55066
EPA 510-Z-93-003
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 204 / Monday, October 25, 1993 / Notices
Name
Goldie's Texaco ,
Hazel Park Crty SD
Iren S. Light, Inc
Jefferson Davis Par. School Board , , ... .
Jones Texaco Service
Lehigh Portland Cement Company
Mohawk Rubber Company
Petroleum Products, Inc
Siders Texaco Station
Spreckles Sugar Co
SRO Paving, Inc
Village of Oak Lawn
Wythe County Public School ,
Case No.
RF*W1 171RQ
RF979— R/nfi**
RF^fin— 1ft47Q
RF979— R7^fl^
RF^91 1RQQ7
RF^I *\— 1 non^
RF979— Afiflfil
RF'WI 1fiO/m
RF*^91 1RQQ9
RF*^1 s\~ 1 norw
RCO7O 7ft 1K1
RF979— A74A4
RF272-87059
Copies of the full text of these
decisions and orders are available in the
Public Reference Room of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, room 1E-234,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20585,
Monday through Friday, between the
hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m., except
federal holidays. They are also available
in Energy Management: Federal Energy
Guidelines, a commercially published
loose leaf reporter system.
Dated: October 19,1993.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 93-26173 Filed 10-22-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 64SO-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-4791-5J
Evaluation of the Potential for External
Corrosion and Review of Cathodic
Protection Monitoring Associated With
sti-P3 Underground Storage Tanks
Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today publishing a
notice of data availability regarding a
report completed by Tillinghast, a
Towers Perrin Company, on behalf of
the Steel Tank Institute (STI). The
Tillinghast report examines the
potential for external corrosion of sti-P3
underground storage tanks (USTs) as
well as owners' and operators' corrosion
monitoring practices for USTs. The
Agency's current regulations for
corrosion monitoring require periodic
post-installation monitoring of
cathodically protected steel
underground storage tanks. The Steel
Tank Institute approached EPA in 1992,
requesting it alter the mandated
monitoring frequency for cathodic
protection monitoring of steel USTs,
and specifically, USTs manufactured by
STI members under the "sti-P3"
specification. EPA responded by
agreeing to consider data supplied by an
independent, third-party examination of
STI's initial findings, as part of an
overall data collection process. This
notice summarizes the methodology,
findings, and conclusions of the study.
EPA encourages public review and
comment on the Tillinghast report, as it
may be used in arriving at a final
determination regarding STI's request
for EPA to modify the current
requirements for cathodic protection
monitoring for steel underground
storage tanks.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be submitted on or before
December 27,1993.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on
today's supplemental notice should be
addressed to the docket clerk at the
following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, RCRA Docket (OS-
305), 401M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. One original and two copies
of comments should be sent and
identified by regulatory docket reference
number UST 2-9. The docket is open
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Docket materials may be reviewed by
appointment by calling (202) 260-9327.
Copies of docket materials may be made
at no cost, with a maximum of 100
pages of material from any one
regulatory docket. Additional copies are
$0.15 per page. For a copy of the
Tillinghast report, contact the EPA
RCRA Docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information about this
supplemental notice, contact the RCRA/
Superfund/OUST Hotline, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460, (800) 424-9346
(toll-free) or (703) 412-9810 (local). For
the hearing impaired, the number is
(800) 553-7672 (toll-free). For further
information, contact Amy Hazeltine in
the Office of Underground Storage
Tanks at (703) 308-8898.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Technical Requirements for
Underground Storage Tanks
Final regulations for Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs) containing
regulated substances were promulgated
by the Agency in September and
October, 1988 and became effective in
December, 1988 and January, 1989. The
regulations include technical
requirements for new and existing
underground storage tanks and piping,
financial responsibility requirements for
UST owners and operators, and state
program approval requirements. In
order to prevent releases, EPA included
in the technical requirements four
important categories of preventative
measures: (1) Tank design and
installation, (2) release detection, (3)
corrosion protection, and (4) spill and
overfill control. All UST systems
installed after December 22,1988 must
meet Federal requirements immediately.
•Owners of tank systems installed on or
before that date have until December 22,
1998 to either upgrade their tanks with
corrosion protection and spill and
overfill devices, replace them with new
tank systems, or close them in
accordance with the regulatory
requirements.
According to a study conducted for
EPA in 1987, corrosion of tanks and
piping was a major cause of UST system
releases. At that time, most installed
USTs and piping were constructed of
"bare steel"—steel without corrosion
protection. When buried in the ground,
steel without corrosion protection can
be destroyed by external corrosion,
resulting in leaks. One type of corrosion
protection is cathodic protection, which
is a technique to prevent corrosion of a
surface by making that surface the
cathode of an electrochemical cell. For
UST systems, this can be done by
14:35 Oct 22.1993 VerDate 15-OCT-93 Jkt 150257 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt4703 Sfmt4703 E:\FmFM\P25OC3.PT1 pfrm04
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 204 / Monday. October 25, 1993 / Notices
55067
applying either galvanic anodes or
impressed electric current.
The UST regulations include
requirements for the operation and
maintenance of corrosion protection of
steel UST systems. As part of these
requirements, owners and operators of
steel UST systems equipped with
cathodic protection must ensure that all
cathodic protection systems are tested
within 6 months of installation and at
least every 3 years thereafter, or
according to another reasonable time
frame established by the implementing
agency. See 40 CFR 280.31(b)(l). The
Preamble to the rule noted that, after
consultation with groups of industry
experts during the public comment
period, EPA now agrees with the
commenters who recommended that all
cathodic protection systems should be
tested at the same frequency and the
Agency is now requiring in the final
rule that all cathodic protection systems
be tested within 6 months of installation
and at least every 3 years thereafter.
These intervals are sufficient to detect
any damage or failure of the system and
to take remedial action in time to
prevent structural failures due to
corrosion. EPA understands that this
time interval is consistent with sound
practice as is now recommended in the
recently revised NACE (National
Association of Corrosion Engineers)
code and by major tank manufacturers.
See 53 FR 37137.
B. Steel Tank Institute Request and
Study Report
The Steel Tank Institute (STI) is a
trade organization comprised of steel
tank manufacturers. STI members
manufacture pre-engineered
underground storage tanks built to the
"sti-P3" specification, for storage of
liquids at atmospheric pressure. Tanks
meeting the sti-P3 specification employ
three types of corrosion protection: (1)
Dielectric coating, (2) electrical
isolation, and (3) cathodic protection
through factory-installed anodes. More
than 200,000 sti-P3 tanks have been
fabricated and placed in use since 1969,
the vast majority since 1985, and they
are commonly installed today.
Single-wall sti-P3 tanks in service for
storage of Federally regulated
substances are covered by the cathodic
protection monitoring requirements
outlined above. Those tank owners who
installed sti-P3 tanks in Federally
regulated service between late 1988 and
February of 1993 were eligible to enroll
in STI's "Watchdog" cathodic
protection monitoring service. The
Watchdog service, performed through
STI, provides cathodic protection
monitoring in compliance with the EPA
requirements. Since February of 1993, a
simplified, user-friendly cathodic
protection monitoring test system with
a buried reference cell is installed with
new sti-P3 tanks subject to Federal UST
regulations. Those sti-P3 systems
installed prior to 1988 have been
operated without cathodic protection
monitoring in most cases.
In the spring of 1992, STI requested
that EPA alter the frequency of cathodic
protection monitoring from the current
requirements, to monitoring within 6
months of installation and subsequently
only after any disturbance of the
excavation (e.g., retrofit of Stage II vapor
recovery systems). Periodic monitoring
would therefore not be required. STI
provided data on the performance of sti-
P3 tanks and on potential costs for
cathodic protection monitoring of sti-P3
tanks in support of its request.
STI and its members believe that the
mandated frequency for cathodic
protection monitoring should be
changed for the following reasons:
* The sti-P3 tank has a very good
performance record;
* The much more frequent monthly
leak detection checks required by the
UST regulations supersede the need for
cathodic protection monitoring;
* There is inequity in that thousands
of existing steel tanks without corrosion
protection, which are much more likely
to fail before phase-out in 1998, are not
subject to the cathodic protection
monitoring requirement;
* Periodic tank deflection monitoring
for fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRF)
tanks was not required in EPA's UST
regulations due to the low incidence of
failure in FRP tanks (less than 0.5
percent), and sti-P3 tanks have similarly
low failure rates;
* UST buyers consider cathodic
protection monitoring and the
associated recordkeeping required with
steel tanks to be an inconvenience, and
this affects buyers' choices among UST
technologies;
* There is a high cost of compliance
to industry; and
* Regulatory enforcement efforts are
directed at clean-ups and leak detection,
not cathodic protection—an indicator
that monitoring cathodic protection is
not an essential activity towards
protecting human health and the
environment.
The Agency took no regulatory action
in response to STI's request and the
supporting information. STI asked
Tillinghast, an international risk
management and actuarial consulting
firm with experience in underground
storage issues, to conduct an
independent, third-party audit of STI's
data. In May of 1993, STI provided the
Agency with a report prepared by
Tillinghast titled "Evaluation Of The
Potential For External Corrosion And
Review Of Cathodic Protection
Monitoring Associated With sti-P3
Underground Storage Tanks." An
abstract of the report follows.
The pollution prevention components
of the UST regulations (including
corrosion protection) are very important
to the UST program. Therefore, the
Agency has decided to publish this
Notice of Data Availability and solicit
public comment on the report to ensure
a more complete understanding of the
issue at hand. This Notice includes
several questions to help guide public
discussion. The Agency is interested in
responses to any of the questions listed
below, and other issues the public may
identify, such as the costs/benefits of
the monitoring requirement itself.
II. Abstract
In May 1993, Tillinghast completed a
study on behalf of the Steel Tank
Institute (STI) which surveyed tank
owners, tank installers, and regulators to
identify any instances of failures of sti-
P3 tanks attributed to external corrosion
and to obtain experience information on
cathodic protection monitoring
practices. A summary of Tillinghast's
methodology, Findings, and conclusions
follows.
Methodology
Tillinghast telephone-surveyed
randomly selected sti-P3 underground
storage tank (UST) owners and tank
installers as well as Federal and State
UST regulators about the condition and
general maintenance of sti-P3 tanks.
These individuals, along with data from
the STI Watchdog program (a corrosion
monitoring program initiated by STI in
1988 to assist tank owners in complying
.with EPA corrosion monitoring
requirements) provided information on
the frequency, conditions, and other
aspects of the cathodic protection
monitoring practices for sti-P3 tanks. In
addition, the survey sought performance
history on sti-P3 tanks which were not
subject to cathodic protection testing.
Tillinghast also examined
environmental impairment, warranty,
and product liability insurance claims
from the Steel Tank Insurance Company
(STICO, a captive insurance company
formed by steel tank manufacturers).
Tillinghast selected a sample of
owners and installers through STI's
computer data base containing over
200,000 registered tanks. The sample
covered the following nine states:
Washington, Virginia, Vermont, South
Dakota, Colorado, Florida, Texas,
Missouri and Kentucky. The nine states
1435CW22.1993 VerDate 15OCT-S3 JU150257 POOOOOO Frm00031 Fmt4703 Start4703 E:\FFftFM\P25OC3.PT1 pfrm04
-------
55068 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 204 / Monday, October 25, 1993 / Notices
represented a variety of climates, tank
environments, saturation periods, water
tables, and soil conditions. Tillinghast's
sample also included a variety of tank
sizes (from 500 to 20,000 gallons) and
contained petroleum marketers and
non-marketers. Tillinghast examined the
following registration periods: 1970-75,
1980-81,1985, and 1990. The examined
registration periods began in 1970 when
sti-P3 tanks first became well known to
owners/operators and continue to the
present.
Tillinghast successfully contacted 110
owners with immediate supervision
over 385 sti-P3 tanks and secondary
responsibility for approximately 2500
sti-P3 tanks at other locations. In
addition, researchers contacted 37
installers throughout the geographic
sample who had experience in over
5000 sti-P3 tank installations. Finally,
Tillinghast contacted the Environmental
Protection Agency's ten Regional UST
offices as well as each of the nine State
UST regulatory offices included in the
sample.
Tillinghast obtained summary
information on 103 environmental
impairment and product liability
insurance closed claims for sti-P3 tanks
from STICO to identify any instances
where payment was made due to a
product release. Tillinghast also
randomly selected eight of the 103
claims to specifically review the "cause
of incident" data.
Findings
Tillinghast identified findings related
to the following areas: Testing of
cathodic protection systems, cathodic
protection monitoring practices,
environmental and product liability
claims, and understanding of and
compliance with EPA's technical
requirements.
Tillinghast's survey of tank owners
and installers covered over 8,000 sti-P3
tanks. Within the surveyed population,
respondents reported three instances of
sti-P3 tank external corrosion—one of
which involved a product release. Of
the regulators Tillinghast surveyed,
those who had witnessed the removal of
sti-P3 tanks reported that the tanks and
sacrificial anodes were in "excellent
condition upon removal." Regulators
did not provide information on the ages
of the tanks that were considered to be
in "excellent condition upon removal."
Tillinghast reported that corrosion
monitoring requirements (and the
technical basis for those requirements)
are not well understood by most tank
owners, installers, or regulators.
Furthermore, Tillinghast reported that
unless an sti-P3 owner/installer signed
up for STI's Watchdog program,
cathodic protection monitoring for sti-
P3 tanks installed since the
promulgation Of EPA's te'chhical
regulations was generally not being
performed, although some large sti-P3
tanks users did perform independent
testing.
Tillinghast's review of data from STI
and from owners' research indicated
that test variability can be high for
corrosion monitoring tests conducted on
any given site. Watchdog participants
and major oil companies (many of
whom conduct their own corrosion
monitoring) reported few readings less
than the 850 millivolt compliance point
for corrosion monitoring. Tillinghast
identified human error (in tank
installation or testing) as one cause for
obtaining disreputable corrosion
monitoring results. Unusually dry soil
conditions and other physical factors
also influenced the accuracy of cathodic
protection system testing.
Tillinghast obtained data from
installers, tank owners, and major oil
companies on the annual cost of
corrosion monitoring. The data showed
the annual cost of corrosion monitoring
to range from $130 to $500 per location
(each location having an average of 3.2
tanks). The impact of these costs was
greatest on small, single location owners
due to the necessity of hiring a
contractor to travel to the site to perform
the monitoring.
Tillinghast's investigation of STICO
limited warranty and environmental
and product liability insurance closed
claims revealed that most of the sti-P3
claims that entailed both administrative
and investigative costs involved
improper installation techniques or
errors in tank manufacturing
workmanship. Fifty-six of the 103
claims incurred administrative expense
but no claims costs or expenses, leaving
47 others which incurred some sort of
investigative cost (e.g., tightness test).
Only four of the 47 incidents in which
investigative cost was incurred actually
involved a claims payment. Tillinghast's
review of eight randomly chosen closed
claims for "cause of incident" data
demonstrated that a pattern of faulty
workmanship, bad installation, or a
combination of both resulted in
corroded sti-P3 tanks.
Conclusions
Tillinghast found no instances of
external corrosion of sti-P3 tanks that
had been properly fabricated,
transported, and installed. Of the more
than 8000 sti-P3 tank installations
represented by owners and installers,
only three instances of external
corrosion were reported, a frequency of
0.04%, and only one involved a product
release. Tillinghast did not have enough
corrosion monitoring data to statistically
determine an optimum monitoring
frequency for cathodic protection.
Tillinghast's survey concluded that less
than 10% of the Watchdog participants
or major oil companies who maintain
their own corrosion monitoring
programs and installed sti-P3 tanks in
1990, reported readings below the 850
millivolt compliance point for corrosion
monitoring. Finally, Watchdog
monitoring data from 1991,1992, and
the first quarter of 1993 indicate that
based on cathodic protection monitoring
readings, the number of sti-P3 tanks
with cathodic protection readings of
— 850 millivolts or greater is increasing.
III. Public Comments
EPA is interested in any comments
that the public may have on the content
of this report, and is especially
interested in any additional quantitative
data commenters may provide. In
particular, the Agency is interested in
receiving answers to the questions listed
below.
* What data are available that
confirm or refute the report's findings
on corrosion protection of sti-P3 USTs?
In particular, have problems with
corrosion protection (such as external
corrosion) on sti-P3 tanks been
observed? If so, what were the numbers,
types, severity, and impacts of these
problems? What were the ages of any
sti-P3 tanks with problems with
corrosion protection, and were these
problems caused during, before, or after
installation? What are the sti-P3 label
numbers, if available, for verification
purposes?
* For any sti-P3 tanks observed to
have problems with corrosion
protection, including tanks and piping,
. did cathodic protection monitoring
indicate a lack of protection? If so, when
was a lack of protection found—within
6 months of installation or during a later
test? If monitoring was not performed,
would it have indicated a lack of
protection if it had been done?
* What data are available addressing
the above issues for cathodically
protected steel USTs that are not sti-P3
USTs? If problems were observed, were
they observed with field installed or
with factory installed cathodic
protection systems?
* What information is available
confirming or refuting the study's
representation of the costs and benefits
of cathodic protection monitoring of
UST systems?
* How does the simplified,
permanently installed cathodic
protection monitoring system, now
installed with new Federally regulated
14:35 Ocf 22,1993 VerDate 15OCT-93 Jkt 150257 PO 00000 Fan 00032 Fmt4703 Sfmt4703 E:\FR\FM\P25OC3.PT1 pfrm04
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 204 / Monday, October 25, 1993 / Notices
55069
sti-P3 tanks, change cathodic protection
monitoring practices and its costs and
benefits?
* If the study were performed 10
years later and again 20 years later,
would the findings be expected to be the
same? Why or why not?
* What experiences or studies in
other applications of cathodic
protection may provide insights into the
long-term performance of cathodic
protection on USTs and the costs and
benefits of cathodic protection
monitoring?
IV. Schedule for Final Determination
After review and evaluation of the
public comments on this notice, EPA
will conduct internal deliberations to
arrive at a final determination of the
Agency's position on the required
frequency of cathodic protection
monitoring. The Agency plans to reach
a determination within 120 days after
the conclusion of the comment period.
This determination may take the form of
no action, guidance, changes to the
technical regulations, or some other
regulatory action.
Dated: September 20,1993.
Richard J. Guimond,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
|FR Doc. 93-26160 Filed 10-22-93; 8:45 am]
BILUNO CODE M80-80-P
[FRt-4783-8]
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
of the Policy Integration Project, Lead
Subcommittee; Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463) the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) gives notice of a meeting
of the Lead Subcommittee of the Policy
Integration Project of the National
Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The
Lead Subcommittee meeting will be
held on November 9th and will discuss
draft-working papers on selected topics,
which will be used as background for
the Subcommittee's Report. The
Subcommittee will also receive a
briefing from a representative of the
Occupational Safety and Health
Commission (OSHA) on recent policy
activities related to occupational lead
exposures. The Committee will also be
scheduling its next meeting, which will
be held early in December, 1993. The
purpose of the December meeting will
be to discuss the draft report to be
presented to the EPA Administrator.
DATES: The Subcommittee will meet on
November 9,1993. The meeting will
start at 9 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Hall of States, 444 North
Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC
20001-1572.
The meeting is open to the public,
with limited seating available on a first-
come, first-served basis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert L. Hardaker, Designated Federal
Office, U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management, telephone
(202) 260-9741.
Dated: October 20,1993.
Robert L. Hardaker,
Designated Federal Official, NACEPT-Lead
Subcommittee.
|FR Doc. 93-26161 Filed 10-22-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656O-60-M
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collections
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval for the following public
information collections pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.
L. 96-511. For further information
contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
632-6934.
Federal Communications Commission
OMB Control No.: 3060-0515
Title: Miscellaneous Common Carrier
and Record Carrier Annual Letter
Filing Requirement—Section 43.2 l(d)
Expiration Date: 09/30/95
Estimated Annual Burden: 33 total
hours; 1.43 hours per response.
Description: Pursuant to 47 CFR
43.21(d) each miscellaneous common
carrier with operating revenues over
$100 million for a calendar year shall
file with the Common Carrier Bureau
Chief a letter showing its operating
revenues for that year and the value
of its total communications plant at
the end of that year. Each record
carrier with operating revenues over
$75 million for a calendar year shall
file a letter showing selected income
statement and balance sheet items for
that year with the Common Carrieir
Bureau Chief. These letters must be
filed by March 31 of the following
year.
OMB Control No.: 3060-0470
Title: Computer III Remand Proceedings:
Bell Operating Company Safeguards
and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company
Safeguards, (CC Docket No. 90-623)
and Implementation of Further Cost
Allocation Uniformity (MO&O).
Expiration Date: 07/31/95
Estimated Annual Burden: 27,000 total
hours; 300 hours per response.
Description: Section 64.903 of the
Commission's rules requires local
exchange carriers with annual
operating revenues of $100 million or
more to file cost allocation manuals.
The manuals are used by Commission
staff to detect improper cross-
subsidization. In the Memorandum
Opinion and Order (MO&O) in AAD
92-42, (released 7/1/93), the Acting
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau under
delegated authority implemented cost
allocation uniformity requirements.
The MO&O clarifies distinction
among apportionment methods;
establishes a minimum number of
cost pools for ten accounts;
standardizes allocation procedures for
those accounts; disaggregates
mandated cost pools into additional
pools; and, sets implementation.
Local exchange carriers are required
to file a revised cost allocation
manual by 11/1/93 pursuant to the
requirements contained in the MO&O
and in Responsible Accounting
Officer Letter No. 19.
OMB Control No.: 3060-0400
Title: Tariff Review Plan
Expiration Date: 06/30/96
Estimated Annual Burden: 1,840 total
hours; 40 hours per response.
Description: Certain local exchange
carriers are required annually to
submit a Tariff Review Plan in partial
fulfillment of cost supported material
required by 47 CFR part 61. The
information is used by FCC and the
public to determine the justness and
reasonableness of rates, terms and
conditions in tariffs as required by the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
OMB Control No.: 3060-0484
Title: Amendment of Part 63 of the
Commission's Rules to Provide for
Notification by Common Carriers of
Service Disruptions (Section 63.100)
Expiration Date: 06/30/96
Estimated Annual Burden: 129 total
hours; 2.3 hours per response.
Description: Section 63.100 of the
Commission's rules requires that local
exchange and interexchange common
carriers that operate either
transmission or switching facilities
file service disruption reports
whenever telephone services
provided by their networks are
14:35Oct22,1993 VefData 15-OCT-93 JM150257 POOOOOO Frm00033 Fmt4703 Sfmt4703 E:\FR\FM\P25OC3.FT1 pfnrtM
------- |