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. • ------- |