New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
255 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington
Massachusetts
O1887
Bulletin 26
July
1997
LUST.
A Report on Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Is Leak Detection Working?
by Marcel Moreau
t is the fcherished dream^of every UST
£,:,, -~y J
owner/operator that-his or her under-
ground storage tank ^'system/is not leak-
ing...not a drop. It is the recurring nightmare of
many an UST regulator that every tank
leaks...more than a drop. In reality, some USTs
are leaking and some are not. The question is:
"How do we distinguish between USTs that
are tight and USTs that are leaking?"
The notion that there should be leak detection
for USTs is not new. The 1913 edition of the
National Fire Prevention Association's NFPA 30
suggests that "test wells" be installed adjacent to
tanks to detect leaks. By 1941, NFPA was recom-
mending periodic testing of older tanks. In 1951, the
American Petroleum Institute published the first edi-
tion of its recommended practices for inventory
control.
• continued on page 2
Somewhere between the cherished dream and
the nightmare lies reality.
Field Notes: Contractor Associations
Chemical Bulk Storage in New York ]
Georgia's State-Owned UST Facilities i
Petroleum Marketers Promote P2
Field Citations In New Hampshire
MTBE—Beware the False Positive
Expedited Site Assessments
CAFI Anyone?
LUST in the Brownfields
i Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
• Is Leak Detection Working?
from page 2
The Petro-tite tank tester can
trace it's heritage to tike 1950s, when
Fred McLean set out to find a
method of tank testing that was safer
than air pressure and more reliable
than standpipe testing. Mr.
McLean's research came to fruition
with the "Kent-Moore" tank tester
which became commercially avail-
able in the mid-1960s and was
renamed Petro-Tite in the early '80s
when the rights to the equipment
were sold.
But, while an awareness of the
issue of leak detection for USTs has
been long-standing, that awareness
has not routinely been followed by
effective action to detect or prevent
leaks. NFPA's idea back in 1913 for
test wells never took root. By 1941,
the association was struggling to
deal with increasingly large numbers
of leakers that were creating fire and
safety hazards. In the 1960s, the
petroleum marketing trade press
documents an increasing awareness
of the leakage problem, but by 1979
the headlines still read, "Tank Leaks:
Like the Common Cold, Nobody's
Found a Cure."
By 1982, estimates based on
petroleum industry studies indi-
BccRar7X)UST Liaison
tneJsJEIWPCC with a grant 1
froffitheUS. Envii£ng||riitay
ortheast
coordinaBor
-., - ^, Tr . -,, .-. ._... ,- ___.-„, _._., -
g IfiflAr defection n^tfiodsotlierthan
~~ interstitial monitoring are based on
'i, the game of "catch me if you can,"
t Where the leaks we seek to catch are *
'— technologically elusive, and many
t UST operators are somewhat
^failure to take thegame seriously
^results in a large release of product
" to iRe environment.
=*t-S*5rir 1 '.:
cated that there were 50,000 to 70,000
actively leaking USTs and that 30
percent of installed tanks were leak-
ing, or would leak within the next
few years. Finally, in 1984, the fed-
eral government stepped in, and the
Subtitle I amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act became the law of the land.
Four years later, EPA regulations
governing USTs went into effect. By
March of 1997, 329,000 confirmed
releases had been reported.
The Leak Detection
Conundrum
The federal UST program, estab-
lished in 1988, is primarily a leak
detection, not a leak prevention, pro-
gram. While some emphasis is
placed on leak prevention through
corrosion protection, a regulatory
program truly designed to prevent
releases would include secondary
containment for all storage tanks
and piping. Secondary containment
is the only UST technology that is
forgiving of human error in the
installation and operation of storage
systems. This is because monitoring
of secondary containment generally
provides a significant delay between
the onset of a leak and the release of
product to the environment.
In a recent case in Maine,
months and perhaps years elapsed
between the time a pry bar was
dropped to the bottom of a fiberglass
double-walled tank, causing a small
fracture in the primary tank, and the
time a routine state inspection dis-
covered that the interstitial monitor-
ing probe had been disconnected.
The tank interstitial space was half
full of product, but there was no con-
tamination associated with this inci-
dent and no cleanup was required.
Leak detection methods other
than interstitial monitoring are based
on the game of "catch me if you can,"
where the leaks we seek to catch are
technologically elusive, and many
UST operators are somewhat reluc-
tant leak seekers. All too often, fail-
ure to take the game seriously results
in a large release of product to the
environment.
The Nagging Questions
I have two nagging questions about
leak detection: ;
*• Does leak detection work? (Is the
technology up to the task of iden-
tifying leaks in a timely fashion?)
^- Where leak detection fails, is it
due to:
- Inadequacy of the method?
- Inadequate execution of the
method by owner/operator?
- Absence of leak detection alto-
gether?
The anecdotal evidence with
regard to whether leak detection reli-
ably works is not convincing. For
instance:
K I recently reviewed inventory
records for a facility that indicated
a loss rate of 20 percent of sales
(nearly 3,000 gallons per month!)
for 4 consecutive months. There
was no response from anyone
until product appeared in a neigh-
boring basement.
>• Data from California regarding
the percentages of SIR analyses
that reach pass / fail / inconclusive
results indicate that there are sig-
nificant inconsistencies among the
methodologies used by SIR ven-
dors.
>• Although the state initially put
great faith in groundwater and
soil vapor monitoring for leak
detection, Florida has found that
these leak detection methods are
severely compromised by pre-
existing contamination and is
moving toward universal sec-
ondary containment.
^- I hear frequent reports of failed
tank tightness tests that are rou-
tinely followed by passing results
using another tank test method.
^ Automatic tank gauges (ATGs)
that conduct tests every night
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
sound like a good idea, but the
occasional failed test result that
almost inevitably results intro-
duces an element of confusion
and doubt to the technology.
> A California survey of leak inci-
dents indicated that a great many
newly reported releases were
located at facilities where no rou-
tine leak detection was conducted.
No Room For Complacency
We cannot afford to be complacent
with regard to leak detection, because
regulatory programs in almost all
states permit single-walled tanks and
piping to stay in the ground until a
leak is detected. In my more cynical
moments, it seems to me that this
approach grants every storage system
a "right to leak" and ensures that no
storage system shall be removed
before its time. The combination of
single-walled storage technology
with the "right to leak" replacement
approach places a critical emphasis
on effective leak detection.
It is important that leak detection
be effective for a number of reasons:
^ We are seeing the increasing use
of reformulated gasoline contain-
ing methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE). Relative to other gasoline
constituents, MTBE is very soluble
in water, and its contamination
plumes tend to travel farther and
faster than BTEX plumes. MTBE is
also more difficult and, thus, more
expensive to remove from the
environment than the traditional
constituents of gasoline.
^- As the tank population ages, the
probability of leakage increases.
>• The failure of leak detection can
lead to serious threats to human
health and the environment
>• Reliance on ineffective leak detec-
tion can lull UST owners and reg-
ulators into a false sense of
security
^ Owners/operators may be wast-
ing money on ineffective leak
detection technology.
What's Working,
What's Not?
So how can we find out what is
really going on with leak detection?
In my mind, the only true test of
whether a storage system is tight or
leaking is to dig it up. Seeing is
believing. If the tank excavation, pip-
ing trenches, and dispenser islands
are clean, the storage system is tight.
If there is contamination, then we
can assume that either there is a leak
or there have been leaks or sloppy
housekeeping in the past.
Between now and the end of
1998, we have a great opportunity to
make just such observations with
respect to the large number of stor-
age systems that will be removed in
this time period. All of these systems
should have some form of leak detec-
tion in place. The removal of these
systems presents an ideal opportu-
nity to compare the evidence of the
excavation against the method of
leak detection to see what stories can
be told.
iftam an environmental protection
perspective, today's tank population 1
jjjjyerjfil Is probably the healthiest
it has ever been. But that is not
iereareno more leaking
1we will ever get to a
TfidJnt where all UST systems are
Here's my proposal. Although
effective leak detection is primarily
of interest to the UST side of the pro-
gram, enlist the help of those on the
LUST side of the program who are
often present at storage system
removals (or even private sector tank
removal or site assessment personnel
if they are willing).
Develop a standard form to
document tank removal results. Per-
tinent data might include:
> Is there contamination?
^- If contamination is present, is the
likely source overfilling, former
USTs, past practices, or the system
currently being removed?
^ If the source of contamination
appears to be the presently
installed system:
- Is the source of active leakage
from tanks, or piping, or both?
- Is the source of active leakage
corrosion, leaking fittings, poor
installation?
- What is the apparent magni-
tude of the release? (minor,
moderate, gross)
- What method of leak detection
was practiced?
- Was the method of leak detec-
tion practiced properly? (To
answer this question, gather
recent leak detection documen-
tation, such as a few months of
inventory, the most recent
tightness test results, the last
few months of ATG results, the
last few months of SIR results.)
Gather the survey forms and sup-
porting material and forward them
to a central clearinghouse for analy-
sis by knowledgeable people.
Such a survey would of course
be imprecise because tank removals
are hardly archeological digs, and
the detective work needed to posi-
tively identify the source of leakage
may not be feasible. In addition, the
people completing the survey forms
will have different points of view,
levels of knowledge and experience,
and powers of observation. Still, if
enough data are gathered, some
trends should emerge.
Tweaking USTs For The
Next Millennium
Hopefully, such data should help us
answer the question: Is leak detec-
tion working, and if not, why not?
What we learn could help determine
the direction of the UST program
into the next millennium:
^- Do we need a rule change or mod-
ification to eliminate certain types
of leak detection, or to change
how they are executed?
^- Do we need to focus on education
of owner/operators to promote
the correct use of leak detection
methods?
> Do we need increased enforce-
ment to convince recalcitrant own-
ers that leak detection is a must?
Are we doing any better in the
realm of leak detection in 1997 than
we were in 1913,1941,1951 or 1984?
From an environmental protection
perspective, today's tank population,
overall, is probably the healthiest
that it has ever been. But that is not
to say that there are no more leaking
USTs, nor that we will ever get to a
• continued on page 24
-------
LUSTUtif Bulletin 26
Leak Prevention
New Protocol Available for
Determining Applicability
of SIR Methods for
Manifolded Tanks
Manifolded tank systems rep-
resent a significant portion
of the underground storage
tank population. Many statistical
inventory reconciliation (SIR) ven-
dors feel that their systems are capa-
ble of detecting leaks from
manifolded systems. The SIR Sub-
committee of the National Work
Group on Leak Detection Evalua-
tions (NWGLDE), however, found
that some SIR methods had been
evaluated using data from mani-
folded systems, but that other SIR
methods had been evaluated using
data from non-manifolded systems.
The Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Standard Test Proce-
dure for Evaluating Leak Detection
Methods: Statistical Inventory Reconcil-
iation Methods (June 1990) provides
no guidance on evaluating SIR per-
formance on manifolded systems.
For this reason, the NWGLDE
formed an ad hoc committee to
develop a modified protocol that
establishes such guidelines. Mem-
bers of this committee were Lamar
Bradley, Beth DeHaas, Bill Faggart,
Jerry Fiora, Mike Kadri, Aaron Ram-
bach, and Ken Wilcox.
The result of this group's work
is the Protocol for Determining Applica-
bility of SIR Methods For Manifolded
Tanks And Determining Size Limita-
tions, developed to ensure that SIR
methods can perform adequately on
both single- and manifold-type tank
systems. This protocol may not
require any further analysis of data
sets by a vendor. It will, however,
require additional analysis of test
results by an evaluator to determine
if a SIR method performs adequately
on both single and manifolded tank
systems. It requires analysis of test
results to determine if a method per-
forms better on smaller tanks. It also
explains how to calculate maximum
tank size limits for single and mani-
folded tank systems.
This protocol was reviewed
and approved by the NWGLDE on
September 27,1996. Please be aware
that this is not an "EPA approved"
protocol; it is a protocol addendum
approved by the NWGLDE. The
work group also voted to allow only
systems that had been evaluated
according this protocol to be listed
on its "List of Leak Detection Evalua-
tions" as having been evaluated for
manifolded systems using an
approved protocol.
If you have questions about
using this protocol, or including a
SIR method on the " List of Leak
Detection Evaluations," please call
Lamar Bradley at 615-532-0945. •
The Nationwide Status of
F Contractor Certification/
Licensing Programs For
f UST/LUST-Related Work
f Currently, 41 states have some
kind of voluntary or mandatory
& contractor certification/licensing
Jl program. Of these states, 32 have
g. mandatory programs and 9 have
;;:. voluntary programs. Fifteen slates
1; require applicants to pass the
; International Fire, Code Institute
'$••: (IFCI) standardized electronic test
:r m order to be certified/ licensed.
-—• Some of these states have state-
-• specific questions included with
: the IFCI exam. The balance of the
'--- states require applicants to pass a
-•• state test in order to be certified/
licensed, except in South Carolina,
where certification is based on
, experience. In addition to testing,
Maine has requirements for train-
ing and the completion of six
installations. Twenty-five states
have some kind of continuing^du-
cation/relicensing program. •
"List of Leak Detection Evaluations For Underground
Storage Tank Systems - Third Edition" Now Available
The National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluations
(NWGLDE) has released the third edition of its "List of Leak Detec-
tion Evaluations." The list contains a detailed summary of specifica-
tions, based on third-party evaluations for over 250 systems that detect
leaks from USTs and their piping. The list is used to help select leak detec-
tion systems, obtain information about them, and determine their compli-
ance or acceptability. Although maintained by a work group consisting of
state and EPA members, the list is not a list of "approved" leak detection
systems. Approval or acceptance of leak detection systems is the responsi-
bility of the implementing agency, in most cases the state environmental
agency.
This most recent edition is available in electronic form for free down-
loading from two electronic sources:
*~ The Internet: www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/index.hfm
^- EPA's Cleanup Information Network (CLU-IN) electronic bulletin
board. Access CLU-IN by modem at (301) 589-8366, with settings 8-N-l-
Once in, join the UST/LUST Special Interest Group (#3), then go to File
Directory 11 (Tanks and Piping). The files are LDLISTWD.EXE
(Microsoft Word 6.0, original version) and LDLISTWP.EXE (WordPer-
fect 5.1), and both are over 2MB in size. Type the filename to expand
these executable compressed files into useable form. Foe help in down-
loading, call Hal White at (703) 603-7177.
Copies of the List of Leak Detection Evaluations for Underground Storage
Tank Systems-Third Edition (EPA 510-B-97-004) are also available through
EPA's National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at
(800)490-9198. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
from Bob Young, Industry Resource Liaison, the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)
Contractor Associations: A Network of Experience
Since the early 1990s, petroleum equipment con-
tractors have been establishing state associations
to deal with underground storage tank issues
and to work with environmental regulators on devel-
oping certification and licensing programs.
The concept or idea of state associations of and
for petroleum equipment contractors is not new. The
first petroleum equipment state contractor association
was chartered in 1955 in New Jersey. In August 1991,
only six state petroleum equipment contractor associ-
ations existed. Today, there are 22 state associations in
Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indi-
ana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
and Wisconsin. Efforts are underway to organize
associations in Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
and South Carolina. Petroleum equipment contractor
associations also exist in the provinces of Alberta and
Manitoba, Canada, as well as London, England, and
Victoria, Australia.
These organizations came into being for a vari-
ety of reasons. Some were formed to communicate to
their members what was happening in the industry. A
few were organized to provide management educa-
tion for company owners. Others were created to pro-
vide technical training to member firms and their
employees. A number of organizations took the edu-
cation theme a step further and were established to
deal with certification and licensing issues; some
developed voluntary certification programs for their
membership. And yes, a few organizations were
formed to provide lobbying efforts, on behalf of their
members, for issues related to the industry.
The successful state contractor associations in
this industry are productive and prosperous because
of the commitment and leadership of dedicated asso-
ciation members who are willing to serve as officers
and directors. The success of these associations lies in
the commitment of individuals to the cause—to pro-
mote high professional standards for individuals and
companies in the petroleum equipment contracting
industry.
The installation, maintenance, and service of
petroleum storage systems is a specialized field that
requires practical experience, combined with careful
adherence to recognized good practices and proce-
dures. Petroleum equipment contracting professionals
have worked hard to provide financially sound and
cost-effective installations, to improve the quality of
workmanship, to ensure that petroleum storage sys-
tems are installed and maintained correctly, and, ulti-
mately, to contribute to a cleaner, safer environment.
Association Goals
Petroleum equipment contractor associations pro-
mote their profession with a code of ethics, and they
address their purpose in the association's bylaws.
Here is a sample of association objectives as stated in
a set of bylaws:
^- To advance the professional competence of mem-
bers through the dissemination of information
related to technical developments, regulations,
training, and codes, all pertaining to the installa-
tion and maintenance of petroleum product facili-
ties.
>• To promote improvement in the environment,
through programs calculated to reduce contamina-
tion of soil, groundwater, and air as a result of
releases and emissions from petroleum product
facilities.
>• To elevate the professional level of persons
engaged in the installation of petroleum product
storage systems, through the development of vol-
untary or mandatory licensing, or certification
requirements for contracts engaged in such work.
> To encourage the adoption of laws and regulations
that recognize the environmental importance of
responsible tank-system contractors.
>• To enhance the performance of member firms,
through the development of a code of ethics for
companies engaged in the installation and mainte-
nance of petroleum product facilities, and through
encouragement of adherence to the code.
> To cooperate with regulatory agencies and petro-
leum marketers in the preparation and refinement
of rules related to the safety, accuracy, and envi-
ronmental soundness of facilities installed within
the state for the storage, measurement, transport,
and dispensing of petroleum products.
>• To promote, in all lawful ways commensurate with
public interest, the business development, and eco-
nomic welfare of members of the association.
By setting professional standards, both cus-
tomers and end-users stand to benefit. A contractor
who belongs to an industry-related organization may
be preferred by a customer over a nonmember
because he or she is typically better trained, more
qualified, more knowledgeable, and can generally
better serve a whole range of clients—service stations,
c-stores, major oil companies, private and govern-
ment fleets, and the public.
• continued on page 6
-------
LUSTUneBulletm26
Contractor associations stay on the cutting edge
of new environmental regulations that might be intro-
duced. Some states have continuing education
requirements for each licensing renewal period. Asso-
ciations are able to provide technical training and
education in the latest technologies and procedures. A
number of associations conduct quarterly educational
seminars for licensed or certified petroleum equip-
ment contractors.
Networking and Communication
One of the most vital services state petroleum contrac-
tor associations provide to their members is commu-
nication. Considered by most members as the most
important function of the association, effective com-
munication makes for a successful association. Mem-
bers of petroleum equipment contractor associations
are busy and rely on the association to keep them
informed of pressing legislative issues, program
availability, and many industry-related topics. Asso-
ciations attempt to keep up with the communications
technology curve and assist members by dealing with
the information overload. Organizations provide
timely and effective communications through
newsletters, data bulletins, e-mail, correspondence,
faxes, and phone calls.
While association members oftentimes compete
with one another, they also benefit from the opportu-
nity to network with each other within the associa-
tion. They give and get feedback, exchange ideas,
share product information and general business tips
with others in the field.
With 22 petroleum equipment contractor associ-
ations in the country, a national contractor association
network has developed under the auspices of the
Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI). PEI provides
the associations with training opportunities and
brings together association staff twice a year to share
ideas, develop programs, discuss problems, and set
direction for their various organizations. As it usually
turns out, problems in the industry tend to not be
unique.
Through the network, if association members
need help or information from their organization,
their staff person now has any number of other
avenues of resources to turn to for assistance. This
network extends to the environmental community as
well. Association members and staff stand ready and
are available to serve as consultants and educational
seminar leaders to environmental regulators, code
administrators, and fire officials.
PEI's Role
The Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) has been
actively involved with petroleum equipment contrac-
tor associations for about 7 years, providing assis-
tance where needed. PEI has been instrumental in
organizing 14 associations and is currently working
with 4 more states to form organizations. Petroleum
equipment contractor associations provide services
and fill a niche that PEI cannot address.
When new associations are in the process of
forming, PEI assists them with determining and set-
ting up their organizational structure. PEI provides
them with sample bylaws, agenda, membership
applications, codes of ethics, budgets, mission state-
ments, and antitrust policy statements. Membership
rosters, dues and budgets, meetings, officers and
directors, committees, and a number of operational
considerations are all addressed.
PEI provides assistance in promoting and orga-
nizing initial association meetings and serves as a
resource for planning meetings and agenda topics.
PEI staff and officers also serve as presenters at associ-
ation meetings. In the past, PEI has provided associa-
tions assistance with executive director searches and
association administration.
Every year at Convex, PEI's trade show, PEI
holds a petroleum equipment contractor association
luncheon for officers and staff. Staff training is also
provided annually at the petroleum equipment con-
tractor association workshop. PEI publishes notices of
education seminars and meetings in its TulsaLetter
and provides resources for education and training.
PEI regularly notifies state contractor associations of
regulatory updates.
Beyond the '98 Deadline?
Once the December 1998 deadline has passed, UST
work is likely to slack off and many organizations
have already begun looking to the future. It is proba-
bly safe to say, however, that UST work will continue
at a certain level as long as there are petroleum stor-
age tanks. Also, with the possible emergence of
aboveground storage tank (AST) regulations, a num-
ber of associations have begun providing AST educa-
tion and training programs. There may be more vapor
recovery work down the line, so associations continue
to monitor the regulations and prepare themselves to
provide additional technical training. Whatever the
future brings for the industry, the petroleum equip-
ment contractor associations will be there providing
benefits and services to their members. •
As PEI Industry Resource Liaison, Bob Young provides
assistance and resources to petroleum equipment contrac-
tor associations throughout the U.S., as well as Canada,
Australia, and England. For more information about con-
tractor associations, contact Bob at (918) 494-9696.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
Oh...Yeah...The Chemical Taiiks.
f 11 jrtili'^Hil'n"""
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
• Chemical Tanks from page 7
long way to sensitize the public to
the environmental damage and
health effects that are caused by
chemical spills
Some regulatory folks would
argue that because there are so few
chemical tanks relative to the stag-
gering numbers of petroleum storage
tanks, you've got to choose your bat-
tles (i.e., focus more on petroleum.
tanks than chemical tanks). Yet, each
year, thousands of people in the
United States are exposed to haz-
ardous chemicals that are released to
the environment as a result of chemi-
cal-related accidents. Almost all acci-
dents are preventable—a double-
walled tank with interstitial monitor-
ing, a properly labeled tank, a prop-
erly attended delivery, or an
emergency vent in the right place at
the right time could make all the
difference in how we co-exist with
the chemicals in our lives. This is
why New York State regulates chem-
ical tanks.
=t. To appreciate the magnitude of this
^problem, 2,839 hazardous material
I spills were reported to the New York
I State Department of Environmental
" Conservation (NYSWCjfrbmJuiy
1 1SS8 through Klarch'^97. *'
Chemical Idiosyncrasies
Chemicals have idiosyncrasies that
regulators as well as community
health and safety officials need to
recognize and consider when deal-
ing with the storage, use, and trans-
port of chemicals in bulk. Many
substances are hazardous because of
their specific physical properties. In
an industrial setting, considerations
associated with chemical storage and
operations center on the physical
and chemical properties of the mate-
rial used. These properties determine
how the materials behave—how they
react or decompose, mix or remain
separate, release or absorb heat,
change phase, and so forth.
Flammable liquids, for exam-
ple, will explode or burn only when
their vapors are mixed with oxygen
in the correct proportions in the
atmosphere, and then only when
Firefighters undergo decontamination after entering the area of a recent chlorine leak
in New York State.
they are in the presence of a source
of ignition. Other substances are haz-
ardous to human health because of
their chemical, rather than physical
properties. Highly caustic or acidic
substances, for example, can injure
or destroy human tissue. Some
chemicals have the potential to affect
human health and cause cancer.
There are several parameters
associated with the hazardous
nature of a substance that factor into
how it is stored and handled. Some
of these factors are presented in the
sidebar on page 9.
UST/LUST regulators have
become quite familiar with the prop-
erties of petroleum products (e.g.,
gasoline, fuel oil, bunker oil)—
they're flammable, they possess sim-
ilar volatilities, and they're relatively
insoluble in water. These similar
physical and chemical properties
make it easier to design appropriate
regulations for the bulk storage of
petroleum products and, for that
matter, to deal with the cleanup
should a release occur.
Designing regulations for the
bulk storage of chemicals is more
complicated and presents a greater
challenge. As noted in the parame-
ters listed on page 9, some chemicals
float on water, much like petroleum
derivatives. Others are more dense
than water and sink to the bottom, a
fact which can significantly jack up
the cost of remediating a chemical
release, relative to a petroleum
release. Chemicals that are soluble in
water pose an even greater threat to
drinking water; they require society
to do everything possible to protect
aquifers from contamination. When
we look at relative toxicities, we find
that many chemicals are significantly
more toxic than are petroleum prod-
ucts.
New York Tackles
Chemical Storage
Recognizing the complex nature of
chemical tanks, New York State, nev-
ertheless, bit the chemical bulk stor-
age regulatory bullet. In 1986 the
state legislature passed the Haz-
ardous Substance Bulk Storage Act,
which required NYSDEC to establish
a program for preventing the release
of chemicals to the environment. On
July 15, 1988 NYSDEC adopted its
Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS) Regula-
tions (Phase I) to implement this law.
Phase I sets forth a list of over
1,000 hazardous substances to be
regulated and requires the registra-
tion of AST and UST systems that
store any of these hazardous sub-
stances, either singularly or in com-
bination. The regulations also
require the appropriate parties to
notify the NYSDEC of any haz-
ardous substance spills and to take
prompt remedial action to protect
human health and the environment
in the event of a release.
Phase II of the CBS program
was adopted on August 11, 1994.
This phase established minimum
8
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
requirements and schedules for the
design, construction, installation,
operation, maintenance, repair, mon-
itoring, testing, and inspection of
storage facilities.
The CBS regulations consist of
five parts (Parts 595-599). Part 595
(Reporting Releases) requires own-
ers, operators, contractors, and oth-
ers to report the following types of
releases to the environment:
> One-time reporting of continuous
and stable releases;
^- Reporting of releases exceeding
the reportable quantities identi-
fied in Part 597; and
> Reporting of releases even if the
release is less than the reportable
quantity, if the substance released
could result in a fire or explosion
or pose a health risk to adjacent
parties.
This regulation applies to all releases,
including releases from chemical
process tanks, certain transportation
accidents, chemical fires, explosions,
and nonregistered facilities.
Part 596 (Registration) has been
in effect since 1988 and requires the
registration of ASTs with a capacity
of 185 gallons or more and any size
UST. This section addresses registra-
tion fees and prohibits the delivery of
a chemical to an unregistered tank.
Part 597 (List of Hazardous
Substances) contains a list of over
Chemical Factors Used in Designing Bulk Storage
and Piping Systems, Secondary Containment, and
Delivery Systems
• Vapor density ratio - The relative weight of a vapor compared
with an equal volume of air under the same conditions.
• Specific gravity - The relative weight of a certain volume of liquid
or solid compared with an equal volume of water.
• Water solubility - The proportion of a material that dissolves in
water, usually at room temperature.
• Vapor pressure - The pressure of a vapor at the specific tempera-
ture where the vapor is in equilibrium with its liquid or solid form.
Vapor pressure is also a measure of a substance's volatility.
• Boiling point - The temperature at which the vapor pressure of a
substance is equal to atmospheric pressure.
• Particle size - The size of the portions into which a substance is
divided. This property has a bearing on the stability of the substance
in the environment.
• Viscosity - The measure of a liquid's resistance to flow due to its
internal friction.
• Rate of evaporation - The rate at which a liquid will convert to a
vapor at a specific temperature and pressure.
• Melting point - The temperature at which a solid changes to a liq-
uid at atmospheric pressure.
• Toxicity - The ability of a substance to produce an adverse effect on
a biological system.
m pH - The acidity or alkalinity of an aqueous solution.
S Corrosivity - The measure of a metal's ability to react with mois-
ture, usually water.
• Flash point - The lowest temperature at which a flammable liquid
or solid will give off enough vapors to support combustion.
• Ignition temperature - The lowest known temperature at which a
gas or the vapor from a liquid or solid—in a closed or nearly closed
container—will self-ignite without the help of a source of ignition.
• Flammable limits - The lowest and highest proportions of a vapor
or gas relative to the air that will burn. •
1,000 hazardous substances and their
reportable quantities. NYSDEC is
required by state law to regulate all
substances which are regulated by
CERCLA, the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), and the federal Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA), as well
as other chemicals known to be haz-
ardous.
Part 598 defines upgrade
requirements for USTs with a dead-
line of December 22, 1998, and
upgrade requirements for ASTs with
a deadline of December 22,1999. Part
599, which began February 11,1995,
presents the standards for all new
and substantially modified facilities.
In New York, owner/operators of
chemical or petroleum USTs need to
know three important items to satisfy the
requirements for their deadlines:
>• All USTs must be corrosion resis-
tant;
>• All USTs must have a double wall
or a liner; and
*• All USTs must be upgraded to sat-
isfy spill/overfill requirements.
While owners/operators of
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) in
many other states may not be regu-
lated, New York State regulates
ASTs to ensure proper management.
New York requires that AST facilities
have the following:
*> A Spill Prevention Report
>• Secondary containment for ASTs
and transfer stations
*• Inspection schedules
*• Emergency venting
> Labeling of tanks and piping
*• Storage of nonstationary tanks in
dedicated areas.
Our CBS regulations require
emergency venting and a rigid
inspection schedule. Effective August
11,1996, the regulations also require
that a Spill Prevention Report (SPR)
be developed and maintained at the
storage facility. The SPR must be
updated at least once per year and
immediately after a major release or
major modification. Among other
things, the SPR must contain a copy
of the registration application and
certificate, a site map, an assessment
of releases over the previous 5 years,
a status report on compliance, and a
spill response plan.
• continued on page 10
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
• Chemical Tanks from page 9
The SPR is a management plan
that contains useful information for
both preventing and responding to a
spill. The history of leaks and spills
at a facility can provide important
information for preventing future
occurrences. For example, when an
emergency occurs, telephone num-
bers are needed quickly so that
neighbors and the proper authorities
can be notified. One purpose of the
document is to provide a sound
course of action for employees and
emergency responders.
Owner/operators are required
to develop evacuation plans and
train all staff periodically so that they
are prepared for such emergencies.
With a properly defined SPR in
place, a facility can expect to mini-
mize/eliminate injury, loss of life,
hospitalization, the extent of subse-
quent remediation, and liability.
As of March 31, 1996, New
York State's CBS program had 1,975
registered facilities. These facilities
accounted for 6,644 in-service ASTs
and USTs, representing a storage
capacity of 58,122,250 gallons for 196
unique chemicals. The chemicals
stored in largest volume are sodium
hydroxide, methanol, sulfuric acid,
Leak Prevention
sodium hypochlorite, hydrochloric
acid, phenol, ammonia, aluminum
sulfate, xylene, and toluene; they
account for a combined storage
capacity of 36,538,000 gallons.
New York State's CBS regula-
tory program is fairly flexible, partic-
ularly with respect to upgrade
requirements for ASTs and USTs.
Tank owners may choose to follow
generally accepted industry consen-
sus standards, or obtain NYSDEC
approval to follow equivalent prac-
tices. Variances are also allowed
under the regulations.
The state is making every effort
to work with industry to find accept-
able solutions to the required
upgrades and expects these solutions
to be protective of human health and
the environment. NYSDEC is contin-
uing its efforts to remind facility own-
ers of their obligations to satisfy the
regulatory upgrade requirements.
This June, a compliance initia-
tive got underway. Letters have been
sent to all registered UST facilities in
the state, advising them of the
December 1998 deadline. Attached to
the letter is a copy of EPA's
brochure, Don't Wait Until 1998. Also
attached is a computerized printout
of the state's information on the facil-
ity's tank and piping systems, based
on registrations. The facility is
required to review this information,
which will be used to determine
compliance.
Getting The Word Out
Via Internet
NYDEC has created a web site
(www.dec.state.ny.us), which will
provide the public and industry with
the opportunity for instant access to
various regulations, technical guid-
ance documents, brochures, and
notices. The Bulk Storage program is
preparing a web page which will
provide the following information:
^- An overview of the program and
the regulations for each subsec-
tion: Petroleum Bulk Storage,
Chemical Bulk Storage, and Major
Oil Storage Facility.
*• Federal UST regulations.
»• Q & As concerning all aspects of
storage tanks.
^- Technical guidance publications
available from the program.
>• Regional NYSDEC contacts. •
Nick Kolak is responsible for imple-
menting the NYSDEC Chemical Bulk
Storage program.
Georgia Takes An Innovative Approach
to Managing and Financing Compliance
and Corrective Action at State-Owned
UST Facilities
by J. Robert Wiggins, Jr. and Jill Stuckey
The State of Georgia is taking
an innovative approach to
managing and financing
compliance and corrective action at
state-owned UST sites. The tank
management and corrective action
strategies that have been put in
place are already saving the state
money, and the financial burden for
UST capital costs (i.e., tank up-
grades, replacements, and removals)
is being spread over a 20-year
period.
In 1993, staffers in the Gover-
nor's office began noticing an influx
of requests from state agencies for
large sums of money for UST-related
work. Because of the number of
requests, the Governor's staff
deemed it prudent to review the
state's UST management practices
and determine how each agency
intended to manage its tank upgrade
work. This review process involved
representatives from all state agen-
cies and from the UST Management
Program of the state's Environmen-
tal Protection Division (EPD).
The EPD records showed that
there were almost 1,000 UST sites
owned by 18 different state agencies.
Over 85 percent of the sites had not
yet been upgraded or closed. The
EPD had been notified about prod-
uct releases at many of these sites,
but little site assessment work had
been undertaken. The agencies had
been relying on guidance from con-
sultants, and both the guidance and
the consultants varied widely from
agency to agency. As a result, the
reviewers discovered a glaring lack
of consistency in new systems stan-
10
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
dards, as weft as a lack of cost-effec-
tive compliance with. UST regula-
tions.
As representatives from EPD's
UST Program, we (the authors) rec-
ognized that a coordinated approach
was essential and proposed to the
Governor's staff that a separate
group be established to oversee and
manage the work at all state-owned
UST sites. We reasoned that such a
group could achieve three crucial
objectives:
>• Ranking of all sites by priority/
need, regardless of agency owner-
ship;
> Development of consistent man-
agement practices, systems de-
sign, and assessment and/or
remediation work for all sites; and
^ Realization of major cost savings
by instituting new methods of
supplying fuel to the state fleet
and by finding new, more efficient
ways to assess sites for potential
environmental impact.
Key to this proposal was the
establishment of a new management
group which would oversee and
implement an all-agency UST man-
agement plan. Funding for all UST-
related work would now be
channeled to this central UST man-
agement group.
The proposal was presented to
the Governor in late 1994. He agreed
to it and included the plan in his
FY-96 budget. In early 1995, the plan
and budget were submitted to the
General Assembly. The General
Assembly concurred and assigned
the new UST Management Group to
the Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority (GEFA), as of July 1995.
The Assembly also approved the sale
of $5 million in bonds (amortized
over a 20-year period) to fund
replacement, closure, and remedia-
tion activities at state-owned UST
sites. An additional $5.6 million was
made available in July 1996. Another
$5 million bond sale will be con-
ducted in July 1997; more funds will
be provided in future years, as
needed.
The UST Management Group's
first order of business centered on
resolving two key questions: What
was the best way to provide fuel to
the state's fleet of over 22,000 vehi-
cles? and How could the state
achieve environmental compliance at
its 1,000 sites without spending vast
sums of money?
Fueling the Fleet
Prior to the establishment of the UST
Management Group, each state
agency had assumed that most tanks
would be replaced on a one-for-one
basis. If so, however, the cost would
have approached $50 million. A quick
survey showed us that almost 80 per-
cent of the state's vehicle fueling sites
pumped less than 2,000 gallons of fuel
each month. This stark reality lead us
to conclude that investment in new
systems at sites with such small
monthly throughput could not be jus-
tified! So far, we have identified about
650 fueling locations. By the time our
program is complete, Georgia's UST
sites will have been whittled down to
less than 100.
!/l quick survey showed us that almost
| 80percent of the state's vehicle
^fueling sitespumped less than2,000
I gallons of fuel each month. This stark
f reality lead us to conclude that
£ investment in new systems at sites
1 with such small monthly throughput
could not he justified!
But before we could begin clo-
sure of these tanks, we had to find a
way to provide fuel to the state's
22,000 vehicles. Consideration had
already been given to creating a pri-
vately administered credit card sys-
tem for state fuel purchases but
without any particular urgency.
Those of us at the UST Management
Group realized that such a system
was now essential. We discussed the
situation with the Governor's staff
and urgently recommended that the
development of the private credit
card for fuel purchases be given very
high priority. (Coincidentally, this
recommendation came as the Gover-
nor was working to privatize more
and more state services and sourcing
of supplies.) With all parties in
agreement, work on the credit card
system moved into high gear.
The development of the credit
card system has been supported by
all state agencies. The old gasoline
purchasing system was cumbersome
and could not provide timely man-
agement information. In developing
the new credit card system, we
decided that it must be set up as a
true "one-card" system. Thus, the
private vendor who will support the
system must be able to integrate, via
a single credit card per vehicle, data
from retail fuel purchases with data
from fuel obtained at state-owned
facilities. Using special computer sys-
tems and fleet management software,
the new system will enable a driver
to use the same credit card to obtain
fuel from either a private vendor or a
state facility, thereby creating a single
tracking and reporting system for all
fuel transactions. As of this writing,
vendors are submitting proposals for
the system; it is to be operational by
late 1997, a year before the 1998 UST
upgrade deadline.
Meanwhile, we began work to
bring the remaining sites up to the
new standards. We established basic
design elements and developed and
standardized engineering drawings
and specifications. The same designs
are used over and over, with some
tailoring to site-specific and/or spe-
cial operating situations. Some pro-
jects have been completed and more
are being initiated each month. This
approach of reducing the tank popu-
lation, standardizing designs, and
converting most facilities to the new
credit card system has reduced the
state's capital cost for UST upgrades
and replacements from about $50
million to about $15 million— a 70-
percent reduction in required funds!
A Risk-Based Approach to
Environmental Assessment
The second part of our program was
just as crucial as the tank manage-
ment aspect. We needed to find a
cost-effective approach for ensuring
that the state achieved compliance
with environmental standards. Our
traditional approach toward LUST
site assessment— "zero tolerance"
and "chasing the plume"—would
require upwards of $50 million and
many years to conclude all work.
Because the state does not tap into
the State UST Trust Fund to pay for
cleanups, the required cleanup funds
would have to come from General
Obligation Bonds, which, in turn,
• continued on page 12
11
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
m Georgia from page 11
would be paid back with General
Revenue. Because all government
units have more demand for funds
than tax revenue, providing these
amounts would come at the expense
of other services and programs.
In evaluating our site assess-
ment options, we took a look at the
state's general resource/land use
picture. Over 60 percent of Georgia's
drinking water comes from surface
sources—streams and/or impound-
ments. Over 40 percent of Georgia's
land surface is the Piedmont, a
topography that consists of tight
soils and water tables greater than 25
feet below surface. The next 50 per-
cent of the state's land surface is
underlain by a surficial aquifer—
although shallow-bore drinking
water wells are quite common in this
area, the state UST sites are typically
long distances from living areas. We
reasoned that inasmuch as over 80
percent of the state's UST sites con-
sisted of small tanks less than 2,000
gallons in size, each pumping low
monthly volumes, the risk of a large
release at any one of these sites
seemed very low. The combination
of these facts led us to conclude that
a majority of the state facilities
should pose insignificant contamina-
tion risk.
In order to confirm our intu-
itive conclusion we had to develop a
new methodology that would satisfy
the environmental assessment
requirements, yet cost much less
than the old process. Given the limits
on available funds, we knew that our
corrective action efforts should be
directed at the highest risk sites first.
Since Georgia's Environmental Pro-
tection Division has long focused on
preventing contamination of drink-
ing water wells, our fkst priority was
to identify those sites that could
impact known and active wells.
We devised a three-step
approach to satisfy and resolve our
needs. First, we commissioned a
physical survey of all UST facilities,
accumulating site-specific informa-
tion on such considerations as water
receptors, preferential pathways,
uses of adjoining property, building
construction, soil conditions, and the
location of the USTs on the site. Next,
we commissioned the development
of a risk-based model that would
....; ..,-.
g- This approach of reducing the tank
^population, standardizing designs,
^jand converting most facilities to the
jtnew credit card system has reduced
f- the*stoie*s Capital cost for WT
|4 upgradesand replacements from
f'aBoulWo million to about $15
-I
rijajoired funds!
integrate the predictive abilities of
soils transport models, water trans-
port models, and gasoline vapor
transport models. Last, we had the
developer of the model input site-
specific information to create a rela-
tive ranking of risk in order to
identify which sites to address first.
The site survey, the first step,-
was bid on a fixed-cost basis. The
information we required had to be
presented both on U.S. Geological
Survey topographical maps and on
site-specific drawings. This scheme
not only provided all of the site data,
it also created the foundation for the
next steps. This work was done for
about $200 per site and was com-
pleted in less than 120 days!
Our Forecasting Tool
The second step, the development of
a integrated risk-based model, is the
key component of Georgia's pro-
gram. We had observed that most
UST sites have some degree of conta-
mination (from overfilling usually),
yet probably pose very little risk to
drinking waters. We also realized
that, in most cases, whatever conta-
mination was present in the tank
excavation would diminish in quan-
tity as it moved through the soil
and/or to the ground water. Since
benzene is the most serious health-
based constituent of petroleum prod-
ucts, we felt that the development of
a means to forecast its potential
impact on drinking water wells was
paramount.
The contractor selected to
develop the model was charged with
creating a model that would literally
integrate predicted movement of
contaminants in soil and in water so
that Georgia could forecast the tim-
ing and impact of benzene contami-
nation for a given well. The contrac-
tor was asked to evaluate and select
from published, peer-reviewed fate
and transport models and to validate
them with respect to state sites that
had already been extensively investi-
gated. He was asked to regionalize
the sites based on topography and
soils susceptibility. He was asked to
run sufficient trials of the model to
identify which of the many variables
would need to be represented as site-
specific data. Finally, he was asked
to make the new model dynamic to
reflect relative risk as new data are
input.
This work resulted in a new
forecasting tool that takes site-spe-
cific data (e.g., direction and distance
to receptors, probable depth to
groundwater, soils conditions
[including grain-size analysis], soil
contamination tests results [ben-
zene], preferential pathways, and
proximity to buildings) to predict the
following:
K If, when, and at what levels ben-
zene would move through soils to
groundwater,
*> If, when, and at what levels ben-
zene would migrate through
groundwater to someone's well,
and
> Whether gasoline vapors could
accumulate in enclosed spaces
(basements, sewers).
Because each component of the
model feeds data into the other com-
ponent, any change in one variable
automatically triggers a recalculation
for the entire model.
Ranking the Risks
The contractor input the data from
all 1,000 sites to create a relative
ranking. The output yielded a raw
numerical score that ranged from
zero to over 200,000 points. The first
ranking was based only on the site
surveys. As such, it was a valid
assessment of the potential risk at all
sites. Sites with very low scores
could be expected to pose no risk,
regardless of the amount of product
released. Sites with high scores could
pose big problems even if only small
amounts of product were lost.
The model is truly dynamic. As
tanks are removed, and soil contami-
• continued on page 24
12
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
Where UST regulations are concerned, questions do pop up. No matter'Jtorv
obscure some of these questions may be, they merit exploration. No matter how
obscure the question, someone out there needs an answer. Our answers derive
from a carefully considered interpretation of the federal rule, based on EPA guid-
ance. Keep in mind, individual state requirements may differ from federal require-
ments, ^our questions and comments are welcome.
A Q & A in the last issue of LUSTLine
addressed the length of time existing
USTs can use the leak detection
method that combines monthly
inventory with tank tightness testing
every 5 years. For convenience, we
will call this leak detection method
the "combination method." What
follows is a clarification of this ques-
tion based on recent EPA informa-
tion.
When can you start using the
combination method as an approved leak
detection method?
The federal regulations state
that the combination method satis-
fies federal leak detection require-
ments only when applied to an UST
system that meets the performance
standards for new UST systems or
upgraded UST systems. Basically,
these standards require the UST sys-
tem to have spill and overfill protec-
tion and corrosion protection for
tanks and piping.
. How long can an UST system use
the combination method?
Federal regulations state that
the combination method can be used
for a maximum of 10 years after the
tank is installed or upgraded with
corrosion protection. Note that this
time period is based on the compli-
ance status of the tank only, not the
entire UST system. (In the last issue
of LUSTLine, we incorrectly stated
that an "extension is granted" for
USTs to use the combination
method; in fact, the period during
which the combination method is
valid is not an "extension" and does
not need to be "granted" by an
implementing agency.)
This information is basically
consistent with EPA materials circu-
lated to date and should create no
confusion as long as: 1) the tank and
the rest of the UST system are
upgraded at the same time, or 2) the
tank has corrosion protection added
after the rest of the system meets
upgrade standards. In these cases,
USTs can use the combined method
for 10 years after the tank has corro-
sion protection, or December 1998,
whichever date is later.
But what about the smaller sub-
set of existing USTs in which the
tank has corrosion protection before
the rest of the UST system meets
upgrade standards? In some of these
cases, the combined method may not
be valid for more than a few years.
As noted above, the federal regula-
tions require that the entire system
be upgraded before the combination
method can meet the federal leak
detection requirements. However,
federal regulations also establish an
ending date for the period during
which this combination method is
valid. The ending date established is
10 years after the date the tank has
corrosion protection (or December
1998, whichever is later). Since the
period of validity cannot begin until
the whole system has met perfor-
mance standards for new or
upgraded USTs, the period of valid-
ity is less than 10 years only in these
cases where the tank has been pro-
tected from corrosion before the rest
of the UST system meets the upgrade
standards.
The sample cases which follow illus-
trate three basic possibilities:
• Tank and other UST system
components are all upgraded
at the same time.
For example, a bare steel tank
installed in 1980 is subsequently,
in 1997, assessed by means of an
internal inspection and is
upgraded with corrosion protec-
tion, piping upgrades, and spill
and overfill protection. This UST
system can use the combination
method until 2007, which is 10
years following the date of tank
upgrade.
• Tank has corrosion protection
added after the rest of the UST
system meets upgrade
standards,
For example, a bare steel tank
installed in 1980 adds piping
upgrades and spill and overfill-
protection in 1993, but the tank is
not upgraded with corrosion pro-
tection until 1997. This UST sys-
tem can use the combination
method until 2007, which is 10
years following the date the tank
is upgraded with corrosion pro-
tection.
• Tank has corrosion protection
before the rest of the UST
system meets upgrade
standards.
For example, a bare steel tank is
upgraded with corrosion protec-
tion in 1988 (or the tank is made of
noncorrodible material and
installed in 1988), but the piping,
spill, and overfill upgrades are not
added until 1995. This would
mean that the UST system could
start using the combination
method to meet federal leak detec-
tion requirements only in 1995
(when the full system was
upgraded) and could use the com-
bined method only until 1998 (the
date which is 10 years after the
tank has corrosion protection). In
this example, the UST could use
the combined method to meet fed-
eral leak detection requirements
for 3 years (from 1995 to 1998).
After 1998, the UST in this exam-
ple would need to begin using a
monthly monitoring method.
Readers should be aware that
these qualifications apply also to
USTs ranging in capacity from 1,001
to 2,000 gallons that use a variant of
this combined method. These small
USTs can use a combination method
of manual tank gauging with tight-
ness testing every 5 years with the
same qualifications as noted above
• continued on page 14
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
• Qs and As from page 13
for USTs using the method that com-
bines inventory control and tightness
testing.
In all cases, when the combina-
tion method can no longer be used,
monthly monitoring is required by
the federal leak detection regula-
tions. Approved monthly monitor-
ing methods are manual tank
gauging (only for tanks 1,000 gallons
or smaller), automatic tank gauging,
statistical inventory reconciliation,
vapor monitoring, groundwater
monitoring, interstitial monitoring,
and other methods approved by the
implementing agency as equally
effective in detecting leaks
Cx. Owners/operators of new and
existing USTs are required to perform
release detection for spills and leaks of
regulated substances (40 CFR
280.40(a)). For some USTs, one of the
options available for meeting the release
detection requirements combines tank
tightness testing at specified intervals
with monthly inventory control.
Monthly inventory control requires
owners! operators to perform certain
activities in order to detect a release of at
least 1.0 percent of flow-through plus
130 gallons on a monthly basis. The
activities required include recording
measurements of the amount of product
delivered, dispensed, and stored in the
tank each operating day. If a UST is stor-
ing a regulated substance that is added
or removed only a few times a month, or
not at all, is the owner/operator required
to gauge the tank every day the regulated
substance is in the tank, or just the days
during which the regulated substance is
added or removed?
The owner /operator is required to
conduct inventory control measure-
ments each day the regulated sub-
stance is added or removed, and at
least monthly. The definition of
each operating day for purposes of
monthly inventory control requires
recording tank measurements only
on those days that a regulated sub-
stance is added or removed. How-
ever, the owner/ operator, in order
to meet the inventory control stan-
dard on a monthly basis, must also
record and reconcile delivery, dis-
pensing, and inventory measure-
ments at least once a month. For
example, if a 4,000 gallon diesel fuel
UST on a farm has no deliveries
and dispenses no fuel for a month,
then the farm is required only to
record the amount of fuel in the
tank (and compare this value with
the standard) on a monthly basis.
Note, however, that after 3 months
of inactivity, closure requirements
may apply. Also note that inven-
tory control is, for each tank, part of
a temporary release detection
option. (See the answer to the ques-
tion above.) Request EPA's Doing
Inventory Control Right: For Under-
ground Storage Tanks (EPA 510-B-93-
004) for instructions and optional
forms.
Leak Prevention
Petroleum Marketers
Promote P2 With Farm
Customers
By Liz Nevers
Partnerships between the public and private sectors can be very effective. A recent
Farm*A*Syst pollution prevention (P2) initiative targeted gasoline and diesel storage and use on farms. With
the goal of keeping fuel out of soils, surface water, and groundwater, a group of public-private partners worked
together to provide farmers with special information packets, to sponsor educational displays at three Wisconsin
county fairs, and to present several on-farm workshops.
Funded in part by an EPA
grant awarded to the National
Farm*A*Syst Program, the partner-
ship included two Wisconsin petro-
leum retailers, Danco Prairie FS
Co-op and Haskins Gas and Oils;
project members from the national
and state Farm*A*Syst programs;
state petroleum organizations; Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Extension
agents and specialists; and a state
regulatory agency.
Wisconsin's tank program reg-
ulates all underground and above-
ground storage tanks, including
tanks exempted from the federal reg-
ulations (these tanks have an
upgrade deadline of May 1, 2001).
Getting the word out to this vast reg-
ulated community was an important
priority.
"At the Wisconsin Department
of Commerce, we like to educate
before enforcement," says LeRoy
Nordmeyer, aboveground/ under-
ground storage tank specialist. "This
[P2] project brought awareness to oil
jobbers [marketers] and tank
installers that they need to take a
leading role in education. It is doing
volumes of work without dragging
people into court—which is not our
goal-
Dane County/University of
Wisconsin-Extension Natural Re-
source agent, Mindy Habecker, also
believes education is important.
"Underground tanks and fuel tanks
are an issue in Dane County. I get
phone calls on a regular basis from
farmers who have an underground
tank that they want to remove," she
says. "With the phasing in of a new—
fairly confusing and complex—set of
regulations, I felt it was a critical
14
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
issue. A recent Department of Com-
merce survey found that more than
90 percent of Wisconsin's farm fuel
tanks are not meeting state code."
Farm Petroleum Tank
Information Packet
Since members of the partnership
team agreed that farmers lack infor-
mation, a packet was devised to:
>• Create awareness of the pollu-
tion and fire risks and their
impacts
>• Educate farmers about state
codes
>• Give farmers directions and
tools to prevent pollution
>• Provide information on addi-
tional assistance and services
Rather than creating all new publica-
tions, each member organization
supplied relevant materials. The
team decided to make the packet a
working file folder with recordkeep-
ing functions. The retailers also
promoted special tank-upgrade
equipment, such as automatic shut-
off nozzles, and included coupons in
the information packet to encourage
farmers to purchase the equipment.
The retailers' fuel managers
and the fuel delivery drivers partici-
pated in training sessions to under-
stand the materials and their role in
the project. The drivers, for example,
had the job of delivering the infor-
mation packets during their regular
farm refueling stops and promoting
other activities. Each packet contains:
>• A fact sheet on the risks petro-
leum contamination poses to
surface and groundwater
>• Brochures explaining Wisconsin
codes for farm tanks
>-, Four tank decals, required by
code
>• Information on state funds for
petroleum cleanup
> The Wisconsin Farm*A*Syst
Petroleum Storage and Handling
risk assessment worksheet and
fact sheet.
>• Spill response information
>• Recordkeeping forms for tanks
>• Information on finding addi-
tional assistance
"The materials were profes-
sionally done and very well put
together," says Dean Hanley, Energy
Department Manager, Danco Prairie
FS Co-op. "Farmers are more sophis-
ticated today, and we got some very
good comments from the two on-
farm demonstrations."
County Fairs
Along with the local county Exten-
sion office, the retailers also co-spon-
sored an educational display, called
"A Farm Petroleum Tank Check-
Up," at the Columbia, Dane, and
Grant county fairs. It provided basic
information on tank hazards, USTs,
ASTs, and management tips. Simple
equipment—like new hoses and
automatic shut-off nozzles—was
also shown.
The Extension offices also pro-
vided technical and outreach sup-
port—developing publicity
materials, mailing out flyers and
news releases, giving local radio and
television reports, networking with
local officials and organizations, and
helping provide free space at the
county fairs (space at the Dane
County Fair would have otherwise
cost $650).
"In Dane County, it is difficult
to reach people unless you use a
multi-pronged approach," says
Habecker. "You never know if a per-
son will open up a packet and read
all of the information; they may pre-
fer to actually see and talk to some-
one—to get the information 'from
the horse's mouth'."
On-Farm Demos
The county agents suggested hold-
ing on-farm workshops—"Farm Fuel
Tank Demonstrations"—to provide a
nonthreatening setting to discuss
regulations and liability issues, as
well as to show actual farm tanks.
The displays from the county fairs
were also used on the farms, and the
Extension agents again took the lead
in planning and running the demon-
strations.
"Having the display gives the
project a longer life, since it can be
shipped around the state and used in
multiple counties," Habecker said.
"You can also get more breadth in
getting the information out there,
without targeting the competitors of
the cooperative that you're working
with."
Benefits of Partnerships
Once a partnership dynamic gets
started, it can easily have a ripple
effect, drawing in more and more
interest and participation. For exam-
ple, because of their many and varied
contacts, the local Extension agents
and petroleum marketers brought in
new partners for local activities (e.g.,
emergency response staff, local fire
chiefs, insurance underwriters, and
state tank specialists). The on-farm
demonstrations also attracted real
estate agents, county health officials,
environmental consultants, insurance
agents, local press, farm press and
other petroleum retailers, as well as
farmers.
"I'm not sure this project can be
seen on our bottom line, but it has an
intangible return—a positive effect on
our image," Dean Hanley says. "We
got a lot of good publicity out of it."
One insurance underwriter was
so excited about the project that he
began distributing the information to
his territorial underwriters as well as
all of his farm policy holders. •
For more information and to see
many of the printed materials
described above, check
Farm*A*Syst's web page
(http//www. wisc.edu/farmasyst/)
under "Public and Private
Partnership." A series of tip
sheets related to this project has
also been created as part of a kit
for petroleum retailers and trade
associations.
Liz Nevers is Outreach Coordinator for
the National Farm*A*Syst/
Home*A*Syst program. She can be
reached at (608)265-2774.
Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst are
voluntary interagency programs that
help farmers, ranchers, and homeown-
ers prevent pollution on their lands.
15
-------
Enforcement
Field Citations
New Hampshire's First Choice For
Compliance Enforcement
by Lynn A. Woodard
On July 1, 1994, the New
Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
(DBS) adopted Administrative Rule
Part Env-C 603 Field Citation Pro-
gram for Underground Storage Facil-
ities. In retrospect, the adoption of
this rule was a milestone in the
state's underground storage tank
(UST) program. It was one of only a
few distinct actions in the program's
history that can be looked back on as
a defining point. The administrative
fine-field citation has become the
first choice as an enforcement mech-
anism for the UST program...and
with good reason. The success rate
for payment of the fine and compli-
ance with the regulations for the pro-
gram's first 2 years was
approximately 75 percent. (See graph
on page 17.)
Why did we develop the field
citation program? I suspect New
Hampshire's available enforcement
mechanisms and procedures do not
substantially differ from those of
other states. Typically, if enforce-
ment is initiated against an UST facil-
ity, it is in the form of an
administrative order, administrative
fine, consent agreement, proposed
permit revocation, or civil action
involving the state's Attorney Gen-
eral's Office. All of these actions
require paperwork and levels of
review that cause delays in issuance.
Furthermore, the fines are severe
enough that, if ever issued, they
encourage appeals. As a result, valu-
able time is wasted, and compliance
is delayed or not obtained.
Prior to 1994, when DBS
adopted the field citation rule, only a
few enforcement actions had been
initiated. Fewer than five enforce-
ment actions were pursued each
year. There were two overriding rea-
sons for this inactivity: (1) the pro-
gram was in its development stage,
and staff time was dedicated to other
aspects of the program; and (2) the
benefits derived, versus the cost
expended (in staff time and other
resources), could not justify the
action.
We, in the program recognized
that if we were to get serious about
enforcement, we would need an
enforcement mechanism that would
be easy to issue and easy to track.
Paperwork and review would have
to be kept to a minimum. Ideally,
such a mechanism would be issued
on-site, where, following a compli-
ance audit, the inspector would dis-
cuss any violations with the facility
owner. To be effective, the fine had
to be large enough to convey the
message that DBS was serious about
obtaining compliance, and small
enough to ward off an appeal in the
majority of cases. The action also had
to send a clear message that DBS was
only interested in protecting the
waters of the state and would prefer
that the owners and operators spend
their resources attaining compliance,
not paying expensive fines.
With such a mechanism, DES's
goal of gaining compliance with the
technical aspects of tike UST rule as a
means of preventing releases or
detecting them early-on could be
achieved. The field citation met all of
these criteria and more.
Developing The Program
When the idea of developing a state
UST field citation program was first
proposed, we thought that a statu-
tory modification would be required.
The prospect of having to convince a
legislative subcommittee that an
additional punitive measure was
necessary was not a pleasant one.
Fortunately, however, our Enforce-
ment Coordinator, an attorney,
determined that statutory authority
(RSA146-C) already existed to estab-
lish administrative fines and that the
field citation was just an alternate
form of the standard administrative
fine.
To make our field citation pro-
gram viable, we had to develop a
schedule of fines that was particular
to the field citation and separate
from the standard administrative
fine. We structured the citations such
that fines would range from $25.00 to
$100.00 per violation. The schedule
contained a listing of 21 separate vio-
lations; each UST system in a facility
could constitute a separate violation.
For example, if an UST facility
had three tank systems, and each of
them failed to have the necessary
paperwork for inventory monitoring
or tank gauging, DBS would assess a
fine of $100 per tank system or $300.
To take this further, the violation
could be applied per day or per
month, whichever was applicable.
As you can see, a simple field cita-
tion can begin to add up to real
money. To make certain that the
effective enforcement criteria were
followed, we made the following
parameters part of the rule:
> A fine shall not be proposed for
more than $100 per violation;
>• The total proposed fine shall not
exceed $1,000; and
^- If the total proposed fine exceeds
$500, the amount in excess of $500
shall be suspended.
If the respondent corrects the viola-
tions and pays the $500 fine within
30 days of the date of the notice, pay-
ment of the suspended portion is
waived.
Implementing the Program
The rule was adopted with no objec-
tion from anyone. Our next step was
to obtain authority for UST field
inspectors to issue the citations on-
site. Heretofore, the authority to
16
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
issue a proposed administrative fine
tiadfeeentbie purview of the commis-
sioner and/or the division director.
In the case of field citations, delega-
tion of authority was transferred to
the UST Compliance Section and its
staff via an internal memorandum.
The field citation program became a
high profile pilot project; if it proved
to be an effective enforcement tool, it
would be cloned for other programs
within the DBS.
To ensure that citations were
not issued for unsubstantiated viola-
tions, which would result in unneces-
sary appeals, and to avoid having
proposed fines overturned upon
appeal, staff were instructed that
facility owners would be afforded at
least one chance to come into compli-
ance before a field citation was issued.
As it was, on-site visits to
explain regulatory requirements and
to demonstrate how best to attain
compliance, mailings of deficiency
letters, mass mailings containing
specific requirements and deadlines,
and follow-up post cards were nor-
mal procedure. Now, to further
ensure the success of the program,
initial inspections were targeted to
areas where a release was most likely
to have the greatest impact (i.e., well-
head protection areas) and to those
systems that were most likely to
have a release (i.e., unprotected bare
steel tanks greater than 25 years old).
(In New Hampshire, unprotected
bare steel tanks greater than 25 years
old must be permanently closed.)
To simplify the process even
further, during the early stages of the
program, our staff members were
limited to issuing citations for two
types of violations: Those associated
with leak detection, and those for
unprotected bare steel tanks greater
than 25 years old.
Next, DBS had to develop the
actual citation form, print it, and dis-
tribute it to the staff. We decided to
use a standard 8.5- x 11-inch page so
that we could list all 21 violations
with their respective fines. This
design method was easy for the
inspector and the facility owner to
read, so it made for more accuracy in
citing the violation. Each page has
space for the name of inspector, the
name of facility, the date, and the
facility owner's signature.
We numbered the citations and
assigned a block of these to each
inspector. The back of the form con-
tains the appeals procedure and
space for the facility owner to
explain the corrective action steps he
or she will take and the anticipated
date for attaining compliance. This
form has been very successful, no
appeals have cited the form as the
source of any misinformation.
Measuring Results
Compliance is the key to release pre-
vention. When we look at program
results, we need to keep in mind the
program goal: To encourage compli-
ance with the technical criteria of the
rale and thereby prevent or detect
releases. To accurately measure the
results of the Field Citation program,
we made it our business to track the
facilities that received field citations
and their compliance status.
To accomplish this, we devel-
oped a Lotus spreadsheet that con-
tained all pertinent information. The
spreadsheet was divided into three
sections—proposed fine data, negoti-
ations/hearings data, and compli-
ance data. The compliance items
were coded and shaded-in when
compliance on a particular violation
was attained, allowing for a compli-
ance status assessment at a glance.
Authority to use the field cita-
tion was available in July 1994.
Development of the citation form and
other administrative needs, however,
delayed issuance of the first citation
until late January 1995. Since then, 90
field citations have been issued—20
in 1995, 32 in 1996, and 38 as of the
end of May 1997. (See the "Field Cita-
tion Program Results" graph.)
Compliance rates for 1995 (18
out of 20) and for 1996 (21 out of 32)
are 90 percent and 65 percent respec-
tively. However, these numbers,
alone, do not show how really suc-
cessful the program has been. For
example, many of the facilities repre-
sented as remaining out of compli-
ance have, in fact, established a
schedule with DBS for coming into
compliance. A secondary benefit, but
one that is just as important but
impossible to measure, is the number
of facilities that voluntarily attained
compliance because of this field cita-
tion initiative.
One benefit of the program that
can be measured is leverage. When a
field citation is issued to an owner
with multiple facilities, DBS lever-
ages its assets by requiring that the
owner reconcile the compliance
• continued on page 18
FIELD CITATION PROGRAM RESULTS
w
0)
u
£
•5
£
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No. of Citations Issued
Compliance Achieved
1995
1996
Year Citations Issued
1997'
January through May 1997 - Compliance not calculated.
17
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
• NH Reid Citations from page 17
records for all his/her facilities with
the DES VST Compliance Section.
Thus, if deficiencies are noted, the
owner is required to establish a
schedule for returning all facilities to
compliance. By issuing 90 field cita-
tions, we have addressed compliance
at 220 UST facilities.
Effective In More Ways
Than One
The field citation has proven to be a
highly effective compliance enforce-
ment mechanism. It has had the
effect of streamlining the state's UST
compliance enforcement program.
Prior to its adoption, the issuance of
90 standard proposed administrative
fines, associated hearings, and subse-
quent determinations during an
equal period of time for one program
would have been unheard of. It
would have severely overburdened
the system and transmitted the mes-
sage that the enforcement program
was ineffective.
The adoption and implementa-
tion of the Field Citation program
has been an effective mechanism in
gaining compliance in communities
with wellhead protection areas to
protect valuable drinking water
resources. It has been a major factor
in encouraging facility owners to
permanently close unprotected sin-
gle-walled steel tanks greater than 25
years old, thereby preventing
releases from occurring.
By preventing releases we have
reduced the potential number of new
leaking underground storage tank
sites. This, in turn, has reduced the
number of claims on the state reim-
bursement fund and has saved the
fund hundreds of thousands of dol-
lars. The saved dollars are available
to fund the investigation and clean
up of other sites.
Finally, lest we forget, Decem-
ber 22, 1998 looms on the horizon.
Because this enforcement mechanism
is already in place and has been
tested, it will be called upon as the ini-
tial enforcement mechanism to be
used for those facilities that do not
meet the 1998 compliance deadline. •
Lynn Woodard is Supervisor of the
NHDES Oil Compliance and Initial
Response Section.
Investigation and Remediation:
MTBE - Beware the
False Positive
by Blayne Hartman
I \ /hat is the official EPA method for mea-
w V suringMTBE in soil and water samples? Actu-
ally, there is no official method. And herein lies the
potential problem with reported MTBE results.
Increased concern over the
presence of MTBE in the environ-
ment by the regulatory community
has created a demand for MTBE
analyses from soil and water sam-
ples collected from LUST sites.
Because no official EPA method
exists, laboratories have modified a
variety of EPA methods to analyze
for MTBE. The most commonly used
methods are EPA 8020, 8240, and
8260. While results provided by
these methods may be fine, both reg-
ulators and consultants need to be
aware that there are critical differ-
ences among these methods which, if
not understood, could lead to the
incorrect interpretation of reported
MTBE values.
EPA Method 8020 is a gas chro-
matography (GC) method that uses a
photoionization detector (PID). The
method is designed to detect aro-
matic hydrocarbons, the most com-
monly targeted compounds of which
are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes (BTEX). MTBE can also
be detected by this method. MTBE
elutes, or passes through the detec-
tor, earlier in the analytical run than
the BTEX compounds, which means
that it takes no additional time to
analyze a sample for MTBE. As a
consequence, some laboratories have
included MTBE in their 8020 analyti-
cal runs for little to no extra charge.
But as the saying goes: "Beware the
free lunch."
Because of pricing pressures,
many analytical laboratories have
compressed the "run time" for 8020
from 20 minutes to less than 10 min-
utes. This reduced run time increases
the potential for compounds to co-
elute (i.e., pass through the detector
together) and be misidentified. This
problem can be especially significant
for MTBE because several alkane
compounds elute close to MTBE and
are present in gasoline in large quan-
tities. The result is false positives —
over reported MTBE values that
result from the co-elution of the alka-
nes. This problem is greatest for soil
vapor and soil samples, but it can be
significant for groundwater samples
as well.
EPA methods 8240 and 8260
are gas chromatography methods
that use a mass selective detector
(GC-MS). These detectors differ from
other typical GC detectors because
they have the ability to identify com-
pounds based on their masses. This
means that MTBE can be recognized
and quantified individually, even if
other compounds are co-eluting with
it. Thus, MTBE values from these
methods tend to be more reliable and
false positives should not occur. This
analysis, however, is more expensive
than an 8020 analysis.
The solution? Use a combina-
tion of these methods to ensure valid
results and minimize costs. Nonde-
tect MTBE values reported by method
8020 should be fine. MTBE values
from samples with low gasoline val-
ues (<5000 ug/1 and 100 mg/kg) are
more likely to be reliable because low
values of the co-eluting alkanes are
also likely. As gasoline values in-
crease, so does the potential for over-
reported MTBE values. Depending on
site-specific goals, it is advisable to
confirm a subset of the MTBE results
reported by method 8020 by one of
Blayne Hartman, Ph.D., is Vice Presi-
dent and Technical Director of TEG,
Inc. in Solana Beach, California.
For more information, contact Blayne
by e-mail at bh@tegenv.com.
18
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
Investigation and Remediation
EXPEDITED SITE ASSESS.
Now Available
EPA's New Guide on Expedited Assessment Tools
For UST Sites
EPA has developed a guide to
help UST regulators evaluate
and promote expedited site
assessments at UST sites. Expedited Site
Assessment Tools For Underground Stor-
age Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators
(510-B-97-001) is designed to enable
the reader to answer the following
basic questions about site assessments
atUSTfadliti.es:
>• What is an expedited site assess-
ment?
^- How is an expedited site assess-
ment conducted?
^- What equipment can be used in an
expedited site assessment?
>• Under what site conditions are
specific site assessment tools
appropriate?
EPA's Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST) estimates that
at least 360,000 sites are likely to
require site assessments in the next
few years. The majority of these
assessments will result from owners'
and operators' closing or replacing
old tanks to comply with the '98
deadline. Additional assessments
will be required to investigate back-
logged sites and new releases.
There have been many
improvements in site assessment
technologies over the last few years.
When they are systematically inte-
grated into the site assessment
process, these new technologies can
speed up the on-site decision-mak-
ing process.
As the first step in the correc-
tive action process, site assessments
are critical to making appropriate
remediation decisions. Expedited
site assessments can streamline the
corrective action process, improve
data collection, and reduce the over-
all cost of remediation.
The new EPA guide is orga-
nized into six chapters: Introduction,
The Expedited Site Assessment
Process, Surface Geophysical Meth-
ods, Soil Gas Surveys, Direct Push
Technologies, and Field Methods for
the Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocar-
bons. It is designed for federal, state,
and local regulators who review cor-
rective action plans and site assess-
ment reports. It will also be useful to
consultants, engineers, lenders, pub-
lic health professionals, and others
involved in the cleanup or remedia-
tion of LUST sites.
The guide is available for
$26.00 from the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), Superinten-
dent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Order
stock number 055-000-00564-8. •
Connecticut DEP Developing; Multimedia
Expedited Site Assessment Guidelines
For LUST Sites
Under contract to the LUST
Trust Fund Program of the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP),
and with additional support from
the Connecticut Department of Pub-
lic Works, Professor Gary A. Rob-
bins at the Department of Geology
& Geophysics of the University of
Connecticut is developing multime-
dia guidance on conducting expe-
dited site assessments at UST sites.
The guidance is being developed to
help the regulated community,
environmental consultants, and
DEP contractors achieve improved
UST site remediation approaches.
To date, two reports in hard
copy and on-line have been issued.
These are:
>• Recommended Guidelines For
Applying Field Screening Methods
in Conducting Expedited Site Inves-
tigations at Underground Storage
Tank Sites in Connecticut (Novem-
ber 30,1996) and
> Recommended Guidelines For Mul-
tilevel Sampling of Soil and Ground-
water in Conducting Expedited Site
Investigations at Underground
Storage Tank Sites in Connecticut
(March 12,1997).
A third report entitled, Recom-
mended Guidelines For Evaluating
Three-Dimensional and Hydrogeologic
Data Obtained in Conducting Expe-
dited Site Investigations at Under-
ground Storage Tank Sites in
Connecticut is due out next year on
CD-ROM.
These guidance reports stress
the need to delineate the three-
dimensional distribution of gasoline
and diesel fuel contamination above
and below the water table. The
reports provide recommendations
on sampling, determining pertinent
• continued on page 20
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 26
• Conn PEP from page 19
hydrogeologic properties, estimating
contaminant mass and attenuation
rates, and presenting data. In this
regard, the guidance reports comple-
ment and supplement EPA's recently
completed document on expedited
site assessment for regulators (see
preceding article), but provide more
detail in terms of field application.
The reports emphasize the applica-
tion of direct push methods for sam-
pling and the use of field screening
techniques for delineating contami-
nation.
The guidance presented in
these reports is based on long-term
research conducted at the University
of Connecticut and project-specific
efforts that entailed literature
reviews on field analytical methods
and multilevel sampling, a survey of
manufacturers of field screening
methods and equipment for conduct-
ing multilevel sampling, laboratory
tests of field analytical methods, and
field tests of select analytical and
sampling methods at UST sites in
Connecticut.
Field testing included compar-
isons of different methods for con-
ducting multilevel groundwater
sampling and soil sampling below
the water table for entrapped prod-
uct using direct push methods. This
year's efforts include comparisons of
data obtained from conventional
and expedited site assessment
approaches. Also, evaluations are
being performed to assess the effec-
tiveness of remediation approaches
at several UST sites that were based
on three-dimensional data collected
in conducting expedited site assess-
ments.
Hard copies of the above
reports may be obtained by contact-
ing the Connecticut DEP Maps and
Publications Sales Center, 79 Elm
Street, Hartford CT 06106 or by call-
ing (860) 424-3555. There is a fee of
$5.00 per document. The reports are
also available for viewing on-line
at: www.sp.uconn.edu/~hydrogeo/
deprepthfan using the free software
Adobe* Acrobat Reader 3.0. The web
site has directions on how to get the
software for viewing. •
EPA Concerned About
Schaefer/Allard LUST Trust
Fund Legislation
On April 23, the House of Rep-
resentatives passed the
Schaefer bill, HR. 688, the
"Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act
of 1997." Senator Allard (R-Col-
orado) introduced an almost identi-
cal bill, S. 555, on April 10. This
legislation expands the use of the
federal LUST Trust Fund, allowing
the fund to be used to supplement
state UST assurance/cleanup funds
to reimburse responsible parties for
the costs of cleanup and to pay state
fund administrative expenses and to
enforce UST release prevention tech-
nical standards. The legislation also
mandates that EPA distribute at least
85 percent of the LUST Trust annual
appropriations to the states and
explicitly prohibits the use of the
fund for upgrade, replacement, or
closure of old tanks.
.._ .......... ,.. .... ..... . .......
; Trv* ^~ ;~i ^1^ ?j-j^
•• ? Since the Schaefer hill was
---^ ~^-'-"'^, ^-*v ^-=*--w-»*4^-^%f*> • '•?£$£> 4 '•;., m
as voiced concerns
..B-^.-.."j-i'-'
about the implications of this
^.i^^^^^tt^A.-JAi-'-aSfcia;'^^^!^./!
:i ^legislation; primarily from the
^standpoint that the legislation
^y&sentjaily takes an eating pot of
money and spreads it over a broader
range of allowable uses.
The LUST Trust Fund program
was originally authorized under the
1986 Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act and was reau-
thorized for 5 years in December
1990. It was funded by a 0.1 cent per
gallon tax on motor fuel. Although
authority to collect the tax expired in
December 1995, Congress can con-
tinue to appropriate funds. Approxi-
mately $1.0 billion remains in the
fund. The President is requesting
reinstatement of the tax in FY-98.
At present the fund may be
used for site cleanups, where the
owner/operator is unwilling,
unknown, or insolvent; for oversight
of responsible party (RP) cleanups
and enforcement; and for general
support and management.
Since the Schaefer bill was first
introduced, EPA has voiced con-
cerns about the implications of this
legislation; primarily from the
standpoint that the legislation essen-
tially takes an existing pot of money
(i.e., EPA's annual appropriation
from Congress) and spreads it over a
broader range of allowable uses.
With this fact in mind, the Agency
has three major concerns.
First, at current appropriations
levels, EPA is concerned that by sup-
plementing state financial assurance
funds with money from the LUST
Trust Fund, resources needed to
oversee RP cleanups and remediate
abandoned sites could be diverted,
thereby reducing protection of
human health and the environment.
EPA's second concern also has
to do with supplementing state
cleanup funds in that federal dollars
would be used to reimburse RPs
who are known, willing, and able to
pay for cleanups. The LUST Trust
Fund was not designed to provide
funding for cleanups on behalf of
solvent, viable responsible parties.
Finally, H.R. 688 and S. 555
would codify EPA's grant award
patterns, specifically requiring that
at least 85 percent of Trust Fund
appropriations be distributed to the
states. While historically, EPA has
awarded states approximately 85
percent of its annual Trust Fund
appropriation, the agency believes
that it should maintain the flexibility
to revise the percentage distribution
and allocation formula for distribut-
ing monies to the states. The Agency
feels that such flexibility allows it to
respond more appropriately as envi-
ronmental risks and resource levels
change and to fulfill its responsibil-
ity in Indian Country, which
includes emergency response and
corrective action.
EPA does support the enforce-
ment uses of the LUST Trust Fund
provided in the new legislation. •
20
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
Investigation and Remediation
CAFI Anyone?
Selecting the Right Cleanup
Technology for a Site
by Richard Spiese and Chuck Schwer
In the "good old days" in Ver-
mont, the state site manager went
to most LUST sites and, with the
assistance of the responsible party's
(RP's) consultant, performed a pre-
liminary on-site evaluation of the
severity of the LUST contamination
and the risk it posed to sensitive
receptors. Based on this evaluation,
the site manager and the consultant
determined what type of remedia-
tion method, if any, was needed to
contain and remediate the contami-
nation. This decision was often based
more on past experience than on site-
specific data. In many cases, these
decisions were made within days or
weeks of discovering the release, and
usually without the benefit of on-site
pilot tests to evaluate the effective-
ness of the chosen technology.
By the early 1990s, however,
this modus operandi began to
change, primarily in response to a
proliferation of LUST sites. No
longer could program personnel visit
every site. Instead, they spent an
increasing portion of their time
reviewing consultant reports and
evaluating the effectiveness of site
cleanups. In doing this, they soon
learned that many of the remedial
decisions made in the past were less
than perfect. Assumptions that had
been made in the field were often not
completely accurate, and remedial
systems sometimes needed modifica-
tions to reflect the different site con-
ditions.
In 1994, in response to this find-
ing, the Vermont LUST program
adopted the Corrective Action Feasi-
bility Investigation, or CAFI,
approach to selecting cleanup strate-
gies. Under this new approach,
before a cleanup technology is
selected, a formal CAFI must be per-
formed. The CAFI must contain
specified elements that are deemed
necessary for determining the appro-
priate corrective action technology
for a given site.
The RP's consultant must eval-
uate one or more technologies that
are appropriate to the unique condi-
tions of the site, perform an on-site
pilot test, evaluate risk, and justify
the selection of the recommended
technology. The CAFI allows for the
review of natural attenuation as a
corrective action technology. It also
calls for a review of the costs of dif-
ferent technologies and a cost-benefit
analysis of the different remedial
options. Depending on site-specific
conditions (e.g., geology, receptors),
a CAFI may be straightforward (e.g.,
a report on the results of a pilot test)
or more complex (e.g., a formal
review of multiple applicable tech-
nologies).
Refreshingly Cost-Effective
In preparation for the Sixth Annual
State Fund Administrators Confer-
ence this June, Vermont LUST pro-
gram staff evaluated the average
costs of cleanup at CAFI sites versus
non-CAFI sites. This evaluation pro-
vided us with three exciting pieces of
information about sites where formal
CAFIs had been completed:
> The remedial costs were often
reduced; .
> The duration of the remediation
was often shortened; and
>• Expensive remediation costs were
avoided at sites where remedia-
tion was found to be technically
infeasible.
The average cost of remediat-
ing sites where formal CAFIs were
completed was significantly less than
that of remediating sites where no
formal CAFIs were prepared.
Although most site managers
expected this to be the case, all were
surprised by the magnitude of this
savings.
A review of the costs of prepar-
ing a CAFI showed that the average
cost for performing and reporting a
CAFI was $8,500.00; the range was
from $1,300.00 to $32,350.00. These
differences in costs were based
mostly on the complexity of the site
and whether one or multiple remedi-
ation technologies were evaluated.
The average cost of cleanup for
sites without a formal CAFI was
$261,930 (based on the review of
remediation costs at 30 sites),
whereas the average cost of cleanup
for sites with a formal CAFI was
$174,049 (based on the review of
remediation costs at 15 sites). These
data represent a per site savings of
almost $100,000.00! Not bad for an
investment of only $8,500.
At seven sites where a CAFI
had been completed, the CAFI
indicated that site conditions were
such that any corrective actions other
than natural attenuation were techni-
cally infeasible. In these instances,
the average cost of the, initial site
investigation, preparation of the
CAFI, and long-term monitoring was
$60,000.00.
Although most of the cleanups
initiated without a CAFI were suc-
cessful, many of the approaches
needed to be modified, expanded, or
changed after they were imple-
mented. These modifications ulti-
mately increased the cost of the
cleanup.
In Vermont, we have found
that it is a good investment in time
and money to thoroughly evaluate
all potential site cleanup technolo-
gies before deciding on a final reme-
diation technology. Vermont's LUST
cleanup program now requires the
preparation of a formal CAFI at all
sites, except in emergency situa-
tions...and a nice hot cup of Java to
reward all involved. •
Richard Spiese and Chuck Schwer are
with the Vermont Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Waste Site
Cleanup program.
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 26
LUST in the Brownfields
Brozvnfields, brownfields, brownfields...everybody's talking about brownfieldsl
brozvnfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial or commercial site.
casualties resulting front decades of industrial activity—where expansion or redevel
cated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Brownfields pose risks to p\
create zones of environmental blight in many communities.
While brownflelds are found in sub-
urban and rural areas, the problem is
most prevalent in urban areas where
many properties that would other-
wise be prime for development lie
dormant because they are tainted by
hazardous wastes, as well as by leaks
and spills from underground and
aboveground storage systems.
Private parties are reluctant to
invest in these properties because of
liability concerns and cleanup cost
uncertainties. Financing is difficult to
obtain because lenders fear that envi-
ronmental and legal obstacles will
make it difficult for borrowers to
repay their loans. These circum-
stances prompt developers to shift
their attention to dean sites in rural
or suburban communities while the
brownfields—prime urban and
industrial sites that are already
served by transportation infrastruc-
ture and utilities—remain aban-
doned or unproductive.
Throughout the country, the
cleanup and redevelopment of
brownfields is being seen as a key to
the revitalization of urban areas.
Putting these properties into produc-
tive use can create jobs and increase
local tax revenues. It can also help
slow "urban sprawl" and the prob-
lems that go with it, including
increased air pollution and loss of
open space.
EPA and many states see the
need for a coordinated response to
the brownfield situation and have
begun developing programs to
specifically address problems com-
mon to brownfield sites. EPA's
Brownfields Redevelopment Initia-
tive, for example, was established
with the mission of preventing
brownfields from coming about in
the first place and cleaning up exist-
ing brownfields in an effective and
timely manner.
Across the country, there are
approximately 450,000 real or per-
ceived brownfield sites. In an effort
to remove obstacles in the way of
performing brownfield assessments
and cleanups, EPA is trying to ease
the stringent liability scheme
imposed by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
These efforts include creating com-
fort, or closure, letters that certify
that a site is clean, clarifying lender
liability provisions, and exploring
the use of state voluntary cleanup
programs at low priority, non-
National Priority List sites.
"State program managers should
\eep abreast of what is happening in
their states, especially if certain
I provisions of proposed legislation
\ may have a negative impact
w- -•-'-• on their program."
., Sammy Ng, EPA Office of
" Underground Storage Tanks
Where LUSTs Are Concerned
While brownfields are usually asso-
ciated with Superfund or hazardous
waste sites, many of these sites are
actually former commercial and
industrial sites that contained old or
abandoned USTs. In fact, in some
areas, UST sites may account for half
of the brownfields sites. Unfortu-
nately, because of this link with
Superfund sites, most of the federal,
and an increasing number of state,
activities have focused on the diffi-
culties in addressing these sites
under current Superfund policies
and procedures.
"These activities, such as state
voluntary cleanup programs and lia-
bility schemes, while addressing the
problems usually associated with the
Superfund program, can also affect
a state's UST/LUST program," says
Sammy Ng of EPA's Office of
Underground Storage Tanks, "espe-
cially with regard to the cleanup and
redevelopment of UST sites. State
voluntary cleanup programs will
likely set forth a whole new way of
doing cleanups.
"These voluntary cleanup pro-
grams are generally designed to
streamline Superfund cleanups,"
explains Ng. "If state LUST pro-
grams are included under these pro-
grams, it could create additional
hurdles for LUST program cleanups.
As a very simplified example, a
state's Superfund cleanup program
could be streamlined from 50-steps
to 10-steps. Yet, that state's LUST
program may use a 5-step process.
There is the potential, then, that
LUST sites that fall under the state's
brownfields program could be sub-
ject to the more complicated 10-step
process."
Also, in an effort to secure the
timely turnaround of brownfield
sites, state LUST program managers
may be asked to sign off on sites
through the issuance of closure let-
ters. This could create extra work for
already taxed LUST programs by
creating an additional set of priori-
ties.
"We suggest that state LUST
program managers be vigilant,"
says Ng. "State program managers
should keep abreast of what is hap-
pening in their states, especially if
certain provisions of proposed leg-
islation may have a negative impact
on their program. Some recently
passed brownfield legislation in
Maryland and Michigan did affect
USTs. Depending on how they are
defined from state to state, brown-
fields can be a plus or a minus in
meeting state LUST program
goals." H
22
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
STSWMO Tanks SubeommiHe@
Coast to Coast is provided as a regular feature of LUSTLine to update state and federal UST, LUST, and cleanup
:fund personnel about the activities of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials'
(ASTSWMO) Tanks Subcommittee. If you want to leant more about the Tanks Subcommittee/ contact the Subcom-
mittee Chair, Scott Winters (CO) at 303/620-4008> ofSteplten:Crirriaudo (ASTSWMO) at 202/624-5828.
Tanks Subcommittee
The Tanks Subcommittee has been
very active over the last 6 months
on a variety of issues of concern to
state UST programs. The Subcom-
mittee met in April at the Mid-
year ASTSWMO meeting in New
Orleans. All four task forces were
represented at this meeting, and
good progress was made on a
variety of issues, including the
UST "Report Card," which is cur-
rently undergoing revisions. For
information on overall Tanks Sub-
committee activities, contact Sub-
committee Chair, Scott Winters
(CO) at (303) 620-4008.
UST Task Force
The UST Task Force has been busy
on a number of important UST
issues. Many of these issues are
driven by the 1998 deadline for
upgrading of USTs. The Task
Force continues to work on the
"Report Card on the Federal
UST/LUST program." As this
project now includes all the Task
Forces in the Tanks Subcommit-
tee, the TIE Task Force has taken
the lead as project coordinator.
The UST Task Force has also
provided comments for the devel-
opment of an EPA - OUST/ASTM
standard for certifying UST com-
pliance with the 1998 technical
standards. This proposed ALICE
(Acceptable Liability and Compli-
ance Evaluation) standard is
developing into a tool that states
and OUST may use to increase
1998 compliance.
For more information on UST
Task Force activities, contact Task
Force Chair, Paul Sausville (NY)
at (518) 457-4351. :
LUST Task Force
The LUST Task Force has been
very active over the last year and
has a full agenda for the upcom-
ing year. Completed activities
include an article for the Under-
ground Tank Technology Update
(UTTU) newsletter on natural
attenuation, comments on the
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Report on Leak-
ing Underground Storage Tank
Cleanups, presented to the Califor-
nia State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), and a letter
addressing the LUST Trust Fund
Allocation Formula and its impact
on state LUST Programs.
Ongoing projects include
work on the "Report Card on the
Federal UST/LUST program,"
review of several innovative tech-
nologies, participation on the
EPA/OUST MTBE workgroup,
and participation in National Con-
ferences as they pertain to LUST
issues.
Future planned projects
include producing a document on
possible environmental indicators
that may be used as a state LUST
program tool, reviewing and com-
menting on the Texas and Florida
risk and RBCA reports, and
preparing a web page on innova-
tive LUST technologies.
For more information per-
taining to LUST Task Force
activities, contact co-chairs
Kevin Kratina (NJ) at (609)
633-1415, or Richard Spiese
(VT) at (802) 241-3880.
State Cleanup Funds
Task Force
The State Cleanup Funds Task
Force just completed a very suc-
cessful Sixth Annual State Fund
Administrators Conference held
in Sacramento, CA from June 16-
18,1997. Much of the Task Force's
efforts prior to the conference cen-
tered on preparing for the sessions
of the conference. The Task Force
(a.k.a., State Fund Administrators
Association) completed a "Sum-
mary of State Fund Survey
Results" and a "State Fund Suc-
cess Stories Compendium, Second
Edition" for presentation at the
conference.
The conference had many
informative and entertaining ses-
sions, including the following
large group sessions: A review of
the State Fund Survey results by
Chuck Schwer (VT), "Issues Shap-
ing State Funds" by Dave Deaner
(CA), Jana Harris (OK), and Randy
Taylor (UT), "Life with RBCA and
Natural Attenuation" by Dennis
Rounds (SD) and Hal White (EPA
OUST), "Unconstitutional State
Funds and Other Legal Follies"
presented by Mary-Ellen Kendall
(VA) and Dean Lerner (IA), and
"State Funds: Talk Back Live with
Dan and Dennis" by Dan Neal
(TX) and Dennis Rounds (SD).
• continued on page 24
23
-------
LUSTLinf Bulletin 26
• Coast to Coast from page 23
Small group sessions included
the following topics: MTBE Remedi-
ation, Common-Sense Closures,
Cost Control Roundtable, Forecast-
ing, Solvency, and Cash Flow
Roundtable, Pay for Performance
Workshops, Living with Residual
Contamination, Remediation Equip-
ment Inventory Roundtable, Correc-
tive Action Sessions I & II, State
RBCA Roundtable, Cost Recovery,
Natural Attenuation, Planning for
Sunsets, 1998 and Beyond Round-
table, and Harnessing the Power of
Your Stakeholders Roundtable. As
this list shows, the conference cov-
ered a wide array of state fund
issues. Planning has already begun
for next year's conference.
Awards for the best State
Fund Success Stories were pre-
sented by Ellen Frye of NEIWPCC
and Steve Crimaudo of ASTSWMO
on the last day of the conference.
The categories of awards were: Best
Financial Achievement, awarded to
South Dakota; Best Managerial (Pol-
icy/Management) Achievement,
awarded to Ohio; and Best Fund For
Getting the Job Done, awarded to
South Carolina.
At the close of the conference,
the State Funds Administrators
Association chairmanship was
turned over to George Matthis of
North Carolina. Dan Neal, who
served as Chairperson of the Task
Force/Association for the past 2
years, will continue as co-chair and
active member of the Task Force.
Thank you Dan for 2 years of dedi-
cated and inspiring leadership.
For more information on
the work of the State Cleanup
Funds Task Force or the
Annual Conferences, contact
Dan Neal (TX) at (512) 239-
2258 or George Matthis (NC)
at (919) 733-9413.
TIE Task Force
The Training and Information
Exchange (TIE) Committee has seen
much change over the last year.
This change began with a total
turnover in Task Force membership.
The new Chairperson of this Task
Force is Kathy Stiller of Delaware.
Other new members include George
Matthis (NC) and Juan Sexton (KS).
Major efforts of the TIE Task Force
include the successful planning and
implementation of the mid-year
meeting in New Orleans, continued
work on the "Report card on the
Federal UST/LUST program," con-
tinued work on ASTSWMO's Inter-
net home page, and planning for the
1997 Annual ASTSWMO Meeting.
If you have questions or
comments on TIE Task Force
activities, call Task Force
Chair, Kathy Stiller (DE) at
(302)323-4588.
• Is Leak Detection Working? from page 3
point where all UST systems are perpetually tight. The
sheer number of active UST facilities, combined with the
human propensity to make mistakes, guarantees that
leaks will be with us for a long time. The question is, will
we find them sooner? Or later?
To Err Is Human
As a footnote, it is dear to me that lack of owner/opera-
tor understanding of leak detection is a key factor con-
tributing to the ineffectiveness of leak detection methods.
Few owner/operators understand inventory control well
enough to believe what it is telling them. Few on-site per-
sonnel really understand ATGs.
Even secondary containment is beyond the ken of
many. On some recent facility inspections, I encountered
sincere, well-meaning operators of secondarily contained
tanks who were using manual monitoring to meet their
leak detection responsibilities. Unfortunately, one was
sticking his float vent valve thinking it was his interstitial
space, the other was sticking his primary tank for the
presence of water, thinking this was leak detection. We
have a long way to go in the realm of educating the UST
owner/operator population. •
Marcel Moreau is a nationally recognized petroleum storage
specialist whose column, "Tank-nically Speaking," appears
as a regular feature in LUSTLine.
I Georgia from page 12
nation and grain-size analysis tests are run, new infor-
mation is input into the model. Using this model, Geor-
gia staffers are able to run site-specific evaluations. By
comparing known conditions at a site with higher risk
scenarios, these same staffers can quickly assess if this
site really needs further assessment, or if it can be
closed with "no further action."
We expect this approach will eliminate the inva-
sive and costly site investigations that normally follow
the discovery of contamination at a facility. We are
really operating on the "80-20 rule," which suggests
that 80 percent of the sites are low risk, while the other
20 percent might have significant problems. With this
method, we are able to focus limited funds on the high
risk sites, while quickly resolving the rest. In taking this
approach, we expect to decrease the cost of assessment
and remediation efforts from $50 million to less than
$20 million.
So, here's the bottom line: From an early cost esti-
mate of about $100 million to deal with tank replace-
ments and cleanups for some 1,000 sites, we are now
down to a cost of about $35 million. This is a 65 percent
reduction, quite a figure for anyone. •
Jill Stuckey and Robert Wiggins are now beginning their
third year with the UST Management Group program.
They expect to complete all work within 3 years.
For those who have questions, they may be reached at
(404) 657-1324.
24
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
Enforcement Initiative
During May 1997, the states and
EPA undertook a joint effort to
focus attention on their commit-
ment to enforce the UST regula-
tions. Together, states and EPA
inspected about 9,000 UST facili-
ties. Violations of the release
detection requirements were iden-
tified at more than 2,500 of the
facilities inspected. States and EPA
issued 1,700 Notices of Violation,
750 warning letters, and 400 field
citations. Formal enforcement
actions were recommended or ini-
tiated in several cases. States and
EPA proposed or collected fines
totaling more than $900,000; large
fines proposed in three cases in
Region 2 accounted for more than
half of the total.
Recent OUST Publications
Unless otherwise noted, you can
download material listed below
(in WordPerfect 6.1) from OUST's
World Wide Web Home Page at
http://wwzv.epa.gov/OUST/.
Printed copies are available from
NCEPI by calling (800)490-9198,
or faxing (513) 891-6685, or via
EPA's toll-free Hotline at 800-
424-9346.
• Ordering Information On
Underground Storage Tanks
(EPA-510-F-97-003). This leaflet is
intended for UST owners / opera-
tors, but it is suitable for response
to request from the general public
and UST-related sectors. The pur-
pose of the leaflet is to help UST
owners and operators obtain free
informational leaflets, booklets,
and videos that can help them
comply with the federal UST
requirements. All materials listed
urge readers to check with state
and local regulatory authorities
for additional or more stringent'
requirements.
• PIRI Issue Papers
(EPA-510-R-97-001). This collec-
tion of technical issue papers was
written by EPA, state, and indus-
try members of the Partnership In
RBCA Implementation (PIRI).
PIRI is a collaboration of industry,
states, EPA and ASTM. PIRI was
established to encourage and sup-
port state efforts to implement a
risk-based approach to corrective
action at federally regulated UST
sites involving releases of petro-
leum or petroleum products. In a
series of papers they have
authored, individual PIRI mem-
bers discuss issues involved in
implementing RBCA and present
options for overcoming obstacles.
The papers discuss RBCA
issues associated with natural
attenuation; the definition of cont-
aminant, and no further action let-
ters; selection of carcinogenic
target risk levels for soil and
groundwater remediation; off-site
movement of chemicals of con-
cern; institutional controls;
groundwater nondegradation
policies; and using TPH. All
papers represent only the views of
their authors; they do not reflect
official EPA policy or the positions
of PIRI member organizations. If
you do not have Internet access,
you may order a copy of the PIRI
Issue Papers by calling 800-490-
9198.
• Tank Time.
Developed by the Tennessee
Department of Environmental
Conservation's Division of Under-
ground Storage Tanks, in collabo-
ration with EPA OUST, this new
video used a fictional TV show,
"Tank Time," to present an amus-
ing discussion of the federal 1998
requirements for corrosion protec-
tion, spill and overfill prevention,
and compliance options available
to UST owners and operators. Ten-
nessee staff wrote the script to" be
generally applicable to UST own-
ers and operators nationwide;
however, the video does note that
state requirements may differ and
urges viewers to check with their
state authorities.
Tennessee sent a copy of the
video, along with a state-prepared
booklet, to every registered tank
owner or operator in the state.
EPA sent a copy of the video to
every state UST program manager
and EPA regional UST program
manager. Tank Time is available
for sale from Scene Three, Inc., the
Nashville company that produced
the video, for $24.00 ($15.50 per
tape plus $8.50 for shipping and
handling). Scene Three will quote
prices for orders of more than 15
copies. To order, send a written
request and check to: Scene Three,
Inc., 1913 8th Avenue South,
Nashville, TN 37203, Attention:
Tank Time.
• State Third-Party Service
Provider Programs: Augment-
ing State UST Programs
(EPA-510-B-97-003). This booklet
is for state officials who may be
considering the use of third-party
service provider programs to
increase their UST program's
capabilities. Few, if any, states
have the staff resources needed to
support all of the high priority
UST activities they might like to
undertake. EPA OUST produced
this booklet to provide general
information about third-party ser-
vice provider programs, including
their benefits and costs. The book-
let describes Pennsylvania's expe-
rience with its third-party
inspector program and Massachu-
setts' experience with its Licensed
Site Professional program. These
models may be useful to states
intending to set up similar third-
party programs.
• State Funds In Transition:
Models For Underground Stor-
age Tank Assurance Funds
(EPA 510-B-97-002). This booklet,
which is intended for state fund
officials who are considering
changes and alternatives to their
state funds, presents case studies
describing some of the activities
that three states have conducted in
making a transition from a state
fund program to other financial
assurance mechanisms. The book-
let also describes five programs
• continued on page 27
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
EPA Stands Firm on the 1998 Deadline
This recent memorandum from EPA Administrator Carol Browner affirms the Agency's
commitment to maintaining and enforcing the December 1998 deadline for upgrading,
replacing, or closing underground storage tanks.
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Decetnber 1998 Dead
nd
Regional Administrators
I
December 22, -L»' - standards EOJ. f
tnaiv'a tecnn-Ll-'a-J" , • a«/l
meet »«* => rorrosxon. , nqT owners a"1-4-
^.f=-illa, ano. GUJ-J- _-*.vn»-rs and uoi w
over you, a,ruES -/sr sg;- -f?-Ircent
f^SSr-^S^ ss-"
-- - • t-o comply and
aSd^perators who
301UV--T to compJ-y clJL1" — JY compHea-
aSd^pSltors who have a re& element in the ongoing^^
-S5& -:--:-: 0!^-^-^
grounawate^ -—- y cases, ^—-dinking wa^«- —-
contamxnant In ^ic or prxvate ^
contaminatxon o offices and the °^ompiiance in
T ««x?
Carol M.
26
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 26
that might serve as "models" for
states that have decided to
change the structure of their state
funds.
• 1997 Flexible Piping
Survey
Because flexible piping systems
differ significantly from the more
traditional steel and fiberglass
piping systems, EPA OUST has
periodically commissioned a sur-
vey of flexible piping manufac-
turers. This new survey updates a
similar flexible piping survey
published in 1995. The 1997 sur-
vey includes information on
which companies are making flex
pipe, product name, construction,
compatibility, diameter available,
date of first installation, number
of installations, installer training
required and/or provided, mini-
mum bend radius, test pressure,
listings, and materials warranty.
Copies can be downloaded from
OUST's Home Page (see above.)
• UST Program Facts: Imple-
menting Federal Requirements
For Underground Storage
Tanks
(EPA-510-B-96-007). This booklet,
which is a revised, updated edi-
tion of LTST Program Facts, con-
tains a new section on
"brownfields." The booklet was
designed mainly for state and
EPA staff, but other interested
parties will find it useful. It
should help regulators handle
press inquiries, prepare brief-
ings/presentations, respond to
legislators' questions, write
speeches, and provide informa-
tion to other agencies and the
public.
L.U.S.T. Buster T-Shirts &
Sweatshirts!
Tee's: M,L, XL, XXL $9.00pp
Sweats: M, L, XL, XXL $16.50 pp
Allow 4-6 weeks delivery.
Send check or money order (drawn on U.S. banks only)
to: NEIWFCC, 255 Ballardvale Street,
Wilmington, MA 01887-1013
L.U.S.T.LINE
Ql One-year subscription. $30.00.
Q Federal, state, or local government. Exempt from fee.
(If you wish to have LUSTLine sent to your home, please submit your request on agency letterhead.)
Q Please take my name off your mailing list.
Q Please send me back issues of LUSTLine. Fill out name and address below - no P.O. boxes.
Back issues now cost $2.50 per issue or $25.00 for a complete set.
Name .
Company/Agency
Address
Street City/Town State
Please enclose a check or money order (drawn on a U.S. bank) and made payable to NEIWPCC.
Send to: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
255 Ballardvale Street, 2nd floor Phone: 508/658-0500
Wilmington, MA 01887-1013 Fax: 508/658-5509
lustline @ neiwpcc.org
www.neiwpcc.org
We welcome your comments and suggestions on any of our articles.
ZIP
27
-------
National Statistics On State Petroleum Cleanup Funds
This Annual Survey of State Cleanup Funds was updated by the Vermont Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation for the 6th Annual State Fund Administrators Conference held in June in Sacramento,
California. Numbers represent combined totals for all states with funds.
1993 1994
Number of states with funds 43 45
Annual revenues ($ in billions) 904 1 .053
Current balance ($ in billions) .81 1 1 .039
Outstanding claims ($ in billions) 17374
-Total number of sites covered under funds
Total number of tanks covered under funds
f of sites with claims 48,296 60,654
# sites with 3rd party claims 1 08 1 67
r# of claims received 44:406 78,125
Total amount paid ($ in billions) 1 .067 17591
Average cost per site ($) 59,336
JStates with claims > balance
# of states which will transition to private insurance
# of states with fund sunset date before 2000
# of states w fund sunset date beyond 2000
1995
46
1.041
1.143
1.501
66,095
330
113,498
2.490
67,297
11
1996
1
1
2
170
1,292
47
.169
.308
.833
,254
,919
81,879
458
149,129
3.677
53,194
19
3 yrs: 4
5 yrs: 1
7 yrs: 2
10
4
1997
47
1.311
1.344
2.320
224,290
1,486,365
89,544
598
178,169
4.555
107,975
18
3 yrs: 4
5 yrs: 2
7 yrs: 5
10*
4
?* Alaska, Iowa, and Michigan have reached their sunset dates.
LU.S.T.UNE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
255 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Forwarding and return postage guaranteed.
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Wilmington, MA
Permit No.
200
Address correction requested.
------- |