UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PLANNING OCTOBER 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT DRAFT FINAL REPORT
AGENCY WASHINGTON DC 20460
&EPA Environmental Emergency
Response
Volume III Legal Authority
Interagency
Cooperation
EPA Activities
EPA Public Meeting
PREPARED FOR THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY - OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
FEDERAL LEGAL AUTHORITY
Prepared by the Task Force
on Environmental Emergencies
-------
VOLUME III
I. LEGAL AUTHORITIES
II. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
III. EPA ACTIVITIES
IV. EPA PUBLIC MEETING
Prepared by the EPA Task Force
on Environmental Emergencies
-------
FEDERAL LEGAL AUTHORITY
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. OVERVIEW I- I
II. AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES TO TAKE
ACTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES 1-3
A. Direct Action . 1-3
B. Authority to Take Emergency Action
in the Form of Administrative or
Judicial Orders . 1-11
III. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN
ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES 1-16
A. Recovery of Federal Expenditures ( 1-16
B. Funding or Recovery of State or
Local Expenses in Connection with
Environmental Emergencies 1-19
C. Reimbursement of Private Expenses
or Losses in Connection with
Environmental Emergencies 1-22
D. Pending Legislation 1-23
IV. EPA AUTHORITY TO PREVENT AND DETER
ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES 1-26
A. Prevention 1-26
B. Enforcement 1-28
V. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS 1-31
A. Direct Federal Actions 1-31
B. Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred
in Environmental Emergencies 1-32
C. EPA Authority to Prevent and Deter
Environmental Emergencies 1-33,
I-iii
-------
FEDERAL LEGAL AUTHORITY
This report describes those federal statutes and regula-
tions which are pertinent to an analysis of federal environ-
mental emergency response capability. The report is divided
into an overview (Part I), a summary (Part V), and three main
parts. Part II describes legal authorities for direct federal
actions in environmental emergencies. Part III describes
provisions in federal law for reimbursement of federal, state
and local government and private expenses incurred in such
emergencies. Part IV describes EPA authority to prevent
environmental emergencies and to penalize those responsible.
I. OVERVIEW
With regard to federal actions in emergencies two
statutory provisions can play a dominant role. These are
§§311 and 504(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 311
authorizes the federal government to respond to discharges
of substances into the environment and to clean them up or
take other mitigating action. The section contains provisions
for notifying the federal government of such discharges and
paying for response activities out of a special contingency
fund. Section 311 is, however, limited in two ways. It
applies only to discharges of oil and of specifically
designated hazardous substances and it is limited to
discharges to the surfa'ce water or adjoining shorelines.
Until recently no hazardous substances had been designated.
However, recently 271 substances were formally designated as
hazardous._V Legal authority to overcome the limitations of
Section 311 was provided in 1977 when §504(b) was added to
the CWA. Section 504(b) authorizes federal emergency response
to any release of a material to the environment which
endangers public health or welfare. It, too, has a contingency
fund. However, unlike §311, which has been on the books since
1970, no formal regulations or contingency plans have been
issued to implement §504(b). Also, no money has been
appropriated for the contingency fund.
A number of other legal authorities exist for federal
environmental emergency response. These include provisions
of the Safe Drinking Water Act concerning threats to drinking
*/ See note 6a, infra, for a description of recent litigation
pertinent to this designation regulation.
1-1
-------
water supplies/ and a number of statutes authorizing oil spill
removal. Important authority exists in the Federal Disaster
Relief Act for responses by various federal agencies to major
emergencies and disasters. In addition, a number of statutes
authorize the federal government to issue emergency orders or
regulations and/or to seek emergency court orders to prevent
or abate environmental disasters.
Federal expenses incurred in responding to environmental
emergencies are often recoverable from those responsible for
the incident. Actions taken under CWA §311 are the subject
of elaborate provisions which provide that, subject to certain
defenses and limitations, response costs are recoverable from
the discharger. Similarly, costs of response to emergencies
under §504(b) that are caused by violations of §311 and other
provisions of the Clean Water Act are recoverable from the
violator. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act and Deepwater Ports
Act also provide for recovery of oil cleanup costs.
States which respond to spills of oil and designated
hazardous substances can be reimbursed out of the §311 con-
tingency fund. In addition, funds to assist States to develop
and operate response programs are available under CWA §106 and
money to protect drinking water supplies in an emergency is
available under §1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. States
may also obtain funds under the Federal Disaster Relief Act
and the Deepwater Ports and Trans-Alaska Pipeline Acts under
certain circumstances.
Private persons have some rights to reimbursement for
losses caused by oil spills under the Deepwater Ports Act and
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act. Pending "superfund" and other
similar legislation would greatly expand these rights. In
some limited cases dischargers who clean up their own spills
can be reimbursed for the cost under CWA §311(i).
1-2
-------
II. AUTHORITY OF- FEDERAL AGENCIES TO TAKE ACTION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES
A. Direct Action
1. CWA Section 504(b)
I/
Section 504(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was added
to the Act by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217). It
is by far the broadest emergency response authority. Section
504(b)(l) provides as follows:
(b)(l) The Administrator is authorized to provide
assistance in emergencies caused by the release
into the environment of any pollutant or other
contaminant including, but not limited to, those
which present, or may reasonably be anticipated to
present, an imminent and substantial danger to the
public health or welfare.
What is most noteworthy about this language is the phrase
"release into the environment of any pollutant or other
contaminant." Unlike other statutory provisions dealing
with emergencies, this is not limited to any particular
method of release, receiving medium, or particular class
of substances or materials. It covers any environmental
emergency so long as the three elements spelled out in
paragraph (b)(5) are present: one, federal assistance is
immediately required; two, there is an immediate signi-
ficant risk to public health or welfare and the environment;
and three, such assistance cannot otherwise be timely
provided. This last is the chief restriction, requiring the
Administrator to use other available authorities whenever
possible. Thus, Section 504(b) is a very broad residual
authority, which supplements, rather than replaces, other
emergency provisions. 2/
The actions that may be taken under Section 504(b)
1733 U.S.C. §§1251 - 1376. Also known as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
2/ Paragraph (b)(4) specifies that Section 504(b) shall not
'relieve the Administrator of any duty under other federal law
and shall not affect any final action taken under other
federal law or affect any other emergency authority.
1-3
-------
include: measures to abate and remedy the emergency, research
on the effects of the emergency, and providing officers or
employees of EPA to administer, at the site of the emergency,
the authority under this section and other federal law to
mitigate the emergency. Section 504(b)(6). V
A contingency fund is established under Section 504(b)(2)
in the amount of 10 million dollars to carry out emergency
actions. 3a/ Under paragraph (b)(7) the Administrator is
required to prepare and publish a contingency plan for
responding to emergencies under Section 504(b). The plan is
to be comparable to the National Contingency Plan _4/ estab-
lished under Section 311(c)(2). Section 504(b) also contains
provisions for recovery of funds expended in responding to
emergencies. These provisions are described in Part III
of this report.
2. CWA Section 311
Section 311 is a comprehensive series of provisions
dealing with discharges (principally spills) of oil and
designated hazardous substances into surface waters. While
the provisions concerning oil have been operative since
1970,V those concerning hazardous substances have not been
operative and go into effect only upon designation, by
regulation, of substances as hazardous pursuant to Section
311(b)(2)(A). On March 3, 1978, the Administrator of EPA
signed regulations designating an initial list of 271
3/ In the Senate debate on the conference report on the
Clean Water Act of 1977, Senator Muskie detailed examples
of incidents where Section 504(b) could come into play.
Congressional Record, Dec. 15, 1977 at S 19655-56.
3a/ Money for the fund has not yet been congressionally
appropriated, nor has the administration sought such an
appropriation.
4_/ The National Contingency Plan is discussed below in this
section. No plan under Section 504(b) has been developed
as yet.
5/ The oil spill provisions of Section 311 were originally
enacted as part of the Water Quality Improvement Act of
of 1970 and were contained in Section 11 of the pre-1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
1-4
-------
hazardous substances. j5/ The designations were to be effective
June 12, 1978 with respect to discharges from facilities and
September 11, 1978 with respect to discharges from vessels.6a/
The list will be supplemented periodically. 7_/
Section 311 is only activated when there is a discharge,
or threat of discharge, of oil or hazardous substances to the
surface water or adjoining shorelines. The waters involved
are "navigable waters," meaning all interstate waters, all
intrastate waters with any connection to interstate commerce,J3/
and the territorial sea (out to 3 miles). Section 311 also ~"
applies to the contiguous zone (out to 12 miles) and, pursuant
to the Clean Water Act of 1977, for most purposes to water
beyond the contiguous zone, out roughly to 200 miles. 9/
Section 311(c) contains the principal provisions
relating to federal emergency response activity. It provides
£/ 43 Fed. Reg. 10474 et seq. (March 12, 1978), 40 C.F.R.
Part 116. See also 40 CFR Parts 117, 118 and 119, 43 Fed.
Reg. 10488 ejt seq. Parts 117, 118 and 119 concern deter-
minations of "removability," "harmful quantities," and "rates
of penalty" under Section 311(b) and, together with the Part
116 designations, are necessary for most provisions of Section
311 to go into effect with respect to hazardous substances.
6ji/ On August 4, 1978 the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana (Lake Charles Division)
invalidated EPA's Parts 117 and 118 regulations concerning
discharges of hazardous substances under Section 311.
Manufacturing Chemists Assoc. v. Costle, No. CI 78-0578.
An appeal of this decision to the court of appeals is
pending. At this time, therefore, the provisions of Section
311 relating to hazardous substances are in most respects
inoperative.
7/ Simultaneously with the initial designation, EPA also
proposed for public comment designation of 28 additional
hazardous substances. 43 Fed. Reg. 10506-08 (March 13,
1978). Hazardous substances are substances which, when
discharged into the water, present an imminent and substan-
tial danger to public health or welfare, including fish,
shellfish, wildlife, shorelines and beaches.
8/ For example, waters used for recreation by interstate
'travelers. See 40 C.F.R. §116.3, 43 Fed. Reg. 10479-80.
1-5
-------
that the President may act to remove or arrange for the
removal of oil or hazardous substances discharged into the
"navigable waters" or adjoining shorelines unless he finds
that removal will be properly carried out by the discharger.10/
The term "removal" as used in Section 311 is broadly defined
to include action "necessary to minimize or mitigate damage
to the public health or welfare." Section 311(a)(8). The
relevant legislative history makes clear that this includes
such actions as:
.containment measures, measures required to warn
and protect the public of acute danger, activities
necessary to provide and monitor the quality of
temporary drinking water sources, monitoring for
spread of the pollutant, biomonitoring to determine
extent of the contamination, physical measures to
identify and contain substances contaminated by the
discharge, providing navigational cautions while
response to the problem is underway, efforts to
raise sunken vessels which are the source of the
discharge, and implementation of emergency
treatment facilities.... Mitigation also
includes efforts necessary to locate the source
of the discharge and identify properties of the
pollutants released.
H. R. Rep. No. 95-830 (Conference Report) at 90-91. Also
included are "actions designed to properly dispose of pollu-
tants removed from the water or shorelines...." Congressional
¥/More specifically, the new authority involves activities
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Deep-
water Port Act and discharges which affect natural resources
under U.S. ownership or control, including fisheries covered
by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.
Certain penalties do not apply to vessels for violations of
§311 occurring beyond the contiguous zone if the vessels are
not "otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States."
10/ Although hazardous substances must, pursuant to Section
3Tl(b)(2)(B)(i), be designated as either removable or not
actually removable from the water, new Section 311(b)(2)(B)
(v) clarifies that removal and mitigation efforts under
Section 311(c) may be undertaken for discharges of "nonre-
movable" as well as "removable" substances.
1-6
-------
Record, Dec. 15, 1977 at S19653 (statement of Senator Muskie).
What is clearly not included is construction of major capital
structures needed for long-term solution of spill problems.
Conference Report at 90. ll/
Activities under Section 311(c) are carried out in
accordance with the National Contingency Plan developed by
the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to Section
311(c)(2). 12/ The Plan, published in 40 C.F.R. Part 1510,
40 Fed. Reg_. 6282-6302 (Feb. 10, 1975), is designed to
provide a coordinated federal response to spills of oil and
hazardous substances. It establishes a National Response
Team, with representatives of several Federal agencies,
which is responsible for planning and preparing for pollution
emergencies and for coordinating responses to emergencies.
Regional Response Teams are also established, together with
a National Strike Force, which is to provide on-scene
assistance where necessary. -Pollution removal actions are
to be supervised by On-Scene Coordinators (OSC). The OSC is
a federal official responsible for assuring proper removal
and for activating and supervising federal removal efforts
where necessary. The Coast Guard appoints OSCs in coastal
and Great Lakes waters while EPA appoints OSCs for inland
waters. The Plan sets out the responsibilities of OSCs and
the general pattern of response actions. The Plan also
contains numerous other provisions, including Annex 10,
which regulates use of chemicals in oil cleanup operations. 13/
ll/The conference report notes, however, "that it may be
appropriate for the Administrator to take action beyond
those for which recovery would be allowed for mitigation."
Conference Report at 91.
I2/ Authorities under Section 311 not given directly to EPA
were delegated by the President to various agencies, princi-
pally EPA and the Coast Guard, by Executive Order 11735 (1973)
1_3_/ the Contingency Plan also provides for coordination of
federal agencies with State and local authorities and in-
vites these authorities to participate in Regional Response
Team activities. Annes XI to the Plan authorizes such
authorities to participate in regional response planning to
develop emergency response contingency plans. As explained
further below, Section 311(c) of the Act authorizes States
to conduct cleanup operations and to be reimbursed from
the Section 311(k) revolving fund for expenses so incurred.
1-7
-------
Section 311(b)(5) requires persons who discharge oil or
hazardous substances to provide immediate notification to
the federal government. 14/ Failure to notify is a criminal
offense. Section 311(d) provides authority to the Coast Guard
to act to remove or, if necessary, destroy vessels which, due
to a marine accident, present a threat of pollution hazard
from an imminent discharge of oil or hazardous substances.
Provisions concerning liability for cleanup costs are
discussed in Part III. As will be explained in more detail
there, Section 311(k) provides that action taken under
Section 311 may be financed from a revolving fund maintained
at 35 million dollars and administered by the Coast Guard.
3. CWA Section 115
Section 115 provides authority for the EPA Administrator
to arrange for removal and disposal of in-place pollutants,
with emphasis on toxic pollutants in harbors and waterways.
Fifteen million dollars have been authorized to carry out the
section. This authority can be used for cleanup action after
an environmental emergency. 14a/
4. Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §§1401 et
Section 1431 gives the Administrator of EPA broad powers
to take action when a contaminant present or likely to be
present in a public water system may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health and State and local
authorities have not acted. In such circumstances the Admin-
istrator can "take such actions as he may deem necesssary
in order to protect" human health.15/
14/ Procedures for notification have been established by the
Coast Guard in 33 C.F.R. Part 153, Subpart B. These procedures
include a toll-free "800" telephone number for receipt of noti-
fications. Notification is required only for discharges of
oil or hazardous substances in "harmful quantities". See note
23, infra, for a further discussion of this statutory phrase.
14a/ No funds have been appropriate or regulations issued
under this section.
15/ No regulations have yet been issued to implement
this authority.
1-8
-------
5. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
§§1331 et seg.)
Regulations issued by the Department of the Interior,
20 C.F.R. §250.43, provide that spills and leaks of oil or
waste material from operations conducted by lease holders on
the Outer Continental Shelf must be reported to the federal
government and that the lease holders have the obligation to
control or remove any such spills or leaks which damage or
threaten to damage aquatic life, wildlife or public or private
property.Ijj/ If the leasee fails to conduct cleanup operations
the Geological Survey is authorized to control and remove the
pollution, in cooperation with other federal, state, and local
agencies and in accordance with the National Contingency Plan.
Costs of governmental cleanup are recoverable from the leasee.
6. Federal Disaster Relief Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121
et seq.)
Under Sections 5145 and 5146 of this Act the President
is authorized to provide assistance to save lives and to
protect property, public health, and safety in emergencies
and major disasters. 17/ Assistance is coordinated by the
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration and is provided
with the cooperation of various federal agencies. The
assistance may include practically any action deemed
necessary to protect life and property. Although the Act
does not principally concern protection of the environment,
actions taken under it will often have that effect.
Expenditures by federal agencies which are asked to
participate in disaster assistance may be reimbursed by
16/ These regulations are issued under 43 U.S.C. §1334,
which provides broad authority to regulate leasing of the
Outer Continental Shelf.
17/ The terms "emergency" ans "major disaster" are defined
in Section 5122 as catastrophes in which local authorities
require federal assistance. The Act provides specific pro-
cedures whereby catastrophes are designated as emergencies
or major disasters. Recently the Act was used to provide
federal assistance to state and local authorities with respect
to the problems caused by chemical wastes in the Love Canal
area of Niagara Falls, New York. This was apparently the
first time a man-made disaster has activated the provisions
of this law.
1-9
-------
the Disaster Assistance Administration. Under Administration
regulations (24 C.F.R. Part 2205), however, reimbursement
is not available for costs incurred by an Agency operating
under its own authority. 24 C.F.R. Section 2205.82(a).
7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Emergency
Authorities
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is authorized, as are
other federal agencies, to provide emergency assistance in
disasters pursuant to the Federal Disaster Relief Act. In
addition, 33 U.S.C. §701n provides special authorities to the
Corps in the event of emergencies caused by floods. These
authorities include actions to prevent and combat floods and
to repair flood damage. Environmental protection is not an
explicit goal, but may indirectly result from such actions.
The Corps is also, under the umbrella of the Department of
Defense, a primary agency under the National Contingency Plan
and may be called in to assist in federal §311 cleanup
operations. Detailed regulations implementing these author-
ities and responsibilities are in 33 C.F.R. Part 203. 18/
A 1974 amendment to 33 U.S.C. §701n added authority for the
Corps to "provide emergency supplies of clean drinking water...
to any locality...confronted with a source of contaminated
drinking water causing or likely to cause a substantial threat
to the public health or welfare...." Procedures and policies
for implementation of this authority are in 33 C.F.R. Part 214.
8. Emergency Authorities Limited to Oil Spills
a. Intervention on the High Seas Act (33
U.S.C. §§1471 et seg.)
This act gives the Coast Guard authority to respond to
oil spills or threat of oil spills resulting from ship
casualties on the high seas, if the spills could cause "a
grave and imminent danger" of "major harmful consequences"
to the coastline or related interests of the United States.
Section 1472. The Coast Guard may supervise or take action
itself to remove or eliminate the pollutant damage or it
can remove or even destroy the ship and cargo which is the
source of the danger. Measures taken must be reasonably
proportionate to the actual or threatened damage they are
18/ See also 32 C.F.R. Part 502 (U.S. Army regulations
governing provisions of assistance for disaster relief).
1-10
-------
designed to prevent or mitigate. The revolving fund under CWA
Section 311(k) may be used to finance actions taken under the Act,
under the Act.
b. Deepwater Ports Act (33 U.S.C. §§1501
et seq.)
Section 1517(c) of the Deepwater Ports Act authorizes
the Coast Guard to act to remove oil discharged from a
deepwater port/ near a deepwater port (within the designated
"safety zone"), or from a vessel loaded at a deepwater port
unless removal would be promptly accomplished by the dis-
charger. Removal actions are to be consistent with the
National Contingency Plan established under CWA Section
311(c)(2). Funding for removal actions is obtainable from
the Deepwater Port Liability Fund established under Section
1517(f) of the Act. The fund is created from a fee collected
on oil loaded or unloaded at deepwater ports and is to be
maintained at 100 million dollars. As under Section 311(b)(5)
of the CWA, oil discharges must be reported to the federal
government. Section 1517(b).
c. Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act (43 U.S.C. §§1651
et seq.)
Section 1653(b) of the Act provides that if an oil
spill resulting from pipeline activities damages or
threatens aquatic life, wildlife, or property and is not
cleaned up by the pipeline company, then the Secretary of
Interior (in cooperation with other federal agencies) may
mitigate and remove the oil spill. Removal costs are to
be borne by the pipeline company.
B. Authority to Take Emergency Action in the Form
of Administrative or Judicial Orders
1. CWA Section 504(a)
This section authorizes the Administrator of EPA to
seek a remedial federal district court order when "a pollu-
tion source or combination of sources is presenting an
imminent and substantial endangerment to" health and welfare.
2. CWA Section 311(e)
This provision is similar to Section 504(a), described
above, except that it is limited to emergencies caused by
1-11
-------
discharges of oil or hazardous substances (designated
under Section 311(b)(2)(A)) into navigable waters.
3. Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1431
This section, described above, authorizes, among other
actions, issuance of administrative orders by EPA designed
to protect the health of users of public water systems and
authorizes suits in federal court to obtain court orders
for the same purpose.
4. Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. §§6901
et seg.)~T§7
Section 7003 of the Act authorizes the Administrator of
EPA, upon learning that solid waste or hazardous waste
handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal
is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment, to bring suit in federal district
court to obtain an order immediately restraining the
actitivity causing the danger or to obtain other such relief,
Proposed regulations issued under Section 3003(a) of
the Act provide that in the event a spill of hazardous waste
requires immediate removal to protect human health or the
environment certain otherwise applicable requirements under
the Act are suspended to facilitate emergency actions. In
addition, spills of hazardous waste during transportation
are required to be reported to EPA and to the Department of
Transportation. Proposed 40 C.F.R. §250.37, 43 Fed. Reg.
18506, 18511 (April 28, 1978).
5. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§1857 et seq.)
Section 303 provides that when one or more sources
of air pollution create an imminent and substantial danger
to human health the EPA Administrator may issue short-term
administrative orders (no longer than 48 hours in duration
unless extended by court permission) to protect human health
or the Administrator may seek a U.S. district court order
restraining the emissions or otherwise providing relief. 20/
19/As amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976.
20/ Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) requires States to have authority
comparable to Section 303.
1-12
-------
6. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (Ocean Dumping Act) (33 U.S.C. §§1401
et seq.)
Section 1415(d) of the Act authorizes suit by EPA for
irijunctive relief to prevent imminent or continuing viola-
tions of the statute, regulations or permits.
7. Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §§2601
e_t seq.)
Section 7 authorizes suit by EPA in federal district
court for seizure of imminently hazardous substances or
mixtures (or articles containing such substances or mix-
tures) and/or for other relief to protect health or the
environment against persons manufacturing, processing, dis-
tributing, using or disposing of such substances or mixtures
or articles containing such substances or mixtures. The Act
also authorizes expedited regulatory or judicial actions
against new or existing substances presenting a risk of
injury to health or the environment under Sections 5(e)
and ( f) and 6 (d) (2) . 20a/
8. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (7 U.S.C. §§136 et segTl
Section 6(c) authorizes suspension of the regis-
tration of a pesticide (thus making its sale or distribution
illegal) on an emergency basis if it presents an imminent
hazard.
20a/ Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
requires that persons who manufacture, process, or distribute
chemical substances or mixtures must notify the Administrator
of any information that the substance or mixture "presents
a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment."
In some cases such notification could include notice of
impending or ongoing environmental emergencies. H.R. 7881,
pending in committee, would amend the Act to create a chemical
emergency response team, composed of representatives of
several agencies, which would respond to incidents of chemical
contamination which may injure humans or the environment.
A reporting system and contingency plan would be established.
Team expenditures would be reimbursed from funds which would
be appropriated under the act.
1-13
-------
9. Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
§§651 et seg.)
Section 655(c) of the Act authorizes promulgation
of emergency temporary safety or health standards by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) without
prior notice and comments, if necessary to protect workers
from grave danger from exposure to toxic or physically
harmful substances or agents or from new hazards. Section
662 authorizes initiation of suits by OSHA in federal
district court for injunctive relief to restrain or remedy
conditions causing imminent danger of death or serious
physical harm.
10. Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
§§2051 et seg.)
Section 2061 of the Act authorizes the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to file suit in federal district court for
seizure of imminently hazardous consumer products or for
remedial orders directed to manufacturers, distributors or
retailers of such products to prevent imminent and unreason-
able risk of death, serious illness or severe personal injury,
11. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. §§1801 et seq. )
Section 1810(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transpor-
tation to seek a federal district court order suspending or
restricting the transportation of hazardous material or to
seek such other court order as may be necessary if there is
reason to believe an imminent hazard exists. An "imminent
hazard" exists if there is substantial likelihood serious
harm will occur prior to completion of administrative
proceedings to abate the risk.
Under this Act and related authorities the Department of
Transportation has established an array of disaster reporting
requirements. These include reports of emergencies involving
trucks, aircraft, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. The
regulations can be found in 49 C.F.R §§107.15-16, 175.45,
176.45, 176.48, 177.807, 177.861, 191, 192.615, 195.52,
195.54, Part 225, Part 394, Part 830 and Part 840. These
reporting requirements generally are triggered by injury,
or threat of injury, to persons or property.
1-14
-------
12. Ports and Waterways Safety Act. (33 U.S.C.
§§1221 et seq.)
Section 1221(6) authorizes the Coast Guard to establish
procedures and standards for the emergency removal, control
and disposition of dangerous articles or substances in ports
and harbors.
13. Deepwater Ports Act (33 U.S.C. §§1501
et seq.)
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized by Section
1511(a) to seek a court order to suspend any deepwater port
license if the licensee violates applicable requirements, in-
cluding requirements established under Section 1509 designed
to protect the environment. If the Secretary determines
there is danger to public health or safety or imminent and
substantial danger to the environment he may, under Section
1511(b), order a deepwater port licensee to suspend or alter
construction or operation of the port pending completion
of judicial proceedings instituted under Section 1511(a).
1-15
-------
III. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
EMERGENCIES
A. Recovery of Federal Expenditures
1. CWA Section 311
Section 311 contains elaborate provisions dealing with
recovery of funds expended by the federal government to clean
up and otherwise mitigate the effects of discharges of oil
and designated hazardous substances.
a* The Section 311(k) Revolving Fund
Under Section 311(k) a special fund of 35 million
dollars is available to carry out removal and mitigation of
discharges of oil and designated hazardous substances. The
fund is administered by the Coast Guard. 2I/ Penalties
collected under Section 311\2_2/ are deposited into the fund,
as are monies collected from dischargers (or other respon-
sible persons) to reimburse the federal government for its
cleanup expenses. The provisions governing such reimbursement
are explained below. If depleted, the fund may be restored
by congressional appropriation. The revolving fund is used
for actions taken pursuant to Section 311(c), principally
to pay contractors hired to conduct clean up operations under
federal supervision. It may not be used to fund federal
removal actions unless the federal On-Scene Coordinator finds
that the discharger is unknown, or is unable or unwilling
to conduct an adequate clean up. A discharger cannot be
ordered to clean up a discharge, but is informed that failure
to do so will (unless certain limited defenses are appli-
cable) subject him (or her) to liability for federal
expenditures.
21/ Regulations governing administration of the fund are 40
C.F.R. Part 153 Subpart D. Use of the fund is also governed
by provisions of the National Contingency Plan, particularly
Annex IX (40 C.F.R. Part 1510).
22/ These penalties include those imposed under Section 311
(b)(6) by the Coast Guard for discharges of oil or designated
hazardous substances in "harmful quantities" (see footnote
23, infra) and those imposed by EPA under Section 311(b)(2)
(B)(iii) for discharges of "non-removable" hazardous
substances.
1-16
-------
b. Reimbursement of Federal Expenditures
Section 311(f) provides that the owner or operator of a
facility or vessel from which oil or a designated hazardous
substance is discharged in a "harmful quantity"£3/ is liable
to the United States for its actual costs of cleanup and
mitigation unless he or she demonstrates that the discharge
was caused solely by a third party, act of God. act of war
or by negligence on the part of the United States. Various
limits to liability are set out^4/ but if a discharge is
the result of willful negligence or misconduct no liability
limit applies. Where a discharge of oil or a hazardous
substance is caused by a third party, the third party is
liable for the government's cleanup costs. An exception
is when the facility or vessel from which the oil or
substance is spilled handles such oil or substance as cargo
or in bulk. In that case the discharger is liable for the
government's costs and is then entitled to reimbursement
from the third party responsible for the discharge. Section
The Clean Water Act of 1977 added provisions to Section
311 which clarified that the cost of removal of a "non-
removable" hazardous substance is a reimbursable expense,
23/ Harmful quantities are established by regulation under
Section 311(b)(4). A harmful quantity of oil is that quantity
which causes a sheen or discoloration of the surface water,
forms a sludge or emulsion beneath the surface of the water,
or which violates state water quality standards. 40 C.F.R.
Part 110. Harmful quantities of each of the designated
hazardous substances are set out in newly promulgated 40
C.F.R. Part 118 in terms of specific amounts. However, Part
118, together with related regulations, has been voided by
court order. See note 6a, supra.
24/ Facilities are liable up to 50 million dollars. Vessels,
other than inland oil barges, are liable up to 150 dollars
per gross ton, while inland oil barges are liable up to
125 dollars per gross ton. These limits were substantially
lower prior to the 1977 amendments.
1-17
-------
Section 311(b) (2)(B)(v),25/ and provided that the President
can act as trustee of the nation's natural resources and
can collect from dischargers the costs of restoring or
rehabilitating such resources. Sections 311(f)(4) and (5).
Under Section 311(p), vessels must maintain evidence of
financial responsibility to meet their potential liability to
the United States under Section 311.
2. CWA Section 504(b)
Section 504(b)(8) provides that when emergency assistance
is provided under Section 504(b) with respect to a discharge
(into water or adjoining shorelines) of oil or a substance
designated as hazardous (under Section 311) the cost of such
assistance may be deemed a cost of removal incurred under
Section 311(c) and be recoverable under Sections 311(f) and
(g). 26/ Under Section 504(b)(9) the cost of emergency
assistance where the emergency was caused by a violation of
Sections 301, 306, 307, 402 or 403 of the CWA can be
recovered from the discharger in an action under Section
309—the general enforcement provisions of the Act. 27/
3. Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act (43 U.S.C.
§§1651 et seg.)
Under this act the cost of federal cleanup of oil spills
from the pipeline may be recovered from the pipeline company
25/ Pursuant to Section 311(b)(2)(B)(i) the Administrator
must determine whether each substance designated as hazardous
pursuant to Section 311(b)(2)(A) "can actually be removed"
from the water. Such "removable" substances are not subject
to the Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii) penalty. Ten substances
have been determined to be "removable" (basically because
of their oil-like physical characteristics). 40 C.F.R. Part
117, 43 Fed. Reg. 10488-89 (March 13, 1978). Part 117 was,
however, recently voided by court order. See note 6a, supra.
26/ Section 504(b)(8) also provides that such cost can be added
to the discharger's liability for penalties under Section 311
(b)(2)(B)(iii). It is unclear why this reference to Section 311
(b)(2) is included, since reference to Sections 311(f) and (g)
is enough to authorize recovery.
27/ However, unlike Section 311, Section 309 has no specific
mechanism for recovery of costs from dischargers.
1-18
-------
while in the case of spills of oil from vessels loaded from
the pipeline such costs are the joint liability of the vessel
and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund. 28/ In addition,
the pipeline company or the vessel (and fund) are liable for
any damages to public or private parties. 43 U.S.C. §1653.
4. Deepwater Ports Act
Under this Act federal expenses to clean up oil spills
occurring in connection with the operation of deepwater ports
may be drawn from the Deepwater Port Liability Fund. The
Fund is financed by fees collected on all oil loaded or
unloaded at deepwater ports. Unless the discharge of oil
is caused by an act of war or by negligence on the part of
the United States the owner or operator of a vessel which
discharges oil in connection with use of a deepwater port
is liable (up to 150 dollars per gross ton or 20 million
dollars, whichever is lesser) for the costs of cleanup.
However, if the spill is from a vessel moored at a deepwater
port or from a deepwater port, liability for cleanup costs,
up to 50 million dollars, is on the part of the licensee of
the port. If a discharge is caused by gross negligence or
willful misconduct by a discharger the limits to liability
do not apply. 33 U.S.C. §1517.
B* Funding or Recovery of State or Local Expenses
in Connection with Environmental Emergencies.
1. CWA Section 106
Section 106 authorizes EPA to make grants to States
"to assist them in administering programs for the prevention,
reduction and elimination of pollution...."^/ This obviously
includes programs for responding to environmental emergencies.
In fact, under Section 106(e)(2) no grant may be given unless
the State has authority comparable to EPA's authority under
Section 504 of the Act and an adequate contingency plan for
28/ The fund is administered by the pipeline company and is
financed from fees collected on oil transported through the
pipeline.
29/ For fiscal years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, 100 million
dollars in grants per year are authorized
1-19
-------
use of such authority. 30/ Although the 1977 amendments to
the Clean Water Act did not change the language of Section
106(e)(2), the extensive changes to Section 504 substantially
expand the States' obligations. 31/
While Section 106 grants may serve numerous purposes,
in addition to assisting State emergency response capability,
new grant authority was provided to EPA in Section 205(g) to
assist States in administering programs under Sections 201,
203, 204 and 212 (construction grants), 402 (point source
permits), 404 (permits for activities which affect wetlands)
and 208 (area-wide waste treatment management). As a result,
more Section 106 money may, as a.practical matter, be avail-
able for funding development and administration of emergency
response programs.
2. CWA Section 311(c)(2)(H)
Section 311(c)(2)(H) provides that the National Contin-
gency Plan established under Section 311(c) must include
provisions whereby States affected by discharges of oil or
designated hazardous substances may, where necessary, act to
remove such discharges and be reimbursed for reasonable
expenses from the Section 311(k) revolving fund. Accordingly,
Section 1905.2 of Annex IX of the Plan (40 C.F.R. Part 1510,
Annex IX) provides that States may act to remove discharges
of oil and hazardous substances and be reimbursed from the
Section 311(k) fund. State removal actions are proper and
reimbursement is available, however, only if the federal
On-Scene Coordinator finds the discharger is unknown or is
not doing an adequate removal job and either State action is
30/ EPA criteria for State, local and regional oil removal
contingency plans are published at 40 C.F.R. Part 109. These
criteria are established pursuant to Section 311(j)(1)(B) ,
which authorizes development of criteria for State, local
and regional oil and hazardous substance removal plans. No
criteria have been published for hazardous substances removal
plans.
3I/ EPA grant regulations currently echo the provisions of
Section 106(e)(2) of the Act, 40 C.F.R. §35.559(b)(2) . EPA
is now in the process of evaluating how the new obligations
imposed on States by Sections 106(e)(2) and 504(b) should be
implemented. Proposed regulations will be published in the
near future.
1-20
-------
needed to minimize or mitigate significant damage to public
health or welfare which federal action cannot remedy, or that
State removal costs would not be significantly higher than
federal costs. In addition, State actions must not violate
Annex X (concerning use of chemicals and other additives to
remove oil and hazardous substances discharges). When super-
vised by the appropriate State agency, local government
removal operations are deemed to be State actions for the
purposes of Annex IX. Coast Guard regulations for admini-
stration of the Section 311{k) fund establish procedures for
State reimbursement. These procedures require, among other
things, written certification by the federal On-Scene
Coordinator that States have complied with Annex IX of the
National Contingency Plan. 33 C.F.R. Part 153, Subpart D.
Money from the revolving fund used to reimburse States
under Section 311(c)(2)(H) of the Act is recoverable from
dischargers (or other responsible persons) under Sections
311 (f) and (g). 32/
3. Section 311(f)
Sections 311(f)(4) and (5) provide that a State may act
as trustee of its natural resources to restore or replace
such resources damaged by an illegal discharge of oil or a
designated hazardous substance and may recover funds
expended for this purpose from the discharger.
4. Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1442(a)(2)(B)
Section 1442(a)(2)(B), added in recent amendments to
the Act (P.L. 95-190), authorizes the Administrator of EPA
to make grants to States and to publicly owned water systems
"to assist in responding to and alleviating any emergency
situation affecting public water systems (including sources
of water for such systems) which . . . present substantial
danger to the public health." Grants can be provided only
to fund actions which would not be taken without the grants
and may be given as part of emergency assistance available
under other federal law.
32/ States may also be able to receive funding for responding
to spills of oil and hazardous substances by being hired by
the United States government as cleanup contractors under
Section 311(c) .
1-21
-------
5. Federal Disaster Relief Act
The Act, and implementing regulations (24 C.F.R. Part
2205), authorize federal assistance, including funds, to
States responding to emergencies and major disasters. While
not principally concerned with environmental protection, such
assistance will often have that effect. 32a/
6. Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act
Deepwater Ports Act
Both statutes provide for compensation of public and
private parties damaged by oil .spills and establish funds to
provide such compensation.32b/
C. Reimbursement of Private Expenses or Losses In
Connection With Environmental Emergencies
1. Deepwater Ports Act and Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Act
See part III B 6 of this report.
2. CWA Section 311(i)
This section authorizes a discharger of oil or a desig-
nated hazardous substance, if he can demonstrate that the
discharge was caused by an act of God, by war, by a third
person or by negligence on the part of the United States,
to recover from the United States the costs of removal of
the discharge which he incurred. Removal must have been
accomplished in accordance with applicable federal require-
ments (such as Annex X to the National Contingency Plan
and removal regulations to be issued under §311(j)(1)(A)).
32a/ See note 17, supra.
32b/ Two other statutory provisions are also relevant here.
Section 104 of the Clean Water Act and Section 8001 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act both authorize EPA to make grants
to States for demonstrations of methods to control or prevent
harm to the environment. Such demonstrations can also have
the effect of directly preventing or minimizing environmental
emergencies.
1-22
-------
Claims under Section 311(i) are made by filing in the
U.S. Court of Claims. 33/
D. Pending Legislation
Legislation now awaiting congressional action princi-
pally concerns reimbursement of public and private expenses
and losses resulting from environmental emergencies.
There are three types of bills. One is the so-called
superfund legislation. J34/These bills are limited to
discharges of oil. They would establish a very large
contingency fund, e.g. $200 million, to reimburse not only
governmental cleanup costs but -also the losses suffered by
public bodies and by private parties as a result of oil
spills. In general, such losses would be reimbursed from
the fund if the discharger charger were unknown or failed
to make voluntary reimbursement. Funds expended would be
recoverable from the discharger, up to limits similar to
those in CWA Section 311. 35/ The superfund would also be
replenished through deposit of penalties incurred and by
a tax or fee on oil shipments.
Besides creating provisions for reimbursement of private
expenses, these bills increase the funds available for
governmental cleanup and, in some cases, define "navigable
waters" more narrowly than in Section 311 and the rest of the
Clean Water Act. There has been discussion of the possibility
of adding hazardous substances designated under Section
311(b)(2)(A) to the superfund legislation's coverage.
33/ Mention should also be made of two other relevant statu-
tory provisions. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized
by P.L. 91-524, Title VIII, §804, as amended by P.L. 93-86
§1(27)(A) and P.L. 95-113, §207 (7 U.S.C. §284, note), to
make indemnity payments to beekeepers who suffer losses from
the adverse effects of use of pesticides. Similarly, 7 U.S.C.
§450j authorizes indemnity payments to farmers whose dairy
cows or dairy products are damaged by pesticides or other
chemicals or toxic substances.
34/ Pending superfund bills include S.1900, S.1187, S.2083,
and H.R. 6803. Two other bills are no longer active, S.898
and S.121.
35/ The discharger would also have defenses to liability
similar to those in Section 311.
1-23
-------
The second type of legislation now pending deals with
compensation for injuries caused by toxic substances. One of
these is Title I of S.1531 (H.R. 9941), the Toxic Substances
Control Act amendments. The bill sets up a grant program
for States in which toxic substance incidents have injured
people or animals.
The program is activated whenever the Governor of a
State determines that people or animals may be exposed to a
substance or mixture in the environment that may cause injury
to their health or welfare and accordingly orders impoundment
or condemnation of any livestock or food, or whenever such
materials cannot be distributed.in commerce. If the above
circumstance occurs and the State makes indemnification pay-
ments to those injured or economically harmed, the Governor
may apply to EPA for a reimbursement grant of up to 75 percent
of the payments made.
EPA is further authorized to make grants to States to
establish and maintain medical programs to monitor people,
animals, and the environment in contamination cases. The
States can use these funds to treat people and animals if
necessary. If the Governor so requests, EPA may make medical
payments directly tb injured individuals.
The second bill of this type is H.R. 9616—the "Brodhead
Bill." This elaborate legislation is designed to provide
compensation for victims of toxic substance pollution. The
bill would create a new, independent agency known as the
Administrative Board for Compensation of Victims of Toxic
Substance Pollution (ABC). The ABC would have power to dis-
seminate information to physicians on designated diseases,
to require claimants to show proof of harm, to designate
claimants as "victims," and to rule on the merits of victims'
claims and make awards to them.
The bill also authorizes creation of the Office of
Ombudsman for Compensation of Victims of Toxic Substances
Pollution ("Ombudsman"). The Ombudsman is generally to "work
to redress grievances lodged by any person" under the Act.
1-24
-------
Under section 8 of the bill, a "pollution charge"
against manufacturers of toxic substances is the source of
the funding for the ABC and the Ombudsman. The Board, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is to
"correlate a graduated levy" which the IRS is to collect.
The "pollution charge" is only to be used to operate the
ABC and the Office of the Ombudsman. Money for payments
to victims of toxic substance pollution is to come from
the responsible manufacturer.
Victims or their survivors are to receive wage com-
pensation, medical benefits, rehabilitation services,
death benefits, and pain and suffering awards as the ABC
deems appropriate. The ABC will also assign victims to an
authorized physician and pay reasonable attorney's fees.
A $5 million fund is authorized to provide emergency
assistance. HEW is to administer the fund. The fund is
entitled to collect money back when victims subsequently
receive their awards.
A third type of bill is H.R. 7881, which would amend
the Toxic Substances Control Act. This bill would create
a chemical emergency response team (see footnote 20a, supra)
and would authorize EPA to make grants to States for up to
75% of the costs of programs to prevent or eliminate
unreasonable risks to health or the environment from a
chemical substance or mixture where the Administrator
is unable or unlikely to take action. This bill is in
committee and is not under active consideration by
Congress.
1-25
-------
IV. EPA AUTHORITY TO PREVENT AND DETER ENVIRONMENTAL
EMERGENCIES
A. Prevention
1. CWA Section 311(j )
Section 311(j)(l)(C) authorizes the President to estab-
lish "procedures, methods, and equipment and other require-
ments for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and
[designated] hazardous substances from vessels and from
onshore ... and offshore facilities, and to control such
discharges." Executive Order 11735 delegates this authority
to EPA with regard to "nontransportation related facilities"
and to the Department of Transportation (DOT) with regard to
vessels and "transportation related" facilities. A memorandum
of understanding between EPA and DOT defines in detail this
division of responsibilities. 36/
EPA has not yet developed Section 311(j)(1)(C) discharge
prevention regulations for hazardous substances. 36a/ Oil
Pollution Prevention regulations were issued pursuant to this
statutory authority in December, 1973. 40 C.F.R. Part 112.
The Part 112 regulations apply to non-transportation related
onshore and off-shore facilities which could reasonably be
expected to discharge oil into navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines. The regulations do not apply, however, to
facilities which store oil in less than specified minimum
quantities. The heart of the regulations is the requirement
that all affected facilities prepare Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans. 3J7/ The plans must comply
with certain guidelines, must be certified by a registered
professional engineer and must be available for examination by
EPA inspectors. The plans need not be sent to EPA for review
unless a facility experiences oil spills. The plans must
specify equipment and procedures to prevent oil discharges
3_6/ The definitional section of the memorandum of under-
standing is in an appendix to 40 C.F.R. Part 112.
36a/ Proposed regulations, applicable only to facilities
subject to the CWA Section 402 permit program, were pub-
lished on September 1, 1978. 43 Fed. Reg. 39276 et seq.
37/ For this reason Part 112 is often referred to as the SPCC
regulation.
1-26
-------
(e.g. diking around storage tanks, alarm systems) and to
allow prompt reaction to and containment of such discharges
(e.g. placement of booms, procedures for notification of
federal authorities).
Violations of Section 311(j)(l)(C) regulations carry
administratively assessed civil penalties up to $5,000.
Section 311(j)(2). EPA procedures for assessing penalties
for violations of Part 112 are set out in 40 C.F.R. Part
114. Penalties are assessed after opportunity for an
informal hearing. If a violator refuses to pay a penalty,
EPA may file a collection action in federal district court.
2. CWA Section 402 Permits
Under Section 402, federal or State (where a State
has assumed the permit program) authorities issue permits to
point sources of pollution, authorizing discharges into
navigable waters. Discharge of any pollutant into navigable
waters without a §402 permit is illegal. Section 301(a).
Permits must include conditions assuring compliance with
various provisions of the Clean Water Act. 38/ As a general
principle, the requirements of §402 permits should reduce
the chances for point sources to create environmental emer-
gencies. 38a/ In addition, the Clean Water Act of 1977 added
a new Section 304(e), which authorizes the Administrator to
issue regulations establishing management practices "to
control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage" of toxic or
hazardous pollutants 39/ when associated with or ancillary to
manufacturing or treatment processes. When implemented
38/ These requirements include technology-based standards
under Sections 301,304 and 306 and water quality-based
requirements derived from State water quality standards
developed under Section 303.
38a/ The CWA also provides for issuance of permits under
Section 404 for dredge and fill activities. These permits
are a means to protect wetlands.
39/ Toxic or hazardous pollutants are those designated
under either Sections 307(a)(l) or 311(b)(2)(A).
1-27
-------
through Section 402 permits, this authority should help
prevent environmental emergencies at permitted facilities. 40/
3. Solid Waste Disposal Act
Section 3004 authorizes EPA to set standards for
operation of hazardous waste£l/ disposal facilities. Such
standards can include requirements for waste treatment,
storage, and disposal methods, and location, design, and
construction of facilities. The regulations can also require
"contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanti-
cipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of
any . . . hazardous waste."4^/ Sections 3002 and 3003,
by requiring the tracking of hazardous wastes through a
manifest system, can also prevent environmental emergencies.
4. Toxic Substances Control Act
Section 6 of the Act "authorizes EPA to take a number
of regulatory actions with regard to chemical substances
that present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. These include regulation of the manner or method
of commercial use of a substance and of the disposal of such
substance. These regulations could include provisions which
are designed to prevent environmental emergencies. 42a/
B. Enforcement
EPA has various enforcement mechanisms it can use when
actions or inactions contribute to environmental emergencies
and when rules designed specifically to prevent such emer-
gencies are broken. In the latter category are penalties
for violations of such regulations as the 40 C.F.R. Part 112
40/ Section 304(e) regulations were proposed on September 1,
1978. 43 Fed. Reg. 39282 et seg.
41/ Hazardous wastes are defined pursuant to Section 3001 of
the Act.
42/ Regulations under Section 3004 have not yet been issued.
42a/ Regulations concerning marking and disposal of PCB's
(including mixtures and equipment containing PCB's) were pub-
lished under Section 6(e) of the Act on February 17, 1978.
43 Fed. Reg. 7150 et seq., 40 C.F.R. Part 761.
1-28
-------
Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. As noted previously,
Section 311(j)(2) of the Clean Water Act carries civil
penalties up to $5,000 for such violations. Similarly,
violations of the conditions of CWA Section 402 permits
(including management practices requirements imposed
pursuant to Section 304(e)) subject the violator to
penalties under Section 309 (the general enforcement pro-
visions of the CWA). These include civil penalties up to
$10,000 per day and, in the event of willful or negligent
violations, criminal penalties up to $25,000 per day as
well as imprisonment up to one year. The Solid Waste
Disposal Act authorizes civil penalties up to $25,000 a
day for violation of any requirements of the hazardous
waste provisions of the Act and criminal penalties for
knowing transport or disposal of hazardous wastes without
a permit. Section 16 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
provides for both civil and criminal penalties for
violations of, among other things, Section 6 regulations.
In the former category of enforcement mechanisms is a
wide array of provisions authorizing penalties for such
actions as discharges of pollutants into water or emissions
into air. Such provisions will often come into play in
environmental emergencies. In most cases such penalties apply
only if published standards or permit conditions are violated,
All statutes which EPA administers provide for this kind of
enforcement mechanism.
Of particular relevance to environmental emergencies is
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Under Section 311 the
discharge of oil or a designated hazardous substance into
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines in "harmful
quantities" 4_3/is a violation of law subject to penalty. Any
such discharge subjects the owner, operator, or person in
charge of the onshore or offshore facility or vessel to a
civil penalty up to $5,000. §311(b)(6). There are no defenses
to this penalty, although certain factors, such as the
"gravity of the violation" can affect the size of the fine.
In addition, under Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii) the discharge
of "non-removable" hazardous substances 44/ subjects the
owner or operator to a penalty of $500-$5,000 or, alterna-
tively, to a penalty of up to $500,000 (facilities) or
43/ See footnote 23, supra.
44/ See footnote 25, supra.
1-29
-------
$5,000,000 (vessels) based upon the amount discharged multi-
plied by a penalty rate fixed by regulations.44a/ Section 311
(b)(2)(B)(iii) penalties cannot be imposed if the discharge
was caused solely by an act of God, or of war, by negligence
on the part of the United States, or actions of third persons.45/
Discharges of pollutants to water which cause environmental
emergencies can also lead to penalties under 33 U.S.C. §407
(the Refuse Act), and under CWA §309, either for discharging
without a CWA §402 or §404 permit, or in violation of a permit.
In addition, violations of hazardous waste provisions of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act may be penalized under §3008 of that
Act. Violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (including improper application of a pesticide)
are punishable under Section 14. Violations of the Toxic
Substances Control Act subject 'the violator to penalties under
Section 16, and Section 13 of the Clean Air Act provides
authority to enforce various provisions of that Act.
In addition, violation of administrative or court orders
issued to prevent or abate a particular emergency are enforce-
able by either penalty provisions or, in the case of court
orders, civil or criminal contempt proceedings.
44a/ See 40 C.F.R. Part 119, 43 Fed. Reg. 10495 et seq.
(March 13, 1978).
45/ In some cases both the Section 311(b)(6) and (b)(2)
penalties could apply.
1-30
-------
V. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
A. Direct Federal Actions
With enactment of Section 504(b) of the Clean Water Act
Congress provided statutory authority for the federal govern-
ment to respond to practically any environmental emergency.
Unlike previous statutory provisions, Section 504(b) is not
limited to particular types of emergencies. It also authorizes
a broad range of response activities, sets up a contingency
fund and authorizes recovery of federal expenditures from
those who cause such emergencies. Just how effective Section
504(b) will prove to be in practice, however, must await
implementation of its authorities. The required federal con-
tingency plan has not yet been drafted and the contingency
fund has not been established. It seems likely that Congress
will not want to consider new legislation in this area unless
Section 504(b) is fully utilized and practical deficiencies
are discovered.
Since Section 504(b) can be used only if other federal
authority is lacking, other statutory'provisions remain
highly important. The most significant is Section 311 of
the CWA, which covers discharges of oil and designated
hazardous substances to the water or adjoining shorelines.
Section 311 authorizes federal cleanup of such discharges,
establishes a contingency fund to pay cleanup costs,
authorizes recovery of federal expenses from dischargers, and
requires notification to the federal government of discharges.
Other federal authority includes provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act for emergencies threatening drinking water
supplies; authority in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
to respond to spills and leaks of oil or waste material from
operations on such lands; the Federal Disaster Relief Act,
which authorizes multi-agency responses to major emergencies
and disasters; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' authority to
respond to floods, to assist responses under Section 311, and
to provide emergency supplies of drinking water. In addition,
the Intervention on the High Seas Act, Deepwater Ports Act,
and Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act authorize federal cleanup of
oil spills under certain circumstances. A number of federal
statutes also authorize emergency issuance of administrative
or judicial orders to protect health, safety and the
environment.
1-31
-------
All of these laws and, in particular, Sections 311 and
504(b) of the Clean Water Act, add up to a fairly compre-
hensive legislative system. While confusion and conflicts
can arise in some situations because of the overlapping and
nonuniform nature of the actions authorized and the number
of agencies given responsibility in this area, additional
statutory authority is probably not needed. Legislative
action to comprehensively harmonize and coordinate federal
emergency response authority is not under consideration at
this time and probably would not be entertained seriously
unless there is a strong demonstration that serious problems
exist in this area that cannot be handled administratively.
B. Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred in Environmental
Emergencies
1. Recovery of Federal Expenditures
Both CWA Sections 311 and 504(b) provide mechanisms for
recovery of federal funds expended in responding to environ-
mental emergencies. Such expenditures would be drawn from
the contingency funds established under both statutory pro-
visions and the funds would then be'replenished by reimburse-
ment from the person responsible for causing the emergency.
Both provisions limit reimbursement to situations where the
emergency was caused by violation of particular legal pro-
visions. Section 311 is far more detailed, and provides
certain defenses to reimbursement liability and upper limits
to such liability. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act and Deepwater
Ports Act also provide mechanisms for recovery of federal
expenditures to clean up oil spills caused by activities of
the pipeline or deepwater ports.
Pending "superfund" legislation would increase the
contingency funds available to finance cleanup of oil (and
perhaps also hazardous substances). Additional legislative
activity in this area does not appear vital, although
practical experience with recovery of expenditures under
Section 504(b) will reveal whether the relatively cryptic
language of the expenditure recovery provisions needs
revision or amplification.
2. Funding or Recovery of State or Local Expenses
Various laws authorize federal funding of State
emergency response activities. Section 106 of the Clean Water
Act provides, among other things, for grants to States to
1-32
-------
operate environmental emergency response programs. To qualify,
a State must have an adequate contingency plan. Section 311
(c)(2)(H) of the Clean Water Act authorizes States to draw
funds from the Section 311(k) revolving fund to finance oil
and hazardous substance removal actions undertaken by the
States with permission of the federal On-Scene Coordinator.
A recent amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act provides
for federal grants to States and publicly owned water systems
where they are needed due to emergency threats to drinking
water supplies. Funding for States and local governments
in environmental emergencies is also available in certain
circumstances under CWA Section 311(f), the Federal Disaster
Relief Act, the Deepwater Ports Act, and the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Act.
State and local governments would benefit from pending
"superfund" and toxic substance injury compensation legisla-
tion through funding of response activities, recovery of
losses to property and natural resources, and federal funding
of private expenses and losses which might otherwise be the
responsibility of the State. If additional federal financial
support is found to be needed, then new legislative initia-
tives would be required. Such legislation could condition
State funding on development by the State of a satisfactory
environmental response capability. This could be similar to,
but probably more elaborate than, the requirement in CWA
Section 106 that States have contingency plans.
3. Reimbursement of Private Expenses or Losses
Current federal legislation provides for reimbursement
of private losses or expenses in environmental emergencies
within very limited circumstances under the Deepwater Ports
Act and Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act with respect to oil spills
in connection with deepwater port or pipeline activity.
Pending "superfund" legislation would provide extensive
opportunity for reimbursement of private expenses or losses
caused by oil (and possibly also hazardous substance) spills.
Other pending legislation would create elaborate mechanisms
for providing federal aid to victims of toxic substances
incidents.
C. EPA Authority to Prevent and Deter Environmental
Emergencies
EPA has authority to require non-transportation related
facilities to take measures designed to prevent discharges of
1-33
-------
oil and hazardous substances under Section 311(j)(1)(C) of
the Clean Water Act. While no hazardous substances spill
prevention regulations have yet been issued, current regula-
tions require all facilities which store oil (except in very
small amounts) to prepare spill prevention plans. Permits
issued under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act will tend to
prevent environmental emergencies/ particularly where they
specify best management practices under Section 304(e). The
Solid Waste Disposal Act, particularly through standards to
be issued for operation of hazardous waste disposal sites
and through the hazardous waste manifest system, will help
prevent emergencies caused by hazardous waste transport,
storage, treatment, and disposal. The Toxic Substances
Control Act also authorizes regulations which, through
control of the use and disposal of toxic chemicals, will
prevent emergencies. Violations of these various prevention
regulations carry civil and criminal penalties. In addition,
actions causing environmental emergencies will usually be
violations of one or more statutory provisions of the Clean
Water Act, the Refuse Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the
Toxics Substances Control Act, or the Clean Air Act, each of
which is enforceable through civil and/or criminal penalties.
1-34
-------
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
Prepared by the Task Force
on Environmental Emergencies
-------
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
Table of Contents
Section
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL RESPONSE 11-3
Section 311 Spills II-7
Other Emergencies II-8
Transportation Incidents II-9
Disasters II-9
Radiological Incidents 11-10
FEDERAL ROLE IN PREPAREDNESS AND SUPPORT 11-11
Operations. Support 11-11
Preparedness 11-11
Information 11-12
Resources 11-14
Federal Emergency Management Agency 11-15
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 11-16
The National Plan 11-16
Memorandums of Understanding 11-16
Committees and Working Groups 11-17
CONCLUSIONS 11-18
APPENDIX A—FEDERAL AGENCY INTERVIEW SUMMARIES II-A-1
APPENDIX B—SURVEY DISTRIBUTED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES II-B-1
APPENDIX C—REFERENCES II-C-1
-------
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
The United States has developed a variety of federal
programs to deal with specific environmental emergencies
caused by human accidents, mechanical failures and acts of
nature. In the past, these programs have aimed at narrow
targets: the Coast Guard and EPA handles oil spills, the
Army takes care of its own chemical accidents and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans for radiation mishaps.
Now, the proliferation of dangerous chemicals and the
accidents occurring from their production, transportation
and use have caused new concerns about the federal role in
responding to emergencies. This chapter looks at the
programs that currently exist within federal agencies in
terms of organization, functions and resources. It will
look at how programs complement or overlap other programs
and it will also look at the places where more coordination
is needed and the best ways to develop that coordination in
responding to environmental emergencies.
This survey will deal with six major programs for
emergency response that operate within five Cabinet Depart-
ments. The activities of the Environmental Protection
Agency are analyzed in a separate chapter. Similarly, many
aspects of controlling hazardous or toxic substances will be
covered in a separate report done for the Toxic Substances
Strategy Committee (TSSC) of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ).* That report deals with hazardous materials
management, enforcement, research on health effects, regula-
tions, and interagency coordination.
In addition, the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group
is also compiling a survey of its members on emergency
response laws, regulations, procedures and funds. Particu-
larly relevant agencies include the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (which was involved in the Kepone
cleanup—see Case Study VI) and the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, which cooperates with EPA on state programs to
dispose of radiation wastes. FDA and OSHA, along with EPA,
have information systems that can be used for identifying
hazard-ous materials.
The IRLG is planning to work out procedures for inter-
agency responses to emergency incidents which involve more
than one IRLG agency.
Doniger, D., et al., "An Analysis of Past Federal Efforts
To Control Toxic Substances" (Draft), Environmental Law
Institute, April, 1978.
II-l
-------
There is no single category that covers all federal
response programs. Some are mandated by specific statutory
authority and are funded by separate appropriations, some
are jointly administered, and some operate under agreements
between agencies. The one major thread that ties several
programs together is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, created by Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. (For a complete discussion of the legal
structure for federal emergency responses see "Federal
Legal Authority" in this volume.) In instances not covered
by Section 311, however, agencies operate their own programs
and cooperation is worked out as it is needed. The agencies
included in this survey are:
o U. S. Coast Guard (DOT); oil and hazardous substance
spills in water
o National Oceanic and .Atmospheric Administration
(Department of Commerce);scientific and technical
assistance for spills in water
o Department of Defense, U.S. Army (Corps of Engineers,
Nuclear and Chemical Agency), U.S. Navy, Defense
Civil Preparedness Agency; incidents occurring
during military operations; other assistance
o Department of Transportation: transportation of
hazardous materials
o Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (HUD):
major emergencies and natural disasters
All of these agencies have roles in the National Contin-
gency Plan. All have representatives on the National
Response Team set up by the NCP and all are designated as
primary agencies except for FDAA, which has an advisory
role.
In addition, one other agency is included in the
survey: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (DOE), which
assists planning for radiation incidents and monitors re-
sponses.
II-2
-------
The task force has pulled together information on these
federal agencies several different sources. First, there is
information from the nine Case Studies that describe how
actual emergencies have been handled by EPA and other
agencies as well as by state and local authorities. These
offer insights into both jurisdictional and operational
issues.
Secondly, the task force staff conducted in-depth
interviews with appropriate personnel at each agency.
Publication deadlines for the entire emergency response
study made it impossible to conduct a formal survey of all
federal agencies. However, a questionnaire Cattached at
Appendix B) was prepared and distributed informally to the
agencies. The questionnaire also served as a guide during
the interview. Although the interviews were limited to
program officers at agency headquarters, they provided a
fairly complete picture of emergency response capabilities.
This limited number of interviews did, however, pose some
difficulties in assembling financial data.
Thirdly, the study uses technical sources and reports
on agency activities (see Appendix C). These include the
follow-up reports made by some agencies after emergency
responses and information collected by the President's
Reorganization Project in its study of options for federal
emergency preparedness and response programs.
Using the above data, an interview summary was prepared
for each of the Agencies. For additional insights and as a
check for accuracy, the interview summaries were returned to
the agency people interviewed for their comments. A copy of
the interview summaries as provided in Appendix A of this
chapter. In addition, Table II-1 provides a condensed
matrix of agency programs, authority, operations, resources
and the like.
The information from these interviews is used in the
following sections dealing with the Federal role in environ-
mental emergency response, planning and training. The
chapter will then cover the existing coordinating mechanisms
among federal agencies and what the future requirements may
be.
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL RESPONSE
The responsibilities of federal agencies in dealing
with environmental emergencies are immediate, long range,
and continuing. The immediate responsibilities are, of
II-3
-------
TABLE II-lj FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES
Overview
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Responds to spills in coastal
zone and open waters
Monitors response of discharger
or
Declares Federal Removal Action
Manages Section 311(k) revolving
pollution fund
Operates National Response Center
o
o
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION •
(Excluding U.S.C.G.)
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Materials Transportation Bureau
o Transportation safety issues
o Identifies hazardous materials
with risks to transportation
o Establishes regulatory controls
o Developed training program for
hazardous materials transportation
o Investigates incidents involving
hazardous materials for safety
implications
o No specific environmental emergency
program
H
H
Regulatory Mandate
Organization
o Clean Water Act of 1977
o Executive Order 11735
o National Contingency Plan
o HQ program Office
o District and Captain-of-Port
offices provide on-scene
coordinators and response
personnel
o Three Emergency Strike Teams
o Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act (National Contingency Plan
through Coast Guard)
o HQ Program Offices
o Regional offices provide field
support
o Regional offices do compliance inspect-
enforcement, and incident investigations
(Superseded in major incidents by
National Transport Safety Board)
Resources
1,930 personnel in spill response
(most as collateral duty)
Strike teams are dedicated for
spill response
Can use pollution fund to cover
expenses during Federal Removal
Action
None dedicated to environmental
response
Interagency Coordination
o Primary member of National
Response Team (representing DOT)
o Chairs RRTs in coastal areas
o Uses National Contingency Plan,
regional contingency plans, and
Memorandums of Understanding
Primary Member of National Response
Team (through Coast Guard
Uses Memorandums of Understanding
and informal contracts
-------
TABLE II-l: FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U. S. Army
U. S. Navy
Defense Civil Preparedness
Agency
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Overview
Equipped to respond to environmental
environmental emergencies caused
by military operations
Can provide technical assistance
and equipment during civilian
incidents (through NCP)
DCPA does preparedness planning
for wartime emergencies (ex-
ploring use of Civil Defense
Directors for other emergencies)
Provides technical and scientific
assistance to OSC's during
spill emergencies
I
u\
Regulatory Mandate
Organization
Resources
o National Contingency Plan
o Civil Defense Act of 1950
Program coordination from
DOD representatives on NRT
and RRT's
Response assistance from military
installations
DCPA has cadre of C.D. coordina-
tors in state and local
governments
None dedicated to environmental
emergency response in civilian
sector
Can provide assistance on cost-
reimbursable basis
State and local civilian defense
personnel can assist
o National Contingency Plan
o HQ program office
o Regional offices and labs provide
support
o Network of science support
coordinators and emergency
response organization (now
being developed)
o Limited number of personnel
dedicated to emergency response
o Technical and scientific
support on collateral basis
o Assistance is on cost-reimbursable
basis
Interagency Coordination
o Primary Member National Response
o Use National Contingency Plan
(NCP), informal contacts
Primary Member NRT (through Coast
Guard)
Uses NCP and science support plans
(now being developed)
-------
TABLE II-1: FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES (Continued)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Overview
H
H
I
cr»
Regulatory Mandate
Organization
o Supervises preparedness and
response capabilities of nuclear
facility licensees
o Monitors response actions of
licensee and provides technical
assistance
o Provides planning and training
assistance to state and local
governments. (Cannot assume federal
control of radiological incident
response; state and local
governments and licensee share
that responsibility.) • .
o Atomic Energy Act of 1954
o Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration
o Manages federal assistance during
Presidentially declared "disasters"
and "emergencies"
o Can call on other federal agencies
for assistance
o Can provide assistance to state and
local governments, to individuals,
and to provide, non-profit institu-
tions
o HQ Program office
o .Regional offices provide field
support and respond to incidents
o HQ has an Incident Response
Program with condensed organization
o Disaster Relief Act of 1974
o National Contingency Plan
(Advisory Member)
o HQ Program office
o Regional offices give field
support and respond to emergencies
and disasters
o Can supplement internal staff by
asking other agencies to assist
Resources
Interagency Coordination
Dedicated to planning for and
responding to -radiological
emergencies
Budget line item for training
state and local government
personnel
Two radiological emergency
response plans
Uses Memorandums of Understanding
and informal contacts
o
o
Dedicated to planning for and
responding to emergencies and
disasters
Annual appropriation for disaster
assistance
Can reimburse certain response costs
incurred by federal agencies
assisting FDAA
Advisory Member, National Response Team
Informal contacts with agencies
assisting in disaster response
-------
course, trigged by imminent danger to public health or the
environment and require prompt action to clean up the accident
and to protect people and property. Ong-range programs,
used to prepare local, state, and federal personnel for handling
emergencies, include training, information, and technical
assistance. The continuing need is for coordination among
all agencies responding to emergencies.
Who responds to emergencies and how they do it is
determined by the nature of the incident, the applicable
legal authority, and the adequacy of corrective actions by
the parties who caused the emergency. In some cases the
adequacy of the state response is also a factor.
Depending on these factors and the dynamics of the
incident, federal agencies can perform as many as five
specific functions. The response roles could include:
providing technical advice, monitoring and evaluating the
corrective actions,assuming operational control of the
response, investigating the cause of the incident, and
preparing enforcement actions. CFor examples of how
these roles come into play during emergencies, see the
volume of Case Studies.)
Section 311 Spills
EPA and the Coast Guard share responsibility for seeing
that spills of oil and designated hazardous substances* into
navigable waters are cleaned up adequately. This mandate,
from Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), also makes
these agencies responsible for coordinating all federal
responses.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan spells our responsibilities for each agency
and the circumstances warranting action. The plan has two
main options. If a discharger is cleaning up quickly and
effectively, the appropriate agency monitors the effort
and provides technical advice. If the cleanup is not
adequate, the federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) declares
Currently this list of designated hazardous substances
is not in use, pending the outcome of litigation.
II-7
-------
a "Federal Removal Action" and actually directs the
activities of a cleanup contractor Cor in some cases the
work of government personnel). In this type of direct
intervention, EPA and the Coast Guard can request assistance
from NOAA, DOD, the Coast Guard Strike Teams or other
members of the National Response Team Ccreated under the
Contingency Plan). These agencies can provide technical
advice, resources or logistical support.
Federal costs incurred during a "Federal Removal Action"
are .charged to the Section 311 Ck) Pollution Fund, subject
to reimbursement by the discharger up to specified limits of
liability.
Finally, EPA and the Coast Guard are responsible for
investigating Section 311 incidents, and for pursuing
enforcement actions and liability claims.
Other Emergencies
Because there is a wide variety of environmental
incidents that can be defined as "emergency" but may not
fall within the mandate of Section 311 of the CWA, federal
agencies frequently have to make ad hoc judgments about
their proper roles. This is particularly true for EPA,
which has broad mandates in controlling air pollution,
water problems (other than Section 311 incidents), and
substances that may be considered harmful but have not
been designated as hazardous." In the past, agencies have
responded to incidents as they were needed, usually to
control pressing dangers to health or the environment.
Regulations to implement Section 504 of the CWA,
which provides a broad mandate to deal with any problem
posing "imminent and substantial danger to the health
and environment") and Section 1442 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act should clarify these response roles, especially
for EPA.* In the interim, federal agencies will continue
to limit their activities to support rather than direct
intervention. This could include monitoring, investiga-
tion and technical advice. For examples of how this has
worked in the past, see the Case Studies.
For more information on Section 504 of the CWA and
Section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, see
Reports I and III of this volume.
II-8
-------
Transportation Incidents
Transportation accidents that result in dischargers
of oil or hazardous substances may involve EPA and the
Coast Guard if provisions of Sections 311, 504, or 1442
apply- In addition, the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
may be involved to evaluate transportation safety implica-
tions.
The DOT "modal" offices (Highways, Railroads, Aviation,
etc.) are required, under the Hazardous Materials Transporta-
tion Act, to investigate accidents to determine causes.
For very serious accidents, the NTSB conducts the investi-
gation. The investigation reports are then used by DOT
for enforcement actions, evaluating existing safety regula-
tions, and proposing changes.
DOT is required to maintain an incident reporting
center for transportation accidents. DOT regulations
require carriers to report all transportation incidents
involving hazardous materials. Major accidents must be
reported immediately to the National Response Center.
Incidents which do not cause injury or property damage
exceeding $50,000 must be reported in writing to DOT
within 15 days. Incident statistics are compiled annually
for use in evaluating existing programs and the need for
new regulations.
Disasters
Whenever the President declares that an environ-
mental problem or natural event is an "emergency" or a
"major disaster," the Federal Disaster Assistance Adminis-
tration assumes control. The purpose of the program
(authorized by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974) is to
supplement the efforts of state and local governments to
save lives, protect property, and assure public health
and safety. They will also coordinate the actions of
all other federal agencies providing assistance at the
scene of an emergency. FDAA has the authority to request
technical assistance or support from other federal
agencies. Agencies providing such assistance can seek
reimbursement for certain expenses, for example, travel,
per diem, and overtime pay, incurred during the response.
Other expenses, such as salaries of regular employees
(which are budgeted by the other agencies) are not reim-
bursable. For examples of how FDAA works with other
agencies during disasters, see the Case Study on the
Johnstown flood.
11-9
-------
Although the FDAA program is not intended speci-
fically for environmental emergencies, it could be
implemented for serious incidents bey.ond state capabilities.
However, the FDAA program cannot be used if other federal
assistance programs are available. An example of this
would be the Section 504 program if it became operational.
Radiological Incidents
Responses to incidents involving radioactive materials
are divided between two federal agencies. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission handles emergencies at fixed,
licensed nuclear facilities, and the Department of Trans-
portation steps in when the incidents occur enroute
between facilities. EPA's Office of Radiation Programs
is notified of any spills involving radioactive materials
under terms of a letter agreement with the NRC and the
Department of Energy. EPA can provide response aid, but
it is not mandated. (For more details on EPA activities
in this area see Chapter III.)
Actual cleanup for radiation incidents is the responsi-
bility of the discharger (a licensed facility or trans-
porter) and the state where they occur. Licenses are
required by regulation to have emergency response plans
and to maintain emergency response teams. NRC has a
policy of encouraging response coordination among private
companies and state and local governments.
Neither NRC nor DOT have the authority to assume
operational control of a cleanup operation. NRC can,
however, order a facility to be shut down if the emergency
warrants. The two federal agencies intervene only to
provide technical advice and to make sure cleanup measures
are adequate. They also can investigate incidents and
recommend enforcement actions.
The vehicle for sharing technical assistance and
resources among federal agencies in the event of a serious
radiation incident is the Interagency Radiological Assist-
ance Plan (IRAP). Managed by the Department of Energy,
IRAP establishes coordination links, outlines response
procedures, and identifies the expertise, facilities, and
equipment available from the 13 signatory agencies.
EPA provides an example of the assistance available
from a signatory agency of IRAP, The Office of Radiation
Programs can provide monitoring teams that will measure
environmental radiation, evaluate the extent of the
contamination, and offer advice on actions to be taken
11-10
-------
for protection of public health and safety. EPA has monitoring
equipment located in Alabama and Nevada which can be mobilized
for a response action.
FEDERAL ROLE IN PREPAREDNESS AND SUPPORT
To complete this overview of governmental response to the
emergencies described in the preceding section, we discuss here
operations support, preparedness, and information systems. We
also discuss resources and describe a new Agency specifically
charged with response to national emergencies.
Operations > Support
In most situations, federal agencies assist cleanup
operations with technical advice, monitoring, and coordina
tion. In some cases, federal agencies can perform the
cleanup themselves. The Coast Guard and DOD are the two
organizations best equipped to handle the actual mitiga tion
of an environmental emergency.
The Coast Guard Strike Teams maintain a limited inventory
of response equipment that is intended primarily for use in
cleaning up oil spills. The Strike Teams can supplement the
efforts of a discharger or they can be given full responsibility
for a cleanup in the event of a Federal Removal Action.
The U. S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency also has its
own response equipment, primarily for incidents arising from
military operations. However, these resources (along with
others within the Department of Defense) can be used for
civilian removal actions so long as DOD is reimbursed for
its costs.
Based on the success of using private cleanup crews
under the Section 311 program for oil spills, federal
agencies have preferred to use outside contractors rather
than stockpiling equipment and maintaining cleanup personnel.
This has avoided unnecessary costs and duplication of effort.
The Section 311 program, has, in fact, spawned an entire new
industry of private contractors who can handle oil spills
effectively. It remains to be seen whether these contractors
can be as effective in handling hazardous substances as they
proved to be in cleaning up oil spills.
Preparedness
Several federal agencies operate continuing education
programs to help state and local officials and private
industry prepare for emergencies.
11-11
-------
The largest of these, in the area of radiation
emergencies, is conducted by the Federal Interagency Central
Coordinating Committee for Radiological Emergency Response
Preparedness. The program is coordinated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under the general guidance of the
Federal Preparedness Agency. (The Committee includes EPA,
HEW, DOE, FPA, NRC, DOT, and the Defense Civil Prepared-
ness Agency.)
The program and specific agency responsiblities are
spelled out in the Federal Register (40 F.R. 248, December
24, 1975); to date, three courses have been developed.
The courses include "Radiological Emergency Response
Planning," "Operations Course for State/Local Radiological
Emergency Response Coordinators" and "Operations Course
for State/Local RER Teams." The first Course focuses on
potential hazards and their mitigation. It is held at the
DCPA Staff School, and NRC pays tuition and travel. The
second course, dealing with the duties of the local response
coordinator, is usually held at the regional level. The
third course, covering the work of response team members,
is conducted at a contractor's facility in Nevada.
As an outgrowth of this training program, the
Department of Transportation has developed, with an outside
contractor, a course on how to respond to transportation
incidents involving hazardous materials. Prepared by the
National Fire Protection Association, the instruction is
aimed at actions to be taken by fire and police personnel
who arrive first at the scene of an incident. The package,
which is available commercially from NFPA, includes slides,
cassette tapes, an instructor's guide, and a student manual.
It can be given by the state or local agency.
Future work in this area should include education and
planning for the entire range of environmental emergencies
to prepare state and local personnel who are usually the
first to arrive at the emergency scene.
Information
Government agencies and private companies are currently
using three major chemical information systems during '
emergency responses.
11-12
-------
CHEMTREC is operated by the Manufacturing Chemists
Association on a 24-hour basis. The system, using an 800
telephone number, can provide information on 3,600 chemicals
and 14,000 trade names, and can notify key individuals,
e.g., carrier's home office, shipper, and the Chlorine
Institute, following an incident.
CHRIS is run by the Coast Guard at the National Response
Center. It contains data and response guides for 900
potentially dangerous chemicals. It also has computer
models for calculating dispersion, downwind distances, etc.
OHM-TADS is EPA's information system, which can be
reached from Headquarters or Regional offices. The system
provides data and response guides for approximately 1,000
different chemicals.
In addition, the IRLG has noted that the Food and Drug
Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have their own information systems.
Although the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
requires DOT to develop and implement "a central
reporting system and data center to provide... technical
and other information and advice for meeting emergencies
connected with the transportation of hazardous materials,"
DOT has not developed its own system, preferring to rely
on the existing ones mentioned above.
DOT has published an Emergency Action Guide for Selected
Hazardous Materials. The booklet has information on 42
potentially dangerous materials shipped in bulk and is to
be carried in the glove compartment of emergency vehicles
(fire, police, and medical). The booklet is for use by
local personnel during the first 30 minutes of an emergency.
There is obviously some duplication among the three
primary chemical information systems. Many of the same
chemicals are catalogued in each and all three are readily
accessible. CHEMTREC provides an additional service of
notification and OHM-TADS has the ability to search its
own data bank, given general characteristics, to help
identify an unknown material.
To our knowledge, no one has attempted to analyze the
information contained in these systems for quality or
consistency.
11-13
-------
Resources
In most of the agencies interviewed, emergency response
work is done by a small staff working with a modest budget.
Only the Coast Guard, with 1,930 people available to respond
to spills under the Section 311 program, has a major
emergency response staff. The Coast Guard Strike Teams are
dedicated to spill response full time. DOD, NRC, FDAA,
and NOAA all have personnel dedicated to emergency response
work and planning. These agencies report that, when
necessary, they can obtain additional support on a collateral
duty basis (i.e., they can be pulled off regular assignments
for emergency response). Only DOT reports that it has no
one specifically detailed to emergency response, with the
exception of compliance inspectors who enforce the
transportation safety regulations.
The FDAA is the one agency with "umbrella" authority
to call on other agencies for assistance. Under the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974, FDAA can use other agencies when their
expertise will help mitigate effects of a natural disaster.
FDAA will reimburse those agencies except where the expenses
are covered by the agency's normal budget, e.g., staff
salaries. Most of the agencies work on a similar cost-
reimburseable basis. Out-of-pocket expenses are covered
by the appropriate funds (Section 311 for oil and hazardous
substances or FDAA appropriations).
In terms of equipment, again the Coast Guard has the
largest inventory, primarily for use in oil spills. USCG is
obtaining 60 protective sui-ts for its personnel who will be
working on hazardous substances response. The Department
of Defense has radiological detection and monitoring equipment
as well as a decontamination unit. The Defense Civil
Preparedness Agency has a 24-hour telephone warning system
that could be used for widespread emergencies. It was used
during the 1967 blackout in the Northeastern Unites States.
The largest budget item for planning for emergency
responses is located within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In FY-79, $750,000 has been budgeted for the work of the
Central Coordinating Committee for Radiological Emergency
Response Preparedness.
The survey revealed a potential resource for coordinating
local and state responses to emergencies within the DCPA.
The Agency is currently exploring a "dual use" program for
its state and local Civil Defense Directors. DCPA now pays
- 11-14
-------
half the salaries for these individuals and provides them
with technical assistance and support. Although the system
is primarily for wartime emergencies, DCPA officials believe
the system might be improved if the Civil Defense directors
were used during natural disasters and environmental
emergencies. Thus the military readiness program and its
communication links could be tested periodically and local
jurisdictions would have a trained emergency response
capability.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
On June 19, 1978, President Carter sent to Congress
Reorganization Plan Number. Three, which establishes the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The plan
would combine the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, the
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, the Federal
Preparedness Agency, and several other emergency functions
within the Executive Branch.
The reorganization is designed to consolidate emergency
preparedness, mitigation, and response activities; reduce
duplicative expenses; increase effectiveness; and hold
emergency management functions directly accountable to the
President and Congress.
The Plan also would create an Emergency Management
Committee (EMC), to be chaired by the director of FEMA.
The EMC would include several assistants to the President
and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The committee will advise the President on ways to meet
national civil emergencies and will oversee the management
of all federal emergency authorities.
Agencies responding to environmental emergencies were
specifically excluded from the FEMA charter because the
President's Reorganization Project decided that such
transfers would not improve performance. However, because
several of the agencies are involved in the National
Contingency Plan and potentially in other environmental
emergencies, the creation of FEMA will require new measures
to maintain interagency coordination.
11-15
-------
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Federal agencies share leadership, responsibilities,
and resources through a variety of legal mechanisms when
responding to environmental emergencies. These include
federal statutues, agency regulations, Memorandums of
Understanding, work groups, and on occasion, ad hoc informal
agreements.
The National Plan
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act represents the
most comprehensive approach to bringing the resources of the
U. S. Government to bear on an environmental emergency. The
legislation calls for creation of a National Oil and Hazard-
ous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, which has been
in operation since 1973.
The National Plan, as it is called, sets up a system
of graduated responses, establishes clear lines of authority,
creates a mechanism for coordinating the work of many
different federal agencies, and has the money needed to
accomplish its tasks.
The National Plan establishes a national organization
that includes a National Response Team (NRT), a network of
Regional Response Teams (RRTs) and a cadre of On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). It designates EPA and the Coast Guard
as "lead" agencies, delegates specific responsibilities
to other federal agencies, and classifies those agencies
as "primary" (DOT, DOD, Commerce through NOAA, and Interior
through the U. S. Geological Survey) and "advisory" (FDAA).
The plan also sets out policies and procedures to be
followed during an emergency.*
Finally, the OSC coordinates any investigation and
enforcement actions that are necessary and makes a follow-
up report on the operation for the NRT. The NRT and RRT's
are also responsible for evaluation of operations under the
National Plan.
Memorandums of Understanding
The Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, is a formal
agreement between two agencies that has proved useful in
defining areas of responsibility and jurisdiction. MOUs re-
quire only the approval of the participating agencies to take
The Plan is currently being revised, and several other
agencies will be assigned response roles under it.
11-16
-------
effect, and the agencies themselves decide the duration of
the agreement.
EPA and the Coast Guard have used an MOU to divide
their responsibilities for implementing the oil spill
prevention program under the Clean Water Act. DOT and
the NRC have signed a MOU covering their respective duties
in transportation incidents involving radiological materials.
The DCPA and FDAA have an MOU for providing guidance and
assistance to state and local governments on disaster
preparedness.
Committees and Working Groups
When agencies have program areas that overlap or
problems that require a multi-agency approach, they often
form committees or working groups. The Federal Interagency
Coordinating Committee for Radiological Emergency Response
Preparedness, described earlier in this report, is an
example of an on-going committee.
EPA is currently involved in a major government effort
to streamline regulatory activity among agencies with man-
dates to protect public health and the environment from
adverse effects of toxic and hazardous substances. It
is called the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG),
and it was created "to improve the public health through
sharing of information, avoiding duplication of effort and
developing consistent regulatory policy."
Besides EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are
members. (For an example of how three of these agencies
—EPA, OSHA, and FDA—worked on the same environmental
emergency, see the Case Study on Kepone at Hopewell,
Virginia.)
The charter and a work plan for the IRLG have been
published in the Federal Register (42 F.R. 196 October 11,
1977; and 43 F.R. 34 February 17, 1978). Of the IRLG's
eight work groups, the Compliance and Enforcement Group
has begun working on a coordination mechanism for the agencies
as part of its task entitled "Enforcement Response to Health
and Environmental Emergencies."
11-17
-------
That work group is developing a means to coordinate
agency work so that the "most appropriate regulatory control
will be applied in abating or mitigating an incident,
regardless of the limits of the regulatory options of the
lead agency, and will assure profitable utilization of
technical support resources."
To accomplish this, the work group is identifying each
agency's current emergency response capabilities, designating
interagency contacts, establishing a plan for interagency
notification, and creating a procedure for multi-agency
emergency responses.
The work group expects a final report by November 1978.
IRLG represents the first coordinated approach to
making sure that an individual agency's development of
regulations for hazardous materials is compatible with other
government regulations in the same general area.
CONCLUSIONS
The National Contingency Plan has proved to be an
effective mechanism to promote planning for and response to
spills of oil in water. Experience in responding under the
Plan has shown that private contractors can clean up oil
spills adequately. It has also shown that federal responses
to environmental emergencies are best coordinated by a
single designated official at the scene of an incident.
Because the Plan is used regularly and is continually
evaluated, it has developed into a model for government
coordination. Member agencies and response personnel know
what to do and how to do it.
How well the private contractor approach will work with
regard to hazardous substances remains to be seen. This
will depend on the outcome of pending litigation on designat-
ed hazardous substances as well as the implementation of
programs under Section 504 of the Clean Water Act of 1977
and Section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
Although the situations have not been ideal, federal
agencies have been able to make ad hoc, coordinated responses
to environmental emergencies not covered by specific
legislation.
11-18
-------
Automated information systems for potentially hazardous
chemicals have been effective although there may be some
duplication of information and effort in maintaining all
three .
Section 311 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
budget have provided adequate funds for oil spill response
and radiological emergency response preparedness, respective-
The interagency program to assist state and local
governments in training and preparedness planning is well
established for radiological emergencies.
Coordinating mechanisms such as the Memorandum of
Understanding and interagency committees have been useful
in defining program responsibilities and jurisdictions and
in resolving specific problems .
The IRLG has established an important precedent for
continuing coordination among agencies with similar
regulatory responsibilities.
11-19
-------
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL AGENCY INTERVIEW SUMMARIES
This appendix contains more detailed information on the
six Federal agencies analyzed as part of this study:
o U.S. Coast Guard
o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
o Department of Defense
o Department of Transportation
o Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
o Nuclear Regulatory Commission
All of these agencies, except the Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are
primary members of the National Contingency Plan. FDAA is an
advisory member of the National Contingency Plan.
Each of the chapters is organized similarly: after a
discussion of the role of the Agency in environmental emer-
gencies, there are sections on organization and planning,
coordination and response, and resources.
Appendix B contains the memorandum sent to the partici-
pating agencies; Appendix C lists the references used throughout
this chapter.
-------
U.S. COAST GUARD
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) shares with EPA the major
response role for spills of oil and hazardous substances.
The National Contingency Plan divides the role by assigning
lead responsibility for providing the On-Scene Coordinator
to the USCG for ports and harbors, the coastal waters, and
the Great Lakes, and to EPA for inland waters.
The Coast Guard has four general responsibilities: (1)
receive reports of water pollution incidents involving oil
or hazardous substances and disseminate the reports to the
appropriate OSC and other Federal agencies; (2) provide per-
sonnel and equipment support as necessary and available; (3)
assume the vice chairmanship for the National Response Team;
and (4) administer the Section 311(k) Revolving Fund to pro-
vide the governmental cleanup of spills of oil and hazardous
substances. In the coastal areas and Great Lakes, it has a
number of specific responsibilities:
1. Provide On-Scene Coordinators to supervise cleanup
or mitigation by a private party and to direct and
control cleanup when actions taken by the responsi-
ble party are inadequate or nonexistent
2. Operate the Strike Teams of the National Strike
Force to provide advice and assistance (both person-
nel and equipment) to inland and coastal On-Scene
Coordinators
3. Take actions to eliminate or mitigate oil pollu-
tion danger from a ship on the high seas which
threatens U.S. coasts or interests
4. Establish safety zones and control vessel movements
as necessary
5. Provide the chairmanship for the Coastal Regional
Response Teams
6. Prevent damage to, or loss or destruction of, ves-
sels, bridges, or structures in U.S. navigable
waters and structures immediately adjacent
7. Protect the navigable waters and their resources
from environmental harm resulting from vessel or
structural damage, destruction, or loss.
IIA-1
-------
The USCG derives its authority from a set of laws,
regulations, and Executive Orders. These are listed below:
Statutes
1. Clean Water Act of 1977
2. Intervention on the High Seas Act
3. Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1973
4. Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972
5. Deepwater Ports Act
6. Refuse Act of 1899
7. 14 USC 2, 89 and 141
Regulations
1. 49 CFR 1.46, 171
2. 33 CFR 6, 153, 154-156
3. 40 CFR 1510
Executive Orders
1. 10173
2-. 11735
Interagency Agreements or Contingency Plans
1. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 1510)
2. Regional and Local Pollution Contingency Plans
3. Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and DOT,
24 November 1971
4. Memorandum of Understanding between DOI and DOT,
16 August 1971
Internal Agency Policy
1. DOT Organization Manual (DOT 1100.23A)
2. Coast Guard Regulations (CG-300)
3. Coast Guard Organization Manual (CG-229)
4. Area and District Operations Plan
5. Commandant, Area, and District Notices and Instruc-
tions
6. Coast Guard Marine Safety Manual (CG-495.)
ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
An organization chart for the USCG is provided as Figure
A-l. Headquarters staff support for emergency response
is provided by the Office of Marine Environment and Systems,
with the actual emergency response performed by 12 District
Offices located around the country.
11 A-2
-------
Figure A-l
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. COAST GUARD ORGANIZATION
1
OFFICE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS
IG-HI
COMMANDANT (G-C)
VICE COMMANDANT (G-CV)
I
CHIEF OF STAFF (G-CCS)
_L
OFFICE OF
BOATING SAFETY
IG-BI
H
H
¥
CO
1
OFFICE OF
COMPTROLLER
IG-FI
OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL
|GP|
_L
OFFICE OF
CHIEF COUNSEL
IG-LI
OFFICE OF MARINE
ENVIRONMENT I
SYSTEMS |G-W|
CONGRESSIONAL
AFFAIRS STAFF |G-CC|
OFFICE OF
ENGINEERING
IG-EI
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT |G-D|
I
OFFICE OF
MERCHANT MARINE
SAFETY |G-M|
OFFICE OF
HEALTH
SERVICES IG-KJ
_L
OFFICE OF
OPERATIONS
IG-OI
OFFICE OF
RESERVE [G-R]
OFFICE OF PUBLIC |
AND INTERNATIONAL I
AFFAIRS |G-A|
FIELD ORGANIZATIONS
_L
AREA OFFICES
121
J_
DISTRICT OFFICES
J_
HEADQUARTERS UNITS
(15)
-------
The abbreviated command structure used during an
incident is shown below.
COMMANDANT
AREA COMMANDERS
DISTRICT COMMANDERS
ON-SCENE COORDINATORS
SUPPORT UNITS
The Commandant provides program .direction and general
oversight. The Area Commanders assume operational control
when incidents cross District lines. The District Comman-
ders assume operational control within their own district,
provide RRT chairman for coastal incidents, and designate
Coast Guard support units. The On-Scene Coordinators coor-
dinate and direct Federal efforts on scene and monitor
cleanup by private parties. The Support Units provide
personnel and equipment to assist the On-Scene Coordinator.
On-Scene Coordinators are designated for all coas ;al
areas of the United States and are required to respond to
all reported incidents. The primary response comes from die
OSC's staff, with assistance as needed from the National
Strike Force, other District units, and the Coast Guard
Reserve.
The USCG has established three Strike Teams to provide
emergency response support for both USCG and EPA OSCs.
Specifically, the Strike Teams are able to provide communi-
cations support, technical advice, and assistance for
removal of oil and hazardous substances. The support func-
tion is primarily geared for the following response phases:
containment and countermeasures; cleanup, mitigation and
disposal; and documentation and cost recovery. The three
Strike Teams are located along the Atlantic Coast (Elizabeth
City, North Carolina); the Gulf Coast (Bay St. Louis, Mis-
souri) ; and the West Coast (San Francisco, California).
The USCG currently receives support for the development
of response procedures and equipment from the Office of
Research and Development. In addition, the USCG is establish-
ing a network of oil identification labs to aid their enforce-
ment program. Current plans call for the establishment of 22
Field Oil Identification Labs (FOIL) to be located at field
11 A-4
-------
units and one central lab (COIL) located at the Coast Guard
oceanographlc unit, Washington,D..C. A laboratory is pre-
sently available for limited use at the Coast Guard Research
arid Development Center, Groton, Connecticut. The FOILs will
utilize fluoresence spectroscopy and thin-layer chromato-
graphy for analysis; the COIL also includes infra-red spec-
troscopy and gas chromatography. COIL and six FOILs are
presently operational.
The USCG uses the National Contingency Plan for coordi-
nating response actions to spill incidents. In addition,
each District Office maintains a regional plan for spills
within its area of responsibility. The regional plans
identify likely sources of spills, probable sizes and impacts,
preferred response techniques, available resources, and
points of contact.
After-action reviews are conducted on major incidents
to evaluate response performance. For these incidents, OSCs
are required to submit a final report. This report summa-
rizes the incident, the actions taken, and any problems
encountered. The Regional and National Response Teams and
the Coast Guard chain of command then review the report.
Selected cases of special interest also receive pollution
incident case analysis: a board of impartial examiners is
chosen to review the incident and point out any shortcomings
and possible solutions. Some of the improvement which have
come about as a result of incident analyses include improved
contingency planning guidelines, a public information assist-
ance team, expanded training programs, a scientific support
organization for the OSC, additional equipment, and more
information and guidelines on pollution response methods,
techniques, and equipment.
COORDINATION AND RESPONSE PROCEDURES
The USCG uses the National Plan and the NRT/RRT organi-
zation as the standing mechanism for interagency coordination.
During major responses, technical assistance or logistics
support can be obtained through the appropriate agency
representatives on the RRT. The RRT also provides the
primary mechanism for liaison with State government offi-
cials.
The USCG has been designated as the proper agency to
receive the spill reports required by the Clean Water Act.
This is accomplished by a nationwide toll-free telephone
number, manned 24 hours a day at the National Response
11 A-5
-------
Center, Washington, D.C. This number is published in 33 CFR
153 and has received wide media publication. It is used by
private citizens, industry, and government agencies to
report spills. All reports are immediately relayed to the
appropriate EPA or USCG OSC. In addition to section 311
spill notifications, the NRG routinely receives reports of
hazardous material incidents as required by Department of
Transportation Regulations, 49 CFR, and has agreed to re-
ceive hazardous waste incident reports required by the
proposed EPA regulations connected with the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act CRCRA).
Upon receipt of a spill notification, the OSC dis-
patches personnel to the scene to evaluate the situation and
the actions being taken. If necessary, the OSC declares a
Federal removal action and assume direct supervision of
response activities. The OSC is guided generally by the
National and Regional Contingency Plans and may consult
CHRIS, OHM-TADS, or CHEMTREC for an evaluation of the poten-
tial health and safety hazards. Contacts with the local and
regional scientific community are being developed for assist-
ance in hazard assessment.
Decision authority on whether to activate the USCG
response program is delegated to the OSC. The decision is
based on the adequacy of the cleanup actions being taken by
the discharger. In either case, specific actions taken by a
USCG OSC would include the following:
o Supervision and monitoring of cleanup operations
conducted by a private party
o Coordination of Federal cleanup efforts conducted
under the auspices of the FWPCA
o Support of cleanup efforts, including traffic con-
trol, transportation, surveillance, personnel and
equipment, and mobilization of the Strike Team
o Investigation and enforcement
o Providing spill trajectory information.
Generally, except for National Strike Force personnel,
commercial contractors conduct cleanup and mitigation.
Coast Guard personnel are utilized for supervision, moni-
toring, and support (e.g., traffic control and transporta-
tion) . They are, however, available for cleanup and mitiga-
tion duties whenever there are not sufficient numbers of
IIA-6
-------
commercial contractors. Funding for work, directly related
to recovery is available through the Section 311(kl Revolv-
ing Fund, although support functions like traffic control
must be paid for with normal operating funds. Some district
offices have established standing contracts with commercial
contractors. In areas where these are not available, the
District contracting officer can issue a letter contract
which will be followed up later with additional documenta-
tion. There is no monetary limit on these contracts.
In addition to spill response, the- USCG is assigned
other duties, including surveillance for detection of unre-
ported spills, inspection of vessels and facilities to
insure compliance with pollution prevention regulations,
and filing of incident reports for assessment of civil
penalities or criminal sanctions.
RESOURCES
The USCG has 1,930 personnel involved in spill re-
sponse. These resources are drawn from the National Strike
Force, the Captain of the Port Offices, Marine Safety
Offices, Port Safety Detachments, and Marine Safety Detach-
ments. The National Strike Force is a dedicated response
resource. On occasion, its members assist in search and
rescue, but the primary mission is pollution response,
including planning and training. Captains of the Port,
Marine Safety Offices and Detachments, and Port Safety
Detachments are primarily involved in port safety and
marine safety, as well as environmental protection. They
also participate in other Coast Guard mission areas when
required. These units will normally provide the On-Scene
Coordinator. Approximately 4 percent of their time is spent
on actual emergency response. Other Coast Guard units
(vessels, aircraft, and search and rescue facilities) are
available and may be used to support emergency response
efforts as required.
Most USCG personnel receive on-the-job training as
required for pollution response. Key personnel at response-
oriented units and all National Strike Force members receive
formal training at the Coast Guard Marine Safety School,
Yorktown, Virginia. Coast Guard training includes:
o Marine Safety Basic Indoctrination Course
o Marine Environment and System Course
IIA-7
-------
o Marine Environmental Protection Course
o Marine Safety Management Seminar
o Middle Grade Officer Pollution Response Course
o On-Scene Coordinator/Regional Team Training Exercise
o Hazardous Chemicals Course
o Field Oil Fingerprinting Course
o Investigation Course
o Hearing Officers Course
The first three courses provide basic environmental protec-
tion training in response, prevention, and enforcement. The
others are "graduate level" courses in specific areas. The
National Strike Force conducts annual training exercises
for Marine Safety and Captain of the Port offices involved
in oil spill control. The curriculum includes general
topics, as well as special problems and equipment utiliza-
tion techniques that are specific to each local area.
Training outside the Coast Guard includes the spill
control courses at Texas A&M and Corpus Christi State
Universities, as well as various training courses and semi-
nars sponsored by industry and special interest groups. A
postgraduate course in environmental management is also
available to USCG Officers.
A limited amount of cleanup equipment is available at
Coast Guard field units. This equipment can be used in
cleanup efforts when it will be more effective or expedient
than commerically owned equipment. The National Strike
Force has specialized equipment for off-loading tank vessels
and for containment and cleanup of spills in open water.
The containment and cleanup equipment will operate effec-
tively in seas up to five feet high and winds up to 20
knots.
Coast Guard aircraft or tractor-trailers generally
transport equipment to Strike Team locations. Coast Guard
vessels or helicopters are also used to deliver equipment
offshore. A recently acquired surface delivery sled
11 A-8
-------
provides the. capability of transporting heavy equipment to
an offshore location at speeds of up to 15 knots under
vessel tow or 60 knots when towed by helicopter.
Any personnel protective equipment presently in the
field has been procured locally and is limited in its appli-
cation. Sixty protective suits ("called the Hazardous Chemi-
cal Protective Clothing Outfit, HCPCO) are being procured
for issue to the Strike Teams and eventual distribution to
field units. The suit is vapor-tight with butyl rubber,
polycarbonate, and anodized aluminum comprising the protec-
tive, envelope. The suit incorporates Nomex coveralls, an
intrinsically safe VHF-FM radio, and an oxygen deficiency
alarm. It can be used with three different types of air
supply systems. The primary design uses an ambient air
filter backpack. It can also be used with a carried self-
contained breathing air system such as the Scottpack or an
umbilical system. Selection of an air supply will be based
on the chemical(s) involved and the environmental condition
at site.
The USCG also manages a research and development pro-
gram to improve its response capabilities. Specific pro-
jects include:
o Response methods and techniques (flaring, severe
weather, cold weather etc.)
o Response equipment development (in cooperation with
EPA, DOD, and DOE)
o Test and evaluation of state-of-the-art equipment
o Slick trajectory prediction
o Equipment to protect personnel responding to hazar-
dous chemical discharges
o Techniques and equipment to permit response person-
nel to detect, identify, and quantify discharged
hazardous chemicals
o Systems to prevent and reduce discharges of hazar-
dous chemicals
o Techniques to contain, neutralize, or recover dis-
charged hazardous chemicals
o Disposal techniques and equipment
IIA-9
-------
o Refined CHRIS hazard assessment models.
The following funding levels were reported by the USCG
for FY 77 and FY 78.
FY 77
($000)
FY 78
($000)
Personnel
Travel
Research
Grants, Loans
Contracts (standing)
Total Response Acti-
vity Allocation
$1,851 $1,966
—NOT AVAILABLE—
1,735
2,200
—NONE—
Entered into at District Level-
Not Available at Headquarters
$3,586
$4,166
Clean Water Act Section 311(k) Revolving Fund Transac-
tions are made case by case at the District level. Specific
details on the level of reimbursement are not readily re-
ceived from other funding sources, nor have any costs been
directly recovered from a responsible party. The Coast
Guard has, however, collected on behalf of the fund $1.7 mil-
lion dollars from TOVALOP and CRISTAL. (TOVALOP and CRISTAL
were organized by the tanker industry to provide insurance
coverage against oil pollution incidents for its members.)
These recoveries represent $1.1 million from TOVALOP for the
Federal response during the ARGO Merchant incident and
$650,000 from CRISTAL arising from the Corinthos/Queeny inci-
dent. Both recoveries were collected outside the scope of
the Clean Water Act but were deposited into the 311(k) Fund.
IIA-10
-------
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), through the Department of Commerce, has been desig-
nated as a "Primary Agency" in the National Oil and Hazar-
dous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan C40 CFR 1510).
NOAA's primary role during environmental emergencies is to
provide meteorological and oceanographic support to the EPA
or U.S. Coast Guard On-Scene Coordinator. This role is
intended to take advantage of NOAA's expertise in the marine
and atmospheric sciences.
NOAA has also been designated as the "lead agency" for
coordinating scientific support activities in the costal
regions and on the high seas. (EPA has similar responsibil-
ities for inland waters.) Scientific support coordination
is a new program which was initiated following the ARGO
Merchant spill of December 1976. Program objectives include:
o Providing technical advice to the OSC to help miti-
gate the impact of a spill
o Performing studies and assessments to identify
damages to the environment
o Coordinating research activities at the scene of a
spill to benefit to the scientific community while
not interfering with cleanup.
The program has been endorsed by the National Response Team,
and will be incorporated as an Annex to the National Contin-
gency Plan.
To illustrate the range of NOAA's response capabili-
ties , the following is a summary of the types of actions
taken during the ARGO Merchant spill:
o Marine Forecasts
Special forecasts of winds, weather, visibility,
sea, and swell every six hours
Hourly weather ovservations
o Oil Movement
IIA-11
-------
- Chart displays of daily slick, movement and
dispersion
- Satellite Tracking of the Slick
o Fisheries Impact—advice to OSC on potential ef-
fects on fisheries
o Coordination of Scientific Community
Liaison with OSC
- Coordination of Workshops
o Logistics Support
- Research vessel
- C-130 aircraft
o Public Affairs—press conferences on scientific
studies
o Resource Damage Assessment
Impact on fisheries
Impact on ocean environment
NOAA's role in environmental emergencies is defined in
and authorized by the National Contingency Plan. Other
related legislation under which NOAA operates include the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sancturaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972,
and the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976.
Although these laws do not specifically authorize emergency
response by NOAA (the MPRSA does include provisions for
other agencies to obtain injunctive relief to preven immi-
nent or continuing violations), they do provide framework
for the marine and atmospheric science expertise and re-
sponse capabilities available within NOAA.
ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
An abbreviated organization chart for NOAA is provided
as Figure A-2. The Chain of Command for emergency response
planning is indicated by the shaded boxes. NOAA is currently
IIA-12
-------
Associate
Administrator,
NOAA
r
Assistant
Administrator
for Fisheries
H
H
t*
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
Assistant
Administrator
fof Research
and Development
Office
of Sea
Grant
Environmental
Research;
Labs
\
Office
of Ocean
Engineer
1
Assistant
Administrator
for Coastal
Zone Management
1
Assistant
Administrator
for Oceanic and
Atmospheric Services
Environmental
Data
Service
National
Weather
Service
1
National
Ocean
Survey
- Marine EcoSv^h
cnl
rogram
V '
Regional
Science
Support
Coordinators
Lead Elements
for Spill Planning
Activity
Figure A+2. Organization of Spill-Related Elements during Non-Spill Periods,
-------
developing a "command structure" to implement the scientific
support program. CAt the time of this analysis, NOAA had
not completed its response organization.).
Once established, NOAA will manage its portion of the
support program through a National Science Support Coordina-
tor CSSC) and a network of Regional Science Support Coordi-
nators. The National SSC will provide direction and
coordination for the program and technical or administrative
assistance to the Regional SSCs, which work in conjunction
with the Regional Response Teams and provide direct support
to the OSC. The National Contingency Plan outlines the
following specific responsibilities of the Regional SSC
(draft of proposed revisions to the National Plan dated
May 24, 1978) :
o Contact the scientific community in the region to
determine availability and technical capabilities
o Develop and maintain those portions of the Re-
gional Contingency Plans dealing with science
support
o Identify the types of research efforts to be under-
taken during spills
o Provide scientific assistance and damage assessment
support when requested by OSC
o Coordinate all research activities at the scene of
a spill.
In addition to the science support program, NOAA can
provide technical support in the marine and atmospheric
sciences. This support is available from the following NOAA
offices:
o National Ocean Survey—ship support
o National Weather Service—weather forecasts, mete-
orological information, spill tracking, and trajec-
tory forecasts
o Environmental Data Service—oceanographic and hy-
drological data
o Environmental Research Labs—facilities and equip-
ment, and trajectory forecasts
II A-14
-------
o Marine Fisheries Service—fisheries and species
habitat information
NOAA emergency response activities are coordinated under
the National Contingency Plan. In addition, NOAA is working
with EPA and the USCG to prepare a series of regional contin-
gency plans for the scientific support program. Separate
plans will be prepared for the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic,
the Southeast-Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes,
the West Coast, and Alaska. Each regional plan will contain
the following:
o Procedures for mobilizing the scientific support
response on a 24-hour basis
o Inventories of a specialized equipment and proce-
dures and contacts for obtaining the equipment
o Interagency agreements and other documents for
mobilizing and coordinating all scientific activi-
ties
o An inventory of scientific expertise within the
region organized by discipline (e.g. Marine birds
and mamaIs)
o A ranking of scientific projects that would be
desirable to undertake during an emergency situa-
tion.
The Regional SSC will be responsible for maintaining the
plan and for implementating the plan during an emergency.
The remaining plans will be issued over the next 15 months.
After-action performance reviews will be conducted for
each major NOAA response. The Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development and the National Science Support
Coordinator are responsible for conducting the evaluation.
The review will include NOAA's internal response and inter-
agency coordination. The Assistant Administrator for Re-
search and Development is also responsible for ensuring that
corrective actions are taken. An after-action review of the
ARGO Merchant response resulted in a 42-page report, with 17
recommendations for improving future response.
IIA-15
-------
COORDINATION AND RESPONSE PROCEDURES
The National Contingency Plan provides the mechanism
for coordination between NOAA and other Federal agencies.
NOAA representatives participate on both the NRT and the
RRT. The Regional Science Support Plans will also outline
coordination procedures between NOAA and public and private
organizations.
NOAA can be notified if a spill incident through the
National Response Center, activation of an RRT, direct
contact between an OSC and the NOAA representative on an
RRT, or personal communication from EPA or the USCG. Upon
receipt of a spill notification, the message is relayed to
key personnel throughout the agency.
The NOAA response program can be activated two ways:
(1) the OSC or EPA can request technical assistance,
scientific support, or damage assessment through the NOAA
representative on the RRT; or (2) NOAA management can
authorize a response independent of an official request.
Examples include situations that might affect fisheries or
present unique research opportunities. (The ARGO Merchant
spill is a example.) In both instances, the authorization to
respond would be relayed to the Regional SSC. (Until the
Science Support Program is fully staffed and operational,
the authorization would be relayed to the National SSC.)
Both the National and Regional SSCs will maintain a 24-hour
response capability. (The National SSC currently has a 24-
hour answering service with a "beeper" notification system.
The emergency number has been provided to the National
Response Center and to the EPA and USCG response programs.)
NOAA uses in-house personnel and facilities, other
Federal personnel, and contractors in its Emergency re-
sponse. In the past, response has drawn heavily from in-
house personnel. However, with the expansion of the program,
use of outside resources will be emphasized. NOAA can
obtain academic expertise through its National Sea Grant
Program. The Program provides grants to universities for
specific marine research projects. These projects could
include reserach on the environmental impact of an incident.
The Program could also be used to transfer funds to univer-
sity scientists to support a specific response.
RESOURCES
NOAA personnel currently assigned to the spill response
program are shown below. NOAA has requested additional
positions from OMB to implement the Science Support Program.
A final determination on this request has not yet been made.
IIA-16
-------
NOAA Staffing Summary
Current
Organization Staffing
Office of AA/R&D 1
Project Office 2
Regional Scientific Support Coordinator 2
Response Personnel*
ERL Laboratories 2
NMFS Centers/Regions 2
NWS Regions ' 1
EDS 1
TOTAL 11
NOAA's FY-78 budget for spill response is summarized
below. Although an increase in positions has yet to be ap-
proved, a budget increase for FY-79 to implement the Science
Support Program has been approved by OMB and now awaits
Congressional action.
NOAA Funding Summary
Funding
Item FY 1978
Salaries and Benefits $150,000
Project Office/SSC Travel 30,000
Purchase of Equipment and Supplies 10,000
Transport of Equipment 100,000
Data Collection and Sample Analysis 100,000
Training 25,000
TOTAL $415,000
*Requirements stated in personnel equivalents; each equi-
valent represents 2 to 4 individuals with part-time re-
sponse functions.
4IA-17
-------
NOAA's emergency response costs may be eligible for
reimbursement from Section 311(k) Pollution Fund, subject to
the following conditions:
o An OSC must have declared a "Federal Removal
Action" and requested NOAA scientific support to
assist with containment and recovery.
o NOAA must have been requested to assist in damage
assessment studies to support Federal claims for
the restoration or replacement of natural resources,
pursuant to Section 311(f) (4) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977.
The USCG does not maintain a central record of 311(k) reim-
bursements paid to NOAA. or to other Federal agencies. Other
response activities, e.g., scientific research, are not
eligible for reimbursement. These costs must be covered by
agency appropriations.
Training is provided to the agency's technical staff
who are likely to respond to spill incidents. The training
program emphasizes response procedures and the use of spe-
cial sampling and analytical equipment. NOAA plans on
training about 75 people per year. The course is available
to personnel from other Federal agencies, and a limited
number of billets are available for scientists outside the
Federal government. The FY 79 budget proposal increases the
training appropriation to $150,000.
NOAA response personnel currently have a limited inven-
tory of equipment. Air-transportable trunks outfitted with
basic sampling equipment, forms, cameras, and the like are
available. The FY 79 budget proposal contains $800,000 to
procure additional equipment. The equipment will be placed
at key locations around the country, for quick transporta-
ion to a spill site. The Regional SSC will be required to
locate equipment and facilities within the Region, and
attempt to make arrangements for their use during emergen-
cies. Equipment that cannot be borrowed or rented may be
procured.
IIA-18
-------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The Department of Defense (DOD) does not have a specific
mission for response to environmental emergencies. Its
primary objective is to maintain a capability to take
corrective steps during incidents caused by DOD actions. A
secondary objective is to provide assistance to other
government agencies and to civilian communities during
emergency situations. This summary will focus on the cap-
abilities and procedures to accomplish the secondary
objective.
DOD, though the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, also
has a major role in developing and maintain civil preparr-
edness in the event of an enemy attack. However, this role
is considered to be beyond the scope of this effort.
DOD's role in environmental emergencies is outlined in
the National Contingency Plan; specifically, DOD, "consistent
with its operational requirements, may provide assistance in
critical pollution discharges and in the maintenance of
navigation channels, salvage, and removal of navigation
obstructions." The provisions of the National Plan are
implemented by DOD Directive 5030.41 of June 1, 1977, and by
a series of instructions issued by the military departments.
ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
DOD is too large and complex to depict on an organization
chart. Overall coordination for emergency response support
is provided by the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environment and Safety. This office represents DOD on
the NRT and is responsible for maintaining the DOD imple-
menting directive. General emergency response support (i.e.
personnel and equipment) can be obtained from the network of
military installations located around the country. These
resources must be mobilized through the DOD representative
on the RRT.
In addition to its general support, DOD also maintains
a number of units with specific expertise that could be used
during environmental emergencies. These units are described
in the next sections.
U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency
USANCA, along with the Army Tech Escort Group at Edge-
wood Arsenal, maintains the best DOD capability for respond-
ing to chemical incidents with a program called Chemical
IIA-19
-------
Accident and Incident Control (CAIC). The program is
designed to respond to military accidents, but can also be
used to assist civilian communities. During civilian
incidents, the program personnel are authorized to render
assistance to prevent injury, or destruction of property.
Actions beyond this (e.g., cleanup of a toxic chemical
spill) are not authorized unless requested by a Federal
agency (e.g. NRT/RRT) and the agency agrees to reimburse the
Army.
The CAIC response team is shown on Figure A-3. Specific
responsibilities for each organizational component are
summarized below:
o The on-scene commander, a general officer, designated
by the responsible major Army commander, commands
all operations at a chemical accident scene.
o The Chemical Accident and Incident Control Office
(CAICO) controls all emergency teams at the incident
site and supervises operations until the arrival of
the on-scene commander.
o The Staff Surgeon, who may be the team leader of
the medical team, will advise the CAICO on medical
problems associated with the incident. He determines
the composition of the medical team which must be
tailored to the situation. The Surgeon coordinates
the treatment and evacuation of casualities.
o The Provost Marshall advises the CAICO on physical
security and traffic control matters and coordinates
measures to restrict authorized access to the
site and controls the movement and activities of
observers. He also acts as the principal coordinator
with state and local law enforcement agencies in the
control of civilian activites such as evacuation and
access control.
o The Public Affairs Officer serves as the central
point of contact for all information and news releases,
o The Judge Advocate provides legal advice to the
on-scene commander and CAICO. He handles claims
against the government for damages resulting from
the chemical accident or incident (for military
incidents only).
IIA-20
-------
Operations,
Judge
Advocate
EOD*
ON SCENE COMMANDER
CAICO
CAICO STAFF
Provost
Mayghal1
Public
Affairs
Commo
Staff
Surgeon
Safety
1
NBC
1
1
MEDICAL
1
IHTING | pUBLIC AFFAIRS
SECUR
1
COMMO
^Explosive Ordnance Disposal is provided by FORSCOM on an area coverage basis.
Figure A-3. CAIC Response Team
IIA-21
-------
o The. Engineer Officer provides advice on engineer
support required and commands engineer elements
that are assisting in the incident.
o The Communications Officer is responsible for
coordinating communications requirements and
directing communications at the scene.
o The Safety Officer, who oversees operational safety
(e.g., equipment, procedures, medical), anticipates
and detects hazardous conditions and recommends
procedures for eliminating or minimizing them.
o The Operations Officer is required for an accident
requiring large-scale response. He assumes the
operational duties of the CAICO, allowing the CAICO
to concentrate on technical assessment and deter-
mining requirements. •
The following groups are members of the Emergency Team:
o Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). The EOD team
commander acts as the CAICO if he arrives at the
scene before the CAICO or on-scene commander. The
EOD team conducts the initial reconnaissance to
determine the hazards present and perform any safety
procedures necessary. It also photographs and
prepares sketches of the accident scene.
o Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) Team. The NBC
Team is a specially trained and equipped unit
capable of responding to an incident involving
hazardous chemical biological, or radioactive
materials. Its mission is to determine the extent
of hazard and to survey, mark, and record the con-
taminated areas. It also recommends procedures for
controlling movement of personnel and equipment
into and out of the contaminated area. The basic
team (one officer and six enlisted men) is capable of
operating a personnel decontamination station and,
when augmented with a decontamination section, can
perform equipment and area decontamination.
o Security Team. The Security Team provides security
and traffic control at the accident site. It
operates access control points to control the flow
of personnel and equipment in and out of the area.
IIA-22
-------
o Medical Team. A medical team provides on-site
emergency medical care and evacuation. Medical
personnel monitor working conditions for health
hazards and prevention of casualties. They provide
advice to the OSC on medical problems associated
with the nuclear material involved in the accident.
o Communications Team. The communications team provides
radio communications between the accident scene and
the supporting headquarters. It provides wire and
telephone facilities within the accident site and
internal communications for the emergency teams.
o Public Affairs Team. This team provides support to
the Public Affairs Officer.
o Firefighting Team. This team, usually the fire
department from the nearest military installation,
provides firefighting and related support when
required.
For'serious incidents, the CAIC Team can also be augmented
by a cadre of Chemical Corps Officers from the Headquarters
office.
The CAIC Teams are located at eight installations as
shown on Figure A-4. Generally, the team closest to the
incident site would be mobilized for the response. The
teams are specifically trained to handle incidents involving
military chemicals. The teams can also assist during
civillian incidents involving chemicals; however, the level
of assistance will vary, depending on the nature of the
chemical, the team's familiarity with the chemical, or the
amount of information available on the chemical. The team's
role is limited to provide technical assistance and support
under the general direction of the EPA/USCG OSC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers has specific responsibilities
for providing assistance during natural disasters. Specific
program responsibilities are contained in 33 CFR 203. Of
particular interest during environmental emergencies is
IIA-23
-------
FIGURE A-'J CAIC B1ERGEHCY RESPONSE CENTERS
-------
Corps' authority under PL 84-99 tas amended by PL 93-251 of
March 7, 1974) to provide emergency supplies of clean
drinking water. This program is implemented upon a request
from the Governor of the state. Specific types of assistance
include:
o Use of tank trucks to haul clean drinking water
o Procurement and distribution of bottled water
o Laying of temporary abovegroun water lines
o Installation of temporary filtration
o Temporary use of military mobile purification units.
In addition, the Corps also has heavy equipment, dredges,
and the like that could be made available to support an
emergency response effort.
U.S. Navy
The Navy maintains a comprehensive inventory of oil spill
cleanup equipment. Although the equipment is primarily intend-
ed for Navy spills, it can be made available to assist during
civilian incidents. The equipment is designed for oil spill
control/recovery in harbor waters any many have only limited
applicability to chemical spills. The Navy may also be able
to provide other support equipment as required.
Defense Civil Preparedness Agency
DCPA's primary mission is to administer the Nation's
civil defense program and support state planning for enemy
attack through a comprehensive network of Civil Defense
Coordinators (CDCs) in the state and local governments.
In many states, the CDCs also play a major role in state/
local response actions to emergency incidents. Therefore,
there is a definite link between DCPA and the environ-
mental emergencies problem.
DCPA could play a dual role in an emergency response
program. First, its facilities and equipment could be used
to support an emergency response operation. Specific examples
include its national communications network and special
survival and decontamination gear. Second, DCPA could play
a role in improving the state/local emergency response
capabilities, by augmenting existing training programs for
IIA-25
-------
CDC personnel with instruction on chemical emergency response
procedures. Discussions are currently under way between
the EPA Oil and Special Materials Control Division and DCPA
to explore other areas where DCPA could provide direct
support for the emergency response program.
COORDINATION AND RESPONSE
Use of DOD resources for emergency response activities
must be coordinated through the representative on the
RRT or NRT. Requests for assistance are then relayed to
the appropriate response units. Once on the scene, the DOD
response team will report to the.OSC. Because of the large
number of military installations and the varying equipment
inventories at each, the EPA/USCG OSCs will have to work
closely with the DOD representative on the RRT to become
familiar with the specific DOD capabilities within
their respective Regions.
RESOURCES
For the reasons stated above, DOD resources available
for emergency response operations are not specifically
identified. They would have to be identified for each
region and included in emergency response contingency plans.
DOD responds only on a cost-reimbursable basis.
Specific costs that must be reimbursed include military
and civilian salaries, wages, fringe benefits and other
personnel costs as well as the cost of materials, supplies
equipment and facilities used in the removal or in providing
support and assistance to removal action. Government
officials (e.g., EPA/USCG OSC) should have a funding citation
available (E.g., the Section 311 Pollution Fund) when making
the initial request.
IIA-26
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (EXCLUDING THE
U.S. COAST GUARD)
The Department of Transportation has no formal program
to respond to environmental emergencies. The DOT role is
limited to the the investigation of accidents involving the
transportation of hazardous materials. The primary purpose
of the investigation is to determine whether accidents are
the results of noncompliance with DOT regulations, to
determine whether punitive action should be pursued, and to
gather data for assessing the need for new or amended
regulations. DOT is also responsible for identifying
hazardous materials which pose risks in transportation and
establishing appropriate regulatory controls.
The DOT mandate is the Hazardous Materials Transpor-
tation Act (Public Law 93-633). Under this law, the
Secretary of DOT is responsible for:
o Providing expertise for evaluating risks connected
with the transportation of hazardous materials
o Establishing and maintaining a central incident
reporting system and data center
o Conducting a continuing.review of all aspects of
hazardous materials transportation.
In addition, the Secretary has the authority to take
cictions through court of law to ameliorate an imminent
hazard caused by the transporation of hazardous materials.
The DOT has stated in a document prepared for a Congressional
hearing that it is not clear to what extent that the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act authorizes the
imposition of transportation regulations to mitigate
environmental hazards.
ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
An organization chart for DOT is provided as Figure A-5.
Responsibilities for hazardous materials are divided between
the Materials Transportation Bureau CMTB) and the transpor-
tation "modal" offices (i.e., the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, FAA; the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA; the
Federal Railroad Administration, FRA; and the U. S. Coast
Guard, USCG). MTB is assigned the major rulemaking responsi-
bility for the hazardous materials program in addition to
IIA-27
-------
Figure A-C
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECRETARY
DEPUTY SECRETARY
>
00
1 1
OFFICE OF PUBLIC
AND CONSUMER AFflURS
OFFICE OF
CML RIGHTS
1 1
CONTRACT APPEALS
BOARD
OFFICE OF DEEPWATER
PORTS
1
GENERAL COUNSEL
1
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOB POLICY 6
HTERNATtONALAFFABS
1
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOB BUDGET
AND PROGRAMS
1
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR
GOVERNMENTAL ARAKS
1
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
fORADMUmSTRATMN
1
U.S. COAST GUARD
1
fBXRAlAVUTDN
ADMINISTRATION
1
FEDERAL M6HWAY
ADMOnSTRATION
1
FEDERAL RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION
1
NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMWISTRATION
1
URBAN MASS
TRANSTORTATION
ADMINISTRATION
1
SAINT LAWRENCE
SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
I
RESEARCH AND
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ADMUUSTRATMN
-------
enforcement responsibilities over container manufacturers
and multi-mode shippers. The modal offices are responsible
for the administration of the hazardous materials regulations,
including inspection, compliance, and enforcement relating
to carriers.
DOT (excluding the USCG) does not have a special com-
mand structure for emergency response activities, or does it
maintain an emergency response organization within its field
offices.
The DOT is designated as a Primary Agency within the
National Contingency Plan, with primary representation to
the NRT provided by the USCG. However, DOT is also required
to provide "expertise regarding all modes of transporting
oil and hazardous substances," although this assistance
would be provided only "as required."
No efforts are currently underway to require carriers
to develop spill contingency plans for the transport of
hazardous materials. The Department, however, has developed
and dis-tributes a Hazardous Materials Emergency Action
Guide to provide response information to emergency services
personnel who may have to deal with an incident involving
hazardous materials. The manual outlines the hazards of
certain materials and contains technical information which
may assist emergency personnel during the first 30 minutes
following a spill of volatile, toxic, gaseous, or flammable
materials shipped in bulk.
The DOT does not maintain an emergency response program;
therefore, the Department does not conduct after-action
reports. However, DOT does use incident statistics, formal
incident reviews by the National Transportation Safety
Board, and internal studies to evaluate existing regulations
and to set priorities for the development of new programs.
COORDINATION AND RESPONSE
DOT has procedures to coordinate activities with other
Federal agencies, primarily for promulgation of compatible
regultions to control hazardous materials. Federal agencies
involved include the Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istation (OSHA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
the Department of Energy (DOE), and EPA. A Memorandum of
Understanding has been developed between DOT and NRC to
outline the areas each agency will regulate.
II-A-29
-------
The DOT regulations require carriers to report trans-
portation incidents involving hazardous materials. Tele-
phone notification to the National Response Center (202-426-
1830) is mandatory for incidents in which—
o Someone is killed or receives injuries requiring
hospitalization
o Estimated carrier or other property damage exceeds
$50,000
o Fire, breakage, spillage or suspected radioactive
contamination occurs involving shipment of etiologic
agents
o A situation exists that, in the judgment of the
carrier, should be reported.
Carriers are required to submit a written report within 15
days to DOT for all incidents which result in these circum-
stances or in case there has been an release of hazardous
materials.
Even though DOT does not have a direct on-scene response
role for environmental emergencies, it will frequently send
inspectors to ascertain the cause of the incident. The
inspectors' findings are then used to support enforcement
and to evaluate the regulatory program. Each modal office
has responsibility for these actions within its juris-
diction. For major incidents, the investigation by the
modal office may be preempted by the National Transportation
Safety Board. These reviews are concerned primarily with
transportation safety, and generally do not consider environ-
mental problems.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act specifically
requires DOT to develop a Hazardous Materials Emergency
Information System. To date, this system has not been
developed. DOT contends that a new data system would merely
duplicate information currently available through CHEMTREC
and the USCG's CHRIS. DOT currently plans no further action.
The DOT has been assigned the responsibility for
developing oil spill prevention regulations for transportation-
related facilities as required by Section 311 of the Clean
IIA-30
-------
Water Act. To date, regulations have been developed by the
Coast Guard for transportation-related facilities in the
marine mode. A notice of proposed rulemaking for other
modes is being contemplated. In addition, the transportation
safety regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act are intend-
ed to help prevent incidents.
RESOURCES
The DOT has minimal resources for response to environ-
mental emergencies. It does, however, maintain an inspection
force to support enforcement actions under the transportation
safety regulations. The three tables on the next page
provide a summary of the regional and headquarters resources.
The total number of compliance inspections performed by DOT
is shown in the bottom table. (No reason was provided for
the decrease in inspections during 1977.)
Training is an important part of the DOT hazardous
materials program. The training program is to assist emergen-
cy personnel and local communities in developing emergency
actions plans, as well as in responding to transportation
incidents. The MTB provides financial and technical support
to the Department's Transportation Safety Institute to
conduct the program. During 1977, 22 emergency services
workshops were held for nearly 1,000 emergency response
personnel and State training officials. In addition, MTB
funded a contract with the National Fire Protection As soci-
ation (NFPA), which has produced a 20-hour training course
(including cassette tapes, slides, and student manuals) for
personnel dealing with transportation accidents involving
hazardous materials.
This course is now available from the NFPA at a cost of
$350. The MTB expects this course to be used to train more
than 500,000 fire, police, and other emergency services
personnel during the next few years. It is also applicable
to many non-transportation situations such as emergencies at
LP-gas cylinder filling plants. The MTG has also developed
an Emergency Action Guide for Selected Hazardous Materials.
The Guide has been provided to fire, policy, and emergency
services organizations during the past five years. Approxi-
mately 550,000 copies of the Guide have been distributed.
Finally, modal agencies conduct special training sessions,
when requested for State and local emergency response agencies,
in the recognition and handling of hazardous materials
spills in transportation.
IIA-31
-------
1977 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INSPECTORS
% - e»f Time
in Part-Time Total
Operating Full-Time Part-Time Inspector Person- Person-
Administration Inspectors Inspector
USCG 0 717
FAA 20 129
FHWA 9 128
FRA 16 42
MTB 5 3
Total 50 1,019
TOTAL HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL
TRANSPORTATION
Office of Pipeline Safety Operations
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Materials Transportation Bureau (Office
of the Director)
Totals
Role
15%
35
20
15
6
—
FOR THE
BUREAU
1977
40
66
5
111
Years
107.6
45.2
25.6
6.3
0.2
184.9
MATERIALS
1978
52
70
5
127
Years
107.6
65.2
34.6
22.3
5.2
234.9
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS
Inspections of Carrier Operations
Inspections of Shipper Facilities
Inspections of Container Manufacturers
and Reconditioner Facilities
Inspections of Freight Forwarder
Facilities
Inspections of Waterfront Facilities
Totals
1976
17,924
3,540
302
110
6.770
28,646
1977
15,782
1,915
291
95
1.739
19,792
IIA-32
-------
FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
Historically, FDAA's role during environmental
emergencies has been limited to siturations which warrant
a Presidential declaration of an "emergency" or to fire
suppression grants under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
as amended, P. L. 93-288. Specific actions would include
assistance to supplement the efforts of State/local govern-
ments to save lives, protect property, and ensure public
health and safety. It is important to note that FDAA does
not normally provide assistance which is within the statutory
authority of other Federal agencies.
FDAA, through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), derives its authority from the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974, which was delegated be Executive Order
11795 as amended by Executive Order 11910. The statutory
authority is promulgated through Federal Disaster Assistance
Regulations (24 CFR 2205). FDAA is also designated as an
Advisory Agency under the National Contingency Plan.
ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
FDAA is located within HUD and reports directly to the
Undersecretary and Secretary of HUD. The disaster assistance
program is executed through Regional Offices located in the
10 standard Federal regions. Policy direction and program
coordination is provided by the national office.
Following a Presidential declaration of an emergency or
major disaster, the Director of the FDAA Regional Office
responsible for the affected area coordinates the Federal
on-scene response. The FDAA Administrator also designates
a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) For each declaration.
(In many cases, the Regional Director is designated as the
FCO.) The FCO is responsible for coordinating the efforts
of other Federal agencies with authorities to provide
emertency or disaster assistance. FDAA regional office
personnel provide support for the assistance program. In
addition, FDAA can request technical assistance from other
Federal agencies to perform specific projects within their
area of expertise. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration could be asked to survey damages to the
highway system and bridges in the affected area.
IIA-33
-------
FDAA does not maintain specific contingency plans for
mobilizing its disaster program/ although each state has
prepared a contingency plan. It does have a series of
handbooks which describe agency programs, provide eligibility
requirments, and outline procedures for obtaining assistance.
These handbooks are available from the Regional Offices.
COORDINATION AND RESPONSE PROCEDURES
FDAA is an advisory member of the NRT; consequently,
initial coordination for environmental emergencies would be
guided by the National Contingency Plan. If the situation
warrants a Presidential declaration, FDAA would then assume
the lead role for coordinating the Federal response. The
FDAA regions maintain liaison with all Federal agencies
which might be needed after receipt of the first notification
of a potential declaration. This coordination continues
into the actual response to the incident. The FDAA Regions
also maintain liaison with the States. The State Governor's
request for a declaration is forwarded to the President
through FDAA. After the declaration has been made, FDAA
works closely with the State Coordinating Office (SCO) to
see that all eligible needs are filled. The SCO may be the
same individual from disaster to disaster, so a close work-
ing relationship can be established.
FDAA receives notification of a potential emergency or
disaster from the Governor of the affected State. For
environmental emergencies, notification may also come through
the NRT/RRT mechanism. (For example, the Office of Emergency
Preparedness, the predecessor of FDAA, was asked to partici-
pate in the Louisville chlorine barge incident by the Gover^
nors of Kentucky and Indiana under the authorities contained
in Disaster Relief Act of 1970, P.L. 91-606.) FDAA maintains
a 24-hour emergency number at the headquarters office and in
each of the regional offices. The numbers are available to
appropriate Federal and State agencies (i.e., the NRC and
the State Emergency Coordinator.)
Once on-scene, FDAA provides overall direction of the
Federal response effort, and maintains coordination with
State Officials. Technical support can be obtained from
other Federal agencies to supplement in-house staff. Response
programs include assistance to individuals, State and local
governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations.
IIA-34
-------
FDAA does not normally provide assistance which can be
funded by another Federal program. This issue is high-
lighted in the Johnstown Flood case study regarding the
funding for the removal of a hazardous substances spill
caused by the flood. This provision could greatly reduce
FDAA's role in future environmental emergencies because of
the broad emergency powers assigned to EPA by recent amend-
ments to the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
RESOURCES
FDAA did not provide specific resource data. Its
actual involvement in environmental emergencies is minimal
and required less than 1 percent of total staff time.
FDAA personnel are not trained to respond to environ-
mental emergencies. Their role would be limited to overall
coordination of the actions taken by other Federal agencies,
during situations warranting a Presidential declaration.
Disaster relief funds are available to provide assis-
tance to individuals, as well as to provide grants and loans
to State and local governments and certain private nonprofit
organizations. FDAA can also reimburse federal agency re-
sponse costs for actions taken at the request of FDAA.
Federal agency costs eligible for reimbursement are specified
in Subpart H of 24 CFR 2205.
IIA-35
-------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is involved in plann-
ing and response to incidents involving or affecting NRC
licensees. Its primary objective is to assure that facility
licensees and State/local officials are prepared to deal
with radiological emergencies and that proper actions are
taken to protect health and safety, the environment, and
property from the consequences of incidents resulting from
NRC-licensed activities. This role includes planning,
preparedness, response, coordination, and enforcement for
both fixed licensed facilities and for transportation of
radiological materials. Transportation incidents are dis-
cussed separately in the last section of this chapter.
The NRC derives its regulatory authority and emergency
responsibilities from the following statutes and orders:
o The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
o The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
o Executive Order 11490
o Executive Order 11051
These statutes are implemented through regulations and
guide lines which form the base for the programs discussed
in this section.
The Commission also participates in both the Interagency
Radiological Assistance Plan (IRAP) and the Federal Response
Plan for Peacetime Nuclear Emergencies (FRPPNE). Both plans
are intended to promote an effective Federal response to a
radiological emergency. IRAP establishes coordination
links, outlines response procedures, and identifies the
types of expertise and facilities available from signatory
agencies. FRPPNE is a Federal Planning document published
by the Federal Preparedness Agency. It provides policy and
guidance for the development of response capabilites within
specified Federal agencies. Specific assignments are made
to both primary and support agencies. (NRC has been
designated as a primary agency.)
Finally, the NRC is involved with seven other Federal
agencies in a program to provide guidance, assistance, and
training to State and local government for radiological
emergency response planning. The NRC is the lead agency
IIA-36
-------
and coordinates the development of the programs. Each of
the involved agencies has responsibilities consistent with
its overall expertise. A description of the program can be
found in the Federal Register Notice of December 24, 1975,
Vol. 40, No. 248, pages 59494 and 59495. The other agencies
are EPA, DOE, HEW, DOT, DCPA, FDAA and FPA. The Director,
NEC Office of State Program coordinates the activiites of
these Federal agencies, through a Federal Interagency Central
Coordinating Committee for Radiological Emergency Response
Preparedness, which he chairs.
ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
An organization chart for NRC is provided as Figure A-
6. Specific offices with emergency planning or operational
responsibilites are identified by an asterisk.
The NRC has developed an Incident Response Program,
which compresses the NRC staff into a configuration where
it can most effectively respond to an incident (see Figure
A-7). This response organization is organized into four
operating levels: policy, decision making, implementation/
support, and advisory. An interim Incident Response Center
has been developed and equipped to provide the necessary
physical facilities. A permanent facility will be construc-
ted within the next few months.
NRC Regional Offices provide field response operations.
Depending on the level of severity and the type of incident,
a team of regional personnel may be dispatched to the scene
of an incident by the quickest means available.
The NRC is heavily involved in the development, review,
and approval of Radiological Emergency Plans (REP). Pursuant
to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, a REP must be prepared by each
applicant for a license to construct and operate a fixed
nuclear facility. The NRC regulation for licensee emergency
planning, supported by a Regulatory Guide, outlines in
detail the required contents for each plan. The regulations
require a continuing relationship for emergency planning and
response between the licensee, Federal, State, and local
governments, whose assistance might be needed in the event
of an emergency. NRC must review and approve the REP before
granting an operating license. After the facility is operating
NRC inspectors routinely review the REP. In addition, each
faility is required periodically to use the plan in a simula-
tion exercise.
IIA-37
-------
ORGANIZATION CHART
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Figure A-6
THE
COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND
LICENSING BOARD PANEL
ATOMIC SAFETY AND
LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR
OFFICE OF
POLICY EVALUATION
OFFICE OF THE
GENERAL COUNSEL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOR OPERATIONS
H
H
LO
00
OFFICE OF
STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT
*
DIVISION OF
ENGINEERING
STANDARDS
DIVISION OF
SITING. HEALTH AND
OFFICE OF
STATE
PROGRAMS
*
OFFICE OF J
NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY
AND SAFEGUARDS
OFFICE OF
NUCLEAR REACTOR
REGULATION
DIVISION OF
SAFEGUARDS
SAFEGUARDS STANDARDS
DIVISION OF
FUEL CYCLE
AND MATERIAL SAFETY
DIVISION OF
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF
OPERATING
REACTORS
OFFICE OF
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
RESEARCH
DIVISION OF
REACTOR
SAFETY RESEARCH
DIVISION OF
SAFEGUARDS.
Flip! rvn F AMR
OFFICE OF
INSPECTION
AND ENFORCEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
DIVISION OF
SYSTEMS
SAFETY
DIVISION OF SITE
SAFETY AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL ANALYSIS
DIVISION OF REACTOR
CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION
DIVISION OF REACTOR
OPERATIONS
INSPECTION
DIVISION OF FUEL
FACILITY AND
MATERIALS SAFETY
DIVISION OF
SAFEGUARDS
INSPECTION
REGION I PHILADELPHIA
REGION II ATLANTA
REGION III CHICAGO
REGION IV DALLAS
REGION V SAN FRANCISCO
-------
FIGURE; 4-7
NRC INCIDENT RESPONSE ORGANIZATION
O
n>
o.
n>
o-
-5
C
Q>
3.
10
-~l
00
COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM (EMT)
EDO
Director, IE
Director, NMSS
Director, NRR
INFORMATION ASSESSMENT TEAM (IAT)
Representative, NMSS
Representative, NRR
Representative, IE
INCIDENT RESPONSE ACTION COORDINATION TEAM (IR <\CT)
Director, Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, IE
Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, IE
Director, Division of Fuel Facilities and Materials Safety
Inspection, IE
Director, Division of Safeguards Inspection, IE
Director, Division of Operating Reactors, NRR
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle and Materials Safety, NMSS
Director, Division of Safeguards, NMSS
IRACT SUPPORT STAFF
Staffed, According to Type of
Incident, by any or all
NRC Offices
OPERATIONS STAFF
Staff of Executive Office for
Operations Support, IE,
Maintains NRC Operations Center
-------
The NRC also manages a program to help State and local
governments develop and improve radiological emergency plans.
State and local governments are encouraged to participate
voluntarily, as the NRC has no statutory authority to require
them to do so. The NRC has published a guide (NUREG-75/111)
for the preparation and evaluation of these plans. The
States are encouraged to submit their plans for NRC review.
To date, four States have obtained NRC concurrence (Washing-
ton, New Jersey, Connecticut, and South Carolina). Despite
the voluntary nature of- the program, State cooperation has
been very good. The NRC is currently concentrating on the
States which have fixed nuclear facilities and States con-
tiguous to those States. The long-range goal is to have an
approved plan for each State. These will form the basis for
plans for responding to transportation incidents involving
radioactive material.
COORDINATION AND RESPONSE PROCEDURES
The IRAP, managed by DOE, provides a coordination net-
work, but member agencies do not meet regularly. The NRC
representative felt that routine meetings of the agencies
were not required because of the low frequency of radio-
logical incidents. DOE has not activated IRAP to date
because the DOE Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) has
been able to respond to, and handle, all requests for assist-
ance.
Licensees are required to report certain designated
classes of incidents to NRC and to State officials. Time
requirements for reporting are based on the severity of the
incident, but any significant incident requires immediate
notification. The NRC maintains a 24-hour emergency tele-
phone number within each of its five Regional offices and
Headquarters for incident reporting. The appropriate emer-
gency number has been given to each licensee. The NRC has
specific procedures for subsequent notification of other
State and Federal agencies.
The NRC Regional offices are prepared to respond immedi-
ately to the scene of a reported incident. Incidents are
categorized based on severity and potential impact. These
categories guide response decisions such as when to dispatch
field teams and when to activate the Incident Response
Center.
The licensee and the State and local governments share
the responsibility for incident response. The licensee is
responsible for all actions taken on the facility site. Each
IIA-40
-------
facility maintains a number of personnel trained to respond
to emergencies. Off-site response is directed by the State
or local government. The NRC strongly encourages the
licensee and the State and local governments to coordinate
their actions and provide mutual assistance.
The NRC's role during an incident is to monitor the
response of the licensee to assure that the impact to the
public health and safety and environment are kept as small
as possible. NRC can act as a technical advisor. In
addition, NRC will investigate the incident to determine the
Ceiuse and decide whether it is safe to continue routine
operations. The NRC does not have the authority or resources
to manage an incident. Managing an incident is a responsi-
bility left to the State and local government; however, NRC
does have the authority to order the licensee to shut down a
facility if it is convinced that an unsafe condition exists.
RESOURCES
A resource summary, showing both staffing levels and
expenditures for emergency preparedness during FY-1976, is
provided in the table following this page. These figures
were extracted from a report to the Congressional Joint
Committee on Defense Production. The NRC representative
interviewed indicated that the figures showed approximate
expenditures through Fiscal Year 1978. One major change was
noted for FY 1979. The Office of State Programs budget for
State/local training will be increased to $750,000. This
represents a change in policy from multi-agency funding
during the previous years to single agency funding (NRC) in
the future. This policy change has been approved by OMB is
now awaiting Congressional action, which appears to be
favorable.
The Office of State Programs coordinates a comprehensive
program to train State/local personnel for radiological
emergency response at no cost to those personnel. The
training program at present consists of two one-week courses
conducted once or twice a year at locations convenient to
the participants and a two-week operational course held
approximately 10 times per year at the DOE Nuclear Test Site
in Nevada. Course topics include preparedness planning and
response operations. Over 500 State and local personnel
have attended these courses since their inception in 1975.
IIA-41
-------
Figure A-6
NRC Resources Summary
OFFICE
Office of State Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation
Office of Inspection and
Enforcement
Office of Nuclear Materials
Safety and Safeguards
Office of Standards
Development
TOTAL
Number of
Personnel
3
5
I5l/
8
1
32
Number of Support
Personnel
0.5
1
12
2
N.R."
15.5
expe.HOfiTune.*> ^coooj
Personnel
120
271
498
215
31 .
1 135
Train! nQ
70
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
70
Travel
If
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
14 -
Other
N.R!/
N.R.
335?/
N.R.
N.R.
335
Total
204
271
833
215
31
1554
NOTES;
\J Not Reported
2_/ Not a I I ful I time
3_/ Aerial Surveillance and Analytical Support
SOURCE:
NRC letter to the Honorable Lenor K. Sullivan, Chairman, Joint Committee on Defense Production,
Congress of the United States, September 1976.
-------
In addition to the formal training, NRC leads an inter-
agency group which performs field reviews of State radio-
logical and emergency response plans and observes field
exercises to test these plans. The reviews are intended to
give the States specific guidance on how to improve their
response planning and preparedness. State and local personnel
are also invited to participate during exercises of the
licensee's Radiological Emergency Plan. Again, it must be
emphasized that all State and local participation is voluntary.
The NRC maintains only a limited amount of emergency
response equipment, primarily radiation detection instruments.
Licensees are also required to maintain a detection and
monitoring network around the facility site, although that
surveillance equipment is not designed for releases of large
amounts of radioactivity or high radiation levels. Additional
Federal equipment can be obtained from the Defense Civil
Preparedness Agency (DCPA) or the Department of Energy (DOE)
through RAP and IRAP. The DOE also maintains a computerized
list of available equipment that could be used during an
emergency response.
Depending upon the situation, response costs incurred
by State/local governments may not be reimbursable from the
licensee. In general, however, liability claims up to $560
million are covered by private insurance and Federal guarantees
through the Price-Anderson legislation.
TRANSPORTATION INCIDENTS
Planning and response activities for transportation
incidents are not as well defined as for fixed facilities.
Responsibilities are currently shared between NRC and DOT.
NRC is responsible for regulating persons who possess, use,
or transfer (including transport) radioactive materials,
while DOT regulates radioactive materials in interstate
commerce, including the establishment of safety criteria and
requirements for reporting packaging incidents.
As with fixed facility incidents, Federal assistance
for incidents involving the release of radiological materials
is available through RAP and IRAP. Pursuant to DOT regula-
tions , carriers are required to take actions to protect the
health and safety of the public following transportation
incidents. State and local agencies also have responsibili-
ties for protecting their citizens. Specific actions could
include traffic control, fire control, care for the injured,
and evacuation notices.
IIA-43
-------
Until recently, response planning for transportation
incidents received low priority from both NRC and DOT,
partly because of the low number of incidents involving
radiological materials. (For example, for the years 1971
to 1975, 32,000 incidents involving hazardous materials were
reported to DOT. Of that total, 144, or 0.45 percent,
involved radiological materials. In only 36 cases was there
any indication of release of contents or excess radiation
levels.*) Moreover, since serious power reactor accidents
could have a much greater impact on the public health and
safety, priority was given to emergency planning for fixed
nuclear facilities. Now, partly to relieve public concern,
both agencies are giving the transportation issue more
attention. The NRC is currently reviewing a rulemaking
petition which deals specifically with transportation
incidents. It is also doing an in-house study for Congressman
Wirth (Colorado) to review Federal responsibilities for
transportation incidents. The General Accounting Office
(GAO), the American National Standards Institute, and the
National Transportation Safety Board are also reviewing the
issue of the transportation of radioactive material.
i
In the interim, NRC and DOT are working together to
help State/local governments to prepare f >r these incidents.
Studies are now underway to develop improved emergency plan-
ning guidelines. Training programs are also being prepared
to guide police and fire personnel in appropriate response
procedures and precautions. It is estimated that these
programs will be completed over the next year.
*Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, Vol. 1.,
NUREG-ol70, NRC, De£ember 1977.
IIA-44
-------
APPENDIX B
SURVEY DISTRIBUTED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Survey of Federal Agency Capabilitvto Respond to DATE: 1AM 1 ft
Environmental Emergencies t f /<'ye*f~' wn I1* U
~JjL f. £-
FROM: Paul J. Elston '
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Resources Management
TO: SEE ADDRESSEES
Enclosed is the revised survey document which reflects your comments
at the January 6 meeting. Please try to answer the questions
specifically as possible, but feel free to add supplementary information.
Paul Nadeau in our Office of Oil and .Special Material, will be
coordinating this information as it is received. Please address your
replies to him:
Paul Nadeau
Office of Oil and Special Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (WH-548)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
If you encounter any problems in collecting this data, please contact
Paul immediately at 245-3057. Do not hesitate to call Paul if you
need any clarification of the questions contained in the survey.
We look forward to receiving all replies by February 7.
Enclosure
II-B-1
EPA Form 1320.6 (Rex. 6-72)
-------
FEDERAL SURVEY
At the direction of the Council on Environmental Quality, we are
undertaking a survey of the national capability to respond to environ-
mental emergencies.
The term environmental emergency, as used here, refers to any
release of a hazardous substance (gas, liquid, or solid) which produces
an immediate or future danger to the public health or the environment.
This definition includes all situations that will imminently develop
into such an incident (a stranded tanker or a flaw in a chemical
storage tank). Emergencies affecting the air, land, and ground or
surface water, or affecting the food chain directly, are included.
Current incidents which may have severe delayed health or environmental
consequences (a PCB spill) are included. Releases of controlled
amounts within an existing permit or regulations are excluded, except
for situations where new information show that a release previously
allowed poses an imminent danger to health or the environment. Natural
disasters (floods, earthquakes) which release hazardous substances into
the environment are included, but natural disasters uncomplicated by
the release of a hazardous substance are not within the scope of the
study.
The President's Reorganization Project recently completed a
study of Federal agencies dealing with all kinds of disasters. Most
agencies received a questionnaire from the President's Project. We
are cooperating fully with the Reorganization Project, and will have
access to the data which they have collected. Where you cannot
segregate answers about environmental emergencies from the agency's
general disaster responsibilities, you may note this in your reply
and we will obtain the information from materials submitted to the
President's Reorganization Project.
Answers may be submitted in the same format as the questions, or
may be included in a broader response. However, please touch on each
item of information as specifically as possible.
ROLE
What is your agency's role in an environmental emergency?
What is the source of your agency's role?
o Statutes (please cite)
o Regulations (please cite)
o Executive Orders
o Interagency Agreements or Contingency Plans (please cite or attach)
o Internal Agency Policy
I-L-B-2
-------
STRUCTURE
Please draw an organization chart indicating the sub-units of
your agency which have a role during environmental emergencies.
Indicate what tasks are undertaken by each sub-unit.
Indicate the command structure in your agency during an environ-
mental emergency. What individual has responsibility for all agency
activities during an emergency?
Does your agency provide on-site assistance during an environ-
mental emergency (routinely or on request)?
o Indicate the network of field offices and central units
which provide on-site assistance, and the kind of assistance
provided.
Describe any standing mechanisms (other than the National
Response team or Regional Response team under § 311 of the Water
Pollution Control Act) for coordinating (and communicating) with
other Federal agencies during an environmental emergency.
Does your agency maintain any direct liaison with any State or
local agencies during an environmental emergency? Please explain
the nature of this relationship.
Does your agency have its own contingency plan for environmental
emergencies? Please describe the contents of this plan.
How is your agency notified of an environmental emergency?
o Do you maintain a 24-hour emergency number
o Is this number advertised to and used by the public
o What government agencies notify you of an environmental
emergency
o Describe any routine notification procedures.
Explain how your agency decides to activate its emergency response
capability during environmental emergencies.
o Do you rely on orders from, another' agency
o Who in your agency decides to order activation of emergency
powers
II-B-3
-------
o Does your agency have criteria which determine when emergency
powers can be activated
- please explain these criteria
- include copies of any procedures or regulations
governing activation of emergency powers.
Describe any system or process used to evaluate incoming information
on a potential environmental emergency. (If you indicate CHRIS or
OHMTADS, they need not be described.)
Manpower, Equipment and Organization
With regard to the personnel assigned to respond'.to environmental
emergencies in fiscal year 1978 indicate:
o Number, organization unit and field office (if any)
o What other tasks, if any, they perform
o What percent of their time is spent on environmental
emergencies
Describe the training for environmental emergencies which assigned
personnel have received. Include for each, or for typical employees:
o Academic qualifications required and obtained
o Formal training courses offered by
- your agency
- another Federal agency
- academic institutions
o Experience required and obtained
Indicate percentage of assigned personnel which have received
special training.
Describe the equipment available to emergency response personnel.
o Type, quantity and adequacy, including personal protective
gear
o Equipment transportation to the scene of an environmental
emergency
II-B-4
-------
What laboratory capability does your agency have which can be used
during an environmental emergency?
Do you use special contractors during an environmental emergency?
o What tasks do they perform
o How quickly can contractors begin work
o Is a contingency appropriation available
(other than under § 311 of the FWPCA)? How large is this
appropriation?)
Does your agency have special procedures permitting immediate
(or after the fact) approval of these expenditures during environmental
emergencies?
Consider:
o Personnel overtime
o Personnel travel and expenses
o Contracts (up to what $ limits)
Please discuss and explain the actual operations you conduct
during an environmental emergency.
COSTS
For environmental emergency response activities, indicate funding
levels for fiscal year 1977 and 1978, and the President's request for
fiscal year 1979 for:
a) personnel
b) travel
c) research (indicate the types of research supported)
d) grants, loans, or contracts with
o individuals or private groups
o State governments
o sub-State units of government
e) total environmental emergency response activity allocations
for fiscal year 1977, 1978, 1979 request. (Please show by
appropriation number.)
II-B-5
-------
Were any expenditures in fiscal year 1976 or 1977 reimbursed
from the contingency fund under § 311 of the FWPCA? Indicate amount
reimbursed.
Has your agency received reimbursement for environmental emergency
response activities from any other sources during fiscal year 1976 and
1977?
o Indicate the amount from each source
Has your agency directly recovered any of its costs from a party
responsible for an environmental emergency? (exclude recoveries
under § 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.)
FOLLOW-UP
Does your agency conduct an after-the-fact analysis of its response
to major environmental emergencies?
o What kind of review is held
o Describe changes in emergency operations which have followed
such a review.
II-B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
Public Laws
Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 25-2171
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1977 CPL 95-190}
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (PL 93-633)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (PL 93-288)
Flood and Coastal Storm Emergencies (PL 84-99)
as amended by PL 93-251
Executive Orders
E.O. 11735 Delegating Functions of the President
under Section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended
E.O. 11795 Delegating. Disaster" Relief Functions
Pursuant to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
Regulations
40 CFR 116, 117, 118 & 119 EPA Hazardous Substance
Regulations
33 CFR 302 Emergency Employment of Army and Other
Resources, Natural Disaster Procedures
24 CFR 2205 Federal Disaster Assistance
33 CFR 153, 154, 155 & 156 USCG Oil Pollution Control
Regulations
40 CFR 1510 National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan
49 CFR 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177 & 195 DOT
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations
Department of Transportation
"Emergency Action Guide for Selected Hazardous
Materials" 1978, DOT
DOT Answers to Questions on Hazardous Materials
for April 14 Hearing, dated April 10, 1978
DOT Memorandums of March 29, 1978,'April 6, 1978,
and April 17, 1978
IIC-1
-------
Department of Defense
"Nuclear and Chemical Accident and Incident
Control," Chemical Notes Number 1, U. S.
Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency
"Nuclear and Chemical Weapons and Material
Chemical Surety Program" Army Regulation
50-6 of January 1, 1977
"Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Prevention and Contingency Program"
DOD Directive 5030.41 of June 1, 1977
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan, DOE,
July 1975
Federal Response Plan for Peactime Nuclear
Emergencies, GSA, April 1977
NRC Letter to the Honorable William Proxmire
of September 30, 1977
NRC Letter to the Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan
of September 1976
"Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization
Facilities" Appendix E, 10 CFR 50
"NRC Incident Response Program" Chapter 0502,
NRC Manual, February 16, 1978
"Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants,"
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101, March 1977
"Guide and Checklist for Development and
Evaluation of State and Local Government
Radiological Emergency Response Plans in
Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" NRC,
NUREG-75/111, Revision No. 1, December 1,
1974
"Regulatory and Other Responsibilities as Related
to Transportation Accidents," NRC, June 1977
"A Review of Five Years Accident Experience in
the USA Involving Nuclear Transportation
(1971-1975)" DOT, August 1976
"Development of an Example Plan and Guide for
Emergency Response Planning for Coping
with Transportation-Related Radiation
Incidents" Final Report Prepared by the
Western Interstate Nuclear Board, May 15,
1975
IIC-2
-------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation
of Radioactive Material by Air and Other
Modes" NRC December 1977
"Radiological Incident Emergency Response Planning;
Fixed Facilities and Transportation"
Interagency Responsibilitie 40 FR 248 of
December 24, 1975
"Catalog of Radiological Emergency Response
Training Activities for Planning and
Emergency Operations" .July 1978
U. S. Coast Guard
U. S. Coast Guard Memorandum of March 7, 1978
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, Draft Proposed Revisions,
May 24, 1978
"Coast Guard Response to Oil Spills—Trying to do
too Much with too Little" GAO, May 16, 1978
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
"The Argo Merchant Oil Spill Incident: December 15,
1976 to February 15, 1977. A Report to the
Administrator" NOAA, July 1977
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
FDAA Letter to EPA of March 13, 1978
Miscellaneous Reports
"Reorganization of Federal Emergency Preparedness
and Response Programs" Draft, President's
Reorganization Project, February 1978
"Regulation of Toxic and Hazardous Substances"
Interagency Agreement: 42 FR 196 of
October 11, 1977
11 Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group, Notice
of IRLG Work Plans and Public Meetings"
43 FR 34 of February 17, 1978
"An Analysis of Past Federal Efforts to Control
Toxic Substances" Draft, Environmental
Law Institute, April 19, 1978
IIC-3
-------
Miscellaneous Reports
"Control of Hazardous Material Spills"
Proceedings of 1976 National Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills,
April 1976
"Control of Hazardous Material Spills,"
Proceedings of 1978 National Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills,
April 1978
IIC-4
-------
THE EPA ROLE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES
Prepared by the Task Force
on Environmental Emergencies
-------
THE EPA ROLE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
THE EPA ROLE—AN OVERVIEW III- 5
Response to Oil Spills Is.Effective III- 5
Response to Other Emergencies Is Ad Hoc III- 6
DIRECT RESPONSE ACTIVITIES III- 9
Notification III- 9
Notification for Oil and Hazardous
Substances 111-10
Notification Procedures for Other .
Emergencies III-12
Initial Assessment 111-13
Immediate Actions III-14
Cleanup and Mitigation 111-15
Disposal 111-16
Restoration 111-17
Cost Recovery and Enforcement 111-18
Follow-up 111-20
CONTINUING ACTIVITIES III-22
Continuing Activities Well Developed
for Oil Spills 111-22
Prevention III-22
Contingency Planning III-23
Research and Training 111-24
Contingency Activities for Other
Emergencies Currently Inadequate III-25
Prevention III-25
Contingency Planning III-26
Research III-27
Training . Ill-28
ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES FOR EMERGENCY
RESPONSE III-30
Headquarters Organization III-30
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials III-32
-------
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances 111-34
Assistant Administrator for Air,
Noise and Radiation 111-34
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 111-37
Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development III-37
Headquarters Resources III-40
Regional Office Organization and Resources 111-42
Principal Emergency Response Units 111-42
Summary of Regional Office Involvement 111-46
CONCLUSIONS III-51
Mandate for Response Often Unclear III-53
Hazardous Substances List Enjoined 111-53
Pew Blanket Provisions for Other
Emergencies III-54
Extent of Response Not Clear III-55
Emergency Response Organization Not
Entegrated III-55
Resources Inadequate for Specific
Activities 111-56
Ill-iv
-------
THE EPA ROLE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Environmental emergencies, by their nature, are unique;
often the best response is the one devised at the scene to
deal with a unique situation. EPA's response to emergencies
has often reflected a lack of a structured, systematic
approach: the Agency's success in dealing with environmental
emergencies is as much a result of experienced, dedicated
people dealing sensitively with unique events as it is a
result of systematic procedures and protocols.
EPA's method for responding to environmental emergen-
cies has come under scrutiny lately. National publicity
concerning spills of hazardous substances, with their atten-
dant costs to life, property, and the environment, led to
the formation of this Task Force to analyze EPA's activities
systematically, even where no system is currently in place.
EPA's legal authority and typical method of responding
vary by the type of substance spilled and the medium into
which it was discharged. Consequently, for this report we '
have subdivided "environmental emergency" into the following
classes:
o Spills of oil into water (under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977}.
o Discharges of designated hazardous substances,
i.e., "any substances designated by the Admini-
strator of the Agency... presenting an imminent
and substantial danger to the public health or
welfare" (Section 311, Clean Water Act).
o Other incidents which may present "imminent and
substantial danger to the public health and wel-
fare" but which are not specifically designated
under Section 311. These spills, occasionally
referred to here as "non-311 spills," may fall
under other Acts, and encompass discharges of
substances not yet designated as hazardous as well
as emergencies involving media other than water.
o Environmental disasters, of such magnitude to be
designated as such by the President, falling under
the Federal Disaster Assistance Act.
The fourth class, disasters, was created to differentiate
what might be called "routine" spills from full-fledged dis-
III-l
-------
asters. The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration,
which administers the disaster act, has much broader powers
than environmental emergencies.
While the Task Force was completing its data gathering,
this four-way division of environmental emergencies was
clouded because the Administrator's list of 271 "designated
hazardous substances" under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act was enjoined in Federal Court. EPA had developed proce-
dures to deal with those substances but at this moment has
no authority to invoke penalties or to respond to environ-
mental emergencies involving them, except as also covered in
other acts, notably the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Section 504 of
the Clean Water Act. The Task Force experienced considerable
difficulty, however, in gathering diffuse and unstructured
data relating to EPA emergency response activities, organiza-
tional responsibilities, or resources connected with these
acts.
The Oil and Special Materials Control Division (OSMCD)
in the Office of Water and Waste Management is the principal
organizational unit in EPA Headquarters responsible for
spills of oil and hazardous substances. OSMCD's mission
encompasses emergencies involving oil and hazardous substances,
but a current lack of authority for dealing with hazardous
substances has made it difficult to work systematically in
this area.
In Fiscal 1979, eight new positions have been funded at
Headquarters for establishing an Environmental Response Team
(ERT), with primary emphasis on emergencies involving hazard-
ous substances. At the request of the Regional Offices, ERT
will respond to all environmental emergencies and, when not
actually responding, will conduct training and will work in
prevention and contingency planning.
In 8 of the 10 EPA regions emergency response is located
in the Surveillance and Analysis Division. In two regions,
that function is located in the Enforcement Division, reflect-
ing regional preferences. A number of other regional units
become involved, depending on their resources, capabilities,
and priorities, and on the request of the principal response
unit. As the situation warrants, this response unit colla-
borates with the multi-agency Regional Response Team, consti-
tuted under the National Contingency Plan maintained by the
Council on Environmental Quality. The U.S. Coast Guard and
EPA are the primary agencies involved with the Response
Teams, although others are included. State officials are
also represented on the Regional Response Teams.
III-2
-------
Early in the study we identified 12 activities that EPA
performs in emergency response. We grouped these activities
into two categories: Direct Response Activities—e.g., noti-
fication, cleanup, and disposal—and Continuing Activities—
e.g., prevention, research, and braining. Figure III-l
defines these activities. After providing a brief overview,
we set out the results of our study for the 12 activities,
discuss organization and resources, and, finally, set out
our conclusions.
III-3
-------
CONTINUING ACTIVITIES
PREVENTION
.DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS;
: INSPECTION FOR COMPLIANCE
FICATIONI
RECEIPT AND
COMMUNICATION I
OF INFORMATION!
ABOUT ENVIRON
MENTAL
EMERGENCIES
CONTINGENCY
PLANNING!
DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURES {
AND COORDINATION MECHANISMS;
DIRECT
INITIAL!
ASSESSMENT!
1 ASS
IWHI
(INC
[ASSESSMENT
ETHER AN
[INCIDENT IS OR!!
WILL DEVELOP!!
INTO AN
EMERGENCY
2JDETERMINAI
TiONpFl
'APPROPRIATE I
LEVEL AND I
NATURE OF t
RESPONSE I
RESEARCH
i DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENCY
I RESPONSE TECHNIQUES AND
•THRESHOLDS FOR HAZARDOUS
SUBSJ_ANCES f
RESPONSE
IMMEDIATE
ACTION
EFFORTSTO
REDUCE HUM AN]
EXPOSURE OR
ENVIRONMEN-
TAL DAMAGE
CLEANUP!
REMOVAL OF
POLLUTANTS OR |
TREATMENT TO
REDUCE THE !|
DANGER
DISPOSAL
;SHORT TERM
I STORAGE AND
iEVENTUAL
'DISPOSAL
ACTIV
IRESTO-
IRATJON
1.3 ASSESSMENT •
OF EXTENT
lOF DAMAGE
REHABILI- I
TATIONOF i
NATURAL j
RESOURCES
TRAINING
TEACHING OF THE SKILLS AND
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO
RESPOND WITH MINIMAL DANGER
TIES
:CQST
'RECOVERY
EVALUATION OF
THE ADEQUACY
OF RESPONSE
STEPS BY
FEDERAL,
STATE. OR
!LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
TO RECOVER
1 COSTS FROM
THESPILLER
OR FROM
.GOVERNMENTAL
;EMERGENCY
FUNDS
Figure 111-1. EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES
-------
THE EPA ROLE—AN OVERVIEW
Although we were able to identify four classes of
environmental emergencies to which EPA responds, for pur-
poses of this overview a two-way division is sufficient:
oil spills and "all other." The latter category encompasses
spills of designated hazardous substances, the "non-311"
spills, and environmental disasters. In general, we found
EPA's role in oil spills to be effective. For the other
emergencies, however, we found response ad hoc, hampered by
lack of clear authority or funding.
RESPONSE TO OIL SPILLS IS EFFECTIVE
Approximately 10,000 oil spills are reported nationally
each year to the National Response Center under the manda-
tory reporting requirements of Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act. Of these, EPA receives notification on about
3,000 incidents and responds to approximately 1,000. The
balance of the 10,000 spills are either cleaned up directly
by the spiller or his contractor or are dealt with solely by
the U.S. Coast Guard, which shares responsibility with EPA
for implementing Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. (The
Coast Guard deals with spills into or upon coastal waters or
the Great Lakes.)
The primary reason that emergency response under Sec-
tion 311 of the Clean Water Act is effective is that there
is specific legislation to deal with oil emergencies, set-
ting up procedures for response through a network of National
and Regional Response Teams. These teams have existed for
several years and have gained substantial field experience.
The typical mechanism for dealing with oil spills begins
with a call to a central toll-free emergency number, appoint-
ment of an On-Scene Coordinator, and coordinated response at
the site if warranted by the magnitude of the spill.
Although EPA's response in oil spills is generally
effective—serving as a model for other emergency plans—it
nevertheless can be improved. Our investigation disclosed:
o Little Agency priority applied to continuing
activities. For example, the Agency's prevention
program, which might eliminate the need :for response
at all,.is not conducted systematically. Regional
contingency plans vary in quality and the amount
of attention to updating them.
III-5
-------
o Incomplete definition of extent of cleanup. EPA's
and industry's judgments can vary about "How
clean is clean."
o Guidance for restoration, a recently mandated
activity under the Clean Water Act, has not been
developed, so that the measures required could
often be misunderstood.
o Informal follow-up to oil spills, primarily be-
cause of lack of resources.
In short, EPA's system for responding to oil spills is
in place, is effective, but depends in great part on the
caliber of the EPA official assigned to coordinate activi-
ties at the spill.
RESPONSE TO OTHER EMERGENCIES IS AD HOC
During the last year about 500 spills of hazardous sub-
stances were reported voluntarily. EPA responds to approxi-
mately 100 of these spills each year, with the balance
cleaned up through private resources. Since June 12, 1978,
however, reporting has also become mandatory for the desig-
nated 271 hazardous substances.* EPA expects that this new
reporting requirement and the requirements of other acts,
notably the Toxic Substances Control Act, will result in a
threefold increase in the number of hazardous substances
spills reported and will place commensurately higher demands
on the National Contingency Plan and its response teams.
Response to environmental emergencies can be authorized
under a number of acts:
o The Clean Water Act, Section 311—spills of the
designated hazardous substances
o The Clean Water Act, Section 504—any incidents
which pose "imminent and substantial danger to the
public health and welfare" in any medium
o The Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1431
o The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Sec-
tions 7003 and 3003
* The regulations are currently enjoined.
III-6
-------
o The Clean Air Act, Section 303
o The Toxic Substances Control Act
o The Federal Disaster Relief Act.
In other words, EPA is involved in a number of environmental
emergencies, irrespective of the medium, the substance in-
volved, or the manner in which it is discharged.
The legislation is discussed in the chapter on Legal
Authority. The laws are in various stages of implementation;
therefore, EPA emergency response programs mandated by these
laws are also not fully developed or integrated. For exam-
ple, the EPA regions have different interpretation of their
authorities under the various provisions of the Acts, lead-
ing to varying commitment to response across the regions.
This confusion is reflected in the industries EPA regulates,
as indicated at the EPA Public Meeting (Chapter IV).
Despite these difficulties, the Agency has responded to
environmental emergencies not involving spills of oil into
water. For example, EPA was heavily involved in the cleanup
of hazardous substances and oil spills associated with the
Johnstown flood; the restoration of the sewer system in
Louisville, Kentucky following contamination by chemical
wastes; and the air pollution episode in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. (See the Volume on case studies.)
Decisions to respond to these emergencies are often
made case by case, with mandates derived from the Agency's
general responsibilities connected with the Acts mentioned
earlier.
As is the case with oil spills, money invested early
for prevention and training often pays dividends either
through decreasing the number of spills or through preparing
the participants—whether EPA, State, or local—to respond
more effectively. The little money already invested in
research has begun to bear fruit (the section on research
cites several new devices to aid in cleanup of hazardous
spills), but Agency priorities have limited the amount of
funds for research and development.
EPAt.'-sSSffort has been severely hampered because funds
called for in legislation have not been appropriated.
Specifically, a "Section 504" fund is authorized to reimburse
expenditures for response during environmental emergencies,
but no funds have been appropriated because the authority
under that section is too broad. This lack of funding has
limited cleanup, disposal, and restoration to that financed
by the discharger himself or the Section 311 revolving fund.
III-7
-------
For cases when the discharger cannot or will not pay,
when the discharger is unknown, or when funds have not been
appropriated for existing authority, the Agency has diffi-
culty in recovering costs. In these cases the Agency in
the past has used one-time grants or diverted budget funds
and then, when appropriate, considered legal procedures for
recovery.
III-8
-------
DIRECT RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
The eight direct response activities defined in Figure
III-l correspond to the five phases of response identified
in the National Contingency Plan (Federal Register, February
10, 1975). We subdivided these phases into eight tasks:
National Contingency Plan
Response Tasks
Discovery and Notification
1.
Notification
I. Evaluation and Initiation of
Action
2. Initial
Assessment
II. Containment and Counter-measures
3. Immediate Action
IV. Cleanup, Mitigation, and Dis-
posal
4. Cleanup
5. Disposal
6. Restoration
V. Documentation and Cost Recovery
7. Enforcement and
Cost Recovery
8. Follow-up
In addition, we discuss four continuing activities not
directly related to response—research, contingency planning,
prevention, and safety and training—in the next shapten of
this report.
NOTIFICATION
Until recently, the only legal reporting requirement
had been for oil spills under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act. As of 1977, designated hazardous substances are also
included under that section. Reporting for other environ-
mental emergencies is now required under TSCA, RCRA, and a
joint agreement between EPA and DOE for radiation emergen-
cies.
III-9
-------
Notification for Oil and Hazardous Substances
EPA receives notification about an oil or hazardous
substance spill from a number of sources: the National
Response Center, State officials, the spiller, or third
parties. The flow chart on the next page shows the flow of
information during notification.
The emergency response coordinator at the EPA region
determines whether the incident is major and therefore war-
rants Federal participation. If it is a major spill, the
emergency coordinator begins to set in motion procedures for
Federal response. These procedures include relaying details
of the spill to—
o Affected State authorities, e.g., the State en-
vironmental office or public health officials, if
they were not the source of the initial information.
o The Oil and Special Materials Control Division at
EPA Headquarters.
o The Regional Response Team, in case of a major
incident.
o Other offices in the EPA region and, if necessary,
the Regional Administrator.
o The U.S. Coast Guard, if the incident is in coastal
fraters or the Gceat Lakes.
o The National Response Center in Washington, if it
was not the source of the initial notification.
If the incident is of such magnitude to warrant active
Headquarters participation, OSMCD mobilizes other EPA Head-
quarters offices having direct interest in the incident such
as the program offices dealing with toxics, water supply,
pesticides, or others. Generally, Assistant Administrators
are also notified.
Although these notification procedures have been gener-
ally effective in providing Federal response, there are
significant problems associated with this initial phase:
o The emergency coordinator's assessment is in some
cases based on incomplete and possibly inaccurate
information reported by the initial caller.
Ill- .
-------
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES DURING INLAND OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SPILLS
H
H
H
I
DISCHARGER
STATE
THIRD PARTIES
PRINCIPAL
RECIPIENT
NATIONAL RESPONSE
CENTER
/l\
\/
EPA REGIONAL
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
COORDINATOR
X
NOTIFIED
EPA HEADQUARTERS
OWPO
I
OWHM
OTS
ORP
OPP
OE
CONG
LIASON
ADMINISTRATOR
OTHER REGIONAL
PROGRAM AREAS
COAST GUARD
REGIONAL RESPONSE
TEAM
STATE AGENCIES
-------
o We discovered, in our survey of States and indus-
try, that there is some confusion about whom to
call. There are overlapping notification require-
ments for EPA and DOT for hazardous materials
spills.
o Although all EPA regions maintain an active 24-hour
telephone service, it is sometimes difficult to
mobilize appropriate regional personnel, especi-
ally on weekends.
o Some spills may go unreported for many reasons:
delinquency on the part of the spiller, lack of
knowledge of the reporting requirement associated
with the substance spilled, or fear of penalties.
For these and many other reasons we are unable to obtain an
exact figure on the number of hazardous substance spills and
can only guess based on those voluntarily reported so far to
EPA, the Coast Guard, or DOT. If the injunction on the 271
hazardous substances is lifted, mandatory reporting require-
ments will apply to them as well.
Notification Procedures for Other Emergencies
Mandatory notification requirements for emergencies
other than oil and hazardous substances need further develop-
ment and integration within a single agency reporting system.
Many of the problems identified with the oil and hazardous
substances notification system apply as well to these emer-
gencies: inaccurate information from the site, uncertainty
about whom to call, and, more significantly, lack of know-
ledge of the legal reporting requirements.
Although notification requirements are in effect for
emergencies under the Clean Water Act, such is not uniformly
the case for other acts. For example, Section 8(e) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act and Section 3003 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Acts have mandatory reporting
requirements. In the case of TSCA, reporting requirements
been recently incorporated in the oil and hazardous substances
reporting system, as are requirements for spills of hazardous
wastes during transportation under RCRA. These RCRA report-
ing requirements, however, have not yet been promulgated.
Pesticide incidents are not subject to mandatory reporting
requirements, although they may be covered under Section 311
of the Clean Water Act or Section 30003 of RCRA if they are
spilled in water or during transportation as wastes.
111-12
-------
Radioactive incidents are reported under regulations
set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. EPA's Office of
Radiation, by letter agreement, is notified of all spills of
radioactive materials. In a reciprocal agreement, EPA's
Office of Radiation Programs informs both NRC and DOE of oil
or hazardous substances spills effecting a nuclear power
facility.
EPA is involved in acute air incidents following re-
quest by a Federal, State, or local official following EPA
Order 2060.2—National Air Pollution Contingency Plan—
February 12, 1974.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT
EPA has considerable experience in assessing oil spills.
For other emergencies, however, the Agency's assessment
procedures are rudimentary, primarily because the informa-
tion received from the site is inadequate. There are several
reasons for this inadequacy:
o No labeling or knowledge about some hazardous
substances
o Poor reporting from untrained local officials
o Third-hand information not received directly from
the site.
Although these problems relate primafily to notification,
they affect the quality of initial assessment.
Federal involvement is warranted under different criteria
depending on the type of incident:
o Oil spills—as set out in Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act, the National Contingency Plan, and
regulations defining "harmful quantity."
o Designated hazardous substances—as set out in
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act and the Na-
tional Contingency Plan. Regulations to clarify
the language of the Act ("imminent and substantial
danger") have been enjoined, however.
o "Non-311" spills—ad hoc, applying provisions of
Section 504 of the Clean Water Act or sections of
III-L3
-------
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act, or other laws.
o Environmental disasters—when declared by the Pre-
sident.
The regulations pertaining to oil make initial assess-
ment straightforward. For hazardous substances, the regula-
tions are explicit, but during our interviews we discovered
some reluctance to respond to incidents involving hazardous
substances and non-311 spills because the substances them-
selves are dangerous to handle and the legal mandate for
response is often unclear.
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS
If the initial assessment indicates a need for EPA
response, an On-Scene Coordinator is dispatched to the site.
The OSC's main priority is to safeguard public health and
the environment through containment and isolation of the
spilled substance; in most cases, however, that work is
carried out by the spiller, or by contractors hired by the
spiller. T-
If the On-Scene Coordinator determines that the spill
is poorly attended, he has the authority to take over con-
trol of the cleanup operation and may assign his own cleanup
contractor.
EPA's other activities during the immediate action
phase include providing advice about evacuation, giving
technical assistance, and disseminating public information.
Evacuation usually occurs before EPA becomes actively
involved in an incident; it is a state and local responsi-
bility. The train derailment in Rush, Kentucky, involving
burning and fuming acrylonitrile, demonstrates the diffi-
culties connected with EPA's role in recommending evacua-
tions. (See the case study in Volume IV.) Shortly after
arriving on the scene of the derailment, the EPA On-Scene
Coordinator advised the Civil Defence to evacuate 150 people
living nearby. Later the same day the State Fire Marshal
overruled the OSC and ordered Civil Defense to return the
evacuees; shortly thereafter, an EPA air expert, who had
just then arrived, recommended that one family living near-
111-14
-------
est the derailment should be reevacuated. Evacuation in
this case was complicated by insufficient knowledge of the
hazards of acrylonitrile.
Another of EPA's immediate actions is to provide ad-
vice about how to handle the incident. Generally, the On-
Scene Coordinator supplies information on the nature of the
pollutant based on the available toxicological data, the
plume and dispersion aspects, and the expected trajectory
of the pollutant. State and local officials may use EPA's
advice to determine their own immediate actions, although
they are not required to take EPA advice, to alert down-
stream users that their water supplies might be affected.
Those officials would then rely on EPA's recommendations to
shut down their water supplies and to reopen them when it
is again safe.
Finally, EPA can, through its Regional public affairs
staff, provide assistance in publicizing the appropriate
action to be taken by the affected population to further en-
sure that public health and safety are protected. Even in
this function conflicts can arise if too many organizations
provided information. This potential shortcoming has been
recognized in the National Contingency Plan (Annexes V and
VI), whLch requires a sole spokesman during incidents.
CLEANUP AND MITIGATION
Cleanup of oil spills is currently within the technolog-
ical capability of the Agency and of private industry. For
spills other than oil, cleanup and mitigation are more com-
plex and expensive, particularly if restoration is intended.
For example, dredging the James River to remove its kepone
content would require,, by some estimates, hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars.
EPA's responsibility for cleaning up oil spills is
clearly stated in Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. The
Agency's oil spill program is fully operational; EPA or
Coast Guard On-Scene Coordinators monitor cleanup and oc-
casionally initiate it, normally by contract, if a dis-
charger is unknown, refuses to clean up, or fails to do so
properly. In the last two cases, the discharger is still
liable for cleanup costs.
111-15
-------
According to Regional Office staff, oil spillers are
generally responsible about cleaning up their spills, rec-
ognizing that cleanup would probably -be less, .expensive in
tne long run if they do it themselves. Consequently,
Federal funds are used to clean up only about three or four
times per year in any region.
Cleanup of other discharges is more complex. Although
the discharger in most cases performs the cleanup adequately,
usually through contract, three basic problems remain for
EPA On-Scene Coordinators:
o Authority to clean up hazardous substances (cur-
rently enjoined)
o Ability to clean up because our current experience
is insufficient or because cleanup is not techno-
logically or economically feasible
o Extent of cleanup and restoration.
At this time no funds are available for removal and
mitigation of environmental emergencies other than oil and
hazardous substance spills even though authority is present
under Section 504 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1442(b)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration has the
authority and seeks the funding for Presidentially declared
disasters. If a Presidentially declared disaster impinges
upon the environment, EPA is called upon to provide assistance,
DISPOSAL
Adequate disposal, both temporary and ultimate, depends
on several factors:
o The nature of the substance discharged
o The medium into which it is discharged
o The technology required
o The availability of acceptable sites
o Public resistance;
111-16
-------
In all of our interviews—with Federal, State, and private
industry representatives—we encountered serious concern
about this issue.
Whereas spilled oil can often be reclaimed, such is not
the case for hazardous substances, which, once spilled, are
difficult to reuse. Hence, the problem facing the On-Scene
Coordinator is to ensure adequate disposal, through one or
more of the following methods:
.o Waste reduction
o Separation and concentration
o Energy or material recovery
o Incineration or treatment.
The On-Scene Coordinator must often provide for temporary
disposal before those methods can be applied or the substances
is buried in an approved landfill.
In fact, some res:dues from hazardous substance spills
are now being stored in temporary facilities and remain po-
tential sources of a recuirent environmental incident. EPA
has developed regulations arid procedures, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, for issuing permits to dis-
posal sites. These regulations;.are. riot. yet...final, however,
leaving a pressing need for more permitted sites strategically
located throughout the country.
RESTORATION
The first step in restoration is to assess the damage
created by an environmental emergency. EPA's activities in
damage assessment, however, have been minimal. Between 1970
and the present, the Oil -and Special Materials Control Divi-
sion had undertaken 16 damage assessment studies at a cost of
about $1 million. Fourteen of those studies involved oil
spills and were done to provide additional scientific sup-
port for the definition of "harmful quantities," to under-
stand cleanup priorities, and to document damages for purposes
of litigation. Lack of funding, coupled with the high cost
of conducting scientifically sound studies, however, caused
the Office to discontinue the program, which is now located
in the Office of Research and Development.
111-17
-------
Until the amendments of 1977, only two sections of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act dealt with restoration:
Section 115, which dealt with removal of in-place toxic pol-
lutants, and Section 314, which dealt with restoration of
eutrophic lakes. For example, funding was not allowed under
Section 311(kfc of the predecessor to the Clean Water Act,
i.e., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
(FWPCA), for replacement of beach sand, reseeding for erosion
control, and bird cleaning. Now that funding is available
under Section 311(k) of the 1977 amendments to FWPCA, resto-
ration activities must be reevalu'ated.
The extent of cleanup and restoration is a continuing
problem, particularly as it affects litigation surrounding
cost recovery. This point was made several times at our
public meeting and during our survey of states and industry.
Because a large part of the Agency's work with the
kepone contamination of the James Estuary, restoration has
gained prominence within the Agency, and a renewed emphasis
can be expected as other environmental funds are created.
Although not yet used, a provision within Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act holds the discharger liable for costs incur-
red for restoration or replacement of natural resources
damaged or destroyed as a result of a discharge of oil or
hazardous substances. A similar provision is part of the
Superfund Bill.
The National Response Team has requested that EPA's
Office of Research and Development, in conjunction with the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
establish a mechanism for coordinated damage assessment and
research pertaining to restoration. The mechanism will be
incorporated into the National Contingency Plan.
COST RECOVERY AND ENFORCEMENT
The responsible party pays for cleanup costs associated
with a spill unless—
o The party is unknown, or insolvent,
o The spill results from an act of God
o The spill is caused by the U.S. Government.
If the spiller refuses to pay, the Department of Justice is
empowered to sue for reimbursement.
111-18
-------
When the On-Scene Coordinator assumes control of cleanup
of oil and designated hazardous substances, he charges the
expended monies to the Section 311 Revolving Fund administer-
ed by the Coast Guard. Then the Coast Guard attempts to
recover the monies plus any administrative costs (per diem,
travel, and overtime) from the spiller if he can be identified,
If the spill does not qualify under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act, cost recovery is difficult and subject to
litigation. This is especially the case when hazardous
substances not yet designated are discharged or when the
discharge is not in water. The Office of Enforcement pre-
pares the legal briefs and supporting documentation used
when EPA initiates action against spillers to recover
cleanup and administrative costs and penalties.
Four funds have been created by law to deal with the
costs of environmental emergencies. Only two have money
appropriated:
1. Section 311(k), Clean Water Act. Funded; admini-
stered by the U.S. Coast Guard for oil and desig-
nated hazardous substances in water. It covers
costs incurred for:
i
- Containment and counterm? asures
- Cleanup and mitigation ' :
Disposal
Administrative costs
The Section also has provisions for collecting
penalties.
2. Section 504, Clean Water Act. A $10 million con-
tingency fund is authorized but not appropriated
to cover costs of environmental emergencies pre-
senting imminent and substantial danger to public
health or the environment in any medium. There is
no mechanism for cost recovery of funds expended
during such incidents.
3. Section 1442, Safe Drinking Water Act. An $8 mil-
lion fund has been authorized for emergencies
which threaten public water supplies. Money for
this fund has not been appropriated.
4. Disaster Relief Fund. Once the President has de-
clared a "major disaster or emergency" for a
111-19
-------
stricken-area, the Administrator of. the Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration may authorize
reimbursement to EPA and other Federal agencies as
well as to State and local governments.
Cost reimbursement through the Section 311 Oc) Fund
generally works smoothly for oil spills, although the costs
of litigation have an inhibitory effect. In fact, the
Agency prefers not to prosecute, relying rather on out-of-
court settlements.
For other emergencies, i.e., those not falling clearly
under the provisions of Section 311, cost recovery has pro-
ceeded ad hoc. Neither TSCA nor.RCRA have cost-recovery
clauses. Fortunately, many hazardous substance spills also
involve oil and may eventually enter ground or surface
waters. For example, spilled chemicals presented the major
hazard during the Johnstown Flood, but sufficient oil was
present to allow some costs to be recovered from the Section
311 Revolving Fund. Funds were also available from FDAA.
Nevertheless, the currently uncertain legal status of the
Agency's list of designated hazardous substances makes re-
covery—even though clearly mandated—difficult in practice.
FOLLOW-UP
Adequate follow-up to environmental emergencies should
be designed with two purposes in mind: (1) to document
these events during response and (2) to analyze the adequacy
of response. EPA's only formal requirements for follow-up
are related to the oil spill program; all other follow-up is
done ad hoc. As a matter of practice, however, the regional
offices report that they rarely follow up formally even to
oil spills, relying instead on informal postmortems. More-
over, limited personnel resources have hindered the effort
to have On-Scene Coordinators prepare adequate documentation
of the events at the incident.
For oil spills, a follow-up mechanism is in place under
provisions of the National Contingency Plan. Within 60 days
of the conclusion of Federal cleanup resulting from a major
oil spill, the On-Scene Coordinator is required to prepare a
complete after-action report of the response. Copies of the
report and other supporting information are furnished to the
National Response Team and the Regional Response Team. The
after-action report includes the following:
o Description of the case and initial situation
III-2.0
-------
o Recommendations on means to prevent recurrence, to
improve the response, or even to change the National
or Regional Contingency Plans.
Follow-up to other environmental emergencies may be
prompted by unique problems or a Congressional'investiga-
tion. For example, the House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation held hearings on the carbon tetrachloride
incidents in the Ohio River and published a lengthy follow-
up report.
In-depth technical investigations, as opposed to
straightforward documentation of the events happening during
a spill, are even rarer. The Agency has conducted only two
for hazardous substances:
o Long-term monitoring of the rate of biodegradation
of contaminated waste oil in a land application
operation near Ogden, Utah (performed by the Utah
State University)
o Study of the distribution and fate of polychlorin-
ated biphenyls and benzenes after a spill of
transformer fluid in Knoxville, Tennessee.
The Emergency Response Team, being established in.,Fiscal
1979, will help in documenting emergency response. That
documentation will be used for preparing OSC reports and for
recovery of funds expended from the Federal Revolving Fund.
Follow-up can be expected to gain in Agency priority.
Recent amendments to Section 504 of the Clean Water Act
require, as part of a contingency plan for environmental
emergencies, that the Agency specify procedures for formal
review and follow-up to emergency response. The Adminis-
trator must also submit an annual .report to Congress out-
lining the actions taken to carry out the provisions of the
amendments; the report will function as a formal review of
response during the year's environmental emergencies.
111-21
-------
CONTINUING ACTIVITIES
Direct response does not completely encompass EPA's
activities in environmental emergencies. Although difficult
to associate with a single spill, the Agency's other activi-
ties—prevention, contingency planning, research, and train-
ing—must also be considered. The four categories are
incomplete, because many of the Agency's basic activities
(for example, monitoring and study of the chemical pro-
perties of materials) support the continuing activities
discussed here even though they are dispersed throughout the
organization and their relevance may not be apparent until
an emergency actually arises.
The Agency has well-developed continuing programs for
oil spills. For discharges of hazardous substances and
other environmental emergencies, however, its programs are
not clearly delineated nor systematically developed.
CONTINUING ACTIVITIES WELL DEVELOPED FOR OIL SPILLS
For oil spills, the Agency has programs for the four
continuing activities identified in Figure III-l. However,
the Agency has placed more emphasis in policy and budget
guidance on direct response to emergencies than on measures
to prepare for or to eliminate those emergencies.
Prevention
The regulations relating to prevention (40 CFR 1510)
are clear with regard to non-transportation-related facili-
ties. (Responsibility for transportation-related spills of
oil into water falls on the U.S. Coast Guard.) The basic
mechanism for preventing oil spills at non-transportation-
related facilities is the Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. The Agency requires owners and
operators to prepare SPCC plans in accordance with the
guidelines established in the regulations, to implement the
plans, to maintain them at their facilities for EPA review
and inspection, and to amend the plan whenever there is a
significant change in the structure, operation, or maintenance
of the facility. If there has been an oil spill of over
1,000 gallons into water (or two spills of any size which
exceed a "harmful quantity," as defined in the regulation)
over 12 consecutive months, the facility's SPCC plan must be
submitted, along with additional information, to the EPA
Regional Administrator for review and amendment.
111-22
-------
EPA's responsibility, therefore, is restricted to re-
viewing the SPCC plans during on-site inspections and sug-
gesting amendments when warranted, especially after a major
spill. The group that performs approximately 90 percent of
the activities is the Oil and Hazardous Materials (OHM)
staff, located either in the Surveillance and Analysis or
the Enforcement Division of the regional offices. In addi-
tion, the staff connected with granting permits for the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
also located in the Surveillance and Analysis or Enforcement
Division, conduct the remaining 10 percent of SPCC inspec-
tions. A telephone survey of regional offices in May, 1978,
revealed that EPA had conducted about 4,000 SPCC inspections
in 1977. About 10 percent were amendment inspections. The
number of inspections varied across the regions, partly be-
cause of geography and amount of industry present, and
partly because response staff were involved in direct response.
The regional offices report, however, that there is no
systematic plan for SPCC inspections and that an inspector
typically visits plants located near each other whenever spe-
cifically called to visit one plant. The states may also
request an SPCC inspection whenever they have noted problems,
even though they are not directly involved with the inspections,
The Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in
Las Vegas, Nevada, has been providing support since early
1977 with a program of aerial photographic reconnaissance to
augment the SPCC compliance monitoring in each of the EPA
regions. These surveys have allowed ground inspections to
be performed primarily at facilities suspected of violations
(identified through the aerial surveys), thus making better
use of limited resources for inspection.
Contingency Planning
Section 311(c) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to
develop a National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan. That plan has been developed, and is designed to
provide a coordinated Federal response to spills. The plan
establishes a National Response Team and assigns specific
responsibilities to most Federal departments and agencies as
well as to state authorities. The Council on Environmental
Quality is responsible for maintaining, and, if necessary,
amending the plan following specific recommendations by the
NRT, which is in charge of implementing the plan.
111-23
-------
A network of Regional Contingency Plans supplements the
National Plan. EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard prepare and
maintain the regional plans, dividing their response by
location of the spill; i.e., EPA responds to inland spills
while the Coast Guard responds to spills in coastal waters
and the Great Lakes.
The Regional Contingency Plans provide for Regional
Response Teams to review and provide advice on the regional
plans and how they should be implemented. Each plan is
patterned after the National plan and contains procedures
and region-specific information on effective response to
spills, for example:
o Potential sources of spills, e.g., oil storage
facilities
o Location of response resources, such as regional
cleanup contractors
o State and EPA regional officials to be notified or
mobilized
o Preferred response techniques.
However, some regions have a more structured and systematic
response effort than' others. Maintaining and updating the
contingency plans requires continuous effort; for example,
some regions expressed concern over the changing personnel
and contact points which require updating telephone numbers
and reestablishing relationships.
Research and Training
EPA's research and training efforts historically were
directed at oil spills; recently, however, the emphasis has
shifted toward hazardous substances.
EPA's primary research laboratory for emergencies is
located in Edison, New Jersey. It has developed the follow-
ing items used primarily for oil spills:
o OHMSETT (the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
Environmental Test Tank), recognized as the major
facility in the world for testing devices and
techniques for controlling oil and hazardous
material spills.
111-24
-------
o A dynamic inclined plane skimmer vessel for
removing spilled oil from choppy harbor waters.
o A prototype trailer-mounted foam flotation system
to clean oil from contaminated beach
Training, like research, has also historically been de-
voted almost exclusively to-oil spills, -although the emphasis
is also changing there. The primary emphasis in earlier
training was the On-Scene Coordinator, and how best to train
him, through formal courses, small seminars, annual conferences,
and on-the-job training. An early formal course, for example,
covered the responsibilities of the OSC, legal requirements,
response procedures, documentation, safety, and other topics.
The course was also open to other personnel from Federal
agencies, state and local governments, and private industry.
That formal course has not been offered in the past two
years, however, primarily because of limited resources, de-
clining enrollments, and competing courses offered by the
U.S. Coast Guard, by the private sector (e.g., Texas A&M
University), and others (e.g., the National Fire Prevention
and Control Academy)..
CONTINUING ACTIVITIES FOR OTHER EMERGENCIES CURRENTLY
INADEQUATE
For environmental emergencies other than oil spills,
EPA's continuing activities are generally rudimentary, al-
though recent awareness of the difficulties involved in
dealing with emergencies related to hazardous substances and
recent legislation hold hope for improvement. Of the four
activities grouped in this chapter, only in research has EPA
already made progress; even there, the Agency's resources
are severely limited.
Prevention
EPA currently has no mechanism for preventing environ-
mental emergencies other than oil spills, although of course
oil and other hazardous substances are often linked, as at a
refinery. Enabling legislation is present, however—Section
311 of the Clean Water Act—and prevention regulations for
the 271 designated hazardous substances under that section
have recently been proposed (September 1, 1978), for facilities
that must have NPDES permits. Additional regulations are
expected over the next three years.
111-25
-------
Other regulations for preventing environmental emergen-
cies are also being developed under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRAl and the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). In FY 1979, regulations will be promulgated under
RCRA to cover hazardous waste generators, transporters, and
disposal facilities. Similarly, under TSCA regulations have
been promulgated relating to handling and storage of cloro-
fluorocarbons and PCBs; other regulations are expected to
follow.
Contingency Planning
Contingency planning for emergencies other than oil
spills fall under several mandates; however, the Agency has
not coordinated them. This is especially the case with
"non-311" spills, for which the plans currently in effect do
not have uniform procedures, for review and update.
For discharges in water, the Agency's list of 271
designated hazardous substances is part of the National Con-
tingency Plan. The Plan specifically states, "the NRT
agencies will continue to act pursuant to other operating
authority to remove polluting substance discharges as neces-
sary to protect the public health or welfare."
EPA's response to air pollution emergencies i's covered
under the National Air Pollution Contingency Plan, issued
in February, 1974. This plan, prepared and maintained by
the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, pro-
vides for coordinated EPA response to emergencies, delegates
regional and Headquarters responsibilities, and establishes
procedures for obtaining assistance from Headquarters and
from other sources. The plan, however, has not been updated
in the four years since it was issued, and many of the
contact points are out of date.
Radiological emergencies have their own Interagency
Radiological Assistance Plan. The Office of Radiation Pro-
grams in the Office of Air and Waste Management represents
EPA within the plan; the Department of Energy is the lead
agency, responsible for administering the plan. EPA's in-
volvement includes sampling and monitoring environmental
radiation, evaluating the extent of contamination, and
advising on the actions to be taken to protect public health
and safety.
Finally, Section 201 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
requires Federal agencies to develop and maintain plans to
provide assistance during emergencies brought about by major
111-26
-------
disasters. EPA currently uses Order 2060.1 of June 2, 1972,
which assigns responsibilities to both Headquarters and
regional units. The plan at this time provides no mechanisms
or procedures for initiating response or obtaining outside
assistance; however, EPA's Management and Organization Divi-
sion is now processing a draft update of the Order.
Detailed information on planning for major emergencies
will appear in the forthcoming EPA Disaster Assistance
Manual. The Agency expects the manual, which is now in
draft, to be issued by the end of 1978. Like the National
Contingency Plan, the Disaster Assistance Manual will be
supplemented by a series of regional response plans. These
plans will include regional responsibilities, specific
mobilization procedures, and.rosters of response team per-
sonnel. To date, however, only five regions have prepared a
disaster assistance plan.
The network of contingency plans for different media
and different substances may soon be superseded. Recent
amendments to Section 504 of the Clean Water Act require EPA
to develop a contingency plan for all environmental emergencies
posing "imminent and substantial danger" to public health.
The amendments specifically state that the plan will include
procedures and responsibilities comparable to the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
• Research
Although the early emphasis in research was directed at
oil spills, EPA's research has been devoted increasingly
toward developing equipment and procedures to cope with
discharges of hazardous substances. The Edison Laboratory,
for example, has concentrated on equipment development,
rather than basic research, giving priority to items that
can be used by an OSC or response team during an actual
incident.
Samples of the devices developed at the Edison Labora-
tory include—
A prototype equipment ensemble for personnel
responding to hazardous spills, including breath-
ing apparatus and protective clothing
— A prototype "backpack" portable foam dispensing
system that produces a quick-set foam useful for
creating a dike to divert spilled chemicals
111-27
-------
A prototype trailer-mounted physical/chemical
treatment system for field decontamination of
spilled chemicals in water
A prototype mobile incineration system for the
ultimate disposal of toxic and hazardous debris
— A mobile chemical laboratory containing instru-
mentation for performing analyses during chemical
emergencies
A prototype pallet-mounted emergency collection
system for temporary storage of up to 7,000 gal-
lons of spilled chemicals.
Several other groups within EPA collect data that may be ap-
plicable to environmental emergencies, notably the National
Environmental Information Center, Denver, the pesticide
laboratories, and regional Surveillance and Analysis Division
laboratories. Routine laboratory activities build up a log
of data useful in identifying potentially dangerous industrial
sites and significantly hazardous geographical areas.
Sample collection, analysis, and interpretation provide .
information to enable field teams to respond more effective
in a given situation.
Nevertheless, the regional offices we interviewed while
writing this chapter observed that even more research is
necessary. They particularly stressed the development of
personal safety and emergency response equipment in view of
the increasing emphasis on incidents involving hazardous
substances and toxic materials.
Training
Much of the training already in place for On-Scene
Coordinators, even though originally designed to deal with
oil spills, carries over to spills of hazardous materials.
Many of the OSC's activities are the same: coordinating
response, obtaining information about the local area, and
dealing with local authorities. Nevertheless, EPA recently
moved to increase training for OSCs to respond to discharges
of hazardous materials. Under contract to EPA, Vanderbilt
University has developed and presented a course dealing with
response procedures relating to spills of hazardous sub-
stances. The course provided one week of instruction on
personnel safety and another week on the role of the On-
Scene Coordinator.
111-28
-------
Vanderbilt conducted two sessions of the personnel
safety course and two sessions of the complete program dur-
ing 1977 for EPA and Coast Guard OSCs, and is now developing
a condensed 5-day course to be offered to state and local
personnel and private industry.
The Regional Offices we interviewed felt that even more
training should be a part of future Agency programs. Con-
sequently, EPA has formed a Training Committee, including
representatives from the Oil and Special Materials Control
Division and the Regional Oil and Hazardous Materials coor-
dinators to study training needs. The committee will seek
assistance from other Agency offices (e.g., the Office of
Occupational Safety and Health) to insure that all required
topics are assessed.
111-29
-------
ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE
This section presents the organizational responsibili-
ties for emergency response within the pertinent EPA pro-
grams and the resources expended in the response activities,
both at Headquarters and the regions. The information was
gathered through interviews of Icey personnel in the various
program offices and represents the latest organizational
changes as well as current expenditures in emergency re-
sponse.
The EPA organizational structure reflects the mandates
established .under the following-Acts Csee the chapter on
Federal Legal Authorityl:
o The Clean Water Act—Sections 311, 5Q4, 115
o The Safe Drinking Water Act—Sections 1401, 1442,
1431
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—Sections
3002, 3003
o The Clean Air Act—Section 303
o The Toxic Substances Control Act—Sections 7, 8
o The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act—Section 6 CCI .
HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION
Most of the EPA emergency response activities are the
responsibility of the Assistant Administrator for Water and
Hazardous Materials. The Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances is currently developing his emergency response
activities, which will be limited to latest provisions of
the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Assistant Administra-
tor for Enforcement has a substantial responsibility in
enforcing the penalties associated with violations of the
provisions of the above Acts during an emergency. The other
offices either have a very limited responsibility during an
emergency or provide support only when called upon.
Figure III-3, on the next page, is an overall organiza-
tional chart of the EPA. We have highlighted the offices at
the Assistant Administrator level which are active in emer-
gency response. The Assistant Administrator for Water and
Hazardous Materials has by far the greatest responsibility
during an environmental emergency.
111-30
-------
FIGURE III-3
THE EPA ORGANISATIONAL CHART
ADMINISTRATOR
DOUGLAS COSTLE
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
BARBARA BLUM
OFFICE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS
(VACANT)
OFFICE OF
FEDERAL
ACTIVITIES
JOSEPH McCABE
(ACTING)
H
H
I
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
EDWARD RHODES
OFF ICE Of
PLANNING AND
EVALUATION
OFFICC Of
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
PAUL ELSTOM
OFFICE OF
AUDIT
MALCOLM STRINGER
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR 1
roR 1
ENFORCEMENT 1
MARVIN DUHNING 1
—
OFF
GCN
IMF OR
RICHAR
orr
WA
ENFOR
OFFI
MOBILE 5C
NOISE ENFORCE KENT
NORMAN fHUUER
REGIONAL OFFICES
OFFICE OF
INTERNATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
ALICE B. POPKIN
OFFICE OF
LEGISLATION
CHARLES WARREN
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC AWARENESS
JOAN M.NICHOLSON
OFFICE OF
REGIONAL AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
OPERATIONS
J. EDWARD ROUSH
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR
FOR WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
THOMAS C.JORLING
ADMINISTRATOR
DAVID HAWKINS
OFFICE OF
WATEJI PLANNING
ANDSTANDARDS
OFFICE OF
WATER PROGRAMS
OPERATIONS
OFFICE Of
WATER SUPPLY
VICTOR KIMM
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE
SIEFFANPLEHN
Of F ICE OF
AIR QUALITY
PLANNING AND
STANDARDS
WALTER BARBER
OFF ICE OF
MOBILE SOURCE
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
ERIC STORK
OFF ICE OF
NOISE ABATEMENT
AND CONTROL
CHARLES ELKINS
OFFICE OF
RADIATION
PROGRAMS
WILLIAM ROME
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR
• FOR RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
STEPHEN GAGE
OMI
MONITO
TECHNICA
ALBERT '
OFFI
ENERGV.
AND IN
ITfVtN
IAC1
DIM
AIR. LA
WAlt
THOMAS
O'FI
HEAL1
ECOLOGICJ
ECOLOGICAL IffICTt
DELWRT URIH
1
REGION 1
•OSTON
KILL
1
REGION II
NEW YORK
1
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA
1
REGION IV
ATLANTA
.W
1
HI GIOW V
CHICAGO
GEORGE
ALEXANDER
1
REGION, VI
DALLAS
1
REGION VII
KANSAS CITV
1
REGION VIII
DENVER
A
1
REGION IX
SAN FRANCISCO
1
REGION X
tEAmt
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR
FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
STEVEN JELLINEK
f
—
OFF 1C
rtsii
PROGF
EDWIN X
OFF 1C
CMEM
CONT
OFF 1C
TESTIN
CVALUJ
PROG
INTEGR
AND INFORMATION
-------
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
The environmental emergency response function at the
EPA resides in the Oil and Special Materials Control Divi-
sion in the Office, of the Deputy Assistant. Administrator for
Water Programs.. CSee Figure Iir-4.1 This division is
divided into three branches: Spill Prevention and Control,
Ocean Dumping, and Ocean Programs. The Spill Prevention
and Control. Branch is the focal point of the emergency re-
sponse function at EPA. Along with the U.S. Coast Guard, it
is responsible for implementing the programs authorized un-
der Sections 311 and 504 of the Clean Water Act.
The staff in this division -is composed of nine pro-
fessionals and two support staff. In addition, the Division
Director and Deputy Director are active in the emergency
response program.
The Deputy Assistant Administrator for Drinking Water
is responsible for carrying out the provisions authorized in
the Safe Drinking Water Act. His office is involved in
emergencies only when an incident affects drinking water
supply.
The Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste is
currently developing standards under subtitles C and D of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act governing the
disposal of spilled materials. These materials may be haz-
ardous substances, toxics, or other hazardous wastes.
Of the three divisions in the Office of Solid Waste,
the Hazardous Waste Management Division is involved in
environmental, emergencies resulting from sudden or chronic
pollution incidents. Its effort, however, is limited to
providing information and technical assistance in handling
and disposing of hazardous wastes rather than responding
to emergencies through a response team.
Ill:-3 2
-------
figure III-4
ORGANIZATION CHAR'1' OF THE OFFICE OF
WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
.! H
10
OFFICE OF PROGRAM ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
CARV DIETRICH
THOMAS JORLINO
1
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OfftCl Of
FOR ANAL TSK AMD
WATER PtANNINO AND STANDARDS iVMUATiON
SWEP DAVIS *tBI|Mf iwor1011'
1
CfflULNTCUIDCtMHI
DIVISION
ftOMflt SCHAMIN
1
DIVtllON
IDUUNDNO1ION
1 1
CftlttftlAAMO
STANDARDS DIVISION
KENNITHMACKIN1HUN
MIHMAM HUM>
MUf
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR raoCH^M «"*• °' ""**AM
FOR . HAUJkCIMtMl OtVttOPMINl AND
WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS ' ortRAima «V*1U»I.ON
JOHN RMETT RAIPH HAHT AANOtD KUZMACK
1
HAHOLDCAHU.I
1
MUHICI'Al OPtHATIONS
AND1RAIMNO
DIVISION
MAUMIALI CONTKOL
DIVUIOM
KENNtTMBIOLAHt
—
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
fOR
r
CMITIMIA
ANDSIANDAHM
DIVISION
XKIPHCOfltUVO
1
STATI PflOGAAMI
DIVISION
AI AN ii VIM
1ICMMCAI
lUWOUt
DIVISION
1 VAN DIN WHO
DEPUTY ASSISIANT ADMINISTRATOR
SOLI™ASTi - ^S^WtSf
1
•AAAMMUn
OlVtSKM
1
MAMA C( MINI
JOmUMMUM
miouncf Ntcpvtnv
DIVISION
H LANt(HHlCKMAN.JI*.
UCTtNQI
-------
Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances
The Office of Toxic Substances (Figure III.-51 is re-
sponsible for carrying out the emergency provisions out-
lined in Sections 6, 7 and 8 Gel of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. These provisions do not specifically authorize
a response team such as that outlined in Sections 311 and
504 of the Clean Water Act. Instead, they authorize seizure
of the substance posing an imminent danger and commencing
action for relief against any person who manufactures, pro-
cesses, or distributes, these substances. EPA is in the
preliminary stages of implementing the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act; hence, most of the current activities are in the
form of providing information and technical assistance.
The Assessment Division in the Office of the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Testing and Evaluation conducts
literature searches on spilled substances and substances
which pose a chronic danger to public health and. the environ-
ment, such as PCBs, vinyl chloride, and asbestos. The Pro-
gram Investigation Division, under the Deputy Administrator
for Program Integration and Information develops and imple-
ments procedures for coordinating the Agency's response to
environmental and health crises (oth3r than spill or dis-
charges) involving chemicals.
The Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Pro-
grams, Benefits and Field Studies Division, conducts the
Pesticide Incidents Response Program, which provides con-
sultation, technical information, and possibly follow-up to
inquires on pesticide incidents. Of the 3,000 reports re-
ceived annually, the system responds to approximately 300
request. This effort consists primarily in obtaining infor-
mation on the effects of releases of pesticides. In addi-
tion, the states may require EPA to assist them in dealing
with unregistered pesticides which pose a danger to the
public health, and environment. This assistance may be in
the form of consultation, information sharing, and follow-
up.
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
The Office of the Assistant Administrator for Air,
Noise, and Radiation (earlier called the Office of Air and
Waste Management—Figure III-6) has a limited response func-
tion for radiological emergencies in its Environment Analy-
sis Division. This function consists of two programs: the
Radiological.Assistance Plan and the Radiological Emergency
Plan.
111-34
-------
• Figure III-5
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
STEVEN JELLINEK
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
EDWIN L. JOHNSON
H
H
M
i
U)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
CHEMICAL CONTROL
PROGRAM
SUPPORT
DIVISION
REGISTRATION
DIVISION
DOUGLASCAMPT
(ACTING)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
TESTING AND EVALUATION
CONTROL
ACTION
DIVISION
SPECIAL
PESTICIDE
REVIEW DIVISION
PREMANUFACTURING
REVIEW
DIVISION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PROGRAM INTEGRATION
AND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT
DIVISION
HEALTH
REVIEW
DIVISION
HAZARD
EVALUATION
DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
DIVISION
CHEMICAL
INFORMATION
DIVISION
MONITORING
DIVISION
PROGRAM
INTEGRATION
DIVISION
OPERATIONS
DIVISION
WILLIAM HOLMBERG
BENEFITS AND
FIELD STUDIES
DIVISION
-------
Figure III-6
OFFICE OF AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
OFFICE OF PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
EDWARD TUERK
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
NOISE. RADIATION
OAVIDhAnivl.tti
AND AIR
H
H
U)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
WALTER BARBER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR MOBILE SOURCE AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
ERIC STORK
OFFICE OF POLICY
ANALYSIS
PAUL STOLPMAN
(ACTING)
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
AND LAND USE POLICY
JACK HIDINGER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
RADIATION PROGRAMS
WILLIAM ROWE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
CHARLES ELKINS
-------
The Radiological Assistance Plan consists of an inter-
agency assistance under the aegis of the Department of
Energy. Each agency, when requested, will provide resources,
manpower, and equipment to assist in responding to an emer-
gency dealing with radioactive materials. EPA has such
responses readily available, but they are rarely used because
such emergencies are infrequent. The EPA is supported by
laboratory assistance in Las Vegas and Alabama.
.The Radiological Emergency Plan is an EPA plan conducted
by a 7-person Environmental Analysis Division at EPA Head-
quarters. It is not intended to .replace the existing Inter-
agency Radiological Plan (IRAP).. The plan consists of two
parts:
o A plan for notification and follow-up of radio-
logical incidents at fixed facilities and trans-
portation accidents.
o A plan for notification, response, and follow-up
for widespread contaminating events.
Both parts contain operating procedures, reporting require-
ments, and contact points both within the Agency and outside
including state officials. /-. :',
The rarely used Air Contingency Plan has been transferred
from this office to the Office of Research and Development
and is mostly a regional plan.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
The Office of Enforcement (Figure III-7) has developed
a plan for enforcement actions in toxic substances, which is
intended to complement existing enforcement procedures for
single-medium incidents. The plan specifies procedures,
assigns specific responsibilities, and develops contact
points at headquarters and in the regions and outlines all
the enforcement actions available to the Agency for all the
Acts.
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
The Office of Research and Development (Figure III-8)
provides support to the environmental emergency response
function of the Agency when called upon. This support is
usually extended through a chain of laboratories spread
nationwide.
III-37
-------
Figure III-7
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
H
H
H
00
r
OFFICE OF PROGRAM AND
MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
GERALD A. BRYAN
1
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR WATER ENFORCEMENT
JEFFREY MILLER
1
1
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
J. BRIAN MOLLOV
1
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR ENFORCEMENT
MARVIN DURNING
PERMITS DIVISION
LEONARD A. MILLER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR GENERAL ENFORCEMENT
RICHARD WILSON
1 1
STATIONARY SOURCE
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
EDWARD E.REICH
-
PESTICIDES AND
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
A. E. CONROY II
1
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATION CENTER - DENVER
THOMAS GALLAGHER
1
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR MOBILE SOURCE
AND NOISE ENFORCEMENT
NORMAN SHUTLER
f
1
J 1
MOBILE SOURCE NOISE ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION DIVISION
BENJAMIN R. JACKSON RICHARD G. KOZLOWSKI
-------
Figure III-8
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOB
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
STEPHEN QAOE
ASSOCIATE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
RESEARCH AMD DEVELOPMENT
CARL R. OERBER
OFFICE OF FINANCIAL
• ADWIHtSTRATIVE
SERVICES
ALAN NEUSCHATI
OFficeoitwnoy
MINI RAL8 AMD INDUSTRY
C1CVC RCZNf K
CACIIMCI
1
[Kit
BIO*
INCKHTA
1
iMoutm
IHTKM
moci
nvn
VACJ
WtOI
IAK
MUAIICMT
JOHN!
MOU
IHVMOfMiM
•S2
IAI MUAMCH
DAVID IttfHAM
Mviivnu. H.VA
OFFKE OF HEALTH
AND
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
DCLBERT BARTH
Mill ARCH iAtOHAIOHV
MOHMtt KIWI
INVmONMIITAL RI1IAHCH
LABOftATOMV
ADA
ICOUWICAl I
CFfECTt I
tMVtSMM 1
DAVIO HO*! H I
•OOfRCOAIItl
•NTAL MEUAMCM
imctowtiotA
tNVMONMEMTAL MMAl
LAMftAlOMV
OUtrMttZt
tHOMAIDUM
IMNATCMil. V«SN
•nmMT.i
COLLIOf.t
MONtlCltLO. MIMM
HtWtONM. OHK>
-------
HEADQUARTERS RESOURCES
There is no single source within EPA for funds expended
in environmental emergencies. Only one division— Oil and
Special Materials Control COSMCD)—has specific information
on the resources it expends for spill prevention and re-
sponse. Expenditure for other program areas involved in
emergency response are not separately budgeted or easily
identified.
Environmental emergencies,, by their nature, cut across
organizational lines; depending on the magnitude and com-
plexity of a crisis, more and more resources, from program
units farther and farther away from the center for response
(OSMCD), can be mobilized if needed. EPA's planning and
budgeting has reflected that approach to crises, consequent-
ly creating a significant barrier to identifying precisely
the total resources expended or budgeted for emergency
response.
In particular, only one Decision Unit in the Agency's
Zero-Based Budget is explicitly assigned to emergency re-
sponse ("B212—Spill Prevention and Response"); yet in our
survey of the regional budget submissions, we identified at
least another 25 Decision Units, ranging from Administrative
Management to Water Quality Monitoring, that also devote
some workyears in support of the emergency response program.
Unfortunately, these resources are lumped together with
other activities performed under those Decision Units and
cannot be easily separated. The top table on the next page
represents the Headquarters expenditures on emergency re-
sponse derived through our interviews. It should be noted
that these are only estimates, which may not be accurate.
Contract funds are not included.
The Oil and Special Materials Control Division directly
expends by far the most resources for emergency response—
about 80 percent of FY 1978 funds. The resources budgeted
for this division in the future consequently reflect the
Agency's continuing budgetary commitment to emergency re-
sponse. The second tabulation on the next page sets out
the amounts budgeted for that unit.
111-40
-------
EPA Headquarters Expenditures on
Emergency Response 1977
Estimates
Organization
Office of Water and Hazardous Substances—
Oil and Special Materials Control
Deputy Assistant Administrator—Drinking
Water
Hazardous Waste Management
Deputy Assistant Administrator—Testing
and Evaluation, Toxic Substances
Office of Enforcement
Office of Research and Development
i
Office of Noise, Air and Radiation—
Environmental Analysis
TOTAL
Work
Years
Dollars in
Thousands
$1,294.0
20.0
80.0
20.0
173.0
$1,587.0
Resources for Spill Prevention and Response
FUNDING ($000)
Headquarters
Regions
Total
FY 1978
Actual
$1,225
2,275
$3,500
FY 1979
Budget
$5,143
2,758
$7,901
FY 1980
Budget
$5,143
3,293
$8,436
POSITIONS
Headquarters
Regions
Total
18
87
105
26
93
119
29
102
131
111-41
-------
REGIONAL OFFICE ORGANIZATION AMD RESOURCES
Almost every organizational unit in each region becomes
involved in the emergency response to some extent. The
specific involvement of a given organizational unit will
vary from Region to Region depending upon how the Region is
organized, which particular functions are exercised by each
organizational unit, and the degree of interest of the man-
agement of each organizational unit. Nevertheless, the
major responsibilities for emergency response rest with
either the Oil and Hazardous Materials Coordinators in a
regional office or a specific emergency response unit.
Principal Emergency Response Units
The principal emergency response units are located
within the Surveillance and Analysis Division in 8 of the 10
Regional Offices. In Regions IV and VII, these units are
located in the Enforcement Division. For the most part, the
units have been established at the branch level, as is the
case in Regions II, III, IV, VI, and VIII. In Regions I, V,
and VII, the units have been constituted as sections. In
Region X, it has been designated a "staff." In Region IX,
emergency response is a function of the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Coordinator. Table III-l displays the various
principal emergency response organizational units in the ten
regions and indicates for each the dollar and work year
investment for 1977.
In addition to the principal emergency response units,
eight other regional organization units become involved in
related activities: the Enforcement Division, Toxic Sub-
stances Coordinator, Air, Pesticides, Solid Waste, Drinking
Water, Water Pollution, and Surveillance and Analysis. All
of the groups, including Enforcement and Surveillance and
Analysis, conduct other activities in addition to associated
with the principal emergency response units located within
those divisions.
Ill-'4:
-------
Table III-l
Total Regional Emergency Response Investment
by Principal Emergency Response Units
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Unit
Oil & Hazardous Substances Sec., S&A
Emergency Response & Inspections Br. S&A
Environmental Emergency Br., S&A
Environmental Emergency Br., Enforcement
Environmental Emergency Sec. , S&A
Emergency Response Br. , S&A
Emergency Response Sec., Enforcement
Emergency Plan Response Br., S&A
Oil & Hazardous Materials Coord. , S&A
Oil & Hazardous Materials Staff, S&A
Dollars
(000)
$181.5
178.0
560.2
344.0
465.8
210.0
244.2
180.0
80.0
81.7
Work
Years
7.0
7.1
13.8
15.5
16.0
7.5
8.5
5.5
4.0
4.1
TOTALS
$2,525.4
89.0
Tables III-2 and III-3 display the work year and dollar
investments made by the units involved in emergency response in
each regional office in 1977. The data must be accepted with
three qualifications, however.
The first qualification is that the data necessarily
represent a "snapshot" of one year. We chose 1977 as the
most recent complete year for environmental emergency re-
sponse activity. Depending upon the particular Regional
office, 1977 may have been a quiet or particularly busy
year. For example, major emergencies occured in Region III,
including the flood in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and the
Kepone incident in Hopewell, Virginia. Both incidents
resulted in major requirements for EPA investment. In ad-
dition, the Louisville sewer incident in Region IV added to
resources demands in 1977, as did an incident at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal in Region VIII.
The second qualification relates to accounting for
resources expended. In a decentralized Regional Office
system such as EPA's, different organizational units may
conduct similar types of work depending upon a region's
internal organization. For example, while the air pollution
III-4.-3
-------
I
•Cfc
Table III-2
Dollar Investment by Organization and by Region
$(000) j
1977
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
^
181.5
178.0
560.2
344.0
465.8
210.0
244.2
180.0
80.0
81.7
20
5
70
223
92
18
39
10
10
.3
.2
.0
-
.8
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
' <$*
13.5
3.4
40.5
d
5.6
12.5
2.9
9.1
d
—
t-
30.4
e
92.0
e
e
7.8
4.0
7.2
e
3-9
4.
13.
26.
18.
3.
131.
3.
11.
35.
190,
\
0
5
0
5
8
0
0
4
0
of
-------
H
H
H
i
4^
Ul
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTALS
7.0
7.1
13.8
15.5
16.0
7.5
8.5
5.5
4.0
.8
,3
3.0
-
8.0
- 3.7
1.0
1.5
1.0
4.1
89.0
.5
19.8
Table III-3
Work Year Investment by Organization & by
Region 1977
.6
.1
1.5
.2
.5
.1
.2
3.2
^
1.2
—
1,2
—
•—
.2
.1
.2
-
.2
3.1
o*
.1
.5
1.0
.8
.1
5.9
.1
.4
1.8
10.0
20.7
.1
.3
.5
.2 .
.5
.1
.1
.5
2.3
2.0
1.1
3.5
1.1
.2
2.1
.8
.8
—
.2
11.8
-
-
-
1.0
—
.1
.4
.2
.1
-
1.8
Totals
1.5
1.0
—
7,0
.5
1.0
1.0
-
13.3
10.1
24.3
25.9
25.0
21.2
12.5
8.9
12
7.0
15.5
163.7
-------
Organizational units provided necessary assistance to
principal emergency response units in some regions, in four
regions the Surveillance and Analysis Division would provide
this expertise. Consequently, blanks in Tables III-2 and
III-3 do not mean that there was negligible activity in that
area; rather, they suggest that another organizational unit
provided the assistance.
The third point to keep in mind is that the numbers
provided in Tables III-2 and III-3 reflect the differing
perceptions of similar organizational units in different
regions about what they do in emergency response. For
example, the Pesticide Branch in Region X views all of its
activities as being related to emergencies in one way or
another. On the other hand, the Pesticides Branch in Region
VII indicates that in 1977 it devoted only about a tenth of
a work year and perhaps $3,000 to emergency response.
With the exception of the resources for the principal
emergency response units, the regional offices do little in
the way of formal budgeting for emergency response. Con-
sequently, the data provided by the other organizational
unit ara based on reconstruction.
Summary of Regional Office Investment
Table III-4 summarizes the total EPA emergency response
investment by Regional Office in 1977. The Agency invested
almost 164 work years and over $4,600,000 in this area
during 1977. The largest dollar investment took place in
Region III, where over a million dollars is attributed to
environmental emergencies. Of this amount, however, $372,000
is attributable to the flood in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
The smallest investment was just over $131,000 in Region IX.
Work years attributed to environmental emergency response by
the Regions ranged from 7 in Region IX to almost 26 in
Region IV, with an average investment of about 16 work years
per Region.
111-46
-------
.Table III-4
Total EPA Emergency Response Investment
by Region
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Work-Years
Actual % of Total
Dollars ($000)
Actual % of Total
13.3
10.1
24.3
25.9
25.0
21.2
12.5
8.9
7.0
15.5
8%
6
15
16
16
13
8
5
4.
9
TOTALS 163.7 100%
$401.2
242.1
1,032.3**
600.5
718,0
566.7
359.4
284.9
131.5
300.6
4,637.2
9%
5
22
13
16
12
8
6
3
6
100%
*Includes direct emergency response actions (oil, hazardous
substances, environmental emergencies, and chronic environmental
problems), assistance to principal emergency response units,
and FDAA involvement.
**Includes $372,000 related to Johnstown, Pa. Flood.
Almost half (46 percent) the total investment in emer-
gency response by the Regional Offices, in both dollars and
work years, is not connected with the principal response
unit. Table III-5 summarizes the investments by both kinds
of units. Of the total 1977 figures of $4.6 million and 164
work years, the principal emergency response units accounted
for approximately $2.5 million and 89 work years. This
still leaves a considerable amount of resources associated
with other organizational units in the Regional Offices:
$2.1 million and almost 75 work years. As we have noted,
these amounts are normally not budgeted for and consequently
are absorbed within other responsibilities.
111-47
-------
Table III-5
Principal Emergency Response Unit and Other
Emergency Response Investment by Region*
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Principal Emergency
Response Unit
$(000)
$ 181.5
178.0
560.2
344.0
465.8
210.0
244.2
180.0
80.0
81.7
Work-Years
7.0
7.1
13.8
15.5
16.0
7.5
8.5
5.5
4.0
4.1
Other Emergency
Response
TOTALS $2,525.4
89.0
$(000)
$ 219.7
64.1
472.1**
256.5
252.2
356.7
115.2
104.9
51.5
218.9
$2,111.8
Work-years
6.3
3.0
5
4
,0
10.
10.
9.
13.7
4.0
3.4
3.0
11.4
74.7
% of Total
Investment
54%
54%
46%
46%
* Other Emergency Response Investment includes direct response,
assistance ho the principal emergency response unit, and FDAA
involvement by S&A, Pesticides, Toxic Substances, Air, Enforce-
ment, Solid Waste, Water Pollution, and Water Supply.
** Includes Johnstown, Pa. Flood.
111-48
-------
Other than investments by the principal emergency
response units, Surveillance and Analysis, Enforcement,
Pesticides, and ©rinking Water make the largest investments
in emergency response activities. Table III-'S summarizes
total Regional investment by organizational units.
Table III-6
Total Regional Investment by Organization
1977 •
Dollars (000) Work-Years
Actual % of Total Actual % of Total
OHM or Emergency Response $2,525.4 54% 89.0 54%
Unit
Enforcement 489..3 11 19.8 12
Toxic Substances 87.5 2 3.2 2
Air 145.3 3 3.1 2
Pesticides 436.2 9 2(1.7 13
Solid Waste 61.9 1+ 2.3 1+
Drinking Water 323.6 7 11.8 7
Water Pollution 56.0 1+ 1.8 1+
S&A 512.0 11 12.0 7
TOTALS $4,637.2 100% 163.7 100%
Approximately 85 percent of the work years and 78 per-
cent of the dollars reported by the Regions as being invested
in emergency response activities are attributable to direct
emergency response actions. About 10 percent of the resources
invested are related to assistance provided to emergency
response units. FDAA involvement accounts for the remaining
12 percent of the dollar investment and 6 percent of the work
years reported. Table III-7 summarizes this distribution by-
Region.
-------
Table III-7
Regional Emergency Response Investment—
By Type of Response*
1977
Direct Emergency
Response
Assistance to
Emerg. Response Unit
FDAA
Involvement
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
. X
W/Y
$(000)
12.3
8.6
23.6
22.2
18.8
20.1
8.1
6.3
5.6
14.2***
371.8
203.5
560.2
513.0
567.9
531.0
258.9
204.1
114.5
273.8
W/Y
1.1
.5
2.2
3.8
.3
2.1
2.4
1.4
.6
$(000)
29.4
10.6
100.0
51.5
106.8
8.7
35.4
73.3
17.0
11.7
W/Y
1.2
.8
1.5
1.5
.9
3.0
.8
$(000)
28.0
372.0**"
36.0
43.3
27.0
38.1
7.5
15.0
TOTALS
% of Total
Investment
139.8 $3,625.7
85%
98%
14.4
9%
$444.4
10%
9.9 $566.9
6%
**
***
Representing efforts by the following types of organizational units
in each Regional Office: Oil & Hazardous Substances or Emergency
Response branches or sections, Water Supply, Radiation, Solid Waste/
Toxic Substances, Pesticides, Enforcement, Water Programs, Air, S&A.
Includes Johnstown, Pennsylvania Flood.
Includes entire pesticides branch.
111-50
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The figure on the next page summarizes the Task Force's
conclusions on EPA's effectiveness in directly responding to
environmental emergencies. The evaluation is admittedly sub-
jective, but reflects our judgment concerning the impact of
the points we have brought out in the preceding sections.
We used three gradations of shading in the figure to
represent the intensity of EPA's problems.. The lighest
shade indicates that EPA's activities with respect to a
class of environmental emergencies are substantially accepta-
ble. The program may not be perfect—we uncovered minor
problems even in oil spill response—but the effect of these
problems is not to make the program ineffective.
The more intensely shaded boxes in the matrix repre-
sent our conclusion that a program has significant or debili-
tating problems in its organization, operation, or resources.
In general, we were led to the following major conclu-
sions about direct response:
o Oil spill response is substantially acceptable.
Only in restoration and follow-up did we note pro-
blems.
o Hazardous substances present major problems, espe-
cially in initial assessment, cleanup, and disposal,
The other phases of direct response to hazardous
substance spills also present problems.
o "Non-311 spills"—those emergencies falling outside
the mandate of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act
—present the most problems, even though they re-
present the fewest incidents. EPA's response to
this category of spills is minimally acceptable
only for immediate action, restoration, and fol-
low-up .
o Disaster response in Presidentially declared dis-
asters with impact on the environment is accepta-
ble where applicable.
111-51
-------
H
I
Ul
N)
NOTI- INITIAL IMMEDIATE RESTO- COST
FICATION ASSESSMENT ACTION CLEANUP DISPOSAL RATION RECOVERY FOLLOW-UP
OIL
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
"NON-311
SPiLLS"
DISASTERS
KEY:
ACCEPTABLE
NOT APPLICABLE
SOME PROBLEMS
PROBLEM AREA
EVALUATION OF EPA ACTIVITIES
-------
With respect to oil spills, EPA and the U.S. Coast
Guard cooperate; contingency plans with clear protocols for
information transfer are in effect; oil spills occur fre-
quently enough to allow response to Be almost routine.
The other.substances are more intractable. They are
much more dangerous than oil. There are no effective contingency
plans for dealing with non-311 hazardous substances. Often
the Agency.must react ad hoc to obtain the information neces-
sary to respond effectively. And Agency personnel have less
first-hand experience with the problems attending spills of
those substances.
The problems connected with the substance spilled are
expected to increase. In our investigation we also uncovered
other impediments to EPA's mission of responding to incidents
involving spills other than oil. The next sections discuss
three reasons for inadequate, response to those incidents.
These reasons.came to light again and again as we examined
the phases of response: mandate, organization., and re-
sources.
MANDATE FOR.RESPONSE OFTEN UNCLEAR
EPA's mandate with respect to spills other than oil in-
to water is often unclear, especially with regard to an in-
junction on the Agency's list of designated hazardous
substances, its response to non-311 spills, and more gen-
erally in the extent of its response.
Hazardous Substances List Enjoined
The court decision enjoining EPA.'s list of 271 desig-
nated hazardous substances, which was handed down while the
Task Force was gathering its data, raises significant ques-
tions in connection with the Agency's response to these
spills.
Most of the Agency's continuing activities—research,
contingency planning, training, and prevention—emerged un-
hindered from the injunction. The language of the Clean
Water Act. and the National Contingency Plan is clear in
including hazardous substances. Similarly, EPA's primary
unit for spill response, the Oil and Special Materials Con-
trol Division, clearly has hazardous substances included
in its mission.
111-53
-------
Nevertheless, the injunction severely affects EPA's role
in dealing with hazardous substances. The .Pollution Revolv-
ing Fund, established under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act, cannot be used to reimburse Agency expenditures for
cleanup or disposal following these incidents. Moreover,
the legal sanctions expressed in the Act for reporting
spills of hazardous substances are not enforceable. Some
EPA regions have continued to react vigorously to these in-
cidents, but others are inhibited because of the lack of a
clear mandate.
Few Blanket Provisions for Other Emergencies
Section 504 of the Clean Water Act empowers EPA to re-
spond to incidents involving "imminent and substantial dan-
ger to the public health or welfare." It also authorizes a
fund, similar to the Pollution Revolving Fund, to support
response to those emergencies. However, money has never
been appropriated for the Section 504 fund.
Consequently, EPA's response to spills into media other
than water and to hazardous substances (but not designated
as such) has continued to reflect the spotty, ad hoc legis-
lation passed to deal with these emergencies. Especially
problematic are the following phases of response:
o Notification - there are no mandatory requirements
for notifying the government that an emergency
not covered under Section 311 is occurring.
o Cleanup and disposal - other acts may apply, not-
ably the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, but these laws were
not specifically designed with emergency response
in mind.
o Cost recovery - without the Section 504 fund, cost
recovery can be very difficult.
We hasten to stress that we uncovered no evidence that
EPA had failed to protect the public health and welfare in
connection with the non-311 emergencies. Rather, the Task
Force has discovered institutional impediments that have
forced the Agency to respond to these spills unsystematic-
ally.
111-54
-------
Extent of Response Not Clear
The required extent of restoration and cleanup was
brought up forcefully at the Public Meeting on Emergency
Response (Chapter IV of this volumeI', because it has signif-
icant economic implications for private industry.
Restoration was one of the two phases where even oil
response is not fully acceptable. Until 1977, there were
no funds for replacement of beach sand, reseeding, or bird
cleaning. The 1977 Clean Water Act now authorizes expendi-
tures for those activities, but the extent of cleanup in
practice is still being defined.
Similarly, there are no explicit guidelines stating
acceptable limits for cleanup of hazardous substance spills.
Industry has categorized this issue as "How clean is clean?"
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION NOT INTEGRATED
Our attempts to discover how much money and how many
positions were allocated to emergency responses revealed
that EPA lacks an integrated approach to planning and bud-
geting for emergency response. For example, most of the
interest in this program at the Assistant Administrator
level is solely within the Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials.
We also noted that during initial assessment and im-
mediate action following an emergency many actors in dif-
ferent places in EPA's organization needed to be called.
Of course, where specialized expertise is needed—especi-
ally for an esoteric discharge—EPA has an advantage in
that it can bring specialists from a large organization
to bear. But for many hazardous spills, the number of groups
that might be called is_large, primarily because the Agency
has not attempted--as Tt has not in budgeting—to consoli-
date a full range of experience in dealing with all types
of spills into a single organizational locus.
This problem of separated organizational responsibili-
ties is now beginning to be addressed, with the formation
of the Emergency Response Unit within the Office of Oil and
Hazardous Materials. The problem with incomplete budget-
ing, however, has not yet been addressed.
111-55
-------
RESOURCES INADEQUATE FOR SPECIFIC: ACTIVITIES
Our examination of the Headquarters and Regional re-
sources allotted to emergency response has led us to con-
clude that EPA's level of resources, Both now and Budgeted
for the next.two years, are adequate.
Nevertheless, some areas of response have not had ade-
quate resources in the past, notaBly in the continuing
activities (research and training! , and in follow-up.
Continuing activities have never received as much
priority within the Agency as direct response. A recurring
theme throughout many of our- interviews with Regional and
Headquarters personnel was that resources were sorely lack-
ing. Because local or state officials are usually first at
the scene of an incident involving hazardous suBstances, the
quality of their reporting importantly determines whether
EPA responds at all and, if so, at what level. Conse-
quently, training for those most likely to discover a
spill has a concomitant effect on the quality of EPA's
direct response.
Similarly, research into new devices for personnel
safety and for mitigation of environmental damage can have
effects within the Agency's direct activities. For exam-
ple, if a project now underway for a moBile incinerator
is completed, some of the Agency's problems with proper
disposal of hazardous spill deBris may Be attenuated.
Finally, follow-up has never received proper finding
or attention. Aside from a few case studies several years
ago, the Agency does not use a formal procedure for fol-
lowing up to environmental emergencies. The primary rea-
son given us for this shortcoming was a lack of resources.
* * * * *
Nowhere was the Task Force aBle to uncover serious in-
stances where Agency spill response was not performed with
dedication and! appropriate expertise. Our conclusions
in this section are designed, rather, to point out the
shortcomings within EPA's system of response. Some of
these gaps in systematic approach may some day hinder the
Agency from performing its Best during an environmental
emergency.
111-56
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING ON EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Prepared by the EPA Task Force
on Environmental Emergencies
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING ON EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Table of Contents
Section Page
PRIVATE INDUSTRY'S CAPABILITIES . IV-3
Responsibility for Cleanup
Is Divided IV-3
Information on Products and
Hazardousness Is Lacking IV-4
Economic and Regulatory
Impediments Hinder Cleanup IV-6
Disposal of Hazardous
Residues Is a Major Problem IV-6
SPECIFIC POLICY QUESTIONS ON FEDERAL
RESPONSE IV-7
Should We Strengthen the Role
of the On-Scene Coordinator IV-7
Should There Be More Frequent
Federal Response IV^-8
What Should Be the Limits on
Liability IV-8
Who Should Be Responsible
for Training IV-9
ATTACHMENT IV-11
IV-iii
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING ON EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The EPA Emergency Response Task Force held a public
meeting on May 25, 1978. This meeting was designed to
elicit the opinions and observations of public and
private sector representatives regarding the proper role
of the Federal government in response to emergencies
connected with hazardous substances.
Attachment 1 lists the organizations whose views
were solicited. Fourteen participants, representing
transporters, manufacturers, cleanup contractors, environ-
mental groups, service associations, and labor, were
present, as were several representatives of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on
Environmental Quality. Ten of the participants submitted
written testimony.
At the public meeting the discussion focused on
man-made spills, primarily the result of transportation
accidents. Spills of hazardous substances are an impor-
tant topic for consideration because a large Cand
increasing) volume of hazardous substances is carried in
commerce, and an increasing percentage of transportation
accidents involve hazardous substances. For example,
the nation's railroads in 1976 carried approximately 80
million tons of hazardous materials in 135,000 tank cars
over a total distance of 30 million miles. This repre-
sents approximately 40% of the total volume of hazardous
materials that moved in commerce in that year. Unfortu-
nately, however, there were 959 rail-related incidents
with those materials reported that year. Similar data
may be found for both volume of carriage and incident
reports for motor carriers and waterway users.* Another
reason the transportation of hazardous materials should
be a matter of serious concern is that the chemicals
listed by the Department of Transportation as hazardous
include the bulk commodity chemicals which make up a
large portion of the chemical industry's production, so
that even further increases in the number of incidents
can be expected as the volume transported increases.
Moreover, the number of injuries and deaths attributable
to hazardous materials has been increasing.
*Chemical Week, July 5, 1978
IV-1
-------
Before the meeting, the Emergency Response Task
Force suggested that the speakers at the public meeting
address seven broad policy questions relating to the
Task Force's mission:
1. In view of our responsibilities under the law,
what should EPA's role be in this area and how
can we improve it?
2. How can we improve Federal interagency coopera-
tion?
3. How can EPA improve its cooperation with the
private sector and other interested groups in
this matter?
4. What are the problems perceived in Federal
regulations, coordination, implementation of
emergency programs; responsiveness, and financing?
5. What problems are perceived in the Federal
activities relating to prevention and monitoring;
notification; public information; assessment;
enforcement; cleanup and mitigation; disposal;
damage assessment and follow-up; cost recovery;
and training and research?
6. Under what conditions should the Federal government
be prepared to mitigate the damage directly?
7. What should be the priority at the Federal level
for an effective environmental emergency response
program?
The discussion in response to these questions was less
structured, although two topics encompassed most remarks:
o Private industry's capabilities.
o Policy questions on Federal response.
In general, the participants commented on the emergency
response provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA)
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Specifically, the participants, as representatives of
private industry, raised questions about the coordination
that must occur in emergency response. In addition, the
participants related their observations on the coordination
that must occur on-scene between representatives of different
governmental units, and between EPA and DOT.
IV-2
-------
PRIVATE INDUSTRY'S CAPABILITIES
Commentors at the public meeting suggested that
private industry in general was capable of dealing with
routine spills, although the legal division of responsi-
bility between supplier and transporter tended to place
responsibility for response directly on the transporter
even though the manufacturer of a hazardous substance has
a much deeper knowledge of the properties of the substance
it manufactures. The participants at the meeting identified
other problems with response to spills, notably connected
with product labeling, scope of cleanup, and disposal of
residues.
Responsibility for Cleanup Is Divided
Historically, transporters have been obligated to
provide all reasonable and necessary facilities for the
prompt, safe, and efficient'transportation of the goods
they have agreed to carry. In the event of an accident
while the goods were under the custody of a transporter,
it would be liable to the shipper for loss or damage to
the property, even without proof of fault on the part of ' '
the transporter. More recently, however, the chemical
manufacturers have developed response capability, and
there is a new industry—cleanup contractors—available to
help in emergencies.
The transporters, as a result of the strict standard
of care to which they have been held, have a very strong
economic incentive to minimize both the delay and the
extent of the loss or damage that may result from an
accident. Consequently, a primary motive on the part of
the transporter is to minimize its liability to the
shipper, and not necessarily to take extreme measures to
attend to a spill, although recently statutory obligations
have been placed on the transporter to protect the environ-
ment, especially water.
In response to those obligations the railroad industry,
through the Association of American Railroads CAAR), has
developed a system which identifies the chemical being
transported and first steps to be taken in case of a
spill. This information, maintained by 30 railroads, is
attached to the "consist," or waybill. Data on the more
than 1,600 hazardous materials designated by DOT are
contained in the system and are available to 17 geograph-
ically dispersed emergency response inspectors who may act
as advisors and observers during on-scene cleanup.
IV-3
-------
The manufacturers of hazardous substances have a
direct responsibility to assist in the cleanup of a spill
of their products only if they also own or operate the
transportation link on which the spill occurred. The
manufacturers have thus developed some degree of internal
expertise in handling spills; the manufacturers' represen-
tatives at the meeting mentioned that there are company
product specialists who have been predesignated to receive
requests for information regarding risks to public health
or safety. Where necessary, these personnel will go to
the scene along with company emergency response teams.
When the manufacturer is responsible for the cleanup,
these teams direct the operation. The product specialists
and emergency response teams may also be sent to the scene
of a transporter spill, although while there they serve
only as advisors.
In addtion to the efforts of individual manufacturers,
the chemical industry, through the Manufacturing Chemists
Association, has created CHEMTREC, the Chemical Transpor-
tation Emergency Center. CHEMTREC differs from the AAR
system in that it provides information on products based on
manufacturer submissions, and includes more substances than
are on the DOT list. CHEMTREC will provide notification to
the manufacturer of the occurrence of a spill. Through this
notice the manufacturer's product specialist can be directly
linked to the transporter's on-scene personnel by telephone
and in person if necessary.
Cleanup contractors are increasingly performing the
actual cleanup. These contractors are in many cases hired
on a retainer so that there is a minimum of delay between
the time the spill occurred and the start of cleanup opera-
tions. The transportation industry is using these contrac-
tors more and more (representatives of rail, truck, and
barge operators all stated that they used these contractors).
Because neither train crews nor truck or barge operators are
expected to know how to respond properly in hazardous sub-
stances emergencies, the contractors play an essential role
in environmental protection following a spill.
Information on Products and Hazardousness Is Lacking
The ability of a transporter employee to obtain infor-
mation on the hazardousness of a product depend on iden-
tification contained within the shipping papers (consist).
At present, DOT requires shippers to identify separately
IV-4
-------
those substances which are listed as hazardous materials.
One problem, however, is that the DOT list does not include
all of the 271 substances contained within EPA's proposed
section 311 hazardous substances list. Thus, approximately
120 to 150 substances of EPA's list need not be identified
despite their hazardous nature.*
This lack of identification presents a serious problem
for the transporter who must notify the Federal government
under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan if any of EPA's listed substances are spilled in
"hazardous quantities" (40 CFR 1510-^-1977). The trans-
porters complained that, without any identification, com-
pliance with this section becomes a mere guess, which is
intolerable considering the criminal penalties which attach
to the failure to notify.
The dilemma of compliance with the reporting provisions
has not yet been.resolved, because EPA and DOT have not
cooperated in setting regulations for hazardous substances/
materials. The carriers suggested that the EPA play a
greater role in the development of regulations relating to
the transportation of toxics, because its knowledge of toxic
substances is viewed as better than that of DOT.
Even when the products involved in a spill can be
identified, a serious problem still remains because the
sources of information to which a transporter's personnel
will most likely turn do not supply information essential to
protecting the environment. CHEMTREC and the other available
systems are designed to provide only first aid and public
health and safety information. In many cases, especially
where there are adjacent surface or ground waters, immediate
post-spill protective measures are essential.
In some cases, the information supplied by CHEMTREC may
itself be the cause of environmental hazards, such as when
the Chem Card (issued, for example, to railroad personnel)
instructs that a fire should be extinguished with water. At
present, there are no additional instructions to contain the
contaminated water runoff, so that the scope of the emer-
gency may expand rather than lessen.
*The railroads estimated that 227,000 carloads of the 120-150
substances on both the EPA and DOT lists were transported
by rail in 1977; approximately 500,000 carloads of the
"only EPA list" substances were transported, yet DOT does
not require them to be identified as such. The barge
operators estimated that 32 million tons of the Section 311
"hazardous substances" were transported by water in 1977.
IV-5
-------
Economic and Regulatory Impediments Hinder Cleanup
Transportation rates, for the most part, do not reflect
environmental cleanup costs. It's therefore in the economic
interest of the transporter to minimize these costs by
limiting his effort to cleaning the debris and repairing the
right of way. The alternative to higher transportation
rates—placing the burden of cleanup on the manufacturer—is
not a current industry practice.
Costs of cleanup aside, the transporters voiced dis-
satisfaction over the lack of clear definition of what was
required as part of the cleanup. They stated that nowhere
in the National Contingency Plan are there instructions to
the transporter on the proper elements or degree of cleanup,
nor are there clear guidelines for the OSC to evaluate the
efforts being expanded or their results.
Disposal of Hazardous Residues Is a Major Problem
Assuming that the product can be identified, its
hazardousness ascertained, and its containment and cleanup
adequately completed, both the transporters and cleanup
contractors stated that their most serious problem would
still be present: disposal of the hazardous wastes. The
representative from the Solid Wastes Management Association
placed this problem in perspective, however, by stating that
the problem did not require a technical solution, but a
political one.
The present system leaves the responsibility of dis-
posal to the transporter or its contractor as an element of
the required cleanup. However, local opposition often
preempts safe disposal. The participants stated that fear
among the citizenry that these wastes might generate wide-
spread contamination of the local environment has led to
refusal to accept the wastes even in properly permitted
sites.
There are few retainer contracts between transporters
and disposal facility operators; consequently, the search
for a suitable facility goes on well after the cleanup is
completed.
Apart from State opposition to receiving hazardous
wastes, local citizens may also challenge the permitted
disposal site as a public health nuisance. The prospect of
such litigation, which would involve nonrecoverable costs to
the disposal facility operator, was described as a suf-
ficient deterrent to accepting hazardous wastes from a
spill.
IV-6
-------
The speakers were nevertheless unanimous in their
belief that RCRA will minimize justifiable anxiety about
hazardous waste disposal facilities. Under the regulations
to be promulgated under Subtitle C, Sections 3001-3011 of
RCRA, hazardous wastes will be subject to Federal controls
from their point of generation through transportation,
storage, treatment, and disposal. Of particular signi-
ficance will be sections imposing environmental quality
licensing standards for disposal facilities (3004) and
hazardous waste transporters (3003).
RCRA will require inventorying and licensing of
hazardous waste disposal facilities, and, despite the
public pressure that is said to exist to eliminate them,
carriers believe that secure sites for the treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes can be predesig-
nated. The speakers were quite wary, however, of a
suggestion that the increase in Federal regulation and the
resultant increase in the sensitivity of transporters and
disposers of hazardous wastes would do much to dispel public
anxiety and skepticism. They state that the politics of
disposal make the search for a disposal site after a spill
too difficult. Some supported the suggestion that there
should be either Federally owned sites, e.g. on military
reservations, as an alternative to commercial facilities,
or a mandate that each State designate one or more hazardous
waste disposal facilities that would be usable for any
wastes generated by a spill within that State. In general,
the speakers asserted that selection of a disposal site
should not be the transporter's responsibility; rather,
that it is more properly that of a public agency.
SPECIFIC POLICY QUESTIONS ON FEDERAL RESPONSE
The participants at the public meeting expressed
different views reflecting the nature of their roles
during a spill cleanup operation. In general the parti-
cipants raised questions pertaining to the role of the
Federal government, liability, and training. Also notable
about the meeting was the lack of effective participation
by groups other than industry, cleanup contractors, and
transportation associations. Labor unions and environ-
mental and public interest groups had either little con-
structive to say or were vague in their remarks.
Should We Strengthen the Role of the On-Scene Coordinator?
Industry, cleanup contractors, and transportation
associations suggested that the On-Scene Coordinator should
be knowledgeable not only in the technical skills of cleanup
but should posess excellent managerial skills to be able to
orchestrate the cleanup effort effectively. At a spill
site, the OSC is looked up to assume responsibility on a
number of critical issues:
IV-7
-------
o Immediate hiring of a cleanup contractor.
o Bringing the available resources to work together.
o Determining "how clean is clean."
o Assessing penalties if any.
o Suggesting ultimate disposal.
In addition, the conflicts between the State official(s)
and the Federal OSC should be resolved.
Should There Be More Frequent Federal Response?
The majority of the participants at the public meeting
proposed that the Federal government should be involved in
not only major spills but medium-size spills which often are
handled by State officials.' A common suggestion was to have
effective contingency planning at the State level and a more
coordinated response between State and Federal officials. A
better data bank at the State level, containing an updated
list of available exp'erts, contractors, and equipment could
facilitate industry response.
The EPA panel members tried to place this problem into
a proper perspective. The EPA staff conceded that the
Agency could not be expected to respond to every spill, nor
was that level of response necessary or required by the
regulations. However, EPA continues to dispatch its regional
officials to major spills where there is an imminent danger
to public health and the environment. There seemed to be
general agreement among the speakers that some threshold of
Federal action should be clearly defined by regulation.
What Should Be the Limits on Liability?
The transporters' representatives presented two general
policy options for change in the present method of assessing
liability for a spill: first, to separate some elements of
spill response, particularly disposal, from the trans-
porter's list of cleanup duties, assigning the respon-
sibility to either the State or the Federal government;
second, to assign a definite limit to transporter liability
whenever the On-Scene Coordinator preempted the transporters
or when other governmentally ordered actions gave rise to
liability.
IV-8
-------
The transporters described circumstances in which
public officials ordered them to take actions, as part of
their cleanup duties, which would give rise to liability.
The most thoroughly discussed, although not the sole action
that was applicable, was local resident evacuations. The
transporter is liable to the people moved for their
damages, so it is in the transporter's economic interests
to evacuate as few people as possible, as an infrequently
as possible.
.Participants at the meeting took two positions
vis-a-vis assigning liability. One view was that the
On-Scene Coordinator should either observe and advise or
else totally preempt the transporter's cleanup respon-
sibilities, so that there would'be a limit to transporter
liability after the On-Scene Coordinator assumed control.
The second opinion was to retain the flexibility of
selective oversight, but to assign liability for the
On-Scene Coordinator's actions.
The "all or nothing" On-Scene Coordinator response,
the minority opinion at the meeting, was related to one
participant's suggestion that the On-Scene Coordinator
should not respond with men or equipment, but rather should
be only a coordinator; thus, the transporter would be liable
only for those damages which it caused, and for no damages
caused by "governmental interference." The alternative,
that the transporter's liability should be limited after its
responsibility was preempted, led one speaker to recommend
legislation specifically stating that the carrier should be
held harmless for all but its own gross negligence once
preemption occurred.
Also connected with limits on liability was the
general view of the participants that Federal (.not State)
regulations are needed to define uniformly the "reasonable
care and diligence" standard to which they are now subject.
Among the elements that were recommended in these regula-
tions were a clear statement of the circumstances when
notification via the National Contingency Plan should occur
and, in the event that control of the cleanup remains with
the transporter, a better definition of the scope of the
cleanup.
Who Should Be Responsible for Training?
The participants agreed generally that local training
of police, fire, emergency service, and health department
personnel would be worthwhile, because they are generally
the first on the scene and may for some spills be the only
IV-9
-------
public officials to respond. Such training might also
decrease the necessity or the complexity of external co-
ordination such as by State or Federal On-Scene Coordinators
At present the transporters and States are conducting
training programs ad hoc. A Federal initiative to
nationalize these efforts—thus perhaps encouraging all
States to participate—was suggested at the meeting. A
Federal program could also attempt to ensure that minimum
standards of competency in response to training be achieved.
IV-10
-------
Attachment 1-1
fIZATIONS REPRESENTED AT THE EPA EMERGENCY
ISPONSE PUBLIC MEETING HELD MAY 25, 1978
•ganizations Which Sent Representatives
Chemical Manufacturers
Dow Chemical
Union Carbide
Transportation
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
American Waterway 'Operators Association
Association of American Railroads
Waste Management
National Solid Waste Management Association
Labor
Teamsters Union
Cleanup Indus try
Western Environmental Services
Oil Spill Control Association of America
E nv i r onmen ta1
Environmental Policy Center
National Wildlife Federation
Public Interest Groups
Red Cross
National Governors' Conference
Liquids Storage
Independent Liquid Terminals Association
IV-11
-------
Attachment 1-2
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TASK FORCE
Public and Private Sector Study
Organizations Invited to Attend Public Meeting
BUSINESS
Trade Associations
Manufacturing Chemists Association
Washington, D.C.
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assn.
Washington, D.C.
Independent Liquid Terminals Assn.
Washington, D.C.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Assn.
Scarsdale, New York
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, D.C.
The Chlorine Institute
New York, New York
Chemical Manufacturers
Monsanto
St. Louis, Missouri
W.R. Grace & Co.
New York, New York
The du Pont Co.
Wilmington, Delaware
Dow Chemical Co.
Midland, Michigan
Union Carbide
Washington, D.C.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Morristown, New Jersey
Associations of Common
Carriers
American Waterways
Operators
Arlington, Virginia
IV-12
-------
Attachment 1-3
Business Common Carriers (Cont'd)
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn.
of the U.S.
Washington, D.C.
Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assn.
Washington, D.C.
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
Association of American Railroads
Washington, D.C.
American Trucking Assn.
Washington, D.C.
Cleanup Contractors
Western Environmental Services
Portland, Oregon
LABOR
Chemical Workers
Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers
Union Int11
Denver, Colorado
International Chemical Workers Union
Akron, Ohio
Transportation
Teamsters Union
Washington, D.C.
AFL-CIO Railway Labor Exec.
Assn.
Washington, D.C.
IV-13
-------
Attachment 1-4
Labor (Cont'd)
Public Employees
American Federation of State County
and Municipal Employees
Washington, D.C.
AFL-CIO Public Employees Department
Washington, D.C.
International Association of Firefighters
Washington, D.C.
United Transportation Union
Washington, D.C.
AFL-CIO
Washington, D.C.
ENVIRONMENTAL
National Wildlife Federation Issac Walton League of America,
Washington, D.C. Inc.
Arlington, Virginia
National Audubon Society Rachel Carson Trust
New York, New York Washington, D.C.
IV-14
-------
Attachment 1-5
Environmental (Cont'd)
The Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Policy Center
Washington, D.C.
Sierra Club
Washington, D.C.
Natural Resource Defense Council
Washington, D.C.
The Environmental Law Institute
Washington, D.C.
PUBLIC INTEREST
American Red Cross
Washington, D.C.
National Governors' Conference
Washington, D.C.
IV-15
-------
|