TEXAS SPILL RESPONSE PLANS FOUND DEFICIENT

Random compliance audits of five Texas coastal oil handling facilities have found only one that meets spill response requirements of the state's Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Ospra).

March 1, 1993

6 min read

Random compliance audits of five Texas coastal oil handling facilities have found only one that meets spill response requirements of the state's Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Ospra).

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) said results of the surprise spot checks showed many of the more than 600 coastal refineries, marine terminals, pipelines, and oil storage sites required by Ospra to develop oil spill contingency plans are not ready to handle accidental oil releases into state water. Ospra designates GLO as the lead state agency to prevent and respond to oil spills in Texas coastal water.

Companies with sites tagged for noncompliance with Ospra said most of the problems GLO auditors cited were administrative and didn't compromise the capability to respond to a spill. Ospra allows each site 10 days to submit a plan to GLO detailing the way it intends to correct deficiencies and 90 days to complete remedial action.

All sites at which GLO found deficient spill response plans have filed reports detailing planned corrections as required by Ospra.

GLO Commissioner Garry Mauro said his agency launched the audits to determine whether companies could implement in practice what they had on paper.

"What we found in too many cases was what they had on paper could not be put into practice," Mauro said.

GLO auditors found employees at four sites were unfamiliar with their companies' spill response procedures. In addition, GLO found many of the plans developed were unworkable.

"Some of the plans were so voluminous and cumbersome that personnel never would have the inclination to study them, much less understand them," said Tim KcKinna, deputy commissioner in charge of GLO's spill division.

"What is needed is a concise workable plan that is easily understood by personnel and readily available to them. In some cases, our audits found the plan was not even on site."

COMPANIES AUDITED

Texas Gov. Ann Richards signed Ospra into law Mar. 15, 1991. The act is intended to support and complement the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

Ospra requires all coastal oil handling facilities in Texas beginning Jan. 1, 1993, to have a discharge prevention and response certificate. Affected sites cannot operate without the certificate. An approved oil spill contingency plan is one of the main requirements to achieve and maintain certification.

GLO in early December 1992 told sites covered by Ospra it would begin early in 1993 auditing oil spill plans for compliance. On the day of the audits, companies received only about an hour notice before GLO auditors arrived to begin the drills.

Of the five sites audited, Baytank Inc.'s terminal at Seabrook, Tex., was the only one to satisfy GLO it had developed a spill contingency plan under according to Ospra guidelines and could implement it, McKinna said.

GLO said the four installations that failed to pass the audits were:

Coastal Refining & Marketing Inc.'s 90,250 b/cd Corpus Christi refinery.
A Nederland, Tex., tank farm and terminal with 12 million bbl of crude storage and 500,000 bbl of lubricant storage capacity operated by Sun Marine Terminal, a subsidiary of Sun Pipe Line Co., in turn a unit of Sun Co. Inc., Philadelphia.
Two tank farms at Brownsville, Tex., with combined storage capacity of about 227,000 bbl operated by Independent Terminal & Pipeline Co. (Itapco), Houston.
Citgo Petroleum Corp.'s refined products terminal at Brownsville.

INTERIM GUIDELINES

Officials of companies audited said GLO offered no comments about the spill response plans submitted last August to satisfy Ospra requirements before beginning the audits.

Some said coastal oil handling sites had little to go on because GLO by the Aug. 21, 1992, deadline for spill response plan submittals had issued only brief, interim Ospra guidelines. Others said that even though GLO guidelines were subject to change, the spill responses described in their filings were intended to be fully functional.

A Citgo official said, "At our facility, GLO audited an interim plan we had filed last August with the state in anticipation of filing a federal plan that complies with OPA requirements." Citgo on Feb. 12 filed a federal spill contingency plan with the U.S. Coast Guard as required by OPA. The OPA deadline for filing federal spill plans was Feb. 18.

Also on Feb. 12, Citgo met with GLO officials to review its OPA spill response plan filing. Of deficiencies GLO listed in Citgo's audit report, only one was not corrected by the OPA filing. GLO is allowing Citgo until Apr. 15 to develop the remaining information and resubmit it.

ADMINISTRATIVE DEFICIENCIES

Among administrative deficiencies cited by GLO auditors, Sun Marine had misidentified an oil containment boom.

"If the boom had been the type we reported, it would have been incorrect," a Sun Co. official said. "Certainly, we're concerned that we didn't pass. But at the same time, the violations were largely administrative, and our capacity to respond to an actual spill is good."

A Coastal Corp. official said thorough planning and practice should help the industry be better prepared if it becomes necessary to control an accidental crude oil or products release.

"We were delighted our refinery was selected as one of the first five sites to be audited," Coastal said.

An Itapco official said GLO is being very cooperative in helping companies that failed the audits to revise their oil spill plans. He said GLO auditors said Itapco's plans included all the steps necessary to enable the company to respond adequately to an oil spill but suggested ways in which the response document could be better organized.

One deficiency cited in Itapco's plan was based on differences in how the company and GLO defined separate facilities. Itapco's Brownsville tank farms are about 1 mile apart, but the response plan for both was kept only at the company's Brownsville administrative headquarters. Within 24 hr after the sites were audited, both had copies of the plan.

Itapco also has stepped up training of employees who will be responsible for responding to a spill. GLO is allowing Itapco until Mar. 30 to correct deficiencies cited.