SPCC Rule Update Iowa AWMA SPCC Workshop March 9, 2004 *Excerpts taken from SPCC Rule Update presentation given by Mark Howard, USEPA at the API 2003 Storage Tank Conference November 5, 2003

History of EPA’s Oil Program 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 1974 Original SPCC Rule 40 CFR Part Ashland Oil Spill – SPCC Task Force 1989 Exxon Valdez in Alaska 1990 Oil Pollution Act 1991 Proposed SPCC Rule – complete revision of existing rule 1993 Proposed SPCC Rule – amendments 1994 Final Facility Response Plan (FRP) Rule 1997 Additional proposed SPCC amendments 2001 Draft Final SPCC Rule – remanded to OMB 2002 Final SPCC rule published 7/17/02, effective 8/16/ SPCC compliance date extension issued

Major Issues Associated with July 2002 Rule Litigation American Petroleum Institute (API) Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) Marathon Oil Policy questions and concerns Compliance dates extended 18 months

Deadlines to Amend or Prepare and Implement SPCC Plan A facility starting operation…Must… On or before 8/16/02 Maintain existing Plan Amend Plan no later than 8/17/04 Implement Plan no later than 2/18/05 After 8/16/02 through 2/18/05 Prepare and implement a Plan no later than 2/18/05 After 2/18/05 Prepare and implement a Plan before beginning operations NOTE: Facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 112 and in operation before August 16, 2002, and without an existing Plan, must immediately prepare and implement a Plan and are considered in violation until Plan implementation.

Litigation Update Three complaints have been consolidated (API, PMAA, Marathon) All EPA SPCC policy analysis since June 2003 has focused on lawsuit items termed “Tier 1” Settlement discussions have been ongoing for several months Environmental groups have shown interest in the litigation Discussions associated with the litigation are very limited Work on non-litigation issues, termed “Tier 2” has been impacted

Tier I – Litigation Issues Secondary containment / cost- impracticability (can cost play a factor?) Loading racks (definition of?) Navigable waters (SWANCC) Produced waters (want wastewater exemption extended to) Should to shall/must – SBREFA (procedural challenge; didn’t consider small business impacts)

Tier II – High Priority Non Litigation Issues Applicability to motive power (airplanes, “John Deere Issue”) Scope and definition of operational equipment / process vessels Distinction between various secondary containment requirements Applicability of rule to various forms of piping Integrity testing for small bulk containers (tie to SBREFA Tier I issue) Applicability of rule to mobile / portable containers (tanker truck issues) Wastewater exemption & applicability of rule to oil water separators

Status of EPA Tier II Policy Review Extensive interaction with stakeholders EPA technical workgroup has reviewed and provided recommendations Senior EPA mgmt briefings held Decisions pending on actions EPA will take to address Tier I policy issues Other offices in EPA must be consulted on the technical workgroup’s recommendations

EPA 10 Policy Papers Loading/Unloading Areas/Racks Wastewater Exemption: Produced Waters Secondary Containment and Cost Integrity Testing for Small Storage Tanks Applicability to PipingTypes of Secondary Containment Applicability to Motive PowerApplicability to Mobile Storage Containers Operational Equipment/Process Tanks Wastewater and Oil/Water Separators Red: Litigation Issue

Stakeholder Meetings / White Papers Small Business Association (SBA) API Coalition Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)** Edible Oil Industries** API Airline Industry Hogan & Hartson – (Law firm representing a company coalition comprised of, for example, GE & Verizon) Agriculture ** EPA has stated that Electrical and Food/Edible Oils Industry concerns will require specific attention

SBA Activities New policy proposals Electrical SPCC/Stormwater overlap PE tiered certification proposal 1 st Tier: <5,000 gallons of oil, exempt from having a written plan and/or PE certification 2 nd Tier: 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of oil, required to have a written plan but not necessarily certified by a PE; PE site visit would not be required 3 rd Tier: >10,000 gallons of oil, written plan certified by a PE

API-led Coalition Coalition’s white papers align with EPA 10 policy papers Concerns: Upcoming compliance deadline Budgeting/Capital Improvements

USWAG USWAG has provided policy recommendations for electrical equipment USWAG Proposal Allow each piece of equipment to be designated a facility Tier I: Designate a “qualified facility” 20,000 gallon threshold No SPCC Plan requirement Tier II: All other regulated facilities

Food / Edible Oil Concerns with the applicability of the rule to unique equipment/processes Some SPCC sections can be deleted, others might be modified

Agricultural Sector EPA has met with USDA, EPA Agricultural Center and EPA Agricultural Liaison – Jean Mari Peltier Impact of rule on farmers Potentially large area of non- compliance

Airline Industry Mobile fuelers Scope of rule Applicability to motive power (Jet SPCC Plans???)

Timetable for Policy Clarification EPA Goal: Clarify Tier I & II issues by March 2004 Stakeholder meeting planned for first week in March Proposed revisions to be published in the Federal Register Guidance, policy, and regulatory change are all possible All issues will not be resolved Performance based rulemaking Role of the PE

Timetable Notes EPA does not anticipate another extension… however Litigation timing is impacting Tier II issues EPA has stated they will provide a six- month notice for amending SPCC Plans in areas impacted by the Tier I & II issues

Melody Evans Maytag - Amana Appliances

Alan J. Arnold Alliant Energy

SPCC Project for John Deere Ottumwa Works Liping Zhang, P.E. Deere & Company March 9, 2004

Project Background Five loading/unloading locations for oils and chemicals. None of them has containment Consolidates all the loading/unloading areas into one location and install one concrete containment Chemical loading/unloading area is also considered in this project

Lessons Learned 1.The ramp design 2.The land survey

Art Potratz General Mills, Inc.