12 FRP violations EPA inspectors will not ignore

1. The name of the protected waterway or environmentally sensitive area is omitted from the plan.
2. The number of underground storage tanks (USTs), UST oil storage, or drums/small container storage is omitted from the plan.
3. The facility’s status with respect to the significant and substantial harm criteria is not stated.
4. The Worksheet for Plan Volume of Response Resources for Worst Case Discharge is not completed.
5. Cross references to regulatory citations and a table of contents are either lacking or not present.
6. The Emergency Response Action Plan (ERAP) is not provided as a separate section in the front of the FRP or as a separate document accompanying the plan.
7. The Qualified Individual’s (QI) response training is not described.
8. Notification list items are missing or incorrect, including but not limited to:
1. Wastewater treatment facility(s) name and phone number (recommended but not required)
2. Factories and/or utilities with water intakes
3. Trustees of sensitive areas (recommended but not required)
4. Current applicable U.S.  EPA Region duty officer phone number
9. The facility does not have or the plan does not document that the facility has at least 1000 feet of boom available that can be deployed within 1 hour.
10. A list of response contractors has not been included within the plan.
11. A list of response equipment to be provided by an OSRO is not stated within the plan.
12. A response equipment testing and deployment drill log is inadequate or is incomplete.

Smith also emphasized the importance of plan review, updates, and if necessary, submission of revised portions of the plan. FRPs must be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect changes at the facility. Plans must be resubmitted within 60 days of each change that may materially affect the response to a worst case discharge. These changes include:

• A change in the facility’s configuration that materially alters information in the response plan;
• A change in the type of oil handled, stored, or transferred;
• A material change in capabilities of any oil spill removal organizationthat provides equipment and personnel to respond to oil discharges from the facility; or
• A material change in the facility’s discharge prevention and response equipment or emergency response procedures.

Smith stated that even a change in a telephone number can be material, as it could affect how an organization can respond during a discharge event. Smith’s rule of thumb for determining if a change is one that “materially affects a facility” and therefore requires submission to the EPA? He simply stated, “If it’s important to you, it’s important to us.”

 

---

Amanda Czepiel, J.D., is a Legal Editor for BLR’s environmental law publications. Ms. Czepiel has over 8 years of experience as an attorney and writer in the field of environmental compliance resources and has published numerous articles on a variety of environmental law topics, including wastewater and NPDES permitting, brownfields and contaminated sites remediation, oil spill prevention, wetlands, and corporate sustainability. Before starting her career in publishing, Ms. Czepiel worked in hospitality consulting and for various non-profit organizations and government agencies in the environmental field. Ms. Czepiel received her law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law.