View Rule

Statement of Need: The proposed rule is necessary to clarify the regulatory obligations of SPCC facility owners and operators and to reduce the regulatory burden where appropriate.

Summary of the Legal Basis: 33 USC 1321 et seq.

Alternatives: EPA considered alternative options for various aspects of this proposed rule, following receipt of public comments, and through logical outgrowth of previously considered alternatives. Alternative options included (1) exempting asphalt cement containers from the requirements of the SPCC rule; (2) exempting farms of a certain storage capacity, where the exact storage capacity has not been specified; (3) providing an exemption only for residential heating oil containers located at farms; (4) providing the same relief as in the preferred option to owners and operators of qualified facilities with total oil storage capacities of 5,000 gallons or less; (5) giving the option wherein owners and operators of new production facilities would be allowed one year after the start of operations to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan; (6) allowing the facilities to choose between a flowline maintenance program with a contingency plan (as in the proposed amendments) and providing a method of secondary containment for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines; (7) regulatory alternatives for oil production facilities that have wells that produce 10 barrels or less of crude oil per day and are known as “stripper wells.”

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: At the 7 percent discount rate, the proposed amendments to the SPCC rule are expected to yield annualized cost savings of approximately $7 million from the proposed exemption of hot-mix asphalt containers, $4 million from the proposed changes for exempting pesticide application equipment, $2 million from the proposed exemption of residential heating oil containers, $251 million from the proposed amendments to the definition of facility, $1 million from the proposed clarification to the facility diagram requirements, $48 million from the proposed revision to the loading rack definition, $24 million from the streamlined requirements for Tier 1 qualified facilities, $7 million from the proposed amendments to the security requirements, $9 million from the amendments to integrity testing requirements, $2 million for owners and operators of AFVO facilities, $25 million for owners and operators of production facilities from the six-month delay in SPCC Plan preparation and implementation, and $8 million from exemption of flow-through process vessels from sized secondary containment. Additional benefits of this rule were not quantified because the impact of the rule on human health and environment are expected to be marginal. The principal effect of the proposed amendments would be lower compliance costs for owners and operators of certain types of facilities and equipment.

Risks: In the absence of quantitative information on the change in risk related to the specific proposed amendments, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment, which suggests that the proposed amendments will not lead to a significant increase in oil discharge risk.