Post-EPA Workshop Question: Planning Distance Requirements
John K. Carroll III
Associate Managing Director at Witt O'Brien's, LLC, Part of the Ambipar Group
(This article was written without AI tools, i.e., ChatGPT.)
?
I’ve written several articles over the years on how to develop planning distances for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Facility Response Plan (FRP) rule; in particular, around developing the required booming and environmental sensitivity maps that go along with the requirement and how to calculate the planning distance. (I’ve included a prior article below for reference.)
At our conference, one element of the rule that invoked many questions was “what should be included in the vulnerability analysis once you have determined the appropriate planning distance?”
Before going too far, here are the items you are required to research for your planning distance:
K. Vulnerability Analysis (sec. 1.4.2)
Analysis of potential effects of an oil spill on vulnerable areas. (Attachment C-III to Appendix C to this part provides a method that owners or operators shall use to determine appropriate distances from the facility to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. Owners or operators can use a comparable formula that is considered acceptable by the Regional Administrator (RA). If a comparable formula is used, documentation of the reliability and analytical soundness of the formula must be attached to the Response Plan Cover Sheet.)
In determining how far out to go from the planning distance, there has been confusion as to whether you are required to go a certain distance away from the banks of a release or perform some form of radial analysis. To clear that up, the intent of the rule is to mitigate the spread and hazards of an oil release, so doing a radial search, as one would do for plans for gas releases, would make no sense, as oil typically floats on water. Once oil reaches the water body, it will only impact things along the banks of that water body. With this idea in mind, you should limit your search to the banks and drainage path of the oil release.
There are some exceptions to this approach. You should consider facilities near your operations, as they may be impacted by response resources or fire. Also, the type of material released may warrant research a little further past the immediate banks. That said, your focus is on areas that may be impacted by the oil release, not on any airborne plumes driven by wind that can affect areas far beyond the banks. You should identify any of the areas listed above that are within the path of your potential oil release and limit the search to those areas.
Previous Article (slightly modified) - Planning Distance Calculations Under EPA’s FRP
To address today’s topic, I won’t go into much detail on the math formulas and various programs available to plan writers. Instead, I’m going to highlight an issue Witt O’Brien’s often sees in plans when conducting audits or when companies come to us for help post an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) audit on their Facility Response Plan (FRP) that another company prepared.
To explain further, under EPA’s 40 CFR 112.20 FRP rule, there is a requirement to develop what is referred to as the “horizontal range” of a release, also termed the “planning distance.” In the rule, a fair portion of an entire appendix discusses what this means and how it is calculated, Appendix C-Attachment C-III-Calculation of the Planning Distance. Specifically, the rule says:
The facility owner or operator must evaluate whether the facility is located at a distance such that a discharge from the facility could cause injury to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments or disrupt operations at a public drinking water intake. To quantify that distance, EPA considered oil transport mechanisms over land and on still, tidal influence, and moving navigable waters. …
Still trying to understand? At a very basic level, when developing an EPA FRP, you must plan how far an oil release could travel off a property. The EPA provides several methodologies to determine this based on spill environment, e.g., on land, still water, moving water, tidally influenced, etc. The EPA also allows other engineering and software tools to be used if the data can be accurately supported.
It sounds easy enough and straightforward, yes? Where companies sometimes go wrong is when they’re developing FRPs, they’ll include statements in their plan such as a release offsite is unlikely due to the tank farm secondary containment; a release offsite is unlikely as facility maintains response equipment that can contain any release before leaving fence line; a release offsite is unlikely as facility’s drainage system would contain any releases due to treatment capacity; due to topography around the facility, a release would not impact any navigable waters; etc.
领英推荐
Subsequently, when these assertions are made, planning distance calculations are done incorrectly, as “false” data will be used to limit planning distances. The fallacy of these assertions is twofold: First, one has an FRP as one has a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC Plans are required if one can impact navigable waters. Subsequently, suppose an SPCC Plan has been determined. In that case, it’s determined that a release could travel offsite (there is an exception to this, but not relevant to today’s conversation as, for today, we are assuming you have determined an FRP is necessary).
Secondly, and where many run afoul when developing an FRP, “excuses” must be thrown away as that would prevent a discharge from leaving a facility boundary line. Again, by having an FRP and an SPCC Plan, it has already been stated that you could impact navigable waters. As such, a planning distance must be developed assuming all onsite controls are breached, and then using one of the planning distance formulas to calculate the distance a release could travel offsite.
The key takeaway is that in an FRP, you must develop planning distances for the facility that assume catastrophic failure onsite and then accurately address how far it would travel offsite.
Another similar misstep concerns how companies develop their discharge planning scenarios. As I’ve already mentioned, plan preparation will fall on the same crutches. For more information, read an article I wrote back in 2019.
Additional Resources
?
For a complete listing of archived articles and compliance insights, click here. Past articles cover training requirements, clarification of additional unclear elements within the above rules, and more.?
We are here to help solve your compliance questions and challenges. If you need compliance assistance or have questions, please email John K. Carroll III ([email protected]), Associate Managing Director – Compliance Services, or call +1 954-625-9373.
Witt O’Brien’s:
Personal Note: Struggling with suicidal thoughts or know someone who is displaying worrisome characteristics? If yes, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) has excellent resources to help: a crisis hotline (simply call/text 988), a counselor directory, resources to navigate, etc. Click here to go to their website.
?
Chemical Engineer at US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
4 个月Hey John, appreciate the article. I’ll send you some insight from EPA Region 5 on this topic based on past experiences. I think stakeholders will find this to be helpful in tactical planning along the PD.