New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
Boott Mills South
1OO Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01853-1134
Bulletin 39
November
3001
LUST.
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
USTs- A View frem iurope
by Jamie Thompson
For some 60 years, fuel storage systems remained
virtually unchanged. During those years, the oil
industry made vast progress aboveground in mod-
ernizing their retail gasoline sites. But below ground/
where the fuel storage system is buried, it was quite
another story. In Europe, we estimate that a mere 5 to 7
percent of the total development cost of a gasoline station
was spent on underground tanks and pipes—"out of
sight, out of mind." More recently, however, spurred on
by regulators and public opinion, the oil industry has
recognised the need to safeguard the environment.
In the 1980s it appeared that the UST situation in the
U.S. was far worse than in Europe—U.S. standards of con-
struction and installation were such that leaks were rela-
tively common. Federal UST legislation and the resulting
regulations enabled manufacturers to provide some
unique solutions to the industry, some of which we were
also able to consider in Europe. We found ourselves
"cherry picking" the best solutions from the U.S., using
them along with some of the tried and tested systems
developed in Europe.
The European Union
In the late 1980s, many of us in the U.K. were taking our
first tentative steps into Europe. Although we had some
knowledge of what was going on in the U.S., we knew far
less of what was happening right on our doorstep. The
fact that each country in Europe had completely different
standards of installation came as a surprise to some of us.
Others in the industry who'd been trying to build the
same filling station design across national boundaries had
suffered with this issue for many years.
Perhaps the most important unifying catalyst in the
early 1990s was the issuing of a number of Directives (the
same as federal law in the U.S.) from the European Union
(EU). In addition, there was the formation of Central
European Norm (CEN), the largest regional standards
body in the world, which was given the task of develop-
ing standards for the effective international operation of
the industrial and service sectors, breaking down trade
barriers, and stimulating competitiveness in the largest
emerging trading block in the world—Europe.
In addition to this harmonization of standards, the
industry itself was also changing. Oil companies were
becoming more European (rather than national) in their
outlook. Many began forming European operations in
which common standards of construction, purchasing, and
operations were to help in the harmonization process.
• continued on page 2
Inside
!uel Oxygenates in the European Union
Lvedder-Ropt Discriminating Sensor Reclassified
tMTBE Taste and Odor Thresholds
jS/STJBELLiUgation Frenzy
EPA Issues Boutique Fuels Report ___
licrobes and Fuel Systems
/.The Missing Link in Overfill Protection
'LHP 1O07 Recommended Practices^
Continuous or Isolated? - CP Systems^
kjPay-for-Performance Public/Private Partnership
South Dakota's Antidote to Abandoned Tank Anxiety
USTfields at Brownfields in 2001
—1
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 39
m USTs—A View from Europe
from page 1
In my opinion, Germany had one
of the more advanced systems as far
as tank standards were concerned.
They have required double-walled
steel tanks with proactive leak detec-
tion since 1968, although they later
inherited many single-walled instal-
lations in the East following reunifi-
cation.
Reflecting on Change
No matter how odd some might
appear, each of the varying stan-
dards and methods of construction
and installation of tanks and pipes
among European countries had been
developed for a seemingly good rea-
son...or other. One such oddity was
the U.K.'s insistence that all under-
ground tanks and pipes be sur-
rounded by concrete. Research now
confirms that although the concrete
surround did delay corrosion, it was
only a delay, and eventually the
gr PollutignJIontrgl Cornnus- ^
produced through a j
3vffSgMSn5ff(fKrre25782-Of-0) *
'tween f3ED&J££jSa4. fe U,§. j
111 '
,is issued asacfirnBciurucation ^
;azardou ' i1' • ' •' "'"'
ttfion equipment.
There is now a European stan-
dard on underground gasoline tanks,
both fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) and steel. Equipment stan-
dards are being written on overfill
prevention devices, dispensers,
fuelling nozzles, leak detection
equipment, submersible pumps, tank
gauges, oil separators and under-
ground pipe work. All of these, when
completed, will replace all the
national standards.
U.S.A. Versus Europe
I'll discuss the European experience
with UST systems in a future issue of
LUSTLine. In fact, if you have any
questions that you'd like me to
address, please send them on, and I'll
include them in my discussion. For
now, to whet your interest, I'll pro-
vide a brief comparison between
European and U.S. UST systems.
• Tanks
The development of European stan-
dards for both FRP and steel USTs
effectively provided a choice for the
industry. It is a fact, however, that
FRP tanks, though widely used in the
U.S. without much problem, have not
succeeded in Europe. In the U.K.,
2,000 FRP tanks were installed over a
15-year period. Now, no major oil
company or user is installing these
tanks. I can give no reason as to why
the technology has not transferred
across the Atlantic, as the manufac-
turers made tanks under licence from
U.S. manufacturers.
The preferred UST is a double-
walled steel tank that has dished
ends, unlike the flat-ends standard
on U.S. counterparts. These tanks
have a corrosion-protective coating
that is applied to the outside, and
they are installed with a backfill of
gravel or sand. Leak detection in
double-walled tanks is accomplished
by filling the interstitial space with
liquid and monitoring the level of
this liquid over time or by establish-
ing a pressure or vacuum in the inter-
stitial space and watching to see
whether the pressure or vacuum can
be maintained over time.
These types of leak detection sys-
tems have the advantage of monitor-
ing both walls of the tank rather than
just the inner wall, as is often the case
in the U.S. I am not aware of any inci-
dent where a leak from such a stor-
age tank has found its way into the
environment, and this technology
has been in use for over 30 years in
parts of Europe.
One area where the U.S. is more
advanced is the development of
aboveground storage tank technol-
ogy. At present, the demand for such
tanks in Europe is quite small, but I
do envisage a growth in this market,
and no doubt the technology will be
imported from the U.S.
• Pipe Work
With the exception of Germany,
underground steel pipe work is no
longer used in Europe. German offi-
cials appear to have an aversion to
anything plastic, but they will be
compelled to look at the alternatives
once the standard on underground
pipe work is completed.
The use of FRP pipe was popular
15 years ago as the alternative to
steel. This was followed by the
import of U.S.-produced flexible pip-
ing systems, some more successful
than others. The first flexible piping
systems coming out of Europe were a
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
polyethylene type with fuel-resistant
linings. At present, European indus-
try has found these to be the most
cost-effective way of meeting their
own requirements and those of the
environment and safety agencies. I
believe that these pipe types will be
seen in the U.S. market in the future;
they have proven to be robust and
liquid-tight over a 20-year period.
• Dispensing Systems
The most significant difference
between the U.S. and European UST
technologies is that the U.S. almost
exclusively uses pressurized pump-
ing systems, whereas in Europe the
vast majority of fuel dispensing is
accomplished with suction systems.
The suction system is seen in
Europe as a better safeguard against
product loss into the environment. If
a breach appears in a pipe, and the
nonreturn valve is positioned under
the dispenser, then the dispenser will
fail to work and the product will
drain back to the tank.
When first used in Europe some
decades ago, the pressure system was
not well understood, and some large
product releases caused their popu-
larity to drop. In 1987, a site in Den-
mark with pressurized piping
systems leaked, resulting in an explo-
sion that killed the manager and
injured eight customers. Earlier this
CEN PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
year, a pressurized system in Spain
pumped 200,000 liters into the
ground as a result of poor installation.
There is, however, a trend by
some of the major oil companies to
move in the direction of pressure sys-
tems. These systems are more popu-
lar in some European countries than
others. The use of double-walled pip-
ing is the norm for pressurized sys-
tems, while suction systems may still
use single-walled piping.
• Drainage
In Europe, drainage requirements for
gas stations have been in force for
many years. All sites must provide
drainage, and all areas such as the
refueling area and the road tanker
delivery stand must be effectively
drained to a separator. These separa-
tors must be sized to accept a 7,600-
liter spill. An independent test house,
in accordance with the European
Standard, must test the efficiency of
operation of the separator. These sep-
arators must be cleaned regularly to
ensure that no pollution enters the
sewer or water systems. In some
European countries the use of gaso-
line-resistant paving systems are an
additional requirement.
Portug;
The Future?
In most developed countries, the
number of gasoline stations has been
shrinking. Within
the U.K., for exam-
ple, there were
50,000 gas stations
in the 1950s. By
2000 that number
had fallen to 13,043.
This reduction is
also reflected across
Europe.
I believe the
trend will be
toward larger, more
efficient sites where
the investment in
the underground
facilities can be bet-
ter justified. We are
still left with con-
cerns about the
operation of the site.
From the informa-
tion I have learned,
both across Europe
and the U.S., this is
frequently where
In Memoriam
As we endeavor to heal tine
wound that pierced our
collective soul on
September 11, 2001 ...
We extend our thoughts
and prayers to the
victims, their families, and
those who survived and
Our unending gratitude to
those who risked their lives to
save others and those who
continue to provide aid
and comfort.
we share the common problem of
people not understanding the facility
for which they are responsible.
One thing for sure, the world is
much smaller and the exchange of
information provides us all with the
opportunity to examine alternatives
so that we can try to make petroleum
storage and dispensing as safe as
possible.
For more information about the CEN
standards, go to www.cenorm.be. The
Web site does not allow you to view the
standards, but it shows what is standard-
ized, what work is in progress, and how
the standards can be purchased. •
Jamie Thompson was the Principal
Petroleum Inspector for the London
Fire Brigade from 1961 to 1999. He is
now a consultant to the petroleum
industry. He has been involved in
writing the European Guidance on
Petrol Filling Station Installations.
He sits on various British standards
committees and European technical
committees, and is chairman of a num-
ber of European Standards (CEN)
committees that are writing standards
for Europe on equipment to be used at
petrol stations. Jamie can be reached at
jamiethompson@msn.com
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
The Use of Fuel Oxygenates
in the European Union
by Jeff Kuhn, Martin Bittens, and Mario Schirmer
In light of the national debate in
the United States, European
researchers have recently begun
focusing efforts on studying the
impact of oxygenates within the
European Union (EU) as well as for-
mer East Block countries. The sever-
ity of contamination from fuel
oxygenates in Europe has been the
subject of recent discussion. It is
widely perceived that fuel oxy-
genates are not a significant issue in
most European countries.
For the most part, the enforce-
ment of strict environmental laws in
western Europe has rninirnized
petroleum contamination of soil and
groundwater. Suction systems and
mandatory installation of double-
walled tanks and lines in western
Germany has helped prevent the
magnitude of problems seen in the
U.S. Furthermore, most western
European countries have relied more
heavily on diesel than on gasoline to
fuel a large portion of their vehicle
fleets.
On the other hand, there is cur-
rently no requirement to test for fuel
oxygenates in soil or groundwater in
most EU countries, with the excep-
tion of the United Kingdom (U.K.)
and Denmark. Germany uses MTBE
up to 15 percent by volume, depend-
ing on the brand and grade of gaso-
line. We should note that octane
ratings in Europe are typically much
higher than the octane ratings of
gasoline sold in tihe United States.
Typical octane ratings for unleaded
gasoline sold in Germany and other
European countries are 92,96, and 98.
As there has been no comprehen-
sive testing program in most EU
countries, estimates of MTBE conta-
mination are probably speculative. In
view of this, there is a high probabil-
ity of finding some concentration of
MTBE at many European service sta-
tions, even though releases have been
minimized due to more tightly regu-
lated tank storage systems.
Political changes in
Europe since the fall of the
Soviet Union have also led
to a greater focus of atten-
tion on many environmental
issues. Many western Euro-
pean countries, with the support of
the EU, have begun to prioritize and
cleanup industrial sites in former
East Block countries, such as the Ger-
man Democratic Republic (GDR), the
former East Germany. These coun-
tries have had a substantial number
of petroleum releases at both retail
service stations and large refinery
and petroleum distribution sites.
Poor environmental standards and a
lack of more sophisticated cleanup
technologies are significant obstacles
to remediation.
comprehensive testing program in
most EU countries, estimates of
MTBE contamination are
i1 "T ,;, ""'. '' vff'^.i: .;L: : I1.1.,!
probably speculative.
ANCORE
Through the efforts of the Center of
Applied Geosrience at the University
of Tuebingen, Germany, academic
contaminant research work in
Europe has recently been organized
under an oversight group called
ANCORE—The Academic Network
for Contaminated Land Research in
Europe. ANCORE is a unique part-
nership of academic researchers who
are focusing on soil and groundwater
contamination issues.
ANCORE maintains close con-
nections to European regulators (the
CLARINET Network) and industry
(the NICOLE Network). These three
groups work closely together to coor-
dinate oversight and direction on
contaminated soil and groundwater
issues throughout the EU. An impor-
tant component of this
work includes address-
ing petroleum-conta-
minated sites that
contain fuel oxygenates. ANCORE
also hopes to provide training to for-
mer East Block countries (Central
East European (CEE) Accession
States) to develop local technical
expertise, and thereby enhance reme-
diation capabilities.
European MTBE Workgroup
A European MTBE workgroup led by
Dr. Mario Schirmer of the the
Environmental Research Center
(Umweltforschungszentrum, or UFZ)
in Leipzig, Germany, includes the
UFZ, the University of Sheffield
(U.K.), the Finnish Environment
Institute (FBI), the U.K. Environment
Agency, the Technical University of
Denmark, the University of Tuebin-
gen (Germany), EAWAG (Swiss Fed-
eral Institute for Environmental
Science and Technology), the Trans-
port Research Centre (TRC) in the
Czech Republic, VTT Biotechnology
(Finland), Risk and Policy Analysts
Ltd. (U.K.), EFOA (European Fuel
Oxygenate Association), and CON-
CAWE, the oil companies' European
organization for environment, health,
and safety. The European MTBE
workgroup receives technical sup-
port from North American groups,
such as the University of Waterloo
(Canada) and Sierra Environmental
Services, Inc.
Goals of the workgroup include
the following:
• Determine the current extent,
future development, and signifi-
cance of water contamination by
MTBE in Europe;
• Assess and develop cost-efficient
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
remediation technologies for
MTBTEL contamination of ground-
water and water supply wells;
• Improve the science, information,
and knowledge base used in
environmental impact and risk
assessment and integrate socio-
economic factors into risk man-
agement for fuel components in
the EU; and
• Disseminate the results and
knowledge gained from the pro-
ject and provide a forum for all
key stakeholders for the discus-
sion of the regulatory, industrial,
and policy implications of MTBE
in the European environment
A proposal entitled the "Assess-
ment of the Long-Term Behavior,
Environmental Risk, and Remedia-
tion Technologies for MTBE"
(ALBERICH) is currently under
review by the European Commission
(EC). If the proposal receives fund-
ing, ALBERICH will be responsible
for establishing cleanup standards,
implementing cost-effective remedia-
tion technologies, and examining the
socioeconomic impacts of contamina-
tion from MTBE. The EC is reviewing
a draft of the Finnish Environment
Institute's (FBI) assessment of MTBE.
(Contact Timo Assmuth at FEI for
more information—Timo.Assmuth
@vyh.fi.) Further decision from the
EC on the use or potential banning of
MTBE in the EU may occur in the
near future.
One European country, Den-
mark, has already moved forward
to ban MTBE. The ban was sched-
uled for implementation for the
summer of 2001. MTBE has recently
been discovered at a large percent-
age of petroleum release sites in the
country. It will be interesting to see
what effect the ban of MTBE in Den-
mark has on other EU countries and
what Denmark will use to replace
MTBE. •
JeffKuhn is with the Montana Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality and a
member of the ASTSWMO MTBE and
Fuel Oxygenates Workgroup. Martin
Bittens is executive director of
ANCORE at the Center for Applied
Geoscience at University ofTuebingen,
Germany. Dr. Mario Schirmer is with
Umweltforschungszentrum (UFZ)
in Leipzig, Germany.
EXPEDITED SITE ASSESSMENT CD WINS AWARD
. ,^,f I- jillEBpK^
nnecf&itMap
«:DT£p^e -i'i •&'» fcsaii'B*;4^i!£BSSiwii-.i.1'ti'4^iRSi'>i; ii--:v - v" 'cvp. /iS;'.11»;:'S;;:"l?f'j»*'iS««ii!«!SSS:i'»;,isfiv
!; i • Connecticut DEP, provides technical guidance Jin Cflndu,cting :»w*^
::fp;;; ' J;r'=';'<:r ijexpedite^
||! i For h>bfe informtion visit: /rt^w£e^ •'&£•
Veeder-Root Discriminating
Sensor Reclassif ied
Veeder-Rogt has discovered that a small percentage of 794380-341
Discriminating Interstitial Sensors for fiberglass tanks can incor-
rectly report fuel conditions as liquid alarms in some instances.
The affected sensors will alarm where liquid is present; however, they
may not distinguish between fuel and water. The sensor has undergone
additional third-party certification in a nondiscriminating mode and
has beeri reclassified in the list compiled by the National Work Group
on Leak Detection Evaluation.
In the listing, the vendor has made it clear that it has identified "a
failure mode in the sensor that sometimes results in an inability to deter-
mine if the liquid is fuel; the default mode of this failure is water. Thus,
any alarms initiated by the 794380-341 sensor should be treated as
nondiscrirninating." -
The vendor is curently upgrading installed 794380-341 sensors but
cautions that those that have not yet been upgraded remain in the field
under the following conditions:
« The TLS-350 console has software version 20B or higher, which can
handle any alarm generated from the 341 sensor as a liquid alarm;
and
• Water alarms generated by the 341 sensor are responded to in a fash-
ion equivalent to a fuel alarm.
California Concerns
Currently, California discourages the use of discriminating sensors, in
general, for new installations. The State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) has been coneerned_about inconsistencies with third-party cer-
tification results of such products and the applicability of the standard
third-party protocol to these systems. There are also concerns about the
wide range of response and recovery times observed by local agencies in
the field, the reusability of. sensors, possible incremental deterioration of
sensors upon repeated exposure to fuel, and the reliability of the dis-
crimination feature.
While not suggesting the removal of existing discriminating sensors
at this time, the SWRCB says that if a sensor is discovered to.be nonfunc-
tional or is not performing in accordance with third-party testing results,
it should be replaced, preferably with a nondiscriminating sensor. As
•with the Veeder-Root 341 sensor, the SWRCB suggests that it is appro-
priate to reprogram discriminating sensors so that the alarm response to
hydrocarbon and water is identical, or nondiscriminating. Reprogram-
ming should only be done if the manufacturer of the equipment autho-
rizes it, and a factory-trained contractor performs the reprogramming. •
For more information about the Veeder-Root 794380-341 sensor,
contact Alan Betts at (860) 651-2782, For more information on
California's List of Leak Detection Equipment and Methods for
USTs (LG113-15), go to http://www.swrcb.ca.gov.
-------
LUSTLinc Bulletin 39
"a dimension as vast as space
and as j fimeletss as" innnity^'T^^
-tfte. c
MTBE Taste and Odor Thresholds
The Myth of Protectiveiiess
Two often-touted "beneficial"
characteristics of MTBE are its
low taste and odor thresholds,
reputed to be significantly lower
than levels to which exposure might
produce toxic effects (if any) in
humans. While taste and odor
thresholds vary from person to per-
son, several studies indicate that
most people can detect MTBE in
water by either taste or odor (or
both) at concentrations in the range
of 10 to 40 parts per billion.
Such a range must surely be low
enough to provide a high degree of
protectiveness from exposure to
MTBE-contaminated drinking water,
right? As a prelude to answering this
question, consider the following sce-
nario, which is based on two real-life
cases (and embellished only slightly
in order to meld them together):
In Somewhere, U.S.A, a com-
munity where drinking water
comes from domestic ground-
water wells, some of die resi-
dents have noticed that unless
they shower with their win-
dows open, they experience
dizziness, headache, and nau-
sea. Beyond this inconvenience,
however, no one has noticed
anything out of the ordinary
about his or her water. But, over
a holiday weekend, one family
is visited by in-laws from out-
of-town. Upon their arrival, the
guests are given refreshing
glasses of ice water and immedi-
ately gag in response to the tur-
pentine-like taste. As their visit
progresses, they become dizzy
and nauseous any time any tap
in the house is turned on.
At the insistence of their guests,
the homeowners contact the
state health department, which
promptly dispatches a crew to
investigate. Water samples are
collected and analyzed and
found to contain several tens of
milligrams per liter of MTBE—
several hundred times higher
than the supposed taste and
odor threshold and high
enough to account for the dizzi-
ness, nausea, and headaches
experienced by many in the
neighborhood. By the time the
investigation is completed,
many households in the neigh-
borhood are found to have
MTBE-contaminated water.
Many of you who work in state
leaking underground storage tank
programs can probably recall similar
examples from your own experience.
And many of you may have
scratched your head and wondered:
Considering the low taste and odor
thresholds for MTBE, how is it possi-
ble that people living with MTBE-
contaminated water can blithely
drink water that must obviously have
an offensive taste and smell?
The answer to this question is a
function of dispersion and desensiti-
zation. In our scenario, MTBE con-
centrations in the domestic wells
increased gradually over time so that
the people in the neighborhood
became desensitized to the foul smell
and taste of their water. Even when
showering, the neighborhood resi-
dents didn't notice a bad smell,
although they did experience physi-
cal illness caused by exposure to high
concentrations of MTBE, symptoms
that were somewhat relieved by
opening the bathroom windows. The
out-of-town guests, who were not
desensitized, were immediately able
to recognize that the water smelled
and tasted bad.
Transport of Dissolved
Contaminants
Now, let's get a bit more technical.
First, it is important to understand
that dissolved contaminants migrat-
ing in the subsurface through porous
media do not travel as a concen-
trated, discrete slug that ultimately
enters a well and instantaneously
raises the concentration of the
extracted water to that of the slug.
The leading edge of a contaminant
plume is typically very dilute, with
concentrations increasing upgradient
back toward the source. As the
plume continues to expand, concen-
trations gradually rise in the wells
located downgradient from the
source.
This basic behavior holds true
even if the plume detaches from the
source. A detached plume will
migrate as a "pulse" or slug, but con-
centrations will still be lower around
the periphery and higher in the core.
If a detached plume continues to
migrate past wells that intersect it,
then at some point concentrations in
these wells will decrease as the
plume moves even further downgra-
dient.
Transport of dilute dissolved
contaminants is a function of advec-
tion, hydrodynamic dispersion, and
other chemical, biological, and physi-
cal reactions. Advection refers to the
movement of molecules (or particles)
imparted by flowing groundwater.
The advective rate of transport is
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
generally defined (imprecisely, as
•will be shown later) as the average
linear groundwater velocity.
Hydrodynamic dispersion occurs
as a result of molecular diffusion and
mechanical mixing and causes the
dissolved contaminant plume to
spread out with distance from the
source. Molecular diffusion is gener-
ally only significant when groundwa-
ter movement is very slow.
Mechanical mixing occurs as ground-
water flows through the aquifer
matrix, twisting around individual
grains and passing through intercon-
nected pore spaces at differing veloci-
ties.
The movement of some dis-
solved contaminants may also be
affected by chemical, biological, and
physical reactions, such as sorption
and biodegradation, which act to
decrease the transport velocity and
reduce concentrations in the plume.
MTBE is only minimally affected by
sorption processes and degrades very
slowly in many (but not all) subsur-
face environments—as such, in some
environments its behavior is substan-
tially similar to that of a nonreactive
tracer.
Calculating Travel Time
Classical tracer studies devised to
study advection-dispersion phenom-
ena typically employ a cylindrical
column that is filled with porous
media. A continuous supply of tracer
at a specified concentration is intro-
duced at one end of the column
under steady-flow conditions, and
outflow concentrations are measured
at various times after the tracer is
injected.
A graph of the outflow concen-
tration with time is known as a
breakthrough curve (Figure 1). Ini-
tially concentration of the tracer in
outflow samples is zero. Beginning
with the time of first arrival of the
contaminant front, tracer concentra-
tions increase gradually at first then
accelerate before reaching a steady-
state equal to the concentration of the
source. The inflection point of this
curve (the vertical dotted line) repre-
sents the hypothetical arrival time of
an undiluted slug of contaminant
moving at the average linear ground-
water velocity.
There are two problems with the
comparison of true contaminant
transport and an undiluted slug.
First, due to the presence of the
porous media, slug (or plug) flow is
impossible. Even at a relatively small
scale (i.e., these cylindrical columns)
the "plume" of tracer would be dis-
persed with distance in the column
due to molecular diffusion and
mechanical dispersion.
f Wo matter how low the MTBE-
conlaminant thresholds, they cannot
pe relied on to provide any measure
_ of protectiveness from exposure.
Second, some of the tracer mole-
cules are moving faster than the aver-
age linear groundwater velocity, and
some are moving slower. This is also
true for the water molecules—if s just
that we do not measure the velocity
of individual water molecules.
Hence, a common misconception is
that due to dispersion, contaminants
may move faster than groundwater.
A more correct statement is that some
contaminants may move faster than
the average linear velocity of the
groundwater.
This distinction concerning
velocity is very important. It also
leads us to another realization: if
some contaminant molecules are
traveling faster than the average lin-
ear groundwater velocity, then the
maximum linear groundwater veloc-
ity rather than the average linear
groundwater velocity should be used
to calculate the time it will take con-
taminants to first reach a receptor.
(How significant a difference this will
actually make will be discussed in a
later article written in collaboration
with Jim Weaver of the EPA's Office
of Research and Development.)
Take-Home Message
So, back to the original question of
the protectiveness of taste and odor
thresholds. The take-home message
is that no matter how low the MTBE-
contaminant thresholds, they cannot
be relied on to provide any measure
of protectiveness from exposure.
Why?
• Contaminants initially arrive at
receptors at low concentrations
and increase gradually, and the
rate of increase may be slow
enough to allow those affected to
become desensitized. Then, when
the presence of contamination is
finally realized, concentrations
may be high enough to cause
adverse health effects.
• Contaminants may be transported
at rates that exceed the average lin-
ear groundwater velocity. In order
to calculate contaminant travel
time (i.e., the time required for
contaminants to first reach a
receptor), it is the maximum linear
groundwater velocity that is rele-
vant, not the average velocity. •
This article was written by Hal White
(EPA OUST/HQ) in his private
capacity. No official support or
endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency or any other agency
of the federal government is intended
or should be inferred. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
|Figue1
BREAKTHROUGH CURVE OF A NON-REACTIVE TRACER
t
cone.
First Arrival
-------
The MTBE Litigation Frenzy
by Patricia Ellis
Toxic trespass! Public and private nuisance! Negligence!
Strict liability! Fraudulent misrepresentation! Civil conspir-
acy! Personal injury! Property damage! Unfair competition!
Known or should have known! Conspiracy! These are just a few
of the claims in the multitude of lawsuits involving MTBE.
In a March 2001 article in the Journal of Environ-
mental Forensics, titled "Salem Revisited: Updating the
MTBE Controversy," authors R.O. Faulk and John S. Gray
decry the current frenzy of MTBE lawsuits, the class-action
suits in particular. They consider the current MTBE con-
troversy to be "an example of American regulatory and
legal hysteria," rather than a real public health and envi-
ronmental crisis, "an unsubstantiated crusade destined to
waste millions of dollars and unnecessarily preoccupy judi-
cial resources."
They believe that the MTBE crisis has been created by
the pending and future class-action lawsuits that allege—but
do not document—nightmarish scenarios, and that seek, through premature class certifications, a
"rush to judgment" that precludes a reasoned and measured evaluation of the situation. The
authors state that there are very few demonstrated instances where water supplies have been truly
impaired.
I thought it would be easy to sit down and summarize this current "frenzy" of MTBE litigation,
until I realized how much of it there really is, and how many different types of cases there are. So I've managed to summarize a
representative (and certainly not exhaustive) chunk of cases to give you some idea of what's going on out there. Please keep in
mind that I am a mere geologist/hydrologist and unhampered by any real legal knowledge or training. My information does not
come from a search of any legal database, but primarily from newspaper articles and press releases. At the end of this summary,
I've thrmvn my oion hoo cents into the frenzied fray.
Strict liability!
Negligence! ...
CALIFORNIA CASES
MTBE Ban
Methanex, a Canadian corporation,
has filed suit against the U.S. State
Department because of the California
phase-out of MTBE. Methanex
alleges that under Chapter 11 of the
North American Free Trade Agree-
ment (NAFTA), the California ban
violates the foreign investment guar-
antees of NAFTA. An amendment to
the claim also contends that ethanol
producer Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM) misled and improperly influ-
enced the State of California to ban
MTBE in favor of the ethanol indus-
try.
Another suit that came out of the
California MTBE ban is the Oxy-
genated Fuels Association (OFA) v. Cali-
fornia Governor Gray Davis and the
California Air Resources Board. In Janu-
ary 2001, a federal judge tossed out
the lawsuit, ruling that there is noth-
8
ing in federal Air Quality regulations
that precludes the ban. Federal legis-
lation exempts California from the
law that precludes states from impos-
ing their own rules on fuels and addi-
tives because the state's air
regulations preceded federal regula-
tions. OFA plans to appeal the ruling,
arguing that Congress's grant of
autonomy to California does not
apply to the MTBE ban because it
was enacted to protect water, not air.
Also related to the California
MTBE ban is a suit filed in August by
the California Air Resources Board
against the EPA because of its deci-
sion in June mandating the continued
use of oxygenates in reformulated
gasoline. The suit had to be filed
within 60 days of EPA's announce-
ment of its rejection of California's
waiver request. The suit argues that
EPA overlooked scientific evidence
that California gasoline does not
need oxygenates to meet federal pol-
lution reduction standards.
Other Cases
Continuing with California litigation,
a California State Superior Court
judge signed off on an agreement in
August 2001 in Communities for a Bet-
ter Environment (CBE) v. Unocal, forc-
ing five major oil companies to clean
up MTBE-contaminated sites that
they own. CBE, a San Francisco-area
environmental group, charges that
the companies violated the state's
Unfair Competition Act by using
MTBE in such a way that it contami-
nated groundwater.
In 1998, CBE sued Shell,
Chevron, Texaco, Equilon Enter-
prises, Unocal, ARCO, Tosco, Exxon,
and Mobil under that act because the
chemical is not on a list for the state's
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act. Had it been on the
list, the state would have been able to
force the companies to clean up their
sites. The first five companies have
settled. ARCO, Tosco, Exxon, and
Mobil are still in litigation.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
Current California law requires
companies to clean up MTBE leaks,
but the regulations lack any penalty
provisions. Under the settlement,
state agencies will be able to enforce
their compliance orders and ask
courts to impose penalties of up to
$6,000/day for cleanup costs. Many
confidential memos from, the compa-
nies were filed under seal in 1998, but
the presiding judge has unsealed the
documents, which provide many
new details about industry and EPA
knowledge of the potential dangers
of MTBE use.
South Lake Tahoe
Trial began in early October 2001 in a
lawsuit brought by the South Tahoe
Public Utility District (STPUD)
against a group of gasoline produc-
ers, distributors, and dealers, and
Lyondell Chemical, the country's
largest MTBE producer. The water
district holds seven companies
responsible for contaminating 12 of
its 34 wells.
Among other payments, the util-
ity is demanding $40 million to cover
the costs of removing MTBE from its
wells. Twenty-four of the original 31
defendants in the case have settled
with STPUD for a combined $32 mil-
lion. Chevron settled recently for $10
million, and Exxon settled for $12
million. The remaining seven defen-
dants are Shell, Lyondell, Texaco,
Tosco, Ultramar, and two Tahoe gas
stations, Tahoe Tom's and Terrible
Herbst.
According to subpoenaed inter-
nal corporate records, Shell, Texaco,
Exxon, and Chevron had mounting
evidence during the 1980s that MTBE
posed a greater threat to drinking
water than gasoline's other compo-
nents. The companies did not dis-
close this information to the EPA in
response to the agency's mid-1980s
call for information on the chemical's
environmental and health effects.
Industry officials even assured EPA
that its concerns were unfounded in
deciding whether to regulate MTBE
as a contaminant in drinking-water
supplies. The companies had docu-
mented dozens of sites in New Jersey
and in several other states before
1988.
Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica filed suit in
June 2000 against 18 oil industry
companies, including refiners, manu-
facturers, owners, operators, and
suppliers responsible for contaminat-
ing city wells at the Charnock well
field. The city worked extensively
with several companies to devise a
plan for cleaning up the contami-
nated wells, but in January 2000, the
oil companies walked away from the
negotiating process.
Cleanup of the five Charnock
wells, which produce 60,000 gal-
lons/minute, is anticipated to cost
between $150 and $200 million and
take at least 10 years to complete. In
1998, the City of Santa Monica settled
a suit with Mobil Oil Corporation to
pay for the cleanup of its Arcadia
well field wells and to buy residents
water piped in by the Metropolitan
Water District.
NEW YORK CASES
MTBE Ban
In 2000, New York Governor Pataki
signed a law banning the sale of
gasoline containing MTBE starting in
2004. A federal judge upheld the ban
on MTBE, paving the road for a full-
blown court battle. The OF A, which
represents MTBE manufacturers,
argued in federal court that the state
measure conflicted with the federal
Clean Air Act. In May, a U.S. District
Court judge ruled that federal laws
controlling vehicle emissions do not
preclude a state law designed to stop
groundwater from being contami-
nated by MTBE. He denied a request
for summary judgment by OF A,
which had sued to have the law
declared invalid. A trial date has not
been set.
CLASS-ACTION SUITS
Numerous class-action suits concern-
ing MTBE have been filed. A number
of lawsuits have been grouped into a
consolidated complaint by private
well owners against nearly every
major petroleum company. The con-
solidated complaint charges oil com-
panies with strict liability for design
defect, failure to warn, deceptive
business acts and practices, public
nuisance, negligence, breach of notifi-
cation duty under the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA), and
conspiracy to market an unsafe prod-
uct. The plaintiffs seek damages for
contamination or threatened contam-
ination of their well water by MTBE,
and seek a court-supervised program
of MTBE testing, monitoring, educa-
tion, and where necessary, the provi-
sion for clean water and remediation.
The defendants have sought to dis-
miss all claims except the federal
cause of action under TSCA.
Originally, there were five
classes of plaintiffs:
• Berisha - Two New York property
owners who claim their properties
have been devalued due to exist-
ing or past contamination in their
well water. This is an individual
action.
• Berrian - Three New York prop-
erty owners whose wells contain
MTBE and who seek to represent
a class of well owners in New
York whose wells contain MTBE.
• England - Two Illinois property
owners whose wells contain
MTBE, a California well owner
whose wells contains MTBE, and
two Illinois property owners
•whose wells have been tested but
were not found to contain MTBE.
The first three seek to represent a
class of well owners in California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, Rhode Island, Texas, Wis-
consin, and Virginia, whose wells
are contaminated with MTBE. The
last two seek to represent a class
of well owners in the same states
whose tested wells have not been
found to contain MTBE.
• La Susa - A New York property
owner whose well has not been
tested for MTBE, who seeks to
represent a class of well owners in
New York whose properties,
while allegedly at risk for MTBE
contamination, have not yet been
tested for MTBE.
• Young - A Florida property owner
whose well is contaminated with
MTBE, who seeks to represent a
class of private well owners in
Florida where wells have been
contaminated.
One portion of the class-action
lawsuit was dismissed in August
2001 by a New York judicial panel on
• continued on page W
-------
LUSTLinc Bulletin 39
m MTBE Litigation from page 9
multidistrict litigation for lack of
standing. The remaining four classes
of plaintiffs will be permitted to pro-
ceed. For the plaintiffs to have stand-
ing in court, they must prove that
they have suffered an injury-in-fact,
the injury must be traceable, and it
must be likely that the injury will be
remedied by the court.
Portions of the lawsuit involving
La Susa, Bauer, and McMannis (the
wells without MTBE) "have not
alleged a present threat of imminent
harm," wrote the court in dismissing
the entire La Susa class and the por-
tion of the England class pertaining
to the two Illinois well owners whose
wells were tested but found unconta-
minated. The suit names 20 oil
companies and 100 "John Doe" de-
fendants. The judge in the case has
established a Web site (www.MDL
1358.com) that contains many of the
court documents. Fascinating read-
ing!
North Carolina
In January 1999, five people sued 13
major oil companies and distributors
in a class-action suit on behalf of all
North Carolinians who get their
water from private wells (Maynard v.
Amerada Hess Corp.). They called the
action an effort to combat water cont-
amination that they characterize as
"one of the greatest wrongs ever vis-
ited upon the people of this state."
The plaintiffs said that the oil compa-
nies conspired to distribute a poten-
tially dangerous chemical through a
system of underground storage tanks
and pipes they knew to be leaking.
They allege negligence, strict product
liability for failure to warn, and
fraud. Certain in-state distributors
were dismissed by agreement after
early discovery.
In June 1999, the judge granted
the plaintiffs' motion to divide the
proceedings. Under the resulting case
management plan, the first phase of
the case will decide questions of the
defendants' liability to the state's
well owners and whether to certify
for water testing only. Certification of
a class of owners of contaminated
wells for damages will be addressed
in a subsequent phase of the investi-
gation. Half of the state's 7.4 million
residents get their drinking water
10
from private wells, according to data
from the N.C. Division of Environ-
ment and Natural Resources, hun-
dreds of which are known to be
contaminated with MTBE. Of the
state's 100 counties, at least 82 have
wells with MTBE contamination,
according to the lawsuit.
Maine
In March 2001, a judge denied forma-
tion of a class action in a case involv-
ing a 1997 automobile accident in
Standish, Maine, that caused MTBE
to leak into well water (Millet v.
Atlantic Richfield). Millet sued
Atlantic Richfield, Lyondell Chemi-
cal, API, and the Oxygenated Fuels
Association following an automobile
accident in which 8 to 10 gallons of
gasoline were spilled in front of the
home of Michael Millet. MTBE conta-
mination as high as 6,000 ppb was
found in his well water. At least a
dozen other wells in the area were
also found to have MTBE-contami-
nated water, with the accident as the
likely source. An out-of-court settle-
ment was reached, with the driver's
insurance paying $25,000 and
Atlantic Richfield paying $10,000.
Millet received $22,000, another party
whose well was contaminated by an
unknown source received $10,000,
and two other individuals received
$1,500 each to cover the costs of test-
ing their well water.
New Jersey
A New Jersey class-action suit filed in
August 2000 (Holten et al v. Chevron
U.S.A. et al) named 1,000 plaintiffs
and "John Does" seeking to create
funds to remediate spills and cover
medical monitoring for MTBE and
BTEX exposure. The judge granted
Chevron and Gulf Oil's motion for
summary judgment, explaining in
part, that "because Congress
required that gasoline contain an
oxygenate and specifically desig-
nated that MTBE would be one of the
most common and effective oxy-
genates... gasoline containing MTBE
cannot be deemed a defective prod-
uct."
In October, the judge agreed to
reconsider her grant of summary
judgment to Chevron and Gulf on the
negligence claim because she may
have "overlooked" the defendants'
duty to warn service station owners
such as Cumberland Farms, Inc. of
the properties of gasoline with
MTBE.
Connecticut
A Connecticut suit filed in 1999
(Catherine Martin v. Shell Oil Co. et al.)
sought status as a class-action suit.
The suit alleges that contaminated
well water caused diminished prop-
erty and personal damages. The com-
plaint alleges that Shell Oil knew
about a release from USTs at a service
station and failed to stop it or alert
the public and government agencies.
Shell asked for summary judg-
ment. In a response, at the end of
September 2001, the plaintiffs
requested that the court impose the
burden of proof on the issue of causa-
tion on the defendants because of
their egregious failure to test the
product before putting it on the mar-
ket and to test the marketed product
after they had clear evidence of
human health hazards.
The plaintiffs cite that when
gasoline with MTBE was introduced
in 1979, the defendants knew that
UST systems routinely leaked, that
the defendants learned "almost at
once" of the propensity of MTBE to
spread "like lightning in groundwa-
ter," and that the defendants
"learned very soon that MTBE might
have adverse health effects on
humans." Despite their knowledge,
the defendants "made a conscious
corporate decision to leave the prod-
uct on the market, presumably
because it was profitable."
Because of the "egregious"
behavior of the defendants, the plain-
tiffs requested that the court modify
the Daubert principles and allow evi-
dence used by toxicology and hydrol-
ogy experts to formulate the court's
opinions that the plaintiffs have been
exposed to gasoline containing
MTBE in well water contaminated by
a known leaking UST.
OTHER TYPES OF LITIGATION
Another major type of litigation
involving MTBE concerns suits filed
by municipalities or water districts
over impacts to water supplies (e.g.,
the Tahoe and Santa Monica cases).
The following are examples of such
cases:
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
• A case was filed in Orange
County, California, by county
officials against Atlantic Richfield
and others and Lyondell Chemical
for conspiring with API and the
petroleum industry to sell MTBE
with knowledge of its risks to
water quality.
• The City of Dhraba, California,
filed suit against Unocal and oth-
ers in 1999 for impacts to the
water supply of more than 15,000
Dinuba residents, seeking to
recover costs for alternative water
supplies and water treatment.
• The City of Cambria, California,
filed suit against Chevron alleging
the company contaminated a
source of its drinking water.
• The Village of East Alton, Illinois,
has filed suit against companies
that manufactured and sold
MTBE when they knew or should
have known that it would reach
groundwater and pollute public
water supplies.
• The Plainview Water District in
Nassau County, New York/ has
filed suit against ExxonMobil. The
water district is worried that the
company's 1997 gasoline spill
may result in MTBE entering its
drinking-water wells. The lawsuit
contends that the company's use
of MTBE was negligent because
the company "knew or should
have known" that the chemical is
water soluble and is a potential
carcinogen inappropriate for use
in the kind of underground tanks
where it was stored."
• The Town of Sturbridge, Massa-
chusetts, filed suit in December
2000 against Mobil, Atlantic Rich-
field, and Shell for contaminating
one of the town's three wells.
A Marysville, California, law-
suit, filed by two Marysville property
owners who alleged that their land
was contaminated by MTBE and
other chemicals from a leaking gas
station, was dismissed in July by a
federal judge. William and Billie
Kuneman sued the Marysville Water
Service Co., two oil companies, and
others, alleging that leaking USTs
had contaminated one well that sup-
plied water to city residents. The suit
sought damages and a fund so that
Marysville could own and operate its
own water supply. In dismissing the
case, the federal judge said that the
Kunemans had mistakenly sought
recovery of cleanup costs under the
federal CERCLA Act of 1980, which
excludes petroleum-related contami-
nants, and that they failed to give 90-
day notice of their intention to sue
the EPA and the California Attorney
General under provisions of RCRA.
Since no case remained under federal
law, the case was also not continued
on the state claims.
Due to a release at a gasoline sta-
tion in Pascoag, Rhode Island, the
state's Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) filed suit in Sep-
tember 2001 against the owners and
operators of a Mobil gas station,
charging that they have not done
enough to address a gasoline leak on
their property that might be contami-
nating Pascoag's drinking water sup-
ply. They are already under order
from the DEM to investigate and
clean up the spill. The leak is the
prime suspect in the contamination
of the district's wells, which lie about
1,700 feet away. The complaint asks
the court to force the defendants to
do more to investigate and clean up
the gasoline and to fine the defen-
dants up to $25,000/day dating back
to September 13, 2001 for failing to
obey DEM's original orders. The
water district may become a party to
the case, rather than filing separate
litigation.
In August 2001, two Hyde Park,
New York, residents filed suit in state
Supreme Court, seeking $1.76 billion
each, alleging that MTBE leaked from
nearby gasoline stations and created
a health hazard. Sixteen companies
were named in the suits and
amended claims were expected to
name additional codefendants. The
suits state that the families will suffer
health problems as a result of their
exposure and that their properties
have been devalued to the point
where they are "worthless." The suits
ask that the companies be found neg-
ligent for contaminating the ground-
water and for failure to warn of the
potential dangers of MTBE exposure.
Toxics Targeting, an environmental
consulting firm that specializes in
MTBE matters, stated that govern-
ment agencies discovered extensive
contamination in 1979 and never told
the community about the problem.
The state was not named as a defen-
dant in the lawsuit due to restrictions
placed on lawsuits against govern-
ments and because the state didn't
cause the contamination. In February
2001, five residents in the affected
area filed a class-action federal law-
suit against 11 major oil companies,
claiming that their drinking water
had been contaminated with MTBE.
As of August 2001, 77 homes have
had carbon filters installed.
The Suffolk County, New York,
legislature has retained a law firm to
force major oil companies to clean up
the county's water supply. The
county has chosen the law firm of
Weitz and Luxemberg, who recently
won a settlement against Exxon in
the Tahoe area. The firm will work on
a contingency basis, footing the bills
and taking its fee out of any settle-
ment that may be reached. Long
Islanders are totally dependent on
groundwater. Last year, former EPA
Administrator Carol Browner said
the island "faces one of the worst sit-
uations." There are at least 300 indi-
vidual spills in Sussex County alone.
In August, a Manhattan judge han-
dling several MTBE cases rejected an
oil company motion to dismiss a case,
deferring until a trial this question of
fact: Were there safer additives to
use? Suffolk County may join this
lawsuit.
In the Doylestown, Pennsylva-
nia, area, Tosco Refining and Exxon-
Mobil are facing two lawsuits over
groundwater contaminated with
MTBE. Local lawyers filed a class-
action suit over contamination at
Pools Corner in 2000. The owners of
32 private wells near the gas stations
filed the suit, and the lawyers hoped
to represent a class of as many as
10,000 plaintiffs.
In August 2001, another suit was
filed in a Bucks County Court by the
Texas law firm that recently won a
major California settlement. The
recent suit, filed on behalf of the
owners of four properties, said Tosco
and Exxon, the owners of the stations
that impacted their wells, should pay
them at least $300,000 for violating
state and federal environmental laws
and putting their health at risk.
According to the latest lawsuit,
Exxon officials knew as early as the
mid-1980s that putting MTBE in
gasoline was potentially dangerous.
The suit claims the companies failed
• continued on page 12
11
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
m MTBE Litigation from page 11
to properly monitor wells around
two gas stations at Pools Corner. The
suit also names a local environmental
firm, Groundwater Technology, Inc.
of Philadelphia, as liable.
In November 2000, the
Doylestown Intelligencer published a
three-part series on MTBE, and at
least 50 additional articles within the
next few months. The series dis-
cussed recent discoveries of well con-
tamination in eight or nine towns
north of Philadelphia, where large
numbers of domestic wells have been
impacted by MTBE. I expect that
many other lawsuits have been or
will be filed in these towns.
In November 1983, 300 to 400
gallons of gasoline leaked out of an
UST at a Conoco-owned gasoline sta-
tion in Wrightsboro, North Carolina.
In May 1995, MTBE and benzene
were found in 11 of 12 wells that pro-
vide water to two mobile home
parks, with some 178 of these resi-
dents reporting illnesses. In 1997,
Conoco settled out of court for $36
million. The jury had already found
Conoco liable for negligence and
fraud in covering up gasoline spills at
its Wrightsboro station. This was one
of the first MTBE cases to be decided.
MY TWO CENTS
Obviously the water supplies of
Santa Monica and Tahoe have been
seriously impaired, and scores of
"smaller" examples can be cited. The
Maine study, for example, shows that
approximately 15 percent of public
water supplies tested contained
detectable levels of MTBE, and 1 per-
cent exceeded the state drinking
water guideline. Costs for treating
impaired water sources should fall to
those causing the contamination, not
the innocent customer, and these
treatment costs can run to millions of
dollars.
Consider the number of domestic
wells that are in close proximity to
gasoline stations—wells that may
never have been tested for MTBE and
other gasoline components. Whether
or not health risks effects can be
demonstrated from exposure to
MTBE or its breakdown products, the
American consumer should have the
right to drinking water that is uncon-
12
taminated by unnecessary chemi-
cals—water without a turpentine
taste or odor. The consumer should
also not have to face a lifetime of
worry over whether the chemical that
they have consumed for an unknown
number of years may have some
long-term effects that haven't yet
been identified.
As a member of EPA's Blue Rib-
bon Panel, which issued its recom-
mendations in July 1999 and its final
report in September 1999 calling for
the elimination or substantial reduc-
tion of the amount of MTBE in gaso-
line, I had great optimism that we
would quickly see some action
towards that end. But it wasn't until
March 2000 that EPA Administrator
Carol Browner or Dan Click of the
Department of Agriculture first com-
mented on the report, and here it is
November 2001 and there has still
been little progress made towards
eliminating MTBE.
So here we sit, in our oxygenate
rollercoaster, anticipating action on
eliminating MTBE, only to be disap-
pointed again. Actions that seem to
be pending in Congress tend to be
politically rather than scientifically
influenced. As much as I dislike
lawyers and lawsuits, they seem to be
the only way to move the process
ahead, keeping the issue in the public
eye and potentially bringing compen-
sation to those who have been
impacted. If we were to manage to
eliminate MTBE tomorrow, we will
still be dealing with MTBE cleanups
10 years from now. Some of the law-
suits attempt to shift the costs of the
cleanups and water-supply replace-
ments to those who are responsible
for the problem. •
Pat Ellis is a hydrologist with the
Delaware DNREC UST Branch. She is
a technical advisor and regular con-
tributor to LUSTLine. She can be
reached at pellis@dnrec.state.de.us.
The ASTSWMO MTBE and Fuel
Oxygenates Workgroup Newsletter
contains a section on MTBE litigation
that attempts to keep current on
MTBE litigation activities. References
to most of the cases cited can be found
in the newsletters, which are posted at
http://www.astswmo.org/Publica-
tions/Revbkshlf.htm#Tanks.
EPA Issues
Boutique
Fuels Report
On October 24, 2001, U.S. EPA
released its "Study of Bou-
tique Fuels and Issues Relat-
ing to Transition from Winter and
Summer Gasoline" (EPA420-R-01-
051) The study was conducted in
response to a May 17, 2001, directive
contained in the National Energy
Policy Report requiring EPA to
"study opportunities to maintain or
improve the environmental benefits
of state and local 'boutique' clean
fuel programs while exploring ways
to increase the flexibility of the fuels
distribution infrastructure..."
In its report, EPA identifies sev-
eral regulatory changes that can be
made in the near term that could
help to moderate gasoline price
spikes during future transition peri-
ods when fuel producers switch from
winter- to summer-grade cleaner-
burning gasoline. In both 2000 and
2001, gasoline prices rose sharply
during this transition period, particu-
larly in the Midwest.
In examining the current situa-
tion and future outlook for boutique
fuels, EPA consulted with over 40
stakeholder groups, including gaso-
line refiners, distributors and mar-
keters, pipeline operators, auto
manufacturers, state and local gov-
ernment officials, and environmental
and public health organizations.
EPA identified two issues that
need to be addressed. The first is the
need for greater flexibility in the
process by which fuel marketers
make the transition from winter- to
summer-grade reformulated gaso-
line (RFG). The second issue is the
number of state and local boutique
fuels programs and the challenges
that this presents to the gasoline dis-
tribution system.
The report discusses the actions
that EPA will take in the near term to
ensure a more orderly transition
from winter- to summer-grade RFG.
EPA is prepared to act quickly on
this set of administrative and regula-
tory actions to provide new flexibil-
ity to refiners in advance of next
• continued on page 25
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
Microbes and Fuel Systems
The Overlooked Corrosion Problem
by Fred Passman
Microbes play an indispens-
able role in cycling both
organic and mineral mole-
cules essential to maintaining life on
earth. We depend on the activities of
microbes to breakdown wastes and
convert them into nutrients to sus-
tain the food chain. We use microbes
to produce foods ranging from bread
to sausage. Microbes within our
intestinal tracts enable us to derive
nutrition from the foods we eat. Suf-
fice it to say we derive tremendous
benefit from the various processes by
which organisms break down both
organic and inorganic materials.
When discussing material break-
down in positive terms, we use the
terms of either biodegradation or biore-
mediation. Biodegradation includes all
processes by which organisms break
down materials. Bioremediation
specifically refers to processes with
which microbes or other organisms
are used to fix a problem. Wit
respect to leaking underground std
age tanks (LUSTs), bioremediatiq
uses microbes to degrade fuel
has seeped into the ground.
It's a short leap of understand
ing, then, to recognize that the sanw
processes that serve our needs may
also cause problems. The same bio-
logical processes that enable us to
clean up spilled fuel using bioreme-
diation can also degrade fuel stored
in tanks. This undesired biodegrada-
tion is called biodeterioration.
During the past decade, govern-
ment and industry have directed con-
siderable effort and resources toward
reducing the risk of soil and ground-
water contamination from LUSTs.
Although leak prevention technolo-
gies don't overtly presume that tanks
fail from either inside or outside,
most of the preventive measures
address mitigation of the risk of fail-
ure due to corrosion or other insults
working from a tank's outside
towards its interior. In particular,
leaks caused by galvanic corrosion
have received considerable attention.
But there is another underappre-
ciated corrosion process that I'd like
to discuss. It takes place in all types
of UST systems, and microbes play a
key role. It's called microbially influ-
enced corrosion (MIC).
Fuel and Corrosion
Microbiology
The first report of gasoline biodeteri-
oration was published in 1895 [1].
Subsequently, researchers demon-
strated that microbes could degrade
crude oil and all grades of liquid fuel.
(See Davis's excellent 1967 mono-
graph [2] and the 1984 compilation of
papers edited by Atlas [3].) Fuel
biodeterioration can be grouped into
four general groups of processes:
• Microbes can attack the hydrocar-
bon and non-hydrocarbon fuel
molecules directly, thereby chang-
ing the fuel's chemical and perfor-
mance properties.
robes growing in bottoms-
2rs or within biofilms (more on
in a bit) produce biosurfac-
_ils—detergent molecules—which
caih transport water-soluble mole-
cules into fuel and disperse fuel
molecules into water.
• Low molecular weight molecules
excreted as microbial wastes may
react with fuel molecules and
accelerate particle formation.
Some of these waste molecules are
acidic and can make the fuel more
corrosive.
• Microbial metabolism of sulfur
molecules can make fuels more
sour (fuel souring is directly
related to the effect of reactive sul-
fur on its corrosivity as measured
by the Doctor Test [4]).
Clearly, several of these
processes change the chemistry of
fuels to make the fuels potentially
corrosive to materials used in UST
construction. These are examples of
indirect MIC.
Much of the seminal research on
MIC was conducted in the 1940s. In
1945, Professor John Starkey pro-
posed a model for MIC [5]. Starkey's
model assumed that during MIC,
iron ions dissolved from the metal at
anodic sites on its surface. Electrons
flowing from the anodic site to the
cathodic site would attract hydrogen
ions (protons), which would accumu-
late at the cathode. Were this hydro-
gen layer left undisturbed, electron
flow would be arrested and the gal-
vanic cell passivated.
According to Starkey, sulfate-
reducing bacteria (SRB) used the
hydrogen ions that would otherwise
have accumulated at the cathodic end
of a galvanic cell. This process,
known as depassivation, accelerated
the galvanic corrosion rate. As with
most models, Starkey's was an over-
simplification of the process; how-
ever, it was a major contribution to
our understanding of MIC.
Research on the causes and
dynamics of MIC remains a vital
branch of microbial ecology. Today,
we recognize a variety of processes
that contribute to MIC. A number of
microbes, in addition to SRB, depas-
sivate metal surfaces. All of these
microbes share a common class of
enzymes called hydrogenases. The
very process of colonizing surfaces
creates chemical and electropotential
gradients that drive corrosion. More-
over, weak organic acids can react
with dissolved chloride salts to create
locally high concentrations of
hydrochloric acid that can acid-etch
metal surfaces [6, 7]. Microbes most
commonly create patterns of corro-
sion pits, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Microbial communities can
attack polymers used in composites
such as fiberglass-reinforced plastic
(FRP) used for UST construction. As
the polymers are attacked, gaps form
between resin and fiber. Fluid seeps
into these gaps and subsequent
weakening of fiber integrity follows
• continued on page 14
13
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
• Microbes and Fuel Systems
from page 13
as the fluid goes through repeated
expansion and contraction (freeze-
thaw) cycles [8]. In contrast to the pit-
ting pattern seen in steel tanks, MIC
in FRP tanks is more likely to cause
structural failure along a line of activ-
ity (more on this below).
How Do Microbes Get into
Fuel Systems?
Microbes can get into fuel systems in
various ways:
• Vent lines: All tanks are vented. As
product is drawn from the tank, it
creates a vacuum. Air drawn in
through the tank's vent restores
the air pressure within the tank to
equilibrium with the air pressure
(atmospheric pressure) outside
the tank. Normal atmospheric air
is full of water droplets and dust
particles that carry microbes. Con-
sequently, tank venting, essential
to keep tanks from collapsing
under atmospheric pressure, is a
major entry route for contaminat-
ing microbes.
• Fuel transport: Microbes can be
transported from refinery tanks or
barges through pipelines and ter-
minal tanks throughout the fuel
distribution system.
• Water in the system: Relatively
small volumes of water can sup-
port localized pockets or niches of
microbial growth wherever a few
milliliters of water can accumulate
in the system.
• UST Jill-pipe sumps: These are an
excellent source of water contain-
ing high numbers of microbes.
When surface water fills the sump
and is subsequently drained
through the overflow return
valve, the fuel within the UST
receives a significant dose of bqth
water and microbes.,
*
Where Do Microbes
Fuel Systems?
Once a microbe has arrivi
fuel system, water is
vival. Good fuel may carry as^mucn"
as 0.1 percent water. Most orTfas"
water remains dispersed in the fuel
as bound or associated water. The
amount of bound water that dissoci-
ates from the fuel depends on the
14
Figure 1. Corrosion pit pattern in UST. Notice concentration of
pits in rows at the approximate low inventory level. Flash evapo-
ration typically prevents biofilm development above this level.
fuel's additive package, its residence
time in the tank, and the fuel's tem-
perature. Some additives, such as
ethanol, increase water's solubility or
dispersiblity in fuel.
As product stands, water will
continue to dissociate—the longer the
residence time in a tank, the greater
the volume of water that is likely to
fall out. Water's solubility in fuel
increases with temperature. As fuel
cools, it tends to reject water. It's the
nature of fuel, then, to transport
water into tanks at each stage of dis-
tribution, from refinery to end-user
service tank.
Most of the water that dissociates
from fuel during storage in a tank
will fall to the bottom. Some will con-
dense on the interior tank shell sur-
face. If the surface is free of biofilm,
the condensed water will run down
the sides of the shell and accumulate
as bottoms-water. Where biofilm is
present, the condensed water is more
likely to become entrained within
this film.
If we were to follow our newly
arrived microbe, we would see tRat
initially it settles slowly down
through the fuel, along with the par-
ticle with which it rode into the tank.
If the particle's specific gravity
«J$w.eight relative to that of water) is
*" ?ater than that of the fuel, but less
m that of water, the particle may
" to rest at the fuel-water bound-
'interface).
Iternatively, convection cur-
•e'nts within the fuel may transport
the particle to the fuel-shell interface.
If the microbe is a slime-former, it
will attach itself to the surface and
begin reproducing. Similarly, at the
fuel-water interface, it will begin to
form a biofilm layer,
sometimes referred to
as a skinnogen layer.
The slime enables the
microbe to create a
microenvironment that
permits further growth
and proliferation. The
slime also traps other
microbes that may be
settling through the
fuel.
Over time, a con-
sortium develops. A
consortium is a group
of unrelated microbes
that form a community
that is able to carry out
bioconversion processes that none of
its individual members could carry
out alone. For example, the SRB,
mentioned earlier, require an oxy-
gen-free environment in order to
grow. Microbes that require oxygen
do at least two things to create condi-
tions favorable for SRB. First, they
consume the available oxygen, creat-
ing the requisite oxygen-free condi-
tions deep within the biofilm.
Second, they metabolize large
organic molecules that SRB can't use
as food and excrete the smaller mole-
cules on which SRB thrive. By con-
suming these small molecules, SRB
prevent them from accumulating
within the biofilm and becoming
toxic to the microbes that generated
them as wastes.
For microbes to thrive within
fuel systems, they need to aggregate
within biofilms that can form consor-
tia, trap water and nutrients, and
protect the resident populations
from the potentially hostile outside
environment. Biofilm communities
are most likely to develop at the fuel-
water interface, lower portions of the
tank shell surface, and within bottom
sludge and sediment.
In diesel and heavier grade fuel
tanks, biofilms can cover the entire
tank surface. Gasoline is more
volatile. In this case, as product is
drawn from the tank, exposing sur-
faces, gasoline evaporates from those
surfaces fast enough to also dehy-
drate them. Consequently, biofilms
tend to form at and below the tank's
normal low ullage level. At most fuel
retail sites, this is the bottom third of
the tank (assuming 3,000 gallon
[11,340 liters] minimum inventory in
a 10,000 gallon [37,854 liter] UST).
-------
LUSTLim Bulletin 39
Heaviest biofilm development is typ-
ically at the level where the fuel-
water interface intersects with the
shell surface. Most often this is the
zone between 10s and 20s arc, on
either side of bottom dead center.
How Do Microbes Attack Fuel
System Components?
Steel USTs
With an understanding of how
microbes enter fuel systems and
where they tend to accumulate, we
can revisit the biodegradation
processes mentioned earlier. Some
microbes can use fuel hydrocarbons
as their sole source of organic nutri-
tion. Others can use fuel additives
and other non-hydrocarbon fuel mol-
ecules as food. Some microbes that
thrive in fuel systems may not be able
to use any molecules in fuel as food.
As I illustrated above, for the SRB,
these microbes rely on the byprod-
ucts of other microbes for nutrition.
In steel tanks, MIC is primarily
an incidental consequence of micro-
bial activity. Biofilms create chemical
and electropotential gradients,
thereby inducing galvanic corrosion.
Conditions within biofilms are typi-
cally acidic and reducing, contribut-
ing further to metal dissolution.
Within corrosion tubercles,
strong inorganic acids, particularly
hydrochloric, can form from the reac-
tion between chloride salts and weak
organic acids. The tubercle crust pre-
vents the aggressively corrosive
hydrochloric acid from diffusing into
the system outside the tubercle. Con-
sequently, severe acid etching pro-
ceeds within the tubercle.
Additionally, if SRB are present,
they generate hydrogen sulfide. The
hydrogen sulfide then reacts with
free iron ions to form ferrous sulfide.
The net result is a characteristically
spherical corrosion pit, resulting in a
pinhole leak as the outer margin of
the pit breaks through the tank's
exterior.
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic USTs
As mentioned earlier, the dynamics
of FRP UST biodeterioration are quite
different. At this point, it is not cer-
tain whether microbes use composite
polymers as food or if enzymes
intended to break down other mole-
cules (actually used as food) attack
the polymers.
In the studies performed to date,
other nutrients have always been
available to the microbes degrading
FRP. In the case of fuel USTs, the
point is perhaps moot. Microbes colo-
nizing FRP surfaces have the same
cornucopia of nutrients available as
those colonizing steel tank surfaces.
Regardless of whether FRP poly-
mers are used as food, the end result
is shortened polymer chain lengths.
This translates into weaker structure
and increased brittleness. It's possible
for the bottom few inches of an FRP
UST to separate from the rest of the
tank (recall my comment about maxi-
mal biofilm development at the level
where the fuel-water interface meets
the tank shell).
Lined USTs
Steel USTs that have been lined with
a coating are subject to a third type of
biodeterioration. If a coating has even
a single holiday (break in the
coating's uniformity), water and
microbes can gain access to the coat-
ing-shell boundary. Colonization
begins at the holiday and spreads out
from there. Biofilm development
between coating and shell is particu-
larly insidious because it's so difficult
, to detect until the coating begins to
blister away from the shell. Although
the process has not been studied
thoroughly, it is likely that the biode-
terioration mechanisms described
above for both steel and FRP USTs
are active when microbes live
between coating and tank shell mate-
, rials. Both the coating and underly-
ing steel are attacked.
Detecting Microbial
Contamination
My earlier discussion of where
microbes tend to grow within fuel
systems also illustrates the difficulty
of recognizing microbial contamina-
tion before system components are
destroyed. It is nearly impossible to
retrieve swab samples of slime from
tank walls without gaining direct
access to the tank.
The methods described here can-
not provide information as conclu-
sive as that obtained by entering a
tank, making observations, and col-
lecting samples directly. However,
the preentry process of making a tank
safe for entry is costly and time con-
suming. Moreover, it destroys much
of the evidence that would be useful
. to a microbiologist. The only practical
alternative is to pull fluidj
and use them as surrogate
what may be happening
shell surface.
Samples tradit
for fuel quality
information about either tnepreserice
of microbes or whemersignificant
biodeterioration in underway within
the tank. Moreover, many of biodete-
rioration's symptoms mimic those of
non-biological deterioration. Not-
withstanding these challenges, it is
possible to monitor fuel systems for
both microbial contamination and
biodeterioration.
I refer readers to ASTM's Stan-
dard Guide to Microbial Contamination
in Fuels and Fuel Systems (D6469 [9])
for a more detailed discussion of the
topics covered in this section.
Sampling
Monitoring begins with collecting the
best possible sample. A full chapter
of the forthcoming ASTM Manual on
Microbial Contamination of Fuels and
Fuel Systems (due to be published in
early 2002) is devoted to sampling
strategies and techniques. Bottom
samples from the low end of a UST
are most likely to provide useful
microbiological information. This is
often the first challenge.
Regardless of the intentions of
UST installers, many USTs settle by
the tank's turbine (submerged pump)
end. A well-designed system will
have a sampling port or other access
fitting near the turbine distribution
manifold to permit both sampling
and water removal from this end of
the UST. I am always delighted on
the rare occasions when I encounter
such systems. More often, the turbine
must be pulled in order to get a bot-
tom sample from this end of a UST.
Unless the UST's trim has been
measured (fuel ullage at fill and tur-
bine ends) and determined to be trim
(low) at the fill-end, bottom samples
should be taken from both ends of
the UST.
Samples should be collected with
a Bacon bomb or similar true bottom
sampler. Each sample is dispensed
through a clean funnel into an
unused glass sample bottle. The
advantage of using glass will become
• continued on page 16
_
-------
LUSTLinc Bulletin 39
m Microbes and Fuel Systems
from page 15
evident in the next section.
If dispensers calibrated to deliver
10 gpm (38 liters /min) are delivering
< 7 gpm (27 liters/min), pull the dis-
penser filter and save it for examina-
tion. Test the dispenser flow rate after
installing a fresh filter. If the rate
hasn't returned to normal (the actual
rate may be < 10 gpm if customers
are taking fuel while you are running
the test), corrosion may have
degraded valve operation. (Hint: if
you discover corroded components
between the UST and the dispenser,
suspect UST biodeterioration.)
.r Rag (invert emulsion) ia
Figure 2. Fuel tank bottom sample showing
haze 5 fuel over bottoms-water. Note the rag
layer that has developed between the fuel and
water phases. Similar to the tank shell biofilm,
the rag layer is home to dense microbial pop-
ulations,
Gross Observations
There are a number of simple obser-
vations that provide excellent indica-
tions as to whether significant
biodeterioration is occurring within a
particular system. Figure 2 illustrates
a heavily contaminated bottom sam-
ple. Note the well-defined region
between the bottoms-water and fuel.
This invert-emulsion (water in fuel)
zone is called the rag layer. If s caused
by the production of biosurfactants
and skinnogens at the fuel-water
interface.
Rag layers may also be caused by
chemical incompatibilities within the
fuel. However, rag layers produced
by microbes will (a) tend to adhere to
the jar's side if you tilt the jar gently;
(b) have stalactites of slime protrud-
16
ing into the water phase, stalagmites
of slime projecting into the fuel
phase, or both; and (c) will often be
membranous or difficult to disperse.
A well-defined rag-layer biofilm is a
strong indicator of biofilm develop-
ment on tank walls.
To determine if the sample's sed-
iment contains lots of rust particles,
dip the magnetic end of a stirring bar
retriever into the sample bottle and
swirl it gently on the bottom of the
bottle for a few seconds. (A stirring
bar retriever is a long, plastic-coated
wand with a magnet that is encapsu-
lated into one end; lab technicians
use stirring bar retrievers routinely to
pull magnetic stirring bars from test
flasks.) Remove the retriever from
the bottle and look for magnetic par-
ticles on its tip. If magnetic debris
covers more than half of the bottom
of the stirring bar retriever, then rust
accumulation is significant and
should be investigated further.
Bottoms-water samples from
heavily infected tanks may also have
distinctive odors. Strong sulfide or
ammonia odors are characteristic of
sulfate and nitrate reduction, respec-
tively.
Open plugged filters for inspec-
tion. If the filter is plugged with rust
or if the housing is corroding, suspect
MIC activity within your system.
Other Tests
A complete diagnostic evaluation of
biodeterioration in a UST requires a
battery of physical, chemical, and
microbiological tests [9]. Of these, the
traditional microbiological tests—
inoculating growth media to see
what grows—are often the least use-
ful. Many microbes that are perfectly
content and thriving in the contami-
nated system may (a) not get cap-
tured in the sample; or (b) not grow
in the medium into which we trans-
fer them. Negative test results
obtained with the various commer-
cially available growth test kits may
provide encouraging but misleading
information. If MIC is suspected, a
microbiologist trained in fuel and
fuel system biodeterioration should
be called in to perform a thorough
assessment.
Controlling Microbial
Contamination
Good housekeeping goes a long way
toward preventing UST biodeteriora-
tion. Recognizing that water and j§4v'»
iment is going to be defeej-*51**^*-1*-' ''
product, UST owners shoji"~*
regular monitoring anc
programs. As noted
effective, samples and water*dra\
need to be taken from the tank's low-
end.
Although dry tankage is theoreti-
cally possible, it's impractical. Even
in the aviation industry where fuel is
filtered and dewatered at each step of
the distribution process, water still
reaches aircraft fuel tanks where it is
dealt with through the use of deicing
additives. Even if USTs were
designed to permit water draw from
the their lowest point, tank wall
biofilms will entrain significant water
(a 1/8-inch thick biofilm, covering
30 percent of the surface of a 10,000
gallon UST, can hold several gallons
of water—a veritable ocean from the
perspective of microbes). This means
that over time, most tanks will
develop microbe biofilms.
In fuel systems, biofilms may
take three to six months to develop
[10]. Since UST biodeterioration is
unlikely to occur in the absence of a
biofilm consortium, it makes sense to
minimize the risk of biofilm forma-
tion. Periodic treatment with an
antimicrobial pesticide can prevent
biofilm maturation. I generally rec-
ommend treating tanks two or three
times per year, depending on test
data. All treatments should be data
driven. If there's no evidence of
biofilm development, the interval
between treatments can be extended.
If samples show that a rag layer
forms within two months after treat-
ment, I recommend treating more
frequently.
The U.S. EPA approves only a
limited number of antimicrobial pes-
ticides for use in fuel systems. Before
treating a UST with an antimicrobial
pesticide, contact either a manufac-
turer or manufacturer's representa-
tive who is knowledgeable about
treatment protocols, dosing, han-
dling (all antimicrobial pesticides are
treated as hazardous materials), and
product selection.
Some products are primarily fuel
soluble; others are only water solu-
ble. The most effective products have
at least some solubility in both fuel
and water. Products also differ in
their respective ranges of microbici-
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
cfal activity. A few of the products
approved for use in fuel systems
have a secondary function as corro-
sion inhibitors. A reputable profes-
sional can help you determine what
products and treatments are most
likely to give you successful control.
If a tank is already heavily conta-
minated, chemical treatment alone is
unlikely to be satisfactory. First, all
antimicrobial pesticides are used up
as they kill microbes. If a tank is
coated with a thick biofilm, the
microbicide is probably going to be
used up before the tank is disin-
fected. Some microbicide molecules
will get trapped in the biofilm with-
out ever coming into contact with
their targets.
Second, a successful microbicide
treatment will disrupt the biofilm
sufficiently to cause large pieces
(floes) of biofilm material to slough
off of the tank's walls. A significant
percentage of these floes will be
transported to the dispenser filters,
which will consequently plug prema-
turely.
Heavily contaminated tanks
should be cleaned within 24 hours
after an initial "shock" treatment.
There are a number of commercial
systems for cleaning tanks. Some
require direct access; others use tub-
ing or hoses that are inserted into the
tank.
The most effective systems recir-
culate and polish the fuel at high
(> 200 gpm) flow rates and use direc-
tional nozzles to scour tank surfaces.
Systems designed to operate at < 100
gpm are fine for pulling water,
sludge, and sediment off of tank bot-
toms, but are ineffective against tank
shell biofilms. Aggressive tank clean-
ing, as a biodeterioration control mea-
sure, should only be needed once
every five to ten years, if if s accompa-
nied by periodic preventive treat-
ment.
Microbes ... in a Tank Shell
Left undetected and untreated,
microorganisms can infect fuel sys-
tems, develop consortia communi-
ties, and cause fuel system
component failures ranging from
premature dispenser filter plugging
to leaking USTs. Most UST installa-
tions do not make it easy to pull the
bottom samples that are most useful
for monitoring biodeterioration risk.
Optimally, all USTs should be fitted
with sample collection and dewater-
ing access near each end of the tank.
Currently, most USTs can only be
sampled at the fill-pipe, unless ser-
vice engineers pull the turbine, the
electronic gauging device, or both.
Consequently, significant volumes of
water can accumulate in tanks unde-
tected.
Microbes find all of the water
and nutrients they require in fuel
tanks. The erroneous conventional
wisdom that gasoline is less suscepti-
ble to microbial attack is based on
several decades of experience with
product containing tetraethyl lead.
Once tetraethyl lead (itself an effec-
tive unregistered microbicide) was
removed from automotive gasoline,
microbes reinhabited gasoline sys-
tems. In my experience, gasoline
tanks support considerably higher
numbers of microbes than do diesel
tanks.
Microbes find all of the water and
Mjjj/its they require in fueHanks.
.
w-.w,jjf
The mere presence of microbes
does not necessarily mean that sys-
tem biodeterioration is occurring.
Symptoms of system change are bet-
ter biodeterioration indicators. Look
for rag layer development or accu-
mulation of rust particles in bottom
samples. Smell for sulfide or ammo-
nia. Keep track of filter-plugging
rates. In a clean system, filters can
process (filter) 250,000 gal or more
without affecting flow rate. In an
infected system, filters may start
plugging before having processed
50,000 gallons of fuel.
Historically, MIC in USTs has
received relatively little attention.
Leakage caused by MIC probably
accounted for 10 to 20 percent of all
leaking USTs. Several watershed
events over the past decade, how-
ever, may change these statistics.
LUST regulations have reduced the
risk of leaks caused by galvanic cor-
rosion from the UST's exterior. The
fuel industry has also changed.
While consumer demand has
grown steadily at 5 to 7 percent annu-
ally, shell capacity has shrunk at
approximately the same rate. This
means that product throughput rates
have climbed 10 to 14 percent annu-
ally. In other words, there's less time
for water and sediment to settle out
of the fuel at each stage of the distrib-
ution system. More water and sedi-
ment (along with passenger
microbes) get transported through
from refinery to end-user.
In response to clean air regula-
tions, fuel chemistry has also
changed. Although there is no gen-
eral agreement so far, it's likely that
the net effect of these chemical
changes (in both basic product and
additive packages) has been to make
fuels more susceptible to biodeterio-
ration. In short, history is not neces-
sarily a good predictor of the future
likelihood of UST biodeterioration.
Steel, composite, and lined tanks
are all susceptible to biodeterioration.
In the recent past, most UST owners
invested heavily to ensure that their
systems complied with LUST regula-
tions. Relatively inexpensive good
housekeeping, coupled with periodic
preventive treatment, can minimize
the risk of uncontrolled microbial
contamination wiping out the return
on the upgrade investment. •
Fred Passman is an industrial micro-
bial ecologist and owner of Biodeterio-
ration Control Associates, Inc., a
consulting firm dedicated to helping
industry recognize and control micro-
bial contamination in process fluid sys-
tems. He can be reached at
bca-fjp@ix.netcom.com
References
[I] Myoshi, M. J. J. Wins. Bot. 1895.28,269-289.
[2] Davis, J.B. Petroleum Microbiology. Elsevier
Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 1967.
604pp.
[3] Atlas, R. M. Ed. Petroleum Microbiology.
Macmillan, New York. 1984. 692 pp.
[4] ASTM. "D4952 Standard Test Method for
Qualitative Analysis for Active Sulfur
Species in Fuels and Solvents" (Doctor
Test). ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol.
5.03. ASTM, Conshohocken.
[5] Starkey, R. L. and K. Wright. Bull. Amer.
Gas Soc. Tech. Sec. 1945. p. 108.
[6] Dexter, S.C. Ed. Biologically Induced Corro-
sion. NACE, Houston. 1986.363 pp.
[7] Videla, H. A. Manual of Biocorrosion. CRC
Press, Boca Raton. 1996.273 pp.
[8] Gu, J. D., C. Lu, R. Mitchell, K. Thorp and
A. Crasto. Material. Perform. 1997.36:37-41.
[9] ASTM. "D6469 Standard Guide for Micro-
bial Contamination in Fuels and Fuel Sys-
tems." ASTM Annual Book of Standards,
Vol. 5.04. ASTM, Conshohocken.
[10] Passman, F. J., B. L. McFarland and M. J.
Hillyer. Int. Biodet. Biodeg. 2001.47,95-106.
17
-------
LUSTLiwBiitom39
by Ben Tliomas
TT "Taving 13 years experience as
I ' I an UST regulator, I've grap-
JL JLpled with nearly every imag-
inable topic pertaining to UST
prevention equipment and opera-
tions. Frustrating and convoluted
topics, such as heating oil tank
exemptions, leak detector testing
"per manufacturer" specifications, or
the secret language of insurance
reporting requirements are just day-
in-the-life fodder for tank bureau-
crats like myself and others around
the country.
But I must confess I met my
match when I uncovered a little regu-
lation that I had somehow missed all
these years—a regulation that has
gone quietly unnoticed by govern-
ment and industry alike. It's a seem-
ingly docile regulation that, when
taken at face value, could have saved
a number of lives in the past 10 years
had it been taken seriously.
I'm talking about overfill preven-
tion—not the "must-have-overfill-
device-or-high-level-alarm" aspect.
That much we know. It's equipment.
Must be there. What I'm talking
about is the regulation that is sup-
posed to prevent human error from
causing an overfill—40 CFR
280.30(a). You know, the regulation
that says the owner/operator must
ensure that there is enough room in
the tank prior to delivery and make
sure the transfer is completely moni-
tored...you know that rule, right?
You enforce it, right? You look for
proof of this thing every time you
inspect an UST, right?
Blip Blip
If this regulation is news to you, take
heart, it was news to me until last
year when I came across it by acci-
dent. I had been reading the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
report on the 1998 Biloxi, Mississippi,
tank overfill tragedy in which five
people were killed and found, among
many things, a reference to that par-
The Missing; Link in Overfill
Prevention
ticular law. I kept blipping over the
requirement each time I browsed the
regulations.
That's weird, I thought. I didn't
think there was a requirement for the
fuel delivery itself. I started asking
around to see how to handle this
requirement. Here are some of the
responses I received:
f "I never look for that." (state
• inspector)
| "I don't know how you could
• measure that." (federal inspector)
f "I think it's a worthwhile issue,
• but we have no jurisdiction in that
area." (industry representative)
"Expecting UST operators to mon-
itor fuel transfers is an inconve-
nience." (industry representative)
"We can't enforce this require-
ment unless there is a spill, (fed-
eral official)
,,
The fundamental gap in preventing
\ ! I
overfills lies not in the overfill
equipment of the UST system or the
' • ' safe highway transport to a gas
r station hut father in the routine
ii it 4 i t < ijx < j i n i I
1111 Delivery of product to the tanks.
i "• [• • "• i .->•• - i
The Problem
Federal UST regulations currently
require owners and operators to per-
form two important tasks related to
preventing overfill. The two require-
ments state: "The owner and opera-
tor must ensure that the volume
available in the tank is greater than the
volume of product to be transferred to
the tank before the transfer is made
and that the transfer operation is moni-
tored constantly to prevent overfilling
and spilling." [Emphasis added.]
Currently there is no recom-
mended practice, industry standard,
or code that provides effective guid-
ance to owners and operators for
measuring, much less achieving, these
two things.
But wait, you cry, there is guid-
ance referenced in the regs, I've seen
it. Well, yes, the regulations do pro-
vide references in 40 CFR 280.30(a)
by stating:
The transfer procedures de-
scribed in National Fire Protec-
tion Association Publication 385
may be used to comply with
paragraph (a) of this section.
Further guidance on spill and
overfill prevention appears in
American Petroleum Institute
Publication 1621, "Recom-
mended Practice for Bulk Liq-
uid Stock Control at Retail
Outlets," and National Fire Pro-
tection Association Standard 30,
"Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code.
Have you ever read these three
documents? They really don't have
much to do with the issue. I reviewed
the three recommended documents
and found nothing of substance that
would provide guidance to help UST
operators meet these two obligations.
Specifically, none of these documents
provide procedures on measuring
tanks prior to delivery or how to
monitor the transfer.
Okay, I know you're probably
thinking that everybody and their
uncle knows that drivers do these
things, not the owners and operators.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
One astute regulator recently pointed
out that the lines of responsibility are
sharply defined in the preamble of 40
CFR 280.1 quote: "Thus, regardless of
whether the owner and operator
decides to share (by contract) respon-
sibility for the monitoring of the
transfer with the carrier, under
18
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
today's final regulations the owner
and operator will continue to be
responsible in the event that there is a
release during delivery."
Observations
As UST equipment becomes more
sophisticated, and as states start look-
ing more closely at operational com-
pliance of UST systems, outstanding
problems are emerging. I believe
overfills due to human error—not
equipment error—will be the next big
challenge in preventing environmen-
tal and safety hazards from USTs.
National tank expert Marcel
Moreau recently led a series of UST
operator workshops in Alaska. He
told audiences that based on his
experience, the equipment alone will
not stop overfills. The fundamental
gap in preventing overfills lies not in
the overfill equipment of the UST
system or the safe highway transport
to a gas station, but rather in the rou-
tine delivery of product to the tanks.
The magnitude of this issue
extends well beyond the boundaries
of Alaska. I forecast that this issue
will surface sooner or later nation-
ally. Indeed/ the high-profile overfill
and subsequent fire in Biloxi, Missis-
sippi, should have been a wake-up
call to industry and government.
Related to the incident was a recom-
mendation from the NTSB to the UST
owner R.R. Morrison and Sons, Inc. It
stated:
No Fast Lane employee com-
pared the amount of gasoline
scheduled for delivery with the
amount that the station's moni-
toring system indicated was in
the underground tanks to deter-
mine whether the quantity
intended for delivery would fit
in the underground tanks; such
a comparison, in this case, would
have prevented the overfill.
[Emphasis added.]
I encourage you to get a copy of
the NTSB report. If s chilling. Down-
load the full report from
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1999/
HZM9902.htm.
I believe this failure to provide
adequate guidance and training, and
the lack of an articulated position
from industry and government, will
add fuel to the next generation of
UST problems. These problems arise
from UST systems that are deemed
safe by regulator and regulated alike,
but that continue to be overfilled.
Now some might call this matter
trivial, in that overfills happen less
frequently than they used to, so why
put so much effort into a problem
that only happens now and then? My
response is that while I agree that
overfills don't happen every day,
when they do, they happen big time,
and the consequences are, or can be,
catastrophic.
Wanted: Recommended
Practices
The Alaska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (ADEC) re-
cently responded to an overfill at a
convenience store in Anchorage that
illustrates the nature of the problem.
It appears that the overfill resulted in
a synergistic combination of prob-
lems that I suspect are typical of
overfill incidents. The driver miscal-
culated the available ullage, the oper-
ator did not monitor the delivery, the
overfill device failed to activate in
time, and product escaped out an
opening no one suspected—the loose
cap of the automatic tank gauge
probe. This investigation reinforces
the notion that equipment alone will
not prevent overfills from occurring.
We as a community need to look at
the human element of the problem.
Since 2000, the inspection of UST
systems in Alaska has been priva-
tized. This is a good first step in iden-
tifying and preventing problems
such as overfills. ADEC has provided
extensive guidance on how inspec-
tors should measure operational
compliance of UST systems. While
much guidance is in place for our
inspectors, none exists for evaluating
the operational methods that opera-
tors use to prevent overfills.
We need a way to measure the
requirements put forth in state and
federal regulations that require UST
owners and operators to measure the
• continued on page 22
New API Loading and Unloading Cargo
Tank Motor Vehicles Recommended
Practice Available
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has published a new recom-
mended practice to help ensure the safe and efficient loading and deliv-
ery of petroleum products to retail gasoline outlets and bulk storage
facilities. The publication provides detailed procedures for top loading and
bottom loading tank trucks as well as unloading to both underground stor-
age tanks and aboveground storage tanks and to aboveground tanks located
within vaults (pits) or within dikes or walls.
The publication, API Recommended Practice (RP) 1007, Loading and
Unloading ofMC 306/DOT406 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles, First Edition, has
been published in a new laminated and tabbed format designed especially to
facilitate use by truck drivers.
RP 1007 was prepared by a joint task force with representatives from
API, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Association of Con-
venience Stores, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the Soci-
ety of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, and the National Tank
Truck Carriers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also reviewed the
document.
RP 1007 is available for $12.50 per copy for API members and $25 for
nonmembers. It may be ordered from TechStreet of Ann Arbor, Michigan, by
phone at (800) 699-9277 or (734) 302-7801; by fax at (734) 302-7811; or
online at http://www.techstreet.com/. For additional technical information
about the new RP, contact Prentiss Searles at (202) 682-8227 or at
searlesp@api.org. •
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 39
» ::'" :::::::::::::ji"ivnj:iiSiiiiiiiiwS::^jS :ii Ui,;:; ^ i;,u| jn||i t^ »' T.Iiilai
LeakPKevention
nicaUy Speaking
by Marcel Moreau
Marcel Moreau is a nationally ;
^-recognized petroleum storage specialist :?
fwhose column, Tank-nically Speaking,^
i~'fe a regular feature o/LUSTLine. As ;
talways, we welcome your comments and •
I questions. If there are technical issues ^
i that you would like to have Marcel i
\ discuss, let him know at
p; marcel.moreau@juno.com *
Continuous or Isolated?
This Is the Question
When the testing of cathodi-
cally protected tanks is
mentioned in regulatory
circles (usually accompanied by
some scratching of heads and sighs
of frustration), the number that pops
into the collective consciousness is
the venerable -.85 volts. Most folks
recognize that this number consti-
tutes a "structure-to-soil" potential
measurement—a measurement that
is fundamental to evaluating
whether a cathodic protection (CP)
system is functioning properly. How
to conduct and record structure-to-
soil measurements has been the topic
of previous "Tank-nically Speaking"
articles. (See LUSTLine #25, "Testing
Cathodic Protection Systems," and
#32, "Combatting CP-Test Heart-
burn.")
A recent query from a perspica-
cious regulator, however, brought to
my attention a much-neglected topic
associated with the testing of cathodi-
cally protected tanks and piping—
continuity. Or did he mean isolation?
Hmm, what do we mean?
To say that two components of a
cathodically protected structure are
electrically continuous means that elec-
trons are able to move freely between
the two components. (In electrical
terms, the resistance is low.) To say
that two components of a cathodi-
cally protected structure are electri-
cally isolated means that electrons are
not able to move freely between the
two components. (In electrical terms,
the resistance is very high.)
Continuity/isolation problems
are one of the most frequently found
causes for the failure of both
impressed and galvanic CP systems
to perform properly. Electrical conti-
20
nuity/isolation is often the
first measurement that is
taken when a storage sys-
tem fails a structure-to-soil
cathodic protection test. But
how you measure the conti-
nuity or isolation of a buried
structure is the question at
hand.
The first thing to
remember is that the
exact same procedures are used to
measure both continuity and isola-
tion. To determine whether the read-
ings obtained on a particular
cathodically protected structure are
"good" or "bad," you must keep in
mind whether you are testing an
impressed or a galvanic CP system.
Electrical continuity is a critical ele-
ment in the design of impressed cur-
rent cathodic protection systems,
while its opposite, electrical isolation,
is a critical element of commonly
used galvanic cathodic protection
systems.
Tools and Methods
The resistance (ohm meter) circuit of
traditional multimeters used to mea-
sure voltage, amperage, and resis-
tance is generally not suited for
making electrical continuity/isola-
tion measurements among the vari-
ous buried metallic components of an
underground storage system. In-
stead, continuity/isolation measure-
ments are typically made with the
same equipment and procedures
used in structure-to-soil cathodic pro-
tection measurements.
To the casual observer, the mea-
surement of continuity/isolation
may appear identical to the structure-
to-soil measurement. Likewise,
because the results are recorded as
voltages on the CP monitoring
record, continuity/isolation mea-
surements can be readily confused
with structure-to-soil measurements
unless they are properly identified.
To confuse matters even more,
several methodologies may be used
to evaluate the continuity/isolation
of cathodically protected systems.
The following are descriptions of
three different methods for evaluat-
ing the electrical continuity/isolation
of buried metallic structures:
1. FIXED REFERENCE, MOVING
GROUND The theory here is that if
two buried metallic structures are
electrically continuous, they will both
be at the same potential (voltage) rel-
ative to a stable reference.
Procedure
Place the copper/copper sulphate
reference cell (CRC) in a fixed loca-
tion, attach one of the voltmeter test
leads to the CRC, and then make con-
tact with the storage system or other
components that you wish to evalu-
ate (e.g., fill pipe, ATG riser, sub-
mersible pump, vent pipe, tank shell,
building electrical ground) with the
second voltmeter test lead. The criti-
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
cal elements in this procedure are: (a)
the CRC must not budge (at all!) dur-
ing the entire continuity/isolation
testing procedure, and (b) the volt-
meter test lead must make solid
metal-to-metal contact with each
component that is to be evaluated.
Tips
• It is good form to place the CRC at
some distance from the struc-
ture^) being evaluated, but I have
had quite good luck placing the
CRC in a central location near the
storage systems being evaluated.
• Use a sharp probe on the volt-
meter test lead to achieve metal-
to-metal contact with the various
storage system components. Do
not touch the metallic components
of the probe while making the
measurement.
• Be sure the voltage on the storage
system is stable. If you cannot get
a good stable reading on your
voltmeter, this test will be difficult
to utilize. With an impressed cur-
rent system, the rectifier may be
on or off, but the rectifier should
have been turned on or off a day
or more before the continuity/iso-
lation measurements are made.
Interpretation of Results
The actual voltage that is measured
using this procedure is not impor-
tant. The voltage will vary depending
on the location of the CRC, but the
purpose here is not to evaluate the
structure-to-soil potential. The only
factor being evaluated here is
whether the voltage measurements
made with the test lead contacting
different storage system components
are identical or nearly so (plus or
minus a few millivolts) to one
another.
Whether the voltmeter reads -1.4
volts or -.80 volts or -.43 volts is not
relevant. What is relevant is the rela-
tionship of the various readings to
one another. Readings from different
storage system components of -.654
volts, -.655 volts and -.653 volts indi-
cate that the three components are
electrically continuous. Readings of -
.654 volts, -.593 volts and -.730 volts
indicate that the three components
are electrically isolated from one
another. Readings that are different
from one another but not by much
(e.g., -.654 volts, -.666 volts, -.648
volts) are inconclusive. Use test
method #2, if possible, to tell for sure
what is going on. Readings that are
more than about 20 millivolts differ-
ent from one another generally indi-
cate that structures are electrically
isolated.
2. CURRENT ON/CURRENT OFF
POTENTIALS The theory here is
that when the cathodic protection
current is repeatedly turned on and
then off, structure-to-soil potentials
of the components that are electri-
cally continuous with the CP system
will show large variations in poten-
tial that follow the cycling of the CP
current.
Procedure
The reference cell is placed in a fixed
location, a voltmeter test lead is
attached to the CRC, and the other
voltmeter test lead is placed in con-
tact with the various storage system
components or building electrical
ground, just as for the fixed-
reference/moving-ground technique
described above. Rather than making
a single voltage measurement at each
storage system component, however,
the CP current is cycled on and off at
intervals of five seconds or so, so that
both current on and current off mea-
surements can be recorded and com-
pared.
Tips
• It is good form to place the CRC at
some distance from the struc-
ture^) being evaluated, but I have
had good luck placing the CRC in
a central location near the storage
systems being evaluated.
• Use a sharp probe on the volt-
meter test lead to achieve metal-
to-metal contact with the various
storage system components. Do
not touch the metallic components
of the probe while making the
measurement.
• This method can only be used
where the CP current can be con-
veniently turned on and off. The
method could be applied to a
CP system with permanently
attached anodes, however, by
installing a temporary CP system
that can be turned on and off.
Interpretation of Results
As with the fixed-reference/moving-
ground technique, the magnitude of
the current on and current off read-
ings is not important. What is impor-
tant is that the current on and current
off measurements for each location
are approximately the same. In this
case, however, there are two indica-
tors of continuity—the current on
and current off voltages and the shift
in the voltage created by the cycling
of the CP current. The current on and
off voltages should be reasonably
close, but they do not need to be
identical. Continuity would still be
indicated if the voltage shift from the
current on to the current off condi-
tion was of a similar magnitude.
This technique is useful in identi-
fying relatively high resistance con-
nections that cause the readings in
method #1 above to be 20 millivolts
or more different. Despite relatively
high resistances among the compo-
nents, these connections still provide
enough continuity so that a signifi-
cant amount of CP current is flowing
to the component being tested. If
turning the CP current on and off has
little effect on the potential of the
component being tested, then it is
likely that the structure is isolated
from the CP system.
3, STRUCTURE-TO-STRUCTURE
POTENTIAL The theory for this
method is that if two buried metallic
structures are electrically continuous,
there will be no voltage difference
between them.
Procedure
This procedure does not require a ref-
erence cell. The two leads of the volt-
meter are connected to different
components of the storage system or
building electrical ground. If the two
components are continuous, the volt-
age should be zero. Typically, one
lead of the voltmeter is fixed to a sin-
gle storage system component (e.g., a
tank shell) and the other lead of the
voltmeter is moved around to the dif-
ferent storage system components.
Tips
Be sure that the voltmeter test leads
achieve metal-to-metal contact with
the various storage system compo-
nents. Do not touch the metallic com-
ponents of the probe while making
the measurement.
• continued on page 22
_
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
m Tank-nically Speaking
from page 21
Interpretation of Results
The interpretation of results for this
method is essentially the same as for
the fixed-reference/moving-ground
method described above, except that
continuity is indicated by a voltage of
zero or a few millivolts between dif-
ferent components of the system.
Voltage differences in the range of 10
to 20 millivolts are inconclusive, and
procedure #2 above should be used
to make a definitive determination of
continuity or isolation. Voltage dif-
ferences greater than about 20 milli-
volts generally indicate that the
components are isolated.
Which Method to Use
As far as I can tell, all of these meth-
ods are valid (if done properly), and
each may have ad vantages/disad-
vantages under certain circum-
stances. I can see where method #2
would be the most forgiving in terms
of execution, as the other methods
rely on relatively perfect connections
of the voltmeter leads to the struc-
ture. In my experience, this can be
difficult to achieve on a rusty riser.
However, method #2 does require
that the CP current be easily inter-
rupted. This would be a problem for
most galvanic systems and for
impressed current systems where an
extra person or an automatic current
interruption device is not available.
When to Test for Continuity
I believe that continuity testing is
essential for impressed current sys-
tems. I have seen too many such sys-
tems with continuity problems.
Knowing the continuity status of a
particular storage system component
is a great help in interpreting the
structure-to-soil potential measure-
ments that are made using that com-
ponent as the structure contact.
I would check the continuity sta-
tus of any newly installed galvanic
CP system. For a galvanic system that
has been in service for awhile, I
would check the continuity only if
the system failed to meet criteria for
cathodic protection. In my experi-
ence, galvanic systems that have been
in service for a while and meet crite-
ria are unlikely to have continuity
problems. •
22
• Missing Link from page 19
ullage in the tank prior to delivery
and monitor the transfer. I know for a
fact that most operators do neither on
a regular basis, if at all. Most opera-
tors automatically defer the responsi-
bility to the driver.
API has recently published a new
standard, API 1007, Loading and
Unloading ofMC306/DOT 406 Cargo
Tank Motor Vehicles. Section 4 of this
document deals with unloading
USTs. While brief, it does begin to
address the issue by standardizing
procedures. The EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks docu-
ment, Operating and Maintaining
Underground Storage Tank Systems:
Practical Help and Checklists, also
addresses delivery briefly. The prob-
lem with both of these documents is
that they don't provide adequate
guidance on owner and operator
responsibility.
What Alaska hopes to achieve is
a recommended practice that we can
provide to UST owners and operators
to institute a safe, consistent, and
common-sense approach to fuel
delivery management. In an effort to
begin addressing this issue, we cre-
ated a Fuel Delivery Log that our
third-party inspectors will begin cir-
culating among tank operators this
year. If nothing else, the introduction
of this log will help stimulate discus-
sion on this matter.
ADEC is working with the com-
pany whose overfill incident was
previously mentioned and will be
analyzing the overfill data from over
50 stores to try and ascertain some
trends. Based on what we find, we
also hope to hold a fuel delivery
"summit" meeting later this year to
attempt to build a coalition of tank
operators, fuel delivery companies,
and government officials that will be
tasked with quantifying the problem
as well as proposing some solutions.
NTSB Recommendations
There is currently not an organized
regulatory voice to address this issue,
although the NTSB Biloxi report
asserts some broad recommenda-
tions:
• Develop loading and unloading
procedures for cargo trucks with
the policing of such procedures by
the federal government;
• Improve compliance and enforce-
ment by U.S. EPA;
• Revise delivery driver manuals;
• Establish procedures for UST
operators; and
• Use national petroleum associa-
tions to help deliver the message.
I believe that an industry-based
recommended practice for safe fuel
delivery practices could address
these recommendations. Defining
responsibilities and guidance for UST
operators could very well be the
missing ingredient to an effective
overfill prevention program. Some
standardized items could include:
• Proper methods for measuring
product levels;
• Use of tank charts;
• Understanding how much prod-
uct is legally allowed in a tank;
• Procedures for monitoring trans-
fers;
• Designation of whom should
monitor deliveries;
• Warning about pressurized deliv-
eries and ball float valves;
• Procedures for responding to
overfill alarms or incidents; and
• Recordkeeping options.
In Short...
I believe there is sufficient evidence
to support the claim that there is no
standardized method for helping
UST owners and operators meet
operational compliance conditions
for preventing UST overfills. Over-
fills will continue to plague good
tank management practices until the
real culprit is addressed, namely
human error.
This overfill issue can be
addressed effectively by standardiz-
ing fuel delivery practices through
the development of a nationally rec-
ognized recommended practice. To
be effective, the standard must be
based on common-sense practices,
easy to implement by operators, and
easy to enforce by regulators. Q
Ben Thomas is an environmental spe-
cialist with the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
He can be reached at
ben thomas@envircon.state.ak.us
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
The Pay-for-Performaiice Public/Private Partnership
The Win-Win Scenario
By Robert S. Cohen
rrr
T
I he Pantry, Inc. (d.b.a. Kanga
resulting from the acquisitio;
go Stores ajid v^rjous othejj n
Jpf a large^chai
'
LUST sites with potential liability in ttie'millions of dollars.
for petroleum contamination was by *the"Flprida"f rust F
financial responsibility obligation
is well in excess of $300,000.
|- $300,000
gncial exgos
^obligation o
' cleanup liability
^^ x ^ __....,
--:- - , ie remaining of the $1,000,000 federal — -
>r site was covered by a self-ins^^ce gpol. Thelverage cleanup cost in Florida
" S:;"jf: ':!'3-ii fcT - - j
'-4'' *•"• *''"-'f"""I Kr 1
The problem: How could TheJBantry control costs, ensure proflptcleanups, and use the trust-fund contribution
in the most efficient manner? E^f±l_^_:—;..,lzr3 HSE&STiiTlisrsai ficriSl^ "-.. i
The solution: Use pay for performance [1] (PFP) at these sites, and use competitive bidding techniques to estab-
lish the lowest market price in a cooperative effort among The Pantry, the Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (DEP), and carefully selected consultants.
Lef s look at the circumstances leading up to the partnership, the controversial regulatory issues, the process, and
the results. It is important to note that although this partnership was specific for Florida, the concept can work in most
jurisdictions.
The Problem
The Florida State Legislature decided
to phase out the trust fund as a finan-
cial assurance mechanism. Beginning
in 1996, the coverage was reduced to
$300,000 per incident, then to
$150,000 per incident, and finally
entirely phased out by December 31,
1998. In order to meet federal finan-
cial responsibility requirements
(40CFR 280), The Pantry set up a self-
insurance fund to cover the differ-
ence between the trust fund cap and
$1,000,000.
The Pantry owns or operates
approximately 500 convenience
store/gasoline stations in Florida and
manages remedial or assessment
activities on 400 sites with reported
discharges (some no longer in opera-
tion). Seventy sites had trust fund
caps of $300,000 or $150,000.
If The Pantry chose to follow the
normal pathway, DEP would have
preapproved assessment and reme-
dial activities and paid the costs (after
a $10,000 deductible) up to the
$150,0007 $300,000 limits. After the
limit was reached, The Pantry would
have to pay 100 percent of all cleanup
costs with no limits. With average
cleanup costs well in excess of
$300,000, The Pantry was quite con-
cerned about the potential liability
and the cost of maintaining signifi-
cant environmental reserves on the
balance sheet to cover this liability.
The Solution
The Pantry's solution was to use PFP
and competitive bidding to minimize
the amount it would have to pay
above the $150,000 / $300,000 from
the trust fund. Data demonstrate that
PFP produces less expensive, faster
cleanups with guaranteed environ-
mental results. When PFP cleanups
are priced by market-based bidding
among cleanup consultants, the price
for final cleanup is dramatically
reduced.
The Pantry decided to set a maxi-
mum price for cleaning up each site,
using competitive bidding in a PFP
approach. The Pantry invited quali-
fied cleanup contractors to bid the
price of cleanup beyond the $150,000
or $300,000 maximum state fund cov-
erage for a bundle of sites. The thirty-
five $150,000-limit sites and the
thirty-five $300,000-limit sites were to
be awarded as two "bundles" — as
two multi-site PFP cleanup contracts
to the winning contractor. The Pantry
released its request for proposal
(RFP) to prequalified consultants for
the two bundles of sites.
After the RFP was released, the
respondents had two weeks to
review The Pantry's and DEP's files
and identify any sites that did not
have sufficient assessment data to
estimate the site's total cleanup cost.
Some assessment work had been
completed at most of the sites. A few
sites had remediation systems in
place.
Eleven consultants responded to
the RFP. Upon review of the data,
each consultant suggested, in order
of priority, sites where more data
was needed so as to price confi-
dently. The Pantry then retained an
independent consultant to do Phase
II-type investigations to collect addi-
tional data on 17 sites and provide
the data and maps to the bidders. The
consultants then submitted sealed
proposals with a formal bid opening.
The bids were evaluated on three
considerations and rated on a scale of
100 points:
1. 50 points—lowest bid for total
dollar above trust fund cap
2. 25 points—qualifications and
experience
3. 25 points—financial mechanism
or guarantee to assure comple-
tion of contract for cleanup.
Results
The respondents to the RFP actually
submitted two bids: (1) 35 sites with a
$150,000 cap and (2) 35 sites with a
$300,000 cap. The range in bids was
quite typical of the experience of vari-
ous PFP bidding projects conducted
in several states. The high bid for the
$300,000-cap sites was $3,350,000
with several low bids of zero over the
• continued on page 24
~ 23
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
m PFP from page 23
trust fund limit. The high bid for the
$150,000-cap sites was $5,500,000
with a low bid of $100,000 over the
trust fund limit. Half the consultants
bid zero or less (i.e., at or below the
$300,000 trust fund coverage on the
$300,000 cap sites). Note: the consul-
tant was required to supply the cost
estimate for each site, though only
the total bid over the cap [for the
bundle of sites] counted for the scor-
ing of the RFP.
The eleven bids were evaluated,
and three finalists were selected. All
finalists participated in an oral pre-
sentation, which consisted of answer-
ing one question: "Since the average
cost of cleanup is historically greater
than $300,000, how will you imple-
ment cost savings to meet your bid?"
Working in Partnership to
Resolve Regulatory Issues
There were complex legal and
administrative obstacles to The
Pantry's planned RFP process for
selecting consultants and setting PFP
cleanup prices. These were resolved
via a working partnership between
The Pantry and DEP.
An obstacle was found in the
Florida statute's prohibition against
remuneration from the consultant to
the responsible party for the privilege
of assigning sites. Since The Pantry
had many sites with varying caps—
$150,000 to $1,000,OOOH—it had to
avoid assigning high-cap sites to a
consultant in turn for the consultant
taking a loss on low-cap sites. There-
fore, The Pantry's RFP was set up to
be independent of any other consult-
ing relationship. The $150,000 and
$300,000 sites were judged indepen-
dently to prevent any appearance
that the $300,000 sites were supple-
menting the $150,000 sites. The DEP
actively observed The Pantry's bid-
ding process to assure compliance
with statute.
Another issue of concern was the
relationship between the responsible
party (The Pantry, Inc.) and the DEP.
Though the consultants were assur-
ing The Pantry of a maximum total
cost, the DEP was going to pay the
bills up to the state-fund cap. Thus
the state considered each site to be an
entirely independent project with its
own funding limit. The Pantry
24
intended to bank its awarded bid
amount and provide that dollar
amount to the consultant on any site
that went over its state-fund cap. In
this way, the consultant had the free-
dom to negotiate the cleanup cost
with DEP using The Pantry's funds
when required.
Although The Pantry solicited
bids, the Florida program sets prices
by negotiating. The Pantry bid set the
maximum price for a set of sites;
however, the consultant had to nego-
tiate each site with the DEP, as each
site has a separate trust-fund limit.
As discussed below, PFP bundling
techniques allow the consultant to
negotiate with DEP a group of sites at
a total fixed price; a specific price is
then assigned to each site.
Analysis
The range of bids was both remark-
able and expected. Remarkable was
the large spread of cleanup prices for
very typical sites. With 10 years of
historical data we would expect a
much smaller spread. On the other
hand, we expected that cleanup costs
would vary considerably based on
the efficiency of the consultants. On
any individual site there may be a
considerable margin of error in esti-
mating costs. For a collection of sites,
the total cleanup cost can be esti-
mated accurately, even without com-
plete assessments. The RFP data
suggest several conclusions (see Fig-
ures 1 and 2 [2]):
• Cleanup costs can be reasonably
estimated for a bundle of sites,
even without thorough assess-
ment data;
• Some consultants are consistently
and considerably more expensive
than others;
• Competitive bidding of bundles of
sites can result in substantial sav-
ings while maintaining desired
environmental goals and time-
tables; and
• The average cost of a cleanup per
site is significantly reduced by
competitive bidding.
What distinguishes the consul-
tants' approach from the high bid to
the low bid? The low-bid consultants
leverage the "volume discount" by
managing their work and resources
Figure li
RANGE OF BIDS ABOVE CAP
S150K
$0,00
$146,996.35
$147,168.08
$383,325.83
$400,000.00
- $589,141.95
$827,700.94
$837,011.63
• - $947,525.59
$1,523,950.94
$5,498,239.90
S300K
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$160,369.50
$218,442.98
$289,922.97
$3,357,092.22
more effectively across all 35 sites.
Due to the nature of the trust funds,
consultants typically treat each site as
an individual project in all regards.
There is little motivation to manage
the projects using volume discount
techniques such as:
• Reusable skid-mounted remedia-
tion equipment;
• Top quality remediation equip-
ment that will have a useful life
span for several sites; and
• Coordinated mobilization at
many sites.
The most effective way for the
consultant to take advantage of the
volume discount is to bundle sites
together for negotiating PFP agree-
ments. Negotiating many sites as a
bundle has several distinct business
advantages:
• Much faster negotiations;
• Spreading of risk among a group
of sites;
• Introduction of innovative tech-
nology without having to prove
efficiency (though safety must
always be demonstrated before-
hand); and
• Considerably reduced paperwork
and time to obtain DEP preap-
proval of costs.
One consultant took a particu-
larly innovative approach in pricing
sites. He won a majority of the
$300,000 sites and proposed to DEP
to clean, up all sites at a fixed price
per site. The fixed price is determined
simply by the contamination level as
related to the cleanup target. For
example, the highest cost per site is
$175,000 for contamination consider-
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
ably above targets, wkile the fixed
costs for monitor-only sites is about
$115,000 for five years of natural
attenuation monitoring.
Winners and Losers
Who won?
It seems that just about everyone did.
• The Pantry saved $2 million to
$3 million dollars in self-insured
(above cap) cleanup costs.
• DEP's cleanup costs will be at lev-
els considerably below historical
averages. For the $300,000-cap
sites, this represents millions of
dollars of anticipated savings to
the department.
• Consultants obtained a large block
of sites with minimal marketing
effort. By using volume cost-con-
tainment methods, along with
considerably reduced paperwork
via PFP, the consultants are in a
position to book a considerable
profit.
• Citizens of Florida gained a faster
and more efficient cleanup of envi-
ronmental impairment.
Who lost?
Consultants who were not adept at
PFP contractual techniques and not
able to tightly control costs.B
Robert S. Cohen, BS, MS, is a profes-
sional geologist specializing in LUST
cost-containment issues. He is a con-
sultant in both the public and private
sectors. In Florida, he proposed and
implemented the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection's first
PFP cleanup and is the environmental
advisor to a convenience store chain of
1,400 facilities. He has conducted over
30 PFP workshops and studies on
behalf of the EPA Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks. For more infor-
mation, contact Bob at
bobcohen@ivs.edu or
(352) 337-2600
[l]Pay-for-performance is a contractual mech-
anism by which the cleanup consultant is
paid upon achieving agreed-upon environ-
mental milestones. The cleanups are typi-
cally faster and cheaper than the ordinary
time and materials approach. PFP has been
described in previous LUSTLine articles (see
bulletins 38, 36, 34, 33, and 32), and more
information is available at the EPA Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/pfp/
index.htm
"[2] Figure 1 is the consultants' bid above the
cap of $300,000 or $150,000. Figure 2 is the
average price for the bundle by consultant.
Although the average price may be less
than the cap, individual- sites may be
greater than the cap, resulting in a bid
amount over the cap.
Figure 2
$150,000
Cap Sites-
Average Cost
Per Site by
Consultant
$300,000
Cap Sites—
Average
Cost Per
Site by
Consultant
| $450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
• Boutique Fuels from page 12
year's spring transition season, while
maintaining the environmental bene-
fits needed during the summer smog
season.
The second boutique fuels issue
is the growing number of state and
local governments that have adopted
their own fuel programs that are dif-
ferent from the federal RFC program.
EPA has identified several reasons
why states have adopted their own
boutique fuel requirements, includ-
ing reduced cost compared with the
federal RFG program, local air pollu-
tion control needs, concerns about
the oxygenate mandate in the RFG
program, and concerns about the use
of MTBE. A number of states want to
avoid the use of MTBE in their gaso-
line because it has been found to con-
taminate water supplies in some
areas.
Despite the number of state and
local fuel programs, EPA has found
that the current gasoline production
and distribution system is able to
provide adequate quantities of bou-
tique fuels, as long as there are no
disruptions in the supply chain. If
there is a disruption, such as a
pipeline break or refinery fire, it can
be difficult to provide gasoline sup-
plies because of constraints created
by these boutique fuel requirements.
In addition, fuel providers are con-
cerned that recently enacted state
laws that ban the use of MTBE in
future years may proliferate the num-
ber of boutique fuels and present
new challenges to this country's fuel
production and distribution system.
EPA staff have also prepared a
white paper, "Study of Unique Gaso-
line Fuel Blends, Effects on Fuel Sup-
ply and Distribution and Potential
Improvements" (EPA420-P-01-004),
which explores a number of possible
approaches that could reduce the
total number of fuels in the longer
term. This white paper, which will be
released for public review and com-
ment, lays the groundwork for
needed future study into these and
other possible approaches. •
For more information on the
"Boutique Report" and related
documents, go to
www.epa.gov/otaq/whatsnew.
25
-------
LUSTLim Bulletin 39
USTfields
South Dakota's Antidote to
Abandoned Tank Anxiety
by Ellen Frye
Having abandoned under-
ground storage tanks in the
ground can be a major
source of anxiety for property own-
ers who can't afford the costs associ-
ated with cleanup and potential
liability. Dennis Rounds, executive
director of South Dakota's Petroleum
Release Compensation Fund (PRCF),
didn't realize how bad that anxiety
was until recently, when the state's
unique Abandoned Tank Removal
Project set out on an ambitious tank
removal and cleanup effort—at no
expense to the owners.
"People told us how glad they
\vere the tanks were taken out,"
says Rounds. "Homeowners—partic-
ularly the elderly—and farmers,
ranchers, and owners of abandoned
service stations have worried about
this for years but were not sure what
to do."
As do most states, South Dakota
has a large population of unregulated
and regulated tanks that are no
longer in service, many of which
were abandoned as far back as the
1920s and 1930s. This project was an
opportunity for those owners to get
those tanks removed.
"So far, about 2,400 tanks located
at 1,700 sites have been removed
statewide," says Kristi Honeywell of
the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). "Those tanks contained
more than 450,000 gallons of product
and contaminated water that are no
longer a threat to the environment.
Getting these tanks out of the ground
not only removes a potential source
of contamination, it also removes the
liability factor, allowing property to
be back on the tax roll, and increases
properly values for the landowners."
Sprucing Up
The Abandoned Tank Removal Pro-
ject grew out of Governor William
Janklow's larger Spruce Up South
Dakota Program, designed to make it
26
easier for citizens and local govern-
ments to rid the landscape of things
like old tires, appliances, batteries,
old cars, and abandoned buildings—
things that are very visible and aes-
thetically unpleasing and often
health threats. The program is set up
to help communities and local gov-
ernments find ways to leverage
cleanup funds, encourage communi-
ties to recognize the need to do this,
and find ways to get it done, often
with volunteer groups.
The Abandoned Tank Removal
Project came about during the 2000
legislative session. The legislature
modified the Petroleum Release
Compensation Fund, creating a new
program within the program that
allowed the state to remove tanks
and do the cleanups at no expense to
the owner. This is in contrast with the
fund's regular program, for which
there is a $10,000 deductible.
'a far, the average cost per site is
. That efficiency comes
Packaging- " .
' '
, ,, . ,, . .
....... j, i*,,.!,,;,-.,*,,.. Qg,,,., js Rounds
' ' '
• The legislature did place some
restrictions on this new program.
Tanks that are regulated and that
were properly abandoned prior to
1998 or that are unregulated and
have been taken out of service qualify
for the program; service stations that
were or have been in commercial
operation since 1998 do not.
The Economy of Cluster Bid
Packaging
The project has successfully moved
forward thanks to the teamwork of
the PRCF and the DENR and the
decision to duster a large number of
applications together within a certain
region or within, a county.
"We tried to get them into a siz-
able bid package," says Rounds. "We
tried very hard to keep the cost under
$50,000 per bid package in many of
the cases to encourage smaller local
contractors who were knowledgeable
about tank removal to do the work.
We bid it in a manner that incorpo-
rated the tank removal and decom-
missioning, soil disposal, and fill all
in one package. We would then hire
soil scientists or environmental pro-
fessionals to come in and do the
actual testing and observe the pulled
tank. We had a standardized report
form for every tank. So far, the aver-
age cost per site is below $3,000. That
efficiency comes from the packag-
ing."
"Placing the sites into groups of 10
to 20 and requesting bids from local
contractors worked surprisingly well,"
says Honeywell. "This really lowered
our overall costs and gave'local con-
tractors an opportunity to help clean
up their own communities."
The PRCF receives and approves
the applications and verifies that the
information is accurate so that when
the bid package is put together it'is as
accurate as can be. In general, the
DENR clusters the applications into
bid packages and bids them out.
•They work the contracts and oversee
the contractors. The invoices for the
work that is done are passed through
the DENR for approval and are
passed back to the PCRF with a rec-
ommendation for payment.
"The project took off very fast
and was very aggressive," says
Rounds. "Most of our contractors
had done tank work before. We have
criteria within the bid document to
make sure that the person is capable
of doing the work, understands the
safety requirements, andis willing to
work and coordinate things with the
environmental people. We take the
lowest responsible bid."
"I've never had a state program
go as smoothly as this," Mayor Craig
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 39
Runestad remarked after the project
removed five abandoned USTs in
Mount Vernon.
"We are finding that there are a
lot more tanks than we anticipated,"
Rounds notes. "We are bidding with
the understanding that the final num-
ber of tanks and site conditions might
actually be different. The contractor is
expected to charge for additional
removals at the same bid unit rate."
The PRCF is funded with tank
inspection fee revenue, a two cents
per gallon fee on all petroleum motor
fuel products entering the state
assessed at the rack. The fund
receives 50 percent of that. While no
additional money was provided for
the new program, the fund was in
good enough shape to handle the
additional costs. There is no sunset
date for the tank removal project, but
the goal is to have them all done
within the next year. •
For more information about South ^
r Dakota's Abandoned Tank
Removal Project, contact Dennis
Rounds at (605) 773-3769. Or visit *
=; • the project's Web site at
http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/
Ground/TankYank/index.htm
USTfields
USTfields at
Brownfields
2001
by Gary Lynn
EPA's Brownfields 2001 confer-
ence concluded at Chicago's
mammoth McCormick Place
Convention Center on September 26.
Although the conference was
affected by the tragic events in New
York, thousands of people from the
private sector and state, federal, and
local governments attended. There
were a variety of interesting devel-
opments, not the least of which that
nearly everyone, from Christine
Todd Whitman on down, mentioned
abandoned gas stations when dis-
cussing brownfields sites. The recog-
nition of any class of petroleum sites
as a brownfields problem marks a
significant change in the brownfields
landscape.
Two sessions at Brownfields 2001
were devoted to USTfields issues.
These sessions dealt with the
progress that is being made by the
existing 10 EPA/state USTfields pilot
projects and EPA USTfields assis-
tance efforts. Most of the 10 state pro-
jects are in the process of completing
field work, such as site investigations
and/or remedial actions, at the pilot
sites. Case studies of the pilots are
being prepared; available case stud-
ies can be viewed at http://www.epa.
gov/swerustl/ustfield/index.htm.
New Round of Pilots
Announced
EPA has announced that it is accept-
ing proposals for a new round of up
to 40 pilot projects. The grants will be
awarded on a competitive basis with
at least one award for every EPA
region and for a tribal or intertribal
consortia. The deadline for sending
the proposal to EPA has been
extended to November 19,2001. Each
applicant (state or tribe) can send up
to three proposals. The money must
be spent at a federally regulated UST
site, and the site must be eligible for
LUST Trust Fund expenditures.
LUST Trust Fund cost recovery pro-
visions apply to the grant funds.
Proposed Brownfields/
Petroleum Sites Legislation
At the conference, proposed fed-
eral brownfields legislation was dis-
• continued on page 28
LU.S.T.LINE
Ql One-year subscription. $18.00.
Ql Federal, state, or local government. Exempt from fee. (If you wish to have LUSTLine sent to your home, please submit
your request on agency letterhead.)
Ql Please take my name off your mailing list.
Ql 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 ffs
Ql 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.
27
-------
• Brownfields/rom page 27
cussed. Senate bill 350 includes a
package of liability clarifications and
authorizes up to $250 million of
spending annually (thru 2006) on
brownfields grants, loans, and State
Voluntary Cleanup Programs. The
good news is that 25 percent of the
funding is targeted to petroleum
sites. The targeted money could go
to any type of petroleum-contami-
nated site, not just federally regu-
lated UST sites.
The bad news is that there is a
big difference between authorizing
and appropriating money. It is very
likely that in light of changes in the
economy and increased defense
spending that what is actually
appropriated will be significantly
less than the $250 million that the
legislation would authorize. Addi-
tionally, although the legislation
enjoys widespread support and
passed overwhelmingly in the Sen-
ate, last-minute negotiations on
whether Davis Bacon Act provisions
(having to do with grant recipients
ensuring that contractors pay pre-
vailing union wage rates) should
apply to the money may result in the
legislation being scuttled.
According to EPA staff, plans
are being finalized for the implemen-
tation of SB 350. Plans are also
underway should the brownfields
legislation not pass. Clearly, there
are a number of key choices that will
have to be made if the legislation
passes. For example, money targeted
for petroleum sites could go through
a separate grant process that empha-
sizes participation by state LUST
programs. Or, there could be some
type of consolidated brownfields
application for municipal or state
entities that contains a petroleum
component to the funding and work.
In any case, it will be important to
track developments over time
because a significant amount of
money may become available and
because of the real need to address
abandoned or underutilized petro-
leum sites. •
Gary Lynn is Supervisor of the New
Hampshire Department of Environ-
mental Services, Petroleum Remedia-
tion Section. Gary can be reached at
glynn@des.state.nh.us
Long on expedience... but snort on safety.
If you have any UST/LUST-related snapshots from the field that you would like to share
with our readers, please send them to. Ellen Fri/ec/oiSlEIWPCC.
LU.ST.LINE
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.
LUSTLine T-Shirts
tekrftM -•"->•
TWO mw WACKY designs
TWO colon... ntf and bbck
TWO nitlsB... long ind shirt sl»vg
long stem S17.00
Stol stove $13.00
Slits M.LX, XXL
TO
------- |