 |
 |
February 9, 2006
VIA E‑Mail and MAIL
Re: Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan Requirements-Amendments; 40 CFR Part 112; EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Late last year, EPA requested comment on, among other things, a proposed compliance alternative option for small facilities covered by the SPCC rules. 70 Fed. Reg. 73524, et seq. (
SPCC rules presently require all covered facilities to hire Professional Engineers (PEs) to review, certify, and periodically reevaluate their SPCC plans. Certifying PEs must:
1. Assert familiarity with the Part 112 SPCC requirements; 2. Personally visit and examine facilities or send agents as substitutes; 3. Prepare SPCC plans in accordance with good engineering practices, taking into account applicable industry standards and Part 112 requirements; 4. Establish procedures for required inspections and testing; and 5. Ensure suitability of the plans for facilities.
PE certification at best promotes compliance, but is not a measure of it. For small facilities, many of whom are owned or operated by small businesses, PE-certified plans are expensive ($2,500-5,000+). Moreover, PE certification costs are ongoing given the five-year review requirement and the need to amend plans if significant facility changes are made.
Page 2
The proposal would allow certain “qualified” covered facilities the option of SPCC plan self-certification. Specifically, such “qualified” facilities must:
1. Have a total oil storage capacity of between 1,321 and 10,000 gals, 2. Have had no reportable (§112(b)) oil discharges for the longer of 10 years prior to initial self-certification, or since becoming subject to the SPCC plan rules, 3. Not deviate from the requirements of §112.7(a)(2), except with respect to security and container integrity testing, and 4. Not make environmental equivalence or impracticality determinations.
The proposal responds in part to the alternative small facility regulatory structure set out in the SBA’s Office of Advocacy report entitled Proposed Reforms to the SPCC Professional Engineer Certification Requirement: Designing a More Cost Effective Approach for Small Facilities (6/04). It also responds to a detailed tiered regulatory structure submitted to EPA on
The proposal should be expanded to include the adoption of SBA’s Tier I option for facilities with 1,320-5,000 gallon oil capacities. “Qualified” facilities in this range wouldn’t have to develop written SPCC plans, but would be governed by all applicable substantive provisions of the rule. Facilities seeking to avail themselves of this alternative would create a one-time, self-certification record to be kept onsite for ready inspection. See, Attachment A. Note that several EPA programs (e.g., hazardous waste, underground storage tanks, motor vehicle air conditioning) use self-certifications, including the SPCC program’s facility response plan provision governing applicability of the substantial harm criteria.
The proposed 10-year clean discharge history qualifier for small facilities should be eliminated. This concept was borrowed inappropriately from an EPA proposal on oil-filled operational equipment. Among other things, such a look-back makes no sense given the rule’s three-year recordkeeping requirement. Notably, the record in this rulemaking shows that less than one percent of all reportable spills involve facilities with regulated capacities of 10,000 gallons. or less. Alternatively, only a three-year look-back should be considered and only for discharges required to be reported to the NRC that actually reached navigable waters.
“Qualified ”facilities, whether in Tier I or Tier II, should be able to hire a PE to conduct environmental equivalence or impracticality determinations without triggering a requirement to develop a full-blown, PE developed and certified SPCC plan.
Page 3
The final rule or preamble thereto should clarify that the small facility alternative takes effect immediately upon publication and that qualified facilities have until
The rule should also clarify that Tier I and Tier II “qualified” facilities are not subject to the five-year plan review/reevaluation requirements set out in § 112.5(b) or (c), but that they are subject to potential Regional Administrator imposed controls and to revisions occasioned by facility changes. 40 CFR §§ 112.4 and 112.5(a).
On behalf of our members, we thank EPA for its consideration of this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
American Trucking Associations, Inc. Automotive Oil Change Association Automotive Service Association Copper and Brass Fabricators Council Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association National Association of Fleet Administrators National Automobile Dealers Association National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation National Paint and Coatings Association Printing Industries of America/Graphic Arts Technical Foundation Specialty Graphic Imaging Association Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association
cc. Mr. Kevin Bromberg, Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration
|
|
COMING SOON!!!
 NAFA's official magazine will be changing. Starting this September, FLEETSolutions will be NAFA's new official magazine, to be published bi-monthly and contain educational articles based on the eight disciplines of the fleet management profession.  |