New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
Boott Mills South
1OO Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
Bulletin 38
June
2OO1
LUST.
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
LIVE ANH LEARN
With Federal UST Regulations More Than 15 Years Old, It's
High Time to Heed What We've Learned in the Meantime'
by Marcel Moreau, Patricia Ellis, Ellen Frye
T
m r
he 1998 deadline for removing, replacing, or upgrad-
ing substandard USTs was such an all-consuming push for
regulators that some of the other particulars of the
tank program (e.g., leak detection and operation and
maintenance) enjoyed considerable freedom
from attention.
But oh oh oh, when the tank
regulation folks finally came up for
air after the 1998 deadline passed, a
troubling UST reality set in—
those puppies were still leak-
ing! And finding methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) cruising through the
groundwater nether regions did nothing
to help matters, except to focus our
attention on the fact that USTs are still a
problem—one that many, including state
and federal legislators, were getting ready to
consider over and done with.
While the fact that UST systems leak has
not come as a major surprise to UST regula-
tors, a certain amount of dismay and frustra-
tion tugs at their hearts and minds just the
same. "How much more can we do," they
ask, "when our resources have already been
stretched beyond the beyond? How can we be
effective at addressing changes in technology
when the federal rule seems to have drifted
into a state of stifling stagnation? How will
we ever get this complicated set of rules
across to a regulated community that relies
on a continuously revolving and disinter-
ested workforce to carry out day-to-day oper-
ations and maintenance?"
• continued on page 2
ASTM's Standard Guide to Microbial Contamination in Fuels
ispensing Wisdom
The Sense of Secondary Containment
Prescription for Identifying a Facility's Release Detection Method
The Human Side of UST Enforcement
Maine's New UST Siting and Inspection Laws
California Research on 1998 UST Upgrade Effectiveness
Indoor Air Pathway Risks
An Innovative Approach for Meeting Training Needs
PFP in Florida
PFP in Vermont
New Report on Ethanol in Gasoline
-------
WSTLine Bulletin 38
• Live and Learn
continued from page 1
Don't get us wrong, the 1998
deadline accomplished some very
important milestones with regard to
USTs. Besides bringing substandard
UST systems up to improved opera-
tional speed, it helped permanently
close approximately 1.5 million of
them, leaving us with that many
fewer tank systems to worry about.
Now we can focus on the remaining
estimated 693,107 tank systems sub-
ject to federal regulation and the
innumerable heating oil tanks,
aboveground storage tanks, and
"what not" tanks that are not subject
to federal regulations. Keeping in
mind that no tank is too small to
cause a big headache, the headaches
are bound to persist.
in Light of the GAO Report
The May 2001 General Accounting
Office (GAO) report, Improved Inspec-
tions and Enforcement Would Better
LUSTLine
Ellen Frye, Editor
Ricki Pappo, Layout
Marcel Moreau, Technical Advisor
Patricia Ellis, Ph.D., Technical Advisor
Ronald Poltak, NEIWPCC Executive Director .
Lynn DePont, EPA Project Officer
LUSTLine is a product of the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion (NEIWPCC). It is produced through a
cooperative agreement (SCT825782-01-0)
between NEIWPCC and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
LUSTLine is issued as a communication
service for the Subtitle IRCRA
Hazardous & Solid Waste Amendments
rule promulgation process.
LUSTLine is produced to promote
information exchange on LIST/LUST issues.
- The opinions and information stated herein
are tfiose of the authors and do not neces- .
sarily reflect the opinions of NEIWPCC.
This publication may be copied.
Please give credit to NEIWPCC.
NEIWPCC was established by an Act of
Congress in 1947 and remains the oldest
agency in the Northeast United States
concerned with coordination of die multi-
media environmental activities
of the states of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
NEIWPCC
Boott Mills South, 100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Telephone: (978) 323-7929
Fax:(978)323-7919
lustline@neiwpcc.org
(g» LUSTLine Is printed on Recycled Paper
Ensure the Safety of Underground Stor-
age Tanks, (www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/
getrpt?gas-01-464 or www.gao. gov/
new.items/d01464.pdf) does a nice
job of characterizing the UST
dilemma. The report was under-
taken in response to concerns
expressed by members of Congress
that the UST program is not effec-
tively preventing leaks and that
USTs continue to pose risks. The
report is surprisingly discerning,
due in large part to the fact that
those who conducted the survey on
which the report is based asked
good questions and, more impor-
tantly, actually listened to the
answers provided by state and fed-
eral UST program managers.
Based on state and EPA
responses to the survey, the report
estimates that about 89 percent of
the total number of federally regu-
lated tanks were upgraded by Sep-
tember 2000. It also estimates that
about 29 percent of the regulated
tanks were, as of the survey, not
being operated or maintained prop-
erly, increasing the risk of soil and
groundwater contamination.
Clearly, our problems with USTs
have not gone away, and as the GAO
report points out unequivocally,
inspection and enforcement effec-
tiveness is in serious need of
improvement. According to the
report, "22 states do not inspect all of
their tanks on a regular basis, and
therefore, some tanks may never be
inspected." These states typically
target tanks for inspection based on
factors such as a tank's potential risk
to the environment, proximity to
groundwater, or the number of com-
plaints lodged against it.
Clearly, any such improvement
in inspection and enforcement
requires increased resources—the
eternal stumbling block. Those who
hold the purse strings seem to have a
preference for spending more
money to clean up contamination
than for spending less money up
front to prevent it from occurring in
the first place.
Then again, we must also
acknowledge that the technical and
operational compliance require-
ments for this program are
humdingers to enforce. EPA esti-
mates that a qualified inspector can
visit 200 facilities in one year. (Report
to Congress on a Compliance Plan for
the Underground Storage Tank Pro-
gram, June 2000, EPA 510-R-00-001.)
However, based on the time it takes
to perform a complete inspection
and the follow-up involved, many
program managers feel that this
number is optimistic.
Another enforcement frustration
that the report noted more than once
is that most states and EPA lack
authority to use the most effective
enforcement tools, such as prohibit-
ing fuel delivery to noncompliant
tanks, and many state officials
acknowledged that simplified
enforcement tools and resources are
needed to ensure tank compliance.
Another serious drawback with
the tank program that was identified
in the report is the lack of informa-
tion on the extent and causes of the
leaking tank problem, the effective-
ness of current equipment and tech-
nology, and the effectiveness of
existing standards.
Amazingly, in the 13 years since
the federal regulations went into
effect, precious little has been done to
collect appropriate data and to evalu-
ate and modify the rules. As one of its
four UST program initiatives, the
U.S. EPA Office of Underground
Storage Tanks has undertaken a
nationwide effort to assess the ade-
quacy of existing equipment require-
ments to prevent releases.
Anecdotal Pearls
Heaven knows, those of us who have
lived and breathed USTs over the
years that the tank program has been
chugging along have amassed tank
pits full of opinions. And we can
only hope that the pearls of wis-
dom—the down and dirty tank
experiences that have accrued dur-
ing these years—finally have some
value. When the rules were devel-
oped in the mid-1980s, regulators
had no tank history of their own
from which to draw; they relied
almost entirely on industry input.
We'd like to take this opportu-
nity to add some of our history and
our opinions to the story. (Altogether,
the three of us who are authoring
this article have over 45 years of UST
history.) We'll tell it as we see it and
then open up the podium to a
broader group of distinguished and
sagacious UST regulators, who will
dispense their thoughts on what they
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
• Live and Learn
continued from page 3
understanding of the technologies
they were buying.'
To compound the problem, most
UST owners who went the upgrad-
ing route were primarily motivated
by the need to beat the deadline '98
while spending as little money as
possible. As a result, there is wide-
spread regulatory concern that much
of the upgrading work may have
been substandard to downright
shoddy. Though the data are sparse,
there are indications that the upgrad-
ing technologies may not fare as well
as the designers of the federal rule
had hoped.
Spill Containment (D)
Spill containment has no doubt had
some effect in containing small spills
associated with fuel deliveries, but it
has also posed a major maintenance
headache for owners and operators.
Because of inadequate design, poor
installation practices, and abuse dur-
ing use, keeping spill containment
manholes functional has proven to
be a distasteful chore that is most
often ignored.
The engineering challenge of cre-
ating a spill container lid that is liq-
uid tight, easy to remove and
replace, and capable of operating at
or near the ground surface has not
yet been met. It is clear, as well, that
spill containment manholes do not
age gracefully, particularly in the
rust belt where the corrosive action
of road salt and the destructive activ-
ity of snowplows contribute to a
short life expectancy. Unfortunately,
the regulatory program has no provi-
sion to evaluate these systems over
time so that they can be replaced in a
timely fashion.
Overfill Prevention (F)
Prevention of spills from tank over-
fill events is an important element in
reducing petroleum contamination.
But regulatory efforts to address the
problem have been compromised by
a failure to consider the entire deliv-
ery system. Attempting to solve the
overfill problem by installing equip-
ment in the tank without considera-
tion for the effects on the delivery
operator or the workings of the
delivery truck has lead to solutions
that are perhaps worse than the
problem. (See LUSTLme #21 article
_
on overfill prevention.) The equip-
ment industry also bears some blame
here for failing to design overfill
devices that work.
It seems that a complete revamp-
ing of the approach to overfill pre-
vention is necessary for this source of
spills to be effectively controlled.
(See LUSTLine bulletin #31, "If Only
Overfill Prevention Worked.")
• DETECTION (D-)
Leaks are an embarrassment that
nobody in the UST-owning commu-
nity wants to talk about. The major
flaw in the leak detection strategy of
the federal rule is that it assumes that
tank owners will voluntarily come
forward and confess their leaks to
the regulators.
This assumption fails to take into
account that humans hate to confess
their mistakes. To regulators who
have a hard time understanding this
We are in a position now to step *i
hack and look at all we have learhefl
and honestly assess what has been
accomplished and what remains ~
to he done.
attitude, next time you are driving
and notice that you have exceeded
the speed limit, stop in at the next
police station and turn yourself in at
the desk. The abysmal failure of leak
detection (at least as far as regulators
can tell) is due in some significant
measure to the lack of compliance
with regulatory reporting require-
ments.
But lack of reporting is only part
of the problem. Too many tank
owner/operators have little to no
understanding of the leak detection
equipment they own or the leak
detection procedures required of
them. Too many of them believe that
with the investments they have
made for new equipment and/or
upgrading, they are protected
against any and all leaks for the fore-
seeable future. To some extent, this
attitude has been fostered by equip-
ment salespeople who are anxious to
make a sale and unwilling to
acknowledge the limitations of their
devices.
We need look no further than the
widespread occurrence of MTBE in
the environment to demonstrate that
the goal of contamination-free UST
systems is still far from being real-
ized. One of the most daunting tasks
facing regulators today is disabusing
the regulated community, of the fan-
tasy that their storage system wor-
ries are behind them.
And to top it all off, there is
uncertainty (within the regulatory
community, at least) of the real-
world effectiveness of many of
today's leak detection technologies.
While anecdotal evidence of the fail-
ure of leak detection abounds, to
date, little hard data have been gath-
ered to document how well leak
detection hardware is actually per-
forming. Without substantial efforts
to gather such data, it will be virtu-
ally impossible to change the status
quo for the simple reason that the
regulated community wants to
believe that everything is working.
• REMEDIATION (B+)
Because the remediation prong of the
federal rule had fewer technical
specifications, leaving it up to the
states to set cleanup standards and
strategies, cleanup technologies have
had the chance to evolve based on
trial and error. As a result, we have
learned an awful lot and have at our
disposal a toolbox of technologies to
help us do a much better job than we
could have 10 years ago.
"It was summer of '86 when I
climbed into my first excavation pit
in Vermont," recalls Alaska DEC's
Ben Thomas. "Back then my stan-
dard issue of equipment was a hard
hat, buck knife, and H-NU meter. I
would be lowered into the pit in a
backhoe bucket, stab at the side walls
with my pocket knife, sniff for soil
vapors, and tell the backhoe operator
where to dig. Those were the days
when we closed out hundreds of
sites based on vapor readings alone.
Later, I was given an explosion
meter, just in case."
Early remediation emphasis was
mostly on source removal or free
product removal. We typically didn't
look for dissolved BTEX plumes or
determine the direction of groundwa-
ter flow. Site characterization was lim-
ited to the few wells that were
installed, and pump and treat was the
only game in town. (Actually, it works
better for our current MTBE problem
than it did for BTEX constituents.)
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
have learned about USTs. Let's begin
at the beginning.
Once Upon a Time, There
Was a Problem...
It was that time around 1984 to 1988,
a heady time at EPA. A new, impor-
tant, and challenging program was
being born. It was being crafted vir-
tually from scratch. It was attempt-
ing to regulate a problem on a scale
never before attempted. It's dynamic
leadership was focussed on a single
goal: Let's build a program that
works.
Anything was possible, so long
as it was grounded in the reality that
there were more than two million
underground storage systems in use,
and more than a quarter of them may
have been leaking toxic and flamma-
ble substances into the ground.
The architects of the UST pro-
gram were young, committed, ideal-
istic, and human. They sought and
considered the advice and counsel of
industry, other regulators, and
equipment manufacturers. They
spent lavishly on research to create
defensible data on which to base
decisions. They gradually became
invested and enamored with the pro-
gram that they'd crafted, a program
that many of them felt could not fail.
Prevention, Detection,
Remediation
The program had three major
prongs: prevention, detection and
remediation.
The prevention prong dealt with
those areas that had been identified
as the primary villains in the tank
world: corrosion and delivery
spillage. The antidote would include
the installation of corrosion-pro-
tected new systems and the elimina-
tion of systems that were
unprotected against corrosion by
1998. Spill containment and overfill
prevention were to be implemented
on newly installed systems immedi-
ately and added to all pre-1988 sys-
tems by the end of 1998.
The detection prong was a back-
up to the prevention prong. It was
intended to stand vigil on the storage
system and detect problems that
might occur on existing systems
before they were upgraded and that
might still (though infrequently)
occur on new systems.
The strategy was to reliably
detect leaks soon after they occurred.
The size of leak to be detected was
set at the limits of the volumetric
detection technology of the time. The
established frequency of detection
was one that was thought to be suffi-
cient to catch leaks before they cre-
ated large problems without creating
an undue burden on storage system
operators.
The remediation prong was
intended as the measure that would
deal with all preexisting problems
and would also be the final barrier
between future leaks and the protec-
tion of human health and the envi-
ronment.
I
When the rules were developed in >
the mid-1980s, regulators had no \
tank history of their own from which
•,••...«•..,.,-;.. v.^ ,, , , i
to draw; they relied almost entirely
on industry input. !
Remediation standards were left
vague, with the intention that states
would fill in the blanks, but the door
was explicitly left open so that site-
specific standards could be set for
cleanup. When fully opened, this
doorway would eventually lead to
risk-based decision making.
The unveiling of the final UST
system regulations, though widely
anticipated, caused remarkably little
stir in the regulated community.
Most people with knowledge of the
status of the tank population recog-
nized that the need to take measures
to address the problem was overdue
and noted that the rules relied heav-
ily on existing industry practices.
The timetable for implementation
was ambitious, but 1998 seemed a
long way off in 1988. There were a
few murmurs of discontent, but, by
and large, the industry set out to do
what needed to be done.
A Report Card
So now that we have lived this bold
plan for 13 years, what have we
learned? Did the plan work as
intended? Did it work in unintended
ways? Did it fail in ways unforeseen
and/or unforeseeable? Does hind-
sight reveal some serious flaws in the
vision? There are, no doubt, many
views on this. Here are ours—grades
and all.
• PREVENTION
Reducing the UST Population (A+)
As stated earlier, there is little ques-
tion that the most wildly successful
aspect of the national tank program
has been the enormous reduction in
storage system numbers. The better
than 60 percent reduction in storage
systems points to the vast number of
nonessential storage systems that
were in place in the 1980s (recogniz-
ing that many USTs have become
ASTs with their own set of problems,
but that is another story...). The only
UST that is guaranteed not to leak or
spill is the UST that doesn't exist.
Corrosion Protection for New UST
Systems (A)
The regulatory program accom-
plished virtually overnight via the
"interim prohibition," which went
into effect on May 7,1985, what man-
ufacturers of corrosion-protected
UST systems had struggled in vain to
achieve for 15 years—the routine
installation of corrosion-protected
systems. By and large, these tech-
nologies have performed very well,
though it remains to be seen how
gracefully they perform in the long
term.
Upgrading of Existing UST Systems (C-)
The upgrading requirements for
protecting existing systems from cor-
rosion have been somewhat problem-
atic. The rules do not require the
outright replacement of noncorro-
sion-protected UST systems, instead
they allow existing systems to be
"upgraded" via cathodic protection
or internal lining technologies. While
perhaps realistic in terms of making
the program more affordable, the
program erred in establishing a sin-
gle date by which all systems needed
to be upgraded rather than phasing
in the requirement over several years.
The single-date deadline cou-
pled with a lack of effective incen-
tives to accomplish the upgrading
work early, led to a massive demand
for upgrading services in a short
time frame. This was an invitation to
entrepreneurs to prey on a popula-
tion of tank owners that had little
• continued on page 4
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
State funds had a lot to do with
changing the remediation dynamic.
In the early 1990s, a considerable
number of state assurance funds
were created as means to cleanup
sites and provide financial assurance
to UST owners and operators. Within
a relatively short window of time,
state funds became the primary
financial responsibility mechanism
used by tank owners and operators.
The funds effectively dealt with a
huge number of cleanups. To pre-
serve fund resources and deal with
the overwhelming backlog of conta-
minated sites, EPA and the states
began to focus on the need for
cleaner, faster, cheaper remediation
alternatives, encouraging the explo-
ration of innovative technologies.
LUST cleanups had initially been the
consultant's dream come true—pro-
tracted and lucrative.
The problem was that many sites
that went beyond standard dig-and-
dump procedures had become vic-
tims of years of ineffective pump and
treat cleanup efforts or endless moni-
toring without any closure on the
horizon.'
At the behest of EPA, many regu-
lators adopted the industry view that
contamination in the ground is okay
as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.
This cleanup approach, originally
called risk-based corrective action
(RBCA) and more recently risk-based
decision making (RBDM), helped
direct resources to the higher risk
sites.
States viewed this approach as a
way to move sites to active remedia-
tion or close them out due to the lack
of environmental risk—eliminating
the endless monitoring. The new phi-
losophy was directed less toward
how much you could cleanup and
more toward how much you could
safely leave behind. Monitored nat-
ural attenuation became the new
mantra.
But now that remediation tech-
nologies have improved tremen-
dously, we have the capability of
doing a better job of cleaning up sites
and still keeping the costs down—so
let's do it.
We need to stress source reduc-
tion and rapid response in cleanups.
We've got new tools for site charac-
terization that allow us to perform
on-the-fly plume delineation with
direct-push technology and field
labs. No more multiple rounds of
monitoring well installation and
weeks or months between each drill
rig mobilization.
At a minimum, we should attack
residual contamination in the source
area. Using our technology toolbox,
we can perform source area and
plume remediation where needed,
then let natural attenuation do the rest.
We don't need to leave impaired
properties behind. None of us have a
crystal ball to tell us what a site will
be used for five years from now.
Must we emphasize human health
and safety and forget about the envi-
ronment?
Finally, let's remember the root
cause of the UST problem—it was
cheaper to leak than not to leak. If
state funds pick up the cleanup tab
and leave the tank owner/operator
free of compliance responsibility or
financial repercussions, leaks will
continue. The UST problem will not
be solved until it becomes more
expensive to leak than not to leak.
Stepping Back and
Going Forward
The UST program is an enormous
balancing act in which many factors
and outcomes must be considered.
The program has had notable suc-
cesses, and the overall storage sys-
tem population is much healthier
today than 20 years ago. But we are
in a position now to step back and
look at all we have learned and hon-
estly assess what has been accom-
plished and what remains to be
done. The goal of this article is not to
provide answers but to spark discus-
sion and perhaps movement so that
the dreams of the founders of the
UST program may ultimately come
to fruition. •
If you have any comments or responses
to this article, please let us know. In an
effort to encourage dialogue on where
we are going with the UST/LUST pro-
gram, we will publish your thoughts in
the next issue of LUSTLine.
ASTM's Standard Guide to Microbial
Contamination in Fuels and Fuel
Systems Available
Uncontrolled microbial contamination in fuels and fuel systems remains a
largely unrecognized but costly problem at all stages of the petroleum indus-
try from crude oil production through fleet operations and consumer use.
Microbes growing in fuel systems can cause system component damage,
degrade fuel quality, or both. We plan to cover this subject in more detail in
the next issue of LUSTLine. Meanwhile, check out a new American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM) document, "D 6469 Standard Guide to Microbial
Contamination in Fuels and Fuel Systems," available from ASTM's Web site:
www.ASTM.org.
This guide provides those who have a limited microbiological back-
ground with basic information on the symptoms, occurrence, and conse-
quences of chronic microbial contamination. Most importantly, it provides
personnel responsible for fuel and fuel system stewardship with the back-
ground necessary to make informed decisions regarding the possible eco-
nomic and/or safety impact of microbial contamination in their products or
systems. It also addresses the conditions that lead to fuel microbial contami-
nation and biodegradation and the general characteristics of and strategies
for detecting and controlling microbial contamination.
The information in the guide applies primarily to gasoline, diesel, avia-
tion turbine, marine, industrial gas turbine, kerosene, gasoline, and aviation
gasoline fuels (specifications D396, D910, D975, D1655, D2069, D2880,
D3699, D4814 and D6227) and fuel systems. However, the principals dis-
cussed also apply generally to crude oil and all liquid petroleum fuels. The
guide complements and amplifies information provided in ASTM Practice D
4418 on handling gas-turbine fuels. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
Dispensing Wisdom
We checked in with some state folks around the country who have been with the UST/LUST pro-
gram far ten years or more to ask them what they've learned about USTs. In -particular, we asked
them to think about what we know now that we didn't necessarily know when the program
began. Of course, we also asked them to condense their wisdom to as few words as possible. Here's
what we they came up ioith—an interesting selection of opinions. The dates in parentheses indicate
when they started working ivith the UST program.
Marshall Mott-Smith (1983)
- Florida DEP There is no substitute
for secondary containment and an
active field inspection presence. The
number one incentive for compliance
with our rules is fear of getting
caught. Also, we can't ignore above-
ground storage systems.
Jeff Kuhn (1987) -
Montana DEQ
It's Time to Change, or Wither
We've come a long way since the
infancy of the UST/UST program,
and we still have a ways to go. At
most conferences I've attended in the
last several years, we enshrine the
early days of the federal UST/LUST
program as if they were sacred. Most
of us agree that EPA's first Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)
Director, Ron Brand, did a marvelous
job of getting the program off the
ground and that he established the
course for all that was to come. How-
ever, we, the federal and state regula-
tors, have been left with the job of
making it work. If we fail to act
responsibly, our programs will
wither and fade to ineffectuality.
Operational Compliance Is the Key
Of the current initiatives being dri-
ven by OUST, the most important is
operational compliance. We must
communicate the real need here—
that facilities are not remaining in
compliance and that we are hard
pressed to really address the problem
of preventing releases. We must shift
the focus of our programs to leak pre-
vention. Since that was the original
focus of the UST/LUST program, if s
fair to say we've come full circle in
the last 14 years.
State Funds: Is Money the Root of
All Evil?
From the perspective of many state
funds, money really is the root of all
evil. Many of the problems discussed
by state fund administrators seem to
be almost universal and are caused
by the insatiable human desire for
more money. Some state funds have
learned how to cope with greed by
establishing strict guidelines, using
pay-for-performance approaches,
and eliminating coverage for third-
party costs. States and territories
need to establish these types of cost-
control approaches and stick to them.
No-Fault Consulting
With the help of regulators some con-
sultants quickly learned how to max-
imize profit. Having worked as an
environmental consultant, I have the
utmost respect for those hard work-
ing souls who are committed to
excellence, no matter what the situa-
tion. But lef s face it, we're all human,
and if s easier to do "C" work most of
the time.
In consulting it frequently pays
more to do a bad job than to do a
good job. Many states fail to recog-
nize this and end up paying substan-
tially more in time and money when
consultants submit a work plan,
receive approval, and then immedi-
ately start a series of change orders in
the field—the hope is to get the regu-
lators frustrated enough that they
just tell the consultant exactly what
they should do. The result? "No-fault
consulting," where the consultant
bears no responsibility for greatly
inflated project costs.
State regulatory agencies face an
uphill battle with consultants that
target LUST sites for profit purposes
only. Even consultant certification is
limited in controlling work product
quality problems. The type of certifi-
cation that seems to help the most is
one specific to the LUST Program,
rather than an all encompassing
"professional geologist" or "environ-
mental scientist" certification pro-
gram.
The "C" work philosophy does
have its downside—eventually con-
sultants employing this approach
alienate most of their regulatory
counterparts, and find the trust level
has severely diminished. In the long
run, good consulting begets more
work and more profit. Consultants
and regulators have a lot to learn
from each other. Their goals do not
have to be mutually exclusive.
Environmental Cleanup Is
"Patriotic"
My mother in law, who grew up dur-
ing the depression, always reminds
me of how "patriotic" it is to recycle. I
was surprised when she said this to
me one day. So I had to stop and
think about why she said it. During
the depression and especially WWII,
metals and other raw materials were
in short supply. There were signifi-
cant scrap drives to gather and recy-
cle metals "for the war effort."
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
Having grown up in the 1960s
and '70s I never had a sense that
cleaning up pollution was "patri-
otic." But it was instilled in me that
environmental cleanup was the right
thing to do, was an expression of our
stewardship of the earth, and helped
preserve something for future gener-
ations. And when it comes right
down to it, it is "patriotic" to take
care of the environment we live in.
This is my home, my town, my coun-
try, and I care deeply about preserv-
ing it for my children and their
children.
A Few More Words
• Good decisions beget good results
and respect from the public.
• How you do things really mat-
ters—quick, poorly thought out
solutions usually lead to poor
results that set precedents that are
hard to overcome on other
cleanup sites in the future.
• Bad legal precedents are like rip-
ples on a pond, the effects can go
on for a long, long, time.
Chuck Schwer (1985) -
Vermont DEC I have learned that
to meet the challenges of cleaning
up over 2,000 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Vermont, the
program has had to be adaptable to
respond to changes in technology,
gasoline composition, and political
forces. To be stagnant is to fail!
Also, I have learned to never for-
get your stakeholders.
Shahla Farahnak (1990)
- California SWRCB As regulators
we can succeed in achieving our
goal of protecting the environment
by constructive and critical thinking.
By that I mean we must constantly
evaluate our program and its ele-
ments to determine what direction
to take and where to focus our lim-
ited resources—while remembering
our past successes. This approach
allows us to maintain a positive per-
spective while striving to make
things better. The MTBE problem
has taught us the value of being
proactive and not reactive, and I
hope that we can carry that lesson
into the era of widespread use of
ethanol blends.
We need to focus on communi-
cation, training, and inspections
before focusing on enforcement. It is
our job to make sure that the regu-
lated community knows what we are
asking them to do and why. We
should also seek out ways to help
them stay in compliance.
I also strongly believe it is essen-
tial that we work cooperatively with
the members of industry, owners
and operators, and inspectors to gain
a better understanding of the effec-
tiveness of equipment at operating
stations. We can then use that infor-
mation to guide ourselves through
the development of any future
requirements.
Ben Thomas (1986) -
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Everything I know
about tanks systems I learned work-
ing with "mom and pop" operators.
Some of the key lessons include:
• Can we detect a problem? Leak
detection doesn't detect leaks, it
simply frustrates operators. Tank
pulls are still the most reliable
method of leak detection.
• The rules are too complicated.
Today's leak detection options use
high-tech systems for low-tech
operators, meaning most opera-
tors cannot do leak detection cor-
rectly because the requirements
are simply too difficult to main-
tain.
• Diligence detects leaks, not
equipment. Leak detection is only
as good as the diligence of those
who are watching for leaks.
• Streamline the program. The reg-
ulations are simply too compli-
cated for operators to manage. I
vote to simplify the program in the
following ways: 1) Mandatory
double-walled tanks with continu-
ous, not monthly, monitoring;
2) Mandatory suction piping, and
3) All deliveries monitored by
both operator and driver. Phase
out single-walled tanks and pres-
surized piping over a 10-year
period.
Field inspections forever. Assum-
ing the streamline approach sug-
gested in the previous bullet is not
realistic to implement, then the
best thing we can do now is man-
date periodic inspections to
increase the national field pres-
ence of inspectors and use effec-
tive incentives, such as tags, to
discourage complacency. A state's
ability to do both will best define
whether or not they have safe
tanks.
Lynn Woodard (1988) -
New Hampshire DES What have I
learned about UST systems? They
leak! In 1985 we were fortunate to
be able to require double-walled
containment for all new UST sys-
tems. That probably was the best
thing we could have done, along
with establishing a cleanup fund.
But you have to have a strong
enforcement program to make a
cleanup fund work, otherwise
you'll be wasting money because
owners and operators will tend not
to comply. All of the money spent
on improving the UST infrastruc-
ture for the 1998 deadline will be
for naught if we don't have compli-
ance.
With regard to tank installation,
the contractors were killing us— cut-
ting corners and changing specified
products. We had to train them. We
started to review plans and to be on
site prior to backfilling of the system
to make sure that construction was
in accordance with the approved
design. We had to make believers of
the contractors. They had to know
we were serious. We'would halt pro-
jects until necessary changes were
made. Because of this, I think we got
a better product.
Herb Meade (1978) -
Maryland Department of the Environ-
ment What immediately comes to
mind is that containment sumps
should be mandatory for under the
dispenser and on the tank top. The
key is to come up with a design that
keeps the water out! Also, we need
• continued on page 8
-------
LUSTLiiie Bulletin 3S
m Dispensing Wisdom
continued from page 7
double-walled piping. In Mary-
land, 60 percent or more of our fail-
ures are piping. Double-walled
tanks are also a good option, but
there is a very good single-walled,
fiberglass-clad steel tank that we
have never seen fail, and the
technology has been around since
about 1981. I'd want to see that
option remain.
In terms of tank upgrading, tank
lining certainly hasn't worked in this
state. Impressed current cathodic
protection was hastily installed, and
tank owners are now paying the
price for that with ongoing tank fail-
ure and releases into the environ-
ment.
One really good thing we did in
Maryland was to require tank
installer and remover certification. It
got a lot of the fly-by-nighters out of
the loop and notched up the profes-
sionalism of the companies that do
the work.
55ES Clark Conklin (1986) -
Nebraska Fire Marshal's Office
Looking back over the years, there
are several matters that I wish we
had handled differently:
• Tank upgrading should either
have not been allowed or more
oversight should have been
required. It appears that there
have been a number of upgrade
contractors who may have been
too hurried to get to the next job,
thus leaving the last one without
the quality control we had all
hoped for.
• The decision to not require inter-
nal inspections of tank linings
when cathodic protection (CP)
was added (in the upgrade
process) was, in my opinion, irre-
sponsible. This released all lining
contractors from virtually any lia-
bility for failed linings. The CP
contractors are going to take the
fall (at least initially) for tank fail-
ures.
• Generally, the independent (mom
and pop) tank owner has been
removed from most compliance
issues as they do not have tike time
8
or the technical expertise to fully
understand the requirements (at
least here in rural America). While
most of the regulatory dialog is
between the regulator and the
contractor, all of the responsibility
for compliance falls on the owner.
It wouldn't surprise me if owners
might think that there is some
kind of a conspiracy between the
regulators and the contractors,
based on the fact that the regula-
tor directs him to comply with
something he doesn't understand
and his contractor makes him pay
for it.
• Then there are the state cleanup
funds. Because of the high cost of
remediation, the funds allow the
cleanup of contaminated sites to
actually occur. Many tank owners,
such as those I've just been talking
about, do not have the resources
or the insurance coverage to pay
the bill for site cleanup. However,
think about this for a minute. The
tank owner has a leak. The regula-
tors rush in and require hoards of
outside contractors to repair, eval-
uate, drill, calculate, and propose
fixes that are based on MCLs,
RBSLs, and other unexplained
acronyms. The regulator then
arrives on the scene, checkbook in
hand, and pays for the cleanup.
Where is the incentive for tank
owners when the government and
the contractors are in control of
the-entire process?
• Contractors do the work, but
when it's done incorrectly or not
at all the tank owner is penalized.
Some regulatory responsibility
needs to be shared by tike contrac-
tors if they are playing such a
large part in this process.
• There are many problems with
leak detection techniques. The UC
Davis study (Field Verification of
UST System Leak Detection Perfor-
mance) bears this out. Many folks
feel that secondary containment is
the best solution to cure leak
detection's many ills. I'm not nec-
essarily convinced that this is
always true. Tighter (^develop-
ment of third-party protocols and
stricter enforcement of leak detec-
tion requirements would go a
long way in helping detect
releases.
New regulations will not answer
all the questions and will certainly
cause new questions to be asked.
What we really need is to diligently
enforce the requirements through
field actions and more of a hands-on
approach. Inspectors need more time
in the field with the tank owners, less
paper trail loop holes, stricter
enforcement strategies, and better
training. Face to face inspection,
enforcement, investigation, and train-
ing is what we need.
David McCaskill (1986) -
Maine DEP In my experience, to
have an effective UST program you
must have siting requirements, sec-
ondary containment, and a certified
installer program. In other words,
location matters, no tank has the
right to leak. And for Pete's sake,
doesn't it make sense that you need
a license to install a system that
contains the most toxic and flam-
mable substance that the general
public will routinely be exposed to?
Gary Blackburn (1979) -
Kansas DHE One of my responsi-
bilities when I first started working
at the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment was to investigate
complaints regarding fuel contami-
nation of water wells, sewers, and
other structures. This was before
UST regulations, and we performed
most of the work using a small drill
rig the agency owned. As a geolo-
gist it was a great experience to
travel around the state drilling out
sites. I learned through this work
that most UST sites have had
releases to some extent. Often the
source of this contamination was
obvious, but other times it appeared
to be from an accumulation of spills
or a past release.
Release Prevention
In recent years, there has been much
discussion on whether the new
release detection technologies for
tanks are detecting leaks as intended.
This concern stems from the fact that
new releases are still being discov-
ered. In reality, I believe most of the
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
release detection systems probably
meet their design specifications of
either .1 or .2 gallons per hour when
the systems are actually used. Based
on those release detection standards,
a tank system can theoretically
release between 876 and 1,752 gal-
lons per year and still comply with
the regulations. Add to this the fact
that a considerable number of UST
facility employees who are responsi-
ble for operating the systems are not
well trained. So it is easy to see that
we haven't worked ourselves out of
a job yet.
The performance standards
established by EPA are a huge step
in the right direction, but I don't
think those who developed them
ever thought these regulations
would eliminate tank releases com-
pletely. They were only the first step
in a program that will require us to
continue to monitor systems and to
respond to the releases that we dis-
cover.
I don't believe that it is reason-
able to ask tank owners to again
invest in more advanced systems
than what have been installed under
the current laws. I am not convinced
that an affordable system exists or
can be developed that could com-
pletely eliminate releases. We should
first employ methods to determine if
all of the active systems have been
upgraded to the current standards
and that the required release detec-
tion activities are being performed.
I am confident that the vast
majority of active UST facilities in
Kansas have been upgraded with the
equipment required by the 1998 stan-
dard. This confidence comes from
our UST permitting program and
licensing of installation contractors.
To complement the permitting, we
had a targeted inspection program to
check all of the systems that were not
upgraded to ensure that they were
taken out of service. During the 2000
and 2001 permitting process, Kansas
has required that tank owners who
perform a monthly monitoring
method of release detection submit
evidence that the system is actually
being operated properly. They must
submit copies of their tank monitor-
ing or SIR reports with their annual
registration.
Corrective Action
The other element that has been
incorporated into the Kansas pro-
gram is a realization that the active
UST facilities will continue to create
contamination, even when operating
according to the program require-
ments. With this in mind, Kansas has
used a priority ranking system since
1992 to determine the appropriate
corrective action for each site.
For example, it makes little sense
to perform a $100,000 cleanup at an
active fuel dispensing facility that
poses no risk to the public. The site is
most likely going to cause additional
contamination after the cleanup is
complete. A more practical approach
is to install a monitoring system and
perform monitoring with free prod-
uct recovery to manage the facility as
a contaminated site with the goal of
preventing the plume from migrat-
ing to a receptor. This type of site
management is possible because
Kansas uses a state-managed trust
fund as a financial responsibility
method. The sunset date for the
Kansas fund has been extended to
2014.
Where a site poses a risk to water
supplies or other receptors, the site
will obviously need a more compre-
hensive remedial response. The
Kansas program has focused on per-
forming source area remedial mea-
sures to remove the largest mass of
contamination with the least effort
and cost. Rather than trying to cap-
ture plumes by chasing them with
pump-and-treat or elaborate air
sparging systems, we require exten-
sive monitoring around threatened
water supplies so that treatment sys-
tems can be installed where neces-
sary. If possible, the well owners are
encouraged not to use the wells until
the cleanup is complete. Where areas
are served by private wells, the
response is often to extend public
water to the threatened parties.
The move many states have
made to RBCA-based standards is a
step in the right direction. However,
closing sites where active tanks are
in use may not be a sound decision if
you believe, as I do, that the UST sys-
tems are likely to release fuel again
in the future. This contamination
may not be from the UST system per
se but may result from surface spills.
In many cases, we have been leav-
ing most of the monitoring wells and
remedial system piping in place at
facilities where a future release is
likely. The suggestion has also been
made that UST owners should install
soil vapor extraction (SVE) piping
with their new tanks and lines. Since
the tank systems must be installed in
granular material, the SVE systems
should work very well if needed in
the future. If the SVE pump is
installed, periodic operation would
allow for testing of the effluent to
determine if a release has occurred
and can provide ongoing vapor
removal if operated on a regular basis.
The number of releases discov-
ered across the nation remains high
for several reasons. Many of the
releases reported to Kansas are dis-
covered from the systems that were
taken out of service prior to the new
rules. Much of the concern about con-
tamination being detected around
new tank systems may actually be
that the prior systems leaked and the
environmental assessment did not
detect the release when the old tanks
were removed. In Kansas, the vast
majority of assessments have been
performed by agency staff, who have
confirmed a very high percentage of
releases. I am convinced that a large
number of contaminated sites from
historical USTs will continue to be
discovered as real estate develop-
ment takes place.
Risk Management for Tanks
All of the state and local agencies are
limited by budgetary concerns, so
limited resources must be used
where the maximum benefit can be
realized. The UST programs should
be operated with a risk management
focus. To accomplish this, the first
step is to determine where the most
significant risks are within your state
and then to work with all of the
stakeholders to manage those risks.
A real priority should be to
determine where fuel is stored in
high risk locations, such as near pub-
lic water supply wells, and then to
direct more resources toward reduc-
ing those potential risks.
Each state should work within
its system to establish the safeguards
that work best with the local geology
and politics. I don't believe that new
national regulations are the answer
to the continuing releases from
tanks. I think it's time for the states
to fine-tune their programs to meet
the overall goal of public safety.
What are your thoughts? •
-------
WSTLine Bulletin 3S
The Sense of Secondary
Containment
by Wayne Geyer
"\ TaS8^lS revelations ofMTBE in groundwater have undermined the tenets of
I \ I gasoline behavior in the environment and set off a flurry of activity among
JL \ UST regulators and state and federal legislators. How could we get into this
position when so much time and effort went into upgrading underground storage tank
(UST) systems? And while a great deal of attention has been directed toward the effec-
tiveness and proper design of leak detection to meet federal requirements, there is still
concern that the leak detection equipment that is in place may not be operated or main-
tained properly. As a result, many UST systems may operate as if they had no leak
detection.
One solution to this problem is to install equipment that will passively contain a
release before it can permeate into the environment. Clearly, secondary containment
tank and piping systems have performed this function effectively and continue to rep-
resent the state of the art for containing petroleum releases. Secondary containment
makes good sense from both an environmental and a business standpoint.
Both fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) and steel double-walled tanks are now
well established in the market place, but single-walled systems are still out there in
abundance. STI records indicate that over 60 percent of new tanks bearing the STI
label are of single-ivalled construction. I'd like to take this opportunity to stroll down
secondary containment lane. As a representative of the steel tank industry, I'll discuss
the sense of secondary containment using steel tank examples (of course).
Dual-Wall Tanks
Secondary containment tanks first
appeared in the United States in the
early 1980s, when certain local and
state jurisdictions were beginning to
investigate and promulgate rules for
hazardous wastes and chemical stor-
age. Secondary containment was one
of the solutions.
In California, the first secondary
containment steel tanks were termed
Type II double-walled tanks. The two
walls of steel were physically sepa-
rated with angles or channels to cre-
ate an annular interstice of several
inches. The goal of this design was to
create an enclosure that would hold
110 percent containment of the pri-
mary tank capacity.
But these systems were costly
and bulky, and the industry needed
a more cost-effective design. The
industry soon realized that there was
no need to contain 110 percent of the
tank's capacity—100 percent was
sufficient. Later, with the introduc-
tion of fill-limiting devices designed
to stop incoming deliveries to 90 or
95 percent of the tank capacity, sec-
ondary containment tanks with 95
10
percent containment were also
accepted.
In 1984, the Steel Tank Institute
(STI) introduced the first national
construction standard for secondary
containment tanks. It provided a
design for a Type I, intimate wrap
steel secondary containment tank,
with several alternative construction
methods for enabling the interstice to
be monitored for releases (i.e., liquid
or pressure sensors). The standard
even allowed for a simple gauge stick
to be lowered into a monitoring pipe.
The STI standard was based on
German technology. In Germany,
secondary containment had already
been in use for a number of years. As
a matter of fact, the Germans really
didn't regulate corrosion protection
at that time. As long as secondary
containment was in place to prevent
a release, the time to replace a system
that failed due to corrosion was
merely an economic decision and not
an environmental concern. STI
adapted the German construction
methods to American tank produc-
tion methods in order to create the
Dual-Wall Tank Standard.
A year later, changes were initi-
ated to incorporate secondary con-
tainment into Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) listing UL 58, the
primary steel UST construction stan-
dard. Several UL listings for dual-
wall tanks had already been issued
prior to 1985 for both the steel and
FRP tank industries.
The Jacketed Tank
Around 1987, nonmetallic secondary
containment on steel tanks emerged
as a popular concept. A thick poly-
ethylene material was wrapped over
the tank, and a polyethylene spacer
created the interstice between the
two materials. The idea of using plas-
tic over a steel tank was actually con-
ceived many years earlier for the
purpose of corrosion protection, not
containment. Around 1970, many
steel tanks were wrapped with thin,
overlapping plastic sheets sealed
together by duct tape in the field.
One such system was called Poly-
Wrap. By keeping soil and water
away from the steel surface, corro-
sion could be successfully impeded.
The Poly-Wrap system did
inhibit corrosion in many cases, but
lost popularity because it required
installation under less than perfect
field conditions, making it particu-
larly dependent on installer care and
expertise. It eventually faded from
the market, to be replaced by more
sophisticated corrosion control sys-
tems. The newer poly-
ethylene material used
to provide secondary
containment was much
thicker than Poly-
Wrap. The sheets
of plastic were
fused together
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
with, a plastic welding machine at the
factory to make it testable and capa-
ble of containing releases. By 1989, it
became a viable product in the mar-
ketplace.
In that same year, Underwriters
Laboratories published their UL 1746
standard. The third part of the stan-
dard provided a test protocol for
nonmetallic containment of steel
tanks and coined the term "jacketed
tank."
STI tested several prototypes for
secondary containment of steel USTs.
We tried coated fabric material that
had to be sewn together. When filled
with air it looked like a zeppelin.
When emptied of air it turned into a
wrinkled baggie. Strike one!
We tested different coatings that
were sprayed through various forms
of geotechnical reinforcement materi-
als. Great ideas, since they could be
used in conjunction with existing
coating equipment in the shop. But
we just couldn't permanently seal the
system. Strike two!
How about using FRP? Compos-
ite tanks had already been accepted in
the market by buyers and were
allowed in the 40 CFR Part 280 envi-
ronmental regulations (ACT-100).
Historically, an FRP coating had been
shown to be an effective method for
corrosion control (originating in the
1968 STI specification for STI-LIFE
tanks).
Instead of bonding the FRP to
the steel to form a coating, however,
we decided to separate the two and
create an interstice to contain
releases. The interstice could be
monitored for releases while also
assuring corrosion control. Home
Run! By 1990, several companies had
begun testing their products through
UL to acquire a listing for an FRP-
jacketed steel tank.
Getting Better All the Time
The jacketed tank and the dual-wall
steel tank rely on the primary or inner
steel tank for structural integrity to
hold the product in an underground
environment. The outer containment
must be strong enough to be handled
at the job site and in the soil without
losing its integrity. With the jacketed
tank, the material must withstand
various chemical/soil environments.
All of the tanks must be testable and
able to communicate a release to a
monitoring device. Approximately
IE.
The truth of the matter is that as
long as the human element is
involved, mistakes can still be
made. Secondary containment adds
^ a reliable measure to protect the
environment against such
occurrencjes.
one of three STI-labeled secondary
containment USTs are of jacketed
construction and two of three are
dual wall steel.
Today, new materials continue to
evolve and to be developed for use as
secondary containment. Usually, the
first step into the marketplace is to
pass the UL 1746, Part III test proce-
dure.
While fewer than 10 states man-
date secondary containment for reg-
ulated USTs, use of the technology
continues to grow—nearly 50 per-,
cent of all steel USTs made in the
USA today are believed to be sec-
ondary containment tanks. When the
EPA regulations were first promul-
gated in 1988, this number was closer
to 15 percent.
Even greater strides have been
made outside the United States. In
many countries, tank buyers have
leaped from buying unpro-
tected steel tanks to buying
corrosion-protected sec-
ondary containment tanks.
Mexico is nearly complete
with its secondary contain-
ment tank system upgrade
program. The most popular
STI-labeled tank installed in
Mexico is the dual wall sti-P3
tank.
The European Commu-
nity issued a series of laws
that apply to all member
countries, similar to the man-
ner in which the U.S. EPA
UST program is applied to all
states. One of these laws is
through the Construction
Products Directive (CPD). One way to
ensure compliance with essential
CPD requirements is to build prod-
ucts to harmonized standards.
The European Standards body,
CEN, recently published a harmo-
nized standard EN 12285-1 for the
construction details of underground
steel storage tanks. An appendix lists
all the "water-polluting liquids" nor-
mally stored underground and
includes a determination of whether
the liquid is considered dangerous
enough to mandate a double-walled
tank with leak detection. Gasoline is
considered dangerous and therefore
all European Community partici-
pants' tanks that store gasoline must
be of double-walled construction
with leak detection.
The province of Ontario in
Canada is about to adopt a sec-
ondary containment mandate. Yet in
the United States, nearly one of every
two steel tanks built and sold is of
single-walled construction.
Where the Sense Comes In
I can think of four key reasons why
the use of secondary containment for
petroleum storage should be a patent
no brainer. It provides the following:
• Containment to prevent a release
into soil and all the undesirable
elements that go with a release—
report writing, cleanup, lawsuits,
business interruptions;
• An extra insurance policy, just in
case the tank was improperly
installed or maintained;
• Peace of mind; and
• State-of-the-art technology.
STEEL SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT TANKS
Percentage of STI-labeled USTs since 1990, representing
over one billion gallons of storage capacity installed.
Secondary
Containment
34.6%
Representing one segment of the
petroleum equipment manufacturing
industry, our industry likes to think
that our systems are infallible. But the
truth of the matter is that as long as
the human element is involved, mis-
takes can still be made. Secondary
containment adds a reliable measure
• continued on page 23
11
-------
It Can Do That?
Florida's Prescription for Identifying a Facility's
Release Detection Method and Having Some
Confidence That It Actually Works
by Ernest Roggelin and Joseph Sowers
"ft is another hot and humid morning in Pinellas County, Florida. The UST inspector strides to the counter of a convenience
I store. He identifies himself and explains that he is there to conduct the routine annual compliance inspection. He then moves
JL outside to complete tasks that include visually inspecting dispenser interiors, subsurface piping areas, spill containment buck-
ets. He takes the customary peek into the drop tube to ensure that no gauging stick has been strategically stored there.
Now that the "physical" portion of the inspection is done, the inspector turns his focus to recordkeeping requirements and the
automatic tank gauge (ATG) system, which the facility has reported as its primary method of release detection its USTs. The inspec-
tor inquires as to the location of the ATG controller.
"You mean the box that prints out the little slips? " replied the clerk. "It's in the back here."
As the inspector approaches the unit he notes that it must be Christmas in July. Not only is the green power indicator lit but the
yelloio warning and red alarm indicators are flashing. Hanging from the box is a slip of thermal paper with the word "FAIL" - the
result of the static test for Tl (read as Tank 1) completed the previous weekend. Back to the counter.
"Did you realize that the unit in the back is in alarm?" asks the inspector.
"You mean the flashing lights?" answers the clerk. "Been like that for weeks now. It also has an irritating buzzer that goes off
every morning, but that's pretty easy to turn off."
"Do you understand that 'the box' is indicating that Tank 1 has a leak? " says the inspector.
"Really?" says the clerk with amazement. "I didn't know it could do that!"
The Reality of Rules
The above scenario is repeated more
than any regulator would like, and
definitely more often than owner/
operators are willing to admit. There
are many owner/operators out there
who don't know the capabilities of
their release detection equipment or
whose "clerks" who don't know
what to do when the lights and
buzzers go off—or both! With the
inception of a revised rule in July of
1998, the State of Florida made an
attempt to limit this. But before we
get to that, a little background.
Since the inception of the Florida
Department of Environmental Pro-
tection's (DEP's) storage tank system
rules in 1984, there have been
requirements for owner/operators to
provide and monitor their varying
forms of release detection. In the
early years of the program, most
owner/operators chose groundwa-
ter-monitoring wells as their method
of leak detection. The options have
changed with the technological
advances in both storage tank sys-
tems and monitoring methods.
_
Currently, about half of the USTs
in Florida have secondary contain-
ment with interstitial monitoring, the
other half must have secondary con-
tainment by 2010. Facilities with sin-
gle-walled petroleum storage
systems in Florida can select from the
following leak detection options: sta-
tistical inventory reconciliation with
3-year tank precision tightness test-
ing, continuous automatic tank gaug-
ing (ATG), static ATG with
three-year tank precision tightness
testing, vacuum/sensor/visual mon-
itoring, annual system tightness
testing with daily inventory reconcili-
ation, groundwater or vapor moni-
toring wells, manual tank gauging,
and either mechanical or electronic
line leak detectors.
The basic tenet of Florida's tank
program has been to eliminate, or
more realistically to reduce, the pres-
ence and associated effects of petro-
leum in and on the environment.
Florida classifies petroleum releases
into incidents (suspicion) and dis-
charges (confirmation), requiring
reporting procedures that generate a
timely "contain, remove, and abate"
response. The compliance inspector
in essence charts facility history and,
through an ongoing educational
process, helps the owner/operator
understand what is required to
achieve and maintain compliance.
Occasionally a stronger nudge via the
enforcement process is necessary to
encourage compliance.
No More Excuses
During the period spanning 1984
through early 1998, compliance
inspectors observed interesting
release detection field conditions and
listened to a variety of excuses dur-
ing the course of their inspections.
Findings and excuses included the
inability to find all the wells, locks
rusted shut, submerged sensors, no
keys to the dispenser, burnt out panel
lights, "it's been like that for weeks,"
units hidden behind the stacked soda
cases, no tapes, silenced alarms, "it
always flashes," or no concept of
what constitutes a valid release
detection method. But again, the
inspector is an "after the fact"
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
examiner of release detection history.
With the July 13,1998, update to
Florida's storage tank system rule,
facilities now have to provide a
Release Detection Response Level
(RDRL) document. The rule requires
that "A RDRL shall be described in
writing for each method or combina-
tion of methods of release detection
used for a storage tank system."
No longer are the excuses "I
didn't know what to do" or "What
does that mean?" valid for the
owner/operator. The RDRL can
range from a simple checklist to a
more complex response action docu-
ment. For each facility, owners and
operators must provide the following
information about release detection:
what method they have, what it does,
and when they are supposed to do
something.
A generic checklist was initially
developed by the Hillsborough
County Environmental Protection
Commission tank staff and later
adopted by the DEP as a tool for the
field inspector to give to a facility
owner/operator. The checklist can be
as simple as: method - visual moni-
toring of sumps; action - observation
of water above the piping penetra-
tion level or the presence of free
product. Or, it could be as sophisti-
cated as the Amerada Hess Corpora-
tion's "Leak Detection Monitoring
Procedures." These laminated cards
provide classifications for 34 differ-
ent release detection combinations in
Hess's Florida UST systems, describe
tank and piping construction, list the
pertinent leak detection method, and
on a daily/weekly/monthly basis,
list the responsibilities of facility staff,
along with required documentation
and reporting obligations.
On to Repair, Operation, and
Maintenance
Once owners and operators suppos-
edly knew how their release detec-
tion systems worked and when they
are supposed to initiate a response,
Florida began to focus on the
mechanical/electronic portions of
these systems—do they actually
work as intended, or not? In the
Repair, Operation, and Maintenance
section of the rule, there is a require-
ment that:
"All release detection devices shall
be tested annually to ensure
proper operation. The test shall be
Did you realize that the unit in the back is in alarm?
conducted according to manufac-
turer's specifications and shall
include, at a minimum, a determi-
nation of whether the device oper-
• ates as designed."
In Pinellas County, we have
interpreted this requirement to mean
that the owner/operator of the facil-
ity must demonstrate that the sensor
or detector actually functions versus
simply receiving a "pass" test report.
On a monthly basis, an owner/oper-
ator may be testing an alarm horn, a
panel light, or reading an ATG-con-
troller history report.
For the annual test, we want to
see the owner/operator place the sys-
tem into alarm and have the compo-
nent detect the condition. It can be as
simple as observing facility personnel
invert a float sensor and noting that
the ATG-panel went into alarm on-
site or at a remote location. Recently,
Tanknology, Inc. has begun using a
detailed Monitoring System Certifica-
tion form, based on a California
reporting requirement. The multi-
page form provides for an equipment
inventory, as well as a step-by-step
results-of-testing checklist.
There has been some controversy
regarding the phrase "according to
manufacturer's specifications." Spe-
cifically, an ATG-controller manufac-
turer indicated to the DEP that
annual testing is not required for its
equipment. They assured the agency
that nonauthorized personnel han-
dling of the equipment might void
the warranty. The Florida DEP's legal
section responded by stating that the
rule requires annual testing, regard-
less of the manufacturer's claims. If
no specified method exists, then a test
method must be developed by the
facility.
Have Our Requirements
Helped?
Hmm, sort of, maybe, yes? The RDRL
requirement has made it clearer to
the inspector what the primary
release detection method or methods
are for a facility. It has also caused
owner/operators to think through
their release detection options and
formulate a "check list" that shows
personnel what to look at and when
further action is required. Granted
• continued on page 14
-------
LUSTLiue Bulletin 38
m It Can Do That?
continued from page 13
this requirement is more effective for
the conscientious owner/operator.
Alas, there are still instances when
"alarms" have gone off, and store
personnel still have made no attempt
to take appropriate action.
With regard to the annual testing
of release detection devices, we have
an increased level of comfort that the
systems are functioning. All of this
leads to additional recordkeeping
requirements, and we can state with
heartfelt certainty that record reviews
continue to be the bane of the UST
inspection. How much detail do you
want to see—per tank, per product,
daily, weekly, monthly, annual, back
to the last inspection, or for the past
two years? Records also continue to
be a significant part of the noncom-
pliance problem.
For example, during the period of
July 1999 through March 2000, Pinel-
las County performed 567 annual
compliance inspections out of a total
of 727 inspections. This timeframe
began one year after the rule revision
took effect. Total noncompliance
items written numbered 1,835. The
prominent noncompliance categories
were incomplete records availability
(22%), no demonstration of financial
responsibility (8%), no RDRL (5%),
lack of annual release detection test-
ing (5%), lack of monthly visual exam
(4%), liquids in sump/liners (4%),
incomplete monthly release detection
(4%), lack of line-leak detector testing
(3%), incomplete repairs (3%), inci-
dents not reported (2%), and failure to
upgrade (1%).
Then there is Florida's shift away
from the state-funded reimburse-
ment program for discharges
reported on/after January 1, 1999.
Corrective action coverage is now
handled as part of the petroleum lia-
bility insurance package that the
facility must possess. Has this change
in funding put a damper the
owner/operator's incentive to report
a discharge? Owners know that
reporting a release leads to site
assessment and remediation tasks.
The discovery of an incident simi-
larly leads to an investigation, all
with a financial burden on the facil-
ity. In contrast, failure to file an inci-
dent report represents a minor
violation, not a significant threat of
14
penalty to insure timely reporting by
the facility.
During the period of January
2000 through April 2001, Pinellas
County received 235 incident notifi-
cations. Of that number, 22 were con-
firmed to represent a discharge event
(2 AST overfills, 14 closures, 3 con-
tractor accidents, 1 line failure, 1 AST
siphon event, and 1 unknown). The
remaining incidents included 43 SIR
failure or consecutive inconclusive
results, 63 visual or sensor liquid-
presence alarms in sumps or dis-
penser liners,. 12 tank interstice
alarms, 3 overfills, 2 PLLD alarms, 4
failed tightness tests, 75 ATG-alarms
for failed leak rate, 18 closure-related,
and 13 other.
'-,'•' It still boils down in the end to
t
education. While we might like to
think that it is easier to takejhe
1 "traffic cop approach" — it is their
n business and they should have
i ) ;
known better—the fact is, we are
I not traffic cops, and enforcement is
"much more complicated and time
M I I III ' f J I11 | n m liiin
consuming than merely
I
1 writing a ticket.
What does all of this represent?
A cynical view would be that nothing
has changed and that the inspectors
are still noting the same issues. The
types of records have changed. We
now. have electronics, the supposed
cure-all for continuously monitoring
the status of a system. There is just
more to go wrong now. There are
more records to look at, and there is
another level of quality assurance to
be confirmed by the facility. On the
plus side, there are a lot more secon-
darily protected systems, and release
detection is picking up events (e.g.,
product/liquid in sump and dis-
penser liners, water/mud in tank
interstice)—the 213 incidents that did
not result in a discharge are signifi-
cant in their own right.
Still Boils Down to Education
With all our requirements and the
sophistication/diversity of release
detection equipment, it still boils
down in the end to education. While
we might like to think that it is easier
to take the "traffic cop approach" —
it is their business and they should
have known better—the fact is, we
are not traffic cops, and enforcement
is much more complicated and time
consuming than merely writing a
ticket. Let's remember that there are
some basic truths associated with the
UST world:
• Many owners who have no prior
business experience, let alone
petroleum storage experience,
continue to purchase facilities.
• Release detection systems can be
complex.
• Reading and comprehending our
rules can be daunting, to say the
least.
• Education reflects the true mis-
sion of our jobs—protecting the
ground and surface waters of our
state.
• The effort to educate fosters the
perception that we as regulators
are there to help and not just to
"hammer."
• Educating owners, for the most
part, brings the facility into com-
pliance and makes next year's
inspection "easier."
So given our UST requirements, the
myriad of release detection options,
and the relentless turnover in facility
personnel, it seems fairly certain that
the inspecting agency will continue
to be (depending on your point of
view) charged or saddled with the
job of either providing the training or
being the impetus for the facility to
improve its level of training and per-
formance. •
Ernest M. Roggelin is an Environmen-
tal Manager over Pinellas County's
Storage Tank Compliance and Petro-
leum Cleanup programs. Joseph A.
Sowers is an Environmental Specialist
III performing CIS/Enforcement
Tracking/Technical Support, along
with inspector-training for the Florida
DEP. The Environmental Engineering
Division of the Pinellas County Health
Department contracts with the Florida
DEP to inspect 777 facilities with
2,084 UST/ASTs. There are three
field inspectors.
-------
LUSTL1N
KlRTS
Back of shirt
Short
sleeve
shirt
new WACKY designs
created by LUSTLine cartoonist, HankAho
TWO colors... red and black
TWO versions... long and short sleeve
Front of shirt
Long sleeve $17.00
Short sleeve $13.00
Sizes: M, L, X, XXL
TO ORPKRJ 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
Tel: (978) 323-7929 • Fax: (978) 323-7919
LUSTLINE ORDER FORM
Q One-year subscription. $1 8.00.
Q Federal, state, or local government. Exempt from fee. (If you wish to have LUSTLine sent to your home, please submit
your request on agency letterhead.)
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 #"s _
Q Please send me a LUSTLine Index.
Name _ _ Company/Agency _
Address
Please enclose a check or money order (drawn on a U.S. bank) 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.
-------
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
Enforcement
Selling the Healthy Choice
The Human Side of UST Enforcement
by Jackie Poston
Editor's note: This article is based on a
presentation Jackie gave at the 2001
UST/LUST National Conference in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. That presen-
tation was an appetizer of sorts for the
"Full Meal Deal" panel on Operations
and Maintenance (O&M).
One of the biggest challenges
regulators face is getting the
attention of tank owners. A
typical UST owner/operator faces an
ever-changing kaleidoscope of regu-
lations from a multitude of agencies
at local, state, and federal levels. In
reality, we live in a busy and compli-
cated society, one in which business
owners, like it or not, have to adapt.
As regulators, we need to be cog-
nizant of this uniquely human
dilemma, because, like it or not,
we're bobbing around in the same
boat.
To illustrate my point about our
mutual humanness, I offer this quiz:
• Look at the time. Are you wearing
a watch? Can you recite and/or
produce the warranty and techni-
cal information that came with it?
• Have you read a copy of your
vehicle manual in the past couple
of years, and have you had all the
recommended periodic mainte-
nance performed?
• How about the details of your car -
insurance? Do your know your
deductibles and amounts of cov-
erage?
• Do you know the details of you
homeowner's policy?
If you didn't keep paperwork
and warranty for the watch, you have
a lot in common with many tank
owners. You probably figured it
would operate for a long time, cer-
tainly for the warranty period. Or
you may have felt that if it did give
out, the cost wouldn't outweigh the
risk of not sending in the warranty
card—something like the thinking of
many an UST owner.
How about your insurance pre-
mium? Do you know the terms and
details of your coverage? Do you
trust the insurance expert to provide
you with the coverage you
requested? Most of us do. How many
owners and operators have invested
in equipment and trusted the
installer to provide them with what-
ever the regulations require?
Now you may say, "Yes, but a
tank system is a much bigger invest-
ment than a watch or an insurance
policy." I agree, but not reading the
fine print is, well, all too human. But
then again, I've found, and studies
have shown, that once people are
informed and "get it" and under-
stand the consequences, they're more
likely to comply. The percentage of
people wearing seatbelts demon-
strates this concept.
The Full-Meal Deal
So how does a regulator go about the
business of enforcement today? With
federal regulations in effect now for
over 10 years, owner/operator
"hand-holding" may not be as crucial
as it was in the past. However, it is
imperative that as we enforce the reg1
ulations, we do so in a considerate
yet effective manner. Inspectors in
today's world need to be able to
"hold-hands" by shaking with their
left hand and writing a citation with
their right hand. It's a social art akin
to that of delivering hot coffee on a
high wire. So how do we do this?
As regulators, we need to focus
on how we go about selling, yes, sell-
ing, our product—operational com-
pliance. To do this we must begin to
think about how we do what we do
in our encounters with the regulated
community during inspections and
other interactions. Whether we "reg-
ulate" through education and assis-
tance or by taking enforcement
actions, we are selling a product, and
we can only succeed if the regulated
community "buys!"
To get our teeth around the busi-
ness of UST inspections, let's try
thinking in terms of food—the "full-
meal deal." The basic elements of the
full meal deal are:
• Regulations and associated guid-
ance,
• Communication, and
• Guiding principles.
Knowledge of regulations and
associated guidance is critical, and
you must be fluent enough in this
area to go on "auto-pilot." It's not
imperative that we know every detail
of all regulations, policies, and so
forth, but we should be familiar
enough with them to be able to navi-
gate our way through appropriate
reference materials. This represents
the main menu—the burger and the
fries.
Communication is the vehicle
that brings the regulations and guid-
ance to life. It's the grill on which the
food is cooked! It's the tool used to
convey the rules and regulations—
the outreach publications and docu-
ments.
But it's the presentation that
really counts— serving up the food
and bringing it to the table. The prin-
ciples that guide our delivery are the
elements necessary for making the
burger and fries so appealing that the
customer can't wait to dive in. We all
know how "bad service" in a restau-
rant can result in a negative dining
experience—food is never quite as
appetizing as it might have been and
guests are less inclined to return. As
regulators, we too need to serve up
• continued on page 16
15
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 33
• The Healthy Choice
continued from page 15
our agenda in such a way that people
feel positive and want to comply.
I understand the difficulties
inherent in balancing compassion
with consequence and compliance
assistance with enforcement. Deliver-
ing the right mix is unique to each sit-
uation—there will always be
circumstances that require nothing
less than standard enforcement.
The Sales Pitch
So, how can we reach owners and
operators? How can we make them
care? And what are we trying to
achieve with operational compli-
ance? Is it about taking people out of
the equation or having them take
responsibility? For this program to
really work, I think the answer must
be the latter. As our technocracy
busily tries to develop the most fool-
proof UST technology to operate
independently of people, I firmly
believe that we must work harder to
involve people.
Operational compliance is all
about changing UST owner/operator
behavior to ensure that their facility's
environmental safeguards function.
Individuals will comply either
because they want to or because they
have to. Does it matter which? I think
it does. Ideally, compliance should be
born from the clear understanding
that it is highly desirable to prevent
releases!
It's up to us to provide a com-
pelling argument, or "sales pitch" if
you will, so that when an
owner/operator approaches the
"Full Meal Buffet," he/she makes
"healthy choices!" What can we do to
effectively market the operational
compliance of USTs? Lef s dissect the
steps mentioned earlier a bit more.
Communication and guiding
principles consist of the following
stages:
* Listen and observe.
• Speak so you are heard.
• Deliver your message.
• Perform your duties.
• Speak to effect change.
The successful combination of
communication and guiding princi-
ples begins passively through the art
of listening and observing. Who is
_
this person? How does he communi-
cate (e.g., is the vocabulary simple or
sophisticated?)? Express himself
emotionally (e.g., ho-hum, anger
about some government regulation,
personal struggles)? What are her
personal values? Does she "get" the
environmental connection? Is profit
the bottom-line and the only line? Is
he an all-business, straight-to-the-
point type or more light-hearted? As
far as you are concerned, it's not
about who you are, but who they
need you to be.
Next, take what you've learned
and speak so the tank owner/opera-
tor hears. Approach the conversation
in a "language" that he or she can
relate to. When people are made to
feel comfortable, they are more likely
to listen to what you have to say.
„. Individuals will comply either
if" * because they want to or because
r they have to. Does it matter which? "I
" think it does. Ideally, compliance
- should be born from the clear
_ i
* understanding that it is highly
*"1 h desirable to prevent releases!
i i i' i i s. «_.
Once you have their attention,
then you can deliver your key-under-
lying message, a message designed to
foster a personal desire to care,
assume responsibility, and take
action. The essence of tills message is
that leak prevention is about protect-
ing human health and the environ-
ment. It's about the air we breathe,
the water we drink, and the world we
leave for the generations to come. If
you think this will all sound too
hokey for the tank owner, then work
on your delivery, because the mes-
sage is too important.
Promoting Change
In the process of performing your
duties, be they inspecting, conduct-
ing compliance assistance visits,
speaking at workshops, or negotiat-
ing settlement agreements, always
speak to effect change. Put yourself
in the position of the doctor examin-
ing the patient, diagnosing an illness,
and prescribing a cure—chronic leak
detection violations where a leak has
not yet occurred. How you commu-
nicate the potential seriousness of
this to the patient is critical. Empathy
helps. The punishment approach can
be counterproductive. Can you imag-
ine informing a patient who's over-
indulged in a few too many full
meals that they should have known
the consequences because, for
heaven's sake, the studies have been
out and well-publicized for over 10
years now?
Informing tank owners that
they've missed the boat and taking
enforcement action says a lot. The
compliance orders we issue will also
seek corrective measures. But let's
challenge ourselves to go beyond, to
hope that we've inspired a change in
attitude that will survive beyond the
life of the inspection, seminar, or
enforcement action.
Emphasis on the manner in
which we deliver our enforcement
actions has been notably absent in
state and federal regulatory staff
training. What is typically missing in
all this is the "human factor." In
many cases it's intuitive, but training
can always enhance our awareness.
We need to start by talking about it.
We, as regulators, would be very well
served to break free from the bureau-
cratic mold and would benefit by
availing ourselves of every opportu-
nity to do so.
Challenge Yourself!
Try out some new techniques during
future inspections and other encoun-
ters with the regulated community.
And don't be afraid to ask for feed-
back. Send out a survey to people
that you've inspected to find what
they have to say about their experi-
ence. The only way to gain an honest
perspective on how well we're doing
is to ask our customers.
The future success of our regula-
tory framework lies not in scientific or
technical advances nor in the Code of
Federal Regulations, it lies in our abil-
ity to acknowledge and accommodate
humanity. I'd ask that each of us think
hard about the meanings and the
responsibilities that we have as ambas-
sadors, not of a government entity, but
as protectors of the environment for
today and for the future. •
Jacqueline Poston is U.S.EPA Region
10 Enforcement Coordinator. She can
be reached at
poston.jacqueline@epa.gov.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
ueak Prevention
by W. David McCaskill
David McCaskill is an Environmental Engineer with the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection. Tanks Down East is a regular feature o/LUSTLine.
David can be reached at David.Mccaskill@state.me.us. As always, we welcome
your comments.
There Ought to be a Law!
Maine's New UST Siting and Inspection Laws
For the past couple of years I've
been pontificating on the issue
of siting and proper operation
of UST facilities. (See "Convenience
Is Nice, But UST Systems Aren't
Potato Chips, " LUSTLine # 32 and
"The Tank That Never Leaked, Isn't
it High Time We Made Sure USTs
Don't End Up Where They Don't
Belong", LUSTLine #35.) There are
endless examples nationwide of
releases that have resulted from
owner/operator inattention to their
UST systems coupled with an appar-
ent lack of knowledge on how to use
the release prevention equipment
that they've purchased. Many
assume that compliance can be
achieved conveniently through the
purchase of black box leak detection
systems. Active management of the
thousands of gallons of toxic and
flammable liquids located at their
businesses is not the preferred
option.
It would be nice to think that
some day soon we'll see the success-
ful marriage of diligent tank owners
and trouble-free tank systems. In the
meantime, if we have to live with our
compliance conundrum, then at least
there ought to be a law to reduce the
risk of releases in and around sensi-
tive groundwater resource areas.
I mean look at the picture on
page 18. Is that right? Should the
homeowners (assuming they were
there first) have to worry about a
high-risk groundwater contamina-
tion source located across the street
from their home and water source?
Well, I am happy to report that in
Maine we finally have an UST siting
law, PL 2001-302, An Act to Protect
Sensitive Geologic Areas from Oil
Contamination, that addresses this
issue. It took public outcry, political
fortitude (a lot of staff time), and,
unfortunately, a number of large
releases to make it all happen, but it
did. The law consists of two parts: a
provision to protect existing water
supplies (i.e., public and private
wells) and another that calls for the
development of regulations to pro-
tect future water supplies (i.e., sand
and gravel aquifers).
It has always been clear to staff at
the Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) that there
are places where there should
absolutely not be any gas stations or
UST bulk plants. This motherhood
and apple pie concept became more
apparent to our legislative committee
this session (especially when they
heard from a few mothers!).
One other UST-related thing our
legislature did during this session
was to pass a law requiring owners
and operators of existing UST facili-
ties to obtain certification of compli-
ance with our current requirement
for annual facility inspections. More
about that later.
What Are We Protecting?
Our new siting law protects public
and private water supplies and sand
and gravel aquifers. Under the fed-
eral Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), a public drinking water
supply is any well or other source of
water that furnishes water to the
public for human consumption for at
least 15 connections, regularly serves
an average of at least 25 individuals
daily at least 60 days out of the year,
or supplies bottled water for sale.
There are three types of public
drinking water supplies: community
(e.g., municipal water districts,
mobile home parks, nursing homes),
non-community transit (e.g., motels,
restaurants, campgrounds), and non-
community non-transit (e.g., schools
and business with 25 employees or
more).
One of the requirements of the
1996 SDWA Amendments is for
water suppliers to delineate (map)
the area that contributes recharge
water to their well. These areas are
referred to as source water protection
areas (SWPAs). In this state, the
Department of Human Services has
mapped these areas using a formula
based either on usage or actual pump
tests supplied by the water supplier.
As for the sand and gravel
aquifers, the Maine Geological Sur-
vey has mapped the significant sand
and gravel aquifers in the state using
a combination of aerial surveys, well
pump test data, and field work.
These aquifer maps delineate areas
with less than 50-gallons per minute
(gpm) yields and areas with more
than 50-gpm yields. The determina-
tion of the aquifers yielding greater
than 50 gpm is based primarily on
well pump test data of existing pri-
vate or community drinking water
supplies.
The UST Siting Law
The new law prohibits, after Septem-
ber 30, 2001, the siting of new UST
• continued on page 18
17
-------
LUSTUttc Bulletin 38
m Tanks Down East
continued from page 17
facilities within the mapped source
water protection area or within 1,000
feet (which ever is greater) of a com-
munity water supply or school well,
or within 300 feet of a private well. A
variance to the prohibition will only
be granted if the applicant proves
that there is no hydrogeological con-
nection between the UST system and
the well(s).
Protection of community water
supply wells is fairly straightfor-
ward; schools are included because
kids not only spend a lot of time at
school but are also a more contami-
nant-sensitive population. The most
powerful of these prohibitions, how-
ever, is the setback provision for pri-
vate drinking water wells. Replacing
private wells that have been contam-
inated with petroleum has been the
bread and butter of the remediation
work in our UST program.
A few exceptions are identified
in the law. These include replacing or
expanding an existing UST facility,
converting tanks at an existing facil-
ity from aboveground storage tanks
to USTs, tanks that are used solely for
on-site heating, and facilities where
the well is located on the same prop-
erty as the tanks and serves only the
users of the property (i.e., you can
mess your own nest, but we won't
pay for a replacement water supply).
As for the non-community non-
transit (excluding school wells) and
non-community transit wells, any
proposed facilities sited within the
mapped SWPA or 1,000 feet of these
wells may receive a variance based
on extraordinary engineering and
monitoring measures proposed by
the applicant. Such measures must
exceed regulatory requirements and
effectively minimize a release.
What kind of measures are these
you ask? Some that we will consider
can be found in Marcel Moreau's arti-
cle, "Plugging the Holes in Our UST
Systems," in LUSTLine #37. Quite
frankly, some of these measures, such
as dispenser sumps with monitors
and 15- to 25-gallon capacity spill
buckets, should be requirements for
all tanks regardless of location, and
we may be considering such require-
ments at a later date.
18
The Rulemaking Part
The second part of the law requires
that the DEP develop rules for the sit-
ing of USTs over mapped sand and
gravel aquifers. The rules are to
include variances for certain circum-
stances. DEP scheduled two stake-
holders meeting to solicit input prior
to the formal rulemaking process.
The stakeholders include industry
and business representatives, as well
as town officials, environmental
groups, consultants, other state
agencies (i.e., the Drinking Water
Program and Department of Trans-
portation), water utilities, and tank
installers.
Input from the first stakeholders
meeting reflected our thinking that
perhaps there should be a three-
tiered model for the siting of USTs
over mapped sand and gravel
aquifers, based on their potential as a
future public drinking water sup-
plies. These tiers could be set up in
the following manner:
• No additional requirements for
UST siting over areas of the
aquifer that have existing contam-
ination or are already heavily
developed,
• Additional engineering and moni-
toring measures to prevent dis-
charges for USTs sited in aquifers
capable of yielding less than 50
gpm, and
• An all out UST prohibition in
areas of the aquifer that are capa-
ble of yielding more than 50
gpm—aquifers or portions of
aquifers of high potential as a
water supply.
The Inspection Law
The other UST law that passed this
legislative session requires that tank
owner/operators obtain certification
of compliance with our annual facil-
ity inspection requirement. Since
1991, all owners and operators of
UST facilities have been required to
have their leak detection, spill and
overfill prevention, and corrosion
protection checked for proper opera-
tion on an annual basis by a certified
tank installer or other qualified per-
sons. For the past six years, DEP has
offered training and issued annual
reminders concerning this require-
ment.
Last year, we undertook a study
to evaluate the compliance rates
with our annual equipment inspec-
tions. Using a randomly selected 10
percent sample (262) of active oil UST
facilities, the study found that more
than 25 percent of the facilities had
not had the required annual equip-
ment inspections. Of those that had
the inspections, 29 percent had prob-
lems with equipment. The most com-
mon problems found were with spill
and overfill prevention equipment,
tank interstitial probes, and line leak
detectors for pressurized piping sys-
tems. The real kicker is that of those
facilities with problems, 35 percent of
the time the owners failed to have the
problems corrected!
The new law will require
owner/operators to submit a certifi-
cate to DEP, signed by a certified
installer or inspector, stating that the
leak detection, spill and overfill pre-
vention systems, and stage I vapor
recovery systems have been
inspected and that any deficiencies
discovered during the inspections
have been corrected. The first certifi-
cate is due by July 1,2003, and certifi-
cation is required annually thereafter.
The law also gives DEP additional
enforcement powers to require the
owner/operator to cease deliveries of
oil until the inspection is completed
and/or deficiencies are corrected.
Finally, there is a prohibition on
delivery of oil to nonconforming
(bare steel) tanks after May 1, 2002.
We hope that this will help provide
motivation for the removal of those
last 300 (more or less) remaining bare
steel home heating oil USTs.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
fear and Loathing...
They say never wish too hard for
what you want because it may come
true. DEP tank staff have dreamed of
these tools, but now comes the heavy
lifting to implement them. You fel-
low regulators are probably reading
this and conjuring up in your minds
some of the devilish details that await
us.
With respect to the siting bill, we
have a little less than a year to
develop regulations for the siting of
UST facilities over mapped sand and
gravel aquifers, but the prohibitions
against siting close to public and pri-
vate wells go into effect this October.
We will need to develop guidance on
what we mean by engineering and
monitoring measures and what we
will require for proof of no hydrogeo-
logical connection between UST facil-
ities and drinking water wells.
My worst fear is about what will
happen when that property owner
who wants to build his American
dream, small business, mom and pop
variety store with "gas pumps" out
front (to attract buyers of beer, ciga-
rettes, ice, and picnic supplies) comes
in for a variance. When told that he
has to hire a hydrogeologist to deter-
mine whether there is a hydrogeolog-
ical connection between his site and
the neighbor's drinking water well
200 feet away, what's he is going to
say? "You mean to tell me that you
can't tell me that? You mean I have to
gamble $10,000 for you to tell me
whether or not I can sell gas on my
land?"
Hopefully education and out-
reach to industry, tank installers,
municipal code enforcement officers,
and banks will provide buffer against
such a scenario. We have some pow-
erful tools now in our quiver and a
lot of work ahead, but in the end, this
is bound to help prevent future
nightmare cleanups.
As for the inspection certification
requirement, well, it builds on an
existing requirement. So for us, it is a
matter of developing a database and
an enforcement plan and then educat-
ing tank owners that the require-
ments become effective in two years.
Another one of my fears on this one is
that the 25+ percent of owner/opera-
tors who have never had their sys-
tems checked will wait until the last
minute to fix their problems. •
Are 1998 UST Upgrades Effective?
California's Field-Based
Research Project
Looks for Answers
This article is reprinted, with permission,
from the autumn 2000 edition of the Cal-
ifornia State Water Resources Control
Board's newsletter Just UST News.
In January 1999, a State Water
Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) Advisory Panel deter-
mined that more research needs to
be conducted to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the 1998 UST system
upgrades. As a result of the panel's
recommendation, the California leg-
islature passed a bill mandating that
the SWRCB conduct field-based
research to evaluate the effectiveness
of new and upgraded UST systems
in California.
University of California at Davis
(UCD) is under contract with the
SWRCB to conduct the project. Six
county test areas were selected, based
on their wide range of UST system
types, construction materials, and
construction techniques, and they
were able to provide UST permit data
in an electronic format.
Under contract with UCD, Tracer
Research Corporation plans to test a
total of 180 facilities in the test areas
over a two-year period. To test the
UST systems, Tracer is installing 25 to
35 soil vapor probes in the tank pit
backfill and along the piping trench.
The tank is then inoculated with an
inert tracer compound. Seven to 14
days later, Tracer returns to collect
vapor samples from the probes and
analyze them for the inoculant. If any
inoculant is detected, the owner/
operator must make repairs to the
system. Then Tracer comes back and
adds a different inoculant to the tank
for a second round of testing. This
second test is to determine whether
the repairs were adequate to stop
leaks from the UST system.
If inoculant is not detected in
either the first or second sampling
event, then Tracer presumes that the
tank system is tight.
If inoculant is detected in the
second round, then the system is
presumed not to be liquid and/or
vapor tight. Information from this
follow-up test will help the owner
make decisions about further repairs
or excavation efforts. Tracer will pro-
vide the UST owner with a report of
its findings.
After completing this research,
the SWRCB will better understand
where leaks are most likely to
develop in an UST system and if
there is a difference between the
integrity of single-walled compo-
nents and double-walled compo-
nents of UST systems. •
For more information, contact
Shahla Famhnak at (916)341-5668,
or Erin Ragazzi at (916) 341-5863.
19
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
tjgatioi, ancj RemediatirQn
Indoor Air Pathway Risks1
What is the Impact on UST Cleanup Sites?
by Michael Anderson, Steve Bainbridge, Henning Larsen, Paula Lyon, Hun Seak Park, and Bruce Wicherski
Prior to 1995, many state LUST
programs based their cleanup
requirements solely on the risk
of exposure to BTEX2 contamination
from ingestion of groundwater. With
the advent of the American Society
of Testing Material's (ASTM's) Stan-
dard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective
Action Applied at Petroleum Release
Sites (RBCA) (ASTM, 1995) and the
subsequent encouragement of its use
in EPA's OSWER Directive 9610.17
(EPA, 1995), states began to incorpo-
rate risk-based decision-making
(RBDM) into their LUST programs.
To accomplish this, we had to
expand site investigations to include:
analysis of samples for additional
constituents (e.g., polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) and
evaluation of exposures by addi-
tional pathways (e.g.., volatilization
to indoor air).
As a result, just when we thought
that RBCA might help us close some
sites that didn't meet the low part-
per-billion (ppb) level benzene
groundwater standard, we found
that it now kept many sites open that
didn't meet the low ppb level
benzene volatilization-from-soil-to-
indoor air standard.3
As states began to use the ASTM
RBCA guidance as the model for
revising their LUST cleanup pro-
grams and for setting new soil and
groundwater cleanup levels, it
became clear that training was
needed to help UST program staff
understand and implement some of
the new aspects of this approach.
Though we had experience with soil
and groundwater assessments, think-
ing in terms of a conceptual site risk
model and incorporating air path-
ways were new tools for many of us.
Some of the questions that arose in
this regard included:
• Is the indoor air pathway really a
concern, or is it just a false alarm
resulting from the application of
overly conservative generic mod-
els?
• If indoor air exposure is a potential
threat, how do we estimate poten-
tial impacts or measure real
impacts?
• How well will indoor-air pathway
models work •when applied to sites
with good site-specific input val-
ues?
As mentioned in the companion
article ("Region 10 Takes an Innova-
tive Approach to Meet Indoor Air
Training Needs"), UST program staff
from the Region 10 states and EPA
Region 10 worked together to de-
velop a training course on this sub-
ject. This article describes the nature
and background of the problem and
discusses some of the lessons learned
in that course.
The Conceptual Site Model
Prior to RBDM, the main questions
asked during a LUST site investiga-
tion and the development of a correc-
tive action plan were:
• Where is the contamination
located today?
• Can I dig out the contaminated
soil?
• Can I pump out the free product
or contaminated groundwater?
Risk was not totally ignored, but
it was primarily limited to concerns
about impacts on groundwater used
as drinking water. Vapors were usu-
ally only a concern in the early stages
of a release—are vapors in a building
reaching explosive levels, or are there
noticeable odors that might create
nuisance conditions or health con-
cerns? If vapor levels were well
below lower explosive limits and
there were no complaints about
odors, vapors were not thought to be
a problem.
With the advent of a more rigor-
ous application of risk at LUST sites,
we had to perform a more thorough
examination of how human and eco-
logical receptors could be at risk due
to the release of petroleum products.
Because risk = toxicity x exposure,
one necessary element is to assess all
of the reasonably likely exposure
pathways at a typical LUST site.
In addition to some of the more
obvious pathways, such as coming
into contact with contaminated soil
or drinking contaminated water,
indirect pathways where contami-
nants are transported to the receptor
must also be considered. The concep-
tual site model (CSM), which
describes all of the current and poten-
tial future ways that receptors may
become exposed to contaminants, is
the key component that bridges the
gap between the information gath-
ered during the site investigation and
the development of an effective and
protective risk-based remedy.
Since petroleum products, espe-
cially gasoline, contain fairly volatile
constituents, we need to consider not
only where vapors might be located
today, but also where they might
show up in the future as they con-
tinue to volatilize from contaminated
soil and groundwater. (See Figure 1.)
Therefore, achieving a protective
remedy for the indoor-air pathway
depends on our ability to ensure that
the concentrations we leave behind
in soil and groundwater will elimi-
nate any current unacceptable con-
centrations of volatiles in indoor air
and prevent future unacceptable con-
centrations from developing. One
way to estimate this is to use expo-
sure equations4 to calculate accept-
able air concentrations for the
contaminants of interest. Then a
transport model can be applied to
estimate the concentration of conta-
minants in air that might result from
given initial concentrations in soil or
groundwater.5 These results are then
combined to predict acceptable con-
centrations for the contaminants in
soil and groundwater.
This approach is often used to
develop generic "screening levels" or
even site-specific "target levels" or
"cleanup goals." For screening levels,
20
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
Connective Transport
FIGURE 1 VAPOR FLUX MODELING - CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Mixing in
Breathing Zone
Biodegradation
Diffusive Transport
Impacted Soil or Groundwater
Partitioning to Soil Vapor
(Adapted from a figure developed by Robbie Ettinger, Equilon Enterprises LLC. Used with permission.)
a set of conservative conditions (e.g.,
shallow groundwater and permeable
soils) are used in the model so that
the results can be safely applied to
sites with a wide range of actual con-
ditions. For site-specific work, appro-
priate site data are used in place of
generic parameters to calculate the
target levels.
The Transport Model
A number of models exist for simu-
lating the flux of gases and vapors
from the ground into structures
(EPA, 1992). Early interest in this
problem was directed at the infiltra-
tion of radon into buildings. The
model most commonly used today
for estimating the potential impact to
indoor air from volatile organics in
underlying soil or groundwater was
developed by Paul Johnson and Rob-
bie Ettinger (Johnson and Ettinger,
1991)6. Their model simulates all of
the factors illustrated in Figure 1
except for biodegradation. Volatile
contaminants at the source (either
contaminated soil or groundwater)
volatilize into the available overlying
air-filled pore space. The contami-
nants then diffuse upward until they
are close to the building. At that
point, reduced indoor air pressure
generates a convective flow that
sweeps the volatiles through cracks
in the building foundation where
they mix with the indoor air.
In their 1991 paper, Johnson and
Ettinger (J&E) not only develop the
full equation for this system, they
also present simplified equations for
limiting conditions, such as when
transport is diffusion limited or con-
vection limited. ASTM used the dif-
fusion-limited version of the J&E
model for the 1995 RBCA guidance.
With ASTM's set of generic site para-
meters, the diffusion-limited equa-
tion predicts an acceptable soil-vapor
to indoor-air screening level for ben-
zene of 5 ppb (assuming an accept-
able excess carcinogenic risk level
of 1 x 10~6). This value generated
considerable concern among state
regulators. Is benzene really an unac-
ceptable risk at such low concentra-
tions, is the model incorrect, or are
ASTM's generic parameters too con-
servative?
Field studies have been carried
out to assess the severity of the
indoor-air pathway risk. A study of
168 sites by Massachusetts (45%
BTEX sites and 55% chlorinated sites)
found that although the model-
derived screening levels were conser-
vative for BTEX, they were not
conservative for chlorinated hydro-
carbons (Fitzpatrick and Fitzgerald,
1996). This could be due to the more
rapid biodegradation rates of BTEX
versus chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The results of a study at a refin-
ery site showed that surface fluxes
were affected by source concentra-
tions, depth to the source, and source
depletion. It also showed that aerobic
degradation, could have a significant
impact on the surface flux of volatile
aromatic compounds. Soil moisture
was also a significant factor because
of its ability to retard diffusion.
So, although the J&E model does
appear to be somewhat conservative,
especially when applied to com-
pounds that are likely to undergo
significant biodegradation, it is still a
useful generic screening tool and can
also be a reasonable site-specific
screening tool when realistic values
are used for the input parameters.
Model predictions can be improved
by collecting data on soil moisture
content, porosity, and bulk density.
Results are sensitive to the stratigra-
phy and can be influenced signifi-
cantly by "dominant layers" (i.e.,
layers that strongly influence trans-
port).
Field Tests
Although screening and site-specific
models are very useful, what should
be done when a site exceeds the
screening levels predicted by such
models? Two answers that usually
come to mind are (1) clean up the
site, or (2) collect some indoor air
samples to see if contaminants actu-
ally exceed risk-based standards.
Both of these approaches, how-
ever, have inherent problems. First, a
screening level is intended to screen
out those sites that are obviously not
an unacceptable risk. If a site meets
screening levels, you should be able
to close it without much concern.
However, if a site exceeds screening
levels, that does not necessarily mean
that it exceeds acceptable risk levels. It
simply means that more investiga-
tion may be needed to determine if
the risk is acceptable or not.
Second, studies have shown that
most indoor air contains measurable
levels of many constituents, includ-
ing benzene. If you collect an indoor
air sample and detect benzene, how
are you to determine what part, if"
any, of that benzene is coming from
the petroleum release?
Unless conditions at the site are
such that interim remedial measures
or indoor air monitoring are neces-
sary, the next step for sites that
exceed screening levels would be to
measure soil gas profiles close to or
under the building(s) in question.
Soil gas data may be useful for a
H continued on page 22
21
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 3S
m Indoor Air Pathway Risks
continued from page 21
more realistic source concentration in
a site-specific model, or it may be
used with generic attenuation factors
derived from radon gas studies to
estimate potential indoor air impacts.
In some cases it might be appropriate
to install dedicated sampling points
to monitor changes over time. Care
must be taken, however, to collect
representative samples. Short-circuit-
ing may result from applying too
high a vacuum or from leaks in the
system.
If indoor air sampling is neces-
sary, there are a number of options to
consider. Active sampling can be
employed where gas flow is induced
into a syringe or canister. Passive
sampling, which employs a flux
chamber or sorbent materials, may
also be used.
Active sampling methods are
generally more expensive but often
preferred for risk assessments. Pas-
sive sampling is less costly but may
be difficult to interpret. If there are
concerns about fluctuations in con-
centrations over the course of a day,
it may be useful to collect samples
over a longer period of time (e.g., 8 or
24 hours) to get an integrated result.
Massachusetts and New Jersey have
developed guidance documents for
indoor air sampling that may be
helpful if you are considering this at
your site7.
Remedies
Before the advent of RBDM there was
really only one remedy for a LUST
site—clean it up to the acceptable
cleanup levels. RBDM, however, pro-
vides owners of contaminated prop-
erty with the option of managing the
risk. Risk management usually falls
into the categories of engineering
controls or institutional controls. For
risks associated with vapor intrusion
into buildings, the most common
engineering controls are using seals
and barriers to prevent the vapors
from entering the building or
installing improved ventilation sys-
tems to keep the concentrations
below acceptable levels. In some
cases, a combination of the two may
be needed.
At a dichloroethylene pCE) site
in Colorado, concentrations mea-
sured in indoor air correlated
22
strongly to the DCE concentrations in
the underlying groundwater plume.
Since DCE is not commonly found as
a background constituent in indoor
air, the indoor air impacts could be
tied directly to the groundwater
source. Of 170 homes tested, over 60
homes required some type of mitiga-
tion to reduce contaminant concen-
trations to acceptable levels.
The use of membranes and sub-
slab ventilation systems were found
to be effective for these homes. In
most cases, concentrations dropped
to below action levels within days of
installation.
In many cases, institutional con-
trols are also applied to a site to
maintain the engineering controls.
These legal controls may be used to
require the operation and mainte-
nance of the remedies, or they may be
used to prevent additional construc-
tion in areas where vapors are known
to be a problem. Risk management
may result in remedies that are less
costly and more quickly imple-
mented than traditional cleanups,
while still maintaining adequate pro-
tection from unacceptable risk. How-
ever, property owners may find it
more difficult to sell a piece of prop-
erty that has additional regulatory
strings attached.
In Summary
• Volatile contaminants in soil and
groundwater can generate indoor
air concentrations that exceed
acceptable risk levels.
• The Johnson and Ettinger model
may be conservative for contami-
nants that are readily biodegrad-
able, but when applied properly,
they can provide reasonable esti-
mates of screening levels for the
indoor-air pathway.
• Model predictions can be
improved by collecting site-spe-
cific data on soil moisture content,
porosity, and bulk density.
• Soil gas sampling should be con-
sidered for sites that exceed
model-derived screening levels.
The results can be used as
improved source estimates for
additional modeling or with
radon-based attenuation factors to
estimate potential indoor air
impacts.
• Indoor air monitoring may be
needed to further evaluate sites
but should be applied with cau-
tion to try to relate it to specific
sources.
• Engineering controls such as
membranes and ventilation are
useful remedies for vapor impacts
on indoor air. •
Note: This article does not necessarily reflect
specific policies of the Region 10 states. It sim-
ply summarizes the nature of the indoor air
pathway "problem" and the issues discussed
by attendees at EPA training on the topic.
Michael Anderson is with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality.
He can be reached at
anderson.michael.r@deq.state.or.us.
Steve Bainbridge is with the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation; Henning Larsen is with
the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality; Paula Lyon is
with the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality; Hun Seak
Park is with the Washington
Department of Ecology; and Bruce
Wicherski is with the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality.
1 Information not specifically referenced in
footnotes is taken from Nichols and Ettinger,
2001.
2 BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
total xylenes.
3 The benzene-in-groundwater standard was
based on the use of groundwater as drinking
water and EPA's maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for benzene. The benzene-in-soil
standard was based on an acceptable excess
cancer risk of 1-in-a-million and default
assumptions and equations used in the 1995
ASTM RBCA standard for the soil-to-indoor-
air pathway.
4 These are typically standard exposure equa-
tions such as those found in Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1991).
5 The ratio of the air concentration to the soil
or water concentration is often referred to as
a "Volatilization Factor." See, for example,
ASTM, 1995.
6 The Johnson and Ettinger Model, and other
indoor air models, can be downloaded from
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/progtams/risk/airmodel/john-
son_ettinger.htm.
7 Massachusetts has a draft document posted
on the Internet at http://www.state.ma.us/
dep/ors/orspubs.htm . New Jersey's Indoor
Air Sampling Guide for Volatile Organic Conta-
minants can be ordered for $5.00 from the
Maps and Publications Sales Office in Tren-
ton, NJ, 609-777-1038.
References
ASTM, 1995, Standard Guide far Risk-Based Cor-
rective Action Applied at Petroleum Release
Sites, ASTM E1739-95, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
EPA, 1991, Ri'sfc Assessment Guidance for Super-
fund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Pre-
liminary Remediation Goals), Office of Emer-
gency and Remedial Response, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/R-92/003.
EPA, 1992, Air/Superfund National Technical
Guidance Series: Assessing Potential Indoor Air
Impacts for Superfund Sites, Office of Air Qual-
ity Planning and Standards, Research Trian-
gle Park, NC.
EPA, 1995, Use of Risk-Based Decision-Making in
UST Corrective Action Programs, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office
of Underground Storage Tanks, Directive
Number 9610.17.
Fitzpatrick, Nancy A., and John J. Fitzgerald,
1996, "An Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Into
Buildings Through a Study of Field Data,"
11* Annual Conference on Contaminated
Soils, University of Massachusetts at
Amherst.
Johnson, Paul C, and Robert A. Ettinger, 1991,
"Hueristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion
Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings,"
Environmental Science and Technology, 25(8):
1445-1452.
Nichols, Eric, and Robbie Ettinger, 2001,
Course notes for "Indoor Air Pathway & Risk
Based Decision Making," February 28 -
March 3, 2001, Portland, Oregon.
• Secondary Containment...
continued from page 11
to protect the environment against
such occurrences.
Federal regulations do not man-
date tanks to be removed and
replaced after a certain life. Although I
firmly believe that today's storage sys-
tems can last 30 or more years, I
wouldn't bet my life savings on a per-
fect batting average because of the
human element.
As with the roof job on my home
and every major appliance I own, I
know that someday it will need
replacement. (My expensive 36" tele-
vision set just bit the dust after only
four years!) But I can also see these
things every day, unlike a buried UST.
Just 20 years ago tanks with sec-
ondary containment did not even
exist. Today, the technology is there
for the taking, yet the regulations
have not caught up. One reason we
suffered a tank crisis to begin with
was because tanks were routinely
buried and forgotten. I'd like to think
that soon we'll get our tank house in
order, once and for all, by requiring
secondary containment for all petro-
leum storage tanks and piping. It just
makes sense. •
Wayne Geyer is Executive Vice-Presi-
dent of the Steel Tank Institute.
He can be reached at
wgeyer@steeltank.com.
Region 1O Uses Innovative
Approach to Meet Training Needs
Indoor Air Pathway Workshop a Success
by Michael Anderson, Steve Bainbridge, Henning Larsen,
Paula Lyon, Hun Seak Park, and "Bruce Wicherski
If you want the job done, some-
times you have to do it yourself.
That was the approach taken by
those of us from various environ-
mental offices in Alaska, Idaho, Ore-
gon, and Washington (Region 10
states), with support from the U.S.
EPA Office of Underground Storage
Tanks (OUST), when we realized we
needed training on evaluating the
potential impacts of volatile contami-
nants on indoor air exposures at
leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) sites. As there was no such
training available, we also realized
that we would need to make it hap-
pen, and we did. As a result, approx-
imately 35 project managers, policy
writers, and technical staff recently
had the opportunity to gather in
Portland, Oregon, to learn about and
discuss the latest in:
• Modeling the transport of volatile
contaminants from soil and
ground water to indoor air;
• Methods for collecting and ana-
lyzing air samples; and
• Strategies for managing risk from
exposure to volatiles entering
buildings.
Workshop participants received
a high quality course conducted by
two recognized experts in the field.
(See the companion article, "Indoor
Air Pathway Risks," on page 20 to
find out what was covered in the
course.) This course is an offshoot of
an earlier course on MTBE Manage-
ment and Assessment provided by
the Georgia Institute of Technology
through a cooperative agreement
with EPA/OUST.
Federal resource constraints hin-
dered delivery of the Indoor Air
Pathway Risk course to multiple state
locations. However, at the 2000
UST/LUST national conference,
interested states were informed as to
how they could obtain courses by
working directly with Georgia Tech
(outside OUST's cooperative agree-
ment). The ultimate objective of the
Georgia Tech training is to provide
cost-effective, quality training to
states.
The Process
After some initial discussions about
our training needs with our EPA
Region 10 point-of-contact, Wally
Moon, we learned that if this course
were to take place in the form we
wanted, we, the states, would have to
take the initiative to create it.
Wally organized a team of pro-
ject managers and technical and pol-
icy staff from the Region 10 states to
brainstorm about what a course like
this should cover. Through a series of
conference calls and e-mails over sev-
eral months, the team developed a
two-day course agenda and course
outline.
This information was forwarded
to Georgia Tech, which then issued a
nationwide request for proposals to
search for qualified people to
develop and deliver the course. We
received a consolidated qualifications
list of parties interested in providing
this training. After reviewing the
qualifications, the team got together
on a final conference call to discuss
the necessary mix of skills that we
thought would best meet our training
needs and then forwarded this infor-
mation to Georgia Tech.
Georgia Tech selected the train-
ers, who then coordinated with the
Region 10 states' project team to dis-
cuss potential enhancements to the
course and to provide a detailed
agenda with their preferred order of
presentation, list of subtopics, and
allocated times for each topic. The
project team then reviewed the pro-
posed detailed agenda and made
additional suggestions to help the
trainers better understand and
respond to the states' training needs.
Communications with the trainers
continued throughout the develop-
• continued on page 24
23
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
m Region 10 Training Needs
continued from page 23
ment of the course materials, and the
team was provided an opportunity to
evaluate the materials as they were
put together.
Just prior to the course, a private
Intranet site was set up to facilitate
review of the nearly complete train-
ing materials. Draft versions were
posted on the site and were available
for downloading. By distributing
materials in this way, we were able to
view the most up-to-date material
available at that time.
This innovative process gave us
the opportunity to design and assist
in the development of training that
was structured to meet our state-spe-
cific needs.
The Trainers
The trainers for this course were not
paid for the time and effort associ-
ated with course modifications or
time spent in discussion with the pro-
ject team. The opportunity to work
directly with a coalition of state regu-
lators to develop the course, com-
bined with the opportunity to deliver
the course, provided ample incentive
for these trainers. Georgia Tech
retains the rights to market this
course as part of its general course
offerings. Georgia Tech also provides
continuing education units for select
courses offered through the institu-
tion.
From a pool of very qualified
candidates, Georgia Tech selected
Robbie Ettinger, Equilon Enterprises
LLC, and Eric Nichols, LFR/Levine-
Fricke, to develop and deliver the
course. Robbie Ettinger has degrees
in Chemical Engineering and is
Senior Research Engineer in the Soil
and Groundwater Department at
Equilon. He has worked on many
remediation projects and has
researched fate and transport of
chemicals in the subsurface environ-
ment since joining Shell Develop-
ment Company in 1989. The
Johnson-Ettinger model that ASTM
uses for the volatilization-to-indoor-
air pathway in its RBCA standard
was developed by Robbie and Paul
Johnson1.
Eric Nichols, PE, is a Principal
Engineer with LFR/Levine-Fricke.
He provides senior review for model-
ing and exposure assessment on a
24
variety of federal and private-sector
environmental restoration and water
resources projects. Eric also teaches
courses in modeling, risk assessment,
groundwater hydrology, and site
assessment. As LFR's Manager of
Quantitative Services, Eric leads the
subsurface modeling and risk assess-
ment practice for the company.
The Course
The course was held in Portland on
February 28 - March 1, 2001. Al-
though we experienced a rather inter-
esting interruption by an earthquake
on February 28, we were able to
cover a significant amount of mater-
ial, including:
• The risk-based process,
• Fate and transport mechanisms,
• Vapor migration modeling,
• Field methods for air sampling,
• Parameter estimation and mea-
surement,
• Indoor air risk management
options, and
• Case studies and field validation.
Despite the amount of material
covered, ample time was allowed for
questions and discussion. Sharing
experiences with our cohorts from
the other states in Region 10 was an
equally valuable part of the training.
The information presented at this
workshop will assist policy staff in
the development of future guidance
and field staff in the evaluation of
indoor air impacts at LUST sites.
The Aftermath
All in all, the participants were
extremely pleased with the course
content, the trainers, and the format
of the workshop. Those who partici-
pated in the planning and develop-
ment felt that it was well worth the
effort. The trainers, Talisman Part-
ners (Georgia Tech's contractor), and
EPA did an excellent job of develop-
ing materials and coordinating their
efforts to stage the event. In addition
to the binder of printed course notes
and reference materials handed out
at the workshop, each attendee
received a CD containing electronic
copies of notes and additional sup-
plementary materials. This should
prove to be a handy reference as we
use the information from the work-
shop to develop state-specific guid-
ance and training materials.
Finally, the application of this
innovative approach turned out to be
a very cost-effective use of state and
regional resources. The most surpris-
ing part of all is that it was only a lit-
tle over a year from the first
suggestion of developing the course
to the actual presentation.
Since this was the first presenta-
tion of the course, the following are
examples of suggestions that have
been made that we think will
improve the course for future partici-
pants:
• Include a representative from a
qualified laboratory to provide
hands-on access to sampling
equipment; and
• Use state-specific sites for the case
studies to better reinforce the
lessons and encourage their appli-
cation in the field.
If you would like to have this
training made available in your
region, or if you would like to
develop training on another topic
and want to ask questions about our
experiences, feel free to contact Wally
Moon, EPA Region 10, at (206) 553-
6903 or at moon.wally@epa.gov. •
Acknowledgments
Despite the opening sentence of this
article, we obviously did not do this
by ourselves. We would like to
express our appreciation to all of the
LUST staff from the Region 10 states
who reviewed and commented on
the course outline and draft materi-
als. And, we want to specifically
acknowledge the efforts of:
Wally Moon, EPA Region 10, Seattle,
WA (facilitator and logistics coordina-
tor);
Steven "Striving to Improve the
Process" McNeely, EPA OUST, Wash-
ington, DC;
Jacqueline Rast, Talisman Partners,
Ltd. (Georgia Tech's contractor);
Robbie Ettinger, Equilon Enterprises
LLC;
Steve Nichols, LFR/Levine-Fricke; and
Georgia Institute of Technology, Clif-
ford H. Stern.
1 Johnson, Paul C, and Robert A. Ettinger,
"Hueristic Model for Predicting the Intru-
sion Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Build-
ings," Environmental Science and Technology,
25(8): 1445-1452,1991.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
More PFP Stories
PFP's Emphasis on Success Helped Detect a
Leak When All Else Failed
by Brian Dougherty
B
Jased on an experi-
ence at one of our
pay-for-performance
(PFP) cleanup sites, we've discovered that PFP cleanups
can unintentionally result in detection of UST leaks that
would otherwise have gone undetected. The key to this
story is that under PFP, the cleanup contractor gets paid
as contamination levels decline and meet a series of
"milestone" levels. If the contamination does not decline,
the contractor does not get paid. So what happens if there
is a leak from another UST at the site? Such a circum-
stance could prevent the cleanup contractor from reach-
ing these milestones and getting paid.
That's what happened at one of our PFP cleanup sites.
The cleanup system had worked great when first turned
on, but then contamination levels stopped declining and
even began to rise at some points. Meanwhile, none of the
USTs at the site showed any evidence of a release, and
they all tested tight. Furthermore, the responsible party
was reluctant to double-check his leak-detection system
results because a new release at his site at that time would
require payment of a $10,000 deductible and a relatively
low cap on state funding (the existing release had no
deductible and no cap on state funding).
This situation put the PFP cleanup contractor between
a rock and a hard place. He would take an indefinite loss
on the cleanup work unless he could show that the failure
of contamination levels to go down was not the result of
unsuccessful cleanup work on his part.
The owner/operator remained reluctant to acknowl-
edge the problem, and so the PFP contractor reported his
suspicions to the state. The Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection authorized the contractor to look for
leaks coming from the other parts of the system. This
investigation was paid for by the state outside of the PFP
agreement. Indeed, a fairly substantial leak with free prod-
uct was discovered to be coining from one of the pipelines.
Had it not been for the incentive that PFP gave the
contractor to find and report the new leak at the site, the
leak would have gone undetected, and product would
have continued to be release into the environment. If the
cleanup had been undertaken on customary time-and-
materials terms, it would have gone on for a very long
time and cost a lot, without reducing the contamination to
environmentally acceptable levels.
It's not fair to a PFP contractor to have to continue
futile work (e.g., when there's been a new leak) within the
fixed price and time limits that were set before a new leak
has been discovered. Standard practice in such circum-
stances is to release the contractor from the PFP contract
with no financial penalty. In this case, the contractor was
released. Typically, the PFP will be renegotiated or rebid
to take the new leak into account. In this case, a different
contractor was hired to do the work and has not been will-
ing to perform the work under PFP.
The message here is that thanks to the PFP cleanup
contract, the state found a leak that would otherwise have
gone undiscovered, and the cleanup contractor was
treated fairly too. •
Brian Dougherty is an Environmental Administrator
with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. He
can be reached at Brian.Dougherty@dep.state.fl.us.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
PFP Cleanup
by Chuck Schwer
and Richard Spiese
V:
"ermont headed down
the PFP cleanup road
for leaking under-
ground storage tank sites in late 1999. We believed there
were some important advantages to changing from the
time-and-materials tradition to a PFP arrangement. We
liked the shift in risk from the state cleanup fund to the
consultant, and with this risk also comes the best incen-
tive—cash—to cleanup the site in a timely manner. We
liked the thought of getting away from the time-and-
materials mentality for which ever-changing site condi-
tions necessitate ever-changing scopes of work and
budgets. We also liked the idea that PFP offers a tremen-
dous reduction in the amount of paperwork needed for
submitting claims against the cleanup fund.
No longer would we need detailed monthly invoices
that require of us such tasks as comparing the submitted
invoices with the preapproved workplan, checking for
• continued on page 26
25
-------
LUSTLiiif Bulletin 38
m PFP Stories continued from page 25
proper documentation of subcontractor work, and check-
ing for proof of payment. This would mean that our tech-
nical people could spend more time on science and less on
accounting.
Vermont currently has ten PFP agreements signed:
seven were negotiated and three were bid. So far, all the
projects seem to be progressing very well with one site
already having reached all but the last milestone. We
found that negotiating was more time consuming than we
originally planned, but with experience, the process has
been improving. We're feeling very positive about going
down the PFP road, especially since we discovered two
rewards that we weren't anticipating—clearer goals and
better remedial systems.
Clearer Goals
In our negotiation of the seven agreements reached so far,
considerable time was spent on establishing clear cleanup
goals. Although it can be argued that
we had clear goals under time-and- Immfmm^^^g,,^
materials cleanups, there is no ques- p| T]; ^ : :
tion that PFP has forced both our staff
and the consultant to be much more
specific about the goals, and for good
reason—payment is based on reaching
these goals. In a few instances we had
to rethink a goal when it became clear
that the cost to attain the goal out-
weighed the benefit. The result is a
much more focused cleanup with a
dearly defined endpoint.
1
We're feeling very positive about
going down the PFP road, especially
since we discovered two rewards
that we weren't anticipating—
\clearergoalsandbetter
\ remedial systems.
Better Remedial Systems
The second reward of PFP that we didn't expect has been
the quality of the remedial systems installed to date. The
remedial systems at the PFP sites have been some of the
most well thought out and designed systems we have ever
seen. We are seeing a new order of system flexibility and
remote monitoring capabilities. The consultants have
really put their minds to the task. If s their risk, and they
want to make sure they do the absolute most they can do
to minimize it.
How About This?
In the case of one site, the Moretown General Store, the
consultant built in many features to the remedial system (a
soil vapor extraction/air sparging system) to maximize
system flexibility. For example, he put in twice as many
remediation wells than the feasibility study indicated
were needed. In this way he could focus on a "hot spot" of
contamination with a maximum of remedial resources. He
used two 2-horse and one 4-horse power vapor extraction
blowers instead of one 5-horse power blower. He put the
eleven sparge well points on timers, using one small
blower to operate the system (instead of one large 15-
horse power blower operating all spargers at once, which
is more typical). He set up a 300-standard cubic feet
minute catalytic oxidizer to allow replacement with car-
bon.
26
The strategy is to allow flexibility of the system to
remove or replace system components with less expensive
components or to allow the system to use less power dur-
ing system remediation, thereby decreasing the overall
cost of system operation.
Other improvements of this PFP system over other
systems include:
• Putting all remedial components that need to be explo-
sion proof (because of the possibility of coming into
contact with petroleum vapors) on one side of the
remedial shed (the XP side of the shed) and putting
nonexplosion-proof equipment, such as switching and
controls (much cheaper than the explosion proof ones),
on the other side of the shed.
• Clearly labeling each and every part of the remedial
system so that whoever responds to the site to perform
maintenance knows exactly which system component
he or she is working on. (Under time and materials it
really doesn't matter if consultant technicians respond-
ing to the site can't fix a problem or take several extra
hours to complete system mainte-
^^^^=35=, nance, they get paid. Under PFP,
this is money out of the consultant's
pocket).
Putting system operation lights on
the outside of the shed, so that if
one of these lights is on, the facility
operator knows to call the consul-
tant and report which lights are on.
In this way the consultant has some
idea before reaching the site what
the problem might be.
- -••.*• • • '•••"I • Using a field GC to monitor the
progress of the remedial system.
For milestone success to be shown,
the PFP agreement requires lab analysis. However, the
consultant often took samples and had them analyzed
by the field GC to see how to improve system perfor-
mance and to determine when to take milestone sam-
ples before the required quarterly sampling rounds.
• Scheduling site monitoring to coincide with other jobs
in the area. In this way, travel, man-hour, and equip-
ment costs are shared reducing the overall cost of mon-
itoring.
All of these system construction and operation
improvements may not have happened were it not for
PFP. The desire and motivation of the consultants to
improve system performance, thereby maximizing prof-
its, seem to bring forward innovative ideas at every PFP
site.
Overkill you think? If you are satisfied with the price
for the cleanup, do you care? Priority one is getting the
site cleanup completed, and, so far, the remedial systems
in Vermont under PFP are kicking butt! •
Chuck Schwer and Richard Spiese are with the Vermont
department of Environmental Conservation's Sites Manage-
ment Section. Chuck can be reached at
chucks@dec.anr.state.vt.us, Richard at
richards@dec.anr.state.vt.us.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 38
Driving Down the Ethanol Road
New England States Work Together to
Identify Potential Pitfalls
The New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Com-
mission (NEIWPCC) and the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM) have
recently completed a three-volume
report on Health, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts of Adding Ethanol to
Gasoline in the 'Northeast States. The
two organizations were asked by the
New England Governor's Confer-
ence (NEGC), Committee on the
Environment to assess the potential
public health, environmental, regula-
tory, and economic impacts of a
gasoline oxygenate shift from methyl
tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to eth-
anol. NEIWPCC was specifically
requested to address alternatives
with respect to water impacts.
As detections of MTBE in soil
and groundwater continue to occur
with increasing frequency, many
states are viewing this gasoline addi-
tive with increasing alarm and have
been considering or instituting leg-
islative or regulatory actions to ban
or reduce its use in gasoline. For its
part, the NEGC wanted the North-
east states to be in a position of hav-
ing evaluated potential alternatives
to MTBE prior to the widespread
introduction of a new substance into
the region's gasoline supplies. In the
near term, at least, ethanol is gener-
ally acknowledged to be the most
likely alternative to MTBE nation-
wide.
NEIWPCC's document (Volume
3, "Water Resources and Associated
Health Impacts") was prepared by a
committee made up of representa-
tives from state water, health, under-
ground storage tank (UST), and
site remediation programs. The
NESCAUM document, Volume 2,
addresses ethanol in gasoline from
the economic, air quality, and health
perspective. Volume 1 is a summary
of the two documents.
The NEIWPCC Report
The NEIWPCC committee focused its
evaluation on the potential health
and environmental impacts of a
release of ethanol and ethanol-
blended (E-blend) gasoline. Alter-
native oxygenates other than
ethanol were reviewed briefly with
an eye toward the possibility of a
more thorough evaluation at a future
date.
Focus groups worked on key
areas of concern associated with
*£---.'" • .... ......,."..; . 't
The uncertainties and
recommendations set forth in this *
^report provide an essential jumping-
jgioff point tor future studies directed
|T toward better understanding the
implications of the widespread use
of ethanol in gasoline.
The report can be found at
-, .. .; , .::.. • . •. ..-"; ;.. . . I
t www.neiwpcG.org/ethanol.htmI.
ethanol: Health Effects, Aquatic
Impacts, Storage and Handling, Envi-
ronmental Impacts, and Other Alter-
natives. The goals for the focus
groups were to:
• Identify available information on
ethanol with respect to health
effects, aquatic effects, storage and
handling issues, environmental
impacts associated with ground
and surface water resources, and,
to a lesser extent, alternatives
other than ethanol;
• Ascertain what is known and not
known regarding the issues of
concern; and
• Prepare a series of summary
reports that:
- Clearly characterize the issues
and any associated uncertain-
ties,
— Present conclusions regarding
findings,
— Make recommendations as to
what information is needed to
adequately understand and
address concerns about ethanol,
and
- Identify, where possible, steps
that should be taken to mitigate
potential problems if ethanol is
widely introduced into the
Northeast gasoline supply.
Covering the Bases
The health effects section of the
report presents a summary analysis
of ethanol's neurologic and develop-
mental effects, while also considering
the evidence for its carcinogenic
effects and internal organ (particu-
larly liver) damage. In preparing this
analysis, key studies on toxicity of
ethanol were identified. This infor-
mation is put into a risk context for
the drinking water pathway compar-
ative to health risks from MTBE.
Ethanol storage and handling
were reviewed with regard to the life
cycle of pure (neat) ethanol and
ethanol-gasoline blend (E-blend)—
from feedstock production to end
user (e.g., automobile, lawnmower).
Chemical compatibility of storage
components and the environmental
impact of producing and transport-
ing ethanol to the Northeast were
evaluated.
Ethanol, both as a pure product
and blended with gasoline, intro-
duces different problems for tank
and piping components than MTBE-
blended gasoline. However, much is
known about these problems and
their solutions. The report placed
concerns associated with storing
ethanol and E-blend fuels into four
categories:
• Compatibility with storage system
components,
• Phase separation, causing ethanol
to preferentially dissolve in water,
• continued on back page
27
-------
• Ethanol Report
continued from page 27
• Wear of various storage system
components, due to the scouring
internal surfaces with suspended
particles, and
• Corrosion of various metal com-
ponents due to the electrical con-
ductivity of ethanol and E-blend.
Using the life cycle of E-blend to
identify potential sources of releases,
environmental impacts were evalu-
ated from the standpoint of:
• Neat ethanol and E-blend gaso-
line releases,
* The potential pathways (i.e., sur-
face runoff, infiltration into soil,
groundwater transport) of
ethanol/E-blend once released
into the environment,
• The behavior (fate and transport)
of such releases in the soil,
groundwater, and surface water
environments and in contrast
with MTBE,
• Drinking water impacts, and
• The remediation of neat ethanol
and E-blend releases into the
environment and associated costs
in comparison with MTBE.
A Call to Fill In the Blanks
A key reason why MTBE has grown
into the groundwater contamination
phenomenon that it has is because it
entered the gasoline scene as an air
quality solution without going
through the necessary water quality
impact evaluation hoops. In an effort
not to duplicate this omission, the
NEIWPCC focus groups carried out
their work with due diligence, turn-
ing over as many stones as they
could find in conducting their inves-
tigation. It was the stones they could
not find, the uncertainties, however,
that left the participants hesitant to
welcome ethanol with open arms.
For example, on the basis of rela-
tive toxicity and comparison across
possible drinking water guidelines,
replacement of MTBE with ethanol is
not expected to increase the public
health risks associated with gasoline
spills into groundwater. However,
this toxicological assessment does
not take into consideration all of the
exposure factors that might affect
conclusions regarding relative risks.
The report lists several uncertainties
that affect the degree of confidence
we can have that ethanol will not cre-
ate significant health risks if spilled
into groundwater and provides rec-
ommendations on areas where fur-
ther health effects research is needed.
With regard to ethanol in the
environment, while the use of E-
blend gasoline instead of MTBE gaso-
line will result in a significant
decrease in well contamination
caused by small spills, for significant
and continuous E-blend gasoline
spills the focus group felt that it is
premature to predict the effect on
well contamination. The report
strongly emphasizes the need for
field experiments to understand the
true extent of the behavior of ethanol
in the environment and confirm
modeling studies. The kinds of stud-
ies needed are listed in the report.
The uncertainties and recom-
mendations set forth in this report
provide an essential jumping-off
point for future studies directed
toward better understanding the
implications of the widespread use of
ethanol in gasoline. All three vol-
umes of the NEIWPCC/NESCAUM
effort can be found at www.neiw-
pcc.org/ethanol.html •
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.
------- |