&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
                            AWBERC LIBRARY
                                U.S. EPA
                      26 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING
                     	CINCINNATI. OHIO  4S2C8
    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 to oil and hazardous substance
                                    discharges, including  directing   certain
                                    cleanups bv 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
      I he 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 States. •
         Oil Discharge Notifications by Source:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
                                        Rail

                                   Hi Fixed Facility

                                        Off-shore

                                        Marine

                                        Highway
                                  I"/".! Pipeline
         Oil Discharge Notifications by State:
         Spills Over 100,000 Gallons, 1988-1990
                                       California

                                       Illinois

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     •    Intentional releases of oil for research and
          development purposes;

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

      •    Use  of  dispersants  and other  chemical
          countermeasures.

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

Intentional Releases of Oil for R&D

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

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

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

-------