New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
N c w
^Boott Mills South
;_Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
1:01852-1102
Bulletin 3O
September
1998
LUST.
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE
by Ellen Frye
'm here comes a time when, as the song goes, "Something's gotta give!"
I As far as UST regulators are concerned, December 22,1998, the dead-
JL. line for upgrading, replacing, or closing substandard underground
storage systems, will be that time. The time to get out and enforce! The time
to see to it that substandard UST systems are eliminated... once and for all.
While tens of thousands of UST-owners and operators have already
brought their systems in line with '98 deadline standards or have closed
their tanks, and while UST regulators have worked diligently at getting the
word out to the regulated community, there is always the reality factor. As
sure as day follows night, UST nirvana will not come to pass without a cer-
tain amount of regulatory pushing... and even shoving.
"Looking at the big picture, they've had 10 years, or 3,652 days, to do
this," says Louis Sass, Enforcement Coordinator for EPA Region 5. "It only
takes 3 to 5 days to upgrade a tank and 7 to 14 days to replace one.
"But there will be tank owners who will wait until the eleventh hour
and then complain that they can't find a contractor to do the work by the
deadline," says Sass. "I think procrastination is at the heart of the mat-
ter—like waiting until April 14th to find a tax accountant. Even after a
3,652-day heads-up, there will still be folks out there who will, in essence,
ask us to please allow them to continue to pollute. Our answer is that sub-
standard sys-
tems must be
taken out of
service in
a proper
and
timely
manner if
they are not
going to be
upgraded."
' System Management
i SHiKsf^fi^if,., w eHm~W5W0^i%>|l«Wr -w^w.(Bf»B"B3«!a
LTip£fo£JMgnagfo^ ''!
TJeJ^ejjJfsrapj.f^^
Layman's Guide to EPA Methods for VOC Analysis:
Task Group Seeks Input \
MTBE Plume Length Studies :
Risk Communication: Trust and Credibility'
Gasoline Overfill Tragedy in Mississippi
The Delivery
Prohibition
Thwack
One effective way to grab the atten-
tion of owners and operators with
• continued on page 2
-------
LUSTLiw: Bulletin 30
• When Push Comes to Shove
from pay I
substandard USTs is to prohibit
product delivery into those tanks.
Several states have provisions that
prohibit deliveries into unregistered
USTs. Some states have applied or
linked this authority to tank systems
that are out of compliance with the
state's UST performance standards,
and as the '98 deadline approaches,
more states are taking steps to incor-
porate delivery restrictions into their
enforcement strategies. Presently,
about 20 states (see list on page 4)
have some kind of delivery prohibi-
tion provision that is tied to the 1998
deadline. Others are currently con-
sidering it.
In general, states are taking two
types of approaches to delivery pro-
hibition:
* '"Red tags" - a noncompliant tank
system is tagged, usually at the fill
pipe, indicating that it is out-of-
service and that deliveries should
not be made into the tank; or
iHTiEHmf llin,p|h'f|iiiii ij I
13 product of the New England
pfpt'r Pe»Uu,tiari Cqntpjl Commi^-,
'PCCl It is produced through a .
:CandtheU.S. "|
iicnla! Protection Agtncy.
II , 111111181111111 Him i
i Issued a.s », communication ,
*fortfoSubti«e,IRCRA
U5 & Solid Waste Amendments
'(? promulgation process.
JM 14 produced to promote
,.. 4 exchange on UST/ LUST issues.,
e optrttorts artj Information stated herein
"" i of UK 4uChoKi and dono r^eces^sar,-
X* W* opinions of NSlWPCC
II; I I II III I I I 1 III I II I Illllllllllllll II I III II III
HiaBon ni»y be copied.
itHeNEIWPCC !
, , .
,, . I by an. Art of
i fcipain? me oldest
" "*d fetes,
f me, piulti-
^ jt§|«}s c£ Connecticut, Maine,
l!s, Jsfew Hamwhire,
'; Island, ana Vermont.
BiEliil I"*!iWllii11 III |
Street
_ STLma w printed on Recycled Paper
iMini jinn iiiiiiiyni.il 11 nail it i in «
one: <978) 323-
J (978} 323-7919
• Compliance certificates/tags -
a placard indicating that a tank
system is in compliance is
displayed in a prominent location
so that fuel suppliers can easily
see that it is okay to make a drop.
"It works," Sheldon Schall, Chief
of Wisconsin's Bureau of Storage
Tank Regulation, says of the state's
red tag program. "People know we
will shut the system down."
"For me," says Barry Selden,
Enforcement Unit Chief for the
Michigan Department of Environ-
mental Quality's Storage Tank Divi-
sion, "red tagging, without question,
is the most effective tool we have for
getting tanks into compliance, espe-
cially the larger facilities with high
volume. When you shut them down,
if s a lot of lost revenue."
"For me to get one fine levied
could take anywhere from two
weeks to a month," says Juan Sex-
ton, UST Coordinator for the Kansas
Department of Health and Environ-
ment. "Even then, the violator can
,;i w^i'1)",,„ ;','. .l/i^.lliti'il'i.'sl'i»i-:,« Jiiit'fe&ffi i' I
"For me, red tagging, without
J ••"-''»-,. >; "'". !j '';" i'SJj!'!"!:"*' ,'r ;<:;:., •,; if-f?* ^ ^ v,;* • ,.; i in
question, is the most effective tool
• compliance, especially the larger
t foeM/esHnP volume" When " ,
you shut them down, it's a lot of
lost revenue."
Barry Selden
still fight it in court and go on oper-
ating a substandard facility. On the
other hand, if I can shut their flow of
fuel off, then they're more interested
in getting into compliance in order
to get back in business."
"Delivery prohibitions get the
job done quicker than conventional
enforcement routes," says Andy
Tschampa, EPA Region 5 UST Pro-
gram Manager. "In terms of EPA
enforcement, we don't have the abil-
ity to prohibit delivery; we'd have to
go to court, where the judge might
or might not agree with us that the
facility needs to be put into closure.
"EPA's role will be to comple-
ment the states in situations where
the state does not have adequate
enforcement authority and ability,"
explains Tschampa. "For example, a
state that doesn't have an Adminis-
trative Procedures Authority might
ask to use our Administrative Order
Authority to deal with a difficult
enforcement situation. As we ascer-
tain which of our states are able to
implement delivery prohibitions
effectively, it will help us figure out
where to direct our enforcement
resources."
Variations on the Theme
In Vermont, there is a brand new
provision on the books that prohibits
delivery to any tank that is not
upgraded. According to the statute,
the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) must visibly
designate on the premises the com-
pliance status of each regulated tank.
Industry representatives in the
state liked the red tag idea, but
because the statute called for the dis-
play of a compliance placard, the
DEC, in cooperation with the mar-
keters, came up with a multicolored
system. If all tanks at a facility are in
compliance, then the facility gets a
green sticker. If some tanks are in
compliance, the facility gets a yellow
sticker, and the fuel delivery driver
needs to look for tanks that have red
tags, which indicate that a tank
doesn't meet the standards and that
delivery is prohibited. If a facility has
no sticker, the DEC advises distribu-
tors not to deliver and to double-
check with the UST program to
determine the compliance status. The
DEC will also maintain a listing of
compliant tanks on its Web site.
"This is going to make it easier to
enforce the deadline," says Ted
Unkles, UST Program Coordinator
for the Vermont DEC. "Even if some-
body intends to violate, he will find
it difficult, if not impossible, to find
somebody to deliver the product."
In Utah, tanks that are in compli-
ance receive a different color tag
each year, which allows delivery dri-
vers to quickly assess the status of
the tank. If a drop is made into an
untagged tank, both the owner and
the distributor are fined $500 per
drop. The tags are currently made of
a plastic laminate. However, the
state will soon begin issuing a stur-
dier, metal tag.
Montana will be issuing compli-
ance tags and certificates that are tied
into registration. If suppliers do not
see a tag, they should not deliver. At
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
the suggestion of distributors in the
state, each tag will have a serial num-
ber that corresponds to a specific
tank at a specific site. Distributors
were concerned that multitank own-
ers would move the compliance tags
around from facility to facility in
order to have fuel delivered to
untagged, noncompliant tanks.
Kansas can fine distributors up
to $10,000 per incident if they deliver
to a facility that does not have an
annual operating permit. The distrib-
utor receives one courtesy call from
the state to notify him or her not to
deliver to a nonpermitted facility.
"Our typical fine is $2,000," says
Juan Sexton. "This gets their atten-
tion, but it's not steep enough to
cause them to hire an attorney. It's
been extremely effective. As soon as
an owner/operator gets a 'no more
fuel delivery' call from the distribu-
tor, the owner/operator calls us to
find out what needs to be done."
In Nebraska, the State Fire Mar-
shal's office carries out the UST pro-
gram. Clark Conklin, Manager of the
Flammable Liquid Storage Tank
Division, explains that his division
can write an order (not a notice of
violation) to the owner of a noncom-
pliant UST system to empty the
tank(s) and not operate the system or
store product until it is upgraded.
"Whenever we write an order,"
says Conklin, "that is a formal
enforcement action that is enforced
by the court." In this case, while red
tags or compliance certificates are
not involved, Nebraka's UST author-
ities can effectively shut down a non-
compliant system and enforce
against the owner or operator, not
the distributor, if the system is oper-
ating illegally.
Supply-Side Enforcement
In states with delivery prohibition
provisions, deciding whether to
deliver fuel to a facility should be a
"no brainer." In states without such
provisions, however, fuel suppliers
will have to decide what to do.
"More and more, suppliers and dis-
tributors are asking us to verify that
tanks are in compliance," says Kris
Ricketts, Tanks Section Chief with
the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, which does not have a
delivery prohibition provision. "We
are still considering our options. We
. ,
,» "There are few environmental
jt .,, r ,
programs that give the regulated
^community, in this case tank
F owners, 10 years to comply. The
tCf^R"""", *"$*• *<* t"lsf- * * " - * i
^arketers whose tanks are in
?:)idmpliance have no sympathy for
: •' noncompliance and would like to
fsee aggressive enforcement—with
no slack cut."
Jeff Letter
will put compliance information on
the Internet, and we are considering
a nonregulatory delivery restriction
approach."
The widely circulated "Exxon
letter" to the company's distributors,
retailers, and customers drives home
the concerns of many suppliers
about potential liability where deliv-
eries are to be made to USTs that
have not been upgraded. The letter
to the distributors states that Exxon
has made a policy decision that it
will notify those customers who own
their USTs that product will not be
delivered into any UST after Decem-
ber 22, 1998 if it has not been
upgraded. The UST owner will have
to provide Exxon with a copy of the
UST registration and certify that the
UST has been upgraded.
Many oil companies and distrib-
utors are considering whether to
make similar decisions. "Suppliers
have some obligation to ascertain
whether they will need to make
some changes in the way they do
business," says Jeff Leiter of the law
firm Collier, Shannon, Rill, and Scott,
and Environmental Counsel to the
Society of Independent Gasoline
Marketers of America (SIGMA) and
the National Association of Conve-
nience Stores (NACS).. "There is the
issue of whether the supplier is neg-
ligent if he delivers to a substandard
system after December 22,1998.
"Anyone supplying product
needs to determine, first of all, if there
is a regulatory prohibition in a given
state," says Leiter. "If there isn't, then
he or she needs to determine what to
do as a supplier. How do suppliers
determine if a tank system is in com-
pliance? How do they ensure that
they have acted with due diligence?
What is the supplier's duty?"
Leiter says that many of his
clients are also concerned about sup-
plying volumes of product to state
and local agencies with USTs that are
not upgraded. "If they choose not to
upgrade," asks Leiter, "what do sup-
pliers do? If they don't deliver, do
they get in trouble for breach of con-
tract? The supplier is in an awkward
spot. The state environmental agen-
cies need to talk with suppliers about
what should be done in such situa-
tions."
The Marketers' Point of View
Petroleum marketers who have
already spent the money to upgrade
or replace their UST systems are,
understandably, anxious to see the
deadline enforced so that the playing
field is more level with respect to the
economic advantage of noncompli-
ance. As one owner of multiple facili-
ties who has made the investment
said, "If they don't enforce, I'm at the
head of the suckers line."
"There are few environmental
programs that give the regulated
community, in this case tank owners,
10 years to comply," says Jeff Leiter.
"The marketers whose tanks are in
compliance have no sympathy for
noncompliance and would like to see
aggressive enforcement—with no
slack cut. If nonretailers, for exam-
ple, can't manage to operate their
USTs according to standards, they
have fueling alternatives, such as
wet hose fueling, aboveground stor-
age tanks, and fleet cards."
Most state program managers in
states that have instituted delivery
prohibitions say that they have
worked closely with their state
petroleum marketers associations.
The marketers have been very sup-
portive of delivery prohibitions and
have often testified to their legisla-
tures on the UST program's behalf.
"Marketers are behind us 100
percent," says Juan Sexton. "In fact,
some of them would like to see us out
there enforcing on Christmas Eve."
In many states without delivery
restrictions, marketers continue to
push for some means to this end. At
the coaxing of the state's oil mar-
keters, for example, the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation
Commission is considering the possi-
bility of instituting an annual self-
• continued on page 4
-------
LUSTthteBttlMmX
• When Push Comes to Shove
from page 3
certification process that would
require owners and operators to cer-
tify that they are in compliance with
all standards. Certified facilities
would receive a decal or certificate
that they would post conspicuously,
and a fueling restriction would be
placed on facilities without certifi-
cates.
This spring, five national mar-
keters associations—PMAA, API,
SIGMA, NAGS, and SSDA—Joined
together to send a letter and a packet
of information, including EPA's
handbook, "Don't Wait Until 1998,"
to members of Congress, to bring
their attention to the importance of
supporting the 1998 deadline and
EPA's efforts to enforce it.
The letter, dated June 2, 1998,
states: "Our industry hopes that
Members of Congress recognize this
commitment of resources already
made by the vast majority of under-
ground storage tank owners and
operators and oppose any effort to
extend the...deadline. We also
request your support of the Agency,
as they make a concerted effort to
ensure timely compliance by all
affected parties. Finally, we ask that
you help inform constituents that
may contact your office of where
they can receive information and
compliance assistance with regard to
UST regulations."
When all's said and done, states
have been hammering home the
message for years,
and as of December 22, J998,
something's gonna^ hajtajjive.
Other Enforcement Hammers
While many state UST program
managers acknowledge that fuel
delivery restrictions would make
their lives easier in terms of enforc-
ing the deadline, this option is not
necessarily available to them. States
must have specific legal authority to
allow them to restrict fuel delivery.
There is no such equivalent authority
under federal law.
While some UST regulators
groan at the thought of relying on
notices of violation or administrative
orders as their sole means of enforc-
STATES WITH DELIVERY PROHIBITIONS TIED TO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1998 DEADLINE
State
Red Tag Restrictions
Compliance
Certificates/Tags
Alaska (regulations pending)
California
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska (issue order to owner/operator to empty tanks and not to
store product or use until upgraded)
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
ing against recalcitrant owners and
operators, others have found that
this approach can get the job done
expeditiously. Herb Meade, Chief of
Compliance with the Maryland
Department of the Environment,
says the administrative enforcement
route works well in his state, mostly
because the Oil Control Program has
the support of two attorney generals
who are assigned to the program. "If
I present them with a case, I can have
an Administrative Penalty in the
responsible party's hand within
eight days.
"If I get a really bad actor,"
explains Meade, "I can turn the case
over to the crimes unit, where the
violations are both civil and criminal.
If the violator doesn't comply, then it
becomes willful, and the crimes unit
pursues the matter as a criminal case.
That usually scares people. If it's a
real emergency, like a threat to
human health and the environment,
we can get a court injunction to shut
down the facility in a day or two."
State cleanup funds can also have
a great deal of enforcement clout.
Many have played and will play a
major role in moving the compliance
agenda along, primarily by tying
fund eligibility to compliance. The
Iowa UST Fund, for example, actu-
ally moved its upgrade deadline up
by almost four years. To qualify for
financial responsibility coverage pro-
vided by the fund, UST systems had
to be upgraded, replaced, or closed
by January 1, 1995. That date was
eventually rolled back to to Decem-
ber 1998; however, those who did not
meet the 1995 deadline have to pay a
much higher premium—more than
double. No tank system that is out of
compliance will be eligible for cover-
age after December 1998.
When All's Said and Done
When all's said and done, if s been 10
years, and the word has been sent
out to tank owners and operators in
a variety of forms and fashions—
direct mail, seminars, meetings with
marketers, on-site visits, TV spots.
Between EPA's Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks, the states,
and the trade associations, more than
2 million compliance assistance
materials have been distributed to
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
the regulated community. More than
750,000 copies of the popular EPA
publication, "Musts for USTs" have
been printed.
"We've been in ongoing commu-
nication with our tank owners," says
Sheldon Schall. "This July, we sent
letters to owners of noncompliant
tanks telling them, once again, about
the upgrade requirements. We identi-
fied each of their tanks according to
its registration ID number, the tank's
contents, the facility's name and ID
number, the street address, the
municipality, and finally, the upgrade
features that, according to our
records, were missing. These tank
owners know what they must do.
"Clearly, many of the the owners
who are not bringing their tanks into
compliance have no intention of
staying in business after 1998," says
Schall. "Most nonretailers are realiz-
ing that they had better get rid of
their tanks or go aboveground. Right
now, we are seeing that the procras-
tinators are experiencing an inability
to get contractors to do the work.
They are also having difficulty in
getting UST system components,
such as tanks."
When all's said and done, states
have been hammering home the tank
compliance message for years, and
as of December 22,1998, something's
gonna hafta give. •
'98 Deadline
enforcement Strategy Samplers
The December 22,1998, deadline for upgrading, removing, or replacing USTs
will call for a concerted enforcement effort on the part of U.S. EPA and the
states. This sampler covers the U.S. EPA and Kansas enforcement strategies.
U.S. EPA
Will Continues Enforcement in
Partnership with States
In early August, EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assur-
ance and Office of Underground
Storage Tanks published EPA's
Strategy for Enforcement of Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to Under-
ground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities.
This strategy emphasizes EPA's
major messages:
• EPA will NOT extend the dead-
line.
• States and EPA fully intend to
enforce the deadline.
• States will continue to be the pri-
mary implementing agencies.
• EPA will continue to assist and
augment the state efforts.
States Will Have the Primary
Enforcement Responsibility
The philosophy that has guided the
UST program since its inception is
that states have the primary respon-
sibility for implementing and enforc-
ing UST regulations (except in
Indian Country). EPA has devoted a
major share of its resources to sup-
porting and strengthening state pro-
grams and will continue to do so.
Accordingly, EPA expects states
to take the lead in securing compli-
ance with the 1998 deadline, includ-
ing working before the deadline to
monitor and enforce existing
requirements, to continue reminding
UST owners/operators of their regu-
latory responsibilities, and to
develop plans for postdeadline com-
pliance/enforcement. Following the
deadline, EPA expects states to iden-
tify noncompliant facilities expedi-
tiously and require them to promptly
upgrade, replace, or close their USTs.
States will use a variety of enforce-
ment tools to ensure compliance,
including administrative orders,
judicial action, and prohibition of
fuel delivery for noncompliant tanks.
When EPA Will Take Action
While EPA will inspect facilities
throughout the country, the agency
intends to concentrate its efforts in
states that have less active compli-
ance/enforcement programs. EPA
will also try to be responsive to state
requests for assistance with specific
facilities or categories of facilities
(e.g., federal facilities). EPA regional
offices will continue to work with
states to identify where federal activ-
ity is most needed.
regional offices will continue to
work with states to identify where
r federal activity is most needed.
How EPA Will Deal with
Noncompliance
EPA intends to bring enforcement
actions against noncompliant facili-
ties to ensure prompt compliance
and to assess monetary penalties for
any period of noncompliance. It does
not intend to allow continued opera-
tion of substandard systems. EPA's
position is that noncomplying sys-
tems should be temporarily closed
until the work necessary to upgrade,
replace, or permanently close them is
complete. In cases where states have
the authority to shut down facilities
without initiating administrative or
judicial proceedings, EPA may refer
the matter to the state implementing
agency.
EPA intends to use all of the
enforcement tools available to it,
including administrative orders,
• continued on page 6
5
-------
LUmJtK Bulletin 30
• Enforcement Strategy
Samplers from page 5
field citations, requests for judicial
action requiring injunctive relief, and
information request letters.
Temporary Closure
In Us enforcement strategy, EPA clar-
ified that temporary closure is a
valid compliance option and that it is
permissible to upgrade, replace, or
permanently close an UST during
the period of temporary closure.
Before a substandard tank can be
legally operated, however, it must be
upgraded or replaced. Substandard
tanks are required to permanently
close within 12 months of entering
into temporary closure, unless they
are subject to a site assessment and
receive an extension from the imple-
menting agency (the implementing
agency is not obligated to provide
such an extension).
EPA also clarified that substan-
dard USTs that are placed into tem-
porary closure after the deadline
should not remain in temporary clo-
sure after December 22, 1999, with-
out an extension. As indicated
earlier, such USTs would be subject
to a penalty for their period of non-
compliance.
Indian Country
EPA is the primary implementing
agency in Indian Country and will
continue to monitor and enforce UST
compliance in those areas. Facilities
that are not owned by Native Ameri-
can tribes will be subject to enforce-
ment action in the same manner as
facilities located elsewhere, consis-
tent with EPA's enforcement strat-
egy. Tribally owned and operated
facilities will be subject to enforce-
ment action in accordance with exist-
ing EPA guidance.
Additional Information
The full text of EPA's strategy is
available on the agency's Web site at
/199
SZin.dex.htm. EPA's Web site is also
an excellent reference point for
obtaining a variety of compliance
assistance materials and for links to
state UST/ LUST programs. EPA's
RCRA Hotline ((800) 424-9346) is
also available to answer regulatory
questions or to provide copies of the
enforcement strategy and other pub-
lications.
Kansas
Permit Cycle Adjustment
That's More than Just a Blip
Since 1991, Kansas has had a compli-
ance enforcement process that
involves an annual permitting cycle
that runs from August 1 through
July 31. In deference to the 1998
deadline, the timing of this cycle will
be temporarily modified. Here's how
it will work. This past July, the
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (DHE) issued a 1998
operating permit with an expiration
date of February 28,1999, for USTs in
compliance with predeadline
requirements. A second operating
permit will be issued in February
1999 for USTs in compliance with all
of the UST requirements.
"We focus our inspection efforts on
facilities that don't have permits and
; these permits are contingent on
" compliance. For this abbreviated
1998 deadline cycle, we will follow
Ml I I III 11II I 111 111 II111 111 III Mill I MIIIBIIIMi'W'li!:*! llllliU'l'TWillll'''!1:!111'1!;.,:'''
the same enforcement process that
t we do during a normal cycle."
Juan Sexton
In January 1999, warning letters
will be sent to owners of USTs that
are not in compliance, informing
them of their options. Inspections of
facilities with noncompliant USTs
will begin in March and civil penal-
ties will be assessed against anyone
found operating a noncompliant
UST, as well as any transporter or
supplier who places product into one
of these tanks. On August 1, 1999,
the annual permitting cycle will
return to normal.
Hammering Home the
Message
Kansas' enforcement process is
geared toward "cutting to the chase"
and leveraging limited resources.
"We hammer, hammer, hammer
constantly," say Juan Sexton, UST
Coordinator for the DHE. "We focus
our inspection efforts on facilities
that don't have permits and these
permits are contingent on compli-
ance. For this abbreviated 1998 dead-
line cycle, we will follow the same
enforcement process that we do dur-
ing a normal cycle."
In the normal cycle, the process
moves along in the following way. In
March of each year, registration
renewal forms are sent to UST own-
ers, who are expected to review the
form for changes and submit a third-
party verification of changes in com-
pliance with UST regulations where
needed. By June, notices of noncom-
pliance are sent to owners with USTs
that do not fully meet the require-
ments. These notices detail the com-
pliance deficiencies for each tank and
inform owners that an operating per-
mit will not be issued until DHE
receives documentation of compli-
ance.
In August, new UST operating
permits must be posted at each facil-
ity. DHE recommends that owners
send copies of the permits to their
suppliers each year. Notices of non-
compliance are sent to owners who
did not receive permits for each UST,
informing them that they must dis-
continue use of noncompliant USTs
and that the status of the USTs will
be changed to temporarily out of ser-
vice if the department does not
receive documentation of compli-
ance within 30 days.
DHE staff perform targeted
inspections and gather evidence to
issue civil penalties in cases where
USTs are being operated without
permits. Staff also give a "courtesy
call" to fuel suppliers of facilities that
are discovered to be operating with-
out a permit to inform them that fur-
ther deliveries will result in the
issuance of a civil penalty to the sup-
plier.
"This effectively cuts off the fuel
supply," says Sexton. "So effectively
that, so far, we have obtained com-
pliance without issuing many
administrative orders."
Throughout the remainder of the
cycle, the DHE sends out notices to
owners with noncompliant USTs
advising them that their tank status
has been changed to "temporarily
out of service" and letting them
know what they have to do. DHE
also provides extensive educational
outreach to all tank owners. •
-------
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute
Joint Industry Survey of UST Enforcement Strategies
Available on PEI's Home Page
Those of you who read this column in the June
issue of LUSTLine know by now that six trade
associations gathered forces and resources over
the summer to survey state and territorial UST pro-
gram managers about their enforcement policies and
procedures. The survey, which was mailed on August
10 to all UST program managers, asked these ques-
tions:
• What is the size of your state's registered under-
ground storage tank population?
• What percentage of your active tank population cur-
rently does not meet the 1998 requirements?
• Does your state regulate heating oil USTs? If yes, are
these tanks subject to the 1998 deadline require-
ments?
• What are the compliance deadlines in your state?
• How many full-time equivalent staff (e.g., inspec-
tors, office personnel) will be enforcing the 1998
requirements?
• Will any of your enforcement work be carried out by
state personnel other than employees from your
department (e.g., weights and measures, fire mar-
shal's office)?
• Will any of your enforcement work be carried out by
personnel other than state employees (e.g., licensed
professionals)?
• If your state has a cleanup fund, will releases from
noncompliant tank systems be eligible for reim-
bursement after the 1998 deadline?
• What are your plans for continued outreach to the
regulated community?
• What methods will you use to identify compli-
ance / noncompliance?
• Do you have a strategy for prioritizing noncompli-
ant facilities for enforcement?
• If you intend to prioritize noncompliant facilities,
indicate who/how you will target.
• Have you set up a post-12/22/98 strategy for mak-
ing site visits to facilities that your data show are out
of compliance?
• Have you set up a post-12/22/98 strategy for mak-
ing site visits to facilities that your data show are in
compliance?
• When you inspect a facility after 12/22/98, what
will you look for?
• Once you have determined that a facility is out of
compliance, what will the state do?
• What are the financial consequences of noncompli-
ance with the December 1998 requirements?
• What options do noncompliant owners/operators
have after 12/22/98?
• Will information on enforcement actions be avail-
able to the public?
• How will you verify that a facility has come into
compliance after an enforcement action has been
taken?
• How many inspections do you intend to perform in
1999?
• In the long term, how frequently do you anticipate
that regulated facilities will be inspected in your
state?
• Does your state have a plan that is designed to deal
specifically with government-owned tanks?
The Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) is one of
six trade associations that developed the survey. Since
PEI serves petroleum marketing equipment manufac-
turers, distributors, and installers, in addition to their
customers, the association decided to make the survey
responses available to everyone via the Internet. To
access responses to a particular survey, first click on the
UST Enforcement Survey link on PEI's home page,
(www.pei.org) and then click on the state or territory
that you are interested in reviewing. PEI has already
posted completed surveys from more than three dozen
states and territories, and more are being added to the
site weekly.
PEI expects some enforcement procedures to
change after they are included on its Web site. PEI will
amend the response to reflect the jurisdiction's most
current enforcement policy as soon as it is notified of
the change by the UST program manager.
If a state or territory is not included on the PEI site,
it is because the program manager elected not to
respond to the survey. Please contact that state directly
for the information you need—do not call PEI. •
-------
LUSTUne Bulletin 30
Leak Prevention
UST System Management:
The Key to the Success of the 1998
Deadline
by Pat Rounds
After 10 years of advance
notice, the 1998 deadline for
terminating substandard UST
systems is only weeks away. But
complying with the tank standards is
only a starting point for what should
be an ongoing process for the long-
term safe operation of UST systems.
The long-term goal should be proper
system management and the elimina-
tion of future releases. Without good
UST system management, system
upgrades and replacements may pro-
vide little or no long-term environ-
mental protection.
In Iowa, to qualify for financial
responsibility coverage, UST systems
were required to be upgraded,
replaced, or closed by January 1,
1995. In an effort to understand how
well the deadline will address future
environmental pollution, the Iowa
Underground Storage Tank Fund
has taken a closer look at some of the
UST systems that were upgraded
prior to the federal deadline.
Through our investigations, we
found several causes for concern that
could jeopardize UST system
integrity into the future:
• Leak Detection Many owners
who used to keep careful inven-
tory records have abandoned
inventory recordkeeping in favor
of automatic tank gauges (ATGs).
While this move should be a posi-
tive step toward effective leak
detection, it may be just the oppo-
site. AH too often, the facility
owner or operator fails to under-
stand the basic operating princi-
ples of the ATG as a leak detection
device. He or she is lulled into a
false sense of security. This situa-
tion is a recipe for disaster.
We had cases where installers
wired "around" line leak detec-
tion systems when the alarms
began sounding immediately after
UST systems were placed into
operation. Assuming there was a
8
problem with the line leak detec-
tors, not the piping, they bypassed
the leak detection systems and
then turned the UST system back
on. The rest is history. Corrective
action continues today.
• Integrity Assessment Vendors
utilized methods under an emer-
gency ASTM standard to deter-
mine if cathodic protection could
be applied to tanks more than 10
years old. However, many of the
evaluations did not comply with
the regulatory requirements.
Therefore, the tanks were not
properly upgraded.
• Cathodic Protection Sixty-four
percent of Iowa's insured tank
population consists of steel tanks.
Eighty-three percent of these
tanks required the addition of
some form of cathodic protection
or internal lining to meet upgrade
standards. Seventy-five percent of
these tanks added cathodic pro-
tection alone, 8 percent relied on
internal lining alone, and approxi-
mately 17 percent utilized both
cathodic protection and internal
lining. On sites where cathodic
protection was added, the follow-
ing major concerns were discov-
ered:
- Field crews installed cathodic
protection systems by drilling
through the spill catch basins to
install portions of the system.
The process rendered the spill
catch basins useless.
- Field crews failed to properly
insulate buried electrical con-
nections, resulting in rapid fail-
ure of anode lead wires and
loss of cathodic protection for
the UST systems.
- Field crews installed improp-
erly engineered systems. Sys-
tems were installed that were
both under- and over-sized. As
a result, the systems were not
provided with adequate
cathodic protection. A mass-
marketing approach of selling
"one size fits all" systems
seems to have brought about
this situation. Repair and
replacement continues today.
- Impressed current cathodic
protection systems have been
found turned off or set at incor-
rect levels. In some situations,
systems were found hooked up
to power sources that are
turned off each night, render-
ing the cathodic protection sys-
tems operational only during
business hours.
• Internal Lining Of the steel
tanks that needed to be upgraded,
approximately 25 percent were
upgraded using internal lining.
Based on a video inspection of the
interiors of 55 tanks with linings
ranging from 2 to 12 years old,
and based on two separate
reviews, as many as 24 of the 55
tanks indicated possible problems
with the linings. Additional physi-
cal inspections are planned for the
future. (See sidebar on page 9.)
• Spill/Overfill Prevention In
some instances, spill buckets, or
catch basins, are being used to
hold the overfill contents of a
delivery hose. Spill buckets are
designed to catch drips—many
are only five gallons in capacity—
and they cannot adequately con-
tain a spill. If a delivery hose must
be emptied into a spill bucket,
then the overfill prevention sys-
tem is not working properly.
Overfill devices may not be work-
ing properly because transporters
have tampered with them. Many
owners use overfill equipment
that involves a tank shut-off valve
in the fill tube. Owners have dis-
covered that transporters have
removed the overfill equipment to
expedite their fuel drop. As a
result, the tanks no longer have
overfill prevention.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
• Double-Walled Piping Vendors
attempted to replace flexible pri-
mary lines while leaving sec-
ondary lines in place. The
secondary lines were damaged
during the process and no longer
provided secondary containment.
To correct the problem, complete
repair or replacement of the sec-
ondary line and secondary-line
tightness tests were required.
Lessons Learned
Although meeting the minimum fed-
eral requirements should both
reduce the number of system leaks
and increase early detection of those
leaks, some systems will still leak.
Numerous problems can occur with
both new systems and retrofitted
systems—ATGs not gauging the
entire volume of the tank; leak detec-
tion methods that are. improperly
applied; catch basins filled with
water and having no capacity for
spills; damaged or removed overfill
devices; interstitial spaces of double-
walled lines filling with water and
then freezing and cracking primary
piping; failed cathodic protection
systems; failed linings; and ordering
more fuel than tank capacity.
All such problems can result in a
product release. Proper tank installa-
tion and management can eliminate
many, if not all, of these potential
problems. Here are a few tips for the
tank owner that we picked up in our
travels.
Tips for the Tank Owner
• When an automatic tank gauge or
electronic line leak detector indi-
cates there is a problem, believe it!
Shut the system down and have it
checked out. Although false
alarms are possible, ignoring such
alarms can result in catastrophic
releases.
• Be sure your installer is licensed
in your state (if applicable) and
certified by the manufacturer of
the equipment he or she is going
to install. Out-of-state, "here
today, gone tomorrow" contrac-
tors may leave you with less than
you anticipated.
• Use the services of a third-party
inspector for all installation proce-
dures. A little extra money spent
at the time of installation may help
Iowa's Tank Lining Study
The Iowa UST Fund Board conducted video inspections of 55 tanks at 39
sites across Iowa. The tanks ranged from 4 to 43 years old. The ages of
the linings ranged from 2 to 12 years. Tanks with and without cathodic
protection were evaluated.
Based upon reviews conducted by two contractors, possible concerns
were identified with 24 of the 55 tanks inspected. Concerns ranged from
minor irregularities in the thickness of the lining, to discoloration and cracks,
to areas where the lining had completely delaminated from the side of the
tank.
National Leak Prevention Association (NLPA) standards require that lin-
ing material be inspected by way of manned entry into the tank. Although
video inspections do not meet this criteria, investigators felt that catastrophic
failure of the lining and possible lining flaws could be determined through the
video inspections. We do, however, plan to conduct follow-up manned entry
inspections to determine the status of the linings that appear to fail the stan-
dards. Upon completion of these inspections, a final report will be available.
For more information on the Iowa tank lining study, contact Patrick Rounds, •
Administrator, Iowa UST Fund, WOO Illinois St., Suite B, Des Moines, Iowa 50314.
identify an improper installation
procedure and allow the installer
to fix the error before the system is
paved over and turned on.
• Inspect cathodic protection sys-
tems on an annual basis.
Although this testing interval is
more frequent than that required
by federal law, such inspections
are not expensive and will pro-
vide the owner with more rapid
identification of a system that is
not fully protected.
• Recognize that lining is a tempo-
rary upgrade. Be sure to review
your warranty and have the lining
inspected before the warranty
expires—every 5 years is desir-
able.
Owners need to be educated on the
proper management of their UST
systems. The education can come in
the form of system manuals, indus-
try newsletters, seminars, and regu-
latory newsletters directed at helping
owners troubleshoot potential prob-
lems and manage their UST systems
appropriately. Failure to manage a
system properly should result in
enforcement action.
Compliance Is a Business
Issue
UST standards are minimum
requirements. If an owner or opera-
tor cannot meet minimum federal
requirements, even after a 10-year
window during which owners had
the opportunity to finance the neces-
sary upgrades, then most likely he or
she cannot afford to properly man-
age and maintain the systems. It also
stands to reason that society should
not be subject to the potential harms
caused by these systems.
Ron Marr, Executive Vice Presi-
dent of the Petroleum Marketers of
Iowa, maintains that the savvy petro-
leum marketer will go a step further
than minimum compliance. He
believes that the majority of his
members look at compliance as a
business issue, where a tank replace-
ment or upgrade is part of an envi-
ronmental program, not a regulatory
program.
"The savvy owner will surpass
the minimum requirements and
install a system that makes the busi-
ness more valuable and easier to sell
in the long term," says Marr. Com-
bining upgrades with pump island
relocation and store-front "facelifts"
increases the value of the business
and gives the owner a marketing
asset.
The 1998 upgrade deadline is
only a starting point. Compliance
with the UST standards is, indeed, a
long-term business issue and not just
another regulatory requirement to
install hardware that can then be
ignored and forgotten. Proper tank
management and unceasing vigi-
lance are the keys to maintaining
long-term environmental protection
and a profitable business. •
Pat Rounds is Administrator of the
Iowa UST Fund. For more informa-
tion, contact Pat at pjr@williams.com.
-------
WSTUitf Bulletin 30
nicalty Speaking
by Marcel Moreau
-Marcel Moreau is a nationally £
recognized petroleum storage specialist '
whose column, Tank-nically Speaking, „
is a regular feature of LUSTLine. As j
always, we welcome your comments and j
questions. If there are technical issues s
that you would like to have Marcel
ii discuss^ let us know. t
IIPini
The Holes in Our UST Systems
I used to sleep soundly at night. I used to believe that the leaking under-
ground storage tank (LUST)problem had a technological solution that
could overcome human frailty. I have long been, and still remain, an
ardent proponent of secondary containment systems for petroleum
storage, I have for a long time thought that secondary containment,
though not perfect, would adequately protect our environment from
petroleum contamination. A few months ago, however, I had a
ntde awakening,
A Troubling Case
The newspaper headlines an-
nounced bluntly that MTBE (methyl
tertiary-butyl ether) had been found
in a monitoring well located between
a gas station and a public water sup-
ply well that serves several thousand
people. The news reports indicated
that a new convenience store/gas
station facility, barely 10 months old,
had reported that MTBE had been
found in an observation well in the
tank backfill.
The site had no previous history
of gasoline storage. The storage facil-
ity was state-of-the-art, with double-
walled fiberglass tanks and flexible
piping, dispenser sumps, tank top
piping sumps, and spill containment
and overfill prevention. Only the
Stage I vapor recovery riser and
Stage II vapor return piping were
single-walled. Sensors continuously
monitored the piping sumps and
tank interstitial spaces for evidence
of releases.
As part of a due diligence inves-
tigation associated with a property
transfer, samples that had been taken
from the facility's observation wells
tested positive for MTBE. Because of
this, a monitoring well some 1,000
feet away that was halfway between
the convenience store and the public
wells was also sampled. This well
also tested positive for MTBE. Soon
low levels of MTBE appeared in the
nearby public water supply well. As
a result, that well was dosed, and an
alternate well a few hundred feet far-
ther away was put into operation.
Where's the Leak?
Immediately, the search
was on for a leak.
Multiple tight-
ness tests of
tanks and
piping
showed
nothing.
Intersti-
tial
spaces
of tanks
and piping were dry. Was it a vapor
leak? (See "The Great Escape..." on
page 18.) A helium test, where the
storage system is filled with helium
and then a helium detector is used to
check for leakage, was conducted
and, at first, indicated a positive
result. Helium levels in the area over
the tank, as measured through holes
in the concrete cover pad, were
higher than expected.
To pinpoint the leak, the con-
crete mat over the tanks was sawed
into large blocks and then carefully
lifted off and removed. The gravel
backfill over the tanks was vacu-
umed away so as to leave the piping
as undisturbed as possible.
With the tank top and piping
exposed, the helium test was
repeated. This time, the helium
detector was placed right up against
the joints and the piping so that the
exact location of the leak could be
identified.
Quite a few interested parties
were watching, including the state
environmental agency, the tank
installer, and several representatives
of the tank owner. But no leak was
found. A dead end again.
Spillage Perhaps?
A review of inventory records pro-
vided a clue. There were four
instances where the records pro-
vided strong indications that the reg-
ular tank had been overfilled. This
was evidenced by a shortage of sev-
eral hundred gallons in the regular
product inventory, while the pre-
mium product showed an overage of
similar magnitude. The most likely
scenario was that more regular prod-
uct had been ordered than could fit
into the tank, so the excess was deliv-
ered into the premium tank. This is
known in the trade as "cross-drop-
ping."
The reason excess product had
been ordered was perhaps because
the fuel manager failed to recognize
that the "10,000-gallon tank" had an
actual maximum capacity of 9,728
gallons. This volume was further
10
-------
LUSTLim Bulletin 30
reduced by a float vent valve that
had been set conservatively at 18
inches below tank top, yielding an
actual tank capacity of only 8,459
gallons.
Given the operational character-
istics of float vent valves (see LUST-
Line #21), it seems likely that the
delivery person would have to have
dealt with a hose full of product and
that some spillage could have
resulted.
By What Route?
The spill containment manholes at
this site were below-grade models,
which is good in terms of keeping
surface water out, but leaves some
gravel exposed around the rim of the
spill container. Product could have
infiltrated this backfill area. But then
why was there no significant pres-
ence of any other gasoline con-
stituents in the groundwater in the
tank excavation and no evidence of
contamination in the gravel backfill
around the fill pipe?
For this scenario to be credible,
we must assume that the other gaso-
line constituents volatilized and
biodegraded, while the MTBE was
carried by precipitation down to the
groundwater. Because the backfill
was clean and well aerated, and the
investigation of the site occurred
about five months after the last clear
indication of an overfill incident in
the inventory records, this scenario
seems somewhat plausible.
Another possible route for MTBE
contamination is being explored by
Dr. Gary Robbins at the University of
Connecticut. Robbins is finding that
MTBE is appearing in groundwater
beneath dispensing areas, apparently
originating with spillage during
vehicle fueling. Because of its solu-
bility, MTBE can be transported by
rainwater to groundwater while
other gasoline constituents are atten-
uated or volatilized. It is possible
that surface spillage at the dispensers
could have contributed MTBE conta-
mination to our mystery spill as well.
A Bit of History
Until the publication of the EPA's
tank testing study in 1988, a leak rate
of 0.05 gallon per hour had been the
longstanding industry standard for
leak detection accuracy. This number
apparently originated with a study
that concluded that leaks of 0.05 gal-
lon or less assimilated naturally and
did not pose a significant contamina-
tion threat.
While the actual magnitude of a
"no-adverse-effect leak rate" could
be debated at great length, I think the
presence of MTBE in today's motor
fuels would add a new dimension to
the equation. The incident cited
above, as well as several others that I
am aware of involving significant
MTBE contamination resulting from
automobile accidents, where limited
amounts of .fuel were spilled, casts a
new light on the significance of gaso-
line spillage. Volumes of spilled
gasoline that previously would have
had no adverse effects can cause sig-
nificant damage when MTBE is pre-
sent.
While the official EPA position is
that there is no "allowable" leak rate,
the evaluation protocols for the vari-
ous leak detection methods deter-
mine threshold leak rates below
which a storage system is assumed to
be tight. The nagging question is
whether a leak detection standard of
0.2 or 0.1 gallon per hour is adequate
to protect human health and the envi-
ronment when MTBE is present.
What Does the Future Hold?
While we are no doubt better off
from a leaking storage system per-
spective today than we were 10 years
ago, we are not out of the woods yet,
and probably never will be. In the
next decade we will likely still be
paying for some sins of the past
decade, will still be dealing with the
foibles of human nature, and will be
facing an ever more prevalent chemi-
cal specter with the initials MTBE.
So what possible routes of
escape might gasoline and its con-
stituents (MTBE in particular) find in
our future fueling systems? Here are
some working hypotheses that I
think are worth keeping in mind:
• There are holes in our UST
systems, but they are below the
detection threshold for leak
detection technology.
One of my favorite stories involves a
double-walled fiberglass tank. Dur-
ing a routine regulatory inspection,
the regulator discovered that the
interstitial sensor had been discon-
nected. A subsequent investigation
revealed that the interstitial space
was half full of product, which
explained why the sensor had been
disabled. The owner insisted that
there was no problem, suggesting
that a delivery had mistakenly been
made into the interstitial space and
pointing to several tightness tests
with "tight" results.
The product was pumped out of
the interstitial space, yet a small
amount of product, about a gallon
every couple of days, kept reappear-
ing. This was initially explained as
residual product draining from
inside the ribs of the tank, but the
product continued to mysteriously
accumulate.
The owner insisted that every-
thing was.fine, but the environmen-
tal agency was suspicious. Finally a
dye was introduced into the product
in the tank, and a few days later, the
dye appeared in the product that
was being removed from the intersti-
tial space. Subsequent internal
inspection uncovered a pry bar lying
in the bottom of the tank at the fill
opening, and a small impact fracture
just beyond the edge of the striker
plate in the bottom of the tank.
A likely scenario is that a deliv-
ery driver, in the process of chop-
ping ice out of the spill container
(after removing the fill cap), had
slipped and dropped the bar down
the fill pipe. The point is that this
leak would never have been detected
had it not been for secondary con-
tainment (the leak rate was less than
0.1 gph), but clearly could have
resulted in the release of a significant
amount of product over time.
In another recent case, a tank
gauge had apparently failed to detect
a leak that had gotten into some
underground utilities. Review of the
automatic tank gauge (ATG) test
records indicated a small, consistent
loss—evidently not enough to
exceed the leak threshold for the
device and fail a leak test.
• There are holes in our UST
systems, but we are not looking
in the right places for them.
Leaks of petroleum vapors from UST
systems have not been a traditional
target of leak detection efforts, and it
may well be that historically the mag-
nitude of these releases has been
• continued on page 12
-------
• Tank-nlcally Speaking/row page 11
below the "no-adverse-effect leak
rate." Although I do not yet know of
any instance where a vapor release
has been the source of an environmen-
tal problem, theoretical considerations
indicate that it could be a possible ori-
gin for MTBE contamination. (See
"The Great Escape..." on page 18.)
The potential magnitude of
vapor releases has been increased by
the widespread use of pressure/vac-
uum vents that maintain a small
pressure on the vapor space of the
tank, thus increasing the rate of
vapor emissions from any holes near
the top of the tank.
Of the leak detection tools at our
disposal, only full system tightness
testing and soil vapor monitoring are
likely to detect vapor leakage from
storage systems. Soil vapor monitor-
ing is rarely used and tank tightness
testing will be phased out with
inventory control. Storage systems
that are subject to Stage II vapor
recovery regulations are subject to
periodic tightness testing of the
vapor space, but these are a rela-
tively small percentage of the tank
population at this time. So, for a
great many storage systems, the
tightness of the tank ullage space
and the piping that handles only
vapors is never determined.
Other storage system compo-
nents that escape routine testing are
the piping sumps on top of tanks and
dispenser sumps. While sumps that
contain some amount of water are a
fairly common sight, I always won-
der whether the sumps that don't
contain water are dry because no
water is getting in or because what-
ever water is getting in is also leak-
ing out.
As sumps age and are subject to
frost action, possible tank move-
ment, and assorted maintenance
activities, it would seem reasonable
that, at some point, they could
develop holes that would compro-
mise their leak detection role. Yet
sumps are not routinely evaluated
for liquid tightness.
• There are holes in our LIST
systems, but the technology to
detect them is not being
installed properly.
Recently, I heard of a case where sec-
ondary containment piping had been
installed, but leaked product failed
to make its way back to the piping
sump where the sensor lay in wait to
detect it. If leak detection technology
is not properly installed, it may not
operate properly. This problem, of
course, can result in undetected
leaks.
• There are holes in our UST
systems, and they are being
detected, but no one is paying
attention.
The routine disregard of alarm sig-
nals by facility personnel is a prob-
lem of epidemic proportion. I
recently heard of a facility where the
ATG recorded that an alarm indica-
tion had been turned off 47 times in
28 days. This problem is twofold in
that false alarms that result from
poor equipment design or installa-
tion occur too frequently, and facility
personnel have not been made suffi-
ciently conscious of the potential sig-
nificance of an alarm going off.
• There are no holes in our UST
systems, but product is being
spilled during deliveries.
As illustrated by the story at the
beginning of this article, spill events
associated with deliveries continue
to occur and can result in significant
environmental problems, especially
when MTBE is involved. A number
of factors contribute to this problem,
including the owner's lack of aware-
ness of actual storage tank capacity,
the ineffectiveness of the overfill pre-
vention technology we commonly
use (see LUSTLine #21), and the
delivery personnel's financial incen-
tive to be quick rather than careful
(especially those who are paid by the
truckload, not by the hour).
• There are no holes in our UST
systems, but product is being
spilled during dispensing.
The possibility that routine spillage
of gasoline by the end user is a sig-
nificant source of gasoline releases is
very disconcerting. Since talking
with Gary Robbins about his
research, I have begun to notice that
evidence of gasoline spillage is
everywhere—concrete mats around
dispensers, fast-food restaurant
parking lots, and on-street parking
areas all display ample evidence of
how often end users spill gasoline.
(Did you ever stop to think why the
area around dispensers is paved
with concrete and not asphalt?
Because we learned long ago that
asphalt is rapidly degraded by
spillage during fueling.)
Historically, this spillage may
have been of little consequence
because of volatilization and
biodegradation, but again, the intro-
duction of MTBE has changed this
picture.
The mathematics of consumer
spillage look something like this: In
1997, we, as a nation, dispensed
about 126 billion gallons of gasoline.
If we assume that the consumer pur-
chases an average of 10 gallons per
fuel dispensing event and that one in
1,000 fueling operations results in the
spillage of one cup of gasoline (that's
an individual driver spilling one cup
about every 19 years if you fill up
once a week), then about 750,000 gal-
lons of fuel are spilled every year at
fueling facilities alone. Is this a num-
ber we can live with? Is this a num-
ber we can live with if MTBE is part
of the picture?
The Watchwords
So here are some watchwords we
should keep in mind for the next
decade:
• Out of sight must not be out of
mind.
Tank management must be an
active and ongoing process on the
part of tank owners and opera-
tors.
• Do it right!
Proper storage system installation
and maintenance work is more
important than ever.
• Early retirement is not an
option.
The tank regulator's job is far
from over.
I'm also considering the possibil-
ity that the most intractable part of
the underground petroleum storage
problem may prove to be sociologi-
cal rather than technological: Can we
complete 15.75 million underground
tank filling operations and 12.5 bil-
lion automotive fueling operations
each year without spilling a drop? •
12
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
State Cleanup Funds
Fraud and Abuse
What State Cleanup Funds Can Learn from
Medicare
by Bob Cohen
This June, the lobby of the hotel
where state cleanup fund
administrators met for their
annual conference was humming
with chronicles of contractor fraud
and abuse. The stories contained
intrigue, politics, cunning, and,
often, a sad ending—the bad guys
got away with it. Few fund adminis-
trators discuss the matter publicly
for fear of personal reprisals via law-
suits or increased internal scrutiny
by zealous inspector-generals. Fund
administrators often find themselves
in a lose/lose situation.
Losses resulting from fraud and
abuse affect the larger LUST commu-
nity in the following ways:
• Fund administrators have fewer
dollars available, which leads to
solvency issues and endless com-
plaints.
• EPA must deal with the issue of
insolvent funds as financial assur-
ance mechanisms.
• Major oil companies, which are
likely to clean up releases with or
without the fund, are taking the
risk that money will not be there
for repayment.
• Marketers, who are less likely to
clean up until compelled to or
until funds are available, risk the
liabilities of contaminated prop-
erty.
• Financial institutions/insurance
companies are likely to be left
with significant financial respon-
sibilities.
It is in every stakeholder's interest to
be aware of and use proactive mea-
sures to deal with fraud and abuse.
Dealing with the Problem
With the formation of an ad hoc
Cleanup Crime/Fraud Task Force at
the 1997 State Fund Administrators
Conference, fund administrators,
attorney generals, and regulators
from several states began giving the
issue serious attention and coordina-
tion. I became involved
because I had been working
on the Florida Auditor Gen-
eral's $5 million abuse and fraud
audit of the billion-dollar Florida
LUST fund.
It is difficult to estimate overall
losses due to fraud and abuse. Based
on conversations with fund adminis-
trators, losses may well be in the
range of 20 to 40 percent. Abuse of
the system can happen to different
degrees. While most contractors do
an honest job, few actually close sites
in an expedient manner. A smaller
percentage engage in abusive behav-
ior and an even smaller percentage
in criminal fraud. Yet these few "bad
apples" can have devastating effects
on fund solvency while generally.
lowering the standards of accept- .
able behavior.
The Medicare Analogy
Fortunately (or unfortunately),
state fund administrators are not ::.
alone. The Medicare fund has had -
problems that have clear analogies to
the state funds, and the good news is
that the Medicare program has come
up with some tools to detect and
deter abuse. Some of the tools that
have been used successfully in
Medicare fraud prevention and
detection can be applied to state
cleanup funds.
What do we mean when we
speak of fraud and abuse? As it hap-
pens, the definitions of fraud and
abuse used in Medicare are appro-
priate for state cleanup funds:
Fraud - " a matter of intentional, fla-
grant violations of Medicare rules—
deliberate deception, a misrepresen-
tation of facts for unlawful gain from
the Medicare program."
Abuse - "a lesser offense. It refers
to: incidents and practices that
directly or indirectly cause financial
losses to the Medicare program or to
beneficiaries and their families, and
practices inconsistent with accepted
and sound medical or business
habits. Abuse is typically a matter of
excessive charges or unnecessary
costs to the Medicare program with
improper billing practices."
In this article, I use "fraud" and
"abuse" interchangeably, because
there is often a fine line between
them. I also use the terms "contrac-
tor" and "consultant" interchange-
ably.
• continued on page 14
13
-------
LUSTLinr Bultetm 30
• Fraud and Abuse from page 13
Abusive Behavior
State cleanup funds vary in struc-
ture, from reimbursing the tank
owner directly to paying the contrac-
tor, based on preapproved prices.
Depending upon the fund's structure
and controls, some abuses may be
more prominent than others. The sig-
nificant point here is that all funds
are subject to some measure of fraud
and abuse.
Here is a list of some abuses that
are common to both Medicare and
LUST funds. All of these abuses are
not applicable to every state cleanup
fund.
• Upcoding - Medicare billings are
based on a complex system of
numerical codes used to designate
various diagnoses and proce-
dures. Abusive physicians will
charge Medicare for more com-
plex tasks than actually per-
formed, LUST site contractors
may upcode by billing for more
expensive services than required—
for example, billing for a pump
test instead of a slug test.
Recently, a former cleanup con-
tractor confessed to me that her
former employer abused Florida's
preapproval program by upcod-
Ing. In this case, highly paid engi-
neers' prices were charged for
tasks performed by entry-level
technicians.
• Unbundling - Medicare has spe-
cial reimbursement rates for
groups of procedures, such as a
series of blood tests. Some health
care providers will increase billing
and profit by unbundling the
group and billing individually.
Similarly, LUST programs often
bundle various items in unit price
schedules. Unbundling occurs
when individual items, generally
included in overhead, are billed
separately.
* Gang Visits - In gang visits, a
single patient visit is billed as
multiple visits with various sub-
tasks assigned to each visit. The
LUST equivalent occurs when
contractors visit multiple sites on
one trip and bill each visit as a
separate trip originating from the
home base.
• Fraudulent Billings for Ser-
vices Not Rendered - Much of
the fraud that has resulted in suc-
cessful cost recovery involves
billing for services not rendered.
Recently in Florida, a contractor
claimed from, the trust fund $12
million for work that was never
performed. He bribed a govern-
ment employee to adjust the data-
base to show the work was
completed. Fortunately, the
scheme was exposed before the
funds were dispersed. The abuser
is currently serving jail time.
Collars spent on (
,,.,Tmiiram
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
abusers. This team will review
claims with more detail than the
normal claims processor. LUST
audit teams are able to review
level of effort with a better level of
detail. Properly chosen audits are
valuable tools that no program
should be without.
Global Tracking Software and
Pattern Detection Software - A
common technique of abusive
health care providers is to bill for
more activities than can realisti-
cally occur in a given time period.
Since Medicare claims and LUST
fund claims are each reviewed
individually, this abuse can only
be exposed by way of a global
look at a service provider's activi-
ties.
In my work with the Florida
Auditor General, we have found
this technique to be particularly
effective. We have discovered
some personnel who have billed
30-hour days by combining time
sheets from several sites—the
doings of unscrupulous consul-
tants who have figured out that
claims are handled site by site.
Padded hours on sites are often
difficult to detect. Looking at a
particular consultant's total scope
of LUST efforts within a given
time frame can yield dramatic
examples of fraud. Medicare has
developed software that tracks
patterns of abuse, such as repeti-
tive procedures. Some LUST con-
sultants will regularly perform
excessive testing. On individual
sites, this move may be justified as
a judgment call; however, in the
larger picture, an excessive pat-
tern may become manifest.
Database of Norms - Medicare
has certain norms for costs based
on symptoms. The patients whose
total costs exceed these norms are
flags for the audit hit team to
begin its review. In LUST funds,
the average cost of tasks is usually
well known. A database of norms
allows abuse investigations to
focus on cases where the norm has
been exceeded. Using proper sam-
pling techniques, databases can be
developed at reasonable costs. In
the Florida Audit General project,
the audits were more or less ran-
domly selected, resulting in a very
.
E Abuse of state cleanup funds can tie
P— ;
¥ reduced IF there is a concerted effort
f^ by the various stakeholders to
T • ' 1
prevent, deter, and detect. Fortitude,
fstatute, rules, and personnel are all
|p necessary. Communication is of
t critical importance in convincing
~ legislators, attorney generals,
^inspector-generals, and responsible
^ parties about the seriousness
it of the problem.
poor cost recovery ratio. This
would have been dramatically
enhanced by focusing on the out-
liers.
• Interstate List of Abusers -
Medicare regional administrators
exchange the names of known
abusers. This strategy curbs the
temptation for abusers to simply
move to another state. Such an
exchange of information would be
very useful for LUST funds—a
sort of Megan's Law for fund
abusers. Obviously, liability con-
siderations could minimize this
tool.
• "One Strike and You're Out" -
This option is one of the more
effective tools. For a period of sev-
eral years, health care providers
who have abused the fund are for-
bidden to collect any funds from
Medicare. Such a deterrent is
needed for the LUST funds. The
Florida Pay for Performance pro-
gram has such a provision for con-
sultants who walk away from an
uncompleted cleanup.
• Expanded Penalties for Fraud
(Go directly to jail. Do not pass
go.) - Recent legislation has
expanded the penalty for
Medicare fraud. Similar laws for
state cleanup funds will help
attract the attention of prosecu-
tors.
• Fixed-Fee Services/Pay for Per-
formance - Fixed-fee services,
where the health care provider
receives a fixed payment per
patient to cover all services ren-
dered, have greatly reduced
Medicare abuse. In a similar way,
Pay for Performance (PfP) remedi-
ation eliminates many of the
incentives for abuse. In PfP
cleanups, the contractor is paid
prenegotiated fees at cleanup
milestones. Since the contractor is
paid only upon demonstrable
remediation progress, not only is
the abuse minimized, but the site
is also likely to be cleaned up
faster, resulting in overall cost
savings and an improved environ-
ment.
Prevent, Deter, Detect
Abuse of state cleanup funds can be
reduced IF there is a concerted effort
by the various stakeholders to pre-
vent, deter, and detect. Fortitude,
statute, rules, and personnel are all
necessary. Communication is of criti-
cal importance in convincing legisla-
tors, attorney generals, inspector-
generals, and responsible parties
about the seriousness of the problem.
One way to accomplish this goal is to
start using the terms of Medicare.
Medicare's terms of fraud mentioned
earlier are common knowledge and
can be easily understood. An Inter-
net search of the terms "Medicare"
and "fraud" turned up over 750,000
hits. If those of us in the LUST arena
would use these common terms, our
communication would be more
potent and focused.
Finally, stakeholders need to
acknowledge the fraud and abuse
problem and encourage deterrence,
detection, and prosecution. Clearly,
much more awaits to be written on
this subject. •
Robert S. Cohen, B.S., M.S., is a pro-
fessional geologist specializing in
LUST cost-containment issues. He
consults for the public and private sec-
tors. From the private sector in Florida,
he proposed and implemented the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's (FDEP's) first Pay for
Performance cleanup. As an advisor to
the FDEP, he later organized the PfP
pilot program. Bob is planning a more
detailed article on abuse to be co-
authored by faculty at the Georgia
Institute of Technology - Construction
Research Center. For more informa-
tion, contact Bob in Tallahassee,
Florida, at bobcohen@ivs.edu or
(850)521-0283.
-------
LUSTtine Bulletin 30
State Cleanup Funds
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Tips for Managing; Your
State Cleanup Fund
by Mary-Ellen Kendall
As is often the case in real life,
there is no one, single fund-
related problem that turns
the job of a state cleanup fund
administrator into a nightmare.
Every fund manager starts out with
the best of intentions and the drive to
succeed, but in the line of duty,
obstacles have been known to rear
their ugly heads and create problems
for state funds. The problems that
develop can vary in magnitude from
minor annoyances to insolvency.
The evolution of a state fund is
dependent on many factors:
* The statutory authority in each
state code;
• State politics;
• The availability of funds and
funding sources;
* Constitutional restrictions;
• The strength of the petroleum
marketer/tank owner lobby in the
state;
• The level of coordination and
teamwork between the state tech-
nical environmental staff and the
fund staff;
* Resource allocation within state
government;
• The state's success in creating and
implementing attainable cleanup
goals;
• The state's success in drafting
clear and understandable reim-
bursement regulations and proce-
dures; and
• The staff expertise/back-
ground in the legal, account-
ing, scientific, insurance,
engineering, banking, and
business principles that are
needed to run a state fund.
Each state has developed a
fund program that reflects its
own unique combination of
factors. But no matter how
hard the fund staff may have
worked to anticipate and pre-
vent problems before they occur,
there is no way to eliminate fund
management problems.
The Wisdom in War Stories
It is often said that those who fail to
learn from the mistakes of the past
are doomed to repeat them. This is
especially true for state fund man-
agers. There is a daunting learning
curve associated with administering
a state fund. A "good" fund manager
learns to adapt to changing condi-
tions and to recognize/solve prob-
lems as they appear.
Although no two state funds are
alike, there are many similarities.
Lessons learned in one state can be
instructive to another. As fund man-
agers become more experienced,
they can learn to recognize the com-
mon threads and associated prob-
lems that states share and can
develop innovative solutions that
work within the context of their own
state's constraints.
Each year, fund managers get
together at the State Fund Adminis-
trators Conference to share their
experiences and insights. One of the
goals of this year's conference was to
assist fund managers in identifying
potential problems and finding solu-
tions. LUSTLine is a vehicle that
allows us to continue to share and
learn throughout the remainder of
the year.
In the following paragraphs, I'll
identify several difficult problems
that fund managers face and, using
examples from Vermont, Virginia,
South Carolina, and South Dakota,
present steps that can be taken to
resolve these problems and improve
fund management.
Raids on Funds - A few state funds
have been raided by the state legisla-
tures. The Vermont legislature, for
example, has taken over $4.5 million
from the fund since its inception.
This kind of loss hurts the integrity
and reputation of the fund. One way
to protect the fund against raids is to
incorporate provisions in state law
that limit how fund monies can be
used and that allow monies to roll
over from one fiscal year to the next.
Claims Appeals - The Vermont,
fund started out by settling its claim
appeals very quickly rather than get-
ting involved with litigation. It
didn't take too long before the regu-
lated community got the idea that
the state would automatically settle
any and all appeals without much
argument, which encouraged the
proliferation of appeals. Vermont
addressed this problem as part of its
overall effort to establish clear guide-
lines for the fund by establishing
appeals procedures. Written guide-
lines with forms, reimbursement and
appeal procedures, and rate sched-
ules were created to give notice of
program rules and interpretations of
statutory and regulatory provisions
for both the fund staff and the public.
Clear, consistently applied guide-
16
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
lines have given the fund stability
and a better chance of winning
appeals.
Claim Limits - Virginia began pro-
cessing claims in 1991. At the time,
there was no limit on the number or
dollar amount of claims that could be
filed for reimbursement. South Car-
olina had a similar problem, because
claimants were allowed to submit
monthly bills of $100 or more. This
caused an influx of claims, made
tracking more difficult, and some-
times resulted in processing costs per
claim that exceeded the amount of
the claim. Both states developed
ways to reduce the number of claims
so as to permit more efficient, less
costly claim processing.
Virginia requires claimants to
file all of the costs associated with a
single cleanup phase (e.g., initial
abatement phase, site characteriza-
tion phase) on one claim. This simple
solution has lowered the number of
claims received and helped to pre-
vent double billing for the same
work in later claims.
South Carolina's solution
requires tank owners to obtain
approval from the fund prior to per-
forming any work at the site. Open
communications between the
claimants and fund personnel before
monies are spent have benefited both
parties. The fund manager uses the
cost information to forecast expendi-
tures and to maintain fund solvency.
At the same time, the claimant is
assured that the money needed to
reimburse cleanup costs will be
available when a claim is submitted.
Forecasting and Planning - Like
South Carolina, Virginia had prob-
lems in forecasting and planning
because of a lack of information
about the number and cost of on-
going cleanups. Claimants also had a
problem trying to determine if the
cleanup work they were doing
would be eligible for reimbursement.
To solve the problem, Virginia insti-
tuted a preapproval program in
which claimants are required to get
written approval for cleanup activi-
ties from the state before beginning
work at the site. In conjunction with
the preapproval program, Virginia
developed and published a rate
schedule to give claimants guidance
on the amount of reimbursement
that they could expect to receive for
preapproved cleanup activities.
These two changes have given the
state more control over cleanups
while reducing the number of claim
reviews. Claimants now receive up-
front guidance on their cleanups and
are given the dollar amount they will
be reimbursed for cleanup activities.
WVermont,., written guidelines with
iforms, reimbursement and appeal
'procedures, and rate schedules were
Defeated to give notice of program
:rules and interpretations of statutory
and regulatory provisions for both
the fund staff and the public.
J
Cleanup Standards - South
Dakota realized early on that the
question of "How clean is clean?"
had to be answered. The fund
needed cleanup standards on which
to base reimbursement rates. Dennis
Rounds, South Dakota's Fund Man-
ager, was instrumental in drafting
ASTM's Risk-Based Corrective
Action (RBCA) standard, which is
now used in some form in many
states. Once again, a written guide-
line has been helpful, both for
administering the fund and for com-
municating the cleanup require-
ments to claimants. The RBCA
process has also allowed states to
perform environmentally sound,
cost-effective cleanups.
Program Development - After
identifying problems and issues in
program development, Vermont
fund personnel began a dialogue
with their stakeholders to increase
the likelihood of finding a solution
that worked for everyone. Stake-
holders helped identify problems
and also contributed ideas for solu-
tions. This communication process
has helped the fund provide better
service to its customers and
increased customer satisfaction with
the program. It has also increased
stakeholder awareness of fund man-
agement issues.
Claims Management - The South
Dakota fund developed a sophisti-
cated, comprehensive database and a
well-organized filing system to man-
age claims more efficiently. The staff
also developed policy memos that
they use to document their reasons
for reimbursement decisions. This
process of justifying each claim pay-
ment decision has provided a basis
for consistent claim processing. It has
also shifted the burden of justifying a
reimbursement from the fund to the
appeals process, which, in turn, has
reduced the number of claim appeals
as well as the number of issues that
have to be addressed on appeal.
These are just a few of the issues
that state fund administrators face.
In future articles I'll look at other
unique problems/solutions and pro-
vide examples from other states. If
you have suggestions about tech-
niques that worked or failed in your
state, please let me know.
If you have any questions or
puld like additional information
the problems/solutions dis-
ssed in this article, you can con-
ftact: " "" *
PL Stan Clark hi South Carolina at
SpfmEF— -- , • * - - FJ- -- -- - --5 , , ,- - ,---r- A
iSlarksl@cglumb26.dhec.state.sc.us, ;
||; Dennis Rounds in South Dakota (
|at dennisr@crprl.state.sd.us,
pv ~- ^ , - ' .. ,"-
I* Chuck Schwer in Vermont at
tferiucks@_deg.anr.state.vt.us, or "r
^Mary-Ellen Kendali in Virginia at ~
?m:akendall@deq.state.va.us. • :
Mary-Ellen Kendall, J.D., M.B.A., is
the Financial Programs Manager for
the Virginia Department of Environ-
mental Quality. She is responsible for
making liability and fund eligibility
determinations for the Virginia
UST Program.
17
-------
LWTUm Bulletin 30
Investigation and Remediation
The Great Escape (from the UST)
by Blayne Hartman
[Editor's Note: This is the second in a series of articles reviewing some of the physical/chemical properties that are commonly used
in environmental assessment and remediation. This article will focus on the property of vapor pressure and how to use it for esti-
mating vapor concentrations in the vadose zone.}
B
ased on the enthusiastic responses I received to the
quiz in the last article on Henry's law, let's start
with another quiz:
ll|llis"J*3iftrifc
A site with USTs that contain gasoline has MTBE
contamination in the underlying groundwater;
however, the cause of the ground water contamina-
tion is not clear. No liquid spills or releases have
been recorded or detected, no soil contamination
has been detected, and no upgradient sources of
MTBE exist. You cpndacl" a soil vapor survey to
look for potential vapor-phase MTBE contamina-
tion and find nothingfWhat do you advise your
client (a potential buyer of the property) to do?
(a) There are no on-site MTBE sources of groundwater
contamination, so the contamination must be from
somewhere else. Buy the property.
(b) Tell the client not to buy the property and then buy it
yourself.
(c) Question the accuracy of the soil vapor data.
(d) Retest the soil vapor for different compounds.
Need a hint? Well, if s probably not (a) or (b) because
then I would have nothing to write about. Need another
hint? It has something to do with vapor pressure (the
topic of this article).
To choose the correct answer to this quiz, we need to
know the answers to a couple of key questions regarding
the potential source of the MTBE contamination in the
soil vapor and the potential for MTBE vapor to contami-
nate groundwater:
• What is the concentration of the MTBE in vapor escap-
ing from an UST containing gasoline?
• What would be the resulting groundwater concentra-
tions if that same vapor contacted groundwater and
reached equilibrium with the groundwater?
Step 1 - Determine the Vapor Pressure of MTBE in
the Tank Headspace
Since the concentration of MTBE in the escaping vapor
will be the same as the concentration of MTBE in the
vapor in the tank above the gasoline, the first thing we
need to do is compute the concentration of MTBE in the
tank headspace. To perform this calculation, we need to
consider the vapor pressure of each compound, which
gives us a perfect reason to review the concept of vapor
pressure.
Vapor pressure is the pressure that a compound
exerts in the airspace above the pure compound. Stated
another way, vapor pressure is a measure of how a com-
18
pound distributes, or partitions, itself between its pure
form (solid or liquid) and the airspace above it. The
higher the vapor pressure, the more a compound prefers
to be in the vapor phase (i.e., the more volatile the com-
pound). Some compounds have such high vapor pres-
sures that they evaporate before our eyes (e.g., acetone,
or gasoline on warm days). Generally, when we speak of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), we are referring to
compounds with vapor pressures that exceed 1 millime-
ter (mm) of mercury (Hg) at temperatures that are nor-
mally encountered (15°C to 20°C).
Vapor pressures have been measured empirically
(i.e., in the laboratory) for a wide variety of compounds
and are tabulated in many reference books. They can be
expressed in many different units. The most common are
atmospheres (atm), inches of mercury (in. Hg), or mil-
limeters of mercury. For your reference, there are 760
mm Hg to 1 atm and 30 in. Hg to 1 arm.
For a mixture of compounds such as gasoline, the
pressure of each compound in the overlying vapor (e.g.,
MTBE, benzene, hexane) is equal to its fraction in the
mixture multiplied by its individual vapor pressure:
Pi'
= VP*MF
where: Pi is the pressure of a compound in the overlying
vapor;
VP is the vapor pressure of the pure compound;
and
MF is the mole fraction of that compound in the
mixture.
Step 2 - Convert Pressure into Concentration
The next step is to convert the amounts of a compound in
the vapor from pressure units to concentration units. To
make this change, we have to go back to a fundamental
concept that we all learned (or were supposed to learn)
in freshman chemistry, the good ol' ideal gas law:
PV = nRT
where: P is pressure (in atm);
R is the universal gas constant (0.0821 L-atm/
°K-mole);
T is temperature in °K (°K = °C + 273);
n is moles of a compound; and
V is volume in liters.
By rearranging this expression, we can convert pressure
into concentration:
P/RT = n/V
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
Potential Pathways of Escaped UST
Vapors to Ground water
MTBE 1
Alkanes > Cair
BTEX J
Vapor Diffusion
Water Table
Note that moles (n) multiplied by the molecular weight of
a compound gives mass (in grams) and V is volume, so
the ratio (n/V) is equivalent to concentration.
Putting it all together, the concentration of a com-
pound in the headspace can be computed from its vapor
pressure, molecular weight, and mole fraction as:
Concentration in the headspace (Cair) = VP * MW * MF/RT
where: Cair is in units of grams per liter (g/L);
VP is the vapor pressure of the pure compound
(in atm);
MW is the molecular weight of the compound (in
g);
MF is the mole fraction of the compound in the
mixture; and
RT is the universal gas constant times tempera-
ture (-24 L-atm/mole at 20°C).
Using the above equation, the concentrations of vari-
ous compounds in the headspace (Cajr) in an UST that
contains gasoline can be easily calculated (Table 1). You
can see that the headspace is dominated by the alkanes
Table 1. Summary of relevant physical proper-
ties and calculated airspace concentrations of
various compounds in gasoline. Mole fractions
of the various compounds were selected to rep-
resent an "average gasoline." An average mole-
cular weight was used for the lower alkanes
(C4-C8). Vapor pressures have been rounded
off for simplicity.
VP (atm) MW MF Cair (tig/L)
Benzene
0.1
78
0.025
7,800
MTBE
0.3
88
0.125
130,000
Lower alkanes 0.2
100
0.50
400,000
and MTBE, but benzene, due to its lower mole fraction
and vapor pressure, makes up a relatively small fraction.
The key point to recognize from the values in Table 1
is that if there are vapor leaks from an UST—from loose
bungs, loose fittings on vapor return lines or vent pipes, or
pinhole leaks—the concentration of the vapor in the
vadose zone immediately outside the tank (i.e., the soil
vapor) will contain large amounts of alkanes and MTBE,
but relatively small amounts of benzene (I'll leave it to you
to calculate the relative amounts of the other common aro-
matics).
Step 3 - Determine the Equilibrium Groundwater
Concentration
Now let's allow the escaped vapor to impinge on ground-
water. What's the resulting groundwater concentration?
Well, flush with your knowledge after reading the article
on Henry's law in the last issue, you know that the result-
ing equilibrium groundwater concentration can be easily
computed from the vapor concentration using the dimen-
sionless Henry's constant:
H = Cair/^water or Qvater = ^air /H
Table 2 summarizes the calculation of the groundwater
Table 2. Equilibrium water concentrations for
several compounds in contact with vapors
escaping from an UST with gasoline. Values for
Henry's constants and resulting water concen-
trations have been rounded off for simplicity.
Cair(lig/L) H Cw (pg/L)
Benzene
7,800
0.2
40,000
MTBE
130,000
0.02
6,500,000
Lower alkanes
400,000
50
3,000
concentration in equilibrium with the escaped vapor.
Taken alone, the numbers shown in Table 2 indicate
that enormously high concentrations of MTBE could be
created in the groundwater because of escaping vapor.
Don't panic! The fact that this calculated value is so much
higher than values we observe in groundwater is proof
that our simple calculation is not representative. Why?
Keep in mind that these calculations assume that equi-
librium between the phases exists. While equilibrium con-
centrations may be likely for the partitioning of
compounds from the gasoline into the tank vapor, they are
extremely unlikely for the partitioning of compounds into
the groundwater from the vapor because of the extremely
slow process of contaminant transport into groundwater
(as discussed in the LUSTLine #28 article, "The Downward
Migration of Vapors").
In addition, these calculations assumed that the con-
centration of the vapor impinging on groundwater was
identical to the concentration of the tank headspace. This
scenario is extremely unlikely because processes operative
in the vadose zone (e.g., dispersion, sorption, biodegrada-
• continued on page 20
19
-------
I The Great Escape from page 19
lion) are likely to create significantly lower vapor concen-
trations as the vapor travels from the tank leak to ground-
water.
The more reasonable conclusions to be drawn from
these calculations are that if a vapor leak from an UST
containing gasoline exists:
• The lower alkanes (C4 through C8) will remain in the
soil vapor.
• If water is around, MTBE will preferentially partition
into the water (i.e., soil moisture or groundwater).
• Benzene will exist in both the soil vapor and water but
will not be the major contaminant in either phase.
In areas with shallow groundwater, high rainfall, or
other sources of flowing water in the vadose zone (e.g.,
irrigation), MTBE vapor could be a contributor to
groundwater contamination. In areas with deep ground-
water and not much rainfall, the MTBE transfer rate from
the vapor is likely to be too slow to cause an appreciable
effect.
Now Back to the Quiz
Since no MTBE was detected in the soil vapor, and no
other sources for MTBE were detected on the site, it
appears that dioice (a)—buy the property—would be the
correct answer. But wait—if a vapor leak does exist,
MTBE, due to its high affinity for water, might have
already "left the scene of the crime" (the leak), while its
companions in the escape (the alkanes), are still around. If
all you did was measure the soil vapor for the MTBE, it is
possible that a vapor leak exists, but that it was missed,
because you failed to measure for the alkanes.
So what was the correct answer to the quiz? Choice
(d)—retest for different compounds. You need to mea-
sure the alkanes in addition to MTBE to ensure the detec-
tion of tank vapor leaks and interpret the MTBE values
(or lack thereof). Because all of the compounds escape
together from the tank, high levels of alkanes in the soil
vapor mean that MTBE must be escaping as well, even if
it was not detected. If no MTBE is detected in the soil
vapor at the same location where high levels of alkanes
exist, it indicates that MTBE is being preferentially lost
once in the vadose zone. For this scenario, vertical pro-
files of die soil vapor with depth to groundwater, as well
as knowing the concentration ratio of MTBE to the alka-
In last issue's article titled "Oh
Henry," the text describing the conver-
sion from the dimensionless to dimensional
form was incorrect. The conversion given was
for computing the dimensional Henry's constant in
units of atm-L/mole, not units of atm-m3/mole as
printed. To compute the dimensional Henry's con-
stant in units of atm-m3/mole, multiply the dimen-
sionless Henry's constant by the universal gas
constant (0.000082 atm-m3/mole-°K) times the tem-
perature in degrees kelvin, which is equal to 0.0224 at
0°C and 0.024 at 20°C.B
nes in the soil vapor, will aid in the determination of
whether MTBE vapor has impacted groundwater.
One last point to remember if you elect to measure
the soil vapor. MTBE is often measured on a photoioniza-
tion detector (PID) by EPA method 8020. While they are
plenty sensitive to MTBE and the aromatics, PIDs are not
particularly sensitive to many of the lower alkanes. So
analysis of the soil vapor for the alkanes should be done
with a flame ionization detector (FID) to ensure sufficient
sensitivity.
Did you get the correct answer? This quiz was a
tricky one, but I hope you enjoyed it. •
Blayne Hartman is a regular contributor to LUSTLine. This
article is taken from a presentation on physical/chemical prop-
erties that he gives as part of a training course on environmen-
tal geochemistry. For details on the course, either e-mail
Blayne directly at bh@tegenv.com, or check out the informa-
tion on his Web page at http://www.tegenv.com.
MTBE Work Group
Working Hard to Keep
Up with New Info
The ASTSWMO LUST Task Force's MTBE work
group has issued three newsletters since its incep-
tion in 1997. A fourth newsletter is currently in
progress and will be issued in mid-September. The mem-
bership of the work group continues to grow as states
continue to express a strong interest in the MTBE prob-
lem. Many states are trying to determine just how to take
a second look at sites that may have been closed under an
earlier closure process that did not consider the presence
of MTBE.
Other MTBE-related issues that were not originally
anticipated during the founding of the work group have
come to the forefront (e.g., the degree to which MTBE
breaks down in the environment; the toxicity of break-
down products, such as TBA and formaldehyde; atmos-
pheric deposition from rainfall; contamination in
drinking water reservoirs from two-cycle engine exhaust;
and the presence of MTBE at UST sites where no releases
have been documented). These are just a few of the issues
that are gaining an increasing amount of attenuation on
the state level.
While concerns about the widespread impacts of
MTBE on air, surface water, and groundwater are of
pressing importance in California, most states are still
quite early in diagnosing the severity of impacts from
MTBE and struggling to determine just what should be
done in the absence of national MTBE standards for soil,
groundwater, and drinking water. Some state UST/LUST
programs have addressed the immediate question of
cleanup levels by including MTBE as a chemical of con-
cern within the context of RBCA. Still others may prefer
to use a strict numeric approach based on toxicology.
A large amount of research is currently under way
through the American Petroleum Institute (API), U.S.
• continued on page 23
20
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
Investigation and Remediation
A Layman's Guide to the New
EPA Methods for VOC Analysis
by Blayne Hartman and Rob Hitzig
Since the promulgation of
Update III of EPA's SW-846,
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, the
document's new methods for volatile
organic compound (VOC) analysis
have created apparent confusion
throughout much of the environ-
mental community. In response to
this confusion, EPA released a memo
on August 7 to clarify some of the
issues. In this article, we'll address
some of the key issues of concern
and conclude with recommendations
to help you to decide which proto-
cols to follow or enact.
To understand the pros and cons
of the new VOC methods, let's re-
view the most salient changes in the
new update.
Changes in Analytical
Methods
In Update III, several obsolete
packed-column gas chromatographic
(GC) methods have been deleted and
replaced with capillary GC methods.
Specifically, analytical methods 8010
(halogenated hydrocarbons by GC),
8020 (aromatic hydrocarbons by
GC), and 8240 (VOCs by GC/Mass
Spectrometry (MS)) have been de-
leted. They have been replaced by
methods 8021 (halogenated and aro-
matic hydrocarbons by GC) and 8260
(VOCs by GC/MS). The elimination
of these analytical methods does not
create significant changes in the
quality or type of data received from
laboratories, because most laborato-
ries have been using the capillary
methods for several years.
There are, however, two signifi-
cant factors that you should be aware
of in the new analytical methods:
• Soil values are reported on a dry-
weight basis.
• Calibrations must be performed
for every 10 samples rather than
for every 20 samples.
The first factor should not be
overlooked by regulators, because, in
some states, soil values are custom-
arily reported on a wet-weight basis.
Depending on the water content of a
sample, use of dry versus wet weight
could change reported values by a
factor of 2. As a result, we recom-
mended that you ask your laboratory
to state clearly in its reporting
whether the results represent dry-
weight or wet-weight values.
Changes in Sample
Preparation Methods
Prior to Update III, there were essen-
tially three methods for preparing
solid samples for volatile analysis:
• Solvent extraction and direct
injection (typically done as a
microextraction of soils or concen-
trated wastes in a VOA vial with
methanol) for high-concentration
samples;
• Direct purge-and-trap preparation
(EPA method 5030) for soils with
low concentrations; and
• Methanol extraction, dilution into
water, and purge-and-trap (also
by EPA method 5030) for medium-
to high-concentration samples.
The purge-and-trap preparation
methods offered much lower detec-
tion levels than the direct-injection
method and were more commonly
used for VOC analysis that required
low (<50 ^g/kg) detection limits. For
soils, samples were either mixed
with water and added directly to the
purge-and-trap device (direct soil
sparging for low-concentration sam-
ples), or, for higher-concentration
samples, they were extracted with
methanol, and an aliquot of the
methanol (typically 10 u~L to 100 uL)
was added to the purge-and-trap
device.
Update III includes seven sam-
ple preparation procedures:
1. Solvent extraction and direct
injection
2. Headspace analysis (method 5021)
3. Purge-and-trap preparation (EPA
method 5030B) for soil extracts
4. Closed-system purge-and-trap for
soils (method 5035)
5. Vacuum distillation
6. Azeotropic distillation
7. Hexadecane dilution-direct injec-
tion for VOCs in waste oil
It is important to realize that
VOC results can vary, depending on
the preparatory method used (e.g.,
high-concentration methods may not
work for low-concentration samples,
and vice versa). Because there are
now seven different preparatory
methods, it is much more important
that the end users of the VOC data
understand which method was used
to prepare individual samples and
which method applies to which type
of sample and analyte.
An Overview of the Sample
Preparation Methods
Let's briefly review these sampling
methods. Because methods 5, 6, and
7 are not commonly used, we will
not discuss them in this overview.
1. Solvent extraction and direct
injection. This method is
extremely reliable and allows the
reanalysis of the extract as many
times as possible. For fuel-
related aromatic compounds
(e.g., BTEX, naphthalene, tri-
methylbenzenes) and MTBE,
detection levels of 25 ^g/kg to 50
ug/kg can be obtained. This
method is the best to use for
higher-concentration samples
(greater than 200 ug/kg),
because there is little potential
for carryover between samples.
2. Headspace analysis by
method 5021. Prior to Update
III, EPA considered this method
to be useful for screening pur-
poses only, primarily because of
the limitations of available
equipment. However, because it
is a relatively easy and fast
method, many laboratories, par-
ticularly mobile laboratories,
have used it for many years.
These days, reliable data are
readily achievable with auto-
mated instruments, especially
for compounds with relatively
high Henry's law constants, pro-
• continued on page 22
21
-------
LltSTLsne 'Bulletin 30
• Layman's Guide to VOC
Analysis from page 21
vided the headspace conditions
are kept constant (e.g., amount
of sample, time of heating, tem-
perature of heating). This is par-
ticularly true for fuel-related
sites—data for aromatic hydro-
carbons generated by this
method should be fine. How-
ever, this method is not suitable
for MTBE or ethylene dibromide
(EDB) because both have low
Henry's law constants. It is nec-
essary to collect more than one
sample for reanalysis in the
event that VOC concentrations
exceed the instrument's calibra-
tion range.
3. Purge-and-trap by method
5030B. This method is the same
one used in earlier versions of
SW-846, except for one key dif-
ference: It no longer allows the
soil itself to be added directly to
the purge-and-trap device
(direct-soil sparging). To analyze
soils by this method, the soil
must be methanol-extracted; an
aliquot of the extract is then
added to the purge-and-trap
device. This approach allows for
detection levels in the low
microgram/kilogram range (<10
Hg/kg) for most fuel-related
hydrocarbons and slightly
higher levels (25 ;/g/kg to 50
/ig/kg) for some halogenated
compounds.
4. Closed system purge-and-
trap by method 5035. This
method is designed to minimize
the loss of VOCs from soil. Soil
samples are sealed in a gas-tight
vial in the field and then ana-
lyzed \vithout ever opening the
vial. This method has an advan-
tage over methanol preservation
in that it allows for extremely
low detection limits (<1 /*g/kg)
for all VOCs (including halo-
genated solvents); however,
VOC concentrations exceeding
100 //g/kg to 200 /
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
There are a few potential pitfalls
with methanol preservation. First,
because the shelf life of methanol
is short, there is the possibility
that the methanol could be conta-
minated. So, you need to be sure
that your batches of methanol are
fresh and analyzed for blanks just
before the date of use. Second,
detection levels using methanol
extracts could be higher, depend-
ing on a lab's protocols, so there is
the possibility that you may not
achieve necessary quantitation
limits. Third, there are potential
shipping restrictions. Methanol is
classified as a RCRA hazardous
waste, regardless of whether the
soil is contaminated.
An alternative to methanol preser-
vation that is less confusing than
method 5035 is to allow soils to be
preserved on-site in water and
analyzed by method 5030.
Because the aromatic hydrocar-
bons and MTBE have low Henry's
law constants (i.e., they prefer to
remain in the water), they will not
be lost by volatilization once in
the water solution. However, to
minimize possible biodegrada-
tion, the water-preserved sample
should be capped, kept cold, and
analyzed within a relatively short
period of time (e.g., within 36
hours from the time of collection).
If a TPH analysis for gasoline is
required, then the preservation
container should have no head-
space, because of the high Henry's
law constants of the alkanes in
gasoline.
The water preservation alternative
offers a few advantages over
methanol in that detection limits
are lower, the risk of contamina-
tion is less (pure, uncontaminated
water is readily available at any
convenience store, usually for less
than $1 per bottle), and the sam-
ples can be shipped as nonhaz-
ardous waste.
' For Halogenated Compounds
In this case, the optimum preser-
vation choice depends on the
required detection limits. For
some VOCs, methods 8021 or 8260
will reach only 25 to 50 ,"g/kg
detection limits using methanol
extracts. If these detection limits
are sufficient, then methanol
preservation is an easy and cost-
effective option.
If lower detection limits are
required, water preservation and
analysis by method 5030 can reach
5 ug/kg detection limits while
offering a less confusing alterna-
tive to method 5035. Because the
halogenated VOCs are not readily
biodegradable and have low
Henry's law constants, they will
not be lost by biodegradation or
volatilization once in the water
solution. To ensure minimal cont-
amination during storage, the
water-preserved sample should
be capped, kept cold, and ana-
lyzed within a reasonable amount
of time (e.g., within 72 hours from
the time of collection).
Advantages
Methanol and water preservation
with subsequent analysis using
method 5030 offer the following
advantages over methods 5021 and
5035:
• Potentially large errors resulting
from the variety and multitude of
field preservation steps are elimi-
nated because the field personnel
can use one or two simple on-site
procedures that are not too bur-
densome.
• Laboratories can use existing
methods (e.g., purge-and-trap by
5030) with existing equipment.
Thus, they will not be forced to
buy a lot of new equipment, and
reported VOC data will be more
consistent from lab to lab, because
fewer analytical methods will be
used.
• Increased costs of analysis (e.g.,
new analytical equipment, special
gas-tight samplers, shipping of
hazardous wastes) are eliminated.
Blayne Hartman is a regular contribu-
tor to LUSTLine. For more informa-
tion contact, Blayne at bh@tegenv.com.
Rob Hitzig is an environmental scien-
tist with U.S. EPA's Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks. For more
information, contact Rob at
hitziy.robert@eva.yov.
• MTBE Work Group from page. 20
Geological Survey (USGS), and the
EPA Office of Water. Research
updates and preliminary results are
reported through the MTBE newslet-
ter as they become available. The
workgroup is also trying to stay on
top of the never-ending list of Inter-
net sites on which state regulators
can look for MTBE information. Pat
Ellis from Delaware is an excellent
source of information for avid Web
browsers (pellis@dnrec.state.de.us).
Her updates on Web sites are
included at the end of each newslet-
ter.
Other work group members are
providing case incident studies, rule
changes to MTBE standards, and leg-
islation contemplated to address
MTBE in their states. API's Bruce
Bauman continues to provide
updates on API research efforts that
are under way through grants to uni-
versities. Recently, John Zogorski,
who leads MTBE research through
the USGS NAWQA Program, also
volunteered to participate in the
work group.
Although the group's focus will
continue to be on the release of
MTBE from LUST sites, it is already
finding a great deal of information is
available through the efforts of other
state and federal agencies. The
group hopes to continue an open
dialogue with states that are grap-
pling with MTBE issues by provid-
ing a forum for discussion,
transmittal of research findings, and
exchange of regulatory approaches.
The MTBE Work Group Newslet-
ter can be accessed on the
ASTSWMO home page at
http:/ /wwTv.astswmo.org/astswm
ol.htm. When you get to
the home page, look
on the left side
for "publica-
tion," click on
that and then
go to "bookshelf,"
and then scan to
"MTBE newsletter." •
For more
information about
the work group,
contact Jeff Kuhn at
jkuhn@mt.gov.
-------
LltSTLine Bulletin 30
Investigation and Remediation
ASTM Task Group Seeks Input on Remedial
Action Decision Standard
The American Society for Test-
ing and Materials (ASTM)
E50.01 subcommittee is devel-
oping a standard for making reme-
dial action decisions (RADs) at
chemical release sites. The guidance
is based on a nonprescriptive, logical
decision-making procedure with the
ultimate goal of site cleanup. It
incorporates a screening process that
allows the user to sift through reme-
dial options quickly and cost-effec-
tively to obtain the best-fit
technology or combination of tech-
nologies for a specific release site.
When necessary, this decision-mak-
ing approach will allow the user to
distinguish between final target
cleanup goals and intermediate,
"technically achievable" goals, rec-
ognizing that ultimate target goals
may not always be readily attainable
through the use of active mass-
reduction technologies alone.
The guidance is consistent with
the concepts of risk-based corrective
action and allows the user to give
consideration to innovative tech-
nologies, institutional controls, and
remediation by natural attenuation
as well as more conventional reme-
dial technologies. It also incorpo-
rates an iterative approach to
evaluating remedial technology per-
formance to help fine-tune operation
and maintenance and determine
when to adjust the remedial system,
modify operational parameters,
switch technologies, augment treat-
ment by adding other technologies,
or discontinue operation.
How RAD Fits In
Once complete, the RAD standard
could prove useful to environmental
professionals, regulatory agencies,
and the consumer (user of profes-
sional services). The environmental
professional may find the standard
to be useful as a framework for a
structured and consistent decision-
making process for evaluating reme-
dial options. It may also improve the
timeliness of this process by reduc-
ing the unknowns, such as target
goals and acceptability of certain
options. The RAD standard may also
increase confidence in promoting
innovations.
The consumer should find the
RAD standard useful, particularly as
a possible tool in developing pay-
for-performance contracts or time
and material contracts with environ-
mental professionals. Regulatory
agencies may also find the standard
useful. By adopting a consistent
logic for making remedial action
decisions, oversight could be
reduced and technical soundness
and accountability could be
increased.
illiThe guidance is consistent with the
concepts of risk-based corrective
, , action and allows the user to give
consideration to innovative
at , |, .1". . | i ,i
1 technologies, institutional controls,
. ' " ' "
and remediation by natural
1 Attenuation as well as more
conventional remedial technologies.
Here are some of the unique ele-
ments that the proposed RAD stan-
dard can provide:
• A sifting process that allows
remedial options to be screened
on the basis of time, surety, and
cost;
• A logical order for screening
remedial options, based on the
effort and cost to evaluate a given
technology;
• A method for determining the
most effective combinations of
treatment technologies;
• A requirement that target cleanup
levels be established before reme-
dial options are screened;
• A logic that differentiates between
"final target cleanup levels" and
"intermediate, technically achiev-
able goals";
• An iterative approach for constant
evaluation of technology perfor-
mance; and
• A flexible, open architecture that
allows for professional judgment
and innovation, while assuring
accountability.
The RAD task group was for-
mally established in October 1997. It
has met three times since then and
has held numerous conference calls.
In June 1998, members of the task
group met in Washington, D.C., with
representatives from the EPA Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), including
OUST, the Technology Innovation
Office, and Superfund to seek partic-
ipation and input.
The first draft of the standard is
expected to be balloted within ASTM
this winter. The task group is seek-
ing input from anyone who may be
interested-^
- For more information, contact:
Damian Edwards, RAD Task
Group Chairman
BPOil
' Phone (770) 641-2427
-Fax (770) 641-2491
e-mail EdwardDL@BP.COM
•, ,or , :
,1,!,,
, D ennis Rpunds, Chairman,
ASTM E50.01 Subcommittee
Phone (605)773-3769
Fax (605) 773-6048
e-mail dennisr@crprl.state.sd.us
24
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
Investigation and Remediation
Two MTBE Plume Length Studies Are Completed
Or, Will Reformulated Gasoline Reformulate Our
Approaches to UST Plume Management?
by Bruce Bauman
It is widely accepted that the ben-
zene "plume-a-thon" study by the
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) published in
November 1995 was the "piece de
resistance" in national efforts to
demonstrate the natural attenuation
of UST gasoline releases. This study
of several hundred California UST
sites concluded that almost all dis-
solved benzene plumes will travel
less than 300 feet from the source
before they "stabilize" and eventu-
ally begin to shrink back toward the
source. A similar study of over 600
Texas UST sites published in January
1997 by the University of Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology (UT-
BEG) came up with similar conclu-
sions.
Inasmuch as both efforts were
initiated before the recent height-
ened concern regarding the gasoline
additive, methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE), neither addressed MTBE
plume length. The good news is that
both groups have been hard at work
pulling together new information
that includes MTBE and have
recently released their results. In this
article, I'll discuss briefly the results
of the two studies and provide
exerpts from the conclusions of these
reports.
Plume Length
Both research groups found that for
most sites studied in their respective
evaluations of UST sites in Texas and
California, MTBE plumes were usu-
ally not much longer than the com-
panion benzene plume (i.e., usually
less than 300 feet long). To most of
you with even a marginal under-
standing of MTBE fate and transport,
these results might seem counterin-
tuitive. You have likely heard that
MTBE is not as biodegradable as
benzene and that there are some very
long MTBE plumes. Therefore, you
would expect that MTBE plumes
would always be much longer than
benzene plumes.
Both groups caution against
overinterpretation of the existing
data, and, both note that given the
apparent difference in the
biodegradability and mobility of
MTBE and benzene, it is likely that at
least some MTBE plumes may con-
tinue to migrate past the edge of a
stabilized benzene plume.
Also, be aware that the two stud-
ies employed different approaches to
defining the downgradient "edge" of
a benzene or MTBE plume. LLNL
compared 1 ppb benzene plume
length to 20 ppb MTBE, because 1
ppb is the maximum contaminant
limit (MCL) for benzene, and 20 to 40
ppb is the current EPA "consumer
acceptability advisory" for MTBE.
The UT-BEG study compared equiv-
alent plume concentrations (10 ppb
benzene versus 10 ppb MTBE).
Both studies observed that char-
acterizing plume length or "stabil-
ity" is an inherently more difficult
process for MTBE than it is for ben-
zene. For example, it is almost never
possible to know when a release of
gasoline with MTBE occurred and
whether there might have already
been a release of non-MTBE gasoline
at the site. Under this scenario, an
MTBE plume might be shorter than
the benzene plume, but only because
it is "younger"—it may eventually
become longer than the benzene
plume.
The concentration of MTBE in
gasoline can also vary substan-
tially—from less than 1 percent to as
much as 15 percent—and may have
varied during the interval of the
release. In contrast, benzene concen-
trations in gasoline have almost
always been between about 1 and 3
percent, and benzene is much less
soluble than MTBE. Because of these
factors, the relative "source strength"
of benzene and MTBE (i.e., the maxi-
mum dissolved concentration near
the residual, immobile gasoline
phase) may vary substantially
among the existing population of
UST sites.
Finally, it is difficult to find sites
that have sufficient monitoring data
over time that would allow a conclu-
sive assessment of the relative stabil-
ity of an MTBE plume to a
companion benzene plume.
The Threat to Groundwater?
Whether this potential for greater
migration translates into a greater
perceived threat to shallow ground-
water quality will probably ulti-
mately depend on the groundwater
cleanup standard for MTBE. EPA has
"advised" that a value between 20
and 40 ppb is likely to be an accept-
able level in drinking water, and most
states have standards or action levels
that vary between 20 and 240 ppb.
California, however, has recently
promulgated a draft secondary
drinking water standard of 5 ppb
that is based on taste and odor con-
siderations. It will likely be a few
more years before much of a consen-
sus is reached regarding the appro-
priate level of concern for MTBE.
EPA may develop a MCL for MTBE,
but it would not be promulgated
until at least 2001.
The Role of Hydrogeology
Perhaps the most important "take-
home message" from these two stud-
ies may be insights into the role that
hydrogeology may play in MTBE
plume development. For example,
you might suspect that California
and Texas do not have identical geol-
ogy, and therefore you would expect
• continued on page 28
-------
LUSmneBitUetinSO
EXCERPTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE LAWRENCE LIVERMORE
NATIONAL LABORATORY REPORT
77» authors of the LLNL report summarized their report by offering the following conclusions:
• MTBE is a frequent and widespread contaminant in shallow groundwater throughout California. There are presently 32,409 leaking under-
ground fuel tank (LUFT) sites recognized in the state, 13,278 at which hydrocarbons are known to have impacted groundwater. A minimum
estimate of the number of MTBE-impacted sites in California is greater than 10,000.
• MTBE plumes are more mobile than BTEX plumes. Although our results using 1995-1996 data indicate that, at the majority of sites, individ-
ual MTBE plumes were nearly equivalent or shorter than their corresponding benzene plumes (defined by action levels of 20 and 1 ug L -1,
respectively), our results predict that at a portion of these sites, this relationship will change over time as the contaminant plumes gradually
dissociate,
• The primary attenuation mechanism for MTBE is dispersion. Observed attenuation of BTEX and MTBE compounds at downgradient monitor-
ing wells suggests that MTBE is not significantly degrading in existing monitoring networks. Thus, MTBE may be regarded as recalcitrant under
site-specific conditions, MTBE concentrations leaving these networks were greater than those of BTEX compounds at a significant portion of
LUFT sites. Assuming resistance of MTBE to biodegradation, these plumes will eventually attenuate to regulatory concentration goals due to
dispersion, although in contrast to BTEX compounds, the mass would not be depleted and significantly longer distances and time frames would
be required,
* MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard. To date, impacts of
MTBE to public water systems have been limited and were similar in frequency to those of benzene. Based on historical data, future impacts
of aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benzene, to water supplies is not expected to be common, due to retardation and relative ease of biodegra-
dation. In contrast, MTBE contamination may be a progressive problem due to the chemical's apparent recalcitrance and mobility.
With a compound that appears both ubiquitous and recalcitrant, water resource management on the regional scale will become increasingly
relevant For example, the potential long-term accumulation of mass resulting from dispersion of MTBE plumes may be a key consideration
for management of specific regional groundwater basins. Therefore, leak prevention is a critical requirement for the continued use of MTBE to
ensure future protection of drinking water resources.
» The aulhors have identified two major areas of uncertainty in their results. First, presently available MTBE data are limited. Second, the issue
of recalcitrance of MTBE has not been resolved.
ideally, time-series data from hundreds of LUFT sites representing all hydrogeologic regions of California should be utilized to characterize the
behavior and impact of MTBE plumes. Analyses of an expanded data set are important to confirm the study's initial findings regarding the
mobility and recalcitrance of MTBE at California LUFT sites. Further time-series analyses are necessary for predicting future MTBE impacts to
groundwater resources and assessing the vulnerability of drinking water resources.
A number of laboratory-cultured microorganisms isolated from various environments can degrade MTBE, yet there is no convincing evidence
to date that this destructive process occurs quickly and/or commonly in the field. While future research is warranted to address these issues,
it Is appropriate to manage groundwater resources with the assumption that MTBE is both mobile and recalcitrant relative to benzene, until
proven otherwise.
EXCERPTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PAPER
The purpose of the UT-BEG study was to quantify the spatial and temporal variability of dissolved MTBE plumes resulting from leaking petrole-
um storage tank (LPST) sites In Texas. Based on a database of 609 LPST sites that had at least one measurement of MTBE, the major conclu-
sions of the study are as follows:
• MTBE Is detected in shallow groundwater beneath LPST sites in most parts of the state. Although reformulated gasoline is required only in the
Houston-Galveston and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas, MTBE is detected at 93 percent of LPST sites and is found in shallow groundwater in most
areas of the state. In 79 percent of monitoring well sampling events, MTBE concentration is greater than benzene concentration.
• Most sites have MTBE concentrations that exceed the EPA advisory level and the protective concentration level proposed for Texas. The medi-
an maximum concentration of MTBE measured at the sites is 1,600 ppb, the 95th percentile occurring at about 100,000 ppb. Approximately
85 percent of the sites have maximum concentrations that exceed 20 ppb (the lower limit of the EPA MTBE advisory), and 80 percent of the
sites have maximum concentrations that exceed 40 ppb (a proposed protective concentration level for Texas). Maximum MTBE concentrations
are more likely to be higher at sites having shallow depth to water (<5 feet) than sites having deeper depth to water (>20 feet).
• MTBE plumes are, on average, about 27 feet longer than benzene plumes. Based on plumes defined at 89 sites for MTBE and 289 sites for
benzene, geometric mean plume lengths for MTBE and benzene at a concentration of 10 ppb are 182 and 155 feet, respectively. MTBE plumes
are longer than benzene plumes at 56 percent of LPST sites. MTBE plumes are longer in sandy formations than in clayey formations and are
also longer at deeper depths to water than at shallower depths to water. MTBE plumes extend beyond the edge of the monitoring well network
at about 10 percent of the 89 investigated sites.
• MTBE plumes may be naturally attenuated at many sites in Texas: (a) Many wells (83 percent) have stable, decreasing, or no detection of MTBE
concentration; (b) the co-occurrence of MTBE with benzene has remained steady over the past seven years; (c) many sites investigated in detail
show evidence of plume stability; and (d) many MTBE plumes are similar in size to the benzene plume at the same site. The similar size of the
MTBE and benzene plumes and stable MTBE concentrations and plume length may be direct evidence of the intrinsic biodegradation of MTBE
at many LPST sites in Texas. However, there will still be sites where MTBE plumes are mobile and much longer than their companion benzene
plumes.
• The behavior of MTBE plumes over time needs more study. Although our results suggest that MTBE plumes may be naturally attenuated in
Texas, direct measures of MTBE plume behavior over time are limited to only several sites. As MTBE concentrations are collected from more
monitoring wells, many more plumes should be characterized to support the conclusions of this study. Additional data will allow the estima-
tion of more current MTBE plume lengths and the quantification of the relative fraction of sites that have stable, growing, or receding plumes.
26
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
I
Investigation and Remediation
Risk Communication
Trust and Credibility
by Susan Brown
Communicating environmental risk often takes place within the context of emotional stress,
fear, uncertainty, and a mishmash of competing facts and perceptions. It doesn't matter
whether your stakeholders are your colleagues, your management, tank owners and opera-
tors, legislators, bankers, environmentalists, or the general public—your ability to effectively com-
municate risk-based programs and messages is crucial to the success of your program.
In the last issue of LUSTLine, we
discussed the importance of
developing a public involvement
strategy. This strategy, whatever it
may be, will be successful ONLY if
you are perceived as being trustwor-
thy and credible in the eyes of your
public.
Common sense, you say? If so,
then why are so many people in
decision-making positions today not
trusted? Let's look at the govern-
ment, for example. Are representa-
tives of the federal government or
your state government trusted when
they make commitments? Do your
stakeholders believe that these com-
mitments are real? Or do they sense
subterfuge, cover-ups, or misleading
statements? Do your stakeholders
believe that you are sincere, candid,
and honest? If so, good for you! Keep
up the good work! If not, what can
you do to change this perception?
Do You Care Enough ...?
Dr. Vincent Covello, of the Center
for Risk Communication in New
York City, identifies four factors that
affect the public's perception of trust
and credibility: empathy and caring,
dedication and commitment, hon-
esty and openness, and competence
and expertise. Covello states that
your ability to show empathy and
caring contributes 50 percent to your
overall trust and credibility in the
eyes of your stakeholders. In other
words, the decision I make about
whether you are trustworthy is
highly influenced by your ability to
show me that you care, that "you
can relate to my concern," that you
are listening.
Ask yourself these
questions: Do you care?
Are you able to put your-
self in the shoes of those
with whom you are com-
municating? Do you
understand why they are
upset?
I will suggest to you that
if you are unable to care, if
you cannot relate, or if you
do not understand your •
stakeholders' concern, then
perhaps you have been inap-
propriately cast in the public
interaction arena. Perhaps that job
would be better suited to someone
else. Time and time again, we see
examples of emotion being dis-
counted with the stating of facts. But
we must realize that before the facts
can be heard, the emotion must be
acknowledged.
1
The decision I make about whether
you are trustworthy is highly
influenced by your ability to show
me that you care, that "you can
relate to my concern," that you
are listening.
The other factors—dedication
and commitment, honesty and open-
ness, and competence and exper-
tise—are each equally important in
forming the whole trust and credibil-
ity circle. Staying power, accessibil-
ity, and knowing what you are
doing—along with showing it—are
important to your stakeholders as
they judge for themselves your trust-
worthiness.
Specific Actions
So what do you do, exactly, to estab-
lish trust and credibility? First of all,
your language, both verbal and non-
verbal, helps to create an atmosphere
of trust. Using words that are under-
standable and using body language
that portrays openness send the mes-
sage that you are credible.
To show empathy and caring:
• Say that you care.
• Share the other person's frustra-
tion.
• Take concerns seriously.
• Maintain eye contact.
• Involve your stakeholders early.
• LISTEN!!!
• continued on page 28
27
-------
LUSTLitte Bulletin 30
• Trust and Credibility
To show dedication and
commitment:
Arrive at public interactions early.
Be the last one to leave.
Know your stakeholders' interests.
Be accessible.
Stay in touch.
FOLLOW UP!!!
To show honesty and openness:
• Be proactive in communication.
• Admit mistakes.
• Avoid technical jargon and acro-
nyms.
• Avoid physical barriers.
• Use open, positive body language.
• TELL THE TRUTH!!!
To show competence and
expertise:
• State your credentials.
• Relate relevant experience.
• Avoid debates.
• Refer to credible sources that
agree with you.
• Use dear and concise language.
• BE PREPARED!!!!
Look Out for the Traps
What do you need to look out for as
you are working to establish trust
and credibility? The jargon, humor,
and negatives traps.
• Limit your use of jargon.
Remember, your technical exper-
tise may very well be like a for-
eign language to people outside of
your field. So use language that
can be understood by those with
whom you are communicating.
• Do not use humor. Remember,
the subject you are discussing is of
a serious nature. Your stakehold-
ers' concerns are serious concerns.
During interactions where emo-
tions surface, humor is inappro-
priate. So don't try to cover
nervousness with a joke; don't try
to "lighten up" the situation with
a humorous story. If you are in a
situation where you must employ
risk communication skills during
the interaction, then leave the
humor at home.
• Avoid negative words. Research
has found that individuals tend to
focus on the negative during
emotionally laden interactions.
Therefore, repeating negative alle-
gations, using words that have
negative connotations, or using
words such as "no," "not,"
"never," "nothing," and "none"
will work to diminish, instead of
increase, trust. Instead, use posi-
tive words and phrases while you
focus on the present and future.
The moral of this story? Be diligent
in your efforts to establish and main-
tain trust and credibility. Your
efforts will result in improved inter-
action and a true sharing of informa-
tion and ideas! M
Susan Brown is a Risk Communica-
tion Trainer with Brown Training
Associates in Fernandina Beach,
Florida. For more information, Susan
can be reached at brownta@aol.com.
• MTBE Plume Length Studies
from page 25
some differences in "typical" shallow
hydrogeology at UST sites in the two
states. Eighty-eight percent of the
sites studied in the LLNL study were
in alluvial sediments, while most of
the sites in the Texas study were in
lower-permeability sediments that
are common in the Gulf Coast states.
Presumably the average groundwa-
ter velocity for the California sites
would have been higher than for the
Texas sites, which might translate to
longer MTBE plumes.
First Steps in a Long Journey
These differences and uncertainties
aside, the findings of these two new
studies provide a valuable and infor-
mative snapshot of MTBE plume
behavior and will help direct future
research and regulatory decision
making regarding management of
MTBE-impacted sites. Both reports
contain a lot of other interesting
observations—from assessments of
analytical procedures to detailed case
studies. They do not, however, pro-
vide definitive answers to predicting
the long-term impacts of MTBE at
UST sites. If you read these reports
(and all LUSTLine readers interested
in this topic owe it to themselves to
do so), you may wind up with a
longer list of questions than when
you started! You may also find your
interpretations differ from the
authors, but you most certainly will
obtain a better understanding of the
complexities of characterizing MTBE
releases from USTs. •
Bruce Bauman is the Ground Water
Research Program Coordinator at
API. He has been with API since 1985.
For more information, contact Bruce
at bauman@api.org or
httv://wwzv.avi.or
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
Health and Safety
As promised in the last issue of LUSTLine, we are continuing our
campaign to keep safety at the forefront of your UST-related work.
When removing tanks or inspecting in tank areas, there are some
procedures that make the business safer. The following tips, which are
based on OSHA requirements, were prepared by Deborah Roy of
SafeTech Consultants, Inc.
Trenching and Excavation
^ Shore up the sides of the tank excavation when workers must
enter by installing braces, jacks, or shields, such as a trench box.
/ Alternatively, slope the sides of the cut to the "angle of
repose"—the greatest angle above the horizontal plane at
which material will lie without sliding. The "competent per-
son" on your job should determine the soil type and make the
recommendation for the correct angle to use. For Class C soil,
the angle is 1.5:1.
/ Make sure that any excavated material is placed at least 2 feet
from the edge of the cut.
/ Test the atmosphere of any excavation that is greater than 4 feet in depth. If a hazardous atmosphere exists, venti-
late or use respiratory protection to prevent exposure and have appropriate rescue equipment (e.g., safety line and
harness) on site.
/ If you enter a trench that is greater than 4 feet deep, make sure that you have a means of exit (e.g., a ladder) within
25 feet of lateral travel.
t
If an excavation has a vertical wall, workers must remain double the distance of
the height of the wall away from the wall, or must use a shoring system, j,
(See example at right.) §
00
16 feet -
Electrical Practices
/ Use only explosion-proof equipment around tank environments that contain flammable vapors or are suspected of
containing chemical contaminants.
/ Install and use ground fault circuit interrupters on portable generators, electrical equipment, connectors, and
tools.
/ Use only three-pronged, grounded electric extension cords. DO NOT use a cord that has cuts or abraded areas in
the outer covering, even if it has been "repaired" with electric tape. Damaged cords can heat up and burn, and,
beyond the injury and explosion potential, OSHA will cite you!
/ For gasoline or other flammable liquid tanks, use only nonsparking tools to expose tank fittings and prepare for
vapor-freeing procedures. Nonsparking tools are usually coated with brass.
/ Lock out or tag out equipment such as fuel pumps at gas stations prior to servicing or repair to prevent the unex-
pected start-up of moving parts or the release of stored energy.
/ Monitor weather conditions when working outdoors and suspend work during electrical storms.
Personal Protective Equipment and Site Safety
/ Evaluate potential physical and chemical hazards, determine the proper personal protective equipment (PPE), and
use it! This means hard hats for flying metals or overhead hazards, safety glasses with side shields or goggles for
dust and small particles, and chemical gloves for contact with tank contents such as petroleum products.
^ Require and use safety vests when working in an area where there is vehicular traffic or heavy equipment.
/ Control access to the site, especially the area of excavation, by use of barriers, cones, or hazard tape. Protect tank-
site workers from vehicular traffic and protect the public (including children) from the tank excavation.
/ Keep your workplace clean and hazard-free.
More next time. H
-------
LUSTLhte Bulletin 30
Enforcement Strategy for
1998 UST Deadline
Released
On August 10, EPA's Strategy for
Enforcement of Regulatory Require-
ments Applicable to Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Facilities was
released. The document can be
accessed on EPA's Web site at
mjafcepa.gov/swerustl /1998 /in
dgx.bim. See page 5 for more
details.
Popular UST Compliance
Assistance Publication
Updated
The EPA Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST) has revised
and updated the leaflet Ordering
Information on Underground Storage
Tanks (EPA 510-F-98-016, August
1998), a very useful tool for alert-
ing UST owners and operators that
they can easily obtain a wide vari-
ety of free compliance assistance
materials from EPA.
OUST Reprints Automatic
Tank Gauge Leaflet
After having distributed over 9,000
copies of the leaflet Getting the
Most Out of Your Automatic Tank
Gauging System, EPA has reprinted
the publication. The leaflet pro-
vides UST owners and operators
with a basic checklist for making
sure their automatic tank gauging
systems work effectively, and
focuses on what actions must be
taken to comply with leak detec-
tion requirements and prevent sig-
nificant cleanup problems.
OUST Documents Now
Available Through EPA
Fax-on-Demand Service
Over 220 OUST documents,
including OUST's most frequently
requested publications, such as
Musts for USTs, are now available
to any user who has access to a fax
machine. By dialing (202) 651-2098
from a fax machine and following
the voice prompts, users can
immediately obtain copies of
OUST guidance documents,
brochures, booklets, lists of state
program contacts, notification
forms, fact sheets, and more. For
users who do not have access to
the Internet, this option is an alter-
native way to obtain needed UST
program information quickly. Doc-
uments are available free of
charge; the requester pays only the
telephone charges for the fax ser-
vice.
Effects of MTBE Releases
on State LUST Programs
Reported in Article
An article titled "Study Reports
LUST Programs Are Feeling
Effects of MTBE Releases" appears
in the August/September 1998
issue of Soil & Groundwater
Cleanup. The article, which was
written by Robert Hitzig of OUST
and Paul Kostecki and Denise
Leonard of the University of Mass-
achusetts (UMass), reports on the
results of a survey of state LUST
programs conducted by UMass
and funded by OUST. The survey
was designed to gauge the impact
of MTBE on state LUST programs
and to determine and evaluate any
effective methods for dealing with
MTBE that states have developed.
Some results of the survey include
the following:
H For most state programs, the
detection of MTBE is common,
and because the behavioral
characteristics of MTBE differ
from those of BTEX, MTBE may
contaminate groundwater in
unexpected locations and in
unexpected ways (e.g., at diesel
fuel sites or as a result of surface
spills of small amounts of gaso-
line).
• LUST programs have reported
that existing remediation tech-
nologies for both soil and
groundwater can be successful
in removing MTBE from the
subsurface.
H Releases of gasoline containing
MTBE can significantly increase
the cost of remediation, particu-
larly when a release contains
high concentrations of MTBE.
The study indicates that state
LUST programs should be con-
scious of the potential for MTBE
contamination when investigating
all kinds of petroleum releases,
anywhere in the United States,
regardless of whether reformulated
gasoline is used in the area of
investigation. For more informa-
tion about the survey, contact Mau-
reen Lewison at (703) 603-7143.
To obtain copies of many of
OUST's publications:
Call NCEPI at (800) 490-9198
or EPA's RCRA Hotline at (800)
424-9346. Or, go to OUST's
World Wide Web home page at
www.epa.gov/OUST and select
"OUST Publications."
L.U.S.T. Buster T-Shirts & Sweatshirts!
Tee's: M, L, XL, XXL $ 9.00 pp
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:
NEIWPCC
Boott Mills South
Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1102
30
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 30
Gasoline Overfill Spill
Inferno Kills Five and Critically
Injures One in Mississippi
"V" A That happened at 1 A.M.,
\/\/ August 9 on a street in
V V Biloxi, Mississippi, should
never have happened—no way, no
how. It happened when over 700 gal-
lons of gasoline overflowed from an
UST at a Texaco service station and
streamed onto U.S. Highway 90.
As two vehicles waited at a stop
sign at the intersection where the
fuel was flowing, a pickup truck
approached. In a flash, heat or a
spark ignited the fuel on the ground,
setting off an explosion and fire that
reached 60 feet into the night sky
and engulfed the three vehicles. Two
victims were pronounced dead at the
scene, three others died soon after,
and one remains in critical condition.
Some of the fuel spilled into the
sewer system and eventually into the
Mississippi Sound, touching off sec-
ondary explosions.
According to reports, the driver
of the tanker truck was inexperienced
and may have been delivering the
fuel to the wrong facility. "The tank
he was about to fill was apparently
near capacity," says Kevin Hender-
son, Chief of Compliance with the
Mississippi Department of Environ-
mental Quality. "Based on our initial
investigations, we suspect that when
he stuck the tank, he didn't replace
the cap on the gauge opening prop-
erly. He then went over to the remote
fill, connected the hose, began filling
the tank, and left the area for what we
surmise to be approximately five
minutes."
According to Henderson, the
tank was equipped with a ball float
valve overfill spill prevention
device. The valve appeared to be
functioning correctly, and all of the
ancillary fittings on top of the tank
were tight. So why did the fuel over-
flow? Well, there was the matter of
the unsecured cap at the gauge
opening where the driver stuck the
tank.
For a float vent valve to work,
the tank top must be air-tight—
everything from gauge fittings to ris-
ers to drain mechanisms on spill
buckets—and able to hold the pres-
sure created when the tank fills and
the ball floats upward and blocks the
vent pipe opening. When the vent is
closed, no more fuel should be able
to enter the tank. In this case, how-
ever, a 4-inch riser used to gauge the
tank was left open, and the fuel
began to flow out of that opening.
"The remote fill is the key here,"
says Henderson. "Under normal cir-
cumstances the driver sticks the tank
and then connects the delivery hose
to the same riser opening, thereby
ensuring a tight tank top. With a
remote fill, the potential for this type
of catastrophe is there. Also, any
tank with a drop tube device or ball
float valve must have a 'tight fill
adapter/ which allows the delivery
person to hook the tight fill device
on his hose to the tank's and make a
tight connection."
While there are federal regula-
tions for owners and operators to
ensure that spills and overfills do not
occur, Henderson says that, as far as
he knows, in most states, the act of
making a fuel delivery is not regu-
lated, "and this is where we are
going to have continuing problems
with fuel spills. A tragedy like this
should call attention to the serious-
ness of this problem."
For the foreseeable future, fuel
deliveries will be made by people,
and people can make mistakes—big
mistakes. Maryland is the only state
that we know of that requires fuel
delivery drivers to be certified. •
L.U.S.T.LINE
Q 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.)
Ql Please take my name off your mailing list.
Q Please send me back issues of LUSTLine. Fill out name and address — no P.O. boxes. Back issues cost $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
Boott Mills South, Foot of John Street, Lowell, MA 01852-1102
Phone: (978) 323-7929 • Fax: (978) 323-7919 • lustline @ neiwpcc.org • www.neiwpcc.org
We welcome your comments and suggestions on any of our articles.
ZIP
-------
National Leak Detection Performance
Study Gets Under Way—Participants
Welcome
In response to concerns about the effectiveness of leak
detection methods under field conditions, EPA's Grants
Administration Division is funding a national study to
analyz& data collected. b,y, state and local,inspectors during
tank closure or release investigations.
The study will be conducted by Dr. Thomas Young at the
University of California, Davis (UCD). The first phase of the
project is to identify state and local implementing agencies
that are willing to participate by completing a simple, one-
page form for each site investigation. The exact design of the
data collection form will be addressed„in the second phase by,
the participating agencies and the project team.
Qngg t|}g|§rjri Jiagigga^gsigned and disseminated,, par-
ticipants will collect the data and submit them to UCD for
analysis. The data will be used to:
3) Compile a database that will be made available electroni-
cally to state agencies and others,
!2) Prepare a final report,'an3 ""
[3) Communicate results about leak detection effectiveness
in a future LUSTLine article.
A pilot project that is following this approach is currently
being conducted by the California State Water Resources
Control Board and UCD. The results of that study will be
used to help design the new effort.
The successi of |his study will depend upon the active
participation of implementing agencies—more data points
help strengthen conclusions about which brands and meth-
ods of leak detection are most effective. A small investment
in tinw spent by a large number of agencies will lead to infor-
matlon that will help both regulators and tank owners
Improve their approaches to leak detection. •
For more information about the study, contact Tom
Young by email (tyoung@ucdavis.eduj or phone (530) 754-
. If you are interested in p_articip_atin^in
BS, possible.
EMMII ilH^^^^ VM\
State Cleanup Fund
Administrators Powwow
in Austin
This June, the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials' (ASTSWMO) Tanks Subcom-
mittee State Fund Cleanup Task Force held its
Seventh Annual State Fund Administrators
Conference in Austin, Texas. Each year, the
conference agenda is packed with sessions that
address the many issues that state fund admin-
istrators across the country have in common.
Copies of the conference proceeding are avail-
able from Steve Crimaudo (ASTSWMO) at
(202) 624-7875.
Awards for the best State Fund Success
Stories were presented to four states for four
different categories. The winners—Florida for
Financial Success, Iowa for Policy Innovation
and Productivity, Missouri for Success with
Stakeholders, and Colorado for Best Overall
Getting the Job Done.
Two products of the State Fund Cleanup
Task Force, the annual Summary of State Fund
Survey Results and a State Fund Success Stones
Compendium, third edition, were disseminated
at the conference. At the close of the confer-
ence, the co-chair baton was passed from Dan
Neal (Texas) to Lori Baker (Kentucky). Lori
and George Matthis (North Carolina) will co-
chair the task force during the 1998-1999 year.
For more information about the State Fund
Cleanup Funds Task Force, contact Lori Baker
at (502) 564-5981 or George Matthis at (919)
733-1332. To learn more about the ASTSWMO
Tanks Subcommittee, contact the Subcommit-
tgeChafc Scptt Winters .(Colorado) at (303) 620-
4008, or Stephen Crimaudo at (202) 624-7883. •
LU.ST.UNE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
Boott Mills South
Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1102
Forwarding and return postage guaranteed.
Address correction requested.
------- |