3EPA
                          United States
                          Environmental Protection
                          Agency
                          Office of
                          Solid Waste and
                          Emerggncy 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
               Inside the Update

    EPA's Oil  Spill  Prevention and  Response
    Program
    Bioremediation Spill Response Plan
    Roundtable on the NCP
    Oil Spill Statistics
      Praise for the first two issues of the Update
 has been widespread and we are happy that the
 information has been helpful.  But please, let's
 hear your criticisms  and  suggestions, too!  We
 intend  to develop  the  Update in  format and
 content to meet your needs and interests. Our
 goal is to provide straightforward information to
 keep EPA Regional staff, our counterparts at
 other  Federal  agencies  and  departments,  the
 regulated community, and the general public up to
 date on the implementation  of this broad, new
 legislation.
      You'll notice that our feature article in this
 issue is an overview of the oil program at EPA
 Headquarters. We realize that the labyrinth of oil
 pollution-related statutes, regulations, and offices
 can be confusing.  This article will  help you to
 understand the implementation of oil-related
 activities and to see where implementation of the
 OPA fits into the larger picture of the entire EPA
 oil program.
      Please  send  us  your  comments and
 suggestions. Contact the editor, Phyllis Anderson,
 at (202) 382-5614,  or write to the Emergency
 Response Division (OS-210), U.S. Environmental
 Protection  Agency,  401 M Street,   S.W.,
 Washington, D.C. 20460.
                      Stephen Luftig, Director
            Emergency Response Division, 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 OPA, 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 10 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 ai 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-reguIaied 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

-------
                                                                               54OF91O04
 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

-------
  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 Slates. •
         OH Discharge Notifications by Source:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
                                        Rail

                                        Fixed Facility

                                        Off-shore

                                   I	j Marine

                                        Highway
                                   "'^ Pipeline
         Oil Discharge Notifications by State:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
                                  ^H California

                                       Illinois

                                  Y//\ New Jersey

                                  |    j New York

                                       Texas
                                       Oklahoma

                                       Other States
Source:  Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS).
United Stales
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

-------
 Bioremediadon 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,,  nonprofil
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-
                                   Coniinued 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 OPA
 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
[-"cderal government to address  "other spill mitigating
devices" in the NCP Product Schedule and mandates
expedited  decisionmaking  for  the  use  of chemical
LOU me measures. In addition, she noted, the Agency
is  reconsidering the current toxicity and  effectiveness
lest.s for dispersants under Subpart J of the  NCP. She
.ilso stated that EPA may develop effectiveness criteria
tor 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
i he U.S.,  Canada, which  has  established  effectiveness
criteria, has only six to eight accepted products on its
IM.

     Several  representatives   from  industry  asked
whether the provision on  expedited  decisionmaking
uould 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. •

-------
        EPA
                          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
               Inside the Update

    EPA's  Oil  Spill  Prevention and  Response
    Program
    Bioremediation Spill Response Plan
    Roundtable on the NCP
    Oil Spill Statistics
      Praise for the first two issues of the Update
  has been widespread and we are happy that the
  information has been helpful.  But please, let's
  hear your criticisms  and suggestions, too!  We
  intend to develop the  Update in  format  and
  content to meet your needs and interests. Our
  goal is to provide straightforward information to
  keep  EPA Regional  staff, our  counterparts at
  other  Federal agencies and  departments,  the
  regulated community, and the general public up to
  date on the implementation of this broad, new
  legislation.
      You'll notice that our feature article in this
  issue  is an overview  of the oil program at EPA
  Headquarters. We realize that the labyrinth of oil
  pollution-related statutes, regulations, and offices
  can be confusing.  . .This article will  help you to
  understand the implementation of oil-related
  activities and to see where implementation of the
  OPA fits into the larger picture of the entire EPA
  oil program.
      Please  send  us  your  comments  and
  suggestions. Contact the editor, Phyllis Anderson,
  at (202) 382-5614, or write to the  Emergency
  Response Division (OS-210), U.S. Environmental
  Protection  Agency,  401 M Street,   S.W.,
  Washington, D.C.  20460.
                      Stephen Luftig, Director
            Emergency Response Division, EPA
                            EPA'S OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND
                            RESPONSE PROGRAM
                               The Clean Water Act... On-Scene Coordinators
                          ... the National Response Center... SPCC Plans... ihe
                          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 OPA, 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 (BAG)
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 BAG  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 bioremediaiion
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 spilt 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

-------
  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. •
         OH Discharge Notifications by Source:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988 -1990
                                   M Rail

                                   LE3 Fixed Facility

                                   Y/A Ofl-shore

                                   I	I Marine

                                        Highway
                                   T^J
                                    '>-' Pipeline
         Oil Discharge Notifications by State:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
                                  ^^  California

                                  \~~\  Illinois

                                  Y//\  New Jersey

                                  |    |  New York

                                        Texas

                                        Oklahoma

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

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

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

 bioremediation spill response plan after Subpan 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 round table 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
he 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
(he 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
thai the discharge may provide an opportunity  for a
concurrent demonstration of dispersant use or open-
                                   Continutd on page 5
                                                                                                   June 1991

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

water bioremediaiion.  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 OPA
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 "Federating"  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 facilitv 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
iurn, 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
oi SPCC Plans  is not statutorily required.

Use of Dispersants  and  Other Counter-measures

     Ms.  Sahatjian noted that the OPA directs the
R-deral government to address "other spill mitigating
devices" in the  NCP Product Schedule and mandates
expedited  decisionmaking  for  the use  of chemical
aiuntermeasures.  to addition, she noted, the Agency
i.s reconsidering the current toxicity and  effectiveness
tests for dispersants under Subpart J of the  NCP. She
also stated that EPA may develop effectiveness criteria
lor  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
i he  U.S.,  Canada, which has  established  effectiveness
criteria, has only six to eight  accepted products on its
livl.

      Several  representatives  from  industry  asked
whether the provision  on  expedited  decisionmaking
uould 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
tin  preauthorization  and most  meeting participants
Mipportcd this  effort. •

-------