|
If the facility owner or operator indicates in the SPCC Plan that he intends to use a standard to comply with a particular rule requirement(e.g.,
<br /> integrity testing),then it is mandatory to implement the relevant portions of the standard(i.e.,those that address integrity testing of the
<br /> container).
<br /> You are correct in saying that the SP001 inspection forms can be modified to fit the particular facility. The SP001
<br /> inspection checklists state:
<br /> "This checklist is intended as a model. Locally developed checklists are acceptable as long as they are substantially equivalent(as applicable)."
<br /> The current monthly form does not appear to be "substantially equivalent"to the SP001 inspection monthly
<br /> checklist. Question 1 on the monthly checklist is "Is the containment free of excess liquid, debris, cracks, corrosion,
<br /> erosion,fire hazards and other integrity issues?" This appears to be taken directly from the SP001 checklist under
<br /> Containment (Diking/Impounding). This inspection question refers to tanks that are single wall and have a containment
<br /> wall around them. The 10,000 gallon diesel tank at the site was a double wall tank. You also stated during the
<br /> inspection that the interstitial space is inspected on the yearly inspection form. The SP001 standard monthly form
<br /> requires that this be checked monthly. The applicable question is:
<br /> For double-wall tanks or double bottom tanks or CE-ASTs,is interstice free of liquid?Remove the liquid if it is found.If tank product is found,
<br /> investigate possible leak.
<br /> In the email from Tuesday you asked the question, "For my clarity,your office's opinion that SP001 is an industry
<br /> standard and therefore not to be deviated from, is that correct?" This is not correct. SP001 is an industry standard and
<br /> if an owner or operator wants to deviate from applicable industry standards to develop an integrity testing program,
<br /> then a PE must certify an environmentally equivalent alternative in the SPCC Plan.The Plan must provide the reason for
<br /> the deviation, describe the alternative approach, and explain how it achieves environmental protection equivalent to
<br /> the applicable industry standard. You also asked, "Can you provide code or documented study to back up the industry
<br /> standard or is it just the county's general opinion? Here is the code section that requires an industry standard:
<br /> 112.8(c)(6)-Test or inspect each aboveground container for integrity on a regular schedule and whenever you make material repairs.You must
<br /> determine,in accordance with industry standards,the appropriate qualifications for personnel performing tests and inspections,the frequency
<br /> and type of testing and inspections,which take into account container size,configuration,and design(such as containers that are:shop-built,
<br /> field-erected,skid-mounted,elevated,equipped with a liner,double-walled,or partially buried). Examples of these integrity tests include,but
<br /> are not limited to:visual inspection,hydrostatic testing,radiographic testing,ultrasonic testing,acoustic emissions testing,or other systems of non-
<br /> destructive testing.You must keep comparison records and you must also inspect the container's supports and foundations. In addition,you must
<br /> frequently inspect the outside of the container for signs of deterioration,discharges,or accumulation of oil inside diked areas.Records of
<br /> inspections and tests kept under usual and customary business practices satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of this paragraph.
<br /> You also asked, "If SP001 is the only inspection form,then why has no local, state, or federal agency passed code to
<br /> require it's use?" SP001 is not the only inspection form, but it was included in your SPCC plan that is why it was
<br /> specifically mentioned in the report. You are also correct in stating that "Environmental Equivalence" can be used to
<br /> deviate from the industry standard, but CFR 112.7 (a)(2) states:
<br /> (2)Comply with all applicable requirements listed in this part. Except as provided in§112.6,your Plan may deviate from the requirements in
<br /> paragraphs(g),(h)(2)and(3),and(i)of this section and the requirements in subparts B and C of this part,except the secondary containment
<br /> requirements in paragraphs(c)and(h)(1)of this section,and§§112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2),112.9(d)(3),112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2),and
<br /> 112.12(c)(11),where applicable to a specific facility,if you provide equivalent environmental protection by some other means of spill prevention,
<br /> control,or countermeasure.Where your Plan does not conform to the applicable requirements in paragraphs(g),(h)(2)and(3),and(i)of this
<br /> section,or the requirements of subparts B and C of this part,except the secondary containment requirements in paragraph(c)and(h)(1)of this
<br /> section,and§§112.8(c)(2),112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2),and 112.12(c)(11),you must state the reasons for nonconformance in
<br /> your Plan and describe in detail alternate methods and how you will achieve equivalent environmental protection.If the Regional Administrator
<br /> determines that the measures described in your Plan do not provide equivalent environmental protection,he may require that you amend your
<br /> Plan,following the procedures in§112.4(d)and(e).
<br /> Your facility's plan does not state the reasons for the nonconformance in their plan and describe in detail alternate
<br /> methods and how they will achieve equivalent environmental protection.
<br /> 2
<br />
|