WSR 23-02-052

PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

[Order 21-03—Filed January 3, 2023, 12:02 p.m.]

Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 21-16-091.

Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: Ecology proposes to amend chapter 173-180 WAC, Facility oil handling standards and chapter 173-184 WAC, Vessel oil transfer advance notice and containment requirements. Chapter 173-180 WAC establishes oil spill prevention and oil transfer requirements for regulated oil handling facilities. Chapter 173-184 WAC establishes oil transfer requirements for vessels delivering oil in bulk on or over waters of the state. For more information on this rule making, visit our website https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Laws-rules-rulemaking/Rulemaking/WAC-173-180-173-184.

Hearing Location(s): On Wednesday, February 8, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., webinar hearing via Zoom. Presentation and question and answer session followed by the hearing. We are holding this hearing via webinar. This is an online meeting that you can attend from any computer using internet access. Join online https://waecy-wa-gov.zoom.us/j/87198002821. For call-in only, dial 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID 871 9800 2821;

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., webinar hearing via Zoom. Presentation and question and answer session followed by the hearing. We are holding this hearing via webinar. This is an online meeting that you can attend from any computer using internet access. Join online https://waecy-wa-gov.zoom.us/j/87113425365. For call-in only, dial 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID 871 1342 5365; and

On Thursday, February 16, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., webinar hearing via Zoom. Presentation and question and answer session followed by the hearing. We are holding this hearing via webinar. This is an online meeting that you can attend from any computer using internet access. Join online https://waecy-wa-gov.zoom.us/j/82099932616. For call-in only, dial 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID 820 9993 2616.

Date of Intended Adoption: June 6, 2023.

Submit Written Comments to: Brittany Flittner, US mail: Department of Ecology, Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600. Parcel delivery services: Department of Ecology, Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program, 300 Desmond Drive S.E., Lacey, WA 98503, submit comments by mail, online via ecology's online comment tool https://sppr.ecology.commentinput.com/?id=6Mx2s, or at the public hearings, by March 5, 2023.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact ecology ADA coordinator, phone 360-407-6831, TTY or Washington relay service 711 or 877-833-6341, email ecyadacoordinator@ecy.wa.gov, by February 6, 2023.

Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: This rule making will amend both chapters to implement updates to RCW 88.46.165. The rule making will also include necessary administrative updates, and will expand on existing requirements and establish new requirements as described below.

In chapters 173-180 and 173-184 WAC:

In chapter 173-180 WAC:

In chapter 173-184 WAC:

Reasons Supporting Proposal: Rule amendments are needed to align both rules with statutory changes made in the 2019 legislative session. Through ESHB 1578, codified in RCW 88.46.165, the legislature expanded advance notice of oil transfer reporting requirements for Class 1, 2, and 3 facilities and for vessels delivering oil in bulk on or over waters of the state. Expanding advance notice reporting requirements allows ecology to better prepare for and respond to spills that may impact waters of the state.

Additionally, these chapters have not been updated since 2007. Administrative updates are needed to provide clear direction to the regulated community. Consistent standards provide ease of compliance with ecology's rules and ensure our rules are not overly burdensome. Updates are also needed to streamline process requirements with advances in technology.

Broader policy changes are also needed. As oil spill risk continues to change and new risks emerge, ecology's rules must adapt to address these risks and ensure we are requiring the necessary safeguards to prevent, prepare for, and respond to spills. Ecology has worked closely with the regulated community over the years to implement and enforce the requirements of these two rules. Rule amendments are essential to address gaps identified and provide stronger oil spill protection to the waters of the state.

Expanding requirements for Class 1 facilities is necessary to address gaps identified in oil spill prevention standards. Specifying criteria for reporting secondary containment permeability will allow facilities and ecology to determine whether they are meeting existing standards. Providing criteria for facility spill risk analyses will improve the quality and consistency of risk assessments. Addressing requirements for seismic protection of storage tanks and transfer pipelines will ensure safeguards are in place to help prevent spills during seismic events. Establishing decommissioning requirements provides oil spill prevention measures during the entirety of a facility's life cycle.

Expanding oil transfer response plan requirements for Class 2 facilities provides an additional layer of oil spill preparedness, as oil transfers for these facilities occur broadly throughout the state. Routine exercise of response equipment and notification procedures strengthens the state's readiness when a spill occurs.

Facilities and delivering vessels must ensure safeguards are maintained before and during oil transfer operations. Ecology's requirements take into consideration each aspect of the transfer, minimizing the risk and impact of a spill. This includes ensuring containment measures are in place, effective communication is being practiced, and recovery equipment is readily available in case of an incident. Rule updates are necessary for oil transfer operations to implement lessons learned through years of implementation and provide oil spill prevention improvements in areas where gaps have been identified.

Updating the advance notice reporting time frame requirements for oil transfer information to ecology will allow inspectors time to prepare for and conduct oil transfer inspections. Oil transfer inspections provide enhanced protection to the waters of the state.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 88.46.160 Refueling, bunkering, or lightering operations—Availability of containment and recovery equipment—Rules, 88.46.165 Oil transfers—Scope of rules—Reporting volumes of oil transferred; chapter 90.56 RCW, Oil and hazardous substance spill prevention and response; RCW 90.56.005 Findings—Purpose, 90.56.050 Rules, 90.56.200 Prevention plans, 90.56.220 Facility operation standards, 90.56.230 Operations manuals.

Statute Being Implemented: RCW 88.46.160 Refueling, bunkering, or lightering operations—Availability of containment and recovery equipment—Rules, 88.46.165 Oil transfers—Scope of rules—Reporting volumes of oil transferred, 90.56.200 Prevention plans, 90.56.220 Facility operation standards, 90.56.230 Operations manuals.

Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.

Agency Comments or Recommendations, if any, as to Statutory Language, Implementation, Enforcement, and Fiscal Matters: Not applicable.

Name of Proponent: Department of ecology, governmental.

Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Brittany Flittner, Lacey, Washington, 360-584-4490; Implementation and Enforcement: Brian Kirk and Matt Bissell, Lacey, Washington, 425-395-5800 and 360-280-7061.

A school district fiscal impact statement is not required under RCW 28A.305.135.

A cost-benefit analysis is required under RCW 34.05.328. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis may be obtained by contacting Brittany Flittner, Department of Ecology, Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, phone 360-584-4490, TTY or Washington relay service 711 or 877-833-6341, email Brittany.flittner@ecy.wa.gov.

This rule proposal, or portions of the proposal, is exempt from requirements of the Regulatory Fairness Act because the proposal:

Is exempt under RCW 19.85.025(3) as the rules are adopting or incorporating by reference without material change federal statutes or regulations, Washington state statutes, rules of other Washington state agencies, shoreline master programs other than those programs governing shorelines of statewide significance, or, as referenced by Washington state law, national consensus codes that generally establish industry standards, if the material adopted or incorporated regulates the same subject matter and conduct as the adopting or incorporating rule; rules only correct typographical errors, make address or name changes, or clarify language of a rule without changing its effect; and rule content is explicitly and specifically dictated by statute.

Is exempt under RCW 19.85.025(4).

Scope of exemption for rule proposal:

Is partially exempt:

Explanation of partial exemptions: Ecology baselines are typically complex, consisting of multiple requirements fully or partially specified by existing rules, statutes, or federal laws. Where the proposed rule differs from this baseline of existing requirements, it is typically subject to (i.e., not exempt from) analysis required under the Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA), chapter 19.85 RCW, based on meeting criteria referenced in RCW 19.85.025(3) as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act in RCW 34.05.310. The small business economic impact statement (SBEIS) below includes a summary of the baseline for this rule making, and whether or how the proposed rule differs from the baseline. We identify relevant RFA exemptions (if any) for each set of requirements.

The proposed rule does impose more-than-minor costs on businesses.

SBEIS

This SBEIS presents the:

A small business is defined by RFA as having 50 or fewer employees. Estimated costs are determined as compared to the existing regulatory environment—the regulations in the absence of the rule. The SBEIS only considers costs to "businesses in an industry" in Washington state. This means that impacts, for this document, are not evaluated for government agencies.

The existing regulatory environment is called the "baseline" in this document. It includes only existing laws and rules at federal and state levels.

This information is excerpted from ecology's complete set of regulatory analyses for this rule making. For complete discussion of the likely costs, benefits, minimum compliance burden, and relative burden on small businesses, see the associated regulatory analyses document (Ecology publication no. 23-08-001, January 2023).

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The baseline for our analyses generally consists of existing rules and laws, and their requirements. This is what allows us to make a consistent comparison between the state of the world with and without the proposed rule amendments.

For this rule making, the baseline includes:

Chapter 173-180 WAC (facilities). Recordkeeping:Baseline: The baseline rule includes requirements for recordkeeping and sets a requirement to keep most records for three years. It specifies records that must be kept for other durations, including but not limited to, equipment lifetime for design, construction, and repair records, and five years for training and certification records.

Proposed: The proposed rule would:

Transfer equipment testing standards:Baseline: Under the baseline, under WAC 173-180-205, testing of oil transfer equipment must be completed annually using one of a set of specified methods.

Proposed: The proposed rule would add the option of using another method of equal or higher standards than those listed under the baseline. This method would need to be approved by ecology.

Advance notice of transfer:Baseline: Class 1, 2, and 3 facilities transferring more than 100 gallons of oil must notify ecology at least 24 hours before the transfer (or, if 24 hours is not possible, as soon as is possible before the transfer), using the Advance Notice of Transfer (ANT) form. Chapter 88.46 RCW additionally specifies the following must be included in the ANT:

Chapter 173-185 WAC requires API gravity and sulfur content.

Proposed: The proposed rule would:

Equivalent compliance plan:Baseline: Under the baseline, owners or operators must submit a paper and electronic copy of their equivalent compliance plan to ecology. The baseline rule also specifies submittal and approval process requirements, as well as conditional approval.

Proposed: The proposed rule would remove the requirement to submit a paper copy and only require owners and operators to submit one electronic copy of the plan to ecology. It would also clarify the submittal and approval process, and elements of conditional approval. Finally, it would add specification of potential restrictions under conditional approval, as well as timing of the conditional approval requirements.

Oil transfer procedure:Baseline: Under the baseline, all oil transfer operations must be performed based on the facility's approved operations manual. Among the requirements for oil transfer procedures:

Proposed: Under the proposed rule, deliveries providing oil to vessels without fixed containment would no longer be required to use back pressure shutoff nozzles, as this requirement is unfeasible for most vessels, and backpressure shutoff nozzles are ineffective for most vessels. The amendments would also clarify that the facility and vessel PICs should also verify that the designated tanks are receiving or discharging oil at the expected rate, and that no other tanks are receiving or discharging oil.

Seismic requirements - storage tanks:Baseline: The baseline sets out requirements for storage tanks, including fire protection codes, and design and manufacturing standards.

Proposed: The proposed rule would add seismic protection requirements for storage tanks at Class 1 facilities. It would require tanks installed before the effective date of the proposed rule to install and maintain one or more of the following:

It would also require newly constructed tanks to meet baseline building and fire code requirements as well as specific design and manufacturing standards. These new tanks would also need to be designed to meet specific seismic design and inspection requirements from the:

Seismic requirements - transfer pipelines:Baseline: The baseline sets out requirements for transfer pipelines, including federal codes, access restrictions, inspection requirements, and requirements for buried pipelines.

Proposed: The proposed rule would add seismic protection requirements for transfer pipelines at Class 1 facilities. It would require pipelines installed before the effective date of the proposed rule to install and maintain one or more of the following:

The proposed rule also specifies the relevant baseline requirements (federal codes) for pipelines that are replaced, moved, or constructed after the effective date of the rule. It adds seismic protection design standards and includes requirements for one or more of the protection measures listed above.

Operations manual submittal:Baseline: Under the baseline, Class 1 facilities must submit their operations manual to ecology for re-approval 120 days before beginning oil transfer operations. Class 2 facilities must submit plans for initial approval 90 days before conducting oil transfers and 180 days before for reapproval.

Proposed: The proposed rule would require Class 1 and 2 facilities to submit all operations manuals (initial approval and reapproval) to ecology 120 days before oil transfer operations. It would also remove the option to submit a physical manual.

Substantial change in operations:Baseline: Under the baseline, Class 1 and 2 facilities must notify ecology before any significant change. The baseline rule lists examples of significant change, including but not limited to:

Proposed: The proposed rule would classify failure to notify ecology of a significant change as noncompliance. It would also define a substantial change in oil handling capacity as at least five percent for Class 1 facilities.

Follow-up training:Baseline: Under the baseline, Class 1 and 2 facilities must develop follow-up remedial training for personnel clearly responsible for causing an oil spill while functioning in their position, unless they no longer occupy that position.

Proposed: The proposed rule would eliminate the use of "remedial" and "clearly" while adding clarity that the training must address the causes of the spill and measures to prevent it [from] happening again, as part of the continuing education program for Class 1 facilities.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments would require earlier implementation of 120 days before oil transfer operations. Amendments to this section also include clarifications without material change to requirements.

Prevention Plan:Baseline: The baseline rule specifies requirements for Class 1 facility prevention plans, including formatting, contents, and submittal. Contents include facility information and baseline secondary containment requirements, and requirements for spill risk analysis. Submittal is required 65 days before beginning operations or plan expiration.

Proposed: The proposed rule would:

The proposed rule would also remove the baseline requirement option for submittal of a paper copy of the prevention plan to only an electronic submittal requirement.

Oil transfer response plan:Baseline: The baseline rule specifies requirements [in] Class 2 facility oil transfer response plans (OTRPs), including formatting, contents, and submittal. Contents includes the requirements of 33 C.F.R Part 154. Submittal of two physical copies and one electronic copy of the plan is required.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments list the specific requirements of the baseline federal requirements and include adding the following additions to the OTRP:

The proposed rule would also remove the baseline requirement for submittal of paper copies of the OTRP to only an electronic submittal requirement.

Drill requirements:Baseline: The baseline includes drill requirements for Class 2 facilities based in the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (NPREP) Guidelines.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments would:

Out of service requirements:Baseline: The baseline does not include Washington state-specific out of service requirements for storage tanks and transfer pipelines at Class 1 facilities. Storage tanks and transfer pipelines may be placed in caretaker status under 33 C.F.R. Part 154 or permanently closed as defined in 40 C.F.R. Part 112.

Proposed: The proposed rule would require owners or operators of out of service storage tanks or transfer pipelines to meet the following:

The owner or operator would also need to notify ecology 30 days before a decommissioning or return to service.

Chapter 173-184 WAC (vessels). Recordkeeping: Baseline: The baseline rule does not include recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed: The proposed rule would set three-year records retention requirements and require records to be made available to ecology upon request.

Advance notice of transfer:Baseline: The baseline rule sets ANT requirements for delivering vessels, including timing, format, and contents. ANT submission is required at least four hours before transfer and a fax or by ecology form is required.

Chapter 88.46 RCW additionally specifies that the following must be included in the ANT:

Chapter 173-185 WAC requires API gravity and sulfur content.

Proposed: The proposed rule would:

Prebooming requirements:Baseline: Under the baseline, Rate A deliverers must preboom transfers when it is safe and effective to do so and identifies determination of safe and effective.

Proposed: The proposed rule would require that:

Both rules (facilities and vessels). Definitions:Baseline: The baseline rule and statute contain definitions relevant to the baseline rule requirements.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments would:

Noncompliance:Baseline: Under the baseline, facilities and vessels that violate relevant chapters may be subject to enforcement and penalties under the authorizing statute.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments would add that in response to noncompliance with any requirement, ecology may conditionally approve or disapprove any approved plan or report.

Compliance schedules:Baseline: The baseline inherently does not include compliance deadlines for new rule requirements beyond any added to the rule in a previous rule making.

Proposed: The proposed rules include compliance schedules for existing facilities and vessels:

They also include requirements for new facilities and vessels and new owners or operators to meet the new requirements before beginning operations.

Electronic submission:Baseline: Under the baseline, requirements for reports and plans variously include submission of physical copies by mail or submission by fax, as well as occasional electronic submission.

Proposed: The proposed amendments throughout the rule would make all records submittable electronically through an online format or using email. Submitting via fax or a paper copy is no longer an option.

Conditional approval:Baseline: The baseline includes conditional approval for all plans, reports, manuals, and programs.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments establish a clear and consistent process and set of requirements for conditional approval.

Rate A prebooming and alternative measures:Baseline: Under the baseline, Rate A deliverers must preboom transfers when it is safe and effective to do so and identifies determination of safe and effective.

Proposed: The proposed rules would require:

Proposed: The proposed rules would add specific elements required to be included in the report, including pertaining to:

Changes without material impact:Baseline: Experience with implementing the baseline rules and associated statutes has helped ecology identify areas in which the organization and clarity of the rule can be improved. Ecology reduced complexity and redundancy throughout both rules.

Proposed: The proposed rule amendments make multiple changes that have no material impact on rule requirements. These include:

We estimated Class 1 facilities would incur an equivalent statewide annual cost of $29,000 to $58,000 for decommissioning.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: SUPPLIES: Compliance with the proposed rule, compared to the baseline, is not likely to impose additional costs of supplies.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: LABOR:FACILITIES: We assumed the proposed rule amendments would result in an additional hour every three months spent ensuring records are being retained as required. Using the median hourly wage for "Information and records clerks, all other" of $23.58 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in a statewide annual cost of $12,358.

We assumed the proposed rule amendments would result in a share of ANTs being resubmitted. As we could not identify precisely what this share would be, we estimated between five percent and 25 percent would be resubmitted due to a time change of greater than six hours. There are currently over 12,200 ANTs submitted each year, on average. We assumed the proposed amendments would result in 0.25 hours per resubmitted ANT. Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery Operators, and Gaugers" of $51.81 (2022-dollars), this would result in a statewide annual cost of between $8,000 and $40,000.

We assumed the proposed rule amendments would result in 10 additional minutes (0.167 hours) of additional effort to complete the crude oil information required for an ANT, for an annual average of 263.2 crude oil ANTs. Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery Operators, and Gaugers" of $51.81 (2022-dollars), this would result in a statewide annual cost of $2,273.

We assumed the proposed rule amendments would result in an additional 0.1 hour per ANT to make additional verifications. On average, there are currently 2,400 ANTs submitted each year this clarification may apply to. Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery Operators, and Gaugers" of $51.81 (2022-dollars), this would result in an annual cost of $12,400.

These proposed amendments would result in costs associated with:

We assumed the proposed rule amendments could result in an additional four hours of labor toward response plans. Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum engineers" of $64.27 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in a one-time cost of $5,913 in each planning cycle.

We assumed the proposed rule amendments could result in an additional 16 hours of labor. Using the median hourly wage for "Health and safety engineers, except mining safety engineers and inspectors" of $53.31 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in a one-time cost of $22,177 in each planning cycle toward drill requirements.

Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum engineers" of $64.27 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in an annual cost of $148 to $296 for out-of-service notification.

VESSELS:We assumed the proposed rule amendments would result in an additional hour quarterly, ensuring records are being retained as required. Using the median hourly wage for "Information and records clerks, all other" of $23.58 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in an annual cost of $283.

Due to data attributes, costs to vessels related to ANTs are reflected in the estimate in the previous section.

FACILITIES AND VESSELS: The proposed rule amendments would result in additional costs to resubmit the boom reporting forms.

Resubmittal: There are currently over 12,200 ANTs submitted each year, on average. We assumed between 25 and 50 percent of those were Rate A transfers impacted by the proposed rule amendments in their use of boom reporting forms. We assumed 50 percent of boom reporting forms would need to be resubmitted due to ongoing conditions that exceed safe and effective values. Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum engineers" of $64.27 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in a statewide annual cost of between $159,000 and $318,000.

The 20-year present value of this cost estimate is between approximately $2.9 million and $5.8 million.

Multiple transfers: We were not able to identify or make reasonable assumptions about the frequency with which circumstances would arise during which additional prebooming is done under the proposed rule amendments relating to multiple simultaneous transfers. In such cases, additional labor would be required to preboom.

We conservatively assumed all Class 1 facilities and three delivering vessel companies would be impacted by these proposed amendments, totaling 26 entities. We assumed facilities and vessels would need an additional 16 hours of labor to complete the additional requirements. Using the median hourly wage for "Petroleum engineers" of $64.27 per hour (2022-dollars), this would result in a cost of $27,000 in each planning cycle.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Compliance with the proposed rule, compared to the baseline, is not likely to impose additional costs of professional services.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: Where applicable, ecology estimates administrative costs (overhead) as part of the cost of labor and professional services above.

COMPARISON OF COMPLIANCE COST FOR SMALL VERSUS LARGE BUSINESSES:Twenty-year present value compliance costs per employee.

CONSIDERATION OF LOST SALES OR REVENUE: We used the REMI E3+ model for Washington state to estimate the impact of the proposed rule amendments on directly affected markets, accounting for dynamic adjustments throughout the economy. The model accounts for: Interindustry impacts; price, wage, and population changes; and dynamic adjustment of all economic variables over time.

Many of the likely affected businesses operate in a variety of industries. To reflect this, we ran multiple REMI model scenarios, varying assumptions about which industries incur costs, as well as the size of costs (based on ranges estimated in Chapter 3), to develop a range of estimated impacts across the state. Across 24 modeled scenarios:

This resulted in statewide aggregate impacts of:

We note that baseline state output is forecast to be over $1.2 trillion by 2027, of which the highest impact scenario impact of $0.5 billion is approximately 0.04 percent.

MITIGATION OF DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT: We considered all of the above options, the goals and objectives of the authorizing statutes (see Chapter 6), and the scope of this rule making. We limited compliance cost-reduction methods to those that:

Ecology was not able to reduce substantive regulatory requirements beyond eliminating requirements that were not effective in achieving the objectives of the authorizing statutes, as they are necessary to implement the statutes, but multiple elements of the proposed rule amendments make the rules more consistent across the regulatory requirements faced by covered facilities and vessels, reducing the compliance burden of undertaking different actions or making different assumptions in compliance. This includes clear and streamlined processes and reporting requirements (including electronic submission of reports, manuals, and plans).

During this rule making, ecology also considered requiring universal inspections by ecology outside of already required inspections. This would have increased compliance burden (costs) and was excluded from the proposed rule amendments.

Ecology delayed compliance timetables using compliance schedules, allowing businesses additional time to take necessary actions to comply with the proposed rule amendments.

Regarding noncompliance, the proposed rule amendments clarify and streamline conditional approval requirements. This allows businesses to avoid noncompliance, to continue operations and avoid business losses, and take necessary actions to meet the objectives of the authorizing statutes.

As discussed in the Least-Burdensome Alternative Analysis (see Chapter 6), ecology also considered the following alternative rule contents, but did not include it [them] in the proposed rule amendments due, at least in part, to the additional compliance burden it would impose:

SMALL BUSINESS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: We involved small businesses and local governments in its [the] development of the proposed rule amendments, using:

NAICS CODES OF INDUSTRIES IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE: 2111 Oil and Gas Extraction; 2131 Support Activities for Mining; 2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution; 2379 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction; 2389 Other Specialty Trade Contractors; 3117 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging; 3211 Sawmills and Wood Preservation; 3219 Other Wood Product Manufacturing; 3241 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; 3366 Ship and Boat Building; 4244 Grocery and Related Product Merchant Wholesalers; 4247 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers; 4412 Other Motor Vehicle Dealers; 4413 Automotive Parts, Accessories, and Tire Retailers; 4451 Grocery and Convenience Retailers; 4831 Deep Sea, Coastal, and Great Lakes Water Transportation; 4832 Inland Water Transportation; 4872 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water; 4883 Support Activities for Water Transportation; 4885 Freight Transportation Arrangement; 5416 Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services; 5417 Scientific Research and Development Services; 5614 Business Support Services; 5615 Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services; 5621 Waste Collection; 5622 Waste Treatment and Disposal; 5629 Remediation and Other Waste Management Services; 7139 Other Amusement and Recreation Industries; 7211 Traveler Accommodation; 7212 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps.

IMPACT ON JOBS: Many of the likely affected businesses operate in a variety of industries. To reflect this, we ran multiple REMI model scenarios, varying assumptions about which industries incur costs, as well as the size of costs (based on ranges estimated in Chapter 3), to develop a range of estimated impacts across the state. Across 24 modeled scenarios:

This resulted in statewide aggregate employment loss of:

We note that baseline state employment is forecast to be over five million FTE equivalents by 2027, of which, the highest impact scenario impact is approximately 0.02 percent.

A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Brittany Flittner, Department of Ecology, Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, phone 360-584-4490, TTY or Washington relay service 711 or 877-833-6341, email Brittany.flittner@ecy.wa.gov.

January 3, 2023

Heather R. Bartlett

Deputy Director

OTS-4167.3

The following sections of the Washington Administrative Code are repealed:

OTS-4169.3

The following sections of the Washington Administrative Code are repealed: