(This article was written without AI tools, i.e., ChatGPT.)
Two weeks ago, I participated on a panel at the Clean Gulf Conference in Houston, Texas, which addressed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new Worst Case Discharge Response Plans for Facilities Handling Hazardous Substances rule. Rebbeca Broussard, the EPA’s current program lead for the rule, was one of the panelists. I’ve made presentations on this rule nearly a dozen times, and it was refreshing, for once, being in a room where people had heard of it. It’s good to see the industry finally waking up to this behemoth of a law.
The big takeaway from the panel was that the industry is hungry for knowledge and anxious to get started. Here lies the tricky part: currently, the rule is unfunded until late next year, so money for implementing the rule likely won’t be available until 2026. This means there is no money to develop critical, required planning tools, or to issue corrections and clarifications.
Witt O’Brien’s hosted the EPA back in September to discuss this rule, and I have included the article I wrote from that meeting in its entirety below. The article lists the many areas we are still missing and the clarifications we need to start complying. There are two big items worth pointing out: the planning model, which EPA has noted they will develop, has yet to be started. Without this, you cannot fulfill a big portion of the rule's requirements. Another big issue is that the rule presently doesn’t exclude oil. However, the EPA has noted that its intention is not to regulate oil. In spite of this claim, until a formal correction or a guidance document is issued, oil is still regulated under the rule. EPA is working on the correction.
Based on these significant concerns and the ones further detailed below, there is no physical way of complying now. I advise running the queries outlined in bold below and then holding tight until mid-2025 to see where things have progressed with the EPA.
If you need help running the queries or better understanding the current law, please email me at the email addresses below.
Previous Article
On September 11th, 2024, Witt O’Brien’s hosted Rebbecca Broussard, program lead for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new Worst Case Discharge (WCD) rule for Hazardous Substances (HS). During her presentation, she provided insights on the new rule. She noted areas that the EPA was working to fix, the current position on critical compliance elements, and notes on those elements that the EPA was still working on. I’ve highlighted some of her most noteworthy comments below. I’ve also included a copy of an article I wrote earlier this year, shortly after the rule came out, highlighting questions that needed clarification for operators to start developing plans.
If you attended our conference, you probably noted that there is still a lot of uncertainty about this rule. No one walked away with clear marching orders. However, we did get a better idea of where things stand, and a fair amount of open questions were addressed.
Conference Lessons
- In a somewhat surprising admission, the EPA noted that the current rule is not funded, and they are advising companies not to invest in complying until 2026. Many components still require development or further clarification. Many may change with the outcome of the presidential election. That said, Witt O’Brien’s recommends doing the actions outlined at the end of this article.
- The EPA hopes to have a guidance document like its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) in 2026. They noted that this would come after the publication of the Oil Facility Response Plan (FRP) Rule guidance document that is still in the works.
- Though oil is not currently exempted in the new rule, EPA plans through guidance or corrective action, to make it clear that if something is considered an oil, it is exempt.
- EPA is working on amending the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) and should have something out in late 2025.
- EPA is developing a model for the rule's complex modeling requirements. No date was noted, but they are addressing this critical industry component.
- They emphasized that this is not a prevention rule, so there are no requirements for containment. However, it is highly advisable to provide containment around HSs.
- Regulated substances in piping need to be accounted for, as piping is regulated as a container.
- There is not a de minimis container size. The rule is wholly based on the aggregate quantity of storage on site.
- The expectation under this rule is that firefighting capabilities are the responsibility of the operator, and you should not rely on local fire departments. If no resources are on site, they expect operators to secure third-party contracted support by contract.
- Qualified Individuals (QI) are expected to have Incident Commander (IC) level Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training.
- Operators are responsible for identifying proper response equipment with their Spill Response organization (SRO) (SRO is the new term for Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO)). The rule doesn’t set a standard, and as of right now, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) has not started a program to vet and certify SROs for this program as they do for OSROs under the Oil FRP Rule.
- Regarding the question, “Are there exclusions for discharges under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits?” The EPA answered, “Yes.”
- Regarding the question, “The rule exempts Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); does it also exempt industrial, privately owned systems? The EPA answered, “Yes, we view these as the same; however, there may be components that are not exempt, such as skimmer tanks.”
- Regarding the question, “The rule provides container types that are not included in the definition. What is a “process vessel” – is it HS-filled manufacturing equipment?” The EPA answered, “One needs to review all areas where regulated substances are stored, treated, or are in process at a facility.” This is not a direct answer; however, the takeaway is that HSs should be accounted for everywhere, as there are no container/equipment exemptions.
- Regarding question 18 listed below about guidance on new planning requirements, it was noted that these would have to be conversations with the Regional Administrator (RA). They mentioned that they would try to address these in the proposed guidance document. There is still a lot to gather here.
- Regarding question 4 listed below about the need to evaluate chemical/mechanical processes at refineries for coverage of regulated HSs, the answer was simple: “Yes, and we know it will be challenging.”
- Regarding question 6 listed below about ignitions and reactions, two slightly different responses were given, so this remains challenging. On the one hand, it was noted that one would only have to account for these in the discharge and whether it would react to things downstream. Later, it was also pointed out that one should look at realistic scenarios if a release could impact something on site, and the example given was the ITC incident. What does this mean? At this point, and until there are enough plan reviews with feedback, you and your plan preparer will have to make the best judgment and make a case as to why you only addressed what is noted in your plan – risk assessment.
- Regarding question 11 about working with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC), EPA noted that you must only share your FRP. However, EPA did not discuss when changes were requested and what cooperation was needed. Can you say no? Or are you required to address any requests? Further discussion is still needed.
- Regarding question 12 about self-inspections for response equipment or regulated containers, the EPA noted this is not a prevention program, so the expectation here is limited to noting what industry standards you are adhering to, and where the answer is “none,” describing what you are doing. It is a discussion, not setting a standard/requirement.
- Regarding question 15 about what else the EPA expects beyond noting if impacts to communities with environmental justice concerns may apply, this is a limited exercise, noting if this applies and what precautions you have taken.
- Concerning gases, it was noted that due to the HS rule regulating many gases, the expectation is primarily screening. If the planning distance is zero, you enter this in the Substantial Harm form. This means that you should complete the Substantial Harm form, submit it (only), and keep a copy on file. Important note: part of this rule is to determine if a gas release could cause enough acid rain (example) to trigger the need to develop an FRP: this would need to be addressed on this form.
- One confusing comment from the EPA was that manmade structures could be used to avoid developing an FRP. It was also mentioned that this would have to be discussed and approved by the RA. Honestly, I don’t think a 100 % containment in a tank dike or retention pond would ever be approved in this manner, but it is worth including, as it was noted during the conference.
Previous Article
Note: Due to the new nature of this rule, Articles in this series will begin with the same introduction for a while. If you’ve been following this series, feel free to skip to after the presentation links for this week’s discussion.
If you haven’t been keeping up with new laws in 2024, there is one with sweeping impacts on the industry: the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Final Rulemaking on Clean Water Act (CWA) Hazardous Substance (HS) Facility Response Plans (FRP) rule. If you store, handle, or manage hazardous substances – and this is the first time you have heard about this - it is crucial to understand and assess if this rule impacts your operations.
As this rule is very complex and still has many aspects both industry and the EPA themselves must figure out how to address, I plan on writing a series of short articles focused on its key aspects. The baseline for these articles will compare how this new rule differs from the current EPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90) rule focused on oil facilities.
Here is a quick summary of where you can start figuring out if this rule applies to your operation: This new rule brings in a host of new facilities that had previously been exempt from the OPA90 rule under EPA’s jurisdiction. It expands OPA90 from just being for oil to covering 296 HSs (click here for the complete list). Under the new rule, companies with reportable quantities of HSs on site will be required to develop an FRP after applying the new multiplier of 1,000x. This could have a significant impact on your operations. Like every rule, there are exemptions; some are clear, while others are murky.
Below are copies of presentations on this new rule that the EPA and I gave at the 2024 Clean Waterways conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. They can help get you up to speed.
Wrap-Up and Final Thoughts
If you have been keeping up with this series, you will have noticed two core themes:
- The new rule has added many additional planning requirements compared to the EPA’s Oil FRP rule.
- The EPA needs to clarify many of our questions.
The second theme suggests that it is a good time to wrap this series up. There are a lot of unanswered questions about how to comply with key elements of the new rule, so it makes sense to pause on diving any further into its impacts and wait for further EPA guidance. Witt O’Brien’s will work diligently over the next 12 months to get answers from the EPA. The industry as a whole should also continue to look for guidance as it is published.
The list of concerns/questions below is by no means complete, but it reflects areas we are hopeful to see clarified soon, so we can start assisting our clients in complying with the new rule. I have also provided links to all the prior articles in this series.
Questions/Concerns:
- As the plan holder determines the equipment required to respond, do Spill Response Organizations (SRO) agreements need to list everything or will the United States Coast Guard (USCG) eventually be the certifying agency as in the Oil FRP Rule? If the latter, will the plan holder only have to show proof of a contract? If not, what level of documentation will be required?
- Will the EPA develop a model for the planning calculations and Worst-Case Discharge (WCD) modeling, or does the industry have to develop a model? If it’s on the industry, what level of documentation will be required? Also, if it’s up to the industry, there are many conditions that need to be modeled, so will there be guidance on how to apply these conditions and clear resources (e.g., where to find water standard databases and how to use, tools for different water characteristics, list of capable models with their limitations, tools for surface condition modeling, weather modeling) to use as reference tools?
- The rule provides container types that are not included in the definition. What is a “process vessel” – is it HS-filled manufacturing equipment?
- At manufacturing/refining locations, does every chemical/mechanical process, from feedstocks, to interim products, to final products, have to be evaluated for coverage of regulated HSs? The rule notes process equipment, which implies that they will.
- Are there exclusions for discharges under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits?
- The rule notes that ignitions and reactions must be considered. Does this mean you have to evaluate all secondary products when something is ignited, as well as all the outcomes if substances mix?
- What is the difference between distance and the definition of planning distance**?
- The rule exempts Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); does it also exempt industrial, privately owned systems?
- The rule does not exempt oil; will it be exempted?
- National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) has yet to be updated to address this new rule. When will it be updated?
- Companies are required to work with local emergency planning committees. If these Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) have unreasonable requests, will the EPA moderate expectations?
- Are self-inspections for response equipment or regulated containers under this program?
- For the hazard analysis, is there a preferred methodology, as it reads very similar to Process Safety Management (PSM), or is it up to the plan holder’s best judgment?
- For firefighting equipment, what proof do you need to demonstrate that the local fire department can respond? If they can’t, and you have to contract out, what level of documentation is required?
- Beyond noting if impacts to communities with environmental justice concerns may apply, what else is the EPA expecting?
- The information on mixture requirements is unclear. Does the mixture have to meet the threshold quantity or is it added to the total aggregate quantity at the site?
- There is an “and” used in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exemptions language. Does the “and “mean “and/or,” or does it mean “one must be both”? (See rule definitions for further information) Also, if other HSs are at the exempted facilities, but not part of the waste, are they to be screened, or is the entire facility exempted?
- The rule contains several extensive planning requirements, and expectations for addressing them in the FRP are not clearly defined. Will guidance be provided, or will these be case-by-case per-plan reviews (which will cause a lot of “shots in the dark”)? For example, climate change, extreme weather, injury to public receptors, the potential for hazards uses an etc. in its requirements, etc.
- Gases and solids must be screened; what level of documentation must be documented to support these reviews?
- What does “peak concentration” mean under §118.3?
- What date triggers the 5-year re-submittal – the date the Substantial Harm (SH) form is submitted or the date the FRP is submitted for approval for Significant (S)+SH facilities?
- What are some examples of configuration changes that trigger resubmittals?
** a. Distance to the endpoint means the greatest distance a CWA hazardous substance in a worst case discharge into or on the navigable waters or a conveyance to navigable waters can travel while still having the ability to cause injury to public receptors or fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments ...
** b. Planning distance means the distance to an endpoint such that a worst-case discharge of CWA hazardous substances into or on the navigable waters or a conveyance to navigable waters from a non-transportation-related onshore facility could adversely impact a public water system or cause injury to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments or public receptors …
These are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of questions we’ve encountered while deep-diving into the new rule. As such, it isn't easy to move forward with developing plans. In our private conversations with the EPA, they have noted that a lot of them are being addressed internally, and they should have guidance in the upcoming 18 months. The rule has three years to be implemented, and while that sounds like a long time, with all the planning requirements required under the new rule, it is not, especially since there are so many open questions.
Witt O’Brien’s will continue to monitor this new rule and provide updates as we learn more. At the moment, as noted in the article on mixtures, we’re advising our clients to do the following for now and holding tight until we know more:
- Run a query of your safety data sheets (SDS) against the 296 regulated substances.
- Once you identify SDS that have regulated substances, determine the amount of the substance aggregately stored onsite, then do the math to ascertain if the amount stored onsite exceeds the RQ multiplier.
- Then, and only then, review the exceptions and exemptions under §118.8 to see if any of these can be excluded.
- After compiling your final list of what is regulated and not regulated, hold tight until mid-2025 once the EPA provides more understanding and guidance on how to comply with the rule. The EPA is still working on several large sections of the rule, e.g., the planning model, updated PREP, identifying SROs, and other areas that require further guidance. Hopefully, these will be more transparent by mid-2025.
Series articles:
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 (jcarroll@wittobriens.com), 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.
