155 



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 17835 



Comments on Section 1510.37— Public 

 Information Network 



Several comments expressed concern 

 that proposed 5 1510.37(b) establishes a 

 regional news o£Ece as the "single 

 source of official infonnation on the 

 incident", to the detriment of the public 

 interest in obtaining infonnation from 

 public agencies and private interests. 

 Section 1510.37 has been substantially 

 rewritten, and eliminates the regional 

 news office as the single source of 

 official federal information. As rewritten 

 S 1510.37 provides for coordination of 

 news releases through the OSC through 

 an on-scene news office or a national 

 news office. Participating federal 

 agencies are given a larger role in the 

 public information network. At the same 

 time, information from private interests 

 on a pollution incident remains 

 unaffected by § 1510.37 or any other 

 provision in the Plan, because the Plan 

 cannot regulate the manner or content of 

 informatian on a pollution incident 

 provided by private interests. To 

 provide for greater coordination with 

 local government a new sentence is 

 added to § 1510.37(a)(1): [When a major 

 pollution incident occurs] "Those 

 immediately capable, especially local . 

 fire, police and government officials, 

 will be contacted first so that they may 

 use all available resources to notify the 

 public of a potential threat" 



Comments on Section 1510.42— Local 

 Contingency Plans 



One comment recommended that 

 local contingency plans also include 

 development of methods for protecting 

 environmentally sensitive areas. This is 

 addressed in § 1510.42(a) (plana of 

 action for protecting vulnerable . 

 resources). 



Comments on Section 1510.43— National 

 Inventory System 



One comment suggested that standard 

 indemnification agreements be entered 

 into between the Federal government 

 and private parties whose cleanup 

 equipment is listed in the inventory such 

 that owners will be indemnified for any 

 damage that may occur when the 

 equipment is used at the direction of the 

 On-Scene Coordinator. The NRT 

 recommended that indemnification for 

 damaged private equipment need not be 

 addressed in the Plan because private 

 equipment used by the OSC is obtained 

 through rental or other contractual 

 agreements which contain adequate 

 indemnification provisions. The Council 

 therefore deferred to the expertise of the 

 NRT on this issue. 



Comments on Section 1510.53— General 

 Pattern of Response Actions 



One comment objected to the 

 sentence in 9 lS10.63(a)(3)(i) which 

 provides "The discharger's removal 

 efforts are 'improper' to the extent that 

 Federal efforts are necessary to prevent 

 further damage." The comment 

 expressed concern that this language 

 prevents or discourages a discharger 

 from seeking Federal removal assistance 

 where Federal assistance would speed 

 the discharger's otherwise "proper" 

 removal actions. The comment 

 misconstrues J 1510.83(a)(3)(i). That 

 section does not mean that otherwise 

 "proper" removel actions by the 

 discharged are rendered improper 

 simply because the discharger seeks 

 Federal assistance. 



Comments on Section 1510.64— Special 

 Forces 



Several comments were received 

 concerning this section. The State of 

 Washington felt that this section 

 duplicated and conflicted with its own 

 oil and hazardous spills contingency 

 plan provisions governing marine 

 resources damage assessment Section 

 1510.64 has been substantially revised 

 . based on NRT recommendations and the 

 comments received. With respectto the 

 State of Washington's comment 

 S 1510.64(c)(2)(i)(aa) makes it clear that 

 well developed state scientific support 

 organizations like Washington's should 

 be employed to support the OSC 

 Section 1510.64 is not to be construed as 

 requiring the development of duplicatory 

 federal scientific support coordinators 

 where an effective state scientific 

 support organization can be utilized to 

 support the OSC as coordinated by the 

 state representative on the Regional 

 . Response Team. 



One conmienter recommended 

 changing the tide of Scientific Support 

 Coordinator to Scientific Support 

 Advisor. However the NRT believes that 

 Scientific Support Coordinator more 

 accurately reflects the role of the 

 scientific support organization which 

 bivolves advice to the OSC and RRT but 

 is primarily a coordination role. For this 

 reason the tide was not changed. 



Another comment recommended that 

 the discharger be advised of the scope 

 of studies to be undertaken by the 

 scientific support organization and be 

 offered an opportunity to comment on 

 its potential liability. The Plan 

 recognizes, as the comment points out 

 that the line between damage 

 assessment studies (where there may be 

 liability) and pure research (where there 

 is no liability) is difficult to draw. 

 However this problem is addressed in 



revised 55 1510.65 (b) and (c) which 

 make it clear that the OSC is to exercise 

 sufficient control over removal 

 operations (including damage 

 assessment) to be able to certify that 

 reimbursement is appropriate. 



Concern has also expressed that 

 proposed 5 1510.64(c)(1) "would 

 seemingly exclude contractual 

 agreements with commercial 

 environmental firms" to provide 

 scientific assistance and damage 

 assessment for the OSC. This was not 

 die intent and 5 1510.64(c)(2)(i)(aa), as 

 rewritten, expressly includes industry. 



Comments on Section 1510.65 — Funding 



Several comments were received 

 critical of the proposed language in 

 § 1510.65(c). The concern expressed by 

 these comments was that the proposed 

 language implied that the OSC would 

 not be requesting services and resources 

 where essential to an eitective Federal 

 response. The Council agrees that the 

 indicated language m proposed 

 § 1510.65(c) was inappropriate. 

 Therefore the last tlu^e sentences ia 

 proposed- 5 1510.65(c) were removed and 

 conforming changes were made to the 

 last sentences in 5 1510.65(b) and 

 1510.85(c). 



Other Comments 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

 urged that the Plan provide for the 

 financial capability of the participating 

 agencies in carrying out the Plan, 

 through an annual assessment of funds 

 available to each agency. The Plan is 

 not authorized to require annual 

 assessments. In response to this 

 Comment however, 5 1510.65 relating to 

 funding has been changed to clarify 

 eacir agency's funding authority and 

 responsibility. Massachusetts also 

 indicated that proposed 5 lS10.64(c) 

 providing for scientific support 

 coordinators from both EPA and NOAA 

 was a costly redimdancy. Section 

 1510.64(c) has been moc^fied but still 

 preserves die SSC role for EPA in inland 

 waters and for NOAA in coastal waters 

 because the NRT determined this 

 allocation of agency expertise would be 

 the most effective. 



The New England Congressional 

 Caucus recommended provision in the 

 Plan for requiring spill cleanup 

 equipment to be stationed near areas of 

 probable spills. The NRT recommended 

 that rather than stationing equipment 

 the most efficient approach is to 

 maintain an up-to-date national 

 inventory and to provide in local 

 contingency plans for the identification 

 of types and locations of clean-up 

 equipment and resources. The Council 

 adopted the NRT recommendation. The 



