Letting any PE certify any SPCC
Plan effectively removed the PE from
the supervision of the State board; and,
(2) familiarity with the State and local
requirements related to the facility as
well as the State itself are essential for
viable SPCC Plans. One commenter
suggested that when an out-of-State PE
prepares the Plan, the Plan should bear
the seal of the PE who prepared the Plan
along with the seal of a PE registered in
the State in which the facility is located,
assuring that the proposed Plan
conforms to any additional State
requirements.
Opposing comments. Opposing
commenters argued that: (1) A State
licensing board will address the actions
of an engineer regardless of the
engineer’s location when he applies his
seal; (2) suggestions that the potential
liability of the engineer might be limited
if the engineer holds an out-of-State
license are specious; (3) SPCC Plan

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
preparation is a Federal activity,
therefore, it is unnecessary to have State
registration; and, (4) such a requirement
would reduce the available pool of
qualified PEs. One commenter
volunteered that the proposal was
‘‘superfluous’’ because the practice of
engineering in a State without being
professionally registered in that State is
unlawful in most States.
Response to comments. We agree with
commenters that it is unnecessary that
the PE be registered or licensed in the
State in which the facility is located
because any abuses will be corrected by
the licensing jurisdiction. We also agree
that such a requirement might
unnecessarily reduce the availability of
PEs and increase the cost of certification
without any tangible benefits. The
professional liability of a PE would
likely be unaffected by the place of his
registration. When State law precludes a
PE from applying his seal if he is not
licensed in that State, the question of
State registration becomes moot.
However, that is not the case in every
State.
We also disagree that if a PE is not
licensed in the State, he will be
unfamiliar with State and local
requirements for the facility. Any PE
may become familiar with both Federal
and State and local requirements for a
facility. Therefore, to require that the PE
be registered in the State in which the
facility is located would impose
unnecessary financial burdens on the
facility and would challenge the
integrity of the PE. Such a requirement
would also reduce the pool of PEs
available for facilities.
2. PEs Employed by the Facility
Background. EPA asked whether the
rule should specify that the PE not be
an employee of the facility or have any
other direct financial interest in the
facility. This request for comment had
its origin in a U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) report issued on February
22, 1989, ‘‘Inland Oil Spills: Stronger
Regulation and Enforcement Needed to
Avoid Future Incidents’’ (GAO/RCED–
89–65).’’ The GAO report recommended
that EPA evaluate the advantages and
disadvantages of requiring facilities to
obtain certifications from independent
engineers. EPA noted that ‘‘not having
the PE otherwise associated with the
facility may avoid any potential
conflicts of interest or appearance of
conflicts of interest that could arise from
allowing an employee of a regulated
party to certify a SPCC Plan.’’ 56 FR
54619. On the other hand, for both the
issues of whether to require State
registration and whether to allow PEs
employed by the facility to certify SPCC

Plans, EPA noted that some
organizations objected to the proposals
as ‘‘challenging the integrity of
professional engineers.’’ 56 FR 54619.
We also pointed out that some
professional organizations believe that
such requirements ‘‘would impose
substantial costs without enhancing the
integrity of the certification process.’’ 56
FR 54619.
Comments. Favorable comments.
Several commenters supported a
requirement that the PE not be an
employee of the facility or not have a
direct financial interest in it. The
rationales most often asserted were: (1)
A Plan would better satisfy regulatory
objectives and better serve the public;
(2) the Plan would be less subject to
compromise by other factors; (3) Plan
certification is less likely to be a coerced
or superficial effort, and undue
economic and moral pressures would be
avoided; (4) more cooperative efforts
among regulatory bodies, engineers, and
the facility would be possible; (5) more
economic and effective Plan
development is assured; and, (6) more
competent and more professional Plan
development is guaranteed.
Opposing comments. Opposing
commenters asserted that: (1) Such a
proposal would limit the availability of
PEs, leading to delays in Plan
certification; (2) administrative action to
correct abuses would be a better
approach; and, (3) such an approach
insults the ethical integrity of PE. One
commenter suggested that ‘‘to suppose a
facility employee would break the law
and jeopardize his license to practice
his profession and do it more willingly
than an ‘‘independent’’ engineer has no
basis in fact’; (4) an in-house PE may be
the person most familiar with the
facility; (5) the proposal would place an
undue and unnecessary financial
burden on the owner or operator of a
facility by forcing him to hire an outside
engineer; and, (6) it is uncertain
whether an independent PE can afford
the insurance necessary to certify his
work given that the liability incurred
might run into the millions of dollars.
Compromise position. One
commenter suggested that a compromise
position might be that the PE who
certifies the Plan would be required to
disclose in the Plan certification his
relationship to the facility owner, the
facility improvements owner, and the
facility landowner.
Response to comments. We agree that
a proposal to restrict certification by a
PE employed by a facility or having a
financial interest in it would limit the
availability of PEs, possibly leading to
delays in Plan certification. Therefore,
we will not adopt it. Nor do we favor

47053

the proposal to require the PE to
disclose his relationship to the facility
owner, the facility improvements
owner, or the facility landowner. Such
disclosure would add no environmental
protection to the SPCC certification
process. Administrative action to correct
abuses would be a better approach. We
believe that most PEs, whether
independent or employees of a facility,
being professionals, will uphold the
integrity of their profession and only
certify Plans that meet regulatory
requirements. We also agree that an inhouse PE may be the person most
familiar with the facility. EPA believes
that a restriction of in-house PE
certification might place an undue and
unnecessary financial burden on owners
or operators of facilities by forcing them
to hire an outside engineer.
3. Completion of Testing
Background. The Agency proposed
that the PE must attest that required
testing has been completed and the Plan
meets the requirements of the regulation
for the facility. This proposal was
advanced to ‘‘promote the Agency’s
intent in the original promulgation of
§ 112.3(d) that SPCC Plans be certified
by a Registered Professional Engineer
exercising independent judgment.’’ 56
FR 54619. These new requirements were
to be met when a new Plan is prepared
after promulgation of the rule, or when
an existing Plan is amended, under
§ 112.5.
Comments. Favorable comments. One
commenter supported a requirement
that the PE attest to the completion of
testing and that the Plan meets
regulatory requirements.
Opposing comments. Some opposing
commenters believed that the PE should
‘‘enumerate all the inspections and tests
that have been completed, plus those
that should be completed before the
facility commences operations and
those that should be undertaken
periodically after it commences
operations.’’ Others believed that
completion of required testing is the
responsibility of the operator and not
the PE. Another commenter believed
such a requirement would be
impossible, because ‘‘required testing
may take up to a year to complete.’’
Response to comments. EPA agrees
that the PE is not responsible for
certifying that all required testing has
been completed. Rather, such
responsibility belongs to the owner or
operator of the facility. Testing may be
ongoing long after the Plan is certified.
The PE is responsible for certifying that
the Plan is adequate and meets all
regulatory requirements, including
enumeration of all tests that have been

47054

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

completed, plus those that should be
completed before the facility
commences operations and those that
should be undertaken periodically after
it commences operations. Therefore, we
are changing the proposed requirement
to a requirement in which the PE attests
that the procedures for required
inspections and testing have been
established, and the Plan is adequate for
the facility. See the discussion of
§ 112.3(d), below.
4. Site Visits
Background. We stated that EPA
‘‘believes the current regulatory
language (e.g., requiring the engineer to
examine the facility) clearly requires the
certifying Engineer to visit the facility
prior to certifying the SPCC Plan.’’ We
added that the proposed change
‘‘clarifies this requirement by specifying
that the Professional Engineer must be
physically present to examine the
facility.’’ 56 FR 54619.
Comments. Favorable comments.
Many commenters favored the
requirement that the PE make a site visit
prior to certifying a Plan. Those
commenters called such a visit
‘‘absolutely necessary.’’ Some argued
that a generic plan prepared by an
engineer who has never seen the facility
is unacceptable.
Opposing comments. Opposing
commenters asserted that such visits
only involve additional costs and
duplication of efforts without any
tangible benefits. Many opposing
commenters argued that customary
engineering practice includes the use of
engineering technicians, technologists,
graduate engineers, and others to
prepare preliminary reports, studies,
and evaluations. After preparation of
these documents, the PE would then
perform a careful review of all pertinent
material and then sign and seal the
appropriate plans and drawings. Other
commenters argued that such a
requirement would be impractical,
particularly at electrical substations,
due to their large number.
Particular cases. One commenter
urged that small facilities be exempted
from the site visit requirement where ‘‘a
determination is made that sufficient
documentation of site characteristics is
available for plan certification.’’ That
commenter noted that in many
instances sufficient information is
available from topographic maps, aerial
photographs, soil surveys, hydrologic
studies, engineering and construction
reports, and local operating personnel to
eliminate the need for site visits prior to
certification. Another commenter urged
an exemption for temporary storage
facilities because given their emergency

nature, certification is impractical. One
commenter asked for clarification that
the certification of an existing Plan is
sufficient until the Plan update is
required. Another suggested that the
rule should only require that the PE be
familiar with the operation and design
of the type of facility, and that he would
have visited and examined one or more
facilities of this type.
Response to comments. In general.
EPA agrees that the rule should not
necessarily require a site visit by a
certifying PE, but we believe that a site
visit should occur before the PE certifies
the Plan. We have modified proposed
§ 112.3(d)(ii) to reflect this position. The
PE’s agent may perform the visit. We
agree that customary engineering
practice allows someone under the PE’s
employ such as an engineering
technician, technologist, graduate
engineer, or other qualified person to
prepare preliminary reports, studies,
and evaluations after visiting the site.
Then the PE could legitimately certify
the Plan. Nevertheless, in all cases the
PE must ensure that his certification
represents an exercise of good
engineering judgment. If that requires a
personal site visit, the PE must visit the
facility himself before certifying the
Plan.
Particular cases. EPA agrees that a PE
site visit requirement might be
impractical at electrical substations, due
to their large number. However, the PE
need not go. One of his agents may go,
and he may review the agent’s work. We
disagree with commenters who believe
that a site visit is unnecessary at small
facilities and temporary storage
facilities. Site visits are necessary for
those facilities to ensure Plan adequacy
and to prevent discharges.
EPA has interpreted the current rule
language to contain a requirement that
the PE examine the facility. Because of
the uncertainty concerning the nature of
this requirement, however, we will not
require documentation of a site visit by
a PE or his agent until after the effective
date of this rule. We disagree that the
rule should only require that the PE be
familiar with the operation and design
of the type of facility. We also disagree
that merely because the PE has visited
and examined one or more facilities of
a particular type that no site visit is
necessary. A facility may have
individual characteristics that differ
from those of its type in general, and a
site visit by a PE or agent may be
necessary to detect those characteristics
and accommodate them in the Plan.
Such individual characteristics include
geographic conditions, possible flow
paths, facility design and construction,
type of containers, product stored,

particular equipment, and the integrity
of containment at the facility. Therefore,
even if a PE has inspected many
facilities of a particular type, that fact
does not eliminate the need for a site
visit at each facility. After the site visit,
the PE will have to devise appropriate
inspection and testing standards based
on the facility’s unique characteristics.
E. Electrical Facilities and Other
Operational Users of Oil
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that certain facilities having equipment
containing oil that is used for
operational purposes, such as electrical
transformers, would not have to comply
with secondary containment
requirements and certain other
provisions proposed in §§ 112.8(c) and
112.9(d) because such facilities are not
bulk storage facilities. EPA asked for
comment on this and also asked
commenters to identify other possible
operational uses of oil, other than
electrical transformers, that may not
currently use secondary containment as
a common industry practice and that
should not be subject to bulk storage
provisions. 56 FR 54623.
Comments. Use of oil. Numerous
commenters, especially in the electric
utility industry, asserted that EPA has
no jurisdiction to regulate the
operational use of oil generally, or
specifically in electrical transformers,
substations, and other equipment. Some
manufacturers of other products agreed.
They argued that the legislative history
of the Act showed no Congressional
intent for such regulation. However,
many commenters asked EPA
specifically to clarify this jurisdictional
issue.
Response to comments. Use of oil. We
disagree that operational equipment is
not subject to the SPCC rule. We have
amended § 112.1(b) to clarify that using
oil, for example operationally, may
subject a facility to SPCC jurisdiction as
long as the other applicability criteria
apply, for example, oil storage capacity,
or location. Such a facility might
reasonably be expected to discharge oil
as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, the
prevention of discharges from such
facility falls within the scope of the
statute.
However, we have distinguished the
bulk storage of oil from the operational
use of oil. We define ‘‘bulk storage
container’’ in the final rule to mean any
container used to store oil. The storage
of oil may be prior to use, while being
used, or prior to further distribution in
commerce. For clarity, we have
specifically excluded oil-filled
electrical, operating, or manufacturing
equipment from the definition.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Facilities that use oil operationally
include electrical substations, facilities
containing electrical transformers, and
certain hydraulic or manufacturing
equipment. The requirements for bulk
storage containers may not always apply
to these facilities since the primary
purpose of this equipment is not the
storage of oil in bulk. Facilities with
equipment containing oil for ancillary
purposes are not required to provide the
secondary containment required for
bulk storage facilities (§ 112.8(c)) and
onshore production facilities
(§ 112.9(c)), nor implement the other
provisions of § 112.8(c) or § 112.9(c).
Oil-filled equipment must meet other
SPCC requirements, for example, the
general requirements of this part,
including § 112.7(c), to provide
appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structures to prevent
discharged oil from reaching a navigable
watercourse. The general requirement
for secondary containment, which can
be provided by various means including
drainage systems, spill diversion ponds,
etc., will provide for safety and also
meet the needs of section 311(j)(1)(C) of
the CWA. EPA will continue to evaluate
whether the general secondary
containment requirements found in
§ 112.7(c) should be modified for small
electrical and other types of equipment
which use oil for operating purposes.
We intend to publish a notice asking for
additional data and comment on this
issue.
In addition, a facility may deviate
from most SPCC requirements, if the
owner or operator explains his reasons
for nonconformance and provides
equivalent environmental protection by
some other means. See § 112.7(a)(2). See
also § 112.7(d).
F. Discretionary Provisions
Background. In the preamble to the
1991 proposal (at 56 FR 54616), we
asked for comments as to whether the
provisions proposed as
recommendations in rule text should be
made requirements. We then noted that
we were ‘‘particularly interested in
receiving comments and information on
the advisability of establishing’’ certain
provisions as ‘‘requirements for large
facilities, but as recommendations for
small facilities.’’ These provisions were:
(1) Proposed § 112.8(d)(4)—‘‘that
facilities have all buried piping tested
for integrity and leaks annually or have
buried piping monitored monthly in
accordance with the provisions of 40
CFR part 280.’’ We also recommended
that records of testing or monitoring be
kept for five years.; and, (2) proposed
§ 112.8(d)(5)—‘‘that facilities post
vehicle weight restrictions to prevent

damage to underground piping.’’
Individual proposals will be discussed
under their relevant sections in this
preamble. Large facilities were defined
for this purpose as facilities with more
than 42,000 gallons of SPCC-regulated
storage capacity. Conversely, we asked
whether such provisions should be
discretionary for smaller facilities. The
rationale expressed in the question was
EPA believes that ‘‘larger volumes of oil
stored at a facility increase the chances
of a spill occurring, and that spills from
large-capacity facilities may be greater
in magnitude than those from smaller
facilities, thus posing a greater potential
threat to the waters of the United
States.’’
EPA also requested comments on two
other practices it proposed as
recommendations, but did not include
in rule text. Those practices were: (1)
‘‘That owners and operators of facilities
affix a signed and dated statement to the
SPCC Plan indicating that the revision
has taken place and whether or not
amendment of the Plan is required;’’
and, (2) ‘‘That owners and operators of
onshore facilities other than production
facilities state the design capabilities of
their drainage system in the SPCC Plan
if the system is relied upon to control
spills or leaks.’’ Concerning the first
practice, see also the discussion under
§ 112.5(b) of today’s rule. The rationale
for these recommendations was that
‘‘these provisions may not for all
facilities achieve the standard of
provisions based on good engineering
practice, which is the basic standard of
the regulation. EPA, however believes
that implementation of these provisions
at most facilities would contribute to the
facilities’ overall effort to prevent oil
discharge and to mitigate those spills
that may occur.’’ The Agency also asked
whether some of these provisions
should be mandatory.
Comments. Large or small facility
regulation, in general. EPA received a
number of comments on this issue,
some directed towards regulation of
larger and smaller facilities in general,
and others toward specific provisions
proposed. Some commenters believed
that larger facilities could better bear the
costs of regulation than smaller
facilities, some of which were
financially marginal and might go out of
business as a result of environmental
regulation.
Storage capacity level. Commenters
suggested different storage capacity
levels at which to differentiate large
from small facilities. Those suggestions
ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 gallons
in storage capacity. Many, however,
supported the 42,000-gallon level.

47055

Other factors. One commenter
suggested that other factors such as
proximity to navigable waters or
environmentally sensitive areas, as well
as the use of good engineering practices
should be considered in the regulation
of facilities. The commenter argues that
these factors might avoid overburdening
a large facility with a low potential for
impact on a navigable water or
exempting a small facility with a high
potential for impact on a navigable
water.
Discretionary provisions. Favorable
commenters. Numerous commenters
favored discretionary provisions in the
interest of maintaining flexibility in the
program, noting that what may be
appropriate for one facility may not be
appropriate for another. Some
commenters favored applying
discretionary provisions to small
facilities only, leaving the provisions as
requirements for larger facilities.
Discretionary provisions. Opposing
commenters. Some commenters argued
that discretionary provisions are
inappropriate in a rule as a matter of
principle because they complicate
mandatory rule documents and
enforcement, and they confuse the
regulated community. Yet others urged
that such provisions were unnecessary
in any case because they believe that no
risks exist for which the discretionary
provisions were proposed.
Response to comments. We will
discuss specific comments under the
discussion of specific sections. See
section IV.G of today’s preamble for a
discussion of the ‘‘Design Capabilities of
Drainage Systems, other than
Production Facilities.’’ Our general
discussion follows.
Large or small facility regulation, in
general. We have decided not to
regulate facilities differently based
merely on storage capacity, provided
that the capacity is above the regulatory
threshold of over 1,320 gallons. This
decision is based on environmental
reasons. Small discharges of oil that
reach the environment can cause
significant harm. Sensitive
environments, such as areas with
diverse and/or protected flora and
fauna, are vulnerable to small spills.
EPA noted in a recent denial of a
petition for rulemaking: ‘‘Small spills of
petroleum and vegetable oils and animal
fats can cause significant environmental
damage. Real-world examples of oil
spills demonstrate that spills of
petroleum oils and vegetable oils and
animal fats do occur and produce
deleterious environmental effects. In
some cases, small spills of vegetable oils
can produce more environmental harm
than numerous large spills of petroleum

47056

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

oils.’’ 62 FR 54508, 54530, October 20,
1997. Describing the outcome of one
small spill of 400 gallons of rapeseed oil
into Vancouver Harbor, we noted that ‘‘
* * * 88 oiled birds of 14 species were
recovered after the spill, and half of
them were dead. Oiled birds usually are
not recovered for 3 days after a spill,
when they become weakened enough to
be captured. Of the survivors, half died
during treatment. The number of
casualties from the rapeseed oil spills
was probably higher than the number of
birds recovered, because heavily oiled
birds sink and dying or dead birds are
captured quickly by raptors and
scavengers.’’ 62 FR 54525.
A small discharge may also cause
harm to human health or life through
threat of fire or explosion, or short-or
long-term exposure to toxic
components.
Other factors. Finally, EPA notes that
the rule affords flexibility to an owner
or operator of a facility to design a Plan
based on his specific circumstances. It
allows him to choose methods that best
protect the environment. It permits
deviations from most of the mandatory
substantive requirements of the rule
when the facility owner or operator can
demonstrate a reason for
nonconformance, and can provide
equivalent environmental protection by
other means. Consequently, both small
and large facilities have the opportunity
to reduce costs by alternative methods
if they can maintain environmental
protection. Because smaller facilities
may require less complex plans than
larger ones, their costs may be less.
Discretionary provisions. We agree
that discretionary provisions have no
place in this rule because we do not
wish to confuse the regulated
community and complicate enforcement
by blurring what is mandatory and what
is discretionary. We will provide
guidance or policy statements on
various issues, as necessary, that will
incorporate some or all of these
recommendations. In the absence of
such guidance or policy statements, you
should look to current industry
standards for guidance on technical
issues. See also our discussion of
industry standards and good
engineering practice under section IV.K
of today’s preamble and under
§ 112.3(d) in section V of today’s
preamble.
G. Design Capabilities of Drainage
Systems, Other than Production
Facilities
Background. In the 1991 preamble,
we asked for comments on, but did not
propose, a provision that owners or
operators of onshore facilities other than

production facilities describe the design
capabilities of their drainage systems in
the SPCC Plan if the system is relied
upon to control spills or leaks. 56 FR
54616, October 22, 1991. See also
section IV.F of today’s preamble for a
discussion of other ‘‘Discretionary
Provisions.’’
Comments. Favorable comments.
Commenters favoring such a
requirement asserted that such a
description would help identify all
paths of escape for discharges at a
facility, assess the spill retention
capacity of the facility’s containment
system, and identify the risks to the
public of a discharge. Those
commenters generally believed that the
Professional Engineer should develop
the description for the Plan.
Opposing comments. Commenters
opposing making the recommendation a
requirement argued that it was
unnecessary because the rules already
require certain descriptions of design
capabilities of drainage systems. They
asserted that such a requirement would
be redundant in that if a drainage
system is relied upon to control spills or
leaks, then it must have design
capabilities to control such spills or
leaks.
Response to comments. The question
of description of the design capabilities
of drainage systems for onshore
facilities other than production facilities
is adequately covered by rules
pertaining to drainage. See, for example,
§§ 112.7(a)(3) and (4), 112.7(b), 112.8(b),
and 112.10(c). Therefore, we will not
promulgate any additional requirements
on this subject. These provisions
generally require that a facility owner or
operator design the facility drainage
system to prevent discharges, or if
prevention fails, to contain the
discharge within the facility.
H. Compliance Costs
Background. We provided an
extensive discussion of the costs and
benefits of the proposed 1991 rule. 56
FR 54628–54629, October 22, 1991. We
requested comments in the 1991
preamble concerning the new
compliance costs associated with the
proposed rule.
Comments. EPA received numerous
comments on this issue. The
overwhelming majority of commenters
asserted that the proposed rule would
impose costs that few could bear. Many
argued that such costs were unnecessary
or should be applied to large facilities
only.
Response to comments. EPA
considered cost factors in finalizing the
requirements in this rule. We believe
that facilities in compliance with the

current rule will incur minimal
additional cost due to the revisions in
this rule. Many of the provisions we
proposed in 1991 that commenters
believed were too costly were not
finalized in this rule. In addition, in
today’s rule, we have provided
flexibility in several ways. Many of the
provisions we proposed in 1991 that
commenters believed were too costly
were not finalized in this rule. In
addition, in the deviation provision,
§ 112.7(a)(2), we permit you to
substitute alternate measures that
provide equivalent environmental
protection if you can explain a reason
for nonconformance with the prescribed
requirement. We also rely on the use of
industry standards in many provisions,
rather than mandating any particular
procedure, or any particular monitoring
or inspection schedule. We assume that
most facilities follow industry
standards, and therefore will not incur
additional costs for many provisions
where they do. We recognize, however,
that to the extent any facility does not
follow current industry standards, it
might incur additional costs.
Furthermore, we are finalizing other
provisions in this rule which will
reduce burden in other ways and will
exempt certain facilities from having to
prepare an SPCC or FRP Plan. EPA has
also prepared an assessment of the costs
of rule compliance, which is discussed
in part VI.F (Regulatory Flexibility Act)
of this preamble, and we have included
the specific comments related to costs
and our responses in relevant sections
of this preamble.
I. Contingency Planning and
Notification
Background. We requested comments
in the 1991 preamble on spill
contingency planning needs (at 56 FR
54615) and on proposed facility
notification requirements (at 56 FR
54614). You will find a detailed
discussion of contingency requirements
and facility notification requirements
(§ 112.7(d) and proposed § 112.1(e)) in
Section V of today’s preamble. On those
subjects, we briefly summarize the
comments and our responses below.
Comments. Contingency planning.
Many commenters supported the 1991
proposal. Opposing commenters
suggested that such planning should be
discretionary because not all facilities
need such planning, or that facilities be
allowed to use contingency plans
prepared for other purposes. Others
thought the proposal was premature as
we had not at the time finalized
response planning requirements in
§ 112.20. Some said that contingency
planning was not practicable because

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
the costs are too high, but these
commenters did not provide specific
cost estimates.
Notification. A number of
commenters favored the proposal,
including some industry commenters.
Most industry commenters opposed the
proposal either in part or in its entirety.
Commenters who opposed the proposal
in its entirety asserted that it was
unnecessary, largely because they
believed the information sought might
be better obtained from other sources,
such as State sources or SARA Title III
reports.
Response to comments. Contingency
planning. Contingency planning is
necessary whenever you determine that
a secondary containment system for any
part of the facility that might be the
cause of a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) is not practicable. This
requirement applies whether the facility
is manned or unmanned, urban or rural,
and for large and small facilities.
Because we have not finalized either the
1991 or 1993 contingency plan
proposals, there are no new costs. We
note that we finalized response
planning requirements in 1994.
Contingency plans prepared for other
purposes are acceptable for SPCC
purposes if they satisfy all SPCC
requirements.
Notification. Withdrawal of proposal.
We have decided to withdraw the
proposed facility notification
requirement because we are still
considering issues associated with
establishing a paper versus electronic
notification system, including issues
related to providing electronic
signatures on the notification. Should
the Agency in the future decide to move
forward with a facility notification
requirement, we will repropose such
requirement.
J. Reproposal
Background: In the 1997 proposal, we
stated that we would finalize the 1991
and 1993 proposals without seeking
additional comments on those
proposals.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that we repropose the 1991
proposal ‘‘so that the public can view
the proposed changes in a
comprehensive manner.’’ Other
commenters suggested that the time that
has elapsed, the changes in operational
procedures of the oil and gas industry
which have improved the degree of
environmental protection, and the new
information EPA obtained from its tank
survey, justified reproposal. Others
cited changes in oil industry personnel
as a reason to repropose the rule. Some
commenters believed that the

implementation of the Facility Response
Plan (FRP) rule alone requires us to
solicit additional comments concerning
the SPCC proposals.
Response: Additional comments or
reproposal. We believe it is unnecessary
to repropose the 1991 and 1993
proposals because of mere passage of
time. We received numerous comments
on every side of most issues. In
developing this final rule, we have
considered changes that have taken
place in the oil industry, industry
standards, and regulations that may
affect the SPCC rule. We have also
considered changes in the various
industries which comprise the universe
of SPCC facilities which have occurred
since our original proposals. We
encourage the use of industry standards
to implement the rule, without
incorporating any particular standard
into the rule, thereby averting possible
obsolescence of those standards. We
used the results of our 1995 SPCC
facility survey to develop our 1997
proposed rule. These results are also
part of the administrative record for this
rulemaking. We considered all the
comments we received in 1997, even if
they dealt with issues proposed in 1991
or 1993. We have also considered and
responded to all of the comments
received in 1991 and 1993 in their
respective Comment Response
Documents or in the preamble to today’s
final rule.
Personnel changes. In developing this
final rule, as noted above, we have
considered changes that have taken
place in the oil industry, industry
standards, and regulations that may
affect the SPCC rule. For the past 26
years, owners and operators of regulated
facilities have been responsible for
training their personnel in applicable
regulations, such as 40 CFR part 112.
Such responsibility is in effect now, and
will continue under the revised rule.
New companies and new personnel of
those companies are on notice as to
applicable rules and proposals. They
have also had the opportunity to
comment on the 1997 proposal.
Furthermore, we have considered cost
implications for all three proposals
which we are finalizing today.
Response plan requirements. We have
no plans to require SPCC facilities for
which secondary containment is not
practicable to develop response plans.
However, we have withdrawn § 112.7(d)
as proposed in 1993. Only a
contingency plan following the
provisions of 40 CFR part 109 and
compliance with other provisions of
§ 112.7(d) is necessary when secondary
containment is impracticable. Only
onshore facilities that meet the criteria

47057

of substantial harm and/or significant
and substantial harm facilities need to
comply with the FRP requirements in 40
CFR 112.20–21.
K. Industry Standards
Throughout the rule we generally
allow for the application of industry
standards where the standards are both
specific and objective, and their
application may reduce the risk of
discharges to and impacts to the
environment. We recognize that as
technology advances, specific standards
change. By referencing industry
standards throughout the preamble, we
anticipate that the underlying
requirements of the rule itself will
change as new technology comes into
use without the need for further
amendments. We believe that industry
standards today represent good
engineering practice and generally are
environmentally protective. However, as
under the current rule, if an industry
standard changes in a way that would
increase the risk of a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), EPA will apply
and enforce standards and practices that
protect the environment, rather than the
less protective industry standard.
Under the terms of this rule, when
there is no specific and objective
industry standard that applies to your
facility (for example, whether there is
no standard or a standard that uses the
terms ‘‘as appropriate,’’ ‘‘often,’’
‘‘periodically,’’ and so forth), you
should instead follow any specific and
objective manufacturer’s instructions for
the use and maintenance or installation
of the equipment, appurtenance, or
container. If there is neither a specific
and objective industry standard nor a
specific and objective manufacturer’s
instruction that applies, then it is the
duty of the PE under § 112.3(d) to
establish such specific and objective
standards for the facility and, under
§ 112.3(d), he must document these
standards in the Plan. If the PE requires
the use of a specific standard for
implementation of the Plan, the owner
or operator must also reference that
standard in the Plan.
Throughout this preamble, we list
industry standards that may assist an
owner or operator to comply with
particular rules. The list of those
standards is merely for your
information. They may or may not apply
to your facility, but we believe that their
inclusion is helpful because they
generally are applicable to the topic
referenced. The decision in every case
as to the applicability of any industry
standard will be one for the PE.
For your convenience, we are
including a list of organizations below

47058

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that may be helpful in the identification
and explanation of industry standards.
Name

Address

Phone #

American National Standards Institute
(ANSI).

11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY
10036.

American Petroleum Institute (API) .........

1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC
20005.

American Society of Mechanical Engi­
neers (ASME).

Three Park Avenue New York, NY
10016–5990.

American Society
Testing (ASNT).

Nondestructive

PO Box 28518, 1711 Arlingate Lane
Columbus, OH 43228–0518.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

Barr
Harbor
Drive,
West
100
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959.

Building Officials and Code Administra­
tors (BOCA) International.

4051 West Flossmoor Road Country
Club Hills, IL 60478.

International Code Council (ICC) ............

5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 708 Falls
Church, VA 22041.

International Conference of Building Offi­
cials (ICBO).

5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA
90601–2298.

International Fire Code Institute (IFCI) ...

5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA
90601–2298.

Manufacturers Standardization Society
of The Valve and Fittings Industry Inc.
(MSS).
National Association of Corrosion Engi­
neers (NACE).

127 Park Street, N.E. Vienna, VA
22180–4602.

National Fire
(NFPA).

1 Batterymarch Park PO Box 9101
Quincy, MA 02269–9101.

212–642–4900
212–398–0023
fax.
202–682–8000
202–682–8232
fax.
800–843–2763
973–882–1717
fax.
800–222–2768
614–274–6899
fax
610–832–9585
610–832–9555
fax.
708–799–2300 ..
708–799–4981
fax.
703–931–4533
703–379–1546
fax.
888–699–0541
888–329–4220
fax.
562–699–0124
562–699–8031
fax.
703–281–6613
703–281–6671
fax.
281–228–6200
281–228–6300
fax
617–770–3000
617–770–0700
fax.
918–494–9696
918–491–9895
fax.
205–591–1853
205–591–0775
fax.
210–684–5111

for

Protection

Association

1440 South Creek Drive Houston, TX
77084.

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) .......

P.O. Box 2380 Tulsa, OK 74101–2380

Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI).

900 Montclair Road Birmingham, AL
35213–1206.

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) .....

P.O. Box Drawer 28510 San Antonio,
TX 78228–0510.
570 Oakwood Road Lake Zurich, IL
60047.

Steel Tank Institute (STI) ........................
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) ...............

333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL
60062–2096.

Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA)

300 N. Main St. #25 Fallbrook, CA
92028.

V. Section by Section Analysis
(Includes: Background, Comments, and
Response to Comments)
Subpart A—Applicability, definitions,
and general requirements for all
facilities
Background. In the reformatted rule,
subpart A defines the applicability of
part 112, provides definitions applicable
to all subparts, and prescribes general
requirements that are applicable to all
facilities subject to part 112.

847–438–8265 ..
847–438–8766
fax.
847–272–8800
847–272–8129
fax.
760–723–6911
760–723–6912
fax.

Section 112.1(a)(1)—General
Applicability of the Rule
Background. We have redesignated
§ 112.1(a) as § 112.1(a)(1) due to the
addition of a new paragraph (a)(2). In
1991, we proposed changes in § 112.1(a)
to conform to the 1977 CWA
amendments. Those amendments
extended the geographic scope of EPA’s
authority under CWA section 311.
Formerly the geographic scope of the
rule extended only to navigable waters
of the United States and adjoining

Web Site/E-mail
www.ansi.org
[email protected]
www.api.org
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.asme.org
[email protected]
www.asnt.org
www.astm.org
[email protected].
www.bocai.org
[email protected].
www.intlcode.org
[email protected].
www.icbo.org
www.ifci.org
[email protected]
www.mss-hq.com
[email protected]
www.nace.org
www.nfpa.org
[email protected]
www.pei.org
[email protected].
www.sbcci.org
[email protected]
www.swri.org
[email protected]
www.steeltank.com
[email protected]
www.ul.com
[email protected]
www.wfca.com
[email protected]

shorelines. The final rule extends the
geographic scope of EPA’s authority
beyond discharges to navigable waters
and adjoining shorelines to include a
discharge into or upon the waters of the
contiguous zone, or in connection with
activities under the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port
Act of 1974, or that may affect natural
resources belonging to, appertaining to,
or under the exclusive management
authority of the United States (including
resources under the Magnuson Fishery

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Conservation and Management Act).
Hereinafter, a discharge as described
above in quantities that may be harmful
is also referred to as ‘‘a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).’’
Comments. Geographic scope of rule.
One commenter wrote to support the
geographic extension of the rule, noting
that the extended definition ‘‘will allow
for more clarity in determining which
facilities are subject to SPCC
requirements.’’
Natural resources. Another
commenter was concerned that the
extension of the rule to facilities with
the potential to affect natural resources
‘‘would bring under the scope of 40 CFR
112 a significant number of operating
facilities which did not previously
require SPCC plans.’’ Still another
commenter proposed limiting the scope
of natural resource jurisdiction under
the rule to resources under the
Magnuson Fishery and Conservation
Act to avoid ‘‘another unnecessary
workload on the judicial system over
the years.’’
Response to comments. Geographic
scope of rule. EPA believes that the
geographic extension of the rule to agree
with statutory amendments is the
proper course, and has finalized the rule
as proposed.
Natural resources. Limiting the scope
of natural resource jurisdiction under
the rule to natural resources under the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act would be inconsistent
with this statutory language. We also
believe that few, if any new facilities,
will be subject to the rule because of its
extension to facilities with the potential
to affect certain natural resources. We
believe that most affected facilities are
either already subject to the rule, or not
subject to our jurisdiction due to a
Memorandum of Understanding
between EPA, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), which
assigns jurisdiction over most of those
facilities to DOT or DOI. See 40 CFR
part 112, Appendix B.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
While revisions to the rule published
today are not retroactive, any violation
of the current rule which occurs before
the effective date of today’s rule is
subject to enforcement and penalties.
Section 112.1(a)(2)—Number and
Gender
Background. We added a new
§ 112.1(a)(2) to make clear that words in
the singular include the plural, and
words in the masculine include the
feminine, and vice versa. This
amendment is for clarification purposes
only.

Section 112.1(b)—Facilities Covered by
the Rule—Non-Transportation-Related
Facilities
Background. We have redesignated
this section to add four new paragraphs.
This section describes generally the type
of facilities which are subject to the
SPCC rule.
In 1991, EPA proposed changes in
§ 112.1(b) to reflect changes in the
geographic scope of EPA’s authority
under CWA section 311, as described in
the discussion under § 112.1(a)(1). EPA
also proposed to change the phrase
‘‘harmful quantities’’ to ‘‘quantities that
may be harmful, as described in part
110.’’ Amendments to the CWA also
reflected the broadening of quantities
that may be harmful to include those
not only harmful to the ‘‘public health
or welfare,’’ but also to the environment.
Comments. Facilities. Several
commenters argued that EPA
jurisdiction, under statutory authority,
does not extend to facilities, merely to
requirements for oil spill prevention
and containment equipment. The
commenters’ argument noted that the
statute doesn’t mention jurisdictional
criteria relating to proximity to water or
oil storage capacity, only EPA rules do.
Therefore, the commenters argued, if
EPA is successful in its assertion of
facility regulation, then every pipe,
valve, meter, and flange on the wellsite
along with tubing and casing in the
hole, stock tanks, drainage ditches, and
roads are all subject to EPA jurisdiction
and specifications. More importantly,
they argued, every facility, in every
industry, which at some time or other
handles oil or hazardous substances
could be subject to EPA rules
concerning its spill prevention and
containment procedures, methods, or
equipment.
Use of oil. Numerous commenters,
especially in the electric utility
industry, asserted that EPA has no
jurisdiction to regulate the operational
use of oil generally, or specifically in
electrical transformers, substations, and
other equipment. Some manufacturers
of other products agreed. They argued
that the legislative history of the Act
showed no Congressional intent for
such regulation. However, many
commenters asked EPA specifically to
clarify this jurisdictional issue.
Distance to navigable waters. Two
commenters proposed that we exempt
from the rule facilities more than one
mile from surface waters or those
located outside the coastal zone.
Response to Comments: Facilities. We
disagree that our authority does not
extend to facilities. Section 311(j)(1)(C)
of the statute authorizes and requires

47059

the President (and EPA, through
delegation in Executive Order 12777, 56
FR 54757, October 22, 1991) to issue
regulations consistent with the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, and consistent with
maritime safety and with marine and
navigation laws, which establish
‘‘procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to
prevent discharges of oil and hazardous
substances from vessels and from
onshore and offshore facilities, and to
contain such discharges.’’ This language
authorizes the President to issue oil
spill prevention rules which pertain to
onshore facilities and offshore facilities
and not just ‘‘equipment.’’
In order to fulfill the statutory
mandate, it is necessary to regulate the
facilities from which discharges
emanate. Moreover, although the term
‘‘facility’’ is not defined in the statute,
both ‘‘onshore facility’’ and ‘‘offshore
facility’’ are defined terms in CWA
section 311. They have also been
defined terms in the SPCC rule since its
inception in 1974. In the 1991 proposal,
EPA proposed a definition of ‘‘facility’’
to implement the CWA. That definition
was based on a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the
Secretary of Transportation and the EPA
Administrator dated November 24, 1971
(36 FR 24080). The MOU, which has
been published as Appendix A to part
112 since December 11, 1973 (38 FR
34164, 34170), defines in detail what
constitutes a facility. Thus, there has
long been a common understanding of
the term. That understanding has been
reinforced by frequent use of the term in
context within the SPCC rule since it
became effective in 1974. To promote
clarity and to maintain all definitions in
one place, the proposed definition has
been finalized in this rulemaking.
While section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act
may not explicitly mention
jurisdictional criteria, section 311(b) of
the Act does. Section 311(b) establishes
as the policy of the United States that
there shall be ‘‘no discharges of oil or
hazardous substances into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States,
adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the
waters of the contiguous zone, or in
connection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or
which may affect natural resources
belonging to, appertaining to, or under
the exclusive management authority of
the United States (including resources
under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act).’’
Thus, the location or ‘‘jurisdictional’’
criteria contained in § 112.1(b) are
appropriate for inclusion in the rule.

47060

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Use of oil. We disagree that
operational equipment is not subject to
the SPCC rule. We have amended
§ 112.1(b) to clarify that using oil, for
example operationally, may subject a
facility to SPCC jurisdiction as long as
the other applicability criteria apply, for
example, oil storage capacity, or
location. Such a facility might
reasonably be expected to discharge oil
as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, the
prevention of discharges from such
facility falls within the scope of the
statute.
However, we have distinguished the
bulk storage of oil from the operational
use of oil. We define ‘‘bulk storage
container’’ in the final rule to mean any
container used to store oil. The storage
of oil may be prior to use, while being
used, or prior to further distribution in
commerce. For clarity, we have
specifically excluded oil-filled
electrical, operating, or manufacturing
equipment from the definition.
Facilities that use oil operationally
include electrical substations, facilities
containing electrical transformers, and
certain hydraulic or manufacturing
equipment. The requirements for bulk
storage containers may not always apply
to these facilities since the primary
purpose of this equipment is not the
storage of oil in bulk. Facilities with
equipment containing oil for ancillary
purposes are not required to provide the
secondary containment required for
bulk storage facilities (§ 112.8(c)) and
onshore production facilities
(§ 112.9(c)), nor implement the other
provisions of § 112.8(c) or § 112.9(c).
Oil-filled equipment must meet other
SPCC requirements, for example, the
general requirements of this part,
including § 112.7(c), to provide
appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structures to prevent
discharged oil from reaching a navigable
watercourse. The general requirement
for secondary containment, which can
be provided by various means including
drainage systems, spill diversion ponds,
etc., will provide for safety and also the
needs of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the
CWA.
In addition, a facility may deviate
from any inappropriate SPCC
requirements, if the owner or operator
explains his reasons for
nonconformance and provides
equivalent environmental protection by
some other means. See § 112.7(a)(2). See
also § 112.7(d).
Distance to navigable waters. We do
not believe that any rule which exempts
facilities beyond any particular distance
meets the intent of the statute. The
locational standard in the rule is
whether there is a reasonable possibility

of discharge in quantities that may be
harmful from the facility. A facility that
is more than one mile from navigable
waters might well fit within that
standard. For example, piping or
drainage from that facility might lead
directly to navigable water. If
discharged oil may reach or does reach
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines,
or protected resources, the distance
which the discharged oil travels is
irrelevant.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the proposed rule, this paragraph was
designated as §§ 112.1(b) and
112.1(b)(1). We have combined the
paragraphs and added two new
paragraphs. The new paragraphs
describe the types of containers subject
to the rule, which in addition to the two
paragraphs we already proposed, better
describe those containers. We also
changed plural references in the
proposal to singular throughout the
section.
Section 112.1(b)(1)—Aboveground
Storage Containers
Background. We added this paragraph
to clarify that aboveground storage
containers are a subset of the containers
subject to the rule. In 1991, we noted
that containers used for standby storage,
temporary storage, or containers that are
not permanently closed, are subject to
the rule. We also noted that bunkered
tanks and partially buried tanks are
subject to the rule. The inclusion of this
paragraph and paragraph (b)(2), which
refers to completely buried tanks,
completes the universe of containers
subject to the rule.
Section 112.1(b)(2)—Completely Buried
Tanks
Background. We added this paragraph
to clarify that completely buried tanks
are a subset of the containers subject to
the rule. See also the discussion under
§ 112.1(b)(1).
Section 112.1(b)(3)—Standby,
Temporary, or Seasonal Storage
Facilities
Background. We proposed in 1991 to
clarify that tanks used for standby,
temporary, or seasonal storage, or that
are not otherwise permanently closed,
are subject to the SPCC rule. The
Agency noted that such tanks are not
permanently closed and can reasonably
be expected to experience a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). 56 FR 54617.
The facilities described in § 112.1(b)(3)
are a subset of the facilities described in
§ 112.1(b)(1) and (b)(2).
Comments. One commenter asserted
that temporarily closed tanks should be
exempted from the rules because they

are required to be drained and, while
awaiting temporary closure, are no
threat to the environment through oil
spills. Another commenter urged that
temporary storage facilities should be
exempted from the SPCC rule, and
handled under the Facility Response
Plan (FRP) rules, found at 40 CFR
112.20–21. A third commenter argued
that frac tanks, used to store oil for the
short periods of time while maintenance
or workover operations are underway,
should be exempted from the rule
because their use is of short duration
and does not necessarily increase the
potential for discharge. Another
commenter stated that it would be
impractical to maintain an up-to-date
SPCC Plan for temporary storage at
remote parts of a large mining operation.
Response to comments. If a tank is not
permanently closed, it is still available
for storage and the possibility of a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b),
remains. Nor does a short time period of
storage eliminate the possibility of such
a discharge. Therefore, a prevention
plan is necessary. A tank closed for a
temporary period of time may contain
oil mixed with sludge or residues of
product which could be discharged.
Discharges from these facilities could
cause severe environmental damage
during such temporary storage and are
therefore subject to the rule. As to the
argument that it is impractical to
maintain an up-to-date Plan for
temporary facilities at remote parts of
mining sites, we disagree. Plans for such
storage are analogous to or may be Plans
for mobile facilities, which may be
general Plans, but still provide
environmental protection against a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the proposed rule, this paragraph was
designated as § 112.1(b)(2). We have
redesignated it as § 112.1(b)(3).
Section 112.1(b)(4)—Bunkered, Partially
Buried, and Vaulted Tanks
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
clarify that bunkered tanks, partially
buried tanks, and tanks in subterranean
vaults are considered aboveground
tanks for purposes of the SPCC rule. The
tanks or containers in these facilities are
a subset of the facilities described in
§ 112.1(b)(1). The Agency explained that
compared to completely buried tanks,
discharges from these tanks are more
likely to enter surface waters regulated
under the CWA. 56 FR 54626.
Comments. Partially buried and
bunkered tanks. A commenter suggested
that partially buried and bunkered tanks
should be considered underground
storage tanks (USTs) and regulated
under that program because ten percent

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
or more of the product is below grade
either in the tank or in the pipeline. The
commenter argued that tanks in
compliance with the UST program,
found at 40 CFR part 280, would not
pose a significant threat to the
environment. In fact, the commenter
argued, they might be less likely to
cause a spill than one in compliance
with the SPCC rule. The commenter
further argued that dual regulation
would be unnecessarily burdensome
without providing any additional
environmental protection.
Vaulted tanks. Several commenters
asserted that since vaulted tanks are
already regulated by fire and safety
authorities, they should not be regulated
under the SPCC program. Others argued
that vaulted tanks meeting the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 280, or
which have engineering controls
designed to contain product released
from failure or overfill, should likewise
be exempted from the SPCC rule. These
commenters asserted that a discharge
from such tanks would not reach water.
Response to comments. Partially
buried and bunkered tanks. We disagree
that partially buried tanks and bunkered
tanks should be considered completely
buried tanks, and therefore excluded
from SPCC provisions. The rules differ
in important aspects. Tanks which are
partially underground pose a risk of a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b),
which could have an adverse impact on
navigable water, adjoining shorelines, or
affected resources. Some tanks that are
not completely buried contain
engineering controls designed to
prevent discharges. However, such
controls may fail due to human or
mechanical error and cause severe
environmental damage. Such tanks may
suffer damage caused by differential
corrosion of buried and non-buried
surfaces greater than completely buried
tanks, which could cause a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).
Such tanks are also not subject to
secondary containment requirements
under part 280 or a State program
approved under 40 CFR part 281. There
may also be accidents during loading or
unloading operations, or overfills
resulting in a discharge to navigable
waters and adjoining shorelines.
Furthermore, a failure of such a tank
(caused by accident or vandalism)
would be more likely to cause a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b). We
will, however, accept UST program
forms, e.g., the Notification for
Underground Storage Tanks, EPA Form
7530–1, or approved State program
equivalents, insofar as such forms
contains information relevant to the
SPCC program. For example, the UST

form (item 12) contains information
regarding corrosion protection for steel
tanks and steel piping which would be
relevant for SPCC purposes. Other items
on the form may also be relevant for
SPCC purposes. We are, however,
excluding from the rule completely
buried storage tanks (including
connected underground piping,
underground ancillary equipment, and
containment systems) that are currently
subject to all of the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or 281.
See § 112.1(d)(4).
Vaulted tanks. Vaulted tanks are
generally excluded from the scope of 40
CFR part 280. The definition of
‘‘underground storage tank’’ at 40 CFR
280.12(i) excludes from its scope a
‘‘storage tank situated in an
underground area (such as a basement,
cellar, mineworking, drift, shaft, or
tunnel) if the storage tank is situated
upon or above the surface of the floor.’’
These tanks might reasonably
experience a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). Therefore, it is reasonable
that they be within the scope of part
112. Merely because these tanks are the
subject of local fire and safety
regulations does not guarantee that there
will be adequate environmental
protection to prevent a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), because that is
not the purpose of those regulations.
Such codes may provide lesser
protection than part 112. For example,
NFPA 30:2–3.4.3(b) specifically
indicates that a dike need only provide
containment for the largest tank, while
part 112 requires freeboard for
precipitation.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the proposed rule, this paragraph was
designated as § 112.1(b)(3). We have
redesignated it as § 112.1(b)(4). Section
112.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule uses the
term ‘‘aboveground storage containers,’’
in place of ‘‘aboveground storage tanks.’’
See 56 FR 54630. We continue to use
‘‘containers’’ in the final rule. We
deleted the word ‘‘subterranean,’’ which
modified vaulted tanks in the proposed
rule, because vaulted tanks are
considered aboveground tanks under
this rule whether they are subterranean
or not.
Section 112.1(c)—Federal Agencies—
Applicability of Rule
Background. In 1991, we republished
the already existing provisions of
§ 112.1(c), which provide that agencies,
departments, and instrumentalities of
the Federal government are subject to
the rule to the same extent as any
person, except for the provisions
relating to civil penalties. The provision
relating to civil penalties was rescinded

47061

on March 11, 1996, because it no longer
accurately reflected the penalties
provided for under section 311(b) of the
Act, as amended by OPA. 61 FR 9646.
Therefore, we have reserved § 112.6 for
future use.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that Federal agencies are subject to civil
penalties which are imposed under the
CWA—including fines.
Response to comments. EPA disagrees
that Federal agencies are subject to
penalties or fines under the CWA
because the Federal government is not
a ‘‘person’’ under sections 311(a)(7) or
502 of the CWA. Only ‘‘persons’’
(including owners or operators and
persons in charge) are subject to such
penalties. Therefore, although Federal
agencies must comply with
requirements of a CWA section 311 rule
in accordance with CWA section 313,
they are not subject to civil or criminal
penalties or fines. See U.S. Department
of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 618
(1992) (because the CWA does not
define ‘‘person’’ to include the United
States, the civil penalty provisions are
not applicable).
Section 112.1(d)—Exemptions From
Applicability
Section 112.1(d)(1)—Exemptions Based
on Jurisdiction
Section 112.1(d)(1)(i)—Exemptions
Based on Location
Background. In 1991, we described
the facilities, equipment, and operations
that are exempt from the SPCC rule
because they are not subject to the
jurisdiction of EPA under section
311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. These facilities
include those which, due to their
location, could not be reasonably
expected to have a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).
In making the determination of
whether there is a reasonable possibility
of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b),
we proposed that you may consider
only the geographical and locational
aspects of the facility (such as proximity
to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, land contour, drainage, etc.).
We proposed that you could not
consider manmade structures such as
dikes, equipment, or other structures
which may serve to restrain, hinder, or
otherwise contain a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), in making that
same determination.
Comments. Geographic scope of rule.
One commenter agreed that the
extension of the geographic scope of the
rule will allow for more clarity in
determining which facilities are subject
to SPCC requirements. The commenter
added that the inclusion of natural

47062

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

resources sets the stage for the
implementation of Natural Resource
Damage Assessments, as required by the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Manmade structures. Other
commenters argued that EPA should
modify its rules to provide that a facility
with no reasonable possibility of
discharge because of some combination
of natural and manmade features, which
are present for operational rather than
pollution prevention purposes, should
be excluded from the scope of the rule.
Another commenter urged that the rule
allow consideration of manmade
structures where the structures are
inherent in the design of the facility and
serve functional and operational
purposes distinct from the containment
of oil spills.
Groundwater. Another commenter
argued that Congress intended for EPA
to develop SPCC requirements that
prevent releases to groundwater, in
addition to requirements that prevent
releases to navigable water. At a
minimum, that commenter argued,
§ 112.1(d)(1)(i) should contain language
stating that clear hydrologic connections
between groundwater underlying a
facility and navigable waters require a
facility to develop and implement an
SPCC Plan. Yet another commenter, in
opposing exemption of USTs from the
SPCC program noted that groundwater
eventually becomes surface water. The
commenter added that, hydrologically,
oil released into underground waters
may migrate to surface water within
minutes or months. The commenter
argued that in the absence of emergency
response provisions, some USTs could
damage the nation’s ground and surface
water resources.
Response to comments. Geographic
scope of rule. We also believe that few,
if any, new facilities will be subject to
the rule because of its extension to
facilities with the potential to affect
certain natural resources. We believe
that most affected facilities are either
already subject to the rule, or not subject
to our jurisdiction due to a
Memorandum of Understanding
between EPA, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), which
assigns jurisdiction over most of those
facilities to DOT or DOI. See 40 CFR
part 112, Appendix B.
We have amended this provision to be
consistent with the revised statutory
language found in sections 311(b)(1) and
(c)(1)(A) of the CWA. This rule focuses
on preventing discharges to navigable
waters, adjoining shorelines, the
exclusive economic zone, and natural
resources belonging to, appertaining to,
or under the exclusive jurisdiction of

the United States. Once a prohibited
discharge of oil occurs and affects such
natural resources, the NRDA provisions
of OPA sections 1002(b)(2)(A) and 1006
apply. The National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration has
promulgated a set of regulations which
govern the process for conducting
NRDAs under the OPA. 15 CFR part
990.
Manmade structures. To allow
consideration of manmade structures
(such as dikes, equipment, or other
structures) to relieve a facility from
being subject to the rule would defeat its
preventive purpose. Because manmade
structures may fail, thus putting the
environment at risk in the event of a
discharge, there is an unacceptable risk
in using such structures to justify
relieving a facility from the burden of
preparing a prevention plan. Secondary
containment structures should be part of
the prevention plan.
Groundwater. EPA agrees with the
commenter that groundwater underlying
a facility that is directly connected
hydrologically to navigable waters could
trigger the requirement to produce an
SPCC Plan based on geographic or
locational aspects of the facility. See the
discussion below for tanks regulated
under 40 CFR part 280 or under a State
program approved under 40 CFR part
281.
EPA does not agree with the
commenter that 40 CFR part 280 and a
State program approved under 40 CFR
part 281 (the rules governing most
completely buried tanks) lack adequate
emergency response provisions for
regulated tanks and piping. 40 CFR part
280 and State programs approved under
40 CFR part 281 require corrective
action, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements for any release from
regulated tanks and piping. Also, 40
CFR parts 280 and 281 require various
measures intended to prevent
contamination that could result from
releases from regulated tanks and
piping. Although groundwater
underlying a facility may eventually
connect hydrologically to navigable
waters, the requirements of 40 CFR part
280 and State programs approved under
40 CFR part 281 are intended to address
the prevention of releases from
underground storage tanks that might
have an impact on groundwater and to
require rapid response and corrective
action at such sites if they compromise
groundwater quality.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The proposed phrase in the first
sentence which read, ‘‘* * * could not
reasonably be expected to discharge oil
as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this
part,’’ becomes ‘‘* * * could not

reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
The proposed phrase in the last
sentence of the paragraph which read,
‘‘* * * which may serve to restrain,
hinder, contain, or otherwise prevent a
discharge of oil from reaching navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines. * * *’’ becomes ‘‘* * *
which may serve to restrain, hinder,
contain, or otherwise prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
Section 112.1(d)(1)(ii)—Exemptions
Based on Function—DOT
Background. In 1991, we republished,
without substantive change, the current
exemption for equipment or operations
of vessels or transportation-related
onshore and offshore facilities that are
subject to the authority and control of
the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT). While we received no comments
on the proposal, we believe that this
provision merits a few words to clarify
the understanding of the regulated
community. The Executive Order (EO)
implementing the Act assigns regulatory
jurisdiction to three Federal agencies
based on the function of facilities.
Section 2(b)(1) of EO 12777 (56 FR
54757, October 22, 1991) delegates to
the Administrator of EPA authority in
section 311(j)(1)(C) relating to the
establishment of procedures, methods,
and equipment, and other requirements
for equipment to prevent and to contain
discharges of oil and hazardous
substances from non-transportationrelated onshore facilities. Section 2(b)(2)
of the EO delegates similar authority to
contain discharges of oil and hazardous
substances from vessels and
transportation-related onshore facilities
and deepwater ports to the Secretary of
Transportation. Section 2(b)(3) of the EO
delegates similar authority for offshore
facilities, including associated
pipelines, other than deepwater ports, to
the Secretary of the Interior. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
among EPA, DOT, and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), found
at Appendix B to part 112, redelegated
from DOI to EPA the responsibility for
non-transportation-related offshore
facilities located landward of the
coastline. Similarly the MOU
redelegated from DOI to DOT the
responsibility for transportation-related
offshore facilities, including pipelines,
landward of the coastline.
In 1993, we proposed a definition for
the term ‘‘complex,’’ which is 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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
311(j) of the Clean Water Act. We
published that definition on July 1,
1994. 59 FR 34097. A commenter on the
definition of ‘‘breakout tank’’ (see also
discussion below on ‘‘breakout tank’’)
asked for guidance as to which agency,
DOT or EPA, regulates such tanks.
Because of confusion in the regulated
community over which Federal agencies
have jurisdiction in complexes, we
discuss the issue below.
Complexes. ‘‘Complex’’ is defined at
§ 112.2 as a ‘‘facility possessing a
combination of transportation-related
and non-transportation-related
components that is subject to the
jurisdiction of more than one Federal
agency under section 311(j) of the Clean
Water Act.’’ The jurisdiction over a
component of a complex is determined
by the activity occurring at that
component. An activity might at one
time subject a facility to one agency’s
jurisdiction, and a different activity at
the same facility using the same
structure or equipment might subject
the facility to the jurisdiction of another
agency.
Equipment, operations, and facilities
are subject to DOT jurisdiction when
they are engaged in activities subject to
DOT jurisdiction. If those facilities are
also engaged in activities subject to EPA
jurisdiction, such activities would
subject the equipment, operation, or
facility to EPA jurisdiction. An example
of an activity subject to EPA jurisdiction
would be the loading or unloading of oil
into a tank truck or railcar. Under an
MOU between EPA and DOT (See
Appendix A of part 112), transportationrelated activities regulated by DOT and
non-transportation-related activities
regulated by EPA are defined. The MOU
provides that highway vehicles and
railroad cars which are used for the
transport of oil in interstate or intrastate
commerce and the equipment and
appurtenances related thereto, and
equipment used for the fueling of
locomotive units, as well as the rightsof-way on which they operate, are
considered transportation-related
activities, subject to DOT jurisdiction.
Another example of activities that
might be considered a complex and
therefore subject to both sets of rules is
that of a breakout tank which is used for
both transportation and nontransportation purposes. It is the activity
to which the tank is put that determines
jurisdiction. If you are an owner or
operator of a complex, while you may
not choose which agency will regulate
your facility, you may choose not to
engage in activities which would subject
your facility to the jurisdiction of a
particular agency if you do not wish to
comply with that agency’s rules.

Otherwise, if you engage in activities
subjecting your facility to the
jurisdiction of two agencies, your
facility would be subject to the more
stringent of rules if there were to be a
conflict or an inconsistency in those
rules. For example, a facility with
breakout tanks used solely to relieve
surges in a pipeline, and not having
another non-transportation-related
activity or component, would not be
required to have an SPCC Plan.
Which activity would be subject to
DOT jurisdiction and which activity
which would be subject to EPA
jurisdiction is defined by the MOU in
Appendix A to part 112. The definitions
in the MOU are keyed to the delegations
of authority in EO 12777.
Because regulatory jurisdiction is
predicated upon the owner’s or
operator’s activities at the facility, an
owner or operator might have questions
concerning that jurisdiction at his
facility. To clarify regulatory
jurisdiction, in February 2000, EPA and
DOT signed a policy memorandum that
described how the two agencies would
work together to bring their respective
regulations into alignment and,
ultimately, to eliminate overlapping
jurisdiction over tanks when possible.
Recently, DOT informed EPA of a
voluntary initiative to collect
information from industry on breakout
tanks, beginning in December 2001. In
anticipation of receiving the new tank
information, DOT is considering
updating the National Pipeline Mapping
System (NPMS) data standards to reflect
the guidelines for tank data
submissions. Operators’ data
submissions will include the location of
each tank farm with breakout tanks,
information about each tank, and
information about the accuracy of the
data. The data will be depicted as a
geospatial location in a digital file or a
point located on a USGS 1:24,000
topographic quad map.
In addition to upgrading the NPMS,
DOT is training its inspectors in tank
inspection. In the President’s Fiscal
Year 2002 budget request, DOT
expressed its intent to make tanks a
priority in its compliance program,
particularly where the tanks are in
sensitive areas. DOT and EPA have
agreed to provide cross-training of their
respective personnel. As the two
agencies proceed with tank oversight
plans, the goal is to ensure that every
tank is regulated and no tank is subject
to overlapping regulations from two
agencies.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘EPA Administrator’’ becomes
‘‘Administrator of EPA.’’ Another

47063

revision corrects an incorrect citation to
the 1971 MOU between EPA and DOT.
Section 112.1(d)(1)(iii)—Exemptions
Based on Function—DOT and DOI
Background. We have added a new
paragraph to the applicability section of
the rule to note the jurisdictional
changes resulting from an MOU
between DOT, DOI, and EPA
redelegating certain functions. The
MOU was published on July 1, 1994 (at
59 FR 34102). The addition of this
paragraph is not a substantive change in
the rules, but merely an editorial
revision to mark the jurisdiction of the
respective agencies in this rule. It
complements the other paragraphs in
§ 112.1(d)(1) that describe facilities
which are not subject to EPA
jurisdiction. Due to the MOU, the
referenced facilities, equipment, and
operations of DOT and DOI in
§ 112.1(d)(1)(iii), like the facilities,
equipment, and operations described in
§ 112.1(d)(1)(i) and (ii), are not subject
to EPA jurisdiction under section
311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. They are not
subject to EPA jurisdiction either
because of their location, in the case of
DOI facilities, or because of their
activities, which are strictly
transportation-related, in the case of
DOT facilities.
EO 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22,
1991) delegates to DOI, DOT, and EPA
various responsibilities identified in
section 311(j) of the CWA. Sections
2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of EO 12777
assigned to DOI spill prevention and
control, contingency planning, and
equipment inspection activities
associated with offshore facilities.
Section 311(a)(11) of the CWA defines
the term ‘‘offshore facility’’ to include
facilities of any kind located in, on, or
under navigable waters of the United
States. By using this definition, the
traditional DOI role of regulating
facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf
was expanded by EO 12777 to include
inland lakes, rivers, streams, and any
other inland waters.
Under section 2(i) of EO 12777, DOI
redelegated, and EPA and DOT
accepted, the functions vested in DOI by
sections 2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of
the EO. DOI redelegated to EPA the
responsibility for non-transportationrelated offshore facilities located
landward of the coastline. To DOT, DOI
redelegated responsibility for
transportation-related facilities,
including pipelines, located landward
of the coastline. DOT retained
jurisdiction for deepwater ports and the
associated seaward pipelines. DOI
retained jurisdiction over facilities,
including pipelines, located seaward of

47064

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

the coastline, except for deepwater ports
and associated seaward pipelines. For
purposes of the MOU, the term
‘‘coastline’’ means ‘‘the line of ordinary
low water along that portion of the coast
which is in direct contact with the open
sea and the line marking the seaward
limit of inland waters.’’
Section 112.1(d)(2)—Other Exemptions
Section 112.1(d)(2)(i)—Completely
Buried Storage Tanks Currently Subject
to all of the Technical Requirements of
40 CFR PART 280 or State Programs
Approved under 40 CFR PART 281
Background. Part 280 and approved
State programs. In 1991, we proposed to
exempt from the underground storage
capacity of facilities in the SPCC rule
the storage capacity of buried
underground storage tanks (USTs)
currently subject to all of the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 280. We
proposed this change as § 112.1(d)(2)(i)
in 1991. We did not at the time include
approved State programs in the proposal
because in 1991 few if any States had
such programs. In 40 CFR part 281
(published on September 23, 1988 at 53
FR 37212), EPA established regulations
whereby a State could receive EPA
approval for its State program to operate
in lieu of the Federal program. In order
to obtain EPA program approval under
part 281, a State program must
demonstrate that its requirements are no
less stringent than the corresponding
Federal regulations set forth in part 280,
and that it provides adequate
enforcement of these requirements.
Thus, we have decided to exempt also
the storage capacity of USTs subject to
all of the technical requirements of State
UST programs which EPA has
approved. By January 2000, EPA had
approved 27 State programs, plus
programs in the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico. The rationale for
exempting the storage capacity of these
facilities from the SPCC regime is
because 40 CFR part 280 and the
approved State programs under 40 CFR
part 281 provide comparable
environmental protection for the
purpose of preventing discharges as
described in § 112.1(b).
Facilities with storage capacity not
subject to part 280 or deferred from its
provisions.
Storage capacity not subject to part
280. Some UST facilities have storage
capacity that is not subject to part 280,
for example: any UST system holding
hazardous wastes listed or identified
under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, or a mixture of such
hazardous wastes and other regulated
substances; wastewater treatment tank

systems that are part of a wastewater
treatment facility regulated under
section 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water
Act; equipment or machinery that
contains regulated substances for
operational purposes such as hydraulic
lift tanks and electrical equipment
tanks; and, UST systems whose capacity
is 110 gallons or less. Also, part 280
does not provide for regulation of USTs
storing animal fats and vegetable oils.
All of these facilities remain potentially
subject to the SPCC program.
Tanks deferred from compliance with
part 280 rules. Other facilities with
storage capacity subject to part 280 are
deferred from current compliance with
most of the technical requirements of
that part, including: wastewater
treatment tank systems; any UST
systems containing radioactive material
that are regulated under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.); any UST system that is part of an
emergency generator system at a nuclear
power generation facility regulated by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
under 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A;
airport hydrant fuel distribution
systems; UST systems with fieldconstructed tanks; and, any UST system
that stores fuel solely for use by an
emergency power generator. All of these
facilities remain potentially subject to
the SPCC program.
Tanks excluded from part 280 UST
definition. Excluded from the definition
of ‘‘underground storage tank’’ or
‘‘UST’’ in part 280 are a: (1) Farm or
residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less
capacity used for storing motor fuel for
noncommercial purposes; (2) tank used
for storing heating oil for consumptive
use on the premises where stored; (3)
septic tank; (4) pipeline facility
(including gathering lines) regulated
under: (a) the Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. App. 1671,
et seq.), (b) the Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C.
App. 2001, et seq.), or (c) which is an
intrastate pipeline facility regulated
under State law comparable to the
provisions of the Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act of 1968 or the Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979; (5)
surface impoundment, pit, pond, or
lagoon; (6) storm-water or wastewater
collection system; (7) flow-through
process tank; (8) liquid trap or
associated gathering lines directly
related to oil or gas production and
gathering operations; or, (9) storage tank
situated in an underground area (such
as a basement, cellar, mineworking,
drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the storage tank
is situated upon or above the surface of
the floor. An UST system includes the
tank itself, connected underground

piping, underground ancillary
equipment, and containment system.
Therefore, any of these tank systems
may be potentially subject to the SPCC
program.
Definitions. EPA proposed to define
an UST as any tank which is completely
covered with earth. Part 280 includes a
broader definition of underground
storage tanks, and includes partially
buried and bunkered tanks. Partially
buried tanks and bunkered tanks are
excluded from the definition of
‘‘completely buried tank’’ in part 112,
and are considered aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs) for purposes of the rule, as
are tanks in vaults. These tanks are not
included in today’s exemption because
compared to completely buried tanks,
partially buried and bunkered tanks are
more likely to cause a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).
Although most USTs will be exempt
from the SPCC rule (see the above
discussion on § 112.1(d)(4)), a facility
might have non-exempt USTs for which
it must prepare a facility SPCC Plan. If
part of your facility is subject to the
rule, you must mark the location and
contents of all containers, including
exempt and non-exempt USTs, on the
facility diagram. 40 CFR 112.1(d)(4).
The rationale for this requirement is to
help response personnel to easily
identify dangers from either fire or
explosion, or physical impediments
during spill response activities. In
addition, facility diagrams may be
referred to in the event of design
modifications. 56 FR 54626.
Capacity calculations. To calculate
the 42,000-gallon threshold which
subjects a facility operating a
completely buried tank to the SPCC
rule, you may exclude the storage
capacity of any completely buried tank
currently subject to all of the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of
an approved State program under 40
CFR part 281. Thus we expect you will
count few completely buried tanks
containing petroleum products in that
calculation. You must count the
capacity of completely buried tanks
containing products which are not
regulated under part 280 or an approved
State program under part 281, or which
are not currently subject to all of its
technical requirements.
Permanently closed tanks. In 1991,
EPA proposed that the underground
storage capacity of a facility does not
include the capacity of underground
tanks that are ‘‘permanently closed’’ as
defined in § 112.2. Under today’s rule,
you may exclude the capacity of tanks
that are permanently closed, as defined
in § 112.2, in completely buried tank
capacity calculations.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Comments. Completely buried storage
tanks. Favorable comments.
Commenters overwhelmingly favored
eliminating dual regulation of ASTs and
USTs. Most agreed that the UST
program provides protection
comparable to the SPCC program.
Several argued that all USTs as defined
in part 280, which includes partially
buried and bunkered tanks, should be
exempted. Others argued that tanks
deferred under the UST program should
be exempted from the SPCC program.
Another commenter suggested that
piping connecting exempted USTs to
regulated ASTs should be exempted
from the SPCC rules. The commenter
added that if such piping is subject to
leak detection requirements for USTs
under 40 CFR part 280, then it should
remain exclusively under UST rules and
be exempted from SPCC rules.
Opposing comments. Several
commenters, however, opposed the
proposed exemption of USTs from the
SPCC program. Those commenters
argued that the SPCC rules are not
duplicative. They asserted that UST
rules lack provisions concerning
contingency planning; emergency
response; periodic training of personnel
to deal with emergencies; maintenance
of records regarding inspections and
tests; maintenance of records regarding
discharges to navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines; diking of fuel
transfer areas; fuel transfer area
operational procedures; illumination of
fuel transfer areas; stormwater drainage
system design; posting of vehicle weight
restrictions in areas where there is
underground piping and/or design of
underground piping to withstand
vehicular loadings; a requirement for an
application of ‘‘good engineering
practice,’’ in other words, no
requirements that the design and
construction of a UST system be
overseen by a Professional Engineer; a
requirement that management sign the
Plan; and, ‘‘other topics enumerated in
40 CFR 112.7.’’ One commenter noted
that since groundwater becomes surface
water eventually, whether within
minutes or months, the absence of
emergency provisions in the UST
program might cause environmental
problems. Another commenter argued
that the new regulatory scheme would
be confusing because a facility might
have some containers subject to SPCC
and some that are not, as well as
containers that may be subject to State
regulation.
Response to comments. Completely
buried storage tanks. As we noted
above, in the discussion of
§ 112.1(d)(1)(i), the UST program
provides comparable environmental

protection to the SPCC program. While
not all aspects of the programs are
identical, the UST program ensures
protection against discharges as
described in § 112.1(b), and protection
of the environment. Therefore, dual
regulation is unnecessary. In response to
commenters asserting that UST rules
lack provisions concerning contingency
planning; emergency response; certain
recordkeeping requirements; and other
alleged deficiencies, we disagree. The
UST rules have numerous safeguards
addressing the commenter’s issues.
Partially buried tanks and bunkered
tanks. We disagree that partially buried
tanks and bunkered tanks should be
considered completely buried tanks,
and therefore excluded from SPCC
provisions. Such tanks may suffer
damage caused by differential corrosion
of buried and non-buried surfaces
greater than completely buried tanks,
which could cause a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). Such tanks are
also not subject to secondary
containment requirements under part
280 or a State program approved under
40 CFR part 281. There may also be
accidents during loading or unloading
operations, or overfills resulting in a
discharge to navigable waters and
adjoining shorelines. Furthermore, a
failure of such a tank (caused by
accident or vandalism) would be more
likely to cause a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b).
Contingency planning. While it is true
that UST rules do not require
contingency planning, spills and
overfills of USTs resulting in a
discharge to the environment are much
less likely as a result of those rules. An
owner or operator of an underground
storage tank subject to 40 CFR part 280
or a State program approved under 40
CFR part 281 was required to install
spill and overfill prevention equipment
no later than December 22, 1998. 40
CFR 280.20 and 280.21. The use of this
equipment will greatly reduce the
likelihood of both small and large
releases or discharges of petroleum to
the environment through surface spills
or overfilling underground storage
tanks. In addition, the UST rules place
a general responsibility on the owner or
operator to ensure that discharges due to
spilling and overfilling do not occur.
See 40 CFR 280.30.
Emergency response and release
reporting. The UST rules also have
several requirements related to
emergency response and release or
discharge reporting. The UST rules
generally require that releases of
regulated substances be reported to the
implementing agency within 24 hours.
As part of the initial response

47065

requirements (found at 40 CFR 280.61),
an owner or operator must take
immediate action to prevent further
release of the regulated substance and
must identify and mitigate fire,
explosion, and vapor hazards.
Reporting and recordkeeping. In
addition to the reporting requirements
mentioned above, there are numerous
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements in the rules governing
underground storage tanks. Among
these are: corrective action plans;
documentation of corrosion protection
equipment; documentation of UST
system repairs; and, information
concerning recent compliance with
release detection requirements. Thus,
the UST rules have significant reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
including specific requirements related
to spills and overfills.
Transportation rules. In addition to
the EPA UST rules, the U.S. Department
of Transportation has hazardous
material regulations related to driver
training, emergency preparation, and
incident reporting and emergency
response. Training regulations, for
example, can be found at 49 CFR part
172, and loading and unloading
regulations can be found at 49 CFR
177.834 and 49 CFR 177.837. These
regulations apply, for example, to truck
drivers delivering gasoline or diesel fuel
to gas stations with underground storage
tanks.
Section 112.1(f). Finally, as a
safeguard, today’s rule (see § 112.1(f) in
today’s preamble) provides the Regional
Administrator with the authority to
require any facility subject to EPA
jurisdiction under section 311 of the
CWA, regardless of threshold or other
regulatory exemption, to prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan when
necessary to further the purposes of the
Act.
Regulatory jurisdiction. To eliminate
any possible confusion over regulatory
jurisdiction, we explain in this
preamble (see the above background
discussion) which containers in a
facility are subject to 40 CFR part 280
or a State program approved under 40
CFR part 281 and which are subject to
part 112.
Piping, ancillary equipment, and
containment systems. EPA has modified
the scope of the proposed exemption for
completely buried tanks (which are
excluded from the scope of the SPCC
rule if they are subject to all of the
technical requirements of 40 CFR part
280 or a State program approved under
40 CFR part 281) by clarifying that the
exemption includes the connected
underground piping, underground
ancillary equipment, and containment

47066

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

systems, in addition to the tank itself.
This modification is consistent with the
definition of underground storage tank
system found at 40 CFR 280.12. In
addition, this clarification is responsive
to the comment which asked that the
piping be included in the exemption.
Deferred tanks. We disagree that we
should not regulate tanks which are
deferred from compliance with any of
the technical requirements of 40 CFR
part 280 or a State program approved
under 40 CFR part 281. These are
containers from which a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b) may occur, and
thus are properly subject to the SPCC
rule. Furthermore, if they were not
regulated by SPCC rules, they may, in
some instances, not be regulated at all.
Effect on Facility Response Plan
facilities. The exemption for completely
buried tanks subject to all the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a
State program approved under 40 CFR
part 281 applies to the calculation of
storage capacity both for SPCC purposes
and for Facility Response Plan (FRP)
purposes because the exemption applies
to all of part 112. Therefore, a few FRP
facilities with large capacity completely
buried tanks subject to 40 CFR part 280
or a State program approved under 40
CFR part 281 might no longer be
required to have FRPs. Calculations for
planning levels for worst case
discharges will also be affected.
However, the Regional Administrator
retains authority to require the owner or
operator of any non-transportationrelated onshore facility to prepare and
submit a FRP after considering the
factors listed in § 112.20(f)(2). See
§ 112.20(b)(1).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Underground storage tanks’’ becomes
‘‘completely buried storage tanks.’’ The
phrase ‘‘does not include’’ becomes
‘‘excludes.’’ We have amended the rule
to clarify that facilities must be subject
to ‘‘all of’’ the technical requirements of
40 CFR part 280 or of a State program
approved under 40 CFR part 281 to
qualify for the SPCC exemption. If a
facility is subject to some, but not all of
the UST requirements, it may be subject
to the SPCC rule. Facilities in this
category include those which are
excluded from UST requirements, or
deferred from compliance with some or
all of those requirements.
Section 112.1(d)(2)(ii)—AST Threshold,
Minimum Container Size, Permanently
Closed Tanks
Background. Regulatory thresholds. In
the 1997 preamble, we asked for
comment as to whether any change in
the level of storage capacity which
subjects a facility to this rule is justified.

62 FR 63813. We noted that we were
considering eliminating the provision in
the current rule that requires a facility
having an aboveground container in
excess of 660 gallons to prepare an
SPCC Plan, as long as the total
aboveground capacity of the facility
remained at 1,320 gallons or less. The
effect of such a change would be to raise
the threshold for regulation to an
aboveground storage capacity greater
than 1,320 gallons.
In 1991, EPA also proposed that the
aboveground storage capacity of a
facility does not include the capacity of
aboveground storage containers that are
‘‘permanently closed’’ as defined in
§ 112.2.
Comments. Minimum size container.
Numerous commenters suggested a de
minimis size for containers to be used
for AST capacity calculations. Most of
the suggestions came in the context of
the discussion of the proposed
definition of ‘‘bulk storage tank.’’
Suggestions for a minimum size ranged
from over 55 gallons to 25,000 gallons.
The bulk of the commenters favored
either a greater than 55-gallon number,
or a greater than 660-gallon figure.
Regulatory thresholds. Higher
threshold. Commenters offered
numerous threshold levels in both 1991
and 1997. Suggestions for the regulatory
threshold in 1991 ranged from greater
than 1,320 gallons to 120,000 gallons.
Many commenters, particularly utilities,
favored thresholds in the 10,000–
42,000-gallon range. In 1997, when EPA
suggested it might consider a greater
than 1,320-gallon threshold, many
commenters favored that suggestion.
Others urged thresholds ranging up to
15,000 gallons.
Lower threshold. A few commenters
suggested lowering the threshold.
Commenters suggested threshold levels
of 110 and 250 gallons. The general
rationale for these suggestions was that
oil spills causing even a sheen can be
devastating. Therefore, these
commenters reasoned that sheens from
home heating oil tanks of 110 gallons,
i.e., two 55-gallon drums, are every bit
as important as sheens from crude oil
tanks. An advocate for a lower threshold
noted that manufacturers now sell,
market, and produce fuel containers of
650 gallons designed to avoid
compliance with the rule, whether the
site is adjacent to navigable waterways
or not. The commenter added that most
manufacturers market or sell a ‘‘listed’’
tank of 250 gallons, and that under
current rules, five of these tanks would
not subject a facility to the SPCC rule,
yet the risk would be nearly identical to
one larger tank of 1,250 gallons
depending upon the design of the tank.

Response to comments. Minimum
container size. In response to comments,
we are introducing a minimum
container size. The 55 gallon container
is the most widely used commercial
bulk container, and these containers are
easily counted. Containers below 55
gallons in capacity are typically end-use
consumer containers. Fifty-five gallon
containers are also the lowest size bulk
container that can be handled by a
human. Containers above that size
typically require equipment for
movement and handling. We considered
a minimum container size of one barrel.
However, a barrel or 42 gallons is a
common volumetric measurement size
for oil, but is not a common container
size. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to institute a 42 gallon
minimum container size.
You need only count containers of 55
gallons or greater in the calculation of
the regulatory threshold. You need not
count containers, like pints, quarts, and
small pails, which have a storage
capacity of less than 55 gallons. Some
SPCC facilities might therefore drop out
of the regulated universe of facilities.
You should note, however, that EPA
retains authority to require any facility
subject to its jurisdiction under section
311(j) of the CWA to prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan, or applicable
part, to carry out the purposes of the
Act.
While some commenters had
suggested a higher threshold level, we
believe that inclusion of containers of
55 gallons or greater within the
calculation for the regulatory threshold
is necessary to ensure environmental
protection. If we finalized a higher
minimum size, the result in some cases
would be large amounts of aggregate
capacity that would not be counted for
SPCC purposes, and would therefore be
unregulated, posing a threat to the
environment. We believe that it is not
necessary to apply SPCC or FRP rules
requiring measures like secondary
containment, inspections, or integrity
testing, to containers smaller than 55
gallons storing oil because a discharge
from these containers generally poses a
smaller risk to the environment.
Furthermore, compliance with the rules
for these containers could be extremely
burdensome for an owner or operator
and could upset manufacturing
operations, while providing little or no
significant increase in protection of
human health or the environment. Many
of these smaller containers are
constantly being emptied, replaced, and
relocated so that serious corrosion will
likely soon be detected and undetected
leaks become highly unlikely. While we
realize that small discharges may harm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
the environment, depending on where
and when the discharge occurs, we
believe that this measure will allow
facilities to concentrate on the
prevention and containment of
discharges of oil from those sources
most likely to present a more significant
risk to human health and the
environment.
Effect on Facility Response Plan
facilities. The exemption for containers
of less than 55 gallons applies to the
calculations of storage capacity both for
SPCC purposes and for FRP purposes
because the exemption applies to all of
part 112. Therefore, a few FRP facilities
might no longer be required to have
FRPs. The calculations for planning
levels for worst case discharges would
also be affected.
Regulatory thresholds. We have
decided to raise the current regulatory
threshold, as discussed in the 1997
preamble, to an aggregate threshold of
over 1,320 gallons. We believe that
raising the regulatory threshold is
justified because our Survey of Oil
Storage Facilities (published in July
1996, and available on our Web site at
www.epa.gov/oilspill) points to the
conclusion that several facility
characteristics can affect the chances of
a discharge. First, the Survey showed
that as the total storage capacity
increases, so does the propensity to
discharge, the severity of the discharge,
and the costs of cleanup. Likewise, the
Survey also pointed out that as the
number of tanks increases, so does the
propensity to discharge, the severity of
the discharge, and the costs of cleanup.
Finally, the Survey showed that as
annual throughput increases, so does
the propensity to discharge, the severity
of the discharge, and, to a lesser extent,
the costs of the cleanup.
The threshold change will have
several benefits. The threshold increase
will result in a substantial reduction in
information collection associated with
the rule overall. Some smaller facilities
will no longer have to bear the costs of
an SPCC Plan. EPA will be better able
to focus its regulatory oversight on
facilities that pose a greater likelihood
of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b),
and a greater potential for injury to the
environment if a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b) results.
We raise the regulatory threshold
realizing that discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) from small facilities may be
harmful, depending on the surrounding
environment. Among the factors
remaining to mitigate any potential
disasters are that small facilities no
longer required to have SPCC Plans are
still liable for cleanup costs and
damages from discharges as described in

§ 112.1(b). We encourage those facilities
exempted from today’s rule to maintain
SPCC Plans. Likewise, we encourage
facilities becoming operable in the
future with storage or use capacity
below the regulatory threshold to
develop Plans. We believe that SPCC
Plans have utility and benefit for both
the facility and the environment. But,
we will no longer by regulation require
Plans from exempted facilities.
While we believe that the Federal oil
program is best focused on larger risks,
State, local, or tribal governments may
still decide that smaller facilities
warrant regulation under their own
authorities. In accord with this
philosophy, we note that this Federal
exemption may not relieve all exempted
facilities from Plan requirements
because some States, local, or tribal
governments may still require such
facilities to have Plans. While we are
aware that some States, local, or tribal
governments have laws or policies
allowing them to set requirements no
more stringent than Federal
requirements, we encourage States,
local, or tribal governments to maintain
or lower regulatory thresholds to
include facilities no longer covered by
Federal rules where their own laws or
policies allow. We believe that CWA
section 311(o) authorizes States to
establish their own oil spill prevention
programs which can be more stringent
than EPA’s program.
Regulatory safeguard. When a
particular facility that is below today’s
threshold becomes a hazard to the
environment because of its practices, or
when needed for other reasons to carry
out the Clean Water Act, the Regional
Administrator may, under a new rule
provision, require that facility to
prepare and implement an SPCC Plan.
See § 112.1(f). This provision acts as a
safeguard to an environmental threat
from any exempted facility.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The reference to ‘‘underground storage
tanks’’ was deleted because it is
unnecessary. A reference to the
exemption of certain ‘‘completely
buried’’ storage tanks from the rules is
contained in § 112.1(d)(4).
Section 112.1(d)(3)—Minerals
Management Service Facilities
Background. In 1991, EPA proposed
to exempt from the SPCC rule facilities
subject to Minerals Management Service
(MMS) Operating Orders, notices, and
regulations. The rationale for the 1991
proposal was to avoid redundancy in
regulation, based on EPA’s analysis that
MMS Operating Orders require adequate
spill prevention, control, and
countermeasures that are directed more

47067

specifically to the facilities subject to
MMS requirements. Until October 22,
1991, the date of the 1991 proposed
rule, responsibility for the establishment
of procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to
prevent and to contain discharges of oil
from offshore facilities, including
associated pipelines, other than
deepwater ports subject to the
Deepwater Ports Act, was delegated to
EPA. Under EO 12777 (56 FR 54747,
October 22, 1991), responsibility for the
establishment of procedures, methods,
and equipment and other requirements
for equipment to prevent and to contain
discharges of oil from offshore facilities,
including associated pipelines, other
than deepwater ports subject to the
Deepwater Ports Act, was redelegated to
the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI). These facilities are generally
offshore oil production or exploration
facilities.
In 1994, in another Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) found in
Appendix B of part 112, EPA, DOI, and
DOT redelegated the responsibility to
regulate non-transportation-related
offshore facilities located in and along
the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands,
and the Gulf Coast barrier islands from
DOI to EPA.
Because of the redelegation of
responsibility, some DOI facilities again
became subject to the jurisdiction of
EPA under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the
Act. We added a reference to the MOU
in the rule.
Comments. Most commenters favored
the proposed exemption because they
believed that MMS orders, notices, and
regulations require oil spill prevention
and contingency planning equivalent to
the environmental protection
envisioned by EPA’s rules. Two
commenters, both States, opposed the
proposal. One was concerned with
MMS’ ‘‘historic treatment of identified
violations.’’ The other suggested that the
more stringent of EPA or MMS
regulations apply.
Response to comments. We have
retained our original proposal, except
for the editorial revision, because we
believe that MMS will provide
equivalent environmental protection for
the facilities under its jurisdiction.
MMS regulations require adequate spill
prevention, control, and
countermeasures that are directed more
specifically to the facilities subject to
MMS requirements.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The term ‘‘Operating Orders’’ becomes
‘‘regulations.’’

47068

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Section 112.1(d)(4)—Completely Buried
Storage Tanks
Background. This paragraph is a
companion paragraph to § 112.1(d)(2)(i)
for purposes of SPCC exemption. As in
§ 112.1(d)(2)(i), we have also exempted
connected underground piping,
underground ancillary equipment, and
containment systems subject to all of the
technical requirements of part 280 or a
State program approved under 40 CFR
part 281. We also added a clause noting
that these exempted tanks must be
marked on the facility diagram as
provided in § 112.7(a)(3), if the facility
is otherwise subject to this part. See the
discussion above concerning
§ 112.1(d)(2)(i).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Underground storage tanks’’ becomes
‘‘completely buried storage tanks.’’ We
also reference 40 CFR part 281.
Section 112.1(d)(5)—Minimum Size
Exemption
Background. This is a new section we
added in response to comments
pertaining to the regulatory threshold/
minimum container size issue discussed
above. This section clarifies that any
aboveground or completely buried
container with capacity of less than 55
gallons is not subject to the rule. It is a
companion rule to § 112.1(d)(2)(ii) for
purposes of SPCC exemption. See the
discussion above concerning
§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii).
Section 112.1(d)(6)—Wastewater
Treatment Facility Exemption
Background. In 1991, EPA proposed
various changes to § 112.1(d) concerning
exemptions to part 112, and received
comments on its proposals. Among
those comments was one suggesting an
exemption for certain treatment
systems.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that the ‘‘§ 112.1 exceptions should be
expanded to include facility storage and
treatment tanks associated with ‘noncontact cooling water systems’ and/or
‘storm water retention and treatment
systems.’ Although these tanks are
designed to remove spilled oil from
manufacturing operations and parking
lot runoff, the concentration of oil in the
water at any given time would be
insignificant. These tanks are typically
very large, i.e., in excess of 100,000
gallons, and are typically not contained
by diked walls or impervious surfaces.
GM believes the cost to contain these
structures could be better spent on other
SPCC regulatory requirements.’’
Response to comments. We agree with
the commenter that certain wastewater
treatment facilities or parts thereof

should be exempted from the rule, if
used exclusively for wastewater
treatment and not used to meet any
other requirement of part 112. We have
therefore amended the rule to reflect
that agreement. No longer subject to the
rule would be wastewater treatment
facilities or parts thereof such as
treatment systems at POTWs and
industrial facilities treating oily
wastewater.
Many of these wastewater treatment
facilities or parts thereof are subject to
NPDES or state-equivalent permitting
requirements that involve operating and
maintaining the facility to prevent
discharges. 40 CFR 122.41(e). The
NPDES or state-equivalent process
ensures review and approval of the
facility’s: plans and specifications;
operation/maintenance manuals and
procedures; and, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans, which may include
Best Management Practice Plans (BMP).
Many affected facilities are subject to
a BMP prepared under an NPDES
permit. Some of those plans provide
protections equivalent to SPCC Plans.
BMPs are additional conditions which
may supplement effluent limitations in
NPDES permits. Under section 402(a)(1)
of the CWA, BMPs may be imposed
when the Administrator determines that
such conditions are necessary to carry
out the provisions of the Act. See 40
CFR 122.44(k). CWA section 304(e)
authorizes EPA to promulgate BMPs as
effluent limitations guidelines. NPDES
rules provide for BMPs when:
authorized under section 304(e) of the
CWA for the control of toxic pollutants
and hazardous substances; numeric
limitations are infeasible; or, the
practices are reasonably necessary to
achieve effluent limitations and
standards to carry out the purposes of
the CWA. In addition, each NPDES or
state equivalent permit for a wastewater
treatment system must contain
operation and maintenance
requirements to reduce the risk of
discharges. 40 CFR 122.41(e).
Additionally, some wastewater is
pretreated prior to discharge to a
permitted wastewater treatment facility.
The CWA authorizes EPA to establish
pretreatment standards for pollutants
that pass through or interfere with the
operation of POTWs. The General
Pretreatment Regulations (GPR), which
set for the framework for the
implementation of categorical
pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR part 403. The GPR prohibit a user
from introducing a pollutant into a
POTW which causes pass through or
interference. 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1). More
specifically, the GPR also prohibit the
introduction into of POTW of

‘‘petroleum, oil, nonbiodegradable
cutting oil, or products of mineral oil
origin in amounts that will cause
interference or pass through. 40 CFR
403.5(b)(6). EPA believes that the GPR
and the more specific categorical
pretreatment standards, some of which
allow indirect dischargers to adopt a
BMP as an alternative way to meet
pretreatment standards, will work to
prevent the discharge of oil from
wastewater treatment systems into
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
by way of a POTW.
However, if a wastewater facility or
part thereof is used for the purpose of
storing oil, then there is no exemption,
and its capacity must be counted as part
of the storage capacity of the facility.
Any oil storage capacity associated with
or incidental to these wastewater
treatment facilities or parts thereof
continues to be subject to part 112. At
permitted wastewater treatment
facilities, storage capacity includes bulk
storage containers, hydraulic equipment
associated with the treatment process,
containers used to store oil which feed
an emergency generator associated with
wastewater treatment, and slop tanks or
other containers used to store oil
resulting from treatment. Some flow
through treatment such as oil/water
separators have a storage capacity
within the treatment unit itself. This
storage capacity is subject to the rule.
An example of a wastewater treatment
unit that functions as storage is a
treatment unit that accumulates oil and
performs no further treatment, such as
a bulk storage container used to separate
oil and water mixtures, in which oil is
stored in the container after removal of
the water in the separation/treatment
process.
We do not consider wastewater
treatment facilities or parts thereof at an
oil production, oil recovery, or oil
recycling facility to be wastewater
treatment for purposes of this
paragraph. These facilities generally
lack NPDES or state-equivalent permits
and thus lack the protections that such
permits provide. Production facilities
are normally unmanned and therefore
lack constant human oversight and
inspection. Produced water generated
by the production process normally
contains saline water as a contaminant
in the oil, which might aggravate
environmental conditions in addition to
the toxicity of the oil in the case of a
discharge.
Additionally, the goal of an oil
production, oil recovery, or oil recycling
facility is to maximize the production or
recovery of oil, while eliminating
impurities in the oil, including water,
whereas the goal of a wastewater

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
treatment facility is to purify water.
Neither an oil production facility, nor
an oil recovery or oil recycling facility
treats water, instead they treat oil. For
purposes of this exemption, produced
water is not considered wastewater and
treatment of produced water is not
considered wastewater treatment.
Therefore, a facility which stores, treats,
or otherwise uses produced water
remains subject to the rule. At oil
drilling, oil production, oil recycling, or
oil recovery facilities, treatment units
subject to the rule include open oil pits
or ponds associated with oil production
operations, oil/water separators (gun
barrels), and heater/treater units. Open
oil pits or ponds function as another
form of bulk storage container and are
not used for wastewater treatment. Open
oil pits or ponds also pose numerous
environmental risks to birds and other
wildlife.
Examples of wastewater treatment
facilities or parts thereof used to meet a
part 112 requirement include an oil/
water separator used to meet any SPCC
requirement. Oil/water separators used
to meet SPCC requirements include oil/
water separators used as general facility
secondary containment (i.e., § 112.7(c),
secondary containment requirements for
loading and unloading (i.e., § 112.7(h)),
and for facility drainage (i.e., § 112.8(b)
or § 112.9(b)).
Whether a wastewater treatment
facility or part thereof is used
exclusively for wastewater treatment
(i.e., not storage or other use of oil) or
used to satisfy a requirement of part 112
will often be a facility specific
determination based on the activity
associated with the facility or part
thereof. Only the portion of the facility
(except at an oil production, oil
recovery, or oil recycling facility) used
exclusively for wastewater treatment
and not used to meet any part 112
requirement is exempt from part 112.
Storage or use of oil at such a facility
will continue to be subject to part 112.
Although we exempt wastewater
treatment facilities or parts thereof from
the rule under certain circumstances, a
mixture of wastewater and oil still is
‘‘oil’’ under the statutory and regulatory
definition of the term (33 U.S.C.
1321(a)(1) and 40 CFR 110.2 and 112.2).
Thus, while we are excluding from the
scope of the rule certain wastewater
treatment facilities or parts thereof, a
discharge of wastewater containing oil
to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines in a ‘‘harmful quantity’’ (40
CFR part 110) is prohibited. Thus, to
avoid such discharges, we would expect
owners or operators to comply with the
applicable permitting requirements,
including best management practices

and operation and maintenance
provisions.
Proposed § 112.1(e)—Facility
Notification
Background. In 1991, EPA proposed
to require that any facility subject to its
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act
which also meets the regulatory storage
capacity threshold notify the Agency on
a one-time basis of its existence. CWA
section 311(m) provides EPA with the
authority to require the owner or
operator of a facility subject to section
311 to make reports and provide
information to carry out the objectives
of section 311. Any owner or operator
who failed to notify or knowingly
submitted false information in a
notification would be subject to a civil
penalty. This type of notice is separate
from the notice required at 40 CFR 110.3
of discharges which may be harmful to
the public health or welfare or the
environment. We did not propose any
changes to the notice requirements in
§ 110.3.
We proposed that facility notification
include, among other items, information
concerning the number, size, storage
capacity, and locations of ASTs. The
proposal would have exempted
information regarding the number and
size of completely buried tanks, as
defined in § 112.2, from the notification
requirement. The rationale for
notification was that submission of this
information would be needed to help us
identify our universe of facilities and to
help us administer the Oil Pollution
Prevention Program by creating a data
base of facility-specific information. We
also asked for comments regarding the
form on which notification would be
submitted, and on various possible
items of information that could be
included besides the ones proposed.
Lastly, we asked for comments on
alternate forms of facility notification.
56 FR 54614–15.
Comments. Favorable comments. A
number of commenters favored the
proposal, including some industry
commenters. These commenters stated
that there was generally no current
procedure whereby EPA can identify the
universe of sites subject to the SPCC
rule, and that an inventory of these
facilities is necessary.
Opposing comments. Most industry
commenters opposed the proposal
either in part or in its entirety.
Sources of information. Commenters
who opposed the proposal in its entirety
asserted that it was unnecessary, largely
because they believed the information
sought might be better obtained from
other sources, such as State sources or
SARA Title III reports. Some States

47069

wanted copies of the notifications EPA
would receive, and at least one
suggested requiring updates. One
commenter suggested that we gather the
information through representative
sampling at on-site surveys. Another
commenter suggested that we use spill
reports already submitted because it
makes more sense to regulate those
facilities whose practices have led to a
spill.
Applicability. Other commenters
criticized the fact that the proposal
would have been applicable to facilities
which were not subject to the SPCC
rule. Their solution was to limit
applicability to facilities currently
regulated under part 112.
Terrorism. One commenter suggested
that the aggregation of such strategic
information in an easily accessed data
base like a facility notification data base
could provide an intelligence windfall
to terrorists and other enemies of our
nation.
Small facilities. Commenters for small
facilities argued that facility notification
would cause a deluge of notifications to
be sent to EPA with little or no
environmental benefit. Some of these
commenters suggested exempting small
facilities at various levels of storage
capacity, for example, 42,000 gallons or
100,000 gallons.
Notification time line. In particular,
commenters questioned various aspects
of the proposal. Many questioned the
necessity of providing the information
within the proposed two months time
frame. Some commenters suggested
other time periods ranging from ‘‘more
than two months’’ to 18 months.
However, the bulk of the commenters
favored a six month period for facility
notification if notification were to be
required. Others favored a ‘‘phase-in’’ of
the requirements.
Who must notify. Some commenters
asked who must notify, the owner or
operator. They noted that these might be
different persons. One commenter
suggested that the operator of the
facility, the owner of any improvements
at the facility, and the owner of the land
at the facility should be required to
submit facility notification. The
commenter argued that the United
States government is the landowner
most prejudiced by the absence of a
requirement of landowner involvement
in the preparation of an SPCC plan
because an owner or operator can
prepare a minimal SPCC Plan and not
even inform the landowner of it.
Location issues. Others questioned the
proposed requirement for the name,
address, and zip code of the facility,
arguing that provision of such
information was not always possible,

47070

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

especially in remote rural areas. Some
noted that drilling rigs move from
location to location as often as every few
months. Commenters suggested
alternatives such as use of longitude and
latitude, or the Universal Transverse
Mercator system, or a mailing address.
Storage capacity. A number of
commenters had concerns about the
requirement for the total number and
size of ASTs, and the total AST capacity
of the facility. Commenters noted that
there was no space on the form for
containers less than 250 gallons. Other
commenters asked if additions to
storage capacity would trigger a new
notification. Some commenters believed
that storage capacity could be measured
by SARA Title III information.
Distance to navigable waters. The
proposed requirement to detail the
distance to the nearest navigable water
elicited many comments. Some
commenters noted that there was no
definition of navigable waters on the
form, making it difficult for some
responders to answer the question.
Others asserted that making the
determination on distance to navigable
waters was a difficult one due to
litigation concerning the definition of
the term. Yet other commenters thought
that we should specify a minimum
distance to navigable waters, on the
theory that only facilities within a
certain distance would have a
reasonable possibility of discharge to
such waters.
Classification of facilities. One
commenter noted that exploration and
production facilities rarely have Dun &
Bradstreet numbers, and that the
information received from Dun &
Bradstreet might be irrelevant for our
purposes. Regarding the reporting of
Standard Industrial Classification codes
(SIC) (now replaced by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes), commenters asserted that EPA
used inaccurate codes, that no codes
were listed for edible oil facilities, and
that the codes listed were misleading in
that they did not cover all possible
industries regulated.
Use of oil. Permanently closed
containers. Facilities using primarily
oil-filled equipment, not bulk storage
containers, asked whether they too were
covered by the notification proposal.
Other commenters asked for
clarification as to whether permanently
closed tanks were covered by the
proposal.
Possible additional items. There were
numerous comments on various
additional items for which EPA had
requested comment, but which were not
included in the proposal. Possible
additional items included: latitude and

longitude of the facility; location of
environmentally sensitive areas and
potable water supplies; presence of
secondary containment; spill history;
leak detection equipment and alarms;
age of the tanks; potential for adverse
weather; and, for field verification
purposes, a requirement to have storage
facilities placarded or similarly
identified. Most commenters opposed
the inclusion of additional items.
Several supported these additions as
well as the addition of other
information, particularly information
concerning tank materials, methods of
construction (for example, field-or shoperected) and substance stored.
Response to comments. Withdrawal of
proposal. We have decided to withdraw
the proposed facility notification
requirement because we are still
considering issues associated with
establishing a paper versus electronic
notification system, including issues
related to providing electronic
signatures on the notification. Should
the Agency in the future decide to move
forward with a facility notification
requirement, we will repropose such
requirement.
Section 112.1(e)—Proposed as
§ 112.1(f)—Compliance With Other
Laws
Background. While today’s rule is
substantially similar to the current one,
EPA suggested in the 1991 preamble
that facility owners consider industry
standards in preparing SPCC Plans. 56
FR 54617.
Comments. State rules. Several States
wrote to ask EPA to be as consistent
with current State rules as possible. One
industry commenter complained that
EPA rules were more stringent than
some State rules. Other industry
commenters opposed either State or
Federal regulation, or both.
Industry standards. Several
commenters wrote to urge that EPA
incorporate industry standards into the
rule, on the theory that if EPA wants to
require these standards, they must be
incorporated into the rule. Others wrote
to urge the inclusion of specific
standards, such as fire codes or steel
tank codes.
Response to comments. State rules.
Section 311(o)(2) of the CWA
specifically provides that nothing in
section 311 ‘‘shall be construed as
preempting any State or political
subdivision thereof from imposing any
requirements or liability with respect to
the discharge of oil * * *.’’ We are
aware that Federal rules often set the
standard for State rules, and at least set
a floor for State rules. Under CWA
section 311(o)(2), States are free to

impose more stringent standards
relating to prevention of oil discharges,
or none at all. EPA encourages States to
set up their own oil pollution
prevention programs because we believe
that oil pollution prevention efforts
should be a joint Federal-State effort.
Industry standards. Under this rule, a
facility is required to at least consider
the use of all relevant measures,
including the use of industry standards,
as a way to implement those measures.
The requirement comes in the language
of revised § 112.3(d)(1)(iii) requiring the
PE to attest that ‘‘the Plan has been
prepared in accordance with good
engineering practice, including
consideration of applicable industry
standards, and with the requirements of
this part.’’ A facility should use industry
standards whenever possible in
preparing and implementing its SPCC
Plan, and should discuss their use in
Plans. While facility owners or
operators should look to specific
industry standards as a guide for
preparing SPCC Plans, we do not
believe that incorporating specific
standards into this rule is appropriate.
Such incorporation freezes standards
into rules, which may swiftly become
outdated or obsolete.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The new introductory language is, ‘‘This
part establishes requirements for the
preparation and implementation of Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans.’’ The
new language covers all SPCC
requirements, both general and specific.
That language replaces ‘‘This part
provides for * * *.’’ The phrase ‘‘Plans
prepared in accordance with §§ 112.7,
112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11’’ was
eliminated because new introductory
language makes it unnecessary.
Section 112.1(f)—Proposed as
§ 112.1(g)—Plans for Exempted
Facilities
Background. This is a new section,
proposed in 1993, that allows the
Regional Administrators (RAs) to
require preparation of entire an SPCC
Plan, or applicable part, by the owner or
operator of an otherwise exempted
facility, that is subject to the jurisdiction
of EPA under section 311(j) of the CWA.
The proposal stems from the 1988
Interagency SPCC Task Force and
subsequent GAO report, ‘‘Inland Oil
Spills’’ (GAO/RCED–89–65).
Comments. Authority. One
commenter called the proposal
‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ and feared
political use of the authority. Some
commenters questioned EPA authority
for the proposal.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Standard to use authority. One
commenter favored the proposal and
suggested that we look at additional
physical characteristics of the facility in
order to make a determination to require
the owner or operator to prepare an
SPCC Plan. Other commenters asserted
that the standards for requiring Plans
need to be specified, or that ‘‘good
cause’’ be the standard.
Response Plans. One commenter
urged a ‘‘vastly abbreviated’’ version of
this section in the event that the
Regional Administrator requires a small
Appalachian facility to prepare a facility
response plan in addition to an SPCC
Plan, because the ‘‘extensive
requirements outlined in the appendices
and attachments have little
applicability’’ to a small Appalachian
oil field storage facility. The commenter
added that the availability of secondary
containment at most Appalachian
facilities mitigates many of the
requirements of the complete response
plan which is directed towards large oil
storage tanks.
Appeals process. Other commenters
called for an appeals process, and
specification of time frames within
which the RA must act.
Response to comments. Authority.
EPA believes that it has adequate
authority under section 311 of the CWA
to require any facility within its
jurisdiction to prepare a Plan that could
because of its location, cause a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
This authority is broad enough to
encompass the storage or use capacity of
any exempted facility within EPA’s
jurisdiction, regardless of size.
Standard to use authority. RAs may
invoke this section to carry out the
purposes of the Act on a case-specific
basis when it is needed to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), and
thus protect the environment. While we
expect to use this section sparingly, it is
necessary to address gaps in other
regulatory regimes that might best be
remedied by requiring a facility to have
an SPCC Plan. Factors the RAs may
consider in making a determination that
a facility needs an SPCC Plan include,
but are not limited to, the physical
characteristics of the facility, the
presence of secondary containment, the
discharge history of the facility, and the
proximity of the facility to sensitive
environmental areas such as wetlands,
parks, or wildlife refuges. An example
of the use of this section might be when
a facility is exempted from SPCC rules
because its storage capacity is below the
regulatory threshold, but the facility has
been the cause of repeated discharges as
described in § 112.1(b). The RA might
require an entire Plan, or might only

require a partial Plan addressing
secondary containment, for example, to
prevent future discharges as described
in § 112.1(b).
Partial Plans. We clarify that the RA
may require partial Plans to cover
situations where the preparation of only
a partial Plan may be necessary, such as
to supplement an existing document
other than a Plan or to address a
particular environmental threat. The
decision to require a Plan (or partial
Plan) could be based on the presence of
environmental concerns not adequately
addressed under UST or NPDES
regulations, or due to other relevant
environmental factors. The section may
be invoked when the RA determines it
is necessary to ‘‘carry out the purposes
of the Act.’’
The decision to require a partial Plan
is separate from a decision to require an
amendment to a Plan. In one case, the
assumption is that a Plan doesn’t exist;
in the other, that an existing Plan needs
amendment.
Response Plans. Section 112.1(f)
applies only to the total or partial
preparation of an SPCC Plan. It does not
authorize the Regional Administrator to
require you to prepare a facility
response plan. We have withdrawn a
proposal (see 1993 proposed
§ 112.7(d)(1)) which would have
required you to prepare a response plan
when your SPCC facility lacked
secondary containment. Therefore, most
facilities will incur no response
planning costs. Instead, if your facility
lacks secondary containment, you must
prepare a contingency plan following
the provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and
otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). As a
result, requirements to prepare a facility
response plan are contained solely in
§ 112.20, and not § 112.1(f).
Appeals process. We agree that an
appeals process is appropriate for this
section. Therefore we have added a new
paragraph (f)(5) to include such a
process, and have provided time frames
for the process. The appeals process is
modeled upon current § 112.4(f), which
we reproposed in 1991 and have
finalized today.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the proposed requirement to
‘‘submit’’ a Plan in paragraph (f)(2),
because we only require submission of
Plans in certain circumstances, such as
when there has been a discharge(s) as
described in § 112.1(b) over the
threshold amount provided for in
§ 112.4(a), and the RA believes that
submission of the Plan is necessary. We
do not require Plan submission as a
general rule.

47071

Section 112.2—Definitions
Background. Definitions proposed in
1993 and 1999, and promulgated in the
Facility Response Plan rule of 1994 and
2000 are reprinted in the rule for the
convenience of the reader. No
substantive changes were made to those
definitions and they are not discussed
further in this preamble, except where
we made editorial changes in today’s
rule. The discussion for those editorial
changes, and for proposed definitions
that were not already finalized in the
1994 and 2000 FRP rule, follows.
Adverse Weather
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have made slight editorial changes
to this definition, none of which are
substantive. In the first sentence, the
phrase ‘‘will be considered’’ becomes
‘‘must be considered.’’ In the second
sentence, the phrase ‘‘as appropriate’’ is
placed in parentheses.
Alteration
Background. In 1993, we proposed a
definition of ‘‘alteration’’ in conjunction
with the proposed rule for ensuring
against brittle fracture. We proposed the
definition of ‘‘alteration’’ to mean ‘‘any
work on a tank or related equipment
involving cutting, burning, welding, or
heating operations that changes the
physical dimensions or configuration of
a tank.’’
Comments. One commenter suggested
that we conform the proposed definition
of ‘‘alteration’’ with the API 653
definition, specifically deleting the
phase ‘‘or related equipment.’’
Response to comments. Related
equipment. We agree with the
commenter and will not include the
term ‘‘or related equipment’’ in the
definition to conform with API Standard
653, which does not include alterations
of related equipment as a criterion for
brittle fracture evaluation. In the
preamble to the 1993 proposal, we gave
examples of alteration that included the
addition of manways and nozzles
greater than 12-inch nominal pipe size
and an increase or decrease in tank shell
height. 58 FR 8843.
Industry Standards. An industry
standard that may be helpful in
understanding the definition of
‘‘alteration’’ is API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank
Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’
Breakout tank
Background. We proposed this
definition and the definition of ‘‘bulk
storage tank’’ in 1991 to clarify the
distinction between facilities regulated

47072

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

by DOT and EPA. Breakout tanks are
used mainly to compensate for pressure
surges or to control and maintain
pressure through pipelines. They are
also sometimes used for bulk storage.
These tanks are frequently in-line, and
may be regulated by EPA, DOT, or both.
When a breakout tank is used for both
storage and for pipeline control, it
becomes in itself a ‘‘complex,’’ and is
regulated as such. See the discussion on
‘‘complexes’’ in today’s preamble at
§ 112.1(d)(1)(ii).
Comments. A number of commenters
suggested that EPA adopt the DOT
definition of breakout tank. Another
commenter asked for guidance as to
which agency, DOT or EPA, regulates
such tanks.
Response to comments. On the
suggestion of commenters, EPA has
adopted a modified version of the DOT
definition in 49 CFR 195.2. This
revision promotes consistency in the
DOT and EPA definitions to aid the
regulators and regulated community.
We modified the DOT definition by
substituting the word ‘‘oil’’ for
‘‘hazardous liquid,’’ because our rules
apply only to oil. We also use in the
definition the term ‘‘container’’ rather
than just ‘‘tank’’ to cover any type of
container. This terminology is
consistent with other terminology used
in this rule.
A breakout tank that is used only to
relieve surges in an oil pipeline system
or to receive and store oil transported by
a pipeline for reinjection and continued
transportation by pipeline is subject
only to DOT jurisdiction. When that
same breakout tank is used for other
purposes, such as a process tank or as
a bulk storage container, it is no longer
solely within the definition of breakout
tank, and may be subject to EPA or other
jurisdiction with the new use.
EPA and DOT also signed a joint
memorandum dated February 4, 2000,
clarifying regulatory jurisdiction on
breakout tanks. That memorandum is
available to the public upon request. It
is also available on our Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill under the
‘‘What’s New’’ section.
Bulk Storage Container—Formerly Bulk
Storage Tank
Background. Along with ‘‘breakout
tank,’’ we proposed this definition in
1991 to help clarify the distinctions
between facilities regulated by EPA and
those regulated by DOT. The proposed
definition was originally for ‘‘bulk
storage tank.’’ As explained below, we
changed the definition to ‘‘bulk storage
container.’’
Comments. Many electric utility
commenters urged that EPA explicitly

exclude electrical equipment from the
definition because such equipment is
not bulk storage. Other commenters
asked for a minimum size to which the
definition should apply.
Response to comments. We agree that
electrical equipment is not bulk storage.
See the above discussion on the
applicability of the rule to electrical and
other operating equipment under
§ 112.1(b). See also the definition of
‘‘bulk storage container’’ in § 112.2. For
a discussion of minimum size
containers to which the rule applies, see
the discussion under § 112.1(d)(2)(ii).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container’’ because
‘‘container’’ is more accurate. Many
containers storing oil are not tanks, but
provide bulk storage. A bulk storage
container may be either aboveground,
partially buried, bunkered, or
completely buried.
The definition of ‘‘bulk storage
container’’ adopted in today’s rule
should not be confused with the
definitions of ‘‘container’’ used in
several fire codes. Sometimes those
codes limit a container to one below a
certain size. See for example, the BOCA
National Fire Prevention Code, section
F–2302.1 (1999) and NFPA 30 section
1–6 (1996). The definition adopted in
today’s rule is broader than the
definitions in the codes in that it is not
limited to a particular amount of storage
capacity.
We also clarify in today’s rule that
oil-filled electrical, operating, or
manufacturing equipment is not a bulk
storage container.
Bunkered Tank
Background. We proposed this
definition in 1991 to clarify that
bunkered tanks are a subset of partially
buried tanks, and as such, subject to
part 112 as aboveground tanks.
Comments. One commenter wrote
that the definition is ‘‘undecipherable
and should be rewritten.’’ The
commenter wrote that the definition
should be, ‘‘Bunkered tank means a
partially buried tank, the portion of
which lies above grade is covered with
earth, sand, gravel, asphalt, or other
material.’’
Response to comments. EPA agrees
that the commenter’s proposed
definition is clearer, and we have used
it with slight editorial changes.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We added a sentence to the definition
noting that bunkered tanks are a subset
of aboveground storage containers for
purposes of this part.

Completely Buried Tank—Proposed as
‘‘Underground Storage Tank’’
Background. In 1991, we proposed
adding a definition for ‘‘underground
storage tank.’’ It differed from the
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
program definition in 40 CFR part 280
because it excluded tanks which are
partially buried or bunkered, as well as
some other tanks or containers included
within the part 280 definition, such as
containers storing certain hazardous
substances. Partially buried and
bunkered tanks still have a potential to
discharge oil into navigable waters,
adjoining shorelines, or affecting natural
resources. Therefore, we proposed to
retain those tanks within our regulatory
jurisdiction, while we proposed to
exclude all completely buried tanks
storing petroleum that are subject to all
of the technical requirements of the UST
program (40 CFR part 280 or a State
program approved under 40 CFR part
281).
Comments. Consistency with the
definition of underground tanks in 40
CFR part 280. One commenter
supported the proposal. A number of
commenters thought that the definitions
of underground tanks in parts 112 and
280 should be consistent.
Vaulted tanks. Commenters divided
on whether subterranean vaulted tanks
should be considered ASTs or USTs.
The commenter opposing the treatment
of subterranean vaulted tanks as ASTs
in the UST definition argued that
discharges from those tanks pose no
threat to the environment or public
health.
Response to comments. Consistency
with the definition of underground
tanks in 40 CFR part 280. We disagree
that the scope of the part 112 exclusion
for underground tanks should be
consistent with the scope of the
definition of ‘‘underground storage
tank’’ in part 280. The programs are
designed for different purposes,
therefore, the definitions used will
necessarily differ. To eliminate
confusion with the part 280 definition,
we have changed the proposed part 112
definition of ‘‘underground storage
tank’’ to ‘‘completely buried tank’’ in
this final rule.
Part 280 includes within its UST
definition tanks which have a volume
up to ninety percent above the surface
of the ground, which are considered
aboveground tanks for part 112
purposes. Part 280 also regulates
underground storage tanks containing
hazardous substances, while the SPCC
program regulates only facilities storing
or using oil as defined in CWA section
311. The SPCC program regulates

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
facilities with relatively large
completely buried storage capacity,
while the bulk of facilities regulated
under part 280 are small capacity
facilities such as gasoline filling
stations. The SPCC program also
regulates other types of containers and
facilities which part 280 excludes, such
as: tanks used for storing heating oil for
consumptive use on the premises where
stored; certain pipeline complexes
where oil is stored; and, oil-water
separators.
Vaulted tanks. Aboveground vaulted
tanks are clearly ASTs. While
subterranean vaulted tanks may be
completely below grade, they may not
be completely covered with earth.
Because of their design, they pose a
threat of discharge into the
environment, and are thus excluded
from our definition of completely buried
tank. Subterranean vaulted tanks are
also excluded from the part 280 UST
definition of underground tank if the
storage tank is situated upon or above
the surface of the floor in an
underground are providing enough
space for physical inspection of the
exterior of the tank. Therefore, if
subterranean tanks were excluded from
our definition of completely buried
tank, they would likely not be regulated
at all, and thereby be likely to pose a
greater threat to the environment.
Other completely buried tanks
excluded from the part 280 UST
definition. Tanks in underground rooms
or above the floor surface, or in other
underground areas such as basements,
cellars, mine workings, drifts, shafts, or
tunnels are also not considered USTs for
purposes of the part 280 definition. The
purpose of the part 112 definition is to
clarify that these are tanks that are
technically underground but that, in a
practical sense, are no different from
aboveground tanks. They are situated so
that, to the same extent as tanks
aboveground, physical inspection for
leaks is possible. Also, some of these
tanks are designed such that in case of
a discharge, oil would escape to
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, a result which our program
seeks to prevent.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The words ‘‘completely below grade and
* * *’’ were added to the first sentence
of the definition. The purpose of that
revision was to distinguish completely
buried tanks from partially buried and
bunkered tanks, which break the grade
of the land, but are not completely
below grade. We further clarify that
such tanks may be covered not only
with earth, but with sand, gravel,
asphalt, or other material. The
clarification brings the definition into

accord with the coverings noted in the
definition of ‘‘bunkered tank.’’ In the
second sentence, the word
‘‘subterranean’’ was deleted from
‘‘subterranean vaults’’ because all
vaulted tanks, whether subterranean or
aboveground, are counted as
aboveground tanks for purposes of this
rule.
Contiguous Zone
Background. The definition of
‘‘contiguous zone’’ was proposed in
1991 to conform with 1978 amendments
to the CWA, and the 1990 amendments
to the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) dealing with the scope of
discharges. EPA received no substantive
comments. Thus, we have finalized the
proposed definition.
The contiguous zone is the area that
extends nine miles seaward from the
outer limit of the territorial sea. A
presidential proclamation of December
17, 1988 (No. 5928, 54 FR 777, January
9, 1989) extended the territorial seas of
the United States to 12 nautical miles
from the baselines of the United States
as determined in accordance with
international law. However, the
proclamation provided that nothing
therein ‘‘extends or otherwise alters
existing federal or state law or any
jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or
obligations derived therefrom * * *.’’
Contract or Other Approved Means
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We corrected the title of the definition
to read ‘‘contract or other approved
means,’’ in place of ‘‘contract or other
approved.’’ We also changed some
plural references to singular ones.
Discharge
Background. The 1991 proposed
changes to the definition of ‘‘discharge’’
reflected changes to the statutory
definition in the 1978 amendments to
the CWA. For clarity, the words ‘‘of oil’’
were added in the first sentence because
the definition applies only to discharges
of oil.
Comments. One commenter asked for
a clarification of the term ‘‘discharge.’’
The commenter asked whether a drop of
diesel fuel that fell onto the outside
casing of a tank during refilling would
be considered a ‘‘discharge,’’ even if the
oil did not reach the ground. Other
commenters recommended that the
definition include at least an imminent
danger that the spilled material would
reach a navigable waterway. Another
commenter asked EPA to exempt from
the definition those discharges regulated
under the CWA, such as National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

47073

(NPDES) discharges. The rationale was
that any potential environmental
impacts of these discharges have been
considered in the issuance of a facility’s
NPDES permit and there is no reason to
subject such facilities to dual regulation.
Response to comments. A discharge
includes, but is not limited to, any
‘‘spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, or dumping,’’ of oil.
A discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
need not reach the level of an imminent
danger to affected lands, waters, or
resources to be a discharge. It includes
any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, or dumping of any
amount of oil no matter where it occurs.
It may not be a reportable discharge
under 40 CFR part 110 if oil never
escapes the secondary containment at
the facility and is promptly cleaned up.
If the discharge escapes secondary
containment, it may become a discharge
as described in § 112.1(b), and if that
happens, the discharge must then be
reported to the National Response
Center.
Foreseeable or chronic point source
discharges that are permitted under
section 402 of the CWA, and that are
either due to causes associated with the
manufacturing or other commercial
activities in which the discharger is
engaged or due to the operation of the
treatment facilities required by the
NPDES permit, are to be regulated under
the NPDES program. Other oil
discharges in reportable quantities are
subject to the requirements of section
311 of the CWA. Such spills or
discharges are governed by section 311
even where the discharger holds a valid
and effective NPDES permit under CWA
section 402. Therefore, a discharge of oil
to a publicly owned treatment work
(POTW) would not be a discharge under
the § 112.2 definition if the discharge is
in compliance with the provisions of the
permit; or resulted from a circumstance
identified and reviewed and made a part
of the public record with respect to a
permit issued or modified under section
402; or if it were a continuous or
anticipated intermittent discharge from
a point source, identified in a permit or
permit application under section 402,
which is caused by events occurring
within the scope of relevant operating or
treatment systems. 33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2);
40 CFR 117.12. Otherwise, the discharge
is subject to the provisions of section
311 of the CWA as well as the
unpermitted discharge prohibition of
section 301(a) of the CWA. 33 U.S.C.
1311(a).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have revised the citation for the
River and Harbor Act of 1899 so that it
refers only to the U.S. Code, and have

47074

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

deleted the reference to the Statutes at
Large.
Facility
Background. Because we regulate
facilities in the SPCC rule, we proposed
a definition of ‘‘facility’’ in 1991. It is
based on the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the
Secretary of DOT and the EPA
Administrator, dated November 24,
1971 (36 FR 24080). A discussion of the
types of facilities covered is found in
Appendix A to this rule.
Comments. Facility boundaries. One
commenter asked for clarification as to
whether the facility is the petroleum
storage site or a single tank at the site.
Electrical or operational equipment.
Utility commenters argued that
electrical equipment is not a facility
because no oil is being stored in the
equipment.
Buried pipelines, gathering lines,
flowlines, waste treatment equipment.
One commenter urged that buried
pipelines at mining sites should be
excluded from the definition because
such pipelines are often put in place
without recording their location. The
commenter added that typically the
lines are emptied and abandoned as part
of final reclamation. Other commenters
urged the exclusion of gathering lines
and flowlines from the definition
because of the cost of providing
secondary containment and contingency
planning for such lines. Another
commenter protested the inclusion of
waste treatment as a possible activity
covered under the definition, and
therefore the rule.
Mobile or fixed facilities. One
commenter urged that mobile
equipment be excluded from the
definition because the commenter
believed that the SPCC Plan would
otherwise have to be amended each time
the mobile equipment is moved.
Response to Comments. Facility
boundaries. A facility includes any
building, structure, installation,
equipment, pipe or pipeline in oil well
drilling operations, oil production, oil
refining, oil storage, and waste
treatment, or in which oil is used at a
site, whether it is mobile or fixed. It may
also include power rights of way
connected to the facility. The extent of
the facility will vary according to the
circumstances of the site. It may be as
small as a single container or as large as
all of the structures and buildings on a
site. Some specific factors to use in
determining the extent of a facility may
be the ownership or operation of those
buildings, structures, equipment,
installations, pipes or pipelines, or the

types of activities being carried on at the
facility.
Electrical or operational equipment.
We disagree with commenters who
maintained that electrical equipment
‘‘using’’ oil as opposed to ‘‘storing’’ it
should not fall within the definition of
‘‘facility’’ in part 112. Section
311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA, which
authorizes EPA to promulgate the SPCC
rule, does not distinguish between the
storage and the usage of oil. The section
simply authorizes EPA, as delegated by
the President, to establish
‘‘requirements to prevent discharges of
oil * * * from onshore and offshore
facilities, and to contain such discharges
* * *.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C). Nor do
the definitions of ‘‘onshore facility’’ or
‘‘offshore facility’’ in sections 311(a)(10)
of the CWA distinguish between the use
or storage of oil. Although the definition
of ‘‘facility’’ in section 1001(9) of the
OPA is limited by the ‘‘purpose’’ of the
facility, no such limitation appears in
CWA section 311. Moreover, EPA
believes that although much of the
electrical equipment may arguably
‘‘use’’ oil, in effect the oil is ‘‘stored’’ in
the equipment because it remains in the
equipment for such long time frames.
We added language to the definition to
clarify that such types of equipment are
facilities subject to the SPCC rule
whether they are storing or using oil.
Therefore, we revised the definition to
include the words ‘‘or in which oil is
used.’’ However, we note that a facility
which contains only electrical
equipment is not a bulk storage facility.
Buried pipelines, gathering lines,
flowlines, waste treatment equipment.
Buried pipelines that carry oil at mining
sites are part of a facility unless they are
permanently closed as defined in
§ 112.2. Such pipelines may otherwise
be the source of a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b). Likewise, the same
rationale applies to gathering lines and
flowlines, and waste treatment
equipment. Note that any facility or part
thereof used exclusively for wastewater
treatment and not to satisfy any part 112
requirement is exempted from the rule.
The production, recovery, or recycling
of oil is not considered wastewater
treatment for purposes of the rule. See
§ 112.1(d)(6).
While such gathering lines, flowlines,
and waste treatment equipment are
subject to secondary containment
requirements, the appropriate method of
secondary containment is an
engineering question. Double-walled
piping may be an option, but is not
required by these rules. The owner or
operator and Professional Engineer
certifying the Plan should consider
whether pursuant to good engineering

practice, double-walled piping is the
appropriate method of secondary
containment according to good
engineering practice. In determining
whether to install double-walled piping
versus an alternative method of
secondary containment, you could
consider such factors as the additional
effectiveness of double-walled piping in
preventing discharges, the technical
aspects of cathodically protecting any
buried double-walled piping system, the
cost of installing double-walled pipe,
and the potential fire and safety hazards
of double-walled pipes. Earthen or
natural structures may be acceptable if
they contain and prevent discharges as
described in § 112.1(b), including
containment that prevents discharge of
oil through groundwater that might
cause a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). What is practical for one
facility, however, might not work for
another.
Mobile or fixed facilities. Either
mobile or fixed equipment might be the
source of a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), and therefore both are
included within the definition of
‘‘facility.’’ Section 112.3(c) of this rule
already provides that it is not necessary
to amend your Plan each time a mobile
facility moves to a new site.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the first sentence we added the words
‘‘oil gathering, oil processing, oil
transfer, oil distribution’’ to the list of
activities listed. The added activities
track the activities listed in § 112.1(b).
We also clarify that a vessel or a public
vessel is not a facility or part of a
facility. We deleted the word ‘‘may’’ in
the second sentence of the definition
regarding site-specific factors of facility
boundaries, because it is redundant
with the inclusion of the words,
‘‘including, but not limited to.’’
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We made four editorial changes. We
deleted the word ‘‘either’’ in the first
sentence because it is unnecessary.
‘‘Endangered/threatened species’’
becomes ‘‘endangered or threatened
species.’’ We also deleted the colon in
the last sentence because it is
unnecessary. ‘‘Discharges of oil’’
becomes ‘‘discharges.’’
Maximum Extent Practicable
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the first sentence the phrase ‘‘the
limitations used to determine’’ becomes
‘‘within the limitations used to
determine.’’ In the beginning of second
sentence, ‘‘It considers * * *.’’ becomes
‘‘It includes* * *.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Navigable Waters
Background. We proposed a revision
of the definition of ‘‘navigable waters’’
in 1991. The rationale was to have the
part 112 definition track the definition
of ‘‘navigable waters’’ in 40 CFR part
110, which deals with the discharge of
oil.
Comments. Clarification of the
meaning of navigable waters, maps. A
number of commenters asked for a
clarification of the definition of
navigable waters because of the
difficulty of determining which waters
fall within the definition. Some asked
for EPA maps to aid in this
determination.
Navigability, legal authority. Other
commenters believed that the definition
related to navigability. Some thought
the definition was legally unsupportable
because it is so broad. One commenter
suggested that the term be limited to
unobstructed streams that free flow at
least fourteen consecutive days per year.
Wetlands. Another commenter
believed that the definition should not
apply to wetlands because SPCC
protections are not needed when
wetlands are regulated under a permit
program.
Response to comments. Clarification
of the meaning of navigable waters,
maps. In this definition, we clarify what
we mean by navigable waters by
describing the characteristics of
navigable waters and by listing
examples of navigable waters. We also
note in the definition that certain waste
treatment systems are not navigable
waters.
We are unable to provide a map to
identify all navigable waters because not
all such waters have been identified on
a map. However, the rule provides
guidelines as to where such waters may
be found.
Navigability, legal authority.
Navigable waters are not only waters on
which a craft may be sailed. Navigable
waters include all waters with a past,
present, or possible future use in
interstate or foreign commerce,
including all waters subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide. Navigable waters
also include intrastate waters which
could affect interstate or foreign
commerce. The case law supports a
broad definition of navigable waters,
such as the one published today, and
that definition does not necessarily
depend on navigability in fact.
Wetlands. We disagree that SPCC
regulation of wetlands is redundant.
The definition includes wetlands, as
defined in § 112.2 and discussed below,
because wetlands are waters of the
United States. Different programs serve

different purposes, and merely because
an activity or function is regulated for
one purpose (for example, NPDES) does
not mean that regulation for another
purpose is redundant. The purpose of a
permit discharge system is waste
treatment and management. The
purpose of the SPCC rule is oil pollution
prevention.
Offshore Facility
Background. EPA proposed in 1991 to
revise the definition of ‘‘offshore
facility’’ to conform with the CWA and
NCP definitions.
Comments. EPA or DOI jurisdiction.
One commenter noted that if the
definition of offshore facility is taken in
context with the definition of navigable
waters, then many facilities traditionally
subject to EPA jurisdiction would
become subject to DOI authority.
CWA definition. Another commenter
suggested that the EPA definition
should instead be that contained in
CWA section 311(a)(11).
Response to comments. EPA or DOI
jurisdiction. The 1994 Memorandum of
Understanding between DOI, DOT, and
EPA addresses the jurisdictional issue to
which the commenter refers,
transferring to EPA those nontransportation-related offshore facilities
landward of the coastline.
CWA definition. EPA agrees with the
commenter urging that the EPA
definition track the statutory definition.
The part 112 definition, except for
minor editorial changes, is identical to
the CWA definition. There is no
difference between the substance of the
part 112 definition and the CWA
definition.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
Permanently moored vessels and other
former transportation equipment. We
also note that barges which store oil,
and have been determined by the Coast
Guard to be permanently moored, are no
longer vessels, but storage containers
that are part of an offshore facility.
Likewise, a container, whether onshore
or offshore, which was formerly used for
transportation, such as a truck or
railroad car, which now is used to store
oil, is no longer used for a
transportation purpose, and is a bulk
storage container.
Oil
Background. In 1991, EPA reprinted
the definition of oil without suggesting
any changes. In response to Edible Oil
Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA) of 1995
(33 U.S.C. 2720) requirements, we have
reworded the definition to include the
categories of oil included in EORRA.
Those categories are: (1) Petroleum oils,
(2) animal fats and vegetable oils; and,

47075

(3) other non-petroleum oils and
greases. Animal fats include fats, oils,
and greases of animal origin (for
example, lard and tallow), fish (for
example, cod liver oil), or marine
mammal origin (for example, whale oil).
Vegetable oils include oils of vegetable
origin, including oils from seeds, nuts,
fruits, and kernels. Examples of
vegetable oils include: corn oil,
rapeseed oil, coconut oil, palm oil, soy
bean oil, sunflower seed oil, cottonseed
oil, and peanut oil. Other nonpetroleum oils and greases include coal
tar, creosote, silicon fluids, pine oil,
turpentine, and tall oils. Petroleum oils
include crude and refined petroleum
products, asphalt, gasoline, fuel oils,
mineral oils, naphtha, sludge, oil refuse,
and oil mixed with wastes other than
dredged spoil.
EORRA requires that Federal agencies
establish separate classes for at least
these three types of oils. It further
requires agencies to differentiate
between those classes of oil in relation
to their environmental effects, and their
physical, chemical, biological, and other
characteristics. EPA has provided new
subparts within part 112 to facilitate
differentiation between the categories of
oil listed in EORRA. In an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking,
published on April 8, 1999 (64 FR
17227), we requested ideas on how to
differentiate among the SPCC
requirements for facilities storing or
using the various categories of oil. These
ideas for further differentiation will be
considered in a future rulemaking.
Today’s amendments to the definition
and the creation of subparts have no
effect on information collection, because
we already include all types of oil in our
information collection burden
calculations. Similarly, the definition
imposes no new requirements, because
all oils have always been subject to the
substantive requirements of the rule.
Comments. What is oil. Several
commenters favored the proposed 1991
definition, which is identical to the
current definition. Some asked for
clarification as to its scope, particularly
in reference to animal and vegetable
oils, synthetic oils, mineral oils, and
petroleum derivatives.
Specific substances. Others asked
about specific substances like aromatic
hydrocarbons and asphaltic cement.
One commenter asked if bilge water is
oil.
Authority. Some commenters
suggested that EPA’s authority did not
extend beyond petroleum-based oils.
Exclusions. Some commenters sought
exclusions from the definition, generally
based on contentions that certain oils
(such as vegetable oils) are not harmful

47076

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

to the environment if discharged. One
commenter suggested a definition based
on the liquidity of oil, founded on a
rationale that solid or gaseous oils do
not pose a threat to waters of the United
States when discharged at a fixed
facility. Another commenter urged that
we exempt refined petroleum products
from the definition because releases
from many of these products are
regulated by other statutes, such as the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. One State
commenter noted that animal and
vegetable oils are not subject to
regulation under that State’s statutes
regulating oil.
Oil mixed with wastes or hazardous
substances. Others asked for
clarification as to whether mixed
substances, used oil, and waste oils
were oil.
Part 280 definition. One commenter
noted the difference in definitions
between the part 112 definition and the
definition in 40 CFR part 280.
Response to comments. What is oil.
EPA interprets the definition of oil to
include all types of oil, in whatever
form, solid or liquid. That includes
synthetic oils, mineral oils, vegetable
oils, animal fats, petroleum derivatives,
etc.
Specific substances. As to certain
specific substances, asphaltic cement is
oil because it is a petroleum-based
product and exhibits oil-like
characteristics. A discharge of asphaltic
cement may violate applicable water
quality standards, or cause a film or
sheen or discoloration 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. Aromatic hydrocarbons may
or may not be oil, depending on their
physical characteristics and
environmental effects. Some aromatic
hydrocarbons are hazardous substances.
Bilge water that contains sufficient oil
such that its discharge would violate the
standards set out in 40 CFR 110.3 is
considered oil. The percentage of oil
concentration in the water is not
determinative for the purpose of the
definition or the discharge standards.
Authority. We disagree that our
authority only extends to petroleumbased oils. Our interpretation is
consistent with Congressional intent as
expressed in section 311(a)(1) of the
CWA, which extends to all types of oils
in any form. EPA’s definition tracks that
statutory definition. Our revised
definition also reflects EORRA
requirements for differentiation. EORRA
did not expand or contract the universe
of substances that are oils, it only
required differentiation, when
necessary, between the requirements for

facilities storing or using different types
of oil.
Exclusions. While States may choose
to regulate all oils or some oils, the
CWA definition is designed to prevent
the discharge of all oils.
A definition based on liquidity would
exclude solid oils, such as certain
animal fats, a result that would be
inconsistent with Congressional intent.
Concerning gaseous oils, see our
discussion on Highly volatile liquids
below.
While releases or discharges of some
refined petroleum products may be
regulated under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as waste products, that
program is dedicated more to waste
management, and does not regulate
storage of non-waste oil.
All oils, including animal fats and
vegetable oils, can harm the
environment in many ways. Oil can coat
the feathers of birds, the fur of mammals
and cause drowning and hypothermia
and increased vulnerability to starvation
and predators from lack of mobility.
Oils can act on the epithelial tissue of
fish, accumulate on gills, and prevent
respiration. The oil coating of surface
waters can interfere with natural
processes, oxygen diffusion/reaeration
and photosynthesis. Organisms and
algae coated with oil may settle to the
bottom with suspended solids along
with other oily substances that can
destroy benthic organisms and interfere
with spawning areas.
Oils can increase biological or
chemical oxygen demand and deplete
the water of oxygen sufficiently to kill
fish and other aquatic organisms.
Oils can cause starvation of fish and
wildlife by coating food and depleting
the food supply. Animals that ingest
large amounts of oil through
contaminated food or preening
themselves may die as a result of the
ingested oil. Animals can also starve
because of increased energy demands
needed to maintain body temperature
when they are coated with oil.
Oils can exert a direct toxic action on
fish, wildlife, or their food supply. Oils
can taint the flavor of fish for human
consumption and cause intestinal
lesions in fish from laxative properties.
Tainted flavor of fish used for human
consumption and the causation of
rancid odors are public health or
welfare concerns within the scope of
our rules. Tainted flavor of fish used for
human consumption may indicate a
disease in the fish which could render
them inedible and thus have a
substantial impact on the fishermen
who harvest them and communities
who may rely on them for a food
supply.

Oils can foul shorelines and beaches.
Oil discharges can create rancid odors.
Rancid odors may cause both health
impacts and environmental impacts. For
example, the 1991 Wisconsin Butter
Fire and Spill resulted in a discharge of
melted butter and lard. After the
cleanup was largely completed, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources declared as hazardous
substances the thousands of gallons of
melted butter that ran offsite and the
mountain of damaged and charred meat
products spoiling in the hot sun and
creating objectionable odors. The
Wisconsin DNR stated that these
products posed an imminent threat to
human health and the environment. 62
FR 54526.
Highly volatile liquids. We do not
consider highly volatile liquids that
volatilize on contact with air or water,
such as liquid natural gas, or liquid
petroleum gas, to be oil. Such
substances do not violate applicable
water quality standards, do not cause a
reportable film or sheen or discoloration
upon the surface of water or adjoining
shorelines, do not cause a sludge or
emulsion to be deposited beneath the
surface of the water or upon adjoining
shorelines, and are not removable.
Therefore, there would be no reportable
discharge as described in 40 CFR 110.3.
Oil mixed with wastes or hazardous
substances. Oil means oil of any kind or
in any form, including, but not limited
to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish,
or marine mammal origin; vegetable
oils, including oils from seeds, nuts,
fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and
greases, including petroleum, fuel oil,
sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil
refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other
than dredged spoil.
Part 280 definition. The definition of
petroleum in 40 CFR part 280 is a subset
of the part 112 definition of ‘‘oil.’’ The
part 112 definition of oil is broader than
the part 280 definition of petroleum
because part 112 regulates all types of
oils, whereas part 280 regulates only
petroleum.
Oil drilling, production, or workover
facilities (offshore)
Background. See the definition of
‘‘production facility,’’ into which this
definition has been merged.
Oil Production Facilities (Onshore)
Background. See the definition of
‘‘production facility,’’ into which this
definition has been merged.
Onshore Facility
Background. As proposed, we deleted
as unnecessary surplus the reference to
the facility not being transportation-

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
related. There were no substantive
comments.
Partially Buried Tank
Background. In 1991, EPA proposed
the definition of ‘‘partially buried tank’’
to clarify the distinction between
partially buried tanks and underground
storage tanks. We have renamed
underground tanks in this rule as
‘‘completely buried tanks,’’ i.e., those
tanks completely covered with earth.
Partially buried tanks are subject to the
SPCC rule the same as aboveground
containers.
Comments. One commenter wrote
that the definition as proposed was
‘‘undecipherable’’ and should be
rewritten. That commenter suggested
another definition for clarity. Two other
commenters suggested that we adopt the
part 280 UST definition for partially
buried tank, which includes any tank
system such as tank and piping which
has a volume of 10 percent or more
beneath the surface of the ground.
Response to comments. We agree that
the definition could be clearer and have
clarified it. We decline to adopt the part
280 UST definition (at 40 CFR 280.12)
and to classify partially buried tanks as
completely buried tanks, because they
are not. The UST definition might also
exclude some tanks or containers which
would be covered by the SPCC
definition. The UST definition includes
tanks whose volume (including the
volume of underground pipes connected
thereto) are 10 percent or more beneath
the surface of the ground. The SPCC
definition of ‘‘partially buried tank’’
contains no volume percentage and
applies to any tank that is partially
inserted or constructed in the ground,
but not entirely below grade, and not
completely covered with earth.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We clarify that partially buried tanks
may be covered not only with earth, but
with sand, gravel, asphalt, or other
material. The clarification brings the
definition into accord with the
coverings noted in the definition of
‘‘bunkered tank.’’ We added a sentence
to the definition noting that partially
buried tanks are considered
aboveground storage containers for
purposes of this part.
Permanently Closed
Background. EPA proposed a
definition of ‘‘permanently closed’’ in
1991 to clarify the scope of facilities and
tanks or containers excluded from
coverage under the SPCC rule.
Permanently closed containers are those
containers which are no longer capable
of storing or using oil. Permanently
closed facilities are those facilities

which are no longer capable of storing
or using oil.
In permanently closed containers and
facilities, physical changes have been
made so that storage capacity or use is
rendered impossible. Therefore, the
definition describes those changes
which must have occurred before a
container or facility is ‘‘permanently
closed.’’
Comments. In general. Several
commenters favored the proposed
definition. Others opposed it as
unnecessary, believing that ‘‘if a tank is
not used for the storage of oil, it simply
is not subject to the provisions of the
SPCC regulations.’’ Finally, several
commenters suggested that the
definition specifically exclude
temporarily closed tanks.
Waste disposal. Several commenters
urged that the part of the proposal that
dealt with waste disposal be deleted
because waste disposal is already
covered under other programs and
should not be a concern of spill
prevention unless flowable oil is part of
the waste.
Non-oil products. One commenter
asked for clarification that a container
which is no longer used for oil but is
used for some non-oil product be
considered permanently closed.
Connecting lines. Another commenter
asked for clarification as to the meaning
of connecting lines. The commenter
assumed that connecting lines means
the sections of pipe that run between
the tank and the nearest block valve.
Explosive vapors. Numerous
commenters urged that EPA delete any
rules dealing with explosive vapors on
the theory that such vapors are
regulated by the Occupational Health
and Safety Administration (OSHA)
program and other programs. Many of
these same commenters suggested that
placing a sign on a tank indicating that
it has been freed of gas is not a good
safety practice because gas might
subsequently build up within the tank
with catastrophic results.
Retroactivity. Several commenters
suggested that the requirements for a
tank to be permanently closed should
not be applied retroactively to tanks
previously removed from service. The
rationale was that the cost would be
prohibitive, although commenters did
not provide specific cost estimates, and
that it might cause confusion as to
which tanks would have to be included
in facility capacity calculations. These
commenters also asserted that such
tanks have been abandoned and empty,
sometimes for many years, and pose no
threat of discharge.
Response to comments. In general. A
definition is necessary to clarify when a

47077

container is permanently closed and no
longer used for the storage of oil.
Containers that are only closed
temporarily may be returned to storage
purposes and thus may present a threat
of discharge. Therefore, they will
continue to be subject to the rule.
Waste disposal. Reference to waste
disposal in accordance with Federal and
State rules in proposed § 112.2(o)(1) was
deleted as unnecessary surplus. EPA
agrees that other programs adequately
handle waste disposal.
Non-oil products. Containers that
store products other than oil and never
store oil, are not subject to the SPCC
rule whether they are ‘‘permanently
closed’’ as defined or not. If the
containers sometimes store oil and
sometimes store non-oil products, they
are subject to the rule.
Connecting lines. We agree with the
commenter’s assumed definition of
connecting lines. Connecting lines that
have been emptied of oil, and have been
disconnected and blanked off, are
considered permanently closed.
Explosive vapors. We deleted
proposed § 112.2(o)(2) on the suggestion
of commenters that references to
explosive vapors are an OSHA matter
and inappropriate for EPA rules. We
modified proposed § 112.2(o)(3) to
eliminate the reference to signs warning
that ‘‘vapors above the LEL are not
present,’’ because the operator cannot
guarantee that warning remains correct.
To help prevent a buildup of explosive
vapors, we have revised the definition
to provide that ventilation valves need
not be closed. We agree with
commenters that a sign might be
misleading and dangerous.
Retroactivity. We believe that
containers that have been permanently
closed according to the standards
prescribed in the rule qualify for the
designation of ‘‘permanently closed,’’
whether they have been closed before or
after the effective date of the rule.
Containers that cannot meet the
standards prescribed in the rule will not
qualify as permanently closed. We
disagree that the cost of such closure is
prohibitive. We have simplified the
proposal and deleted the proposed
requirement to render the tank free of
explosive vapor. Therefore, costs are
lower. To clarify when a container has
been closed, we have amended the rule
to require that the sign noting closure
show the date of such closure. The date
of such closure must be noted whether
it occurred before or after the effective
date of this provision. Some States and
localities require a permit for tank
closure. A document noting a State
closure inspection may serve as

47078

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

evidence of container closure if it is
dated.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may be useful to effect
the permanent closure of containers or
facilities include: (1) National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 30,
‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code’’; (2) Building Officials and Code
Administrators International (BOCA),
‘‘National Fire Prevention Code’’; (3)
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Standard 2015, ‘‘Safe Entry and
Cleaning of Petroleum Storage Tanks’’;
and, (4) API Recommended Practice
1604, ‘‘Removal and Disposal of Used
Underground Petroleum Storage
Tanks.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’ We
revised the introduction to the
definition to remove the phrase ‘‘that
has been closed’’ because the definition
would have been circular with that
language. Instead the introduction
references the events which must have
occurred in order for a container to meet
the definition.
Person
Background. The definition of
‘‘person’’ proposed in 1991 was
substantively unchanged from the
current rule.
Comments. We received one comment
which urged that we should make clear
that the United States is bound by every
provision of these rules.
Response to comments. See the
discussion above (at § 112.1(c)) for the
applicability of the rule to Federal
agencies and facilities.
Production Facility
Background. The definition of
‘‘production facility’’ replaces two
definitions in the proposed rule, i.e., Oil
drilling, production, or workover
facilities (offshore), proposed § 112.2(j),
and Oil production facilities (onshore),
proposed § 112.2(k). We replaced the
two proposed definitions with the
revised definition for editorial brevity as
the proposed definitions contained
many identical elements. This editorial
effort effects no substantive changes in
the requirements for the particular types
of production facilities. Each facility
must follow the requirements applicable
to that facility, which is generally based
on its operations, for example, a
workover facility.
Comments. Flowlines and gathering
lines. Several commenters suggested
that flowlines and gathering lines
should be deleted from the definition
because they believed that the
installation of structures and equipment
to prevent discharged oil from reaching

navigable waters is not practicable for
flowlines and gathering lines.
Wells and separators. Other
commenters also argued for the
exemption of wells and separators.
DOT definition. Another commenter
urged consistency between the proposed
EPA definition and the DOT definition
found at 49 CFR 195.2.
Single oil or gas field, single operator.
One commenter asserted that the
inclusion of the phrases ‘‘in a single oil
or gas field’’ and ‘‘operated by a single
operator’’ in the definition is
confounding. The commenter urged that
the producing segment of the industry
needs to be able to combine facilities
into one SPCC Plan with an
identification of the wells to which that
Plan applies. The commenter
questioned whether the inclusion of the
word ‘‘single’’ would preclude an
operator’s ability to do so.
Natural gas. Another commenter
asked for clarification that natural gas
processing facilities are not subject to
rules for oil facilities.
Response to comments. Flowlines and
gathering lines. Wells and separators.
EPA disagrees that flowlines and
gathering lines, as well as wells and
separators, should be excluded from the
definition. These structures or
equipment are integral parts of
production facilities and should
therefore be included in the definition.
We also disagree with the argument that
because the installation of structures
and equipment to prevent discharges
around gathering lines and flowlines
may not be practicable, EPA will be
flooded with contingency plans. First of
all, secondary containment may be
practicable. In § 112.7(c), we list sorbent
materials, drainage systems, and other
equipment as possible forms of
secondary containment systems. We
realize that in many cases, secondary
containment may not be practicable. If
secondary containment is not
practicable, you must provide in your
SPCC Plan a contingency plan following
the provisions of part 109, and
otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). We
have deleted the proposed 1993
provision that would have required you
to provide contingency plans as a matter
of course to the Regional Administrator.
Therefore, you will rarely have to
submit a contingency plan to EPA. The
contingency plan you do provide in
your SPCC Plan when secondary
containment is not practicable for
flowlines and gathering lines should
rely on strong maintenance, corrosion
protection, testing, recordkeeping, and
inspection procedures to prevent and
quickly detect discharges from such
lines. It should also provide for the

quick availability of response
equipment.
DOT definition. We changed the
proposed definition to be more
consistent with the DOT definition,
found at 49 CFR 195.2, in response to
a commenter who urged consistency in
EPA and DOT definitions. We added the
uses of the piping and equipment
detailed in DOT rule to our proposal, for
example, ‘‘production, extraction,
recovery, lifting, stabilization,
separation, or treating’’ of oil. The terms
‘‘separation equipment,’’ used in the
proposed definition of ‘‘oil production
facilities (onshore)’’, and ‘‘workover
equipment,’’ used in the proposed
definition of ‘‘oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities (offshore)’’, were
combined into a generic ‘‘equipment.’’
However, we also modified the
proposed definition to reflect EPA
jurisdiction. We added the word
‘‘structure,’’ which was not in the DOT
definition, to cover necessary parts of a
production facility. We also added
examples of types of piping, structures,
and equipment. These examples are not
an exclusive list of the possible piping,
structures, or equipment covered under
the definition. The new definition
encompasses all those facilities that
would have been covered under both
former proposed definitions. As we
proposed in 1991, and as in the current
rule, we have retained geographic and
ownership limitations.
Single oil or gas field, single operator.
‘‘A single geographical oil or gas field’’
may consist of one or more natural
formations containing oil. The
determination of its boundaries is areaspecific. Such formation may underlie
one or many facilities, regardless of
whether any natural or man-made
physical geographical barriers on the
surface intervene such as a mountain
range, river, or road. We disagree that
the term ‘‘a single operator’’ is
confusing. An ‘‘owner’’ or ‘‘operator’’ is
defined in § 112.2 as any ‘‘person
owning or operating an onshore facility
or an offshore facility, and in the case
of any abandoned offshore facility, the
person who owned or operated or
maintained such facility immediately
prior to abandonment.’’ A ‘‘person’’ is
not restricted to a single natural person.
‘‘Person’’ is a defined term in the rule
(at § 112.2) which includes an
individual, firm, corporation,
association, or partnership.
Nothing in the definition would
preclude an owner or operator from
combining elements of a production
facility into one SPCC Plan with an
identification of the wells to which that
Plan applies.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Natural gas. Because natural gas is
not oil, natural gas facilities that do not
store or use oil are not covered by this
rule. However, you should note, that
drip or condensate from natural gas
production is an oil. The storage of such
drip or condensate must be included in
the calculation of oil stored or used at
the facility.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
One commenter suggested that the
definitions proposed were ambiguous
because of the use of the words ‘‘may
include.’’ We have eliminated the
potential ambiguity caused by the words
‘‘may include’’ by revising the
definition with the words ‘‘Production
facility means.’’
Regional Administrator
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
definition of ‘‘Regional Administrator’’
that was substantively unchanged from
the current rule. In the final rule, we
have deleted language concerning the
‘‘designee’’ of the EPA Regional
Administrator because the language is
unnecessary. Since the Regional
Administrator has authority to delegate
most functions, the term ‘‘designee’’ is
almost always implied. When he does
not have authority to delegate a
function, the term ‘‘designee’’ is
likewise unnecessary. We received no
substantive comments.
Repair
Background. In 1993, we proposed a
definition of ‘‘repair’’ in conjunction
with the proposed rule for brittle
fracture evaluation.
Comments. Ordinary maintenance.
Two commenters asked for clarification
of the term ‘‘repair,’’ so that it would
exclude ordinary day-to-day
maintenance activities which are
conducted to maintain the functional
integrity of the tank. Another asked that
the infinitive ‘‘to maintain’’ be deleted
from the definition of repair so that
evaluation for brittle fracture would not
be required after ordinary, day-to-day
maintenance.
Related equipment. Another
commenter suggested that we conform
the proposed definition of ‘‘repair’’ with
the API 653 definition, specifically
deleting the phase ‘‘or related
equipment.’’
Response to comments. Ordinary
maintenance. Some repairs in the
nature of ordinary maintenance that do
not weaken the integrity of the container
might not necessitate brittle fracture
evaluation. ‘‘Repair’’ means any work
necessary to maintain or restore a
container or related equipment to a
condition suitable for safe operation.
Typical examples of a repair that would

trigger a brittle fracture evaluation
include the removal and replacement of
material (such as roof, shell, or bottom
material, including weld metal) to
maintain tank integrity; the re-leveling
or jacking of a tank shell, bottom, or
roof; the addition of reinforcing plates to
existing shell penetrations; and the
repair of flaws, such as tears or gouges,
by grinding or gouging followed by
welding. The definition of ‘‘repair’’ also
includes reconstruction. Reconstruction
means the work necessary to reassemble
a container that has been dismantled
and relocated to a new site. We have
amended the definition to reflect that
ordinary, day-to-day maintenance that
does not weaken the integrity of the
container will not trigger the brittle
fracture evaluation requirement.
Related equipment. We agree with the
commenter and will not include the
term ‘‘or related equipment’’ in the
definition to conform with API Standard
653, which does not include repairs of
related equipment as a criterion for a
brittle fracture evaluation.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may be helpful in
understanding the definition of repair
(and reconstruction) include API
Standard 653, ‘‘Tank Inspection, Repair,
Alteration, and Reconstruction.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’
Spill Event
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
modify the definition of ‘‘spill event’’ to
correspond to the changes described in
the applicability section of this rule (i.e.,
§ 112.1(b)) relating to the expanded
scope of CWA jurisdiction.
Comments. One commenter opposed
the definition without explaining why.
Several commenters argued that the
definition should apply only to
discharges to navigable waters.
Response to comments. We have
withdrawn the proposed definition of
‘‘spill event,’’ and have also deleted the
term from the rule. We take this action
because the term is not mentioned in
the CWA and is unnecessary. The term
is unnecessary because the word
‘‘discharge’’ is adequate. ‘‘Discharge’’ is
the term used in the CWA. A discharge
as described in § 112.1(b) is the same as
a spill event. As to the comment on EPA
jurisdiction, we disagree that our
jurisdiction should apply only to
discharges to navigable waters because
the CWA establishes our jurisdiction
beyond navigable waters (see the
discussion under § 112.1(b)), and we
have the responsibility to protect the
environment within the scope of our
statutory jurisdiction.

47079

Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan, SPCC Plan or
Plan
Background. In 1997, we reproposed
the definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ and
withdrew the 1991 proposal. The 1997
proposal would broaden the acceptable
formats of SPCC Plans, eliminating the
requirement that the Plan meet the
format or sequence formerly specified in
the rule.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. One commenter suggested
that the last two sentences in the
proposed definition should be deleted
because they contain substantive
requirements, and relocated to § 112.7.
Another commenter thought that the
SPCC definition should be revised to
say that the Plan documents spill
prevention measures and not
compliance with the rule, because
compliance is determined by comparing
the contents of the Plan with the rules.
Response Plan. A few commenters
opposed the definition on the theory
that it constitutes a type of response
plan. Those commenters argued that the
thrust of the definition should be on
spill containment, not paperwork.
Acceptable formats. Many
commenters favored the proposal.
Several suggested various formats that
might qualify such as Integrated
Contingency Plans, State Plans,
Electrical Equipment Area Response
Plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans, and others. One commenter
thought that EPA should specify
acceptable formats. Several commenters
suggested that various formats such as
Integrated Contingency Plans and State
Plans are presumptively acceptable.
Response to comments. Response
Plan. We disagree that the proposed
definition constitutes a ‘‘response plan.’’
The definition results in no substantive
changes in response planning
requirements.
Acceptable formats. We agree that any
equivalent prevention plan acceptable
to the Regional Administrator qualifies
as an SPCC Plan as long as it meets all
Federal requirements (including
certification by a Professional Engineer),
and is cross-referenced from the
requirement in part 112 to the page of
the equivalent plan. We do not agree
that we should specify acceptable
formats. We will give examples of those
acceptable formats, but those examples
are not meant to be exhaustive.
Examples of an ‘‘equivalent
prevention plan’’ might be, for instance,
an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP), a
State plan, a Best Management Practice
Plan (which is a component of the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan),

47080

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

or other plan that meets all the
requirements of part 112 and is
supplemented by a cross-reference
section identifying the location of
elements in part 112 to the equivalent
requirement in the other plan. We
repeat EPA’s commitment to the ICP
format, and encourage owners or
operators to use it. If the equivalent
prevention plan has no requirement that
a Professional Engineer certify it, it will
be necessary to secure proper
certification from the Professional
Engineer to comply with the SPCC rule.
An equivalent Plan might be a Plan
following the SPCC sequence in effect
before this final rule became effective. If
you choose to use the sequence of the
rule currently in effect, you may do so,
but you must cross-reference the
requirements in the revised rule to the
sequence used in your Plan. We have
provided a table in section IV.A of
today’s preamble to help you crossreference the requirements more easily.
If the only change you make is the
addition of cross-referencing, you need
not have a Professional Engineer certify
that change.
Another example of an equivalent
plan might include a multi-facility plan
for operating equipment. This type of
plan is intended for electrical utility
transmission systems, electrical cable
systems, and similar facilities which
might aggregate equipment located in
diverse areas into one plan. Examples of
operating equipment containing oil
include electrical equipment such as
substations, transformers, capacitors,
buried cable equipment, and oil circuit
breakers.
A general, multi-facility plan for
operational equipment used in various
manufacturing processes containing
over the threshold amount of oil might
also be acceptable as an SPCC Plan.
Examples of operating equipment used
in manufacturing that contains oil
include small lube oil systems, fat traps,
hydraulic power presses, hydraulic
pumps, injection molding machines,
auto boosters, certain metalworking
machinery and associated fluid transfer
systems, and oil based heaters.
Whenever you add or remove operating
equipment in your Plan that materially
affects the potential for a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), you must amend
your Plan. 40 CFR 112.5(a).
Multi-facility plans would include all
elements required for individual plans.
Site-specific information would be
required for all equipment included in
each plan. However, the site-specific
information might be maintained in a
separate location, such as a central
office, or an electronic data base, as long
as such information was immediately

accessible to responders and inspectors.
If you keep the information in an
electronic data base, you must also keep
a paper or other backup that is
immediately accessible for emergency
response purposes, or for EPA
inspectors, in case the computer is not
functioning. Where you place that sitespecific information would be a
question of allowable formatting, as is
the question of what is an ‘‘equivalent’’
plan; an issue subject to RA discretion.
Still another example of an equivalent
plan might be a Best Management
Practice Plan (BMP) plan prepared
under an NPDES permit, if the plan
provides protections equivalent to SPCC
Plans. Not all BMP plans will qualify, as
some BMP plans might not provide
equivalent protection. NPDES permits
without BMP plans would not qualify.
BMP plans are additional conditions
which may supplement effluent
limitations in NPDES permits. Under
section 402(a)(1) of the CWA, BMP
plans may be imposed when the
Administrator determines that such
conditions are necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Act. See 40 CFR
122.44(k). CWA section 304(e)
authorizes EPA to promulgate BMP
plans as effluent limitations guidelines.
NPDES rules provide for BMP plans
when: authorized under section 304(e)
of the CWA for the control of toxic
pollutants and hazardous substances;
numeric limitations are infeasible; or,
the practices are reasonably necessary to
achieve effluent limitations and
standards to carry out the purposes of
the CWA.
Any format that contains all the
required elements of an SPCC Plan and
provides equivalent environmental
protection would be presumptively
acceptable. The final decision on what
is an ‘‘equivalent’’ plan, however,
would be at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator. ‘‘Equivalence’’
would not mean that an alternate format
would be the mirror image of an SPCC
Plan, but it would have to contain all
the required elements of an SPCC Plan.
Required elements include, but are not
limited to, provisions for a written plan,
secondary containment or a contingency
plan following 40 CFR part 109,
equivalent inspections and tests,
security, personnel training, and
certification of the plan by a
Professional Engineer. Acceptance of an
equivalent plan does not, however,
imply any type of approval or
submission process. As before, SPCC
Plans are generally not submitted to the
Regional Administrator. The Regional
Administrator could accept an
equivalent prevention plan if it: (1)
meets all regulatory requirements in the

SPCC rule; and (2) is supplemented by
a cross-reference section identifying
requirements listed in part 112 to the
equivalent requirements in the other
prevention plan. Partial use of other
equivalent prevention plans is also
acceptable, if the plan is supplemented
by elements that meet the remainder of
the EPA requirements contained in part
112.
Written Plans. We agree that a
‘‘written’’ Plan might also include texts,
graphs, charts, maps, photos, and tables,
on whatever media, including floppy
disk, CD, hard drive, and tape storage,
that allows the document to be easily
accessed, comprehended, distributed,
viewed, updated, and printed. Whatever
medium you use, however, must be
readily accessible to response personnel
in an emergency. If it is produced in a
medium that is not readily accessible in
an emergency, it must be also available
in a medium that is. For example, a Plan
might be electronically produced, but
computers fail and may not be operable
in an emergency. For an electronic Plan
or Plan produced in some other
medium, therefore, a backup copy must
be readily available on paper. At least
one version of the Plan should be
written in English so that it will be
readily understood by an EPA inspector.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The word ‘‘guidelines’’ was replaced
with ‘‘requirements,’’ as proposed in
1991. EPA agrees with the relocation of
the last two sentences of the definition.
Therefore, we have transferred those
sentences to the introduction of § 112.7,
in order to maintain the principle that
definitions should not contain
substantive requirements. We have also
changed the last sentence which was
proposed as ‘‘* * * provide adequate
countermeasures to an oil spill’’ to read
‘‘* * * provide adequate
countermeasures to a discharge.’’ We
agree that the Plan does not document
compliance, but merely spill prevention
measures and have deleted the sentence
noting that the Plan documents
compliance with the rules. Compliance
is determined by comparing the
contents of the Plan with the
regulations.
Storage capacity
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
definition of ‘‘storage capacity’’ to
clarify that it includes the total capacity
of a container capable of storing oil or
oil mixtures. We explained that because
the percentage of oil in a mixture is
determined by the operator and can be
changed at will, the total capacity of a
container is considered in determining
applicability under this part, regardless
of whether the container is filled with

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
oil or a mixture of oil and another
substance, as long as a discharge from
such container could violate the
harmful quantity standards in 40 CFR
part 110.
Comments. In general. One
commenter strongly favored the
proposal.
Standard of measurement. One
commenter asserted that volume was
the proper measure of storage capacity,
not total capacity. Another commenter
suggested a ‘‘working capacity’’
standard. Other commenters argued that
the definition should apply only to
containers meeting the definition of a
bulk storage tank, and that only the oil
storage capacity of the container be
considered. Similarly, a commenter
asserted that the ‘‘design capacity’’ of a
container is what should count as
storage capacity because electrical
equipment or other interior components
might reduce the volume of oil capable
of being stored.
Exclusions—small containers; waste
treatment facilities, secondary
containment containers. Small
containers. Most commenters were
opposed to the proposed definition
because they either wanted an exclusion
for small containers or because they
wanted an exclusion for containers
containing de minimis amounts of oil.
These commenters argued that small
containers would not present a
significant threat of discharge.
Waste treatment facilities. The
rationale of commenters supporting an
exemption for waste treatment
containers was that some containers had
non-usable space at the top of the
container; also some containers contain
only trace amounts of oil. Therefore, for
example, storage tanks used to store or
treat wastewaters are likely to have to be
considered when determining storage
capacity since many wastewaters have
incidental oil content prior to treatment.
They also argued that the definition
would subject publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) to the rule because
tanks used to control stormwater surges
might contain small amounts of oil from
runoff from parking lots and city streets.
Secondary containment containers.
Some commenters argued that the
definition would apply to tanks used to
provide secondary containment when
determining the storage capacity of a
facility.
Response to comments. Standard of
measurement. In most instances the
shell capacity of a container will define
its storage capacity. The shell capacity
(or nominal or gross capacity) is the
amount of oil that a container is
designed to hold. If a certain portion of
a container is incapable of storing oil

because of its integral design, for
example electrical equipment or other
interior component might take up space,
then the shell capacity of the container
is reduced to the volume the container
might hold. When the integral design of
a container has been altered by actions
such as drilling a hole in the side of the
container so that it cannot hold oil
above that point, shell capacity remains
the measure of storage capacity because
such alteration can be altered again at
will to restore the former storage
capacity. When the alteration is an
action such as the installation of a
double bottom or new floor to the
container, the integral design of the
container has changed, and may result
in a reduction in shell capacity. We
disagree that operating volume should
be the measurement, because the
operating volume of a tank can be
changed at will to below its shell
capacity.
The keys to the definition are the
availability of the container for drilling,
producing, gathering, storing,
processing, refining, transferring,
distributing, using, or consuming oil,
and whether it is available for one of
those uses or whether it is permanently
closed. Containers available for one of
the above described uses count towards
storage capacity, those not used for
these activities do not. Types of
containers counted as storage capacity
would include some flow-through
separators, tanks used for ‘‘emergency’’
storage, transformers, and other oilfilled equipment.
Exclusions—small containers; waste
treatment facilities. Small containers.
This definition is applicable to both
large and small storage and use
capacity. Owners or operators of small
facilities above the regulatory threshold
are subject to the rule, and need to know
how to calculate their storage or use
capacity.
However, in the applicability section
of the rule, we have excluded containers
of less than 55 gallons from the scope
of the SPCC rule, addressing the
comments of those commenters who
argued for a minimum container size.
See § 112.1(d)(5). A container above that
size that is available for use or storage
containing even small volumes of oil
must be counted in storage capacity.
Waste treatment facilities. We agree
with the commenter that a facility or
part thereof (except at an oil production,
oil recovery, or oil recycling facility)
used exclusively for wastewater
treatment system and not to meet any
part 112 requirement should not be
considered storage capacity because
wastewater treatment is neither use nor
storage of oil. Therefore, we have

47081

exempted such facilities or parts thereof
from the rule. However, note that
certain parts of such facilities may
continue to be subject to the rule. See
the discussion under § 112.1(d)(6).
Secondary containment containers.
Containers which are used for
secondary containment and not storage
or use, are not counted as storage
capacity.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We use the word ‘‘container’’ instead of
‘‘tank or container,’’ because a tank is a
type of container. We have clarified the
definition to provide that the storage
capacity of a container is the volume of
oil that the container could hold, and
have therefore substituted the words
‘‘shell capacity’’ of the container for
‘‘total capacity.’’ This is merely a
clarification, and not a substantive
change. We also deleted the words ‘‘for
purposes of determining applicability of
this part,’’ because the words were
unnecessary. We also deleted the last
phrase of the proposed definition,
‘‘whether the tank or container is filled
with oil or a mixture of oil and other
substances,’’ because the contents of the
container do not affect the definition of
its shell capacity.
Transportation-related and nontransportation-related
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current definition of
‘‘transportation-related and nontransportation-related.’’ We received no
comments on the proposal. Therefore,
we have promulgated the definition as
proposed.
United States
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
revise the definition of ‘‘United States’’
to conform to the definition enacted in
the 1978 amendments to the CWA. We
received no comments on this proposal.
Therefore, we have promulgated the
definition as proposed.
Vessel
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current definition of vessel. We
received no comments on this proposal.
Therefore, we have promulgated the
definition as proposed. We note that a
barge or other watercraft that has been
determined by the Coast Guard to be
permanently moored to the shore, and
used for storage, is no longer being used
as a vessel, and does not fit within the
definition of vessel. Rather, it becomes
a bulk storage container counted as
storage capacity. The same concept is
found in the rules for mobile facilities
at § 112.3(c), which provides that SPCC
Plans apply to mobile facilities only

47082

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘while the facility is in a fixed (nontransportation) operating mode.’’
Wetlands
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
definition of ‘‘wetlands’’ to define the
term as used in the definition of
‘‘navigable waters.’’ The definition of
wetlands conforms to the definition in
40 CFR part 110 relating to the
discharge of oil.
Comments. Several commenters
opposed the definition because they
believe that it includes a series of
examples which may or may not be
correct. They also alleged that the
definition fails to implement the 1987
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Manual or the documents implementing
that Manual. Another commenter asked
for EPA clarification of what is a
wetland, given the ‘‘vague and arguable
notion of a wetland.’’
Response to comments. The examples
listed in the definition are intended to
help the reader with guidelines to
identify wetlands. While the examples
generally represent types of wetlands,
they are not intended to be a categorical
listing of such wetlands. There may be
examples listed that under some
circumstances do not constitute
wetlands. We believe that the 1987
Wetlands Manual is a useful source
material for wetlands guidance. It would
be impossible to specify in a rule every
type of situation where wetlands occur.
The examples listed in the definition are
not exclusive, but provide help in
clarifying what may be a wetland.
Section 112.3 Introduction
Background. We have added an
introduction to § 112.3 as an editorial
device to simplify the language in the
paragraphs of this section.
Section 112.3(a)—Time Line for
Preparation and Implementation of
Plans for Existing Facilities
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
require owners or operators of onshore
and offshore facilities in operation 60
days after the effective date of this final
rule to ‘‘maintain a prepared and fully
implemented facility SPCC Plan. . . . ’’
We proposed giving these owners or
operators 60 days from the date the final
rule was published to revise their
existing Plans and implement the
revisions. The proposed rule also
reflected the expanded geographic scope
of the rule provided by CWA
amendments.
Comments. Time period to prepare
and implement a Plan. A number of
commenters favored the proposal. Many
more favored a ‘‘phase-in’’ period, or a
longer period within which to comply.

Commenters suggested compliance
periods ranging from 60 days to 7 years.
Many commenters clustered around the
suggestion that a 6 month phase-in
period be allowed. Many others
suggested compliance by the next threeyear review, as required by § 112.5(b) at
that time.
Extensions. Several commenters
asked that extensions of time to prepare
and implement Plans be automatic if
Plans must be in effect prior to the
commencement of operations. Another
suggested that extension requests be
considered ‘‘routine.’’
Acquired facilities. One commenter
asked how we would treat acquired
facilities, whether as new or continuing
operation facilities.
Start of operations. One commenter
asked when operations start, stating that
is not always a clearly defined time. The
commenter suggested that instead of
requiring a prepared and implemented
Plan, we should allow that a response
team be in place.
Small facilities. One commenter
asserted that the time line for Plan
preparation and implementation was
unreasonable for small facilities, and
asked that facilities with under 10,000gallon capacity be allowed to operate
while developing and implementing a
Plan.
Response to comments. Time period
to prepare and implement a Plan. We
have been persuaded by commenters
that a longer phase-in period than 60
days is required for facilities currently
in operation or about to become
operational within one year after the
effective date of this rule.
Facilities currently in operation. For a
facility in operation on the effective date
of this rule, we changed the dates in the
proposed rule for preparation and
implementation of plans from 60 days to
a maximum of one year to accord with
the time frames in the current rule. The
owner or operator of a facility in
operation on the effective date of this
rule will have 6 months to amend his
Plan and must fully implement any
amendment as soon as possible, but
within one year of the effective date of
the rule at the latest. The owner or
operator of a facility which has had a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or
reasonably could be expected to have
one, already has an obligation to prepare
and implement a Plan.
For example, an owner or operator
whose facility became operational four
years before the effective date of this
rule is the owner or operator of a facility
currently in operation on the effective
date of this rule. He is therefore subject
to current § 112.3(b), and should have
prepared his Plan no later than three

and one half years before the effective
date of this rule, and fully implemented
it no later than three years before the
effective date of this rule. Assuming that
he still has not prepared a Plan on the
effective date of the rule, he must
prepare and fully implement a Plan
immediately that meets the
requirements of the revised rule. He is
subject to penalties for violation of
current § 112.3(b) until he does so, and
the penalties would accrue from the
time the original deadlines passed
before the effective date of this rule. The
owner or operator of a facility which
became operational four years before the
effective date of the rule, and who
prepared and fully implemented his
Plan in compliance with current
§ 112.3(b), must amend his Plan within
6 months of the effective date of this
rule to meet the requirements of the
revised rule, and fully implement the
amended Plan as soon as possible, but
no later than one year after the effective
date of the rule.
An owner or operator whose facility
became operational 7 months before the
effective date of the rule is an owner or
operator of a facility currently in
operation and is therefore subject to
current § 112.3(b). He should have
prepared his Plan one month before the
effective date of this rule. If he did, he
will have 6 months from the effective
date of this rule to amend that Plan to
meet the requirements of the revised
rule, and must fully implement the
amended Plan as soon as possible, but
within one year of the effective date of
this rule. If he has not prepared a Plan
by the effective date of the current rule
as required, then he must prepare and
fully implement a Plan immediately that
meets the requirements of the revised
rule. He is subject to penalties for
violation of current § 112.3(b) until he
does so.
An owner or operator whose facility
became operational 4 months before the
effective date of this rule is also an
owner or operator of a facility currently
in operation on the effective date of this
rule and therefore subject to the current
rule. However, in this case, the 6-month
deadline to prepare a Plan under the
current § 112.3(b) has not yet passed.
Therefore, the owner or operator is
subject to the Plan preparation and
implementation deadlines in § 112.3(a)
of the revised rule. He now has 6
months from the effective date of this
rule to prepare a Plan that meets the
requirements of this rule. If he had
already prepared a Plan under current
§ 112.3(b), he has 6 months from the
effective date of this rule to amend that
Plan. In either case, he must fully
implement the Plan (or amended Plan)

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
as soon as possible after the 6-month
Plan preparation deadline of this rule,
but no later than one year after the
effective date of this rule.
The owner or operator of a facility in
operation on the effective date of this
rule who is required to have prepared or
implemented an SPCC Plan, but has not,
remains subject to penalties for
violation of current SPCC regulations.
Such owner or operator is consequently
subject to civil penalties for a violation
of current § 112.3 if the time has expired
for preparation or implementation of his
Plan.
Facilities becoming operational
within one year after the effective date
of the rule August 13, 2003. If you begin
operations after the effective date of the
rule through one year after the effective
date of this rule August 16, 2002, you
will have until one year from the
effective date of this rule to prepare and
implement your Plan. In other words, if
the rule becomes effective on January 1,
and you begin operations on January 2,
you must prepare and implement your
Plan by January 1 of the following year.
If you begin operations on June 30, you
still have until January 1 of the
following year to prepare and
implement your plan. If you begin
operations on December 31, you still
have until January 1 (the next day) of
the following year to prepare and
implement your Plan. The rationale for
the time frame in the rule is that you
will have had notice of the Plan
preparation and implementation
requirements from the publication date
of the rule, a period of 30 days plus one
year. In addition, you would already
have had notice of the general
requirement for preparation of an SPCC
Plan from the current part 112
regulations. Therefore, the owner or
operator of a facility planning to become
operational within one year after the
effective date of this rule should start
working on his Plan in time to have it
fully implemented within the year.
New facilities. The owner or operator
of a facility that becomes operational
more than one year after the effective
date of this rule must prepare and
implement a Plan before beginning
operations.
A year phase-in period is in line with
legitimate business and investment
expectations. It allows a reasonable
period of time for facilities to undertake
necessary constructions, purchases of
equipment, or to effect changes of
procedures. And again, the general
requirement for preparation of a Plan
already exists in part 112, so new
facilities should already have been
aware of the need for a Plan.

Extensions. While we have extended
the time period for compliance, we
understand that some facilities may still
need extensions of time to comply.
Extensions may be necessary to secure
necessary manpower or equipment, or
to construct necessary structures. If you
are an owner or operator and an
extension is necessary, you may seek
one under § 112.3(f). If no Plan
amendments are necessary after you
review today’s rule, you must maintain
your current Plan and cross-reference its
elements to the redesignated
requirements.
Acquired facilities. For SPCC
purposes, we consider acquired
facilities as facilities that are already
operating rather than new facilities
because these facilities must already
have SPCC Plans if they exceed
applicable thresholds.
Start of operations. Start of operations
is when you begin to store or use oil at
a facility. Often this may be a testing or
calibration period prior to start up of
normal operations. With the extended
time line we have provided, no response
team is required, but such a team may
be a good engineering practice. At a
minimum, you must prepare and
implement a Plan as required by this
rule.
Small facilities. With the extended
time line we have provided, all
facilities, large or small, have adequate
notice and time in which to prepare and
implement a Plan.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the first sentence of the
proposed rule from the final rule
because it is unnecessary. It is
unnecessary because the obligation to
have prepared a Plan is incurred under
current section § 112.3(b) for the owner
or operator of a facility in operation
before the effective date of this rule. For
the owner or operator of a facility that
becomes operational on or after the
effective date of this rule, revised
§ 112.3 provides the time period within
which he must prepare and implement
a Plan. The deleted sentence read,
‘‘Owners or operators of onshore
facilities that become operational after
September 16, 2002, and could be
reasonably be expected to discharge oil
as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this part,
shall prepare a facility SPCC Plan in
accordance with § 112.7, and in
accordance with any of the following
sections that apply to the facility:
§§ 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11.’’
Section 112.3(b)—Time Line for
Preparation and Implementation of
Plans for New Facilities
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that new facilities contemplating the

47083

start of operations be required to
prepare and fully implement Plans
before beginning operations. Our
rationale was that our experience
showed that many types of failures
occur during or shortly following
facility startup and virtually all
prevention, containment, and
countermeasure practices are a part of
the facility design or construction.
Comments. Many commenters
suggested various phase-in periods, as
discussed above.
Response to comments. We believe
that our original rationale is still correct.
Experience with the implementation of
this regulation shows that many types of
failures occur during or shortly
following startup and that virtually all
prevention, containment, and
countermeasure practices are part of the
facility design or construction.
Therefore, it can be beneficial to the
environment and carries out the intent
of the statute if a facility Plan is
prepared and implemented before
startup. However, to provide sufficient
notice to new facilities that a Plan must
be prepared and implemented before
beginning operations, we have delayed
implementation of this section until one
year after the effective date this rule. If
you begin operations within one year of
the effective date of this rule, you must
comply with the requirements in
§ 112.3(a). However, if you begin
operations more than one year after the
effective date of this rule, your facility
would be ‘‘new’’ and you would have to
prepare and implement an SPCC Plan
before you begin operations. If you need
an extension to comply, you may seek
one under § 112.3(f).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The phrase ‘‘* * * could reasonably be
expected to discharge oil, as described
in § 112.1(b) of this part* * *’’ becomes
‘‘could reasonably be expected to have
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
Section 112.3(c)—Time Line for
Preparation and Implementation of
Plans for Mobile Facilities
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that owners or operators of onshore and
offshore mobile facilities be required to
have a prepared and implemented Plan
before beginning operations. Since
existing mobile facilities are a subset of
existing facilities, we generally assume
that these facilities already have a Plan
in place, as the rule now requires. 40
CFR 112.3(c). Both new and existing
mobile facilities would therefore have to
comply with the rule requiring a fully
prepared and implemented Plan before
beginning operations.
Comments. In general. One
commenter believed that requiring Plans

47084

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

for mobile facilities is unworkable
because their physical surroundings are
subject to change. Another commenter
supported our proposal to allow general
Plans for mobile facilities.
Multi-well drilling programs. One
commenter asked if Plan updates would
be required in a field where a multi-well
drilling program is underway. The
commenter suggested that updates
should be required only after the
drilling program is complete.
Response to comments. In general.
We agree that the physical surroundings
of mobile facilities are subject to change.
However, we disagree that changing
physical surroundings should exempt
mobile facilities from the rule. Mobile
facilities may have ‘‘general’’ Plans and
need not prepare a new Plan each time
the facility is moved to a new site.
When a mobile facility is moved, it must
be located and installed using the spill
prevention practices outlined in the
Plan for the facility.
Mobile facilities currently in
operation are assumed to have
implemented Plans already, because
they are currently legally required to do
so. Both new and existing mobile
facilities must have Plans prepared and
fully implemented before operations
may begin. If after your review of
today’s rule, you decide that no
amendment to your Plan is necessary,
except for cross-referencing, you may
continue to operate under your existing
Plan, but you must promptly crossreference the provisions in the Plan to
the new format. Extension requests
under § 112.3(f) are also available for
mobile facilities under the proper
conditions.
Multi-well drilling programs. It is not
necessary to amend the Plan every time
you drill a well in a field containing
multiple wells. A general Plan will
suffice.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the phrase ‘‘using good
engineering practice,’’ in the third
sentence of the paragraph because good
engineering practice is required of all
Plans. See the introduction to § 112.7.
Therefore, the phrase was unnecessary.
Section 112.3(d)—Certification by
Professional Engineers
Background. The current rule only
requires that the Professional Engineer
(PE), having examined the facility and
being familiar with the provisions of
part 112, attest by means of his
certification that the Plan has been
prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices. In 1991, we
proposed to add specificity to the
meaning of the certification
requirements for a PE. We proposed that

the PE attest that he is familiar with the
requirements of part 112, that he has
visited the facility, that the Plan has
been prepared in accordance with good
engineering practice and the
requirements of part 112, that required
testing has been completed, and that the
Plan is adequate for the facility.
Comments. Certification requirement.
Most commenters supported a
certification requirement for PEs. Some
opposed it on grounds that if all the
components of the Plan were specified
by rule, then certification is
unnecessary. One U.S. territory, U.S.
Samoa, noted that it doesn’t register
PEs, arguably making compliance with
the rule difficult for owners or operators
of facilities in Samoa.
Other commenters thought a PE
certification requirement was
unnecessarily burdensome and costly
for small facilities, but did not provide
cost estimates. One commenter asserted
that PE certification should not be
required for small facilities, due mainly
to the prohibitive cost. The commenter
also maintained that most small
facilities have tanks that are required by
State or local law to have the
Underwriters Laboratory Seal of
Approval and to have submitted a
detailed plan for review and approval to
the fire marshal prior to installation.
Certification by other environmental
professionals. Several commenters
suggested that certification could be
effected by another environmental
professional, rather than a PE, or by
another environmental professional
with PE oversight.
Good engineering practice. One
commenter noted that EPA specified in
the 1991 preamble that the application
of good engineering practice will require
that appropriate provisions of
applicable codes, standards, and
regulations be incorporated into the
SPCC Plan for a particular facility. 56
FR 54617–18. The commenter added,
however, that we do not define ‘‘good
engineering practice’’ for this program,
and urged EPA to specify in more detail
as to its understanding of the term.
Testing. Some commenters wrote that
it would be better for the PE to
enumerate all the inspections and tests
that have been completed, plus those
that should be completed before the
facility commences operations and
those that should be undertaken
periodically after it commences
operations. A few commenters objected
to the proposed requirement that the PE
attest that required testing has been
completed, suggesting instead that the
operator is responsible for completion of
testing. Another commenter suggested
that the PE be allowed to attest to the

presence of those written procedures
which require testing.
Non-technical changes. Most
supported the idea that non-technical
changes to a Plan (for example, the
emergency contact list, phone numbers,
or names) need not have PE
certification.
Time limit for PE certification. One
commenter suggested a time limit of
three years or less on PE certification,
suggesting that the PE should be
required to reinspect the premises
periodically, preferably annually, to
ascertain that the Plan continues to be
implemented.
PE costs. Some commenters argued
that requiring an independent or outside
PE for Plan certification would be
extremely expensive for facilities
located in remote areas. These
commenters were principally concerned
that we did not fully account for the
cost to a facility owner or operator for
a PE to visit each facility before
certifying a Plan. Requiring the use of an
independent or outside PE could be
burdensome to facility owners or
operators.
Response to Comments. Certification
requirement. PE certification of all
facilities, both large and small, is
necessary because a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b) from any size
facility may be harmful, and PE review
and certification of a Plan may help
prevent that discharge. We disagree that
PE certification is prohibitively costly
for small facilities. A Plan certified by
a PE may well save the owner or
operator money due to improved facility
operations and decreased likelihood of
discharge, thus averting potentially
costly cleanups. Because a Plan for a
smaller facility is likely to be less
complicated than a Plan for a larger
facility, PE certification costs should
likewise be lower for a smaller facility.
In our Information Collection Request,
estimated total costs for a new facility
to prepare and begin implementation of
a Plan, including PE certification costs,
are $2,201 for a small facility, $2,164 for
a medium facility, and $2,540 for a large
facility. This cost is incurred only in the
year that the facility first becomes
subject to the rule. This one-time cost
incurred by a small facility is less than
1.5 percent of the average annual
revenue for small facilities in all
industry categories. The cost for the PE
certification alone would represent even
less than that. As shown in Chapter 5 of
the Economic Analysis for this
rulemaking, the average annual revenue
for the smallest regulated facilities
(under the current rule) ranges from
$150,000 to $6,833,000, depending on
the industry category. For example,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
farms with annual revenue between
$100,000 and $249,999 have an average
annual revenue per farm of $161,430,
and $2,201 (the one-time cost to prepare
and implement a Plan) represents only
1.36 percent of that annual revenue. Of
course, under the revised rule many of
these small facilities will not be
regulated by the SPCC program at all.
A PE’s certification of a Plan means
that the PE is certifying that the
facility’s equipment, design,
construction, and maintenance
procedures used to implement the Plan
are in accordance with good engineering
practices. And this is important because
good engineering practices are likely to
prevent discharges. PE certification, to
be effective for SPCC purposes, must be
completed in accordance with the law
of the State in which the PE is working.
For example, some States require a PE
to apply his seal to effectuate a
certification. Others do not.
We also disagree that small facilities
need not have PE certification for SPCC
Plans when the tanks are certified by the
Underwriters Laboratory. A Plan
consists of more than a certified tank. It
contains provisions for secondary
containment, integrity testing, and other
measures to prevent discharges. Those
provisions require PE certification to
ensure that they meet the requirements
of the rule and that the Plan is effective
to prevent discharges.
Finally, by modifying the
applicability provision in § 112.1(d)(2),
we are today exempting many small
facilities from the requirement to
prepare and implement a Plan at all,
thus saving all prospective PE costs.
In response to the commenter from
Samoa, who noted that territory does
not register PEs, the rule would allow an
SPCC facility there to hire a PE licensed
in some other State or U.S. territory.
Certification by other environmental
professionals. Certification by a PE,
rather than by another environmental
professional is necessary to ensure the
application of good engineering
judgment. A PE must obtain a Bachelor
of Engineering degree from an
accredited engineering program, pass
two comprehensive national
examinations, and demonstrate an
acceptable level (usually four additional
years) of engineering experience. A
licensed engineer is also required to
practice engineering solely within his
areas of competence and to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare. All
licensed PEs, no matter who their
employer, are required by State laws
and codes of ethics to discharge their
engineering responsibilities accurately
and honestly. Furthermore, State
governments have and do exercise the

authority to discipline licensed PEs who
fail to comply with State laws and
requirements. Other environmental
professionals may not have similar
expertise nor be held to similar
standards as the licensed PE.
It is not always necessary for a PE to
visit the facility. Therefore, we have
revised § 112.3(d) to a allow site visit by
either the PE or his agent. Often it will
be sufficient if the PE reviews the work
of other engineering professionals who
have visited the facility. Someone
would have to visit the facility, but not
necessarily the PE. Nevertheless, in all
cases the PE must ensure that his
certification represents an exercise of
good engineering judgment. If that
requires a personal site visit, the PE
must visit the facility himself before
certifying the Plan.
Good engineering practice. As we
noted in the 1991 preamble (at 56 FR
54617–18), good engineering practice
‘‘will require that appropriate
provisions of applicable codes,
standards, and regulations be
incorporated into the SPCC Plan for a
particular facility.’’ We agree with the
commenter that the rule needs more
specificity in this regard. Therefore, we
have amended § 112.3(d)(1)(iii) to
specifically include consideration of
applicable industry standards as an
element of the PE’s attestation that the
Plan has been prepared in accordance
with good engineering practice. We
reiterate today, as we did in 1991, that
consideration of applicable industry
standards is an essential element of
good engineering practice. Industry
standards include industry regulations,
standards, codes, specifications,
recommendations, recommended
practices, publications, bulletins, and
other materials. (See § 112.7(a)(1) and
(j).) The owner or operator must
specifically document any industry
standard used in a Plan to comply with
this section. The documentation should
include the name of the industry
standard, and the year or edition of that
standard. However, as discussed above,
we have chosen not to incorporate
specific industry standards into the rule.
Testing. The proposed rule would
have required the PE to certify that
required testing was completed. We
have been persuaded by comments that
the requirement should be that
procedures for inspections and tests
have been established, not necessarily
completed, because the PE is not
normally present at time of completion.
Nor do we believe it is necessary to
impose a requirement that the PE
oversee all testing because the PE only
shares responsibility with the owner or
operator for establishing procedures, not

47085

for their implementation, which is the
sole responsibility of the owner or
operator. However, the PE may include
in the Plan a schedule for testing, with
specific time frames for the completion
of that testing. See also the discussion
in today’s preamble (at section IV.D.3)
on ‘‘Completion of Testing.’’
Non-technical changes. PE
certification is not required for items
that do not require engineering
judgment, such as telephone numbers;
names on lists; some, but not all,
product changes (see the response to
comments of § 112.5(a)); ownership
changes; or, any other changes not
requiring engineering judgment.
Time limit for PE certification. We
disagree that there should be a time
limit on PE certification because the
rule ensures that the PE reviews the
Plan at appropriate times. Thus, current
PE certifications remain valid. But new
certifications after the effective date of
this rule must include the required
attestations. If you are an owner or
operator you must review your Plan at
least every five years (under revisions
made in today’s rule), and amend it if
new technology is warranted. Also, you
must amend your Plan to conform with
any applicable rule requirements, or at
any time you make any change in
facility design, construction, operation,
or maintenance that materially affects
its potential for a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b). All material amendments
require PE certification. Therefore,
because a Plan will likely require one or
more amendments requiring PE review
and certification, a time limit on PE
certifications is unnecessary. See
§ 112.5(c).
Other PE issues. As to other PE issues,
as noted above (see section IV.D.2 of
this preamble), the PE need not be
independent of the facility. Nor is there
a requirement that he not have a
financial interest in it. We believe the
professional integrity of a PE and the
professional oversight of boards
licensing PEs are sufficient to prevent
any abuses.
It is not necessary that the PE be
licensed in the same State as the facility
because the SPCC program is national in
scope and therefore State expertise is
unnecessary. While States may
prescribe more stringent requirements
than EPA, a PE may familiarize himself
with any particular requirements a State
may impose and address them in the
Plan. See § 112.7(j). Furthermore,
violations of PE ethics may be handled
by the licensing board of the PE’s state
no matter where the work is done.
EPA maintains that a site visit is
necessary, but the visit may be by either
the PE or his agent, so long as a visit by

47086

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

an agent is consistent with good
engineering practice. A visit by the PE’s
agent can generally be sufficient given
that the PE will oversee and be
responsible for his agent’s work.
PE costs. We note that we did not
propose a requirement for an
independent PE, but requested
comments on it. In the final rule, we
require either the PE or the PE’s agent
to visit and examine the facility before
the PE certifies the Plan. An agent might
include an engineering technician,
technologist, graduate engineer, or other
qualified person to prepare preliminary
reports, studies, and evaluations after
visiting the site. The PE, after reviewing
the agent’s work, could then
legitimately certify the Plan. Also, in the
final rule, we allow the PE to be an
employee of the facility as well as
registered in a different State than the
facility is located, in order to approve a
Plan. The rationale is that SPCC work is
national in scope and therefore State
expertise is unnecessary.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Registered Professional Engineer’’
becomes ‘‘licensed Professional
Engineer.’’ The first sentence of the
paragraph was proposed as, ‘‘No SPCC
Plan shall be effective to satisfy the
requirements of this part unless it has
been reviewed by a Registered
Professional Engineer.’’ We revised it to
read, ‘‘A licensed Professional Engineer
must review and certify a Plan for it to
be effective to satisfy the requirements
of this part.’’ This revision is due to the
fact that PEs are licensed by States.
Section 112.3(e)—Location and
Availability of Plan
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that the Plan be available at the facility
if the facility is normally manned at
least four hours a day, in lieu of the
current requirement that the Plan be
available if the facility is manned eight
hours a day. If the facility is not
attended at least four hours a day, the
Plan would have to be available at the
nearest field office.
The rationale for the change is that
some facilities interpreted the eight
hour requirement not to apply to a
facility that is only operating seven and
one-half hours per day, with a half an
hour deducted for lunch. The
availability of a Plan can be extremely
useful in preventing and mitigating
discharges, therefore it must be
available most of the time at attended
facilities.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. Several commenters
questioned the meaning of ‘‘normal
working hours,’’ asking whose hours
that meant, those of EPA or those of the

facility. Several commenters questioned
the meaning of ‘‘nearest field office.’’
Plan availability. Several commenters
favored the proposal. One commenter
suggested that we amend the rule to
provide that the Plan be available
‘‘without advance notice,’’ so that it
would be fully implemented at all
times, not just when an inspection is
impending. One commenter thought
that the Plan should always be located
at the facility, whether manned or not,
perhaps protected by a laminated cover,
and at ‘‘appropriate control centers.’’
State and local agencies. Another
commenter suggested that the Plan be
filed with the local fire department and
LEPC (Local Emergency Planning
Committee) to facilitate public review.
One State suggested there be a Federal
requirement that the Plan also be filed
with the State.
Response to comments. Nearest field
office, normal working hours. The term
‘‘nearest field office’’ in paragraph (e)(1)
means the office with operational
responsibility for the facility, or the
emergency response center for the
facility, because those locations ensure
accessibility for personnel who need to
respond in case of a discharge. The term
‘‘normal working hours’’ in paragraph
(e)(2) refers to the working hours of the
facility or the field office, not EPA.
Plan availability. Today we have
finalized the 1991 proposal that the Plan
must be available at the facility if it is
normally attended at least four hours
per day, or at the nearest field office if
it is not so attended. A Plan must
always be available without advance
notice, because an inspection might not
be scheduled. You are not required to
locate a Plan at an unattended facility
because of the difficulty that might
ensue when emergency personnel try to
find the Plan. However, you may keep
a Plan at an unattended facility. If you
do not locate the Plan at the facility, you
must locate it at the nearest field office.
State and local agencies. You are not
required to file or locate a Plan with a
State Emergency Response Commission
or Local Emergency Planning
Committee or other State or local agency
because the distribution would
unjustifiably increase the information
collection burden of the rule, and not all
committees or agencies may want copies
of SPCC Plans. Should a State wish to
require filing of a Federal SPCC Plan
with a State or local committee or
agency, it may do so. No Federal
requirement is necessary.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In paragraph (e)(2), we deleted the term
‘‘or authorized representative’’ after
‘‘Regional Administrator,’’ because the
Regional Administrator may delegate

his duties. Therefore, the term is
unnecessary.
Section 112.3(f)—Extension of Time
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
allow only new facilities to apply for
extensions of time to comply with the
requirements of part 112. The current
rule allows any facility to apply for an
extension, including existing fixed and
mobile facilities. The rationale for
limiting extension requests to new
facilities was that existing fixed and
mobile facilities have had since 1974 to
comply with the rule.
Comments. Automatic extensions.
Several commenters suggested that we
automatically grant extension requests if
we are to require a Plan to be in effect
prior to commencement of operations.
Existing Plan requirements. Another
commenter criticized the proposed
requirement to submit the existing Plan
with each extension request, because
EPA’s review of the Plan cannot
practically be an element of the
extension granting process. Another
commenter suggested that the language
in paragraph (f)(3) would be better if it
said that the existing Plan’s provisions
remain in effect until they are
superseded by changes proposed by the
facility, because these words better
reflect the intention of the rule.
Amendments. Several commenters
urged EPA to allow extensions for
preparation and implementation of Plan
amendments.
Response to comments. Automatic
extensions. Automatic extension
requests are not justifiable because we
have extended the time within which
most facilities have to prepare and
implement Plans. See § 112.3(a), (b), and
(c). Also, under the revised rule, you
may request an extension for the
preparation and implementation of any
Plan, or amendment to any Plan. See
§ 112.3(f).
Existing Plan requirements. We have
broadened the scope of extension
requests to any facility that can justify
the request, because for every type of
facility there may be cases in which an
extension can be justified. Existing fixed
and mobile facilities may experience
delays in construction or equipment
delivery or may lack qualified
personnel, and these circumstances may
be beyond the control of, and without
the fault of, the owner or operator. We
also agree with the commenter that the
submission of the entire Plan as a matter
of course is unnecessary to evaluate
each extension request. Therefore, we
have amended the rule to provide that
the Regional Administrator may request
your Plan if he deems it appropriate.
But we do not believe that he will

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
always do so. It may be necessary under
some circumstances. The Regional
Administrator also retains discretion to
request the Plan after on-site review, or
after certain discharges. See § 112.4(a)(9)
and (d). We disagree with the
commenter’s proposed rewrite of the
owner or operator’s obligations while
the request is pending because the better
policy is to require compliance with the
rest of the rule that is not affected by the
extension request, rather than saying
that the existing Plan continues in
effect.
Amendments. We have also added a
provision for an extension of time to
prepare and implement an amendment
to the Plan, as well as an entire Plan. We
believe that there may be cases in which
an extension can be justified for a Plan
amendment because the same
extenuating circumstances may apply.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In paragraph (f)(3), ‘‘letter of request’’
becomes ‘‘written extension request.’’ In
the last sentence of that paragraph,
‘‘with respect to’’ becomes ‘‘related to.’’
Section 112.4(a)—Reporting Certain
Discharges to EPA
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
require more information than is
currently required in the rule for
reporting certain discharges. If your
facility discharged more than 1,000
gallons in a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), or discharged oil in
quantities that may be harmful in more
than two discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) within any consecutive
twelve month period, you would have
been required to submit certain
information to the Regional
Administrator.
In 1993, we proposed a modification
to § 112.4(d)(1) which would allow the
Regional Administrator to require the
submission of the listed information in
§ 112.4(a)(1) at any time, whether or not
there had been a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b).
In 1997, we proposed a reduction of
the amount of information currently
required by § 112.4(a). We proposed to
eliminate the following information,
unless the Regional Administrator
specifically requested it: (1) The date
and year of initial facility operation; (2)
maximum storage or handling capacity
of the facility and normal daily
throughput; and, (3) a complete copy of
the SPCC Plan with any amendments.
Comments. In general. Most
commenters favored the 1997 proposal.
Several commenters opposed the
proposal.
Information submission at any time.
One commenter argued that the 1993
proposal allowing EPA to require

submission of the information required
in § 112.4(a)(1) and to require Plan
amendments at any time is vague and
does not provide adequate notice to the
regulated community.
Submission of entire Plan. One
commenter thought that meaningful
review of the information submitted was
impossible without the entire Plan. Two
commenters believed that EPA would
always request the information it
proposed to eliminate.
Discharge threshold. Other
commenters proposed a higher
threshold for having to report a
discharge than is currently required by
§ 112.4(a). Those thresholds ranged from
25–55 gallons. One commenter
suggested that we relax the reporting
requirement for very minor releases of
petroleum products. Another suggested
that if the discharge causes a sheen that
dissipates within 24 hours, there should
be no obligation to report.
Maps, flow diagrams, and charts.
Several commenters suggested that we
eliminate the requirement to submit
maps, flow diagrams, and charts
because those documents ‘‘add nothing
useful to the inquiry.’’
Off-site category. Another commenter
suggested that we create an ‘‘off-site’’
category of spill reports for discharges
reported by a facility that are in a water
body adjacent to the reporter’s facility,
or for discharges that originate off-site,
but migrate to the facility.
Calculation of time for discharge
reports required by § 112.4(a). Several
commenters suggested that we calculate
the time for the submission of discharge
reports required by § 112.4(a) on a
‘‘block’’ basis, rather than a ‘‘rolling’’
basis.
Response to Comments
Information submission at any time.
We agree with the commenter that the
1993 proposal to give the Regional
Administrator authority to require
submission of the requested information
in this section at any time is vague, and
have therefore withdrawn that part of
the proposal. We will only require such
information after the discharges
specified in this section.
Submission of entire Plan. CWA
section 311(m) provides EPA with the
authority to require an owner or
operator of a facility subject to section
311 to make reports and provide
information to carry out the objectives
of section 311; and CWA section 308(a)
provides us with authority to require the
owner or operator of any ‘‘point source’’
to make such reports as the
Administrator may reasonably require.
Therefore, we disagree that submission
of the entire Plan is always necessary

47087

when reporting discharges under
§ 112.4(a). We believe the information
now required to be submitted is
adequate to assess the cause of
discharge and the ability of the facility
to prevent future discharges. If the RA
believes that the entire Plan has utility,
he can request it. However, we disagree
that RAs will always require submission
of the Plan, or other information not
required, as a matter of course. RAs may
use their administrative discretion not
to require the submission of Plan
information or other additional
information.
Discharge threshold. 42 gallons. We
agree that a higher threshold of
reporting discharges is justifiable
because we believe that only larger
discharges should trigger an EPA
obligation to review a facility’s
prevention efforts. We also agree that a
higher threshold should trigger a
facility’s obligation to submit
information and possibly have to take
further prevention measures. Therefore,
we have changed the threshold for
reporting after two discharges as
described in § 112.1(b). Under the
revised rule, if you are the owner or
operator of a facility subject to this part,
you must only submit the required
information when in any twelve month
period there have been two discharges
as described in § 112.1(b), in each of
which more than 42 U.S. gallons, or one
barrel, has been discharged. We adopted
the 42 gallon threshold on a
commenter’s suggestion. We believe that
a 42 gallon threshold is the appropriate
one to trigger a facility’s information
and possibly to have to take further
prevention measures. When multiple
discharges occur at a facility subject to
the SPCC program, such as a generating
station, they often involve the discharge
of very small amounts of oil, and these
discharges tend to come randomly from
a lube pipe, an oil level sight glass
crack, or some other apparatus, and do
not normally indicate a recurring
problem with the container. Having two
or more of these small discharges does
not indicate that the facility’s SPCC Plan
requires revision. The other reporting
threshold of 1,000 gallons in any a
single discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) remains the same.
We disagree that a sheen caused by a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b) over
the threshold amount that disappears
within 24 hours should not require
submission of information. The
discharge itself may indicate a serious
problem at the facility which needs to
be corrected. The discharge report may
give us the information necessary to
require specific correction measures.

47088

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘Sheen’’ rule. The duty imposed by
the CWA to report to the National
Response Center all discharges that may
be harmful, further described by 40 CFR
110.3, is unchanged. Those discharges
include discharges that 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.
Maps, flow diagrams, and charts. In
response to comments which
questioned the usefulness of such
information, we have modified the
provision regarding maps, flow
diagrams, topographical maps (now
required by paragraph (a)(6) of the
current rule) to clarify that only the
information necessary to adequately
describe the facility and discharge, such
as maps, flow diagrams, or
topographical maps is necessary—not
necessarily all of the information listed
in the paragraph. To effect this change,
we added the words ‘‘as necessary’’ after
‘‘topographical maps.’’ ‘‘As necessary’’
means as determined by the owner or
operator, subject to the obligations of
this rule, unless the RA requests more
information. There might be
circumstances in which the owner or
operator would submit only a brief
description of the facility or a map, for
example, because flow diagrams and
topographical maps were unnecessary to
describe the discharge, and would not
help the RA to determine whether any
amendment to the Plan was necessary to
prevent future discharges as described
in § 112.1(b).
Off-site category. There is no
necessity for an ‘‘off-site’’ category of
discharges as described in § 112.1(b)
because only a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b) that originates in a facility
subject to this part counts for purposes
of § 112.4(a).
Calculation of time for discharge
reports required by § 112.4(a). We
believe a ‘‘rolling’’ basis is the
appropriate method to calculate a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b) for
purposes of the rule because discharges
as described in § 112.1(b) that are closer
in time are more likely to be related in
cause. Discharges that are more
proximate in time may indicate a
problem that needs to be remedied. A
‘‘rolling basis’’ means that each
discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
triggers the start of a new twelve month
period. For example, if discharge #1
occurred on January 1, and if discharge
#2 occurred on June 2, discharge #2
would trigger the regulatory submission
and would start a new twelve month

period. If discharge #3 occurred on the
following February 3, it would again
trigger a submission, because discharge
#3 would be within 12 months of
discharge #2. While the ‘‘rolling basis’’
would trigger more regulatory
submissions than the ‘‘block basis,’’ we
believe that it would enhance
environmental protection because it
would call potential problems to the
attention of the Regional Administrator
sooner, and allow them to be remedied
sooner by a Plan amendment where
necessary.
‘‘Block’’ basis. The other approach
would be to use a ‘‘block’’ period. Under
this type of calculation, each third
discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
would not trigger a submission if it
occurred within 12 months of discharge
#2, but it would start the beginning of
a new 12 month period. For example, if
discharge #1 occurred on January 1, and
discharge #2 on June 2, discharge #2
would trigger a submission. Discharge
#3 on the following February 3 would
not trigger a submission, but would start
a new 12 month period. The principal
justification for block reporting is also
that discharges more closely related in
time are more likely to be related. Our
concern with this method is that if the
February 3 discharge (i.e., discharge #3)
is within twelve months of discharge #2,
this situation could indicate that there
is a problem that has not been remedied,
so the February 3 discharge should
trigger a reporting submission.
Maximum storage or handling
capacity. In 1997, we proposed deletion
of current paragraph (5) (renumbered as
paragraph (4) in today’s final rule),
concerning the maximum storage or
handling capacity of the facility and
normal daily throughput. We have
reconsidered this proposal and decided
to withdraw it because the referenced
information is necessary information.
We have therefore retained the language
in the rule. Storage capacity and normal
daily throughput are important
indicators of the impact of a potential
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Additional information. If the
Regional Administrator requires other
information, for example, concerning
the spill pathway, or any response
measures taken, this request is
authorized under renumbered
§ 112.4(a)(9), current § 112.4(a)(11).
Adjoining shorelines, natural
resources, affected natural resources.
Discharges into navigable waters are not
the only discharges reportable for
purposes of this section. We note that
any discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
is also within the scope of this section’s
reportable discharges.

Editorial changes and clarifications. If
a particular information request is
inapplicable, you may omit it, but must
explain why it is inapplicable. Several
plural nouns like ‘‘names’’ and ‘‘causes’’
become singular. Wherever the phrase
‘‘and/or’’ appears, we have revised the
phrase to read ‘‘and.’’ In 1997’s
proposed § 112.4(a)(6), redesignated as
§ 112.4(a)(7), ‘‘spill’’ becomes
‘‘discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
In 1997’s proposed § 112.4(a)(8),
redesignated as § 112.4(a)(9), ‘‘spill
event’’ becomes ‘‘discharge.’’
Section 112.4(b)—Applicability of
§ 112.4
Background. Under current § 112.4(b),
the § 112.4 requirements for spill
reporting do not apply until the
expiration of the time permitted for the
preparation and implementation of a
Plan pursuant to § 112.3(a), (b), (c), and
(f). In 1991, we proposed that § 112.4
would not apply until the expiration of
the time permitted for the preparation
and implementation of a Plan under
§ 112.3(f) only. Section 112.3(f) is the
time period in which you are permitted
to prepare and implement a Plan under
an extension request.
We proposed to delete the references
to § 112.3(a), (b) and (c) because the
current time periods allowed in these
paragraphs for the preparation and
implementation of the Plan (before
commencement of operation for new
facilities or mobile facilities, or after the
effective date of the rule for other
existing facilities) were proposed for
deletion. Because future facilities would
generally have a Plan prepared and
implemented before beginning
operations, there was no longer a need
to temporarily relieve facilities of spill
reporting obligations under § 112.4(a),
unless the Regional Administrator
granted an extension under § 112.3(f) to
prepare and implement a Plan. We
received no comments on this proposal.
In today’s rule, however, we have
revised § 112.3 to extend the time lines
for certain facilities to prepare and
implement Plans. To accord with this
change, we are maintaining the
approach under current § 112.4(b) to
provide that the § 112.4 spill reporting
requirements will not apply until the
expiration of the time permitted for the
initial preparation and implementation
of a Plan under § 112.3(a), (b), (c), and
(f). Today, we have also revised
§ 112.3(a) to provide an extended time
line for preparing a Plan amendment
and § 112.3(f) to provide for an
extension request for an amendment to
a Plan. Therefore, we have also revised
§ 112.4(b) to provide that the obligation
to submit information as required by

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
§ 112.4(a) does not arise until the
expiration of the time permitted for the
initial preparation and implementation
of the Plan under § 112.3, but not for
any amendments to the Plan. We did
not previously propose to relieve
facilities of § 112.4 reporting
requirements during Plan amendments
or extensions for Plan amendments. An
amendment may or may not be directly
related to the cause of the discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), and therefore
may have little relevance to the duty to
submit discharge reports to EPA.
Section 112.4(c)—Supplying Discharge
Information to the States
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that you must provide the same
discharge information that you submit
to the Regional Administrator under
§ 112.4(a) to the State agency in charge
of oil pollution control activities. The
current rules require that you provide
that information to the State agency in
charge of water pollution control
activities.
Comments. Legal authority. One
commenter suggested that we have no
legal authority for the proposal. Another
commenter asserted that EPA could
only implement State agency
recommendations if those
recommendations fell within the scope
of the SPCC rule.
In general. Several commenters
suggested the proposal was redundant
and unnecessary, because only EPA
regulates the SPCC program, not the
States.
State agency review. One commenter,
a State, favored the proposal and noted
that more than one State agency has
statutory jurisdiction over oil pollution
control in that State. That State and
another suggested that all relevant State
agencies receive the information. One
commenter suggested that EPA should
identify the appropriate State agency to
which notice is due. One commenter
thought the proposed change was
misleading. Another commenter, a
State, suggested that EPA provide the
States money to review the submitted
discharge information.
Response to comments. Legal
authority. We have ample legal
authority to finalize this rule. A similar
rule has been in effect since 1974.
Section 311(j)(1) of the CWA authorizes
the Federal government (and EPA
through delegation) to establish
‘‘procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to
prevent discharges of oil. * * *’’
Section 112.4(c) of this rule is a
procedure to help prevent discharges
that fall within the scope of that
statutory provision. It enables States to

learn of discharges reported to EPA and
to make recommendations as to further
procedures, methods, equipment, and
other requirements that might prevent
such discharges at the reporting facility.
We can only implement State agency
suggestions that are within the scope of
our authority under section 311 of the
CWA.
In general. The commenter is correct
that the SPCC program is a Federal
program, but we believe that in working
with the States, we can improve the
Federal program through coordination
with State oil pollution prevention
programs. Therefore, we believe that the
information provided to States is neither
redundant nor unnecessary. Nor is the
section misleading; it clearly states the
obligation of the owner or operator.
State agency review. We modified the
1991 proposal on the commenters’
suggestion to include notice to any
appropriate State agency in charge of oil
pollution control activities, since there
may be more than one such agency in
some States and all may have need for
the information. We do not list such
agencies in the rule, as a commenter
suggested, because the names and
jurisdiction of the State agencies are
subject to change. It is the reporter’s
obligation to learn which State agencies
receive the discharge reports. Most
States publish documents on an ongoing
basis, similar to the Federal Register,
which publicize relevant regulatory
information.
We do not provide State agencies
funds to review these discharge reports
due to budgetary constraints. While we
assume that many States review these
reports carefully, we cannot require
them to do so. Thus, this action is not
an unfunded mandate from the Federal
government to the States. But if States
do review the reports, they do so at their
own expense.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the last sentence of the paragraph,
‘‘discharges of oil’’ becomes
‘‘discharges.’’
Section 112.4(d)—Amendment of Plans
Required by the Regional Administrator
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that after review of materials under
112.4(a), the Regional Administrator
(RA) might require amendment of the
SPCC Plan. We also proposed that the
RA might require Plan amendment after
reviewing contingency plan materials
submitted for approval. See proposed
§ 112.7(d), 1991.
In 1993, we proposed that the RA
would also have authority to require
Plan amendment after on-site review of
the Plan. In addition, we proposed a

47089

clause empowering the RA to approve
the Plan or require amendment.
We also proposed in 1993 allowing
the RA to require submission of the
information listed in § 112.4(a) at any
time. The rationale to get this
information was to prevent discharges
from happening, in addition to seeking
to correct the conditions that may have
caused the discharge. See the
background and response to comments
under § 112.4(a) for a discussion of this
proposal.
Comments. Regional Administrator
approval of Plans. Several commenters
criticized the idea of RA approval of the
Plan on the theory that it is an
unwarranted intrusion into the manner
in which operators do business. Another
urged an appeal process if EPA approval
of Plans is required.
Plan information and amendments.
One commenter argued that allowing
EPA to require submission of the
information required in § 112.4(a) at any
time and to require Plan amendments at
any time is vague and does not provide
adequate notice to the regulated
community. Several commenters were
concerned that EPA would
inconsistently require overly stringent
measures in some Plans or might require
amendments unrelated to discharge
potential or which were financially
unreasonable. Two commenters urged a
time limit on EPA decision making
following submission of required
information. Another commenter was
concerned that no provision required PE
certification of amendments required by
EPA.
Response to comments. Regional
Administrator approval of Plans. We
have deleted the provision that would
have allowed RA approval of Plans. We
have decided not to create a new class
of SPCC Plans which require EPA
approval, either Plans submitted
following certain discharges as required
by § 112.4(a) or Plans with contingency
plans, because we do not believe such
approval is necessary in order to ensure
effective Plans.
Plan information and amendments.
We agree that allowing EPA to require
submission of the information required
in § 112.4(a) at any time, and thereafter
to require Plan amendments, is vague,
and therefore we have withdrawn that
part of the proposal. Furthermore, it is
unnecessary because sections 308 and
311(m) of the CWA already provides us
with adequate authority to request
necessary Plan information.
While the RA will not have authority
under this section to approve Plans, he
has authority to require Plan
amendment. We will strive to be as
timely as possible in reviewing the

47090

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

information when submitted, and
making decisions on any required
amendments. A time limit on the RA’s
decision making authority would be
unnecessary because a facility may
continue to operate under its existing
Plan while the RA’s decision is pending.
While we will consider cost in our
decision making, amendments may be
required on a case-specific basis to help
prevent discharges. Any technical
amendment required would require PE
certification. See § 112.5(c) .
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have deleted reference to the RA’s
approval of the submitted Plan in
proposed paragraph (d)(2), because the
RA will not have authority to approve
a Plan. He does, however, have
authority to require Plan amendment
under today’s revision of § 112.4(d).
Section 112.4(e)—Notification and
Implementation of Required
Amendments
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current notification provision
concerning required Plan amendments,
and the time lines for implementation of
those amendments.
Comments. Who receives notice. One
commenter wanted EPA to notify
railroads directly, instead of their
registered agents, because of the time lag
that might occur between the time the
agent received notice and the owner or
operator of the facility received notice.
Another commenter urged that we also
provide notice to the facility operator,
the facility improvement owner, and the
facility landowner. His rationale for
such expanded notice was that a major
problem may be addressed by the
operator or EPA, without the knowledge
and/or consent of the facility
improvements owner and the facility
landowner.
Appeals procedure. One commenter
suggested that we include a reference to
the appeal procedure for amendments in
this section.
Response to comments. Who receives
notice. In reply to the railroad
commenter, the rule requires notice
only to the owner or operator of the
facility, and the registered agent, if any
and if known. Notice from EPA to the
facility improvements owner and
landowner is unnecessary because these
matters can and should be handled
between the facility owner or operator
and the owner or operator of the
improvements or the landowner.
Appeals procedure. We have not
included a reference to the appeals
procedures for required amendments in
this section because the appeals
procedures follow immediately in the

next paragraph, making such reference
redundant.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have changed the proposed
requirement to mail a copy of the notice
to the registered agent of a corporation
to a requirement that such notice be
effected only if the registered agent is
known to EPA. The notification
requirement for registered agents now
tracks the notification requirement for
registered agents in § 112.1(f). Because
we have withdrawn the proposed
requirement that a corporation submit
that agent’s name or address in the
submission of information required by
§ 112.4(a), such agent may not be known
to EPA. In the last sentence of the final
rule, ‘‘amendment of the Plan’’ becomes
‘‘amended Plan.’’
Section 112.4(f)—Appeals of Required
Amendments
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current appeals procedures for
required Plan amendments. We received
no substantive comments. Therefore, we
have promulgated the procedures as
proposed.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted language concerning the
‘‘designee’’ of the EPA Administrator
because it is unnecessary. Current
delegations allow the Administrator to
delegate this function.
Section 112.5(a)—Plan Amendment by
an Owner or Operator
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
require that an owner or operator amend
the Plan before making any change in
facility design, construction, operation,
or maintenance materially affecting the
facility’s potential for the discharge of
oil into the waters of the United States
unless the RA granted an extension. We
also listed some examples of facility
changes which would require Plan
amendment, noting that these examples
were not an exclusive list.
Comments. When amendment is
necessary. Several commenters favored
the proposal. Others provided differing
standards for amending Plans. A
number of commenters suggested that
no amendments should be necessary
when a facility change results in a
decrease in the volume stored or a
decrease in the potential for an oil spill.
Another suggested a standard that
amendments should be made ‘‘when
there are indicia of problems.’’ A
commenter suggested a standard that no
amendments would be required except
for those changes which would cause
the spill potential to exceed the Plan’s
capabilities because day-to-day changes
do not affect the worst case spill and the
Plan should not have to be amended on

a day-to-day basis. One commenter
suggested that small facilities with less
than 5,000 gallon-capacity should be
exempted from the need to amend their
Plans for the listed acts. Another
commenter asserted that instead of
being required to amend their Plans
before changes are made, operators
should be encouraged to incorporate
new procedures into their SPCC Plans to
prevent and contain potential
discharges which might result from
performing needed repairs and
replacements. The rationale for the
suggestion was that operators will then
not ‘‘save up’’ potential amendments
due to the burden of preparing an
amendment.
Material changes. Many commenters
offered opinions on the examples of
material changes listed in the rule for
which amendments would be required.
Some suggested that the rule should
read that these are only examples of
changes that may trigger amendment.
Several commenters suggested that
decommissioning a tank should not
trigger an amendment because ‘‘as a
tank is removed, so is the requirement
for an SPCC Plan.’’ Another commenter
noted that changing a product in a tank
or cleaning a tank should not be
considered commissioning or
decommissioning a tank. One
commenter suggested that an
amendment to the Plan should be
required when there is a change of
product stored within the tank.
Documenting no change or certain
activities. Another commenter suggested
that a log book might be used instead of
a Plan amendment to document
‘‘routine activities’’ and measures taken
to maintain the spill prevention and
response integrity of the facility. Several
commenters suggested that an identical
replacement of tanks or other equipment
should not be considered a material
change and therefore amendment
should not be required. A utility
commenter asked that facilities be
allowed to accumulate minor
modifications for a period of 6 months,
then update the Plan.
EPA approval. Another commenter
suggested that we clarify that EPA
approval of an amendment made under
this section is not required.
Time line for amendment
implementation. Numerous commenters
opposed the proposed requirement that
a Plan be amended before any material
changes are made. Commenters
suggested various alternative
amendment time lines ranging from 90
days to six months following such
changes, with a cluster of commenters
around the six months alternative.
Others suggested that the Plan be

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
amended at fixed time points such as
before a design is physically
implemented, before startup of
operations, after modifications, before
new or modified equipment is in
operation, or when changes are made.
One commenter said that rule language
should be clarified to note that the RA
may specify a time period longer than
six months to implement an
amendment.
Response to comments. When
amendment is necessary. We agree with
the commenter who suggested that we
maintain the current standard for
amendments, i.e., when there is a
change that materially affects the
facility’s potential to discharge oil. This
position accords with our stance on
when Plans should be prepared and
implemented. See § 112.3. The other
suggested standards too narrowly limit
the changes which would trigger Plan
amendment. We believe that an
amendment is necessary when a facility
change results in a decrease in the
volume stored or a decrease in the
potential for an oil spill because EPA
needs this information to determine
compliance with the rule. For example,
the amount of secondary containment
required depends on the storage
capacity of a container. Decreases might
also affect the way a facility plans
emergency response measures and
training procedures. A lesser capacity
might require different response
measures than a larger capacity. The
training of employees might be affected
because the operation and maintenance
of the facility might be affected by a
lesser storage capacity.
Likewise, a standard requiring
amendment ‘‘when there are indicia of
problems’’ is too vague and leaves
problems unaddressed which may result
in a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
A standard requiring an amendment
only when the change would cause the
spill potential to exceed the Plan’s
capabilities (because day-to-day changes
do not affect the worst case spill) would
have the effect of leaving no
documentation of amendments which
might affect discharges which do not
reach the standard of ‘‘worst case spill.’’
While we encourage facilities to
incorporate new procedures into Plans
which would help to prevent
discharges, amendments are still
necessary when material changes are
made to document those new
procedures, and thus facilitate the
enforcement of the rule’s requirements.
We disagree that a small facility should
be exempt from making amendments for
material changes. Amendments may be
necessary at large or small facilities

alike to prevent discharges after material
changes.
Material changes. A material change
is one that may either increase or
decrease the potential for a discharge.
We agree with the commenter that the
rule should be worded to indicate that
the examples are for illustration only,
because the items in the list may not
always trigger amendments, and
because the list is not exclusive. Only
changes which materially affect
operations trigger the amendment
requirement. Ordinary maintenance or
non-material changes which do not
affect the potential for the discharge of
oil do not.
We disagree that decommissioning of
a container that results in permanent
closure of that container is not a
material amendment. Decommissioning
a container could materially decrease
the potential for a discharge and require
Plan amendment, unless such
decommissioning brings the facility
below the regulatory threshold, making
the preparation and implementation of
a Plan no longer a requirement. We also
believe that the oversight of a
Professional Engineer is necessary to
ensure that the container is in fact
properly closed.
We agree that replacement of tanks,
containers, or equipment may not be a
material change if the replacements are
identical in quality, capacity, and
number. However, a replacement of one
tank with more than one identical tank
resulting in greater storage capacity is a
material change because the storage
capacity of the facility, and its
consequent discharge potential, have
increased.
Changes of product. We have added
to the list of examples, on a
commenter’s suggestion, ‘‘changes of
product.’’ We added ‘‘changes of
product’’ because such change may
materially affect facility operations and
therefore be a material change. An
example of a change of product that
would be a material change would be a
change from storage of asphalt to storage
of gasoline. Storage of gasoline instead
of asphalt presents an increased fire and
explosion hazard. A switch from storage
of gasoline to storage of asphalt might
result in increased stress on the
container leading to its failure. Changes
of product involving different grades of
gasoline might not be a material change
and thus not require amendment of the
Plan if the differing grades of gasoline
do not substantially change the
conditions of storage and potential for
discharge.
A change in service may also be a
material change if it affects the potential
for a discharge. A ‘‘change in service’’

47091

is a change from previous operating
conditions involving different
properties of the stored product such as
specific gravity or corrosivity and/or
different service conditions of
temperature and/or pressure. Therefore,
we have amended the rule to add ‘‘or
service’’ after the phrase ‘‘changes of
product.’’
Documenting no change or certain
activities. We agree that a log book may
be used to document non-material,
routine activities. However, this is not
an appropriate substitute for
amendment when you make material
changes at the facility.
EPA approval. We agree with the
commenter’s suggestion that EPA
approval of an amendment is not
required. However, if the RA is not
satisfied that your amendment satisfies
the requirements of these rules, he may
require further amendment of your Plan.
Time line for amendment
implementation. We agree with
commenters that we should not require
Plan amendment before material
changes are made. Therefore, we have
revised the proposed rule to provide a
maximum of six months for Plan
amendment, and a maximum of six
more months for amendment
implementation. This is the current
standard. We note that § 112.3(f) allows
the RA to authorize an extension of time
to prepare and implement an
amendment under certain
circumstances.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The phrase in the first sentence which
read, ‘‘potential to discharge oil as
described in § 112.1(b) of this part,’’
becomes ‘‘potential for a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). ‘‘Tanks’’
becomes ‘‘containers.’’ ‘‘Commission or
decommission’’ becomes
‘‘commissioning or decommissioning.’’
Section 112.5(b)—Periodic Review of
Plans
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule, which requires that the
owner or operator review the Plan at
least every three years, and amend it if
more effective control and prevention
technology would significantly reduce
the likelihood of a spill, and if the
technology had been field-proven at the
time of the review.
In 1997, we withdrew the 1991
proposal, and instead proposed a fiveyear review time frame, with the same
technological conditions. In 1997, we
also proposed that the owner or operator
certify that he had performed the
review.
Comments. Five-year review. Most
commenters favored the change from
three-to five-year review. Some

47092

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

commenters noted that a five-year
review period would make it easier to
coordinate reviews of related plans,
such as facility response plans required
by part 112. A few opposed it, preferring
the current three-year review period.
They believed that five-year review
might lead to reduced maintenance and
consequent environmental harm,
especially in the absence of any
requirements for a facility to ensure that
personnel are familiar with planning
goals and proposed response actions,
including personnel who are rotated.
One commenter suggested that the
longevity of a tank warranty should be
the determining factor in the length of
review time. Another suggested that
there should be no particular time
period prescribed because the
requirement for an amendment
whenever a material change is made is
sufficient.
Completion of review. Commenters
split almost evenly on the proposed
requirement for certification of
completion of the review. Opponents of
the certification proposal believed
generally that it is unnecessary
paperwork that will not benefit the
environment. One commenter suggested
that instead of documenting completion
of review, a facility might instead date
the Plan to show review and date each
amendment. One commenter thought
that the certifications should have to be
forwarded to the Regional
Administrator. Others asked whether
the certification could be documented
in a log book, instead of in the Plan.
Another commenter asked at what
management level certification should
be required. One commenter believed
that Plans amended due to five-year
reviews should not require owner or
operator certification because any
amendments to the Plan have to be
reviewed and certified by a PE. Another
commenter noted that no specific
language was provided for the
certification. One commenter urged that
the PE should be allowed to document
that no change is necessary after
reviewing planned changes, or that
further study is required, or that an
amendment is necessary.
Response to comments. Five-year
review. We agree that a five-year review
period will make coordination of review
of related plans, such as facility
response plans required by part 112,
easier. We disagree that a five-year
review period will lead to reduced
maintenance or increased
environmental harm. Amendment of a
Plan will still be necessary when a
material change is made affecting the
facility’s potential to discharge oil,
perhaps after certain discharges as

required by the RA under § 112.4(a), and
perhaps after on-site review of a Plan
(see § 112.4(d)). Plus the Plan must be
implemented at all times. These
opportunities ensure that Plans will be
current. We also disagree that the length
of the tank warranty should be the
determining factor for a technological
review. Technology changes enough
within a five-year period to warrant
required review within such time period
whether or not other changes occur.
Amendments other than the five-year
review amendments may not be based
on the need to learn of improved
technology. Those amendments might
result from deficiencies in the Plan, on
the need to make repairs, or to remedy
the cause of a discharge.
Calculation of time between reviews.
The change in the rule from three-year
to five-year reviews requires some
explanation as to when a review must
be conducted. For example, a facility
became subject to the rule on January 1,
1990. The first three-year review should
have been conducted by January 1,
1993, the second by January 1, 1996,
and the third by January 1, 1999. The
next review must be conducted by
January 1, 2004, due to the rule change.
In other words, an existing facility must
complete the review within 5 years of
the date the last review must have been
completed. A facility becoming operable
on or after the effective date of the rule
will begin a five-year cycle at the date
it becomes subject to part 112.
Completion of review. We disagree
that documentation of completion of
review has no environmental benefit. Its
benefit lies in the fact that it shows that
someone reviewed the Plan to
determine if better technology would
benefit the facility and the Plan is
current. Documentation of completion
of review is necessary whether or not
any amendments are necessary in order
to clearly show that the review was
done. Mere dating of the Plan or of an
amendment does not show that you
performed the required review.
Documentation of completion of review
is a function of the owner or operator,
whereas certification of any resulting
technical amendment is a function of
the PE. We disagree that documentation
of completion should be forwarded to
the Regional Administrator because it
would increase the information
collection burden without an
environmental benefit. It is sufficient
that the review be done. When the
Regional Administrator wishes to verify
completion of review, he may do so
during an on-site inspection.
How to document completion of
review. You must add documentation of
completion of review either at the

beginning or the end of the Plan, or
maintain such documentation in a log
book appended to the Plan or other
appendix to the Plan. You may
document completion in one of two
ways. If amendment of the Plan is
necessary, then you must state as much,
and that review is complete. This
statement is necessary because Plan
amendments may result either from
five-year review or from material
changes at the facility affecting its
potential for discharge, or from on-site
review of the Plan. There is no way to
know which circumstance causes the
amendment without some explanation.
If no amendments are necessary, you
must document completion of review by
merely signing a statement that you
have completed the review and no
amendments are necessary. You may
use the words suggested in the rule to
document completion, or make any
similar statement to the same effect.
Who documents review. The owner or
operator of the facility, or a person at a
management level with sufficient
authority to commit the necessary
resources, must document completion
of review.
Time line for amendment
implementation. We agree with
commenters (see comments on proposed
§ 112.5(a)) that the preparation and
implementation of Plan amendments
require more time than proposed. The
same rationale applies to the
preparation and implementation of
amendments required due to five-year
reviews. Therefore, we will require
adherence to the time lines laid down
in § 112.5(b) for amendments. Currently,
§ 112.5(b) requires that Plan
amendments be prepared within six
months. It is silent as to time lines for
implementation. Therefore, we have
revised the rule to clarify that
amendments must be implemented as
soon as possible, but within the next six
months. This is the current standard for
implementation of certain other
amendments. See, for example,
§§ 112.3(a) and 112.4(e). We note that
§ 112.3(f) allows you to request an
extension of time to prepare and
implement an amendment.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have changed the word
‘‘certification’’ to a requirement to
document completion of the review to
avoid the legal effect a certification may
have. The intent of the certification
proposal was merely to show that an
owner or operator performed a review of
the Plan every five years. 62 FR 63814,
December 2, 1997. A false
documentation of completion of review
of the Plan is a deficiency in the Plan
and may be cited as a violation of these

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
rules. ‘‘Spill event,’’ in the second
sentence, becomes ‘‘discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).
Section 112.5(c)—PE Certification of
Technical Amendments
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that all amendments to the Plan must be
certified by a PE with the exception of
changes to the contact list. The current
rule requires certification of all
amendments.
Comments. A few commenters
suggested that the value of PE
certification for amendments does not
justify the cost. Another commenter
questioned when recertification of the
entire Plan was required, rather than
just the amendment in question. Several
commenters suggested that the
recertification requirement be limited to
those changes that materially affect the
facility’s potential to discharge oil.
Response to comments. It is the
responsibility of the owner or operator
to document completion of review, but
completion of review and Plan
amendment are two different processes.
PE certification is not necessary unless
the Plan is amended.
We believe that PE certification is
necessary for any technical amendment
that requires the application of good
engineering practice. We believe that
the value of such certification justifies
the cost, in that good engineering
practice is essential to help prevent
discharges. Therefore, we have amended
the rule to require PE certification for
technical changes only. Non-technical
changes not requiring the exercise of
good engineering practice do not require
PE certification. Such non-technical
changes include but are not limited to
such items as: changes to the contact
list; more stringent requirements for
stormwater discharges to comply with
NPDES rules; phone numbers; product
changes if the new product is
compatible with conditions in the
existing tank and secondary
containment; and, any other changes
which do not materially affect the
facility’s potential to discharge oil. If the
owner or operator is not sure whether
the change is technical or non-technical,
he should have it certified.
Former Section 112.7(a)(1)—Certain
pre-1974 Discharges
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
delete § 112.7(a), which required a
description of certain discharges to
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
which occurred prior to the effective
date of the rule in 1974, because that
information was no longer relevant. 56
FR 54620. We received several
comments supporting the proposed

deletion of this provision, and have
deleted it.
Section 112.7 Introduction and (a)(1)—
General Eequirements
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the introduction to § 112.7 to clarify that
the rule requires mandatory action, and
that it is not just a guideline. In 1997,
we reproposed a definition of SPCC
Plan that included some substantive
requirements. As noted above (see the
‘‘SPCC Plan’’ definition in § 112.2),
those substantive requirements have
been transferred from the definition of
‘‘SPCC Plan’’ in § 112.2 to this section.
Section 112.7(a)(1) requires a
discussion of the facility’s conformance
with the listed requirements in the rule.
Comments. For a discussion of the
‘‘should to shall to must’’ comments and
response to those comments, see the
discussion above under that topic in
section IV.C of this preamble.
Cross-referencing. Several
commenters criticized the requirement
for sequential cross-referencing set forth
in the 1997 proposed definition of
‘‘SPCC Plan,’’ alleging that it is
confusing and provides no benefit.
Another commenter asked how detailed
the cross-referencing must be.
Written Plans. Another commenter
proposed that a ‘‘written’’ Plan might
also include texts, graphs, charts, maps,
photos, and tables, on whatever media,
including floppy disk, CD, hard drive,
and tape storage that allows the
document to be easily accessed,
comprehended, distributed, viewed,
updated, and printed.
Response to comments. Crossreferencing. We agree that the term
‘‘sequential’’ cross-referencing may be
confusing, and have therefore deleted it
in favor of a requirement to provide
cross-referencing. We disagree that
cross-referencing provides no benefit.
With the wide variation now allowed in
differing formats, we need crossreferencing so that an inspector can tell
whether the Plan meets Federal
requirements, and whether it is
complete. In addition, in order for an
owner or operator to do his own check
to ensure that his facility meets all SPCC
requirements, he must go through the
exercise of comparing his Plan to each
SPCC requirement. Cross-referencing in
the context of the rule means indicating
the relationship of a requirement in the
new format to an SPCC requirement.
The cross-referencing must identify the
Federal section and paragraph for each
section of the new format it fulfills, for
example, § 112.8(c)(3). Note the crossreferencing table we have provided for
your convenience in section II.A of this
preamble.

47093

Written Plans. We agree that a
‘‘written’’ Plan might also include texts,
graphs, charts, maps, photos, and tables,
on whatever media, including floppy
disk, CD, hard drive, and tape storage,
that allows the document to be easily
accessed, comprehended, distributed,
viewed, updated, and printed. Whatever
medium you use, however, must be
readily accessible to response personnel
in an emergency. If it is produced in a
medium that is not readily accessible in
an emergency, it must be also available
in a medium that is. For example, a Plan
might be electronically produced, but
computers fail and may not be operable
in an emergency. For an electronic Plan
or Plan produced in some other
medium, therefore, a backup copy must
be readily available on paper. At least
one version of the Plan should be
written in English so that it will be
readily understood by an EPA inspector.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have transferred all of the proposed
substantive requirements in the 1997
proposed definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ to
the introduction of this section. We did
this because we agree with commenters
(see the comments on the definition of
‘‘SPCC Plan’’ in § 112.2) that definitions
should not contain substantive
requirements.
We have revised the introduction to
§ 112.7 to facilitate use of the active
voice and to clearly note that the owner
or operator, except as specifically noted,
is responsible for implementing the
rule.
We also deleted language requiring a
‘‘carefully thought-out’’ SPCC Plan.
Such language is unnecessary because
the Plan must be prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practices. Another editorial revision in
the introduction is the change from
‘‘level with authority’’ in the last
sentence of proposed § 112.7(a) to ‘‘level
of authority.’’ A third revision is a
change from ‘‘format’’ to ‘‘sequence.’’
We have transferred the part of the
sentence proposed in 1991 dealing with
the sequence of the Plan in § 112.7(a)(1)
to the introduction of § 112.7.
For consistency with response plan
language in § 112.20(h), the language in
the introduction referring to alternative
SPCC formats has been revised to read
‘‘equivalent Plan acceptable to the
Regional Administrator.’’ The response
plan language in § 112.20(h) on
‘‘equivalent response plans’’ has also
been revised to include the ‘‘acceptable
to the Regional Administrator’’ language
included in the introduction to § 112.7.
For a discussion of possible SPCC
formats, see the discussion under the
definition of ‘‘SPCC Plan,’’ above.

47094

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

We deleted the term ‘‘sequentially
cross-referenced’’ because we agree that
it may be misunderstood, and instead
use the term ‘‘cross-referencing’’ in the
revised rule. As noted above, crossreferencing means identifying the
requirement in the new format to the
section and paragraph of the SPCC
requirement. We have also substituted
the word ‘‘part’’ for ‘‘section’’ where
‘‘cross-referencing’’ and meeting
‘‘equivalent requirements’’ are
mentioned. We make this change
because the rule requires compliance
with any applicable provision in the
part, not merely § 112.7. We also clarify
that the discussion of your facility’s
conformance with the requirements
listed (see § 112.7(a)(1)) means the
requirements listed in part 112, not
merely the requirements listed in
§ 112.7.
We also note that if the Plan calls for
additional facilities or procedures,
methods, or equipment not yet fully
operational, you must discuss these
items in separate paragraphs, and must
explain separately the details of
installation and operational start-up.
The discussion must include a schedule
for the installation and start-up of these
items.
Section 112.7(a)(2)—Deviations from
Plan Requirements
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
allow deviations from the requirements
listed in § 112.7(c) and in §§ 112.8,
112.9, 112.10, and 112.11, as long as the
owner or operator explained the reason
for nonconformance and provided
equivalent environmental protection by
another means. The proposal was
intended to implement the requirement
for ‘‘good engineering practice’’ which
is a cornerstone of the rule, and to
provide flexibility in meeting the rule’s
requirements. We clearly noted in the
rule that the Regional Administrator
would have the authority to overrule
any deviation.
In 1993, we reproposed the section,
eliminating language referring to the
Regional Administrator’s (RA’s)
authority to overrule deviations.
Instead, we proposed that whenever you
proposed a deviation, you would have
to submit the entire Plan to the RA with
a letter explaining how your Plan
contained equivalent environmental
protection measures in lieu of those
explicitly required in the rule. The RA
would have authority under the 1993
proposal to require amendment of the
Plan if he determined that the measures
described in the deviation did not
provide equivalent protection.

Comments. Some commenters
supported the 1991 proposal. But others
had concerns.
Applicability—1991. Some
commenters suggested that the Agency
should add language to the rule making
clear that a facility may deviate from the
express requirements of the rule and
may substitute alternatives based on
good engineering practice. The
commenters added that we should make
clear that the equivalency provision in
§ 112.7(a)(2) does not require
mathematical equivalency of every
requirement, but merely the
achievement of substantially the same
level of overall protection from the risk
of discharge at the facility as the specific
requirement seeks to achieve. Another
commenter was concerned that proving
the equivalence of measures to the
satisfaction of Regional officials may be
difficult. One commenter urged us to
expressly state that PEs may substitute
alternatives based on good engineering
practice.
RA oversight—1991. One commenter
opposed the provision allowing the RA
to overrule waivers/equivalent
measures. As noted above, we withdrew
the proposal to allow the RA to
explicitly overrule waivers. Instead we
substituted a proposed procedure
whereby the RA could require you to
amend your Plan. One commenter
feared that PEs would be reluctant to
certify alternate technologies due to the
threat of potential liability.
Deviation submission. One
commenter opposed the proposed
requirement to submit a Plan deviation
and urged its deletion to make it
consistent with the rest of the SPCC
rule. The commenter argued that the
deviation and Plan have already been
certified by a PE, and there is no reason
for EPA to be asked to second guess that
certification in every case. The
commenter also asserted that it is
unduly burdensome to require regulated
facilities to prepare a justification and
submit a Plan to EPA for every waiver
of the technical requirements. Another
commenter questioned why the entire
Plan should be submitted to the RA for
review. The commenter suggested that
only the portion or portions of the Plan
that do not conform to the standard
requirements should be submitted,
adding that this step would help EPA to
minimize the resources needed to
review such waivers. One commenter
suggested that the choice of preventive
systems in the design and
implementation of spill prevention
measures should be left to the facility
owner or operator. The commenter
opposed giving the RA authority to
require equivalent protection because he

questioned how the RA will determine
if the deviation will cause harm to the
environment, and therefore lack
equivalency. If such a provision is
included, the commenter asked for an
appeals process similar to the one
suggested in § 112.20(c).
RA oversight—1993. One commenter
favored the 1993 proposal. Opposing
commenters believed that submission of
deviations to the RA is unnecessary
because PE certification ensures the
application of good engineering
practice.
Secondary containment. Several
commenters suggested that we explicitly
say that equivalent protection should be
defined to allow a compacted earthen
floor and compacted earthen dike to
provide secondary containment. The
rationale for the comment was that other
methods of secondary containment may
be prohibitively expensive and
unnecessary to protect against spills in
primarily rural areas. One commenter
suggested that we should clarify that the
language of § 112.7(c) applies only to oil
storage areas.
Response to comments. Applicability.
We generally agree with the commenter
that an owner or operator should have
flexibility to substitute alternate
measures providing equivalent
environmental protection in place of
express requirements. Therefore, we
have expanded the proposal to allow
deviations from the requirements in
§ 112.7(g), (h)(2) and (3), or (i), as well
as subparts B, and C, except for the
listed secondary containment provisions
in § 112.7 and subparts B and C. The
proposed rule already included possible
deviations for any of the requirements
listed in §§ 112.7(c), 112.8, 112.9,
112.10, and 112.11. We have expanded
this possibility of deviation to include
the new subparts we have added for
various classes of oils. We take this step
because we believe that the application
of good engineering practice requires
the flexibility to use alternative
measures when such measures offer
equivalent environmental protection.
This provision may be especially
important in differentiating between
requirements for facilities storing,
processing, or otherwise using various
types of oil.
A deviation may be used whenever an
owner or operator can explain his
reasons for nonconformance, and
provide equivalent environmental
protection. Possible rationales for a
deviation include when the owner or
operator can show that the particular
requirement is inappropriate for the
facility because of good engineering
practice considerations or other reasons,
and that he can achieve equivalent

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
environmental protection in an alternate
manner. For example, a requirement
that may be essential for a facility
storing gasoline may be inappropriate
for a facility storing asphalt; or, the
owner or operator may be able to
implement equivalent environmental
protection through an alternate
technology. An owner or operator may
consider cost as one of the factors in
deciding whether to deviate from a
particular requirement, but the alternate
provided must achieve environmental
protection equivalent to the required
measure. The owner or operator must
ensure that the design of any alternate
device used as a deviation is adequate
for the facility, and that the alternate
device is adequately maintained. In all
cases, the owner or operator must
explain in the Plan his reason for
nonconformance. We wish to be clear
that we do not intend this deviation
provision to be used as a means to avoid
compliance with the rule or simply as
an excuse for not meeting requirements
the owner or operator believes are too
costly. The alternate measure chosen
must represent good engineering
practice and must achieve
environmental protection equivalent to
the rule requirement. Technical
deviations, like other substantive
technical portions of the Plan requiring
the application of engineering judgment,
are subject to PE certification.
In the preamble to the 1991 proposal
(at 56 FR 54614), we noted that ‘‘* * *
aboveground storage tanks without
secondary containment pose a
particularly significant threat to the
environment. The Phase One
modifications would retain the current
requirement for facility owners or
operators who are unable to provide
certain structures or equipment for oil
spill prevention, including secondary
containment, to prepare facility-specific
oil spill contingency plans in lieu of the
prevention systems.’’ In keeping with
this position, we have deleted the
proposed deviation in § 112.7(a)(2) for
the secondary containment
requirements in §§ 112.7(c) and (h)(1);
and for proposed §§ 112.8(c)(2),
112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c); as
well as for the new sections which are
the counterparts of the proposed
sections, i.e., §§ 112.12(c)(2),
112.12(c)(11), 112.13(c)(2), and
112.14(c), because a more appropriate
deviation provision already exists in
§ 112.7(d). Section § 112.7(d) contains
the measures which a facility owner or
operator must undertake when the
secondary containment required by
§ 112.7(c) or (h)(1), or the secondary
containment provisions in the rule

found at §§ 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11),
112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2),
112.12(c)(11), 112.13(c)(2), and
112.14(c), are not practicable. Those
measures are expressly tailored to
address the lack of secondary
containment at a facility. They include
requirements to: explain why secondary
containment is not practicable; conduct
periodic integrity testing of bulk storage
containers; conduct periodic integrity
and leak testing of valves and piping;
provide in the Plan a contingency plan
following the provisions of 40 CFR part
109; and, provide a written commitment
of manpower, equipment, and materials
to expeditiously control and remove any
quantity of oil discharged that may be
harmful. Therefore, when an owner or
operator seeks to deviate from
secondary containment requirements,
§ 112.7(d) will be the applicable
‘‘deviation’’ provision, not § 112.7(a)(2).
Deviation submission. We agree with
the commenter that submission of a
deviation to the Regional Administrator
is not necessary and have deleted the
proposed requirement. We take this step
because we believe that the requirement
for good engineering practice and
current inspection and reporting
procedures (for example, § 112.4(a)),
followed by the possibility of required
amendments, are adequate to review
Plans and to detect the flaws in them.
Upon submission of required
information, or upon on-site review of a
Plan, if the RA decides that any portion
of a Plan is inadequate, he may require
an amendment. See § 112.4(d). If you
disagree with his determination
regarding an amendment, you may
appeal. See § 112.4(e).
RA oversight. Once an RA becomes
aware of a facility’s SPCC Plan as a
result of an on-site inspection or the
submission of required information, he
is to follow the principles of good
engineering practice and not overrule a
deviation unless it is clear that such
deviation fails to afford equivalent
environmental protection. This does not
mean that the deviation must achieve
‘‘mathematical equivalency,’’ as one
commenter pointed out. But it does
mean equivalent protection of the
environment. We encourage innovative
techniques, but such techniques must
also protect the environment. We also
believe that in general PEs will seek to
protect themselves from liability by only
certifying measures that do provide
equivalent environmental protection.
But the RA must still retain the
authority to require amendments for
deviations, as he can with other parts of
the Plan certified by a PE.
Not covered under the deviation rule.
Deviations under § 112.7(a)(2) are not

47095

allowed for the general and specific
secondary containment provisions listed
above because § 112.7(d) contains the
necessary requirements when you find
that secondary containment is not
practicable. We have amended both this
paragraph and § 112.7(d) to clarify this.
Instead, the contingency planning and
other requirements in § 112.7(d) apply.
Deviations are also not available for the
general recordkeeping and training
provisions in § 112.7, as these
requirements are meant to apply to all
facilities, or for the provisions of
§ 112.7(f) and (j). We already provide
flexibility in the manner of
recordkeeping by allowing the use of
ordinary and customary business
records. Training and a discussion of
compliance with more stringent State
rules are essential for all facilities.
Therefore, we do not allow deviations
for these measures.
Secondary containment. Regarding
the secondary containment
requirements, the requirement in
§ 112.7(c) applies not only to oil storage
areas, but also to operational areas of the
facility where a discharge may occur.
Section 112.7(c) may apply to any area
of the facility where a discharge is
possible. Other secondary containment
provisions in this part have more
particular applicability, e.g.,
§§ 112.7(h)(1), 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11),
112.9(c)(2),112.10(c), and their
counterparts in subpart C. We decline to
specify that a compacted earthen floor
and compacted earthen dike will always
satisfy the secondary containment
requirements. Those methods may,
however, be acceptable if there is no
potential for oil to migrate through the
compacted earthen floor or dike through
groundwater to cause a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Equivalent protection’’ becomes
‘‘equivalent environmental protection’’
throughout the paragraph.
Section 112.7(a)(3)—Facility
Characteristics That Must be Described
in the Plan
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
new section that would require you to
describe the essential characteristics of
your facility in the Plan. Those
characteristics are discussed below. In
the description, you would also be
required to provide a facility diagram
that included the location and contents
of all tanks, regardless of whether the
tanks are subject to all the provisions of
40 CFR part 280 or a State program
approved under 40 CFR part 281, or
otherwise subject to part 112. The
rationale for the diagram was that it
would assist in response actions.

47096

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Responders would have a means to
know where all containers are, to help
ensure their safety in conducting a
response action and aid in the
protection of life and property.
Comments. General description of
characteristics. Two commenters asked
that the requirements proposed for Plan
characteristics be listed on a facility
basis rather than a tank basis because
otherwise the proposal would be too
resource intensive. The commenters did
not provide cost estimates.
Facility diagram. Two commenters
supported the proposal. Opposing
commenters asserted that the diagram
would be too costly and add little to the
Plan. One commenter said that the
requirement was redundant because
many States require the same thing.
Two commenters opposed marking the
contents of the tanks because those
contents may change frequently,
requiring Plan amendment each time.
One commenter suggested that instead
the facility maintain a separate list of
tank contents when changes occur
frequently over a short span of time to
eliminate the need to constantly amend
the diagram. Other commenters
requested a de minimis exemption for
small containers for the diagram,
suggesting levels of 660 gallons or less.
Some of these commenters suggested
that the diagram be discretionary for
storage volumes of less than 10–15,000
gallons. Other commenters asked
whether exempt materials would have
to be marked as to content, for example,
products which are not oil. Some
believed that the inclusion of otherwise
exempt containers in the diagram was
unreasonable. One commenter
suggested the diagram should include
transfer stations and connecting pipes.
Another commenter asked for
clarification that underground tanks,
whether subject to SPCC or not, need to
be included in the diagram.
Unit-by-unit storage capacity. Several
commenters asked for clarification of
the meaning of the term ‘‘unit-by-unit
storage capacity.’’ Many commenters
asked for specification of a minimum
size, and some suggested sizes, ranging
from 660 gallons to 10,000 gallons.
Type and quantity of oil stored. We
received one comment on this item. The
commenter opposed the information
requirement because ‘‘the way a tank is
used changes often and the adequacy of
response to an accidental discharge does
not depend on the type of oil stored.’’
Estimates of quantity of oils
potentially discharged. The few
comments we received opposed this
information requirement. One
commenter argued that the item
requests a ‘‘prediction’’ of future events.

Another asserted that it would not be
possible to give estimates of oil
potentially discharged from flowlines or
gathering systems. One commenter
argued that mobile facilities should be
exempt from this requirement because
the exact site information changes with
the movement of equipment.
Possible spill pathways. Two
commenters wrote that the proposed
requirement ‘‘could be an infinite
number and serves no useful purpose.’’
One commenter asked that the
requirement be replaced by a
requirement to describe the most likely
spill pathways to navigable water.
Spill prevention measures (including
loading areas and transfers). One
commenter suggested that the beginning
of the paragraph be revised to read,
‘‘Secondary containment’’ instead of
‘‘Spill prevention measures. . . .’’ See
also the discussion on loading areas
under § 112.7(h).
Spill controls and secondary
containment. One commenter thought
that this paragraph should refer to
‘‘other drainage control features and the
equipment they protect.’’
Spill countermeasures. One
commenter suggested that this
paragraph be revised to read,
‘‘Prevention, control, or countermeasure
features, other than secondary
containment and drainage control, and
the equipment which they protect.’’
Another commenter argued that mobile
drilling and workover rigs either on or
off shore should be exempt from this
requirement because supplying site
specific spill and clean-up information
for a mobile source that will move from
one site to another is not feasible. One
commenter suggested that the
contingency planning requirements in
this paragraph, as well as in § 112.7(b)
and (d)(1), seem unnecessarily complex
because the same basic information
seems to be required in several different
places in the proposed regulation. The
commenter went on to suggest that EPA
consolidate these requirements. Another
commenter suggested that this
paragraph should be deleted and
removed to a response plan section
which he suggested, because the
information called for requires response
information.
Disposal of recovered materials. Two
commenters supported the proposal in
general, but one suggested that it is not
feasible nor useful to discuss particular
alternatives. One of the favorable
commenters suggested that we should
encourage recycling of spilled oil rather
than mere disposal. Another commenter
argued that mobile drilling and
workover rigs either on or off shore
should be exempt from this requirement

because supplying site specific spill and
clean-up information for a mobile
source that will move from one site to
another is not feasible.
Some opposing commenters believed
that the proposal would preclude
bioremediation. Others believed that it
was too costly. One commenter
suggested that the ‘‘costs associated
with off-site disposal of oil-saturated
soil from a typical secondary
containment facility after a contained
spill event will cost an operator as much
as $4,700, calculated at the cost of $90
per ton of removed soil for
transportation and disposal fees and the
associated leachate and waste analysis
but excluding the internal costs
associated with the actual excavation
work.’’ Other commenters believed that
we have no authority to ask the question
because the subject matter is regulated
either by State law or another Federal
program, such as the solid waste
program. One commenter asked for an
exemption for mobile facilities from this
requirement.
Contact list. Several commenters
favored the proposal. One commenter
suggested that the list name the cleanup
contractor with whom the facility has a
relationship, not merely the name of any
cleanup contractor.
One commenter favored the inclusion
of local emergency planning contacts in
the required information. Another
opposed it as duplicative of information
in the HAZWOPER Plan. A commenter
requested an exemption for mobile
facilities. Another commenter believed
we lack authority to request the
information. One commenter suggested
that the list be restricted to Federal or
State agencies that must be notified in
case of the accidental discharge of oil.
Another commenter argued that mobile
drilling and workover rigs either on or
off shore should be exempt from this
requirement because supplying site
specific spill and clean-up information
for a mobile source that will move from
one site to another is not feasible. One
commenter suggested that this
paragraph should be deleted and
removed to a response plan section
which he suggested, because the
information called for requires response
information.
Downstream water suppliers. Several
commenters suggested that the proposed
requirement to include information on
downstream water suppliers who must
be contacted in case of a discharge to
navigable waters should be limited to
those ‘‘who might reasonably be affected
by a discharge.’’ Others asked that the
downstream distance be specified. They
added that private wells should be
excluded from the notice. Several

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
commenters asked how they might
identify such suppliers. Yet others
believed that such notification was the
responsibility of local emergency
response agencies.
Response to comments. General
description of characteristics. The
following characteristics must be
described on a per container basis: the
storage capacity of the container, type of
oil in each container, and secondary
containment for each container. The
other characteristics may be described
on a facility basis. We disagree that
these requirements are too resource
intensive. The major new requirement
in § 112.7(a)(3) is the facility diagram.
Based on site inspections and
professional judgment, we estimate unit
costs for compliance with this section to
be $33 for a small facility, $39 for a
medium facility, and $5 for a large
facility. Large facilities are assumed to
already have a diagram that may be
attached to the SPCC Plan. The other
items mentioned in § 112.7(a)(3)—
storage capacity of each container,
prevention measures, discharge
controls, countermeasures, disposal
methods, and the contact list—are
already required under the current rule
or required by good engineering
practice. As described in the
Information Collection Request for this
rule, the cost of Plan preparation
includes these items, e.g., field
investigations to understand the facility
design and to predict flow paths and
potential harm, regulatory review, and
spill prevention and control practices.
Providing information on a containerspecific basis helps the facility to
prioritize inspections and maintenance
of containers based on characteristics
such as age, capacity, or location. It also
helps inspectors to prioritize
inspections of higher-risk containers at
a facility. Container-specific information
helps an inspector verify the capacity
calculation to determine whether a Plan
is needed; and, helps to formulate
contingency planning if such planning
is necessary.
Facility diagram. The facility diagram
is important because it is used for
effective prevention, planning,
management (for example, inspections),
and response considerations and we
therefore believe that it must be part of
the Plan. The diagram will help the
facility and emergency response
personnel to plan for emergencies. For
example, the identification of the type
of oil in each container may help such
personnel determine the risks when
conducting a response action. Some oils
present a higher risk of fire and
explosion than other less flammable
oils.

Inspectors and personnel new to the
facility need to know the location of all
containers subject to the rule. The
facility diagram may also help first
responders to determine the pathway of
the flow of discharged oil. If responders
know possible pathways, they may be
able to take measures to control the flow
of oil. Such control may avert damage
to sensitive environmental areas; may
protect drinking water sources; and may
help responders to prevent discharges to
other conduits leading to a treatment
facility or navigable waters. Diagrams
may assist Federal, State, or facility
personnel to avoid certain hazards and
to respond differently to others.
The facility diagram is necessary for
all facilities, large or small, because the
rationale is the same for both. While
some States may require a diagram,
others do not. SPCC is a Federal
program specifying minimum
requirements, which the States may
supplement with their own more
stringent requirements. We note that
State plans may be used as SPCC Plans
if they meet all Federal requirements,
thus avoiding any duplication of effort
if the State facility diagram meets the
requirements of the Federal one.
Facility diagram—container contents.
The facility diagram must include all
fixed (i.e., not mobile or portable)
containers which store 55 gallons or
more of oil and must include
information marking the contents of
those containers. If you store mobile
containers in a certain area, you must
mark that area on the diagram. You may
mark the contents of each container
either on the diagram of the facility, or
on a separate sheet or log if those
contents change on a frequent basis.
Marking containers makes for more
effective prevention, planning,
management, and response. For
example, a responder may take one type
of emergency measure for one type of
oil, and another measure for another
type. As noted above, oils differ in their
risk of fire and explosion. Gasoline is
highly flammable and volatile. It
presents the risk of fire and inhalation
of vapors when discharged. On the other
hand, motor oil is not highly flammable,
and there is no inhalation of vapors
hazard associated with its discharge.
In an emergency, the responder may
not have container content information
unless it is clearly marked on a diagram,
log, or sheet. For emergency response
purposes, we also encourage, but do not
require you to mark on the facility
diagram containers that store CWA
hazardous substances and to label the
contents of those containers. When the
contents of an oil container change, this

47097

may or may not be a material change.
See the discussion on § 112.5(a).
Facility diagram—De minimis
containers. We have established a de
minimis container size of less than 55
gallons. You do not have to include
containers less than 55 gallons on the
facility diagram.
Facility diagram—Transfer stations,
connecting pipes, and USTs. We agree
that all facility transfer stations and
connecting pipes that handle oil must
be included in the diagram, and have
amended the rule to that effect. This
inclusion will help facilitate response
by informing responders of the location
of this equipment. The location of all
containers and connecting pipes that
store oil (other than de minimis
containers) must be marked, including
USTs and other containers not subject to
SPCC rules which are present at SPCC
facilities. Again, this is necessary to
facilitate response by informing
responders of the location of these
containers.
Unit-by-unit storage capacity. For
clarity, we have changed the term in
§ 112.7(a)(3)(i), ‘‘unit-by-unit’’ storage
capacity, to ‘‘type of oil in each
container and its storage capacity.’’ As
noted earlier, this requirement applies
only to containers of 55 gallons or
greater.
Type and quantity of oil stored. We
have eliminated proposed
§ 112.7(a)(3)(ii) because it repeats
information requested in revised
§ 112.7(a)(3)(i). We ask for information
concerning storage capacity and type of
oil stored in each container in that
paragraph.
Estimates of quantity of oils
potentially discharged. We have
eliminated proposed § 112.7(a)(3)(iii)
because it repeats information sought in
§ 112.7(b) regarding ‘‘a prediction of the
direction, rate of flow, and total quantity
of oil which could be
discharged* * * .’’ We will address the
substantive comments under the
discussion of that paragraph.
Possible spill pathways. We have
eliminated proposed § 112.7(a)(3)(iv)
because the proposal repeats
information sought in § 112.7(b)
regarding ‘‘a prediction of the direction,
rate of flow, and total quantity of oil
which could be discharged.* * *’’
Again, we will address the substantive
comments under the discussion of that
paragraph.
Spill prevention measures. We have
revised this paragraph to read
‘‘discharge prevention measures.’’ We
disagree with the commenter that the
paragraph should be labeled ‘‘secondary
containment.’’ The term ‘‘discharge
prevention measures’’ is better because

47098

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

it encompasses both secondary
containment and other discharge
prevention measures.
Spill controls and secondary
containment. We have revised this
paragraph to refer to ‘‘discharge’’
controls. In response to a commenter,
we have also included a reference to
drainage controls in the paragraph
because drainage systems or
diversionary ponds might be an
alternative means of secondary
containment. See § 112.7(c)(1)(iii) and
(v).
Spill countermeasures. We disagree
that the paragraph should be revised to
read, ‘‘Prevention, control, or
countermeasure features, other than
secondary containment and drainage
control, and the equipment which they
protect,’’ because we believe that the
language we proposed, as revised, better
captures the information we are seeking.
Our revised language refers to
discovery, response, and cleanup,
which are features that are absent from
the commenter’s suggestion, and for
which a discussion in the Plan is
necessary in order to be prepared for
any discharges.
We disagree that either onshore or
offshore mobile drilling and workover
rigs should be exempted from this
requirement because the information
necessary to this requirement is not
always site specific, and may be
included in a general plan for a mobile
facility.
We also disagree that the information
required in this paragraph is redundant
of information required in §§ 112.7(b)
and 112.7(d)(1). Each of the sections
mentioned requires discrete and
different information. Section
112.7(a)(3)(iv) requires information
concerning a facility’s and a contractor’s
capabilities for discharge discovery,
response, and cleanup. Section 112.7(b)
requires information concerning the
potential consequences of equipment
failure. Section 112.7(d)(1) requires a
contingency plan following the
provisions of part 109, which includes
coordination requirements with
governmental oil spill response
organizations.
We disagree that the information
should be placed in a response section,
because most SPCC facilities are not
required to have response plans, and the
information is necessary to prepare for
discharge discovery, response, and
cleanup.
Disposal of recovered materials. This
provision applies to all facilities,
including mobile facilities, because
proper disposal of recovered materials
helps prevent a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b) by ensuring that the

materials are managed in an
environmentally sound manner. Proper
disposal also assists response efforts. If
a facility lacks adequate resources to
dispose of recovered oil and oilcontaminated material during a
response, it limits how much and how
quickly oil and oil-contaminated
material is recovered, thereby increasing
the risk and damage to the environment.
We disagree that this paragraph
would preclude bioremediation efforts,
as some commenters suggested.
Bioremediation may be a method of
proper disposal. The paragraph merely
requires that you discuss the methods
employed to dispose of recovered
materials; it does not require that
materials recovered be ‘‘disposed’’ of in
any particular manner nor is it an
independent requirement to properly
dispose of materials. Thus, there is no
infringement on or duplication of any
other State or Federal program or
regulatory authority. Because it does
nothing more than require that you
explain the method of disposal of
recovered materials, we also disagree
that this provision is too costly. Also,
we assume that good engineering
practice will in many cases include a
discussion of such disposal already. By
describing those methods in the Plan,
you help ensure that the facility has
done the appropriate planning to be able
to dispose of recovered materials,
should a discharge occur. We support
the recycling of spilled oil to the extent
possible, rather than its disposal. For
purposes of this rule, disposal of
recovered materials includes recycling
of those materials.
We disagree that either onshore or
offshore mobile drilling and workover
rigs should be exempted from this
requirement because the information
necessary to this requirement is not
always site specific, and may be
included in a general plan for a mobile
facility.
Contact list. In response to a
comment, we have amended the rule to
require that the cleanup contractor
listed must be the one with whom the
facility has an agreement for response
that ensures the availability of the
necessary personnel and equipment
within appropriate response times. An
agreement to respond may include a
contract or some less formal
relationship with a cleanup contractor.
No formal written agreement to respond
is required by the SPCC rule, but if you
do have one, you must discuss it in the
Plan.
We have ample authority to ask for
information concerning emergency
contacts under the CWA because it is
relevant to the statute’s prevention,

preparedness, and response purposes.
Furthermore, it is an appropriate
question for all facilities, including
mobile facilities, because it is necessary
to prepare for discharges and to aid in
prompt cleanup when they occur.
Having a Plan which contains a contact
list of response organizations is a
procedure and method to contain a
discharge of oil as specified in CWA
section 311(j)(1)(C). However, we have
eliminated references to specific State
and local agencies in the event of
discharges in favor of a reference to ‘‘all
appropriate State and local agencies.’’
‘‘Appropriate’’ means those State and
local agencies that must be contacted
due to Federal or State requirements, or
pursuant to good engineering practice.
You may not always be required to
notify fire departments, local emergency
planning committees (LEPCs), and State
emergency response commissions
(SERCs), nor as an engineering practice
do they always need to receive direct
notice from the facility in the event of
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
At times they might, but they might also
receive notice from other sources, such
as the National Response Center. Other
State and local agencies might also need
notice from you.
We have added the word ‘‘Federal’’ to
the list of all appropriate contact
agencies because there are times when
you must notify EPA of certain
discharges. See § 112.4(a). There might
also be requirements under Federal
statutes other than the CWA, for notice
in such emergencies.
We disagree that either onshore or
offshore mobile drilling and workover
rigs should be exempted from this
requirement because the information
necessary to this requirement is not
always site specific, and may be
included in a general plan for a mobile
facility.
We disagree that the information
should be placed in a response section,
because most SPCC facilities are not
required to have response plans, and the
information is necessary to prepare for
response to an emergency.
Downstream water suppliers. We have
deleted the reference to ‘‘downstream
water suppliers’’ (i.e., intakes for
drinking and other waters) because
facilities may have no way to identify
such suppliers. We agree with
commenters that identifying such
suppliers is more a function of State and
local emergency response agencies. We
note, however, that facilities that must
prepare response plans under § 112.20
must discuss in those plans the
vulnerability of water intakes (drinking,
cooling, or other).

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the introduction to paragraph (a)(3),
‘‘physical plant’’ becomes ‘‘physical
layout.’’ ‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘containers.’’
In proposed paragraph (a)(3)(vi),
redesignated as paragraph (a)(3)(iii),
‘‘spill controls’’ becomes ‘‘discharge or
drainage controls.’’ In proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(vii), redesignated as
paragraph (a)(3)(iv), ‘‘spill
countermeasures for spill discovery’’
becomes ‘‘countermeasures for
discharge discovery.’’ In proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(ix), redesignated as
paragraph (a)(3)(vi), ‘‘discharge to
navigable waters’’ becomes ‘‘discharge
as described in § 112.1(b).’’
Section 112.7(a)(4)—Spill Reporting
Information in the Plan
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that documentation in this paragraph be
sufficient to enable a person reporting a
spill to provide essential information to
organizations on the contact list.
Comments. Several commenters had
editorial comments, suggesting the rule
refer to ‘‘information’’ rather than
‘‘documentation’’ on the theory that
documentation refers to a past event,
whereas the rule contemplates a future
event. One commenter suggested that
the section be qualified to indicate that
a form for collecting spill report
information be included in the Plan, or
for ‘‘small size facilities’’ in the
HAZWOPER reporting matrix. Another
commenter suggested that a properly
prepared SPCC Plan would assist the
person reporting the spill to provide the
requested information. One commenter
asserted the proposed rule was
duplicative of State requirements.
Several commenters suggested that not
all of the information will be available
or applicable for a person reporting a
discharge. One commenter suggested
that this paragraph should be deleted
and removed to a response plan section
which he suggested, because the
information called for requires response
information.
Response to comments.
Documentation. We agree with
commenters that the word
‘‘documentation’’ is inappropriate
because it refers to a past event.
Accordingly, as suggested by
commenters, we have revised the rule to
provide for ‘‘information and
procedures’’ that would assist the
reporting of discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b). ‘‘Information’’ refers to the
facts which you must report, and
‘‘procedures’’ refers to the method of
reporting those facts. Such procedures
must address whom the person relating
the information should call, in what
order the caller should call potential

responders and others, and any other
instructions necessary to facilitate
notification of a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b). If properly noted, the
information and procedures in the Plan
should enable a person reporting a
discharge to accurately describe
information concerning that occurrence
to the proper persons in an emergency.
Any information or procedure not
applicable will not have to be used.
Available information on a discharge
must be reported. Applicable
procedures must be followed. And of
course, any information that is not
available cannot be reported.
State requirements. While it is
possible that this information may be
duplicative of State requirements, the
duplication is eliminated to the extent
that you use your State SPCC Plan for
Federal SPCC purposes. Where there is
no State requirement, there is no
duplication.
Response plan exemption. We
disagree that this paragraph should be
placed in a response section, because
most SPCC facilities are not required to
have response plans, and the
information is necessary to prepare for
response to an emergency. However, if
your facility has prepared and
submitted a response plan to us under
§ 112.20, there is no need to document
this information in your SPCC Plan,
because it is already contained in the
response plan. See § 112.20(h)(1)(i)­
(viii). Therefore, we have amended the
rule to exempt those facilities with
response plans from the requirements of
this paragraph.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We changed ‘‘address’’ to ‘‘address or
location’’ because some facilities do not
have an exact address. ‘‘Spill’’ and
‘‘spilled’’ becomes ‘‘discharge as
described in § 112.1(b)’’ or ‘‘discharged’’
as appropriate in the context,
‘‘discharge’’ being a defined term.
‘‘Spill’’ or ‘‘spilled’’ are not defined
terms. ‘‘The affected medium’’ becomes
‘‘all affected media.’’
Section 112.7(a)(5)—Emergency
Procedures
Background. In 1991, we proposed
this paragraph to ensure that portions of
the Plan describing procedures to be
used in emergency circumstances are
organized in a manner to make them
readily usable in an emergency.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that this paragraph should be deleted
and removed to a response plan section
which he suggested, because the
information called for requires response
information.
Response to comments. We disagree
this paragraph should be deleted

47099

because most SPCC facilities are not
required to have a response plan, and
the procedures to be used when a
discharge occurs are necessary to
prepare for an emergency. Because this
information would repeat information
contained in a response plan submitted
under § 112.20, we have excluded from
the requirements of this paragraph those
facilities which have submitted
response plans. See § 112.20(h)(3)(i)­
(ix).
Section 112.7(b)—Fault Analysis
Background. In 1991, we proposed
only editorial changes to this paragraph
dealing with fault analysis. The
proposal would require an analysis of
the major types of failures possible in a
facility, including a prediction of the
direction, rate of flow, and total quantity
of oil that could be discharged as a
result of each such failure.
Comments. Applicability. One
commenter wrote that the language in
the first sentence of the proposed rule
is less clear than current regulations.
The commenter asserted that the
proposed revision, perhaps
inadvertently, does not specify the
sections to which the certain
‘‘situations’’ apply. The commenter
suggested that current language is
clearer and specifically focuses limited
resources on situations for which there
is a reasonable potential for discharge.
The commenter argued that limited
resources should not be consumed in
developing flow rate, direction and
quantity predictions in the SPCC Plan
for situations without a reasonable
potential for discharge to navigable
waters.
Several commenters asserted that the
fault analysis required by this paragraph
is ‘‘too involved for small operators.’’
They suggested that only development
of responses to obvious scenarios, such
as tank rupture, should be required.
Commenters from the utility industry
suggested that electrical equipment
facilities should be exempt from the
requirements in this paragraph. One
commenter believed that mobile
facilities should be exempt from the
requirements in the paragraph because
the exact site information changes with
the movement of equipment.
Failure factors. One commenter
suggested that the rule should also focus
on small discharges, not just ‘‘major’’
discharges. Another commenter asked
for clarification as to what is a ‘‘major
failure’’ and to what degree of
sophistication the pathway prediction
must be made. Another commenter
suggested that the rule should
adequately describe how detailed the
analysis of potential spill pathways

47100

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

should be. Another suggested that it
would be impossible to give estimates of
oil potentially discharged from
flowlines or gathering systems.
Response to comments. Applicability.
We agree with the commenter that
current language is clearer and will
retain it. We therefore modified the first
sentence contained in the proposed
rule. We agree that the Plan must only
discuss potential failure situations that
might result in a discharge from the
facility, not any failure situation. The
rule requires that when experience
indicates a reasonable potential for
failure of equipment, the Plan must
contain certain information relevant to
those failures. ‘‘Experience’’ includes
the experience of the facility and the
industry in general.
We disagree that the requirement is
too difficult for owners or operators of
small or mobile facilities, or of flowlines
or gathering lines, or of electrical
equipment facilities, or other users of
oil. We believe that a Professional
Engineer may evaluate the potential risk
of failure for the aforementioned
facilities and equipment and predict
with a certain degree of accuracy the
result of a failure from each. We note
that since we have raised the regulatory
threshold, this requirement will not be
applicable to many smaller facilities.
Failure factors. To comply with this
section, you need only address ‘‘major
equipment’’ failures. A major equipment
failure is one which could cause a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), not
a minor failure possibility. To help
clarify the type of equipment failures
the rule contemplates, we have added
examples of other types of failures that
would trigger the requirements of this
paragraph. Such other equipment
failures include failures of loading/
unloading equipment, or of any other
equipment known to be a source of a
discharge. The analysis required will
depend on the experience of the facility
and how sophisticated the facility
equipment is. If your facility has
simpler equipment, you will have less
to detail. If you have more sophisticated
equipment, you will have to conduct a
more detailed analysis. If your facility’s
experience or industry experience in
general indicates a higher risk of failure
associated with the use of that
equipment, your analysis will also have
to be more detailed. This rationale and
analytic detail are also applicable to
electrical equipment facilities and other
facilities that do not store oil, but
contain it for operational use. Again, the
required explanation will be tailored to
the type of equipment used and the
experience with that equipment.

Spill pathways. The level of analysis
concerning spill pathways will depend
on the geographic characteristics of the
facility’s site and the possibility of a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b) that
equipment failure might cause.
However, the Professional Engineer
should focus on the most obvious spill
pathways.
Because this information is facility
specific, the owner or operator of a
mobile facility will not be able to detail
spill pathways in the general Plan for
the facility each time the facility moves.
However, the owner or operator must
provide management practices in the
general Plan that provide for
containment of discharges in spill
pathways in a variety of geographic
conditions likely to be encountered. In
case of a discharge at a particular
facility, the owner or operator would
then take appropriate action to contain
or remove the discharge. For example,
the Plan may provide that a rig must be
positioned to minimize or prevent
discharges as described in § 112.1(b); or
it may provide for the use of spill pans,
drip trays, excavations, or trenching to
augment discharge prevention.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We made minor editorial changes in the
proposal’s second sentence that reflect a
plain language format. We revised the
phrase in the proposed second sentence
of the paragraph from ‘‘each major type
of failure’’ to ‘‘each type of major
equipment failure.’’
Section 112.7(c)—Secondary
Containment.
Background. The SPCC Task force
concluded that aboveground storage
tanks without secondary containment
could pose a particularly significant
threat to the environment. We noted in
the 1991 preamble that the proposed
rule modifications would ‘‘retain the
current requirement for facility owners
or operators who are unable to provide
certain structures or equipment for oil
spill prevention, including secondary
containment, to prepare facility-specific
contingency plans in lieu of prevention
systems.’’ 56 FR 54614.
In 1991, we proposed to modify the
current standard that dikes, berms, or
retaining walls must be ‘‘sufficiently
impervious.’’ We proposed that the
current ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’
standard for secondary containment be
replaced with a standard requiring that
the entire containment system,
including walls and floor, must be
impervious to oil for 72 hours. The
rationale was that a containment system
that is impervious to oil for 72 hours
would allow time for discovery and

removal of an oil discharge in most
cases.
We also noted that for some facilities
such as electrical substations,
compliance with this section might not
be practicable. We said that since their
purpose was not the storage of oil in
bulk, they did not need to comply with
the secondary containment
requirements designed for bulk storage
tanks in §§ 112.8(c) and 112.9(d), but
only the secondary containment
requirements in § 112.7(c), and that the
§ 112.7(c) requirement for secondary
containment might be satisfied by
various means including drainage
systems, spill diversion ponds, etc. We
added that the alternative requirements
contained in proposed § 112.7(d) would
fulfill the intent of the CWA when a
facility could not provide secondary
containment due to the impracticability
of installation. 56 FR 54621.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. Several commenters
suggested that the reference to
prevention of discharges to ‘‘surface
waters’’ be changed to prevention of
discharges to ‘‘navigable waters.’’
Contingency planning. One
commenter suggested revising the rules
to allow the use of the contingency plan
contemplated in § 112.7(d) instead of
secondary containment measures.
Another commenter asserted that a
contingency plan is not an acceptable
substitute for secondary containment
and advocated that all facilities be
required to have secondary
containment.
Applicability of requirement.
Numerous electric utility commenters
suggested that secondary containment
was impractical for their facilities
because it might cause a safety hazard.
Instead, they argued for the use of
contingency planning. One commenter
asserted that secondary containment at
sites used for the maintenance and
operation of the air traffic control
system was also impracticable because
those sites are often very small, isolated,
unmanned, and visited only on a
quarterly basis. Another commenter
asked that wastewater treatment tanks
be exempted from the secondary
containment requirement because their
use is not to store oil, but to treat water.
Other containers not used for storage,
but other purposes might include
stormwater surge tanks, activated sludge
aeration tanks, equalization basins,
dissolved and inducted air floatation
tanks, oil/water separators, sludge
digesters, etc. Another commenter urged
that all oil-filled equipment located in a
25-year floodplain be required to have
secondary containment.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
One commenter asked that we clarify
that the secondary containment
requirement in this section does not
apply to the following equipment at
onshore production facilities: flowlines
because of the prohibitive cost of
construction for miles of lines; fired
vessels because of the danger of pooling
spilled oil around an ignition source;
and, pressurized vessels because a leak
from such vessel might be sprayed
beyond the area that a reasonable dike
might enclose. One commenter
suggested that all in-use hydraulic
equipment such as cranes, jacks,
elevators, forklifts, etc., be exempted
from the secondary containment
requirement because it would be
impractical to provide structures for
such equipment. Others suggested that
mobile facilities should be exempt from
the secondary containment requirement
because it would be infeasible to
provide it. Similarly, one commenter
suggested that the requirement was
infeasible for production facilities due
to their sometimes remote locations or
difficult terrain and soil conditions. Yet
another commenter wanted us to clarify
that underground piping is not subject
to the rule’s secondary containment
provisions.
One commenter asserted that mining
sites should be exempted from the
secondary containment requirement
because the containment requirements
would be ‘‘excessive’’ for such sites and
result in ‘‘little resultant net
environmental benefit.’’ A commenter
representing various small facilities
asked for exemption from the
requirement on the basis that the risk is
lower for those facilities.
Methods of secondary containment.
As to methods of secondary
containment, several commenters urged
that the existence of ‘‘natural’’
structures and/or drainage could meet
this requirement. Other commenters
suggested that vaulted tanks or doublewalled tanks in themselves meet the
secondary containment requirement.
One commenter suggested that we
remove sorbent materials or booms from
the list of acceptable secondary
containment structures because they are
not a substitute for impervious dikes
and impoundment floors.
72-hour impermeability standard. We
received numerous comments on the
proposed 72-hour impermeability
standard. Several commenters favored
the standard. Many were opposed. Of
the opponents, some favored the current
standard that the dikes, berms or
retaining walls be ‘‘sufficiently
impervious’’ to contain spilled oil.
Other commenters thought that the
proposed requirement to prevent escape

of oil to surface waters should be
replaced with a standard of preventing
the escape of oil to ‘‘the environment’’
or to ‘‘navigable waters.’’ Others asked
for clarification of the term
‘‘impervious,’’ asserting that it is a
qualitative term that requires definition
by engineering standards. One
commenter requested that if an
impervious containment system cannot
be provided, that facilities be required
to assure that conduits that may cause
substantial migration of free products
are appropriately monitored for
discharges. Another commenter asked
us to specify acceptable liner materials,
in lieu of a total imperviousness
requirement.
Costs. One commenter suggested that
our industry cost estimate for the
proposed 1991 regulations—of $441
million in the first year and $71.8
million each subsequent year—was
erroneously low, but did not provide his
own cost estimates. The commenter
came to this conclusion by calculating
compliance cost estimates for the
following requirements: 72-hour
impermeability for secondary
containment and diked areas, and
installation of containment systems at
all truck loading locations. The
commenter estimated the cost of the
effects of two proposed items for New
York oil and gas producers, not all us
producers, at in excess of $78 million;
he estimated the cost of the proposed 72
hour oil impermeability requirement at
$48 million, and if earthen dikes and
diked areas cannot meet the secondary
containment standards at truck loading
areas, at least $30 million.
Alternate impermeability standards.
Commenters suggested a number of
alternate impermeability standards. One
commenter suggested a standard that
the containment system be impervious
to oil and water for 72 hours. Another
commenter suggested that the standard
apply only in environmentally sensitive
areas. Some suggested that the standard
should be inapplicable at facilities that
are staffed around the clock, seven days
a week. One commenter suggested a
phase-in of the requirement. Some
thought that the impermeability
standard should not apply to heavier
oils, particularly number 5 and 6 oils.
Alternate time frames. Others
suggested differing time standards in
lieu of 72 hours such as 24 hours at
manned facilities, 36 hours or increased
inspections, ‘‘as soon as practicable,’’
‘‘for the duration of the response,’’ or no
time limit at all. One commenter asked
when the 72 hours begins to run,
whether it begins at the time of the
discovery of the discharge or the time of
occurrence.

47101

Containment or impermeability. Other
commenters asserted that the rule
should address containment rather than
impermeability because they assert that
the point of a containment structure is
‘‘to keep the discharge from reaching the
waters of the United States.’’ In the
same vein, two commenters asked EPA
to clarify that the leaching of small
amounts of oil that does not reach the
water table or surface waters meets the
impermeability requirement, while a
third asked that we clarify that we are
concerned only with horizontal rather
than vertical discharges of oil.
Sufficient freeboard. See the
comments to § 112.8(c)(2) under this
topic.
Response to comments. Contingency
planning. A contingency plan should
not be used routinely as a substitute for
secondary containment because we
believe it is normally environmentally
better to contain oil than to clean it up
after it has been discharged. Secondary
containment is intended to contain
discharged oil so that it does not leave
the facility and contaminate the
environment. The proper method of
secondary containment is a matter of
good engineering practice, and so we do
not prescribe here any particular
method. Under part 112, where
secondary containment is not
practicable, you may deviate from the
requirement, provide a contingency
plan following the provisions of 40 CFR
part 109, and comply with the other
requirements of § 112.7(d). For bulk
storage containers, those requirements
include both periodic integrity testing of
the containers and periodic integrity
and leak testing of the valves and
piping. You must also provide a written
commitment of manpower, equipment,
and materials to expeditiously control
and remove any quantity of oil
discharged that may be harmful.
Applicability of requirement.
Secondary containment is best for most
facilities storing or using oil because it
is the most effective method to stop oil
from migrating beyond that
containment. We believe that secondary
containment is preferable to a
contingency plan at manned and
unmanned facilities because it prevents
discharges as described in § 112.1(b). At
unmanned facilities, it may be even
more important because of the lag in
time before a discharge may be
discovered. Notwithstanding what may
be difficult terrain, we believe that some
form of secondary containment is
practicable at most facilities, including
remote production facilities. In fact, it
may often be more feasible in remote or
rural areas because there are fewer space
limitations in such areas. For example,

47102

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

at some remote mobile or production
facilities, owners or operators dig
trenches and line them for containment
or retention of drilling fluids.
Technologies used at offshore facilities
to catch or contain oil may also
sometimes be used onshore.
While some types of secondary
containment (for example, dikes or
berms) may not be appropriate at certain
facilities, other types (for example,
diversionary systems or remote
impounding) might. However, we
recognize and repeat, as we noted in the
1991 preamble, that some or perhaps all
types of secondary containment for
certain facilities with equipment that
contain oil, such as electrical
equipment, may be contrary to safety
factors or other good engineering
practice considerations. There might be
other equipment, like fired or
pressurized vessels, for which safety
considerations also preclude some or all
types of secondary containment.
Some facilities or equipment that use
but do not store oil may or may not, as
a matter of good engineering practice,
employ secondary containment. Such
facilities might include wastewater
treatment facilities, whose purpose is
not to store oil, but to treat water. Other
facilities that may not find the
requirement practicable are those that
use oil in equipment such as hydraulic
equipment. Similarly, flowlines must
have a program of maintenance to
prevent discharges. See § 112.9(d)(3).
The maintenance program may or may
not include secondary containment.
Owners or operators of underground
piping must have some form of
corrosion protection, but do not
necessarily have to use secondary
containment for that purpose.
As stated above, for a facility where
secondary containment is not
practicable, the owner or operator is not
exempt from the requirement, but may
instead provide a contingency plan and
take other measures required under
§ 112.7(d). For most facilities, however,
including small facilities, mobile
facilities, production facilities, mining
sites, and any other facilities that store
or use oil, we believe that secondary
containment is generally necessary and
appropriate to prevent a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). Without
secondary containment, discharges from
containers would often reach navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines, or affect
natural resources.
Methods of secondary containment.
The appropriate method of secondary
containment is an engineering question.
Earthen or natural structures may be
acceptable if they contain and prevent
discharges as described in § 112.1(b),

including containment that prevents
discharge of oil to groundwater that is
connected to navigable water. What is
practical for one facility, however,
might not work for another. If secondary
containment is not practicable, then the
facility must provide a contingency plan
following the provisions of 40 CFR part
109, and otherwise comply with
§ 112.7(d).
Double-walled or vaulted tanks. The
term ‘‘vaulted tank’’ has been used to
describe both double-walled tanks
(especially those with a concrete outer
shell) and tanks inside underground
vaults, rooms, or crawl spaces. While
double-walled or vaulted tanks are
subject to secondary containment
requirements, shop-fabricated doublewalled aboveground storage tanks
equipped with adequate technical spill
and leak prevention options might
provide sufficient equivalent secondary
containment as that required under
§ 112.7(c). Such options include overfill
alarms, flow shutoff or restrictor
devices, and constant monitoring of
product transfers. In the case of vaulted
tanks, the Professional Engineer must
determine whether the vault meets the
requirements for secondary containment
in § 112.7(c). This determination should
include an evaluation of drainage
systems and of sumps or pumps which
could cause a discharge of oil outside
the vault. Industry standards for vaulted
tanks often require the vaults to be
liquid tight, which if sized correctly,
may meet the secondary containment
requirement.
There might also be other examples of
such alternative systems.
Completely buried tanks. Completely
buried tanks, other than those exempted
from this rule because they are subject
to all technical Federal or State UST
requirements, are subject to the
secondary containment requirement. We
realize that the concept of freeboard for
precipitation is inapplicable to
secondary containment for completely
buried tanks. The requirement for
secondary containment may be satisfied
in any of the ways listed in the rule or
their equivalent.
72-hour impermeability standard. We
are withdrawing the proposal for the 72hour impermeability standard and will
retain the current standard that dikes,
berms, or retaining walls must be
sufficiently impervious to contain oil.
We agree with commenters that the
purpose of secondary containment is to
contain oil from escaping the facility
and reaching the environment. The
rationale for the 72-hour standard was
to allow time for the discovery and
removal of an oil spill. An owner or
operator of a facility should have

flexibility in how he prevents a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), and
any method of containment that
achieves that end is sufficient. Should
such containment fail, the owner or
operator must immediately clean up any
discharged oil.
Similarly, because the purpose of the
‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ standard is to
prevent discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b), dikes, berms, or retaining
walls must be capable of containing oil
and preventing such discharges.
Discharges as described in § 112.1(b)
may result from direct discharges from
containers, or from discharges from
containers to groundwater that travel
through the groundwater to navigable
waters. Effective containment means
that the dike, berm, or retaining wall
must be capable of containing oil and
sufficiently impervious to prevent
discharges from the containment system
until it is cleaned up. The same holds
true for container floors or bottoms; they
must be able to contain oil to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
However, ‘‘effective containment’’ does
not mean that liners are required for
secondary containment areas. Liners are
an option for meeting the secondary
containment requirements, but are not
required by the rule.
If you are the owner or operator of a
facility subject to this part, you must
prepare a Plan in accordance with good
engineering practice. A complete
description of how secondary
containment is designed, implemented,
and maintained to meet the standard of
sufficiently impervious is necessary. In
order to document that secondary
containment is sufficiently impervious
and sufficiently strong to contain oil
until it is cleaned up, the Plan must
describe how the secondary
containment is designed to meet that
standard. A written description of the
sufficiently impervious standard is not
only necessary for design and
implementation, but will aid owners or
operators of facilities in determining
which practices will be necessary to
maintain the standard of sufficiently
impervious. Control and/or removal of
vegetation may be necessary to maintain
the impervious integrity of the
secondary containment. Repairs of
excavations or other penetrations
through secondary containment will
need to be conducted in accordance
with good engineering practices in order
to maintain the standard of sufficiently
impervious. The owner or operator
should monitor such imperviousness for
effectiveness, in order to be sure that the
method chosen remains impervious to
contain oil.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Costs. We note that we have
withdrawn the proposed 72 hour
standard, and afford various secondary
containment options, including earthen
dikes and diked areas, if they contain
and prevent discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b). Therefore, there are no new
costs. We disagree with the commenters
who asserted that we underestimated
the cost to comply with the secondary
containment and truck loading and
unloading area requirements. The
revised rule, like the current rule, does
not require a specific impermeability for
dikes and does not require a specific
method of secondary containment at
loading and unloading areas, and this
flexibility is reflected in our cost
estimates. We noted in our 1991
Supplemental Cost/Benefit Analysis
that secondary containment for bulk
storage tanks is estimated to cost $1,000
for small facilities; $6,400 for medium
facilities; and $63,000 for large facilities.
Unit cost estimates were developed for
a broad mix of facilities (e.g., farms,
bulk petroleum terminals) in each size
category by experienced engineers with
firsthand knowledge of the Oil Pollution
Prevention Regulation and the
operations of onshore SPCC-regulated
facilities. Because our cost estimates
must be representative of the many
types of facilities that are regulated, they
will underestimate the costs for some
facility types and overestimate the costs
for others. Facilities were assumed to
construct secondary containment
systems of impervious soil capable of
holding 110 percent of the largest tank.
In that analysis, we estimated that 78
percent and 88 percent of the regulated
community were already in compliance
with these requirements, respectively,
and would not be affected by the
proposed rule change.
Since we last performed these
analyses, API has issued several
industry standards, including API 653
and 2610, which address many of the
provisions in the SPCC rule. As a result,
the final rule relies on current industry
standards and practices, where feasible.
In the final rule, we withdrew the
proposed 72-hour impermeability
standard for secondary containment and
maintained the current requirement that
dikes, berms, and oil retaining walls
must be sufficiently impervious to
contain oil. As a result, the final rule
reflects current industry standards and
we assume poses no additional
requirements on industry.
Sufficient freeboard. See the Response
to Comments in § 112.8(c)(2) for a
discussion of this topic.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with secondary containment

include: (1) NFPA 30; (2) BOCA,
National Fire Prevention Code; and, (3)
API Standard 2610, ‘‘Design,
Construction, Operation, Maintenance,
and Inspection of Terminal and Tank
Facilities.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the introduction to paragraph (c),
‘‘structures or equipment to prevent
discharged oil from reaching a navigable
water course’’ becomes ‘‘structures or
equipment to prevent a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).’’ This wording
change reflects the expanded scope of
the CWA as reflected in § 112.1(b) and
is clearer than the proposed language. In
the second sentence of the paragraph,
we deleted the words ‘‘permeate, drain,
infiltrate, or otherwise’’ from the
sentence because they were
unnecessary. The word ‘‘escape’’ in that
sentence is sufficient. Also in that
sentence, the reference to ‘‘escape to
surface waters’’ becomes ‘‘escape from
the containment system.’’ This language
more clearly reflects the intent of the
rule that secondary containment should
keep oil from escaping from the facility
and reaching navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines. In paragraph
(c)(2)(i), ‘‘curbing, drip pans’’ becomes
‘‘curbing or drip pans.’’
In response to the commenter’s
question, we note that a primary
containment system is the container or
equipment which holds oil or in which
oil is used.
Section 112.7(d)—Contingency Planning
Background. 1991 proposal. In 1991,
we proposed to add several new
requirements to the contingency
planning requirement in § 112.7(d).
First, we proposed that a facility
without secondary containment be
required to test a tank for integrity every
five years. In contrast, our 1991
proposal for § 112.8(c)(6) provided for
testing at least every 10 years for a tank
with secondary containment. In
addition, we proposed to require a
facility without secondary containment
to conduct integrity and leak testing of
valves and piping at least annually. We
also proposed that the contingency plan
be submitted to the Regional
Administrator for approval.
Instead of referring to 40 CFR part 109
for contingency plan requirements as
the current rule does, the 1991 proposal
added specific requirements including a
description of response plans; personnel
needs; methods of mechanical
containment; removal of spilled oil;
and, access to and availability of
sorbents, booms, and other equipment.
Additionally, the proposal would have
required that the Plan not rely on
dispersants and other chemicals for

47103

response to oil spills without approval
by the Regional Administrator. The
owner or operator of a facility would
also have been required to provide a
written commitment of manpower,
equipment, and materials required to
quickly control and remove any
quantity of oil that may be discharged.
1993 proposal. In 1993, we modified
the 1991 proposal for a facility that
lacks secondary containment to require
a facility response plan as described in
§ 112.20, instead of the specific
requirements proposed in 1991. The
response plan would not be submitted
to the Regional Administrator for his
review, unless otherwise required, but
would be maintained at the facility with
the SPCC Plan.
Comments. 1991 comments. Many
commenters supported the 1991
proposal. Opposing commenters
suggested that such planning should be
discretionary because not all facilities
need such planning, or that facilities be
allowed to use contingency plans
prepared for other purposes. Others
thought the proposal was premature as
we had not at the time finalized
response planning requirements in
§ 112.20. One commenter argued that
we should delete all of the contingency
planning requirements in § 112.7(d) at
the point when we require an owner or
operator to prepare a response plan.
Some said that contingency planning
was not practicable because the costs
are too high, but commenters did not
provide cost estimates. Several
commenters criticized the proposed
requirement that the contingency plan
be submitted to the Regional
Administrator, calling it duplicative,
time-consuming, and unnecessary. Two
commenters suggested that the
Contingency Plan prepared under RCRA
rules would suffice. Representatives of
small facilities asked for a small facility
exemption. Others asked for
clarification of what a ‘‘written
commitment’’ of manpower, equipment,
and materials meant. Several
commenters asked if PE certification of
the contingency plan was necessary.
One commenter opposed any
requirement to provide contingency
planning for buried tanks, piping, or
valves for which secondary containment
cannot be provided.
Integrity and leak testing. Several
commenters supported the proposed
integrity and leak testing requirements.
Others opposed them, some on the basis
that facilities already inspect their tanks
regularly. Various commenters
suggested exemptions for small
containers or containers that are entirely
within buildings. Electrical utilities
argued that the requirement was

47104

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

inapplicable for them because they do
not store oil and that such testing would
cause disruption in electrical service.
Mining interests likewise asked for an
exemption on the basis that they only
store small amounts of oil and the
requirements would be very expensive,
but did not provide specific cost
estimates. Various commenters asked
for clarification of the term ‘‘integrity
testing,’’ and its applicability. Others
asked for clarification as to methods of
testing. Some argued that testing of
valves and gathering lines would be
expensive and result in shut-downs of
operations. None of these commenters
provided specific cost estimates.
1993 proposal. One commenter
argued that the response plan proposal
was beyond our statutory authority.
Others argued that the proposal was
expensive and lacking in environmental
benefit. One commenter said that the
installation of structures or measures
achieving equivalent protection should
be sufficient to avert the need for a
response plan. Another suggested that
the current rule, which specifies use of
a strong oil spill contingency plan
following 40 CFR part 109, is adequate.
One commenter asked for an exemption
for facilities in areas historically not
subject to natural disasters. Electrical
utility commenters asked for an
exemption because they argued that a
response plan was unnecessary for
facilities that use, but do not store, oil.
Response to comments. Planning
requirements. We note that we did not
finalize the 1991 or 1993 contingency
planning proposals. Thus there are no
new costs for such planning.
Under the current rule, contingency
planning is necessary whenever you
determine that a secondary containment
system for any part of the facility that
might be the cause of a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b) is not
practicable. This requirement applies
whether the facility is manned or
unmanned, urban or rural, and for large
and small facilities. In response to
comment, we have revised the rule to
exempt from the contingency planning
requirement any facility which has
submitted a response plan under
§ 112.20 because such a response plan is
more comprehensive than a contingency
plan following part 109.
We believe that it may be appropriate
for an owner or operator to consider
costs or economic impacts in
determining whether he can meet a
specific requirement that falls within
the general deviation provision of
§ 112.7(a)(2). We believe so because
under this section, the owner or
operator will still have to utilize good
engineering practices and come up with

an alternative that provides ‘‘equivalent
environmental protection.’’ However,
we believe that the secondary
containment requirement in § 112.7(d)
is an important component in
preventing discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) and is environmentally
preferable to a contingency plan
prepared under 40 CFR part 109. Thus,
we do not believe it is appropriate to
allow an owner or operator to consider
costs or economic impacts in any
determination as to whether he can
satisfy the secondary containment
requirement. Instead, the owner or
operator may only provide a
contingency Plan in his SPCC Plan and
otherwise comply with § 112.7(d).
Therefore, the purpose of a
determination of impracticability is to
examine whether space or other
geographic limitations of the facility
would accommodate secondary
containment; or, if local zoning
ordinances or fire prevention standards
or safety considerations would not
allow secondary containment; or, if
installing secondary containment would
defeat the overall goal of the regulation
to prevent discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b).
We disagree that facility response
planning is beyond our statutory
authority, it is a procedure or method to
remove discharged oil. See section
311(j)(1)(A) of the CWA. However,
while we disagree that such planning is
expensive and lacking in environmental
benefit, we agree that the current
contingency plan arrangements which
reference 40 CFR part 109 should be
sufficient to protect the environment,
and that a facility response plan as
described in § 112.20 is therefore
unnecessary for a facility that is not
otherwise subject to § 112.20. We agree
with the commenter that structures or
equipment might achieve the same or
equivalent protection as response
planning for some SPCC facilities.
Therefore, we are withdrawing that part
of the 1993 proposal related to response
planning in proposed § 112.7(d)(1), but
are retaining the current contingency
planning provisions, which require a
contingency plan following the
provisions of 40 CFR part 109. We also
believe that response plans should be
reserved for higher risk facilities, as
provided in § 112.20.
In following the provisions of part
109, you must address the oil removal
contingency planning criteria listed in
40 CFR 109.5 and ensure that all
response actions are coordinated with
governmental oil spill response
organizations. The absence of secondary
containment will place extreme
importance on the early detection of an

oil discharge and rapid response by the
facility to prevent that discharge. Part
109 was originally promulgated to assist
State and local government oil spill
response agencies to prepare oil removal
contingency plans in the inland
response zone, where EPA provides the
On-Scene Coordinator. The basic
criteria for contingency planning listed
in § 109.5 apply to any SPCC regulated
facility that has adequately justified the
impracticability of installing secondary
containment, irrespective of whether it
is a government agency or the facility is
located in the coastal (U.S. Coast Guard)
or inland (EPA) response zone. Because
the contingency plan involves good
engineering practice and is technically a
material part of the Plan, PE
certification is required.
A contingency plan prepared under
RCRA rules might suffice for purposes
of the rule if the plan fulfills the
requirements of part 109, and the PE
certifies that such plan is adequate for
the facility. If the RCRA contingency
plan satisfies some but not all SPCC
requirements, you must supplement it
so that it does.
We note that the preamble to the 1993
proposed rule (at 58 FR 8841) suggested
that response plans would not have to
be submitted to the Regional
Administrator unless ‘‘otherwise
required by the rest of today’s proposed
rule.’’ However, proposed § 112.7(a)(2)
would have required that the owner or
operator submit to the Regional
Administrator any Plan containing a
proposed deviation, including a
deviation for the general secondary
containment requirements in § 112.7(c).
In any case, we agree with commenters
that the contingency plan (or any other
deviation) should not have to be
submitted to the Regional Administrator
for his review and approval because we
believe that it is sufficient that the
contingency plan (or other deviation) be
available for on-site inspection. We have
therefore withdrawn that part of the
proposal. See also the discussion on
§ 112.7(a)(2).
Integrity and leak testing. In response
to a commenter who asked for a
clarification of integrity testing,
‘‘integrity testing’’ is any means to
measure the strength (structural
soundness) of the container shell,
bottom, and/or floor to contain oil and
may include leak testing to determine
whether the container will discharge oil.
Facility components that might cause a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
include containers, piping, valves, or
other equipment or devices. Integrity
testing includes, but is not limited to,
testing foundations and supports of
containers. Its scope includes both the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
inside and outside of the container. It
also includes frequent observation of the
outside of the container for signs of
deterioration, leaks, or accumulation of
oil inside diked areas. Such testing is
also applicable to valves and piping. See
API Standard 653 for further
information on this term.
Leak testing for purposes of the rule
is testing to determine the liquid
tightness of valves and piping and
whether they may discharge oil.
Facilities that store oil, whether they are
mines or other businesses, are required
to employ integrity testing for their bulk
storage containers, and integrity and
leak testing for their valves and piping,
to help prevent discharges. Containers
that do not store oil, but merely use oil,
are not subject to the requirement.
We reaffirm the applicability of
integrity and leak testing to both large
and small facilities, because we believe
such testing requirements help prevent
discharges as described in § 112.1(b) at
those facilities. However, we have
modified our proposal in response to
comments to only require such testing
on a periodic basis instead of at a
prescribed frequency. Integrity and leak
testing requirements are also applicable
for containers and valves and piping
that are entirely within buildings, or
within mines, because in either case,
such containers, or valves and piping
may become the source of a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). We have revised
the rule to reflect that the requirement
applies only to onshore and offshore
bulk storage facilities. Therefore, a
facility with only oil-filled electrical,
operating, or manufacturing equipment
need not conduct such testing nor incur
any costs for such testing. For other
types of facilities, we disagree that
testing of valves and gathering lines
would be prohibitively costly. In 1991,
we estimated tank integrity testing and
leak testing costs of buried piping. We
estimated the costs as $465 per tank,
$155 for equipment, and $310 for
installation. Small facilities were
assumed to have no buried piping.
Medium sized facilities were assumed
to bear first year costs for tank
installation and testing of $4,704 and
subsequent year costs of $1,449. Large
facilities were assumed to incur a first
year cost of $11,313, and subsequent
year costs of $3,519. We assume that
this provision represents a negligible
additional burden because most
facilities are already testing such valves
and gathering lines according to
industry standards as a matter of good
engineering practice. We believe that if
such testing is done in accordance with
industry standards, costs will be
minimized.

We have eliminated the proposed
frequency of the testing, both for
containers and for valves and piping, in
favor of testing according to industry
standards. Instead, we require
‘‘periodic’’ integrity testing of
containers, and ‘‘periodic’’ integrity and
leak testing of valves and piping.
‘‘Periodic’’ testing means testing
according to a regular schedule
consistent with accepted industry
standards. We believe that use of
industry standards, which change over
time, will prove more feasible than
providing a specific and unchanging
regulatory requirement. As required by
§ 112.8(c)(6), integrity testing of
containers must be accomplished by a
combination of visual testing and some
other technique.
Written commitment. A ‘‘written
commitment’’ of manpower, equipment,
and materials means either a written
contract or other written documentation
showing that you have made provision
for those items for response purposes.
Such commitment must be shown by:
the identification and inventory of
applicable equipment, materials, and
supplies which are available locally and
regionally; an estimate of the
equipment, materials, and supplies
which would be required to remove the
maximum oil discharge to be
anticipated; and, development of
agreements and arrangements in
advance of an oil discharge for the
acquisition of equipment, materials, and
supplies to be used in responding to
such a discharge. 40 CFR 109.5(c).
The commitment also involves
making provisions for well defined and
specific actions to be taken after
discovery and notification of an oil
discharge including: specification of an
oil discharge response operating team
consisting of trained, prepared, and
available operating personnel;
predesignation of a properly qualified
oil discharge response coordinator who
is charged with the responsibility and
delegated commensurate authority for
directing and coordinating response
operations and who knows how to
request assistance from Federal
authorities operating under current
national and regional contingency
plans; a preplanned location for an oil
discharge response operations center
and a reliable communications system
for directing the coordinated overall
response actions; provisions for varying
degrees of response effort depending on
the severity of the oil discharge; and,
specification of the order of priority in
which the various water uses are to be
protected where more than one water
use may be adversely affected as a result
of an oil discharge and where response

47105

operations may not be adequate to
protect all uses. 40 CFR 109.5(d).
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with the integrity testing of
containers, and the integrity and leak
testing of piping and valves include: (1)
API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank Inspection,
Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction’’;
(2) API Recommended Practice 575,
‘‘Inspection of Atmospheric and LowPressure Tanks’’; (3) API Standard 570,
‘‘Piping Inspection Code (Inspection,
Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of InService Piping Systems)’’; (4) American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) B31.3, ‘‘Process Piping’’; (5)
ASME 31.4, ‘‘Liquid Transportation
Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid
Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia,
and Alcohols’’; (6) Steel Tank Institute
Standard SP001–00, ‘‘Standard for
Inspection of In-Service Shop
Fabricated Aboveground Tanks for
Storage of Combustible and Flammable
Liquids’’; and, (7) Underwriters
Laboratory (UL) Standard 142, ‘‘Steel
Aboveground Tanks for Flammable and
Combustible Liquids.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the introductory paragraph, ‘‘tanks’’
becomes ‘‘containers.’’ We revised the
first sentence of the introduction which
now reads, ‘‘When it is determined
* * *,’’ to read, ‘‘If you determine
* * *.’’ Later in that sentence we
change the words ‘‘demonstrate such
impracticability’’ to ‘‘explain why such
measures are not practicable,’’ in
referencing the impracticability of
secondary containment. Also, in the
first sentence of the introduction, we
clarify that the requirement for
contingency planning and other
measures is applicable when secondary
containment is not practicable under
§§ 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2),
112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), 112.12(c)(11),
112.13(c)(2), and 112.14(c), as well as
§ 112.7(c) and (h)(1). Additionally in
that sentence, the reference to ‘‘prevent
discharged oil from reaching navigable
waters’’ becomes ‘‘to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b),’’
conforming the geographic scope of the
rule to the CWA. At the end of the
paragraph we clarify that when
secondary containment is not
practicable, the contingency plan and
written commitment must be provided
in the Plan, rather than to the Regional
Administrator. We also clarify that if
you have submitted a facility response
plan under § 112.20 for a facility, you
need not provide for that facility either
a contingency plan following the
provisions of part 109, nor a written
commitment of manpower, equipment,
and materials required to expeditiously

47106

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

control and remove any quantity of oil
discharged that may be harmful.
In paragraph (d)(1), ‘‘A strong oil spill
contingency plan following the
provision of 40 CFR part 109 * * *.’’
becomes ‘‘An oil spill contingency plan
following the provisions of part 109
* * *.’’ The word ‘‘strong’’ is
unnecessary because in any case the
contingency plan must follow the
provisions of part 109.
In paragraph (d)(2), we did not
finalize the proposed recommendation
for the operator to consider financial
capability in making his written
commitment of manpower, equipment,
and materials because we do not wish
to confuse the regulated community
with discretionary requirements in a
mandatory rule. Finally, we changed the
reference in paragraph (d)(2) from ‘‘to
expeditiously control and remove any
harmful quantity of oil discharged’’ to
read ‘‘to expeditiously control and
remove any quantity of oil discharged
that may be harmful.’’ We made this
change to refer to the statutory standard
referring to a quantity of oil ‘‘that may
be harmful.’’
Section 112.7(e)—Inspections, Tests,
and Records
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that records and inspections and test
results be kept for a period of five years.
Current rules require record, inspection,
and test results be maintained for three
years. We also proposed that such
records might be maintained with the
Plan, instead of being part of the Plan.
In 1997, we returned to the three-year
record maintenance period in our new
proposal. In 1997, we also proposed that
usual and customary business records,
such as records maintained under API
Standards 653 and 2610, would suffice
to meet the requirements of this section.
Finally we proposed that such records
be made a part of the Plan.
Comments. 1991 comments.
Maintenance with Plan. Most
commenters favored the proposal that
records might be maintained with the
Plan, rather than as part of it. Two
commenters thought the requirements
should apply generally only to large
facilities.
Form of records. One commenter
urged use of electronic records.
Records required. Still another asked
that we list all inspections and tests
required by part 112. One commenter
asked for a requirement to keep records
and tests of all major repairs and of
employee training.
Time period. Most commenters
favored retaining the current three-year
time period to maintain records,
believing it is adequate. Some

commenters objected to the cost of a
five-year record retention requirement.
One commenter favored a two-year
record maintenance period. Several
favored a phase-in period if five years
were to be required so that three-year
records could be brought into
compliance with the rule. One
commenter favored a requirement that
records be maintained in accordance
with other State and Federal agency
requirements to avoid additional and
unnecessary costs.
1997 comments. Maintenance with
Plan. A number of commenters
criticized the proposal that records must
be maintained as part of the Plan, rather
than maintained with the Plan,
considering that proposal burdensome
and providing no benefit to the
environment.
Form of records. Several commenters
asked that we clarify that use of records
maintained under the API standards
cited is not required. Another
commenter noted that many smaller
companies do not use API standards,
and that use of such records should be
allowed ‘‘when available.’’ Several
commenters urged that we state that
records kept under the NPDES program
might suffice for the SPCC program.
Other commenters asked whether
records in other formats might be
acceptable, such as under a facility’s
QS–9000 or ISO–14000 system, or under
standards promulgated by the
Underwriters’ Laboratories. Other
commenters discussed use of NPDES
stormwater bypass records. We will talk
about those records under the
discussion of § 112.8(c)(3)(iv).
Time period. Most commenters
favored the proposal to retain the
current three-year time period for
maintenance of records.
Response to comments. Maintenance
with Plan. We agree with commenters
that it is not necessary to maintain
records as part of the Plan. Therefore,
today’s rule allows ‘‘keeping’’ of the
records ‘‘with’’ the Plan, but not as part
of it. In the current rule, such records
‘‘should be made part of the SPCC Plan
* * *.’’ 40 CFR 112.7(e)(8). Because you
continually update these records, this
change will eliminate the need to
amend your Plan each time you remove
old records and add new ones. You still
retain the option of making these
records a part of the Plan if you choose.
Records required. The rule permits
use of usual and customary business
records, and covers all of the
inspections and tests required by this
part as well as any ancillary records.
‘‘Inspections and tests’’ include not only
inspections and tests, but schedules,
evaluations, examinations, descriptions,

and similar activities required by this
part. After publication of this rule, we
will list all of the inspections and tests
required by part 112 on our website
(www.epa.gov/oilspill). The
applicability of each inspection and test
will depend on the exercise of good
engineering practice, because not every
one will be applicable to every facility.
Form of records. Records of
inspections and tests required by this
rule may be maintained in electronic or
any other format which is readily
accessible to the facility and to EPA
personnel. Usual and customary
business records may be those
ordinarily used in the industry,
including those made under API
standards, Underwriters’ Laboratories
standards, NPDES permits, a facility’s
QS–9000 or ISO–14000 system, or any
other format acceptable to the Regional
Administrator. If you choose to use
records associated with compliance
with industry standards, such as
Underwriters’ Laboratories standards,
you must closely review the inspection,
testing, and recordkeeping requirements
of this rule to ensure that any records
kept in accordance with industry
standards meets the intent of the rule.
Some standards have limited
recordkeeping requirements and may
only address a particular aspect of
container fabrication, installation,
inspection, and operation and
maintenance. The intent of the rule is
that you will not have to maintain
duplicate sets of records when one set
has already been prepared under
industry or regulatory purposes that also
fully suffices for SPCC purposes. The
use of these alternative record formats is
optional; you are not required to use
them, but you may use them.
Time period. We agree with
commenters that maintenance of records
for three years is sufficient for SPCC
purposes, since that period will allow
for meaningful comparisons of
inspections and tests taken. Therefore,
there will be no new costs. We note,
however, that certain industry
standards, for example API Standards
570 and 653, may specify record
maintenance for more than three years.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
As proposed in 1991, we affirm that the
certifying engineer, as well as the owner
or operator, may be a person who
develops inspection procedures. We
also affirm that the provision applies to
both ‘‘inspections’’ and ‘‘tests’’
undertaken. The tests are usually
integral parts of the inspections.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Section 112.7(f)—Employee Training
and Discharge Prevention Procedures
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that you conduct training exercises and
that you train new employees within
their first week of work. The rationale
for these provisions was that a high
percentage of discharges are caused by
operator error; therefore, training and
briefings might help prevent many
discharges and promote a safer facility.
This rationale was based on program
experience and studies EPA undertook.
The 1995 SPCC Survey found that
operator error was the most common
spill cause for facilities in 9 of the 19
industry categories that reported having
spills. Also, the August 1994 draft
report of the EPA Aboveground Oil
Storage Facilities Workgroup called
‘‘Soil and Ground Water Contamination
from Aboveground Oil Storage
Facilities: A Strategic Study’’ presented
data on causes of discharges from two
studies. Both studies showed that error
during product transfer activities is one
of the biggest known causes of
discharges at AST facilities. Two other
studies also support our contention:
Carter, W.J., ‘‘How API Viewed the
Needs for Aboveground Storage Tanks,’’
Tank Talk, Vol. 7, July/August 1992,
p.2.; and U.S. EPA, ‘‘The Technical
Background Document to Support the
Implementation of OPA Response Plan
Requirements,’’ Emergency Response
Division, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, February 1993,
p.4–19.
In 1993, we proposed to qualify the
applicability of the training
requirements to only those facilities that
transfer or receive greater than or equal
to 10,000 gallons of oil in a single
operation more than twice per month on
average, or greater than or equal to
50,000 gallons in a single operation
more than once a month on the average.
We further proposed that you require
that employees involved in ‘‘oilhandling activities,’’ such as the
operation or maintenance of oil storage
tanks or the operation of equipment
related to storage tanks, receive eight
hours of facility specific training within
one year of the effective date of the rule
or at the date that your facility becomes
subject to the requirement. In
subsequent years, each employee would
be required to undergo four hours of
refresher training.
Our 1993 proposal would require
training for new employees within one
week of employment. We also proposed
to specify the areas in which you would
be required to train employees to
include: training in correct equipment
operation and maintenance, general

facility operations, discharge prevention
laws and regulations, and the contents
of the facility’s SPCC Plan. Finally, the
proposal would require that you
conduct unannounced drills, at least
annually, in which oil-handling
personnel would participate.
Comments. 1991 comments.
Applicability of training requirements.
Numerous commenters suggested that
the training requirements should apply
only to personnel involved in the
operation or maintenance of equipment.
They argued that the training
requirements need not apply to clerks,
secretaries, and similar employees who
are not involved in the physical
operations of the facility. They also
argued that we failed to sufficiently
account for training costs in our
economic analysis. Another commenter
asked for a small facility exemption
from training requirements.
Another commenter asked that
facilities be allowed to incorporate
SPCC training requirements into already
existing training programs required by
other Federal or State law. One
commenter suggested that the rule
include a requirement that owners or
operators document each training
session and spill response drill
conducted, and to maintain those
records for five years.
Timing of employee training. Some
commenters favored the proposed
provision for yearly training exercises
and suggested that the training be
coordinated with local oil spill response
organizations or Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs) whenever
possible. One commenter cautioned that
the annual training should not be
considered a full scale SPCC drill.
Opposing commenters suggested no
time period for such exercises, or
alternative periods, such as every two or
three years.
Likewise, many commenters opposed
the provision relating to the training of
new employees within one week of
employment. Opposing commenters
argued generally that such a
recommendation is impractical, and
called for employer discretion in
scheduling training. Others suggested
varying time periods in lieu of one
week. Those suggestions ranged from
one month to one year, with alternatives
suggested such as ‘‘as soon as practical,’’
‘‘prior to operation but before one year,’’
‘‘within one week of job assignment,’’ ‘‘a
more reasonable time period,’’ ‘‘after
training,’’ and ‘‘until the next annual
training for all employees.’’ One
commenter asked that we define the
term ‘‘new employee.’’
Discharge prevention briefings. Many
commenters criticized the proposal for

47107

annual spill prevention briefings, as
opposed to the current requirement to
hold such briefings ‘‘at intervals
frequent enough to assure adequate
understanding of the SPCC Plan.’’ They
argued that the current standard is
adequate. Some commenters suggested
that we require additional training in
these briefings such as emergency
response training, or training
concerning Plan changes.
1993 comments. Applicability of
training requirements. In 1993, many
commenters asked for clarification of
what ‘‘oil-handling’’ personnel meant.
Some thought the requirements for
training should be limited to those
employees engaged in response
activities. Others questioned what ‘‘on
average’’ meant in determining the
threshold applicability of the rule. Still
others asked what ‘‘a single operation’’
meant. Some asked that the
requirements be limited to facilities
with potential to cause ‘‘substantial
harm’’ to the environment. Others asked
that the requirements be relaxed for
facilities with equipment that reduce
the potential for discharges. Some
suggested differing gallon thresholds for
the applicability of the training
requirements. One commenter suggested
that training be limited to those
employees involved in emergency
response or countermeasure activities.
One commenter asked for an exemption
from this requirement for small
facilities. Another commenter asked for
an exemption for extraction facilities,
because, he argued, they have few spills.
Another commenter suggested that the
1991 proposal was adequate.
Timing of employee training. Some
commenters favored the proposed
requirement for eight-hour annual
training, with four-hour refresher
training in subsequent years. Others
opposed it, arguing that employer
discretion in this matter will ensure a
better result.
Likewise many commenters opposed
the requirement that new employees be
trained within one week of
employment, arguing instead for
employer discretion. Some commenters
suggested alternate frequencies other
than one week, ranging from ‘‘prior to
assuming duties’’ to up to six months
after hiring.
Content of training. A few
commenters supported the specification
of training subjects. Some commenters
suggested that we require training in the
proper operation and maintenance of
facility equipment and knowledge of
spill procedure protocols. A utility
commenter objected to the proposal that
its employees be trained in maintenance
of oil storage tanks, because its

47108

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

maintenance activities do not involve
the transfer or handling of oil and
therefore fall outside the scope of the
rule. Alternatively, the commenter
suggested, those employees should be
given a lower level of ‘‘awareness’’
training. One commenter suggested
inclusion of response training.
Unannounced drills. Some
commenters favored the proposal and
suggested that actual discharge
experience should be given credit as a
drill. One commenter suggested a
frequency schedule for various types of
drills.
Some commenters criticized the
proposal for at least yearly
unannounced drills. One commenter
suggested that the frequency of the drills
should be at the operator’s discretion.
Commenters argued that, if required at
all, drills should only be applicable to
operational or response personnel. Two
commenters said that a requirement for
unannounced drills for all employees
would require them to conduct at least
eight or more drills a year. Another
commenter suggested training instead of
drills, because of the potential for drills
to cause expensive shutdowns.
Response to comments. Applicability
of training requirements. We believe
that training requirements should apply
to all facilities, large or small, including
all those that store or use oil, regardless
of the amount of oil transferred in any
particular time. Training may help avert
human error, which is a principal cause
of oil discharges. ‘‘Spills from ASTs
may occur as a result of operator error,
for example, during loading operations
(e.g., vessel or tank truck—AST transfer
operation), or as a result of structural
failure (e.g., brittle fracture) because of
inadequate maintenance of the AST.’’
EPA Liner Study, at 14. The 1995 SPCC
Survey found that operator error was the
most common spill cause for facilities in
9 of the 19 industry categories that
reported having spills. Also, the August
1994 draft report of the EPA
Aboveground Oil Storage Facilities
Workgroup called ‘‘Soil and Ground
Water Contamination from
Aboveground Oil Storage Facilities: A
Strategic Study’’ presented data on
causes of discharges from two studies.
Both studies showed that error during
product transfer activities is one of the
biggest known causes of discharges at
AST facilities. Two other studies also
support our contention: Carter, W.J.,
‘‘How API Viewed the Needs for
Aboveground Storage Tanks,’’ Tank
Talk, Vol. 7, July/August 1992, p.2.; and
U.S. EPA, ‘‘The Technical Background
Document to Support the
Implementation of OPA Response Plan
Requirements,’’ Emergency Response

Division, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, February 1993,
p.4–19. We have therefore retained the
applicability of training to all facilities.
The 1993 proposal would have limited
training requirements to only certain
facilities which received or transferred
over the proposed amount of oil.
Facilities which receive or transfer less
than the proposed amount might also
have discharges which could have been
averted through required training. Also
the proposed rule would have exempted
many facilities that use rather than store
oil from its scope. Therefore, we have
provided in the rule that all facilities,
whether bulk storage facilities or
facilities that merely use oil, must train
oil-handling employees because all
facilities have the potential for a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), and
training is necessary to avert such a
discharge.
We agree with the commenter that
training is only necessary for personnel
who will use it to carry out the
requirements of this rule. Therefore
revised paragraph (f)(1) provides that
only oil-handling personnel are subject
to training requirements, as we
proposed in 1993. Thus there are no
new training costs because we have
always required such training of oilhandling personnel. ‘‘Oil-handling
personnel’’ is to be interpreted
according to industry standards, but
includes employees engaged in the
operation and maintenance of oil
storage containers or the operation of
equipment related to storage containers
and emergency response personnel. We
do not interpret the term to include
secretaries, clerks, and other personnel
who are never involved in operation or
maintenance activities related to oil
storage or equipment, oil transfer
operations, emergency response,
countermeasure functions, or similar
activities.
You may incorporate SPCC training
requirements into already existing
training programs required by other
Federal or State law at your option or
may conduct SPCC training separately.
You must document that you have
conducted required training courses.
Such documentation must be
maintained with the Plan for three
years.
Timing of employee training. We
agree with commenters who thought it
desirable to leave the timing and
number of hours of training of oilhandling employees, including new
employees, to the employer’s discretion.
‘‘Proper instruction’’ of oil-handling
employees, as required in the rule,
means in accordance with industry
standards or at a frequency sufficient to

prevent a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). This standard will allow
facilities more flexibility to develop
training programs better suited to the
particular facility. While the rule
requires annual discharge prevention
briefings, we also agree that the annual
briefings required are not drills. In any
case, the SPCC rules do not require
drills, as explained below.
For purposes of the rule, it is not
necessary to define a ‘‘new employee’’
because all oil-handling personnel are
subject to training requirements,
whether new or not. You do, however,
have discretion as to the timing of that
training, so long as the timing meets the
requirements of good engineering
practice.
Discharge prevention briefings.
Annual discharge prevention briefings
are necessary, but there should be more
frequent briefings where appropriate.
Such briefings are necessary to refresh
employees’ memories on facility Plan
provisions and to update employees on
the latest prevention and response
techniques. Training must include the
contents of the facility Plan. Although it
is desirable, we disagree that we should
require SPCC briefings to include
emergency response training. That
training is already required for those
facilities which must prepare response
plans.
Content of training. Specifying a
minimum list of training subjects is
necessary to ensure that facility
employees are aware of discharge
prevention procedures and regulations.
As suggested by a commenter, we have
added knowledge of discharge
procedure protocols to the list of
training subjects because such training
will help avert discharges. Therefore,
we have specified that training must
include, at a minimum: the operation
and maintenance of equipment to
prevent the discharge of oil; discharge
procedure protocols; applicable
pollution control laws, rules, and
regulations; general facility operations;
and, the contents of the facility Plan. As
noted above, we require response
training for facilities that must submit
response plans, but such training is not
necessary for all SPCC facilities.
In response to the utility commenter
who asserted that utility employees do
not need to be trained in the
maintenance of oil storage tanks because
such maintenance does not involve the
transfer and handling of oil, we note
that training must address relevant
maintenance activities at the facility. If
there is no transfer and handling of oil,
such topic need not be covered in
training.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Unannounced drills. The proposed
yearly frequency for unannounced drills
is also unnecessary because such drills
are already required at FRP facilities,
which are higher risk facilities. We do
not believe that the risk at all SPCC
facilities approaches the same level as at
FRP facilities. Therefore, we are not
finalizing this proposal, and there are no
new costs.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We changed the title from ‘‘Personnel,
training, and spill prevention
procedures,’’ to ‘‘Personnel, training,
and discharge prevention procedures.’’
In paragraph (f)(1), ‘‘discharges of oil’’
becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ In paragraph
(f)(2), ‘‘line management’’ becomes
‘‘facility management,’’ and ‘‘oil spill
prevention’’ becomes ‘‘discharge
prevention.’’ In paragraph (f)(3), ‘‘spill
prevention briefings’’ becomes
‘‘discharge prevention briefings.’’ Also
in paragraph (f)(3); ‘‘operating
personnel’’ becomes ‘‘oil-handling’’
personnel,’’ to be consistent with
language in paragraph (f)(1); and, ‘‘spill
events’’ becomes ‘‘discharges as
described in § 112.1(b).’’
Section 112.7(g)—Security (Excluding
oil Production Facilities)
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
turn into a recommendation the current
requirement that a facility should be
fully fenced, and gates locked and/or
guarded when the facility is not in
production or is unattended. We
proposed to require that the master flow
and drain valves (or other valves that
will permit direct outward flow of the
tanks’ contents) have adequate security
to ensure that they remain in a closed
position when in non-operating or nonstandby status. Thus, the proposal
would allow more flexibility in the
method of securing the valves than the
current rule, which requires that such
valves be ‘‘securely locked.’’
The current rule requires that loading/
unloading connections be securely
capped or blank-flanged when not in
service or standby-service ‘‘for an
extended time.’’ We proposed in 1991 to
clarify that ‘‘an extended time’’ means
six months or more, based on our
Regional experience.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. One commenter asked for
the meaning of ‘‘plant’’ as used in
proposed § 112.7(g)(1).
Applicability of requirement. One
commenter urged an exemption from all
security provisions for mobile facilities,
because such facilities are manned 24
hours a day while in operation.
Fences. One commenter argued that
fences should not be required for all
facilities, because it is not practicable in

some places. Another argued that fences
should be topped with barbed wire, or
otherwise designed to deter vandalism.
Starter controls on pumps. Several
commenters argued that the
requirements to lock starter controls on
all pumps and to locate them at a site
accessible only to authorized personnel
are duplicative and do not deter vandals
or other unauthorized personnel.
Another commenter urged us to exclude
large facilities from the locking
requirement because the potential for
losing keys or having the locks become
inoperative due to freezing conditions is
great. A third commenter suggested that
the requirement should apply to
facilities, and not to pumps.
Loading/unloading connections. One
commenter urged that the blankflanging requirement apply to facilities
that are not in service for six months or
more, rather than to connections of oil
piping. The rationale was that larger
facilities have seasonal or contractual
variations in use of lines, pumps, racks,
and connections. Therefore, it would be
costly and impractical to blank off lines
only to reopen them in the seventh
month. Accordingly, the rule should,
per the commenter, recognize normal
operating procedures at such facilities
and allow flexibility. Another
commenter requested that ‘‘quick
disconnect’’ fittings qualify as a method
of secure capping.
Response to comments. Applicability
of requirements. We asked in the 1991
preamble (at 56 FR 54616) for comments
as to whether provisions proposed as
discretionary measures or
recommendations should be made
requirements. We were concerned
whether these proposed measures
represented good engineering practice
for all facilities. Specific comments are
discussed below. In the case of
proposed § 112.7(g)(1) and (5) as
requirements, we have decided to retain
the requirements as requirements rather
than convert those paragraphs into
recommendations as proposed. We have
done this because we believe that
fencing, facility lighting, and the other
measures prescribed in the rule to
prevent vandalism are elements of good
engineering practice in most facilities,
including mobile facilities. Where they
are not a part of good engineering
practice, we have amended the
proposed provision allowing deviations,
§ 112.7(a)(2), to include the provisions
in § 112.7(g).
Fences. Fencing helps to deter
vandals and thus prevent the discharges
that they might cause. In response to the
commenter who argued that fences
should be topped with barbed wire, or
otherwise designed to deter vandalism,

47109

we agree. When you use a fence to
protect a facility, the design of the fence
should deter vandalism. Methods of
deterring vandals might include barbed
wire or other devices. If any type of
fence is impractical, you may, under
§ 112.7(a)(2), explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection by some other
means.
Valves. Revised § 112.7(g)(2) requires
you to ensure that the master flow and
drain valves and other valves permitting
outward flow of the container’s contents
have adequate security measures. The
current rule requires that such valves be
securely locked in the closed position
when in non-operating or non-standby
status. Today’s revised rule allows
security measures other than locking
drain valves or other valves permitting
outflow to the surface. Manual locks
may be preferable for valves that are not
electronically or automatically
controlled. Such locks may be the only
practical way to ensure that valves stay
in the closed position. For electronically
controlled or automated systems, no
manual lock may be necessary. The rule
gives you discretion in the method of
securing valves. We believe that this
flexibility is necessary due to changes in
technology and in the use of manual
and electronic valving.
Starter controls on pumps. We
disagree that the requirements to have
the starter control locked in the off
position and be accessible only to
authorized personnel are redundant.
Restricting access to such pumps
prevents unauthorized personnel from
accidentally opening the starter control.
These measures are necessary to prevent
discharges at small as well as large
facilities because the threat of discharge
is the same regardless of the size of the
container, and a small discharge may be
harmful to the environment. If the
potential for losing keys, weather
conditions such as frequent freezing, or
other engineering factors render such a
measure infeasible, you may use the
deviation provisions in § 112.7(a)(2) if
you can explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection by some other
means.
Loading/unloading connections. In
response to comment, we have decided
to retain the current time line in
§ 112.7(g)(4), i.e., ‘‘an extended time,’’
instead of specifying a six-month time
line, due to the need for operational
flexibility at facilities. We define ‘‘an
extended time’’ in reference to industry
standards or, in the absence of such
standards, at a frequency sufficient to
prevent any discharge. The appropriate
method of securing or blank flanging of

47110

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

these connections is a matter of good
engineering practice, and might include
‘‘quick disconnect fittings’’ as a possible
deviation under § 112.7(a)(2). In any
case, a secure cap is one equipped with
some kind of lock or secure closure
device to prevent vandalism. We
disagree that the requirements of this
paragraph should apply to the owner or
operator of a facility instead of the
owner or operator of the piping because
a facility might place only some piping
out of service for a period of time, and
let other piping remain in service.
Therefore, the owners or operators of
some piping might escape the
requirements of the rule and be more
likely to discharge oil.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with security purposes include:
(1) API Standard 2610, Design,
Construction, Operation, Maintenance,
and Inspection of Terminal and Tank
Facilities; and, (2) NFPA 30A,
Automotive and Marine Service Station
Code, Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We agree that the term ‘‘plant’’ has no
clear meaning. Therefore, in paragraph
(g)(1), we have substituted the term
‘‘facility’’ in its place, which is a
defined term in these rules. Also in that
paragraph, the phrase ‘‘handling,
processing and storing oil’’ becomes
‘‘handling, processing or storing oil.’’ In
paragraph (g)(2), ‘‘tank’’ becomes
‘‘container.’’ In paragraph (g)(3),
‘‘pumps’’ becomes ‘‘pump.’’ In
paragraph (g)(5), the phrase
‘‘Consideration should be given to:’’ is
deleted. We revise the sentence to read,
‘‘Provide facility lighting commensurate
with the type and location of the facility
that will assist in the: * * *’’
Section 112.7(h)—Loading/Unloading
(Excluding Offshore Facilities)
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current discharge prevention
requirements for loading/unloading
racks.
Comments. In general. Several
commenters opposed the proposal on
the basis that a requirement for a strong
contingency plan would be a preferable
and more effective alternative. Another
commenter asked that we clarify that
only facilities routinely used for loading
or unloading of tanker trucks from or
into aboveground bulk storage tanks are
subject to this provision. One
commenter believed that the proposed
rule regulates items which ‘‘should be
covered’’ by DOT rules governing
loading, unloading, and vehicle
inspection.

Editorial changes and clarifications.
One commenter asked for a clarification
of the term ‘‘quick drainage system.’’
Another commenter recommended
that instead of mandatory containment
requirements, a facility be allowed to
show that procedures are in place to
ensure that personnel are present at all
times to supervise tank truck loading
and unloading. Additionally, that
commenter recommended that all new
or renovated loading/unloading areas
provide, at a minimum, curbing, sloped
concrete, trenching, tanks, or basins
which could contain at least five
percent by volume of the largest
compartment of the tank car or truck.
For existing facilities, that commenter
suggested that containment might
contain a lesser volume, provided that
the entire area is constructed of
impervious material, no reported
releases have occurred, and that
loading/unloading activities are
supervised.
Alarm or warning systems. One
commenter asked whether the
requirement to provide a warning light
or physical barrier system, or warning
signs, applied to tank batteries or just
plants. Another suggested that a vehicle
brake interlock system or similar system
might work just as well. Still another
suggested the use of wheel chocks
during tank truck transfers.
Vehicle drain closure. Two
commenters opposed the proposed
requirement that vehicle drains and
outlets be examined for leakage and if
necessary repaired to prevent liquid
leaks during transit. They argued that
the facility owner had little or no
control over trucks that were owned by
others which loaded or unloaded at a
facility and could not ensure their
compliance with the rules.
Response to comments. In general.
This section is applicable to any nontransportation-related or terminal
facility where oil is loaded or unloaded
from or to a tank car or tank truck. It
applies to containers which are
aboveground (including partially buried
tanks, bunkered tanks, or vaulted tanks)
or completely buried (except those
exempted by this rule), and to all
facilities, large or small. All of these
facilities have a risk of discharge from
transfers. Our Survey of Oil Storage
Facilities (published in July 1996)
showed that as annual throughput
increases, so does the propensity to
discharge, the severity of the discharge,
and, to a lesser extent, the costs of the
cleanup. Throughput increases are often
associated with transfers of oil.
The requirements contained in this
section, including those for secondary
containment, warning systems, and

inspection of trucks or cars for
discharges are necessary to help prevent
discharges. If you can justify a deviation
for secondary containment requirement
in paragraph (h)(1) on the basis that it
is not practicable from an engineering
standpoint, you must provide a
contingency plan and take other actions
to comply with § 112.7(d). If you seek to
deviate from any of the requirements in
paragraphs (h)(2) or (3), you must
explain your reasons for
nonconformance, as provided in
§ 112.7(a)(2), and provide measures
affording equivalent environmental
protection.
We disagree that a contingency plan
(whether labeled ‘‘strong’’ or otherwise)
is a preferable alternative to secondary
containment. Secondary containment is
preferable because it may prevent a
discharge that may be harmful as
described in § 112.1(b). A contingency
plan is a plan for action when such
discharge has already occurred.
However, as noted earlier, if secondary
containment is not practicable, you
must provide a contingency plan and
take other actions as required by
§ 112.7(d). EPA will continue to
evaluate the issue of whether the
provisions for secondary containment
found in § 112.7(h)(1) should be
modified or revised. We intend to
publish a notice asking for additional
data and comment on this issue.
We disagree that the section regulates
activities already under the purview of
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
We regulate the environmental aspects
of loading/unloading transfers at nontransportation-related facilities, which
are legitimately part of a prevention
plan. DOT regulates other aspects of
those transfers, such as safety measures.
Other State or Federal law. We have
withdrawn, as unnecessary, proposed
§ 112.7(h)(1), which would have
required that facilities meet the
minimum requirements of Federal and
State law. Those requirements apply
whether they are mentioned or not.
Secondary containment. As noted
above, the requirement for secondary
containment applies to all facilities,
whether with aboveground or
completely buried containers. This
includes production facilities and small
facilities. The method of secondary
containment must be one of those listed
in the rule (see § 112.7(c)), or some
similar system that provides equivalent
environmental protection. The choice of
method is one of good engineering
practice. However, in response to
comments, we note that sumps and drip
pans are a listed method of secondary
containment for offshore facilities. A
catchment basin might be an acceptable

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
form of retention pond for an onshore
facility. Whatever method is
implemented, it must be capable of
containing the maximum capacity of
any single compartment of a tank car or
tank truck loaded or unloaded in the
facility. A discharge from the maximum
capacity of any single compartment of a
tank car or tank truck includes a
discharge from the tank car or tank truck
piping and hoses. This is the largest
amount likely to be discharged from the
oil storage vehicle. A requirement that
secondary containment be able to hold
only five percent of a potential
discharge when procedures are in place
to prevent discharges fails to protect the
environment if there is human error in
one of those procedures. In case of
discharge, the secondary containment
system must be capable of preventing a
discharge from that maximum capacity
compartment to the environment. As
mentioned above, if secondary
containment is not practicable, you may
be able to deviate from the requirement
if you provide a contingency plan and
otherwise comply with § 112.7(d).
Alarm or warning systems. The
requirement to provide a warning light
or other physical barrier system applies
to the loading/unloading areas of
facilities. We have amended the rule on
the suggestion of a commenter to
include ‘‘vehicle brake interlock
system’’ and ‘‘wheel chocks.’’ The
examples listed in the rule of potential
warning systems are merely illustrative.
Any other alarm or warning system
which serves the same purpose and
performs effectively will also suffice to
meet this requirement.
Vehicle drain closure. We believe that
the requirement to check vehicles for
discharge is important to help prevent
discharges. If the check were not done,
the entire contents of the vehicle might
be discharged. We further believe that
the responsibility for compliance with
proposed § 112.7(h)(3), as well as with
all provisions of the rule, continues to
rest with the owner or operator of the
facility when those vehicles are loading
or unloading oil at the facility.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with loading and unloading
areas include: (1) NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable
and Combustible Liquids Code’’; and,
(2) API Standard 2610, ‘‘Design,
Construction, Operation, Maintenance,
and Inspection of Terminal and Tank
Facilities.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In paragraph (h)(1), for clarity, ‘‘plant’’
is changed to ‘‘facility.’’ The phrase ‘‘to
handle spills’’ becomes ‘‘to handle
discharges.’’ A ‘‘quick drainage system’’
is a device which drains oil away from

the loading/unloading area to some
means of secondary containment or
returns the oil to the facility. For
§ 112.7(h)(1), if secondary containment
is not practicable, you must provide a
contingency plan following the
provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and
otherwise comply with § 112.7(d). Also,
in paragraph (h)(1), ‘‘tank truck’’
becomes ‘‘tank car or tank truck.’’ In
paragraph (h)(2), ‘‘prevent vehicular
departure,’’ becomes ‘‘prevent vehicles
from departing.’’ In paragraph (h)(3),
‘‘leakage’’ becomes ‘‘discharge.’’
‘‘Discharge’’ is a broader term, of which
‘‘leakage’’ is a subset. Also in that
paragraph, ‘‘examine’’ becomes
‘‘inspect.’’
Section 112.7(i)—Brittle Fracture
Evaluation
Background. In 1993, we proposed to
require that you evaluate your fieldconstructed tanks for brittle fracture if
those tanks undergo repair, alteration, or
a change in service. You would have
been required to evaluate those tanks by
adherence to industry standards
contained in American Petroleum
Institute (API) Standard 653, entitled
‘‘Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration,
and Reconstruction.’’ The rationale was
to help prevent the failure of fieldconstructed tanks due to brittle fracture,
such as the four million gallon
aboveground Ashland Oil tank failure
which occurred in January 1988.
Comments. Applicability. Several
commenters favored the proposal. One
suggested that we incorporate API
Standard 653 into our rules to
accommodate the possibility of tank
failures other than through brittle
fracture. One commenter opposed the
proposal on the basis that the evaluation
was unnecessary for small volume tanks
and tanks with secondary containment.
Other commenters argued that such
testing was unnecessary for steel-bolted
tanks because such tanks are too thin to
be subject to brittle fracture since
material properties are uniform through
the thickness. One commenter asked
that small facilities be exempted from
the proposed requirement.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
Two commenters asked what the term
‘‘change in service’’ means. Others
asked for clarification of the term ‘‘fielderected tank.’’ Another asked for
clarification of the term ‘‘repair,’’ so that
it would exclude ordinary day-to-day
maintenance activities which are
conducted to maintain the functional
integrity of the tank and do not weaken
the tank.
Alternatives to brittle fracture
evaluation. One commenter suggested

47111

that we allow testing by acoustic
emission testing.
Response to comments. Applicability.
The requirement to evaluate fieldconstructed tanks for brittle fracture
whenever a field-constructed
aboveground container undergoes
repair, alteration, reconstruction, or
change in service is necessary because
brittle fracture may cause sudden and
catastrophic tank failure, resulting in
potentially serious damage to the
environment and loss of oil. The
requirement must be applicable to large
and small facilities alike, because all the
field-constructed aboveground
containers have a risk of failure. The
presence or absence of secondary
containment does not eliminate the
need for brittle fracture evaluation
because the intent of the rule is to
prevent a discharge whether or not it
will be contained. While the
requirement applies to all fieldconstructed aboveground containers, if
you can show that the evaluation is
unnecessary for your steel-bolted tanks,
you may deviate from the requirement
under § 112.7(a)(2) if you can explain
your reasons for nonconformance and
provide equivalent environmental
protection. We note that portions of
steel-bolted tanks, such as the bottom or
roof, may be welded, and therefore
subject to brittle fracture.
The requirement for evaluation of a
field-constructed aboveground container
must be undertaken when the container
undergoes a repair, alteration,
reconstruction, or change in service that
might affect the risk of a discharge or
failure due to brittle fracture, or when
a discharge or failure has already
occurred due to brittle fracture or other
catastrophe. Catastrophic failures are
failures which may result from events
such as lightning strikes, dangerous
seismic activity, etc. As a result of a
catastrophic failure, the entire contents
of a container may be discharged to the
environment in the same way as if
brittle fracture had occurred.
‘‘Repair’’ means any work necessary
to maintain or restore a container to a
condition suitable for safe operation.
Typical examples include the removal
and replacement of material (such as
roof, shell, or bottom material, including
weld metal) to maintain container
integrity; the re-leveling or jacking of a
container shell, bottom, or roof; the
addition of reinforcing plates to existing
shell penetrations; and the repair of
flaws, such as tears or gouges, by
grinding or gouging followed by
welding. We understand that some
repairs (such as repair of tank seals),
alterations, or changes in service will
not cause a risk of failure due to brittle

47112

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

fracture; therefore, we have amended
the rule to refer to those repairs,
alterations, reconstruction, or changes
in service that affect the risk of a
discharge or failure due to brittle
fracture.
‘‘Alteration’’ means any work on a
container involving cutting, burning,
welding, or heating operations that
changes the physical dimensions or
configurations of the container. Typical
examples include the addition of
manways and nozzles greater than 12inch nominal pipe size and an increase
or decrease in tank shell height.
Alternatives to brittle fracture
evaluation. We have eliminated the
incorporation by reference to API
Standard 653 from the rule. We have
also therefore withdrawn proposed
Appendix H, the API Standard 653
brittle fracture flowchart. We believe
that API Standard 653 is an acceptable
standard to test for brittle fracture.
However, an incorporation by reference
of any standard might cause the rule to
be instantly obsolete should that
standard change or should a newer,
better method emerge. A potential
standard might also apply only to a
certain subset of facilities or equipment.
Therefore, as with most other
requirements in this part, if you explain
your reasons for nonconformance,
alternative methods which afford
equivalent environmental protection
may be acceptable under § 112.7(a)(2). If
acoustic emission testing provides
equivalent environmental protection it
may be acceptable as an alternative.
That decision, in the first instance, is
one for the Professional Engineer and
owner or operator.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with brittle fracture evaluation
include: (1) API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank
Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction’’; and, (2) API
Recommended Practice 920,
‘‘Prevention of Brittle Fracture of
Pressure Vessels.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications. A
‘‘field-constructed aboveground
container’’ is one that is assembled or
reassembled outside the factory at the
location of its intended use. A ‘‘change
in service’’ is a change from previous
operating conditions involving different
properties of the stored product such as
specific gravity or corrosivity and/or
different service conditions of
temperature and/or pressure. The word
‘‘reconstruction’’ was added in the first
sentence to conform with the text in API
Standard 653. The words ‘‘discharge or’’
were added prior to ‘‘failure’’ and
‘‘brittle fracture failure’’ to make clear
that evaluation is necessary when there

has been a discharge from the container,
whether or not there has been a
complete failure of the container due to
brittle fracture or catastrophe. When a
container has failed completely and will
be replaced, no brittle fracture or
catastrophe evaluation is necessary. The
evaluation is only applicable when the
original container remains, but the
physical condition of the container has
changed due to repair, alteration, or
change in service.
Section 112.7(j)—State Rules
Background. In the introduction to
§ 112.7(e) of the current rule, an owner
or operator is required to discuss in the
Plan his conformance with § 112.7(c),
plus other applicable parts of § 112.7,
other effective spill prevention and
containment procedures or, if more
stringent, with State rules, regulations,
and guidelines. In our 1991 proposal,
we limited the required discussion of
‘‘other effective spill prevention and
containment procedures’’ to those listed
in §§ 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11,
or if more stringent, with State rules,
regulations, and guidelines.
Comments. Cross-referencing of
requirements. One commenter argued
that the proposed requirements should
be more clearly limited to those sections
which are applicable to the facility in
question. For example, the commenter
asserted, ‘‘requirements in § 112.8
‘* * *onshore facilities (excluding
production facilities)’ should not (by the
requirement in § 112.7(i)) be applied to
any portion of any production facility.’’
Consistency in rules. Two States
urged that our rules be as consistent as
possible with rules in the States.
Another State urged that we grant
reciprocity to State-approved Plans
which have been reviewed under equal
or greater adequacy criteria. One
commenter complained that EPA rules
are in some cases more stringent than
some State rules.
Federal and State regulation. Two
commenters argued against any State
regulation in the SPCC area to avoid
duplication. Conversely, another
commenter argued against any Federal
regulation because the States are better
qualified to regulate in the SPCC arena.
Preemption. Another State requested
that EPA strive to have similar programs
as the States, or at the least not to
preempt the States in the regulation of
SPCC matters.
Response to comments. Crossreferencing of requirements. In response
to the commenter who believed that
proposed § 112.7(i) (redesignated in
today’s rule as § 112.7(j)) might require
him to discuss inapplicable
requirements, we note that you must

address all SPCC requirements in your
Plan. You must include in your Plan a
complete discussion of conformance
with the applicable requirements and
other effective discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed in part
112 or any applicable more stringent
State rule, regulation, or guideline. If a
requirement is not applicable to a
particular type of facility, we believe
that it is important for an owner or
operator to explain why.
Consistency in rules. As noted above,
you may now use a State plan as a
substitute for an SPCC Plan when the
State plan meets all Federal
requirements and is cross-referenced.
When you use a State plan that does not
meet all Federal requirements, it must
be supplemented by sections that do
meet all Federal requirements. At times
EPA will have rules that are more
stringent than States rules, and some
States may have rules that are more
stringent than those of EPA. If you
follow more stringent State rules in your
Plan, you must explain that is what you
are doing.
Federal and State regulation. Both the
States and EPA have authority to
regulate containers storing or using oil.
We believe State authority to regulate in
this area and establish spill prevention
programs is supported by section 311(o)
of the CWA. Some States have exercised
their authority to regulate while others
have not. We believe that State SPCC
programs are a valuable supplement to
our SPCC program.
Preemption. We do not preempt State
rules, and defer to State rules,
regulations, and guidelines that are
more stringent than part 112.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
To simplify the rule language, we have
amended the proposed rule to state that
you must discuss all applicable
requirements in the Plan instead of
listing all of the sections individually.
The phrase ‘‘sections of the Plan shall
include* * *’’ becomes ‘‘include in
your Plan* * * .’’ ‘‘Spill’’ becomes
‘‘discharge.’’
Subpart B—Requirements for
Petroleum Oils or Other Non-petroleum
Oils, Except Animal Fats and Vegetable
Oils
Background. As noted above, we have
reformatted the rule to differentiate
between various classes of oil as
mandated by EORRA. Subpart B
prescribes particular requirements for
an owner or operator of a facility that
stores or uses petroleum oils or nonpetroleum oils, except for animal fats
and vegetable oils.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Introduction to Section 112.8
Background. We have inserted an
introduction to § 112.8 so that we could
list the requirements of that section in
the active voice. Those requirements,
except as specifically noted, apply to
the owner or operator of an onshore
facility (except a production facility).
The introduction does not result in any
substantive change in requirements.
Section 112.8(a)—General
Requirements—Onshore Facilities
(Excluding Production Facilities)
Background. This is a new provision
that merely references the general
requirements which all facilities subject
to this part must meet and the specific
requirements that facilities subject to
this section must meet. It does not result
in any change to substantive
requirements.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Spill prevention’’ in the 1991 proposal
becomes ‘‘discharge prevention.’’ We
also deleted from the titles of each
paragraph the words ‘‘onshore’’ and
‘‘excluding production facilities’’
because the entire section applies to
onshore facilities and excludes
production facilities from its scope.
Finally, the proposed requirement to
‘‘address’’ general and specific
requirements and procedures becomes
‘‘meet’’ those requirements and
procedures.
Section 112.8(b)(1)—Diked Storage Area
Drainage
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule (§ 112.7(e)(1)(i)) on
facility drainage from diked areas.
Comments. Applicability. One
commenter asked that we limit the
scope of this section to facilities having
areas with the potential to receive
discharges greater than 660 gallons or
areas with tanks regulated under these
rules. Another commenter said that for
facilities with site-wide containment, or
that have substantial stormwater
draining onto and across the site, the
requirement is not practical and may
justify reliance on contingency plans
instead of containment. That
commenter, and another, suggested that
certain devices may reduce the potential
of a significant spill of floating or other
products that can be separated by
gravity, such as oil/water separators,
underflow uncontrolled discharge
devices, and other apparatus.
De minimis amounts of oil. One
commenter thought it would be
impossible to ensure no oil would be
discharged into water from diked areas.
The rationale was that oil can be present
in water in an amount below the
perception threshold of the human eye.

Response to comments. Applicability.
We disagree that we should limit the
scope of this section to facilities having
areas with the potential to receive
discharges greater than 660 gallons or
areas with tanks regulated under these
rules. Small discharges (that is, of 660
gallons or less) as described in
§ 112.1(b) from diked storage areas can
cause great environmental harm. See
section IV. F of this preamble for a
discussion of the effects of small
discharges. We disagree that this section
should apply only to areas with tanks
regulated under these rules because this
rule applies to regulated facilities, not
merely areas with regulated tanks or
other containers. A facility may contain
operating equipment within a diked
storage area which could cause a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
We disagree that the requirement is
not practical for facilities with site-wide
containment, or that have substantial
stormwater draining onto and across the
site. Where oil/water separators,
underflow uncontrolled discharge
devices, or other positive means provide
equivalent environmental protection as
the discharge restraints required by this
section, you may use them, if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance. See § 112.7(a)(2).
However, you must still ensure that no
oil will be discharged when using
alternate devices.
De minimis amounts of oil. This rule
is concerned with a discharge of oil that
would become a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b). When oil is present in
water in an amount that cannot be
perceived by the human eye, the
discharge might not meet the
description provided in 40 CFR 110.3.
Therefore, such a discharge might not be
a discharge in a quantity that may be
harmful, and therefore not a reportable
discharge under part 110. However, a
discharge which is invisible to the
human eye might also contain
components (for example, dissolved
petroleum components) which would
violate applicable water quality
standards, making it a reportable
discharge. Therefore, we are keeping the
language as proposed, other than
making some editorial changes.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with facility drainage include:
(1) NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code’’; and (2),
API Standard 2610, ‘‘Design,
Construction, Operation, Maintenance,
and Inspection of Terminal and Tank
Facilities.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Spill or other excessive leakage of oil’’
and ‘‘leakage’’ become ‘‘discharge.’’ The

47113

phrase ‘‘handle such leakage’’ becomes
‘‘control such discharge.’’ We deleted
the phrase ‘‘or other positive means,’’
because it is confusing when compared
with the text of § 112.7(a)(2). Under
§ 112.7(a)(2), you have the flexibility to
use alternate measures ensuring
equivalent environmental protection.
The word ‘‘examine’’ becomes
‘‘inspect.’’
Section 112.8(b)(2)—Diked Storage
Areas—Valves Used; Inspection of
Retained Stormwater
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule on the type of valves
that must be used to drain diked storage
areas. The rule also addresses
inspection of retained stormwater.
Comments. Innovative devices. Two
commenters believed that the rule
would apparently preclude the use of
innovative containment devices to
control discharges from containment
dikes, such as imbiber beads. These
beads are inside a small cylinder that
filters releases from a containment area.
The beads are inserted where a valve
would be placed and allow water to
pass, but prevent release of oil by
closing on contact. Another commenter
asked that the rule allow oil-water
gravity separation systems instead of
valves.
PE certification. One commenter
suggested that a section should be
added to the rule requiring that
Professional Engineers be required to
certify the design and construction of
the stormwater drainage system and the
sanitary sewer system, because the
Professional Engineer is in the best
position to prepare the spill
containment parts of the SPCC Plan.
Response to comments. Innovative
devices. This rule does not preclude
innovative devices that achieve the
same environmental protection as
manual open-and-closed design valves.
If you do not use such valves, you must
explain why. The provision for
deviations in § 112.7(a)(2) allows
alternatives if the owner or operator
states his reasons for nonconformance,
and if he can provide equivalent
environmental protection by some other
means. However, you may not use
flapper-type drain valves to drain diked
areas. And if you use alternate devices
to substitute for manual, open-andclosed design valves, you must inspect
and may drain retained stormwater, as
provided in § 112.8(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and
(iv), if your facility drainage drains
directly into a watercourse, lake, or
pond bypassing the facility treatment
system.
PE certification. PE certification is
already required for the design of

47114

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

and immediate clean-up of spills within
such areas. Another commenter urged
that we clarify that oil/water separators
meet the requirement for drainage
control and secondary containment
because such units, when properly sized
and operated, meet the requirements of
good engineering practice for preventing
discharges of oil. One commenter
suggested that in rural areas where
electrical equipment is widely spaced, it
may be more practical to provide for
individual secondary containment
rather than site-wide diversion facilities.
Other commenters suggested that the
drainage requirements in urban areas
would be impossible to meet for
transformers located in vaults in large
office and apartment buildings, and
underneath urban streets because there
is no space at such sites to construct the
sort of drainage control structures
required by the rule.
Areas subject to periodic flooding.
Section 112.8(b)(3)—Drainage Into
One commenter argued that the
Secondary Containment; Areas Subject
proposed recommendation should be
to Flooding
retained as a requirement because it is
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
highly unlikely that catchment basins
clarify that only undiked areas that are
would operate effectively during a flood
located such that they have a reasonable event, and that these facilities could
potential to be contaminated by an oil
cause significant harm to the
discharge are required to drain into a
environment. Another commenter
pond, lagoon, or catchment basin. We
suggested that drainage systems for
explained that a good Plan should seek
existing facilities be engineered (even if
to separate reasonably foreseeable
it requires pumping of contaminated
sources of contamination and nonwater to a higher level for storage prior
contamination.
to treatment) so that minimal amounts
We also proposed to make a
of contaminated water are retained in
recommendation of the current
areas subject to periodic flooding.
requirement that catchment basins not
Response to comments. Applicability.
be located in areas subject to periodic
We
disagree that the rule language
flooding.
should
become a recommendation
Comments. One commenter
because we believe that it is important
supported the proposal.
to control the potential discharges the
Editorial changes and clarifications.
rule addresses. Where a drainage system
One commenter suggested that the rule
is infeasible, if you explain your reasons
should be worded to refer to systems
for nonconformance, you may provide
‘‘with a potential for discharge,’’ rather
equivalent environmental protection by
than with a ‘‘potential for
an alternate means.
contamination.’’
In response to the commenter who
Applicability. Two commenters
questioned the applicability of this
argued that the secondary containment
paragraph to areas under aboveground
provisions of this paragraph should
piping and loading/unloading areas, we
‘‘remain a recommendation as opposed
note that both areas are subject to the
to a regulation,’’ because a requirement
rule’s requirements if they are undiked.
is impracticable for drainage systems
Alternatives. The rule does not limit
from pipelines that move product
you to the use of drainage trenches for
throughout the facility.
Alternatives. One commenter said that undiked areas. Other forms of secondary
containment may be acceptable. The
the rule should not be limited to
rule only prescribes requirements for
drainage trenches, and that the owners
and operators of facilities should have a the drainage of diked areas, but does not
mandate the use of diked areas.
free choice of design. Another
commenter suggested that if areas under However, if you do use diked areas, the
rule prescribes minimum requirements
aboveground piping and loading/
unloading areas are regulated under this for drainage of those areas. Also, if the
requirement is not practical, you may
section, the operation should have the
explain your reasons for
option of providing spill control by
committing to the regular inspection of, nonconformance and provide equivalent

stormwater drainage and sanitary sewer
systems by current rules because those
systems are a technical element of the
Plan. Therefore, we are keeping the
language as proposed.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the first sentence, we deleted the
phrase ‘‘as far as practical’’ because it is
confusing when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). Under § 112.7(a)(2), if the
requirement is not practical, you have
the flexibility to use measures ensuring
equivalent environmental protection. In
the second sentence, we clarify that the
wastewater treatment plant mentioned
therein is an ‘‘on-site wastewater
treatment plant.’’ Also in that sentence,
we clarify that you must inspect and
‘‘may drain’’ retained stormwater, as
provided in § 112.8(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and
(iv). Finally, in the last sentence, we
clarify that drained retained stormwater
must be ‘‘uncontaminated.’’

environmental protection under
§ 112.7(a)(2).
Areas subject to periodic flooding. We
agree with the commenter that the
current requirement should remain a
requirement and not be converted into
a recommendation. We are convinced
by the argument that catchment basins
will not work during flood events and
may cause significant environmental
damage. We also agree with the
commenter that any drainage system
should be engineered so that minimal
amounts of contaminated water are
retained in areas subject to periodic
flooding. Therefore, we have retained
the current requirement. We also
recommend, but do not require that
ponds, lagoons, or other facility
drainage systems with the potential for
discharge not be located in areas subject
to periodic flooding.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We agree that the wording ‘‘potential for
discharge’’ meets the intent of the rule
better than ‘‘potential for
contamination’’ and have made that
change.
Section 112.8(b)(4)—Diversion Systems
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that diversion systems must retain oil in
the facility, rather than return it to the
facility after it has been discharged.
Comments. One commenter asked for
a clarification that oil ‘‘retained’’ in a
facility does not leave the facility
boundaries. A second commenter
suggested that oil be either retained
within the facility or returned to the
facility, whichever is applicable. The
commenter further suggested that the
diversion system apply only to the
petroleum areas of the facility such as
tanks, pipes, racks, and diked areas
because drainage from the rest of the
facility should not be contaminated and
thus should not have to be diverted.
Response to comments. The rule
accomplishes the aim of retaining
within the facility minimal amounts of
contaminated water in undiked areas
subject to periodic flooding. It is better
that a diversion system retain rather
than allow oil to leave the facility, thus
enhancing the prevention goals of the
rule. Furthermore, it should be easier to
retain discharged oil rather than retrieve
oil that has been discharged from the
facility. Therefore, we agree with the
commenter that ‘‘retained’’ oil is oil that
never leaves the facility. We also agree
that the rule applies only to drainage
from the ‘‘petroleum’’ (or other oil) areas
of the facility such as tanks, pipes,
racks, and diked areas, because the
purpose of the SPCC rule is to prevent
discharges of oil, not of all runoff
contaminants. Amendment of the rule

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
language is unnecessary because all of
the rule applies only to ‘‘petroleum’’ or
‘‘oil’’ areas of the facility. Therefore, we
have promulgated the rule language as
proposed with a minor editorial change.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We clarify that the reference to the
engineering of facility drainage is a
reference to paragraph (b)(3).
Section 112.8(b)(5)—Natural Hydraulic
Flow, Pumps
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
substantively the current rule (see
§ 112.7(e)(1)(v)) concerning hydraulic
flow and pump transfer for drainage
waters.
Comments. We received one editorial
comment regarding a grammatical error
in the proposal. The commenter
suggested that the second sentence of
the proposal read, ‘‘If pump transfer is
needed, two ‘‘lift’’ pumps shall be
provided, and at least one of the pumps
shall be permanently installed when
such treatment is continuous.’’ We
received no substantive comments.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the first sentence from the
proposed rule because it is a
recommendation. We are not including
recommendations in this rule so as to
avoid confusion in the regulated
community as to what is required and
what is not. We agree with the
commenter’s editorial suggestion
regarding the second sentence, and have
amended the rule accordingly. In the
last sentence of the proposal, the phrase
‘‘oil will be prevented from reaching
navigable waters of the United States,
adjoining shorelines, or other waters
that would be affected by discharging
oil as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this
part’’ becomes ‘‘ to prevent a discharge
as described in § 112.1(b). * * *’’
Response to comments. We have
corrected the grammatical error.
Proposed Section 112.8(b)(6)—
Additional Requirements for Events that
Occur During a Period of Flooding
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
new recommendation that facilities
should address the need to comply with
Federal, State, and local governmental
requirements in areas subject to
flooding. We noted that this
recommendation was consistent with
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) rules found at 44 CFR part 60
for aboveground storage tanks located in
flood hazard areas.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that exploration and production tanks
located in flood plain areas should be
adequately secured through proper
mechanical or engineering methods to
reduce the chance of loss of product.

Another commenter argued that the
proposed rule should be eliminated
because it is duplicative of stormwater
regulations. One commenter urged that
the rule require that no facilities for oil
or hazardous substances be sited in
floodplains. Another commenter
requested that the rule require that: (1)
A facility should identify whether it is
in a floodplain in the SPCC Plan; (2) if
it is in a floodplain, the Plan should
address minimum FEMA standards;
and, (3) if a facility does not meet
minimum FEMA standards, the Plan
should address appropriate
precautionary and mitigation measures
for potential flood-related discharges.
The commenter also suggested that we
consider requiring facilities in areas
subject to 500-year events to address
minimum FEMA standards. A second
commenter supported a requirement for
special considerations in the Plan for
facilities in areas subject to flooding.
That commenter also suggested that we
define ‘‘areas subject to flooding,’’ and
noted that other Federal rules (i.e.,
RCRA) define this as the 25-year
floodplain. Another commenter thought
the term ‘‘areas subject to flooding’’
should be explained in terms of a 100year flood event. A final comment noted
that the preamble spoke to a
recommendation that facilities address
precautionary measures if they are
located in areas subject to flooding,
while the recommendation text spoke to
requirements for events that occur
during a period of flooding. The
commenter urged reconciliation of the
differing language.
Response to comments. We deleted
this recommendation because it is more
appropriately addressed in FEMA rules
and guidance, including the definitions
the commenters referenced. We disagree
that the proposed recommendation
should be made a requirement because
flood control plans and design
capabilities for discharge systems are
provided for under the stormwater
regulations, and further Federal
regulations would be duplicative.
Other Federal rules also apply,
making further SPCC rules unnecessary.
Oil storage facilities are considered
structures under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), and therefore
such structures are subject to the
Regulations for Floodplain Management
at 44 CFR 60.3. Some of the specific
NFIP standards that may apply for
aboveground storage tanks include the
following: (1) tanks must be designed so
that they are elevated to or above the
base flood level (100-year flood) or be
designed so that the portion of the tank
below the base flood level is watertight
with walls substantially impermeable to

47115

the passage of water, with structural
components having the capability of
resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
loads, and with the capability to resist
effects of buoyancy (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3));
(2) tanks must be adequately anchored
to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral
movement of the structure resulting
from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic
loads and the effects of buoyancy (40
CFR 60.3(c)(3)); for structures that are
intended to be made watertight below
the base flood level, a Registered
Professional Engineer must develop
and/or review the structural design,
specifications, and plans for
construction, and certify that they have
been prepared in accordance with
accepted standards and practice (40 CFR
60.3(c)(4)); and, tanks must not
encroach within the adopted regulatory
floodway unless it has been
demonstrated that the proposed
encroachment would not result in any
increase in flood levels within the
community during the occurrence of the
base flood discharge (40 CFR 60.3(d)).
Additionally, the NFIP has specific
standards for coastal high hazard areas.
See 40 CFR 60.3(e)(4).
Section 112.8(c)(1)—Construction of
and Materials Used for Containers
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without substantive change current
§ 112.7(e)(2)(i), which requires that no
tank be used for the storage of oil unless
its material and construction are
compatible with the material stored and
the conditions of storage such as
pressure and temperature. The only
changes we proposed were editorial. We
also proposed a new recommendation
that the construction, materials,
installation, and use of tanks conform
with relevant industry standards such as
API, NFPA, UL, or ASME standards,
which are required in the application of
good engineering practice for the
construction and operation of the tank.
Comments. Several commenters asked
that the proposal be recast as a
recommendation rather than a rule,
arguing that the words of the proposal,
when taken in conjunction with
§ 112.7(a) language requiring the use of
good engineering practice in the
preparation of Plans, were
contradictory. A commenter noted that
§ 112.8(c)(1) recommends that materials,
construction, and installation of tanks
adhere to industry standards ‘‘which are
required in the application of good
engineering practice for the construction
and operation of the tank.’’ The
commenter asserted that since it is clear
in the preamble that the Agency’s intent
is to make the use of industry standards
a recommendation rather than a

47116

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

requirement, the rule should be
modified to reflect that. Another
commenter supported the proposal as a
requirement on the theory that all tanks
should be required to meet industry
standards. A third commenter asked for
clarification as to whether we intended
a recommendation or a requirement.
One commenter asked that we
specifically reference steel storage tank
systems standards in the rule.
Response to comments. Requirement
v. recommendation. The first sentence
of the proposed rule indeed
contemplated a requirement, i.e., that no
container may be used for the storage of
oil unless its material and construction
are compatible with the material stored
and the conditions of storage, such as
pressure or temperature. The second
sentence, which was clearly a
recommendation, has been deleted from
the rule because we have decided to
remove all recommendations from the
rule language. Rules are mandates, and
we do not wish to confuse the regulated
community as to what actions are
mandatory and what actions are
discretionary. The Professional Engineer
must, pursuant to § 112.3(d)(1)(iii),
certify that he has considered applicable
industry standards in the preparation of
the Plan. While he must consider such
standards, use of any particular
standards is a matter of good
engineering practice.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with the material and
construction of containers include: (1)
API Standard 620, ‘‘Design and
Construction of Large Welded LowPressure Storage Tanks’’; (2) API
Standard 650, ‘‘Welded Steel Tanks for
Oil Storage’’; (3) Steel Tank Institute
(STI) F911, ‘‘Standard for Diked
Aboveground Steel Tanks’’; (4) STI
Publication R931, ‘‘Double Wall
Aboveground Storage Tank Installation
and Testing Instruction’’; (5) UL
Standard 58, ‘‘Standard for Steel
Underground Tanks for Flammable and
Combustible Liquids’’; (6) UL Standard
142, ‘‘Steel Aboveground Tanks for
Flammable and Combustible Liquids’’;
(7) UL Standard 1316, ‘‘Standard for
Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic
Underground Storage Tanks for
Petroleum Products’’; and, (8) Petroleum
Equipment Institute (PEI)
Recommended Practice 200,
‘‘Recommended Practices for
Installation of Aboveground Storage
Systems for Motor Vehicle Fueling.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Bulk storage tanks’’ becomes ‘‘bulk
storage containers.’’ We deleted the
abbreviation ‘‘etc.’’ from the end of the
paragraph because it is unnecessary.

The use of the phrase ‘‘such as pressure
and temperature’’ already indicates that
these are only some examples of such
conditions.
Section 112.8(c)(2)—Secondary
Containment—Bulk Storage Containers
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
current secondary containment
requirements with several significant
additions. We gave notice in the
preamble (at 56 FR 54622–23) that
‘‘sufficient freeboard’’ is freeboard
sufficient to contain precipitation from
a 25-year storm event. We also proposed
in rule language that diked areas must
be sufficiently impervious to contain
spilled oil for at least 72 hours. The
current standard is that such diked areas
must be ‘‘sufficiently impervious’’ to
contain spilled oil.
Comments. Secondary containment,
in general. One commenter asked for
clarification of what ‘‘primary
containment system’’ means. One
commenter opposed the requirement for
secondary containment on the grounds
that impervious containment of a
volume greater than the largest single
tank may not be necessary for all tanks,
and that existing facilities may find it
difficult to retrofit. In this vein, another
commenter asked for a phase-in of the
requirements, and a third asked for
variance provisions so that a facility
would not have to make small additions
to its secondary containment for
minimum environmental benefit.
Another commenter argued that the
requirement should be applied to large
facilities only. One commenter believed
that the proposal duplicates NPDES
stormwater rules. Two commenters
believed the requirement should apply
only to unmanned facilities. See also the
comments and response to comments
concerning secondary containment in
the discussion of § 112.7(c), above.
Sufficient freeboard. Several
commenters said that the standard of a
25-year storm event might be difficult to
determine without extensive
meteorological studies. Other
commenters asked for clarification of
the terms ‘‘sufficient’’ and ‘‘freeboard,’’
or of the phrase ‘‘sufficient freeboard.’’
Likewise, several commenters asked for
clarification of the Agency’s position
that sufficient freeboard would be that
which would withstand a 25-year storm
event. Two commenters suggested a
standard of 110% of tank capacity.
Other commenters suggested
alternatives for the 25-year storm event,
such as a 24-hour, 10 year rain; or a 24hour, 25-year storm. Another
commenter suggested the adequacy of
freeboard should be left flexible on a
facility-specific basis.

Seventy-two-hour impermeability
standard. Similar to the comments
directed toward the proposed
requirements for secondary containment
in § 112.7(c), some commenters objected
to the proposed 72-hour impermeability
standard. See the comments and
response to comments for § 112.7(c)
above.
Response to comments. Secondary
containment, in general. A primary
containment system is the container or
equipment in which oil is stored or
used. Secondary containment is a
requirement for all bulk storage
facilities, large or small, manned or
unmanned; and for facilities that use
oil-filled equipment; whenever
practicable. Such containment must at
least provide for the capacity of the
largest single tank with sufficient
freeboard for precipitation. A discharge
as described in § 112.1(b) from a small
facility may be as environmentally
devastating as such a discharge from a
large facility, depending on the
surrounding environment. Likewise, a
discharge from a manned facility needs
to be contained just as a discharge from
an unmanned one. A phase-in of these
requirements is not appropriate because
secondary containment is already
required under current rules. When
secondary containment is not
practicable, the owner or operator of a
facility may deviate from the
requirement under § 112.7(d), explain
the rationale in the Plan, provide a
contingency plan following the
provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and
otherwise comply with § 112.7(d).
Because a pit used as a form of
secondary containment may pose a
threat to birds and wildlife, we
encourage an owner or operator who
uses a pit to take measures to mitigate
the effect of the pit on birds and
wildlife. Such measures may include
netting, fences, or other means to keep
birds or animals away. In some cases,
pits may also cause a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). The discharge
may occur when oil spills over the top
of the pit or when oil seeps through the
ground into groundwater, and thence to
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. Therefore, we recommend
that an owner or operator not use pits
in an area where such pit may prove a
source of such discharges. Should the
oil reach navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, it is a reportable discharge
under 40 CFR 110.6.
We disagree that the rule is
duplicative of NPDES rules. Forseeable
or chronic point source discharges that
are permitted under CWA section 402,
and that are either due to causes
associated with the manufacturing or

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
other commercial activities in which the
discharger is engaged or due to the
operation of treatment facilities required
by the NPDES permit, are to be
regulated under the NPDES program.
‘‘Classic spill’’ situations are subject to
the requirements of CWA section 311.
Such spills are governed by section 311
even where the discharger holds a valid
and effective NPDES permit under
section 402. 52 FR 10712, 10714.
Therefore, the typical bulk storage
facility with no permitted discharge or
treatment facility would not be under
the NPDES rules.
The secondary containment
requirements of the rule apply to bulk
storage containers and their purpose is
to help prevent discharges as described
in § 112.1(b) by containing discharged
oil. NPDES rules, on the other hand,
may at times require secondary
containment, but do not always.
Furthermore, NPDES rules may not
always apply to bulk storage facilities.
Therefore, the rule is not always
duplicative of NPDES rules. Where it is
duplicative, an owner or operator of a
facility subject to NPDES rules may use
that portion of his Best Management
Practice Plan as part of his SPCC Plan.
Sufficient freeboard. An essential part
of secondary containment is sufficient
freeboard to contain precipitation.
Whatever method you use to calculate
the amount of freeboard that is
‘‘sufficient’’ must be documented in the
Plan. We believe that the proper
standard of ‘‘sufficient freeboard’’ to
contain precipitation is that amount
necessary to contain precipitation from
a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. That
standard allows flexibility for varying
climatic conditions. It is also the
standard required for certain tank
systems storing or treating hazardous
waste. See, for example, 40 CFR
265.1(e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii). While we
believe that 25-year, 24-hour storm
event standard is appropriate for most
facilities and protective of the
environment, we are not making it a
rule standard because of the difficulty
and expense for some facilities of
securing recent information concerning
such storm events at this time. Recent
data does not exist for all areas of the
United States. Furthermore, available
data may be costly for small operators
to secure. Should recent and
inexpensive information concerning a
25-year, 24-hour storm event for any
part of the United States become easily
accessible, we will reconsider proposing
such a standard.
Seventy-two-hour impermeability
standard. As noted above, we have
decided to withdraw the proposal for
the 72-hour impermeability standard

and retain the current standard that
diked areas must be sufficiently
impervious to contain oil. We take this
step because we agree with commenters
that the purpose of secondary
containment is to contain oil from
reaching waters of the United States.
The rationale for the 72-hour standard
was to allow time for the discovery and
removal of an oil spill. We believe that
an owner or operator of a facility should
have flexibility in how to prevent
discharges as described in § 112.1(b),
and that any method of containment
that achieves that end is sufficient.
Should such containment fail, an owner
or operator must immediately clean up
any discharged oil. Similarly, we intend
that the purpose of the ‘‘sufficiently
impervious’’ standard is to prevent
discharges as described in § 112.1(b) by
ensuring that diked areas can contain oil
and are sufficiently impervious to
prevent such discharges.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with secondary containment
for bulk storage containers include: (1)
NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code’’; (2) BOCA, National Fire
Prevention Code; (3) API Standard 2610,
‘‘Design Construction, Operation,
Maintenance, and Inspection of
Terminal and Tank Facilities’’; and, (4)
Petroleum Equipment Institute
Recommended Practice 200,
‘‘Recommended Practices for
Installation of Aboveground Storage
Systems for Motor Vehicle Fueling.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the first sentence, ‘‘spill’’ becomes
‘‘discharge.’’ Also in that sentence,
‘‘contents of the largest single tank’’
becomes ‘‘capacity of the largest single
container.’’ This is merely a clarification
and has always been the intent of the
rule. The contents of a container may
vary from day to day, but the capacity
remains the same. In discussing
capacity, we noted in the 1991 preamble
that ‘‘the oil storage capacity (emphasis
added) of the equipment, however, must
be included in determining the total
storage capacity of the facility, which
determines whether a facility is subject
to the Oil Pollution Prevention
regulation.’’ 56 FR 54623. We discuss
this capacity in the context of the
general requirements for secondary
containment. Thus, it is clear that we
have always intended capacity to be the
determinative factor in both subjecting a
facility to the rule and in determining
the need for secondary containment.
We also deleted the phrase ‘‘but they
may not always be appropriate’’ from
the third sentence of the paragraph
because it is confusing when compared
to the text of § 112.7(d). Under

47117

§ 112.7(d), if secondary containment is
not practicable, you may provide a
contingency plan in your SPCC Plan
and otherwise comply with that section.
In the last sentence, ‘‘plant’’ becomes
‘‘facility.’’ Also in that sentence, the
phrase ‘‘so that a spill could terminate
* * *’’ becomes ‘‘so that any
discharge will terminate.* * *’’
Section 112.8(c)(3)—Drainage of
Rainwater
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule on drainage of
rainwater, incorporating the CWA
standard, i.e., ‘‘that may be harmful,’’
into the proposal.
In 1997, we proposed that records
required under NPDES §§ 122.41(j)(2)
and 122.41(m)(3) would suffice for
purposes of this section, so that you
would not have to prepare duplicate
records specifically for SPCC purposes.
The proposed change would also apply
to records maintained regarding
inspection of diked areas in onshore oil
production facilities prior to drainage.
See 112.9(b)(1).
Comments. 1991 comments. One
commenter in 1991 suggested that we
allow use of NPDES records for
purposes of this section. Another
commenter suggested that records of
discharges that do not violate water
quality standards are unnecessary.
1997 comments. Many commenters
favored the 1997 proposal. One
commenter opposed the proposal if the
records were not to be required by
NPDES. Specifically, the commenter
sought an exemption for discharges of
rainwater containing animal fats and
vegetable oils if such discharges are not
regulated under NPDES rules. The
commenter believed that an exception
should be created for reporting and
recording dike bypasses of
§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D) relating to animal
fats and vegetable oil storage, only
requiring such reporting and recording
if required by an NPDES stormwater
permit, because in all cases discharge of
contaminated stormwater is not
permitted. Asking why EPA should
regulate stormwater bypass events if the
stormwater is not contaminated, the
commenter argued that if stormwater
permits do not require reporting and
recording of dike bypass events, then
EPA should not require an added tier of
regulation under SPCC Plans. Other
commenters thought that EPA was
adopting by reference the NPDES rules
and sought clarification on the issue.
Response to comments. We agree with
the first 1991 commenter mentioned
above and proposed that change in
1997. We disagree with the second 1991
commenter that records of discharges

47118

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that do not violate water quality
standards are unnecessary. Such records
show that the facility has complied with
the rule.
We are not adopting the NPDES rules
for SPCC purposes, but are only offering
an alternative for recordkeeping. The
intent of the rule is that you may, if you
choose, use the NPDES stormwater
discharge records in lieu of records
specifically created for SPCC purposes.
We are not incorporating the NPDES
requirements into our rules by
reference.
This paragraph applies to discharges
of rainwater from diked areas that may
contain any type of oil, including
animal fats and vegetable oils. The only
purpose of this paragraph is to offer a
recordkeeping option so that you do not
have to create a duplicate set of records
for SPCC purposes, when adequate
records created for NPDES purposes
already exist.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the introduction to the paragraph
(c)(3), ‘‘drainage of rainwater’’ becomes
‘‘drainage of uncontaminated
rainwater.’’ In paragraph (c)(3)(ii),
which read, ‘‘* * * run-off rainwater
ensures compliance with applicable
water quality standards and will not
cause a discharge as described in 40
CFR part 110’’ becomes ‘‘* * *
retained rainwater to ensure that its
presence will not cause a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).’’ Also in that
paragraph, we deleted the phrase
‘‘applicable water quality standards’’
because such standards are
encompassed within the phrase ‘‘a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
Section 112.8(c)(4)—Completely Buried
Tanks; Corrosion Protection
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule requiring that new
completely buried metallic storage tank
installations (i.e., installed on or after
January 10, 1974) must be protected
from corrosion by coatings, cathodic
protection, or effective methods
compatible with local soil conditions.
We recommended that such buried
tanks be subjected to regular leak
testing. The rationale for the
recommendation was that testing
technology was rapidly advancing and
we wanted more information on such
technology before making the
recommendation a requirement. We also
stated a desire to be consistent with
many State rules.
Comments. Corrosion protection. One
commenter supported the proposal for
corrosion protection. Another thought a
requirement for corrosion protection ‘‘if
soil conditions warrant’’ would be
unenforceable. A third commenter

complained that the proposal included
no discussion of cathodic protection for
tank bottoms in contact with soil or fill
materials. Others thought facilities with
underground tanks subject to part 112
should be required to develop a
corrosion protection plan consistent
with 40 CFR part 280, the rules for the
Underground Storage Tanks Program.
Leak testing. Several commenters
opposed the proposed recommendation
for leak testing, arguing that owner/
operator discretion should be retained.
One commenter suggested that practices
for annual integrity testing and for the
installation of pipes under 40 CFR part
280 should be changed from
recommended practices to required
practices because recommendations
with standards are not usually followed.
Response to comments. Corrosion
protection. We agree in principle that all
completely buried tanks should have
some type of corrosion protection, but
as proposed, we will only extend that
requirement to new completely buried
metallic storage tanks. Because
corrosion protection is a feature of the
current rule (see § 112.7(e)(2)(iv)), the
requirement applies to completely
buried metallic tanks installed on or
after January 10, 1974. The requirement
is enforceable because it is a procedure
or method to prevent the discharge of
oil. See section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA.
Most owners or operators of completely
buried storage tanks will be exempted
from part 112 under this rule because
such tanks are subject to all of the
technical requirements of 40 CFR part
280 or a State program approved under
40 CFR part 281. Those tanks subject to
40 CFR part 280 or a State program
approved under 40 CFR part 281 will
follow the corrosion protection
provisions of that rule, which provides
comparable environmental protection.
Those that remain subject to the SPCC
regulation must comply with this
paragraph.
The rule requires corrosion protection
for completely buried metallic tanks by
a method compatible with local soil
conditions. Local soil conditions might
include fill material. The method of
such corrosion protection is a question
of good engineering practice which will
vary from facility to facility. You should
monitor such corrosion protection for
effectiveness, in order to be sure that the
method of protection you choose
remains protective. See § 112.8(d)(1) for
a discussion of corrosion protection for
buried piping.
Leak testing. The current SPCC rule
contains a provision calling for the
‘‘regular pressure testing’’ of buried
metallic storage tanks. 40 CFR
112.7(e)(2)(iv). We proposed in 1991 a

recommendation that such buried tanks
be subject to regular ‘‘leak testing.’’
Proposed § 112.8(c)(4). Leak testing for
purposes of this paragraph is testing to
ensure liquid tightness of a container
and whether it may discharge oil. We
specified leak testing in the proposal,
instead of pressure testing, in order to
be consistent with many State
regulations and because the technology
on such testing was rapidly evolving. 56
FR at 54623.
We are modifying the leak testing
recommendation to make it a
requirement. We agree with the
commenter who argued that such testing
should be mandatory because
recommendations may not often be
followed. Appropriate methods of
testing should be selected based on good
engineering practice. Whatever method
and schedule for testing the PE selects
must be described in the Plan. Testing
under the standards set out in 40 CFR
part 280 or a State program approved
under 40 CFR part 281 is certainly
acceptable (as we suggested in the
proposed rule). ‘‘Regular testing’’ means
testing in accordance with industry
standards or at a frequency sufficient to
prevent leaks.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The first sentence of the proposed rule
was deleted because it was surplus, and
contained no mandatory requirements.
It merely noted that completely buried
metallic storage tanks represent a
potential for undetected spills. ‘‘Buried
installation’’ becomes ‘‘completely
buried metallic storage tank,’’ to accord
with the definition in § 112.2. We clarify
that a ‘‘new’’ installation is one installed
on or after January 10, 1974, the
effective date of the SPCC rule, by
deleting the word ‘‘new’’ and
substituting the date. We deleted the
phrase ‘‘or other effective methods,’’
because it is confusing when compared
to the text of § 112.7(a)(2). Under
§ 112.7(a)(2), if you explain your reasons
for nonconformance, you may use
alternate methods providing equivalent
environmental protection.
Section 112.8(c)(5)—Partially Buried or
Bunkered Tanks; Corrosion Protection
Background. In 1991, we proposed
changing the current requirement to
avoid using partially buried metallic
tanks into a recommendation. We
proposed that if you do use such tanks,
that you must protect them from
corrosion.
Comments. One commenter argued
that the rule should only apply to new
tanks.
Response to comments. Requirement
v. recommendation. Due to the risk of
discharge caused by corrosion, we

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
decided to keep the current requirement
to not use partially buried metallic
tanks, unless the buried section of such
tanks are protected from corrosion. The
requirement to not use such tanks,
unless they are protected from
corrosion, applies to all partially buried
metallic tanks, installed at any time.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
Bunkered tanks are a subset of partially
buried tanks, and are included within
the rule to clarify that it applies to all
partially buried tanks. We did not
finalize the proposed phrase ‘‘or other
effective methods,’’ because it is
confusing when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). Under § 112.7(a)(2), if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance, you may use alternate
methods providing equivalent
environmental protection. The proposed
recommendation that ‘‘partially buried
or bunkered metallic tanks be avoided,
since partial burial at the earth can
cause rapid corrosion of metallic
surfaces, especially at the earth/air
interface’’ becomes a requirement to
‘‘not use partially buried or bunkered
metallic tanks for the storage of oil
unless you protect the buried section of
the tank from corrosion.’’
Section 112.8(c)(6)—Integrity Testing
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that integrity testing for bulk storage
tanks be conducted at least every ten
years and when material repairs are
conducted. We gave several examples of
‘‘material repairs’’ in the preamble. The
current requirement for such testing is
that it be ‘‘periodic.’’ We also proposed
that visual inspection, as a method of
testing, must be combined with some
other method, because visual testing
alone is insufficient for an integrity test.
56 FR at 54623.
In 1997, we added a proposed
sentence to the rule which would allow
the use of usual and customary business
records for integrity testing. We
suggested that records maintained under
API Standards 653 and 2610 would
suffice for this purpose.
Comments. 10-year integrity testing in
general. One commenter asked for a
clarification of the term ‘‘integrity
testing.’’ Several commenters favored
the proposal for ten-year integrity
testing. Other commenters opposed the
requirement or favored turning it into a
recommendation. Several commenters
proposed testing according to accepted
industry standards, such as American
Petroleum Institute (API), National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA),
Underwriters Laboratory (UL), or
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME).

Applicability of integrity testing.
Some asked for an exemption for tanks
inside buildings. Others asked for an
exemption for number 5 and 6 fuel oils,
and asphalt, because such oils are heavy
and would not flow very far. Some
commenters believed the requirement
should not apply to small facilities
because it is ‘‘not standard industry
practice’’ to conduct these tests at small
facilities. Another commenter stated
that while most large corporations
perform testing at some frequency, most
smaller businesses do not. The
commenter suggested that exemptions
because of size or quantity of oil stored
should not be granted because the
smaller facilities generally are more in
need of testing.
Several commenters suggested that
integrity testing should be waived for
tanks which can be visually inspected
on the bottom and all sides, such as
tanks located off the ground on crates,
and which have secondary containment.
One commenter asked that the
requirement apply only when the tank
is used to store corrosive materials or
where the tank has failed within the last
five years. Other commenters asked for
a phase-in of the requirement. Utilities
asked that the requirement not apply to
electrical equipment because no
methods exist for integrity testing of
such equipment, and because the
primary reason for failure of such
equipment is not corrosion, but
mechanical failure.
Material repairs. Several commenters
asked for clarification as to the meaning
of ‘‘material repairs.’’
Method of testing. Some commenters
favored visual inspection only because
it might be used more frequently than
any other method of testing. Another
commenter asked for clarification if
visual inspection meant inspection of
both the interior and exterior of a tank.
Another commenter suggested that we
augment integrity testing procedures
with procedures to test the tank bottom
for settlement and corrosion, and to test
roof supports.
Business records. Most commenters
favored the proposal to allow use of
usual and customary business records
for integrity testing and other purposes.
Some commenters argued that the
suggested API Standards were
unfamiliar to many owners and
operators.
Response to comments. 10-year
integrity testing in general. Integrity
testing is a necessary component of any
good prevention plan. A number of
commenters supported a requirement
for such testing. It will help to prevent
discharges by testing the strength and
imperviousness of the container. We

47119

agree with commenters that testing
according to industry standards is
preferable, and thus will maintain the
current standard of regularly scheduled
testing instead of prescribing a
particular period for testing. Industry
standards may at times be more specific
and more stringent than our proposed
rule. For example, API Standard 653
provides specific criteria for internal
inspection frequencies based on the
calculated corrosion rate, rather than an
arbitrary time period. API Standard 653
allows the aboveground storage tank
(AST) owner or operator the flexibility
to implement a number of options to
identify and prevent problems which
ultimately lead to a loss of tank
integrity. It establishes a minimum and
maximum interval between internal
inspections. It requires an internal AST
inspection when the estimated
corrosion rate indicates the bottom will
have corroded to 0.1 inches. Certain
prevention measures taken to prevent a
discharge from the tank bottom may
affect this action level (thickness). Once
this point has been reached, the owner
or operator has to make a decision,
depending on the future service and
operating environment of the tank, to
either replace the whole tank, line the
bottom, add cathodic protection, replace
the tank bottom with a new bottom, add
a release prevention barrier, or some
combination of the above.
Another benefit from the use of
industry standards is that they specify
when and where specific tests may and
may not be used. For example, API
Standard 653 is very specific as to when
radiographic tests may be used and
when a full hydrostatic test is required
after shell repairs. Depending on shell
material toughness and thickness a full
hydrotest is required for certain shell
repairs. Allowing a visual inspection in
these cases risks a tank failure similar to
the 1988 Floreffe, Pennsylvania event.
Testing on a ‘‘regular schedule’’ means
testing per industry standards or at a
frequency sufficient to prevent
discharges. Whatever schedule the PE
selects must be documented in the Plan.
Applicability of integrity testing.
Integrity testing is essential for all
aboveground containers to help prevent
discharges. Testing will show whether
corrosion has reached a point where
repairs or replacement of the container
is needed. Prevention of discharges is
preferable to cleaning them up
afterwards. Therefore, it must apply to
large and small containers, containers
on and off the ground wherever located,
and to containers storing any type of oil.
From all of these containers there exists
the possibility of discharge. Because
electrical, operating, and manufacturing

47120

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

equipment are not bulk storage
containers, the requirement is
inapplicable to those devices or
equipment. 56 FR 54623. Also, as noted
by commenters, methods may not exist
for integrity testing of such devices or
equipment.
Material repairs. The rationale for
testing at the time material repairs are
conducted is that such repairs could
materially increase the potential for oil
to be discharged from the tank.
Examples of such repairs include
removing or replacing the annular plate
ring; replacement of the container
bottom; jacking of a container shell;
installation of a 12-inch or larger nozzle
in the shell; a door sheet, tombstone
replacement in the shell, or other shell
repair; or, such repairs that might
materially change the potential for oil to
be discharged from the container.
Method of testing. The rule requires
visual testing in conjunction with
another method of testing, because
visual testing alone is normally
insufficient to measure the integrity of
a container. Visual testing alone might
not detect problems which could lead to
container failure. For example, studies
of the 1988 Ashland oil spill suggest
that the tank collapse resulted from a
brittle fracture in the shell of the tank.
Adequate fracture toughness of the base
metal of existing tanks is an important
consideration in discharge prevention,
especially in cold weather. Although no
definitive non-destructive test exists for
testing fracture toughness, had the tank
been evaluated for brittle fracture, for
example under API standard 653, and
had the evaluation shown that the tank
was at risk for brittle fracture, the owner
or operator could have taken measures
to repair or modify the tank’s operation
to prevent failure.
For certain smaller shop-built
containers in which internal corrosion
poses minimal risk of failure; which are
inspected at least monthly; and, for
which all sides are visible (i.e., the
container has no contact with the
ground), visual inspection alone might
suffice, subject to good engineering
practice. In such case the owner or
operator must explain in the Plan why
visual integrity testing alone is
sufficient, and provide equivalent
environmental protection. 40 CFR
112.7(a)(2). However, containers which
are in contact with the ground must be
evaluated for integrity in accordance
with industry standards and good
engineering practice.
Business records. You may use usual
and customary business records, at your
option, for purposes of integrity testing
recordkeeping. Specifically, you may
use records maintained under API

Standards 653 and 2610 for purposes of
this section, if you choose. Other usual
and customary business records either
existing or to be developed in the future
may also suffice. Or, you may elect to
keep separate records for SPCC
purposes. This section requires you to
keep comparison records. Section
112.7(e) requires retention of these
records for three years. You should note,
however, that certain industry standards
(for example, API Standards 570 and
653) may specify that an owner or
operator maintain records for longer
than three years.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with integrity testing include:
(1) API Standard 653, ‘‘Tank Inspection,
Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction’’;
(2) API Recommended Practice 575,
‘‘Inspection of Atmospheric and LowPressure Tanks;’’ and, (3) Steel Tank
Institute Standard SP001–00, ‘‘Standard
for Inspection of In-Service Shop
Fabricated Aboveground Tanks for
Storage of Combustible and Flammable
Liquids.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the first sentence, ‘‘Aboveground
tanks shall be subject to integrity testing
* * *’’ becomes ‘‘Test each container
for integrity * * *’’ Also in that
sentence, the phrase ‘‘or a system of
non-destructive shell testing’’ becomes
‘‘or another system of non-destructive
shell testing.’’ The last sentence which
read, ‘‘* * * the outside of the
container must be frequently observed
by operating personnel for signs of
deterioration, leaks, * * *’’ becomes
‘‘* * * you must frequently inspect the
outside of the container for signs of
deterioration, leaks, * * *’’ We made
that change because the requirements of
this paragraph are the responsibility of
the owner or operator, not of ‘‘operating
personnel.’’
‘‘Integrity testing’’ is any means to
measure the strength (structural
soundness) of the container shell,
bottom, and/or floor to contain oil and
may include leak testing to determine
whether the container will discharge oil.
It includes, but is not limited to, testing
foundations and supports of containers.
Its scope includes both the inside and
outside of the container. It also includes
frequent observation of the outside of
the container for signs of deterioration,
leaks, or accumulation of oil inside
diked areas.
Section 112.8(c)(7)—Leakage; Internal
Heating Coils
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that the current rule on controlling
leakage through defective internal
heating coils should be modified to

include a recommendation that
retention systems be designed to hold
the contents of an entire tank. We also
proposed to change the current
requirement to consider the feasibility
of installing external heating systems
into a recommendation.
Comments. One commenter proposed
that instead of requiring a retention
system which would hold the entire
contents of a tank, that an oil/water
separator might work just as well.
Another commenter opposed requiring
the use of oil/water separators. As to the
proposed recommendation to consider
use of external heating systems, one
commenter objected to the cost which
might be incurred. One commenter
opposed the proposed recommendation
due to the belief that leaks in the
aboveground piping can be mitigated
through daily inspections and they are
often placed within secondary
containment. Another commenter
asserted that with drainage routed to
oil/water separators or holding ponds,
leak proof galleys under aboveground
piping were redundant and
economically unjustified.
Response to comments. The rule does
not mandate the use of any specific
separation or retention system. Any
system that achieves the purpose of the
rule is acceptable. That purpose is to
prevent discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) by controlling leakage.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the proposed
recommendations from the rule because
we do not wish to confuse the regulated
public as to what is mandatory and
what is discretionary. We have included
only requirements in the rule.
Section 112.8(c)(8)—Good Engineering
Practice—Alarm Systems
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule on ‘‘fail-safe’’
engineering. We added a proposal to
allow alternate technologies. We
recommended that sensing devices be
tested in accordance with industry
standards.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. Several commenters
objected to the term ‘‘fail-safe’’
engineering because they believe that
nothing is ever fail-safe. They suggested
using the term ‘‘in accordance with
good engineering practice,’’ or
‘‘consistent with accepted industry
practices’’ instead.
Applicability. One commenter
thought the proposed requirement
should apply to large facilities only or
facilities that were the cause of a
reportable spill within the preceding
three years. One commenter suggested a
phase-in of the requirement.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Monitoring. One commenter
suggested that a person must be present
to monitor gauges when a fast response
system is used to prevent container
overfilling. Another suggested that the
requirement for alarm devices not apply
to containers where an operator is
present.
Alternatives. One commenter
suggested that certain ‘‘procedures’’
might suffice instead of alarm devices.
Another commenter suggested that we
need to be specific as to methods of
testing.
Response to comments. Applicability.
Alarm system devices are necessary for
all facilities, large or small, to prevent
discharges. Such systems alert the
owner or operator to potential container
overfills, which are a common cause of
discharges. Because this is a
requirement in the current rule, no
phase-in is necessary.
Monitoring. We agree with the
commenter that a person must be
present to monitor a fast response
system to prevent overfills and have
amended the rule accordingly. We
disagree that the requirement for alarm
devices should not apply when a person
is present, because human error,
negligence, on inattention may still
occur in those cases, necessitating some
kind of alarm device.
Alternatives. Under the deviation rule
at § 112.7(a)(2), you may substitute
‘‘procedures’’ or other measures that
provide equivalent environmental
protection as any of the alarm systems
mandated in the rule if you can explain
your reasons for nonconformance.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with alarm systems, discharge
prevention systems, and inventory
control include: (1) NFPA 30,
‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code’’; (2) API Recommended Practice
2350, ‘‘Overfill Protection for Storage
Tanks in Petroleum Facilities’’; and, (3)
API, ‘‘Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
Throughout, ‘‘tank’’ becomes
‘‘container.’’ In the introductory
paragraph, we deleted the words ‘‘as far
as practical’’ from the rule text because
they are confusing when compared with
the text of § 112.7(a)(2). Under
§ 112.7(a)(2), you may deviate from a
requirement if you explain your reasons
for nonconformance and provide
equivalent environmental protection.
‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ We
agree with the commenter that ‘‘failsafe’’ engineering is inappropriate and
have substituted ‘‘in accordance with
good engineering practice.’’ The change
in terminology does not imply any

substantive change in the level of
environmental protection required, it is
merely editorial. Finally, in the
introductory paragraph the phrase ‘‘one
or more of the following devices’’
becomes ‘‘at least one of the following.’’
Not all of the items listed under this
paragraph are devices. For example,
regular testing of liquid sensing devices
is a procedure. Therefore, the word
‘‘devices’’ was incomplete. In paragraph
(i), ‘‘manned operation’’ becomes
‘‘attended operation,’’ and ‘‘plants’’
becomes ‘‘facilities.’’ In paragraph (iv),
the phrase ‘‘or their equivalent,’’ was
deleted because it is confusing when
compared with the text of § 112.7(a)(2).
Under § 112.7(a)(2), you may deviate
from a requirement if you explain your
reasons for nonconformance, and
provide equivalent environmental
protection. Proposed paragraph (v),
relating to alternative technologies, was
deleted because alternative devices are
allowed under § 112.7(a)(2).
Section 112.8(c)(9)—Effluent Disposal
Facilities
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule on observation of
effluent disposal facilities.
Comments. We received only one
comment which asked us to clarify that
‘‘effluents’’ mean oil-contaminated
water collected within secondary
containment areas, and that ‘‘disposal
facilities’’ means ‘‘treatment facilities.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Oil spill event’’ becomes ‘‘discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).’’ ‘‘System
upset’’ refers to an event involving a
discharge of oil-contaminated water.
‘‘Effluent’’ means oil-contaminated
water. ‘‘Disposal facilities’’ becomes
‘‘effluent treatment facilities.’’
Section 112.8(c)(10)—Visible Oil Leaks
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirement that visible oil
leaks must be promptly corrected.
Additionally, we proposed that
accumulated oil or oil-contaminated
materials must be removed within 72
hours. The 72-hour proposal in this
paragraph was consistent with the
proposal in § 112.7(c). The rationale was
that a 72-hour time period would allow
time for discovery and removal of an oil
discharge in most cases. We suggested
in the preamble to the 1991 proposal
that most facilities are attended at some
time within a 72-hour time period. 56
FR 54621.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. One commenter asked for
clarification of the meaning of
‘‘accumulation’’ of oil. Others asked for
clarification of the meaning of ‘‘oil
contaminated materials.’’ Another

47121

commenter noted that reference to a
spill event within a diked area is
inconsistent with its definition.
Applicability. Some commenters
thought the requirement should not
apply to small facilities because of the
likelihood that the discharge would be
smaller.
Extent and methods of cleanup. One
commenter suggested that covering soil
with plastic film may be an acceptable
method to prevent stormwater
contamination during remediation.
Some commenters suggested that where
a spill creates a risk of fire or explosion,
the first priority should be to eliminate
such threats before undertaking
cleanup. Several commenters asked
whether removal of accumulations of oil
means complete removal. Some
commenters feared that a requirement to
remove oil-contaminated materials
would be interpreted to mean that
cleanup of portions of the dike that are
oil-stained is required. The commenters
were concerned that such a cleanup
would undermine the stability of the
dike and would be unnecessary. One
commenter argued that complete
removal would compound landfill
disposal problems. Another commenter
asked whether the rule contemplates
cleanup of soil contaminated by past
practices. Some commenters argued that
the 72-hour requirement would
preclude bioremediation.
72-hour cleanup standard. Some
commenters asked how a 72-hour time
limit would be calculated. Those
commenters suggested that the clock
begin to run from the time of the
discharge itself, or of its discovery.
Others suggested different time periods
from ‘‘immediately,’’ ‘‘as soon as
possible,’’ ‘‘within 72 hours,’’ ‘‘within
96 hours,’’ or ‘‘expeditiously.’’ One
commenter suggested no time limit.
Some commenters noted that a
containment system might be designed
to contain oil for more than 72 hours
before it begins to leak.
One commenter suggested that,
depending on site conditions, a 72-hour
time limit might jeopardize worker
health and safety. Another sought
clarification on the need to clean up
small discharges as opposed to larger
ones within the proposed time limit.
Numerous commenters opposed this
requirement because it might preclude
bioremediation. Some thought it would
be impossible to meet.
Response to comments. Applicability.
The requirement to clean up an
accumulation of oil is applicable to all
facilities, large and small. The damage
to the environment may be the same,
depending on the amount discharged.

47122

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Extent of and methods of cleanup.
Prevention of contamination is always
the preferred alternative. If you choose,
you may spread plastic film over the
diked area if it will prevent the
occurrence of an accumulation of oil. Of
course, you must then dispose of the
film properly. We agree with
commenters that where a discharge
creates a risk of fire or explosion, the
first priority should be to eliminate such
threat before undertaking cleanup. But
once that threat is removed, correction
of the source of the discharge and
cleanup must begin promptly.
No matter what method of cleanup
you choose, you must completely
remove the accumulation of oil. Any
method that works and complies with
all other applicable laws and regulations
is acceptable. Bioremediation may be
one acceptable method of cleanup.
Acceptable methods will depend on
weather and other environmental
conditions. We do not mean to limit
cleanup methods, which will depend on
good engineering practice. If the
cleanup method you choose would
undermine the stability of the dike, you
must repair the dike to its previous
condition.
72-hour cleanup standard. We have
deleted the 72-hour cleanup standard
because it would preclude
bioremediation. We also agree that
under certain circumstances, such a
limit might jeopardize worker health
and safety. Therefore, we have
maintained the current standard that
visible discharges must be promptly
removed. ‘‘Prompt’’ removal means
beginning the cleanup of any
accumulation of oil immediately after
discovery of the discharge, or
immediately after any actions to prevent
fire or explosion or other threats to
worker health and safety, but such
actions may not be used to unreasonably
delay such efforts. The size of the
accumulation is irrelevant, as any
accumulation may migrate to navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Leaks’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ ‘‘Tank’’
becomes ‘‘container.’’ ‘‘Accumulation of
oil’’ means a discharge that causes a
‘‘film or sheen’’ in a diked area, or
causes a sludge or emulsion there. See
40 CFR 110.3(b). The reference to
violation of applicable water quality
standards in 40 CFR 110.3(b) does not
apply here because the rule assumes
that the oil will not have reached any
waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines, but stays entirely within the
diked area of the facility. The term ‘‘oilcontaminated materials’’ is not used in
the rule. We eliminate the term ‘‘oilcontaminated materials’’ that was used

in the proposed rule because oil must
accumulate on something such as
materials or soil. Therefore, the term is
redundant. Instead we refer to an
accumulation of oil, which includes
anything on which the oil gathers or
amasses within the diked area. Such
accumulation may include oilcontaminated soil or any other oilcontaminated material within the diked
area impairing the secondary
containment system. See also the
discussion of ‘‘accumulation of oil’’
included with the response to
comments of § 112.9(b)(2). We have
removed the term ‘‘spill event’’ from the
proposed paragraph and note that we
agree with the commenter who noted
that reference to a ‘‘spill event,’’ or ‘‘a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b),’’
within a diked area is inconsistent with
that concept.
Section 112.8(c)(11)—Mobile Containers
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
require that mobile tanks be positioned
or located to prevent oil discharges. We
recommended secondary containment
for the largest single compartment or
tank of any mobile container. We also
recommended that these containers not
be located where they will be subject to
periodic flooding or washout.
Comments. Scope of discharge
prevention. One commenter asked that
the rule be amended to refer to
discharges to navigable waters, instead
of discharges.
Time limits. One commenter asked
that a mobile or portable container be
defined as a container which is in place
on a contiguous property for 10 days or
less.
Secondary containment. Two
commenters supported the secondary
containment proposals, but favored
making them requirements instead of
recommendations. One commenter
asked that the secondary containment
recommendation for the largest single
compartment or container be modified
to include tanks which are manifolded
together or otherwise have overflow
capabilities. Another commenter
suggested that secondary containment
provide freeboard sufficient to contain
precipitation from a 25-year storm
event.
Floods. Other commenters asked for a
requirement that mobile tanks not be
located in areas subject to flooding.
Response to comments. Scope of
discharge prevention. We agree that the
purpose of the rule is to prevent
discharges from becoming discharges as
described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, in
response to comment, we have modified
the proposed rule to require positioning
or locating mobile or portable containers

to prevent ‘‘a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b),’’ rather than ‘‘oil discharges.’’
‘‘A discharge as described in § 112.1(b)’’
is a more inclusive term, tracking the
expanded scope of the amended CWA.
Time limits. We decline to place a
time limitation in a definition of mobile
or portable containers. Mobile or
portable containers may be in place for
more than ten days and still be mobile.
Mobile containers that are in place for
less than 10 days may still experience
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Secondary containment. In response
to comments, we have maintained the
secondary containment requirement in
the current rule because secondary
containment is necessary for mobile
containers for the same reason that it is
necessary for fixed containers; to
prevent discharges from becoming
discharges as described in § 112.1(b).
Secondary containment must also be
designed so that there is ample
freeboard for anticipated precipitation.
We have therefore amended the rule on
the suggestion of a commenter to
provide for freeboard. We agree with the
commenter that the amount of freeboard
should be sufficient to contain a 25-year
storm event, but are not adopting that
standard because of the difficulty and
expense for some facilities in securing
recent information concerning 25-year,
24-hour storm events at this time.
Should that situation change, we will
reconsider proposing such a standard in
rule text. Freeboard sufficient to contain
precipitation is freeboard according to
industry standards, or in an amount that
will avert a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). Should secondary
containment not be practicable, you
may be able to deviate from the
requirement under § 112.7(d).
We clarify that the secondary
containment requirement relates to the
capacity of the largest single
compartment or container. Permanently
manifolded tanks are tanks that are
designed, installed, or operated in such
a manner that the multiple containers
function as a single storage unit.
Containers that are permanently
manifolded together may count as the
‘‘largest single compartment,’’ as
referenced in the rule.
Floods. We deleted the proposed
recommendation on siting of mobile
containers in this rule because we do
not wish to confuse the regulated public
over what is mandatory and what is
discretionary. These rules contain only
mandatory requirements.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with secondary containment
for mobile containers include: (1) NFPA
30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Liquids Code’; and, (2) BOCA, ‘‘National
Fire Prevention Code.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Spill event’’ becomes ‘‘a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b).’’ ‘‘Tank’’
becomes ‘‘container.’’ We deleted the
word ‘‘onshore’’ because the whole
section applies only to onshore
facilities.
Section 112.8(d)(1)—Buried Piping—
Facility Transfer Operations, Pumping,
and Facility Process (Onshore)
(Excluding Production Facilities)
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
new recommendation that all piping
installations should be placed
aboveground wherever possible. We
added a new proposed requirement that
would require protective coating and
cathodic protection for new or replaced
buried piping. The current rule requires
such coating and cathodic protection
only if soil conditions warrant. We
explained in the preamble that we
believe that all soil conditions warrant
protection of buried piping. We did not
propose to make the requirement
applicable to all existing piping because
of the significant possibility that
replacing all unprotected buried piping
might cause more discharges than it
would prevent. If soil conditions
warrant such protection for existing
piping, it is already required by the
current rule. We also proposed a new
recommendation that buried piping
installation comply to the extent
possible with all the relevant provisions
of 40 CFR part 280.
Comments. Aboveground piping
recommendation. Two commenters
favored the recommendation. Others
requested that it be modified to have all
piping be aboveground only when
appropriate, on the theory that some
aboveground piping may become an
obstacle to motorized traffic within a
facility, or may be a hazard to worker
safety because of the possibility of
tripping over it.
Corrosion protection. Several
commenters supported the proposal to
require corrosion protection for all new
or replaced buried piping. One
commenter believed that corrosion
protection should be required, as in the
current rule, only where soil conditions
warrant. One commenter asked for
clarification that the requirement for
replaced piping only applies to the
section replaced, not necessarily to the
entire line of piping. Another
commenter believed that corrosion
protection was inadequate to protect
from discharges, and urged a
requirement for double-walled piping or
secondary containment and product
sensitive leak detection for new

facilities. One commenter believed that
the recommendation for buried piping
installation to comply with 40 CFR part
280 should be a requirement, not a
recommendation.
Response to comments. Aboveground
piping recommendation. While we have
deleted the proposed recommendation
from the rule text because we do not
wish to confuse the regulated public
over what is mandatory and what is
discretionary, we still believe that
piping should be placed aboveground
whenever possible because such
placement makes it easier to detect
discharges. The decision to place piping
aboveground might include
consideration of safety and traffic
factors.
Corrosion protection. Based on EPA
experience, we believe that all soil
conditions warrant protection of new
and replaced buried piping. EPA’s cause
of release study indicates that the
operational piping portion of an
underground storage tank system is
twice as likely as the tank portion to be
the source of a discharge. Piping failures
are caused equally by poor
workmanship and corrosion. Metal
areas made active by threading have a
high propensity to corrode if not coated
and cathodically protected. See 53 FR
37082, 37127, September 23, 1988; and
‘‘Causes of Release from US Systems,’’
September 1987, EPA 510-R–92–702. If
you decide to deviate from the
requirement, for example, to provide an
alternate means of protection other than
coating or cathodic protection, you may
do so, but must explain your reasons for
nonconformance, and demonstrate that
you are providing equivalent
environmental protection. A deviation
which seeks to avoid coating or cathodic
protection, or some alternate means of
buried piping protection, on the
grounds that the soil is somehow
incompatible with such measure(s), will
not be acceptable to EPA.
A ‘‘new’’ or ‘‘replaced’’ buried piping
installation is one that is installed 30
days or more after the date of
publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. We have deleted the words
‘‘new’’ and ‘‘replaced’’ from the
proposed language and substituted this
specific date so the effective date is
clearer to the regulated community.
Under the current rule, you have an
obligation to provide buried piping
installations with protective wrapping
and coating only if soil conditions
warrant such measures. Under the
revised rule, you must provide such
wrapping and coating for new or
replaced buried piping installations
regardless of soil conditions.

47123

You should consult a corrosion
professional before design, installation,
or repair of any corrosion protection
system. Any corrosion protection you
provide should be installed according to
relevant industry standards. When
piping is replaced, you must protect
from corrosion only the replaced
section, although protection of the
entire line whenever possible is
preferable. Equipping only a small
portion of piping with corrosion
protection may accelerate corrosion
rates on connected unprotected piping.
While we agree that corrosion
protection might not prevent all
discharges from buried piping, it is an
important measure because it will help
to prevent most discharges.
Double-walled piping or secondary
containment or sensitive leak detection
for buried piping may be acceptable as
a deviation from the requirements of
this paragraph under § 112.7(a)(2) if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance with the requirement
and show that the means you selected
provides equivalent environmental
protection to the requirement. However,
we will not require such measures
because we did not propose them.
We have deleted the recommendation
from the proposed rule that all buried
piping installations comply to the extent
practicable with 40 CFR part 280,
because we are excluding
recommendations from this rule to
avoid confusion with what is mandatory
and what is discretionary. Also, some
buried piping now subject to part 112
will be subject only to 40 CFR part 280
or a State program approved under 40
CFR part 281 under this rule. See
§ 112.1(d)(4).
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with corrosion protection for
buried piping installations include: (1)
National Association of Corrosion
Engineers (NACE) Recommended
Practice-0169, ‘‘Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems’’;
and, (2) STI Recommended Practice 892,
‘‘Recommended Practice for Corrosion
Protection of Underground Piping
Networks Associated with Liquid
Storage and Dispensing Systems.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the second sentence of paragraph
(d)(1), we included a reference to ‘‘a
State program approved under part 281
of this chapter.’’ In the third sentence,
‘‘examine’’ and ‘‘examination’’ become
‘‘inspect’’ and ‘‘inspection.’’

47124

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Section 112.8(d)(2)—Terminal
Connections
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that when piping is not in service or is
in standby service for 6 months or more,
the terminal connection at the transfer
point must be capped or blank-flanged
and marked as to origin. The current
rule requires such capping or blankflanging when the piping is not in
service or is in standby service ‘‘for an
extended time.’’
Comments. One commenter
supported the six-month clarification of
an ‘‘extended time.’’ Several
commenters opposed the requirement to
cap or blank-flange piping in standby
service because such piping may be
needed to be put into service quickly
during an emergency to ensure safe
operations at the facility. The
commenter suggested that the rule be
reworded to say ‘‘When piping is not in
service or is not in standby service.’’
Response to comments. We have
decided to keep the current standard of
requiring capping or blank-flanging
terminal connections when such piping
is not in service or is in standby for an
extended time in order to maintain
flexibility for variable facilities and
engineering conditions. We define ‘‘an
extended time’’ in reference to industry
standards or at a frequency sufficient to
prevent discharges. We disagree with
commenters that the requirement
should not apply to piping that is not in
standby service because some
discharges may be caused by loading or
unloading oil through the wrong piping
or turning the wrong valve when the
piping in question was actually out-ofservice. Typically, piping that is in
standby service is only needed in
emergency situations or when there is
an operational problem. In the rare
situations when such piping is needed
immediately, the owner or operator may
remove the cap or blank-flange to return
the piping to service.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Examine’’ becomes ‘‘inspect.’’
Section 112.8(d)(3)—Pipe Supports
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without substantive change the current
rule concerning pipe supports.
Comments. We received no comments
on this proposal. Therefore, we have
promulgated the provision as proposed.
Section 112.8(d)(4)—Inspection of
Aboveground Valves and Piping
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that you examine all aboveground
valves, piping, and appurtenances on at
least a monthly basis. This contrasts
with the current requirement of

‘‘regular’’ examinations. We also
recommended that you conduct annual
integrity and leak testing of buried
piping, or that you monitor it on a
monthly basis. Finally, we
recommended that all valves, pipes, and
appurtenances conform to relevant
industry codes, such as ASME
standards. We proposed deletion from
the rule of the current requirement for
periodic pressure testing for piping
where facility drainage is such that a
failure might lead to a spill event.
Comments. Monthly examination of
aboveground valves, piping, and
appurtenances. One commenter
supported the visual monthly
examination proposal, but suggested
that we require a more sophisticated
method of testing every three to four
years, such as pressure testing. Most
other commenters opposed monthly
examinations, on grounds of
impracticality. Most opposing
commenters urged testing on a quarterly
or semiannual basis, or per industry
standards. Some thought the
requirement should be a
recommendation, both for large and
small facilities. Electrical utility
commenters asserted that the monthly
testing of millions of pieces of
equipment would be extremely
burdensome. Several commenters urged
that the examination requirement be
limited to visual examination because of
the cost of other methods.
Buried piping. Several commenters
favored the proposed recommendation
for annual integrity and leak testing of
buried piping or monitoring of such
piping on a monthly basis. One
commenter was concerned that the
recommendation made no concession
for piping construction material, length
of time in the ground, etc. Several
commenters believed that the
recommendation should be a
requirement because piping often runs
outside of secondary containment;
buried piping cannot be inspected
visually; discharges are common from
this piping; and few owners or operators
conduct integrity or leak testing of such
piping. Some thought it should be a
requirement for all facilities, others just
for large facilities. One commenter
thought that the requirement to inspect
buried piping only when exposed is
inadequate. The commenter suggested
that the piping should be subject to
pressure testing. The frequency of the
testing would be based on aquifer use.
Opposing commenters believed
annual testing or monthly monitoring
was unnecessary, generally citing cost
and practicability reasons. Some
suggested differing time periods for
testing, such as every three years, or

every ten years. One commenter
believed that the recommendation
should not apply to piping of less than
ten feet. Others asked for clarification as
to the type of testing contemplated. One
commenter suggested that the
recommendation be clarified to refer
only to oil-handling piping and
equipment, and not include buried
piping unrelated to oil operations.
Several commenters suggested that we
add a requirement to the rule to conduct
integrity and leak testing of protected
piping at the time of installation,
modification, construction, relocation,
or replacement, and to conduct an
engineering evaluation of in-service
unprotected underground piping every
five years. Another commenter
suggested double-walled piping as an
alternative. One commenter suggested
that the recommendation was
inappropriate for vaulted tanks because
of the configuration of the tanks.
Response to comments. Monthly
inspection of aboveground valves,
piping, and appurtenances. Inspection
of aboveground valves, piping, and
appurtenances must be a requirement to
help prevent discharges. Such valves,
piping, and appurtenances often are
located outside of secondary
containment systems, and often do not
have double-wall protection or some
form of secondary containment
themselves. Therefore, any discharge
from such valves, piping, and
appurtenances is more likely to become
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Examination of discharge reports from
the Emergency Response Notification
System (ERNS) shows that discharges
from such valves, piping, and
appurtenances are much more common
than catastrophic tank failure or
discharges from tanks. The requirement
must be applicable to large and small
facilities covered by this section that
store oil, because of the same threat of
discharge.
The requirements of this paragraph do
not apply to electrical utilities and other
facilities with oil-filled equipment
because they are not bulk storage
facilities.
The final rule maintains the current
standard of ‘‘regular’’ inspections, on
the suggestion of commenters who
noted that at some remote sites monthly
inspections are impractical, especially
in harsh weather conditions.
Furthermore, we agree with commenters
that ‘‘regular’’ inspections are
inspections conducted ‘‘in accordance
with accepted industry standards,’’
rather than the monthly proposed
standard. You must include
appurtenances in the inspection.
Inspections may be either visual or by

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
other means, including pressure testing.
However, we do not require pressure
testing or any other specific method. We
agree that, subject to good engineering
practice, pressure testing every three or
four years may be warranted in addition
to regular inspection of aboveground
valves, piping, and appurtenances.
However, we believe that regular
inspection is sufficient to help prevent
discharges and will not impose any
additional requirements at this time.
Buried piping. We have deleted the
text of the proposed recommendation to
conduct annual integrity and leak
testing of buried piping or monitor
buried piping on a monthly basis from
the rule because we do not wish to
confuse the regulated public over what
is mandatory and what is discretionary.
This rule contains only mandatory
requirements. However, we continue to
endorse the recommendation as a
discretionary action, and suggest that
you conduct such testing according to
industry standards.
We agree with a commenter that the
proposed recommendation would apply
only to ‘‘oil-handling’’ piping and
valves, not all such piping and valves,
which may be unrelated to oil activities.
However, no change in rule text is
necessary because the entire rule
applies only to procedures, methods, or
equipment that are involved with the
storage or use of oil. In response to the
commenter who urged that the proposed
recommendation not apply to buried
piping of less than 10 feet in length, we
believe that any buried piping,
regardless of length, may cause a
discharge, and therefore should be
tested. Double-walled piping might be
an acceptable alternative to integrity
and leak testing or monthly monitoring.
If you choose double-walled piping as
an alternative, you must explain your
nonconformance with the rule
requirements, and explain how doublewalled piping provides equivalent
environmental protection. See
112.7(a)(2).
On the suggestion of commenters, we
have modified the proposed
recommendation for annual testing or
monthly monitoring of buried piping
into a requirement that you must only
conduct integrity and leak testing of
such piping at the time of installation,
modification, construction, relocation,
or replacement. We believe that when
piping is exposed for any reason,
integrity and leak testing of such
exposed piping according to industry
standards is appropriate because piping
is visible at that point, and testing is
easier because the piping is more
accessible. The same commenters also
recommended that unprotected

underground piping be subject to
engineering evaluations every five years,
but we recommend such evaluations be
conducted in accordance with industry
standards to preserve flexibility in case
the time frame changes with changing
technology.
If you have vaulted containers, the
requirement for integrity and leak
testing of buried piping might be the
subject of a deviation under § 112.7(a)(2)
if those pipes, valves, and fittings come
out of the top of the container and are
not buried, or are encased in a doublewalled piping system and you thereby
significantly reduce the potential for
corrosion.
Likewise, we have deleted from rule
text the recommendation that all valves,
pipes, and appurtenances conform to
industry standards, but we endorse its
substance.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with inspection and testing of
valves, piping, and appurtenances
include: (1) API Standard 570, ‘‘Piping
Inspection Code (Inspection, Repair,
Alteration, and Rerating of In-Service
Piping Systems’’; (2) API Recommended
Practice 574, ‘‘Inspection Practices for
Piping System Components’’; (3)
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) B31.3, ‘‘Process
Piping’’; and, (4) ASME B31.4, ‘‘Liquid
Transportation Systems for
Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas,
Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Examine’’ and ‘‘examination’’ become
‘‘inspect’’ and ‘‘inspection.’’ We have
deleted the reference to ‘‘operating
personnel’’ in the first sentence because
all of the requirements of this rule,
except when specifically noted
otherwise, are the responsibility of the
owner or operator.
Section 112.8(d)(5)—Vehicular Traffic
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule concerning warnings to
vehicular traffic, because of vehicle size,
to avoid endangering aboveground
piping. We proposed to amend the rule
to include avoidance of endangering
‘‘other transfer operations’’ within the
scope of the warning. We added a
recommendation that weight restrictions
should be posted, as applicable, to
prevent damage to underground piping.
Comments. Vehicular warnings.
Several commenters supported the
current requirement to warn vehicular
traffic to avoid endangering
aboveground piping or other transfer
operations because of vehicle size.
Others believed that any size or weight
restrictions would unnecessarily burden
facility operations. See the comments

47125

below on weight restrictions. Some
believed the proposed requirement
should be a recommendation based on
good engineering practices. One thought
it made no difference. One commenter
proposed as an alternative, marking
such piping so it could be temporarily
protected or avoided. One commenter
suggested that it would be more prudent
to require signs where piping is lower
than 14 feet and located such that
vehicles can traverse, and recommended
that, in addition to signs, verbal
warnings be provided.
Weight restriction posting. Several
commenters supported making this
recommendation a requirement because
good engineering practice will exclude
heavy equipment from crossing buried
piping which does not have adequate
cover to protect the pipe.
Others opposed it on the grounds it
would restrict access to vehicles which
‘‘have driven over the same piping for
a dozen or more years.’’ One commenter
thought the recommendation was
unnecessary because local building
codes or other standards already address
the issue of buried piping protection.
Some thought the recommendation
should be a matter of PE discretion.
Several commenters thought that the
recommendation should apply to large
facilities only because only large
facilities will have the type of tanker
trucks on site which would potentially
damage underground piping. One
commenter thought that small facilities
should be exempt from the
recommendation.
Another commenter believed that the
recommendation should be restricted to
situations where it is not certain that the
underground piping can withstand all
anticipated vehicular traffic. Another
commenter suggested that if buried
piping is placed across a thoroughfare,
it should be installed with additional
structural protection. The commenter
asserted that proper installation is a
preventative and is a better alternative
than a sign because signs are not always
heeded.
One commenter suggested that
posting of weight restrictions at airports
in open areas would be impractical and
impact operations. The commenter
argued that the proposal was
unreasonable where some buried
piping/hydrant systems run under ramp
surfaces. A railroad commenter argued
that the recommendation is overly broad
because railroads have a large amount of
piping under track that is built to
withstand maximum loads from
vehicular traffic, making the posting of
signs unnecessary and costly. One
commenter argued that the requirement
was inapplicable to vaulted tanks

47126

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

because the concrete vault reduced the
risk of vehicular damage.
Response to comments. Vehicular
warnings. The requirement to warn
vehicular traffic so that no vehicle will
endanger aboveground piping or other
oil transfer operations applies to all
facilities, large or small, because
vehicular traffic may endanger
aboveground piping or other transfer
operations at all facilities. Warnings
may include verbal warnings, signs, or
marking and temporary protection of
piping or equipment. No particular
height restriction is incorporated into
the rule. Rather, aboveground piping at
any height must be protected from
vehicular traffic unless the piping is so
high that all vehicular traffic passes
underneath the piping. In this case, or
where the requirement is infeasible, you
may be able to use the deviation
provision in § 112.7(a)(2) if you explain
your reasons for nonconformance and
provide equivalent environmental
protection. We have deleted the clause
concerning the size of vehicles that may
endanger piping or oil transfer
operations because the owner or
operator may not be able to determine
precisely when the size or weight of a
vehicle would cause such
endangerment.
In response to commenters who
suggested that the posting of signs is
impractical and might impact
operations, or would be very costly, we
note that you may deviate from the
requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Weight restriction posting. We deleted
the proposed recommendation
concerning weight restrictions as they
relate to underground piping from rule
text, but still support it when
appropriate. We include only
mandatory items in this rule because we
do not wish to confuse the regulated
public as to what is mandatory and
what is discretionary. We decline to
make the recommendation a
requirement because we believe the
appropriate posting of weight
restrictions should be a matter of good
engineering practice.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the references to verbal
warning or appropriate signs in the rule.
Instead, the rule contains an obligation
to warn entering vehicular traffic.
Warnings may be verbal, by signs, or by
other appropriate methods.
Introduction to Section 112.9
Background. We have added an
introduction to help rewrite the section
in the active voice. Since the owner or

operator is the person with
responsibility to implement a Plan, the
mandates of the rule are properly
addressed to him, except as specifically
noted.
Section 112.9(a)—General
Requirements—Onshore Oil Production
Facilities
Background. This is a new provision
that merely references the general
requirements which all facilities must
meet as well as the specific
requirements that you must meet if you
are an owner or operator of a facility in
the category of onshore oil production
facilities.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The obligation to ‘‘address’’ general
SPCC requirements becomes the
obligation to ‘‘meet’’ those
requirements. ‘‘Spill prevention’’
becomes ‘‘discharge prevention.’’ We
also deleted the word ‘‘onshore’’ from
the titles of the paragraphs of this
section because the entire section
applies only to onshore production
facilities.
Proposed Section 112.9(b)—Definition—
Onshore Oil Production Facilities
Background. This proposed section
was merely a reference to the old
definition of onshore oil production
facility (see current § 112.7(e)(5)(i)),
which is today incorporated within the
new definition of production facility.
Therefore, the section is no longer
necessary and we have deleted it.
Section 112.9(b)(1), Proposed as
§ 112.9(c)(1)—Dike Drains and Drainage
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule concerning drainage of
diked areas.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. One commenter suggested
an editorial change from discharges to
‘‘navigable waters,’’ to a discharge as
referenced in § 112.1(b)(1).
Applicability. Another commenter
urged a small facility exemption from
this requirement because the
recordkeeping involved was too
burdensome.
Engineering methods. One commenter
believed that the requirement to have all
drains closed on dikes around storage
containers might preclude engineering
methods designed to handle flowthrough conditions at water flood oil
production operations, where large
volumes of water may be directed to oil
storage tanks if water discharge lines on
oil-water separators become plugged.
Response to comments. Applicability.
We believe that this requirement must
be applicable to both large and small
facilities to help prevent discharges as

described in § 112.1(b). The risk of such
a discharge and the accompanying
environmental damage may be
devastating whether it comes from a
large or small facility. We disagree that
the recordkeeping is burdensome. If you
are an NPDES permittee, you may use
the stormwater drainage records
required pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2)
and 122.41(m)(3) for SPCC purposes,
thereby reducing the recordkeeping
burden.
Engineering methods. ‘‘Equivalent’’
measures referenced in the rule might,
depending on good engineering
practice, include using structures such
as stand pipes designed to handle flowthrough conditions at water flood oil
production operations, where large
volumes of water may be directed to oil
storage tanks if water discharge lines on
oil-water separators become plugged.
Any alternate measures must provide
environmental protection equivalent to
the rule requirement.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with facility drainage include
API Recommended Practice 51,
‘‘Onshore Oil and Gas Production
Practices for Protection of the
Environment.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In response to the commenter’s
suggestion, the reference to ‘‘navigable
waters’’ becomes a reference to ‘‘a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
‘‘Central treating stations’’ becomes
‘‘separation and treating areas.’’ Such
areas might be centrally located or
located elsewhere at the facility and
might include both separation and
treatment devices and equipment. The
reference to ‘‘rainwater is being
drained’’ becomes ‘‘draining
uncontaminated rainwater.’’ We clarify
that accumulated oil on rainwater must
be disposed of in accord with ‘‘legally
approved methods,’’ not ‘‘approved
methods.’’
Section 112.9(b)(2)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(c)(2)—Drainage Ditches,
Accumulations of Oil
Background. In 1991, we sought to
clarify that oil as well as oilcontaminated soil must be removed
from field drainage ditches, road
ditches, and the like. The current rule
only requires removal of an
‘‘accumulation of oil.’’ We also
proposed that such accumulations be
removed within 72 hours at the most.
Comments. Applicability. One
commenter asserted that this section
does not apply to crude oil transfers
from production fields into tank trucks
because any discharges in the transfer
process would be caught in a small

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
sump or catchment basin. Another
commenter asked if this section applied
to cleanup of oil and oil-contaminated
soil from diked areas.
Inspection schedule. Another
commenter suggested that we require
inspections of field drainage ditches,
etc., at monthly intervals and within 24
hours of a 25-year storm event.
Accumulations of oil and oilcontaminated soil. Two commenters
argued that EPA lacks authority to
require cleanup of contaminated soil.
Others asked for clarifications of the
terms ‘‘accumulation’’ and ‘‘oilcontaminated soil.’’ Another asked what
cleanup standard EPA contemplated
under this rule. The commenter
elaborated, ‘‘is accumulated oil and
contaminated soil to be removed from
diked areas under this provision?’’
72-hour cleanup standard. Several
commenters argued that the 72-hour
standard for cleanup would preclude
bioremediation or other cleanup
techniques allowed by State and local
law. Several commenters suggested
other time periods, including ‘‘as soon
as practical,’’ ‘‘within a timely manner.’’
Some suggested no time standard is
appropriate. Those commenters
generally thought that a 72-hour period
might be unrealistic in certain cases.
Response to comments. Applicability.
Crude oil transfers from production
fields into tank trucks or cars are
covered by the general requirements
contained in § 112.7(c) and (h), both of
which require some form of secondary
containment. Cleanup of oil, oilcontaminated soil, and oil-contaminated
materials from field drainage ditches,
road ditches, or other field drainage
system is covered by this paragraph. In
response to comment, we note that
cleanup of oil from diked areas at
onshore production facilities is not
specifically covered by the rules.
However, the presence of oil in diked
areas may impair the quality of the dike
or the capacity for secondary
containment, and if so, the oil must be
removed.
Inspection schedule. We have
retained the ‘‘regularly scheduled
intervals’’ standard for inspections. This
standard means regular inspections
according to industry standards or on a
schedule sufficient to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Whatever schedule for inspections is
selected must be documented in the
Plan. We decline to specify a specific
interval because such an interval might
become obsolete with changing
technology.
Accumulations of oil and oilcontaminated soil. We have adequate
authority to require cleanup of an

accumulation of oil, including on soil
and other materials, because section
311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA provides EPA
with the authority to establish
procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to
prevent discharges of oil. The broad
definition of ‘‘oil’’ in CWA section
311(a)(1) covers ‘‘oil refuse’’ and ‘‘oil
mixed with wastes other than dredged
spoil.’’ If field drainage systems allow
the accumulation of oil on the soil or
other materials at the onshore facility
and that oil threatens navigable water or
adjoining shorelines, then EPA has
authority to establish a method or
procedure, i.e., the removal of oil
contaminated soil, to prevent that oil
from becoming a discharge as described
in § 112.1(b). The cleanup standard
under this paragraph requires the
complete removal of the contaminated
oil, soil, or other materials, either by
removal, or by bioremediation, or in any
other effective, environmentally sound
manner.
72-hour cleanup standard. We agree
that the 72-hour cleanup standard might
preclude bioremediation and have
therefore deleted it. Instead we establish
a standard of ‘‘prompt cleanup.’’
‘‘Prompt’’ cleanup means beginning the
cleanup immediately after discovery of
the discharge or immediately after any
actions necessary to prevent fire or
explosion or other imminent threats to
worker health and safety.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Escaped from small leaks’’ becomes
‘‘resulted from any small discharge.’’
We eliminate the term ‘‘oilcontaminated soil’’ because oil must
accumulate on something, such as
materials or soil. We retain the term
‘‘accumulation of oil,’’ but elaborate on
its meaning. ‘‘Accumulation of oil’’
means a discharge that causes a ‘‘film or
sheen’’ within the field drainage system,
or causes a sludge or emulsion there
(see 40 CFR 110.3(b)). An accumulation
of oil includes anything on which the
oil gathers or amasses within the field
drainage system. An accumulation of oil
may include oil-contaminated soil or
any other oil-contaminated material
within the field drainage system. See
also the discussion of ‘‘accumulation of
oil’’ included with the response to
comments of § 112.8(c)(10).
Proposed Section 112.9(c)(3)—
Additional Requirements for Flood
Events
Background. In 1991, we proposed a
new recommendation for oil production
facilities in areas subject to flooding. We
recommended that the Plan address
additional precautionary measures
related to flooding. In the discussion of

47127

the proposal, we referenced FEMA
requirements.
Comments. One commenter thought
this provision should be a requirement
rather than a recommendation. Another
commenter suggested that exploration
and production facilities located in
flood plain areas should be adequately
secured through proper mechanical/
engineering methods to reduce the
chance of loss of product. A third
commenter suggested the following
specific measures to be implemented:
(1) Identify whether the facility is
located in a floodplain in the Plan; (2)
if the facility is located in a floodplain,
the Plan should address to what extent
it meets the minimum requirements of
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP); and (3) if a facility does not meet
the minimum requirements of the NFIP,
the Plan should address appropriate
precautionary and mitigation measures
for potential flood-related discharges.
Response to comments. We have
deleted the recommendation because we
do not wish to confuse the regulated
public over what is mandatory and what
is discretionary. These rules contain
only mandatory requirements. However,
we support the substance of the
recommendation, and suggest that a
facility in an area prone to flooding
either follow the requirements of the
NFIP or employ other methods based on
good engineering practice to minimize
damage to the facility from a flood.
Section 112.9(c)(1)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(d)(1)—Materials and
Construction—Bulk Storage Containers
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the section on materials and
construction of bulk storage containers
with an added recommendation that
containers conform to relevant industry
standards.
Comments. One commenter thought
that the recommendation for use of
industry standards should be a
requirement. The commenter asked that
at a date certain, all existing tanks must
be upgraded to current standards, and
that all new and reconstructed tanks
must be subject to applicable codes.
Another commenter suggested that the
recommendation should not apply to
crude oil storage tanks because local
industry standards are more
appropriate.
Response to comments.
Recommendation v. requirement. We
are retaining the mandatory requirement
to use no container for the storage of oil
unless its material and construction are
compatible with the material stored and
the conditions of storage, as proposed.
We have deleted the recommendation
that materials, installation, and use of

47128

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

new tanks conform with relevant
portions of industry standards because
we do not wish to confuse the regulated
public over what is mandatory and what
is discretionary. However, we endorse
its substance. In most cases good
engineering practice and liability
concerns will prompt the use of
industry standards. See
§ 112.3(d)(1)(iii). In addition, a
requirement is not necessary or
desirable because local governmental
standards on construction, materials,
and installation sometimes control
industry standards on these matters.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with materials for and
construction of onshore bulk storage
production facilities include: (1) API
Specification 12B, ‘‘Bolted Tanks for
Storage of Production Liquids’; (2) API
Specification 12D, ‘‘Field Welded Tanks
for Storage of Production Liquids’; (3)
API Specification 12F, ‘‘Shop Welded
Tanks for Storage of Production
Liquids’; (4) API Specification 12J, ‘‘Oil
Gas Separators’; (5) API Specification
12K, ‘‘Indirect-Type Oil Field Heaters’;
and, (6) API Specification 12L, ‘‘Vertical
and Horizontal Emulsion Treaters.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tank’’ becomes ‘‘container.’’
Section 112.9(c)(2)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(d)(2)—Secondary Containment,
Drainage
Background. The SPCC Task force
concluded that aboveground storage
tanks without secondary containment
pose a particularly significant threat to
the environment. We noted that the
proposed rule modifications would
‘‘retain the current requirement for
facility owners or operators who are
unable to provide certain structures or
equipment for oil spill prevention,
including secondary containment, to
prepare facility-specific contingency
plans in lieu of prevention systems.’’ 56
FR 54614. In 1991, we therefore
reproposed the secondary containment
requirements for onshore oil production
facilities with a clarification. We
clarified that secondary containment
must include sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitation. The current rule
requires that drainage from undiked
areas must be safely confined in a
catchment basin or holding pond. The
proposed rule had modified this
requirement to apply only to drainage
from undiked areas ‘‘showing a
potential for contamination.’’
Comments. Secondary containment.
See the discussion under § 112.7(c) of
secondary containment in general. One
commenter suggested that the
requirement was too vague and

comprehensive to be applied to oil
leases, which might cover hundreds of
acres. Another asked how we would
determine what is sufficient freeboard.
Drainage. One commenter thought the
drainage requirement was duplicative of
NPDES requirements.
Response to comments. Secondary
containment. The requirement applies
to oil leases of any size. Secondary
containment is not required for the
entire leased area, merely for the
contents of the largest single container
in the tank battery, separation, and
treating facility installation, with
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation. In response to the
comment as to how an owner or
operator might determine how much
freeboard is sufficient, we have revised
the rule to provide that freeboard
sufficient to contain precipitation is the
standard. Freeboard sufficient to contain
precipitation is freeboard installed
according to industry standards, or in an
amount sufficient to avert a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). This standard is
consistent with the amount of freeboard
required in § 112.8(c)(2).
Drainage. We deleted the proposed
reference to undiked areas ‘‘showing a
potential for contamination’’ because
drainage from any undiked area poses a
threat of contamination. When drainage
from such areas is covered by
stormwater discharge permits, that part
of the BMP might be usable for SPCC
purposes. There is no redundancy in
recordkeeping requirements, because
you can use your NPDES records for
SPCC purposes.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with secondary containment at
onshore production facilities include:
(1) API Recommended Practice 51,
‘‘Onshore Oil and Gas Production
Practices for Protection of the
Environment’; (2) NFPA 30,
‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code’; and, (3) BOCA, ‘‘National Fire
Prevention Code.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tank battery and central treating plant
installations’’ becomes ‘‘tank battery,
separation, and treating facility
installations.’’ ‘‘Contents of the largest
single tank’’ becomes ‘‘capacity of the
largest single container.’’ With this
change, this paragraph agrees with
general secondary containment
requirements found in § 112.7(c). The
reference to tanks ‘‘in use’’ was deleted
because it is redundant. Containment
for tanks or containers that are not
permanently closed is already required.
We deleted the phrase ‘‘if feasible, or
alternate systems, such as those
outlined in § 112.7(c)(1),’’ because it is

confusing when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(d). Under § 112.7(d), if
secondary containment is not
practicable, you must provide a
contingency plan following the
provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and
otherwise comply with the requirements
of § 112.7(d). Furthermore, you are also
free to provide alternate systems of
secondary containment. We do not
prescribe the method.
Section 112.9(c)(3)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(d)(3)—Container Inspection
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that you must visually examine all
containers of oil at onshore production
facilities at least once a year. The
current requirement is that you examine
these containers ‘‘on a scheduled
periodic basis.’’ We also proposed that
you would be required to maintain the
schedule and records of those
examinations for a period of five years,
irrespective of changes in ownership.
Comments. Frequency of inspection.
One commenter favored the proposal.
One commenter suggested quarterly
rather than annual inspections. Two
commenters suggested triennial
inspections. Other commenters
suggested a frequency in accordance
with API recommended standards.
Extent of inspection. Several
commenters thought that the
inspections should be external only, and
should not necessarily include the
foundations and supports (as proposed)
because of the number of containers that
would be taken out of service with that
requirement. Another commenter
asserted that inspection of foundations
and supports might not be possible due
to foundation settlement or lack of space
to perform the inspection.
Response to comments. Frequency of
inspection. We have maintained the
current standard for frequency of
inspection because we agree that
inspections in accordance with industry
standards are necessary. Those
standards may change with changing
technology, therefore, a frequency of
‘‘periodically and upon a regular
schedule’’ preserves maximum
flexibility and upholds statutory intent.
Extent of inspection. We disagree that
the inspection of containers should be
limited to external inspection. Internal
inspection is also necessary to detect
possible flaws that could cause a
discharge. The inspection must also
include foundations and supports that
are on or above the surface of the
ground. If for some reason it is not
practicable to inspect the foundations
and supports, you may deviate from the
requirement under § 112.7(a)(2), if you
explain your rationale for

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Record maintenance. We have deleted
the proposed requirement to maintain
records of these inspections for five
years, irrespective of ownership,
because it is redundant with the general
requirement in § 112.7(e) to maintain
Plan records. Section 112.7(e) requires
record maintenance for three years.
However, you should note that certain
industry standards (for example, API
Standard 653 or API Recommended
Practice 12R1) may specify that an
owner or operator maintain records for
longer than three years.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with inspection of containers at
onshore production facilities include:
(1) API Recommended Practice 12R1,
‘‘Recommended Practice for Setting,
Maintenance, Inspection, Operation,
and Repair of Tanks in Production
Service’’; and, (2) ‘‘API Standard 653,
‘‘Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration,
and Reconstruction.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Visually examine’’ becomes ‘‘Visually
inspect.’’ ‘‘All tanks’’ becomes ‘‘each
container.’’ ‘‘Foundation and supports
of tanks above the ground surface’’
becomes ‘‘Foundation and support of
each container that is on or above the
surface of the ground.’’
Section 112.9(c)(4)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(d)(4)—Good Engineering
Practice
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
convert the current requirement for
‘‘fail-safe’’ engineering (which includes
vacuum protection and other measures)
of new and old tank battery installations
into a recommendation. We also
proposed that you reference appropriate
industry standards.
Comments. One commenter asserted
that we should retain the original
requirement to avoid confusion among
the regulated community, help improve
spill prevention, and because we
proposed a similar requirement for bulk
storage containers. Another commenter
opposed the proposed recommendation
because he believed the cost of such
engineering would be prohibitive. Two
commenters sought an exemption for
small facilities on the same rationale.
Similarly, some commenters opposed
the proposed recommendation on
vacuum protection because of the
potential cost. None of the commenters
provided their own cost estimates. Some
commenters opposed the proposed
recommendation relating to vacuum
protection because of the potential cost,
which they estimated as ‘‘in excess of
$100 per tank.’’

Response to comments. Good
engineering practice. We agree with the
commenter that we should retain this
section as a requirement both to
improve spill prevention and to avoid
confusion among the regulated
community because of the similar
requirement for bulk storage containers
at facilities other than production
facilities. Therefore, there are no new
costs. Nevertheless, you have flexibility
as to which measures you use, and may
choose the least expensive alternative
listed in § 112.9(c)(4). For example,
should vacuum protection be too costly,
you are free to use another alternative.
Furthermore, you may also deviate from
the requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if
you can explain nonconformance and
provide equivalent environmental
protection by some other means. We
revised the paragraph on vacuum
protection to clarify that the rule
addresses any type of transfer from the
tank, not merely a pipeline run.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with alarm systems include: (1)
API, ‘‘Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards’’; (2) API
Recommended Practice 51, ‘‘Onshore
Oil and Gas Production Practices for
Protection of the Environment’’; (3) API
Recommended Practice 2350, ‘‘Overfill
Protection for Storage Tanks in
Petroleum Facilities’’; and, (4) NFPA 30,
‘‘Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Fail-safe’’ engineering becomes ‘‘good
engineering practice,’’ because fail-safe
engineering is a misnomer. The change
in terminology does not imply any
substantive change in the level of
environmental protection required, it is
merely editorial. See the comments, and
the discussion under ‘‘Editorial changes
and clarification,’’ § 112.8(c)(8). The
same reasoning applies to this
paragraph. We deleted the phrase ‘‘as far
as is practical,’’ because it is confusing
when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). Under § 112.7(a)(2), you
may explain your reasons for
nonconformance, and provide
equivalent environmental protection by
some other means. We deleted the
recommendation to reference
appropriate industry standards because
it was unnecessary. You must discuss
actual standards used in the Plan.
Section 112.3(d)(1)(iii) also requires the
Professional Engineer to certify that he
has considered applicable industry
standards in the preparation of the Plan.
Also in the introductory paragraph, the
phrase ‘‘Consideration shall be given to
providing.* * *’’ becomes, ‘‘You must
provide.* * *’’ This change makes the

47129

language consistent with a companion
paragraph dealing with good
engineering design, i.e., § 112.8(c)(8). In
paragraph (c)(4)(i), ‘‘regular rounds’’
becomes ‘‘regularly scheduled rounds.’’
‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ In
paragraph (c)(4)(iv), the phrase ‘‘where
facilities are’’ becomes ‘‘where the
facility is.’’ Elsewhere ‘‘tank’’ becomes
‘‘container.’’
Section 112.9(d)(1)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(e)(1)—Inspection of
Aboveground Valves and Piping
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that you inspect monthly all
aboveground valves and pipelines, and
that you maintain records of such
inspections for five years. The current
requirement is that you examine such
valves and pipelines ‘‘periodically on a
scheduled basis,’’ and maintain the
records of such inspections for three
years.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. One commenter asked for
clarifying language that the rule only
applied to valves and piping associated
with transfer operations.
Applicability. Two commenters asked
for an exemption from the requirements
of this paragraph for small facilities.
Frequency of inspections. Several
commenters suggested alternate
inspection intervals, such as every six
months, or every year. Another
commenter suggested that monthly
inspections are meaningless because
some unscrupulous operators might fill
out inspection reports on dates when no
problems are to be found. Other
commenters suggested that we require a
performance standard instead of a
prescribed monthly inspection. One
commenter suggested the proposed
inspections standards for § 112.9(e)
were excessive for many small facilities.
The commenter suggested that a
standard defined by the licensed
Professional Engineer who certifies the
SPCC Plan could reflect the differing
requirements that may apply under
different equipment configurations as
well as differing geographical and
meteorological conditions. The
commenter added that a generalized
performance standard should be
included that includes a minimum
inspection interval, such as annual
inspection, which could be altered to
meet specific facility conditions.
Recordkeeping. One commenter
thought a five-year record retention
period is excessive. Another commenter
asked that we clarify that PE
certification of these regular inspections
and records is not required.
Response to comments. Applicability.
The rule must apply equally to large and

47130

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

small facilities because failure to inspect
piping and valves at any facility might
lead to a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b).
Frequency of inspections. We have
retained the current inspection
frequency of periodic inspections, but
editorially changed it to ‘‘upon a regular
schedule.’’ Our decision accords with
the comment which sought a
performance standard instead of a
prescribed monthly inspection. The
standard of inspections ‘‘upon a regular
schedule’’ means in accordance with
industry standards or at a frequency
sufficient to prevent discharges as
described in § 112.1(b). Whatever
frequency of inspections is selected
must be documented in the Plan.
Recordkeeping. We agree that a fiveyear record retention period is longer
than necessary and have deleted the
proposed requirement in favor of the
general requirement in § 112.7(e) to
maintain records for three years.
However, comparison records for
compliance with certain industry
standards may require an owner or
operator to maintain records for longer
than three years. PE certification of
these inspections and records is not
required.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Examine’’ becomes ‘‘inspect.’’ We
agree with the commenter who asked for
clarification that the rule applies only to
inspections related to transfer
operations and have amended the rule
to reflect that. A transfer operation is
one in which oil is moved from or into
some form of transportation, storage,
equipment, or other device, into or from
some other or similar form of
transportation, such as a pipeline, truck,
tank car, or other storage, equipment, or
device.
Section 112.9(d)(2)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(e)(2)—Salt Water Disposal
Facilities
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without change the current
requirements on the examination of salt
water (oil field brine) disposal facilities.
The current requirement is that you
examine these facilities ‘‘often.’’
However, we have recommended
weekly examination as an appropriate
engineering standard for most facilities.
56 FR 54624. We noted that low
temperature conditions, sudden
temperature changes, or periods of low
flow rates may require more frequent
inspections.
Comments. Applicability. One
commenter suggested that the
requirement to examine these facilities
should not apply to storage facilities
with de minimis amounts of oil.

Sudden change in temperature.
Another commenter asked for
clarification of what ‘‘a sudden change
in temperature’’ means. The commenter
assumed that it meant a sudden drop
that could cause system upsets.
Response to comments. Applicability.
The rule applies to any regulated facility
with salt water disposal if the potential
exists to discharge oil in amounts that
may be harmful, as defined in 40 CFR
110.3. This standard is necessary to
protect the environment.
Sudden change in temperature. A
sudden change in temperature means
any abrupt change in temperature,
either up or down, which could cause
system upsets.
Frequency of inspections. Inspections
of these facilities must be conducted
‘‘often.’’ ‘‘Often’’ means in accordance
with industry standards, or more
frequently, if as noted, conditions
warrant. Whatever frequency of
inspections is chosen must be
documented in the Plan.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Examine’’ becomes ‘‘inspect.’’ ‘‘Oil
discharge’’ becomes ‘‘discharge,’’
because the term ‘‘oil’’ is redundant in
the definition of ‘‘discharge.’’
Section 112.9(d)(3)—Proposed as
§ 112.9(e)(3)—Flowline Maintenance
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirements for flowline
maintenance. We proposed a
recommendation, rather than a
requirement, that the program include
certain specifics, because of differences
in the circumstances of locations,
staffing, and design for production
facilities. We suggested that monthly
examinations are appropriate for most
facilities.
Comments. Applicability. Two
commenters asked for a small facility
exemption for this recommendation.
Frequency of inspections. Several
commenters suggested that the
recommendation refer to periodic
instead of monthly examinations.
Others suggested annual or quarterly
inspections. One commenter said that
monthly inspection of gathering lines
buried in the colder parts of the
Appalachian basin is impossible.
Corrosion protection. Several
commenters asserted that the provision
for corrosion protection for the bare
steel pipe used for gathering line
systems in the Appalachians is
impossible because the cost of coated
lines and cathodic protection is
prohibitive. None of the commenters
provided their own cost estimates.
Transfer operation. One commenter
asked for clarification of the term ‘‘oil
production facility transfer operation.’’

The commenter suggested that a
definition of the term would improve
compliance.
Response to comments. Applicability.
A program of flowline maintenance is
necessary to prevent discharges both at
large and small facilities. However, we
have deleted the proposed
recommendation regarding the specifics
of the program from the rule. We took
this action because we are not including
recommendations in the rule in order
not to confuse the public over what is
mandatory and what is discretionary.
This rule contains only mandatory
requirements.
Frequency of inspections. In the
proposed recommendation we suggested
that you conduct monthly inspections
for a flowline maintenance program. We
now recommend that you conduct
inspections either according to industry
standards or at a frequency sufficient to
prevent a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). Under § 112.3(d)(1)(iii), the
Professional Engineer must certify that
the Plan has been prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practice, including consideration of
applicable industry standards.
Corrosion protection, flowline
replacement. While we have deleted the
recommendation from rule text due to
reasons explained above and therefore,
the rule imposes no new costs, we
recommend corrosion protection, we
recommend corrosion protection, and
flowline replacement when necessary,
because those measures help to prevent
discharges as described in § 112.1(b).
Transfer operation. A transfer
operation is one in which oil is moved
from or into some form of
transportation, storage, equipment, or
other device, into or from some other or
similar form of transportation, such as a
pipeline, truck, tank car, or other
storage, equipment, or device.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ The
phrase ‘‘from this source’’ becomes
‘‘from each flowline.’’
Section 112.10—Introduction—Onshore
Oil Drilling and Workover Facilities
Background. This paragraph is a new
one, not proposed in 1991, but
editorially added to allow us to rewrite
the section in the active voice. Since the
owner or operator is the person with
responsibility to implement a Plan, the
mandates of the rule are properly
addressed to him, except as specifically
noted.
Section 112.10(a)—General and Specific
Requirements
Background. This is a new paragraph
that merely references the general

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
requirements which all facilities must
meet as well as the specific
requirements that facilities in this
category must meet.
Comments. One commenter asked for
a definition of ‘‘onshore drilling and
workover facilities.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The new definition for ‘‘production
facility’’ in § 112.2 includes the
procedures, methods, and equipment
referenced in this section, making a
definition of ‘‘onshore drilling and
workover facilities’’ unnecessary. ‘‘Spill
prevention’’ becomes ‘‘discharge
prevention.’’ To ‘‘address’’ requirements
becomes to ‘‘meet’’ requirements.
Section 112.10(b)—Mobile Facilities
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule on the location of
mobile facilities without substantive
change.
Comments. Editorial changes and
clarifications. One commenter asked
that the requirement be limited to
discharges to navigable waters.
Site location. One commenter
opposed the requirement on the location
of mobile facilities because the facility
contractor has absolutely no control
over the location of the rig unit. The
commenter added that the contractor is
instructed by the site owner/operator
where to place the rig unit generally,
and the sites are where oil and gas are
expected to be located. The physical
location of the well site is constructed
by and maintained by the owner/
operator of the lease. The contractor has
no input as to site design nor
responsibility for its maintenance.
Response to comments. Site location.
We agree with the commenter that the
contractor is not normally responsible
for site location, nor site design or
maintenance. Such decisions are the
responsibility of the facility owner or
operator. The owner or operator of the
facility has the responsibility to locate
equipment so as to prevent discharges
as described in § 112.1(b).
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The applicable limitation on discharges
in the rule tracks the statute. The
commenters requested that discharges
be limited to discharges to ‘‘navigable
waters.’’ However, the correct scope of
discharge prevention is not merely
navigable waters, but the entire range of
protected resources described in
§ 112.1(b). We therefore use the phrase
‘‘a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’
Section 112.10(c)—Secondary
Containment—Catchment Basins or
Diversion Structures
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without substantive change the current

47131

requirements for secondary
containment. We received no comments
on the proposal. Therefore, we have
promulgated it as proposed, with minor
editorial changes.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with secondary containment at
onshore oil drilling and workover
facilities include: (1) API Recommended
Practice 52, ‘‘Land Drilling Practices for
Protection of the Environment’’; (2)
NFPA 30, ‘‘Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code’’; and, (3) BOCA,
‘‘National Fire Prevention Code.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Spills’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ The
words ‘‘depending on the location’’
were deleted because they were
confusing when compared with the text
of § 112.7(d). If a catchment basin or
diversion structure or other form of
secondary containment is not
practicable from the standpoint of good
engineering practice, under § 112.7(d)
you must provide a contingency plan
following the provisions of 40 CFR part
109, and otherwise comply with
§ 112.7(d).

Recommended Practice 16E, ‘‘Design of
Control Systems for Drilling Well
Control Equipment’’; (2) API
Recommended Practice 53, ‘‘Blowout
Prevention Equipment Systems for
Drilling Operations’’; (3) API
Specification 16A, ‘‘Drill Through
Equipment’’; and, (4) API Specification
16D, ‘‘Control Systems for Drilling Well
Control Equipment.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the phrase ‘‘as necessary’’
from the requirement, because it is
confusing when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). When BOP assembly is
unnecessary and therefore no alternate
measure is required, you may deviate
from the requirement under § 112.7(a)(2)
if you explain your reasons for
nonconformance. We have deleted as
surplus the last sentence of the rule
requiring that casing and BOP
installations must be in accordance with
State regulatory requirements.
Adherence to State regulatory
requirements is mandatory under State
law in any case. The phrase ‘‘is
expected to be encountered’’ becomes
‘‘may be encountered.’’

Section 112.10(d)—Blowout Prevention
(BOP)
Background. In 1991, we proposed
that blowout prevention (BOP) assembly
would only be required ‘‘when
necessary.’’ The rationale was that a
BOP assembly is not necessary where
pressure is not great enough to cause a
blowout (gauge negative) and is not
required in all cases. We noted that the
necessity of BOP assembly hinges on the
‘‘history of the pressures encountered
when drilling on the oil reservoir.’’
When that history is unknown, BOP
assembly is required.
Comments. Several commenters urged
modification of the rule to exclude well
service jobs that may not need BOP
assembly, such as the installation of a
rod pumping unit, or the batch
treatment of a well with corrosion
inhibitor.
Response to comments. Service jobs.
Where BOP assembly is not necessary,
as for certain routine service jobs, such
as the installation of a rod pumping
unit, or the batch treatment of a well
with corrosion inhibitor, you may
deviate from the requirement under
§ 112.7(a)(2), and explain its absence in
the Plan. When BOP assembly is
unnecessary because pressures are not
great enough to cause a blowout, it is
likewise unnecessary to provide
equivalent environmental protection.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with blowout prevention
assembly include: (1) API

Section 112.11—Introduction—Offshore
Oil Drilling, Production, or Workover
Facilities
Background. We added an
introduction as an editorial device to
allow us to rewrite the section in the
active voice. Because the owner or
operator is the person with
responsibility to implement a Plan, the
mandates of the rule are properly
addressed to him, except as specifically
noted.
Section 112.11(a)—General and Specific
Requirements—Offshore Oil Drilling,
Production, or Workover Facilities
Background. This is a new paragraph
that merely references the general
requirements which all facilities must
meet as well as the specific
requirements that facilities in this
category must meet.
Comments. State rules. One
commenter thought § 112.11 should be
deleted because current State rules
provide adequate spill protection in
inland water areas such as lakes, rivers,
and wetlands.
Response to comments. State rules.
We disagree with the commenter that
these rules are unnecessary because not
every State has rules to protect offshore
drilling, production, and workover
facilities. While some States may have
rules, some State rules may not be as
stringent as the Federal rules. In any
case, Congress has intended us to
establish a nationwide Federal program
to protect the environment from the

47132

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

dangers of discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) posed by this class of
facilities. Therefore, we have retained
the section, as modified. We note,
however, that if you have a State SPCC
plan or other regulatory document
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that meets all Federal
SPCC requirements, you may use it as
an SPCC Plan if you cross reference the
State or other requirements to the
Federal requirement. If it meets only
some, but not all Federal SPCC
requirements, you must supplement it
so that it meets all of the SPCC
requirements.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Spill prevention’’ becomes ‘‘discharge
prevention.’’ The obligation to
‘‘address’’ requirements and procedures
becomes the obligation to ‘‘meet’’ them.
Proposed Section 112.11(b)—Definition
Reference; MMS Jurisdiction
Background. The proposed 1991
section referenced the definition of
‘‘offshore oil drilling, production, and
workover facility,’’ which is now
encompassed within the definition of
‘‘production facility’’ in § 112.2. A new
sentence would have referenced the
exemption of facilities subject to
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
Operating Orders, notices, and
regulations from the SPCC rule. MMS
jurisdiction is outlined in Appendix B
to part 112.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that we delete the reference to the
proposed definition and to the
applicability section.
Response to comments. We agree.
Since none of the proposed language is
mandatory, we have deleted it because
we have included only mandates in this
rule so as not to confuse the regulated
public over what is required and what
is discretionary.
Section 112.11(b)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(c)—Facility Drainage
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current section on facility drainage
with the modification to require
removal of collected material at least
once a year. The rationale was to
prevent a buildup of accumulated oils.
We noted that a protracted removal
period could lead to an accidental
excess buildup and resultant overflow.
Comments. Two commenters
recommended deletion of the proposed
requirement to remove collected oil as
often as necessary, but at least once a
year, because the current requirement is
sufficient.
Response to comments. Removal of
collected oil. EPA agrees with the
commenter’s suggestion that the current

rule is sufficient to prevent discharges
as described in § 112.1(b), and therefore
we have deleted the ‘‘at least once a
year’’ standard. You must remove
collected oil as often as is necessary to
prevent such discharges.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Discharging oil as described in
§ 112.1(b)(1)’’ becomes ‘‘having a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).’’ In
the second sentence, we deleted the
phrase ‘‘or equivalent collection system
sufficient,’’ because it is confusing when
compared to the text of § 112.7(a)(2).
You may deviate from a requirement
under § 112.7(a)(2) if you explain your
reasons for nonconformance, and
provide equivalent environmental
protection.
Section 112.11(c)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(d)—Sump Systems
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
clarify language in current rule that a
regularly scheduled maintenance
program is a monthly preventive
maintenance program.
Comments. Frequency of inspections.
One commenter recommended that a
semi-annual inspection and testing
program of the liquid removal system,
instead of monthly inspection and
testing would be preferable.
Response to comments. Frequency of
inspections. We have retained the
current rule language requiring a
‘‘regularly scheduled’’ preventive
maintenance program because we
believe that the frequency of
maintenance should be in accordance
with industry standards or frequently
enough to prevent a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). Whatever
schedule is chosen must be documented
in the Plan.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We deleted the phrase ‘‘or equivalent
method’’ from the first sentence because
it is confusing when compared to the
text of § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate
from a requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if
you explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Section 112.11(d)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(e)—Discharge Prevention
Systems for Separators and Treaters
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without substantive change the current
rule on discharge prevention systems for
separators and treaters. We received no
comments.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Escape’’ of oil becomes ‘‘discharge’’ of
oil. ‘‘Oil discharges’’ becomes
‘‘discharge of oil.’’ We deleted the
phrase from the last sentence which
allows ‘‘using other feasible alternatives

to prevent oil discharges,’’ because it is
confusing when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate from a
requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Section 112.11(e)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(f)—Atmospheric Storage or
Surge Containers; Alarms
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without substantive change the current
paragraph on alarm systems for
atmospheric storage or surge containers.
We received no comments. Therefore,
we have promulgated the rule as
proposed, with only minor editorial
changes.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Oil discharges’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’
We added the words ‘‘that activate an
alarm or control the flow’’ to clarify that
these activities, along with ‘‘otherwise’’
controlling discharges, are the purpose
of the sensing devices we reference in
the paragraph. The phrase ‘‘to activate’’
becomes ‘‘that activate,’’ and we add the
word ‘‘otherwise’’ before ‘‘prevent
discharges.’’ We deleted the phrase ‘‘or
other acceptable alternatives,’’ because
it is confusing when compared to the
text of § 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate
from a requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if
you explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Section 112.11(f)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(g)—Pressure Containers; Alarm
Systems
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule concerning pressure
tanks without substantive change. We
received no comments. Therefore, we
have promulgated the rule as proposed,
with minor editorial changes.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘containers.’’ ‘‘Oil
discharges’’ becomes ‘‘discharges.’’ We
deleted the phrase ‘‘or with other
acceptable alternatives to prevent
discharges,’’ because it is confusing
when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate from a
requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Section 112.11(g)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(h)—Corrosion Protection
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current paragraph requiring
corrosion protection for containers at
facilities subject to this section. We
added a recommendation that you
follow National Association of

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Corrosion Engineers standards for
corrosion protection.
Comments. Industry standards. One
commenter suggested that we remove
the last sentence, which is advisory, and
addresses industry standards of the
National Association of Corrosion
Engineers, or make it a requirement (at
least for new construction). Another
commenter suggested that the rule be
modified to incorporate other industry
recommended practices relative to
corrosion control, such as those of STI
and API. The commenter specifically
recommended STI Recommended
Practice R892–89, ‘‘Recommended
Practice for Corrosion Protection of
Underground Steel Piping Associated
with Underground Storage and
Dispensing Systems,’’ and STI
Recommended Practice 893–89,
‘‘Recommended Practice for External
Corrosion of Shop Fabricated
Aboveground Steel Storage Tank
Floors.’’
Response to comments. Industry
standards. In response to the comment,
we have deleted the recommendation
because we do not wish to confuse the
regulated community over what is
mandatory and what is discretionary.
These rules contain only mandatory
requirements. We expect that facilities
will follow industry standards for
corrosion protection as well as other
matters (see § 112.3(d)(iii)), but decline
to prescribe particular standards in the
rule text because those standards are
subject to change, and we will not
incorporate a potentially obsolescent
standard into the rules.
Industry standards. Industry
standards suggested by a commenter
that may assist an owner or operator
with corrosion include: (1) National
Association of Corrosion Engineer
standards; (2) STI Recommended
Practice R892, ‘‘Recommended Practice
for Corrosion Protection of Underground
Steel Piping Associated with
Underground Storage and Dispensing
Systems,’’ and, (3) STI Recommended
Practice 893, ‘‘Recommended Practice
for External Corrosion of Shop
Fabricated Aboveground Steel Storage
Tank Floors.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘containers.’’
Section 112.11(h)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(i)—Pollution Prevention
System Procedures
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
without substantive change the current
requirements concerning written
procedures for inspecting and testing
pollution prevention equipment and
systems. We received no substantive
comments. Therefore, we have

promulgated the rule as proposed with
minor editorial changes.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘As part of the SPCC Plan’’ becomes
‘‘within the Plan.’’
Section 112.11(i)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(j)—Pollution Prevention
Systems; Testing and Inspection
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule on testing and
inspection of pollution prevention
systems. Additionally, we proposed that
simulated spill testing must be the
preferred method to test and inspect oil
spill prevention equipment and
systems. We also proposed that
pollution prevention systems must be
tested at least monthly. The current
standard calls for testing and inspection
‘‘on a scheduled periodic basis.’’
Comments. Some commenters
suggested that simulation testing on a
monthly basis is excessive. Commenters
suggested instead testing on a semiannual or annual basis.
Response to comments. Frequency of
testing. We have retained the current
requirement for testing on a ‘‘scheduled
periodic basis’’ commensurate with
conditions at the facility because we
believe that testing should follow
industry standards or be conducted at a
frequency sufficient enough to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
rather than any prescribed time frame.
Whatever frequency is chosen must be
documented in the Plan.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
In the first sentence, ‘‘or other
appropriate regulations’’ becomes ‘‘and
any other appropriate regulations.’’ In
the second sentence, ‘‘spill testing’’
becomes ‘‘simulated discharges for
testing.’’ We have deleted from the last
sentence the phrase ‘‘unless the owner
or operator demonstrates that another
method provides equivalent alternative
protection’’ because it is confusing
when compared to the text of
§ 112.7(a)(2). You may deviate from a
requirement under § 112.7(a)(2) if you
explain your reasons for
nonconformance and provide equivalent
environmental protection.
Section 112.11(j)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(k)—Surface and Subsurface
Well Shut-in Valves and Devices
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current section concerning surface
and subsurface well shut-in valves and
devices. We proposed an additional
requirement that records for each well
must be kept for five years. We received
no substantive comments. Therefore, we
have promulgated the rule as proposed,
with minor editorial changes.

47133

Editorial changes and clarifications.
In today’s rule, we kept the
recordkeeping requirement, but deleted
language requiring maintenance of those
records for five years. The effect of the
deletion is that records become subject
to the general three-year recordkeeping
requirement. See § 112.7(e). You may
keep the records as part of the Plan or
may keep them with the Plan.
Section 112.11(k)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(l)—Blowout Prevention
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current rule concerning blowout
prevention without substantive change.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that there are occasions when blowout
prevention is not warranted or
impractical to implement and that there
should be an exception for drilling
below conductor casing.
Response to comments. Alternatives.
The question of whether blowout
prevention is warranted or impractical
or not for drilling below conductor
casing is one of good engineering
practice. Acceptable alternatives may be
permissible under the rule permitting
deviations (§ 112.7(a)(2)) when the
owner or operator states the reasons for
nonconformance and provides
equivalent environmental protection.
Industry standards. Industry
standards that may assist an owner or
operator with offshore blowout
prevention assembly and well control
systems include: (1) API Recommended
Practice 16E, ‘‘Design of Control
Systems for Drilling Well Control
Equipment’’; (2) API Recommended
Practice 53, ‘‘Blowout Prevention
Equipment Systems for Drilling
Operations’’; (3) API Specification 16A,
‘‘Drill Through Equipment’’; (4) API
Specification 16C, ‘‘Choke and Kill
Systems’’; and, (5) API Specification
16D, ‘‘Control Systems for Drilling Well
Control Equipment.’’
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘BOP preventor assembly’’ becomes
‘‘BOP assembly.’’ We deleted the last
sentence of the paragraph referring to
adherence to State rules because we are
not incorporating State rules into the
SPCC rule and adherence to State rules
is required under State law whether we
state it or not. The phrase ‘‘expected to
be encountered’’ becomes ‘‘may be
encountered.’’
Proposed § 112.11(m)—Extraordinary
Well Control Measures
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
change the current requirements on
extraordinary well control measures for
emergency conditions to
recommendations. The rationale was

47134

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

that we would review these measures in
the context of response planning.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that the paragraph should be deleted
because it is advisory, or made a
requirement.
Response to comments. In response to
comment, we have deleted the text of
the recommendations from the rules
because we do not wish to confuse the
regulated community over what is
mandatory and what is discretionary.
However, we endorse its substance. This
rule contains only mandatory
requirements.

promulgated the rule as proposed, with
minor editorial changes.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We have rewritten the rule in the active
voice. We also deleted the proposed
recommendation because this rule
contains only mandatory items, and
because the recommendation is
redundant. Whatever manner of
protection is chosen to protect submarine piping must be discussed in the
Plan.

Section 112.11(l)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(n)—Manifolds

Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirements concerning the
inspection of sub-marine piping
appurtenant to facilities without
substantive change. We received no
comments. Therefore, we have
promulgated the rule as proposed, with
minor editorial changes.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
The proposal to require maintenance of
records for five years was deleted
because under § 112.7(e) of today’s rule,
all records must be kept for three years.
We clarify that you must inspect or test
the piping. Because visual inspection of
sub-marine piping may not always be
possible, we allow testing as an
alternative. We encourage inspection or
testing pursuant to industry standards
or at a frequency sufficient to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Whatever inspection schedule you
select must be documented in the Plan.

Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirements concerning
manifolds without substantive change.
We received no comments on the
proposal. Therefore, we have
promulgated the rule as proposed.
Section 112.11(m)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(o)—Flowlines, Pressure
Sensing Devices
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirements concerning
pressure sensing devices and shut-in
valves for flowlines without substantive
change. We received no comments on
the proposal. Therefore, we have
promulgated the rule as proposed.
Section 112.11(n)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(p)—Piping; Corrosion
Protection
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirements concerning
corrosion protection for piping
appurtenant to the facility without
substantive change. We also proposed to
change into a recommendation the
current requirement that the method
used, such as protective coatings or
cathodic protection, be discussed.
Comments. One commenter suggested
that we remove the second sentence,
which is advisory.
Response to comments. In response to
comment, we have deleted the
recommendation to discuss the method
of corrosion protection, because it is
surplus. In your SPCC Plan, you must
discuss the method of corrosion
protection you use. See 112.7(a)(1).
Section 112.11(o)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(q)—Sub-Marine Piping;
Environmental Stresses
Background. In 1991, we reproposed
the current requirements concerning
environmental stress against sub-marine
piping appurtenant to facilities without
substantive change. We received no
comments. Therefore, we have

Section 112.11(p)—Proposed as
§ 112.11(r)—Inspections of Sub-Marine
Piping

Proposed § 112.11(s)—Written
Instructions for Contractors
Background. In 1991, we proposed to
change into a recommendation the
current requirement that you prepare
written instructions for contractors and
subcontractors whenever contract
activities involve servicing a well, or
systems appurtenant to a well or
pressure vessel. The current rule
requires that you keep the instructions
at the facility. We note in the proposed
rule that under certain circumstances,
you may require the presence of your
representative at the facility to intervene
when necessary to prevent a discharge
as described in § 112.1(b).
Comments. One commenter wrote
that the proposal creates two serious
problems. First, that since the contractor
is hired to perform special services, he
is able to do his work more safely if he
is allowed to direct his own activities.
Second, operators might expose
themselves to various types of liability
by virtue of the degree of control
exercised over contractors. A second
commenter suggested editorial revisions

to the recommendation, and subsequent
sentences.
Response to comments. We have
decided to delete the proposed
recommendation because we do not
wish to confuse the regulated
community over what is mandatory and
what is discretionary. This rule contains
only mandatory requirements.
Subparts C and D
Background. In 1995, Congress
enacted the Edible Oil Regulatory
Reform Act (EORRA), 33 U.S.C. 2720.
That statute mandates that most Federal
agencies differentiate between and
establish separate classes for various
types of oils, specifically: animal fats
and oils and greases, fish and marine
mammal oils; oils of vegetable origin;
and, other oils and greases, including
petroleum and other non-petroleum
oils. In differentiating between these
classes of oils, Federal agencies are
directed to consider differences in the
physical, chemical, biological, and other
properties, and in the environmental
effects, of the classes.
In 1991, EPA proposed to reorganize
the SPCC rule based on facility type.
The rationale for that reorganization is
to clarify SPCC Plan requirements for
different types of facilities. While we
have reorganized the rule to provide
requirements for different types of
facilities, we also provide requirements
for different types of oil in this
rulemaking. To make this change, we
have divided the rule into subparts.
Subpart A consists of an applicability
section, definitions, and general
requirements for all facilities. Subparts
B and C outline the requirements for
different types of oils. Subpart B is for
petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils,
except for animal fats and vegetable oils.
Subpart C is for animal fats and oils and
greases, and fish and marine mammal
oils; and for vegetable oils, including
oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.
Subpart D is for response. Subparts B
and C are divided into sections to reflect
the differing types of facilities for each
type of oil. Subpart D is for response
requirements.
Therefore, as noted above, we have
divided the requirements of the rule by
subparts for the various classes of oils
listed in EORRA. Because at the present
time EPA has not proposed
differentiated requirements for public
notice and comment, the requirements
for facilities storing or using all classes
of oil will remain the same. However,
we have published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking seeking comments
on how we might differentiate
requirements for facilities storing or
using the various classes of oil. 64 FR

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
17227, April 8, 1999. After considering
these comments, if there is adequate
justification for differentiation, we will
propose a rule.
Proposed § 112.20(f)(4)—Capacity of
Facilities Storing Process Water/
Wastewater for Response Plan Purposes
Background. In 1997, we proposed to
add a new paragraph to § 112.20(f) to
provide a method for facility response
plan purposes to calculate the oil
storage capacity of storage containers
storing a mixture of process water/
wastewater with 10% or less of oil. This
proposal for certain systems that treat
process water/wastewater would be
applicable at certain facilities required
to prepare a facility response plan. It
would have no effect on facilities
required to prepare response plans
because they transfer oil over water and
have a total oil storage capacity greater
than or equal to 42,000 gallons.
Likewise, the proposal would have no
effect on the method of calculating
capacity for purposes of SPCC Plans.
Under the proposal, we would not count
the entire capacity of process water/
wastewater containers with 10% or less
of oil in the capacity calculation to
determine whether a facility must
prepare a facility response plan. We
only would count the oil portion of that
process water/wastewater contained in
§ 112.20(f)(2), and therefore response
planning is not necessary.
Today, we are withdrawing the
proposal because it is no longer
necessary. It is unnecessary because we
have exempted from part 112 any
facility or part thereof (except at oil
production, oil recovery, and oil
recycling facilities) used exclusively for
wastewater treatment and not to satisfy
any requirement of part 112. See the
discussion under § 112.1(d)(6). The
exemption in § 112.1(d)(6) applies to the
types of facilities treating wastewater
that would have been allowed to
calculate a reduced storage capacity if
the percentage of oil in the mixture were
10 percent or less.
Section 112.20(h)—Facility Response
Plan Format
Background. In 1997, we proposed to
amend the requirements for formatting
of a facility response plan to clarify that
an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) or
other plan format acceptable to the
Regional Administrator is allowable to
serve as a facility response plan if it
meets all facility response plan
requirements. Our intent was to track
language in the SPCC rule allowing the
Regional Administrator similar
authority to accept differing formats for
SPCC Plans. However, the Regional

Administrator already has the authority
to accept differing formats for response
plans, and the existing facility response
plan requirements already provide for
cross-referencing. See § 112.20(h).
Therefore, new rule language was
unnecessary, and the proposal tracked
current language. Today, we have made
only a minor editorial change in rule
language.
Comments. Acceptable formats. Most
commenters favored the proposal. One
commenter suggested that the rule
should specifically mention the ICP.
Another requested that State FRP
equivalents be accepted. Several
commenters criticized the proposal; one
calling the ICP concept ‘‘over-rated.’’
One commenter thought that the rule
makes the ICP mandatory. Another
commenter noted that the proposed rule
is identical to the current rule.
Partially acceptable formats. One
commenter asked if an operator would
have to integrate all parts of an ICP with
a response plan or if he would have the
option to integrate parts of the ICP with
the SPCC Plan.
PE certification. One commenter
asked how an ICP would work, i.e.,
whether the PE would be certifying the
SPCC portion, the FRP portion, or both.
Response to comments. Acceptable
formats. It is not necessary for the rule
to mention the ICP or any other format
specifically because the rule already
allows the Regional Administrator
flexibility to accept any format that
meets all Federal requirements. See
§ 112.20(h). You may use the ICP, a
State response plan, or other format
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator, at your option. We do
not require use of any alternative
format, but merely give you the option
to do so.
The commenter is correct that the
proposed rule is identical to the current
rule. The current rule allows the
submission of an ‘‘equivalent response
plan that has been prepared to meet
State or other Federal requirements.’’
Partially acceptable formats. You
have the option to integrate any or all
parts of an ICP with your response plan.
This gives you flexibility in formatting.
Similar to SPCC Plans, the Regional
Administrator may accept partial use of
alternative formats.
PE certification. PE certification is
only required for the SPCC portion of
any ICP.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
We added the words ‘‘acceptable to the
Regional Administrator’’ in the first
sentence after the words ‘‘response
plan.’’

47135

Appendix C—Substantial Harm Criteria
Background. In 1997, we proposed
changes to Appendix C which would
track proposed amendments to
§ 112.20(f)(4) regarding calculating the
oil storage capacity of aboveground
storage containers storing a mixture of
process water/wastewater within 10%
or less of oil. Because we have
withdrawn the proposed changes to
§ 112.20(f)(4), the proposed changes to
Appendix C are also unnecessary.
Therefore, we have withdrawn the
proposed changes to Appendix C, and it
remains unchanged.
Appendix C—Section 2.1—NonTransportation-Related Facilities With a
Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater Than
or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where
Operations Include Over-Water Transfer
of Oil
Background. We have corrected the
text of the first sentence in the section
to correspond with the title, so that it
reads ‘‘A non-transportation-related
facility with a total oil storage capacity
greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons
that transfers oil over water to or from
vessels must submit a response plan to
EPA. We added the words ‘‘or equal to’’
to track rule language found at
§ 112.20(f)(1)(i).
Appendix C—Section 2.4—Proximity to
Public Drinking Water Intakes at
Facilities With a Total Oil Storage
Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 1
Million Gallons
Background. We have revised the title
of this section by reversing the order of
the words ‘‘Storage’’ and ‘‘Oil’’ in the
heading. We have also added the word
‘‘oil’’ to the first sentence so that it
reads, ‘‘A facility with a total oil storage
capacity greater than * * *.’’
Appendix D—Part A—Section A.2
(Footnote 2)
Background. We have revised
footnote 2 to section A.2 of Part A,
Appendix D, to reflect the new citation
to the SPCC rule’s secondary
containment requirements.
Appendix F—Section 1.2.7—NAICS
Codes
Background. We have revised section
1.2.7 to delete the reference to Standard
Industry Classification (SIC) codes, and
replace it with a reference to North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes. The NAICS was
adopted by the United States, Canada,
and Mexico on January 1, 1997 to
replace the SIC codes.

47136

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix F—Section 1.4.3 Analysis of
the Potential for an Oil Discharge
Background. We have revised the
second and last sentences of this section
by replacing the word ‘‘spill’’ with
‘‘discharge.’’
Appendix F—Section 1.7.3 (7)—
Containment and Drainage Planning
Background. We have revised
paragraph (7) of section 1.7.3 of
Appendix F to use the new citation to
the SPCC rule’s inspection and
monitoring requirements for drainage.
Appendix F—Section 1.8.1 Facility
Self-Inspection
Background. We have revised section
1.8.1 of Appendix F to use the new
citation to the SPCC rule’s
recordkeeping requirements. The
revision also reflects the three-year
record maintenance periods for SPCC
records and keeps the current five-year
period for FRP records.
Editorial changes and clarifications.
‘‘Tanks’’ becomes ‘‘each container.’’
Appendix F—Section 1.8.1.1—Tank
Inspection
Background. We have revised section
1.8.1.1 of Appendix F to use the new
citation to the SPCC rule’s tank
inspection requirements.
Appendix F—Section 1.8.1.3
Secondary Containment Inspection
Background. We have revised section
1.8.1.1.4 of Appendix F to use the new
citation to the SPCC rule’s secondary
containment inspection requirements.
Appendix F—Section 1.10 Security
Background. We have revised section
1.10 of Appendix F to use the new
citation to the SPCC rule’s security
requirements.
Appendix F—Section 2.1(6) General
Information
Background. We have revised
paragraph 2.1(6) to refer to NAICS codes
in place of SIC codes.
Appendix F—Section 3.0 Acronyms
Background. We have deleted the
acronym for SIC and substituted the
acronym for NAICS.
Appendix F-Attachment F–1 Response
Plan Cover Sheet
Background. We have deleted the
reference to SIC and substituted a
reference to NAICS.
VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866—OMB Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Under the terms of Executive Order
12866, it has been determined that this
rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
because it raises novel legal or policy
issues. Such issues include proposed
measures which would relieve facilities
of regulatory mandates and could
change the manner in which facilities
comply with remaining mandates.
Therefore, this action was submitted to
OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
The reduction in size of the regulated
community due to final rule revisions
will lead to a capital cost savings of
approximately $29.47 million per year.
During the first year, regulated facilities
will experience an increase in total
paperwork cost burden of $21.93
million due primarily to the need to
read the rule. In addition, certain
facilities will recalculate their storage
capacity to exclude applicable
wastewater treatment systems and,
therefore, must amend and certify their
plans if the storage capacity threshold is
still met. In certain cases, however, the
wastewater treatment system provision
in section 112.1(b)(6) will result in a
facility no longer being subject to the
any Part 112 requirements. However,
during the second year, total paperwork
cost burden will decrease by about
$60.21 million and beginning in the
third year following the rulemaking, the
total paperwork cost burden to all
regulated facilities will decrease by
about $45.03 million. The result is an
aggregate cost savings of about $7.56
million during the first year, $89.69

million during the second year, and
$74.51 million during subsequent years.
B. Executive Order 12898—
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that
each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission
by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minorities
and low-income populations. EPA has
determined that the regulatory changes
in this rule will not have a
disproportionate impact on minorities
and low-income populations.
C. Executive Order 13045—Children’s
Health
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. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under Section 5–501 of the Order has
the potential to influence the regulation.
This final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
Agency has no data that indicate that
the types of risks resulting from oil
discharges have a disproportionate
effect on children, and does not have
reason to believe that they do so.
D. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
On November 6, 2000, the President
issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175
took effect on January 6, 2001, and
revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Consultation) as of that date. EPA
developed this final rule, however,
under the period when EO 13084 was in
effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal
considerations under EO 13084.
Today’s rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect communities of Indian
tribal governments. Overall, the rule
significantly reduces the regulatory
burden, and the few burden increases in
the rule do not uniquely affect Indian
tribal governments.
Nevertheless, we consulted with a
representative organization of tribal
groups, the Tribal Association on Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. That
organization did not provide us with
any comments.
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
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will 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), EPA believes that States
are free to impose additional
requirements, including more stringent
requirements, relating to the prevention
of oil discharges to navigable waters. In
proposing modifications to the SPCC
rule, EPA encouraged States to
supplement the federal SPCC program
and recognized that some States have
more stringent requirements. 56 FR
54612 (Oct. 22, 1991). This rule does not
preempt state law or regulations. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13211—Energy
Effects
This rule 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 rule is to
decrease the regulatory burden on
facility owners or operators subject to its
provisions.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (R.F.A.) as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The R.F.A. 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 today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined in the 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 production facilities,
which constitute a large percentage of
the facilities affected by this rule,
generally defines small businesses as
having less than $500,000 in revenues
or 500 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
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
proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency
may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the
rule. This rule will significantly reduce
regulatory burden on all facilities,
particularly small facilities. For
example, the rule exempts
approximately 55,000 facilities from its
scope. Approximately 41,300 of those

47137

facilities are small facilities, and of
those, nearly 27,700 are small farms.
This rulemaking will increase
information collection burden for most
facilities in the first year by
approximately 0.75 million hours due
principally to the estimated burden each
facility will incur to read and
understand the changes that we are
making to the rule. However, the rule
will also reduce the overall annual
information collection burden by nearly
1.59 million hours a year in the second
year and over 1.18 million hours a year
in the third year of the information
collection request, much of that for the
small facilities that make up the large
majority of our regulated universe.
Further, the rule will reduce costs for
both existing and new facilities.
Information collection and other
provisions in the final rule that affect
capital costs are expected to yield cost
savings of about $7.56 million during
the first year, $89.69 million during the
second year and $74.51 million during
subsequent years. The rule also gives all
facilities greater flexibility in
recordkeeping and other paperwork
requirements. Finally, § 112.7(a)(2) of
the rule gives small businesses and all
other facilities the flexibility to use
alternative methods to comply with the
requirements of the rule if the facility
explains its rationale for
nonconformance and provides
equivalent environmental protection.
We have therefore concluded that
today’s final rule will relieve regulatory
burden for all small entities.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
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

47138

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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 adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most-effective or
least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
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 rule
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.
Overall, the rule reduces burden and
costs on all facilities. After the first and
second year, the rule is expected to
reduce the information collection
burden by over 1.3 million hours
annually.
Approximately 55,000 facilities will
no longer be subject to the SPCC rule.
Of these facilities, EPA estimates that
approximately 3,500 existing facilities
will no longer be required to maintain
SPCC plans, due to the exemption for
certain wastewater treatment systems.
Other revisions are expected to exempt
approximately 51,400 additional
facilities 39,623 small facilities
(including 27,700 small farms). The
exemption for completely buried
containers will result in approximately
14,000 facilities no longer subject to the
rule, and 37,000 more facilities with
some partial information collection
reduction. Further, EPA estimates
Information collection and capital costs
are expected to decrease by over $74.25
million a year in the third year of the
SPCC information collection request. In
addition to these SPCC-related impacts,
this rulemaking is estimated to result in
cost savings for as many as 35 facilities
that are expected to no longer require
facility response plans due to the
wastewater treatment system
exemption. The result of the changes to
the scope of the FRP information
collection requirements is a cost savings
of approximately $0.23 million per year.

The rule also gives all facilities greater
flexibility in recordkeeping and other
paperwork requirements. Finally,
§ 112.7(a)(2) of the rule gives small
businesses and all other facilities the
flexibility to use alternate methods to
comply with the requirements of the
rule if the facility explains its rationale
for nonconformance and describes its
method of equivalent environmental
protection. Thus, today’s rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In developing this rule, EPA
nevertheless consulted with
representative organizations of State,
local, and tribal governments. The
representative organizations were the
Environmental Council of the States, the
National Association of Counties, and
the Tribal Association on Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. None of those
organizations provided us with any
comments. However, numerous States
and local governments did comment on
the rule proposals in all three proposed
rulemakings. Those commenters
submitted a wide variety of comments.
EPA responses to those comments may
be found in this document and in the
Comment Response Documents.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. As explained above,
the overall effect of the rule will be to
reduce burden and costs for regulated
facilities, including small governments
that are subject to the rule.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in
this rule under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2050–0021.
EPA does not collect the information
required by SPCC regulation 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 helps prevent oil discharges, and
mitigates the environmental damage
caused by such discharges. Therefore,
the primary user of the data is the
facility. While EPA may, from time to
time, request information under these
regulations, such requests are not
routine.
Although the facility is the primary
data user, EPA also uses the data in
certain situations. EPA primarily uses
SPCC Plan data to ensure that facilities
comply with the regulation. This
includes design and operation

specifications, and inspection
requirements. EPA reviews SPCC Plans:
(1) when it requests a facility to submit
a Plan after certain oil discharges or to
evaluate an extension request; and, (2)
as part of EPA’s inspection program.
Note that the final rule eliminates the
previous requirement to submit the
entire Plan after certain discharges, and
merely retains the requirement that it be
maintained at the facility unless EPA
requests a copy. State and local
governments also use the data, which
are not necessarily available elsewhere
and can greatly assist local emergency
preparedness efforts. Preparation of the
information for affected facilities is
required under section 311(j)(1) of the
Act as implemented by 40 CFR part 112.
In the absence of this final
rulemaking, EPA estimates that 469,274
facilities would have been subject to the
rule in the first year and would have
already prepared SPCC Plans. In
addition, EPA estimates that
approximately 4,700 new facilities
would have become subject to the
requirements of the rule annually. EPA
also estimates that, in the absence of
this rulemaking, the average annual
public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information
for existing and newly regulated
facilities would have ranged between
4.9 to 13.8 hours and 39.4 to 100.4
hours, respectively, depending on
facility characteristics (e.g., storage
capacity).
Through this rulemaking, we expect
to reduce both the number of regulated
facilities, as well as the average annual
burden for facilities that remain
regulated. The number of regulated
facilities will be reduced by
approximately 55,000. The average
annual public reporting for facilities
already regulated by the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation is estimated to
range between 8.6 and 12.2 hours, while
the burden for newly regulated facilities
is estimated to range between 35.1 and
65.2 hours as a result of this rulemaking.
These average annual burden estimates
take into account the varied frequencies
of response for individual facilities
according to characteristics specific to
those facilities, including the frequency
of oil discharges and facility
modification, but exclude the
anticipated burden facilities may incur
in the first year to read and understand
the changes we are making to the rule.
Under the final rule, an estimated
419,033 existing and newly regulated
facilities will be subject to the SPCC
information collection requirements of
this rule during the first year of the
information collection period. The net
annualized capital and start-up costs for

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
the SPCC information collection portion
of the rule average $740,000 and net
annualized labor and operation and
maintenance costs are estimated to be
$93.00 million for all of these facilities
combined.
The information collection burden of
the SPCC rule prior to this rulemaking
averaged 2,828,150 hours per year.
Under this final rule, the annual average
burden over the next three-year ICR
period is estimated to be 2,208,701
hours, resulting in a 22 percent average
reduction. This rulemaking will
increase burden for most facilities in the
first year (totaling approximately 3.6
million hours) due principally to the
estimated burden each facility will
incur to read and understand the
changes that we are making to the rule.
The first-year burden also includes the
additional need for certain facilities to
amend and certify their SPCC plans to
exclude wastewater treatment volumes
from their oil storage capacity. Second
year burden is expected to total
approximately 1.3 million hours. In
subsequent years, we estimate that the
overall burden will be approximately
1.7 million hours annually, representing
a nearly 40 percent reduction versus the
average annual burden from the
previous information collection period.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
In addition to reducing the
information collection burden of SPCC
facilities, this final rule also affects the
number of facilities that require an FRP.
The FRP rule (40 CFR 112.20–21)
requires that owners or operators of
facilities that could cause ‘‘substantial
harm’’ to the environment by
discharging oil into navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines prepare plans for
responding, to the maximum extent
practicable, to a worst case discharge of
oil, to a substantial threat of such a
discharge, and, as appropriate, to
discharges smaller than worst case
discharges. All facilities subject to this

requirement must submit their plans to
EPA. In turn, we review and approve
plans submitted by facilities identified
as ‘‘significant and substantial harm’’ to
the environment from oil discharges.
Other facilities are not required to
prepare FRPs but are required to
document their determination that they
do not meet the ‘‘substantial harm’’
criteria.
Prior to this rulemaking, EPA
estimated that it requires between 99
and 132 hours for facility personnel in
a large facility (i.e., total storage capacity
greater than 1 million gallons) and
between 26 and 46 hours for personnel
in a medium facility (i.e., total storage
capacity greater than 42,000 gallons and
less than or equal to 1 million gallons)
to comply with the annual, subsequentyear reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the FRP rule. We have
also estimated that prior to this
rulemaking newly regulated large and
medium facilities will require between
253 and 293 hours and 109 and 142
hours, respectively, to prepare a plan in
the first year. In the absence of this
rulemaking, EPA estimates that the total
number FRP facilities affected in the
first year would have been 6,000
existing and 70 new facilities. Through
this rulemaking the estimated number of
facilities required to maintain FRPs is
reduced to 5,965 and the number of new
facilities that will be required to prepare
and submit FRP plans is reduced to 64
facilities. This reduction in the number
of facilities required to prepare, submit,
and/or maintain an FRP would result in
an average annual information
collection burden reduction of 8,513
hours a year (624,252 to 615,739 hours).
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR
part 9 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various
regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final
rule.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
As noted in the December 7, 1997,
proposed rule, section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’).
Pub. L. 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

47139

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.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. Throughout today’s
preamble, EPA has emphasized that
owners or operators of facilities should
use applicable industry standards in
performing tests, inspections, and in
monitoring. Section 112.3(d) provides
that a Professional Engineer must certify
that the SPCC Plan has been prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practice, including consideration of
applicable industry standards. We are
providing examples of specific
standards in today’s preamble.
However, due to the wide variety of
facilities the rule involves, few
standards would be applicable to all
regulated facilities. Also, those
standards change over time. Therefore,
we are not incorporating those
standards into rule text.
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
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA has submitted
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. This action is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective
August 16, 2002.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Fire
prevention, Flammable materials,
Materials handling and storage, Oil
pollution, Oil spill prevention, Oil spill
response, Penalties, Petroleum,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tanks, Water pollution
control, Water resources.
Dated: June 28, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 CFR, chapter I, part

47140

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

112 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
is amended as follows:
PART 112—OIL POLLUTION
PREVENTION
1. The authority for part 112
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C
2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351.

2. Part 112 is amended by designating
§§ 112.1 through 112.7 as subpart A,
adding a subpart heading and revising
newly designated subpart A to read as
follows:
Subpart A—Applicability, Definitions, and
General Requirements For All Facilities and
All Types of Oils
Sec.

112.1 General applicability.

112.2 Definitions.

112.3 Requirement to prepare and

implement a Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure Plan.
112.4 Amendment of Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan by
Regional Administrator.
112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan by
owners or operators.
112.6 [Reserved].
112.7 General requirements for Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plans.

Subpart A—Applicability, Definitions,
and General Requirements for All
Facilities and All Types of Oils
§ 112.1

General applicability.

(a)(1) This part establishes
procedures, methods, equipment, and
other requirements to prevent the
discharge of oil from nontransportation-related onshore and
offshore facilities into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or
adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the
waters of the contiguous zone, or in
connection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or that
may affect natural resources belonging
to, appertaining to, or under the
exclusive management authority of the
United States (including resources
under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act).
(2) As used in this part, words in the
singular also include the plural and
words in the masculine gender also
include the feminine and vice versa, as
the case may require.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, this part applies to
any owner or operator of a nontransportation-related onshore or
offshore facility engaged in drilling,
producing, gathering, storing,

processing, refining, transferring,
distributing, using, or consuming oil
and oil products, which due to its
location, could reasonably be expected
to discharge oil in quantities that may
be harmful, as described in part 110 of
this chapter, into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines, or into or upon the waters of
the contiguous zone, or in connection
with activities under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act or the
Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or that may
affect natural resources belonging to,
appertaining to, or under the exclusive
management authority of the United
States (including resources under the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act) that has oil in:
(1) Any aboveground container;
(2) Any completely buried tank as
defined in § 112.2;
(3) Any container that is used for
standby storage, for seasonal storage, or
for temporary storage, or not otherwise
‘‘permanently closed’’ as defined in
§ 112.2;
(4) Any ‘‘bunkered tank’’ or ‘‘partially
buried tank’’ as defined in § 112.2, or
any container in a vault, each of which
is considered an aboveground storage
container for purposes of this part.
(c) As provided in section 313 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the
Federal government are subject to this
part to the same extent as any person.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph
(f) of this section, this part does not
apply to:
(1) The owner or operator of any
facility, equipment, or operation that is
not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA,
as follows:
(i) Any onshore or offshore facility,
that due to its location, could not
reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in paragraph (b)
of this section. This determination must
be based solely upon consideration of
the geographical and location aspects of
the facility (such as proximity to
navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines, land contour, drainage, etc.)
and must exclude consideration of
manmade features such as dikes,
equipment or other structures, which
may serve to restrain, hinder, contain, or
otherwise prevent a discharge as
described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(ii) Any equipment, or operation of a
vessel or transportation-related onshore
or offshore facility which is subject to
the authority and control of the U.S.
Department of Transportation, as
defined in the Memorandum of

Understanding between the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator of
EPA, dated November 24, 1971
(Appendix A of this part).
(iii) Any equipment, or operation of a
vessel or onshore or offshore facility
which is subject to the authority and
control of the U.S. Department of
Transportation or the U.S. Department
of the Interior, as defined in the
Memorandum of Understanding
between the Secretary of Transportation,
the Secretary of the Interior, and the
Administrator of EPA, dated November
8, 1993 (Appendix B of this part).
(2) Any facility which, although
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of
EPA, meets both of the following
requirements:
(i) The completely buried storage
capacity of the facility is 42,000 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. The completely buried
storage capacity of a facility also
excludes the capacity of a container that
is ‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in
§ 112.2.
(ii) The aggregate aboveground storage
capacity of the facility is 1,320 gallons
or less of oil. For purposes of this
exemption, only containers of oil with
a capacity of 55 gallons or greater are
counted. The aggregate aboveground
storage capacity of a facility excludes
the capacity of a container that is
‘‘permanently closed,’’ as defined in
§ 112.2.
(3) Any offshore oil drilling,
production, or workover facility that is
subject to the notices and regulations of
the Minerals Management Service, as
specified in the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the Administrator of EPA,
dated November 8, 1993 (Appendix B of
this part).
(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, except that such a
tank must be marked on the facility
diagram as provided in § 112.7(a)(3), if

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
the facility is otherwise subject to this
part.
(5) Any container with a storage
capacity of less than 55 gallons of oil.
(6) Any facility or part thereof used
exclusively for wastewater treatment
and not used to satisfy any requirement
of this part. The production, recovery,
or recycling of oil is not wastewater
treatment for purposes of this
paragraph.
(e) This part establishes requirements
for the preparation and implementation
of Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. SPCC
Plans are designed to complement
existing laws, regulations, rules,
standards, policies, and procedures
pertaining to safety standards, fire
prevention, and pollution prevention
rules. The purpose of an SPCC Plan is
to form a comprehensive Federal/State
spill prevention program that minimizes
the potential for discharges. The SPCC
Plan must address all relevant spill
prevention, control, and
countermeasures necessary at the
specific facility. Compliance with this
part does not in any way relieve the
owner or operator of an onshore or an
offshore facility from compliance with
other Federal, State, or local laws.
(f) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of
this section, the Regional Administrator
may require that the owner or operator
of any facility subject to the jurisdiction
of EPA under section 311(j) of the CWA
prepare and implement an SPCC Plan,
or any applicable part, to carry out the
purposes of the CWA.
(1) Following a preliminary
determination, the Regional
Administrator must provide a written
notice to the owner or operator stating
the reasons why he must prepare an
SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The
Regional Administrator must send such
notice to the owner or operator by
certified mail or by personal delivery. If
the owner or operator is a corporation,
the Regional Administrator must also
mail a copy of such notice to the
registered agent, if any and if known, of
the corporation in the State where the
facility is located.
(2) Within 30 days of receipt of such
written notice, the owner or operator
may provide information and data and
may consult with the Agency about the
need to prepare an SPCC Plan, or
applicable part.
(3) Within 30 days following the time
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section
within which the owner or operator may
provide information and data and
consult with the Agency about the need
to prepare an SPCC Plan, or applicable
part, the Regional Administrator must
make a final determination regarding

whether the owner or operator is
required to prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The
Regional Administrator must send the
final determination to the owner or
operator by certified mail or by personal
delivery. If the owner or operator is a
corporation, the Regional Administrator
must also mail a copy of the final
determination to the registered agent, if
any and if known, of the corporation in
the State where the facility is located.
(4) If the Regional Administrator
makes a final determination that an
SPCC Plan, or applicable part, is
necessary, the owner or operator must
prepare the Plan, or applicable part,
within six months of that final
determination and implement the Plan,
or applicable part, as soon as possible,
but not later than one year after the
Regional Administrator has made a final
determination.
(5) The owner or operator may appeal
a final determination made by the
Regional Administrator requiring
preparation and implementation of an
SPCC Plan, or applicable part, under
this paragraph. The owner or operator
must make the appeal to the
Administrator of EPA within 30 days of
receipt of the final determination under
paragraph (b)(3) of this section from the
Regional Administrator requiring
preparation and/or implementation of
an SPCC Plan, or applicable part. The
owner or operator must send a complete
copy of the appeal to the Regional
Administrator at the time he makes the
appeal to the Administrator. The appeal
must contain a clear and concise
statement of the issues and points of fact
in the case. In the appeal, the owner or
operator may also provide additional
information. The additional information
may be from any person. The
Administrator may request additional
information from the owner or operator.
The Administrator must render a
decision within 60 days of receiving the
appeal or additional information
submitted by the owner or operator and
must serve the owner or operator with
the decision made in the appeal in the
manner described in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section.
§ 112.2 Definitions.

For the purposes of this part:
Adverse weather means weather
conditions that make it difficult for
response equipment and personnel to
clean up or remove spilled oil, and that
must be considered when identifying
response systems and equipment in a
response plan for the applicable
operating environment. Factors to
consider include significant wave height
as specified in Appendix E to this part

47141

(as appropriate), ice conditions,
temperatures, weather-related visibility,
and currents within the area in which
the systems or equipment is intended to
function.
Alteration means any work on a
container involving cutting, burning,
welding, or heating operations that
changes the physical dimensions or
configuration of the container.
Animal fat means a non-petroleum
oil, fat, or grease of animal, fish, or
marine mammal origin.
Breakout tank means a container used
to relieve surges in an oil pipeline
system or to receive and store oil
transported by a pipeline for reinjection
and continued transportation by
pipeline.
Bulk storage container means any
container used to store oil. These
containers are used for purposes
including, but not limited to, the storage
of oil prior to use, while being used, or
prior to further distribution in
commerce. Oil-filled electrical,
operating, or manufacturing equipment
is not a bulk storage container.
Bunkered tank means a container
constructed or placed in the ground by
cutting the earth and re-covering the
container in a manner that breaks the
surrounding natural grade, or that lies
above grade, and is covered with earth,
sand, gravel, asphalt, or other material.
A bunkered tank is considered an
aboveground storage container for
purposes of this part.
Completely buried tank means any
container completely below grade and
covered with earth, sand, gravel,
asphalt, or other material. Containers in
vaults, bunkered tanks, or partially
buried tanks are considered
aboveground storage containers for
purposes of this part.
Complex means a facility possessing a
combination of transportation-related
and non-transportation-related
components that is subject to the
jurisdiction of more than one Federal
agency under section 311(j) of the CWA.
Contiguous zone means the zone
established by the United States under
Article 24 of the Convention of the
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone,
that is contiguous to the territorial sea
and that extends nine miles seaward
from the outer limit of the territorial
area.
Contract or other approved means
means:
(1) A written contractual agreement
with an oil spill removal organization
that identifies and ensures the
availability of the necessary personnel
and equipment within appropriate
response times; and/or

47142

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

(2) A written certification by the
owner or operator that the necessary
personnel and equipment resources,
owned or operated by the facility owner
or operator, are available to respond to
a discharge within appropriate response
times; and/or
(3) Active membership in a local or
regional oil spill removal organization
that has identified and ensures adequate
access through such membership to
necessary personnel and equipment to
respond to a discharge within
appropriate response times in the
specified geographic area; and/or
(4) Any other specific arrangement
approved by the Regional Administrator
upon request of the owner or operator.
Discharge includes, but is not limited
to, any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, or
dumping of oil, but excludes discharges
in compliance with a permit under
section 402 of the CWA; discharges
resulting from circumstances identified,
reviewed, and made a part of the public
record with respect to a permit issued
or modified under section 402 of the
CWA, and subject to a condition in such
permit; or continuous or anticipated
intermittent discharges from a point
source, identified in a permit or permit
application under section 402 of the
CWA, that are caused by events
occurring within the scope of relevant
operating or treatment systems. For
purposes of this part, the term discharge
shall not include any discharge of oil
that is authorized by a permit issued
under section 13 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407).
Facility means any mobile or fixed,
onshore or offshore building, structure,
installation, equipment, pipe, or
pipeline (other than a vessel or a public
vessel) used in oil well drilling
operations, oil production, oil refining,
oil storage, oil gathering, oil processing,
oil transfer, oil distribution, and waste
treatment, or in which oil is used, as
described in Appendix A to this part.
The boundaries of a facility depend on
several site-specific factors, including,
but not limited to, the ownership or
operation of buildings, structures, and
equipment on the same site and the
types of activity at the site.
Fish and wildlife and sensitive
environments means areas that may be
identified by their legal designation or
by evaluations of Area Committees (for
planning) or members of the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator’s spill response
structure (during responses). These
areas may include wetlands, National
and State parks, critical habitats for
endangered or threatened species,
wilderness and natural resource areas,
marine sanctuaries and estuarine

reserves, conservation areas, preserves,
wildlife areas, wildlife refuges, wild and
scenic rivers, recreational areas,
national forests, Federal and State lands
that are research national areas, heritage
program areas, land trust areas, and
historical and archaeological sites and
parks. These areas may also include
unique habitats such as aquaculture
sites and agricultural surface water
intakes, bird nesting areas, critical
biological resource areas, designated
migratory routes, and designated
seasonal habitats.
Injury means a measurable adverse
change, either long- or short-term, in the
chemical or physical quality or the
viability of a natural resource resulting
either directly or indirectly from
exposure to a discharge, or exposure to
a product of reactions resulting from a
discharge.
Maximum extent practicable means
within the limitations used to determine
oil spill planning resources and
response times for on-water recovery,
shoreline protection, and cleanup for
worst case discharges from onshore nontransportation-related facilities in
adverse weather. It includes the planned
capability to respond to a worst case
discharge in adverse weather, as
contained in a response plan that meets
the requirements in § 112.20 or in a
specific plan approved by the Regional
Administrator.
Navigable waters means the waters of
the United States, including the
territorial seas.
(1) The term includes:
(i) All waters that are currently used,
were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters subject
to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) All interstate waters, including
interstate wetlands;
(iii) All other waters such as intrastate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats,
sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds, the use, degradation, or
destruction of which could affect
interstate or foreign commerce
including any such waters:
(A) That are or could be used by
interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes; or
(B) From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or,
(C) That are or could be used for
industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce;
(iv) All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this section;

(v) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (1)(i) through (iv) of this
definition;
(vi) The territorial sea; and
(vii) Wetlands adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraph (1) of
this definition.
(2) Waste treatment systems,
including treatment ponds or lagoons
designed to meet the requirements of
the CWA (other than cooling ponds
which also meet the criteria of this
definition) are not waters of the United
States. Navigable waters do not include
prior converted cropland.
Notwithstanding the determination of
an area’s status as prior converted
cropland by any other Federal agency,
for the purposes of the CWA, the final
authority regarding CWA jurisdiction
remains with EPA.
Non-petroleum oil means oil of any
kind that is not petroleum-based,
including but not limited to: Fats, oils,
and greases of animal, fish, or marine
mammal origin; and vegetable oils,
including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits,
and kernels.
Offshore facility means any facility of
any kind (other than a vessel or public
vessel) located in, on, or under any of
the navigable waters of the United
States, and any facility of any kind that
is subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States and is located in, on, or
under any other waters.
Oil means oil of any kind or in any
form, including, but not limited to: fats,
oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine
mammal origin; vegetable oils,
including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or
kernels; and, other oils and greases,
including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge,
synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or
oil mixed with wastes other than
dredged spoil.
Oil Spill Removal Organization means
an entity that provides oil spill response
resources, and includes any for-profit or
not-for-profit contractor, cooperative, or
in-house response resources that have
been established in a geographic area to
provide required response resources.
Onshore facility means any facility of
any kind located in, on, or under any
land within the United States, other
than submerged lands.
Owner or operator means any person
owning or operating an onshore facility
or an offshore facility, and in the case
of any abandoned offshore facility, the
person who owned or operated or
maintained the facility immediately
prior to such abandonment.
Partially buried tank means a storage
container that is partially inserted or
constructed in the ground, but not
entirely below grade, and not

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
completely covered with earth, sand,
gravel, asphalt, or other material. A
partially buried tank is considered an
aboveground storage container for
purposes of this part.
Permanently closed means any
container or facility for which:
(1) All liquid and sludge has been
removed from each container and
connecting line; and
(2) All connecting lines and piping
have been disconnected from the
container and blanked off, all valves
(except for ventilation valves) have been
closed and locked, and conspicuous
signs have been posted on each
container stating that it is a permanently
closed container and noting the date of
closure.
Person includes an individual, firm,
corporation, association, or partnership.
Petroleum oil means petroleum in any
form, including but not limited to crude
oil, fuel oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil
refuse, and refined products.
Production facility means all
structures (including but not limited to
wells, platforms, or storage facilities),
piping (including but not limited to
flowlines or gathering lines), or
equipment (including but not limited to
workover equipment, separation
equipment, or auxiliary nontransportation-related equipment) used
in the production, extraction, recovery,
lifting, stabilization, separation or
treating of oil, or associated storage or
measurement, and located in a single
geographical oil or gas field operated by
a single operator.
Regional Administrator means the
Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in
and for the Region in which the facility
is located.
Repair means any work necessary to
maintain or restore a container to a
condition suitable for safe operation,
other than that necessary for ordinary,
day-to-day maintenance to maintain the
functional integrity of the container and
that does not weaken the container.
Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan; SPCC Plan, or
Plan means the document required by
§ 112.3 that details the equipment,
workforce, procedures, and steps to
prevent, control, and provide adequate
countermeasures to a discharge.
Storage capacity of a container means
the shell capacity of the container.
Transportation-related and nontransportation-related, as applied to an
onshore or offshore facility, are defined
in the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Secretary of Transportation
and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, dated

November 24, 1971, (Appendix A of this
part).
United States means the States, the
District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific
Island Governments.
Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum
oil or fat of vegetable origin, including
but not limited to oils and fats derived
from plant seeds, nuts, fruits, and
kernels.
Vessel means every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance
used, or capable of being used, as a
means of transportation on water, other
than a public vessel.
Wetlands means those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency or duration
sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include
playa lakes, swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas such as sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, prairie river
overflows, mudflats, and natural ponds.
Worst case discharge for an onshore
non-transportation-related facility
means the largest foreseeable discharge
in adverse weather conditions as
determined using the worksheets in
Appendix D to this part.
§ 112.3 Requirement to prepare and
implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan.

The owner or operator of an onshore
or offshore facility subject to this section
must prepare a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan
(hereafter ‘‘SPCC Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan),’’ in
writing, and in accordance with § 112.7,
and any other applicable section of this
part.
(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, on or before
February 17, 2003, and must implement
the amended Plan as soon as possible,
but not later than August 18, 2003. If
your onshore or offshore facility
becomes operational after August 16,
2002, through August 18, 2003, and
could reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you
must prepare a Plan on or before August
18, 2003, and fully implement it as soon
as possible, but not later than August
18, 2003.
(b) If you are the owner or operator of
an onshore or offshore facility that
becomes operational after August 18,

47143

2003, 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.
(c) If you are the owner or operator of
an onshore or offshore mobile facility,
such as an onshore drilling or workover
rig, barge mounted offshore drilling or
workover rig, or portable fueling facility,
you must prepare, implement, and
maintain a facility Plan as required by
this section. This provision does not
require that you prepare a new Plan
each time you move the facility to a new
site. The Plan may be a general plan.
When you move the mobile or portable
facility, you must locate and install it
using the discharge prevention practices
outlined in the Plan for the facility. You
may not operate a mobile or portable
facility subject to this part unless you
have implemented the Plan. The Plan is
applicable only while the facility is in
a fixed (non-transportation) operating
mode.
(d) A licensed Professional Engineer
must review and certify a Plan for it to
be effective to satisfy the requirements
of this part.
(1) By means of this certification the
Professional Engineer attests:
(i) That he is familiar with the
requirements of this part ;
(ii) That he or his agent has visited
and examined the facility;
(iii) That the Plan has been prepared
in accordance with good engineering
practice, including consideration of
applicable industry standards, and with
the requirements of this part;
(iv) That procedures for required
inspections and testing have been
established; and
(v) That the Plan is adequate for the
facility.
(2) Such certification shall in no way
relieve the owner or operator of a
facility of his duty to prepare and fully
implement such Plan in accordance
with the requirements of this part.
(e) If you are the owner or operator of
a facility for which a Plan is required
under this section, you must:
(1) Maintain a complete copy of the
Plan at the facility if the facility is
normally attended at least four hours
per day, or at the nearest field office if
the facility is not so attended, and
(2) Have the Plan available to the
Regional Administrator for on-site
review during normal working hours.
(f) Extension of time. (1) The Regional
Administrator may authorize an
extension of time for the preparation
and full implementation of a Plan, or
any amendment thereto, beyond the
time permitted for the preparation,
implementation, or amendment of a

47144

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Plan under this part, when he finds that
the owner or operator of a facility
subject to this section, cannot fully
comply with the requirements as a
result of either nonavailability of
qualified personnel, or delays in
construction or equipment delivery
beyond the control and without the fault
of such owner or operator or his agents
or employees.
(2) If you are an owner or operator
seeking an extension of time under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, you may
submit a written extension request to
the Regional Administrator. Your
request must include:
(i) A full explanation of the cause for
any such delay and the specific aspects
of the Plan affected by the delay;
(ii) A full discussion of actions being
taken or contemplated to minimize or
mitigate such delay; and
(iii) A proposed time schedule for the
implementation of any corrective
actions being taken or contemplated,
including interim dates for completion
of tests or studies, installation and
operation of any necessary equipment,
or other preventive measures. In
addition you may present additional
oral or written statements in support of
your extension request.
(3) The submission of a written
extension request under paragraph (f)(2)
of this section does not relieve you of
your obligation to comply with the
requirements of this part. The Regional
Administrator may request a copy of
your Plan to evaluate the extension
request. When the Regional
Administrator authorizes an extension
of time for particular equipment or other
specific aspects of the Plan, such
extension does not affect your obligation
to comply with the requirements related
to other equipment or other specific
aspects of the Plan for which the
Regional Administrator has not
expressly authorized an extension.
§ 112.4 Amendment of Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan by
Regional Administrator.

If you are the owner or operator of a
facility subject to this part, you must:
(a) Notwithstanding compliance with
§ 112.3, whenever your facility has
discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gallons
of oil in a single discharge as described
in § 112.1(b), or discharged 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, submit the following
information to the Regional
Administrator within 60 days from the
time the facility becomes subject to this
section:
(1) Name of the facility;

(2) Your name;
(3) Location of the facility;
(4) Maximum storage or handling
capacity of the facility and normal daily
throughput;
(5) Corrective action and
countermeasures you have taken,
including a description of equipment
repairs and replacements;
(6) An adequate description of the
facility, including maps, flow diagrams,
and topographical maps, as necessary;
(7) The cause of such discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), including a
failure analysis of the system or
subsystem in which the failure
occurred;
(8) Additional preventive measures
you have taken or contemplated to
minimize the possibility of recurrence;
and
(9) Such other information as the
Regional Administrator may reasonably
require pertinent to the Plan or
discharge.
(b) Take no action under this section
until it applies to your facility. This
section does not apply until the
expiration of the time permitted for the
initial preparation and implementation
of the Plan under § 112.3, but not
including any amendments to the Plan.
(c) Send to the appropriate agency or
agencies in charge of oil pollution
control activities in the State in which
the facility is located a complete copy
of all information you provided to the
Regional Administrator under paragraph
(a) of this section. Upon receipt of the
information such State agency or
agencies may conduct a review and
make recommendations to the Regional
Administrator as to further procedures,
methods, equipment, and other
requirements necessary to prevent and
to contain discharges from your facility.
(d) Amend your Plan, if after review
by the Regional Administrator of the
information you submit under
paragraph (a) of this section, or
submission of information to EPA by the
State agency under paragraph (c) of this
section, or after on-site review of your
Plan, the Regional Administrator
requires that you do so. The Regional
Administrator may require you to
amend your Plan if he finds that it does
not meet the requirements of this part or
that amendment is necessary to prevent
and contain discharges from your
facility.
(e) Act in accordance with this
paragraph when the Regional
Administrator proposes by certified
mail or by personal delivery that you
amend your SPCC Plan. If the owner or
operator is a corporation, he must also
notify by mail the registered agent of
such corporation, if any and if known,

in the State in which the facility is
located. The Regional Administrator
must specify the terms of such proposed
amendment. Within 30 days from
receipt of such notice, you may submit
written information, views, and
arguments on the proposed amendment.
After considering all relevant material
presented, the Regional Administrator
must either notify you of any
amendment required or rescind the
notice. You must amend your Plan as
required within 30 days after such
notice, unless the Regional
Administrator, for good cause, specifies
another effective date. You must
implement the amended Plan as soon as
possible, but not later than six months
after you amend your Plan, unless the
Regional Administrator specifies
another date.
(f) If you appeal a decision made by
the Regional Administrator requiring an
amendment to an SPCC Plan, send the
appeal to the EPA Administrator in
writing within 30 days of receipt of the
notice from the Regional Administrator
requiring the amendment under
paragraph (e) of this section. You must
send a complete copy of the appeal to
the Regional Administrator at the time
you make the appeal. The appeal must
contain a clear and concise statement of
the issues and points of fact in the case.
It may also contain additional
information from you, or from any other
person. The EPA Administrator may
request additional information from
you, or from any other person. The EPA
Administrator must render a decision
within 60 days of receiving the appeal
and must notify you of his decision.
§ 112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan by
owners or operators.

If you are the owner or operator of a
facility subject to this part, you must:
(a) Amend the SPCC Plan for your
facility in accordance with the general
requirements in § 112.7, and with any
specific section of this part applicable to
your facility, when there is a change in
the facility design, construction,
operation, or maintenance that
materially affects its potential for a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
Examples of changes that may require
amendment of the Plan include, but are
not limited to: commissioning or
decommissioning containers;
replacement, reconstruction, or
movement of containers; reconstruction,
replacement, or installation of piping
systems; construction or demolition that
might alter secondary containment
structures; changes of product or
service; or revision of standard
operation or maintenance procedures at

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
a facility. An amendment made under
this section must be prepared within six
months, and implemented as soon as
possible, but not later than six months
following preparation of the
amendment.
(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.’’
(c) Have a Professional Engineer
certify any technical amendment to your
Plan in accordance with § 112.3(d).
§ 112.6

[Reserved]

§ 112.7 General requirements for Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plans.

If you are the owner or operator of a
facility subject to this part you must
prepare a Plan in accordance with good
engineering practices. The Plan must
have the full approval of management at
a level of authority to commit the
necessary resources to fully implement
the Plan. You must prepare the Plan in
writing. If you do not follow the
sequence specified in this section for
the Plan, you must prepare an
equivalent Plan acceptable to the
Regional Administrator that meets all of
the applicable requirements listed in
this part, and you must supplement it
with a section cross-referencing the
location of requirements listed in this
part and the equivalent requirements in
the other prevention plan. If the Plan
calls for additional facilities or
procedures, methods, or equipment not
yet fully operational, you must discuss

these items in separate paragraphs, and
must explain separately the details of
installation and operational start-up. As
detailed elsewhere in this section, you
must also:
(a)(1) Include a discussion of your
facility’s conformance with the
requirements listed in this part.
(2) Comply with all applicable
requirements listed in this part. Your
Plan may deviate from the requirements
in paragraphs (g), (h)(2) and (3), and (i)
of this section and the requirements in
subparts B and C of this part, except the
secondary containment requirements in
paragraphs (c) and (h)(1) of this section,
and §§ 112.8(c)(2),112.8(c)(11),
112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2),
112.12(c)(11),112.13(c)(2), and
112.14(c), where applicable to a specific
facility, if you provide equivalent
environmental protection by some other
means of spill prevention, control, or
countermeasure. Where your Plan does
not conform to the applicable
requirements in paragraphs (g), (h)(2)
and (3), and (i) of this section, or the
requirements of subparts B and C of this
part, except the secondary containment
requirements in paragraphs (c) and
(h)(1) of this section, and §§ 112.8(c)(2),
112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c),
112.12(c)(2), 112.12(c)(11), 112.13(c)(2),
and 112.14(c), you must state the
reasons for nonconformance in your
Plan and describe in detail alternate
methods and how you will achieve
equivalent environmental protection. If
the Regional Administrator determines
that the measures described in your
Plan do not provide equivalent
environmental protection, he may
require that you amend your Plan,
following the procedures in § 112.4(d)
and (e).
(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 container.
The facility diagram must include
completely buried 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. You must also
address in your Plan:
(i) The type of oil in each container
and its storage capacity;
(ii) Discharge prevention measures
including procedures for routine
handling of products (loading,
unloading, and facility transfers, etc.);
(iii) Discharge or drainage controls
such as secondary containment around
containers and other structures,
equipment, and procedures for the
control of a discharge;

47145

(iv) Countermeasures for discharge
discovery, response, and cleanup (both
the facility’s capability and those that
might be required of a contractor);
(v) Methods of disposal of recovered
materials in accordance with applicable
legal requirements; and
(vi) Contact list and phone numbers
for the facility response coordinator,
National Response Center, cleanup
contractors with whom you have an
agreement for response, and all
appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies who must be contacted in case
of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(4) Unless you have submitted a
response plan under § 112.20, provide
information and procedures in your
Plan to enable a person reporting a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b) to
relate information on the exact address
or location and phone number of the
facility; the date and time of the
discharge, the type of material
discharged; estimates of the total
quantity discharged; estimates of the
quantity discharged as described in
§ 112.1(b); the source of the discharge; a
description of all affected media; the
cause of the discharge; any damages or
injuries caused by the discharge; actions
being used to stop, remove, and mitigate
the effects of the discharge; whether an
evacuation may be needed; and, the
names of individuals and/or
organizations who have also been
contacted.
(5) Unless you have submitted a
response plan under § 112.20, organize
portions of the Plan describing
procedures you will use when a
discharge occurs in a way that will
make them readily usable in an
emergency, and include appropriate
supporting material as appendices.
(b) Where experience indicates a
reasonable potential for equipment
failure (such as loading or unloading
equipment, tank overflow, rupture, or
leakage, or any other equipment known
to be a source of a discharge), include
in your Plan a prediction of the
direction, rate of flow, and total quantity
of oil which could be discharged from
the facility as a result of each type of
major equipment failure.
(c) Provide appropriate containment
and/or diversionary structures or
equipment to prevent a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). The entire
containment system, including walls
and floor, must be capable of containing
oil and must be constructed so that any
discharge from a primary containment
system, such as a tank or pipe, will not
escape the containment system before
cleanup occurs. At a minimum, you
must use one of the following
prevention systems or its equivalent:

47146

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

(1) For onshore facilities:
(i) Dikes, berms, or retaining walls
sufficiently impervious to contain oil;
(ii) Curbing;
(iii) Culverting, gutters, or other
drainage systems;
(iv) Weirs, booms, or other barriers;
(v) Spill diversion ponds;
(vi) Retention ponds; or
(vii) Sorbent materials.
(2) For offshore facilities:
(i) Curbing or drip pans; or
(ii) Sumps and collection systems.
(d) If you determine that the
installation of any of the structures or
pieces of equipment listed in paragraphs
(c) and (h)(1) of this section, and
§§ 112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2),
112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), 112.12(c)(11),
112.13(c)(2), and 112.14(c) to prevent a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b)
from any onshore or offshore facility is
not practicable, you must clearly
explain in your Plan why such measures
are not practicable; for bulk storage
containers, conduct both periodic
integrity testing of the containers and
periodic integrity and leak testing of the
valves and piping; and, unless you have
submitted a response plan under
§ 112.20, provide in your Plan the
following:
(1) An oil spill contingency plan
following the provisions of part 109 of
this chapter.
(2) A written commitment of
manpower, equipment, and materials
required to expeditiously control and
remove any quantity of oil discharged
that may be harmful.
(e) Inspections, tests, and records.
Conduct inspections and tests required
by this part in accordance with written
procedures that you or the certifying
engineer develop for the facility. You
must keep these written procedures and
a record of the inspections and tests,
signed by the appropriate supervisor or
inspector, with the SPCC Plan for a
period of three years. Records of
inspections and tests kept under usual
and customary business practices will
suffice for purposes of this paragraph.
(f) Personnel, training, and discharge
prevention procedures. (1) At a
minimum, train your oil-handling
personnel in the operation and
maintenance of equipment to prevent
discharges; discharge procedure
protocols; applicable pollution control
laws, rules, and regulations; general
facility operations; and, the contents of
the facility SPCC Plan.
(2) Designate a person at each
applicable facility who is accountable
for discharge prevention and who
reports to facility management.
(3) Schedule and conduct discharge
prevention briefings for your oil-

handling personnel at least once a year
to assure adequate understanding of the
SPCC Plan for that facility. Such
briefings must highlight and describe
known discharges as described in
§ 112.1(b) or failures, malfunctioning
components, and any recently
developed precautionary measures.
(g) Security (excluding oil production
facilities). (1) Fully fence each facility
handling, processing, or storing oil, and
lock and/or guard entrance gates when
the facility is not in production or is
unattended.
(2) Ensure that the master flow and
drain valves and any other valves
permitting direct outward flow of the
container’s contents to the surface have
adequate security measures so that they
remain in the closed position when in
non-operating or non-standby status.
(3) Lock the starter control on each oil
pump in the ‘‘off’’ position and locate it
at a site accessible only to authorized
personnel when the pump is in a nonoperating or non-standby status.
(4) Securely cap or blank-flange the
loading/unloading connections of oil
pipelines or facility piping when not in
service or when in standby service for
an extended time. This security practice
also applies to piping that is emptied of
liquid content either by draining or by
inert gas pressure.
(5) Provide facility lighting
commensurate with the type and
location of the facility that will assist in
the:
(i) Discovery of discharges occurring
during hours of darkness, both by
operating personnel, if present, and by
non-operating personnel (the general
public, local police, etc.); and
(ii) Prevention of discharges occurring
through acts of vandalism.
(h) Facility tank car and tank truck
loading/unloading rack (excluding
offshore facilities). (1) Where loading/
unloading area drainage does not flow
into a catchment basin or treatment
facility designed to handle discharges,
use a quick drainage system for tank car
or tank truck loading and unloading
areas. You must design any containment
system to hold at least the maximum
capacity of any single compartment of a
tank car or tank truck loaded or
unloaded at the facility.
(2) Provide an interlocked warning
light or physical barrier system, warning
signs, wheel chocks, or vehicle break
interlock system in loading/unloading
areas to prevent vehicles from departing
before complete disconnection of
flexible or fixed oil transfer lines.
(3) Prior to filling and departure of
any tank car or tank truck, closely
inspect for discharges the lowermost
drain and all outlets of such vehicles,

and if necessary, ensure that they are
tightened, adjusted, or replaced to
prevent liquid discharge while in
transit.
(i) If a field-constructed aboveground
container undergoes a repair, alteration,
reconstruction, or a change in service
that might affect the risk of a discharge
or failure due to brittle fracture or other
catastrophe, or has discharged oil or
failed due to brittle fracture failure or
other catastrophe, evaluate the container
for risk of discharge or failure due to
brittle fracture or other catastrophe, and
as necessary, take appropriate action.
(j) In addition to the minimal
prevention standards listed under this
section, include in your Plan a complete
discussion of conformance with the
applicable requirements and other
effective discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed in this
part or any applicable more stringent
State rules, regulations, and guidelines.
3. Part 112 is amended adding subpart
B consisting of §§ 112.8 through 112.11
to read as follows:
Subpart B—Requirements for Petroleum
Oils and Non-Petroleum Oils, Except Animal
Fats and Oils and Greases, and Fish and
Marine Mammal Oils; and Vegetable Oils
(Including Oils from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits,
and Kernels)
Sec.

112.8 Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore facilities (excluding production
facilities).
112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil production facilities.
112.10 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil drilling and workover
facilities.
112.11 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
offshore oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities.

Subpart B—Requirements for
Petroleum Oils and Non-Petroleum
Oils, Except Animal Fats and Oils and
Greases, and Fish and Marine Mammal
Oils; and Vegetable Oils (Including Oils
from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits, and Kernels)
§ 112.8 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore facilities (excluding production
facilities).

If you are the owner or operator of an
onshore facility (excluding a production
facility), you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements for
the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed in this
section.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Facility drainage. (1) Restrain
drainage from diked storage areas by
valves to prevent a discharge into the
drainage system or facility effluent
treatment system, except where facility
systems are designed to control such
discharge. You may empty diked areas
by pumps or ejectors; however, you
must manually activate these pumps or
ejectors and must inspect the condition
of the accumulation before starting, to
ensure no oil will be discharged.
(2) Use valves of manual, open-andclosed design, for the drainage of diked
areas. You may not use flapper-type
drain valves to drain diked areas. If your
facility drainage drains directly into a
watercourse and not into an on-site
wastewater treatment plant, you must
inspect and may drain uncontaminated
retained stormwater, as provided in
paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this
section.
(3) Design facility drainage systems
from undiked areas with a potential for
a discharge (such as where piping is
located outside containment walls or
where tank truck discharges may occur
outside the loading area) to flow into
ponds, lagoons, or catchment basins
designed to retain oil or return it to the
facility. You must not locate catchment
basins in areas subject to periodic
flooding.
(4) If facility drainage is not
engineered as in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, equip the final discharge of all
ditches inside the facility with a
diversion system that would, in the
event of an uncontrolled discharge,
retain oil in the facility.
(5) Where drainage waters are treated
in more than one treatment unit and
such treatment is continuous, and pump
transfer is needed, provide two ‘‘lift’’
pumps and permanently install at least
one of the pumps. Whatever techniques
you use, you must engineer facility
drainage systems to prevent a discharge
as described in § 112.1(b) in case there
is an equipment failure or human error
at the facility.
(c) Bulk storage containers. (1) Not
use a container for the storage of oil
unless its material and construction are
compatible with the material stored and
conditions of storage such as pressure
and temperature.
(2) Construct all bulk storage
container installations so that you
provide a secondary means of
containment for the entire capacity of
the largest single container and
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation. You must ensure that
diked areas are sufficiently impervious
to contain discharged oil. Dikes,
containment curbs, and pits are
commonly employed for this purpose.

You may also use an alternative system
consisting of a drainage trench
enclosure that must be arranged so that
any discharge will terminate and be
safely confined in a facility catchment
basin or holding pond.
(3) Not allow drainage of
uncontaminated rainwater from the
diked area into a storm drain or
discharge of an effluent into an open
watercourse, lake, or pond, bypassing
the facility treatment system unless you:
(i) Normally keep the bypass valve
sealed closed.
(ii) Inspect the retained rainwater to
ensure that its presence will not cause
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(iii) Open the bypass valve and reseal
it following drainage under responsible
supervision; and
(iv) Keep adequate records of such
events, for example, any records
required under permits issued in
accordance with §§ 122.41(j)(2) and
122.41(m)(3) of this chapter.
(4) Protect any completely buried
metallic storage tank installed on or
after January 10, 1974 from corrosion by
coatings or cathodic protection
compatible with local soil conditions.
You must regularly leak test such
completely buried metallic storage
tanks.
(5) Not use partially buried or
bunkered metallic tanks for the storage
of oil, unless you protect the buried
section of the tank from corrosion. You
must protect partially buried and
bunkered tanks from corrosion by
coatings or cathodic protection
compatible with local soil conditions.
(6) Test each aboveground container
for integrity on a regular schedule, and
whenever you make material repairs.
The frequency of and type of testing
must take into account container size
and design (such as floating roof, skidmounted, elevated, or partially buried).
You must combine visual inspection
with another testing technique such as
hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing,
ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions
testing, or another system of nondestructive shell testing. You must keep
comparison records and you must also
inspect the container’s supports and
foundations. In addition, you must
frequently inspect the outside of the
container for signs of deterioration,
discharges, or accumulation of oil inside
diked areas. Records of inspections and
tests kept under usual and customary
business practices will suffice for
purposes of this paragraph.
(7) Control leakage through defective
internal heating coils by monitoring the
steam return and exhaust lines for
contamination from internal heating
coils that discharge into an open

47147

watercourse, or pass the steam return or
exhaust lines through a settling tank,
skimmer, or other separation or
retention system.
(8) Engineer or update each container
installation in accordance with good
engineering practice to avoid
discharges. You must provide at least
one of the following devices:
(i) High liquid level alarms with an
audible or visual signal at a constantly
attended operation or surveillance
station. In smaller facilities an audible
air vent may suffice.
(ii) High liquid level pump cutoff
devices set to stop flow at a
predetermined container content level.
(iii) Direct audible or code signal
communication between the container
gauger and the pumping station.
(iv) A fast response system for
determining the liquid level of each
bulk storage container such as digital
computers, telepulse, or direct vision
gauges. If you use this alternative, a
person must be present to monitor
gauges and the overall filling of bulk
storage containers.
(v) You must regularly test liquid
level sensing devices to ensure proper
operation.
(9) Observe effluent treatment
facilities frequently enough to detect
possible system upsets that could cause
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(10) Promptly correct visible
discharges which result in a loss of oil
from the container, including but not
limited to seams, gaskets, piping,
pumps, valves, rivets, and bolts. You
must promptly remove any
accumulations of oil in diked areas.
(11) Position or locate mobile or
portable oil storage containers to
prevent a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). You must furnish a
secondary means of containment, such
as a dike or catchment basin, sufficient
to contain the capacity of the largest
single compartment or container with
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation.
(d) Facility transfer operations,
pumping, and facility process. (1)
Provide buried piping that is installed
or replaced on or after August 16, 2002,
with a protective wrapping and coating.
You must also cathodically protect such
buried piping installations or otherwise
satisfy the corrosion protection
standards for piping in part 280 of this
chapter or a State program approved
under part 281 of this chapter. If a
section of buried line is exposed for any
reason, you must carefully inspect it for
deterioration. If you find corrosion
damage, you must undertake additional
examination and corrective action as

47148

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

indicated by the magnitude of the
damage.
(2) Cap or blank-flange the terminal
connection at the transfer point and
mark it as to origin when piping is not
in service or is in standby service for an
extended time.
(3) Properly design pipe supports to
minimize abrasion and corrosion and
allow for expansion and contraction.
(4) Regularly inspect all aboveground
valves, piping, and appurtenances.
During the inspection you must assess
the general condition of items, such as
flange joints, expansion joints, valve
glands and bodies, catch pans, pipeline
supports, locking of valves, and metal
surfaces. You must also conduct
integrity and leak testing of buried
piping at the time of installation,
modification, construction, relocation,
or replacement.
(5) Warn all vehicles entering the
facility to be sure that no vehicle will
endanger aboveground piping or other
oil transfer operations.
§ 112.9 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil production facilities.

If you are the owner or operator of an
onshore production facility, you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements for
the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed under
this section.
(b) Oil production facility drainage.
(1) At tank batteries and separation and
treating areas where there is a
reasonable possibility of a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), close and seal at
all times drains of dikes or drains of
equivalent measures required under
§ 112.7(c)(1), except when draining
uncontaminated rainwater. Prior to
drainage, you must inspect the diked
area and take action as provided in
§ 112.8(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv). You must
remove accumulated oil on the
rainwater and return it to storage or
dispose of it in accordance with legally
approved methods.
(2) Inspect at regularly scheduled
intervals field drainage systems (such as
drainage ditches or road ditches), and
oil traps, sumps, or skimmers, for an
accumulation of oil that may have
resulted from any small discharge. You
must promptly remove any
accumulations of oil.
(c) Oil production facility bulk storage
containers. (1) Not use a container for
the storage of oil unless its material and
construction are compatible with the
material stored and the conditions of
storage.
(2) Provide all tank battery,
separation, and treating facility

installations with a secondary means of
containment for the entire capacity of
the largest single container and
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation. You must safely confine
drainage from undiked areas in a
catchment basin or holding pond.
(3) Periodically and upon a regular
schedule visually inspect each container
of oil for deterioration and maintenance
needs, including the foundation and
support of each container that is on or
above the surface of the ground.
(4) Engineer or update new and old
tank battery installations in accordance
with good engineering practice to
prevent discharges. You must provide at
least one of the following:
(i) Container capacity adequate to
assure that a container will not overfill
if a pumper/gauger is delayed in making
regularly scheduled rounds.
(ii) Overflow equalizing lines between
containers so that a full container can
overflow to an adjacent container.
(iii) Vacuum protection adequate to
prevent container collapse during a
pipeline run or other transfer of oil from
the container.
(iv) High level sensors to generate and
transmit an alarm signal to the computer
where the facility is subject to a
computer production control system.
(d) Facility transfer operations, oil
production facility. (1) Periodically and
upon a regular schedule inspect all
aboveground valves and piping
associated with transfer operations for
the general condition of flange joints,
valve glands and bodies, drip pans, pipe
supports, pumping well polish rod
stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge valves,
and other such items.
(2) Inspect saltwater (oil field brine)
disposal facilities often, particularly
following a sudden change in
atmospheric temperature, to detect
possible system upsets capable of
causing a discharge.
(3) Have a program of flowline
maintenance to prevent discharges from
each flowline.
§ 112.10 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil drilling and workover facilities.

If you are the owner or operator of an
onshore oil drilling and workover
facility, you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements
listed under § 112.7, and also meet the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed under
this section.
(b) Position or locate mobile drilling
or workover equipment so as to prevent
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(c) Provide catchment basins or
diversion structures to intercept and

contain discharges of fuel, crude oil, or
oily drilling fluids.
(d) Install a blowout prevention (BOP)
assembly and well control system before
drilling below any casing string or
during workover operations. The BOP
assembly and well control system must
be capable of controlling any well-head
pressure that may be encountered while
that BOP assembly and well control
system are on the well.
§ 112.11 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
offshore oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities.

If you are the owner or operator of an
offshore oil drilling, production, or
workover facility, you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements
listed under § 112.7, and also meet the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed under
this section.
(b) Use oil drainage collection
equipment to prevent and control small
oil discharges around pumps, glands,
valves, flanges, expansion joints, hoses,
drain lines, separators, treaters, tanks,
and associated equipment. You must
control and direct facility drains toward
a central collection sump to prevent the
facility from having a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). Where drains
and sumps are not practicable, you must
remove oil contained in collection
equipment as often as necessary to
prevent overflow.
(c) For facilities employing a sump
system, provide adequately sized sump
and drains and make available a spare
pump to remove liquid from the sump
and assure that oil does not escape. You
must employ a regularly scheduled
preventive maintenance inspection and
testing program to assure reliable
operation of the liquid removal system
and pump start-up device. Redundant
automatic sump pumps and control
devices may be required on some
installations.
(d) At facilities with areas where
separators and treaters are equipped
with dump valves which predominantly
fail in the closed position and where
pollution risk is high, specially equip
the facility to prevent the discharge of
oil. You must prevent the discharge of
oil by:
(1) Extending the flare line to a diked
area if the separator is near shore;
(2) Equipping the separator with a
high liquid level sensor that will
automatically shut in wells producing to
the separator; or
(3) Installing parallel redundant dump
valves.
(e) Equip atmospheric storage or surge
containers with high liquid level

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
sensing devices that activate an alarm or
control the flow, or otherwise prevent
discharges.
(f) Equip pressure containers with
high and low pressure sensing devices
that activate an alarm or control the
flow.
(g) Equip containers with suitable
corrosion protection.
(h) Prepare and maintain at the
facility a written procedure within the
Plan for inspecting and testing pollution
prevention equipment and systems.
(i) Conduct testing and inspection of
the pollution prevention equipment and
systems at the facility on a scheduled
periodic basis, commensurate with the
complexity, conditions, and
circumstances of the facility and any
other appropriate regulations. You must
use simulated discharges for testing and
inspecting human and equipment
pollution control and countermeasure
systems.
(j) Describe in detailed records surface
and subsurface well shut-in valves and
devices in use at the facility for each
well sufficiently to determine their
method of activation or control, such as
pressure differential, change in fluid or
flow conditions, combination of
pressure and flow, manual or remote
control mechanisms.
(k) Install a BOP assembly and well
control system during workover
operations and before drilling below any
casing string. The BOP assembly and
well control system must be capable of
controlling any well-head pressure that
may be encountered while the BOP
assembly and well control system are on
the well.
(l) Equip all manifolds (headers) with
check valves on individual flowlines.
(m) Equip the flowline with a high
pressure sensing device and shut-in
valve at the wellhead if the shut-in well
pressure is greater than the working
pressure of the flowline and manifold
valves up to and including the header
valves. Alternatively you may provide a
pressure relief system for flowlines.
(n) Protect all piping appurtenant to
the facility from corrosion, such as with
protective coatings or cathodic
protection.
(o) Adequately protect sub-marine
piping appurtenant to the facility
against environmental stresses and other
activities such as fishing operations.
(p) Maintain sub-marine piping
appurtenant to the facility in good
operating condition at all times. You
must periodically and according to a
schedule inspect or test such piping for
failures. You must document and keep
a record of such inspections or tests at
the facility.

4. Part 112 is amended by adding
subpart C consisting of §§ 112.12
through 112.15 to read as follows:
Subpart C—Requirements for Animal Fats
and Oils and Greases, and Fish and Marine
Mammal Oils; and for Vegetable Oils,
Including Oils from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits and
Kernels
Sec.

112.12 Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore facilities (excluding production
facilities).
112.13 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil production facilities.
112.14 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil drilling and workover
facilities.
112.15 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
offshore oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities.

Subpart C—Requirements for Animal
Fats and Oils and Greases, and Fish
and Marine Mammal Oils; and for
Vegetable Oils, including Oils from
Seeds, Nuts, Fruits, and Kernels.
§ 112.12 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore facilities (excluding production
facilities)

If you are the owner or operator of an
onshore facility (excluding a production
facility), you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements for
the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed in this
section.
(b) Facility drainage. (1) Restrain
drainage from diked storage areas by
valves to prevent a discharge into the
drainage system or facility effluent
treatment system, except where facility
systems are designed to control such
discharge. You may empty diked areas
by pumps or ejectors; however, you
must manually activate these pumps or
ejectors and must inspect the condition
of the accumulation before starting, to
ensure no oil will be discharged.
(2) Use valves of manual, open-andclosed design, for the drainage of diked
areas. You may not use flapper-type
drain valves to drain diked areas. If your
facility drainage drains directly into a
watercourse and not into an on-site
wastewater treatment plant, you must
inspect and may drain uncontaminated
retained stormwater, subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(ii),
(iii), and (iv) of this section.
(3) Design facility drainage systems
from undiked areas with a potential for
a discharge (such as where piping is
located outside containment walls or
where tank truck discharges may occur

47149

outside the loading area) to flow into
ponds, lagoons, or catchment basins
designed to retain oil or return it to the
facility. You must not locate catchment
basins in areas subject to periodic
flooding.
(4) If facility drainage is not
engineered as in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, equip the final discharge of all
ditches inside the facility with a
diversion system that would, in the
event of an uncontrolled discharge,
retain oil in the facility.
(5) Where drainage waters are treated
in more than one treatment unit and
such treatment is continuous, and pump
transfer is needed, provide two ‘‘lift’’
pumps and permanently install at least
one of the pumps. Whatever techniques
you use, you must engineer facility
drainage systems to prevent a discharge
as described in § 112.1(b) in case there
is an equipment failure or human error
at the facility.
(c) Bulk storage containers. (1) Not
use a container for the storage of oil
unless its material and construction are
compatible with the material stored and
conditions of storage such as pressure
and temperature.
(2) Construct all bulk storage
container installations so that you
provide a secondary means of
containment for the entire capacity of
the largest single container and
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation. You must ensure that
diked areas are sufficiently impervious
to contain discharged oil. Dikes,
containment curbs, and pits are
commonly employed for this purpose.
You may also use an alternative system
consisting of a drainage trench
enclosure that must be arranged so that
any discharge will terminate and be
safely confined in a facility catchment
basin or holding pond.
(3) Not allow drainage of
uncontaminated rainwater from the
diked area into a storm drain or
discharge of an effluent into an open
watercourse, lake, or pond, bypassing
the facility treatment system unless you:
(i) Normally keep the bypass valve
sealed closed.
(ii) Inspect the retained rainwater to
ensure that its presence will not cause
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(iii) Open the bypass valve and reseal
it following drainage under responsible
supervision; and
(iv) Keep adequate records of such
events, for example, any records
required under permits issued in
accordance with §§ 122.41(j)(2) and
122.41(m)(3) of this chapter.
(4) Protect any completely buried
metallic storage tank installed on or
after January 10, 1974 from corrosion by

47150

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

coatings or cathodic protection
compatible with local soil conditions.
You must regularly leak test such
completely buried metallic storage
tanks.
(5) Not use partially buried or
bunkered metallic tanks for the storage
of oil, unless you protect the buried
section of the tank from corrosion. You
must protect partially buried and
bunkered tanks from corrosion by
coatings or cathodic protection
compatible with local soil conditions.
(6) Test each aboveground container
for integrity on a regular schedule, and
whenever you make material repairs.
The frequency of and type of testing
must take into account container size
and design (such as floating roof, skidmounted, elevated, or partially buried).
You must combine visual inspection
with another testing technique such as
hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing,
ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions
testing, or another system of nondestructive shell testing. You must keep
comparison records and you must also
inspect the container’s supports and
foundations. In addition, you must
frequently inspect the outside of the
container for signs of deterioration,
discharges, or accumulation of oil inside
diked areas. Records of inspections and
tests kept under usual and customary
business practices will suffice for
purposes of this paragraph.
(7) Control leakage through defective
internal heating coils by monitoring the
steam return and exhaust lines for
contamination from internal heating
coils that discharge into an open
watercourse, or pass the steam return or
exhaust lines through a settling tank,
skimmer, or other separation or
retention system.
(8) Engineer or update each container
installation in accordance with good
engineering practice to avoid
discharges. You must provide at least
one of the following devices:
(i) High liquid level alarms with an
audible or visual signal at a constantly
attended operation or surveillance
station. In smaller facilities an audible
air vent may suffice.
(ii) High liquid level pump cutoff
devices set to stop flow at a
predetermined container content level.
(iii) Direct audible or code signal
communication between the container
gauger and the pumping station.
(iv) A fast response system for
determining the liquid level of each
bulk storage container such as digital
computers, telepulse, or direct vision
gauges. If you use this alternative, a
person must be present to monitor
gauges and the overall filling of bulk
storage containers.

(v) You must regularly test liquid
level sensing devices to ensure proper
operation.
(9) Observe effluent treatment
facilities frequently enough to detect
possible system upsets that could cause
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(10) Promptly correct visible
discharges which result in a loss of oil
from the container, including but not
limited to seams, gaskets, piping,
pumps, valves, rivets, and bolts. You
must promptly remove any
accumulations of oil in diked areas.
(11) Position or locate mobile or
portable oil storage containers to
prevent a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b). You must furnish a
secondary means of containment, such
as a dike or catchment basin, sufficient
to contain the capacity of the largest
single compartment or container with
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation.
(d) Facility transfer operations,
pumping, and facility process. (1)
Provide buried piping that is installed
or replaced on or after August 16, 2002,
with a protective wrapping and coating.
You must also cathodically protect such
buried piping installations or otherwise
satisfy the corrosion protection
standards for piping in part 280 of this
chapter or a State program approved
under part 281 of this chapter. If a
section of buried line is exposed for any
reason, you must carefully inspect it for
deterioration. If you find corrosion
damage, you must undertake additional
examination and corrective action as
indicated by the magnitude of the
damage.
(2) Cap or blank-flange the terminal
connection at the transfer point and
mark it as to origin when piping is not
in service or is in standby service for an
extended time.
(3) Properly design pipe supports to
minimize abrasion and corrosion and
allow for expansion and contraction.
(4) Regularly inspect all aboveground
valves, piping, and appurtenances.
During the inspection you must assess
the general condition of items, such as
flange joints, expansion joints, valve
glands and bodies, catch pans, pipeline
supports, locking of valves, and metal
surfaces. You must also conduct
integrity and leak testing of buried
piping at the time of installation,
modification, construction, relocation,
or replacement.
(5) Warn all vehicles entering the
facility to be sure that no vehicle will
endanger aboveground piping or other
oil transfer operations.

§ 112.13 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil production facilities.

If you are the owner or operator of an
onshore production facility, you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements for
the Plan listed under § 112.7, and the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed under
this section.
(b) Oil production facility drainage.
(1) At tank batteries and separation and
treating areas where there is a
reasonable possibility of a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b), close and seal at
all times drains of dikes or drains of
equivalent measures required under
§ 112.7(c)(1), except when draining
uncontaminated rainwater. Prior to
drainage, you must inspect the diked
area and take action as provided in
§ 112.12(c)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv). You
must remove accumulated oil on the
rainwater and return it to storage or
dispose of it in accordance with legally
approved methods.
(2) Inspect at regularly scheduled
intervals field drainage systems (such as
drainage ditches or road ditches), and
oil traps, sumps, or skimmers, for an
accumulation of oil that may have
resulted from any small discharge. You
must promptly remove any
accumulations of oil.
(c) Oil production facility bulk storage
containers. (1) Not use a container for
the storage of oil unless its material and
construction are compatible with the
material stored and the conditions of
storage.
(2) Provide all tank battery,
separation, and treating facility
installations with a secondary means of
containment for the entire capacity of
the largest single container and
sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation. You must safely confine
drainage from undiked areas in a
catchment basin or holding pond.
(3) Periodically and upon a regular
schedule visually inspect each container
of oil for deterioration and maintenance
needs, including the foundation and
support of each container that is on or
above the surface of the ground.
(4) Engineer or update new and old
tank battery installations in accordance
with good engineering practice to
prevent discharges. You must provide at
least one of the following:
(i) Container capacity adequate to
assure that a container will not overfill
if a pumper/gauger is delayed in making
regularly scheduled rounds.
(ii) Overflow equalizing lines between
containers so that a full container can
overflow to an adjacent container.
(iii) Vacuum protection adequate to
prevent container collapse during a

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
pipeline run or other transfer of oil from
the container.
(iv) High level sensors to generate and
transmit an alarm signal to the computer
where the facility is subject to a
computer production control system.
(d) Facility transfer operations, oil
production facility. (1) Periodically and
upon a regular schedule inspect all
aboveground valves and piping
associated with transfer operations for
the general condition of flange joints,
valve glands and bodies, drip pans, pipe
supports, pumping well polish rod
stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge valves,
and other such items.
(2) Inspect saltwater (oil field brine)
disposal facilities often, particularly
following a sudden change in
atmospheric temperature, to detect
possible system upsets capable of
causing a discharge.
(3) Have a program of flowline
maintenance to prevent discharges from
each flowline.
§ 112.14 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
onshore oil drilling and workover facilities.

If you are the owner or operator of an
onshore oil drilling and workover
facility, you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements
listed under § 112.7, and also meet the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed under
this section.
(b) Position or locate mobile drilling
or workover equipment so as to prevent
a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).
(c) Provide catchment basins or
diversion structures to intercept and
contain discharges of fuel, crude oil, or
oily drilling fluids.
(d) Install a blowout prevention (BOP)
assembly and well control system before
drilling below any casing string or
during workover operations. The BOP
assembly and well control system must
be capable of controlling any well-head
pressure that may be encountered while
that BOP assembly and well control
system are on the well.
§ 112.15 Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan requirements for
offshore oil drilling, production, or
workover facilities.

If you are the owner or operator of an
offshore oil drilling, production, or
workover facility, you must:
(a) Meet the general requirements
listed under § 112.7, and also meet the
specific discharge prevention and
containment procedures listed under
this section.
(b) Use oil drainage collection
equipment to prevent and control small
oil discharges around pumps, glands,
valves, flanges, expansion joints, hoses,

drain lines, separators, treaters, tanks,
and associated equipment. You must
control and direct facility drains toward
a central collection sump to prevent the
facility from having a discharge as
described in § 112.1(b). Where drains
and sumps are not practicable, you must
remove oil contained in collection
equipment as often as necessary to
prevent overflow.
(c) For facilities employing a sump
system, provide adequately sized sump
and drains and make available a spare
pump to remove liquid from the sump
and assure that oil does not escape. You
must employ a regularly scheduled
preventive maintenance inspection and
testing program to assure reliable
operation of the liquid removal system
and pump start-up device. Redundant
automatic sump pumps and control
devices may be required on some
installations.
(d) At facilities with areas where
separators and treaters are equipped
with dump valves which predominantly
fail in the closed position and where
pollution risk is high, specially equip
the facility to prevent the discharge of
oil. You must prevent the discharge of
oil by:
(1) Extending the flare line to a diked
area if the separator is near shore;
(2) Equipping the separator with a
high liquid level sensor that will
automatically shut in wells producing to
the separator; or
(3) Installing parallel redundant dump
valves.
(e) Equip atmospheric storage or surge
containers with high liquid level
sensing devices that activate an alarm or
control the flow, or otherwise prevent
discharges.
(f) Equip pressure containers with
high and low pressure sensing devices
that activate an alarm or control the
flow.
(g) Equip containers with suitable
corrosion protection.
(h) Prepare and maintain at the
facility a written procedure within the
Plan for inspecting and testing pollution
prevention equipment and systems.
(i) Conduct testing and inspection of
the pollution prevention equipment and
systems at the facility on a scheduled
periodic basis, commensurate with the
complexity, conditions, and
circumstances of the facility and any
other appropriate regulations. You must
use simulated discharges for testing and
inspecting human and equipment
pollution control and countermeasure
systems.
(j) Describe in detailed records surface
and subsurface well shut-in valves and
devices in use at the facility for each
well sufficiently to determine their

47151

method of activation or control, such as
pressure differential, change in fluid or
flow conditions, combination of
pressure and flow, manual or remote
control mechanisms.
(k) Install a BOP assembly and well
control system during workover
operations and before drilling below any
casing string. The BOP assembly and
well control system must be capable of
controlling any well-head pressure that
may be encountered while that BOP
assembly and well control system are on
the well.
(l) Equip all manifolds (headers) with
check valves on individual flowlines.
(m) Equip the flowline with a high
pressure sensing device and shut-in
valve at the wellhead if the shut-in well
pressure is greater than the working
pressure of the flowline and manifold
valves up to and including the header
valves. Alternatively you may provide a
pressure relief system for flowlines.
(n) Protect all piping appurtenant to
the facility from corrosion, such as with
protective coatings or cathodic
protection.
(o) Adequately protect sub-marine
piping appurtenant to the facility
against environmental stresses and other
activities such as fishing operations.
(p) Maintain sub-marine piping
appurtenant to the facility in good
operating condition at all times. You
must periodically and according to a
schedule inspect or test such piping for
failures. You must document and keep
a record of such inspections or tests at
the facility.
5. Part 112 is amended by designating
§§ 112.20 and 112.21 as subpart D, and
adding a subpart heading as follows:
Subpart D—Response Requirements
Sec.

112.20 Facility response plans.

112.21 Facility response training and drills/

exercises.

Subpart D—Response Requirements
6. Section 112.20 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(h) to read as follows:
§ 112.20

*

Facility response plans.

*
*
*
*
(h) A response plan shall follow the
format of the model facility-specific
response plan included in Appendix F
to this part, unless you have prepared
an equivalent response plan acceptable
to the Regional Administrator to meet
State or other Federal requirements. * *
*
*
*
*
*
*

47152

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix C—[Amended]
7. Appendix C of part 112 is amended
by:
a. Revising the first sentence of
section 2.1; and
b. Revising the title and first sentence
of section 2.4.
Appendix C to Part 112—Substantial
Harm Criteria
*

*

*

*

*

2.1 Non-Transportation-Related Facilities
With a Total Oil Storage Capacity Greater
Than or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where
Operations Include Over-Water Transfers of
Oil
A non-transportation-related facility with a
total oil storage capacity greater than or equal
to 42,000 gallons that transfers oil over water
to or from vessels must submit a response
plan to EPA. * * *

*

*

*

*

*

2.4 Proximity to Public Drinking Water
Intakes at Facilities with a Total Oil Storage
Capacity Greater than or Equal to 1 Million
Gallons
A facility with a total oil storage capacity
greater than or equal to 1 million gallons
must submit its response plan if it is located
at a distance such that a discharge from the
facility would shut down a public drinking
water intake, which is analogous to a public
water system as described at 40 CFR 143.2(c).
***

*

*

*

*

*

Appendix D—[Amended]
8. Appendix D of part 112 is amended
by revising footnote 2 to section A.2 of
Part A to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 112—Determination of a
Worst Case Discharge Planning Volume

*

*

*

*

*

Part A * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Secondary containment is described in 40
CFR part 112, subparts A through C.
Acceptable methods and structures for
containment are also given in 40 CFR
112.7(c)(1).

*

*

*

Plan. You must include the inspection
records for each container, secondary
containment, and item of response
equipment at the facility. You must crossreference the records of inspections of each
container and secondary containment
required by 40 CFR 112.7(e) in the facility
response plan. The inspection record of
response equipment is a new requirement in
this plan. Facility self-inspection requires
two-steps: (1) a checklist of things to inspect;
and (2) a method of recording the actual
inspection and its findings. You must note
the date of each inspection. You must keep
facility response plan records for five years.
You must keep SPCC records for three years.

Appendix F to Part 112—Facility-Specific
Response Plan

*

*

*

*

Appendix F—[Amended]
9. Appendix F of part 112 is amended
by:
a. Revising section 1.2.7;
b. Revising the second and last
sentences of section 1.4.3;

*

*

*

*

1.2.7 Current Operation
Briefly describe the facility’s operations
and include the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code.

*

*

*

*

*

1.4.3 Analysis of the Potential for an Oil
Discharge
* * * This analysis shall incorporate
factors such as oil discharge history,
horizontal range of a potential discharge, and
vulnerability to natural disaster, and shall, as
appropriate, incorporate other factors such as
tank age. * * * The owner or operator may
need to research the age of the tanks the oil
discharge history at the facility.

*
1.7.3

*

A.2 Secondary Containment—Multiple-Tank
Facilities

*

c. Revising paragraph (7) and the
undesignated paragraph and NOTE
following paragraph (7) in section 1.7.3;
d. Revising section 1.8.1;
e. Revising the first two sentences of
section 1.8.1.1. introductory text;
f. Revising the next to the last
sentence of section 1.8.1.3;
g. Revising the next to last sentence of
section 1.10.;
h. Revising paragraph (6) of section
2.1;
i. Remove the acronym ‘‘SIC’’ in
section 3.0, and add in alphabetical
order the acronym ‘‘NAICS’; and.
j. Remove the reference to ‘‘Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Code’’ in
Attachment F–1, General Information,
and add in in alphabetical order a
reference to ‘‘North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Code.’’
The revisions read as follows:

*

*

*

*

Containment and Drainage Planning

*

*

*

*

*

*

1.8.1.1.

*

*

*

Tank Inspection

The tank inspection checklist presented
below has been included as guidance during
inspections and monitoring. Similar
requirements exist in 40 CFR part 112,
subparts A through C. * * *

*

1.8.1.3

*

*

*

*

*

Secondary Containment Inspection

*

*

*

* * * Similar requirements exist in 40
CFR part 112, subparts A through C. * * *

*

*

1.10

Security

*

*

*

According to 40 CFR 112.7(g) facilities are
required to maintain a certain level of
security, as appropriate. * * *

*
2.1

*

*

*

*

*

General Information

*

*

*

*

(6) North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Code: Enter
the facility’s NAICS code as determined by
the Office of Management and Budget (this
information may be obtained from public
library resources.)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

(7) Other cleanup materials.
In addition, a facility owner or operator
must meet the inspection and monitoring
requirements for drainage contained in 40
CFR part 112, subparts A through C. A copy
of the containment and drainage plans that
are required in 40 CFR part 112, subparts A
through C may be inserted in this section,
including any diagrams in those plans.
Note: The general permit for stormwater
drainage may contain additional
requirements.

3.0

*

North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) Code:

*

*

*

*

1.8.1 Facility Self-Inspection
Under 40 CFR 112.7(e), you must include
the written procedures and records of
inspections for each facility in the SPCC

*

Acronyms

*

*

NAICS: North American Industrial
Classification System

*

*

*

*

*

Attachments to Appendix F
Attachment F–1—Response Plan Cover Sheet

*

*

*

*

*

General Information

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

[FR Doc. 02–16852 Filed 7–16–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P