A
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
5403G
EPA510-B-97-006
April 1996
The 9th Annual UST/LUST
National Conference
Session Highlights
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
The 9th Annual UST/LUST
National Conference
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 10 - 12, 1997
Session Highlights
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office Of Underground Storage Tanks
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
Foreword
This document is a collection of highlights from notes taken by
individual attendees at the 9th Annual UST/LUST National Conference,
which was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, on March 10 -12, 1997.
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks compiled these highlights for
the benefit of state staff members who were unable to attend the
conference. These Session Highlights are not an official record of the
conference. They contain the opinions of the presenters, do not
represent official Agency position on any issue, and should not be cited
or quoted as such.
The highlights are organized along the three themes (or tracts)
of the conference: The UST Tract, the LUST Tract, and the Program
Management Tract. Within the tracts, we have ordered Hie highlights
chronologically. For example, the highlights for the UST sessions that
occurred on Monday (3/10/97) morning start on page UST-1. The
highlights for the LUST sessions that also occurred on Monday morning
start on page LUST-1. Likewise, the highlights for the Program
Management session that occurred on Monday morning start on page
Program Management-1.
-------
LISTING OF SESSIONS
UST TRACT
The In's (Tank Lining) And Out's (Cathodic Protection) Of Tank
Corrosion Protection • UST -1
1998 Compliance U&l - J
Trends In UST System Construction And Materials Ubl -•>
Life After The 1998 Deadline: Roundtable Discussion - UST - 7
Performance Of Leak Detection Systems • UST- 8
Integrity Assessment Approaches To Ensuring Quality -UST-9
Integrity Assessment: States' View UST - 10
Certification Programs UM " n
LUST TRACT
Expedited Site Assessment LUST - 1
RBCA Implementation Issues ^u^ ' *
RBCA: Ask The Trainers TTTCT'B
Use Of Natural Attenuation In The USA LU^ - «
Natural Attenuation J-UST- JO
Corrective Action Technologies • • ^si - LI
MTBE: Issues Overview TTTQT-" 17
MTBE: Remediation/Biodegradation .., LUb>1 ' l'
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TRACT
States Work The Internet Program Management - 1
Brownfields Program Management - 3
UST/LUST Mangers Meet With OUST Management Program Management - 5
Working With The Private Sector Program Management - 7
Pay For Performance Cleanup Programs: Getting Started Program Management - 9
Recent UST/LUST Legal Developments • - Program Management - 12
Making Data Work For You Program Management- 13
Performance Partnership Grants And Agreements Program Management - 14
IV
-------
UST TRACT
The In's (Tank Lining) And Out's (Cathodic Protection)
Of Tank Corrosion Protection
Moderators: Teri Bahrych, EPA Region 8
Suzanne Stevenson, EPA Region 8
Notetaker: Paul Miller
Presenters: Teri Bahrych, EPA Region 8
Jim Maurin, West Virginia
Paul Miller, OUST
Suzanne Stevenson, EPA Region 8
Ed Wakeland, EPA Region 7
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Teri Bahrych presented a tank lining inspection checklist. Important points on the checklist
include proper training of persons lining the tank, the integrity assessment, proper application of the
lining material, and compatibility of the lining material with the substance being stored.
B. Suzanne Stevenson then discussed 25 inspections (mostly small companies) that were performed
in Utah. Some of the lessons learned include:
• Owners and operators really appreciate meeting face-to-face, want to meet the requirements the
cheapest way possible, and don't know about impressed current.
• Nonmarketers need extra help.
• Banks are leery about lending money.
• Some believe that the deadline will be moved.
C. Ed Wakeland discussed some inspections that were performed in Kansas in 1996 to check the
status of suspect cathodic protection systems. Observations included:
• Too many systems (approximately 33 percent) were turned off.
• Most systems that failed had readings above that of bare steel but below the minimum criteria--
implying that the contractor who installed the system probably never made the 6- month check of
the system. These checks are important so that impressed current systems may be adjusted to
adequately protect the tank and piping.
• Some piping and flexible connectors were not adequately protected.
• Owners and operators need better instructions regarding cathodic protection.
UST-1
-------
D. Paul Miller made several announcements. They included:
• A new National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) cathodic protection tester training
and certification is now available from NACE International.
• OUST will be offering additional corrosion training for states and regions in FY97.
• The 1995 flexible piping survey was being updated and will be mailed to states and regions in
the near future.
E. Jim Maurin discussed some voltage measurements he had taken on several composite (both ACT
100 and Total Containment) tanks. Jim got bare steel potential readings on these tanks, which are
supposed to be isolated from their environment. These tanks are not required to have cathodic protection
added because the tank is isolated from the underground environment. However, Jim is concerned
because the reading indicates that somewhere bare steel is exposed to the soil. No one in the audience
had run into this particular situation yet. Wayne Geyer from the Steel Tank Institute (STI) relayed that
STI had conducted a study of six tanks. Based upon the results, STI decided that composite tanks (ACT
100) did not need anodes. In addition, Wayne pointed out. that he has seen potential readings on
fiberglass tanks.
2. Qs&As
Q: Does Region 8 require people who assess the tank to report holes found when sandblasting
followed by a referral to the LUST side of the program?
A: Yes. Those people who assess the tank are required to report holes found when sandblasting;
however, such sites may or may not be referred to the LUST side of the program.
Q: Can (or has) anyone developed a cathodic protection testing mechanism in a box?
A: Cathodic protecting testing in a box is almost impossible because of the many differences in the
designs of cathodic protection systems. The Steel Tank Institute has a test station for some of
its STI-P3 tank systems. STI is, however, only one of the corrosion protection designers out
there.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
Bob Hutchinson of South Carolina sees problems in getting loans for owners and operators of
UST systems-even with lender liability rule. Is there anything EPA can do to help?
UST-2
-------
1998 Compliance
Moderator: Irv Auerbach, OUST
Notetaker: Debbie Rutherford
Presenters Tom Beaulieu, New Hampshire
David Bower, Texas
Ben Conlon, New York
Merlyn Hough, Oregon
Bob Hutchinson, South Carolina
Dale Marx, Utah
Gerry Pursley, Ohio
Eric Wilson, Arizona
Paul Sausville, New York
Sheldon Schall, Wisconsin
Karl Sheaffer, Pennsylvania
Art Zontini, Massachusetts
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented. State UST Managers and staff
briefly presented techniques and approaches they use to promote or enforce compliance with current
UST requirements and to encourage early compliance with the 1998 requirements. While virtually all
states conduct "traditional" outreach activities (such as working with trade groups, mass mailings,
seminars, and technical "train-the-trainer" sessions), presenters focused on the following activities:
A. Pennsylvania uses third-parry certified inspectors to conduct facility inspections and discuss the
upcoming deadline with tank owners/operators on a one-to-one basis. Pennsylvania also mailed a letter
signed by Josh Baylson, then Acting Director of EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST),
to all registered Pennsylvania tank owners/operators explaining that EPA does not intend to extend the
1998 deadline.
B. Massachusetts, convinced that education and customer-based service alone have not been
sufficient to elicit compliance, has initiated an enforcement program which targets government-owned as
well as privately owned tanks. Massachusetts focuses compliance activities on targeted UST populations
(such as state-owned tanks or single-wall, steel tanks) for which owners have failed to produce evidence
of recent tightness tests.
C. New Hampshire relies upon on-site inspections, during,which inspectors complete a standardized
Checklist. Inspections are targeted at communities in well-head protection areas at steel tanks over 25
years old, tanks without leak detection, and tanks without spill/overfill devices.
D. New York will send registered tank owners/operators who are not yet in compliance with 1998
requirements personalized letters citing potential violations and inviting them to a 1998 workshop.
UST-3
-------
Inspectors will visit owners/operators who do not attend the workshop. In a concurrent enforcement
initiative, New York will target violations of current regulations.
E. Under Ohio's "Green Buckeye Award Program," registered USTs that are not undergoing
corrective action are awarded a Green Buckeye emblem to be displayed on the gas pump. Ohio
petroleum marketers have agreed that they will not deliver fuel to tanks without the emblem. In the
future, Ohio plans to award a Gold Buckeye emblem to tanks which, according to field staff reports,
meet the 1998 upgrade requirements.
F. South Carolina has increased its field staff so that it now performs more than 240
inspections/month. All notified sites will be inspected by July 1997 and most will be inspected again by
mid-1998.
G. Oregon conducted 13 focus group meetings with tank owners/operators to discuss 1998
compliance plans. The results of these meetings enable Oregon to target technical assistance and
enforcement activity to three groups: Petroleum marketers with work remaining; non-marketers with
work remaining; and marketers with work completed.
H. Wisconsin employs third-party inspectors to visit every site annually and has revised its
inspection form to emphasize the current status of tanks in relation to 1998 compliance. Under
Wisconsin's enforcement program, tanks affixed with a red tag (because they are undergoing
investigation, show evidence of contamination, or have been cited under an Order) cannot be operated.
Wisconsin is targeting outreach efforts toward petroleum product vendors and delivery drivers.
2. Qs & As
Q: How can states deal with theft or vandalism of decals?
A: If the owner/operator notifies the state that the decal is missing or damaged, the state will send a
replacement. Delivery drivers may call the state to verify that tank does have a decal, and fuel
can be delivered. Pennsylvania suggested that decals and registration stickers not be attached at
the fill pipe where they can be destroyed, lost, or improperly positioned. Montana successfully
uses a plastic tag, color coded and embossed with the year.
Q: Any problem with counterfeit decals?
A: Ohio is registering the Buckeye as a trademark to discourage counterfeiting.
Q: How do states with decal programs handle non-marketers?
A: Tank owners/operators must have the decal but are allowed flexibility in how the decal is
displayed.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
Curt Johnson of Alabama has been pleased with the response Alabama received after sending out
a tailored version of the OUST 1998 compliance letter signed by Anna Virbick. He recommends the
letter to other states.
UST-4
-------
Trends In UST System Construction And Materials
Moderator: Jennifer Bravinder, EPA Region 9
Notetaker: Paul Miller
Presenters: Stan Brodecki, GTE Telephone Operations
Wayne Geyer, Steel Tank Institute
John Hartmann, Hartmann Management Services, Inc.
Rob Hitzig, OUST
Marcel Moreau, Marcel Moreau Associates
Josef Solares, City of Burbank Fire Department
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Wayne Geyer discussed some trends for tanks. These include an increase in the use of larger
size tanks, compartmentalized tanks, and secondarily-contained tanks. There also is an increased use of
aboveground tanks. Mr. Geyer also discussed changes in the national fire codes and UL listings.
B. John Hartmann presented recent national trends in the use of piping for UST systems. Steel
piping has been around for the longest time, fiberglass piping is the next oldest, and flexible piping is the
newest. The more recent designs begin and end in some type of containment sump. Flexible piping
systems typically cost about 30-percent less than traditional fiberglass systems. Mr. Hartmann also
discussed piping installation concerns and potential problems with compatibility with reformulated fuels.
C. Marcel Moreau discussed problems with the overfill protection option of ball float valves (the
most commonly used type of overfill protection). Cautions include not using ball float valves with
pressurized deliveries, coaxial stage I vapor recovery, shutoff devices, loose fittings, and suction piping.
Delivery personnel circumvent the overfill protection (in order to drain the hose full of product into the
tank) that a ball float valve offers in a number of ways including using the drain in the spill bucket as a
pressure relief valve and removing the vent pipe to push the ball in the ball float valve down to relieve
head pressure in the tank.
D Stan Brodecki discussed GTE's UST replacement program including the decisions GTE made
regarding the types of tank, piping, and lids for meeting regulatory requirements. The program includes
over designing for safety and keeping installations simple (such as not letting contractors put things
together in the field).
E. Josef Solares discussed the changing regulatory role for USTs and ASTs in Burbank, California.
In Burbank, the fire service is not going to put gasoline in ASTs. The only way to get an aboveground
gas tank there is by not being able to meet underground requirements. The fire service does allow diesel
tanks to be installed aboveground. However, ASTs are more dangerous and the fire service just does not
want them.
F. Rob Hitzig discussed the compatibility of UST systems with oxygenated fuels. In general,
alcohols are more likely to pose a compatibility problem than ethers. At this time, OUST doesn't know
how fiberglass tanks made before the middle 1980s are affected by alcohol blends, whether nylon
UST-5
-------
bushings and jacketed tanks made before 1993 are affected by alcohols, and if there is a compatibility
problem of elastomer seals in older UST systems.
2. Qs&As
Q: Is EPA considering regulatory changes for ball float valves at this time?
A: EPA has no current plans to make regulatory changes.
Q: (to Josef Solares) Can you have aboveground waste oil tanks?
A: Yes, if the AST is not greater than 500 gallons.
Q: (to John Hartmann) How can I tell an aboveground flexible connector from an underground
flexible connector?
A: They are labeled by Underwriters Laboratories.
Q: WillKPlOO be revised?
A: Yes, comments are currently being solicited.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None
UST-6
-------
Life After The 1998 Deadline: A Roundtable Discussion
Moderator: Irv Auerbach, OUST
Notetaker: Irv Auerbach
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. States want assurance that EPA will not extend the December 1998 deadline.
B. EPA's Regional Offices should work closely with states in planning and implementing post-
deadline UST enforcement activities.
C. The UST enforcement 'sweep' being planned for May 1997 is a good idea but should not be the
only one. Additional 'sweeps' should be undertaken before December 1998.
2. Qs & As
Q: Can an UST be in temporary closure after December 1998 even though it does not have
protection against spills, overfills, and corrosion.
A: EPA's regulations allow that, but the UST must be in compliance with ihese requirements before
it can be opened and used again. OUST will prepare and issue a statement on this subject.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance..
Consider increasing the penalties associated with Federal field citations, especially for non-
compliance with the 1998 requirements. Current penalties are too small to deter non-
compliance.
EPA should increase its efforts to enforce compliance at Federal facilities and at UST facilities
on Indian lands.
States want EPA's help in dealing with state-owned UST facilities.
UST-7
-------
Performance Of Leak Detection Systems
Moderator: Ellen Van Duzee, EPA Region 10
Notetaker: David Wiley
Presenters:" Lamar Bradley, Tennessee
Mike Brush, Idaho
Gordon Johnson, Chevron Products Co.
Marcel Moreau, Marcel Moreau Associates
Joe Sowers, Pinellas County Health Department
Ellen Van Duzee, EPA Region 10 Idaho Operations Office
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Examples of inventory control being used incorrectly, contractors not doing what they are
supposed to, and frustration with statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) systems were described.
B. The theory of how leak detection (LD) systems are supposed to work varies a lot from the real
world (e.g.5 some systems are set to declare a leak at a rate above the proper threshold, thus missing
small leaks). Inspectors must be familiar with all new methods and their constraints (e.g., the level
required for a valid automatic tank gauge test).
C A few pushes of buttons on LD systems can avoid horror stories like the tank with a big leak that
was refilled numerous times. However, the level of understanding by owners and service people is very
low.
D. There are many cases of tanks' passing LD tests and being found to have lots of large holes
when pulled from the ground. However, it's hard to hold a vendor responsible for a faulty test because a
100-percent standard of care is not required. We ought to take it upon ourselves to do a nationwide
survey of performance of LD systems, in order to enable folks to challenge vendors/contractors whose
performance is worse than the 19 of 20 average required.
E. The National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations has published an amendment to the
EPA statistical inventory reconciliation protocol; it covers manifolded systems. SIR systems will be
listed on the List of Leak Detection Evaluations differently if they have met the amendment.
2. Qs & As
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
Mike Brush suggested a nationwide survey on performance of LD methods, manufacturers,
and vendors. When the full-room audience was asked for level of interest hi this, about one third of
the attendees raised their hands.
UST-8
-------
Integrity Assessment: Approaches To Ensuring Quality
Moderator: David Wiley, OUST
Notetaker: Jay Evans
Presenters Hersch Caudill, HT Technologies
Bill Jones, Warren Rogers Associates, Inc.
David Wiley, OUST
John Worlund, Converse Environmental Consultants, Southwest
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. There are varying approaches for which methods to allow: Only those that meet a current code
of practice (NLPA 631), those that follow a past code (ASTM ES-40), those that are third-party
evaluated and certified (none currently), and, in the future, those that will meet anticipated ASTM
standards. These approaches can be combined.
B. What should state regulators do in response to the uncertainty created by ES-40's demise and
OUST's proposed guidance? Look at vendors carefully to weed out the less reputable: Scrutinize
vendors' track records (they should be finding a large number of tanks that cannot be upgraded); vendors
should warranty their work and claims for extended life of upgraded tanks; look for Standard Operating
Procedures. You may need to certify vendors/contractors.
C. What about risk-based factors? Worlund supports this approach, but others felt decisions about
integrity assessments should not be affected by risk-based factors since in this case there's too little time
and money to do proper triage.
D. Is there a study that shows difference in corrosion potential of under/over 10-year old tank? No
documentation on this, and tank age is only one factor in potential for corrosion. This is becoming a
moot point in any event: At this point in time, more than 10 years after 1995 interim prohibition ban on
installing tanks without CP (and 9 years after promulgation of UST new tank technical standards), tanks
under 10 years of age should already have CP.
E. On the possibility of changing state requirements after December 1997, won't that add to
uncertainty on the part of UST owners/operators? All agree it will, but not sure how to best diffuse the
uncertainty.
2.
Qs & As are included above.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
Rick Jarvis (Idaho) urged that any decisions made by EPA or states on upgrading be guided
solely by the need to protect the environment and health and not to meet a (bureaucratic) regulatory
requirement. Bill Jones noted that piping had been ignored in ES-40 and in today's discussion.
UST-9
-------
Integrity Assessment: States' Views
Moderator. David Wiley, OUST
Notetaker: Jay Evans
Presenters: David Wiley moderated 14 state mini-presentations
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. General frustration over being led to embrace ES-40 and now unsure what to do and what level
of leadership EPA can provide. Several states noted the political bind they are in not being able to do
anything more stringent than what EPA requires.
B. Several states voiced safety concerns on internal inspections and prefer alternative assessment
methods, often requiring both corrosion protection and lining and often requiring monthly leak detection
monitoring.
C. Some states noted the dangers inherent in changes in policy at this late point, which is so close to
December 1998. Confusion (real or perceived) could provide ammunition to those seeking to delay the
1998 deadline.
D. Some states voiced concern on the reliability of tank tightness testing (anecdotes of tanks that
leaked despite passing tightness test) and the ability to ascertain the existence and long-term impact of
rust plugs.
E. States expressed concern about what to do in response to the uncertainty created by ES40's
demise and OUST's proposed guidance. Participants agree that ES40 is vague and that they are not
always sure of what they need to be looking for. General advice: Look at vendors carefully to weed out
the less reputable ones and scrutinize vendors' track records.
2. Qs&As
Q: Tennessee questioned the existence of rust plugs and if they do exist that they loosen after the
addition of cathodic protection.
Q: How many USTs are in this category that we're talking about?
A: In the hundreds of thousands, but not sure precisely.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
Several states want EPA to reissue the 10/21 recommendation and add to it language that shows
that EPA encourages states to add conditions regarding integrity assessment based on their state-specific
conditions. Ben Thomas (Alaska) suggested (and others agreed): Send out a survey asking all the states
what they are doing and share the results with all the states (or at least provide a menu of what states are
doing without identifying who is doing what, for political reasons).
UST-10
-------
Certification Programs
Moderator: Ellen Frye, NEIWPCC
Notetaker: Sammy Ng
Presenters: Ellen Frye, NEIWPCC
Bill Greer, Bill Greer Associates
Marcel Moreau, Marcel Moreau Associates
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. In a show of hands, most states indicated that they have licensing/certification programs. Only
a few are happy with them. .
B. The Maine installer certification program was started with the support of "reputable" installers
who had wanted to get rid of "plumbers" doing installations. The state had a couple of reasons for
starting its certification program: It believed that improved installation would lead to greater protection
of the environment; and it was faced with reduced staffing so it wanted to put the responsibility on the
installers to police themselves. A retrospective study has shown a qualitative difference hi the quality
of installations pre- and post-certification. The Maine program seems to be working; a few installers
have lost their certifications, but most penalties involved fines.
C. Certification usually means more than licensing. For example, hi Maine, to be certified, one
must take a test, have experience (must do a number of installations under a certified installer), and
take continuing education. To be certified in Montana, one must take the state test, provide references,
and by the end of every 3 years, have taken continuing education classes.
D. In several states, there was a reduction in the number of installers after the certification
program was implemented. None of the states supported grandfathering current installers.
E. Bill Greer talked about voluntary certification programs hi states without mandatory programs.
These voluntary programs usually require testing, experience, references, and continuing education.
The tests used are usually the International Fire Chiefs (DFCI) tests. These tests are developed by a
diverse group (representatives from many states), widely given (hi every state), and provide immediate
feedback. Bill, thought that state programs could support contractor-developed certification programs
by requiring the use of certified installers to oversee the work. He also mentioned that there is a
person at PEI who coordinates state PEI associations; that person could be a useful link for states
thinking about working with their state contractor associations to create these voluntary certification
programs.
UST-11
-------
2. Qs & As
Q. Who must get certified?
A. The firm must be certified. State voluntary certification programs require, at a rninimum, one
employee to be certified. Bill hopes that all employees of the firm become certified.
Q. Must all site work be overseen by a certified installer?
A. The minimum seems to be that the person overseeing the work at the site be certified. Some
states required that the person be on site at all times; work must stop when the person is absent.
Others require that person to be on site at critical steps.
Q What has been the effect of these programs?
A. Most states said that their programs have eliminated the "bad" actors and part-timers. These
programs also raised the professionalism of the these contractors and gave them more status.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
UST-12
-------
LUST TRACT
Expedited Site Assessment
Moderator: Gilberto Alvarez, EPA Region 5
Notetaker: Rob Hitzig
Presenters Gilberto Alvarez, EPA Region 5-
Kent Cordry, Geolnsight
Rob Hitzig, OUST
Wilfiied Staudt, Land Tech Remedial, Inc.
1.. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented during this session.
A. The expedited site assessment manual is finished and will be available in Spring of 1997. Topics
covered include the expedited site assessment process, surface geophysical methods, soil gas surveys,
direct push technologies, and field methods for the analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons.
B. Direct push methods are available for the collection of high quality groundwater samples. The
information derived from these samples can be used for making regulatory decisions. Research has
shown these direct push samples do not loose VOCs-significantly more than traditional monitoring wells.
C. Field methods are available for the analysis of natural attenuation parameters. Mobile labs are
easily fitted with equipment that can quickly determine DO, CO2, Fe, Mn, and SO4. Measurement of
these parameters can help investigators determine if remediation by natural attenuation is occurring and
give them an idea of where the sample was taken in relation to the size of the overall plume. Often a
mobile lab will indicate a contaminant level when a fixed lab will report non-detect. This is caused by
degradation in the holding time.
2. Qs&As
Q: What is the cost difference between the PowerPunch and the HydroPunch?
A: The PowerPunch costs $680 plus $70 in expendables. The HydroPunch costs $4000 plus $38 in
expendables.
Q: Do states permit the PowerPunch?
A: California excepts it with one traditional monitoring well on site. Other states permit it on a case
by case basis.
Q: (Gil) Why do states have problems accepting field data?
A: Kentucky has had sad experiences with incompetent contractors. In Indiana, we don't trust all
contractors. New York asked, "Which number do we use? We would like to use the higher field
LUST-1
-------
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
A:
3.
number, but we are required by regulation to use the lower fixed lab number. In Arizona, we
don't have the time to evaluate the new tools.
"What states allow DP wells?
Georgia, Washington, DC.
(Kent) What is the hurdle?
An Arizona representative asked, "Where do you take the sample with such short screening
intervals? Is it representative?"
(Kent) You can put in the same screen length with DP as with traditional monitoring wells if
necessary.
Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
LUST-2
-------
RBCA Implementation Issues
Moderator: Steve McNeely, OUST
Rick Mattick OUST
Notetaker: Kate Becker
Presenters: Ruth Strauss, North Carolina
Frank Peduto, New York
Scott Short, Idaho
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Scott Short (Idaho) started off the discussion by saying that Idaho is an industry-friendly, lightly
populated, Republican state that developed a RBCA Guidance in lieu of a rule. The state did not go
through the rulemaldng process because it wanted a document that would be easier to update and faster
to get into the hands of users. Idaho plans on revising the Guidance in September or October.
B. In March 1994, Idaho published a Concurrent Resolution which stated that the state could
perform cleanups for health-based reasons; Scott's Department of Health And Welfare interpreted that to
mean that RBCA could be employed, and they moved forward. In November 1994, Steve McNeely,
Mark Malander (Mobil), and Atul Salhartra met to help start the Idaho program. In March 1995, Idaho
held a Mod. 3 training for its consultants (who have vastly different levels of sophistication). The result
of the sessions was a 'Very big buy-in" on the part of the consultants. In September 1995, the state
published the guidance, which is basically a "how-to,", user-friendly document with worksheets to fill in
and a software package due out in April or May of 1997 (e.g., leveraging equations in API's DSS) to
explain the document even more.
C. Scott stressed many "lessons-learned" and possible potholes in the road to success. He talked at
some length about understanding the magnitude of the project. He recommended developing a time line
and setting target dates even if they are subsequently changed—basically putting emphasis on the plan.
He said that the assistance that Idaho received from outside sources helped a great deal; the sources™
ASTM, PIRI, regional support (RSIPs), API, environmental consultants—are available to most other
states. Scott also mentioned that regulators could help the process by estimating their support
requirements and communicating those needs to whoever might be able to respond to them. He stressed
the importance of involving industry with the project from the beginning "...if you don't, you'll get hit
with it later." Last, he mentioned the importance of getting the staff involved and training and retraining
them. Redundant, repetitive, overlapping training is a necessity.
D. Frank Peduto of New York started his talk by noting that New York is an urban, Republican
state, but unlike Idaho, New York has a lot of technically experienced people and a lot of environmental
activists. New York is in the development stage. When they started to implement RBCA, New Yorkers
needed to have their eyes opened and to learn that RBCA was so different from what they were doing
that learning it would not be easy (e.g., incorporating flexibility into an existing corrective action
process is not easy). There is an open-endedness to the process; RBCA is an open-ended framework that
provides a considerable range of flexibility to accommodate variable risk management decisions.
Everything is not accepted—for example the receptors in the ASTM document are not automatically
LUST-3
-------
accepted. New York needed help from knowledgeable people including technical support for the staff;
Frank noted here that the information that people give you is often their opinion. Frank stressed that you
need to dedicate a person to the task; "...have a heart," he said, meaning don't expect somebody to do
his/her own job in addition to implementing RBCA. It's just too big a task.
E. Training is a big issue. Even with PIRI, training still costs money. It is necessary to train and
retrain; computerized training with new software is available. New York had several demonstration
projects that it used to evaluate the RBCA document it created. The demonstration projects drew
attention to the fact that the state needed better site characterization and lots of data. Among the lessons
learned, Frank mentioned that training for the staff, using outside consultants, and learning the roles that
PIRI can play were the most important.
F. Ruth Strauss from North Carolina was the last speaker. She focussed on why the state developed
a risk-based decision-making (RBDM) approach that was not ASTM or PIRI. North Carolina uses
RBDM for all chemical sites; it has proposed a rule for using RBDM for UST sites. Ruth organized her
talk chronologically. In 1993, a Council was created to investigate and address inconsistencies in the
approaches taken by the Department (of Environmental Health and Natural Resources). In June 1995,
this Council reviewed other programs (including ASTM and EPA). About this time, North Carolina
noted that the State Fund would probably be depleted in September 1997 as the incidents of use were
increasing. Also about this time, North Carolina created a guidance document that is in the public-
comment phase now (3/97). The state is in no rush to finalize the document, but it does anticipate that
the document will be made final around October 1997. The guidance contains a risk analysis framework
that has three groundwater categories and three soil exposure categories~both use tiers (or methods).
Ruth's recommendations include striving for consistency among the programs in your state. The
challenges include making certain that a site stays cleaned up.
2. Qs & As
Q: Ruth, what is the maximum contamination that North Carolina will allow in groundwater?
A: The proposed concentration cap for dissolved groundwater contaminants is either 1000 times the
state water quality level or 50 percent of the solubility concentration, whichever is lower.
Q: Kevin Kratina (New Jersey) noted that his state has an existing risk-based decision-making
(RBDM) process with established compliance goals. The state routinely monitors the RBDM
compliance goals and determined that several majors participating in their PERI stakeholders
group are not meeting their commitments. These are the same companies pushing for major
revisions to the existing RBDM process (e.g., stalling progress and impeding negotiations with
other members of the regulated community).
A: Steve responded by suggesting that New Jersey start laying the groundwork (for outreach) as
soon as possible. This includes detailing the challenges facing the state (e.g., workload burdens,
staff and budget reductions) as well as the state's willingness to foster change through
participation in EPA PIRI Partnership (e.g., by describing the process). New Jersey should
publicly announce the results of its existing RBDM compliance evaluation (e.g., highlighting
either the good players or the bad actors).
LUST-4
-------
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
In Arizona, we're having problems getting started mostly because while our legislative personnel
do not understand the challenges, they want immediate change. How can we surmount these
challenges?
Steve suggested that Arizona talk with Michigan, as that state had similar problems. Michigan
used a regulatory overlay to describe implementation challenges to senior management and
legislative reps; developed an implementation schedule based on identified deficiencies and
focussed stakeholder support on relevant issues.
What does a consultant have to do to qualify as competent practitioner of RBCA?
In Iowa, they have to get at least a 70 out of 100 on a test.
(Nevada) What can you do other than impose deed restrictions to manage your institutional
control process?
In California, we have a data base that includes contamination in closed sites.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None
LUST-5
-------
RBCA: Ask The Trainers
Moderators: Rick Mattick, OUST
Steve McNeely, OUST
Notetaker: Kate Becker
Presenters: John Conner, Groundwater Services, Inc.
Stephen Washburn, ENVIRON
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Rick led off by noting that there are two very good resources for people to use: The OUST
Home Page and the RBCA State Policy Issues Database, but they are only as good as the data that the
states provide.
B. John Conner (of GSI in Houston) is the chief author of the Tier 2 Guidance Manual to RBCA and
the RBCA State Risk Policy Issues Workbook. John described a recent, API-funded survey on State
RBCA Policy Decisions that he conducted with the help of University of Wisconsin/Madison
Underground Tank Technology Update group. A total of 25 states responded to the survey, which
contained policy comparisons on applicability, exposure factors, target risk limits, points of compliance,
use of natural attenuation, and standardized report forms. The results of the survey, including graphical
comparisons, can be found in the RBCA State Policy Issues Database. He encouraged the audience to
visit the database and review the results on the Internet at: http://www.gsi-net.com/RBCAPOL. He noted
that there are software tools also available to the states to help with RBCA implementation including the
Tier 2 RBCA Toolkit and the State Policy Issues Database. He also rioted that ASTM is
updating/revising many of its fate-and-transport equations, including soil to groundwater, soil to indoor
air and groundwater transport. A source for natural attenuation tools is
www.epa.gov/ada/bioscreen.html.
C. Steve Washburn (of ENVIRON) reviewed regulatory overlays that he has put together—a
comparison of key ASTM RBCA issues with selected state regulatory programs. The states he compared
were: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, and Oregon. He uses
the overlay process as part of Module 2 and 3 during ASTM RBCA training and looks for requirements
that are inconsistent with the RBCA approach. He noted that states usually want to keep as much of their
own process as possible and that it is important to know the barriers involved. He has noticed that most
states "prioritize" rather than "classify" sites with respect to potential for harm during the RBCA
process.
2. Qs&As
Q: Greg Hope (DC) asked about the sequence of metabolization of MTBEs, alcohols, and the like.
A: John responded mat his firm is doing a pilot "...to try to measure..."
LUST-6
-------
Q: Any other places for more data? ; -.
A: Rick said that people could link into the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum
(PERF)Homepage and the Air Force Toxicology Homepage from the Outreach section under the
Risk-Based Decision-Making portion of the OUST home page.
Q: How good are the models?
A: John responded (emphatically) that all models are wrong; they're too conservative, especially the
models for Modules 1 and 2. Use reality before you use a model.
Q: Someone in the audience ask if ORD can review and endorse models for use, similar to a "good
house keeping seal of approval. "
A: Rick responded that ORD is not in the business of endorsing models other than those developed
by EPA. However, Rick explained that OUST plans to develop an approach for model review
and compendium development utilizing the resources available in ORD, PIRI, and PERF. He
also asked the states to provide him with input on other modeling/technical issues with which
they could use assistance.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None
LUST-7
-------
Use Of Natural Attenuation In The USA
Moderators: Matt Small, EPA Region 9
Hal White, OUST
Notetaker: Kate Becker
Presenters: Pat Komor, Underground Tank Technology Update
Matt Small, EPA Region 9
Hal White, OUST
John Wilson, EPA R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Hal White led off with a presentation that brought us up-to-date on the status of OSWER's
monitored natural attenuation workgroup. The workgroup was formed because natural attenuation (NA)
is being increasingly used at LUST (and other cleanup) sites and because entities outside of EPA are
developing guidances. The OSWER Policy Directive will be applicable to RCRA Corrective Action and
Superfund sites as well as LUST sites. Although it is not a technical guidance, it will clarify EPA's
position on monitored NA for chemical and petroleum releases. It defines "monitored natural
attenuation" as the use of natural attenuation processes within the context of a carefully controlled and
monitored site cleanup approach that will reduce contaminant concentrations to levels that are protective
of human health and the environment within a reasonable time frame. "Monitored NA" is an active^
choice although it is a passive remediation technology. Monitored NA is also NOT a "presumptive"
(default) remedy. EPA/OUST advocates using the most appropriate remediation technology at a site,
and this determination needs to be based on site-specific conditions. Thorough site characterization and
appropriate source control (including free product recovery) are essential, as is performance monitoring.
Monitored NA is appropriate for many, but not all, sites. Monitored NA requires free product removal,
site characterization, risk assessment, long-term monitoring, and contingency measures. Contingency
measures are typically more aggressive remedial alternatives that are used if and when a cleanup using
only monitored NA fails to meet cleanup objectives. A cleanup is not completed until cleanup objectives
set by the implementing agency have been met
B. Matt Small began his presentation by clarifying that ASTM's standard covers only the natural
attenuation of groundwater that has been contaminated by petroleum. The ASTM standard uses the
acronym "RNA" for "Remediation by Natural Attenuation." Another term ASTM uses for RNA is
"intrinsic remediation." The RNA standard and the OSWER Directive are essentially in agreement,
although the tone is understandably different, reflecting the different perspectives of the regulators and
the regulatees. The RNA standard emphasizes the use of three lines of evidence to determine the status
of a contaminant plume. The primary line of evidence is concentration levels that display trends-either
increasing, decreasing or stable. If the trend is not increasing, then for many petroleum release sites the
primary line of evidence will be sufficient to demonstrate that RNA is effective. Where the first line of
evidence is inconclusive or insufficient, secondary (and possibly tertiary) lines of evidence may be
required. The secondary line of evidence includes measurement of chemical parameters that indicate
thatbiodegradation is occurring. Some of these parameters are: Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, sulfate, iron,
manganese, carbon dioxide, methane, pH, redox potential, alkalinity, and nutrients. The third line of
evidence is laboratory assays (microcosm studies) that demonstrate that microorganisms at the site have
LUST-8
-------
the potential to degrade the contaminants. A potential "fly" in the RNA "ointment" is MTBE, which
current evidence depicts as non-biodegradable, a nuisance (at best) even in low concentrations, and
extremely mobile in groundwater.
C. Pat Komor is the editor of Underground Tank Technology Update (UTTU), which will soon
publish the results of a nation-wide survey conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The
purpose of the survey was to determine how the states are using NA to cleanup petroleum-contaminated
sites. The project was funded by OUST and covered the period from October 1996 to January 1997. The
team—which was made up of people from industry, academia, and EPA—developed two questionnaires.
The long questionnaire had 20 questions and was used by UTTU only (because it was considered to be
too long for states); the short questionnaire had eight questions and was one page long. Pat sent the
eight-question version out and received responses from 50 states and the District of Columbia. She went
through the eight questions and showed us the distribution of responses. All of these data will be
published in the May/June 1997 issue of UTTU.
D. John T. Wilson of ORD's Kerr Environmental Research Center, discussed the technical aspects
of proper implementation of natural attenuation as a remediation method. He noted that the patterns of
natural bioremediation remain fairly constant. About 40 percent of the process is methanogenesis (or
fermentation) and about 30 percent is conducted by sulphates. There is not much difference in the
natural attenuation that occurs in the soils in Alaska as that which occurs in warmer regions.
2. Qs&As
Q: Hal, what is the relationship of monitored NA to ASTM's RBCA standard?
A: Monitored natural attenuation is the term EPA uses to emphasize that monitoring is a critical
element of a remedy that uses natural attenuation. ASTM's RBCA standard provides a
procedure for incorporating risk into corrective action decisions. EPA/OUST advocates using
the most appropriate remediation technology for a given site. Monitored natural attenuation is
one of many options for remediation and its appropriateness for use at a site must be determined
on a site-specific basis.
Q: Dorothy Malier from Alabama asked Hal if natural attenuation allowed the use of models.
A: More and more, risk-based decisions rely on fate-and-transport and exposure models. Monitored
natural attenuation does not discourage the use of models, but all models need to be calibrated
(and verified) using monitoring data. Natural attenuation takes a long time to be effective, and
monitoring data are needed to verify the model's predictions.
Q: Matt, is training available from ASTM?
A: We are meeting in Vermont next month (April 1997) to discuss this topic. Training should
include a review of data and NA rates and computer models (i.e., where they work and where
they don't).
Q: John, what do you say to property owners who are down gradient from the plume?
A: A Georgia person responded with, "That we find the plume...that's what we do." The people
stay angry. Contamination reduces property value.
LUST-9
-------
Natural Attenuation
Moderators: Richard Spiese, Vermont
Hal White, OUST
Notetaker: Bill Lienesch
Presenters: Gilberto Alvarez, EPA Region 5
Joe Hickey, Washington
Frank Peduto, New York
Richard Spiese, Vermont
John Stephenson, Pennsylvania
Hal White, OUST
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Some states have been doing a qualitative form of RBCA and RNA for several years. For
example, at a site where there were no receptors nearby, free product would be removed, and the owner
would be required only to monitor until cleanup levels were achieved.
B. Some states believe that a significant problem or drawback of RNA is how to deal with off-site
migration of pollutants especially in urban areas.
C. Some owners and operators do not want to rely on RNA because, from their perspective, it takes
too long and they may want to sell their property. In states with a state fund, owners and operators may
argue that they have paid into the state fund for many years and that they deserve to have their properties
remediated, paid for by the fund, in a reasonable, relatively fast, period of time. Some state funds have
adopted policies that call for the use of RNA, regardless of the owner's wishes, if it is the most cost-
effective alternative.
D. Although only a few studies have been done, there is some evidence that RNA may take longer
than previously had been anticipated.
E. From a cost standpoint, the Achilles heel of RNA is long-term monitoring. It is possible that
long-term monitoring costs may be so high mat other cleanup approaches are more cost-effective at
certain sites.
2. Qs & As
Q: What can we do to protect future property owners during the 25 years it may take to reach
acceptable cleanup levels using RNA?
A: One option is to use deed restrictions. Some states try to predict future land use to try to ensure
that future land uses and use of ground water will not conflict with an ongoing site cleanup using
RNA.
LUST-10
-------
Q: What reaction do you see in owners and operators who want a more aggressive and faster
cleanup.
A: They often are not pleased with the decision. In many states, they will have to pay the added
cost resulting from the more aggressive and quicker cleanup if that's what they want to use. A
few states allow the owner/operator to choose the corrective action technology as long as it is
effective.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None
LUST-11
-------
Corrective Action Technologies
Moderator: Hal White, OUST
Notetaker: Kate Becker
Presenters: Gilberto Alvarez, EPA Region 5
Evelyn Drake, Exxon
Ari Ferro, Phytokinetics, Inc
John Wilson, EPA R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Gilberto Alvarez of EPA Region 5 led off the session by reporting on the biomound study done
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). The purposes of the study were to determine
the overall effectiveness of the technology, to expand on MNDOT's experience, to recommend design
parameters, and to apply the lessons to "biomound favorable" responsible parties (RPs) (mostly state
departments of transportation and RPs with large tracts of land). The study moved from selecting a
source of contamination to selecting the parameters, then constructing the biomounds, and monitoring
the progress. The advantages of biomound technology were that Minnesota already accepted it and that
the equipment, manpower, and facilities were available. The ingredients for the biomounds were 4 parts
PCS (food source), 1 part wood chips (bulking agent), and I part sheep manure (microbial agents) placed
over PVC aeration pipes and covered with polyethylene. The limitations for biomounds are that they are
unsightly, they make good playgrounds (so need to be guarded), they take a long time, and the analysis
of biomound cores" with manure is tricky. Gilberto suggested starting biomounds projects in the spring.
The costs range from $13 to $32 per cubic yard; compared to the average costs for STTD which are $50
to S80 per cubic yard. MNDOT saved $250,000 over 5 years. An article on this study appeared in Soil
& Groundwater Cleanup (5/96 issue).
B. Dr. Evelyn Drake's presentation was entitled "Phytoremediation of Soil"; phyto is Greek for
plant and remedium is Latin for to correct or remove error. She began by showing the audience a chart
depicting environmental expenditures of the petroleum industry for cleaning up the land, water, and air
from 1975 to 2000. During this period expenditures for cleaning up land, water, and air went from about
$5 million to about $10 to 25 million per year. Then she showed another chart depicting the approximate
cost (in dollars per ton) of various soil remediation technologies (incineration, solvent extraction, soil
washing and venting, bioremediation, phytoremediation) to clean up petroleum hydrocarbons.
Phytoremediation was the lowest cost-in order of increasing cost the other technologies are
bioremediation, soil venting, soil washing, solidification/stabilization, solvent extraction and
incineration. She gave us a primer that began with how soil is made up and listed me key biodegradation
variables (Le., hydrocarbon type, soil type, moisture level, microorganisms, oxygen availability, nutrient
type and amount, temperature, and soil pH). She moved on to the basic structure of plants and explained
how phytodecontamination works. Then she discussed how different plant species with different root
types work in different situations. She discussed a PERF project (94-13) that used grasses (Bermuda,
rye, Johnson, giant foxtail, and barnyard) on (weathered) crude oil and other grasses (Bermuda, rye, wild
cane, salt shaker, and barnyard) on gas pit sludge. Her charts delineating managing risk with plants
showed where phytoremediation fit into the overall picture. In summary, phytoremediation is low cost,
low impact, visually attractive, and environmentally beneficial. It is in the early stage of development.
LUST-12
-------
Its limitations are that the contaminants must be within the root zone, the site must be suitable for
agronomic techniques, and the weather must fall within a certain range in temperature. Animal and
insect damage and chemical or salt impact can pose threats to the process. And, sufficient time and area
must be available for the plants to grow.
C. Dr. Ari Ferro of Phytokinetics, Inc. entitled his presentation "The Prospects of Using
Phytoremediation as a Strategy to Address Hydrocarbon Impacted Groundwater." The potential
applications of phytoremediation are as follows:
-Accelerate the biodegradation of residual hydrocarbons and pesticides in the shallow soil
horizon.
-Select plants with high water uptake ability to inhibit leaching, thereby establishing a vegetative
cap.
-Construct wetlands to address waste streams of dissolved hydrocarbon compounds and metals.
-Use plants and organic amendments to stabilize heavy metals in shallow soil horizons.
-Dewater a shallow perched water bearing interval.
-Use phreatophytic trees as a hydraulic barrier to inhibit shallow groundwater flow.
-Take up, translocate, and accumulate metals from shallow water.
-Combine remediation and habitat restoration activities as a single process.
Published and unpublished results of field and laboratory/greenhouse tests indicate that the microbial
degradation rate of some petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and some pesticides is
accelerated by the presence of the appropriate plant species. Plants can enhance biodegradation by
providing a physical substrate for microbial growth; by oxygenating the subsurface by passive movement
of air along the root-caused microfractures, and active transport of oxygen to the root zone; and by
providing a microbial food source of discarded and dead root cells, and exuded carbohydrates, amino
acids, and other organic compounds from the roots. The rhizosphere is the plant's root zone (i.e., the
active region of the subsurface where increased microbial activity may be utilized to degrade the soluble
and residual hydrocarbons in-situ). The root structure of a plant species is one of the critical factors to
use in selecting plants for a remediation project. In general, fibrous root structure is most advantageous
for bacterial growth. Flood-tolerant trees (phreatophytes) such as cottonwoods, poplars, and willows can
exist partially submerged within the generally anaerobic saturated zone; they can transport oxygen to the
vicinity of the submerged roots thereby encouraging biologic activity; their high water intake rates allow
them to function as hydraulic barriers in shallow groundwater. Hence, installing these kinds of trees
would both enhance local biodegradation of the dissolved and residual phase and establish a hydraulic
barrier to inhibit solute migration. Ari gave examples from a site in Utah and followed up with lots of
equations on the benzene mass balance study results.
D. John Wilson of EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma
presented a talk on air sparging. Although it has been around for some time, air sparging has yet to be
conclusively established as an effective remediation alternative. John Wilson stated that 10 years ago he
was an advocate; he is no longer. He spoke about an Air Force facility where he worked on
contaminated groundwater that was shallow. At this point John differentiated between the term
bioventing, which takes place above the aquifer and biosparging, which occurs in the aquifer. At the Air
Force facility, bioventing removed about 90 percent of the BTEX in the soil. At Plattsburg Air Force
Base, the airmen collected all of the old flammable oils and ignited them in order to practice putting out
fires of this nature. They used the same spot repeatedly. Bioventing was successful in removing the
BTEX (by intake of oxygen) when all of the particles were the same size, but it was not successful when
the particles were of different sizes. Essentially, the microstructure of the soil controls the flow of air
through the subsurface because they create preferential pathways. These preferential pathways contact
LUST-13
-------
only a small portion of the contaminated media, reducing the effectiveness of remediation. Low
permeability layers also can divert or restrict the flow of air, which can potentially cause migration of
contaminants in undesirable directions.
2. Qs&As
Q: For Gilberto Alvarez: did Minnesota add moisture to the biomounds?
A: No.
Q: Were permits required? Are they required for land farms?
A: Someone from Minnesota responded, "No for biomounds and yes for land farms."
Q: Did you sample the leachate?
A: No.
Q: How long did the biomounds take?
A: Five months. . •
Q: Did you turn the mounds?
A: No, the PVC pipes provided enough oxygen.
Q: Did you have a control mound?
A: No, but we did have one mound that used fertilizer in lieu of animal manure.
Q: For Dr. Drake: did you have special soil for the plants?
A: No, we used the soil that was there.
Q: For Dr. Ferro: at what point does the concentration in groundwater become toxic to the plant?
A: We don't know; possibly the solubility level
Q: For Dr. Wilson: would pulsing speed up the process?
A: Don't know; never tried it.
Q: For Dr. Wilson: Would higher flow rates make the channels bigger?
A: Probably not; more likely volume and not pulses.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
LUST-14
-------
MTBE: Issues Overview
Moderator: Robert Hitzig, OUST
Notetaker: DanaTulis
Presenters: John Brophy, EPA Office of Mobile Sources
Patricia Ellis, Delaware
Brian Johnson, City of Santa Monica
Evelyn Washington, EPA Office of Water
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the reduction of CO and ozone emissions from
gasoline. MTBE is one of the oxygenates used to meet these requirements although other substances
such as ethanol or other ethers also work. Analysis of ambient CO measurements in some cities with
winter oxygenated gasoline programs find a reduction in ambient CO concentrations of about 10
percent. The National Academy of Science (NAS) suggested initiating a comparative risk assessment
between oxygenated and conventional gasolines to determine carcinogenicity. NAS also recommended
further investigation before conclusions can be reached on acute health effects and sensitive sub-
populations.
B. Although the Office of Water develops national primary and secondary drinking water
regulations and health advisories for public water systems supplying a rninimum of 25 people, it does
not intend to develop either a primary or secondary drinking water regulation for MTBE. The office is
hi the process of collecting additional data before finalizing the current draft health advisory. The most
recent draft lifetime health advisory number is 70 ppb. If MTBE were reclassified as a carcinogen, at
10'6 risk, the number would drop to 13 ppb. The taste threshold is 39 to 134 ppb, the odor threshold is
15 to 95 ppb.
C. States are reporting MTBE contamination in both shallow and deep aquifers and hi both
domestic and public wells. The percent of LUST sites with MTBE contamination is growing: 90
percent hi Maine, 80 percent hi Vermont, greater than 70 percent hi Florida, 60 percent hi Maryland,
the majority hi New York, and 10 percent hi Michigan. There's a large range of values hi state action
levels and cleanup levels for soils and groundwater.
D. MTBE can be remediated using existing methods, although it is more expensive. More work is
needed to determine the incremental costs. Soil vapor extraction works well at sites when it is applied
immediately, air sparging has potential as well. The "pumping" part of pump-and-treat is reliable and
effective hi that the MTBE is removed, but the "treatment" part can be very costly and not always
effective. Emerging technologies are promising but more work is needed.
E. Santa Monica has lost two-thirds of its water supply to MTBE contamination, two major well
fields have been impacted: The Charnock and Arcadia. There are 45 potential sources of
contamination for the Charnock supply; the maximum MTBE contamination was 610 ppb. Two major
LUST-15
-------
responsible parties have come forward, and negotiations with other companies are moving forward.
Santa Monica is working with Mobil on the Arcadia well field and is just starting to look at remediation
options.
2. Qs & As
Q: Why aren't there secondary drinking water regulations for MTBE since we know it does cause
"aesthetic" problems?
A: There is one for odor, but the speaker v/asn't sure how the value (of 3) equated to
concentration levels.
Q: Have other studies demonstrated MTBE to be carcinogenic?
A: EPA is only aware of one study-an Italian study-and is trying to audit the data.
Q: Is there information on the health effects of other oxygenates?
A: Yes, there has been some work on ethanol, but most of the information is on MTBE.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
States are eager for more information and EPA guidance.
LUST-16
-------
MTBE: Remediation/Biodegradation
Moderator: Robert Hitzig, OUST
Notetaker: John Heffelfinger, Rob Hitzig
Presenters: Bruce Bauman, API
James Davidson, Alpine Environmental, Inc.
John T. Wilson, EPA R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. MTBE can be remediated. Pump and treat (air stripping) is a proven effective method. MTBE is
easier to pump out of the ground than BTEX because it is not adsorbed on soil, but it is more expensive
to treat than BTEX because it is 10 times more difficult to volatilize from the dissolved phase. MTBE is
actually easier to remove from soil than BTEX because it is more volatile in the gas phase.
B. Air sparging has been effective in homogeneous sands. While MTBE is slow to biodegrade, new
research shows that under certain conditions biodegradation may be relatively rapid and cost effective.
C. Both tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME) and tertiary butyl alcohol (TEA) are found in gasoline-
grade MTBE. MTBE does not affect the solubility or biodegradation of BTEX. The taste and odor
threshold for benzene is around 500 ppb; for MTBE, it is around 40 to 100 ppb.
D. In 1988 the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) injected three gasoline plumes into
groundwater to study the fate and transport of various contaminants; one plume contained MTBE, one
contained methanol, and one was gasoline without these additives. In 1996, researchers looked for the
MTBE plume and could account for only 3 to 10 percent of the original plume. It is unknown what
happened to it.
E. EPA has two research sites. At East Patchogue, New York, the MTBE slug is over one mile
from the release site; there is no sign of biodegradation. At Elizabeth City, North Carolina, the plume is
showing very rapid biodegradation. At the front of the plume, MTBE is showing a half life of. I/year.
The conditions are methanogenic. John Wilson believes that different geochemistry will dictate if the
MTBE will biodegrade.
2. Qs & As
Q: Can API help states learn where MTBE is being used?
A: No, changes in the industry are very rapid and difficult to track. MTBE is so widely used that
there is no gasoline tank in the country that we can say never has had MTBE in it.
Q: Did Jim Davidson's research of 14 MTBE sites cover the entire nation or just Colorado?
A: It was national in scope and covered 11 states.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance. None
LUST-17
-------
-------
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TRACT
States Work The Internet
Moderator:
Notetaker:
Presenters:
Jay Evans, OUST
Hal White, OUST
Steve McNeely
Jay Evans, OUST
Scott Freeman, Florida
Ben Thomas, Alaska
Hal White, OUST
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Jay Evans introduced "a different form of outreach, the Internet." Jay's introduction set the tone
for the meeting in that he described the Internet as a tool to assist program implementation.
B. Ben Thomas (Alaska) provided practical cost saving formulas and examples of how his state
uses the Internet. Alaska's web page was developed to reduce the administrative burden on the staff.
The system eliminates or reduces frequent, common requests for faxing information (i.e., people
download what they need) and for explaining regulations (i.e., people download the statutes, guidances,
and procedures that are augmented with common questions and answers). Alaska's Homepage also
includes notification forms, information on active sites, lists of certified consultants/workers, and
directories of laboratories operating in the state. Ben's formula (a "back of the envelope"calculation)
for determining the savings provided by the Homepage was the number of hits times Vi hour (for
responding to a typical call) times the worker's hourly rate equals the savings. When he plugged in
numbers he came up with 60 hits x .5 hour @ $75.00 (hourly rate) = $2250.
C. Scott Freeman (Florida) provided detailed examples of Florida's Homepage and acknowledged
OUST's Homepage as an excellent resource. Scott also provided detailed examples of the structure and
features associated with Florida's Homepage. These included program area updates, spill containment,
and lists of vendors providing secondary containment. Scott also demonstrated some of the standard
reports (e.g., reports based on input from-staff) and standard query capabilities of available databases
which can be incorporated into a Homepage.
D. One comment attributed to Forbes magazine stated that "one of the top indicators of success for
an organization is that it has a webpage." Both presenters clearly stressed that the webpage is only as
good as the benefits it brings to the program. If the system is user friendly (e.g., well structured,
accurate, and routinely maintained); if it takes into account the challenges facing the programs (e.g.,
provides information on relevant issues occurring in the state); and if it meets the needs of the customers
(e.g., answers their questions or directs them to an information source),then it's a success. Otherwise,
it's useless and a waste.
Program Management-!
-------
E. Any state that has an Internet Homepage was requested to provide the access address (i.e., the
URL) to OUST for inclusion in OUST's Homepage directory.
2. Qs & As
Q: (Rl) From start to finish, how long did it take Alaska to develop it's Homepage?
A: Borrowing on the structure of existing Homepages (e.g., OUST and other states) as a guide, it
took between 80 and 100 hours.
Q: What software was used to conduct the queries?
A: CGI scripting was used. It requires programming when linking to databases for queries. Any
system query language (SQL) is preferred for on the fly queries such as Oracle.
Q: What security issues are associated with database links?
A: A machine on the other side of the firewall. A personal computer which anyone can access
which mirrors (e.g., a copy) information from a central database but is NOT connected to the
main system.
Q: Who's the typical audience for information on a Homepage?
A: It varies. Many users are consultants, but owners/operators (mom & pops) also can access the
Homepage. Unless you specifically ask for that information from people accessing the system,
you're limited to a general counter (which tracks the number of access or hits to your
Homepage).
Q: (Washington) How available is the information on Homepages (e.g., Is it copyrighted)?
A: Most systems provide copyright notices when you initially access them. If in doubt, contact the
webmaster (i.e., the Homepage manager). Most federal and state Homepages are public domain
and specify restrictions when appropriate.
Q: (Idaho) Are phone calls really decreasing as a result of the Homepage? How is that determined?
A: Thus far, it's a qualitative determinant. If you involve the staff and ensure that their frequently
asked questions and answers are posted, you can measure the reduction.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
Program Management-2
-------
Brownfields
Moderator: Sammy Ng, OUST .
Notetaker: MarkBarolo
Presenters: Gilberto Alvarez, EPA Region 5
Andrew Clark-Clough, City of Oakland
Sammy Ng, OUST
Bob Richards, EPA Region 7
Tom Schruben, Olympic Underwriting Managers, Inc.
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Sammy Ng led off by asking, "What are Brownfields"? Essentially, Brownfields are
environmentally contaminated sites that are awaiting assessment, cleanup, and reuse. Brownfields also
are becoming a major political movement; and because of political pressures, Brownfields can help drive
cleanup priorities in the states. At this point, there are a number of pilot projects aimed at assessing
potential Brownfields, and the President has asked for more money next year to fund additional pilot
projects, some of which will go beyond site assessment.
B. Tom Schruben started off his presentation by noting that there are a number of affected parties in
a real estate transaction involving contaminated property, including: the developer, buyer, seller, banker,
investor, and insurer. Issues of most importance to a developer or buyer include the following: Can I
make money? Can I consummate a deal? (If the deal is too complicated or if the buyer/developer does
not think he can get all parties to agree, he may opt out of the deal.) Am I taking too much of a risk (this
includes the risk of third-party lawsuits)? And, will this transaction be a distraction to me? (Can I be
more productive focusing my time and resources on other, less risky or complicated deals?)
C. Bob Richards began with, "There are approximately 450,000 real or perceived Brownfield sites."
In an effort to remove obstacles from performing Brownfield assessments and cleanups, EPA will try to
ease the stringent liability scheme imposed by CERCLA. These efforts include the following: Creating
comfort letters that certify that a site is clean, passing lender liability provisions (recently passed for both
the UST and Superfund programs), and exploring the use of state voluntary cleanup programs for use on
lower priority, non-NPL sites.
D. Gilberto Alvarez spoke about some Brownfields projects. He has been involved in evaluating the
assessment and cleanup process and ensuring that EPA is comfortable with the situation. He is in the
process of giving a comfort letter to one of the sites.
E. Andrew Clark-Clough said that the city of Oakland recently formed a steering committee with U.S.
EPA, California EPA, California Water Resources Control Board, and the county to address the issue of
Brownfields with the goals of protecting human health and the environment, stimulating redevelopment,
and accelerating cleanups. The approach that this committee has taken to achieve these goals is to create
a tailored risk-based corrective action process. The committee has made progress in developing a user-
friendly handbook, creating an MOA between the various agencies, identifying the "beneficial use" of
groundwater, etc. The committee is currently working on some pilot sites.
Program Management-3
-------
2. Qs&As
Q: How does EPA's UST program fit into the Brownfields program? Will the Agency be involved
in signing off on sites?
A: Brownfields grew out of Superfund, but there are a considerable number of Brownfield sites
where USTs are either a contributing or the sole factor. EPA expects to play a role in big picture
planning and guidance, but EPA does not foresee itself signing off on individual sites (in the
UST program).
Q: Since there is a strong movement towards RBCA nationwide there will be a lot of sites that have
site-specific cleanup levels. How will developers react to that?
A: There is still a risk, or at least a fear. Many developers have begun to buy insurance to protect
themselves from those risks.
Q: (For Andrew Clark-Clough) How much has the community been involved in dealing with the
Brownfields issue in Oakland?
A: At first, not a great deal. But the community has become involved and has reviewed and
commented on many of the draft proposals.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
Program Management-4
-------
UST/LUST Mangers Meet With OUST Management
Moderator: Anna Hopkins Virbick, OUST '
Notetaker: Irv Auerbach
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Enforcement of the 1998 deadline: Pre-deadline efforts to promote compliance and planning
for enforcement after December 1998.
B. LUST Trust Fund allocation formula.
C. ASTSWMO's UST Task Force presented its 'Report Card' on the UST/LUST program.
D. Performance Measures: How to count risk assessments (at LUST sites where no additional
action is required) as cleanups completed.
E. State Revolving Fund: Delaware and Wyoming have been getting money for corrective action
from the State Revolving Fund created under the Clean Water Act.
2. Qs&As
Q: Will EPA still have an UST/LUST program in 2001?
A: Misconceptions about the future of EPA's program were addressed in a letter to the
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) in August 1996. Copies were mailed to State
UST program managers.
Q: How many states have seen releases from new or upgraded USTs?
A: Many states indicated they had seen releases from new USTs; most of these releases have been
the result of errors made during installation. Few states indicated they had seen releases from
upgraded USTs, probably because most upgrades had been done relatively recently.
Q: Does OUST participate in revising industry consensus codes? Can EPA enforce such codes?
A: OUST participates to the extent possible but is not able to get involved hi all the activities of all
standard-setting groups. Under EPA's regulations, owners and operators can rely on industry
codes to demonstrate compliance; EPA cannot enforce the terms of any specific code per se.
Program Management-5
-------
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
ASTSWMO's UST Task Force recommend that OUST take steps to educate decision-makers in
the Executive Branch and the Congress about the successes and benefits of the UST/LUST program.
States that regulate aboveground tanks want periodic meetings with EPA. This suggestion has been
passed on to the EPA group responsible for the aboveground storage tank program.
Program Management-6
-------
Working With The Private Sector
Moderator: Mark Barolo, OUST
Notetaker: Lela Bijou
Presenters: Mark Barolo, OUST
Sammy Ng, OUST
Peggy Flaherty Prevost, OUST
Sheldon Schall, Wisconsin
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. Wisconsin has developed and conducted an extensive outreach program to reach owners,
jobbers, lenders, and realtors to educate them about UST requirements. State staff have given
presentations at county, regional, and annual business meetings and conducted customer workshops to
plug UST requirements. They also have distributed various flyers and brochures.
B. Wisconsin's successful outreach program has generated an overwhelming response which has
increased me workload of the staff. To alleviate this problem, the state has developed an electronic
bulletin board (BB) to post frequently requested information.
C. The bulletin board has solved some of Wisconsin's problems but has created new ones as well.
The state had to ensure that the information was kept current, that the call-in capability could handle the
number of users, that the BB was user-friendly, and that there was someone maintaining the system and
data.
D. Several states indicated that lenders would not provide loans to businesses that were not viable.
Gas stations that were selling less that 200,000 gallons per month were considered bad business risks and
often didn't receive loans.
E. There is little incentive for owners to voluntarily upgrade if there is no other need to get a bank
loan. Some larger businesses that already have complied with the upgrade requirements are applying
pressure to states to stand firm on compliance for those not in compliance.
3. Qs&As
Q: Is disclosure of USTs on a property required by Wisconsin law?
A: There is no statute requiring disclosure. But the real estate association has an item on USTs on
its disclosure form that has been accepted by the state. In that way, it is recognized by law.
Q: What percentage of Wisconsin staff members work on home heating oil and ASTs?
A: About 10% work on ASTs, and 10% work on home hearing oil issues.
Program Management-?
-------
Q: Are attorneys involved in all Wisconsin real estate transactions?
A: Attorneys are not required by law for property transfers but many times they are involved.
Q: How does Wisconsin pay for its UST bulletin board?
A: Money for the bulletin board comes out of the general UST budget. Costs are being shared with
another department. The initial cost for setup was $200,000. Due to changes and the dropping
cost of technology, Wisconsin is planning to pay $56,000 to develop a new system possibly on
the Web.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
Program Management-8
-------
Pay-For-Performance Cleanup Programs: Getting Started
Moderator: Bill Foskett, OUST
Notetaker: Sammy Ng
Presenters: Chris Doll, South Carolina
Brian Dougherty, Florida
Matt Fisher, Handex of Florida
Denny Hight, The Phoenix Group
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. In order to start a Pay-for-Performance Contracting System, one must change one's attitude
about what one is paying for and about profit. Under this approach, one is paying for results and not
effort. And under this approach, profit (for a contractor) is not a dirty word.
B. Top ten reasons for using a Pay-for-Performance approach:
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Cost containment: You don't pay for things—that is, reduced contamination levels—that
you haven't received.
Administrative ease: No need to review invoices.
More time for staff to do technical oversight (rather than for reviewing invoices).
Results with a smile: Contractor wants to produce results because that is when he gets
paid.
The contractor becomes your partner in accountability for money spent. Need to work
with contractors.
No more hassles for disallowed items.
Faster cleanups: Sites are cleaned up and closed faster.
Budget projects for future funds: Better able to define your future liabilities.
Provide answers to the questions: When is this going to end? How much is it going to
cost? What have we achieved? What did we get cleaned up?
It makes sense for everybody:
o Tank owner: He gets closure on his cleanup.
o, Contractor: He cleans sites as fast as possible for a fair price with a reasonable
profit.
o Taxpayer: He gets what he paid for.
o Environment: It gets cleaned up.
C. Issues to consider in starting a Pay-for-Performance program:
1. Legislation and regulations
2. State procurement codes (does the code allow you to use this method of contracting?)
3. Procurement procedures
4. Payment procedures
5. Need to establish rates (prices) for the various tasks
Program Management-9
-------
D.
6.
7.
8.
Need to establish site-specific clean up goals
Need to estimate total cleanup costs
Need to establish measurement/end points
o
o
o
When, where, and how to confirm that task has been completed
Split sampling
Designating wells/number of samples
9. Escape clauses for Acts of God
o Beyond contractor's control
o Natural disasters
o New releases
10. Penalties for "walking away"
o Forfeit payments
o Banned from program
11. State auditors'concerns
o Was the price appropriate?
o Did the contractor earn a windfall profit?
From a contractor's perspective, there are Pros and Cons in signing Pay-for-Performance
Contracts
1.
2.
Pros
o
o
o
o
Cons
o
o
Less micro management by regulator
Opportunity to use innovative technologies or methods
Reduce the amount of paperwork and accounting firm must submit to state
(e.g., four copies of invoices, subcontractor invoices, etc.)
Long term commitment
Making cost estimatesftid is difficult; need to be able to foretell the future
Scary because firm is taking on a financial risk
E. In South Carolina, there are now 14 contractors working on state-lead sites using Pay for
Performance contracts. In Oklahoma, there are now 39 Pay for Performance contracts involving eight
contractors. Exxon is using this approach for cleanups in Florida. Also in Florida, there are a couple of
agreements in place for state-lead cleanups.
Program Management-^'0
-------
2. Qs&As
Q: Is Pay for Performance suitable for all cleanups?
A: No. It may not be suitable for complex cleanups.
Q: Can you use Pay for Performance contract for site investigation?
A: No because you don't know what you have.
Q: Can you use this approach for natural attenuation?
A: Yes because EPA's natural attenuation approach requires active monitoring.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
None.
Program Management-11
-------
Recent UST/LUST Legal Developments
Moderator: Kathy Nam, EPA OGC
Notetaker: Irv Auerbach
Presenters: Deborah Hilsman, EPA Region 10
Tom Kenney, EPA Region 5
Kathy Nam, EPA OGC
Joan Olmstead, EPA OECA
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. EPA's role in the enforcement of UST regulations is that EPA enforces Federal regulations in
states that do not have State Program Approval (SPA). In states that do have SPA, EPA enforces only
the state regulations (if EPA undertakes any enforcement action). EPA enforces state regulations that are
more stringent than the Federal if those state regulations are included in the EPA-approved program, but
EPA does not enforce state regulations that are broader in scope than the Federal because they are not
included in EPA-approved state programs.
B. The relationship of codification to EPA enforcement is that Federal enforcement of state
regulations is easier if EPA has codified the state regulations. EPA strongly encourages codification
after it approves a state program. Lack of codification makes Federal enforcement more difficult but
does not preclude it.
C. State Program Approval does not encompass state enforcement procedures. If EPA is enforcing
state regulations, it can only assess penalties or take actions authorized by Subtitle I and EPA's
regulations. For example, where an EPA inspector discovers an UST violation, he/she cannot 'red tag'
the associated dispensers and thus keep the UST from being used, even though the state in which the
violation is discovered has authority to do that.
D. There have been relatively few Administrative Law Judge (AL J) decisions in the UST program
and no Environmental Appeals Board decisions. This is due in part, perhaps, to the success of the UST
field citation program in providing an alternative to administrative litigation.
E. Most Federal case law relevant to the UST program is in the area of citizens' suits and private
actions. These private actions are nevertheless important because courts are developing definitions of
key terms, such as "owner" and "operator."
2.
Qs&As
None
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance. None.
Program Management-12
-------
Making Data Work For You
Moderator: Billy Faggart, OUST
Notetaker: Lela Bijou
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A: The data in some state UST databases is incomplete and inaccurate. Too much information is
missing or is unknown.
B. Based upon the data, many unaddressed problems exist (e.g., improper leak detection method).
States can use this opportunity to send letters requesting correct information or self-certification of
compliance.
C. Since qualifying information to discern small owners and operators (Moms and Pops) from the
larger group was nonexistent, identifying Moms and Pops was difficult. Even so, based upon a complex
series of queries, it seems that compliance of small owners and operators did not appear to be worse than
the whole group.
D. Based upon state databases, 16 percent of the facilities show compliance with the upgrading
requirements. PEI determined that 62 percent of the facilities are currently in compliance with the 1998
deadline.
E. The information within the state's databases needs to have aggressive quality assurance checks.
Information needs to be completed, corrected, and kept up-to-date. Data base administrators and data
entry personnel need to be computer savvy as well as informed about the UST program.
2. Qs&As
Q: Should states provide data to EPA from their databases?
A: EPA would encourage states to do so but is restricted from directly asking for this information
because of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Q: Who does data corrections to state data bases?
A: This varies from state to state. Some states have inspectors enter the data. Some states only
allow a select few to modify database information.
3.
Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
Billy promised to provide UST-Access users a report mat will generate the queries necessary to
help catch questionable data. One state suggested that EPA conduct a statistical sampling to determine
actual compliance numbers across the nation.
Program Management-13
-------
Performance Partnership Grants And Agreements
Moderator: Peggy Flaherty Prevost, OUST
Notetaker: MarkBarolo
Presenters: Howard Barefoot, Georgia
Michael Hollinger, EPA Region 4
Dale Marx, Utah
David Nichols, EPA OSWER
Peggy Flaherty Prevost, OUST
Suzanne Stevenson, EPA Region 8
1. Most important issues or topics actually discussed or presented.
A. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) holds federal agencies accountable for
showing actual results achieved from the money we spend. The goals for GPRA are broad and include
Clean Air, Clean Water, and Safe Waste Management Within these broad goals, there are objectives
and subobjectives with associated core measures for which EPA will be held accountable.
B. The National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) is a set of basic
principles developed jointly by EPA and the states which include increased use of goals and
environmental indicators, state self assessments, differential oversight, public outreach, joint evaluations,
Performance Partnership Agreements(PPA) and Performance Partnership Grants(PPG).
C. Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) are broad strategic documents containing joint
statements of priorities and goals negotiated between a state and EPA Region. No grant money is
attached to a PPA. The UST and LUST program can be included in PPAs
D. A Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) is multi-program grant to a state (or tribe) from two or
more Federal categorical grant programs. PPGs provide the state/tribe with the option of combining
funds from different categorical grants into one or more PPGs, thereby allowing the state/tribe to
concentrate resources on its most pressing environmental needs. There are 16 grants (including the UST
grant) that can become part of one Performance Partnership Grant. LUST cooperative agreement money
is NOT eligible for PPGs (however LUST work can be included in PPAs). In a PPG, a state agrees to a
certain level of performance in each of the participating programs; performance is evaluated by
Performance Measures. The Performance Measures are intended to replace tracking and actually
measure the environmental results achieved by the state. Performance Measures are a minimum,
baseline level of performance that a state/tribe must meet. They allow and encourage innovation, they
evaluate progress, and they provide accountability.
E. Many states are choosing to develop PPAs and PPGs. EPA Region 8 has PPAs/PPGs with both
Utah and Colorado and is currently encouraging partnerships with all the other states. Region 8 feels that
a lot can be gained from participating in this program. Both the region and the state feel that the
partnership with Utah has been very successful. It is essential to create innovative performance measures
that are attainable and mat ensure protection of human health and the environment. Utah has even
incorporated the PPA/PPG goals in their employees' performance agreements.
Program Management-14
-------
F. The Georgia UST program also has a PPA/PPG with EPA. Georgians feels that this will be a
positive initiative for their state. The process of evaluating the program and identifying Performance
Measures forced them to focus on the broader goals of their program. This process also attracted
attention from top management in the state, which was a good chance for the UST program to get some
attention. EPA Region 4 supports this process, and though it is too early to assess results, feels that it
was a good means of focusing the state's planning on environmental goals. This process also fit nicely
into EPA's 2005 goals initiative.
2. Qs&As
Q: What is the decision process for determining whether a state's UST program will participate in
the PPG process? v
A: The state makes an application to EPA to be involved in this program. EPA does not decide.
Q: What are the consequences if the state does not meet commitments laid out in the PPA?
A:" EPA has the right to pull that program out of the PPG/PPA process and go through the traditional
grant negotiation process.
Q: Can PPAs/PPGs be multi year?
A: There is a movement in that direction.
Q: EPA has lots of initiatives, and it can be quite confusing. How does this fit with other
initiatives?
A: (See discussion of GPRA for more details.) EPA is working to ensure that they are all
compatible, and the Performance Measures associated with PPAs should be able to be
incorporated into the National Goals Project and GPRA.
Q: For those states that have tried this, have other environmental programs within your department
come after the UST money? Essentially, is there a risk that the UST program could suffer from
this initiative.
Al: Theoretically, some of the UST money could be used for other programs, and other program
money can be spent on the UST program (that is the primary purpose of this initiative -
flexibility for the state). But the state is still responsible for meeting the agreed upon
performance standards.
A2: So far the states that have been involved in this program have not lost their resources.
Q: If a state UST program were involved in this program, were losing much of its resources, and
were unable to convince its directors to pull their program out of the PPG, would EPA be able to
separate the UST program?
A: Yes, EPA would be able to pull the UST program out of the PPG process if the state were not
meeting the performance goals.
Program Management-15
-------
Q:
Al:
A2:
Have any of the states involved in this process derived any benefits from it yet?
Not yet, in fact it has caused a little extra work, but they believe it will be worthwhile in the long
run.
Yes. It has fostered a good relationship between EPA and the state and required everyone
involved to look at the real environmental issues and desired results.
3. Suggestions regarding the UST program or requests for assistance.
There was general concern over the possibility of LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement
money being eligible for PPGs. As it stands now, it is NOT eligible; only Congressional action could
change this.
Program Management-16
------- |