{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, 2000 Agreement Between DOT and EPA to Clarify Jurisdictional Issues","title":"2000 Agreement Between DOT and EPA to Clarify Jurisdictional Issues","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"2000 Agreement Between DOT and EPA to Clarify Jurisdictional Issues Document 2000_DOT_EPA.pdf (619.17 KB) To clarify jurisdictional issues and establish mutual goals for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of Transportation. Effective Date: Friday, February 4, 2000","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-2000-agreement-between-dot-and-epa-clarify-jurisdictional-issues-b47e559e.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-2000-agreement-between-dot-and-epa-clarify-jurisdictional-issues-b47e559e.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-2000-agreement-between-dot-and-epa-clarify-jurisdictional-issues-b47e559e","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/2000-agreement-between-dot-and-epa-clarify-jurisdictional-issues","body":"2000 Agreement Between DOT and EPA to Clarify Jurisdictional Issues\n\nDocument\n\n 2000_DOT_EPA.pdf (619.17 KB)\n\n        To clarify jurisdictional issues and establish mutual goals for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of Transportation.\n\n          Effective Date: Friday, February 4, 2000\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nU.S. Environmental\nProtection Agency\nResearch &\nFEB - 4 2000\nOffice Solid Waste &\nEmergency Response\n400 Seventh Street S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nWashington, DC 20460\n401 M Street, SW, 5201G\nReads bol\nFrom:\nRichard B. Felder, Associate Admi\nUnited States Department of Transportation\nStph\nStates Environmental Protection Agency\nTo:\nDepartment of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety Regional Directors\nDirector, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration EPA Region I\nDirector, Emergency and Remedial Response Division EPA Region II\nDirectors, Hazardous Waste Management Division EPA Regions\nIll and IX\nDirector, Waste Management Division EPA Regions IV, VIII\nDirectors, Superfund Division EPA Regions V, VI, VII\nDirector, Environmental Cleanup Office EPA Region X\nSubject:\nJurisdiction over Breakout Tanks/Bulk Oil Storage Tanks (Containers) at\nTransportation-Related and Non-Transportation-Related Facilities\nI. Purpose\nThe purpose of this agreement is to clarify jurisdictional issues and establish mutual goals\nfor the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\nand the Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of Transportation (DOT). This letter does not\namend the 1971 MOU between the EPA and DOT or redelegate any responsibilities agreed to\nunder that MOU or previously assigned to DOT or EPA under Executive Order 12777 or any\nprevious Executive Order.\nII. Authority and History\nSection 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1321) gives the President\nauthority to issue regulations regarding prevention, preparedness, and response planning for\nfacilities. Executive Order 12777, signed on October 18, 1991, delegates responsibilities under\nCWA Section 311 to EPA to issue regulations regarding prevention, preparedness, and response\nplanning for non-transportation-related onshore facilities. EPA was also delegated responsibility\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nto establish procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements to prevent and contain\ndischarges of oil and hazardous substances from non-transportation-related onshore facilities.\nThose regulations are found at 40 CFR 112. DOT was delegated authority to issue regulations\nregarding prevention, preparedness, and response planning at transportation-related onshore\nfacilities. DOT was also delegated responsibility to establish procedures, methods, and\nequipment and other requirements to prevent and contain discharges of oil and hazardous\nsubstances from transportation-related onshore facilities. DOT issued response planning\nregulations for transportation-related onshore oil pipelines, found at 49 CFR 194.\nDOT also issued safety standards found at 49 CFR 195 for pipeline facilities under the\nPipeline Safety Act of 1992 (49 U.S.C. 60101). DOT considers environmental factors when\nissuing pipeline safety standards.\nIll. Current Status at Complex Facilities\nA 1971 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the EPA and DOT defines\ntransportation and non-transportation-related activities. A facility with both transportation-\nrelated and non-transportation-related activities is a \"complex facility\" and is subject to the dual\njurisdiction of EPA and DOT. Both EPA and DOT have determined that the definition of a\ncomplex facility, as currently interpreted under both agencies programs, can include an entire\nfacility or a single tank. Owners or operators of a complex facility must comply with all the\nregulatory requirements of both agencies when both agencies have jurisdiction. An example of\ndual jurisdiction is a bulk storage container serving as a tank storing oil while also serving as a\nbreakout tank for a pipeline or other transportation purposes. Attachments 1-10 provide practical\nexamples of complex facilities showing jurisdictional delineation to minimize potential\nconfusion over regulatory responsibility.\nIV. Next Steps\nTo improve communications, both DOT and EPA have initiated talks at the Headquarters\nlevel. These talks will be expanded to include regional representatives. Better communications\nentails; (1) improving information sharing on pipeline and tank incidents resulting in discharges\nto navigable water, material failures, human errors and other activities resulting in a discharge;\n(2) improving information sharing relating to pollution prevention, preparedness, and response;\n(3) sharing critiques of response efforts by EPA On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) with DOT to\nenhance response planning of the pipeline operator (DOT may also consider these critiques in\nrevisions to its regulations); (4) including an EPA participant on the Technical Hazardous Liquid\nPipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC); (5) including a DOT Office of Pipeline\nSafety Regional member on each Inland Area Committee who may advise the EPA OSC on\nissues related to pipelines and breakout tanks; (6) continuing the DOT practice of offering EPA\nOSCs the opportunity to review submitted response plans before DOT approval; and (7)\ncontinuing discussions to resolve the jurisdictional issues surrounding oil gathering lines and\ntheir associated tanks.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nCross training is also important. EPA will make space available for DOT representatives\nto attend Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure and Facility Response Planning training\ncourses. DOT will make space available for EPA representatives and OSCs to attend courses in\npipeline safety and inspection. DOT and EPA personnel will establish the appropriate level of\nparticipation in these training opportunities over the next three years. The agencies will also\nexplore other opportunities for cross training including the Freshwater Spill Symposium,\nPreparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP), etc.\nDOT and EPA will establish procedures for the joint inspection of facilities subject to\ndual jurisdiction. A joint inspection will be considered the equivalent of a separate inspection by\neach agency. DOT and EPA will identify risk factors to consider when identifying high-\npriority/high-risk facilities subject to joint inspections. These risk factors include, but are not\nlimited to; proximity to densely populated areas, proximity to navigable waters or\nenvironmentally sensitive areas as defined in Area Contingency Plans or other appropriate\ndocuments, areas likely to be subject to natural disasters, facility spill history, and compliance\nhistory: DOT and EPA regional representatives will use the procedures to identify those\nfacilities that will be jointly inspected by both agencies. Facilities should be offered the\nopportunity to elect to participate in joint inspections. A joint inspection does not abridge the\nability of each agency to implement enforcement activities arising from those inspections, nor\nlimit the right to conduct separate inspections of any facility subject to dual jurisdiction. DOT\nand EPA will endeavor to conduct six to ten joint inspections nationwide within one year of this\nmemorandum. The agencies will assess the effectiveness of the joint inspection program at the\ncompletion of all of the joint inspections.\nV. Immediate Considerations and Long Term Goals\nWhile DOT and EPA have different historical emphases, our respective goals are\ncomplementary. The mutual long term goals of EPA and DOT are:\n1. To ensure that all breakout tanks/bulk storage containers are appropriately regulated\nunder all applicable statutes,\n2. That the rules and enforcement practices of both agencies are substantially equivalent\nto the extent possible and,\n3. That as many facilities as possible are subject to single jurisdiction in the interest of\nregulatory efficiency.\nDOT and EPA want to encourage the use of tank management programs which\nexemplify best engineering and operational practices in the industry. Our efforts to recognize\nexcellence in performance will enable both agencies to funnel lessons back into our tank\nprograms to ensure that they are dynamic and able to keep pace with developments in the filed.\nBoth agencies share the goal of improving the effectiveness of our tank inspection programs\nwhile focusing our limited resources on those facilities that pose the greatest risk to the\nenvironment\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nOver a five-year period, DOT and EPA shall undertake joint efforts to measure the\neffectiveness of DOT and EPA regulatory programs in protecting the environment and\ncontributing to the safety of the regulated industry. The agencies will determine and agree upon\nfactors including, but not limited to regulations, implementation, enforcement, and additional\nexemplary protective measures. DOT and EPA may invite the Coast Guard to participate in or\nreview these efforts.\nEPA and DOT are committed to working diligently towards achieving these goals. Until\nthese long term goals are achieved, EPA and DOT shall respect the jurisdiction of its sister\nagency and encourage regulated facilities to fully comply with each agency's regulations.\nFor more information contact David Lopez, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial\nResponse Oil Program Center at (703) 603-8707 and Stacey Gerard, Director, Office of Policy,\nRegulations, and Training (202) 366-4595.\nAttachments\nCC:\nTimothy Fields Jr, Assistant Administrator, OSWER\nMike Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OSWER\nJim Makris, Director, CEPPO, OSWER\nSteve Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA\nEric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, OECA\nEarl Salo, Assistant General Counsel for Superfund, OGC\nBob Cianciarulo, Superfund/Oil Program Lead Region Coordinator\nEPA Regional Removal Managers\nElaine Joost, Acting Chief Counsel,\nRSPA\nCommandant, U.S. Coast Guard (G-MS, G-MO, G-MSO, G-MOC, G-MOR)\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nATTACHMENT 1\n- EPA Jurisdiction*\n---- OPS Jurisdiction*\nwoo-\n---\nFence\nProduct\nTank\n(Breakout)\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 11/03/99\nPump\nValve\n• Meter\nMain Line\nBREAKOUT TANKAGE\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n-\nLoading Area\n- OPS Jurisdiction*\n- EPA Jurisdiction*\nFence\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\n*This diagram does not identity the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act, Section\n311(i) (33 USC 1321(i). When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator remain the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the first\nmeter, valve, or isolation flange at or inside the facility property. When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator are not the same, the\nchange in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or at the first meter, valve, or isolation flange at or inside the facility property. In either\nof the above situations, the location of the property line should not solely be used to determine jurisdiction when operational activities (loading/offloading) extend\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nSTORAGE TANKAGE\nPump\nIsolation\nFlange\n• Valve\nM Meter\nMain Line\nbeyond the property line.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nATTACHMENT 3\nOPS Jurisdiction*\nEPA Jurisdiction*\nOPS Jurisdiction\nOPS jurisdiction extends to\npressure influencing device\nwhich effects operating pressure\n.. Joint EPA-\nof the main pipeline.\nProcessing\nPlant\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 11/03/99\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\n* This diagram does not identify the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act,\nSt the fist and lost pressure influencing device, mine, vole, or ndaton fonge, of or nade the forcily roperty, When he, piece open for aditine storage.\nor breakout tank operator are not the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or at the first and last pressure\ninfluencing device, valve, or isolation flange, at or inside the facility property. In either of the above situations, the location of the property line\nshould not solely be used to determine jurisdiction when operational activities (loading/offloading) extend beyond the property line.\nSTORAGE TANKAGE\nMain Line\nPump\nMeter\n@o Valve\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nFacility transferring\nto Truck\nATTACHMENT 4\nLoading Area\nOPS Jurisdiction*\nEPA Jurisdiction*\n-..._ Joint EPA - OPS Jurisdiction\nFence\n(B)\nProduct\nTank\n(Breakout)\n(Storage)\n• Pump\n•• Valve\nMeter\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 11/04/99\nBREAKOUT AND STORAGE TANKAGE - JOINT EPA - OPS JURISDICTION\n*This diagram does not identify the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act,\nSetter ist and at pressure flue wing the ce, liner, pete, or nd hi strange re sid the felt property, hen me piece operator die he stree\nTruck transferring\nto Facility\nLoading Area\nFence\n(A)\nMain Line\nProduct\nTank\n(Breakout)\n(Storage)\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nATTACHMENT 5\nLoading Area\nOPS jurisdiction extends to\npressure influencing device\npressure of the main pipeline.\n--- OPS Jurisdiction*\n- EPA Jurisdiction*\nOPS Jurisdiction\n- Joint EPA -\n- - -\nwhich effects operating\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 11/03/99\nSTORAGE AND BREAKOUT TANKAGE - JOINT EPA - OPS JURISDICTION\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\n(Breakout)\n* This diagram does not identify the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act,\nSection 311(i) (33 USC 1321(i)). When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator remain the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs\nat the first and last pressure influencing device, meter, valve, or isolation flange, at or inside the facility property. When the pipeline operator and the storage\nor breakout tank operator are not the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or at the first and last pressure\ninfluencing device, valve, or isolation flange, at or inside the facility property. In either of the above situations, the location of the property line\nshould not solely be used to determine jurisdiction when operational activities (loading/offloading) extend beyond the property line.\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\n(Breakout)\nPump\nValve\nMeter\nIsolation\nFlange\nMain Line\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nATTACHMENT 6\n- OPS Jurisdiction*\nEPA Jurisdiction*\nMix\nTank\n(Storage)\nMix\nTank\n(Storage)\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 11/03/99\n* This diagram does not identify the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act, Section\n311 (i) (33 USC 1321(i)). When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator remain the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the first\nneter, valve, or isolation flange at or inside the facility property. When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator are not the same, the\nchange in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or at the first meter, valve, or isolation flange at or inside the facility property. In either\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nof the above situations, the location of the property line should not solely be used to determine jurisdiction when operational activities\nSTORAGE TANKAGE\nMain Line\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nFence\n(loading/offloading) extend beyond the property line.\nPump\nValve\nMeter\nIsolation\nFlange\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nLoading Area\nATTACHMENT 7\nOPS Jurisdiction*\nEPA Jurisdiction*\n- Joint EPA-OPS Jurisdiction\nMix\nTank\n(Breakout)\n(Storage)\nMix\nTank\n(Breakout)\n• (Storage)\nREV: 11/04/99\nSOURCE: US EPA\nSTORAGE & BREAKOUT TANKAGE - JOINT EPA - OPS JURISDICTION\n*This diagram does not identify the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act, Section\n311(j) (33 USC 1321(i)). When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator remain the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the first\nneter, valve, or isolation flange at or inside the facility property. When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator are not the same, the\nchange in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or of the first meter, valve, or isolation flange at or inside the facility property. In either\nof the above situations, the location of the property line should not solely be used to determine jurisdiction when operational activities (loading/offloading) extend\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nProduct\nTank\n(Breakout\nStorage)\nMain Line\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nProduct\nTank\n(Breakout\nStorage)\nPump\n•• Valve\nM Meter\nbeyond the property line.\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nIndividual Well Heads\nmay include Storage Tanks\nTruck transferring\nfrom Oil Field*\nATTACHMENT 8\nGeographical Oil Field*.\nOil Production Facility*\noading Area\nOPS Jurisdiction\nEPA Jurisdiction\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nProduction/Gathering\nFlowline\n•-\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 12/06/99\n1-\nin ture? ores. See 49 FR 195, ond 95,2. The get eris/ in is orles to OPS respons digning reguirement in 49 CR94. a production faciliy\nGathering Line\nSTORAGE TANKAGE ASSOCIATED WITH\nThe gathering line between\npoints A and B is the subject\nof continuing jurisdictional\nPRODUCTION/GATHERING\ndiscussions.\nPump\nValve\nMeter\nLINES\nMain Line\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nATTACHMENT 9\n- Joint EPA-OPS Jurisdiction\n• OPS Jurisdiction*\nEPA Jurisdiction*\nRetinery\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 11/03/99\nProduct\nTank\n(Storage)\n(Breakout)\n*This diagram does not identify the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act,\nor breakout tank operator are not the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or at the first and last pressure\ninfluencing device, valve, or isolation flange, at or inside the facility property. In either of the above situations, the location of the property line\nshould not solely be used to determine urisdiction when operational activities (loading/offloading) extend beyond the property line.\nSTORAGE TANKAGE -\nBREAKOUT AND\nJOINT EPA - OPS\n-\nJURISDICTION\nMain Line\nPump\nValve\nMeter\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nMain Line\nATTACHMENT 10\n...- Joint EPA-OPS Jurisdiction\n.. CG Jurisdiction\n- OPS Jurisdiction'\nEPA Jurisdiction'\n\"The tank depicted is used for\nOPS jurisdiction extends to\npressure influencing device\npressure of the main pipeline.\nstorage associated with the\nMTR facility and is under EPA\njurisdiction. If tank is also used\nas a breakout tank it is subject\nto both OPS and EPA jurisdiction.\nwhich effects operating\nSOURCE: US EPA REV: 12/13/99\nProduct\nTank'\n(Storage)\n(Breakout)\n\"This diagram does not identity the precise location where the change in jurisdiction occurs between EPA and OPS for the purpose of the Clean Water Act,\nSection 311(i) (33 USC 1321(i)). When the pipeline operator and the storage or breakout tank operator remain the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs\nat the first and last pressure influencing device, meter, valve, or isolation flange, at or inside the facility property line. When the pipeline operator and the storage\nor breakout tank operator are not the same, the change in jurisdiction occurs at the change in operational responsibility or at the first and last pressure\ninfluencing device, valve, or isolation flange, at or inside the facility property line. In either of the above situations, the location of the property line\nshould not solely be used to determine jurisdiction when operational activities (loading/offloading) extend beyond the property line.\nEPA, OPS, AND COAST GUARD JURISDICTION\nMARINE LOADING DOCK'\nAT A COMPLEX FACILITY\n'Marine Transportation.- Related\nFacility (MTR) is defined in 33\nCFR 154.1020. This segment\nof a complex is under CG\n¡urisdiction for the purposes of\nCWA Section 311 (i).\n• Pump\n2o Valve","truncated":false,"body_characters":19978}