Recent EPA SPCC Audit Finding Trends - Past 6 Months

Every year, audits tend to have trends on what agency auditors are looking for on most regulatory programs. In most cases, agency auditors notice a commonly overlooked item and then start honing in on it during the new year’s auditing cycle. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan regulations are a good example. In the past six months, the below findings have been pretty consistent, especially with plans developed many years back, as the EPA expects more meat these days in the SPCC Plans.

Recent trends in audit findings:

1. Loading/Unloading procedures not defined
2. Frequency of inspections not defined
3. Wastewater treatment discussions don’t detail inspection frequency
4. The tank inspection program only states the standard being used and does not provide enough detail for the layman to implement
5. Pipe support designs not adequately discussed ?

As each audit is unique, there are other one-off items; however, the five above are pretty consistent lately.

How to resolve:

Loading/Unloading procedures not defined:

The common language used during audits: The plan states that the loading/unloading procedures meet the minimum DOT requirements, but it is missing the actual procedures utilized at the facility.

Resolution: Most companies go ahead and include a reference to or the actual loading and unloading procedures that have been developed for training and the standard operating procedures (SOP).?If these aren’t in place, a bulleted list, high-level, of what is done by personnel during transfers is added to the plan.

Frequency of inspections not defined:

The common language used during audits:?The plan does not provide procedures for normal visual inspections of the facility tanks and needs to include the inspections' appropriate frequency.

Resolution: This one is pretty easy. Just add monthly, weekly, or quarterly to the existing conversation. Many plan writers back in the day would use the word “frequently” with the thought of providing flexibility, but EPA wants to see the actual frequency documented to ensure consistency. ??

Wastewater treatment discussions don’t detail inspection frequency:

The common language used during audits: The referenced section of the plan does not discuss the facility rounds that are conducted to ensure there are no upsets to the WWTP system that could cause a discharge.

Resolution: Same as above, same situation, just a different part of the rule.???

The tank inspection program only states the standard being used and does not provide enough detail for the layman to implement:

The common language used during audits: The plan fails to list the requirements and certifications required for the person conducting the tests.

Resolution: Add a table similar to the below (below is just a snip, not the full table).

Pipe support designs not adequately discussed:

The common language used during audits: The plan does not discuss how the pipe supports are designed to minimize abrasion, and it only regurgitates what the regulation states is required.

Resolution: This one is easier shown by an example of a client's write-up to address this:?Abrasion between piping and pipe support is prevented by installing a Teflon pad between them. This pad can be integral to the pipe support, or it can be added independently.?There are other ways to address this; however, this gives a good starting point.

Many of the clients we have at Witt O’Brien’s are companies that came to us post an audit as the previous consultant’s plan had numerous deficiencies, and they needed a quick resolution. Below are some other findings we’ve seen lately too subsequently:

• The provided plan only contains the most recent Professional Engineer (PE) Certification but should also include the history of PE Certifications which would include the original one from when the plan was drafted.
• The plan does not discuss what is provided as the secondary containment for the facility piping or drums and totes at the facility.
• The plan states that temporary containment is provided for portable containers but does not explain what that is.
• The plan has no or inadequate procedures to evaluate a brittle fracture or catastrophic failure.
• The plan states that it utilized the 25-year/24-hour rain event for freeboard but fails to state what that amount is.
• The plan does not state that secondary containment is sufficiently impervious.
• The plan does not explain how the facility meets the regulation's drainage requirements under 112.8(c)(3).
• The plan only discusses the 10-year internal integrity tests but fails to list the required external tests under API 653.
• Tank volumes and aggregate oil volumes are inconsistent throughout the plan

Have an audit finding you are struggling to address? Email me below, and I’ll provide some insight on what we’ve seen to address it.

Want to read more??The current “bible” for all things to reference on SPCC regulations can be found on the EPA’s SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors website.

For a complete listing of archived blogs and compliance insights, click here. Past blogs cover training requirements, clarification on additional confusing elements within the above rules, and much more.

We are here to help solve your compliance questions and challenges. Need some compliance assistance, or have a question? Please email John K. Carroll III ([email protected]) Associate Managing Director – Compliance Services or call +1 281-320-9796.

Witt O’Brien’s:

• To learn more about Witt O'Brien's breadth of services, please visit our website.
• Follow Witt O’Brien’s on LinkedIn and stay informed on important updates.