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. •
------- |