153 



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday. March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 17333 



PrvmuaPUn 



Revised Plan 



Renuxq tt)m aajrm. 



NRT runctXMwara n 

 f 1510J2.* (Annex it— 

 Fomuts For Re^onaJ and 

 Ux* Connngencv Plaim) 



NRC ruKOon* V* n 

 j 1510.33. lAiVWK III— 

 R«9ara md Offlc* 

 Locaoons of Agancasa.) 



Ofnc« locatlona ara m Annas 

 III (Annas IV— l.egaf 

 Aumonliea.) 



Ra(X>naar»«i»l5lO.S«.' 

 (Amax V— CanwT«jnK:allon 

 Sanncaa Avwlaua.) 

 Annas VI (PubSc Infwin all un)- P\ttc tntamuoon « n 



9 1510J7:' (Annas VI— 

 Sans3fa CoMacoon 

 PfOcadunM lo aa fwlowwd 

 byOSCa.) 

 Amas Vn (Laq^ Aultiontlaa^- LagaJ Aumonflaa ara ai Annn 



Annas XlSctiadiiaiX 

 Oiamcata «id AddWvaa 

 For narmval C OH and 

 Hazardoua Subatancaa^ 



'. (Annas VII — Tacnncal 

 Usiry.l 



Racovarv ara n 9 1510.5& 

 CAnnas VIII— Oafinilkst 04 

 Tacftscat Tonm.) 

 . Fundlnglain91»10.ES. 

 Annas IX (blank). 



Annas Ml (Uanli) — 

 Annas XIII (bUnal - 



tnnaot XV (Taamcal Unrv 

 TanW. 



Tactsical Ubnry la In Amas 

 vlh. Deflndon-ol Tacundl 

 Tarms la In Annoi VHL 



C Background 



The Plan was Srst published as an 

 interagency agreement in 1968. It 

 became part d£ the Code of Federal 

 Regulations in 1970 in accordance with 

 the Water Quality Improvement Act of 

 1970. Section 311(c)(2) of the Clean 

 Water Act gives the President the 

 responsibility for issiung the Plan. By 

 Executive Order 11735 (August 1973), 

 this responsibility was delegated to the 

 Council on Environmental Quality 

 (CEQ). In 1973 the Plan was published in 

 its ciirrept format The version that is 

 being revised by these final regulations 

 was publish in 1975 with some minor 

 changes incorporated in 1976. 



A number of events over the past two 

 years have identified opportunities for 

 improving the Plan. In late December 

 1978, the Argo Merchant ran aground on 

 Nantucket Shoals. 27 miles from 

 Nantucket Island. Massachusetts. The 

 resulting spill of 7.5 million gallons of oil 

 led to a massive spill response action 

 under the National Coctingency Plan. 

 Although the weather conditions 

 exceeded technological capabilities for 

 recovery of the oil, those same 

 conditions meant that no oil reached the 

 Massachusetts shoreline. In April 1978, 

 Massachusetts submitted a Petition for 

 Rulemaking to revise the Plan, asking for 

 specific changes. In addition, a spill of 



250.000 gallons earlier in the year 

 resulted in massive shoreline damage on 

 the Chesapeake Bay as 27 miles of 

 coastline were contaminated by the oil. 



On June 3, 1979 the worst oil spill in 

 history began with the blow-out of 

 IXTOC No. 1, a well being drilled in the ' 

 Bay of Campeche by PEMEX. Mexico's 

 national oil company. Estimates of the 

 oil spilled ranged from 10.000 to 30.000 

 barrels per day. Efforts to plug the well 

 were unsuccessful and drilling of two 

 relief wells began. By late July, 1979 

 cleanup efforts were only partially 

 successful at best despite the efforts of 

 Mexican authorities, the U.S. Coast 

 Guard's Open Water Containment 

 Recovery System and cleanup firms 

 from aroimd the world. Towards the end 

 of the simmier of 1979 huge oil slicks 

 moved north and threatened the Texas 

 coast The U.S. Coast Guard and Texas 

 authorities prepared to try to protect the 

 highly productive estuaries behind the 

 string of barrier islands on the south 

 Texas coast and to mitigate damage to 

 beaches and the tourist industry. Oil 

 &om the spill ultimately reached the 

 south Texas coastline affecting a large 

 geographical area and a multitude of 

 local and regional interests. Response 

 efforts however were moderately 

 successful in mitigating damage. 



As a resultotsuch incidents and 

 continuing l^uted States dependency on 

 oil imported by tanker, attention from 

 various levels of government has been 

 continually focused on the response 

 capabilities of the federal government 



Congressional subcommittees have 

 investigated both the response to 

 specific inddenti and the general 

 federal scheme for coordinated action. 

 In response to these events and as part 

 of its responsibility to recommend 

 changes, proposed revisions have been 

 submitted to CEQ by the national 

 Response Team, the national group of 

 federal agencies responsible for 

 planning and coordination under this 

 Plan. 



Some problems were also addressed 

 in the Clean Water Act amendments of 

 1977 (Pub. L. No. 95-217 amending 33 

 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) which changed the 

 Jurisdiction of the Plan. The revision of 

 the Plan reflects these statutory 

 changes. 



The revised Plan also addresses other 

 problems noted in the course of 

 response actions. In October 1977, CEQ 

 requested information from the States 

 on problems they had encountered in 

 activities under the Plan. Twenty-seven 

 states responded, generally expressing 

 satisfaction with the Plan but offering 

 suggestions for improvements. 



The Council published proposed 

 revisions to the National Contingency 



Plan on May 14, 1979 (44 FR 28190) with 

 60 days for public review and comment 

 This comment period was extended 

 upon request until September 1. 1979. 

 The Council received comments from 

 the oil industry, independent waterways 

 operators, state, regional, and local 

 governments and miscellaneous 

 interested parties, totalling 29 written 

 comments. In addition the regional 

 offices of the principal federal agencies 

 provided a number of technical 

 comments. 



The Council's staff read and analyzed 

 each of the comments received and 

 developed recommendations were then 

 presented to the National Response 

 Team for further evaluation and 

 recommendations. Finally comments 

 raising significant issues together with 

 staff and National Response Team 

 recommendations for appropriate 

 changes were presented to the Council 

 for resolution. 



When, after discussions and review 

 the Council determined that the 

 comments raised valid concerns, the 

 Plan regulations were modified to reflect 

 those concerns. When the Council 

 determined that reasons supporting the 

 Plan provisions were stronger than 

 those for changing them, the Plan 

 provisions were left unchanged. Part D 

 of the Preamble describes the more 

 significant comments received and how 

 the Council responded to them. 



D. Comments and the Council's 

 Responsfl 



Comments on Section 1510.5— 

 Definitions ' 



One comment objected to the 

 definition of "oil" in S 1510.5, to the 

 extent it includes oil in combination 

 with other substances, as being too 

 vague and imprecise. The Council 

 however determined not to change the 

 definition as it repeats verbatim the 

 definition of "oil'" in 5 311(a)(1) of the 

 Clean Water Act 



Several comments were critical of 

 § 1510.5(r)(l)'s definition of a minor 

 discharge of a hazardous substance as 

 "a quantity less than that defined as 

 reportable by regulation (40 CFR Part 

 117J." The comments expressed concern 

 that this definition was inconsistent 

 with EFA's hazardous spills regulations 

 where the enumerated substances are 

 considered hazardous if a quantity equal 

 to or greater than the "reportable 

 quantity" is spilled. The purpose of the 

 Plan is to provide for removal of oil and 

 hazardous substances even in cases 

 where no liability attaches to the 

 discharger. There are many instances 

 where the quantity of hazardous 

 substances spilled cannot be accurately 



