[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 710-716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 154 and 155
[USCG-1998-3350]
Review of Cap Increases; Response Plans for Marine
Transportation-Related (MTR) Facilities and Tank Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Coast Guard response plan regulations contain requirements for
on-water oil recovery capacity (referred to as caps). These caps were
scheduled to increase by 25 percent on February 18, 1998, provided the
Coast Guard completed a review of the cap increases. The Coast Guard
has completed its review and the 25 percent increase for on-water
mechanical recovery will take effect 90 days from the date of this
notice. The Coast Guard will consider a 2003 cap for mechanical on-
water removal capability and requirements for other removal
technologies in a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking.
DATES: The scheduled cap increase for on-water mechanical recovery
requirements will take effect on April 5, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket
for this notice (USCG-1998-3350). The Response Plan Equipment Cap
Review (Cap Review) is part of the docket and is available for
inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You
may also find this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The
Cap Review is also available for examination on the Vessel Response
Plan Internet site at http://www.uscg.mil/vrp.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, call
Lieutenant Commander John Caplis, Office of Response (G-MOR), Coast
Guard, telephone 202-267-6922 or by e-mail at JC[email protected].
For questions on viewing materials in the docket, call Dorothy Walker,
Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
In 1996, the Coast Guard published two final rules entitled
``Vessel Response Plans'' (61 FR 1052, January 12, 1996) and ``Response
Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities'' (61 FR 7890,
February 29, 1996). Those rules finalized the 1993 interim rules (58 FR
7330, February 5, 1993, and 58 FR 7376, February 5, 1993, for Marine
Transportation-Related Facilities and Vessels, respectively) and are
located in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 33 CFR parts 154
and 155. 33 CFR 154.1045(m) and 155.1050(o) contain requirements for
on-water oil recovery capacity (referred to as caps) that an owner or
operator must ensure is available, through contract or other approved
means, in planning for a worst case discharge. These caps were
established taking into account 1993 technology, deployment capability,
and availability of response resources.
The 1993 and 1996 rules established a 1998 cap, a 25 percent
increase from the 1993 levels, as a target for increasing response
capabilities. This increase was endorsed by the Vessel Response Plan
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee as an incentive to expand response
[[Page 711]]
capabilities within the United States to an obtainable and desirable
level by 1998. The Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation from
the Committee, adopted for both vessel and facility rules, to review
the proposed cap increase before the increase would be implemented to
determine if it remains practicable.
On January 27, 1998, we published a ``Request for Comment'' notice
(63 FR 3861) with regard to the Cap Review and stated that the 1993
caps would remain in effect pending the results of that review and that
the cap increases as originally scheduled would not be implemented
until the review was complete.
On June 24, 1998, we published a Notice of Meetings (63 FR 34500)
that announced three public workshops to solicit comments on the
potential changes to the equipment requirements within the response
plan regulations (33 CFR parts 154 and 155) for mechanical recovery,
dispersants, and other spill removal technologies. These workshops were
held in Oakland, CA, on July 24, 1998, with 55 attendees; in Houston,
TX, on August 19, 1998, with 71 attendees; and in Washington, DC, on
September 16, 1998, with 49 attendees. We completed the Response Plan
Equipment Cap Review (Cap Review) in May 1999, placed it in the docket
and made it available on-line on July 26, 1999. The Cap Review can be
viewed on the Internet at the sites listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received 25 written comments in response to a
``Request for Comment'' published in the Federal Register on January
27, 1998 (63 FR 3861). In addition, we recorded 41 verbal comments
regarding mechanical recovery caps in the summaries for three public
workshops which were conducted in the summer of 1998. We received 37
letters in response to the workshops. These letters were placed in the
public docket. In general, public comment regarding an increase in the
mechanical recovery equipment is divided, with numerous comments
received both for and against such an increase.
Current Equipment Inventories
Five comments stated that the cap increase is practicable since
equipment inventories already exceed the increased cap requirements. We
agree that equipment inventories are sufficient throughout the nation
to support an increase in the equipment required to be ensured
available by any individual planholder. The Cap Review indicates that
only a few port areas do not have aggregate equipment stockpiles
significantly in excess of the increased cap requirements, and that
from an availability standpoint, the caps are practicable.
Five comments suggested that the cap increase was not necessary
because the additional mechanical recovery equipment already exists and
is sufficient to respond to most anticipated spills. We disagree that
the mere existence of surplus equipment in the regional response
inventories negates the need for an increase in an individual
planholder's equipment requirements. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(Pub. L. 101-380) (OPA 90) directed that response plans should prepare
for, to the maximum extent possible, a response to a worst case
discharge. Scheduled increases in recovery capability were intended and
remain necessary to close the gap between the equipment required to be
ensured available by a planholder and that amount which would be
necessary to respond to a worst case discharge. The equipment
requirements, however, should not be elevated to the entire worst case
discharge amount simply because aggregate regional inventories are now
available at those levels. This is because the capped amounts also
attempt to discount for operational considerations, such as limitations
regarding the effective deployment of equipment during the first 72
hours of the response. Total availability within regional equipment
inventories is only one of many factors that must be considered in
determining what is a practicable equipment cap.
Two comments stated that the cap increases are not necessary
because free market forces have generated the large equipment
inventories as a result of competition between the oil spill removal
organizations (OSROs). We agree that competition between OSROs, who
have individually acquired enough resources each to meet the cap
requirements, has resulted in the accumulation of large aggregate
equipment inventories in each regional and port area. We determined
that these accumulations are suitable and necessary, as the caps rely
on these excess stockpiles to come into play in the event of a
catastrophic spill, such as a worst case discharge from a large
tankship. The cap requirements reflect the limitations of a
planholder's ability to deploy and effectively manage equipment during
the initial phase of a response. As such, the capped equipment tiers
are designed to ensure an increasing availability of equipment during
that first 72 hours of a response. If a worst case discharge were to
occur from a large tank vessel or facility, however, the equipment
needed to respond past that initial 72-hour period is likely to exceed
the cap levels. As spill management team and incident command systems
are firmly established, their ability to effectively deploy and manage
equipment should also surpass the capped levels. The response will need
to draw upon those aggregate inventories in excess of the caps to
ensure the response can continue to expand in scope beyond that initial
72-hour period.
Five comments supported the cap increase, stating that the
equipment has already been obtained in anticipation of the scheduled
increase, and that a failure to implement the new requirements will
result in additional equipment being sold off or put out of service. We
agree that a failure to implement a cap increase may result in
declining equipment inventories. If the equipment caps are not
increased, economic pressures may force a sell-off of un-mandated
equipment which may result in a lessening of our overall response
capability.
Three comments stated that the evaluation of equipment stockpiles
must account for the fact that tiered response requirements allow
equipment to be brought in from other regions and that this
``cascading'' of equipment may strip the providing area of critical
response capability. This was cited as a major concern where ports and
stockpiles are separated by hundreds of miles. We acknowledge that the
cascading of equipment out of a region may impact the ability of a
particular OSRO or planholder to respond in that port. This possibility
reinforces the need to maintain aggregate levels of response equipment
within a port area that significantly exceed the cap requirements.
These surplus inventories will ensure that a viable response capability
is retained within one region when some of its resources are cascaded
into another region in response to a discharge.
Four comments stated that the equipment required under the current
cap has been sufficient to respond to all spills since the passage of
OPA 90 and is also sufficient to respond to the current risk of spills.
Two comments stated the Cap Review should evaluate responses to actual
incidents in order to determine whether more response equipment is
necessary or not. The Coast Guard has the responsibility for issuing
regulations that require a
[[Page 712]]
planholder to respond, to the maximum extent possible, a worst case
discharge. The fact that a worst case discharge from a large tank
vessel (such as an ultra-large crude carrier) or large tank facility
has not occurred in the United States since the passage of OPA 90 does
not mean that such a discharge could not happen. Nor does it change the
intent of Congress that industry develop response plans that prepare
for, to the maximum extent possible, a worst case discharge. While
spill tendencies since the passage of OPA 90 do show a decline in large
oil spill events, the risk of future spills still includes the
contingency of a worst case discharge. Evaluating the cap increase with
regard to the smaller incidents that have occurred since the passage of
the OPA 90 does not satisfy the intent of Congress in preparing for a
worst case discharge.
One comment stated that the cap increase must be based upon a
determination that the resources currently required are not sufficient
to remove a worst case discharge. One comment stated the caps should be
increased because the current cap levels represent a very small
percentage of the overall capability required to respond to a worst
case discharge from a large tankship. The Cap Review evaluated the
scheduled increase to determine if it required resources that exceeded
the amount necessary to respond to a worst case discharge. This
evaluation was based on the planning assumptions and calculations
contained within 33 CFR part 154, Appendix C and 33 CFR part 155,
Appendix B, and compared the increased caps against the worst case
discharge volumes found within the Area Contingency Plans throughout
the country. The comparison revealed that the increase is still far
below the levels of equipment that would be necessary to respond to a
worst case discharge (see Cap Review Tables 3-9, A-C for more
information).
Regional, State, and Local Issues
Two comments stated that the caps should be consistent with State
requirements. One comment stated that California has already mandated a
25 percent increase in State equipment caps. The State of California
Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) commented that a 25
percent increase in the planning standards for on-water oil recovery
volumes was both feasible and necessary to meet the best achievable
protection of the California coast. The State of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has also commented that their State
requirements exceed the existing cap requirements and that the Federal
caps should increase in order to strengthen and stabilize equipment
inventories. Another comment stated that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has already implemented the 25 percent increase
in the caps for the OPA 90 response plans required under their
regulations. We agree that response requirements should be as
consistent as possible across Federal agency and State requirements.
Increasing the national response standards for caps will promote
consistency between EPA, Coast Guard, and State cap requirements. The
State of California OSPR, Alaska ADEC and the EPA have all commented
that the caps should increase, both for reasons of ensuring
consistency, as well as for ensuring an adequate level of national
preparedness. We will continue to work with the Federal and State
agencies to ensure consistency and as much harmony between requirements
as possible.
Three comments recommended that the mechanical recovery equipment
caps should be flexible to accommodate local priorities and concerns
and should be developed regionally. Another comment stated that the cap
increases should not be applicable in areas shown to have lower levels
of risk. We disagree. The equipment caps were designed to establish on
a national level a minimum baseline for response equipment that would
be ensured available for any given location. Similarly, the cap
increase was designed to raise the baseline to provide consistency on a
national basis. The use of a national standard does not impede the
development of response inventories that are reflective of regional and
local needs or risks. Market forces will shape a region's response
equipment inventory irrespective of the regulatory baseline. The Gulf
Coast region is an example where market forces have built a
substantially larger stock of equipment than most other regions of the
country. This larger equipment stockpile is also reflective of the
higher regional risk of an oil spill. Conversely, the response plan
rules allow for situations where market forces dictate that the
sustainable level of response equipment in an area falls below the
national baseline. Under these circumstances, planholders may request
an alternative planning criteria from the Coast Guard.
One comment suggested that Area Committees should establish the
equipment requirements for each region. We disagree. The National
Contingency Plan charges Area Committees with many responsibilities as
outlined in the Section 311(j)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500). These responsibilities include, but are
not limited to, developing an area contingency plan, response
strategies and procedures, joint contingency plans, agency
responsibilities, and the identification of sensitive resources. Area
Committee's do not have the responsibility for establishing response
plan equipment requirements, nor have they been delegated that
authority by the President under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
One comment stated that the Coast Guard should evaluate the net
environmental benefit in each regional area to determine if any
equipment increases are necessary. Before the adoption of the vessel
and facility response plan requirements, we conducted a regulatory
assessment that determined an acceptable level of benefits would result
from an increase in the equipment caps as a national planning standard.
In addition, the response plan rules charge the Coast Guard with
conducting a review to determine whether an equipment cap increase is
practicable. Our determination of practicability has included an
evaluation of technological, operational, and economic feasibility. Net
environmental benefit studies are better suited for evaluating area
specific response strategies and are beyond the scope of the analysis
needed to evaluate the cap increase as a national planning standard.
One comment stated that the Coast Guard should use the Preparedness
for Response Exercise Program (PREP) as an evaluation tool in assessing
the need for increased equipment caps at local and regional levels
throughout the United States. We disagree. PREP was developed as a
workable, voluntary program that would facilitate the planholders'
compliance with the exercise requirements of OPA 90. PREP was designed
to test preparedness of the Area, vessel, or facility level, but was
not designed to establish regional or national equipment requirements.
While government-led exercises do occasionally test an area contingency
plan's worst case discharge scenario, the resultant tabletop exercise
is not suitable for determining the baseline of equipment that should
be ensured available by all planholders. A PREP exercise cannot test
the adequacy of a national equipment cap in the isolation of a single
simulated response. Nor would a series of such exercises held around
the country be suitable for evaluating the sufficiency of an increased
national planning standard.
[[Page 713]]
High-rate Removal Technology
The Texas General Land Office stated that the addition of high-rate
removal technologies is preferred to an increase in mechanical recovery
systems, indicating that the surplus of mechanical equipment stationed
on the Gulf Coast already exceeds the scheduled increase. We agree that
mechanical stockpiles on the Gulf Coast already exceed the cap
increase. However, the cap increase is necessary to raise the
individual planholder's level of preparedness. The increase will raise
the amount of equipment ensured available by an individual planholder,
but will not necessarily raise the level of overall equipment located
on the Gulf Coast. The Coast Guard acknowledges that high-rate removal
technologies, such as dispersants, are valuable response options that
should complement the existing mechanical recovery capabilities on the
Gulf Coast. We are considering the addition of such technologies to the
response plan requirements in a separate rulemaking.
Many comments suggested that high-rate removal technologies are
more cost-effective and capacity-enhancing than additional mechanical
recovery and advocated the inclusion of these high-rate removal
technologies, rather than the addition of more mechanical recovery.
Other comments suggested that the high-rate removal technologies should
be included, but not at the expense of mechanical recovery
capabilities. We disagree that the scheduled increases in mechanical
recovery should be replaced by requirements for high-rate removal
technologies. Each response technology is unique and the situations
where these technologies provide an environmental benefit may vary
considerably, dependant upon the circumstances of each response. The
Coast Guard determined that high-rate removal technologies should
augment and not necessarily replace required mechanical recovery
capacities. We will consider requirements for high-rate removal
technologies in a separate response cap rulemaking. A credit provision
currently exists within the vessel and facility regulations for
ensuring the availability of a dispersant capability (high-rate removal
technology), which may be applied toward the total required recovery
capacity a planholder must ensure available. Planholders may take
advantage of this existing credit, as appropriate, to meet the
scheduled cap increase. However, planholders should be aware that we
are considering the removal of this credit from the regulations as part
of a separate rulemaking.
Recovery System Components
One comment suggested the caps review should take a ``systems''
approach to evaluating the need for an equipment cap increase. We
agree. The Cap Review, in making its determination of the
practicability of an increase, reviewed each of the components of a
mechanical recovery system, including containment booms, skimming
mechanisms, pumps, storage devices, and oil-water separators. The
review revealed that improvements to the overall technology and
operability of mechanical recovery systems support the practicability
of an equipment increase.
One comment stated that the proposed increases should apply to all
components of a mechanical recovery system, not just boom, skimmers,
and storage devices. We agree. The cap increase as set out in 33 CFR
154.1045(m) and 33 CFR 155.1050(o) specifically addresses the
requirements in 33 CFR part 154, Table 5 of Appendix C and 33 CFR part
155, Table 6 of Appendix B. These tables establish increased amounts
for effective daily recovery capacity (EDRC) that must be ensured
available. While EDRC is used to determine the required number of oil
recovery devices (through calculations outlined in 33 CFR part 154,
paragraph 6 of Appendix C and 33 CFR part 155, paragraph 6 of Appendix
B), the increased EDRC values are also indirectly applied to the
``system'' of resources necessary to sustain those recovery devices.
Title 33 CFR part 154, paragraph 9.2 of Appendix C, and 33 CFR part
155, paragraph 9.2 of Appendix B, both require that temporary storage
for the recovered oil be ensured available in amounts equivalent to
twice that of EDRC. Since the regulations establish a direct proportion
between EDRC and temporary storage, an increase in EDRC requires that
temporary storage amounts also increase by 25 percent. Title 33 CFR
part 154, paragraph 9.1 of Appendix C, and 33 CFR part 155, paragraph
9.1 of Appendix B, also require that sufficient numbers of ancillary
equipment (such as trained personnel, boats, spotting aircraft,
sorbents, booms and other resources as necessary to support the oil
recovery devices employed), are ensured available to achieve the
required EDRC values. While specific amounts of such ancillary
equipment are not required to be listed in the response plans, the
levels of ancillary equipment should increase as necessary to support
the 25 percent increase in EDRC. It is the planholder's responsibility
to ensure and certify that ancillary response resources are available
to support the cap increase. We may amend the OSRO classification
guidelines to include more detailed guidance concerning ancillary
equipment necessary to support the cap increase in an effort to assist
planholders and reviewers.
One comment stated that the cap increase should not be required for
containment boom. We disagree. Title 33 CFR 154.1045(e)(3) and 33 CFR
part 154, paragraph 5.6 of Appendix C (for facilities), and 33 CFR
155.1050(f)(3) and 33 CFR part 155, paragraph 5.6 of Appendix B (for
vessels) indicate that sufficient amounts of containment and collection
boom must be ensured available to recover the required EDRC volumes. If
EDRC values increase as a result of the cap increase, then it is
reasonable to assume that the amounts of containment and collection
boom must increase proportionately. While specific amounts of
containment and collection boom are not required to be listed in the
response plans, the levels of boom ensured available should increase as
necessary to support the increase in EDRC. We may amend the OSRO
classification guidelines to include more detailed guidance concerning
amounts of collection and containment boom necessary to support the cap
increase.
Two comments stated that the cap increase should increase the
amount of shoreline protection boom that must be ensured available. One
comment stated that the cap increases should not apply to shoreline
protection boom requirements. The cap increase, as set out in 33 CFR
154.1045(m) and 33 CFR 155.1050(o), applies specifically to the
equipment requirements contained in 33 CFR part 154, Table 5 of
Appendix C and 33 CFR part 155, Table 6 of Appendix B. Tables 5 and 6
do not contain any requirements to increase shoreline protection boom
amounts. Therefore, the cap increase will not affect the amount of
shoreline protection boom required to be ensured available. The
regulatory requirements for shoreline protection boom will not increase
and will remain as originally outlined in 1993 (see 33 CFR 155.1050(m)
and 33 CFR part 155, Appendix B, Table 2 for vessel response plans, and
by 33 CFR 154.1045(k) and 33 CFR part 154, Appendix C, paragraph 5.6
for facility response plans).
[[Page 714]]
Deployment Ability
One comment stated that the Cap Review should consider the ability
to deploy equipment when determining whether a cap increase is
practicable. We agree. The cap requirements were originally designed in
part to reflect the limitations of a planholder's ability to deploy and
effectively manage equipment during the initial phase of a response.
The Cap Review, in making its determination for practicability,
evaluated the technological and operational feasibility of deploying
increased amounts of equipment. Improvements in equipment technology
and availability, as well as advances in the ability to track, deploy,
and manage resources were all factors that indicate an increase is
practicable.
One comment stated that training and exercising of response
personnel and equipment has improved greatly since 1993 and has
resulted in a far greater capability to operate and deploy such
equipment effectively. We agree that personnel training and response
exercises have improved the ability of today's responders to deploy and
operate response equipment effectively. The improvements to personnel
training and response exercises support the determination that it is
practicable to increase the cap for mechanical recovery systems.
OSRO Classification
One comment stated that the 25 percent cap increase appears
reasonable and should carry over to OSRO classification standards. We
agree and the OSRO guidelines will be adjusted to reflect the increases
in equipment required by the cap increase.
Seven comments stated the Cap Review should focus on the quality of
equipment, rather than increasing the quantity. We agree that quality
is a relevant issue, but one that will be addressed outside of the Cap
Review process. Standards or guidelines that address the quality of
response equipment would be better addressed as revisions to the OSRO
classification guidelines. We will review the OSRO guidelines and
consider the question of equipment quality during that process.
Two comments stated that the Coast Guard must revise the OSRO
classification program before any cap increases are implemented. We
disagree. Potential changes to the OSRO classification program are best
addressed separately from the cap increase. Most OSRO-related issues of
recent concern do not directly involve the cap increase and do not need
to be addressed before the implementation of the increase. The Coast
Guard will be addressing the OSRO-related issues in workshops that are
planned during the next year. The Coast Guard will announce the
schedule and agenda for these workshops in a separate Federal Register
document.
Response Database
One comment suggested that the government should capture
information on personnel, vessels, and response equipment and store
that information in a database that is universally available and
frequently updated. We agree. Currently this information is maintained
in the Response Resource Inventory (RRI). However, it is not
universally available at this time. We are considering methods to
improve or increase public accessibility to this database.
Costs
Two comments stated that the economic costs and benefits of all OPA
90 requirements should be considered when determining whether to
increase the response caps. Four comments stated that a cap increase
must consider the cost and benefits of such an increase, and is not
practicable because the caps will increase costs without providing any
benefits to the preparedness of a planholder to respond. And, an
additional comment stated that OPA 90 prevention measures have lowered
the risk of spills substantially, and the need for a cap increase
should look at current risk rather than pre-OPA 90 risk.
We agree. The Coast Guard has determined that the treatment of
equipment caps increases presented in the regulatory impact analysis
for vessel response plans that was published in January of 1993 is
legally sufficient to support actions enumerated in this notice of
decision. We also agree that consideration of the economic costs and
benefits of all the OPA 90 requirements, and therefore, consideration
of current risk rather than pre-OPA 90 risk, is a valid approach.
Accordingly, a risk analysis based on post-OPA 90 experience will be
completed as part of a new economic analysis. The new economic analysis
will in turn be used as a principal program decision tool for equipment
caps decisions scheduled for the year 2003.
One comment stated that the Cap Review should consider the economic
impacts of additional equipment requirements on OSROs. It stated that
there are fewer OSROs today resulting in a reduction of the number of
qualified and trained personnel available for a major response.
Additional cost burdens on the OSROs may result in OSROs going out of
business. OPA 90 and resulting vessel response plan rules that were
mandated by OPA 90, established a demand for response products and
services as it established a captive market for them. Market-driven
adjustments, such as ``shakeouts'' among providers that result from
cost pressures, are a natural occurrence which we would expect. A
threat to the availability of qualified and trained personnel does not
necessarily follow. The federally established demand remains and prices
are expected to be the incentive that results in a balance with the
supply of qualified and trained personnel available for a major
response.
One comment stated that the cap increase will force OSROs to
purchase new equipment, which will reduce the amount of funds spent on
training and exercises in the future. We disagree. The Cap Review has
found by examination of public comment and independent research that
most OSROs have already purchased the required equipment in
anticipation of the scheduled increase. The majority of OSROs will not
have to purchase new equipment to meet this cap increase. The Coast
Guard has no evidence to suggest that funding normally spent on
personnel training and response exercises will decrease as a result of
equipment purchases driven by this cap increase.
Review Standard for Increase
Two comments stated that the Cap Review must show a scientific and
economic justification for an increase. One comment stated that the Cap
Review must prove that a net environmental benefit would result from an
increase. Section 4202(a) of the OPA 90 states that response plans
shall ensure the availability of private personnel and equipment
necessary to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case
discharge. The Cap Review evaluated the scheduled increase against the
standard of practicability, as required by the statute. This evaluation
included an assessment of the technological, operational, and economic
feasibility, and found the increase to be practicable.
Public Resources
One comment stated that the equipment ensured available by industry
should not increase, but should be augmented with public resources in
order to meet the demands of a worst case discharge. We disagree.
Section 4202(a) of OPA 90 states that response
[[Page 715]]
plans must ensure, by contract or other means approved by the
President, the availability of private personnel and equipment
necessary to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case
discharge. OPA 90 clearly states that the capability to respond to a
worst case discharge should be provided by the private sector, to the
maximum extent practicable. The Cap Review evaluated the scheduled
increase against the standard of practicability and found that it is
practicable for the private sector to provide the increase.
Discussion of Decision
In accordance with 33 CFR 154.1045(n) and 155.1050(p), we have
completed our review of the 25 percent cap increase for on-water
mechanical recovery capacity, and have determined that the increase, as
originally scheduled for February 18, 1998, is practicable. This notice
announces the results of the Cap Review and sets an implementation date
for the scheduled increase listed in Table 1. The increase was
originally scheduled for vessel response plans in 33 CFR part 155,
Appendix B, Table 6, and for facility response plans in 33 CFR part
154, Appendix C, Table 5, to take effect on February 18, 1998.
Table 1.--1993 and Scheduled Increases to Capability Limits on Mechanical Recovery Equipment for Vessels and Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 Caps (BPD) Scheduled Increase (BPD)
Geographic area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier I Tier II Tier III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All except rivers and canals and Great Lakes............ 10,000 20,000 40,000 12,500 25,000 50,000
Great Lakes............................................. 5,000 10,000 20,000 6,250 12,500 25,000
Rivers and canals....................................... 1,500 3,000 6,000 1,875 3,750 7,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: BPD, barrels per day. Table 1 corrects previously published typographical errors in Great Lakes Tier I and Tier II increases.
A team of policy and technical professionals prepared the Cap
Review for the Coast Guard. This team had extensive experience in oil
spill preparedness and response, USCG policy and regulatory
development, and technical, operational, and policy considerations
affecting mechanical recovery, dispersant, and in situ burn equipment
and its use. The team examined peer-reviewed, scientific, and technical
papers as well as government documents, including Federal Register
documents, government reports, the USCG spill database (Marine Safety
Information System (MSIS)), and comments to the docket regarding the
proposed cap increase.
This Cap Review focused on the open-water removal of Groups I
through IV oils as defined in 33 CFR 155.1020. Although the recovery of
Group V oils has become a topic of interest in recent years, the
recovery techniques and equipment for these oils are not well
developed, and equipment caps have not been established for such oils
under the current regulations (per 33 CFR 154.1047 and 33 CFR
155.1052).
In order to assess the practicability of the scheduled 25 percent
increase in mechanical recovery equipment, the review evaluated the
planholders' current capability to implement the oil recovery process
as compared with that which existed in 1993. In doing so throughout the
United States for each generic operating environment (oceans, inland,
Great Lakes, rivers, and canals), primarily three important elements
were considered: technological capability, commercial or market
availability, and the availability of existing equipment stocks to
respond within the prescribed time limitations (Tiers I, II, and III
response times).
Technological capability was assessed by reviewing advances in
systems and equipment design, which have occurred over the past 5
years. This assessment evaluated improvements in oil spill tracking
systems, booms and skimming devices, oil/water separation and emulsion-
breaking systems, and modular, easily transported, temporary storage
devices. The original caps were limited, in part, due to the
difficulties in effectively tracking multiple response operations
simultaneously. Visual observation by aircraft and the use of remote
sensing systems enhance oil recovery by allowing more precise direction
of oil removal response resources to the thickest portions of the
spilled oil. Advances in aerial surveillance and other oil tracking
systems have improved and, when used in conjunction with improved
command and control systems, support the deployment of increased levels
of response equipment effectively. Improvements in command and control,
such as the increased use of an incident command system (ICS), and the
establishment of a network of qualified individuals (QIs), and spill
management teams (SMTs) also support the effective deployment and
tracking of a greater number of response resources during the initial
phases of a spill than was possible in 1993.
Conventional on-water mechanical recovery equipment, however, has
not improved significantly since 1993 in terms of design efficiency or
effectiveness. While improved storage units are more readily available
to support skimming units, actual recovery rates are still limited by
skimmer mechanics and pump rates. Therefore, the increases in daily
recovery capacity require that additional recovery equipment is ensured
available. As the efficiency of most skimming devices has not improved
significantly, increases in recovery capacity continue to require an
additional increase in storage at the existing storage to EDRC ratio of
two to one (2:1). While there has been some improvement in oil/water
separation systems, this type of technology has not been widely
procured and is not generally available in most recovery systems. In
situations where large recovery units, such as large seagoing oil spill
response vessels (OSRVs), have demonstrated that installed separation
systems have improved their ability to store and recover oil,
allowances have been granted through the OSRO classification program.
Situations such as these, however, do not support a generic credit or
offset for separator systems with respect EDRC or storage requirements.
Commercial or market availability was assessed by reviewing
equipment currently on the market in terms of representative models and
their intended applications as compared with that which was available 5
years ago. The primary references for this assessment were the fourth
and sixth editions of the World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products
(Schulze, 1993, 1997). The assessment revealed that the number of
models available for each of the components of an on-water recovery
system has increased. Equipment is
[[Page 716]]
widely available for purchase, and a healthy level of competition
exists among manufacturers capable of maintaining a current and
adequate stock of response equipment at increased levels. The overall
availability of new oil spill response equipment in the commercial
market has improved since 1993.
The availability of existing equipment stocks for deployment to
spills was assessed by reviewing nationwide inventories of major items
such as booms, skimmers, skimming vessels, and temporary storage
devices. Primary data was compiled using the Coast Guard National
Strike Force Coordination Center's (NSFCC) Response Resource Inventory
(RRI). The resulting equipment distribution and the daily recovery
capacity it represented were examined for each geographic region and
operating environment. The comparison of the scheduled cap increase
with the existing equipment stocks available to planholders clearly
indicated that planning for a response is not equipment limited. The
scheduled 25 percent cap increase can easily be accommodated with the
existing stocks of equipment available to planholders for each
geographical region and operating environment.
The assessments of technological capability, market availability,
and regional availability of existing stocks, support the determination
that the scheduled increase in caps is practicable. For a more detailed
explanation of these findings, the Cap Review can be viewed on the
Internet at the sites listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Other removal technologies. The Cap Review also evaluated the
following topics:
a. Additional proposed increases for on-water mechanical removal
capacity in 2003.
b. Advances in oil tracking technology.
c. Improvements in high-rate removal technologies such as
dispersants or in situ burning.
The conclusions and recommendations of the Cap Review concerning
these topics are contained within the Response Plan Equipment Cap
Review document. This notice does not address these topics and makes no
changes to existing regulations or policy. However, we intend to
address any additional cap increases for mechanical recovery or other
removal technologies in a subsequent rulemaking. The Cap Review
recommendations regarding these other removal technologies should be
viewed as information only. We will consider them along with previously
received public comments when formulating any subsequent rulemakings.
Dated: December 28, 1999.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 00-31 Filed 1-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U