[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4532-4534]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01515]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0226]

Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill Facility Response Plans

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Conforming Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to Appendix A to
Part 194--``Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans'' and
Identifying Deficiencies.
SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all onshore
oil pipeline operators of the circumstances of the Marshall, Michigan,
pipeline accident and the need to update FRPs every five years from the
date of last submission or the last approval according to its
significant and substantial designation. Plans must also be updated
whenever new or different operating conditions would affect the
implementation of a response plan. (See 49 CFR 194.121.) When updating
their FRPs, operators should utilize Appendix A Part 194--Guidelines
for the Preparation of Response Plans and submit them electronically to
PHMSA.
    This bulletin also notifies that FRPs found to meet the
requirements of PHMSA's regulations at Part 194 will be posted on
PHMSA's Web site for public viewing. Prior to posting, PHMSA will
redact certain information, such as personally identifiable information
and certain security related information, in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and any other applicable Federal law. This
document also alerts operators and their plan submitters to common
errors in plans that require amendment prior to PHMSA's issuance of
approval. Finally, onshore oil pipeline operators are encouraged to
consider replacing incorporations by reference in their FRPs with a
summary of referenced material or a copy of the full document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Pryor by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information about PHMSA may be
found at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m. eastern daylight time, a
segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by
Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge), ruptured in a wetland in Marshall,
Michigan. The rupture was not discovered or addressed for over 17
hours. During the time lapse, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81
percent of the total release) into Line 6B during two startups; the
total release was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil
saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek
and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their
homes, and serious environmental damage has required long-term
remediation. About 320 people reported symptoms consistent with crude
oil exposure. No fatalities were reported. Cleanup and remediation
continues, and costs have exceeded $1 billion.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the
probable cause of the pipeline rupture was stress corrosion cracking
that grew and coalesced from crack and corrosion defects under
disbonded polyethylene tape coating. The rupture and prolonged release
were caused by pervasive organizational failures at Enbridge that
included: (1) Deficient integrity management procedures, which allowed
well-documented crack defects in corroded areas to propagate until the
pipeline failed; (2) inadequate training of control center personnel,
which resulted in Enbridge's failure to recognize the rupture for 17
hours and through two re-starts of the pipeline; and (3) insufficient
public awareness and education, which allowed the release to continue
for nearly 14 hours after the first notification of an odor to local
emergency response agencies.
    Furthermore, the NTSB found that a failure to identify and ensure
the availability of well-trained emergency responders with sufficient
response resources, a lack of regulatory guidance for pipeline facility
response planning, and limited oversight of pipeline emergency
preparedness led to a deficient FRP that contributed to the severity of
the environmental damage and long term consequences.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2014-01)

    To: Owners and Operators of Onshore Oil Pipeline Systems.
    Subject: Conforming Facility Response Plans to Appendix A to Part
194--``Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans'' and
Identifying Deficiencies.
    Advisory: PHMSA's regulations for FRPs, under Sec.  194.115(a),
state that ``each operator shall identify and ensure, by contract or
other approved means, the resources necessary to remove, to the maximum
extent practicable, a worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent a
substantial threat of a worst case discharge.'' Section 194.115(b) goes
on to state that ``an operator shall identify in the response plan the
response resources which are available to respond within the time
specified, after discovery of a worst case discharge, or to mitigate
the substantial threat of such a discharge.''
    The NTSB noted that, because the pipeline safety regulations do not
explicitly mandate the amount of resources or recovery capacity
required for a worst-case discharge, Enbridge misinterpreted and
miscalculated the amount of oil response resources required by Sec.
194.115, resulting in a lack of adequate oil spill recovery equipment
and resources during the initial response. The NTSB also explained that
although Part 194 Appendix A recommends using the United States Coast
Guard (USCG) regulations for preparation of FRPs, there was no
indication that Enbridge utilized the USCG regulations in the
preparation of its FRP.
    Section 194.115(a) requires operators to identify in their FRP the
resources that are available to respond to a release. PHMSA points
operators to Appendix C to 33 CFR part 154 Section 7, ``Calculating the
Worst Case Discharge Planning Volumes'' as the best reference for
planning for and ensuring proper response capability. Appendix A of
Part 194--``Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans''
recommends that operators use the USCG regulations for preparation of
response plans. To help comply with the identification and assurance of
adequate response resources, as noted in the preamble to the Final Rule
``Pipeline Safety: Response Plans for Onshore Transportation-Related
Oil Pipelines,'' PHMSA ``encourages operators to use USCG-classified
oil spill response organizations (OSRO).'' An operator contracting with
USCG-classified OSROs for response to a worst case discharge will not
have to describe the response resources or the response equipment
maintenance program of the USCG-classified OSROs. The operator must
consider the time required for the USCG-classified OSRO to respond to
the spill from wherever the contractor is based to the high volume area
and all other areas.
    For operators that contract with non-USCG-classified OSRO's, PHMSA
uses the USCG guidelines at 33 CFR part 154, Appendix C, along with the
USCG planning volume worksheet when it reviews FRPs to confirm
sufficiency of response resources and compliance with Part 194.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The USCG Planning Volume Worksheet is available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 194.115(b) lists the maximum times allowed for response
resources and personnel to arrive at the scene of a rupture. The
increments of time are dependent on whether the spill occurs in a high
volume area. The NTSB noted that Enbridge's plan erroneously indicated
that tiers refer to the size of a spill. Operators are reminded that
``high

volume area'' is defined in Sec.  194.5. The response times that appear
in the table at Sec.  194.115(b) correspond with the tiers established
by the USCG for a worst-case discharge in the USCG guidance referenced
in Appendix A to Part 194.
    As stated in a prior advisory bulletin ADB-2010-05 published in the
Federal Register on June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36773) operators should review
and update their oil spill response plans and contracts to ensure the
availability of necessary response resources to a worst case discharge
from their pipeline facilities even in the event that more than one
significant incident were to occur simultaneously. The NTSB found that
during the Marshall, MI, incident, Enbridge's OSROs failed to
adequately respond because many of the initial response resources
identified in the Enbridge's FRP took over 10 hours to arrive and be
deployed at the spill site. Using a USCG-classified OSRO to account for
response resources can help to reduce equipment information in an FRP
and can help PHMSA confirm response capability in terms of resources.
Nonetheless, it is the operator's responsibility to ensure that any
OSROs listed can respond to the scene of an incident with the
appropriate amount of resources and within the times provided in the
tiers at Sec.  194.115(b).
    Additionally, to assist PHMSA in the timely processing and review
of FRPs, onshore pipeline operators are encouraged to submit electronic
copies of their response plans. PHMSA prefers electronic copies of
plans in Portable Document Format over hard copies of plans. Electronic
copies can be sent via commercial courier on disc or flash drive to the
Office of Pipeline Safety at PHMSA Headquarters' address below:
    Office of Pipeline Safety (Attn: Response Plan Review), Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHP-5, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Alternatively, electronic files less than 5 MB can be sent to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    PHMSA also wishes to point out errors that commonly result in the
rejection of plans in order to facilitate plan preparation and review.
These errors include: (1) Missing, incorrect or incomplete methodology
and calculations used to determine a Worst Case Discharge (WCD) that
compares the volumes of WCDs from the pipeline, breakout tanks, and
maximum historical discharge to include, if necessary, an affirmation
that any of these elements are not applicable to the calculation; (2)
failure to identify response resources that are available to respond to
an incident scene; (3) failure to identify specific environmentally and
economically sensitive areas applicable to the pipeline area of
operation; (4) missing provisions to ensure responders are safe at a
response site; and (5) omission of the name or title and 24-hour
telephone number of an operator's ``Qualified Individual'' and at least
one alternate. Deficiencies in any of these areas will require
correction before PHMSA can approve a plan. FRPs found to meet the
requirements of PHMSA's regulations found at Part 194 will be approved
and redacted in accordance with FOIA and any other applicable Federal
law and posted on PHMSA's Web site for public viewing. PHMSA posts
these plans to help Federal, state and local officials strengthen and
coordinate planning and prevention activities.
    Finally, PHMSA advises operators that while it is permitted to
incorporate material into an FRP by reference, this practice may
inhibit regulators' and incident responders' access to and
understanding of an FRP during response to oil spill incidents and
emergencies. For example, when responding to a spill, responders and
regulators need access to operations, maintenance, and emergency
manuals. It is important that all of the potential users of an FRP have
immediate access to all relevant information and procedures.
    Therefore, operators should review their FRPs and carefully
consider each incorporated document and determine whether full copies
or summaries of documents should replace the references. PHMSA suggests
operators include the relevant portion of any externally referenced
procedural manual that is required in the FRP, by provisions of 49 CFR
part 194. This practice will also allow PHMSA to more effectively
determine that the operator's FRP procedures are consistent with Part
194 requirements.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. chapter 601: 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2014.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-01515 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11618-11619]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03608]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0888; FRL-9780-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Tennessee:
Revisions to Volatile Organic Compound Definition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve changes to the Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Tennessee, through
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation on September
3, 1999. Tennessee's September 3, 1999, SIP revision adds 17 compounds
to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of ``Volatile
Organic Compound''. EPA is approving this SIP revision because the
State has demonstrated that it is consistent with the Clean Air Act.
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's implementation plan revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at
this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0888, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0888,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the

Rules Section of this Federal Register. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-03608 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34366-34367]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13583]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-020.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing to be effective 4/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-88-002.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Alcoa Power Generating Inc., on behalf of Yadkin
Division, submits compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 5/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130522-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-618-001.
    Applicants: Westwood Generation, LLC.
    Description: Change in Status to be effective 5/23/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1544-000.
    Applicants: AES ES Tait, LLC.
    Description: AES ES Tait Notice of Succession to be effective 4/16/
2013.

    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1545-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position X1-109--Original Service
Agreement No. 3559 to be effective 4/23/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES13-20-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to April 16, 2103 Application of Southwest
Power Pool, Inc. for an Order Authorizing the Issuance of Securities.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH13-16-000.
    Applicants: DTE Energy Company.
    Description: DTE Energy Company submits FERC-65-B Waiver
Notification and FERC-65 Notification of Holding Company Status.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13583 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P