New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
Boott Mills South
1OO Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
Bulletin 34
February
2OOO
LUST.
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Abandoned Gas
Stations—By
Any Other
Name—Are
Still a Cause
for Concern
by Heather Nifong
'Field Notes: PEi Investigates Refueling Fires
6_Uj-Tank-nically Speaking: You Too Can Be a Professional
UST System Owner/Operator
, gas station with the pump islands intact has been closed for at least a year, probably longer.
It's on a moderately busy street. The station building has deteriorated, weeds are growing through
the pavement, and the owner and operator lack the wherewithal to remove the tanks and improve the
property. No one else has sought to purchase the site for reuses Sound familiar?
This property and the hundreds, maybe thousands, of
properties like it pose an administrative problem for envi-
ronmental regulators. Take, for example, the seemingly
simple matter of nomenclature: Are these sites brown-
fields? USTfields? LUSTfields? Do they belong in a volun-
tary cleanup program? A LUST program? The answer to
such puzzlers is, of course, tangled in bureaucratese, which
dictates, to some extent, who will pay to assess, clean up,
and redevelop these sites.
Properties with underground storage tanks (USTs)
include service stations, dry cleaners, and auto body
shops—some of the most common small businesses in
America. When these businesses shut down, such as those
that opted not to comply with the 1998 UST upgrade
requirements, the owners and operators cannot always
afford to investigate and remediate the environmental con-
tamination. The properties are often abandoned and remain
that way, because the real estate itself is generally not worth
enough to compel potential buyers to pay for the tank
• continued on page 2
Lopking Ahead to...More Effective UST p&M Practices
Tertiaiy Butyl Alcohol fTBA)
Northeast States Set Forth a Unified MTBE Strategy
State Funds: The Cash Cows for the New Millennium?
Combating Cleanup Fund Fraud and Abuse PFP Style
Idaho's UST/LUST Database
EPA Region 6 UST Program Collects Large Fine
-------
WSTUne Bulletin 34
• USTfields^-om page 1
removal and remediation, let alone
get embroiled in potential issues of
liability.
Abandoned properties with
USTs are a cause for concern, because
they may give rise to a number of
associated problems. For example,
they may:
• Harm human health and the envi-
ronment as a result of soil and
groundwater contamination,
• Cause injury because of dilapi-
dated buildings,
• Attract open dumping, vandal-
ism, and criminal activity,
* Reduce local employment oppor-
tunities and tax revenues,
• Lower surrounding property val-
ues, and
• Limit economic growth and
development.
U.S. EPA Terms
- ............ • .......................... - ............................. '
.................. OWNFIELDS ..... = Aban-
doned, idled, or under- ~
industrial and , !" ,
commercial facilities ' ~ ~
expansion or rede_
i velopment is complicated
^ by real or perceived envi-
I; ,;1A,rpfinjientel ^ontamination.,
ft „ Brownfields can be
ipjgcated ...... in ...... ur|a.n,,
; ban, and rural areas.
s; fields with petroleum
While smaller in size and ordi-
narily limited to petroleum contami-
nation, these properties exceed
hazardous waste sites in number,
and the scope of their collective
impact on communities is far greater.
However, because nearly all federal
funding for brownfields assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment comes
from CERCLA (the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act), petroleum-
contaminated brownfields sites are
not eligible for most brownfields
financial assistance, unless the petro-
leum contamination is commingled
with a hazardous substance.
EPA Encourages States to
Address USTfields
EPA has responded to the problem of
abandoned properties with USTs in
several ways. For example, it coined
the term "USTfield" and introduced
the "USTfield Initiative" to increase
recognition of these sites and encour-
age the exchange of ideas among
state and local regulators. As part of
this initiative, the Utah UST program
has undertaken a pilot project to
develop a process that can be repli-
cated by other states for transforming
USTfields into ready-for-reuse prop-
erties.
Sammy Ng, Acting Director of
EPA's Office of Underground Stor-
age Tanks (OUST), recently issued a
memorandum stating that the LUST
Trust Fund may now be used to
•assess abandoned- sites for a release
even if there is no physical evidence
that a release has occurred. This
allowance is based on experience or
other available information that indi-
cates the likelihood of a release from
an UST with certain characteristics,
including type, age, and condition.
Unfortunately, no new money will be
available, and, as before, the LUST
Trust Fund cannot be used for tank
removal, except when necessary for
corrective action.
EPA has also begun to provide
forums for USTfields issues at both
its annual national conference on
brownfields and its annual UST/
LUST national conference.
States Begin to Rally to
the Cause
The response of state governments to
abandoned properties with USTs
depends on two main factors: the
organizational structure and compat-
ibility of the regulatory programs
(i.e., LUST versus brownfields versus
state voluntary cleanup programs),
and the amount of coverage pro-
vided by the state petroleum fund for
LUST corrective action.
In Illinois, for example, the
brownfields program works with
both the LUST and voluntary
cleanup programs. The Illinois LUST
program manages the cleanup of
UST sites by tank owners and opera-
tors and issues No Further Remedia-
tion letters. As in many other states,
the voluntary cleanup program is a
separate program and, for a fee,
offers oversight services for both
petroleum and hazardous substance
cleanups.
Voluntary cleanup programs are
more commonly associated with
brownfields redevelopment, because
they extend their services to all par-
ties; in contrast, the LUST cleanup
program is open only to tank owners
and operators. Also, the voluntary
cleanup program typically enrolls
sites that are contaminated with haz-
ardous substances, which corre-
sponds to the federal brownfields
financing scheme.
Abandoned UST sites in Illinois
are eligible candidates for the state's
Brownfields Redevelopment Grant
Program, which awards municipali-
ties up to $120,000 for site assess-
ments and preparation of remedial
action plans. Forty percent of Illinois
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
. In 1989, a gas station in Lockport, Illinois, reported an LIST
release. The LIST owner removed five tanks but failed to fully
remediate the site. The owner soon abandoned the property
altogether.
A. In 1992, the site had grown weedy, attracted vandals, and
lowered surrounding property values.
By 1996, the City of,Lockport had stepped into maintain the property's
physical appearance. However, the cleanup costs and liability associated
with the property continued to repel prospective buyers. In 1998, the city
applied to Illinois EPA for a brownfields redevelopment grant in cooperation
with a new site owner who had purchased the property at a county auction.
Using the grant, the city conducted an environmental investigation and,
after applying Illinois's risk-based cleanup objective, determined the site
could be remediated for less than $25,000.
As a result of the City of Lockport's efforts to assess the site and develop
new remediation objectives, the new property owner moved forward to com-
plete the cleanup and installed a new parking lot and replaced the root
Today, a retail telecommunications business occupies the the building. '.
grant recipients are using the money
to investigate UST sites. Illinois has
also published a guide to help
brownfields redevelopers and reluc-
tant tank owners and operators eval-
uate site cleanup potential, maximize
use of the state UST Fund, and
resolve liability concerns.
In Texas, the Brownfields Rede-
velopment Initiative is coordinated
with the voluntary cleanup program.
UST sites are eligible for brownfields
site assessments only if a used oil
tank is present (because of CERCLA
funding restraints). Texas operates a
separate Petroleum Storage Tank
(PST) State-Lead Program to take cor-
rective action at leaking PST sites that
cannot be addressed by the owner or
operator. Funding for the State-Lead
Program comes from both the Texas
PST Remediation Fund and the LUST
Trust Fund. !
New Hampshire offers a family
of petroleum reimbursement funds
that includes some coverage of aban-
doned sites. Only after cleanup costs
for a petroleum-contaminated site
exceed petroleum reimbursement
fund coverage limits is the site eligi-
ble for participation in the state's
brownfields program.
Beginning this year, Pennsylva-
nia will expand use of its Storage
Tank Fund to pay for tank removal
and limited site cleanups at aban-
doned UST sites. :'
State regulators aren't the only
ones who are encouraging the
cleanup of USTfields. Chicago oper-
ates its own Abandoned Service Sta-
tion Management Program, using
city funds to help return these sites to
productive use and ensure that for-
mer stations already in reuse have
dealt properly with USTs. Besides the
environmental issues associated with
closed gas stations, the Chicago pro-
gram responds to issues of criminal
activity and building safety.
Through its USTfields pilot pro-
ject, Utah will explore the major
administrative issues facing state reg-
ulators, such as authority for over-
sight, funding mechanisms, site
prioritization, risk-based cleanup,
land ownership and site access, cost
recovery, and liability. Ideally, this
effort should stimulate discussion
among environmental regulators and
lead to better integration of LUST
programs and brownfields incentives.
• continued on page 4
-------
LUSTUnc Bulletin 34
IUST'fields front page 3
New Partnerships Are
Working in Illinois
Third parties who wish to clean up
and redevelop abandoned UST sites
in Illinois have several options
available. Which option they follow,
however, depends on site-specific cir-
cumstances.
One option assumes that the tank
owner or operator has reported a
tank release and is eligible for reim-
bursement of cleanup costs from the
state UST Fund, but cannot afford the
up-front expenses. In this case, a
third party may enter into agreement
with the tank owner or operator to
pay the cleanup costs on their behalf.
Afterward, the tank owner or opera-
tor submits the reimbursement
claims to the UST Fund, and the
resulting payments go into an escrow
account to pay back the third party.
A second strategy that third par-
ties can use to access the UST Fund
for cleanup costs is to request a trans-
fer of the tank registration from the
tank owner or operator to them-
selves. This action enables third par-
ties to access the UST Fund directly
(tank registration is a requirement of
Fund eligibility). Upon the registra-
tion transfer, however, a third party
becomes subject to all of the tank reg-
ulations. The resulting liability may
be unacceptable to some redevelop-
ers. Also, this strategy will work only
if the tanks are still in the ground.
Another option available to third
parties seeking help with USTfields is
to apply for a state Brownfields Rede-
velopment Grant. Although only
cities are eligible to receive these
grants, many of the Illinois grant
recipients are working in cooperation
with a third party. As mentioned
before, the grant will pay for site
investigations and for die develop-
ment of cleanup objectives, up to
$120,000. The grant requires a 30 per-
cent match from municipalities. In
some cases, the match requirement is
being met with funds from a third
party. Third parties are also commit-
ting to follow through with site
cleanups, if needed, in exchange for
the city's site assessment work under
the grant.
These options are succeeding in
Illinois because the parties involved
understand the benefits of partner-
ship.
iiiiiiiiiijiiyiifeiyii1" liinJniiHi
"m"wAhandoned"properties with
in in nfc mil nifrt ttt ii * i HI * IfMmyiriiMiiMtJ
need not be doomed to neglect and
ifm\* «iimiui«iui('«i 'ii m 4 i "|
dereliction. State and local
environmental regulators are
I
\- i applying their own unique
11 «• KIP mi i4
thority, resources, '
I and organizational structure to the
1. • • i
problem of USTfields.
Chicago Takes the Initiative:
A Case Study
The City of Chicago used its own
funds to handle a former gas station
on the city's southeast side. In addi-
tion to its broken windows and
unlocked doors, the abandoned
building housed a stray pregnant
dog. Miscellaneous garbage, auto
parts, abandoned vehicles, mat-
tresses, and tires were strewn about
the site. Two pump islands, three fill
pipes, and three vent pipes existed on
the property, indicating the presence
of at least three USTs.
The city's Abandoned Service
Station Management Program initi-
ated the work needed for enforce-
ment action, including writing a
ticket for environmental violations.
The Department of Animal Care and
Control was notified about the dog.
After the site owner failed to appear
at the Administrative Hearing, a
default judgment was issued. The
property then became a target site for
the city and was slated for cleanup.
Through the city's Nuisance
Abatement ordinance, the Depart-
ment of Environment demolished the
building and removed not only the
tanks but also all of the open dumped
waste and the abandoned vehicles.
The Department of Environment also
secured the site and filed a lien on (he
property for the cost of the abatement
work.
While petroleum contamination
may still be present, the property
should hold more appeal for poten-
tial redevelopers now that Chicago
has removed the immediate safety
hazards and prevented further dete-
rioration of the site.
It's Time to Get Creative
Abandoned properties with USTs
need not be doomed to neglect and
dereliction.
AS the preceding examples show,
state and local environmental regula-
tors are applying their own unique
combinations of authority, resources,
and organizational structure to the
problem of USTfields. Their strate-
gies may not—and probably won't—
fit your particular situation. That's
okay. Reflect, instead, on the imagi-
native thinking behind their solu-
tions and consider how your agency
or department can bring about simi-
lar opportunities for closed gas sta-
tions in your own state or hometown.
To learn more about USTfields,
plan to attend EPA's UST/LUST con-
ference in Portland, Oregon on March
20-22, 2000, where a workshop will
be held on abandoned tank sites. •
Heather Nifong is Outreach Coor-
dinator with the Illinois Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's Office of,
Brownfields Assistance. For more
information about the Illinois Brown-
fields program, contact Heather at:
eva8125@eva.state.il.us.
About OUST's USTfields
Initiative
OUST's USTfields Initiative is
working to assist stakeholders
in tackling problems encoun-
tered during the cleanup and
reuse of UST sites. The next
step for OUST is to work with
interested states to outline their
own program efforts to clean
up and redevelop UST sites
and to compile a list of impedi-
ments and accomplishments
encountered in their redevel-
opment efforts. OUST is also
considering a collaborative
effort with the International
City/ County Management
Association (ICMA) to foster
coordination between state
and local officials to help
resolve issues they face in
redeveloping UST facilities.
OUST intends to make avail-
able to all interested parties as
much useful information as
possible about ongoing rede-
velopment efforts across the
nation via its Web site. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute
PEI INVESTIGATES REFUELING FERES
The dispensing of gasoline into the fuel tank of a
motor vehicle is a safe operation. Americans
pump gasoline into their cars between 16 and 18
billion times each year, generally without incident.
The oil companies' track record in this regard is envi-
able.
I am now in my twenty-second year at PEI. Until
September 1999, the only refueling fires that were
reported to me were caused either by an open flame
(smoking), lack of electrical continuity between the
nozzle and the grounded dispenser, or a spark from
the engine compartment (motor running).
Within the last five months, however, 48 ignitions
of gasoline vapors during the refueling of motor vehi-
cles at service stations have been verbally reported to
PEI. While a substantial majority did not involve per-
sonal injuries, we have received reports that a woman
and a dog have died in separate refueling accidents.
Most fires occurred during exceptionally dry
weather. There were no open flames and the engines
were turned off. Continuity was verified between the
nozzle and dispenser in almost all cases. PEI members,
oil companies, and fire authorities that investigated
the cause of these accidents concluded that in 100 per-
cent of the cases, static electricity was the source of
ignition. People familiar with these accidents were
surprised when they first learned about them and
have become increasingly concerned about the num-
ber of fires that have occurred over time.
Naturally, these fires raise questions about why
they are occurring now and didn't occur in the past.
Possible answers include the following:
• Fuel chemistry. Has the chemical composition
of gasoline changed in a way that the conductiv-
ity of the fuel has also changed?
• Finish of the driveway or forecourt. Is the
paved surface of the refueling area sufficiently
dissipative?
• Tires. Tires are being made with less carbon
(conductive) and more silica (nonconductive).
Does this composition make a difference?
• Electrically insulated conductive compo-
nents. Are all conductive parts, and in particu-
lar all metal parts, in the area of the vehicle's
tank system connected in an electrostatically
dissipative manner so that the insulated conduc-
tors are not a source of ignition? We hear that
this issue can be a problem even if the vehicle is
grounded.
• Plastic filler inlets. Today, some fuel tank
filler necks are made of nonconductive plastics
with a metal trapdoor opening. Some are con-
nected to molded fiberglass fuel tanks. Could
refueling transmit a charge to the insulated plas-
tic filler neck that, in turn, might cause a spark to
jump to the grounded nozzle?
• Customers reentering their vehicles dur-
ing refueling. An electrostatic charge is gener-
ated through friction between clothing and the
car seat to such an extent that electrostatic dis-
charges to the vehicle body or to the filling noz-
zle are possible, especially if the motorist is
wearing rubber-soled shoes. A Midwestern oil
company warned of this hazard in a November
24,1999, memo to its dealers, sellers, and jobbers
stating that "...a flash fire can result from this
discharge if sufficient flammable vapors are pre-
sent. Therefore, customers should be discour-
aged frpm reentering their vehicles while fueling
is underway." More than half of the fires that
have been reported to PEI involved the motorist
reentering the vehicle at some point during the
refueling process.
Unfortunately, we don't have any definitive
answers. We are in the process of collecting informa-
tion on similar incidents so the industry can get a bet-
ter handle oh the cause(s) of the problem. If you are
aware of refueling fires presumably caused by static
electricity, we would like to know about them. Include
as much detail as possible to help us understand what
happened. Please include the make, model, and year
of the vehicle, the type of fuel used, the type of tires
and driveway finish, the customer action while refuel-
ing, and any other information that you believe would
be useful. A form that can be used is available on PEI's
Web site: www.pei.org.
The information we receive in response to this
request will be summarized and made available, upon
request, to interested parties. No oil company or PEI
member names will be divulged. All responses will be
confidential. Please direct your correspondence or
telephone responses on this issue to Bob Renkes at
PEI, (918) 494-9696. •
-------
LUSTUnc Bulletin 34
nically Speaking
by Marcel Moreau
TANK MANAGEMENT 101
You Too
Can Be a
"Professional"
UST System
Owner/
Operator
I am a firm believer in the power of
iwrds. For as long as I've been in the
tank business, and for a long time before,
tank owner types have been neatly com-
pftrtmented as "major oil," "oil jobber,"
"private," "government," and, of course,
"mom and pop." While these labels have
some utility in characterizing UST ownership,
they do not address a vastly more important charac-
teristic—the quality of UST management. If we are to enlist
the power oftoords in the quest for better UST management, I believe we need
to adopt some neio labels. I would like to introduce two new terms to describe
tank owner/operator managers: "the professional" and "the amateur."
|.:;. i^ffrcel Moreau ista nationally^ ? J
r recognized petroleum storage specialist
I whose column, Tank-nicalty Speaking,
f is a regular feature o/LUSTLine. As
I always, we welcome your comments and
Questions. If there are technical issues that
| you would like to have Marcel discuss,
let him know at: '
mafcel.rripream@juno.com. '__
This tJ«SP Manager is:
(a) an Amateur
(b) aJPv&fessionat
The Amateur Versus the
Professional
Professional storage system man-
agers are fully aware of the haz-
ardous nature of fuel storage and
their responsibility to supply us with
the fuel we need in ways that are as
protective of human health and the
environment as possible. They have a
keen sense of responsibility and con-
tinually strive to acquire knowledge
about and practice the skills of their
profession.
Amateur storage system owner/
operators are barely aware of the
hazards posed by their activities and
their corresponding responsibility to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment. Many operate in blissful
ignorance of the standards of their
industry and the potential conse-
quences of their activities.
Simply stated, the problem with
UST management in this country is
that there are too many amateurs in
charge of our UST systems. The ulti-
mate goal of UST regulatory pro-
grams is to have a universe of UST
systems that are managed in a profes-
sional manner. The regulatory chal-
lenge then becomes one of finding
ways to institute or encourage the
amateur tank manager to make the
upgrade to professional tank man-
ager. While new words do not neces-
sarily make this challenge any easier,
they can help to frame the issues in a
more concrete manner.
So, what do professional tank
managers need to help them do their
job better? One basic need is relevant
information. Where can an inquisi-
tive UST manager go to get the infor-
mation she or he needs to do a
professional job? To put my words
where my soap box is, I developed
two lists: a short list of technological
Achilles' heels that have led to the
downfall of too many USTs and a list
of behavioral Achilles' heels that
seem to bedevil UST managers. They
are not by any means complete lists,
but these issues continue to resonate
in my experience with USTs, UST
operators, and UST release incidents.
The Technological Achilles'
Heels of UST Systems
UST equipment vendors and in-
stallers prefer to give UST owners
and operators the impression that the
technology they are selling will pro-
tect an UST system against all man-
ner of accidents that may have
befallen such systems in days of yore.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
While some of the issues have
changed, the fact remains that no
UST system can be permanently vac-
cinated against releases. An UST
manager's greatest vulnerability
may, in fact, be this sense of invulner-
ability. Professional UST managers
should know enough about their
storage systems to recognize the
likely weak points. Only then can
they take steps to ensure that their
Achilles' heels do not receive that
fatal arrow.
Following is my list of Achilles'
heels that professional UST managers
should evaluate with regard to each
storage system for which they are
responsible:
Strike Plates
"Strike plates" or "wear plates" are
steel reinforcing plates that are
installed beneath tank openings. In
fiberglass tanks, they protect against
the impact of the gauge stick. In steel
tanks, they protect against corrosion
problems that can occur when water
is not promptly removed from a
tank.
In 1985, strike plates became
standard beneath all fiberglass tank
openings. For about 10 years prior to
that year, they were present only
beneath openings intended to be fill
openings. The presence of a strike
plate in a fiberglass tank can be deter-
mined by lowering a strong magnet
on a string down the fill pipe and see-
ing if it "sticks."
Strike plates became an optional
component of STI-P3 tanks beginning
in 1982 and a standard component
beneath all tank openings in 1987. If
your steel tank warranty includes
both internal and external corrosion
protection, then the tank has strike
plates installed. Older steel tanks that
have been upgraded by internal lin-
ing often have a strike plate installed
beneath the fill opening as part of the
lining procedure.
The absence of strike plates is a
cause for concern, especially for fiber-
glass tanks. Fortunately, there are
retrofit devices known as "tank bot-
tom protectors" that are inexpensive
and easy to install in fiberglass or
steel tanks that provide equivalent
protection to strike plates. If you
have any doubts about whether your
tanks are equipped with strike plates,
install retrofit tank bottom protectors
sooner rather than later. Tank bottom
protectors are cheap insurance
against potentially major releases.
Working Capacity '
Most tank owners assume that if they
requested and paid for a 10,000-gal-
lon tank, then the tank will hold
10,000 gallons. What most tank own-
ers don't know is that the "nominal
capacity" of a tank (e.g., the facility
has three 10,000-gallon tanks) is not
the same as the actual tank capacity
(the maximum volume of liquid that
a tank will actually hold as listed on
the tank chart). In addition, the actual
capacity of motor fuel tanks can be
reduced by as much as 10 percent
because of the installation of overfill
prevention devices.
Since. 1987, steel tanks have been
required by their construction stan-
dard (UL 58) to hold no less than
their nominal capacity, so the actual
capacity of a steel tank is usually
equal to or slightly more than the
nominal capacity.
An UST manager's greatest
vulnerability may, in fact, be this
|f sense of invulnerability.
^Professional UST managers should
_ i
I know enough about their storage
systems to recognize the likely
-K * weak points.
The fiberglass tank construction
standard, UL 1316, has no similar
capacity specification. While many
fiberglass tanks do, in fact, hold their
nominal capacity, a few sizes—
notably those with a nominal capac-
ity of 10,000 gallons—have actual
capacities that are significantly less.
For example, an 8-foot-diameter,
10,000-gallon tank manufactured by
Owens Corning has an actual capac-
ity of 9,728 gallons, while an 8-foot
diameter, 10,000-gallon Xerxes tank
holds 9,816 gallons in the single-
walled version and 9,684 gallons in
the double-walled version.
These actual capacities are fur-
ther reduced by overfill prevention
hardware that is intended to shut off
or restrict flow into the tank at a point
that is substantially below the actual
capacity of the tank. Information con-
cerning the level at which the overfill
device will trigger (what I call the
"working capacity") is hardly ever
conveyed to the UST manager.
If they are unfamiliar with work-
ing capacity, tank mangers are more
likely to order more fuel than will fit
in the tank, which, because of the
problems inherent in overfill preven-
tion hardware, results in frustrated
delivery personnel, opportunities for
spills, and the creation of hazardous
situations. (See LUSTLine #21, "What
Every Tank Owner Should Know
About Overfill Prevention," and #31,
"If Only Overfill Prevention
Worked.")
Professional UST managers must
know the working capacity of their
tanks and should plan fuel deliveries
so that the liquid volume in the tank
never exceeds the working capacity.
Type of Overfill Prevention
Installed in the Tank
Not all overfill prevention devices
are compatible with all types of tank
delivery techniques. UST owner/
operators should know both the type
of overfill prevention installed and
some details of the method of fuel
delivery .into the tank. (Refer to
LUSTLine #21 for a discussion of
overfill prevention hardware.) Here
are things you should know about
your delivery procedures:
• Gravity Versus Pumped Flow
Briefly, product is usually deliv-
ered into larger underground
tanks by gravity flow from the
tanker to the UST. In this case,
product is metered into the truck
but is not metered when it is
delivered into the UST. In some
cases, especially for military, gov-
ernment, post office, municipal,
and school facility tanks, delivery
contracts require that the quantity
of fuel be metered directly into the
tank. In most cases, when a meter
is introduced into the delivery
process, a pump is used to push
the product through the meter
and into the UST so as not to slow
down the delivery. The distinction
between gravity and pumped
deliveries is extremely important
for accident-free deliveries.
• Loose- Versus Tight-Fill Con-
nections Most often, delivery
hoses are tightly clamped to the
fill pipe opening during the deliv-
• continued on page 8
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
• Tank-nfcaliy Speaking from page 7
ery (tight fill). Occasionally, how-
ever, delivery hoses are connected
to a short length of pipe that is
loosely inserted into a fill pipe
(loose fill), the same way you fuel
your car. Loose fills can present a
fire hazard, because flammable
vapors can be released at grade
around the fill pipe. NFPA 30 lim-
its loose fills for Class I liquids
(e.g., gasoline) to tanks of 1,000
gallons or less. As a general rule,
tight-fill deliveries are preferable
to loose-fill deliveries.
• Direct- Versus Remote-Fill
Pipes Fill pipes usually enter
directly into the tank (straight or
direct fill). But if tanker access is a
problem, the fill pipe opening
may be some distance from the
tank (remote fill). When a remote
fill is installed, there is almost
always a direct fill as well that is
used as a gauge opening for mea-
suring the product level. Often,
the remote fill is joined to the
direct fill with a below-grade "T"
connection.
• Drop-Tube Devices for Overfill
Prevention Devices installed in
the drop tube of USTs (commonly
called flapper valves or shut-off
devices) should not be used with:
• Pressurized deliveries, because
they are not designed to with-
stand the extra pressure pro-
duced by the pump and will
fail.
• Loose fills, because when the
overfill device closes, product
will rapidly back up the fill
pipe and spill onto the ground.
If the pipe that is inserted into
the fill pipe is too long, it will
interfere with the closing of the
overfill device.
• Remote fills, unless there is a
"trap door" at the top of the
direct-fill pipe that automati-
cally closes, except when a
gauge stick is inserted. Drivers
often leave the cap for the direct
fill off during the delivery,
because they stick the tank
before and after the delivery
and do not see the need to
replace the cap during the
delivery. If the flapper valve
closes with the cap off, product
will flow up the fill pipe and
onto the ground, rather than
down the fill pipe into the tank.
• Float Vent Valves for Overfill
Prevention Float vent valves are
not compatible with a number of
common UST features (including
suction pumps, coaxial Stage I
vapor recovery, pressurized deliv-
eries, and remote-fill pipes) and
are a poor method of overfill pre-
vention even when they work as
they are intended. (See LUSTLine
#21 and #31 for more information.)
My recommendation is to remove
all float vent valves and replace
them with drop-tube shut-off
devices and overfill alarms.
• Alarms for Overfill Prevention
Overfill alarms can generally be
used with all types of delivery
equipment, but they must be
located where they will alert the
delivery driver, not the cash regis-
ter attendant or the facility man-
ager. Be sure that they are clearly
labeled so the driver knows what
they are and loud enough to
awaken a dozing delivery person.
Pressurized Pumping Systems
Pressurized pumping systems are the
most common cause of major releases
of petroleum products. Most retail
facilities today have this type of
pumping system. If you're not sure,
remove the dispenser covers and
check to see whether you have any
pulleys and v-belts inside the dis-
penser. If these items are absent, you
have pressurized piping.
Frequent and effective leak
detection on pressurized piping is
critical. Submersible pumps should
be equipped with electronic line leak
detectors (see LUSTLine #29, "Of
Blabbermouths and Tattletales—The
Life and Times of Automatic Line
Leak Detectors") that search for small
leaks whenever the piping is idle for
a half-hour or so, and secondary con-
tainment with a sensor to continu-
ously monitor for leaks. Anything
less for leak detection on pressurized
piping is foolhardy.
Dispensers
Dispensers have lots of connections
and fittings that can come loose and
leak. Depending on the location,
some of these leaks can remain unde-
tected by inventory control, line leak
detectors, and line tightness testing,
although they can almost always be
seen if you bother to look.
Remove dispenser side panels
once a week and conduct a thorough
visual inspection. Check around fil-
ters, meters, and unions for evidence
of moisture or drips. Look in the dis-
penser pan or the soil beneath the
dispenser for evidence of drips or
moisture. If you see anything that
looks like it might even be thinking
about leaking, have it attended to
right away.
Spill Containment Manholes
Spill containment manholes around
fill pipes are a maintenance
headache, because they accumulate
water, product, dirt, rags, cigarette
butts, Styrofoam cups, and so on.
They are also subject to use and
abuse from delivery personnel. In
addition, they are orphans—facility
operators seem to think that it is the
delivery person's responsibility to
maintain them, and delivery person-
nel believe they are the responsibility
of the facility operator.
Failure to keep spill containment
manholes clean and functional can
lead to a variety of problems, ranging
from water and dirt in the fuel
(remember that these devices gener-
ally drain into the tank) to improper
attachment of delivery hoses (in
northern climates, they can fill with
ice to the point where they interfere
with the delivery hose connection)
that can lead to spills. Check spill
containment manholes weekly and
remove and properly dispose of any
dirt, water, or product that may be
present. If drain mechanisms are bro-
ken or gaskets or seals are torn, have
them fixed right away.
Secondary Containment
If you have invested in secondary
containment, you've made a wise
decision. However, make sure that
you have gotten and continue to get
the protection that you paid for. Dou-
ble-walled tanks are reasonably trou-
ble-free, but secondarily contained
piping can be a problem child. Be
sure that your piping is completely
contained by checking whether you
have containment sumps both under
your dispensers and at the tank top.
If you have no sumps under your dis-
pensers, plan to add some sooner
rather than later. If you have no tank
top sumps, then, in my book, you
8
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
haven't got secondary containment.
Tank top sumps are prone to fill-
ing up with water whenever it rains.
However, do not rest easy simply
because your sumps never have
much water in them. Maybe they do
not accumulate water because they
are not liquid-tight. If water is leak-
ing out, so will product, and you
don't have secondary containment.
If you are having secondarily
contained piping installed, be sure
that the installer tests both dispenser
and tank top sumps according to the
manufacturer's instructions to ensure
that they are liquid-tight at the time
of installation. Testing is usually
done by filling the sumps with water
and letting them sit for a period of
time to see whether the water drains
out.
If you have existing secondary
containment, have it tested on an
annual basis to verify that the con-
tainment is liquid-tight. There have
been cases in Maine where tank own-
ers were rudely surprised to find that
what appeared to be a minor leak
contained in a sump turned out to be
a major release that escaped through
the bottom of a leaky sump.
The Behavioral Achilles'
Heels of UST Management
Know Your Leak
Detection System
Do you know what your leak detec-
tion system is detecting? Does it
check your tanks, piping, or both?
Does it conduct tests periodically or
relatively continuously? How does it
alert you to a suspected release? How
does it alert you if something is not
quite right with the leak detection
system itself? What is the recom-
mended maintenance and/or calibra-
tion interval? Have you read your
owner's manual?
Leak detection hardware is to an
UST what brakes are to a car. You
may not know how to fix your car's
brakes, but you should know how
they "feel" so you can tell when
something is not right. Likewise, you
should know enough about your leak
detection system so that you are com-
fortable with what it does and know
how to respond when an alarm goes
off or it malfunctions.
If you don't have an owner's
manual for your leak detection sys-
tem, get one from the installer, the
distributor, or the manufacturer.
Spend a little time with it so that you
understand the basics of how your
system works, what kinds of prob-
lems it detects, what might cause
false alarms, and what the warping
messages mean. If the owner's
manual is less than helpful, get a
knowledgeable manufacturer's rep-
resentative, installer, or (gulp!) regu-
lator to give you a detailed overview
of your system. Here are some leak
detection essentials that you should
know: ,
• How often should your leak
detection system be main-
tained? If no maintenance sched-
. ule is specified in your product
literature, do not be lulled into
believing that your device will run
unattended and trouble-free for-
ever. If no maintenance interval is
specified, a one-year maintenance
schedule is recommended. At the
very least, be sure that any sensors
are tested annually to verify'that
the alarm goes off when the sensor
is exposed to conditions that simu-
late a leak. ;
Leak detection hardware is to an
•-•- ; -:-: "••"-••• I -
UST what brakes are to a car. You
-
may not know how to fix your car's
-• brakes, but you should know how
r-.v vx,;„;,/.;,.',,••,:..,, . . - v,,-;, J,
"feel" so you can tell when
something is not right.
I What do you do if there is an
alarm? Prominently post emer-
gency response names and phone
numbers and instruct on-site per-
sonnel regarding the circum-
stances that require notification of
upper management and/or out-
side personnel. Ensure that on-site
personnel know what to do when
there is even the possibility of an
emergency situation or a possible
spill or leak.
What do you do if you keep
getting false alarms? One of the
more vexing aspects of today's
leak detection systems is that false
alarms are frequent. Very often,
alarms can be traced to accumula-
tions of water in secondary con-
tainment systems or improper
programming, but some devices
give warnings when product lev-
els are too low or too high or even
when they are out of paper. Do
whatever it takes to eliminate false
alarms. If a secondary contain-
ment sump takes on water, get the
installer to fix it, as this condition
is most often traceable to an instal-
lation problem. If the installer
can't or won't fix the problem, find
another installer.
Keep an Eye on Inventory
Although inventory is not the best
leak detection method in the world, it
can still provide valuable informa-
tion that can help avoid problems. If
you have an ATG that gives you
product volume information, then
daily inventory variances should be
very small. If this is not the case, then
perhaps there is something wrong
with the ATG programming, your
meter calibration, or some other
aspect of the inventory procedure.
Once the ATG is properly cali-
brated, work on tuning your inven-
tory procedures so that inventory
variances can routinely be kept to
single digits on most days if you
don't pump much volume, or a half
percent of sales if you do pump large
volumes. If you can achieve this goal
(and not by having someone fudge
the numbers), then when there is an
indication that something is wrong,
inventory records can be a valuable
tool in understanding the magnitude
of the problem.
In a recent case in Maine, the
physical evidence in the tank top
sump indicated a minor release, but
the inventory records indicated a
much more significant problem. Had
anyone paid attention to the inven-
tory records, the true nature of the
problem could have been discovered
before product came pouring out into
a drainage ditch.
Keep Personnel Informed
All on-site personnel should know
the basics of how the storage system
works, the meaning of the various
warning signals that might occur,
how to respond, and who to report to
if problems are noted. Here are a few
examples that illustrate why it is
important to have informed person-
nel:
• The overfill warning on an ATG
sounded at a facility during an
• continued on page 10
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
• Tank-nically Speaking from page 9
overfill incident that resulted in
several fatalities. When the cash
register attendant was asked
what the alarm meant, she
replied that it meant that the
delivery person would soon be
coming in to have her sign the
delivery receipt.
• The head of a tank regulatory
program traveling in another
state noticed that a facility was
experiencing slow flow. He
reported the incident, which
turned out to be a major release
that had been going on for some
time.
• At a recent class I was teaching
for UST owners and operators, I
was discussing how line leak
detectors indicate leaks by reduc-
ing the flow rate, when one of the
participants in the front row of
the class gasped. It seems she
had a pump that had frequently
experienced slow flow but she
had always thought it was a
problem with the pump.
A little investment in employee
education can have big returns in
facility safety, security, and profits.
invest in Preventive
Maintenance
To ensure that alarms perform in a
meaningful way, it is important to
minimize false alarms resulting from
such things as water entry into
sumps, clogged filters that reduce
flow rates, or equipment malfunc-
tions. It is also important to make
sure that real alarms aren't occurring
because of things like leaky unions,
improperly installed filters, or bad
seals on meters.
Have a storage system check-up
conducted at least once every year.
This time is a great opportunity to
have spill containment manholes
cleaned and repaired, overfill pre-
vention devices checked, leak detec-
tion sensors tested, sumps checked
for tightness, unions and fittings
checked for leaks, ATGs maintained,
piping and line leak detectors tested,
crash valves checked, filters changed,
hoses checked for cracks, fill caps
checked for tightness, meters cali-
brated, and, in general, the facility
looked over by a trained and experi-
enced eye.
Historically, many UST managers
have approached storage systems
with an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
attitude. As facility throughputs have
increased dramatically in the last
decade, equipment is being asked to
work harder and longer, and cus-
tomer expectations of convenience
and reliability have never been
higher. It is a wise UST manager who
recognizes that an invoice for preven-
tive maintenance is a much better
investment than a box of "out-of-
order" covers for his or her nozzles.
I Haven't Got Time for
All This!
I can hear the moans and groans from
facility managers now. "I have too
much to do already!" "You think I
have nothing better to do than look
after my storage system? I have a
business to run!" Running a conve-
nience store these days is a complex
and highly competitive enterprise.
Maintaining the facility appearance,
retaining employees, keeping the
shelves stocked and the bathroom
dean, and managing the fuel storage
system can keep a facility manager
hopping. There are several solutions:
• Delegate tasks to on-site person-
nel, where appropriate. Make
them personally responsible for
inspecting hoses, nozzles, dis-
pensers, and spill containment
manholes, and reward them for
keeping things shipshape and
noticing potential problems.
• If the company has a substantial
number of UST facilities, hire one
person whose responsibilities lie
solely in the realm of underground
storage. Having a knowledgeable
and conscientious person in a
responsible position can work
wonders for keeping storage sys-
tems operational, leak-free, and in
compliance.
• Establish a service contract with a
reputable pump and tank contrac-
tor who will assume responsibility
for routine inspections and main-
tenance of your UST facilities.
The Achilles' Heel of UST
Regulations
For better or for worse, storage sys-
tem technology in the United States is
going to stay where it is for a while.
The next big improvements in pro-
tecting human health and the envi-
ronment from UST releases are going
to come from people—not technol-
ogy. Petroleum industry experience
for many decades has been that influ-
encing the behavior of people who
manage USTs is a frustrating task. I
expect that upgrading UST managers
from amateurs to professionals is a
challenge that will make the drive for
1998 upgrade compliance look like a
picnic in the country. •
EPA HQ UPDATE
Web Page on UST System
Performance Evaluation
For the past year, multiple orga-
nizations have been involved in
some way in UST system perfor-
mance evaluation. To spread the
word about these efforts, OUST
has established a Web page that
briefly describes projects, both
public and private, that are com-
pleted, under way, or planned.
This information is available at
http:// www.epa.gov/swerustl/
ustsystm / usteval.htm.
Although some work has
been completed, many unknowns
remain regarding environmental
performance at UST sites. With
limited resources in both govern-
ment and industry, collaboration
is often the key to progress. We
hope this list of projects not only
links interested parties to find-
ings but also encourages collabo-
ration in pursuing the additional
work needed.
If you are involved in any of
the projects listed, please review
the information on the Web site
to ensure that it is up-to-date. If
you have a project to add, please
share the relevant information
with us.
If you are interested in coor-
dinating with EPA to further UST
system performance evaluation,
contact Bill Lienesch at lienesch.
william@epa.gov. As always,
your general information
requests can be addressed by
calling EPA's Hotline, (800) 424-
9346. •
10
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
Leak Prevention
Looking Ahead to a Future of More Effective
UST Management and Operation Practices
Room for Improvement
By James M. Davidson and Daniel N. Creek
Over the last 20 years, many
improvements have been
made to underground stor-
age tank (UST) systems. Engineering
and design changes have reduced
fuel losses from mechanical failures.
Increasingly diligent management
and operation practices have helped
reduce losses due to human errors
and maintenance mishaps. In the
process of developing these im-
provements, a wealth of UST litera-
ture has been created.
To bring all of this information
into focus, we recently completed a
document titled Survey of Current UST
Management and Operation Practices
(1999) for the California MTBE
Research Partnership. During the
course of our survey, we uncovered
more than 100 references that provide
detailed information on UST manage-
ment and operation. In addition, we
had the benefit of more than 100 pub-
lications by the EPA that address var-
ious aspects of owning and operating
USTs. These references provide exten-
sive information on how UST opera-
tions are typically conducted.
Improvements to UST manage-
ment and operation practices have
advanced incrementally. These
advancements have occurred over
time as the required upgrades have
been implemented and as UST sys-
tems knowledge has increased. How-
ever, fuel losses from USTs still
happen, and, consequently, there is
still room for improvement. To fur-
ther reduce fuel losses from USTs, we
must continue to improve the design,
installation, management, and opera-
tion of USTs.
In this article, we present some
possible future improvements to
management and operation practices
for USTs. (See "Tank-nically Speak-
ing" on page 6 for a discussion on
immediate steps that can be taken to
improve O&M practices.) We com-
piled this list of improvements by
analyzing the UST literature and by
conducting an interactive workshop
with UST experts. The suggested
improvements featured in this article
focus on research and development
topics that might lead to further iden-
tifying, reducing, and eliminating
gasoline releases from USTs.
[Note: The full study on which this, arti-
cle is based also presents suggestions for
current improvements to UST practices
and discusses the causes of gasoline losses
from USTs. The full report, which can be
obtained by calling (714) 378-3278', will
soon be available for downloading at:
www.ocwd.com/nwri. 1 ',
Future Improvements !
Based on our review of the current
UST practices literature and the infor-
mation gleaned from our UST experts
workshop, we organized suggestions
for future improvements to UST man-
agement and operation practices into
the following general categories: ;
• Equipment Design
• UST System Installation
• Leak Detection Systems ;
• Customer Education
• UST System Inspection
and Maintenance
• Owner/Operator Certifi-
cation and Training '
• Tanker Driver Certifica-
tion and Training
• Regulatory Enforcement:
Within these eight categories, a
number of specific topics were identi-
fied that might lead to improved UST
practices in the future; these topics
are discussed below. The reader
should note that not all of these
potential improvements are of "equal
value" for reducing or eliminating
gasoline losses from USTs. Most of
them require some research, develop-
ment, or analysis before it can be
determined that they would, be
widely
beneficial.
• Equipment Design
Possible improvements in equipment
design include:
• UST systems that are designed to
minimize vapor losses to the sub-
surface, including losses from the
vapor return lines, the UST head-
space, the vapor recovery sys-
tems, the tank vent lines, and
the fillports. This effort may
include modifications to materials
(compatibility and/or permeabil-
ity problems), condensate pots/
sumps, and fittings/connectors
(design changes).
• A means for performing post-
installation tightness testing of
overfill containment sumps. A
protocol for this type of testing is
needed.
• Design and implementation of
overfill protection systems that
cannot be easily disabled or that
do not malfunction because of
inappropriate tank fill-up proce-
dures.
• Development and implementation
of a well-defined protocol for
integrity testing of secondary con-
tainment systems.
• Compatibility and permeability
testing (particularly vapor-phase
testing) of selected UST system
components for use with MTBE-
enriched gasoline and/or ethanol-
enriched gasoline.
• UST System Installation
Poor UST installation practices can be
a primary cause of fuel release to the
environment. Installation practices
are complex because of the large
number of system components and
the many separate steps required
during installation, each of which
must be done properly if leaks are to
• continued on page 12
11
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 34
• Room for Improvement
from page11
be avoided. The potential for prob-
lems is greatly increased if unquali-
fied or unlicensed workers conduct
UST installation or maintenance
work. The problems we identified
indicate that human error is the pri-
mary challenge to overcome during
UST system installation. Possible
improvements to the UST installation
process include:
• Requirement that all personnel
involved in UST system installa-
tion activities (e.g., materials/
equipment selection, tank place-
ment, sensors placement, corro-
sion protection installation and
testing, leak detection system
installation and testing) be trained
and certified.
• Qualified third-party oversight for
key aspects of UST system installa-
tion.
• Complete QA/QC documentation
that covers materials and equip-
ment used, equipment perfor-
mance certifications, personnel
involved in the installation, and
installation procedures followed.
• Leak Detection Systems
Numerous systems associated with
USTs require periodic maintenance
and testing, including the leak detec-
tion systems on the tanks, product
piping, and under-dispenser contain-
ment sumps. Testing these different
leak detection systems requires vary-
ing approaches and methods based on
the equipment being tested and the
leak detection sensitivity required.
There is a wide range of leak detection
equipment available and a wide range
of testing methods that can be used to
evaluate system tightness.
The most important possible
improvement to leak detection sys-
tems is to determine the adequacy
and sensitivity of these systems. If
current systems are found to be inad-
equate to detect and prevent
small/subtle gasoline losses, then
improved systems may need to be
researched and developed. This is
particularly true if generally recalci-
trant additives like MTBE are added
to gasoline.
• Customer Education
Customer education and public out-
reach regarding leak prevention at
service stations is another possible
area for future improvement. Some
localities have implemented pro-
grams to educate members of the
general public about their role and
responsibility in the proper handling
and use of gasoline. This effort has
primarily consisted of "don't top-off
your tank" stickers or flyers. These
programs, which often stress air-
emission reductions, could readily be
changed and expanded to include
other spill prevention benefits, such
as protection of water resources.
Areas that could be addressed in
public outreach efforts include:
• The importance of not "topping
off the tank" during fueling (pro-
vides air benefits and helps pre-
vent subsurface contamination),
• Avoiding and reporting surface
spillage, and
• Avoiding customer drive-offs
(with dispenser hose still engaged
in the car).
Possible ways to disseminate this
educational information include the
following: placing educational stick-
ers or signs near/on all dispensers;
inserting information in credit card
customers' monthly bills; setting up
point-of-sale flyers and materials;
preparing public service announce-
ments for radio and television; and
providing instructional videos for
driver-education classes and traffic
schools.
• UST System Inspection and
Maintenance
Since December 1998, all new and
upgraded UST systems are required
to have leak detection and protection
from spills, overfills, and corrosion.
However, because of the wide vari-
ety of acceptable equipment, inspec-
tion and maintenance requirements
for these systems are not standard-
ized. (As of October 1998, more than
250 leak detection systems had
undergone third-party evaluations.)
The absence of inspection and
maintenance practice leads to the
potential for human error, equipment
malfunction, and, hence, accidental
releases of gasoline to the environ-
ment. Possible improvements to
future UST system inspection and
maintenance practices include:
• Expanded training and certifica-
tion requirements for all personnel
involved in UST system mainte-
nance and testing (e.g., corrosion
protection systems, leak detection
systems, overfill protection sys-
tems, product dispensers, vapor
recovery systems).
• Qualified third-party oversight for
key aspects of UST system mainte-
nance and testing.
• Complete QA/QC documentation
and reporting during all phases of
maintenance and testing of UST
systems. This documentatipn
should be kept on-site and copies
forwarded to the appropriate reg-
ulatory agencies.
• Periodic inspection of fill riser spill
containment boxes that are not
secondarily contained for liquid
leak tightness. A protocol is
needed for inspecting and quanti-
fying leakage from these boxes.
• Development of well-defined pro-
tocols for maintenance, inspection,
and testing of the various types of
UST equipment. Although most
equipment manufacturers have
operations and maintenance man-
uals for their specific piece(s) of
equipment, more care is needed to
ensure that appropriate protocols
are used.
• Development of a site-specific
"Best Management Practices" doc-
ument for each UST system. (The
U.S. Postal Service is working
toward this goal for its USTs.) The
document should be kept on-site
at all times.
• Owner/Operator Certification
and Training
No federal programs require the certi-
fication or training of UST owners,
operators, inspectors, or contractors.
Many states have certification and
licensing programs for contractors
involved with the installation,
removal, and upgrade of USTs. How-
ever, field and literature information
suggest that the current level of train-
ing may • be inadequate. Possible
future improvements include:
• Expanded training and certifica-
tion for spill response and report-
ing, site maintenance and cleanup,
inventory control, overfill preven-
tion, operating and understanding
leak detection and alarm systems,
and third-party oversight.
• Development and implementation
12
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
of an education and certification
program for service station atten-
dants.
• Tanker Driver Certification
and Training
Tanker driver training programs and
materials have been available for
years and have surely produced ben-
efits. However^ further refinements
and improvements can be made to
help .reduce overfills and surface
spillage. Possible future improve-
ments include:
• More rigorous training programs
for all tanker drivers, including
lessons on drivers' roles in avoid-
ing and reducing spills, spill
response and reporting, tank
gauging, the purpose and func-
tion of overfill protection devices
and spill boxes, vapor recovery
systems, and health and safety.
• Consistent certification require-
ments for all tanker drivers (Note:
U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion requirements already exist).
• Regulatory Enforcement
Enforcement of the existing UST reg-
ulations is a key part of ensuring
compliance and preventing fuel
losses from UST systems. To improve
the enforcement process, some possi-
ble future improvements include:.
• Consolidation of regulations to
reduce overlap and improve clar-
ity. •
• Expanded training for regulatory
inspectors and verification of the
uniformity of that training.
Improvement Must Be Ongoing
Some UST owner/operators and reg-
ulatory bodies are already imple-
menting some of these practices.
They are to be commended for their
progress. Nevertheless, more im-
provement is possible. By continuing
to develop and implement improved
management and operation practices,
fuel losses from USTs can be reduced
even further. •
James M; Davidson is a hydrogeolog'ist
and the President of Alpine Environ-
mental, Inc., of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Daniel N. Creek is a civil engineer
with Alpine Environmental. The
authors may be reached at
jdavidsonalpine@cs. com.
Leak Prevention
MTSD
UST Inspectors to Use the
Notional UJork Group on leak
Detection evaluations list
by Curt Johnson . ;.
As we enter,the new millen-
nium and the underground
storage tank (UST) program
deadlines are all part of the past cen-
tury, we need to take a fresh look at
where we are headed. In the past we
worked hard to try to encourage
UST owners and operators to install
the required leak detection, corro-
sion protection, and spill and overfill
prevention equipment. Now it is
time to make sure that owners and
operators are using the equipment
and using it properly.
Determining whether equipment
is being used is fairly straightfor-
ward. Determining whether it is
being used properly is much more
difficult and requires a basic knowl-
edge of the operating principles of
the equipment, along with ready
access to a comprehensive source of
technical information pertaining to
the equipment.
When it comes to leak detection
equipment, the current National
Work Group on Leak Detection Eval-
uation's (NWGLDE) "List of Leak
Detection Evaluations ,for Under-
ground Storage Tank Systems" can
be a valuable resource for UST
inspectors. It provides the essential
technical information needed to
determine whether leak detection
equipment is properly applied and
operated in the field.
In the past, the NWGLDE List
has been promoted primarily as a
means for determining whether a cer-
tain type of leak detection equipment
was properly third-party tested in
accordance with an accepted proto-
col. This publication, however, con-
tains a much broader scope of
information that can serve as an
important tool for UST inspectors. I
am thinking particularly about Part II
• continued on page 14
-------
LUSTLinc Bulletin 34
INWGLDE from page 13
of the publication— "Leak Detection
Equipment Specifications"—which
provides important tips for making
sure that leak detection equipment
was installed and is being operated
so that it performs according to man-
ufacturer specifications and within
EPA UST regulatory performance
requirements.
Let me give you a few examples
of how UST inspectors can use Part n
of the NWGLDE List to check the
application and operation of a few
methods of leak detection during a
compliance inspection.
Automatic Tank Gauging
(ATG) Method
The ATG equipment specification
sheets have the following 10 cate-
gories that provide the UST inspector
with information on the correct
application and operation of an ATG.
Certification
• As indicated on the NWGLDE
List, some tank gauges are certi-
fied for two leak rates, 0.1 and 0.2
gph (the others are certified to
detect only 0.2 gph leak rates).
Make sure that the ATG is set up
to test at the appropriate leak rate.
• Because the same ATG can have a
different test period and a differ-
ent waiting time, depending on
the leak rate used, confirm that
the test period and the waiting
time correspond to the appropri-
ate leak rate.
Leak Threshold
• When the leak threshold can be
determined, make sure that a leak
is being declared when the test
results equal or exceed the thresh-
old listed under this category in
the NWGLDE List. Remember that
the leak threshold is always less
than the regulatory standard (0.2
gph). When the measured leak
rate exceeds this listed threshold,
the test result indicates a sus-
pected release.
Applicability
• Identify the product stored in the
tank and make sure that it is listed
under this category in the
NWGLDE List. Watch out for
waste oil tanks. Because properties
of used oil are not constant, only
mass-based ATG systems are able
to test them.
Tank Capacity
• Because different ATGs are lim-
ited to different maximum tank
sizes, compare the tank volume to
the volume listed for maximum
tank size. If the volume exceeds
the maximum volume listed, then
the test results are not acceptable
based on the EPA test protocol
requirements.
• Check the product level in the
tank when the tests are run to
make sure that they fall within the
acceptable range indicated under
this item. The third-party test
indicates that test results where
the product level is outside this
range are not valid.
• As indicated later under the
"Comments" category, check for
and be concerned about ATG tests
that are conducted at consistently
low levels.
Waiting Time
• Check the waiting time between
delivery and testing, and between
dispensing and testing to ensure
that the minimum time periods
listed under this category are met.
If waiting times are shorter than
required, then the test results are
not acceptable based on the EPA
test protocol requirements.
Test Period
• As indicated earlier under "Certi-
fication," the test period must cor-
respond to the leak rate. Verify
that the tests are being run at least
as long as the test period indi-
cated. If the test did not last long
enough, then the test results are
not acceptable based on the EPA
test protocol requirements.
Temperature
• Check the equipment invoice
against the manufacturer's probe
specifications to determine the
number of temperature sensors
that are installed on the probe.
There must be at least as many
indicated under this category in
the NWGLDE List to ensure that
there are enough in use at all
acceptable product test levels.
Note: Do not attempt to physically
inspect the probe.
Water Sensor
• If a tank gauge stick and water
finder paste are available, check
the water level and compare this
reading against the equipment's
water sensor reading. The sensitiv-
ity and possible tank tilt (because
the stick and gauge are not in the
same location) need to be consid-
ered when comparing the read-
ings.
Calibration
• Always check records to make
sure that the temperature sensors
(or thermistors) and probe are
being calibrated regularly based
on the manufacturer's instruc-
tions. Without calibration, this
equipment may not detect a leak at
the required leak rate or may indi-
cate a leak when none exists.
Comments
The NWGLDE List includes the fol-
lowing comments regarding our
group's concerns about the installa-
tion and operation of ATGs:
• Check to determine whether and
be concerned when an ATG is
installed in a manifolded tank sys-
tem. At present the NWGLDE List
shows that none of the ATG sys-
tems listed has been evaluated in
manifolded tank systems.
• Because ATGs test only the por-
tion of the tank containing product
at the time of the test, consistent
testing at low product levels
should be a concern to inspectors.
This situation could allow a leak to
go undetected. EPA regulations
require testing of the portion of the
tank that routinely contains prod-
uct, which means that the test
should be run while the tank is
filled as close as possible to its
highest level during the month.
Non-volumetric Tank
Tightness Test (NVTTT)
Method
The NVTTT equipment specification
sheets have the following 11 cate-
gories that provide the UST inspector
with information on proper equip-
ment application and operation.
14
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
Certification
• Be aware that the NVTTT is a
qualitative method. Thus, the
equipment is certified to be able to
detect a leak at the listed leak rate,
but cannot generate a leak rate
during the test.
Leak Threshold
• NVTTT methods use several dif-
ferent ways to determine a leak.
One is to put the tank under pres-
sure or vacuum and monitor for
loss of either. A second is to put a
microphone in the tank, place the
tank under vacuum, and listen for
bubbles in the area below the
product level and the whistling of
air in the ullage area. Another is to
inject a tracer compound into the
tank and monitor for the tracer in
the soil outside the tank. For some
methods, inspectors will be able to
review the test data and verify
whether a leak has occurred based
on the information in the
NWGLDE List. For others, an
inspector will only be able to
review the data to see whether
they look reasonable.
Applicability
• Identify the product stored in the
tank using the NVTTT method
and make sure that it is listed
under this category in the
NWGLDE List. Again, watch out
for waste oil tanks, because some
NVTTT equipment cannot be
used for waste oil.
Tank Capacity
• Always check' the tank size
and/or ullage volume limitations
to make sure that it is within the
limitations on the NWGLDE List.
This step will ensure that the
NVTTT will be able to detect a
leak at the appropriate leak rate.
• Check the level or volume of the
tank, whichever is indicated in the
NWGLDE List, when the tests are
run to make sure that they fall
within acceptable range.
Waiting Time
• Because these methods are inde-
pendent of temperature, there is
usually no waiting time between
delivery and testing. However,
tests using a tracer do have a wait-
ing time and the inspector needs
to ensure that the test complies
with the waiting time requirement
on the NWGLDE List. If the wait-
ing time is shorter than required,
then the test results are not accept-
able based on the EPA test proto-
col requirements. !
Test Period
• For tracer tests, the test period is
the same as the waiting time.
Some NVTTT equipment have
very straightforward test periods;
others are very complicated; The
NWGLDE List normally provides
enough information to determine
whether the length of the test is
sufficient. However, some; test
periods are dependent on tables
that must be obtained from the
manufacturer. :
Temperature !
• As indicated earlier, NVTTT meth-
ods are independent of tempera-
ture. ;
Water Sensor :
• If you are on-site during a NVTTT
vacuum or pressure test and a
tank gauge stick and water finder
paste are available, check for water
in the tank. .If water is detected,
compare this reading to the equip-
ment's water sensor reading.1 The
sensitivity needs to be considered
when comparing the readings,
Groundwater
• All NVTTT methods require that
the depth to groundwater within
the tank backfill be determined.
Always check test records to make
sure that the groundwater level
was adequately determined and
documented. This step is critical
for vacuum tests to ensure that the
vacuum applied will not collapse
the tank. It also provides an
opportunity for the tester or the
inspector to check for free product.
The test should be considered
invalid if the tester did not identify
and, if necessary, compensate for
water in the tank backfill. :
Calibration
• Some vendors require the ; test
equipment to be calibrated before
each test; others do not. Where
applicable, cKeck the operator's
records to make sure that the
equipment was calibrated.
Comments
Here are some of the issues in this
category that should be considered
by an inspector:
• For vacuum-type NVTTT equip-
ment used to test older tanks
(tanks installed prior to the EPA
regulations), it is important for
inspectors to determine the type of
backfill used around the tanks,
because clay backfill may plug the
holes in the tank when a vacuum
is applied.
• When backfill is saturated with
product, vacuum-type NVTT
equipment may fail to detect a leak
because product, instead of air or
water, is drawn into the tank.
Inspectors should determine
whether monitoring wells within
the tank backfill area were
checked at the time of the test.
If you would like assistance in
determining what to look for during
inspections with respect to other
types of leak detection equipment, I
encourage you to review the
NWGLDE List or contact the appro-
priate NWGLDE member. NWGLDE
member phone numbers, fax num-
bers, e-mail addresses, and business
addresses are listed near the front of
the NWGLDE List.
In the new millennium, UST
inspectors will need to spend more
time looking at the operation of leak
detection equipment instead of just
looking for a box on the wall to con-
firm that leak detection equipment
was installed. The NWGLDE List can
be a helpful source of information for
UST inspectors performing these
inspections. The list can be viewed or
downloaded from EPA's Internet
home page at http://www.epa.yov/
oust/vubs/index/htm. •
Curt Johnson is an Environmental
Engineer in the UST and UIC Techni-
cal Support Group within the Ground-
water Branch of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Man-
agement, and Chair of the NWGLDE.
15
-------
LUSTUtte Bulletin 34
MTBE
;;
FRANCIS THOMPSON
One Expert's Addendum to the
"60 Minutes" MTBE Broadcast
by Peter Garrett
Editor's Note: We asked Peter Garrett, a geologist interviewed on the January 16 "60
Minutes" broadcast on MTBE, to share his thoughts about the program and the subject
of MTBE. As you will read, Peter's interest in the subject goes way back—to the
1980s—and, as you'll also read, where MTBE is concerned, he doesn't mince words.
On January 16, 2000, 60 Min-
utes, devoted two segments
to the subject of MTBE—a
major milestone in the saga of the rise
and fall of methyl tertiary-butyl
ether. The MTBE saga began in 1979
when the first such refinery was put
on-line. My purpose here is not to cri-
tique the 60 Minutes team, who did a
remarkable job of pulling together a
multitude of information on a highly
technical and political issue. My pur-
pose is to tell "the rest of the story,"
as I see it, with the hope that it will
help us be more circumspect about
other environmentally threatening
situations that arise in the future.
The MTBE story was initially one
in which atmospheric scientists did
not hear what groundwater scientists
had to say. According to the atmos-
pheric scientists, MTBE and other
oxygenates (hydrocarbons with oxy-
gen) could replace lead in gasoline
and also reduce smog and carbon
monoxide. Groundwater scientists
pointed out that MTBE, being very
soluble, tends to migrate quickly
from gasoline spill sites and
contaminate wells at some
distance.
I was the groundwater
scientist who first saw
these implications in the
mid-1980s at spill sites in
Maine. I first encountered
MTBE as a contaminant that
occurred in groundwater
around gasoline spill sites
without the other compo-
nents of gasoline. ARCO,
I discovered, was the pri-
mary supplier of MTBE to
the petroleum industry, so I
called the company to find out more.
ARCO employees told me about its
properties and characteristics, and I
told them that MTBE had the poten-
tial to spread gasoline contamination
further and faster than anything I
had seen before.
To get this information out to the
scientific and engineering commu-
nity, I and two colleagues pulled
together all that we could find on
MTBE—its history of production,
chemical characteristics, fate and
transport in the environment, means
of identification in the lab, toxicity,
methods of treatment—and wrote a
paper. We concluded our paper with
a discussion of policy options. One
was to ban MTBE outright. Another
was to insist on total containment of
gasoline so that leaks would become
rare or nonexistent.
I presented the paper in 1986 at a
national conference cosponsored by
the National Ground Water Associa-
tion and the American Petroleum
Institute. I also met with half a dozen
officials in the EPA Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks. Following
publication of the paper, I received
calls from all over the country. There
was no doubt in my mind that the
message was out (though perhaps
only to the groundwater industry).
We Hear What We Want
to Hear
It's oft been said that we hear what
we want to hear, and that certainly
was the case where the EPA and
industry were concerned. MTBE pro-
duction continued to rise as the addi-
tive's use in gasoline expanded from
that of an octane enhancer to that of
an air pollution antidote.
That expansion was enhanced
by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amend-
ments of 1990, which mandated the
use of oxygenates. MTBE can now be
found in gasoline in virtually every
state. In some cities, it constitutes
about 10 percent of the gasoline by
volume. Concentrations in today's
gasolines are several times higher
than they were when we began find-
ing MTBE in Maine's groundwater in
the mid-1980s. MTBE is produced in
the United States, Europe, South
America, and Saudi Arabia.
EPA seemed to have ignored the
issue of groundwater quality in its
zeal to improve air quality. MTBE is
very soluble and migrates rapidly in
groundwater. In water, it has an
objectionable odor and taste, even at
low concentrations (tens of parts per
billion—ppb). Yet EPA still has not
assigned it a drinking water stan-
dard, only a nonbinding health advi-
sory. Nor has EPA included MTBE
on its target list of volatile contami-
nants to be analyzed by the standard
method used by public water suppli-
ers.
Although the agency has recom-
mended ingestion studies to test for
toxicity—which would be very rea-
sonable for a water-soluble contami-
nant—it has not followed through.
Studies have been done on inhala-
tion.
Oil companies are understand-
ably keeping a low profile in this
debate. Yet in the mid-1980s, I had
detailed discussions with one com-
pany's personnel about MTBE's
characteristics and behavior in
groundwater. Despite the oil indus-
try's internal knowledge of the effects
of MTBE on groundwater, oil compa-
nies touted MTBE heavily as the best
replacement for tetraethyl lead for
octane enhancement and as an addi-
tive to improve air quality. In the leg-
islative buildup to passage of the
CAA, oil companies lobbied for the
use of oxygenates. Now they say that
they can manufacture a clean-burn-
ing gasoline without the use of
MTBE. That sounds good to me.
MTBE in the Environment
Since our original paper appeared,
much new evidence has come to light
that shows that MTBE commonly
16
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
occurs in four associations in water in
the environment:
• Highest concentrations in ground-
water (100s to 1000s ppb) are usu-
ally associated with leaking
underground storage systems.
• Lower concentrations (10s to 100s
ppb) may come from small spills
(e.g., customer spillage at a gas
station, emptying a lawn mower
in the yard).
• MTBE in lakes (less than 35 ppb)
comes mostly from two-cycle
engines, especially jet skis, which
discharge unburned hydrocar-
bons in exhaust gases directly into
the water.
• MTBE vapors that are present in
the air from various sources may
dissolve in rainfall and cause cont-
amination of groundwater at 1-2
ppb over wide areas. This finding
was made by the U.S. Geological
Survey in its National Water
Quality Assessment Program.
60 Minutes emphasized the first
problem. But in 1999, Lake Tahoe
banned jet skis on the lake, which,
along with its wells, is also used as a
water supply for the community. In
Maine, where 50 percent of the popu-
lation uses domestic wells, a recent
study has shown that several thou-
sand wells are likely to be contami-
nated above the state drinking water
standard, most probably from small
spills.
MTBE is now the second most
commonly identified contaminant in
groundwater (chloroform is number
1). To achieve this kind of record in a
mere two decades of use is incredi-
ble. MTBE can be found almost any-
where we look, according to the
USGS. But in some states, nobody is
even looking. What a tragedy!
States Toll the Bell for MTBE
Several states have played an impor-
tant role in bringing groundwater
contamination by MTBE into the
public limelight. In my own State of
Maine, Governor Angus King felt he
had no alternative to meeting the
mandates of the CAA but to use
reformulated gas with 11 percent
MTBE. But after three well-publi-
cized spill incidents that caused the
contamination of a municipal well, a
school well, and two dozen domestic
wells, he commissioned a study of all
public supply wells in the state, and
1,000 domestic wells chosen ran-
domly.
When the results came in, King
told his staff to find a gasoline:that
would meet the requirements for
cleaner air without polluting the
groundwater. At last an administra-
tor who sees both air and groundwa-
ter resources as being valuable!
Maine also wisely made MTBE a
standard target compound for all
volatile analyses of water samples
and has thus identified MTBE at all
gasoline spill sites since the ,late
1980s. We now have a maximum
exposure guideline (our health-based
drinking water standard) set at 35
ppb, though there are some who
think it is too high to be protective.
Because MTBE in water smells
and tastes bad, California opted to
give it a secondary (non-health-based,
esthetic) drinking water standard of 5
ppb. Citizens and local authorities
have sued the oil companies over
their use of MTBE. A University of
California study commissioned by
Governor Gray Davis concluded !that
continued use of MTBE was uneco-
nomical, bearing in mind cleanup
costs and lower fuel efficiency,
among other things. Gasoline produc-
ers say that, because California's fuel
supply is so heavily dependent on
MTBE production, it will take a year
or more to make up the deficit of, los-
ing 11 percent of the volume of gaso-
line fuel available in the state.
Beware the Law of ;
Unintended Consequences
The bottom line is that things often
have ramifications beyond our own
limited imaginings. The environment
does not divide itself into an Office of
Air and Office of Water, and we
should all beware the "Law of
Unintended Consequences." As the
nineteenth-century poet Francis
Thompson wrote, "Thou cans't not
stir a flower without troubling bf a
star."B
Peter Garrett is Vice-President
with the firm of Emery & Garrett
Groundwater, Inc. To find out more of
what he thinks about MTBE or to let :
him know what you think, contact
Peter by phone at (207) 872-0613 or by
e-mail at eggfme@eggz.com. :
Is It Any Wonder
That MTBE Is
Omnipresent in
the Environment?
Gasoline is one contaminant :
that is a national staple. So :
let's not be too surprised
when we..find that MTBE, with its
high solubility, its fondness for min-
gling and commingling in the envi-
ronment, and its penchant for
lingering in the environment, seems
to turn up everywhere in the envi-
ronment—and not just from fuel
storage releases. As a nation, we
(Harold and Betsy Public) are
spilling, dumping, spraying, inject-
ing, and projecting gasoline into the
environment in a delightful assort-
ment of ways—an important point
that the otherwise balanced and
even-handed 60 Minutes broadcast
on MTBE failed to mention.
I can say with pride that we
have covered that point in
LUSTLine—oh, way back in Bulletin
#31— in David MacCaskill's article,
"A Little Drop'll Do Ya—Maine
Study Finds the Presence of MTBE ',
in Drinking Water Wells to Be Wide-
spread and of Curious Origin."
David called our attention to the fact
that Maine was finding low levels of
MTBE in places with no obvious fuel
tank source(s). . Maine's study
concluded that many sources of
MTBE in the environment involved
small, garden-variety gasoline
ipills—lawn mower overfills, car
accidents, backyard car repair
activities.
I do not exaggerate when I say
that over these past high-MTBE-anx- i
iety years, facts and tidbits about
and peripheral to the subject have
attached themselves to me like lint.
[n conversations about gasoline and
VITBE, I have learned how to get rid
of gophers—dump five gallons of
gasoline down, the gopher's hole(s)...
and a few more gallons for good
measure. I have learned that gasoline
is a great weed killer—spray it or
• continued on page 22
17
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
MTBE
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol (TEA)
MTBE May Not Be the Only Gasoline
Oxygenate You Should Be Worrying
About
By Steven C. Under
Over the past several years, the spotlight has been on the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
However, MTBE may not be the only additive of concern at many gasoline releases. There is also tertiary butyl
alcohol (TEA)—one of the more significant gasoline oxygenate additives other than MTBE.
1 first learned heard about TBA in August 1998 at a meeting about pilot-testing drinking water treat-
ment technologies at the City of Santa Monica's Charnock Wellfield. Many of us were taken by surprise
when the consultant to the potential responsible parties (PRPs) associated with the city's MTBE contamina-
tion problem brought up the subject of TBA. He explained that TBA, as well as MTBE, had been detected in
the monitoring wells surrounding the drinking water wells and that TBA was likely to be present in the drink-
ing water wells when pumped.
At the time, the PRPs were in a temporary settlement with the City of Santa Monica and Southern California Water Company
requiring that they pay more than $4 million per year for purchased imported replacement drinking water. Contending that wellhead
treatment was much less costly than replacement water, the PEP companies had, in my opinion, a tremendous incentive to get well-
head treatment on line as soon as possible.
At the meeting, we went on to discuss how TBA could likely have a significant influence on the treatment technologies used to
clean up petroleum releases, because air stripping and granular activated carbon were not thought (based on theoretical evaluation) to
be effective technologies for TBA. Because TBA had been detected in the wells and identified as an issue, the treatment cost estimates
increased substantially.
What Is TBA?
TBA (CAS# 75-65-0) is a colorless
solid or liquid (above 77°F) with a
camphor-like odor. One study re-
ports that the odor threshold for TBA
is at a vapor concentration of approx-
imately 609 ppm. The chemical for-
mula for TBA is (CHg^COH. TBA
has a research octane rating of 103, a
molecular weight of 74.1, and a spe-
cific gravity of 0.79. It is miscible in
water. It has a Henry's law constant
of 121E-5 (atm-m3)/(g-mole), which
means it's even harder to air strip
than MTBE. It has a log Koc of 1.57,
which means it doesn't adsorb read-
ily to carbon. And, it has a log KOW of
035, which means it prefers to stay in
water, once it is there.
TBA has many uses—in extrac-
tion of drugs, as a denaturant in
ethanol, as a dehydration agent in the
manufacture of flotation agents, in
fruit essences, in plastics, in perfumes
(as a solvent), as a chemical interme-
diate, and as an additive/blending
agent in unleaded gasoline.
Why is TBA in Gasoline?
TBA is used as a gasoline additive/
blending agent. Oxygenates, particu-
larly alcohols, have a long history of
use in motor fuels—going back to the
beginning of the twentieth century,
when ethanol was first promoted for
blending into gasoline. At various
times, different alcohols (e.g.,
methanol, isopropyl alcohol, and
TBA) were of commercial interest in
gasoline blending because of their
special performance properties. TBA
has been added to gasoline as an anti-
knock compound.
The Atlantic-Richfield Company
(ARCO) began using gasoline-grade
tertiary-butyl alcohol (GTBA) in 1969
to improve octane. In 1979, ARCO
received approval from EPA to use
GTBA at up to 7.0 percent by volume
in unleaded gasoline. Also in 1979,
Sun Oil Company received an EPA
waiver that allowed the use of 2.75
percent by volume methanol along
with 2.75 percent by volume GTBA in
a blend with unleaded gasoline.
ARCO Petroleum Products received
a waiver in 1981 and introduced an
oxygenate blend containing about 9.5
percent by volume of an equal mix-
ture of methanol and GTBA in Penn-
sylvania. EPA also has granted
waivers for blends of gasoline and
GTBA up to 3.5 mass percent oxygen
content (16 vol % TBA) and for vari-
ous blends of methanol and GTBA or
other higher-molecular-weight alco-
hol (cosolvents).
TBA is an impurity in commer-
cial-grade MTBE, which commonly
contains methanol and TBA as impu-
rities. In some production processes,
TBA is a precursor to MTBE. I am not
aware of any publicly available stud-
ies that clearly identify the TBA
impurity concentration ranges likely
to be found in commercial-grade
MTBE. (See Figure 1.)
Does TBA Biodegrade
Readily?
Unlike the linear alcohols methanol
and ethanol, TBA is not easily
degraded. Studies have shown no
degradation of TBA in anerobic envi-
ronments and some degradation in
aerobic conditions. I understand that
TBA was observed to degrade in a
few weeks from water that had been
collected from the Santa Monica
Charnock Wellfield, spiked with TBA
and stored in drums.
MTBE is a highly stable com-
pound that is resistant to both biolog-
ical and chemical reactions occurring
18
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 12
Partial Diagram of
MTBE and TBA Potential
Environmental Transformations
MTBE
Atmospheric Oxidation
Microbial
Oxidation
TBF
Hydrolysis
TBA
I
TBA continues to degrade; however, the degradation products of TBA are
difficult to detect through typical analytical methods.
Partial Diagram of
MTBE and TBA Potential
Metabolic Transformations
MTBE
TBA
Z-Methyi-1,2-propanediol
Formaldehyde
XX
Methanol Formic Acid
I
Carbon/
Carbon Dioxide
alpha-Hydroxyispbutyric acid
in the environment. However, under
some geochemical and microbial con-
ditions within an aquifer, MTBE may
degrade slowly. Some studies have
shown accumulation of TBA after it
has formed in association with the
degradation of MTBE. In these cir-
cumstances, TBA may be found as a
degradation product of MTBE.
Has TBA Been Found at
LUST Sites?
TBA can be a common contaminant
in an environment where there have
been releases of oxygenated fuels.
For example, most of the service sta-
tion sites examined as part of the
Charnock (Santa Monica) MTBE
investigation have detectable levels
of TBA present in soil and/or
groundwater. TBA has been detected
at concentrations as great as 18,000
^ig/L in groundwater near source
areas of groundwater plumes that
originate at the gasoline stations
examined as part of the Charnock
Wellfield investigation. TBA has also
been detected in groundwater at
gasoline releases in the South Lake
Tahoe area.
What Concentrations Are of
Concern for TBA?
The California Department of Health
Services has established a Drinking
Water Action Level of 12^g/L for
TBA. Drinking Water Action Levels
are health-based advisory levels
established by the Department of
Health Services for chemicals for
which primary maximum contami-
nant levels have not been adopted.
On September 12,1997, New Jer-
sey issued an Interim Specific
Groundwater Criterion of 100 /ig/L
for TBA. New Jersey lowered the
concentration that it recommends as
a goal for groundwater cleanups and
for guidance in situations where
groundwater is contaminated with
TBA from 500 pg/L to 100 jig/L
based on the 1995 National Toxicol-
ogy Program TBA drinking water
study on rats and mice. :
In May 1995, as part of the
National Toxicology Program,: the
National Institutes of Health pub-
lished a paper regarding toxicology
and carcinogenesis of TBA in rats and
mice. The study concluded the fol-
lowing:
"Under the conditions of these
2-year drinking water studies,
there was some evidence of car-
cinogenic activity of i-butyl alco-
hol in male F344/N rats based
on increased incidences of renal
tubule adenoma or carcinoma
(combined). There was no evi-
dence of carcinogenic activity in
. female F344/N rats receiving
2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL t-butyl
alcohol. There was equivocal
evidence of carcinogenic activity
of f-butyl alcohol in male
B6C3F1 mice based on the mar-
ginally increased incidences of
follicular cell adenoma or carci-
noma (combined) of the thyroid
gland. There was some evi-
dence of carcinogenic activity of t-
butyl alcohol in female B6C3F-!
mice based On increased inci-
dences of follicular cell ade-
noma of the thyroid gland."
In addition, when ingested, MTBE
initially metabolizes to yield TBA and
formaldehyde. (See Figure 2.)
What Analytical Methods
Should Be Used for TBA
Quantification?
TBA presents even greater analytical
difficulties than those presented by
MTBE. However, commercial labora-
tories have been able to achieve
detection levels for TBA of 10 ^g/kg
in soil and 5 ^g/L in water and quan-
tification levels of 20 ^g/kg in soil
and 25 ^tg/L in water as required by
EPA and State of California orders.
Extensive work by the USGS,
Lawrence Livermore, and many
other laboratories indicate that the
ethers and TBA are measurable using
purge-and-trap GC in conjunction
with any of the determinative meth-
ods (8015, 8021, or 8260). Based on
• continued on page 20
-------
LUSTLinc Bulletin 34
ITB A from page 19
studies of the most widely used oxy-
genate, MTBE, potential analytical
problems exist with methods 8015 or
8021. MTBE can be misidentified
when other gasoline components are
present, because of coelution of
MTBE with these components. This
misidentification is most pronounced
with method 8015, which uses the
nonselective FID detector, but it can
be significant even if a FED detector is
used. Similar misidentifications are
likely when using methods 8015 or
8021 for any ether and/or TBA.
Clinton Church, Paul Tratnyek,
and Jim Pankow, of the Oregon
Graduate Institute, have developed a
direct aqueous injection-GC/MS
method for MTBE and its degrada-
tion products. They report that this
method is able to achieve a detection
limit of 0.1 /
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
MTBE
Northeast States Set Forth a Unified MTBE Strategy
Call for Immediate Congressional Action
On January 19,2000, the North-
east States for Coordinated
Air Use Management
(NESCAUM), representing the eight
states of New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ver-
mont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Maine, urged Congress to enact effec-
tive federaL legislation regarding
reformulated gasoline and MTBE. In
launching this call for federal action,
the states set forth six core principles
designed to protect the region's air
and water quality while maintaining
an adequate fuel supply and price sta-
bility.
The principles were developed
by the Northeast Regional Fuels Task
Force, consisting of state air and
water officials. The Task Force was
formed to implement the recommen-
dations included in a comprehensive
RFC/MTBE study conducted by
NESCAUM last summer at the
request of the Northeast governors.
Under federal law passed in
1990, Congress required reformu-
lated gasoline to contain oxygenates,
such as MTBE or ethanol. Only Con-
gressional action to lift the oxygen
mandate can provide an adequate
solution to concerns over current lev-
els of MTBE use. Without changes in
federal law, states are effectively pro-
hibited from addressing this signifi-
cant public concern.
Six Principles for Change
The Northeast states' principles for
changes to the current reformulated
gasoline program include the follow-
ing:
• Repeal the 2 percent oxygen man-
date for reformulated gasoline
(RFC) in the Clean Air Act.
• Phase down and cap MTBE con-
tent in all gasoline.
• Clarify state and federal authority
to regulate and/or eliminate
MTBE or other oxygenates if nec-
essary to protect public health or
the environment.
• Maintain the toxic emission
reduction benefits achieved to
date by the federal RFG program.
• Promote consistency in fuel speci-
fications through the timely
implementation of effective fed-
eral requirements.
• Provide adequate lead time for the
petroleum infrastructure to adjust
to ensure adequate fuel supply
and price stability.
"The challenge facing the
^Northeast states
and the nation
f is Jo identify a
program that
I effectively mitigates the
environmental risks posed by MTBE
while maintaining the public health
- i
^benefits of the current RFG program.
We simply can no longer accept
'"' '£,- ^- ' ,, ,* ;: - t -|
federal mandates that are
1
harriers to that goal."
Arthur Rocque, Jr.
Connecticut DEP Commissioner
According to Jason Grumet, Exec-
utive Director of NESCAUM, "The
federal oxygenate mandate is an out-
dated and inappropriate national tool-
icy. These unified principles call on
Congress to grant states and industry
the flexibility to preserve clean air
benefits while balancing other envi-
ronmental resource concerns."
"The challenge facing the North-
east states and the nation is to iden-
tify a program that effectively
mitigates the environmental risks
posed by MTBE while maintaining
the public health benefits of the cur-
rent RFG program," says Connecticut
DEP Commissioner Arthur Rocque,
Jr. "We simply can no longer accept
federal mandates that are barriers to
that goal."
"We need to make sure that we
are not throwing the baby out with
the bath water," says Steve Majkut,
Rhode Island DEM Air Director. "We
must maintain the air quality benefits
of MTBE while we allow sufficient
time for the refining and distribution
systems to develop an adequate sup-
ply of alternatives. We simply cannot
afford a short-term quick fix that sac-
rifices the clean air benefits in the
process."
Other Groups Join NESCAUM
in Urging Congress to Act
Quickly
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) was quick to express support
for the NECAUM recommendations.
As noted in a January 20 press release
from API: "The recommendations
released today by NESCAUM on
MTBE provide a useful focus for
resolving the problems resulting
from the requirement to include oxy-
genates in federal reformulated gaso-
line."
On February 3, NESCAUM, API,
the American Lung Association, and
the Natural Resources Defense Coun-
cil held a joint press conference,
united in their support of the
NESCAUM principles and urging
Congress to move quickly in chang-
ing federal MTBE RFG requirements.
The groups also asked U.S. EPA to
grant a request by California to
exempt gasoline sold in that state
from a federal mandatory oxygenate
requirement. A waiver would allow
California gasoline to contain little or
no MTBE. •
Copies ofNESCAUM's RFG/MTBE
report may be obtained through the
Internet at www.NESCAUM.org or
by calling (617) 367-8540.
21
-------
LUSTLintButteHnM
State Funds
State Funds: The Cash Cows
for the New Millennium?
The following is a response by
Mary Ellen Kendall, Petroleum
Storage Tank Manager with
the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, to an
article that appeared in the November
15,1999, edition of Oil Express as a
"Special Report from SIGMA" sitbtitled
"Milk state tank funds before they
run dry—funds will pay for
'mind-boggling' items."
I recently received a copy of a very
disturbing article in a petroleum
industry publication urging tank
owners to "milk" the state tank funds
before they run dry. As a fund
administrator and a person who has
spent the last 10 years trying to create
a fiscally responsible reimbursement
program that protects the environ-
ment, I was disappointed at the tone
and the suggestions that were made
to marketers in the article.
Most states have spent the past
10 years trying to develop programs
that cover actual costs of cleanup but
that deny costs that are not necessary
for cleanup (e.g., replacement tanks).
Although UST programs vary greatly
from state to state, most fund admin-
istrators have tried to target correc-
tive action activities that are
necessary for cleanup to ensure that
funds maximize limited resources
and get the best bang for the buck.
Despite this effort, some state
funds have had solvency problems,
stopping cleanup work and creating
a hardship for owners and contrac-
tors alike. Others must defer clean-
ing up sites because of cash
shortfalls. That is one reason that I
find the article about milking state
funds so disturbing. When one
owner milks the fund, it means the
interests of other owners who are
entitled to the benefits of the fund
may be compromised.
Among other mind-boggling
things, the author suggests that you
"find contamination" or buy contam-
inated property so that, in essence,
you can save money on costs that you
would normally have to pay as part
22
of the cost of doing business. It
implies that state funds were created
to enrich petroleum marketers rather
than protect the environment. Of
course, willful contamination of a site
to secure state cleanup funds would
be illegal.
This article drives home the point
that we still have to be vigilant in
administering state funds to ensure
that only eligible costs are reim-
bursed from the fund. There are sev-
eral tools available to state fund
administrators who want to reassess
their state funds. Many states have
developed rate schedules or use
preapproval or pay-for-performance
to identify appropriate cleanup activ-
ities and provide a baseline for the
amount eligible for reimbursement
programs.
LUSTLine contains at least one
state fund-related article in each
issue. These articles provide tips on
how to operate state funds, identify
potential problems, and avoid fraud
and abuse. The annual State Fund
Administrators Conference provides
other opportunities for administra-
tors to network and learn how other
states solved similar problems. New
issues arise every day, and fund
administrators need to keep up with
current developments, cleanup suc-
cess stories, and state efforts to pre-
vent fraud and abuse.
Please let LUSTLine Editor Ellen
Frye know if there are fund adminis-
tration topics that you would like to
see addressed in future issues. Work-
ing together, I am hopeful that we
can dispel the "cash cow" image of
state funds in the future. •
I From the Editor from page 17
dump if bri the offending area-
more for faster results.
I also, recall that, as a child (mind
you, this was long before MTBE was
even a gleam in the oil industry's
eye), I used to (for a small bounty)
pick Japanese beetles off of my
neighbor's roses, plop them in a jar
of gasoline, watch them languish
and die, and then eat an ice pop (my
bounty). After a few weeks, when
the jar was full, I dumped its con-
tents in the back corner of the yard,
Now here's my point: We must
take care not to be MTBE vectors.
Data collected during the Maine
study indicate that small spills of
gasoline unrelated to underground
or aboveground fuel tanks can sig-
nificantly affect a water resource,
Some folks have scoffed at this
notion, saying this, that, and the
other thing about why it can't be.
But it can be, because of MTBE's
roguish nature.
I was chatting with Pat Ellis, the
Delaware UST program's own
MTBE guru, about the 60 Minutes
mention of a 22,000 ppb well in
Glenville, California. I said that level
sbunded like the well must have
contained free product.
"Oh no," she said, "MTBE can
be all by itself at that level. We've
got a well at a site here in Delaware
that's 25,000 ppb MTBE, barely any
benzene to be found. We figure
about 100 gallons spilled, which
would be about 11 or 12 gallons of
MTBE. We have a long, thin, 800-
foot MTBE plume."
She explained that if you took
pure MTBE and dumped it in water,
you would have an MTBE concen-
tration of about 45,000 ppm. If you
haveMTT3E in "gasoline at about 11
percent, then the maximum MTBE
concentration you should be able to
dissolve from is about 5,000 ppm. So
you can get high MTBE levels
beyond the BTEX edge. And even
small gasoline spills can give you a
high dissolved MTBE level.
Some gasoline spills are such
that they evaporate before they get
too far into the soil. But many a small
spill will go straight into the ground
and, if there is a water table nearby,
it will dissolve in the water table, not
evaporate. A gopher hole sounds
like a perfect conduit to me. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
StateTFuHHs
Combating Cleanup Fund
Fraud and Abuse PFP-Style
By Bob Cohen and Brian Dougherty
LUST cleanup fraud and abuse have been estimated to consume 40 to 60
percent of aggregate annual spending by UST cleanup funds. As a result,
some cleanups have to be deferred for lack of money. Attempting to
increase cleanup spending without conspicuous environmental results ;may
even result in cuts in cleanup funding. In two previous articles (LUSTLine #30
and #31), we discussed issues of fraud and abuse of petroleum cleanup trust
funds and suggested a variety of approaches for dealing with fraud and abuse:
• Whistleblowers/abuse hotline
• Audit hit teams ;
• Global tracking software and pattern detection software
• Database of norms
• Interstate list of abusers
• One strike and you're out
• Expanded penalties for fraud (Go directly to jail. Do not pass go.)
• Fixed-fee services/pay for performance
In this article, we'll focus on the last item—pay for performance (PFP). We'll
look at PFP as a tool to deal with fraud/abuse and examine how PFP can, itself,
be abused.
PFP as a Tool to Prevent
Fraud and Abuse
In PFP, the cleanup consultant or
contractor (we are using the terms
interchangeably) performs the site
cleanup with a minimum amount of
supervision and is paid only when
agreed-upon cleanup milestones
have been accomplished. The con-
tractor is given considerable latitude,
within the regulatory structure, to
engineer and implement the cleanup.
PFP is based on the principle
that, given sufficient latitude and
financial motivation, consultants will
perform cleanups with greater effi-
ciency, speed, and effectiveness. Data
from more than 300 PFP projects in
progress or completed have con-
firmed this expectation. Because PFP
is focused much more on results than
on process, there are inherently fewer
opportunities for fraud and abuse
than in a reimbursement or preap-
proval program.
The invoices for PFP payment
usually amount to just a few sheets of
paper accompanied by a brief techni-
cal report that verifies the results.
This reduction in paperwork, alone,
is an enormous administrative bene-
fit compared with the detailed reim-
bursement applications that are
typical of many trust funds.
A Typical Time and Materials
Cleanup Rip-off
The Simpson Consulting Company is
located in the Town of Springfield.
The company is in the process of
cleaning up 10 LUST sites (currently
doughnut shops and formerly gaso-
line stations), all located in Capital
City, 100 miles east of Springfield.
Mr. Simpson goes to Springfield once
a week to check on all 10 operating
remedial systems. The trip requires
4 hours total driving time and 30
minutes at each system—a total of
9 hours. But instead of requesting
reimbursement for 9 hours, Mr.
Simpson requests a reimbursement
from the trust fund for 45 hours by
billing for the round-trip travel time
of 4.5 hours plus the on-site time for
each site—a total of 45 hours. This dis-
crepancy between actual time spent
on the task, 9 hours, and billed time,
45 hours, is abuse of the fund.
To prevent this kind of abuse, the
trust fund administrator will have to
implement sophisticated and time-
consuming procedures, which may
include the following:
• Preapproval of all expenditures
• Unit rate rules and tables
• Thorough paper audits
• Field audits
• Third-party review
None of these procedures would be
entirely effective against this abuse
without significant management
oversight to actually account for the
site visits.
How PFP Prevents Typical
T&M Billing Rip-offs
PFP prevents rip-offs associated with
time and materials (T&M) billing,
because it pays only for demonstra-
ble and verifiable environmental
results. Under PFP, how many sites
Mr. Simpson visits on his weekly trip
to Capital City has absolutely no
bearing on how much he will be
reimbursed. Under PFP, it makes no -
difference how often Mr. Simpson
visits Capital City, as long as he visits
sufficiently often to meet the applica-
ble regulatory reporting require-
ments.
If Mr. Simpson chooses to visit a
site daily because he wants to run the
system as efficiently as possible, that
is his business decision. Under PFP,
he is more likely to visit the site
according to an optimal remedial
schedule rather than maximize his
visits to maximize his billing under a
T&M reimbursement or preapproved
schedule. PFP eliminates the poten-
tial "gang visits" and "overutiliza-
tion" abuses "that flesh is heir to"
• continued on page 24
23
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
• Fraud and Abuse from page 23
with no requirement for intervention
or oversight from the regulator. PFP
can also minimize other types of
fraud and abuse. (See the LUSTLine
#30 article, "Fraud and Abuse: What
State Cleanup Funds Can Learn from
Medicare," by Bob Cohen for a dis-
cussion of the various types of fraud
and abuse.)
Controlling Performance
Fraud and Abuse in PFP
PFP is certainly not free from poten-
tial fraud and abuse. However, there
are fewer opportunities for abuse,
and abusers are easier to catch and
prosecute. The controls for fraud and
abuse under a PFP cleanup are sim-
pler and easier to implement than
those needed in a reimbursement or
preapproved cleanup. In addition,
the controls to prevent or document
fraud or abuse in PFP cleanups are
aligned with measuring results and
not with adherence to a process. Nev-
ertheless, there are several ways the
unscrupulous may try to test the
reimbursement system in PFP
cleanups.
In the PFP world, for example,
there may be a temptation to under-
state the contamination, inasmuch as
it could accelerate the payment
schedule. Conversely, in the T&M
reimbursement world, there may be a
temptation for the consultant to over-
state the concentrations of chemicals
of concern during remediation—the
greater the contamination, the longer
the system can operate (e.g., pump
and treat annuities).
Taking PFP baseline contamina-
tion-level measurements just before
the treatment is initiated forestalls
another type of reimbursement
abuse. Because PFP payments are
triggered by contamination-level
reductions, a contractor might profit
handsomely by postponing active
remediation and allowing natural
attenuation to reduce levels enough
to trigger a performance payment.
One of the very first PFP agree-
ments in the early 1990s did not have
a procedure for establishing the base-
line at the commencement of remedi-
ation. After the cleanup contract was
signed, a six-month delay ensued
because of legal issues. Upon com-
mencing the job, the consultant sam-
pled the monitoring wells, declared
24
the site clean, and requested his
$200,000 payment — natural attenua-
tion had completed the job for him.
This type of abuse can be prevented if
the cleanup fund establishes the base-
line for the percentage-reduction
payments just before the treatment
system begins operation.
Deliberate fabrication or distor-
tion of contamination-reduction data
may also tempt PFP contractors. The
potential for this type of fraud and
abuse has been a concern in Florida,
South Carolina, and Oklahoma, the
three states that have significant
experience in PFP programs. Fortu-
nately, the trust funds and environ-
mental agencies in these states are
well equipped to deal with this situa-
tion. The personnel are predomi-
nantly scientists and engineers, who
are fully capable of verifying field
results. By splitting samples between
the state and the consultant, the
potential for fraud is kept in check.
Laboratories used to analyze the
samples should be different and both
should be independent of the
cleanup contractor.
and abuse. However,
e fewer opportunities for
Unannounced site visits can also
deter cleanup abuse and fraud. In
one state, at one of the earlier PFP
sites, there was an alleged incident in
which it appeared the contractor was
attempting to distort forthcoming
data samples. The consultant was
cleaning up using a massive air
sparging technique. The consultant
notified the state that he planned to
do a milestone-sampling event on a
Wednesday. Because of a misunder-
standing, the environmental agency
technician arrived at the site on Tues-
day. He found the consultant air
sparging all the monitoring points.
Needless to say, this practice was
quite unacceptable.
Some treatment technologies
may be applied in ways that move
the contamination away from the
performance measurement points.
This strategy may make the contami-
nation levels decline to trigger per-
formance payments, but it does not
reduce the contamination; in fact, it
can make it worse by spreading it to
uncontaminated areas. To prevent
and check for this event, PFP
agreements authorize the state or
implementing agency to install sup-
plemental wells and borings, at its
discretion.
EPA's 1996 PFP guidance docu-
ment (a new revision is due in
March) recommends that the state
split samples with the consultant at
critical and final milestones and that
the PFP agreement allow the installa-
tion of supplemental wells and bor-
ings by the state. This provision will,
of course, create some additional
administrative burden for already
overly stressed state agencies. Never-
theless, the experience of those states
using PFP technology has proven
that this burden is more than com-
pensated for by the reduced adminis-
trative overhead of PFP.
Controlling Pricing Fraud in
PFP Cleanups
There are two broad models for set-
ting the prices of PFP contracts: com-
petitive bidding and negotiation.
Both present different opportunities
for abuse or fraud in setting PFP
cleanup prices.
In the bid model, best exempli-
fied by the South Carolina program,
using information from a state-
approved site characterization, con-
sultants will bid a PFP price. The low
bid sets the cleanup price. On state-
led cleanups, the lowest bidder is
awarded the job. On owner-led
cleanups, the lowest bid sets the max-
imum price the state will reimburse
for the cleanup, but the site owner
may choose any qualified contractor
and pay the price difference person-
ally. South Carolina has not had a
problem with fraud and abuse under
the bid model.
Strict adherence to fixing the
maximum reimbursement at the
amount of the lowest bid prevents an
opportunity for kickbacks from the
contractor to the owner in considera-
tion for selecting a higher-priced con-
tractor. For example, unless the
lowest bid sets the cleanup price, the
owner and the contractor could pri-
vately agree that the contractor
would share the profit of the higher-
priced cleanup.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
Covert collusion between con-
tractors is a time-honored way to
subvert any competitive bidding
process, especially to raise prices the
state pays. Many states have custom-
arily required owners to get three
bids on owner-led cleanup work.
Often the perception that the owner
will choose a known contractor that
he or she is believed to favor already
deters the submission of bids. An
empirical study shows that three-bid
procedures produce much higher
prices for comparable cleanups than
do public, statewide-advertised invi-
tations for bids. Open competition in
bidding that draws more contractors
into the competition is a very good
way to deter private contractor collu-
sion to raise cleanup prices.
Under PFP, whether the state or
owner leads, the contractor must
reach the cleanup goal within an
agreed-upon time frame. That time
frame is based on the use of fate and
transport models to predict receptor
impact. Performance bonds may be
required to assure completion. With-
out such a time frame, the contractor
might be motivated to in fact or in
effect walk away from a cleanup
where recovery rates have flattened
. out short of meeting the cleanup
goal. This abuse can be discouraged
by requiring the contractor to post a
performance bond or a declining let-
ter of credit.
Controlling Abuse in
Negotiated PFP Cleanup
Prices
In the negotiated model, where
cleanups of individual sites or groups
of sites are negotiated between the
state and the responsible party or
consultant, there is more room for
fraud or abuse, because the negoti-
ated model is not tied in tightly to
market forces. Following are some
areas of potential abuse in negotiated
PFPs and suggested controls:
• Overstatement of the problem
to inflate price offers The con-
sultant overstates the problem as
presented in the assessment and
thereby justifies a higher dollar
amount in the negotiated contract.
This situation can happen when
the same contractor who does the
site characterization also does the
cleanup. One way to prevent this
problem is to use a different con-
tractor for each activity. This
abuse is also discouraged if jyou
assure that the site assessments
are carefully specified and thor-
ough and that final sampling
events are witnessed and split
sampled.
I Overestimation of remedial
efforts to justify high price
offers The contractor bases his or
her price offers on an exaggerated
portrayal of the amount or diffi-
culty of the contamination to be
removed or on a "gold-plated"
treatment system. Where cleanup
prices are negotiated, environ-
mental agencies should review the
corrective action plan to assure
that the proposed technology :and"
scope are not excessive or unnec-
essary.
States can develop their own
internal prices for evaluating con-
-tractors, price offers, and • for
developing counteroffered prices
to help prevent this abuse. Sfate
staff should also "comparison
shop" to find the lowest price paid
for a similar cleanup at a similar
site. When it comes online this
year, EPA's PFP Site Information
Exchange Web site will provide
pricing information support.
Focusing negotiations mainly on
the price, rather than on the tech-
nology, also helps prevent pricing
abuse—especially if you know
that similar sites are being cleaned
up at a lower price. PFP is
intended to give broad latitude to
the consultant to engineer the
cleanup in an efficient and cost-
effective manner. If a consultant
abuses this procedure, considera-
tion should be given to soliciting
alternatives from other consul-
tants. ',
Bait and switch The consultant
negotiates a price based on an
expensive technology and then
uses a less expensive approach.
This problem can be prevented by
basing the negotiated price on the
prices paid for remediation at sim-
ilar sites, not on the chosen tech-
nology. However, if you must
base a PFP price on a specific
treatment technology, then this
problem can be controlled by
structuring the PFP agreement so
as to require implementatio4 of
the design presented during the
negotiations. The agreement must
also allow for subsequent modifi-
cation of that design, or imple-
mentation of a new technology, so
that the contractor can continue to
manage the cleanup effectively.
• Coasting The closest we've come
to fraud in any PFP cleanup in
Florida is when the contractor
coasts to the end of an agreement
as soon as he suspects that the
final milestone will not be reached
or that he will not reach it within
the allocated budget. We have
added language that requires that
a timetable be set up for milestone
completion. Failure by the con-
tractor to achieve the milestones
on schedule or to continue to
make good faith efforts to do so
can result in a determination of
nonperformance and subsequent
expulsion from the program as an
absolute last resort.
A Viable Antidote
PFP is an effective tool for controlling
many types of fraud and abuse,
because the nature of PFP focuses
attention on results rather than
process. The results are subject to sci-
entific verification, and payment
amounts are agreed upon before the
work is begun. Most of the fraud and
abuses associated with reimburse-
ment programs do not have an
opportunity to work in PFP.
Although PFP can spawn its own
type of abuses, these abuses can be
controlled by taking simple measures
and the controls themselves focus on
verifying results rather than on fol-
lowing process. Information on PFP
is available at the OUST Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl /pfp
/index.htm. •
Robert S. Cohen, BS, MS, is a profes-
sional geologist specializing in LUST
cost-containment issues, PFP training,
and trust fund audits. For more infor-
mation, contact Bob in Gainesville,
Florida, at bobcohen@ivs.edu or
(352)337-2600.
Brian Dougherty, Ph.D., is an Envi-
ronmental Administrator with the
Florida DEP. He is currently oversee-
ing Florida's scale-up program for pay-
for-performance cleanups. For more
information, contact Brian at
Brian.Dou?herh/@dep.state.fl..usor
(850) 487-3299.
25
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 34
Enforcement
Idaho's UST/LUST Database Can Be
Mapped and Queried on the Web
byMattWalo
Public information requests
(PIRs) about UST/LUST sites
were becoming so numerous
that the Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) needed to find
a way to handle the increasing
demand. The department decided to
look to the Web to deliver informa-
tion to environmental consultants,
real estate brokers/ and the public.
We launched our search by look-
ing for an efficient way to combine
the Access 97 UST/LUST database
data with the corresponding geo-
graphic information system (GIS)
map data. We attempted to capture
all known UST/LUST sites using
address matching or GeoCoding and
with GPS units. After our site posi-
tion data were verified, we estab-
lished a common identification field
between our tabular and spatial data.
DEQ selected MapOptix from
GeoNorth, Inc., to deliver its maps
and data to the Internet. MapOptix is
an off-the-shelf product that required
little programming and has a fully
customizable user interface. It is built
upon the ESRI's MapObjects Internet
Map Server software and Allaire's
ColdFusion.
How Does It Work?
Members of the public can now per-
form both database and spatial
queries from their office or home
computers through a Web browser,
such as Internet Explorer. The user
sends a request for specific tank
information via his or her Web
browser to the State of Idaho's Web
server. ColdFusion receives that
request and selects the desired data-
base data. Those data are passed to
MapOptix, which then combines the
GIS data and the UST/LUST data-
base data into a map-and-query out-
put format. This information is then
sent back to the user as a map image.
In addition to purchasing the
MapOptix software (which comes
bundled with MapObjects and Cold-
entry screen shows (clock-
wise) the "help" and "close map-
ping window" bar, the map of Idaho
and its features legend, the search
window, and the mail locater map.
VTTie results of a query or search
run on all USTs in Boise are shown
in the bottom table. The map simul-
taneously updates to show the
selected features, the USTs in the
Boise area.
Fusion), we had to pur-
chase a map server to han-
dle the mapping requests.
We selected a Silicon
Graphics 320 worksta-
tion—a 450 MHz, single-
processor, NT workstation
with I GB of RAM and
two 14.4 GB hard drives.
The SGI machine was
selected because of its
incredibly fast graphics-
rendering speed, which
quickly processes and
delivers a map back to the
user. Hardware and soft-
ware costs were about $20,000, not
including the costs for capturing or
processing site data.
Customization
Customizing the user interface allevi-
ates any concern over access to sensi-
tive information in the UST/LUST
database. Only information released
in the original hard-copy PIR is
shown. MapOptix has the ability to
allow the same set of data to be dis-
played with more detailed or sensi-
tive information simply by adding a
user group for DEQ staff only. The
DEQ staff has its own password and
login name that also limits access
within the agency to only those staff
members involved with the UST/
LUST program.
The public user can find
UST/LUST sites and information
either through the on-screen-interac-
tive map or by performing a database
query and then "zooming" to that
feature. Once a site is selected, a
geospatial operation called a
GeoSearch can be performed. A
GeoSearch compares the UST/LUST
site coordinates (latitude/longitude)
to other data layers with the same
coordinates. This feature allows the
user to investigate whether an UST
site has ever had a LUST event or if a
prior closed UST site exists.
Buffering, which is a geographi-
cal distance query around a selected
site, is also possible. A buffer query
can reveal other available data layers,
such as public water wells, within a
given distance of a LUST event.
Query results can also be opened
directly into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet.
Up and Running
The interactive Web site has been
running since August 1999. Incoming
26
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 34
pfione FIRs are directed to the Web
site if the caller has access to a com-
puter. The UST/LUST mapping data-
base is updated once a month, and an
update notice is posted on the Web
site. We have included an online
mapping tutorial to aid first-time
users.
The interactive site is currently
serving around 700 maps per week.
The number of manual PIRs for
UST/LUST sites has dropped to sev-
eral per month, compared to several
per day before the interactive
UST/LUST system began.
Go Ahead, Give It a Try!
The site is optimized for Internet
Explorer 4.0 or later. Access to DEQ's
interactive mapping application can
be found at www2.state.id.us /deq/.
Select either the Waste or CIS icon.
Select "Interactive UST/LUST map-
ping." GeoNorth can be reached at
www.geonorth.com: SGI at www.sgi.
com. If you have questions or com-
ments, contact Matt Walo. E-mail:
mwalo@deq.state.id.us or (208) 373-
0317.
Matt Walo is a CIS Analyst for the
Idaho DEQ.
Enforcement
EPA Region 6 UST
Program to Collect
Its Largest Fine to
Date
On November 24,1999, Ultra-
mar Diamond Shamrock
agreed to pay $375,866 in
settlement of EPA's January 1999
administrative penalty order: for
violations of federal and state UST
regulations. Ultramar Diamond
Shamrock, headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas, was cited for its: fail-
ure to report and investigate sus-
pected releases, to conduct adequate
leak detection, and to monitor corro-
sion protection systems on metal
components of USTs containing
gasoline at sites in Arkansas :and
Texas.
"One gallon of gasoline can cont-
aminate approximately 5 million gal-
lons of drinking water," noted EPA
Regional Administrator Gregg
Cooke. "Since over half of the drink-
ing water in the United States is
obtained from groundwater, releases
from underground storage tanks
must be prevented." Ultramar has 60
days from the effective date of the
Consent Agreement and Consent
Order to pay the penalty. Ultramar
has also agreed to comply with an
enhanced reporting schedule to EPA
for one year. •
L.U.S.T. Buster T-Shirts
& Sweatshirts!
Tee's: M, L, XL, XXL $ 9.00 pp
. Sweats: M, L, XL, XXL $16.50pp
Allow 4-6 weeks delivery.
Send check or money order (drawn
on U.S. banks only) to:
NEIWPCC
Boott Mills South
100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
LU.S.T.LINE
Q One-year subscription. $1 8.00.
Q Federal, state, .or local government. Exempt from fee. (If you wish to have LUSTLine sent to your home, please submit
your request on agency letterhead.)
G Please take my name off your mailing list.
Ul Please send me back issues of LUSTLine. Fill out name and address — no P.O. boxes. Back issues cost $3.00 per
issue or $50.00 for a complete set.
If ordering back issues, please indicate LUSTLine issue #'s _ _ : _
Please send me a LUSTLine Index.
Name
Company/Agency
Address . .__
Street City/Town State ZIP
Please enclose a check or money order (drawn on a U.S. bank) and made payable to NEIWPCC.
Send to: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Boott Mills South, 100 Foot of John Street, Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Phone: (978) 323-7929 • Fax: (978) 323-7919 • lustline@neiwpcc.org •.www.neiwpcc.org
We welcome your comments and suggestions on any of our articles.
27
-------
OUST Encourages
States to Share MTBE
Cleanup Info
The MTBE problem is a national
issue. Unfortunately, however, we
do not know the magnitude of the
problem. Few states currently per-
form routine sampling and moni-
toring, and what information they
have gleaned is not readily net-
worked among the other states.
EPA and states together need to
make a concerted effort to share
experiences and learn from each
other.
Currently there is little exist-
ing information on the effective-
ness of technologies for treating
MTBE and groundwater. EPA is
encouraging states that have such
information to share it via the
Internet with other states. This
approach can be a simple and cost-
effective means for sharing infor-
mation.
The MTBE problem also
emphasizes the need for long-term
management strategies and land-
use planning. A geographical
information system (GIS) is a flexi-
ble and useful personal computer
and Internet tool |hat states can
use as they strive to better protect
public water supplies from UST
releases. ','.'. ',.' \
EPA HQ UPDATE
OUST is encouraging state
UST/LUST programs to under-
take the following:
• Begin (and for those states
already doing so, continue) to
monitor and report MTBE and
other oxygenates in groundwa-
ter at all UST release sites,
• Aggressively remediate sites
where MTBE is found, and
• Coordinate information shar-
ing using their respective Web
sites.
OUST will take the lead in
linking this information from
states' Web sites and provide
graphics that depict states' activi-
ties on the MTBE section of
OUST's home page: (http://
www.epa. gov / oust / mtbe). This
effort will serve as a clearinghouse
for MTBE information.
Our combined sharing efforts
will provide appropriate and
timely information to interested
and affected parties and, as an
added benefit, help offset miscon-
ceptions about this important
issue. This network will also
improve public understanding
and appreciation of activities
under way by EPA and states to
protect human health and the
environment from all chemicals of
concern.
In the near future, OUST will
develop an optional form you may
use as a guide to help gather and
share your state's information
about MTBE on your Web site. We
will share that form with you as
soon as it is available.
For information from OUST on
MTBE, contact Hal White, for tech-
nical questions and information
sharing inquiries, at (703) 630-
7177, or Steve McNeefy, to discuss,
how MTBE fits into risk-based deci-
sion making (RB.DM) programs, at
(703) 603-7164.
LU.ST.UNE INDEX
August 1985/BulIetin #1 -March 1999/BulIetln #31
The LUSTLine Index—the
long and action-packed
story of USTs and LUSTs
in the late 20th century is
available.
Call NEIWPCC
for your copy at
(978) 323-7929
LU.S.T.UNE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
Boott Mills South
100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Forwarding and return postage guaranteed.
Address correction requested.
------- |