How does PHMSA differ in scenario planning from the EPA and the USCG? – OPA90

As I have written about numerous times, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) all fall under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). While they share many of the same requirements, each has its own unique planning requirements based on the types of assets they regulate.

One area where companies often become confused is in developing the planning scenarios—especially when assets fall under two or more of these agencies and the requirements are integrated into an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP).

The EPA and USCG are very similar in this area. Although their terminology differs slightly, the intent is essentially the same. Operators must develop scenarios for small, medium, and worst-case discharges. The USCG refers to these as average most probable discharge, maximum most probable discharge, and worst-case discharge. The PHMSA, however, approaches these scenarios differently.

Under the PHMSA, there are also three types of discharges, but they are not categorized as small, medium, and worst-case. Instead, the PHMSA requires scenarios for the largest breakout tank potential, the largest pipeline potential, and the pipeline system’s largest historical discharge (if any). These must be addressed by volume, or if not applicable, clearly stated as such in the response plan. Under the EPA and USCG, all three scenarios must be addressed—there is no “not applicable” option.

The EPA’s requirements are generally straightforward. In most cases, the worst-case scenario involves the largest tank. The small and medium scenarios vary depending on the operator’s assessment of the most plausible situations that meet defined planning thresholds. The USCG process is even more formulaic: operators calculate for a pipeline failure, and the small and medium scenarios are derived as discounted percentages based on regulatory criteria.

Most often, companies develop ICPs that address both PHMSA and EPA-regulated assets. As with other agency-specific requirements, it is essential that the ICP addresses each agency’s unique planning elements explicitly.

Getting this right is critical, as the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP)—the widely used exercise and training framework for all OPA90 plans—has agency-specific requirements. The PREP guidelines are color-coded to identify which sections apply to each agency.

If you’re interested in learning more about how to develop planning scenarios and understand the agency-specific formulas, let me know. I’ve written a series of detailed articles on this topic that explain each element thoroughly and provide the tools needed to successfully develop a compliant and effective response plan.

Author:
John K. Carroll III
Managing Director – Compliance Services
Witt O’Brien’s part of Ambipar
(c) 954-625-9373
(e) jcarroll@wittobriens.com