dEPA
                         United States
                         Environmental Protection
                         Agency
                          Office of
                          Solid Waste and
                          Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-1151
June 1991
Update  on  Implementation
of the  Oil  Pollution  Act of  1990
   Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
   Emergency Response Division      OS-210
                                                    Intermittent Bulletin
                                                    Volume 1 Number 3
              InsiAe the Update

                iiv Prevention and  Response

                     Response Plan'
                              of the Update
     &$» widespread m& wft ar« happy that the
 tgtol$rtlatott has been helpful.  -But please, let's
 '.Jwsar 3$pF pfUetettis and swig^sttons, too!  We
 itft^':.to &»8lop the Update In  format  and
 content to meet your needs and interests. Our
 j^'^"^ provide &t^gfttfm- €»jiW» the editor, Phyllis Antoson,
 at      -3«2-5614, or wri»  to the.
                       401 M Street*  S.W.,
  ivMft$4iiDa,vD.c wm.
      •':  ,             Stephen Luftig, Director
                              ~- • '   EPA
                           EPA'S OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND
                           RESPONSE PROGRAM
                              The Clean Water Act... On-Scene Coordinators
                          ... the National Response Center ... SPCC Plans ... the
                          oil sheen rule ... These are a few well-known phrases
                          that  refer to  parts of EPA's  program for oil spill
                          prevention and response.  How  do all the parts fit
                          together?   What's the  big picture?  This article
                          illustrates how the components of the national oil spill
                          program  -- such as EPA Headquarters offices,  EPA
                          Regional offices, and various statutes and regulations
                          - are linked.

                              The oil spill prevention and  response program at
                          EPA Headquarters was formed in response to statutory
                          requirements  and  implementing regulations.    As
                          regulations  on oil pollution  are promulgated  and
                          revised, the offices at EPA and  other Federal agencies
                          and departments responsible for implementation must
                          be  prepared  to   address   the  changes.     As
                          implementation  of the  Oil Pollution Act of  1990
                          (OPA) continues, the oil program at EPA is expected
                          to expand to meet its increased responsibilities.

                              Section 311 of the  Clean Water Act (CWA), as
                          amended by the OP A, provides the authority for  the
                          Federal  government's oil  spill  program.  Major
                          provisions of  section 311 authorize the Federal
                          government to:

                               •    Establish reporting triggers, or criteria, for
                                   notifying  the  Federal government  of
                                   discharges of  oil and hazardous substances
                                   into U.S. waters;

                               •    Respond to oil and hazardous substance
                                   discharges,  including directing  certain
                                   cleanups by responsible parties;
                                                        Continued on page 2
Printed on Recycled Paper
                                                                                        June 1991

-------
EPA's Oil Program (Continued)...

     •    Assess civil and criminal penalties;

     •    Establish regulations requiring procedures,
          methods,  and  equipment  to  prevent
          discharges;

     •    Re-publish the National Oil and Hazardous
          Substances  Pollution  Contingency  Plan
          (NCP), incorporating OPA changes;

     •    Establish Area Committees to prepare Area
          Contingency Plans; and

     •    Promulgate  regulations   that  require  a
          facility owner or operator to prepare a plan
          for responding to a worst-case discharge,
          and  to  a  substantial threat  of such  a
          discharge.

     Responsibility for implementing section  311  is
divided   between  EPA  and   the   Department   of
Transportation  (DOT) by Executive Order 11735.  In
general, DOT is responsible for regulations governing
vessels and  pipelines, while EPA is responsible for
fixed facilities.  Within DOT,  the U.S. Coast  Guard
(USCG) and the  Office  of  Pipeline  Safety have
responsibility for implementing section 311.

EPA's Oil Spill Program  Responsibilities

     EPA's oil spill program is implemented by several
offices at Headquarters and  in the 10 EPA Regional
offices.  Primary responsibility for development of EPA
national policy,  as  well  as oversight  of Regional
activities, rests  with the  Office of  Solid Waste and
Emergency  Response (OSWER).   The Emergency
Response Division (ERD) of the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response within OSWER is in charge of
regulatory development and guidance for implementing
the CWA oil spill provisions.  The majority  of the
OPA provisions for which EPA has responsibility will
be implemented by ERD.

     In  addition  to ERD, other  EPA offices are
responsible  for  various  aspects of  oil  pollution
prevention and mitigation. The Office of Underground
Storage  Tanks, also within  OSWER,  implements
regulations that apply to underground tanks containing
petroleum.  The Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office is  involved in local emergency
planning activities.  Outside of OSWER, the  Office of
Water is involved in coordinating  damage assessments
for the  Exxon  Valdez  oil  spill as a part  of water
restoration  efforts.   The  Office of Research and
Development conducts oil-related research.
     The  On-Scene Coordinators  in  the 10  EPA
Regional offices form the "front line" of the Agency's
oil spill program.  They respond to spills of oil in most
inland  areas (the  USCG responds to spills in coastal
and some inland  port areas) and  inspect  facilities to
determine  compliance  with   the  Oil  Pollution
Prevention  regulation,  also  known as  the  Spill
Prevention,  Control, and  Countermeasures  (SPCC)
regulation.

EPA Oil Regulations

     Oil  pollution  prevention,   notification,   and
response are addressed in  three separate  regulations,
each discussed below.

     The  SPCC  regulation (40  CFR Part 112)  is
perhaps the most wide-reaching  oil spill regulation
implemented by EPA. This regulation applies to non-
transportation-related   facilities   that    store   oil
aboveground or underground.   Each oil  production,
refining,  and storage facility covered by  the  SPCC
regulation  must  prepare  a plan  detailing  its spill
prevention and control  measures.  EPA Regional staff
inspect hundreds of SPCC-regulated facilities each year.
The Agency reviews SPCC Plans, determines violations,
negotiates compliance matters with facility owners and
operators,  and enforces  the  requirements  of the
regulation.

     Revisions to the SPCC regulation are currently
being developed.  The proposed revisions will consider
the recommendations of the SPCC Task Force, which
analyzed   the  program  and  issued  findings  and
recommendations in May 1988. The proposed SPCC
revisions are expected to be published later this year.

     The  Discharge of Oil regulation (40 CFR Part
110) requires notification of certain oil spills.  Under
this broad regulation, often called  the "oil sheen" rule,
the person in charge of a facility or vessel must notify
the National Response Center whenever an oil spill
causes  a  discoloration  or  sheen on the surface of a
body of water or violates water quality standards.

     The  NCP   (40 CFR Part  300)  implements
important  aspects  of  both  the  Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (also known as Superfund) and section 311 of the
CWA.  Procedures  for quick-response and long-term
clean-up actions are discussed in the NCP, which serves
as the  Federal government's blueprint for evaluating
and  responding  to  releases of  oil and hazardous
substances.  The OPA mandates that the NCP be
revised to address a number of new issues, including
area contingency planning and response procedures for
                                   Continued on page 3
                                                                                                  June 1991

-------
EPA's Oil Program (Continued)...

"worst case  discharges"  and  "substantial threats  to
health  or welfare."    The  OPA also  added  the
requirement that spill-mitigating devices and substances
be  addressed in  the NCP Product Schedule where
appropriate.  The Product Schedule currently is a list
of dispersants and other chemicals that may be used in
spill  mitigation.   ERD  has  formed  workgroups  to
address  revisions to the NCP  in general  and  the
Product  Schedule specifically.

The Future of EPA's Oil Spill Program

      Activities   underway   to   recognize   the
environmental  significance  of preventing oil  spills
include  providing  the  funding  to  implement  the
programs already in place, coordinating  with agencies
and departments responsible for other aspects of oil
pollution, promulgating additional regulations, issuing
guidance,  and   conducting   training.    Currently,
regulations mandated by the OPA are being developed.
(See  the February  1991 issue of the Update  for an
overview of the regulations required by the OPA.)

      To help ensure more  effective  prevention and
response in the future, EPA's oil spill  program will
emphasize  rapid  response  with  the  appropriate
equipment   and   personnel,  and  research  and
development  of  new   prevention  and  mitigation
technologies, such  as bioremediation.   The  future
program will build  on the foundations of the current
program  by  incorporating the recommendations  of
studies (such as the October 1990 Oil Spill Contingency
Planning Report to the  President), the concerns of
Congress,  and   lessons  drawn  from  EPA's  own
implementation experience. •
  BIOREMEDIATION SPILL RESPONSE PLAN
  BEING DEVELOPED FOR REGION 6
     The Bioremediation Action Committee  (BAC)
was  created  last year  at  the  direction  of EPA
Administrator  William  K.  Reilly to promote  the
development of biotechnology as a possible solution to
environmental problems. At its first meeting in June
1990, the BAC identified oil spill response as an area
where  biotechnology  appeared  to  offer significant
potential.      The   Subcommittee   on   National
Bioremediation Spill Response was  formed  with the
long-term goal of developing a national bioremediation
response capability  for oil  spills.    Recently,  the
Subcommittee began work on a pilot bioremediation
spill response plan with Region 6.
     Bioremediation,  the  use  of microorganisms to
treat wastes, is actually an old practice.  Bacteria have
been used to process sewage in municipal wastewater
treatment plants for nearly a century. Industrial plants,
such as  food  processors,  also  have used  bacteria
increasingly  over the last 20 years to  reduce the
amount of organic pollutants they release into rivers or
sewage systems.  Recently, after  the Exxon Valdez
incident in March 1989, bioremediation was used to
treat shorelines after a major oil spill. In an effort to
stimulate native microorganisms that degrade crude oil
compounds,  fertilizers were applied to  some  oiled
beaches in  Alaska  as part of  a field  experiment.
Although preliminary results indicate that the natural
degradation  processes were enhanced, it is difficult to
determine precisely how much enhancement occurred.

     One task of  the  Subcommittee  on  National
Bioremediation Spill Response is to develop guidance
to assist  Regional Response Teams in determining
whether and how to integrate bioremediation into their
oil spill contingency planning  framework.  The first
phase of that task was completed earlier this year when
the Subcommittee drafted its Interim Guidelines for
Preparing Bioremediation Spill Response Plans.  The
interim guidelines will provide a general model  from
which site-specific plans for the use of bioremediation
can be prepared. Designed to promote comprehensive
contingency  planning, the guidelines  will address
everything from feasibility assessment and  response
logistics to post-treatment  monitoring.

     The next phase of the Subcommittee's work, the
use of the interim  guidelines in a pilot project to
develop a site-specific bioremediation spill response
plan, began  in March. The kick-off meeting for the
pilot project took place  in Austin,  Texas, and was
hosted by the Texas Water Commission.  In attendance
were 21 members from several organizations, including
EPA, the Texas Water Commission, the Texas General
Land  Office, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,  the  Marine   Spill   Response
Corporation, the U.S. Coast  Guard, and the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department. Their purpose was to
begin preparing a plan  for using bioremediation in
response to oil spills in Region 6.

     Patrick Roques of the Texas Water Commission
opened the  meeting with a  presentation on the
experimental use of bioremediation in response to the
Mega Borg and Apex oil spills, both of which occurred
along the  Texas coast in  1990.  Mr. Roques stressed
that the lack of guidance on the use of bioremediation
forced response officials to improvise, underscoring the
need for bioremediation spill response planning.  The
group   reached   a   consensus   to   model   the
                                  Continued on page 4
                                                                                                  June 1991

-------
Bioremediation Spill Response (Continued)...

bioremediation spill response plan after Subpart H of
the Regional  Contingency Plan for Region 6,  which
governs the use of dispersants. The interim guidelines
will  be  used  to  identify  the issues  that  must  be
addressed in a bioremediation response plan.

     After a structure for the plan was agreed  upon,
the group turned  its  attention to the  choice of a
location  on which to  focus  the  group's first data
gathering  efforts.   After  considerable  discussion,
Galveston Bay, Texas was chosen. In  addition to its
large volume of petroleum product traffic, Galveston
Bay was deemed  an appropriate  choice  because its
environment is considered to be representative  of the
Texas  coast in general.   Eventually,  data will  be
collected for other locations within Region 6 as well.

     The remainder of the conference was devoted to
beginning the preparation  of the spill  response plan
itself.  Each participant agreed to concentrate on a
particular issue within  the plan.  One member, for
example, will gather data on the microbial population
of Galveston  Bay to determine whether indigenous
bacteria   are   capable   of   degrading  petroleum
compounds.    This  information  is   essential  to
determining   whether  bioremediation   efforts   in
Galveston Bay should focus on the use  of nutrients to
enhance indigenous populations, as occurred in Alaska,
or on the introduction  of  cultured  microbes,  as
occurred in the Mega Borg and Apex spills. •
  ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON THE
  NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
     As part of the San Diego Oil Spill Conference,
EPA sponsored a roundtable discussion on the OPA-
mandated revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). About
25 representatives   from   industry,   nonprofit
organizations, state and local governments, and other
Federal agencies learned about the Agency's progress
to date and contributed their perspectives regarding the
OPA's new prevention and response provisions.  The
topics covered during the meeting included:

     •     Intentional releases of oil for research and
           development purposes;

     •     Definition of "substantial threat,"  which
           triggers mandatory Federal direction of an
           oil spill response;
     •    Definition of "worst case  discharge" for
          facility response plans; and

     •    Use  of  dispersants and other  chemical
          countermeasures.

     Participating in the discussions from EPA were
Stephen Luftig, Director of the Emergency Response
Division; John Riley, Chief of the Response Standards
and Criteria Branch; John  Cunningham, Chief of the
Oil Pollution Response and Abatement Section; and
Elizabeth Zeller,   Chief  of  the  Response  Policy,
Guidance and Support Section. EPA staffers  Bobbie
Lively-Diebold  and Karen  Sahatjian, who each chair
one of the Agency's 10 workgroups on OPA regulatory
initiatives, also took part in the discussion.

Intentional Releases of Oil for R&D

     Mr.  Cunningham  reported   that  among  the
regulatory initiatives being discussed  by  EPA  were
changes to the guidelines originally developed in 1970
on the intentional release  of oil for R&D purposes.
He stated that because of a lack of applications for a
permit to intentionally release oil, the Agency was
uncertain  whether  any  revisions  were  required.
Industry representatives stated that the current process
was  costly  and time-consuming  and  discouraged
applications.  In addition, the perception exists within
industry that EPA would  not approve any requests
submitted, especially requests for discharges of amounts
large enough to provide useful data. It was suggested
that EPA adopt a system such as Norway's, in which a
single approval is granted for multiple  discharges over
several years.  In this way, the costs to industry and
government of preparing and reviewing an application
would be spread over several tests, and industry would
be assured that an extended R&D program would not
face recurring regulatory hurdles.

     There was general agreement that intentional
discharges were necessary for R&D purposes.  This
view was based on the belief that accidental spills are
insufficient for R&D because pre-spill, baseline data on
the sites of such spills  were generally inadequate for
drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of  tests.

     Industry representatives generally agreed that the
1,000-gallon  limit  on   the size  of  an intentional
discharge in the current guidelines should be raised to
improve the usefulness of any test data gathered.  In
fact,  it was reported that the  Minerals Management
Service is proposing to conduct an in-situ burn test of
25,000  to 50,000 gallons in the summer of 1992 and
that the discharge may provide an opportunity for  a
concurrent demonstration of dispersant use or  open-
                                  Continued on page 5
                                                                                                   June 1991

-------
Roundtable Discussion  (Continued)...

water bioremediation.   Finally,  the issues of liability
and  response to  intentional spills were discussed;
Mr. Cunningham   commented   that   the   current
requirements on liability and response procedures in
the NCP were just as suitable  for a response to an
intentional  discharge as they were for an accidental
spill.

Definition of Substantial Threat

     Section 311(c) of the CWA, as amended by OP A
section 4201(a), mandates Federal direction of the spill
response when the  spill poses "a substantial threat to
the public health or welfare of the United States." Ms.
Zeller reported that, although  Congress  mentioned
several  spills as  examples  of  events  representing
substantial  threats, the term  was not   specifically
defined in the legislation. The Agency is considering
what factors should be  used to  make  this regulatory
determination. Jack Gould of the American Petroleum
Institute agreed that factors other than the quantity
discharged must be considered, but emphasized the
need to include only factors reflecting the public safety
or ecological risks  involved - not political or public
reaction to  a spill.  Ivan Lithous of the U.S. Coast
Guard announced that it was establishing criteria for
determining the risks posed by spills  in  the  Coastal
Zone for which it is responsible.  Ms. Zeller stated that
her workgroup has discussed providing the Federal On-
Scene Coordinator  (OSC) with a list of factors for the
OSC to consider on a case-by-case basis.

     Ms. Zeller also explained  that direction of the
spill response  by  the Federal  government  was  not
necessarily  the same as "Federalizing" the  spill,  in
which the government pays  for  the cleanup and  later
seeks to recover its costs.  Under the OPA, the OSC
must direct  the response to a spill posing a substantial
threat regardless of who is paying for the cleanup.

Definition of Worst Case Discharge

     Under the OPA, facilities and vessels are required
to prepare  response plans  addressing, among other
things, a "worst case discharge."  Ms.  Lively-Diebold
explained that Congress defined  a worst case discharge
for a vessel as discharge of the entire cargo during
adverse weather.  For facilities, a worst case discharge
is "the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather
conditions."   Ms.   Lively-Diebold  stated  that   her
workgroup was debating several alternative approaches
to quantifying  the  largest  foreseeable discharge for
onshore  fixed facilities.  Several  industry  participants
stated that a definition referring  to the entire contents
of the facility was unrealistic, and that a reference to
some lesser quantity was needed.  It was also noted
that for some facilities, such as pipelines, the entire
contents of the facility might be difficult to define.

     Other participants noted that use of the phrase
"adverse  weather  conditions"  would   complicate
development of response plans because  mechanical
recovery may not be  feasible under  such conditions.
Ms. Lively-Diebold noted that the OPA requires a plan
for responding  to  a  worst case discharge  to  the
"maximum extent practicable."  This qualification may
help define the amount of response equipment that a
facility should have available in the event of a spill.
Industry representatives  suggested that  the Agency
consider the costs  of choosing a definition  that  is
significantly more stringent than  the  level  to which
industry  is   currently  developing  its  response
capabilities.

     Ms.  Lively-Diebold further explained that  the
Agency intends to develop a set of factors to determine
which onshore fixed facilities must submit plans and, in
turn, which plans must  be reviewed  and approved.
Mr. Luftig noted that  the OPA requires  the Federal
Government to review  response  plans  for  certain
facilities and prohibits those facilities from operating
without an approved response plan. In contrast, review
of SPCC Plans is not statutorily required.

Use of Dispersants and Other Countermeasures

     Ms.  Sahatjian noted that the OPA directs  the
Federal government to address  "other spill mitigating
devices" in the  NCP Product Schedule and mandates
expedited  decisionmaking  for  the use of  chemical
countermeasures. In addition, she noted,  the Agency
is  reconsidering the current toxicity and effectiveness
tests for dispersants under Subpart J of the NCP. She
also stated that EPA may develop effectiveness criteria
for products on the Product  Schedule,  which may
reduce  the number of  products  on the schedule.
Whereas over 90 products currently are on the list in
the U.S., Canada, which  has established effectiveness
criteria, has only six to eight accepted products on its
list.

     Several representatives  from   industry  asked
whether the  provision on  expedited decisionmaking
would lead to preauthorization of dispersant use in the
NCP.   Preauthorization would  allow members  of
Regional  Response Teams (RRTs)  to   approve  in
advance the use of certain dispersants in specific areas.
Mr. Riley noted that many RRTs currently are working
on  preauthorization and most meeting  participants
supported this effort. •

-------
  OIL SPILL STATISTICS:  CHARACTERISTICS
  OF THE LARGEST SPILLS
     Nearly 20,000 oil discharges to U.S. waters were
reported last year, up 14 percent from 1989.  Most of
these spills were less than  1,000 gallons in  size and
resulted in limited damage to the environment.

     However, each year there are a number  of major
spills of over 100,000 gallons; 101 such discharges were
reported from 1988 to 1990.  Relatively few in number
but often catastrophic in impact, these largest spills
highlight response problems and grab headlines.  The
exhibits  below,  using data  from the Emergency
Response   Notification  System,  illustrate  some
characteristics of these large releases.
                            The  distribution  of oil discharges greater than
                       100,000 gallons  in size by source  reveals some
                       surprising facts.  Although public and media attention
                       has focused on discharges from vessels, these discharges
                       actually accounted for less than one-fourth of all major
                       spills.  In contrast, fixed facilities  accounted for 43
                       percent of all large discharges  reported.   Pipelines
                       accounted for the next biggest share (30  percent) of
                       large spill reports.

                            Of the states  in which discharges over 100,000
                       gallons were  reported, the most occurred in the oil-
                       producing states of California and Texas (18 and  15,
                       respectively).  Overall, discharges in quantities greater
                       than 100,000 gallons occurred in more than one-half of
                       the States. •
         Oil Discharge Notifications by  Source:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
                                        Rail
....\..l Fixed Facility

     Off-shore

     Marine

     Highway

     Pipeline
                                Oil Discharge Notifications by State:
                                Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
California

Illinois

New Jersey
                                                                                            |    |  New York
                                                                                                  Texas
                                                                                                  Other States
Source:  Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS).
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (OS-120)
Washington, DC 20460

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
                                                                                         First-Class Mail
                                                                                         Postage and Fees Paid
                                                                                         EPA
                                                                                         Permit No. G-35

-------