Laserfiche WebLink
container in accordance with good engineering practices, including seeking expert advice,where <br /> appropriate. <br /> Security <br /> The SPCC regulations state that you must"fully fence each facility handling,processing, <br /> or storing oil, and lock and/or guard entrance gates when the facility is not in production or is <br /> unattended." 40 CFR §112.7(g)(1). You have asked whether two specific sets of circumstances <br /> would likely be determined to provide "equivalent environmental protection"to this requirement. <br /> The first is where the area of the facility directly involved in the handling,processing and storage <br /> of oil is adequately fenced. The second is where the facility is equipped with a"pump house" or <br /> "pump shack,"which contains, among other appropriate things, a master disconnect switch from <br /> which all power to pumps and containers is cut off when the facility is unattended. <br /> With respect to your first scenario, it is our view that, as a general matter, adequately <br /> fencing all discrete areas directly involved in the handling, processing and storage of oil would <br /> provide equivalent environmental protection to fencing the entire footprint of the facility, since it <br /> is potential for harm to this equipment that poses the risk addressed by the fencing requirement. <br /> With respect to the second scenario, the approach you suggest would appear to generally <br /> provide environmental protection equivalent to fencing for risks associated with the potential for <br /> unauthorized access to pumping equipment. In other words, cutting off power in the manner you <br /> suggest would likely provide the added layer of protection offered by a fence should the other <br /> security measures offered by the rule, in this case 40 CFR §112.7(g)(3)'s requirements for <br /> securing pumps,fail. However, because cutting off power as suggested does not address risks to <br /> containers,piping and appurtenances not associated with the pumps at the facility, it does not <br /> appear to provide protection equivalent to fencing as it relates to risks to such equipment. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Please note that determinations of"equivalent environmental protection"must be <br /> implemented and documented in accordance with 40 CFR §112.7(a)(2). In addition, please be <br /> aware that the conclusions drawn in this letter are only for the purposes of meeting the <br /> "environmental equivalence" standard in the SPCC regulation. PE's might nevertheless decide <br /> to recommend non-destructive shell testing and fencing of the entire footprint of the facility for <br /> reasons other than compliance with the SPCC rule(e.g., to protect an owner's investment in <br /> equipment or to meet other local, state or federal requirements). <br />