Comment submitted by M. Freese

As a preparer of SPCC Plans, I can assure that basing the SPCC regulations on capacity is not the logical approach. I have visited hundreds of facilities and encountered many facilities with above ground storage capacities of less than 10,000 gallons that have a higher risk of impacting navigable waters and impacting the environment than many facilities with capacities over 10,000 gallons. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the regulation from capacity to risk assessment/location. I agree with the tiered approach since my experience and site visits have proven that many facilities are being over regulated regarding the SPCC rules. I suggest the rules be expanded to the tiered approach and use criteria such as the distinction between SPCC Plans and Facility Response plans. The harm criteria form could be expanded into several forms including, but not limited to, ?no substantial harm? (no SPCC Plan needed), ?low substantial harm? (owner prepared SPCC Plan), ?medium substantial harm? (PE certified SPCC Plan), and ?high substantial harm? (Facility Response Plan). The framework of this type of approach already exists, but would have to be expanded accordingly. The owner could self evaluate their facility using the codified forms and determine their compliance needs based on the self assessment. I would also suggest that the forms need certification statements similar to the current form. In addition, the certification forms would be required to be submitted to the EPA such as other documents in other EPA air programs. This is the common sense approach to ensure that facilities are addressing their operations accordingly and to reduce the likelihood of a spill impacting the environment.