WCD – EPA rule vs. expectation

Good morning everyone. Today’s compliance blog will review what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects under their Facility Response Plan (FRP) rule (part of the Oil Pollution of Act of 1990 (OPA90)) versus what is noted in the rule for a Worst-Case Discharge (WCD) discussion.

As always, let’s look at what the rule says.

§112.20  Facility response plans.

(i) A worst-case discharge, as calculated using the appropriate worksheet in appendix D to this part. In cases where the Regional Administrator determines that the worst-case discharge volume calculated by the facility is not appropriate, the Regional Administrator may specify the worst-case discharge amount to be used for response planning at the facility. For complexes, the worst-case planning quantity shall be the larger of the amounts calculated for each component of the facility;

Now I know you are thinking, “Well that didn’t give me an answer.” Why just note the above? The core of the FRP rule is outlined under §112.20. Guidance documents, a sample plan, and necessary worksheets to comply with the rule are located in the accompanying appendixes. In the case of Appendix D, it is very long. It contains various scenarios based on one’s operation in order to determine the appropriate method for calculating a WCD. I wrote about this before: EPA FRP WCD volume, how does one calculate? – An OPA90 Discussion, where one can read in more detail.

To frame today’s conversation, let’s assume we’re developing an FRP for a terminal with 12 tanks and no containment issues; the largest tank, TK-1, is one million gallons of gasoline. In this scenario, the WCD is TK-1.

In the model plan found in Appendix F, the EPA provides the following guidance:

1.5  Discharge Scenarios

In this section, the owner or operator is required to provide a description of the facility's worst-case discharge, as well as a small and medium discharge, as appropriate. A multi-level planning approach has been chosen because the response actions to a discharge (i.e., necessary response equipment, products, and personnel) are dependent on the magnitude of the discharge. Planning for lesser discharges is necessary because the nature of the response may be qualitatively different depending on the quantity of the discharge. The facility owner or operator shall discuss the potential direction of the discharge pathway.

1.5.1  Small and Medium Discharges

1.5.1.1  To address multi-level planning requirements, the owner or operator must consider types of facility-specific discharge scenarios that may contribute to a small or medium discharge. The scenarios shall account for all the operations that take place at the facility, including but not limited to:

(1) Loading and unloading of surface transportation;

(2) Facility maintenance;

(3) Facility piping;

(4) Pumping stations and sumps;

(5) Oil storage tanks;

(6) Vehicle refueling; and

(7) Age and condition of facility and components.

1.5.1.2  The scenarios shall also consider factors that affect the response efforts required by the facility. These include but are not limited to:

(1) Size of the discharge;

(2) Proximity to downgradient wells, waterways, and drinking water intakes;

(3) Proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments;

(4) Likelihood that the discharge will travel offsite (i.e., topography, drainage);

(5) Location of the material discharged (i.e., on a concrete pad or directly on the soil);

(6) Material discharged;

(7) Weather or aquatic conditions (i.e., river flow);

(8) Available remediation equipment;

(9) Probability of a chain reaction of failures; and

(10) Direction of discharge pathway.

1.5.2  Worst Case Discharge

1.5.2.1  In this section, the owner or operator must identify the worst-case discharge volume at the facility. Worksheets for production and non-production facility owners or operators to use when calculating worst case discharge are presented in appendix D to this part. When planning for the worst-case discharge response, all of the aforementioned factors listed in the small and medium discharge section of the response plan shall be addressed.

1.5.2.2  For onshore storage facilities and production facilities, permanently manifolded oil storage tanks are defined as tanks that are designed, installed, and/or operated in such a manner that the multiple tanks function as one storage unit (i.e., multiple tank volumes are equalized). In this section of the response plan, owners or operators must provide evidence that oil storage tanks with common piping or piping systems are not operated as one unit. If such evidence is provided and is acceptable to the RA, the worst-case discharge volume shall be based on the combined oil storage capacity of all manifold tanks or the oil storage capacity of the largest single oil storage tank within the secondary containment area, whichever is greater. For permanently manifolded oil storage tanks that function as one storage unit, the worst-case discharge shall be based on the combined oil storage capacity of all manifolded tanks or the oil storage capacity of the largest single tank within a secondary containment area, whichever is greater. For purposes of the worst-case discharge calculation, permanently manifolded oil storage tanks that are separated by internal divisions for each tank are considered to be single tanks and individual manifolded tank volumes are not combined.

When developing plans in the past, most planners addressed the above in one of two ways: 1) They would turn the above into tables with one column addressing the topic above along with a short narrative describing applicability to the facility, e.g., Size of the discharge = One million gallons, Material discharged = Gasoline, and Vehicle refueling = Though spills can happen at fueling areas, a size of this magnitude would result from a catastrophic failure of TK-1 etc. In many cases, this looks like the table below.

2) The second method is generally done in paragraph form with a narrative describing applicability. This looks similarly to the following example.

The worst-case discharge volume for this site is 1,000,000 gallons of Group 1 light non-persistent oil from the gasoline tank, TK-1, located on the Northeast side of the Facility in the tank farm.

Description

This size discharge would most likely occur due to a natural disaster or catastrophic event. Examples may include, but not be limited to:

• Loading and Unloading of Surface Transportation;
• Facility Maintenance;
• Facility Piping;
• Pumping Station and Sumps;
• Oil Storage Locations;
• Vehicle Refueling Operations; and/or
• Age and Condition of Facility Components.

Several tanks at the Facility are plumbed to a common transfer line. However, they are not plumbed to operate as a single tank. Since all of the ASTs on site are situated within a lined earthen secondary containment, the volume for the site's WCD is calculated as the entire capacity of the largest tank, which is 1,000,000 gallons. The tank is located in the bermed tank farm located on the Northeast corner of the Facility. For purposes of this Plan, Facility assumes that all secondary containment structures will be compromised, and the gasoline would flow through the storm water pond southeast of the facility to McFadden's Creek. Once the spill enters McFadden's Creek, the material would flow into the Ohio River for approximately 37.47 miles downstream within the 27-hour planning distance prescribed by 40 CFR 112. The total spill distance is calculated to be 38.47 miles.

Additional Comments

This spill type is one that would result in a chain reaction of failures of other equipment (e.g., containment walls, tertiary holding ponds, control valves, etc.).

The closest body of navigable water is McFadden Creek (0.43 miles downstream) which flows to the Ohio River (0.93 miles downstream) and is adjacent to Facility (see Appendix G ESMs). Appendix C, Section 6, and the ESMs in Appendix G describe and show locations of down gradient wells, waterways, drinking water intakes, fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments that are potentially impacted by any release offsite.

Prevention

For a worst-case discharge caused by a natural disaster, preparedness is more appropriate than prevention. The Facility employees receive training periodically on the proper procedures to deal with a natural disaster. Employees are also trained in steps to follow if the Facility must be evacuated (due to a tank fire or other emergency).

In addition, prevention maintenance of tanks is performed at regularly scheduled intervals (to ensure that any weaknesses are discovered). Note that tanks can be expected, due to their shape and due to product weight, to fare very well during severe weather.

Worst-Case Discharge and Adverse Weather

Calculation of response equipment needs for a worst-case discharge are given later in this Appendix. These calculations take into account adverse weather. Severe rain events and associated flooding would also increase the chances of an oil spill from leaving the property.

Nevertheless, boom could be deployed as an initial measure to reduce the potential for any off-site drainage from a spill that may unfortunately occur concurrently with a severe rain event, associated flooding, or a tornado.

Now, there are thousands of approved FRPs that fit the above molds. However, in the past 24 months, many EPA inspectors have been pushing this statement: “These scenarios should be site specific. The scenarios should be detailed enough to train and properly drill on.” This statement can be taken several ways. Below is a sample of approved language used post an EPA audit, and an image from an EPA presentation.

Post audit approved format sample:

Worst Case Discharge Scenario

• The worst-case discharge would occur during a natural disaster
• Heavy rain, 70 degrees with hurricane force winds
• During a hurricane, winds and storm surge cause the loss of approximately 58,634 barrels of crude oil directly to Lake Salvador from split tanks and sheered production lines.
• Lake Salvador, which surrounds the Facility is the nearest waterway. No water wells or drinking water intakes are present within the planning distance of the Facility.
• The nearest fish, wildlife and sensitive environment is approximately 2.25 miles north-northwest of the Facility, on Lake Salvador. Impact to this area is nearly certain.
• The contracted OSRO will provide all necessary response equipment within the required Tier time limits

EPA presentation sample:

There are many ways to write these. Bottom line: One must ensure all talking points outlined in the rule/guidance documents are addressed; in today’s world, one should build these into realistic scenarios useful for exercises and drills. 

Keep an eye out: We will be hosting Chris Perry, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6, the week of April 15 for an all-day Facility Response Plan (FRP) and SPCC Plan Workshop. RSVPs will go out shortly. I am also working with Troy Swackhammer and Mark Howard, EPA Office of Emergency Management in the Regulation and Policy Development Division in Washington, D.C., on hosting a similar event in D.C.; dates and logistics are still being worked on. Stay tuned!

For a complete listing of archived blogs and compliance insights, click here. Past blogs cover training requirements, clarification on additional confusing elements within the above rules, and much more.

We are here to help solve your compliance questions and challenges. Need some compliance assistance, or just have a question? Please email John K. Carroll III ([email protected]) Associate Managing Director - Compliance Services, or call at +1 281-320-9796.

Witt O’Brien’s:

• Missed our October 23rd, 2018 Workshop? No problem. See how it went here.
• Missed our July 24th, 2018 Workshop? No problem. See how it went here.
• Missed our April 12th, 2018 Workshop? No problem. See how it went here.
• To learn more about Witt O'Brien's and all that we do, please visit us on our website.
• To follow Witt O’Brien’s and stay informed on important updates, follow us on LinkedIn.