|
TEAM
|
SPCC Plan –v– FDEP
62-761 In
the state of Florida, most, if not all operators of hydrocarbon storage tanks
know that there are various environmental regulations that must be complied
with. These regulations define many aspects of facility design operation,
maintenance and documentation. And, as with most governmental regulations, the
successful rules from one state can, and often do, spread to other states. In Florida, there
are currently two different environmental requirements that define the necessary
secondary containment capacity for storage facilities. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation
Part 112 defines the requirements of a Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan (40CFR112 - SPCC). The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) Chapter 62-761 defines requirements for ASTs and USTs in
Florida. At first glance,
there does not appear to be a conflict with these two requirements. Additionally, most, if not all operators in the state of
Florida have upgraded their facilities to comply with the FDEP requirements.
Those that have not yet completed their upgrades will be completing them soon. The wording in
the EPA’s regulation, 40CFR112.7(e)(2)(ii), states: “All bulk storage
tank installations should be constructed so that a secondary means of
containment is provided for the entire contents of the largest single tank plus
sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation.” In other words, this
means 100% plus freeboard for rain. The question then becomes, “How much rain
can I expect?” Researching the issue with EPA, they recommend using the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climate
Data, which can be found at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate. EPA
recommends using the 24-hour, 100-year rainfall event as the most appropriate
number. The current NOAA data can
also be found in Technical Paper 40 (1961) “Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the
United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from
1 to 100 Years”. The bad news is
this amount ranges from 10” in the center of Florida, to as much as 14” in
the south east corner of the state. In
fact, most of the southeast United States range from 7” to 15”. The EPA’s
secondary containment capacity calculations are reinforced by the National Fire
Protection Association’s NFPA 30, ”Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code”
2.3.2.3.2(b) which states, “The volumetric capacity of the diked area shall
not be less than the greatest amount of liquid that can be released from the
largest tank within the diked area, assuming a full tank.” This is interpreted as 100% of the largest tank capacity.
NFPA makes no provisions for rainfall amounts. However, it must me remembered
that NFPA’s main focus is on fire protection and fire fighting, not
environmental protection. The Florida
DEP’s regulation 62-761.500(3)(c)3.b states, “Dike field areas with
secondary containment shall …. contain a minimum of 110% of the maximum
capacity of the tank or of the largest single walled tank within the dike field
area.” In other words: “110%”. A simple
calculation will show that these are not always the same dimensions. An operator
can have a dike area designed and installed to comply with the FDEP
requirements, without supplying an additional 10” to 14” of freeboard. In
fact, many facilities within Florida were specifically designed to strictly
comply with the 110% FDEP requirements. As a general
rule, the environmental inspector that will come to a Florida facility will
usually be an FDEP inspector, or possibly a local environmental inspector, there
to review the facilities compliance with Florida environmental rules. They know
that the requirements in Florida are 110% and that is the capacity that they are
looking for. Unfortunately, in
the event that a federal EPA inspector shows up to audit a Florida facility,
they could be specifically looking for the 100% plus free board for rain fall.
Why might a federal EPA inspector come to audit your facility? Possibly
the result of a major environmental accident. Possibly the result of a routine
audit of other EPA regulated operations. Either way, the facility owner/operator
could be sited. There have been
moves in recent years to update the EPA’s SPCC regulation to reflect the 110%
capacity of secondary containment, however, as of this writing, this change has
not taken place. The current rule
states 100% plus rain. Additionally, FDEP is currently in the process of
revising 62-761. They acknowledge that there is an inconsistency between FDEP
and EPA. They will look at clearing up this inconsistency, but today the rule is
still 110% in Florida. The current
recommended conclusion is to design the containment to comply with the most
stringent requirement. If your current containment does not meet one, or both,
of these regulations, make immediate plans to upgrade. This may mean significant
capital upgrades for many in Florida. |
Send mail to webmaster@tankteam.com
with questions or comments about this web site.
|