New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
Boott Mills4 South *
1OO Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
Bulletin 35
June
2000
LUST.
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
by Arthur Zontini
The camera zooms in on host Rigid Philpipe.
"We're back! I'm here with Mr. Itza Gonnacarroda from the
State of Confusion, who's going for the million-dollar cover-
age. Mr. Gonnacarroda, I understand you own and operate a
gas station."
"Rigid, I've owned a gas station for 4O years."
"Hey that's great! Are you ready to go for the million-dollar
coverage?"
"I'm ready, Rigid!"
"Okay, the acronym FR stands for: a) French Riviera,
b) Pranceso Rinaldi, c) Financial Responsibility, or d) Franco
Roman."
Gonnacarroda ponders the question as the sweat runs
down the back of Ms neck. "What I could do with a million
bucks," he thinks, "double-walled fiberglass tanks, piping,
third-party remote tank monitoring, my very own C-Store."
He's stumped, but determined to continue. "Rigid, I'm going.
to use my final lifeline and phone a friend. I'd like to call Reggie
Regulator."
"All right, AT&G, please call Mr. Regulator."
"Reggie, its Itza, we have 30 seconds to answer the follow-
ing question: the acronym FR stands for a) French Riviera, b)
Franceso Rinaldi, c) Financial Responsibility, or d) Franco
Roman."
Reggie emits some audible moans and groans. Finally, he
responds, "Urn, um...that would be financial responsibility, C!"
. In a state of panic Gonnacarroda screams... "How sure are
you?"
As time runs out Reggie blurts out, "I'm 99 percent sure!"
"Well, Mr. Gonnacarroda?" says Rigid.
Itza sighs and takes a deep breath. "I'm gonna go with Reg-
gie's answer. It's C, financial responsibility, and that's my final
answer!"
"He's right! You've done it! You've just won a million-dollar
coverage!
*FR STAND&
So Too
f\ YYltLUON
CON/ERAGE U
I continued on page 2
t _ ^r*.~ts * i
Inside
*rf^4jheJProblejn wjfh Sumps
king Sure USTs Don't End Up Where They Don't Belong
iurce Control at LUST Sites
lew AJPI Report on Characterizing Releases with MTBE
Communication Among Agencies—How Good Is It?
nded Consequences of Small Spills of Gas with MTBE
Aquifer Protection Land Use Regulations Proposed in CT
^ - , --- --- -- : - ; -- _ -- ; - :
CT Survey Finds MTBE-Contaminated Heating Oil and
Cliesel Fuel Statewide
Getting Small-Town USTfields Out of the Doldrums
USTfields: Michigan Confronts the Challenge and Prevails
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
li FR Stands for What? yrom page 1
i Was Just Thinking...
Why is it that Financial Responsibil-
ity (FR) does not immediately come
to mind for many regulators? More
importantly, do tank owners and
Operators (O/Os), such as Mister
Gonnacarroda, fully understand
jvhat FR means to them?
The Gonnacarrodas of the world
need to understand the need for and
benefits of FR. They need to know—
Imd I think all of us in the UST pro-
gram need to know or remind
Jaurselves—that FR is more than just
producing a piece of paper when the
PST inspector arrives. Furthermore,
those of us who work in states that
have cleanup funds need to under-
ktand mat having a state fund doesn't
mean never having to say "FR."
FR is mandatory whether your
fetate has a fund or not. As regulators,
bur inquiry into FR does not stop
because tank owners can demon-
itrate that they have a piece of paper
LUSTLine
JElWPCC Executive Director
~~" """
jjiela a product pftne New England
ik Wlji.r Polluhqn_CSin|fql Commis-
PCCl Itispfoduceathrougha
- lere'ernent f»CTO25782-01-0)
cn^EIWPCC and the VS. , .
"~ " il Protection Xeency.
, .. 1 :f.:- :„»;,. ,;s£ ... -t: nil
US issut-a asj communication
"Tdfih*. gubfije IRCRA
id Was!e"Ameri3ments
? promuigation process.
(lit is producea to" promote
mh wge oft OST/LUST issues..
I arid infoTfflation stated herein
i tfiosc of the luthors^nd dp not neces- .
•^-^i ,••;.::.:--•.:- ,^1 .,
This ptibiicilion may be copied.
11 *"" fli*-
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
The survey results told me sev-
eral things. First, if a state has a fund,
FR enforcement is nonexistent "or a
low priority. Demonstrating FR may
merely mean supplying a document
to the regulator or keeping a copy of
the FR document at the facility.
Second, the survey confirms
what I have heard from other states
and what I have experienced: After
contamination is discovered, the
responsible state agency scurries
around looking to see if the O/O's FR
mechanism (if the O/O even has
one) will pay for the cleanup.
The survey results suggest that
fund participation in some states is
requirement-free and that all O/Os
are in the fund—and FR collects dust
in the regulators' toolbox.
Despite what the survey results
suggest, state funds generally have
participation requirements. How-
ever, do the O/Os in states with a
fund understand that they may have
to meet certain participation require-
ments? Do they understand that
failure to comply with these re-
quirements may result in a reduction
(or even disqualification) in coverage
for the release?
Speaking of Coverage
We've also got some coverage issues
that need to be considered. For exam-
ple, many state funds provide full
coverage (from a regulatory stand-
point), even if they require the O/O
to pay a deductible. This "first-dollar
coverage" is similar to the way in
which insurance policies work. If
there is a release, the state (or insur-
ance company) will pay up to the
limit of the policy but will expect the
O/O to pay the deductible. If the
O/O can't pay the deductible, the
state is stuck with the entire bill.
From a financial standpoint, non-
payment of the deductible is not
good for the fund. From an environ-
mental standpoint, the ultimate pur-
pose, of the financial responsibility
requirement—cleaning up the re-
lease—has been accomplished. From
a compliance standpoint, the O/O
who is covered by a fund that pro-
»vides first-dollar coverage is in full
compliance with the FR regulations,
even if he or she can't afford to pay
the deductible. This does not rule out
the need to ensure that the O/Os
maintain their eligibility for the fund
(e.g., paying fees, keeping compliant
with technical requirements). With-
out fund eligibility, there is no cover-
age—at all.
Some states do not provide first-
dollar coverage. In these cases, the
state will not start paying .until the
O/O pays his or her deductible. In
these situations, it is particularly cru-
cial that the O/O can afford to pay
the deductible. If the O/O can't pay,
the site doesn't get addressed. In
states where this scenario is the case,
FR enforcement is enormously
important.
>er that the existence of a
-•- • r-^ ^ _<.£. f -.v--;*
^tete ?Hflwe are notjnihdful oi,this fact,
then we are setting ourselves up for
js potentially unpleasant surprises.
What Happens in the State of
Confusion?
Let's look at the fund in the State of
Confusion, where Itza lives. In this
state, first-dollar coverage applies,
and many O/Os think they're in the
fund, because they pay a tank fee.
Their facility, however, must be in
compliance with tank rules and regu-
lations. If contamination is discov-
ered, the O/O must apply for
eligibility. If eligibility is granted,
then and only then is he or she eligi-
ble for reimbursement of eligible
costs. Therefore, in the State of Con-
fusion, FR does not truly kick in until
the O/O is notified that the release is
eligible.
Let's say the facility is compliant
and found eligible. Next, the O/O
files for reimbursement. Now, does
the cleanup fund pay for everything
or are there ineligible costs? Oh,
before I forget, the Confusion
Cleanup Fund has a number of filing,
requirements for various milestones
throughout the process. If the owner
operator misses the filing deadlines,
the facility may not have FR or the FR
coverage may be reduced.
No Guarantees
State and federal regulators must
remember that the existence of a state
fund does not guarantee FR. When
we are not mindful of this fact, then
we are setting ourselves up for poten-
tially unpleasant surprises.
What can contribute to this sur-
prise factor?
• If you have a state cleanup fund,
or if you merely assess fees, and
O/Os just assume they are in the
fund.
• When there is much too much
reliance on the state fund by regu-
lators.
• When demonstrating FR means
merely submitting a piece of
paper to the state agency.
• When FR is demonstrated by hav-
ing the O/O check off-the appro-
priate box on a state form
requesting, among other things,
"Financial Responsibility, please
check the appropriate box: Q self
insurance; Q state fund; Q private
insurance; Q letter of credit...
FR, Let's Make It a Priority
Okay, maybe it's me, but I was just
thinking—If you made a list of priori-
ties, on a scale of one to ten, with ten
being the highest, FR, might be near
or at the bottom. At or near the top, I
think we can agree that we'd find
tank construction and design and, of
course, leak prevention and detec-
tion.
I maintain that we must move FR
higher up toward the top of the prior-
ity ladder. Now try to stay with me
on this. Like I say, I'm just thinking.
So let me explore a few themes:
What can we agree on?
• For the time being, gasoline and
diesel are necessary commodities.
• Gasoline is a flammable liquid.
• Gasoline contains an alphabet
soup of nasty and allegedly nasty
constituents (e.g., benzene, ethyl-
benzene, toluene, xylene, MTBE,
and, the latest talk of the town,
TBA) that find their way from
USTs to our ground and surface
waters.
• Tanks and piping often leak.
• Fuel can be spilled unintentionally
(about 750,000 gallons per year at
• continued on page 4
-------
LUSJUne Bulletin 35
•| FR Stands for What? from page 3
gasoline stations alone ["The
Holes in Our UST Systems/'
LUSTLinemO]).
•I The quality and workmanship of
the tank installer can play a part in
the productive life of a tank.
• Leak detection and leak preven-
tion methods do not always live
up to our expectations.
•I Tanks leak in all 50 states.
•I Unfunded cleanup sites occur in
all 50 states—and the government
' ends up paying.
II USTfields exist in every state.
H Owners and operators are sup-
posed to have up to $1 million
coverage for each release, because
of the above-mentioned points
and because cleaning up the envi-
ronment and/or paying third-
party damages can be kiss of
death for an O / O's business.
If we agree on all of the points
I've just listed, then it stands to rea-
son we agree that FR should be a pri-
ority. FR means peace of mind. It
may be the only thing that allows an
O/O to stay in business after the dis-
covery and remediation of a release.
If an O/O has FR, then it should fol-
low that he or she can expedite a
cleanup. If the O/O has FR, then
your state LUST program is less
likely to have to foot the entire bill for
the cleanup. If the O/O has FR, then
it is less likely that his or her property
will become an USTfield—why aban-
don a site when there is money avail-
able to clean it up?
FR and the Deductible
^'1 know," you are saying to yourself,
''we have owners in our state that
ineet the FR requirements, they have
the coverage, but they just can't
Afford tlie deductible." (I am includ-
ing state fund deductibles, which
tange from a a few thousand dollars
to $25,000 or more.) That comment
Always gets me thinking—If they
can't afford the deductible, do they
jreally have FR? How can O/Os avoid
jcostly cleanups and pay third-party
blaims if they cannot meet the cover-
£ge the law requires?
| I was not thinking the answer is
state funds, which were never
intended to be nor ever will be a
panacea. As mentioned in an article
titled "State Cleanup Fund Evolu-
tions" in LUSTLine #21:
"State funds began as formless
answers to anxious prayers. They
were the last great hope for tank
owners who couldn't get or
couldn't afford insurance, couldn't
pay for cleanups, and essentially
had no means for complying with
federal responsibility require-
ments. They were the last great
hope for getting contaminated
sites cleaned up."
If an owner truly cannot afford
the deductible, state fund or other-
wise, he or she does not have FR.
iiffi,"we"aregoing id have to "
I" protecting human health and the
.
'I'iplllflW^^
fajiljties.nyou_ are uncomfortable
iSS^'lS"! facTj'jtyliniiTor'
nless it has FR, then you cannot '•
•fll iiTIHll J j l_Mb V I i J jiSSi^
f"* have the proverbial cake and eat if
* too. Something has to give—
w » somewhere, somehow.
Can We Afford Not to Enforce
FR?
When we look at what we store
underground, near groundwater,
over aquifers, it is not unreasonable
to require UST O/Os to have the abil-
ity to pay for damages caused by the
operation of their facility.
If FR is enforced, some stations
may close, permanently. I know
fhaf s a tough call. On the other hand,
if FR is enforced, private FR options
may grow in your state. If FR is
enforced, creative individuals, both
public and private, may come
together to develop ideas, which in
turn may become solutions.
No doubt, we are going to have
to be creative if we wish to balance
protecting human health and the
environment with operating UST
facilities. If you are uncomfortable
shutting down a facility until or
unless it has FR, then you cannot
have the proverbial cake and eat it
too. Something has to give—some-
where, somehow.
We do have choices. We can give
FR enforcement a chance to work and
stand up to the challenges that come
with it. Or we can leave it in the tool-
box and deal with the consequences
as they are discovered. Remember, if
facilities operate without FR, then the
O/O's problem really becomes
everyone's problem.
And, for the time being, tanks
still leak, and we are bound to find
contamination. So why don't we
make FR a higher priority? It's on the
books, at our disposal, and manda-
tory—according to state and federal
law. If enforced it may require clos-
ing facilities, it may stimulate cre-
ative ideas, and it may help the Mr.
Gonnacarrodas of the UST world
who have no lifelines left. I was just
thinking. •
Arthur M. Zontini is General Counsel
and Compliance Manager for the Massa-
chusetts Department of Revenue Under-
ground Storage Tank Program.
[Author's note: This article contains the opin-
ions and conclusions of the author and not nec-
essarily those of the Department of Revenue.]
Check Out OUST's New FR Reference Manual
EPA OUST recently published a manual titled Financial Responsibility for
Underground Storage Tanks: A Reference Manual, developed to assist state
and regional UST program staff in understanding and reviewing FR
mechanisms. Copies of the manual were sent to all states and EPA
regions. It can be accessed at:
http: / / www.epa.gov / swerustl / pubs / frustman.pdf.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35.
nically Speaking
by Marcel Moreau
f^"" 'Marcel' Moreau .is anationally^~~'"^
ffscojniz"ed'peWoleum storage specialist j
Wphose column, Tank-nically Speaking, -•
a regular feature o/LUSTLine. As '
yalways, we welcome your comments and *.
^questions. If there are technical issues _.|
p that you would like to have Marcel j
discuss, let him know at: 5
The Problem uiith Sumps
The following stories are
true. Only the names and
a few details have been
changed to keep me out
of trouble. Both incidents
happened at state-of-the-art,
double-walled storage
systems with continuous
interstitial monitoring.
Sloru#l
Sigh of Relief Becomes a Groan of Despair
'-A line-leak detector is tripping frequently, so the owner calls
iis installer to come and have a look. The installer discovers, a
'leaking union at the submersible pump and tightens it up.
^ffhere is a small amount, of product in the bottom of the sump,
rwhich the installer cleans up. The owner and installer are very
jsrr' '• " - ' : ' •: !-'•..•-:'.,-. ,..!.-,.- .-.•:-- -.„-!.,.,;• •>•«.....~.~,-,j SWH.--<.. -;-'.\ „*: -; 3 -*»*«".•-.= :..*.. *-A .
Iglad to have secondary containment, because they have caught
'the problem in time, there has been no leakage, and so there is
no need for a site assessment to determine the level ofcontami-
-.nation. A few days later, however, product appears in anearby
-Drainage ditch. A review of recent inventory records for the
"tank with the, newly repaired leak indicates that a substantial
^amount of product is unaccounted for. After some investiga-
tion and head scratching, the tank sump is filled with water.
-The water quickly disappears from the sump. As it turns out,
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
II Problem with Sumps from page 5
Based on comments from regulators
from various parts of the country, it
Seems that these incidents are not
unique and that similar stories are
relatively commonplace. How did we
get here?
Why Sumps Were Born
Initially, sumps presented a simple
and elegant solution to an early prob-
lem in the implementation of sec-
ondary containment for piping.
Putting pipe within a pipe was a sim-
ple enough problem to solve, but
there was always the question of
t^hat to do when you got to the tank
&nd of the pipe.
There were two issues: 1) What
to do about terminating the sec-
ondary containment to enable leak
detection, and 2) What to do about
the single-walled section of pipe that
remained between the submersible
pump manifold and the beginning of
the secondarily contained pipe. This
jingle-walled section of piping
'almost invariably contained a union,
and most everyone recognized that
leaking unions were a problem.
Leaks from the submersible pump
itself were also a recognized prob-
lem.
The seemingly simple solution
was to put a liquid-tight container
around the entire submersible pump
and terminate the secondary piping
at the sump wall. This sump would
serve as a containment vessel for
leaks from the submersible manifold
as well as from the immediately adja-
cent piping; it would also serve as a
| receptacle for any leaked product
that might flow down the secondary
containment piping. The sump could
be equipped with sensors for leak
detection, and any product that accu-
mulated could be removed easily. It
was a solution that was too good to
i be true.
However, the first sumps brought
i to market appeared to have been
; designed without a realistic appraisal
of the challenges involved in building
a subterranean, liquid-tight chamber
with numerous penetrations that is
' surrounded by loose gravel and likely
' to be installed in a humid climate. The
i first such attempts were neither liq-
' uid-tight nor structurally sound, but
: they did demonstrate that the concept
had merit.
Over the last decade, many gen-
erations of sump designs, penetration
fittings, and methods of attaching the
sump to the tank top have been
developed, but it still seems that
many of the designs, though they
have benefited from some engineer-
ing expertise, are flawed.
he last decade, many
B ,?p i,,,^,,, f -,. «,». ff 11 m w iwJ,; 11?E,:W: v,: ,,if; SLIS- V'^H 3
• ^ij generations, oj sump nesigns,
I penetration fittings, and methods of
HisiiS
ihe sumpVthetanktop
f have been developed, but it still
"'^ft^^
•ggmSlhat many of the designs,
Here Lies the Problem
The main problem, with sumps has to
do with keeping the sump liquid-
tight. Areas of inherent "untightness"
include the following:
• Water entry via the lid. Water
entry via loose or inadequately
sealed lids is most commonly the
result of the infiltration of precipi-
tation, but it can also be due to a
very high water table. The chal-
lenge is to create a liquid-tight
joint that can be made up and
taken apart on at least an annual
basis to test the line-leak detector.
The joint typically relies on gas-
kets or flexible seals of some type,
which is a problem because of the
proximity of grit and dirt that can
interfere with a proper seal. Pres-
sure is also typically required to
seal the joint, and finding ways to
quickly and evenly apply pressure
can be a challenge. Joints that^are
difficult to reassemble are not
likely to be reassembled properly.
• Water entry/product exit via
fittings designed to seal
around the pipe where it enters
the sump. The engineering of
these fittings has improved
greatly over the years, but the
problem is often traceable to
improper installation of the fit-
ting. Problems range from drilling
the wrong-size hole in the sump,
to over- or under-tightening of
clamps around the piping, to tear-
ing the fitting a result of abuse or
mishandling.
• Water entry/product exit via
electrical conduit penetrations.
This often occurs when the electri-
cian is a separate contractor who
does not understand the need: to
keep sumps liquid-tight and fails
to use appropriate fittings to run
the conduit through the sump
wall.
• Water entry/product exit via
the connection between the
tank top and the sump bottom.
Fiberglass tanks with factory-
installed sump mounting rings to
which the sump is glued seem to
work pretty well (as long as the
adhesive is properly applied), but
steel and jacketed tanks that
require the sump to be attached to
the four-inch tank opening are
often a source of problems.
Because this joint is so critical to
effective leak detection, a more
fail-safe engineering solution
needs to be developed.
Other problems stem from fail-
ure to properly support sump bot-
toms with backfill, choosing a sump
or sump lid that is not suited to the
field conditions (e.g., extremely high
water table), and failure to properly
repair holes that are mistakenly
drilled into the sump.
Because water entry often leads
to frequent false alarms and ignoring
of alarm conditions, it is a significant
obstacle to the effectiveness of sec-
ondary containment as a leak detec-
tion method. Product leaks from the
sump, of course, completely defeat
the purpose of secondary contain-
ment.
Solutions to the leaking sump
problem include installing smaller
retrofit sumps inside the existing
sump, applying sealant compounds
around the sump penetrations, and
tearing out the old sump and starting
over. Storage system owners frus-
trated by frequent water entry all too
often resort to ignoring the problem
entirely and thereby compromising
their leak detection ability, or aban-
doning their secondary containment
and utilizing potentially less effective
leak detection methods, such as line-
leak detectors and annual tightness
testing. Problems associated with
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
ct (and ofttim.es water) leaking
out of sumps typically go unnoticed
until it is too late.
To Leak Is Human, to Detect
Leaks Divine
In hindsight, is it any wonder that it
is so difficult to keep sumps tight
when we have had such difficulty
keeping primary piping tight?
Though there is certainly room for
improvement in the engineering and
installation of sumps, the possibility
of leakage will always be present.
Testing sumps at installation and
periodically for the life of the storage
system would seem to be a sensible
approach to dealing with this issue,
but such testing is not a widespread
practice.
In reviewing the installation
instructions from some of the leading
sump manufacturers, I was surprised
to learn that some instructions do not
call for any testing of the sumps at
installation, let alone during the life
of the system. Florida currently
requires sump testing at the time of
installation, and California, in
response to the problems described
here, is heading down the road of
requiring periodic sump tightness
testing. The 2000 edition of PEIRP100
will specify that sumps should be
tested according to the manufac-
turer's instructions before a facility is
started up.
When Will It End?
I can hear the groans of storage sys-
tem owners already: "Oh no, not
another thing that I have to test!
When will it end?" Lef s face it, life is
difficult. So do we accept that and
deal with it? Or do we just complain?
Operating a storage system responsi-
bly is a task that requires dedication,
perseverance, and money. Given the
road we have chosen to travel with
storage systems, there is no accept-
able alternative.
The Soap Box
The replacement (not upgrading) of
bare steel tanks with corrosion-pro-
tected tanks has, at least for now,
fairly effectively dealt with the issue
of leaking tanks. I would venture to
guess that better than 95 percent of
today's leaks stem from pressurized
piping. Though I doubt that anyone
\vill take me seriously, I am con-
vinced that if suction pumps were
the dominant technology today, the
leaking piping problem (which is
what creates the need for tank top
sumps in the first place) would not
exist.
Suction systems still dominate in
much of Europe, and I would wager
that European gas stations are every
bit as big and pump just as much
product as American stations.
Though many would consider it a
step backward, it would clearly ben-
efit the environment and, I believe, in
the long term the tank owner, if we
were to take a cue from our Euro-
pean brethren and adopt intrinsically
safe suction systems as the product
pumping system of choice.
A conversion to suction pumps
is not likely to happen through regu-
lation, nor is the petroleum market-
ing industry likely to adopt such a
change voluntarily. But -perhaps
insurance companies (or maybe even
state cleanup funds) could at least
reward those who choose suction
pumping systems by charging them
substantially lower insurance premi-
ums. I
EPA Develops Two New Logos to
Promote UST Operation and
Maintenance
The EPA Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks
(OUST), with help from
the states and regions, has
developed two new logos to
promote routine UST system
operation and maintenamce
(O&M). The logos can be used b,
regulators, equipment dealers, oil
companies, and others who work
with UST owners and operators as
tools to encourage O&M. They are
intended to serve as visual reminders to own-
ers and operators that UST system O&M is crucial to day-to-day oper-
ations.
The logos can be used on anything that an UST owner or operator
might see, including brochures, newsletters, manuals, letters, reports,
application or notification forms, inspection forms, notices, certificates,
stickers, permits, tank tags, delivery invoices, conference or training
folders and materials, Internet sites, posters, banners, calendars, T--
shirts, hats, key chains, cups...did we miss anything?
Logos can be downloaded from OUST's home page at
www.epa.gov / OUST / under the "What's New" button. If you have
questions, contact Paul Miller at miller.paul@epa.gov.
HAVE You
CHECKED
YOUR TANK
TODAY?
-------
l^USTLmc Bulletin 35
We received the following comments
"in response to a Tank-nicdly Speaking article
titled "Enough with the Walking Softly, It's Time
to Get Out the Stick!" in LUSTLine #33.
Paper Inspections Work
Great!
from Carol Eighmey, Director of the Missouri Petroleum Stor-
age Tank Insurance Fund
Marcel Moreau's article really "hit the nail on the head." It
clearly makes two important points that have been axioms
pf the Missouri tank fund for years. First, one of the most
effective leak prevention activities (or, as we call it in the
Insurance business, "loss prevention" activities) is careful
pnd regular scrutiny of records. Second, tank owners will
be motivated to keep proper records when there is a nega-
tive consequence for not doing so.
Missouri's Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund is
proof that both statements are true. Since 1992, tank own-
ers who wanted to use the Fund as their "financial respon-
sibility mechanism" have had to apply for coverage from
the Fund. The application process requires that they send
us a whole pile of documents—leak detection records,
tank lining certificates, maintenance checks of line leak
detectors, tank tightness test results, cathodic protection
readings, and so on. We issue an insurance policy only
after careful review of all of these documents. The policy
must be renewed annually. So 12 months later, they have
to go through the same routine!
This means that many UST sites in Missouri have
experienced an annual inspection of their records for the
last eight years. Our files contain an enormous amount of
information about the operation of the site, which we can
readily access in the event of emergency situations, such
as when no one knows the source of the problem.
The big incentive that motivates the tank owner to
,keep up his or her paperwork and send it to us every year
is the threat of getting the insurance canceled. That CAN-
CELLATION NOTICE arriving in the mailbox gets the
owner's attention. Frankly, giving the tank owner some-
thing he wants (insurance protection) motivates him to get
into compliance—and stay in compliance—more readily
than the threat of fines. Carrots work better than sticks.
; We also physically inspect 10 percent of our insured
sites each year to verify that what we're being told on
paper is really how it is and to look for evidence of sloppy
operating practices. (If we were an insurance company,
1 our premiums would be based, in part, on our judgment
of the diligence with which the owner/operator monitors
i his tank system and the degree to which his employees are
trained. But, because we are a state fund, we charge every-
one who demonstrates compliance the same amount.)
8
The Cost of Paper Inspections
By the way, since you asked about cost, the annual paper
inspection costs us $61 per site (plus some overhead
costs). We currently insure 2,615 UST sites, where there
are 7,740 tanks, and 332 AST sites, where there are 1,392
tanks. All totaled, it costs us about $175,260 to do the
"paper inspections" you describe. We pay $332 per site for
the field inspections, so our annual site visits cost less than
$100,000.
The paper inspections are done by a private company
that is under contract to the Board of Trustees that man-
ages Missouri's tank fund. Let me hasten to add that we
also pay the company a fixed administrative fee each
month. It's anybody's guess how much of that fixed fee
supports the "paper inspections" (the company also pro-
vides other services), but my best estimate is that there's
another $35 to $40 of overhead that should be added into
the annual cost. This would make our real cost closer to
$100 per site—still far less than a physical site visit. I'll
wager there's no regulatory program in the country that
achieves an equivalent level of compliance on more than
9,000 tanks for under $400,000!
So.... Thanks for reemphasizing the value and cost-
effectiveness of "paper inspections." They work great!
Inspections Are Needed for
Verification
from Brad Newton, Hydrogeologist, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste
Management— USTs
You make some interesting points in your article, but I see
one problem with paper-only inspections. Without an on-
site inspection, how do you know that the UST system
actually has any of the equipment required, such as
spill/overfill or automatic line-leak detectors?
I went to a site in November that had tests from eight
days prior showing that the mechanical line-leak detectors
and sump sensors worked. When I opened the manhole to
check the submersible pump, neither a line-leak detector
nor a sump sensor was present—and this was a company
with a good reputation to which I had never before issued
a notice of violation.
I do agree that the majority of UST-system problems
are paperwork foul-ups, but I don't see a way to find
equipment violations without physically checking.
Moreau's Response: Paper inspections will not eliminate
the need for afield presence to verify the accuracy of paper-
work. However, putting all your eggs in the field presence
basket will not be effective either, unless you have the
resources to visit every facility at least once a year.
-------
Leak Prevention
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
New California Law Focuses on the
Human Side of UST Systems
by Shahla. Dargahi Farahnak
it's going to happen
to the tank program
once all the USTs are
upgraded?" This question became a
mantra among the unenlightened as
the big upgrade compliance date of
December 22, 1998, approached.
Now that we are a year and a half
past this date, it seems (as many of
the enlightened could have foretold)
that we are far from being done with
the program. We are just getting
ready to start "Underground Storage
Tanks, Episode 2."
And we've learned a lot over the
years. We've learned about those
UST systems that were found to be
leaking when uncovered as part of
the upgrade activities. We've learned
about those double-walled systems
that were the victims of poor installa-
tion jobs, faulty secondary contain-
ment, or other problems. We've also
learned that with the presence of fuel.
additives such as MTBE, it may no
longer be a good idea to allow single-
walled vapor recovery lines. (This
area will await the results of our
field-based research, probably in
Episode 3.)
We've also learned that we've
still got a lot to learn. So in California
we have a new law (Senate Bill 989,
signed into law effective January 1,
2000) that mandates us to do further
research, implement new require-
ments, evaluate our enforcement
authorities, and implement other
program enhancements. What is dif-
ferent now from the UST movement
of the late 1980s, as far as California is
concerned, is that at this time we are
not just focusing on corrosion protec-
tion, leak detection, overfill, or UST
equipment, but are also emphasizing
the human element.
We are looking at those who
install, repair, maintain, and operate
underground storage tank systems,
as well as those who inspect them.
We are looking for some means of
ensuring that the people who do UST
work have the training and knowl-
edge to do the job right arid that the
knowledge does not get corroded
over time!
Advice Heeded
In late 1997, we formed an advisory
panel of local agencies, industry, tank
owners, water agencies, and technical
experts to evaluate the effectiveness
of upgrade standards, study UST
component compatibility and perme-
ability with fuel additives such as
MTBE, and identify the sources and
causes of failures of new double-
walled UST systems. Findings and
recommendations of the work were
«™ ^ ~~ -, ~
ijWe are looking for some means of
Ensuring that the people who do UST
""* " - *
have the training and knowledge to
- - - ..... — • - -_
do the ;0/> right and tha tthe
kmwtefige dqesnotget corroded
™~"*" -" "" ^
- overtime!
u^* n, »
*
published in three detailed reports and
one summary report 0anuary 1999—
copies available at www.swrcb.ca.gov.
The UST advisory panel report
summarized its recommendations
into 11 items, 9 of which ended up in
Senate Bill 989. The two that were not
included relate to compatibility and
permeability standards and criteria;
we plan to address those as one of
the projects planned for 2000/2001.
Although the study revealed
some areas of concern with respect to
compatibility and permeability, those
issues were not as problematic as
some people had speculated. Instead,
the nine recommendations addressed
in the new law were thought to have
the greatest influence on the effective-
ness of UST systems, upgrade stan-
dards, and the tank program.
The comment period for the reg-
ulatory package for implementing
Senate Bill 989 ends on July 18, 2000.
We are also working on our 2001 reg-
ulatory package, which is intended to
improve the existing requirements
for leak detection and cathodic pro-
tection testing.
Highlights of the New Law
The mandates in the new law and the
proposed regulations can be grouped
into five major categories:
• Training and Licensing
- Installation contractors We
currently require installation
contractors to have a contractor's
license and health and safety
training. However, with all the
installation problems we have
noted at new sites, this require-
ment does not appear to be ade-
quate. We are looking into
mandating that these contractors,
as part of their licensing exam,
take a test that evaluates their
knowledge regarding UST sys-
tems and regulatory require-
ments. They will also have to
have a certificate of training from
equipment manufacturers and
recertification every three years.
- Contractors performing an-
nual leak detection equip-
ment certifications (required
in California) Contractors will
be required to have a license,
manufacturer's certification, and
recertification every three years;
use a prescribed form to report
their work; and tag equipment
they inspect and certify. Repair
and maintenance contractors
will be subject to similar require-
ments.
- Tank owners and operators
Training and a certificate of
training will be required. We
will be working with the indus-
try and local agencies to estab-
lish training standards and
certification requirements for
those who own tanks and those
who are involved in the day-to-
day operation of tank systems.
• continued on page 10
-------
LUSTLiMeBu/Wm35
Bi New California Law from page 9
- Local inspectors and other
third-party inspectors Train-
ing and certification will be
required. The State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
in cooperation with local agen-
cies and the industry, will estab-
lish training standards and
certification programs for those
who perform routine compliance
inspections and inspect UST
installations and removals.
• Secondary Containment Testing
Now that I look back, I am amazed
that it took us this long to require
periodic testing of secondary contain-
ment, sumps, and spill containment
boxes. Without such verification,
tank owners are operating their UST
systems with a false sense of security.
Currently, we require testing of
sumps, spill buckets, and secondary
piping at the time of installation (our
.field evaluation shows that even this
activity may not be happening at all
sites) and before the system is put in
service. After that, we just hope and
pray that it will stay tight!
We will now require that sec-
ondary containment, sumps, and
spill buckets be tested six months
after installation and every three
years after that—using installation
standards and test methods. Most of
the sumps and spill boxes will be
tested using a 24-hour water-line
test—fill them with water, mark the
water line, and come back and check
the water line again. Some systems,
(e.g., double-walled systems that
; continuously monitor both the pri-
imary and secondary walls of the
I tank—brine-filled or vacuum-oper-
lated tanks) will be exempt from this
testing. Licensed tank testers and
installation contractors will be those
considered qualified to do this work.
Secondary containment that can-
not be tested because of inherent
design (e.g., "open-trench" systems)
will have a grace period if one-time,
i enhanced leak detection is imple-
; mented instead of secondary contain-
ment testing (discussed later). After
that grace period, the system will
need to be replaced with secondary
i containment that is testable, unless a
testing method is developed during
; the interim period.
10
• Dispenser Containment Boxes
and Enhanced Leak Detection
- Dispenser containment box
Currently required at all new
installations, dispenser contain-
ment will now be phased in at all
facilities, beginning with post-
1987 facilities that are within
1,000 feet of public drinking
water wells. In addition, under-
dispenser containment must be
continuously monitored and con-
nected to an audible visual alarm.
- Enhanced leak detection All
facilities with UST systems that
have single-walled components
(currently does not include vent
lines and vapor recovery lines)
within 1,000 feet of a public
drinking water well will be
required to implement "en-
hanced leak detection" every
three years in addition to cur-
rently required monitoring. At
this time, the only available tech-
nology to meet this proposed
regulatory standard is the Tracer
Tight test method (product of
Tracer Research Corporation).
• Enforcement
The new law requires us to review
existing enforcement authorities and
implement measures to enhance our
enforcement—in California, the tank
program is implemented by over 100
local agencies. We are also forming
an enforcement unit that will investi-
gate fraud related to upgrade compli-
ance and assist local agencies with
statewide enforcement issues. ;
• continued on page 11
California Issues Advisory on
Ethanol/UST Compatibility
As California phases out MTBE in gasoline, the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCBJ suggests that ethanol is a likely replacement fuel oxygenate, in fact,
gasoline supplies in some partsiof thei states already nave ethanol concentrations as
high as 10 percent by volume. Anticipating that more UST systems will store a
gasoline/etnanol-blend fuel, in March the SWRCB issued an advisory to UST owners
and operators regarding ethanol compatibility.
Based on the review of available compatibility testing information, industry lit-
erature, and other published research papers, the agency recommends that owners
and operators verify the compatibility of ethanol-blend fuels with the following UST
system components:
• Single-walled fiberglass tanks installed prior to 1/1/84;
• Single-wailed fiberglass and flexible piping installed prior to 1/1/84;
• Lining material used to line old single-walled tanks for repairs or upgrades;
• Adhesives, glues, sealants, and gaskets used around the piping and other parts
rr of the UST system (more of a concern for older systems, but may be an issue for
new instailationsTas well if'the contractor failed to use the proper materials);
• Pump heads and other auxiliary equipment, including certain metals (e.g., alu-
minum, copper, some brass/bronzes), that come in contact with the product; and
• Older mbdeis of some leak detection equipment that may not operate properly of
have parts that may wear out with exposure to ethanol-blend fuels.
The advisory suggests that if owner/operators are unsure whether their cur-
rent or future fuel supply contains or will contain ethanol, they should check with
Uitheir fuel supplier.
If they do riot have compatibility records in their files, they should ask their
respective equipment manufacturer(s) for a written compatibility statement for
ethanol-blend fuels before they begin storing that type of fuel. They should ask for
information regarding the maximum concentrations of ethanol to which their system
can be exposed, the industry testing standard, and the testing process by which the
manufacturer supports the above statement. They should keep a copy of this infor-
mation for their records. Owner/operators who have difficulty obtaining this infor-
mation in writing from the manufacturer may seek assistance from their local
UST-enforcement agency. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
Leak Prevention
Vermont Loan Program Is Expanded
to Encourage Upgrade of
Pig" Technologies
Vermont recently expanded its
UST loan program to allow
gas station owners to apply
for loans to upgrade and improve
their leak detection and piping sys-
tems. State UST program officials
have discovered that some of the sec-
ondary containment and leak detec-
tion devices that were available in
the late 1980s and early 1990s (the
"guinea pig" technologies) have not
performed as reliably as had been
expected. Discussions with officials
from other states confirm that it is a
nationwide problem. (See "The Prob-
lem with Sumps" on page 5.)
A big part of the equation in Ver-
mont is that manufacturers of sec-
ondary containment equipment did
not sufficiently account for the effects
of the annual freeze/thaw cycles to
which underground equipment is
subjected in Vermont. Furthermore,
many installing contractors did not
fully understand the new devices
that became available in the 1980s
and early 1990s.
Consequently, Vermont has a
large number of documented cases
where water has leaked into the pip-
ing system through piping contain-
ment sumps. Vermont has also found
cases where, in far fewer instances,
petroleum products have leaked
through both the inner and outer
walls of double-walled systems, cre-
ating a release of gasoline or another
petroleum product into the environ-
ment.
Vermont's new law will allow the
Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)
to loan up to $40,000 interest free to
any owner of a Category 1 one tank
system who wants to replace first-
generation leak detection and/ or sec-
ondary containment equipment with
newer and more reliable equipment.
In 1989, the state legislature cre-
ated its loan program (funded out of
the Petroleum Cleanup Fund) to
allow the ANR to provide interest-
free loans of up to $40,000 to small-
town and "mom and pop" gas sta-
tions and country stores with gaso-
line sales. The loans were to be used
to assist the tank owners in replacing
their old, high-risk gasoline tanks
with newer double-walled systems
that met the 1998 upgrade require-
ments.
This loan program has been
tremendously successful—over the
past decade, more than 150 small
businesses and towns have taken
advantage of it. The program was a
major contributor to Vermont's
achievement of 100 percent compli-
ance with the federal upgrade
requirement on the deadline date of
December 22,1998.
Home Heating Oil UST Loan
Program Expanded
The new law also expands the exist-
ing residential grant/loan program
for replacing underground tanks.
Under a law passed in 1998, the
agency could make grants or loans
from the Petroleum Cleanup Fund of
up to $500 to households with a gross
annual income of $50,000 or less as an
incentive to remove their under-
ground heating oil tanks and replace
them with less risky aboveground
tanks or, in unusual circumstances,
better-designed and safer under-
ground tanks. The residential grant
program was capped at a total of
$50,000 in any one year.
In 1999, the ANR provided finan-
cial assistance to every eligible appli-
cant. It had only 43 applicants, less
than half of the maximum number
allowed.
To encourage greater participa-
tion among households, the new law
eliminates the $50,000 income cap,
but still instructs the ANR to give pri-
ority to lower-income applicants. The
law also raises the amount of assis-
tance from $500 to $1,000 and raises
the cap for the entire program from
$50,000 to $100,000 per year.
The law also requires that any-
one who benefits from a grant or loan
must have
assessment performed to determine
if the old underground tank leaked
any petroleum products to the envi-
ronment.
To learn more about either assis-
tance program, call the UST Program
at (802) 241-3888. •
• New California Law frontpage 10.
• Field-based Research
We still need to better evaluate our
UST population with respect to effec-
tiveness in preventing releases. We
need to substantiate the relative risks
associated with single-walled sys-
tems versus double-walled systems.
Using field-based research we will
randomly test 180 sites in six select
regions in California and identify
sources of vapor or product releases,
pinpoint the location of these
releases, and confirm the results. This
evaluation will include three groups
of UST systems: double-walled, sin-
gle-walled, and hybrid (including
fiber-trenched lines). This two-year
study, under a contract with the Uni-
versity of California Davis and Tracer
Research Corporation, will begin on
July 1,2000.
Walking Away with Better
UST Systems
To my way of thinking, our UST pro-
gram has taken its baby steps—we've
tackled the basic problems with
USTs. Now we are ready to walk
through the new refinements to our
rule. In the future, most likely at the
conclusion of our field-based
research, we may be able to start run-
ning. By then, I hope we'll be running
in the right direction—full secondary
containment! •
Shahla Dargahi Farahnak, P.E., is
Senior Engineer with the California
State Water Resources Control Board's
UST program.
—
-------
UlSTLine Bulletin 35
Tanks. Down E-aJIig
% W. David McCaskill
David McCaskill is an environmental engineer with the Maine Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection. Tanks Down East is a regular feature ofLUSTLine. David
can be reached at: David.Mccaskill@state.me.us. As always, we welcome our
readers' comments.
The Tank That Never Leaked
Isn't It High Time We Made Sure
tJSTs Don't End Up Where They Don't Belong?
Most people from "away"
think of the entire coast of
Maine as "Downeast"—
down wind of Boston—but talk to a
native Mainer and he or she'll more
.than likely point you in the direction
east of Ellsworth, past all the crowds
and souvenir shops that border the
Acadia National Park region. The
town of Lamoine is just the other
side of Ellsworth, lying on a finger of
land the glaciers laid down around
14,000 years ago.
Along with setting up some
views of the "finest kind" of Mount
Desert Island, the glaciers blessed
Lamoine with the greatest natural
gift of all—water. During the Ice Age,
glacial meltwater flowed in streams
under and through the ice, deposit-
ing sand and gravel on its way to the
Atlantic Ocean. When the glaciers
fully receded, those ice streams set-
, tied down as long, sinuous ridges of
porous sand and gravel formations
i called "eskers" that are capable of
| storing large amounts of groundwa-
jter.
Along with their water supply
'< value, eskers are excellent sources of
sand and gravel for construction pur-
poses (e.g., concrete, roadways). And
Lamoine, like so many other sand
i and gravel towns across the nation, is
pocked with gravel pits that, when
: all mined out, end up as big sandy
bowls.
i In the case of one particular
gravel pit, conveniently close to an
intersection of well-traveled roads,
one entrepreneur built herself a small
general store. After several years she
sold the store to a new owner, who,
based on some suggestions by his
_
customers, decided to apply for a
town permit to install gasoline USTs.
The Maine Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (DEP), which
has the authority to register but not
permit USTs, accepted the owner's
UST registration form. No big deal,
huh? Gas stations are built all the
time, right?
y about siting and permitting
errors, "anil plain poor
sending some
Enter the Concerned Citizen
When word got out in Lamoine
about this proposed gas station, a
local organic farmer—who had
moved to Maine and to this particu-
lar coastal community partly because
of the clean water and the lack of gas
stations—saw a potential problem.
As with many grassroots efforts, this
citizen educated herself about the
esker/aquifer and the town's zoning
ordinance, which allows for commer-
cial development in this area, but
only if there is no undue threat to the
aquifer.
That one citizen was soon joined
by many citizens, who then formed a
group. They asked the town planning
board to invite someone from the
Maine DEP (guess who?) to visit
Lamoine and help educate the com-
munity on potential groundwater
threats from USTs.
And education is the operative
word here. Because once the plan-
ning board became educated about
aquifers and the potential threats that
USTs present to the health and well-
being of aquifers, they voted down
the application. (See LUSTLine #32,
"Convenience Is Nice, But UST Sys-
tems Aren't Potato Chips.")
Several weeks later at the appeals
board meeting, the board members
and over 90 townspeople were
graced until the midnight hour with
the combined wisdom of-a bevy of
geologists (including a university
professor and yours truly) and
lawyers representing both sides.
They heard discussion on the pros
and cons of siting a gasoline UST sys-
tem over the aquifer. They also heard
about an aquifer study the town had
commissioned some years ago that
addressed the importance of this
potential water supply for future
development of the community. The
appeals board upheld the planning
board's decision.
No Tanky, No Leaky
The current status of this story is that
these tanks will not leak, because
they will not go into the ground. The
store has been sold to the owner of a
large local supermarket/gas station.
When asked what he planned to do
at the site, he said he'd been follow-
ing what the citizens group had been
doing and definitely had no intention
of installing any tanks.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
tie wants to draw? people into tKe
store by offering up homemade
breakfast and lunch goodies—and
lobster. Anyway, why would he
want to put in a gas tank over an
aquifer when there are many gas sta-
tions five or ten miles away in areas
served by public water or not over an
aquifer?
The 20/20 Hindsight
Syndrome
Meanwhile, way down in southern
Maine, where sand and gravel
aquifers are more abundant, there
was another situation in the town
of Hiram—same story, different
approach. The tale of woe began
when a large oil company decided to
move its regional fuel oil plant to a
location with better highway access.
Because roadways tend to follow
eskers and aquifers—well-drained
soils and abundant road-building
materials—the new location fell
smack on an aquifer. And lef s face it,
there are plenty of towns and cities in
this great country that are located on
aquifers. When the population was
smaller and water supplies seemed
unlimited, groundwater protection
wasn't such a big deal.
In Lamoine, the aquifer in ques-
tion has been relatively free of
environmentally threatening devel-
opment, so why not keep it that way?
But in Hiram, it's been harder to stay
off the aquifer.
In Hiram, the town planning
board did not solicit any technical
assistance from the state. Although
they had some loose groundwater
protection language, they interpreted
the risk to groundwater from the
regional fuel oil plant to be minimal.
The citizen's group was not able to
organize until after the planning
board had decided to give the go
ahead for the permit.
So, the two 30,000-gallon USTs
have gone into the ground, and the
oil company is now trying to address
the citizen group's concerns about
release prevention from the tanks
and piping and spill containment at
the loading rack, where fuel is loaded
and unloaded.
Who's in Charge of Keeping
Environmentally Sensitive
Areas Out of Harm's Way?
In both of the cases I've cited, the citi-
Lamoine Planning Board meeting. Citizens discuss the future of their groundwater with respect to
siting a new gas station in the town.
zen groups howled at the DEP for its
lack of rules to prevent the siting of
USTs in sensitive groundwater areas.
. At the start of our UST program
in 1986, because we were not allowed
to require outright prohibition of
tanks in sensitive areas, we did set
monitoring requirements for sensi-
tive geological areas 300 feet from a
private water supply, 1,000 feet from
a public water supply, or sites over a
mapped sand and gravel aquifer or
recharge area. Now the state requires
secondary containment and monitor-
ing for all UST facilities but still has
no siting prohibitions.
. The sad fact is that at state and
federal levels nationwide, the tools
needed to truly protect groundwater
are limited. On the other hand, local
governments have the ability to exer-
cise such controls if they see fit, but
they often fail to do. so for various
reasons (e.g., lack of technical knowl-
edge, lack of political will, need for
an ever-increasing tax base).
I think many communities would
welcome a state mandate that they
could invoke (or blame) to prevent an
unwanted situation. Meaningful
source water protection siting
requirements for storage of haz-
ardous substances such as USTs
could well be a welcome tool for
community planning.
With urban sprawl, you can be
sure that potential groundwater
threats will also sprawl. In the last
five years in Maine, of 125 new (not
replacement) UST facilities installed,
56 have been sited in sensitive geo-
logical areas. .
I believe we need to begin talking
seriously about siting and permitting
USTs rather than sitting back and
waiting for installation problems,
operational errors, and plain poor
housekeeping to keep sending some
of these nightmare cleanups our way.
During the last UST/LUST con-
ference, I heard state UST regulators
vent a lot of frustration about how
UST owners and operators don't
seem to care about operating and
maintaining their facilities properly.
Maybe next year we should start talk-
ing about adding siting to our quiver
of arrows.
Such action, however, will
require legislative buy-in and a mas-
sive educational effort. Or, it may
require some great environmental
disaster.
In Maine, as in other states, many
legislators are concerned about
MTBE and groundwater quality, but
constituent concerns about potential
"takings" tend to cloud the issue.
Maybe it's time for regulatory agen-
cies and legislators to listen to citi-
zens who are concerned about
groundwater protection. To my way
of thinking, it is high time we made
sure USTs don't end up where they
don't belong. •
See related article "Aquifer Protection
Land Use Regulations Proposed in Con-
necticut" on page 23. '
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
Investigation and Remediation
Source Control at LUST Sites
I
A Familiar Paradigm
Returns to Center Stage
by Mike Martinson and JeffKuhn
A well-known paradigm has returned to center stage. The
recent and unprecedented concern over methyl-tert-butyl
ether (MTBE) and the nationwide recognition of its unique
chemical characteristics have brought the well-accepted, yet often
debated concept of source control back into focus. After veering away
from this cleanup strategy, regulators are again recognizing that source control'is the
key to minimizing the impacts of petroleum constituents, particularly MTBE. We are
again questioning how we can effectively recover petroleum free product (also referred
to as LNAPL) to the "maximum extent practicable," thus meeting the federal require-
ment. A session at the 12th Annual UST/LUST Conference in Portland, Oregon, enti-
tled "Source Control: Get It or It Will Get You," signaled the advent of renewed
interest in source control
Assess the Risk and
Minimize the Impact
Source control of leaking under-
ground storage tank (LUST) sites has
been an issue in the LUST decision-
flaking process for over a decade.
According to U.S. EPA guidance
(How to Effectively Recover Free Product
at Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Site, September 1996J:
• "each [petroleum hydrocarbon]
' release represents a potential
threat to human health and the
environment; appropriate re-
medial steps must be taken to
assess the risk and minimize the
impact."
"Assess the risk and minimize the
impact"—thaf s easy to say. Over the
past 10 or more years, however,
actions designed to "minimize the
impact" have varied widely, depend-
ing on the interpretation of state
LUST regulatory programs and,
sometimes, the corresponding sol-
vency of state petroleum reimburse-
ment fund programs. The "assess the
risk" portion of this decision-making
process has been even more dis-
jointed from state to state, particularly
in the early pre-risk-based corrective
fiction (RBCA) days of LUST pro-
grams, as states varied widely in their
^risk-assessment approaches and risk-
based decision-making policies.
Many of us who have followed
the evolution of the LUST program
since the late 1980s have observed
_
several significant evolutionary
trends that have led to the modern-
day LUST program. These trends
consist of the following:
• The pump-and-treat years,
• The RBCA and monitored natural
attenuation (MNA) years—the
application of risk assessment
frameworks and the scientific
principles and policy use of nat-
ural attenuation, and
• Most recently, the MTBE years.
The Pump-and-Treat Years
The increasing complexity of regula-
tory programs may be similar to the
evolution of the earth, inasmuch as
there is a tendency toward increased
complexity in most federal programs.
This complexity may be natural for
many environmental programs that
are driven by changes in scientific
understanding and advances in tech-
nology.
The LUST program is no stranger
to rapid evolution and increasing
complexity. The program began with
the simple, overriding concepts of
"investigation" and "corrective
action." These two terms are used
extensively in the federal regulations.
Along with these requirements is the
simple mandate to recover free prod-
uct to the "maximum extent practica-
ble."
In the early years of the LUST
program, states tried to achieve this
standard for free-product recovery
by using the accepted engineering
tools of the time—pump-and-treat
technologies and other total fluid
extraction techniques, usually com-
bined with excavation to remove
highly contaminated source material.
Early types of engineered pump-
and-treat remedial systems were very
slow to meet the intended source
reduction goals, and only slightly
better at attaining source control or
free-product recovery. System per-
formance usually realized the recov-
ery of a small fraction of the
estimated free-product release. Oper-
ation and maintenance problems con-
tinually plagued well screens, well
pumps, piping, and discharge treat-
ment technologies, such as carbon fil-
tration and air stripping.
Economics later played a large
role in allowing many ineffective
pump-and-treat systems to be taken
off line when regulators realized that
the high cost of recovering petroleum
hydrocarbon mass, coupled with low
hydrocarbon recovery, did not justify
continued operation.
As new technologies emerged,
the complexity of the LUST program
continued to evolve, and a great deal
of advancement in the science of
petroleum remediation occurred. In
situ treatment alternatives such as
nutrient-enhanced and oxygen-
enhanced biodegradation, soil vapor
extraction, and air sparging were
developed.
Better investigative methods
were developed to meet the man-
dates of environmental regulations
that require defining the extent and
magnitude of the contamination.
These mandates triggered the growth
of the environmental industry as we
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
know it today. They also triggered a
desire on the part of the petroleum
industry and state petroleum funds
to be more cost-conscious. Thus, the
complexity of the program took
another evolutionary step forward.
Enter the world of RBCA and MNA.
The RBCA and MNA Years
In a sense, the LUST program grew
wings when the principles of risk
assessment were applied to LUST
cleanups. RBCA was welcomed by
EPA and state programs as a prioriti-
zation tool. While some saw it as a
way to "do nothing," others saw it as
a way to focus limited resources and
help overtaxed state staff justify
cleanup decisions through the use of
risk-based decision making. It was
obvious by the mid-1990s that state
LUST programs could never ade-
quately keep pace with the large
number of cleanups arriving on their
desks without a consistent and defen-
sible prioritization tool.
The immediate answer to this
overwhelming problem was risk
assessment. However, RBCA actions
designed to "minimize the impact"
tended to be aimed at controlling
BTEX/TPH plume migration and
understanding plume behavior.
Increasingly fewer source control
remedial actions, including free-
product recovery, occurred with any
notable intensity, beyond initial tank
and soil removal. In fact, engineered
remediation systems became the
exception as the RBCA era became
the post-RBCA era, and MNA took
on an increasingly larger life-cycle
role in taking the typical LUST site to
regulatory closure, or no further
action.
The development of MNA filled
the critical need for identifying sites
where natural processes would suc-
cessfully remove contaminants in a
reasonable time period without sig-
nificant expenditures for cleanup.
Although MNA was a great step for-
ward, free-product recovery was not
strictly enforced in many cases, par-
ticularly when a demonstration of
plume stability was provided via
MNA methods.
MNA appeared to be acceptable,
in many site-specific cases, even if the
LUST life-cycle extended out several
decades for closure. It also seemed
logical to assume that the life-cycle of
a petroleum release could be signifi-
cantly shortened if more effort was
placed on addressing the source area.
EPA's MNA policy addressed this by
emphasizing the importance of cont-
aminant source removal to achieve
regulatory standards and decrease
the length of time required to attain
site closure. However, at the present
time, many states are still struggling
with the question of what an accept-
able time frame in which to apply
MNA might be.
^SameMveMkenedJJi&ajiset of _
iMTflf tojffhen the asteroidjjruck the^
^Yucatan_Peninsula, bringing the
SB * -—' j fl
"*" Cretaceous period to an end and
ushering in a period of rapid
evolution.
The development of MNA was
the scientific response to RBCA that
created a much-needed scientific
standard for how sites, in me absence
of active remediation, could be evalu-
ated for groundwater monitoring
only. The principles of MNA have
been widely embraced by both EPA
and the states and are now well
accepted by state LUST programs.
Research on aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation, which led to the
development of natural attenuation
guidance, helped establish a rational,
scientifically defensible alternative to
active cleanup at LUST sites.
Then MTBE hit.
The MTBE Years
Some have likened the onset of
MTBE to when the asteroid struck the
Yucatan Peninsula, bringing the Cre-
taceous period to an end and usher-
ing in a period of rapid evolution.
Perhaps the impact to the LUST pro-
gram was not this severe. However,
MTBE has eroded our complacency
and lack of urgency in remediating
BTEX/TPH petroleum hydrocarbon
constituents. The cloud of dust has
not yet settled, and LUST programs
have already radically evolved to
address the new challenge of fuel
oxygenates.
MTBE did not fit the mold. It
seemed to defy RBCA, MNA, and all
of the tools on which the LUST pro-
grams came to depend. MTBE chal-
lenged the inadequacies of our site
assessment tools and our hydrogeo-
logic interpretations when we discov-
ered that its plumes were thousands
of feet long and "diving" beneath our
monitoring well arrays.
Suddenly our view of groundwa-
ter science changed—and it changed
rapidly. MTBE's chemical and physi-
cal properties brought with them the
notoriety of not "behaving" like the
more traditional BTEX/TPH petro-
leum hydrocarbon: fractions typically
found at LUST sites. On average,
most BTEX/TPH groundwater
plumes tend to extend no further
than 300 to 400 feet from the source,
even with free product present. This
is not the case with MTBE.
Because MTBE does not readily
undergo biological degradation, it
does not fit into the standard BTEX
model for MNA. Most experts agree
that MNA is not going to limit the
dimensions of an MTBE plume.
Source control technologies are now
thought to be the most effective
means for limiting the spread of dis-
solved-phase MTBE—assuming re-
mediation can be employed soon
after the release occurs. This para-
digm shift in source control emphasis
is directly linked to the possibility
that MTBE-contaminated groundwa-
ter will migrate, unchecked, off site—
far off site.
Fortunately, and contrary to
many fears, we are beginning to
observe some levels of success in
MTBE remediation. MTBE cleanup
remains a formidable challenge both
technically and fiscally, but its
specter is slowly diminishing as dis-
cussions on phase-out and replace-
ment alternatives continue.
Source Control—Get It or It
Will Get You
This past March, and over 10 years
following the inception of the federal
LUST program, this paradigm shift to
a greater emphasis on source control
was recognized by EPA and state
regulators attending the annual
UST/LUST National Conference. In
the "Source Control—Get It or It will
Get You" session, each speaker pro-
vided a definition of "maximum
extent practicable" from his own per-
spective and discussed various
aspects of the difficulty of source con-
trol and free-product recovery.
• continued on page 16
-------
WSTLinc Bulletin 35
•I LUST Source Control from page 15
Recurring themes throughout the
presentations included:
•I Limitations of existing free-prod-
uct recovery technologies,
•I Risk-based decision making
(RBDM),
•I Control of plume growth and
movement, and
•i Cost-effectiveness and technical
impracticability at low-permeabil-
ity sites.
Some attendees expressed frus-
tration with addressing cleanups at
low-permeability sites and areas
Where nonpotable aquifers were pre-
^ent The same frustrations have been
shared by EPA, state LUST program
rjnanagers, and consultants since the
kiception of the LUST program. Tools
such as RBCA, MNA, and recent
moves toward institutional controls
have provided some relief.
Many of us at the conference felt
3 sense of de"ja vu during the source
cjontrol session. After all, didn't we
have these discussions in the late
1980s and early 1990s as we all strug-
gled with implementing strategies for
state LUST programs and removing
fjree product from some especially
difficult LUST sites?
While there are many facets to the
Source control debate, free-product
recovery has again emerged as the
primary topic of discussion. LNAPL
recovery is mandated by federal regu-
lations but is subject to the interpreta-
tion of "maximum extent practicable"
as determined by the implementing
agency (40 CFR 280.64).
It is the definition of "practica-
l?le," generally regarded as "feasi-
ble," that has garnered differing
Opinions when it comes to imple-
menting free-product recovery. Many
^vould interchange "practicable"
with "practical" or "sensible," but
Such interpretations are not the intent
16
of 40 CFR 280.64, as evidenced by
clarifying language in the preamble.
The preamble clearly states that "the
choice of 'practicable' in the federal
regulation conveys that any limita-
tion of free-product recovery should
be technology based."
Although we anticipate that the
debate over the interpretation of
"maximum extent practicable" will
continue into the foreseeable future,
we are hopeful that state and EPA
efforts will focus on the limits of
existing technology, recognizing that
new and better free-product recovery
technologies will be forthcoming.
What Goes Around Comes
Around
The national debate over MTBE and
fuel reformulation has stirred up dis-
cussion and driven the LUST pro-
gram on yet another evolutionary
path. Interestingly, it's a path we all
recognize from the infancy of the
program—source control. Even in
evolutionary theory, we recognize
the "evolutionary survivors" and
realize that they are far more com-
plex than we thought.
But the complexity of source con-
trol stems from a simple, fundamen-
tal concept—clean up the heart of the
problem first. After we break down
all of the arguments, all of the inspir-
ing advances in science and technol-
ogy, the evolution of regulatory
policy, and the important cost-con-
trol measures we have put into place,
the simple goal of conducting "cor-
rective action" at contaminated sites
still remains.
MTBE illuminated the fact that
source control is still an important,
and perhaps the most important, key
to successful corrective action. With-
out it we can potentially waste valu-
able resources and time. Source
control has once again come to the
forefront of our discussions in the
LUST program. And that is exactly
where it should be. •
Mike Martinson is with Delta Envi-
ronmental Consultants, Inc.
He can be reached at:
mmartinson@deltaenv.com.
JeffKuhn is the Petroleum Release
Section Manager with the Montana
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity. Jeff can be reached at:
ikuhn@state.mt.us.
Texas Pipeline Rupture
Threatens Dallas Area
Water Source
The U.S. EPA continues its cleanup
efforts of a 500,000-gallon gasoline
spill that occurred on March 9 from
a pipeline that burst 35 miles north-
east of Dallas. The gasoline repre-
sented about 2 percent of the daily
flow through the 1,400-mile-long
pipeline, which extends from the
Gulf Coast to Chicago. The owner
of the pipeline, Explorer Pipeline
Company, is responsible for the
cost of the cleanup.
Gasoline from the rupture
washed over a rural area of cattle
farms and fields before washing
into East Caddo Creek. EPA is one
of several federal, state, and local
agencies involved in the cleanup of
the creek, which feeds into Lake
Tawakoni. Explorer has agreed to
remove 30,000 cubic yards of conta-
minated soil along the creek.
The City of Dallas had shut
down its water intake at the lake,
which provided between 25 and 30
percent of its water supply. MTBE
levels in the lake near the Dallas
water intake have ranged from 0.67
ppb to 5 ppb. The City of West
Tawakoni reopened its intakes at
the end of March. The City of
Greenville resumed pumping in
late April.
The Dallas Water Utilities
Department wants Explorer to com-
pensate the city for all the emer-
gency measures it has taken,
including paying some of the cost of
new pipelines. The Dallas City
Council has approved a $12.5 mil-
lion pipeline to bring additional
water from Lake Ray Hubbard and
$700,000 in consultant fees to study
pollution of Lake Tawakoni from
the March spill.
In late May, some Lake
Tawakoni residents were still say-
ing that they are suffering health
problems because of the smell left
by the spill; others fear that their
property is contaminated. Explorer
officials say that 20 to 30 residents in
the area have contacted the com-
pany with complaints about the
smell. One family was sent to a
hotel for at least a week. MTBE lev-
els in the soils range from unde-
tectable levels up to 100,000 ppb. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
Investigation and Remediation
New API Report on Characterizing Releases with
MTBE Provides Useful Technical Information But
Overlooks Important Regulatory Considerations
As oxygenate usage has grown,
so have concerns about the
potential impacts of these
compounds on groundwater quality.
A new American Petroleum Institute
(API) report, Strategies for Characteriz-
ing Subsurface Releases of Gasoline
Containing MTBE, publication 4699,
uses the principles of risk-informed
decision making to guide the assess-
ment of sites affected by MTBE and
other oxygenates. In bringing this
publication to your attention, how-
ever, it is also prudent that we pro-
vide a regulatory caveat.
Although non-EPA guidances,
such as API's publication 4699 may
provide regional and state site man-
agers, as well as the regulated com-
munity, with useful technical
information, they may not be offi-
cially endorsed by EPA in that the
agency does not necessarily agree
with all their conclusions. In particu-
lar, all parties involved should
clearly understand that such guid-
ances do not in any way replace cur-
rent EPA or OSWER guidance or
policies addressing the remedy selec-
tion and implementation processes.
lOUST's concern is that the document
~~ advocates more cursory levels of
assessment and characterization
Ithan are warranted by a contaminant
, , '-, .",."""';" ;;*.I
that behaves as MTBE does.
During development of this API
document, OUST had the opportu-
nity to provide comments. After a
comprehensive analysis, OUST staff
identified many areas with which
they were not entirely comfortable.
Of the approximately 20 major con-
cerns expressed to the API authors,
about half were satisfactorily
addressed.
The unaddressed concerns that
appear in the final version remain
concerns to OUST. However, OUST
is actively involved with the API
workgroup developing training
based on publication 4699 and is
hopeful that the remaining issues
will be resolved satisfactorily.
EPA Calls for More Detailed
Assessment and Charact-
erization
OUST's primary concern is that the
document advocates more cursory
levels of assessment and characteri-
zation than are warranted by a conta-
minant that behaves as MTBE does.
Instead of going into a point-by-point
critique, perhaps it would be more
constructive to present excerpts of a
January 18, 2000, letter from OUST
Acting Director Sammy Ng, recom-
mending that state programs begin to
monitor and report MTBE contami-
nation:
"MTBE and other oxygenates
behave differently in the environ-
ment than do the aromatic hydro-
carbons, such as benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).
Therefore, conventional or tradi-
tional site characterization strate-
gies and techniques designed to
assess BTEX plumes may fail to
detect MTBE plumes. MTBE is sig-
nificantly less biodegradable than
is BTEX, and MTBE does not sorb
to aquifer material. As a result,
MTBE moves farther and faster
than does BTEX. Plumes tend to
move deeper into aquifers as they
move away from the source.
Because MTBE plumes move far-
ther from the source, MTBE may
occur deeper in aquifers than does
BTEX. Wells with short screens
installed across the water table
may fail to sample MTBE plumes.
Conversely, wells with long
screens may yield greatly diluted
samples that mask the presence of
MTBE and other contaminants.
"To adequately characterize an
MTBE plume, the focus must be
on identifying its three-dimen-
sional characteristics. Monitoring
wells should be "nested" (that is,
several wells installed close
together with narrow screened
intervals). The vertical distribution
of hydraulic conductivity should
be determined before a nest of per-
manent monitoring wells are
installed at a new location. This
can be done by examining core
samples, by pressure dissipation
tests with a cone penetrometer, or
by miniature specific capacity tests
in temporary push wells. The
screens of permanent monitoring
wells should be installed across
the depth intervals with the high-
est hydraulic conductivity. If
plumes appear to dive into the
aquifer as they move down gradi-
ent of the source, the deepest well
in the cluster should either be free
of MTBE contamination, or be
screened in material with low
hydraulic conductivity that acts as
an effective confining layer for the
plume.
"Because the potential area of
the MTBE plume is much larger
than for BTEX, there's an
increased probability of encoun-
tering preferential migration path-
ways, such as sand stringers,
fractures, and utility conduits.
These pathways should be identi-
fied as they may provide avenues
for plume migration that are either
in unanticipated directions or at
greatly increased rates over what
is commonly expected based on
ambient conditions. Monitoring
well networks should be orga-
nized in transects that are perpen-
dicular to groundwater flow. Well
spacing in the transects should be
relatively closely spaced to mini-
mize the possibility of the MTBE
plume migrating across the tran-
sect undetected.
"As with most work to identify
and solve a problem, the earlier
you identify the problem, the eas-
ier the solution may be. That sce-
• continued on page 18
17
-------
LUSTLint Bulletin 35
II New API Report/row page 17
nario exists with monitoring and
identifying MTBE contamination.
If you identify the presence of
MTBE in the early stages, remedi-
ating the site may be less costly
and less complex man if you learn
of (and remediate) the contamina-
tion at later stages."
the Framework of the API
Report
]£,isk-infbrmed decision making con-
sjiders risk factors related to sources,
^xposure pathways, and receptors.
The centerpiece of this approach is
the development of a conceptual site
rjnodel (CSM). A new decision frame-
work developed by API helps the
Environmental site assessor to deter-
ijnine an appropriate starting point or
in initial level of assessment from
which the CSM can be confirmed.
The initial level of assessment is
determined by the presence or
absence of various risk factors. Sites
with greater risk factors require the
most intensive assessment of recep-
tors, pathways, and sources. Sites
with fewer risk factors warrant a
more limited amount of assessment
to confirm whether receptors, path-
ways and sources require further
investigation. The level of assessment
may be upgraded or downgraded as
the CSM is refined. Important risk
factors are discussed in the API
report, along with descriptions of
characterization tasks suggested for
various levels of assessment.
The report also covers modern
field assessment tools and techniques
for rapid, cost-effective characteriza-
tion and monitoring of MTBE in the
subsurface. It describes how current
expedited site assessment techniques
can be applied to the collection and
field analysis of soil, soil gas, and
groundwater samples. A comprehen-
sive guide to direct push assessment
and monitoring tools, with emphasis
on their proper use at MTBE-affected
sites, is also provided.
In addition to presenting state-of-
the-art strategies for MTBE site
assessment, the report is a reference
on the chemical and physical proper-
ties of oxygenates, their use in gaso-
line, and behavior in the subsurface
environment. Analytical methods
appropriate for MTBE detection are
also discussed.
The publication, prepared for
API by Eric M. Nichols and Steven
C. Beadle of LFR Levine-Fricke and
Murray D. Einarson of Connor
Pacific/EFW, is available for
download at www.api.org/mtbe . •
Communication Among Agencies...How Good Is It?
by Greg Hattan
We recently found out how
important communication
among agencies can be.
After the 60 Minutes show about
JvITBE, the various bureaus within
the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE) involved
>vith MTBE got together to develop
$ press release to respond to the
inquiries that we knew would be
forthcoming. As a state, we felt we
had done a very good job of dealing
the MTBE issue long before it
in the national spotlight. KDHE
been checking for MTBE at tank
Sites since 1991, MTBE has been a
part of our routine Public Water
Analytical for many years, and our
first public well was shut down
because of MTBE contamination in
J994. Our program had been active
jn remediation efforts and had three
successful MTBE treatment systems
Jn operation to treat water to be
delivered for public consumption.
During a Division meeting, the
director asked each bureau how
many MTBE-impacted public wells
had been identified. Each bureau
had the same number, 18, that had
|VITBE contamination. We were very
tonfident that we could answer any
question. Bring on the media. Noth-
ing could go wrong.
Oops!
KDHE is divided into several
bureaus, including the Bureau of
Environmental Remediation (BER)
and a Bureau of Water (BOW). The
BER includes the Storage Tank Sec-
tion, which handles the remedial
efforts at contaminated sites. The
BOW regulates the public water sup-
ply facilities.
The Storage Tank Section has
had very good relations with all
bureaus, and we were confident that
our communication with the bureaus
was exceptional. Procedures for
interagency communication included
BOW-to-BER notification of any cont-
amination from routine analyticals
from annual public well sampling,
and BER-to-BOW notification about
any water supply impacts identified
during site assessments. Evidently,
because there is 110 MCL for MTBE,
staff did not always recognize it as
part of the list of chemicals for notifi-
cation.
Surprisingly, the 18 public wells
that BER had identified as contami-
nated with MTBE were not all the
same 18 wells that BOW had identi-
fied. Fortunately, we discovered our
inconsistency prior to the media
release and before anyone was
exposed to high levels of contami-
nants (levels were below the stan-
dard of 20 ^g/L). Thus, in a matter of
a few minutes, this discovery had
increased our work load, and our
staff members were off to identify
more potential sites.
Information Bonuses
This communication glitch was the
catalyst for even better communica-
tion among the bureaus. All gasoline
constituents are now chemicals of
concern in our internal bureau notifi-
cations. These notification proce-
dures have increased the necessary
paperwork but have also dramati-
cally increased our confidence level.
In addition, for those trying to
identify suppliers and/or percent by
volume of MTBE in gasoline, the
Storage Tank Section opened a line of
communication (as a result of a pro-
posed ban on MTBE in the state) with
our Board of Agriculture, Weights
and Measures Department. We dis-
covered that it performs about 2,000
random samples of gasoline each
year as part of its fuel quality pro-
gram. The analytical from these sam-
ples includes the supplier, location,
and MTBE percent by volume. With
one phone call, we now have a signif-
icant database of historical informa-
tion on MTBE in Kansas. •
Greg Hattan is Unit Chief with the
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, Storage Tank Section.
-------
LUSTLme Bulletin 35
MTBE
The Unintended Consequences of Small Spills
of Gasoline with MTBE
is now rec-
ognized as
a wide-
fey Peter Garrett
MTBE
spread contaminant in groundwater
in the United States. Throughout
most of the late 1980s and the 1990s,
it was often suggested that the prob-
lems associated with MTBE contami-
nation of groundwater could be
resolved with more stringent regula-
tion of the nation's USTs and better
enforcement of existing require-
ments. This argument centers on the
premise that if tanks can be pre-
vented from leaking, the MTBE prob-
lem will go away.
While well founded, this premise
oversimplifies the situation. It is, of
course, essential that we reduce the
likelihood of releases from UST sys-
tems; however, the use of MTBE in
gasoline has had unintended conse-
quences that go beyond the technical
issues of UST regulation.
Take small spills, for example.
Data gathered by the state of Maine
show that MTBE-contaminated
groundwater can be attributed to
small spills that are widespread and
often unrelated to USTs. This is par-
ticularly disconcerting, given that
about half of Maine's population
obtains its water supply from domes-
tic wells—the potential small spill
receptors.
I'd like to zero in on such small
spills. I'll restrict my discussion to
Maine, partly because most of my
work takes place in this state, and
partly because Maine has investi-
gated the presence of MTBE and other
gasoline compounds in the state's
drinking water in a study of almost
all public supply wells and 951 ran-
domly selected domestic wells. The
message, however, is universal in its
application, especially in rural states
like Maine.
Common Features of Small
Spills
Small spills of gasoline with MTBE
have several features that separate
them from small
spills of gasoline
without MTBE.
Many of these fea-
tures relate to the
physio-chemical
properties of MTBE,
such as its high solu-
bility (42 times as sol-
uble in water as
nonoxygenated gaso-
line) and its recalci-
trant behavior in
groundwater (because
biodegradation rates are
considerably slower than
for other components of gasoline).
Common features include the
following:
• Sources of small spillls are not
perceived as a threat. Sources of
small spills are often regarded as.
"common" or "garden variety" and
are either not noticed or not seen as
important enough to report or reme-
diate. For instance:
• Many older cars have leaking gas
tanks that drip slowly onto a dri-
veway. Because gasoline is
volatile, such increments of
spillage usually go unnoticed for
weeks or months, by which time
several gallons may have been
spilled.
• When auto accidents happen, the
rescuers are, understandably, less
concerned about leakage of a few
gallons from the gas tank than
they are about the occupants, or
about righting the vehicle, if need
be, and removing it from the
scene. Gas tanks generally hold
between 12 and 25 gallons, some
or all of which can be lost to a
snow bank or to the ground.
• Gasoline is often spilled when
people are working on cars and
trucks and small engines, such as
those found in outboard motors,
snowmobiles, snow blowers,
ATVs, and lawn mowers.
• Around the garden, people some-
times drain the'gasoline from
their lawnmowers at the end of a
season, thinking, "What harm can
a little gas do?" Gasoline is some-
times sprayed on the ground as a
weed killer or poured down
woodchuck holes to discourage
the occupants.
• When spills do occur, homeown-
ers often ignore them. More than
half of the small spills in Maine
are probably in this category.
• Gasoline stations are the locus
of small spills on a daily basis.
For instance:
• Fueling operations will com-
monly spill a little gasoline if the
order is to "fill 'er up." Much of
this spillage evaporates from the
concrete or tarmac, but some may
run off with rainfall onto a grass
verge, down an improperly con-
structed monitoring well or tank
cap, or into cracks in the paving.
• Tank overfills still occur despite
the best design of UST systems.
Several tens of gallons can be lost
during such events.
• Small drips under-dispenser
pumps are very common and cre-
ate problems over time.
• continued on page 20
19
-------
LUS71imrBtt»W/n35
•I Small Spills of Gasoline with
ftjfTBE from page 19
II It is often difficult to pinpoint
responsibility. The homeowner is
clearly responsible for spills on the
driveway or around the garden.
J-Iowever, not every homeowner is
prepared to own up to such spillage.
If remediation is required, the Maine
Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (DEP) commonly completes
t|xe necessary work (e.g., installation
of a granular activated carbon (GAC)
filter or replacement of a well) at the
ejxpense of the state's cleanup fund.
Liability for spillage at an auto
Accident falls on the driver's insur-
ance company, but only if the spill is
reported. Many are not.
Liability for spillage at a gasoline
station presumably goes to the sta-
tion owner (even for self-service acci-
dents), or to the fuel delivery
qompany in the case of overfills. But
specific overfills are difficult to
p1 rove, because their effects may take
ijnonths or years to become manifest.
^gain, the mindset of "What harm
dan a little gas do?" prevents the
reporting and cleanup of the spill.
II Domestic wells are often the
receptors. Small spills are the prin-
cipal cause of contamination of
domestic wells by MTBE. Because
slmall spills typically occur in the dri-
^eway or garden, many are also
close to the domestic well that serves
the household. Many domestic wells
jlre located close to the driveway,
because it is a convenient location for
the drilling rig. In neighborhoods
\vith small lots, such small spills
fyave been known to contaminate
more than one well.
II MTBE is commonly the only
gasoline component detected. Per-
haps the most distinctive aspect of
^mall spills of gasoline with MTBE is
that MTBE is the only gasoline com-
ponent detected in water samples
drawn from wells. This fact is
Remarkable for the following rea-
sons:
ll MTBE constitutes up to 15 percent
of gasoline (highest concentra-
tions are in winter fuels);
ll Other components of gasoline can
i be detected by standard laboratory
methods to the same concentra-
i tions (1-5 /ig/L) as MTBE; and
§0
• Concentrations of MTBE alone in
groundwater are sometimes 1,000
^g/L or higher, without evidence
of any other component of gaso-
line.
This last point is probably due to
several factors that may operate inde-
pendently or as a group to produce a
plume of MTBE in groundwater.
These factors include the following:
• Other components of gasoline,
because their octanol/water coef-
ficients are higher (i.e., more oily),
are more likely to be retained on
soil particles than is MTBE;
• MTBE, because of its considerably
greater solubility, is more likely to
dissolve in rainwater, which then
recharges groundwater; and
• Other components of gasoline are
rapidly biodegraded in the aero-
bic conditions of most soils.
The greater volatility of MTBE is
not necessarily a factor in removing it
from the ground surface before it is
washed through the soil. Presum-
ably, if a spill is small enough, it will
not overwhelm the capabilities of the
soil to aerobically biodegrade the
non-MTBE components of gasoline in
the vadose zone. MTBE, being very
soluble in water and not very
biodegradable in groundwater, tends
to be carried through the soil zone to
the water table, where it may well
move on as a single component in
groundwater, forming an MTBE-only
plume.
Small Spill Tales
The following examples are taken
from several well-studied sites in
Maine, where gasoline spills are
either known to be small, or are pre-
sumed to be small. They are arranged
in an order of decreasing spill size
and, coincidentally, from gasoline
station to what one might consider
domestic spills.
• A newly constructed, state-of-
the-art gasoline station. During
site preparation for this new facility,
bedrock, at a depth of a few feet
below grade, was blasted to make
space for the tanks. The tanks were
double-walled fiberglass. The piping
was also double-walled. A few years
after it was put into service, another
gasoline retailer was considering the
site for purchase. An environmental
consultant tested the monitoring
wells and found contamination.
Contamination near the tanks
included some other components of
gasoline, along with 1,000-7,000 pg/L
of MTBE. Wells monitored at some
distance from the spill site contained
only MTBE. Because the site was
located close to a groundwater
drainage divide, where bedrock is
close to the surface, the contaminant
plume probably moved downward
and then laterally through fractured
rock, and finally out into a large sand
and gravel aquifer toward the public
supply wells (700 and 1,100 feet
away) that continued to pump
throughout this period.
Concentrations of MTBE samples
taken more than 500 feet from the
spill site were less than 10 ^g/L. This
decrease in concentration with dis-
tance may have been the result of
some dispersion of the plume, or of
placement of the monitoring well
screen elsewhere than in the center of
the plume.
The UST installation was sub-
jected to a series of tests that found it
to be tight. Some evidence pointed to
the source of the contamination as a
tank overfill spill. The amount of
product lost was probably 10 to 20
gallons.
• A car overturned into a ditch.
This incident happened in December
1997 on a slippery road. When the
car was righted, it had lost some of
the contents of its gas tank (7-12 gal-
lons total) through the accumulated
For Information About Safe Gas Handling...
Regulatory agencies and oil companies and distributors need to get the word out
about the importance of handling petroleum products in safe and environmentally
responsible ways. LUSTLine #31 includes "Tips for Keeping Your Gasoline and
Household Chemicals Out of Your Water Supply" as part of the article "A Little Drop'll
Do Ya" by David McCaskill. Some safe gas handling Web sites include the following:
• The Alliance for Proper Gasoline Handling: www.gas-care.org
• American Petroleum Institute: www.api.org/consumer
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
STVO-W pack. L,ocal residents alerted
the town's police and fire depart-
ments about the potential for well
contamination from the spilled fuel,
but their concerns were not taken
seriously. The spill was neither
cleaned up nor reported to the state.
In May 1998, after a few weeks of
spring thaw, a nearby homeowner
complained that the water pumped
from his domestic bedrock well had a
foul odor and bad taste. When tested,
the well water had 6,500 ^g/L
MTBE, with no other gasoline com-
ponents detected.
pfl each of these cases, the amount
* spilled must have beeismatl and .
4". ".' tTfr fy**-|
- was not noticed until the
" '
U contamination appeared in
«*™ww ^f iv ™S "* "* "^Kff^-f m "m-™*i»
somebody's well.
A site investigation revealed
gasoline-saturated soil from the
ground surface to the top of the
bedrock, a depth of nine feet. Soil
contamination levels ranged from
2,500 ppm (by photoionization detec-
tor) at the surface down to 230 ppm
at the bedrock surface.
The soil was characterized as a
sandy, bouldery glacial till. Bedrock
was described as highly fractured.
The land sloped from the spill site
toward a lake 2,100 away and, topo-
graphically, 110 feet below the spill
site. The groundwater gradient aver-
aged 0.05. Eleven other nearby
domestic wells were found to be con-
taminated above Maine's 35 ^g/L
primary drinking water standard for
MTBE. GAC filters were installed on
most of these wells.
Remediation entailed the
removal of 80 cubic yards of gaso-
line-contaminated soil, leaving only a
small amount of such soil under the
roadway. The domestic wells were
pumped at domestic rates only. No
other efforts were made to pump and
treat contaminated groundwater. The
result of this remedial action was that
MTBE concentrations declined
rapidly, so that within 17 months, all
wells were below the 35 /ig/L stan-
dard, but above the state action level
of25ppb.
The state calculated that it would
be more cost-effective to extend
nearby public well water than to
maintain point-of-entry treatment
systems for an estimated three years,
by when MTBE levels would be
expected to drop below 25 ppb. The
cost to the state for providing the
water main extensions to 15 homes
with contaminated wells was
$250,000.
• A coastal village, where most of
the homes are built on shallow
granite bedrock. All of the homes
have private wells, most of which are
drilled into the rock. Lots vary in size
from one to several acres. The village
has one gasoline station, which has
not experienced any gasoline spills
or been associated with any contami-
nation detected in nearby domestic
wells.
The village became the subject of
investigation as a result of two fuel
oil spills in 1992. As sampling efforts
expanded, a number of wells were
noted to have other types of petro-
leum contamination besides BTEX.
Some wells had MTBE. Now, after
several years of semi-annual sam-
pling, approximately 250 wells have
been sampled at least once. Most
have been sampled many times,
some as part of a 16-week intensive
study of the effectiveness of water
treatment systems.
After nine years of sampling—
with 1,485 samples taken, many from
the same wells—the. results are as fol-
lows:
M Groundwater contamination with
non-MTBE components of gaso-
line is rare, and concentrations are
always close to detection.
• MTBE has been detected in only
about 22 percent of all samples
taken. Eight percent have between
2 and 5 //g/L MTBE. Ten percent
have between 5 and 35 ^g/L. Four
percent are above the Maine stan-
dard of 35 ^g/L. The highest con-
centration recorded was 680 ,wg/L.
• Where the sampling has been
weekly (in one case), the contami-
nation peaked in four weeks, then
dropped to below the 35^g/L
standard after about six months.
• There have been at least four small
spills of gasoline with MTBE in the
village between 1992 and 1999.
Other spills may have occurred
before sampling became wide-
spread or have not been discov-
ered or separately identified. In
each of the four identified spills,
more than one domestic well had
MTBE above the 35 pg/L standard
for at least one sampling event.
The circumstances associated with
each of the four small spills were as
follows:
Spill 1 - A saddle tank, which had
been removed from a pickup truck
with some gasoline still in it, was
placed on a ledge in the backyard. It
was later found to be leaking slightly.
The amount of gasoline lost was
unknown.
Spill 2 - A car was parked in the
yard 20 or more feet from a domestic
drilled well. After the contamination
was discovered, the car's gas tank
was found to have a pinhole leak.
The amount of gasoline lost was
unknown.
Spill 3 - The homeowner recalled
that a car hit her business sign one
night a few weeks before the contam-
ination was discovered. She was not
aware of any gasoline spill.
Spill 4 - The homeowner with the
highest concentration of MTBE conta-
mination could not recall any inci-
dent when gasoline was spilled, nor
could the neighbors.
In each of these cases, the
amount spilled must have been small
and was not noticed until the conta-
mination appeared in somebody's
well. Indeed, "We have met the
enemy and it is us."
Effects of Small Spills of
Gasoline with MTBE
The effects of such small spills of
gasoline with MTBE, as experienced
by the Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection, other state offi-
cials, gasoline retailers, their
consultants, and homeowners,
include the following:
• MTBE cleanups that mean
extra costs for taxpayers and the
state. Maine's Groundwater Oil
Cleanup Fund, which is replenished
by a tax on all petroleum products
imported and sold in the state, sup-
ports the positions of many state
enforcement and technical personnel
• continued on page 22
21
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
ii Small Spills of Gasoline with
lfoTBE/?iQHi page 21
are involved in petroleum
cleanup and reimburses for cleanups
by other parties. Because spills of
gasoline with MTBE cause more
widespread contamination than simi-
ijir spills without MTBE, the fund is
liable for higher cleanup costs.
II Absence of a known responsi-
b| le party which means no reim-
bursement to the state fund.
Reimbursement to the fund is sought
i;n cases that are not covered by the
state. Because many small surface
s'pills that are not covered by the
fund lack a clearly documented
Responsible party or parties, it is usu-
ally impossible to seek such reim-
bursement. In any case, homeowners
typically carry no pollution insur-
ance and are usually unable to pay
Remedial costs. Thus, the fund must
be replenished by higher taxes paid
by the petroleum consumers of the
State.
II Public uncertainty regarding
Itoxicity and cleanup standards
6ne difficulty in dealing with MTBE
ks a groundwater contaminant is
absence of a federal maximum conta-
rtiinant level (MCL). Many states,
including Maine, have resorted to
Establishing their own standards, but
fhey vary greatly from state to state.
Some standards are as high as 200
}tg/L. California and New Hamp-
jshire recently adopted primary
^standards of 13 /40
Public officials were unable to
assure the couple as to whether their
water was safe for drinking or
bathing. Although a GAC water
treatment system was installed, there
was still no assurance that contami-
nation would not break through. The
whole situation drove the couple
back to their cigarettes. It is quite pos-
sible that the worry and the smoking
were worse for their health than the
MTBE might have been, but...
• Diminished property values. It
goes without saying that property
values fall for homes that have conta-
minated wells. Some properties
become devalued, simply because of
the stigma associated with being
located in a neighborhood where
MTBE contamination has occurred.
Because spills of gasoline with
MTBE — even small spills — spread
much farther than spills without
MTBE, the combined loss of property
values must also be greater.
Beware Spilling Any
Gasoline...
In the days before MTBE, we could
afford to be a little careless with small
spills of gasoline, because gasoline
components rarely showed up in
groundwater. With MTBE in the mix,
however, even small spills — some-
times too small for homeowners to
notice — can cause contamination of
groundwater and nearby wells with
MTBE above any state's drinking
water standard. •
Peter Garrett, Ph.D., is Vice-President
with the firm of Emery and Garrett
Groundivater, Inc. in Waterville,
Maine. Peter can be reached at
PeterGarrett@eggi.com.
New API Research
Bulletin on Small Spills
The American Petroleum Insti-
tute (API) contracted with the
U.S. Geological Survey to cre-
ate mathematical model simu-
lations to predict the extent of
groundwater contamination at
gasoline-release sites where
chronic and single small-vol-
ume releases of gasoline
remain trapped in the unsatu-
rated (vadose) soil zone. A
vadose-zone transport model
was used to predict loading
rates and breakthrough times
of MTBE and benzene at the
water table as a result of small-
volume gasoline releases. The
report, Simulation of Transport
of Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether
(MTBE) to Ground Water from
Small-Volume Releases in the
Vadose Zone will be available at
API's technical bulletin Web
site at www.api.org / ehs / sgres-
buLhtm in June.
Simulation results indi-
cated that groundwater
recharge had the greatest effect
on mass-loading rates to
groundwater, because diffu-
sive transport is limited in the
capillary zone. Diffusion to the
atmosphere and biodegrada-
tion also significantly affected
the amount of contaminant
mass available to enter the
groundwater. Recharge can
limit mass losses to the atmos-
phere, especially in fine-
grained soils.
For benzene, biodegrada-
tion in the vadose zone was a
substantial limitation on mass
loading to groundwater. Water
that recharges an aquifer
beneath a release site can,
therefore, be enriched in
MTBE, relative to benzene,
compared to water that is in
equilibrium with gasoline.
Model-simulated break-
through times for MTBE at the
water table ranged from days
to hundreds of years, depend-
ing primarily on depth to
groundwater and soil type. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
State MTBE Groundwater Cleanup Levels for UST Sites: Current and Proposed
MD site-specific/
20 for drinking water
MTBE groundwater standard (ng/U)
Site-specific MTBE cleanup level
2000 MTBE standard (jig/L) or changes possible
Waiting for EPA MCL/HA
©2000. Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2770 Cleveland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55113 (651) 639-9449
All forms of reproduction without permission, including facsimile copy of any kind, are copyright violations.
Contact: Mike Martinson fmmartinson@deltaenv.com).
This map can be accessed at U.S. EPA OUST's MTBE Web site:htto://www.ena.oov/swerust1/mlbe/nilbemap.hlm.
(1) - Cleanup level dependent on GW use as potable/non-
potable
(2) - Cleanup level/enforceable site-specific standard possi-
ble for drinking water
(3) - Tier 1 -RBSL cleanup/action level/Tier 2 drinking water
cleanup level
(4) - Public Health Goal (PHG)/enforceable secondary stan-
dard
(5)-Action level
(6) - WDNR NR140 Enforcement Standard/Preventative
Action Limit goals
(7) - Health-risk guidance level; not enforced for LUST
cleanup
(8) - Groundwater resource used as drinking water
(9) - Cleanup level/action level (i.e., ME 35/25)
(10) - No PST cleanup level/non-PST aesthetic guideline
levelat15ug/L
(11) - Method A MTBE groundwater cleanup level at 20 pg/L
(12) - Tier 1 RBSL level based on aesthetics, effective March
2000
(13) - (OR): drinking water guidance standard; (FL): rule—
potable/non-potable
(14) - Interim action MTBE levels (i.e., NV 20/200)
(15)-Enforceable guidance criteria
(16)- Proposed closure level: residential/nonresidential
Aquifer Protection Land Use Regulations Proposed in
Connecticut
As part of its continuing effort to protect the state's drinking water resources, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) has released proposed aquifer protection land use regulations. The pro-
posed regulations would increase protection for critical areas associated with the state's highest-yielding
public water supply well fields (in sand and gravel aquifers).
DEP estimates that roughly 2 to 3 percent of the land area in Connecticut would be subject to these regulations.
The proposed regulations are intended to protect drinking water supplies through the regulation of activities that
could contaminate public water supply aquifers. The proposal would require municipalities to designate scientifi-
cally identified aquifer protection areas on municipal zoning maps and adopt compatible regulations for local
implementation.
The proposal identifies certain existing activities that must register with a municipality and implement pollu-
tion prevention-related activities. Such activities include specific types of entities, both business or government, that
use or generate hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, bulk pesticides, or petroleum products (e.g., chemical
manufacturing industries, gasoline stations, vehicle repair shops, and dry cleaners).
Included in the proposed regulations are prohibitions of siting higher-risk activities as new uses and adminis-
trative procedures to allow existing regulated activities to expand and modify. The only prohibition associated with
expansion of an existing business is the increase in the number or capacities of underground storage tanks for haz-
ardous materials, including petroleum products.
The proposal prohibits the installation of heating fuel tanks for commercial purposes within these critical areas
and the installation of #2 residential heating oil USTs within 500 feet of the nearest water body. A procedure for
exemption from prohibition is also proposed.
In drafting the proposal, DEP received and considered input from many interests, including an advisory com-
mittee that convened specifically for this proposal. •
23
-------
tfUSTLine Bulletin 35
MTBE
Connecticut Survey Finely
MTBE-Contaminated Heal
Oil and Diesel Fuel Statewide
by Gary A. Robbins and Peter Zack
H
In the June 1999 issue ofLUSTLine
("Evidence for Contamination of
Heating Oil and Diesel Fuel with
ivdTBE"), we introduced preliminary
evidence on the occurrence of MTBE
In heating oil and diesel fuel, based
On a review of case files at the Con-
necticut Department of Environmen-
tal Protection (DEP). Although MTBE
is not intentionally added to hearing
^>il or diesel fuel, investigators have
been finding it at sites where heating
Oil and diesel fuel releases have
Occurred (reported MTBE contamina-
tion in groundwater was as high as
4,100 ppb). To find out how wide-
spread the occurrence of MTBE in
these fuels is, the University of Con-
necticut Hydrogeology program
joined forces with the DEP to sample
heating oil and diesel fuels at various
locations throughout the state.
Since last summer, we have sam-
pled heating oil and/or diesel fuel
from 26 locations for hearing oil and 5
iocations for diesel fuel. These loca-
tions included residences, service sta-
tions, and repair garages around the
^tate. We conducted temporal moni-
toring at three of these homes, a
Repair garage, and a service station.
We also sampled four terminals. We
found the following:
MTBE was found in all heating
Oil samples. Concentrations ranged
from 10 to 906 mg/L. The statewide
distribution appeared to exhibit a
spatial trend. Concentrations tended
to increase the farther away they
jvere from terminal locations. This
^uggests that fuel contamination
could occur when heating oil com-
mingles with gasoline in bottom-
loading tanker trucks.
All the diesel samples (obtained
j'rom five service stations represent-
ing different oil companies) were
]round to be contaminated with
vITBE. Concentrations ranged from
73 to 119 mg/L.
Based on our calculations, com-
mingling of heating oil or diesel fuel
with gasoline in ratios of several
thousand to one result in observed
contamination levels. Mixing just two
gallons of gasoline (with 11% MTBE)
with about 5,000 gallons of heating
oil, results in the average heating oil
concentration we observed in our
statewide survey (32 mg/L).
Fuel concentrations in samples
obtained at terminals were at concen-
trations as high as 53 mg/L. Our
highest levels were obtained from
heating oil samples taken from a
barge (that shipped only heating oil)
that had just arrived from an out-of-
state refinery.
Contamination by commingling
of "fuels may occur at refineries, on
ships and barges, on bottom-loading
tanker trucks, and during fuel ship-
ment by pipeline between terminals.
Our data and observations suggest
that there is a low likelihood for on-
site terminal pipeline contributions
(at terminals the fuel lines are segre-
gated).
MTBE concentrations in heating
oil and diesel fuel at monitoring loca-
tions exhibited over an order of mag-
nitude variation during a nine-month
monitoring period.
Significant losses (likely by
volatilization) of MTBE occurred
while fuel was stored, unused, in
tanks over a three-month period.
The Implications
As part of this study, we developed a
GC method for analyzing low levels
of MTBE in fuels. The method entails
fuel/water equilibration. An aliquot
of the water is equilibrated with air,
and the MTBE concentration in the
water is determined using static
headspace analysis. Using a fuel/
water partition coefficient, the con-
centration of MTBE in the fuel is then
determined. A special GC column is
used to prevent coelution of the
MTBE with other compounds.
The MTBE concentrations we
observed in heating oil and diesel
fuel were clearly many orders of
magnitude lower than those blended
into gasoline (typically over 100,000
mg/L). Yet, given the concentration
levels we detected, if the fuels were
equilibrated with water, they could
result in MTBE concentrations in
water that are on the order of thou-
sands of ppb.
We predicted this relationship by
using fuel/water partition coeffi-
cients from the literature (Kow = 10 to
20) and coefficient values we deter-
mined during this study. Note that
we actually observed these levels in
performing fuel/water equilibra-
tions. Although these concentrations
are far in excess of regulatory stan-
dards, the extent to which a signifi-
cant groundwater problem might
arise depends on many factors, not
just the fuel concentration.
A Word to the Wise
Our findings suggest that MTBE cont-
amination of heating oil and diesel
fuel is widespread in the United
States. Other fuels may also be conta-
minated. Our findings certainly sup-
port the need for routine analysis of
fuel and groundwater for MTBE at
sites where fuel releases have
occurred.
Our temporal data indicate that if
fuel releases occur over extended
periods, MTBE concentrations in
groundwater at the source might
exhibit significant variations. This
fact should be kept in mind when
attempting to identify contaminant
sources.
When a well is found to be conta-
minated with MTBE, focus is gener-
ally placed on investigating gasoline
sources. Our work indicates that sig-
nificant levels of MTBE contamina-
tion can stem from heating oil and
diesel fuel releases. Thus, these
potential sources should also be thor-
oughly investigated.
In Connecticut, we are docu-
menting MTBE-contaminated wells
resulting from heating oil and diesel
fuel releases. We suggest that other
states pay attention to these sources
so that we can begin to establish a
baseline for evaluating the severity of
such problems.
For More Information
For more information on our study,
• continued on page 25
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
USTFieids
Getting Small-Town USTfields
Out of the Doldrums
by Gary Lynn
Every four years, the first-in-the-
nation presidential primary is
held in New Hampshire, and,
like clockwork, the national pundits
question whether New Hampshire is
sufficiently similar to national norms
to merit its large role in selecting the
next president. After all, New Hamp-
shire is notoriously anti-tax (the only
state in the continental United States
without a sales or income tax), anti-
government spending, and not par-
ticularly diverse.
I'm placing this national bone of
contention on the table in case you
might be concerned that New Hamp-
shire's experience with petroleum-
related brownfield (i.e., USTfield)
sites is insufficiently similar to
national norms and, hence, irrelevant
to your program. On this matter,
however, I can assure you that, for
the most part, it is.
New Hampshire's constraints in
establishing an USTfield-type of pro-
gram are at least as severe as those of
any state looking into this type of ini-
tiative (e.g., no new funding, no new
legislation, and, get this, a planned 4
percent budget cut and hiring
freeze!). I submit, therefore, that if
New Hampshire can start an UST-
fields initiative with its limited
resources and small government psy-
che, then anyone can.
• CT Survey from page 24
visit the following Web sites:
wwTv.sp.uconn.edu / ~hydrogeo /
deprept.htm or
www.api.ore / ehs / sgresbul.htm
Gary Robbins is a Professor ofHydroge-
ology in the Department of Geology and
Geophysics at the University of Con-
necticut. Gary can be reached at
gary.robbins@uconn.edu.
Peter Zack is Director of the LUST Pro-
•gram at the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection.
Why Bother?
Why bother diverting scarce
resources to the development and
execution of this type of program?
For one thing, we've found that we,
as a program, can build stronger rela-
tionships with communities through
our efforts to fix long-standing eye-
sores, safety hazards, or economic
development nightmares. Also, our
UST program staff derives a good
deal of job satisfaction from connect-
ing with a community and helping
resolve difficult issues.
Most importantly, however,
when we help initiate the cleanup of
a site that has languished because the
property was abandoned or tax-
delinquent, human health and the
environment are better off and the
property is made viable once again.
The central question, however, is
this: How can we achieve significant
results with limited resources? Let
me share some of the approaches that
are working well for us.
Piggyback with Existing
Programs
The easiest way to become involved
in moving abandoned or underuti-
lized sites with tanks out of the dol-
drums and into favorable winds is to
identify existing programs that share
similar goals (e.g., EPA/state/local
government brownfields redevelop-
ment efforts, EPA's Emergency
Removal Program) and become a role
player in working with these pro-
grams to move a site forward.
The biggest reason such pro-
grams don't do anything about aban-
doned UST sites on their own is that
they have significant gaps where
USTs are concerned. For example,
Superfund brownfields initiatives
cannot address petroleum contamina-
tion (there is a petroleum exclusion in
CERCLA) and cannot currently fund
remediation at USTfield sites. But
these gaps provide an opportunity for
petroleum programs to develop syn-
ergistic relationships that can go far to
address difficult sites. Your petro-
leum
program's strengths (e.g., focusing on
the thousands of petroleum storage
systems throughout the country and
remediating releases) are frequently
the weakest components of current
brownfields initiatives.
Dip into Your UST Toolbox
UST programs have a variety of tools
that can be used to address USTfield
sites. These tools include UST reim-
bursement programs, tank removal
programs, oil cleanup funds, and lia-
bility protection statutes (e.g., liabil-
ity protection for downgradient
properties and municipalities that tax
deed property).
We have discovered that, in
many cases, educating local govern-
ments about existing programs and
liability protection provisions is suffi-
cient to get these entities involved in
resolving difficult abandoned sites in
their communities. Petroleum pro-
grams can also provide significant,
tangible assistance simply by
explaining and resolving program
eligibility issues. Remember, your
UST program is your state's "infor-
mation central" on site eligibility for
petroleum-related programs and
requirements for participating in the
programs.
Adopt a Municipality
New Hampshire is a predominately
rural state, made up of many small
towns. A significant number of
municipalities have petroleum-conta-
minated site problems that over-
whelm the mostly volunteer,
part-time town governments. Munic-
ipalities are often painfully aware of
their abandoned sites because of
complaints, overdue back taxes, or
concerns raised by the fire chief
about fire hazards caused by the
derelict properties. In most cases,
municipalities also have the essential
tools for addressing the problems
(e.g., back tax relief, the ability to
• continued on page 26
~25
-------
uSTLine Bulletin 35
*/je Avilite property was an eyesore, drug graffiti on walls, and evidence of vagrancy.
«Small-Town USTfields/rampage25
demolish structures, contacts with
interested developers).
In our experience, the best way to
help the local governments is to meet
\^ith them face to face so that we can
work together to outline an approach
fpr making progress at a site using the
^xisting federal, state, and local tools
available. We also try to get word out
^bout abandoned-site issues through
linunicipal association annual meet-
ifigs and mailings. We've found that
grousing municipal interest and
tvorking with local officials to find
viable solutions is an effective way to
identify USTfields and remove the
barriers to cleaning them up.
Become a Program
Integrator/Clearinghouse
In most cases, petroleum-contami-
rtated USTfield sites require more
than one program or tool to resolve
environmental issues and promote
redevelopment. Some of the issues
may include liability concerns, the
need to complete an emergency
femoval of drums or hazardous
^vaste, UST closure, petroleum conta-
linination, hazardous substance cont-
amination, unsafe structures, and
poor infrastructure. If staff from your
UST program can integrate their
knowledge of other programs into
USTfield solutions, provide commu-
nities with timely education/sugges-
tions for solutions, and try to make
sure that communities are able to
Jceep things moving, real progress
tan take place.
j
Making Things Happen in
Marlborough
The former Avilite manufacturing
facility is a good example of how an
USTfield program can function.
Avilite was a small manufacturer
located in the small town of Marlbor-
]
_
ough (population 2,051) in the west-
ern part of the state. When the owner
of the facility died, his heirs legally
abandoned the facility by a process
called "escheat." The heirs were con-
cerned about the facility's UST and
the general condition of the property.
In 1997, the town of Marlbor-
ough attempted to get the state to
take title to the property. Based on
structural concerns about the build-
ing, the state declined. In March 1998,
after the roof collapsed on the two-
story portion of the building, the
town requested state assistance.
When representatives from the state
visited the building, they found a
dozen drums containing wastes (sev-
eral partially buried by the roof col-
lapse), drug graffiti on many walls,
and evidence of vagrancy.
Together, officials from the state
and the town mapped out a plan. Ele-
ments of the plan included the town
taking the property for back taxes to
resolve the title, the state completing
an emergency removal of the drums,
liability protection for the town
(qualifying holder protection in N.H.
statutes), town demolition of the
unstable structures, and town con-
veyance of the property to a local
business that would complete the
demolition, remove the tank, and
participate in the UST reimburse-
ment program.
The town took possession of the
property for taxes in April 1998. The
state mobilized immediately after the
town took possession of the property,
overpacked the leaking drums, and
staged them in a stable portion of the
building.
Once the town started with this
project, it was hard to keep up with
it—the town completed the demoli-
tion of the unstable portion of the
building before state personnel
returned just two weeks later to pick
up the drums. By the summer, the
tanks were removed. By October
One lot after redevelopment.
1999, contaminated soil had been
removed, the site investigation was
complete, and the site was dosed.
The state invested $19,000 (80%
of which was from the UST reim-
bursement fund) and the town paid
$8,000 for the demolition and dis-
posal of the debris at the regional
landfill. The lot has been subdivided.
A new building is already in place on
one lot, and the other lot is up for
sale. The owner of the redeveloped
lot is a specialty staircase manufac-
turer, which has set up a business
and added jobs in the town.
According to Larry Biron, the
town's Administrative Assistant, fix-
ing the Avilite property was "the
greatest blessing that has occurred to
the residents of the community for
many years past. The site is in prime
commercial territory at the gateway
to the town along Route 101, and the
absence of the ugly, dilapidated
building was praised by residents
town-wide."
The new construction yields
property taxes of approximately
$5,000 per year. When development
of the other lot is complete, annual
property tax income to the town will
be equivalent to the town's initial
$8,000 investment. In a city, this type
of gain would not have a significant
impact. For Marlborough, however,
with its annual budget of $1.3 mil-
lion, it does. This example clearly
shows the value of town involvement
and the need, in many cases, to inte-
grate programs to address the cross-
cutting issues posed by abandoned,
former indtistrial properties. •
Gary Lynn is Supervisor of the New
Hampshire Department of Environ-
mental Services, Petroleum
Remediation Section.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
USTFields
...And They Were USTfields No More
Michigan Confronts the Challenge
and Prevails
by Amy S. Carter
Brownfields exist most often at
old industrial sites where
contamination has occurred
because of past use. The term "UST-
fields" was coined recently to
describe abandoned gas stations or
other UST sites that need to be
cleaned up and rehabilitated. States
can create the impetus to get these
sites back on track and into produc-
tive use by providing development
incentives and removing roadblocks
that discourage potential reuse.
As it turns out, USTfields can
offer certain types of redevelopers
(e.g., convenience stores, pharmacies,
fast-food chains) the perfect solution
to their business development and
expansion plans. USTfields can pro-
vide the ideal-size parcel, complete
with an existing infrastructure and a
local labor work force—as long as the
barriers can be overcome without a
lot of aggravation.
What barriers do developers face
when considering these environmen-
tally challenged properties for rede-
velopment, and how has Michigan
aggressively developed the means to
eliminate these barriers?
The Barriers
The most important barrier that
developers and business owners face
when considering USTfields for rede-
velopment is incurring potential lia-
bility for contamination that may
exist at the property. When the very
first USTfields redevelopment
project was initiated in 1986, the lia-
bility scheme for environmental cont-
amination was strict, joint, and
several—liability for cleaning up con-
tamination at a gas station was
attached to any person who was an
owner or operator. It didn't matter if
the person had actually caused a
release, contributed to one, or exacer-
bated an existing release. Thus, some-
one who purchased an old gas station
to redevelop for another business use
basically bought the liability for
cleaning up the site—not a. favorable
incentive to foster redevelopment in
the business community.
In an attempt to stimulate rede-
velopment and allay these liability
concerns, the Michigan Department
of Attorney General and the Michi-
gan Department of Natural Re-
sources began providing protection
from liability through a Covenant
Not to Sue (CNTS) agreement with
developers.
It soon became clear, however,
that the process for obtaining a CNTS
was very labor- and time-intensive.
In addition, in many cases, there was
insufficient information available to
distinguish the nature and extent of
existing contamination from poten-
tial releases that could occur in the
future.
"Tfiejite can provide thejdeal^^
fjparcel, complete with an existing
^structure and" a local labor work
Iforce—as long as the harriers can
bejovercome without % Igt of
aggravation.
The Michigan legislature estab-
lished a financial assistance program,
the Site Revitalization Grant and
Loan (SRGL) program, in an attempt
to stimulate redevelopment at these
contaminated locations. In conjunc-
tion with the CNTS process, the
SRGL program energized stagnated
redevelopment projects and pro-
vided a viable mechanism to allow
the contamination be cleaned up.
One of many success stories in
Michigan involves the bankruptcy of
23 Action Auto stations, all contami-
nated by releases from USTs.
Through the use of SRGL monies and
the CNTS process, all 23 properties
were successfully redeveloped and
are in productive use today.
The CNTS process, however, still
proved to be costly and time-con-
suming to finalize. Furthermore, the
environmental cleanup costs were
excessive. Ultimately, redevelopment
through the SRGL and CNTS process
became feasible only for large corpo-
rations and developers with substan-
tial financial assets.
Overcoming the Barriers
To avoid these barriers, in 1995,
Michigan amended its laws govern-
ing environmental cleanup to create
various tools to allow redevelopment
of contaminated property to move
forward. Important aspects of these
amendments included creating a
process for conducting an assessment
of the type and extent of contamina-
tion existing at each location, called a
baseline environmental assessment
(BEA).
A person who completes a BEA,
in accordance with the BEA rules, can
use this information as a defense to
liability for preexisting contamina-
tion. Liability for conducting cleanup
was changed from strict or status-
based liability to a causation-based
scheme, meaning a person must have
caused a release through an act or
failure to act.
There was a change in the human
health-based criteria for determining
the maximum allowable contaminant
concentrations that may be left in the
environment. Michigan adopted a
pure risk-based cleanup process that
creates flexibility in the types of
cleanups that are allowed and pro-
vides for a more cost-effective solu-
tion. Several financial assistance and
incentive programs were added to
the mix, including the Clean Michi-
gan Initiative and the Cleanup and
Redevelopment Fund.
In 1996, Michigan passed more
• continued on page 28
27
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
m USTfields yhwt page 27
legislation, creating the Brownfields
Redevelopment Program to provide
Additional funding and tax incentives
to businesses that clean up and rede-
velop contaminated land.
Historically, the "brownfields"
Redevelopment programs promoted
py states have not identified contami-
nation specifically resulting from
tJSTs. Today, USTfields redevelop-
ment in Michigan, with its ancestral
foots in brownfields redevelopment,
has become a very successful pro-
§ram. The Michigan Department of
nvironmental Quality (MDEQ),
Storage Tank Division (STD), has
Approved over 350 BEAs, which are
conducted at each USTfield location
to establish the type and often the
degree of existing contamination.
Tell Your USTfield Stories
A survey conducted by the state of
Utah for the recent National Brown-
fields Conference showed that 37
states have active brownfields pro-
grams; yet only six states recognize
USTfields. If states have had success-
ful redevelopment of USTfields, it is
Important that they make it a point to
tell their stories. Why?
II USTfields are a common sight
nationwide, and their numbers are
increasing because of costly fed-
eral and state UST system upgrade
requirements. Tank upgrade and
replacement often result in the dis-
covery of contamination, which
prompts many owners of marginal
gas station businesses to abandon
the property.
M USTfields reuse often serves as the
incubator for stimulating the rede-
velopment and rejuvenation of a
neighborhood or community,
because these properties can often
be put back into productive reuse
more quickly and less expensively
than larger, more extensive rede-
velopment projects.
M USTfields have characteristics,
such as readily identifiable conta-
minant sources and types, that are
released underground. These
characteristics do not typically
limit surface property use, which
can be a selling point to many
types of developers.
Redevelopment of a smaller par-
cel, such as an USTfield, can allow
Editor's Note: These articles on the
New Hampshire and Michigan
approaches to USTfields are our way
of telling your stories. Has your
UST program considered the eco-
nomic benefits (e.g., increased rev-
enue through taxes collected and
new jobs) derived from rehabilitat-
ing abandoned UST facilities? If
you have a story to tell, please let
us know.
a local government entity to
become familiar with available
redevelopment tools and thus
pave the way for that entity to
approach larger and more sub-
stantial projects.
• USTfields often do not qualify for
many of the federal Brownfield
Redevelopment Tools because of
the petroleum exemption in CER-
CLA, the underlying framework
of several nationally available
environmental cleanup tools.
• The positive recognition, expo-
sure, and understanding of the
benefits of USTfields will encour-
age the development of additional
tools that are specifically tailored
to USTfields projects.
• USTfields often require the
involvement of stakeholders from
government, business, and indus-
try to achieve success in market-
ing and reuse.
• USTfield projects promote the
establishment of innovative and
often unique public/private part-
nerships, where promotion of an
USTfield program can serve as an
additional incentive for large oil
companies to take an aggressive
role in working with these part-
nerships.
Public/Private Partnerships
The public/private partnership is a
critical aspect to USTfields redevelop-
ment and a new innovative approach
that Michigan is launching an effort
to encourage more USTfield redevel-
opment. Michigan's aim is to get
"major customers" to look at their
problems statewide and to address
their environmental issues proac-
tively and in concert with state and
local goals. The state is working with
various stakeholders to promote "Tell
Your Story" as an incentive for others
to follow.
What Do USTfields Mean to
Environmental Protection?
With a risk-based, land use decision-
making framework governing correc-
tive actions at USTfield sites, limited
resources can be focused on direct
exposures and source removal
aspects of cleanup. Corrective action
can be designed to abate the contin-
ued exacerbation of contamination in
the environment and eliminate the
risk to public health.
The use of institutional controls
and restrictive covenants can allow
redevelopment to occur more quickly
and in conjunction with corrective
actions. Ultimately, the costs of
cleanups are significantly reduced
and no longer serve as a barrier to
redevelopment.
The MDEQ Storage Tank Divi-
sion continues to evaluate new ways
to achieve faster and quicker
cleanups (e.g., Pay-for-Performance,
Tank Racer). As a result of Michi-
gan's innovative approaches, envi-
ronmental issues are no longer the
limiting factor for redevelopment of
environmentally challenged proper-
ties. The costs of cleanups are signifi-
cantly reduced and no longer hinder
redevelopment.
There is an answer for every site:
it might not be the first reuse of choice,
but, if the development team works
together the factors influencing the
decisions can be addressed and the
barriers eliminated.
Marketing, Marketing,
Marketing
To maximize its own investments,
Michigan is developing a marketing
plan for other LUST sites that have
been cleaned up with state resources.
The state is also significantly expand-
ing its Web page presentation to
include a specific section on UST-
fields.
The MDEQ-STD Web page is at
http:/ /www.state.mi.us/std and
will cross-link reviewers to the more
extensive database on the tools that
have been developed in Michigan. •
Amy Sue-Carter is Chief of the Opera-
tions Section at the Michigan Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality,
Storage Tank Division.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
from the ASTSWMO Tanks Subcommittee
Coast to Coast is provided as a regular feature of LUSTLine to update state and federal UST, LUST, and cleanup fund person-
nel about the activities of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) Tanks Sub-
committee. To find out more about the Tanks Subcommittee, contact Chairperson, Scott Winters (CO) at (303) 620-4008, or
Stephen Crimaudo (ASTSWMO) at (202) 624-7883.
You may also go to the ASTSWMO Web page to find out what's new at; http:/ / www.astswmo.org/ whatsnew.htm.
lake a look at the new "ASTSWMO Letter," an on-line, weekly newsletter highlighting ASTSWMO subcommittee and task
force activities, projects, and upcoming events, also on the ASTSWMO home page.
Tanks Subcommittee
The Tanks Subcommittee com-
pleted a very successful mid-year
meeting, held in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, during April 17-19.
The full Subcommittee met to dis-
cuss current issues, including
ASTSWMO's participation in the
2000 OUST National Conference,
planning for the 2000 State Fund
Conference and the 2001 OUST
National Conference, MTBE phase-
out and other oxygenates, UST-
fields, and budget numbers.
Subcommittee members were
active participants in the Twelfth
Annual UST/LUST National Con-
ference held in March in Portland,
Oregon. They helped draft the
agenda and planned, organized,
and spoke at a variety of the ses-
sions (state personnel moderated 20
of the 25 sessions organized for this
year's conference).
The Subcommittee is in the
process of completing work on an
USTfields survey and document,
which will be a compendium of
mechanisms and initiatives that
states use to address UST closure.
The planned completion date for
this document is fall 2000. Inter-
ested parties should contact Kevin
Kratina (NJ) at (609) 633-1415.
The Subcommittee also con-
ducted a peer match in which
Susan McAnally, Remediation
Division, Montana DEQ, traveled
to Anchorage, Alaska, to meet with
Ben Thomas, UST Program, Alaska
DEC, to observe and participate in
Alaska's inspector training class.
The Subcommittee Task Force
Chairs will be meeting with OUST
Regional Program Managers to dis-
cuss reporting requirements and
compliance enforcement.
If you are interested in getting
involved with the Association, or if
you have comments on Tanks Sub-
committee activities, contact Steve
Crimaudo or Scott Winters.
UST Task Force
UST Task Force members were
involved with planning the
National Conference. They also
participated in a two-day meeting
in February at OUST to discuss per-
formance measures. One day of the
meeting was spent developing a
method to more accurately measure
compliance, and one day was
devoted to developing outcome-
based measures for the UST/LUST
program. This effort is being coor-
dinated by Mark Barolo at OUST.
The UST Task Force is cur-
rently working on the USTfields
survey and document, drafting a
survey on performance measures,
evaluating current statistical inven-
tory reconciliation (SIR) methods,
and working on developing an UST
Operator Training Certification
Program. Ben Thomas (AK) is
heading the training and certifica-
tion effort. He may be contacted at:
bthomas@envircon.state.ak.us.
The UST Task Force is looking
for new members. For more infor-
mation on UST Task Force activi-
ties, contact Dale Marx (UT) at (801)
536-4100.
LUST Task Force
The LUST Task Force's MTBE
Workgroup recently drafted and
published its eighth quarterly
MTBE Newsletter (March 2000),
which includes updates on how
state LUST managers are coping
with MTBE contamination at LUST
remediation sites. The newsletter
can be found on the ASTSWMO
Web page at: astswmo.org / publi-
cations / summaries.htm#MTBE.
The MTBE Workgroup met for
a half-day immediately following
the UST/LUST National Confer-
ence. Workgroup Chair Jeff Kuhn
(MT) moderated the meeting. Dis-
cussion included the status of the
group, newsletter issues, and
ASTSWMO support. Presentations
were given on the status of EPA
MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel recom-
mendations, EPA OUST's MTBE
Task Force and other efforts, an
industry perspective from API,
state perspectives, and MTBE
research and concerns. For more
information on MTBE Workgroup
activities, contact Jeff Kuhn at (406)
444-5976.
Other LUST Task Force activi-
ties include continuing review of
ASTM's work on two new stan-
dards—"Evaluating Remedial
Decisions" and "Integrated Site
Management"—and preparing a
spreadsheet on fuel additives and
other oxygenates that will include
an evaluation of alternative oxy-
genates. The LUST Task Force
plans on being involved in the
• continued on page 30
29
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute
PEI PUBLISHES REFUELING FIRE REPORT AND AST RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
The Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) has pub-
lished two documents recently that might be of inter-
est to LUSTLine readers. Following is a brief
description of each publication.
Refueling Site Fires
In January, PEI began investigating fires that have
occurred when vehicles were being refueled. We asked
our members and newsletter readers to send us reports
of refueling accidents presumably caused by static
electricity. (A full discussion of these efforts appeared
in LUSTLine #34.)
PEI collected 81 reports of fires that appeared to be
static-related over the next three months and issued a
report on April 26,2000. The primary cause of the fires
was electrostatic discharge (BSD) generated by people
getting in and out of the vehicle and touching the area
around the filler pipe.
A three-page summary report on the subject and a
15-page summary of the fire reports are located on
PEI's Web site: www.pei.org / frd. The report refer-
ences over a dozen documents, listed on page 3. We
will mail a full set of all referenced documents to
LUSTLine readers on request. The documents involve
over 50 pages of material, so they cannot be faxed. Fax
PEI at (918) 491-9895 to request a copy of "Refueling
Site Fires—Referenced Documents."
Updated Recommended Practices for ASTs
The fourth edition of PEI's Recommended Practices for
Installation of Aboveground Storage Systems for Motor
Vehicle Fueling (PEI/RP200) has been published and is
now available to individuals and agencies interested
in the subject.
RP200-99 contains chapters and drawings on all
phases of proper AST installation: site planning, foun-
dations, support and anchorage, dikes, vaults and spe-
cial enclosures, tanks, pumps and valves, fills, gauges
and vents, pipe and fittings, corrosion protection,
environmental protection, electrical installation, and
testing.
Recommended Practices also includes appendices
describing size calculations for dikes and venting, fire
code regulations, and documents used for reference.
RP200-99 covers only stationary, shop-fabricated tanks
used at commercial and retail service stations and
marinas. Both horizontal and vertical aboveground
storage tanks are addressed in the publication.
Regulators who are familiar with the earlier rec-
ommended practices will note many changes from the
1996 edition throughout the document. Extensive edi-
torial revisions were made to this edition that make
the document easier to read and understand. A new
chapter was added that outlines recommended proce-
dures for proper facility layout and operation. The
chapter also describes training requirements for per-
sonnel operating the fueling facility.
Ten drawings were revised to improve clarity,
and captions were added to all illustrations. Appendix
B on venting now includes tables that provide precal-
culated data to determine emergency vent capacity for
most standard aboveground tanks. Appendix C,
which contains a table that summarizes AST code
requirements, has been updated to reflect changes in
the national codes.
The single-copy price for RP200-99 is $30. For an
order form, fax PEI at (918) 491-9895. •
• Coast to Coast continued from
page 29
national discussion on free-product
recovery.
For more information on LUST
Task Force activities, contact co-
chairs Kevin Kratina (NJ) at (609)
633-1415 and Richard Spiese (VT)
at (802) 241-3880.
State Cleanup Funds Task
Force
The Task Force spent much of the
last six months planning for the
Ninth Annual State Fund Adminis-
trators Conference, which was held
in Scottsdale, Arizona, during June 4-
7,2000. The Task Force met in Scotts-
dale in January to prepare the agenda
for this year's conference. Task Force
members are the conference track
leaders and session organizers.
For more information on State
Cleanup Funds Task Force activities,
contact Patricia Mowack (AZ) at (602)
207-4327 or George Matthis (NC) at
(919) 733-1332.
TIE Task Force
The Training and Information
Exchange (TIE) Task Force worked
hard to ensure the successful plan-
ning and implementation of this
year's ASTSWMO Mid-Year. The
Task Force continues to work on
and update ASTSWMO's Internet
home page. For more information
on TIE Task Force activities, call
Kathy Stiller (DE) at (302) 323-4588.
30
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 35
OUST Working on MTBE
Rulemaking
On March 24,2000, EPA published
an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) indicating
that the agency is considering lim-
iting or banning the use of MTBE
as a fuel additive under Section 6
of the Toxic Substance Control
Act. The ANPRM discusses
numerous issues surrounding
MTBE and other fuel additives
and requests information and
comments about those issues.
In support of this rulemaking,
OUST is currently working to
assess the impacts of MTBE and
other additives from leaking USTs,
including looking into the extent
of groundwater contamination
from USTs, the incremental costs
of cleanup, and compatibility
issues. OUST may contact states to
discuss their experiences with
MTBE or other fuel additives, and
to request any available data that
states have compiled. EPA hopes
to complete the proposed rule-
making in the next 6 to 12 months.
For more information, contact
Mark Barolo at (703) 603-7141,
barolo.mark@epa.gov.
EPA Oil Program
Encourages States to
Share AST Release
Information
As part its MTBE Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
EPA has requested information on
the amounts, locations, sources,
and types of MTBE releases, and
the levels and sources of water
resource contamination from
MTBE. EPA has also asked for
information regarding the relative
contribution of different sources,
such as USTs, aboveground stor-
age tanks (ASTs), and pipelines, to
present and future MTBE contami-
nation of groundwater, surface
water, and drinking water.
ASTs are a known source of
gasoline containing MTBE. Under
the Clean Water Act, section 311,
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) pro-
gram, EPA regulates approxi-
mately 440,000 facilities with ASTs
that are located so as to be reason-
ably expected to discharge oil to
surface waters or adjoining shore-
lines. A facility is regulated if it
has an AST with a capacity of
more than 660 gallons, or multiple
ASTs with a combined capacity of
more than 1,320 gallons. ASTs are
also subject to EPA's more general
requirements for the reporting of
oil spills to navigable waters, 40
CFR part 110, and EPA's prohibi-
tion on the discharge to navigable
waters of oil that will:
• Violate applicable water qual-
ity standards,
• Cause a sheen on the waters, or
• Cause a sludge or emulsion to
be deposited beneath the sur-
face of the water or adjoining
shoreline.
Despite EPA's regulatory pro-
grams, almost 20,000 oil spills to
navigable waters (from all sources,
including tank trucks, barges, and
so on) are reported each year.
About half of these spills occur in
the inland zone over which EPA
has jurisdiction.
Several states also have pro-
grams within their environmental
agencies to address spills and
leaks from ASTs, with various
tank size thresholds. State fire
marshals may inspect tanks that
• continued on back page
LU.S.T.LINE
One-year subscription. $1 8.00.
Ql 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.)
Q Please take my name off your mailing list.
Q 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 4Fs _ ' _
Please send me a LUSTLine Index.
Name
Com pany/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.
-------
• EPA HQ Update continued from
page 31
come under federal or state thresh-
olds. Often when gasoline dis-
charges occur, responders may not
know if the gasoline contains
MTBE. State programs that track
such releases may require MTBE
testing to ascertain if ground or sur-
face waters have been affected. EPA
encourages states to share informa-
tion by:
• Beginning or continuing to mon-
itor and document AST releases
for MTBE contamination;
• Coordinating information shar-
ing by way of their respective
Web sites; and
• Compiling information on fire
marshal tank inspections to
address tanks that contain and
could potentially release MTBE.
EPA may serve as a link
between states to share these data
and, thereby, improve public
understanding of ways in which
EPA and states are addressing
MTBE contamination.
EPA HQ UPDATE
For more information about data
sharing or our AST/SPCC program,
contact William Nichols at (703) 603-
9918 or Dana Stalcup at (703) 603-
8735 from the EPA Oil Program
Center.
Latest Edition of List Of Leak
Detection Evaluations for
USTs Now Available
The List of Leak Detection Evaluations
(7th edition; EPA 510-B-00-007) is a
309-page reference manual that con-
tains a summary of specifications,
based on third-party evaluations, for
over 275 systems that detect leaks
from USTs and their piping. Each
summary provides information on
such items as certified detectable leak
rate/threshold, test period duration,
product applicability, calibration
requirements, restrictions on the use
of the device, and so on. The List is a
reference tool for state and EPA regu-
lators, especially inspectors of USTs;
knowledgeable UST owners and
operators wanting to compare
specifications for various leak
detection devices; and vendors of
UST leak detection systems. (Note:
Although maintained by a work
group consisting of state and EPA
members, the List is not a list of
"approved" leak detection systems.
Approval or acceptance of leak
detection systems is the responsi-
bility of the implementing
agency—in most cases the state
environmental agency.)
The most recent edition of the
List is always available in electronic
form for free viewing, download-
ing, and printing at www.epa.
gov / swerustl / pubs / ldlist.htm.
OUST has sent one printed copy of
this latest List to EPA Regional UST
programs, state UST programs,
each vendor that appears on the
List, and several trade groups.
Please note that this is the last time
EPA will print the List; future edi-
tions will be advertised and posted
at the Web site noted above but
will not be printed.
LU.ST.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.
L.U.S.T. Buster T-Shirts
& Sweatshirts!
Tec's: ML, XL, XXL $9.00pp
Sweats: H L, XL, XXL $16.50 pp
Allow "M 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
------- |