New England Interstate
  Water Pollution Control
  Commission 01852-1124
116 John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
                            Bulletin 51
  A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Tanks in th
 At Postmortem of Katrma

 by Ellen Frye

          When disaster
          strikes. When
  rules and lives are tossed
  and lost to the ravages of
  wind and water. V/hen
  your world's gone topsy-
  turvy and you cast about
  to recapture... some-
  thing. When a container
   of 6,000 tons of frozen
   chicken parts is washed
   from ship to shore, destroying everything ,HII tspath
   flies feast on all manner of rot and darken the sky at the
   slightest disturbance. When water and wastewater systems
   s* choked, interrupted, and indifferent, ton* «*
   industrial compounds, petrochemicals, pest^
    glop coat the landscape. V/hen moonlight is the sole rel,ef
    and refrigerators are perched in trees, and Dr. Seuss ,s
    nowhere to be found. V/hen surreal is real. . . what can we
    say about USJs?
     7                 • continued on page 2
11 (
31 (
33 (
                     Did the Shear Valves Shear?
                     Case of the Buckled Steel Tanks
                     A Message from Cliff Rothenstein: A Summer to Remember
                     Who's on First— Energy Policy Act
                     LUST and Fuel Harmony
                     Case for Multicomponent Analysis of Gasoline
                     NAPL Using Electrical Resistivity Imaging
                     Michigan's NoninvasiveUST Assessment Odessey
                     Maine's UST Third-Party Inspection Program
                     PEI's Online O/O Training and New UST Installation HP
                     Revitalizing Contaminated Sites
                     Tanks on Tribal Lands

                  Dc(.L'inbci 2l'it} i
m Tanks in the Wake/rom page 1

First Impressions
We have all seen the pictures of the
devastation wrought by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on the Gulf
Coast states. In the hardest-hit areas,
few   aboveground  structures  sur-
vived the 20- to 30-foot storm surge
and   the  140-mile-an-hour  winds.
Convenience  stores,  pump-island
canopies, and fuel dispensers were
no exception.
    "It  was like  a  bomb hit  the
area...mainly from the water surge,"
says John Cernero, U.S. EPA Region 6
UST/LUST program manager, who
assisted the Louisiana Department of
Environmental   Quality   (LDEQ)
inspectors and a team of inspectors
from U.S. EPA regional offices in con-
ducting inspections to determine UST
system  damage  and  operability.
"Some  former UST  facilities  were
nothing but mud flats. Some were just
twisted rubble. So much rusted imme-
diately because of the salt water."
    "There was much more than I
could have anticipated," sighs David
           Ellen Frye, Editor
          Ricki Pappo, Layout
     Marcel Moreau, Technical Adviser
   Patricia Ellis, Ph.D., Technical Adviser
 Ronald Poltak, NEIWPCC Executive Director
     Lynn DePont, EPA Project Officer
 LUSTLine is a product of the New England
 Interstate Water Pollution Control Commis-
 sion (NEIWPCC). It is produced through a
   cooperative agreement (#T-830380-01)
     between NEIWPCC and the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
  LUSTLine is issued as a communication
      service for the Subtitle IRCRA
  Hazardous & Solid Waste Amendments
       rule promulgation process.
    LUSTLine is produced to promote
 information exchange  on UST/LUST issues.
 The opinions and information stated herein
 are those of the authors and do not neces-
  sarily reflect the opinions of NEIWPCC.
     This publication may be copied.
     Please give credit to NEIWPCC.
  NEIWPCC was established by an Act of
  Congress in 1947 and remains the oldest
   agency in the Northeast United States
 concerned with coordination of the multi-
      media environmental activities
    of the states of Connecticut, Maine,
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
  New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
            116 John Street
         Lowell, MA 01852-1124
       Telephone: (978) 323-7929
          Fax: (978) 323-7919
   @) LUSTLine is printed on Recycled Paper
Mud, mud everywhere, and not a sump.
Bernstein, U.S. EPA Region 2, who
headed up the EPA inspection team.
"Did you know that fiberglass sump
covers float, unless they are bolted
down? Do you know how hard it is
to conduct an inspection when a
facility is under a foot of mud?" He
recalls the smell of putrefying conve-
nience store food, and the exposed
sumps  acting as booby  traps  for
                 post-Hurricane Ka-
                 trina/Rita   flood-
                 waters in the New
                 Orleans area proba-
                 bly   came   from
                 flooded   automo-
                 biles  and  not so
                 much  from USTs.
                 At some UST facili-
                 ties in the affected
                 areas,   the  tanks
                 stayed  put, while
                 everything  above-
                 ground was swept
                     Like so many
                 other things above-
	ground, ASTs did
                 not fare  so well.
 Large field-erected and shop-fabri-
 cated ASTs can be quite vulnerable
 under certain storm conditions. Some
 of the large aboveground  crude oil
 tanks and petroleum barge terminals
 in the affected areas along the Gulf
 Coast had significant  releases.  (On
 September 15, the Natural Resources
 Defense Council reported that nearly
 six million gallons of oil were pour-
A huge pile of debris was deposited at the dispenser islands of this store.
unsuspecting inspectors. "It's hard to
tell if some owners will come back
since some areas are not repopulated
yet," he says. "Some, I suspect, will
not return."
    So I guess we can say that if we
didn't already have a  sufficient
appreciation for the power of water,
most people, including tank owners,
operators, and regulators, do now. I
guess we could say  that the lion's
share of gasoline sloshing around the
 ing out of seven pipelines and coastal
 storage tanks ruptured by Hurricane
    So how did the fuel systems and
 associated structures fare, especially
 in the zone near the coast? As Charles
 Harp, Tanks Section Environmental
 Manager for the Florida Department
 of    Environmental   Protection's
 (FLDEP's) Northwest District  (the
 Panhandle), points out, we need to
 keep in mind that there are three types

                                                                               Ucccmlvi 2005 • LLlSTLinc Kulk'tin 3
 of hurricane-damage scenarios: rain-
 fall flooding, storm surges—flooding
 with enormous  wind  and  water
 energy—and wind.  Depending  on
 where they were located, UST facili-
 ties ran the gamut. Harp has the many
 storms that pummeled the Panhandle
 etched firmly in his memory.

 USTs in Mississippi?
 According to Kevin Henderson, Mis-
 sissippi Department of Environmen-
 tal Quality (MDEQ), and as also
 described by inspectors in Louisiana,
 most   convenience  stores  and
 canopies in coastal areas subject to
 storm surges were wiped out. "Some
 had nothing to mark the  place where
 they'd been except the store's foun-
 dation slab  and the  pump island,"
 says Henderson. "Canopies were
 reduced to twisted steel columns and
 jumbled aluminum panels. Only a
 few fueling dispensers were  left
 standing. The destruction was com-
   Here we've got proper anchoring and resultant shearing... and lots of beer!
    Henderson reports that although
there were some big releases from
ASTs, by and large the USTs survived
intact, even though the external pres-
sures they were subjected to from the
storm surge exceeded their  design
pressure. "As long as the fill and tank
gauge caps were tight, little water got
into the tanks and the fuel seems to
have stayed put."
    With all the rain and flooding,
UST inspection teams in Mississippi
and Louisiana were not reporting
instances where underground tanks
floated out. Apparently, tanks were
   adequately anchored and stayed in
   place despite the likelihood that they
   were fairly  empty due to  a high
   demand for fuel.
      Many of the shear valves did not
   properly shear. A number of piping
   systems were damaged and left open
   to the environment as a result of inade-
   quate shear valve anchoring. This fail-
             ure of shear  valves to
             shear was  a common
             finding  in Louisiana as
             well. (See "Did the Shear
             Valves Shear?" on page
                  "Many   dispenser
               cabinets   that   were
               poorly anchored were
               knocked down," says
               Henderson. "The four
               bolts  that  typically
               anchor the cabinets are
               not nearly enough to
               properly anchor them.
               Although    nothing
                would  have  saved
    tank~could be  many  of  the dis-
parting lot        pensers, it is appar-
                 ent  that  they  were
           too easily knocked down.
   High winds brought down some dis-
   pensers with apparent ease.
      "Vent lines should be all metal or
   otherwise anchored at the transition
   from aboveground to underground.
   Only at those facilities where the vent
   lines were broken at or near the sur-
   face was there any real problem with
   water intrusion into the tanks. If vent
   lines are nonmentallic underground
   and then transition  to metal above-
   ground, they have a tendency to
   break  off  right at or  just below
   ground level when they are in the
   soil. If they are in concrete, this is
   usually not a problem."
    With regard to tank-top fittings,
Henderson says that as long as there
was a "decent" cap and it had a gas-
ket on it, the tanks generally did not
take on any water. It seems as though
the hydraulic pressure of the water
on top of the tanks acted to seal the
caps tightly. "We have seen very little
water in any of the submerged tanks
where the vent lines were standing
and they had decent caps on the tank
risers,"  says  Henderson. "A  few
tanks lost their caps entirely, presum-
ably because they were not 'decent'
caps  to  begin with...or  someone
removed them.
    "A number of tank beds were
apparently scoured out, at least par-
tially, although we  know of only
three or four where evidence of this
can been seen at the surface," says
Henderson. "I don't know what can
be  done about  this other than to
require paved coverings (maybe even
sheet pilings of the tank excavation
walls or some kind of vault in very
vulnerable locations)."
    Kevin Henderson photographi-
cally documented his inspections. All
of the photographs in this article,
except for two, were taken by him.
He has graciously provided us with a
PowerPoint® presentation that can be
viewed  on NEIWPCC's website at

USTs in Louisiana
While many coastal tank facilities in
Louisiana suffered damage similar to
that in Mississippi, the New Orleans
area experienced additional  prob-
lems as a result of prolonged flood-
ing. Recognizing that an enormous
amount of  work would be needed
to get systems  back  in  operation
                • continued on page 4

                                                                          how the water got into the tank and
                                                                          the proper disposal of water after it
                                                                          was removed from the tank. An oper-
                                                                          ational concern might be the condi-
                                                                          tion of an ATG system damaged by
                                                                          water at a flooded facility. While a
                                                                          nonoperational ATG might not be an
                                                                          immediate environmental concern, it
                                                                          will have to be repaired/replaced at
                                                                          some point for the facility to meet
                                                                          release-detection requirements.
                                                                             "Basically, the inspectors per-
                                                                          formed all the physical aspects of a
"Typical" debris field in the parking lot of the store made inspection of
the tank system difficult.
m Tanks in the Wake/row page 3

(e.g., tightness testing and replacing
lines and electrical systems) and that
the speedy return of UST facilities to
normal operation was crucial to the
recovery effort, the LDEQ issued two
documents,  a portion of  an  Emer-
gency Declaration pertaining to USTs
and a Plan for Evaluating Underground
Storage Tank Sites Impacted by Hurri-
cane Katrina (
   The Emergency Declaration "sus-
pends provisions contained  in the
UST regulations that owners/opera-
tors may not have been able to com-
ply with due to  the  storm and its
subsequent flooding. It also provides
for continuing coverage by the Motor
Fuels  Underground  Storage Tank
Trust  Fund,  with no additional
deductibles that might have attached
to a claim for reimbursement should
the owner/operator not have been
able to comply with the regulations
due to storm conditions. "
   The sites flooded by the hurri-
cane had to be evaluated to deter-
mine the response actions  necessary
to place UST facilities back into ser-
vice and protect human health and
the environment. The UST evaluation
plan contains "the expedited process
that tank owners/opera tors must fol-
low before bringing an UST system
back on line. The process describes
the steps owners and operators must
take to bring the
UST safely on line
without having to
wait until  preci-
sion tank and line
tightness    tests
can   be   per-
    LDEQ inspec-
tors initially surveyed affected UST
areas for obvious signs of releases
(e.g., sheens). With the overwhelming
need to get UST facilities back into
operation, help was needed. The U.S.
EPA  UST  inspection  team was
charged with determining operability.
"These were not 'compliance' inspec-
tions," explains John Cernero. "They
were conducted to determine whether
an UST system could be placed back
into operation without further testing
(e.g., line/tank tightness testing) on a
temporary basis. If the UST could be
placed in operation, the owner/opera-
tor was required to at least conduct
inventory control." The team com-
pleted more than 900 facility evalua-
    "We developed an  inspection
routine to  determine the  degree of
damage caused by Hurricane Katrina
to the affected parishes as it related to
environmental and operational con-
cerns," explains David Bernstein.
    "For example, water in an UST
would be considered an environmen-
tal concern, due  to questions as to
77j/s fill port of a "regular unleaded" tank was uncovered, and the tank
was found to be full of water when gauged by MDEQ personnel.
                  UST inspection, allowing for LDEQ
                  follow-up work, in most cases, to be
                  completed by  a  request  for  docu-
                  ments," says Bernstein. "The facilities
                  were checked for  whether  shear
                  valves operated correctly, condition
                  of release-detection equipment, lev-
                  els of water and/or product in tanks
                  and groundwater monitoring wells,
                  cathodic-protection equipment such
                  as rectifiers, damaged vent lines,
                  damaged sumps, spill buckets, elec-
                  trical wiring, tank  floatation, free
                  product,  dispensers,  and  general
                  overall damage to the facility."

                  Water in All the Wrong
                  I asked David Bernstein, who spent a
                  month in Louisiana conducting these
                  inspections, and Scott Hoskins, U.S.
                  EPA Region 4, who may still be rack-
                  ing up time in Louisiana for all I
                  know, what  they thought were the
                  biggest tcink problems. What stood
                  out  most in their minds (besides
                  shear valve issues) was that, due to
                  flooding, storm surges, and high lev-


Cap gone from tank fill allowing four-inch riser to become filled with sand
and debris during storm surge. This tank was found to be completely full
of water with nine inches of sand/debris in the bottom.
els of rain, many tanks were found to
contain water, with water  levels
ranging from a few  inches to com-
pletely full. The water had entered
the tanks through vent pipes and
loose or missing fill  caps and bung
    LDEQ will have the job of track-
ing the disposal of this contaminated
water by requesting copies of mani-
fest documents that detail where the
pumped water was disposed of after
removal. Because of the large amount
of contaminated water that must be
disposed  of, at high cost  to  the
owner, follow-up to ensure proper
disposal  is essential  for preventing
adverse impacts to the environment.
    The sheer volume of UST system
equipment destroyed by the hurri-
cane and ensuing  floodwaters also
struck Bernstein and  Hoskins—hun-
dreds of dispensers, ATG systems,
impressed current  rectifiers,  and
other electronic equipment. "A great
deal of  follow-up  work  will be
needed to make sure that these sys-
tems are properly replaced,"  says
Bernstein. "On at least two occasions,
I witnessed a facility  owner attempt-
ing to put a product  dispenser back
into service although it had been
completely underwater."
    "Many owners have told me that
they didn't realize that they  would
have to  do tank-tightness  tests,"
remarks Hoskins. The Plan for Evalu-
ating Underground Storage Tank Sites
Impacted by Hurricane Katrina specifi-
cally states that a flooded system that
is determined to be  suitable  for re-
ceiving product may be put back into
                   service, but that
                   it should  have
                   an integrity test
                   performed  as
                   soon as contrac-
                   tors  and   ser-
                   vices   become
                   available to per-
                   form the testing
                   and  no  later
                   than six months
                   after   product
                   was first placed
                   into  the  tank
                   after flooding.

                   Where's  the
                   Fuel When
                   You Need It?
                   Further  east, in
                   Florida, where
hurricanes are no stranger, people in
parts of the state are still smarting
from September 2004's Hurricane
Ivan, when water surges were pow-
erful enough to move  four multi-
million-gallon   ASTs  off   their
foundations and devastate support
buildings.  (Yes, Virginia,  gigantic
aboveground   bulk-storage   tanks
move, particularly if they don't have
enough ballast.) During Hurricane
Ivan, the state had a significant loss
in bulk-storage  capacity for fuel dis-
tribution—tank farms were lost and
docks couldn't  receive fuel. In 2005,
after Hurricane Dennis in Florida,
and shortly after Rita and Katrina,
about one-third of the nation's refin-
ery capacity was out of service.
    As Marshall Mott-Smith, Admin-
istrator of FLDEP's Storage Tank Pro-
gram explains, oil companies must
perform a ballast balancing act, trying
to keep fuel in the bulk-storage tanks
and at the same time keep  the fuel
supply moving out to where it needs
to be. As Mott-Smith reminds us, all
USTs  get  their  fuel  from ASTs.
Because  of what happened  during
Ivan, this year's storms have fueled
concerns  about  fuel  supplies—an
issue before, during, and after storm-
related  evacuations  in any  coastal
area.  Images of streams of vehicles
creeping along on major evacuation
routes in Texas,  Louisiana, Missis-
sippi, and Florida during Katrina and
Rita attest to the  seriousness of this
    In many of the hardest-hit areas
of the Gulf Coast, U.S. EPA waived
certain requirements in order to facil-
itate the transport and distribution of
fuel needed to get the economy and
infrastructure up and running. Emer-
gency gasoline stations were permit-
ted for 30 days, for example, without
having to worry about issues such as
vapor recovery from the pumps. Skid
tanks, tank trucks, and even trucks
holding 55-gallon drums of fuel were
permitted (or  not) on an emergency
                 • continued on page 6
 This tanker was set up as a temporary fueling station for emergency vehicles during the fuel crisis
 that followed the storm.

• Tanks in the Wake/rom page 5

    Charles Harp and Marshall Mott-
Smith can rattle off the names of hur-
ricanes and associated damage like
devoted scholars. They report that,
generally, during Ivan, Wilma, Jean,
and Francis, USTs suffered canopy
and dispenser damage but had few
problems with shear valves or float-
ing tanks or water in tanks (just in
sumps), because most of the damage
was wind related. But fuel availabil-
ity  was the  most  serious  issue,
whether it was because  ASTs and
USTs were  empty due to peak
demand, because the fuel supply net-
work was disrupted,  or because
gasoline was stored in tanks but there
was no electricity available to operate
the fuel pumps.
    The  Florida   Legislature  is
proposing a new law that will require
tank owners and operators to have
 The ASTs at this Munroe Barge Terminal in Biloxi floated off their footings. A release of 482,000
 gallons of fuel occurred, but no evidence of this fuel was ever seen (presumed "lost" out to sea).
 The three tanks that floated up against the larger tanks are 75,000-gallon gasoline tanks.
                                              tanks,  but  no  electric
                                              power to run  their fuel

                                               When It's All Said
                                               and Done...
                                               According  to a Novem-
                                               ber 29, 2005 press release
                                               from   the   National
                                                Oceanic  and  Atmos-
                                                pheric Administration:
                                                "The 2005 Atlantic hur-
                                                ricane season was the
                                                busiest on record and
                                                 extends  the   active
                                                 hurricane  cycle  that
                                     such as natural forces that will have
                                     their way come hell or high water. If
                                     shear valves are working properly,
                                     then damage to an UST system will
                                     be that much less. If caps are on tight,
                                     then water might not enter the tank
                                     itself. If tanks have anchor straps and
                                     ballast, then they probably  won't
                                     float. The issues are bigger than our
                                     little old storage tanks. We've just got
                                     to do the  best we can. In the next
                                     issue of LUSTLine, David Bernstein
                                     will provide additional information
                                     on the results of U.S. EPA's 900-plus
                                     inspections and tips they discovered
                                     about  performing inspections in a
                                     topsy-turvy world. •
 emergency  electric power backup,
 such as generators or electric pumps
 powered by  portable  generators.
 "Our department is purchasing 30
 portable electric fuel pumps that can
 be powered by 12-volt car batteries,"
 says Mott-Smith. "Although they are
 designed for  use on aboveground
 tanks, we have had them adapted for
 use on  underground tanks.  Flow
 rates are 10  to 12 gallons per minute,
 and we have acquired in-line meters
 for quantifying the fuel dispensed.
 The pumps will be used for Dade,
 Broward, and Palm Beach County
 government fleet management or
 other essential government services
 operations  that have underground
began  in  1995—a
trend likely to con-
tinue for years to
come.  The season
included 26 named
storms,  including
13 hurricanes  [14
now with Epsilon]
in  which  seven
were major (Cate-
gory 3 or higher)."
    On      that
happy note, let's
just    say   we
should improve
what  we  can
improve   and
accept     that
which  we  can-
not    change,
Aboat in the wrong place.

Did the  Shear  Valves  Shear?
by Marcel Moreau

Kevin Henderson of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality had the job of assessing the damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina to some of Mississippi's hardest-hit fueling facilities. He took the photographs in this article (and many others) to document
the damage. I spoke with Kevin to find out what he observed regarding the condition of UST system dispenser shear valves. The fol-
lowing discussion reflects observations made by investigators in areas of Louisiana.
 M. Your pictures show that most dispensers were knocked over by
forces of wind and water. Did the shear valves shear?
 K. We found many instances where the shear valves (a.k.a.
 crash valves, impact valves, or fire valves) did not shear off,
 and some instances where the valve mechanism did not
 close or only partially closed, even when dispensers had
 been swept clean away. In a number of cases where the
 shear valves did not separate, the flex connectors beneath
 the shear valves were  stretched and pulled out of the
 ground because the shear valves' connection to the dis-
 penser island did not hold. (See Figure 1.)
FIGURE 1. This trio of shear valves did not function as designed. The
valve body did not separate at the shear joint because the valves, along
with their anchoring bar, were pulled up and out of the dispenser island.
M. What do you think happened to cause the shear valves not to
K. A shear valve is designed to operate when shear forces
(forces acting perpendicular to the axis of the valve) affect
the top part of the valve above the shear joint relative to the
bottom part of the valve below the shear joint. (See Figure
2.) Shear forces are the  kinds of forces involved  when a
vehicle rams into a dispenser. The wind and  maybe water
forces that tipped over these dispensers caused more of a
tensional (stretching) force to be exerted on the shear valves
as the dispenser cabinets tipped over. As a result, rather
than the shear joints separating, they held and the piping
was uprooted from the ground.

M. Were the shear joints properly anchored?
K. By and large they were solidly anchored, but again, they
were anchored  to resist shear forces. The tensional forces
they experienced caused some of them to slide up and out
of the clamps that were supposed to hold them in place.
In some cases, the steel anchor bar to which the shear
valves were attached failed to hold and was torn out of
the dispenser island..(See Figure 1.) This is what generally
occurred when multiple shear valves were attached to a
single anchor bar that ran the length of the dispenser
island opening. In cases where there were single shear
valves anchored to individual anchor bars running across
the short axis of the dispenser island opening, the anchor-
ing mechanism seemed to hold better. (See Figure 2.)
FIGURE 2. This pair of shear valves functioned as designed. The valve
mechanisms closed completely and the bottom part of the valves
remains solidly anchored to the dispenser island The top part of the
valves, along with the entire dispenser, has been blown away.
M. If another storm of Katrina's intensity were to threaten
Mississippi in the future, do you have any recommendations for
what UST system owners might do to prepare for the worst?
K. I'd suggest tripping all the shear valves by hand as a
good precautionary measure to take as you are shutting
down the station. There's nothing short of removing a dis-
penser to high ground that would save it from a storm of
this magnitude, but if you could find a qualified techni-
cian in  time, you might consider disconnecting the unions
that connect the dispenser to the underground piping.
That way, the dispenser could get blown away without
disturbing the underground piping, which might simplify
the job of returning to business  afterwards. Of course,
with a storm of this magnitude, it's going to be a long time
before anything returns to normal anyway. •

 The  Case  of  the Buckled Steel  Tanks  on
 Mississippi  Highway  90
by Kevin Henderson
    It was a Kangaroo convenience
    store owned by The Pantry, Inc.,
    located on the north side of High-
 way 90, which runs parallel to the
 Gulf Coast in Biloxi, Mississippi—
 practically on the beach. The facility
 had three 12,000-gallon sti-P3® tanks,
 which were installed in 1994. The
 tanks were buried approximately six
 feet deep, anchored with deadmen,
 and paved over with an eight-inch-
 thick reinforced-concrete pad. The
 store   building  was  completely
 destroyed by the 30-foot storm surge
 of Hurricane Katrina. The dispenser
 cabinets were recovered from the
 storm rubble as far away as a quarter
 mile from the store. The concrete pad
 over the tanks was slightly sunken
 and buckled, apparently  due to
 scouring of the backfill materials
 underneath the pad during the storm
 surge. Strangely, the tank vent lines
 were  left standing,  although they
 were leaning so that the tops of the
 vents were approximately 10  feet
 above ground level.
    A  few  days  after the  storm
 passed, the  owner  observed  fuel
 seeping up between the cracks in the
 concrete pad of the store parking lot
 and flowing onto  Highway  90.
 Observing the site conditions, we
 surmised that the regular tank must
 have somehow rolled or rotated—the
 tank risers  were out of alignment
 with the manway openings in the
 concrete pad. Since the tank was steel
 we didn't believe it was buckled; we
 thought the tank risers could have
 been broken out of the nylon bush-
 ings at the top of the tank, serving as
 the source of the fuel we were seeing
 at the surface.
    When we stuck  the tanks, we
 observed the following:
  •  The diesel tank  had about 50
    inches of fuel in it with 10 inches
    of water.
  •  The premium  tank was com-
    pletely full of water/fuel (mostly
  •  We couldn't get a gauging stick
    in any of the regular tank risers

    (lending credence to our belief
    that the tank risers were broken
    out of the tank-top bungs).

    The store was shut down at mid-
night on the day before the storm
made landfall in the early morning
hours of August 29, 2005. The owner
reported that the following inventory
was in the tanks at the time the store
was closed: regular - 5,650 gallons;
premium - 4,000 gallons; diesel -
3,760 gallons. A delivery of 3,000 gal-
lons was made to the regular tank on
the day the store was closed down.
    The regular tank was the last to
be removed and with great diffi-
culty, as water infiltration could not
be stopped for quite some time and
the  tank  had  approximately  18
inches of  sand in it. The end-cap
weld seams—the entry points for the
persistent water infiltration—were
busted open along the top quadrant
of each end of the tank. (See photo
below.) Once the end caps of the
regualar and premium tanks were
removed, it could be seen that the
tank manufacturer  had installed a
vertical brace in the center of each
The regular tank buckled and its end caps ruptured.
   After responding to the fuel
seepage, the owner made the deci-
sion to permanently close the tanks.
Due to several logistical concerns, the
tank  removal  did not  begin until
October 19, 2005. The premium tank,
which was in  the middle, was
removed first. The tank was buckled
along its entire length and one of the
end caps was buckled. Although the
tank was badly buckled, there were
no breaches in the wall and no fuel
was  lost.  The  diesel  tank was
removed next and was not damaged.
tank. These vertical braces probably
prevented the tanks from  being
buckled much worse than they were.

So What Happened?
What caused these three tanks to
behave so differently given that they
were all exposed to the same 30-foot
storm surge? While an engineering
analysis has not  been conducted,
consider the following scenario: The
30-foot storm surge  rapidly  inun-
dated the tanks and tank vent lines.
The 30-foot water column exerted a

                                                                                Dcccinlvi 200i • LUSTLinc Bulletin 51
force of around 15 psi at the top of
the tanks.  Was  the weight of the
water, combined with the six-foot
burial depth, enough to buckle the
tanks?  Apparently  not  since the
diesel tank was unaffected and was
perfectly cylindrical.
    But what caused the  premium
and regular tanks to buckle? Since
the tank vent lines were submerged,
water would have entered the tanks.
However, the period of submergence
was apparently not great enough to
fill the  tanks  with water. Reports
indicate that the storm surge came
inland and then receded within two
to four hours. It could be that enough
water entered the tanks  to  quickly
bring down the temperature of the
fuel that was in the tanks. As the fuel
cooled, there was a rapid decrease in
volume  (due  to  shrinkage).  The
decrease in fuel volume caused a vac-
uum to be applied to the tank interior
since the vent lines were submerged.
The flame arresters installed on the
vent lines apparently did not allow
enough water to enter the tanks to
compensate for the rapid fuel shrink-
age. This vacuum, combined with the
weight of the water/backfill on top of
the tanks, is apparently what caused
the tank buckling.  So why  did the
three tanks behave differently?
    The  diesel  tank  likely  didn't
buckle because no appreciable vac-
uum was applied to the tank and the
temperature of the fuel was probably
cool to begin with. The fuel would
have been at or near ground tempera-
ture as no recent deliveries had been
made to the diesel tank. The premium
tank may have buckled because a vac-
uum  was  applied to it. Gasoline
undergoes relatively high shrinkage
when it cools, and the premium tank
received a  delivery not long  before
the store was shut down.
    The   regular   tank   buckled
severely and ruptured because a siz-
able great  vacuum was  generated
within this tank. The store had a high
throughput volume of regular gaso-
line immediately prior to the storm
since everyone was filling up his or
her vehicle in preparation for evacua-
tion. A delivery was made to the reg-
ular tank on the afternoon before the
storm hit. It is likely that this fuel was
quite warm relative to the seawater
that rapidly entered the tank when
the storm surge occurred.

So My Working  Theory
Goes Like This...
The regular tank  suffered  severe
buckling and ruptured,  while  the
premium only buckled somewhat
and the diesel did not buckle at all
due to the difference in vacuum that
was  generated as a  result of fuel
   It is also possible that enough of
the backfill material surrounding the
regular  and premium  tanks  was
scoured  out during  the storm  to
allow the buckling to occur. Since the
structural strength of USTs is largely
dependent on  the  support of  the
backfill,  any loss of backfill around
these tanks could have allowed the
buckling. However, no evidence of
backfill    scouring    immediately
around  the  tanks  was  observed,
although it would probably have
been  difficult to  discern since it is
likely that any scour would have
been  refilled  as the  storm surge
   In all likelihood, it was probably
a combination of all these things that
ultimately led to the demise of these
tanks. Hey, what do you think? •
  Kevin Henderson is with tlie Missis-
  sippi Department of Environmental
     Qunliti/. He cnn be reached at
 Two Washington  State USTfields Pilots Receive Phoenix Awards
  The following Washington USTfields Pilot projects were among the 2005 Phoenix Award winners at the Brownfields Conference in
  Denver in November:
  • SEATTLE - USTfields Pilot funds were used to clean up 100 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated soil at the former Daley's Dump
  Truck Service site in a rundown and underserved section of Seattle. This helped prepare the site for its reincarnation as the location of
  the Dakota, an appealing and much-needed 178-unit affordable, housing development. The development provides not only housing but
  also jobs and economic benefits for an area of Seattle in need of both.
  • ROSALIA - This Community Impact-UST award winner is a shining
  example of how the cleanup and reuse of an old gas station can revitalize a
  rural area. Rosalia is a town of about 600 people whose leaders and citizens
  were determined to clean up an abandoned gas station dating back to 1923
  and restore the station building. Funding from the Washington Department
  of Ecology, Whitman County, U.S. EPA, and private donors enabled the
  town to remove petroleum contamination at the site, work with the State
  Historical Preservation Office to restore the old station, and create habitat
  for native species. Rosalia now has an attractive regional visitor's center
  that provides information about Rosalia and rural Whitman County and
  serves as the interpretive center for visitors drawn to the nearby Steptoe
  Battlefield, a state park listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The
  center helps draw tourism dollars to rural southeastern Washington. •

  Director, U.S. EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks
            A  Sumrter  lo  Remember
    'II remember the summer of 2005 for a long time; it gave
    our country some significant tank-related events that will
    keep EPA and state tank programs quite busy for the
  coming months and years. On one front, EPA and states
  have much work ahead to implement the new underground
  storage tanks legislation. And  on another, EPA and states
  are supporting the Gulf Coast states as they deal with UST
  facilities that were in the paths of Hurricanes Katrina and

  New UST Legislation
  Over the last few years, Congress considered various pieces
  of UST legislation. But it was not until summer 2005 that
  Congress agreed on legislation and sent it to the President.
  Consequently, on August 8, 2005, President Bush signed
  the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Title XV of this act created the
  Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005, which
  sets forth amendments to Subtitle I of the Resource Conser-
  vation and Recovery Act—the  original legislation that cre-
  ated the underground storage tanks program.
      This new law significantly affects federal and state tank
  programs and will require major changes to our programs.
  Additionally, gas station owners and operators, as well as
  other nonmarketers who own USTs, will be affected by the
  changes EPA and states make to their tank programs.
      We've always known that preventing  releases  is an
  essential part of our program. And now with this legisla-
  tion's focus on prevention, we will have more tools to make
  changes to the tank program that will lead to fewer releases
  from UST systems and  help us to better protect America's
      Specifically, the new law expands eligible uses of the
  Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, extends the
  Trust Fund tax through 2011, and mandates new measures
  to be taken, such as:

    • Inspecting tanks every three years

    • Developing operator-training requirements

    • Prohibiting fuel deliveries at noncompliant UST
    • Requiring secondary containment for new and replaced
      tanks and piping, or financial responsibility for tank
      installers and manufacturers

    • Cleaning up releases that contain oxygenated fuel
    Some of the require-
ments must be in place as
soon as August 2006, with
other requirements effective in subsequent years. EPA has
already reached out to  the  Environmental Council  of
States, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials Tanks Subcommittee, and others,
and has developed work groups with broad state, regional,
and tribal participation.
    All of us will face enormous challenges to implement
the new provisions of the law. Fortunately, the tank pro-
gram's history has proven that together we can succeed
when we take  on new challenges. And I believe that
together and in spite of tight deadlines and limited bud-
gets, we will turn our challenges into new opportunities to
ensure that our nation's land and water are safe  from UST
system releases.

Katrina and Rita Are Not Merely Names
Hurricane  Katrina devastated America's Gulf Coast in
August by obliterating entire communities;  damaging
thousands of homes, some beyond repair; flooding rural,
suburban, and urban areas; and taking the lives of more
than 1,000 people. Weeks later, Hurricane Rita rushed
ashore, further complicating cleanup and delaying citizens'
return to their homes. With the floodwaters receding and
initial devastation assessed, state tank programs are now
focusing on damage to UST facilities.
    I  applaud the extraordinary efforts  of state and EPA
regional tank program staff who are helping in so many
ways—assessing the damage, inspecting affected UST
facilities, evaluating risks from petroleum contamination,
and readying the Gulf Coast's UST facilities to return to
use. Additionally,  I am grateful to those states with hurri-
cane  and flood experience that have graciously shared
their knowledge in dealing with UST facilities impacted by
severe winds, storm surges, and flood damage. I thank all
of you and sincerely appreciate your personal dedication
and professional accomplishments in  dealing with the
aftermath of the devastation from these hurricanes.

The Strength of Our Partnership
States, tribes, local  governments, and industry—along
with  EPA—have  so far done a great job of protecting
America's environment from UST system releases. And I
am certain that our strong partnership will enable us to
succeed in conquering the challenges of summer 2005. •

 Okay,  Who's  on  First?

 The  UST and LUST Aspects of the Energy Policy Act

 by Ellen Frye

      Title XV of the Energy Policy Act of2005 created the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act (USTCA), under Subtitle B,
      amending Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—the original legislation that created the under-
      ground storage tanks program. Although Subtitle B does not touch the technical requirements of Subtitle I, it does substan-
 tially change the UST program for both U.S. EPA and the states. And the deadlines? Put on your running shoes and FLY. The clock
 started as of August 8,2005, when the Act was signed into law. And the funding? Not bad! Will the states ever see it? Don't know.
    While many of the provisions of the Act sharpen the fangs of the nation's UST program, some of the provisions are giving state
 programs unadulterated angst. For example, besides some painfully tight deadlines and an uncertain funding prognosis, the Act
 seems to suggest that once the new funding regime does kick in, states that do not comply with the UST/LUST requirements
 completely will receive no funding. Yikes! So let's review the essence of USTCA.
Mandatory UST System
Section 1523 of USTCA establishes a
tiered  inspection approach  that
requires  states to conduct on-site
inspections of all regulated USTs at
three-year intervals. U.S. EPA will
need to provide states with guidance
that establishes "minimum credible"
inspection criteria. For states with
inspection backlogs, an initial two-
year period  is provided to conduct
on-site inspections for all facilities not
inspected since December 22, 1998.
States with resource problems may
petition U.S. EPA for an additional
year to complete the first three-year
cycle. U.S. EPA is also required  to
conduct a four-year study of compli-
ance assurance programs that could
serve as alternatives to the required
inspection program.
    In a November 2005 memo to the
states and EPA regions from EPA
OUST Director Cliff Rothenstein, UST
programs were urged to focus their
inspections on facilities that had USTs
in place on or before December 22,
1998 and that have not been inspected
since that date. The memo explains:
"For inspections conducted  in the
period from August 8,2005 to the date
of the publication of our guidance, we
will consider any on-site inspection as
meeting the inspection requirements
as long as the inspection is:
  •  conducted by a state, local (when
    contracted  or delegated by  a
    state), EPA, or -certified  third-
    party inspector; and
  •  sufficient to determine compli-
    ance with federal UST require-
    ments in Subtitle  I  or  state
    requirements that are part of a
    state UST  program  EPA has
    approved under the  state pro-
    gram approval procedures."

Operator Training
Section 1524 gives U.S.  EPA two
years to develop operator-training
guidelines, which are to be the basis
of  state training programs. The
guidelines must be specific to three
classes of operator personnel respon-
  •  Employees   having   primary
    responsibility for on-site opera-
    tion and maintenance of UST sys-
  •  Employees having daily on-site
    responsibility for the  operation
    and maintenance of  UST sys-
    tems, and
  •  Daily on-site employees having
    primary   responsibility  for
    addressing  emergencies  pre-
    sented by a spill or release from
    an UST system.
    The guidelines must  also take
into account such considerations as:
  •  Existing state training programs
  •  Training programs already being
    employed by tank owners/oper-
  •  The high turnover rate of tank
    operators and other personnel
  •  Improvements in UST equip-
    ment technology
  •  The nature of the business that
    has an UST
  •  Training needs for the different
    classes of operators
    States may receive up to $200,000
to  develop  and  implement the
requirements. States will enforce
compliance with the requirements.

Delivery Prohibition
Section 1527 establishes a prohibition
on deliveries, two years following
enactment, to tanks  that are deter-
mined to be ineligible, as defined in
guidance  developed by  EPA, one
year following enactment, and  in
consultation with the states and other
parties. A special category of rural-
and remote-area tanks is eligible for
exemption from the delivery prohibi-
tion under  certain  circumstances.
Although earlier versions of the bill
included a delivery prohibition roster
or tamper-proof tag, this section does
not. There are provisions for enforce-
ment of the delivery prohibition. U.S.
EPA has one year to issue regulations
or guidelines to implement this sec-
tion. Enforcement of the delivery pro-
hibition will begin in two years.

Section 1526 requires states to report
all out-of-compliance USTs owned or
operated by the federal,  state, and
local governments. Also required is
an annual public record of regulated
USTs that must include the number,
sources, and causes of releases; the
number of equipment failures; and
the record of compliance within the
state. States may  need to establish
active websites for  public access.
    Section  1529  requires EPA to
develop a strategy for UST compli-
ance and LUST cleanup on tribal
lands  and  to submit a  report to
Congress detailing implementation
P  &   •       | continued on page 12

  I Energy Policy Act from page 11
 Secondary Containment
 versus Installer/
 Manufacturer Financial
 Section  1530  provides  additional
 measures  to protect groundwater
 resources from petroleum releases.
 States must require one of the follow-
  • Secondary containment of newly
    installed underground tanks and
    piping within 1,000  feet of an
    existing  community water  sys-
    tem, to include the motor  fuel
    dispenser system (i.e., dispenser
    pans) under specified conditions.
  • Certain  forms   of   financial
    responsibility for manufacturers
    or installers to provide  for the
    possible   costs   of  corrective
    action,  and  also  a  form of
    installer  certification. Manufac-
    turers' financial responsibility
    does not affect the liability of
    owners / operators.

    EPA must issue guidance or reg-
 ulations  and   states  must have
 requirements in  place within 18

 Federal Facility Issues
 Section 1528 establishes an extensive
 management regime  for all USTs
 owned or operated by the depart-
 ments and agencies of the federal gov-
 ernment, requiring that they comply
 with all federal,  state, interstate, and
 local  requirements, and explicitly
 waives federal sovereign immunity
 from  such requirements. The only
 exception is  a  specific Presidential
 waiver in the paramount interests of
 the United States. There is also a fed-
 eral reporting requirement somewhat
 more extensive than that required of
 state governments under Section 1526.

 And, of Course, the
 The Act dramatically expands the use
 of  funds previously  reserved  for
 cleaning up  leaking underground
 fuel tanks, in  order to meet new
 requirements to both prevent and
remediate tank leaks.  Trust Fund
monies will also be able to be used
for compliance activities, as the focus
will shift over  the next few years

 from cleanup to prevention. Con-
 gress authorized $605,000,000 annu-
 ally. The  appropriations,  which
 would come from five pots of money,
 cover a number of different activities.
 (See Table 1.) When or whether Con-
 gress will actually appropriate the
 funding is the huge unknown.
    Section 1522 amends Subtitle I of
 RCRA to require statutory distribu-
 tion of 80 percent of LUST appropria-
 tions to states. States may use these
 funds to conduct corrective actions,
 administer state assurance funds, or
 carry out enforcement. Allocation of
 funds to states will require a coopera-
 tive agreement with EPA. EPA may
 not distribute these funds for certain
    Section 1525 provides authority
 for remediating oxygenated fuel con-
 tamination using a specially allocated
 LUST fund appropriation. It autho-
 rizes up to $1 billion for oxygenated
 fuels cleanup for fiscal years  2005-
 2009. This is an additional authority
 to that already provided to EPA and
 states to undertake corrective action
 for UST releases. To qualify, an oxy-
 genated fuel release must be from a
    Section 1531 authorizes appro-
 priation levels between the  years
 2005  and 2009 that would permit
 appropriations of up to $50,000,000
 per year for UST management,  and a
 total  of $555,000,000 annually from
          Authorized USTCA Appropriations (New Subtitle I, Section 9014)
    Remediation - Covers administration, enforcement, cleanup
    Funding source: Section 9014(2)(A)
    Oxygenated Fuel Remediation - Determine eligible uses ol LUST funds
    and oversee cleanup of eligible sites.
    Funding source. Section 9014(2)(b)	
    Inspections - Develop cooperative agreement guidelines and determine sites to be
    Additional Measure to Protect Groundwater - Monitor and enforce compliance
    with secondary containment or financial responsibility regulations.
    Funding source' Section 9014(2)(c)                            $100,000,000
    Operator Training - Develop guidelines on training for UST operators.
    Delivery Prohibition - Develop enforcement guidance.
    Compliance Enforcement-Conducting inspections, issuing orders,
    bringing action
    Funding source: Section 9014(2)(d)
    General Implementation - Covers implementation of Subtitle I
    not covered by LUST Trust funding.
    Funding source Section 9014(1)
 Total Potential Funding
purposes to  any  state  that  has
diverted funds from a state fund or
state assurance program for uses not
related to USTs after the  date of
    The allocation  process  may be
adjusted, but only after consultation
with state LUST programs and taking
into consideration specified criteria.
A provision allows separate  with-
drawal of approval for any state fund
or assurance program for cause with-
out withdrawing approval of  the
state UST program. Also, there  is a
description  of the  process for cost
recovery, which requires extensive
analysis  of the  owner/operator's
ability to pay. The  Act expands the
permissible uses of LUST Trust Fund
monies to include inspection,  en-
forcement for release prevention,
operator training, delivery prohibi-
tion, and federal/tribal tanks.
LUST funds for the tasks authorized
in the Subtitle from this source. At
this point, this new funding will not
be appropriated for 2005 or 2006. We
won't know what Congress intends
to spend in 2007 until next summer.

Miles to Go...
Meeting USTCA's new requirements
and  deadlines  depends on swift
action on the part of both U.S. EPA
and  the states. The EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks is on the
case and is working with the states
through the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials to begin the implementa-
tion process. Fourteen work groups
have been formed, composed of rep-
resentatives from state and  EPA
regional and  headquarters  UST/
LUST programs. Go team! •

 LUST  and  Fuel

 Ethanol and Motor Fuels Aspects of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
       To the disappointment of many of us in state tanks programs, the Energy Policy Act of '2005, signed by President Bush on
       August 8, does not ban MtBE, nor does it clarify U.S. EPA or state authority to ban MtBE or other fuel additives. To the dis-
       appointment of many petroleum refiners and marketers, the Act does not provide MtBE or renewable-fuel product-liability
 waivers, nor does it provide transition assistance to MtBE manufacturers to convert MtBE-production facilities into other uses. So
 let's see what the Act does do regarding the composition of gasoline. Let's consider the aspects of the Act that those of us in federal and
 state LUST regulatory programs will need to be concerned with when there is a release from a fuel storage tank.
Air Quality-Related
In Title XV, Subtitle A of the Energy
Policy Act, Congress eliminated the 2
percent by weight oxygen content
requirement for federal reformulated
gasoline (RFG). This provision takes
effect 270 days after  signing of the
Act, unless a state  already has a
waiver, in which case the provision
took effect  the  day  the  Act was
signed. (As far as I know, no states
have been granted waivers from the
oxygenate requirement if they are
required to use RFG. California, New
York, and Connecticut all had their
requests for a waiver from the oxy-
genate mandate turned down earlier
this year.)
    However,  while  lifting   the
requirement for use of oxygenates in
RFG, the Act requires that the total
pool of gasoline  sold in the United
States contain increasing volumes of
renewables (e.g., ethanol), a volume
that starts in 2006 at 4 billion gallons
and grows  to 7.5 billion gallons by
the year 2012. In 2004, approximately
3.5 billion gallons of ethanol  were
being used in gasoline.
    Each gallon of cellulosic biomass
is considered equivalent to 2.5 gal-
lons of renewable fuel for purposes
of  the  renewable  fuel  standard.
Increasing amounts of cellulosic bio-
mass ethanol must be used after 2013.
The Act provides  incentives and
loans for construction of facilities that
can produce cellulosic biomass fuels
and for research  on cellulosic bio-
mass fuels.
    The  Act  allows for any area
within the ozone transport region to
opt into the RFG program, whether
or not the area is an ozone nonattain-
ment area. A governor would need to
petition U.S. EPA.  The agency would
need to act on the petition within 180
days, and the program would be  put
in place as soon as practicable,  but
not later than two years after the date
of the approval.
    The Act calls for the maintenance
of toxics air pollutant emission reduc-
tions resulting from RFG. To do this,
EPA is required  to establish stan-
dards for air toxics reductions  for
each refinery and importer based on
historical average annual emissions
from calendar years 2001 and 2002.
This provision is designed to elimi-
nate backsliding on gains made in
toxics reductions by the RFG pro-
gram when the oxygen mandate is

Health Effects of Substitutes
The Act requires U.S. EPA to conduct
a study of public health and environ-
mental (multimedia) impacts of the
increased use of MtBE substitutes
such as EtBE, TAME, DIPE, TEA,
ethanol, isooctane, and alkylates. It
would be nice to have health data for
these chemicals, but it's beyond my
understanding why anyone would
want to substitute  any of the other
ethers for MtBE, when most of them
have taste and odor characteristics
similar to those of MtBE.  If  they
ended up in your drinking water,
you  probably wouldn't be happy,
and their chemical properties would
make them nearly as difficult to
remediate as MtBE.
   From  the  information made
available to the states, we don't even
have good public health data avail-
able  for MtBE.  Where is the EPA
               • continued on page 14


 • LUST and Fuel Harmony
 from page 13

draft risk assessment that promotes
MtBE from a likely animal carcino-
gen and possible human carcinogen
to a "likely" human carcinogen? Evi-
dently this document  was written
more than a year ago and has been
circulating around EPA since  then.
Rumor has it that the document has
been shelved. Possibly, it may return
from hyperspace when the winds
shift at some point in the future.
    According to a news release by
the Environmental Working Group
711/index.php), the U.S. EPA Office of
Research    and    Development's
National Center for Environmental
Assessment has already approved
the risk assessment. When internal
review is completed, it still has to go
through the external review process.
This document was requested during
the congressional hearings  on the
energy bill, but I don't believe it was
provided to Congress.
    EPA  is required to  publish  a
study within four years analyzing
changes in air emissions resulting
from the implementation of the pro-
visions in the Act, and must develop
a fuels model that reflects the effects
of gasoline characteristics on emis-
sions from vehicles in  the calendar
year 2007.
    The study must also estimate the
impact   of blending  increasing
amounts of ethanol into gasoline on
total  evaporative emissions. Evi-
dently the study need not include
potential  permeation  effects  of
ethanol through elastomeric materi-
als (rubber and plastic parts) that
make up the fuel and fuel vapor sys-
tems of a motor vehicle, despite the
fact that permeation may make a sig-
nificant contribution to emissions
from vehicles.
    Permeation may also contribute
to releases from UST systems. Are
those of us in the tank program con-
vinced that every tank currently stor-
ing gasoline can safely store gasoline
that contains  ethanol? Will every
owner and operator know whether all
plastic and rubber parts in his or her
system are compatible with ethanol?
What  about  the  older fiberglass
tanks? What about scaling  on the
inside of steel tanks from ethanol use?

    The  New  England  Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission
and Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use  Management  published a
three-volume report in 2001 entitled
the Health, Environmental, and Eco-
nomic Impacts of Adding  Ethanol to
Gasoline in the Northeast  States, which
addresses these and other important
concerns about increased usage of
ethanol in gasoline. Any other poten-
tial changes to the composition of
fuels need to be addressed in a simi-
lar manner—before, not  after—the
fact. (The  report is available  at

Fuel System Harmonization
U.S. EPA and  the Department of
Energy (DOE) are required to con-
duct a study of federal,  state, and
local requirements concerning motor
vehicle   fuels.  The  Fuel  System
Requirements Harmonization Study
will  contain  recommendations for
legislative and administrative actions
for motor vehicle fuels to improve air
quality, reduce cost, and increase
supply liquidity.
    The study will assess the effects
of a variety of fuel requirements on
supply, quality, and price; the effects
on achievement of air-quality stan-
dards and goals, and related environ-
mental and public health protection
standards and goals; the effects on
domestic refiners, the fuel distribu-
tion system, and industry investment
in new capacity; the effects on emis-
sions from vehicles, refiners, and fuel
haulers; the feasibility of providing
incentives to promote cleaner-burn-
ing fuels; and the extent to which air-
quality impacts and fuel prices can be
projected to result from Tier II vehicle
and  fuel standards. The  study and
recommendations are to be submit-
ted to Congress by June 1,2008.
    The legislation requires EPA and
DOE to  consult  with governors,
automakers, state and local air pollu-
tion regulatory  agencies,  public
health experts, fuel producers and
distributors, and the public.
    Wait a minute! Have we forgot-
ten about water-quality issues again,
as we did when the Clean Air Act
Amendments required the  use of
oxygenates in RFG, thereby launch-
ing the MtBE problem? If we're going
to be messing around with fuel com-
position again, could we also involve
some water-quality people in the dis-
cussion so we don't have another
MtBE debacle? The group that EPA
and DOE consults with should also
include individuals who are knowl-
edgeable about how potential new
gasoline components will behave in
the environment. Or will it be, as
Yogi Bera said, deja vu all over again?
    Additional fuel harmonization
legislation has been bandied about in
the House and Senate but hasn't
taken off. The bottom line is that dis-
cussion over fuel content may well
not be over.

Boutique Fuels
Subtitle C of Title XV addresses bou-
tique fuels. The Act requires the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Energy, to determine
the total number of fuels approved as
of September  1,  2004, in all  state
implementation plans.  The list was
required to be published  in the Fed-
eral Register by November 6,2005.
    There are currently 18 different
base blends of gasoline with 45 differ-
ent fuels. The  most recent map of
"U.S.    Gasoline   Requirements,"
updated by K.W. Gardner of Exxon-
Mobil in June 2004, indicates that 17
different gasoline "varieties" are in
use in the United States. They include:
  •  RFG-North
  •  RFG-South
  •  Oxygenated fuels
  •  CACBG
  •  AZ/CBG
  •  Oxy fuels/7.8 RVP
  •  Oxy fuels/7.0 RVP
  •  Conventional gasoline
  •  RFG with ethanol
  •  NVCBG
  •  7.2 RVP
  •  7.0 RVP
  •  7.8 RVP MTBE -no increase
  •  7.8 RVP
  •  7.0RVP30ppmS
  •  300ppmS
    Multiply these by three different
octane ratings, by summer and win-
ter variations, by low- and high-alti-
tude  variation, by northern  and
southern blends, and you've got a
real mess! Several of these blends are
used only in a small area of the coun-
try, or, if used in several areas, the
areas of usage are noncontiguous!

    The Act limits the number  of
 boutique fuels that states and locali-
 ties can require. EPA is not allowed
 to approve a state implementation
 plan that will increase the total num-
 ber of boutique fuels beyond the
 number approved by September 1,
 2004. If a previously approved fuel is
 dropped from the list, another fuel
 can take its place. States or regions
 can adopt a  fuel standard that  is
 already in place elsewhere.
    EPA and DOE are required  to
 conduct a joint study that focuses on
 determining how to develop a fed-
 eral fuels system  that maximizes
 motor fuel fungibility and  supply,
 addresses air-quality requirements,
 and reduces fuel price volatility. The
 study must  include  recommenda-
 tions  to  Congress  for  legislative
 changes necessary to implement such
 a system. Results of the study must
 be presented to Congress not later
 than  12 months after the  date  of
 enactment of the Act.
    What will RFC look like if new
 legislation passes and the  Federal
 Fuels List contains only one variety
 of RFC? Will it contain an ether, such
 as MtBE or ethanol, or will it be like
 California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline
 (CA CBG)?  This would depend on
 how RFC is specified on  the list.
 Would RFC be defined by an allow-
 able "recipe" or by a performance
    What will conventional gasoline
 look  like if only  one version  is
 allowed? Somehow, a tremendous
 amount of ethanol needs to be incor-
 porated into the fuel mixture within
 the next few years. In which gasoline
 variety will it be included? With the
 high vapor pressure of ethanol, there
 probably wouldn't be large amounts
 of it specified for the RVP-controlled
    Rather than  dictating  specific
 ingredients  and recipes for motor
 fuels, the federal government should
 limit its role to setting environmental
 end goals for fuels. One of the recom-
 mendations of the U.S. EPA Blue Rib-
 bon Panel was that any changes in
 gasoline composition should be
 designed so as not to result in an
 increase in MtBE use in conventional
 gasoline areas. One benefit of estab-
 lishing performance standards for
gasoline rather than dictating a recipe
would be added flexibility for gaso-
line production and distribution.
 What About the Lawsuits?
 How many MtBE producers or gaso-
 line refiners plan to stop adding it to
 gasoline because the Energy Policy
 Act does not provide a safe harbor
 against lawsuits? I don't think that
 we have an answer to that yet.
   We in the tank program need to be
   aware of what is in our fuel supply,
   so we can research issues that may
   have an effect on tank systems, anil
   so we know whether anything needs
      to be done differently during
      investigations and cleanups.
    How long was MtBE used in our
      gasoline before the states
         started to catch on?
    Earlier drafts of the energy bill
 included statements to the effect that
 MtBE stinks, tastes bad, and contami-
 nates water supplies—therefore let's
 ban it! Yet the signed version of the
 bill simply states that claims and
 legal  actions filed after the date  of
 enactment related  to  allegations
 involving actual or threatened conta-
 mination of MtBE may be removed to
 the appropriate United States district
    This leaves the many lawsuits
 filed by the State of New Hampshire
 against a multitude  of petroleum
 companies last year as the only suits
 that will definitely continue in state
 courts. It is generally thought that
 state courts tend to be more generous
 with damage awards.

 What About Groundwater
 Does  the Act provide any type of
 funding for dealing with  impacted
 water supplies? On one of my pro-
jects, I'm in the final stages of extend-
ing an existing water main into a
neighborhood  where  numerous
domestic wells  were impacted by a
gasoline  release. The source of the
release is a gas station that is eligible
for reimbursement under our state
    The cost of extending the line is
more than $500,000. Close to $250,000
 was spent providing carbon filters
 and sampling domestic wells during
 the initial release investigation, and
 until the water line extension could
 be completed. About $400,000 has
 been spent on investigating the 1,600-
 foot-long plume, which extends at
 least 75  feet  into  the unconfined
 aquifer, and some additional plume
 delineation  is still  needed. I've
 approved a corrective-action plan for
 one area of the plume, and the con-
 sultant is working on plans for other
 areas. The eventual cleanup cost is
    Our  state  reimbursement pro-
 gram has a total of $1 million that we
 can reimburse in one year, for all the
 sites that are still eligible for reim-
 bursement. Where does this site fall
 in  the money  "promised" by Con-
 gress?  (See  article on  page 11.)
 There's no recalcitrant responsible
 party (RP), no poverty-stricken RP.
 We have an RP, but  the site is eligible
 for reimbursement under our state
    Can any of the money go toward
 supplementing state reimbursement
 programs to cover the extra expense
 required   for   oxygenated   fuel
 releases? In most states, tank own-
 ers/operators use either insurance or
 a state fund as their mechanism for
 financial responsibility. I'm sure that
 many state funds have been hard hit
 by   increased   investigation  and
 cleanup  costs  because  of  MtBE
    The Act  does indicate that the
 oxygenated fuels funding requires
 that the release of oxygenated fuel
 must be from an UST. Did the Act
 provide  any funding to help deal
 with sites with MtBE impacts, but for
 which a source has  not been identi-
 fied (yet), or may never be identified?
 If any of this funding is ever eventu-
 ally appropriated, there needs to be
 flexibility in how it can be spent.
    Additional funding will certainly
 be welcome... no, actually, it will be
 essential,  if Congress expects these
 requirements to be met. The funding
 that Congress  has  authorized for
 appropriation  must  actually  be
    We in the tank program need to
be aware of what is  in our fuel sup-
ply, so we can research issues that
may have an effect on tank systems,
and so we know whether anything
               • continued on page 20


The  Case  for Multicomponent
Analysis of Gasoline
by James Weaver

       As we all know, leaking un-
       derground  storage  tank
       problems  begin  with  a
release from a storage system and a
fuel. The fuel contains chemicals
that can be delivered to groundwa-
ter and soil gas. Since humans aren't
particularly good detectors of low
levels of specific chemicals in food,
water, or air, we can easily expose
ourselves to unknown hazards. In
the case of a leaking underground
storage tank, there is the potential
that we could be exposed to many
of the chemicals composing the fuel.
    The importance of evaluating
gasoline composition then  comes
from its obvious role as a source of
contamination to aquifers and soil
gas. I can think of six specific  rea-
sons for the study of gasoline from a
LUST perspective:
  •  Without an  evaluation of all
    components of gasoline, we  can-
    not be sure we are adequately
    protecting against harmful sub-
  •  Detailed  characterization  of
    gasolines provides a means to
    predict the types of potential
    impacts that  may occur.  The
    need to predict results follows
    from the very nature of LUSTs:
    releases occur unseen and unde-
    tected for years in many cases. It
    is clearly impossible to go back
    in time and measure the compo-
    sition  of  a  leaked  fuel,  but
    knowledge  of composition is
    needed to model or estimate the
    risks associated with a release.
  •  The loading of all components
    of a gasoline to an aquifer can
    impact  remedial  technologies,
    because it's not just BTEX  and
    MtBE that enter a treatment sys-
  •  Biodegradation  is  generally
    acknowledged to be electron-
    acceptor limited. Thus, the pool
    of electron acceptors is available
    only for a finite mass of contam-
    inants at most sites. The loading
    of all chemicals in a gasoline

   contributes to usage of electron
   acceptors and needs to be consid-
 • As shifts are made away from
   MtBE  and toward ethanol  in
   gasoline, other changes in gaso-
   line composition will occur. This
   might result in differing levels of
   various other contaminants  in
   soil gas or groundwater. Knowl-
   edge of shifts in composition can
   give decision-makers the ability
   to predict potential impacts.
 • Multicomponent analysis may be
   useful for distinguishing among
   different gasolines as part of an
   environmental forensics investi-
   gation. (See LUSTLine #49, "Envi-
   ronmental  Forensics: Chemical
   Fingerprinting  Gasoline  and
   Diesel Fuel at LUST Sites.")

   To serve these ends, the U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development
(ORD) has been  studying gasoline
composition by organizing volunteer
samplers  from around the United
States and generating detailed hydro-
carbon analyses of around 300 chemi-
cals, and by reviewing industry data
collected  by  Northrop Grumman
Mission Systems in Bartlesville, Okla-
homa. What factors have we learned
influence fuel composition? The short
answer is  that regulatory require-
ments, octane needs, vapor pressure,
and performance requirements are
the major drivers.
Regulation, Benzene,
Oxygenates, and the Clean
Air Act
Federal and state regulations have a
major impact on gasoline composi-
tion,  particularly on  benzene and
oxygenate content. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of  1990 (40 CFR Part
80) mandated  changes in gasoline
composition to improve air quality.
The amendments required that refor-
mulated gasoline (RFG) be sold  in
major metropolitan areas and others
with the worst summertime ozone
levels. (This requirement will now be
eliminated by May 2006 due to the
passage of the Energy Policy Act of
2005.) The  amendments also pre-
vented conventional gasoline sold in
the rest of the country from becoming
more polluting than it was in 1990.
   The  RFG requirements for ben-
zene and  oxygen  content can be
achieved on a per-gallon or average
basis. These have slightly different
standards. Those that were in force
since 1995 are shown in Table 1. If the
requirement is met on a per-gallon
basis, the oxygen content must be
greater than 2.0 percent by weight
and benzene must  be less than 1.0
percent  by volume. Where  the
requirement is met, on average, a gal-
lon of gasoline could contain up to
1.3 percent  benzene by volume and
as little  as  1.5 percent oxygen by
weight, while still meeting the aver-
age standards of greater than 2.1 per-
cent by weight oxygen and less than
0.95 percent by volume of benzene.
(See Table 1.)
   The  Clean Air  Act contains an
anti-dumping provision to prevent
compounds (e.g., benzene) limited in
one area from moving to areas where
they are  not limited. The anti-dump-
ing provision of the Clean Air Act is
complicated, as it  is  based  on the
fuels that were produced or imported
in 1990. Producers  or  importers
determine a baseline derived from
their 1990 production/importation. If
they were not in business in 1990 or if
they meet other requirements, their
baseline is  set to the baseline for
"complex model" emissions. Under
this standard, the average benzene
concentration is 1.60 percent by vol-
ume.  In areas using conventional
gasoline, the benzene content may
vary due to various refiner/importer
baselines. Recent  EPA surveys (John
Weihrauch, U.S. EPA,  Office  of
Transportation and Air Quality, 2005,
personal communication) indicate
benzene levels as high at 5 percent,
by volume,  in  some  samples,
although most samples are below
that level.
   The winter oxygenate program is
implemented by the states to control

TABLE 1 Clean Air Act standards for
reformulated gasoline (40 CFR, Part 80.)
>2.0% wt
<1 .0% vol
<0.95% vol
                                                       FIGURE 1. The relationship between oxygen and benzene
                                                       content in samples from the US EPA gasoline study
                                                       (Weaver et al., 2005)
 carbon monoxide pollution—an oxy-
 genate is added to gasoline to cause
 the fuel to burn cleaner. Under this
 program, there is not a requirement
 to reduce benzene as there is  for
 reformulated gasoline. Thus, we find
 fuels with oxygenates and high ben-
 zene concentrations.
    Many of the greatest differences
 among gasolines are driven by regu-
 latory requirements for benzene, oxy-
 genates, and ethers. Figure 1 is a
 scatter plot of oxygen content from
 all oxygenates versus benzene con-
 tent. Samples of RFG  (circles) had
 benzene contents of less than 1 per-
 cent by weight, as is required. Most
 conventional gasolines had low oxy-
 gen and benzene contents—between
 0.5 and 2.75 percent. Some conven-
 tional gasolines had oxygen contents
 between 0.5 and 1.0 percent. These
 were all  premium gasolines from
 Georgia, and the oxygen (MtBE) in
 the gasoline was likely used just for
 octane enhancement.
    MtBE and/or other oxygenate
 bans are now in place in about 20
 states. Several of these states were
 included in our study (New York,
 Colorado, California, Illinois) and  we
 found that oxygenate requirements
 were being met through the use of

 When crude oils are distilled in the
 first  stage of refining, gasoline is one
 of the products. Because  crude  oil
 does not produce sufficient amounts
 of straight-run  gasoline  and  the
 octane rating of this gasoline is too
 low  for modern automobiles, addi-
 tional processes are used to produce
 more gasoline and higher octane rat-
 ings. These processes include catalytic
 cracking, reformulating, isomeriza-
 tion, and  alkylation. Our gasoline
 composition study has found that
major    component    differences
between premium and regular gaso-
lines are usually related to increases
in toluene, oxygenates, and alkylation
                                                          3 —

 products in pre-
 mium fuels.
 is used  to pro-
 duce branched
 alkanes   called
 isoparaffins that
 boost the octane
 rating of gaso-
 line.  Ironically,
 octane, being a
 organic, lowers
 the  octane  rat-
 ing,  while  its
 highly branched
 isomers   boost
 octane.    These
 isomers     are
 pentane,  2,2,3-
 tane, and 2,3,4-trimethlypentane.
    Since the octane number is also
 boosted by oxygenates, they are often
 used for this purpose,  even in the
 absence  of  an oxygenate require-
 ment. We found this to be the case in
 gasoline from Georgia  and other
 southeastern states. Observations like
 this  showed  that regular and  pre-
 mium and conventional and refor-
 mulated gasolines could be reliably
 differentiated by their composition
 (Weaver etal., 2005).
    However, forensic differentiation
 among fuels may be limited by such
 factors as the changing composition
 of fuel delivered to tanks, releases of
 premium and regular from the same
 station, the supplying of differently
 branded gas stations by  the same
 refiners,  and trading of  gasoline
 among suppliers.

 Historical Analysis
 Our current data represent contem-
porary gasolines, but fuel from prior
releases is likely to have had a differ-
ent composition. To address this, we
are using industry data that date
back to the 1930s. The Northrop-
Grumman Mission is the successor to
                                                                                      A  A
              Benzene (wt %)
                         Winter Oxygenate
           prior organizations that collected
           these data, and is the current source
           for the  data. The data collected in
           their surveys has varied over the
           years, but it now contains results for
           benzene and the oxygenates. From
           these we will be able to see the
           changes that have occurred in gaso-
           line for about 170 locations  in the
           United States.
               Figure 2 shows benzene concen-
           trations  measured over four years for
           Atlanta. Earlier data show generally
           higher benzene concentrations than
           in later years. Both winter and sum-
           mer data show roughly the same con-
           centrations. MtBE data for the same
           time period (Figure 3) show higher
           MtBE concentrations in Atlanta pre-
           mium gasoline than in mid-grade
           and regular, and sometimes higher
           MtBE concentrations in winter than
           in summer. When filled in with prior
           years, these data will form the basis
           of estimates of composition over the
           past 30 years.

           Environmental Impacts
           Figure 4 shows the estimated water
           solubilitiesof the most prevalent com-

                           • continued on page 18


LUSTLine Bulletin 51 • December 2005
• Multicomponent Analysis of
Gasoline from page 17

pounds  found  in  a  conventional
gasoline, and it is also plotted for a
reformulated gasoline and a reformu-
lated/MtBE-ban gasoline.  The con-
centrations of each component differs
among the samples, but the largest
differences occur for the ethers and
    Figure 4 also shows that all of
these compounds have predicted sol-
ubilities above 0.1 mg/L. These are
theoretical effective solubilities, so
they represent the maximum concen-
trations that might occur. These con-
stitute the additional loading to the
aquifer beyond  that of BTEX and
oxygenates,  which  could  impact
biodegradation of BTEX and other
components and ex-situ  treatment
systems  such as carbon  filtration
units. These impacts occur because of
the limited capacity associated with
each of these processes.

De Minimis Concentrations
There is a small detail evident from
the MtBE concentrations shown on
Figure 4: The estimated MtBE con-
centrations in water for reformulated
gasoline  in  an  MtBE-ban state are
above 10 mg/L.  In conventional
gasoline, concentrations are above 50
mg/L, while in reformulated gaso-
line they are above 1,000 mg/L. This
shows that small amounts of MtBE in
gasoline can still dissolve in water.
    If the de minimis concentration is
0.5 percent (wt),  there would  be
roughly 743 grams of MtBE per gal-
lon of gasoline (compared with 11%
(wt) MtBE in gasoline with 18,670
grams per gallon). Thus, although
there is a reduction of MtBE content
by a factor of 25, there is still enough
MtBE in the gasoline to equilibrate
with water on the order of 10 mg/L.
    Contaminant plumes associated
with three premium gasolines  are
shown in Figure 5. These  plumes
were generated  with U.S. EPA's
Hydrocarbon Spill Screening Model,
which includes simulation of  the
flow of the gasoline and its emplace-
ment in  the aquifer,  followed by
aquifer transport (Weaver et al., 1994,
EPA/600/R-94/039a.). The simula-
tions differ only by MtBE content in
the source gasoline.
    The most notable fact about these
results is that the extent and area of

 FIGURE 2. Plot of "Bartlesville" ben
 1994/1995, 1998/1999 and 2001/2002.
   2.5 •
   1-5 •
 5?  '•
   OS •

AS, Regular -87
• W, Regular -87
<>S. Medium -89
AS Premium 92-93
a W. Premium 92-93
- S, Undifferentiatecj
+ W. Undfff erentiated

5_ .,
5L± ^
"lit, o 4
11 q ^

i n ~?
p " *>
	 ~— W — . 	 . 	 , 	 . 	 . 	 -* — t-^ 	 . 	 . 	 , 	 , 	 • 	 , 	 , 	 1 	 . 	 , i 	 . 	 1 	
 FIGURES. Plot of "Bartlesville" MtBE data for the yuars 1990/1991, 1994/1995,
 1998/1999 and 2001/2002.
   8 -
    2 •

AS. Regular -87
• W. Regular -87
v S, Medium - 89
ow Medium -89
d S Premium 92-93
a W. Premium 92-93
- S. Undiffeientiated
*W Undifferertiated

•H- --1 A, ^* J~]
+t "iC] /2ff a
'— ri Q
t *n *fj A
> A ^%
, ,1 	 if , ,*», , M
                                                   CO  CO  CO  O  T-  CM
                                                   O>  CD  CO  Q  O  O
                                                   r-  -^  CO  O)
the plumes is only slightly less for the
MtBE-ban RFC of New York com-
pared to the Georgia premium with
MtBE   for  octane   enhancement
(4.89%) and Virginia RFC with MtBE
(13.13%). This follows from the basic
principles of contaminant transport:
the advective term of the equation
doesn't depend on the concentration.
    So,  either  a high-groundwater
velocity will generate similar-sized
plumes in any of these cases, or a low-
groundwater velocity will not spread
the MtBE much in any case. The con-
centrations, however, are much less
for the low-MtBE gasoline. Thus, the
impact may be below a reasonable
level, given the  standards  set for

Our work still has not addressed the
third major category of compounds

                                                                                Divnj;/w2005 • I USTLme Bulletin
FIGURE 4. Comparison of estimated water solubilities of regular low-eleva-
tion gasolines  Includes most prevalent compounds in conventional gasoline
plus ethanol
                       Regular, Low Elevation Gasolines
FIGURE 5. Contaminant plumes generated from premium gasolines with
0.28% (NY) MtBE, 4.89% (GA) MtBEand 13.13% (VA) MtBE, respectively.
                   Contaminant Plume
400   600   800   1,000  1,200 1,400  1,600  1,800
   Longitudinal Distance (ft)

  Contaminant Plume
                            m  1.JOOO  1,200  1,400  1,800  1,800
                    Longitudinal Distance (ft)
                  Contaminant Plume
           200   400   600   800  1,000  1,200  1,400  1,600  1,800
                   Longitudinal Distance (ft)
                                                         in gasoline—additives. These com-
                                                         pounds are added for a variety of
                                                         purposes and are largely proprietary.
                                                         One of our next steps in evaluating
                                                         gasoline is to use publicly identified
                                                         additives in simulation models to
                                                         evaluate the potential impact of these

                                                         What's on Our Radar Screen?
                                                         Tracking the composition of gasoline
                                                         reveals many aspects of LUST prob-
                                                         lems and can benefit the program by
                                                         providing an understanding of one
                                                         main driver of the problems: What
                                                         compounds are we concerned with at
                                                         a given site?  From time to time,
                                                         "new" problems emerge for the tanks
                                                         program, and sometimes these new
                                                         problems aren't so new, but a prod-
                                                         uct of incomplete treatment of our
                                                         old problems. In the mid-1990s, was
                                                         MtBE a new problem (when it had
                                                         been approved for use since 1979), or
                                                         was it simply not on our radar
                                                         screen? Are lead scavengers a  new
                                                         problem, or are they the result of the
                                                         lack of consideration of the composi-
                                                         tion of older gasolines? What's next?
Jim Weaver is a ln/dro!ogist at the U.S.
 EPA Office of Research and Develop-
  ment in Athens, Georgia. He can be
  reached at
)im gratefully acknowledges the volun-
  teers who collected samples for the
  ORD gasoline composition studi/
         (see the listing in
  http://www.epa. gov/athens/
      and l^oitrdes Prieto and
       JoAnn Action of EPA.
                                                         Although this work was reviewed by U S. EPA and
                                                         approved for presentation, it may not necessarily
                                                         reflect official agency policy Mention of trade names
                                                         or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
                                                         ment or recommendation for use

                                                         [Editor's  note: The online  version of
                                                         LUSTLine #51 at
                                                         contains color versions of the figures in
                                                         this article.]

------- Bulletin 51 • Dfu-mbcr 2005
• LUST and Fuel Harmony
from page 15

needs to be done differently during
investigations and  cleanups. How
long was MtBE used in our gasoline
before the states started to catch on?
    MtBE was first used in gasoline
in parts of the United States in 1979.
Garrett, Moreau, and Lowry raised
the  alarm  in 1986  ("MTBE as  a
Ground Water Contaminant," 1986,
Proceedings of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
and  Organic  Chemicals  in  Ground
Water  Conference,    NWWA-API,
November 1986). Most states didn't
even start looking at MtBE as a chem-
ical of concern until about 10 years
after that, if not longer, and even then
they didn't necessarily know how or
where to look for it.
    We're trying  to play catch-up
now  with  lead  scavengers—and
leaded  gasoline is long gone. Just
once, it would be nice to be  on the
leading edge, helping to prevent a
problem,  rather than dealing with
one after it has happened. •
   Ford and VeraSun to
   Cooperate on E-85
      Ford Motor Company and Vera-
      Sun   Energy   Corporation
      recently announced the forma-
   tion of a new partnership designed
   to expand the fueling infrastructure
   to  support  flexible-fuel  vehicles
   capable  of  running  on  E-85.
   According to Ford, only about 500
   fueling stations in the United States
   currently offer  E-85. The company
   said its new initiative with VeraSun
   should increase the number of sta-
   tions  that  support flexible-fuel
   vehicles capable of running on E-
   85, particularly  in the Midwest,
   where ethanol  availability is grow-
   ing. Specifically, the  effort  will
   serve  to convert fuel pumps to
   VeraSun's branded E-85 (VE85) in
   existing fueling facilities. The com-
   panies will also launch a consumer-
   awareness campaign to  promote
   the benefits and use of E-85. •
ORD  Publishes Report on  MtBE Remediation at
LUST Sites
      U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development
      (ORD) has published Monitored Natural Attenu-
      ation of MtBE as a Risk Management Option at
 Leaking   Underground  Storage  Tank   Sites
 (EPA/600/R-04/179). The 88-page report is intended
 for UST technical staff in state agencies. It reviews
 the current state of knowledge on the transport and
 fate of MtBE in groundwater, emphasizing the natural
 processes that can be used to  manage the risk asso-
 ciated with MtBE in groundwater or that contribute to
 natural attenuation of MtBE as a remedy. It provides
 recommendations on the site-characterization data that are
 necessary to manage  risk or to evaluate monitored  natural
 attenuation (MNA) of MtBE, and it illustrates procedures
 that can be used to work up data to evaluate risk or assess
 MNA  at   a  specific site.   The  report  is  available  at A limited number of
 hard copies are available through the ORD Library by e-mail at or
 by phone at (580) 435-8505.

 On a related subject,  an article entitled "Anaerobic Biodegradation of MtBE at a
 Gasoline Spill Site" recently appeared in Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation
 [25(3):103-115]. (Most of the information in this article is discussed in the ORD
 study.) The article describes an MtBE plume at a retail gasoline station in New Jer-
 sey where  long-term monitoring data indicated that the concentration of MtBE was
 slowly declining over time in the wells that were within the footprint of the plume.
 The ratio of TBA to MtBE increased with distance from the source area, and the ratio
 of TBA to MtBE in individual monitoring wells in the plume increased over time. As
 concentrations of MtBE declined  in the  microcosms, concentration of TBA
 increased. The decrease in concentrations of MtBE in the  microcosms could be
 accounted  for by an increase in the concentration of TBA. •
 List of Known Insurance Providers
 for USTs Updated
 UST recently rdvtettt its publication,  List of Known Insurance Providers for
 Untlififffuntt Storage Tanks (EPA/510/B-05/003, September 2005). This booklet
 pravJtlts OSt oMflwrs and operators with a list of insurance providers that may be
 ible to help them comply with financial responsibility requirements by providing
 a suitable in?urartce mechanism. The revised version is available through the
 OUST website at http://www.epa. gov/oust/pubs/inslisthtm. •
  ON Company to Pay $10.7 Million for UST Violations
  A major oil company with 62 stations in San Diego County will spend $10.7 mil-
  lion on fines and equipment upgrades under a settlement of UST violations. The
  settlement covers approximately 2,200 violations of UST requirements, haz-
  ardous waste laws, and an unfair business practice statute. Under the agreement,
  the stations are required to provide tamper-resistant underground sensors and
  improve maintenance and management practices to prevent a repeat of the viola-
  tions. •

18.** Annual  National
                                                  ,Mwch 30-22, 2086
       Call for Exhibitors
                            • (formtrly known m ihitUCT/UJST National Cpi^pR^^'vwtt     ' x
     ; mtiotpUyre^Q^K^                                               > v
   .  "  uralvi^neiwQtfe^
       haseparate e^hrW: haft and feafttfe iDflny iffprovemafits that will dramatically fer^iapce tte ©(pferliSice of
       t>o,th fefhlbitoirsand%»stors,Th€r€'wHI tJtbo^Hst^m ss»ies,ttlb«»'andfederalagendes>aswcff&tadKs _
                                  1'services."   ,            -       -

                   Tanks Managers    ,;

                   Federal Agency Representatives „ N" .  , -*l^f|M|lv*, •>
                      • *     -S     *  " "   "w  *  "   "    ''''"
                   County & State Government Representatives


 Breaking  Up  Isn't  Hard  to
 A View of NAPL Using Electrical Resistivity Imaging
by Todd Halihan, John Billiard, and Stuart McDonald
       Characterizing a site affected by fugitive fuel products from spills, leaks from tanks and lines, or an accidental release (e.g.,
       sudden flooding in New Orleans) is a prerequisite to any cleanup project. Assessing the lateral and vertical extent of
       sources and the associated environmental impact is the first step in knowing how to address these issues and to develop an
appropriate project schedule and budget. On most nonaqueous-phase-liquid (NAPL-) -affected sites, drilling programs are the usual
first step in most cleanup programs, closely followed by a best-judgment interpolation between discrete sampling data from soil bor-
ings and wells to create a site-conceptual model.
    This industry standard methodology has most often led to the creation of inaccurate site-conceptual models that guide planning
for marginally successful remedial work to remove the NAPL.  Frequently, more time and money are required for remediation than
originally predicted, leaving frustrated stakeholders in the wake of the investigation and cleanup efforts.
    This article examines some fundamental problems that plague the characterization and cleanup processes, and presents some case
studies of an improved electrical resistivity imaging (ER1) geophysics approach that yielded innovative views of the subsurface at sev-
eral difficult sites. Further,  these case studies illuminate a relatively new conceptual model for consideration when characterizing and
remediating sites.
    Specifically, when using ER1 geophysics followed by drilling to support the results of the image, NAPL sources in these cases are
confirmed to exist as "blobs," not as continuous layers or "plumes" as currently believed by many in the environmental industry.
Finding the full extent of NAPL blobs using only conventional drilling techniques is like trying to round up quiet cattle in a dark
field, where the end result is that most often some will get away. LRI geophysics can help find the NAPL blobs and often finds the
related dissolved-phase impacts, making cleanup strategies more predictable and more reliable.
What's the Problem?
The problem with finding the blobs
stems from the fact that a real-world
site rarely, if ever, resembles the con-
ceptual model of the idealized site. In
the idealized model, NAPL migrates
into both the unsaturated and  satu-
rated zones as a cohesive mass, ulti-
mately ending up on  top of the
groundwater  table  as  a   layer
(Walther et al., 1986). Ultimately, the
NAPL  begins  to dissolve  into
groundwater and migrate based on
groundwater gradient. Simple car-
toons that illustrate the idealized con-
ceptual model  are  generated  to
indicate  how  the world  works
(Schwartz and Zhang,  2003). We call
this the "world we would like" con-
ceptual model.
    These cartoons are not consistent
with the "real world," but unfortu-
nately they are commonly used to
form the conceptual model, guiding
the  decisions  that  precede  the
cleanup process. The use of a more
sophisticated real-world, site-concep-
tual model has not been practical
until recently when ERI geophysics
provided a tool that allows one to
effectively "see" into the subsurface
in a cost-effective and meaningful
    The real-world, site-conceptual
model is complex and was previously
difficult to impossible to derive. To
make  matters  worse,  the NAPL
source itself is a cocktail of hundreds
of compounds that can vary between
refinery locations and seasons of the
year. NAPL  can change over time
while  stored in  tanks  and  will
undergo changes once it makes its
way into the environment.

The "World We Have" Model
When NAPL enters the subsurface, it
starts migrating  in three dimensions
as a NAPL source, a dissolved phase
in the groundwater, and a vapor in
the unsaturated  portions of the sub-
surface.  NAPL  changes  character
with time and migrates under vari-
ous retardation and  degradation
mechanisms. After some period of
time, NAPL sources end up as  dis-
crete blobs that  are difficult to find
using conventional characterization
techniques. We call this the "world
we have" conceptual model.
    The fact that NAPL is observed
and migrates as blobs is seen in pore-
scale experiments, where NAPL in
groundwater  disperses as it migrates
(Conrad et al., 1992). Similarly, on the
basin-wide scale, oil fields are not
continuous, but occur in distinct
patches in a region. This knowledge,
plus the data that the new techniques
our collective research have  devel-
oped, is showing us that the world
we get is definitely not continuous
(Halihan etal.,2005a).
    Research and technical practice
demonstrate  every  day  that  the
"world we would like" conceptual
model is a failed paradigm and that
we collectively need a new "recipe"
in the cookbook for environmental
cleanups. Abandoning idealized con-
ceptual models and embracing the
"world we have" conceptual  model
makes sense because we get closer to
understanding the scope of the true
problem, which is the only way an
appropriate and cost-effective solu-
tion can be developed.
    In  the  idealized  "world  we
would like" paradigm, a project typi-
cally starts with drilling and other
conventional   techniques  in  an
attempt to find and track the NAPL.
This site-characterization  work is
conducted  by  effectively "drilling
blind," and it likely results in unde-
tected NAPL blobs between borings
that act as  ongoing sources during
and after active remediation.  In the
                • continued on page 22


• NAPL Using Imaging
from page 21

"world we have" paradigm, the site-
conceptual model must have field
data that locates the blobs,  before
drilling starts. Therefore, follow-up
confirmation drilling is more focused
and effective and can provide a pre-
dictable and  successful exit to a
cleanup project.

How About Using
Underground "Photography"
ERI geophysics is a potentially attrac-
tive way to assist in characterizing
NAPL-affected sites and is analogous
to taking a digital electrical "picture"
of  the  subsurface. Punching holes
with direct-push or auger drilling is
time consuming and provides a lim-
ited one-dimensional sample of the
subsurface at a single point in time.
Assuming wells are installed, main-
tained, and monitored properly, the
question of what is between adjacent
well  or boring locations always
remains.  Most  sites that we have
examined  have  wells  that  are
improperly placed,  screened in the
wrong location, and/or not in good
communication with the groundwa-
ter system.
    ERI geophysics can produce two-
or  three-dimensional images  (pic-
tures) of the subsurface that provide
a more complete understanding of
the distribution of NAPL and related
contamination. Three-dimensional
images can most easily be generated
on typical  sites by  coalescing  a set of
two-dimensional datasets. The relia-
bility standard to be applied to any
geophysical technique, including ERI
geophysics,  is that the  resulting
images must be sufficiently accurate
so  that they have a direct correlation
to the subsurface—the images should
be "drillable." Without data of this
quality, the cost of geophysical tech-
niques does not justify their use in
many cases.
    ERI geophysics has several quali-
ties that make it attractive for shal-
low-site investigations (i.e., less than
500 ft). It works in a wide range of
natural aquifer materials, gives accu-
rate measurements with relative ease,
and produces draft images  on-site
within an hour of completing an ERI
geophysical  survey. A rapid and

accurate result while on-site is very
attractive, as investigations can be
tailored in real time.
    Proprietary research developed
at Oklahoma State University (OSU)
in concert with its commercial part-
ner Aestus, Inc., now allows for very
accurate pictures of the subsurface
that assist  in guiding  subsequent
drilling investigations or remedia-
tion. In most cases, high-resolution
ERI geophysics (commercially avail-
able as GeoTrax Survey™ via Aestus,
Inc.) can be deployed quickly from
the surface only, and can provide
images at depths within the typical
site needs.

The Research Behind
the Magic
Much  of the initial ERI geophysics
research was done through collabora-
tive efforts between OSU, the Okla-
homa   Corporation  Commission,
Petroleum  Storage Tank Division
(PSTD), and Aestus, Inc. On one of
the PSTD  sites, OSU developed a
          would like"  site-conceptual model
          that the team used going into the pro-
          ject. Although the site had a rela-
          tively  simple  geology  with  clay
          overlying a sand aquifer, no continu-
          ous NAPL plume was apparent in
          the ERI images.
              Instead, separate blobs of NAPLs
          that correlated with slight variations
          in  the elevation of the clay/sand
          interface were found. There was no
          continuous NAPL  plume  at  the
          groundwater interface, as expected
          using  the  "world we would like"
          conceptual model. After checking the
          cables, instruments, methodologies,
          and interpretations, OSU conducted
          an  intensive direct-push coring pro-
          gram to confirm the ERI images. The
          results of the confirmation-drilling
          program were completely inconsis-
          tent with the conceptual model of a
          continuous NAPL plume.
              The sile was sampled using the
          direct-push method, and some cores
          indicated  high concentrations  of
          NAPL in both the  sand and  the clay
          (Figure 1). Other cores indicated high
 FIGURE 1. PID readings of NAPL in dual-tube direct-pus, i cores sampled within 60
 feet of each other at a site in Enid, OK. Cores were locate d using ERI images. Note
 that each core provides a different conceptual model for the site, but the cores are
 close enough to one another to be considered from a sin jle sample location.
      92 '
      91 1
      90 i
             1000   2000   0   1000   2000  0    1000   2000  0    1000  2000
                             PID Measurements (ppm)
technique to use ERI geophysics in
direct-push boreholes  so the site
could be monitored very accurately
over a period of time (Halihan et al.,
2005b). The site had relatively simple
geology and had not yet been reme-
diated at the start of the project.
    The results initially  appeared
problematic relative to the "world we
           concentrations of NAPL in just the
           clay, and in other areas, just the sand.
           In addition, some soil cores were
           completely clean within a few feet of
           highly contaminated areas.
               In other words, moving the bor-
           ing location by only a few feet in cer-
           tain locations resulted in data that
           supported a completely  different

                                                                                   Decembfi 2005 • LUSTl.nw Bulletin 51
conceptual model of the site (Figure
1).  Therefore,  depending  on how
lucky (or unlucky) the consultant/
driller was, the site-conceptual model
and hence cleanup  strategy would
change drastically. In addition, these
data  clearly did  not support the
"world we would like" conceptual
model with NAPL in a layer on top of
the groundwater table.
    When compared, the ERI geo-
physical  image/data matched the
drilled core data  (Figure 2). It was
clear   the  site-conceptual  model
needed to change from the "world
we would like"  to  the  "world we
have" paradigm.
    After remediation began at the
site,  additional   ERI  geophysical
datasets confirmed the blob configu-
ration (Figure 3). The subsequent ERI
geophysical data  indicated the site
was getting dirtier in some areas, not
cleaner. The ERI images suggested
that previously unmapped hydrocar-
bons were entering the site from an
area that  was not originally charac-
terized. The "world we would like"
site-conceptual model of a continu-
ous NAPL plume prevented the orig-
inal investigators from looking past
clean location boundaries, since these
edges would have been outside the
area of a continuous NAPL plume.
    Since the work performed at the
Enid, Oklahoma site, numerous other
sites have been characterized using
this improved  method for ERI geo-
physics with similar results. That  is,
the original site-conceptual model
has changed  from  one  that  envi-
sioned a continuous NAPL plume, to
one with discontinuous NAPL blobs.
    Most of the sites characterized by
ERI geophysics  have been subse-
quently characterized using drilling
techniques. In all cases where confir-
mation data are available, the ERI
images were proven to be correct and
the  site-conceptual  models  have
improved to include the discontinu-
ous NAPL blob concept.

What You Don't Know Will
Hurt You
On  many  of  the  sites   where
improved ERI  geophysics has been
used  and the results confirmed via
drilling, NAPL blobs have been dis-
covered in areas thought to be clean
or at least devoid of ongoing NAPL

                 • continued on page 24
FIGURE 2. Three-dimensional ERI geophysics of a site in Enid, OK prior to site reme-
diation in December 2002. Over 50,000 field data points were collected to generate
this image. Image is positioned looking from the southwest towards the northeast.
The northwest corner has no data since no cable was located in this position. Fifteen
subsurface cables with 27 electrodes each were used to obtain the dataset. The
isoshells in red represent the volume of the subsurface that has resistivity above 46
ohm-meters. This is estimated to correspond to the location of free product on the
site. The image was produced using data from OSU in EarthVision in conjunction with
Aestus, Inc. and Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc.
 2 exag:
 Inclination: 31.53
 Xfrontcut: 0.9
 Y front cut: M
 Z front cut: 95,5
 X chair cut: 21.2
 Y chair cut: 1l.t
 Z chair cut. 32.5
Property value units: ohm-m
Unit Surface- black line
Unit Sequence: clay

| Monitor wells
1 Screened interval
« Electrode wefls
I Recovery wells
Soil zone
FIGURE 3. Three-dimensional ERI geophysics of a site in Enid, OK during site remedi-
ation in August 2003. Image is positioned looking from the southwest towards the
northeast. The northwest corner has no data since no cables were operational in this
position. Thirteen subsurface cables with 27 electrodes each were used to obtain the
dataset. The isoshells in red represent the volume of the subsurface that has resistiv-
ity above 46 ohm-meters. This is estimated to correspond to the location of free prod-
uct on the site. Note the new orientation of resistive "blobs".that has occurred since
remediation began. No significant "blobs" remain within the area enclosed by the
remediation wells. The image was produced using data from OSU in EarthVision in
conjunction with Aestus, Inc. and Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc.
    Property color key
    Active P. p(3grd)
    P Unite, ohm-meters
     front cut 95.5
     chair cut 212
     chair cut. 160
     chair cut 92 6
Property value units' ohm-m
Unit Surface: black line
Unit Sequence clay

0 Monitor wells
$. Screened internal
. Electrode wells
1 Recovery wells
Soil zone

                 Dcccinlm 20I1S
• NAPL Using Imaging
from page 23

sources. The following case studies
illustrate why what you don't know
will hurt your schedule and  your
budget, at the very least.

•   Golden, Oklahoma
    This was a LUST site where char-
acterization was conducted several
times via drilling and direct-push (92
monitoring wells were installed in a
five-acre area), and three  separate
remediation technologies were sub-
sequently  deployed. Remediation
consisted of standard NAPL removal
via  pneumatic pumps,  soil-vapor
extraction, and finally the use of an
innovative  soil-surfactant  flush to
achieve predefined cleanup levels.
Characterization and remediation
were  conducted  over  a   10-year
period. About $1.2 million had been
expended  over that period at this
rural site.
    ERI geophysics was deployed at
the tail end of this project to evaluate
the effectiveness of the cleanup tech-
nologies. NAPL blobs were detected
outside of the delineated plume at
the site (Halihan et al., 2005a). Staff
from the U.S. EPA  Ground Water
and Ecosystems Restoration Research
(GWERD) laboratory in Ada, Okla-
homa used the image produced by
ERI geophysics and conducted their
own drilling program to confirm the
ERI  image results. EPA advanced
seven soil borings within a 50-foot
distance along the ERI geophysics
survey line in the area of the NAPL
blobs (Figure 4). Soil samples were
collected about every 6 or 12 inches
along the soil core and analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH).
    EPA's TPH confirmation data
indicated a semi-quantitative correla-
tion between TPH concentration and
ERI resistivity values. The ERI geo-
physics data as well as the borings
also confirmed that NAPL blobs
existed between the site-remediation
wells. Additionally, the highest TPH
value ever measured at this site was
detected using the ERI geophysics
image after all of the characterization
and remediation work had already
occurred. This ERI geophysics field
work was completed in less than one

•  Hobart, Oklahoma
    This site had a significant gaso-
line vapor intrusion into a nearby
State Department of Human Services
building, creating health concerns for
employees. There  were no obvious
source sites nearby (e.g., a gas sta-
tion). A consultant had already char-
acterized the  site  and  had  not
discovered NAPL sources but did
discover high levels of VOCs in the
vadose  zone. Although a shallow
 FIGURE 4. Electrical image EI-2-NS from Golden, OK site (modified from Halihan et
 al., 2005a). A) Vertical lines in image indicate the location of monitoring and remedia-
 tion wells. Dotted line indicates area of inset. B) Vertical lines indicate the location of
 EPA soil borings used to sample high resistivity anomalies. Notes: Estimated TPH val-
 ues are an approximation, and resistive surface anomalies correspond to soil vari-
 ability, not hydrocarbon contamination i.
            -          ^-
            S    8     S
            Resistivity (ohm-m)
                                              30       35
                                               Distance (m)
soil-vapor-extraction   trench   was
installed next to the  building, the
vapor intrusion into the building was
not fully mitigated.
   ERI geophysics was used to sur-
vey the area  around  the building
(Figures 5 and 6). The images sug-
gested that the NAPL sources were
slightly deeper than what had previ-
ously been the deepest soil-boring
depth (i.e., greater than 12 feet).
   The previous characterization
had been conducted  using direct-
push,  which  encountered  refusal
from a hard layer at about 12-feet
deep. A larger auger-type rig was
brought to the  site and advanced soil
borings to confirm the  ERI geo-
physics image results. In every case
where  ERI  images  indicated the
likely  presence  of a  NAPL  blob,
NAPL was discovered in the soil bor-
ing. At the conclusion of the ERI geo-
physics work, a  three-dimensional
ERI image was created using a resis-
tivity value roughly  equivalent  to
NAPL locations at this site (Figure 6).
   Note that the NAPL blobs were
all discovered  slightly below the 12-
foot depth where the hard layer was
encountered by the direct-push rig.
Also, some of  the NAPL blobs were
deeper than the current water table.
As a result of this work, the Okla-
homa   Corporation  Commission,
PSTD is now considering alternative
methods of source removal.

Designing Better Ways to
Characterize NAPL Sites
The bottom line is that the LUST
cleanup industry needs better tools
and a new "recipe" for characterizing
NAPL-impacted   sites.   Because
drilling alone  does not allow NAPL
sites to be characterized without sig-
nificant unknowns, these unknowns
often manifest themselves as future
liabilities for project stakeholders.
    The use of improved characteri-
zation  techniques/paradigms will
lead to more accurate site-conceptual
models. Such models will ultimately
yield  more realistic  and  reliable
results during the remediation and
monitoring phases of these projects.
Stakeholders will better understand
the extent (or lack of extent)  of envi-
ronmental impacts being addressed
and will ultimately become less frus-
trated. Site remediation will become
more predictable, reducing surprises

 FIGURE 5. Two-dimensional ERI geophysics of site in Hobart, OK during site charac-
 terization. Dotted lines indicate the location of ERI geophysical data lines. Fifty-six
 electrodes were used to obtain the dataset along each line. The isoshells in red rep-
 resent the approximate location of free product.
                                    East 5th Street
   Active P ]Dgrid(3grd>
   P Units ohm-meters
   Z exag  2.0
   Azimuth. 0 00
   Inclination 90 00

 FIGURE 6, Three dimensional ERI geophysics of site in Hobart, OK during site char-
 acterization. Image is positioned looking from the northeast towards the southwest
 The isoshells in red represent the approximate volume of the subsurface that has
 free product on the site. Note the color scale of this figure is slightly different from
 Figure 5 to show detail in each view.
                       HHS Building  County Maintenance Building
  Property color kei
  Z exag-  2 D
  Azimuth:  128.70
  Inchnation. 326
and  years   of   monitoring   the
    ERI geophysics has the potential
to be integrated throughout various
phases of the site-cleanup process. As
a first step, ERI geophysics can be
used  to  direct   the  drilling  for
improved site characterization. Dur-
ing remediation, ERI geophysics can
be used to track the progress of reme-
diation efforts. When NAPL removal
is believed to be complete, ERI geo-
physics can be used to confirm that
the site is devoid  of NAPL blobs.
Although this article is focused on
NAPL blobs, it should be noted that
many case studies  exist where ERI
geophysics  has  been successfully
used to semi-quantitatively locate and
track NAPL-related dissolved-phase
contamination in groundwater.

Future Directions
In order to better manage the  risks
and  uncertainties   that  surround
LUST and other environmental site
investigations, we believe geophysi-
cal techniques will play a significant
role. More and more evidence sup-
ports the assertion that our current
understanding  of contaminant  be-
havior in the earth's subsurface is not
very good, largely because our view
of the world to date has been derived
predominately  from  borings and
monitoring wells.
    The consequences of this poor
understanding  are far reaching—it
costs more money to characterize a
site and more time to remediate a
site. The impacts may even affect a
project stakeholder's company bal-
ance sheets via environmental liabil-
ity reporting. It is critical that  we
have a good  understanding of these
sites and a  sound  site-conceptual
model from the  outset. We are confi-
dent that high-resolution geophysical
approaches, tied to confirmation bor-
ings, will become the new standard
in site characterization, as stakehold-
ers demand more certainty and less
risk  from  their  site-remediation
    ERI  and other techniques will
evolve toward full three-dimensional
site characterization methods. The
characterization process will require
that data be collected and visualized
in three dimensions or four dimen-
sions (i.e., three-dimensional data
tracked over time) so stakeholders of
all backgrounds can understand  the
problems and the potential solutions.
    Computing   and    software
improvements will drive this  tech-
nology forward—a process that has
already occurred in the medical field
as CAT scans, MRIs, and X-rays have
become the first ingredients in that
industry's new  "recipe" for dealing
with "unknown subsurface prob-
lems" before operating on a patient.
    Historically, the progression of
ideas has always evolved from doubt
to argument to acceptance and finally
to a state of obviousness. What is
originally  controversial   becomes
obvious and other ways of approach-
ing environmental problems become
quaint or "old school." We  should
always remember that young  tech-
nologies need to be introduced to  the
world  with a little  care, and that
those that become proven will help
us foster the health of the environ-
ment. •

                 • continued on page 37


           Michigan's  Noninvasive
                            UST  Assessment
                by Dan Yordanich
     Since 1999, I've had the task of coordinating the litigation and the development and implementation of an enforcement initiative
    for the largest and most important case to date involving Michigan's underground storage tank regulations. The case involved a
     noninvasive assessment methodology based on predicting the leak-free life of a storage tank that could be used to determine
whether an UST was suitable to be upgraded by installing a cathodic-protection system.
   As I sit here pondering the task of writing this article, I have to wonder whether other states have experienced similar problems
with these noninvasive assessments. This story is about our odyssey of litigating and enforcing this case and the results of our find-
ings. For many of you, I suppose, our findings will come as no surprise. This is the Michigan story. Draw your own conclusions.
The Alternative-Methods
On December 22,1988, when the fed-
eral 40 CFR Part 280, Underground
Storage Tank;  Technical  Require-
ments, became effective, many states
followed suit either by adopting the
provisions of the rules or by adopting
the provisions of the rules with state-
specific amendments. In response to
the threat posed by a very large pop-
ulation of existing bare-steel storage
systems,  the rules  required  the
mandatory upgrade of these USTs by
no later than December 22,1998.
    To meet the requirements of the
rules, USTs could be upgraded by
internal lining,  cathodic protection,
or a combination of both. For bare-
steel  USTs being upgraded with
cathodic protection, the integrity of
the tank had to be established by
using one of four methods:
  •  The tank  is  internally inspected
    and  found to be  structurally
    sound  and  free of corrosion
  •  The tank is less than 10  years old
    and can be  monitored  for leaks
    using  a  monthly  monitoring
    method (not inventory control)
    after the application of cathodic

  •  The tank is less than 10  years old
    and  is assessed for corrosion
    holes by undergoing a  tightness
    test  before  and three  to  six
    months after  the installation of
    cathodic protection; or

  •  Some other method if approved
    by the implementing agency.
    This story involves the develop-
ment, use, and approval of  a method

of assessment allowed by the fourth
    U.S. EPA recognized that alterna-
tive assessment methodologies had
been developed by the cathodic-pro-
tection industry and chose to not
include them at the time the  rules
were adopted because an industry-
wide consensus code had not been
established. To be competitive with
the  internal-lining  industry,  the
cathodic-protection   industry  set
about to develop a consensus code.
    In  January 1995, an  industry-
wide consensus code for alternative
methodologies was established and
published as the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Designation:  ES  40-94  Emergency
Standard Practice for Alternative Proce-
dure for the Assessment of Buried Steel
Tanks Prior to the Addition of Cathodic
    This emergency standard inden-
tified three alternative methodologies
for the assessment  of buried steel
  •  a noninvasive method using a
    statistical evaluation of site data
    to predict corrosion failure (i.e.,

  •  an  invasive method using predic-
    tive analytical models in conjunc-
    tion  with  video  camera in-

  •  a method using robotic devices
    equipped for ultrasonic inspec-
This story is about the first of these
    It is important to note that ASTM
ES 40-94 required that prior to evalu-
ating  the suitability of  tanks for
upgrading with cathodic protection,
tanks had to be tightness tested by an
approved method to establish that
they were not leaking. According to
the emergency standard, tanks 10
years old or older found to be leak-
free with a  probability of corrosion
failure of less than 0.05 could be
upgraded by cathodic protection.
   The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) was
fortunate to have had a senior-level
engineer serve on ASTM's Subcom-
mittee E50.01 on Storage Tanks who
provided valuable insight regarding
these alternative assessment method-
ologies, and who recommended that
MDEQ not  adopt this ASTM emer-
gency standard.
   Even though EPA recommended
the use of the methodologies identi-
fied in ASTM ES 40-94, MDEQ did
not adopt this standard because it
believed that the Michigan UST rules
provided adequate authority to the
agency to approve or reject alterna-
tive methodologies. MDEQ was not
convinced  that the standard pro-
vided  adequate  justification  for
accepting  only    the   methods
described in the standard, and most
importantly, adopting the standard
would limit the agency's ability to
provide a thorough technical review
of the  alternative  methodologies
being proposed.  MDEQ chose to
review  arid  approve  alternative
methods on a case-by-case basis.

Corrosion Processes
Before I proceed, let me interject a
brief description of the corrosion
process, which can proceed in two
distinct ways  that have important
consequences on the useful life of a
buried structure.  The first of these
two  processes  is pitting corrosion,
which occurs when anomalies exist

 in backfill in direct contact with the
 buried structure or on the surface of
 the structure. Pitting corrosion is the
 result of a high rate of corrosion con-
 centrated on a small portion of the
 surface area of the structure and is
 not uniform.
    The second process  is uniform
 corrosion, which occurs when there
 are no anomalies in the backfill of the
 buried structure or on the surface of
 the structure and  corrosion occurs
 uniformly over the structure's  sur-
 face. Uniform corrosion occurs as the
 result of a very low rate of corrosion.
 In general,  buried structures are
 more likely to be subjected to pitting
 corrosion than uniform corrosion.
    EPA's Causes of Release from UST
 Systems (EPA, 1987) study concluded
 that about 50 percent of the corrosion
 holes in tanks were plugged and did
 not leak, and that  approximately 7
 percent of USTs 12 to 15 years of age
 were leaking. The study also con-
 cluded that as many as 7 percent of
 existing USTs were corroded through
 but not leaking. This may be because
 corrosion-induced   "rust  plugs,"
 backfill, and interior sludge seal the
 holes (Figure 1). In addition, informa-
 tion obtained by EPA from industry
 experts indicated that cathodic pro-
 tection can cause these "rust plugs"
 to loosen, triggering a release soon
 after cathodic protection is applied to
 the UST.

 Approving Alternative
 So, with MDEQ's decision to review
 and approve alternative methods on
 a case-by-case basis, an international
 company that represents a coalition
 of cathodic-protection companies
 specializing in analyzing corrosion
 problems and designing and imple-
 menting programs to stop corrosion
 on all types of structures  enters the
 picture. The company sought Michi-
 gan's approval to use a noninvasive
 technology to assess USTs to deter-
 mine  their suitability for cathodic-
protection upgrade.
   The company  indicated  that it
 had  worked closely  with a  well-
 known statistician to develop a non-
 invasive assessment  methodology
that was (interestingly enough) simi-
lar to  the noninvasive assessment
method specified in ASTM ES 40-94.
This methodology used a proprietary

      FIGURE 1. Potential "rustplugs."
statistical analysis model composed
of many probability measures that
incorporate site-specific information
to predict the expected leak-free life
and present and future probabilities
of corrosion failure for the UST being
    The method determined, among
other things, the conditional proba-
bility of corrosion failure given pit-
ting corrosion (CPL), the probability
of localized corrosion (an "uncondi-
tional" probability of pitting corro-
sion), and the expected leak-free life
of the tank if pitting corrosion exists.
The company's recommendation for
cathodic-protection upgrade was to
be based on these determinations.
    In reviewing the proposed non-
invasive assessment method, MDEQ
recognized that it had merit  as an
assessment tool; however, the agency
also recognized that the method did
not allow for the assessment of all
conditions, such  as tank-wall thick-
ness, internal corrosion1 (Figure 2), or
structural defects that could lead to
tank failure, or the need to install
striker plates (Figure 3). MDEQ con-
cluded that the method should not be
approved without added conditions.
    One of the most important condi-
tions MDEQ placed on the use of this
methodology was that should the
noninvasive assessment of site-spe-
cific information result in  a  tank
having a CPL in  excess of 0.05, the
tank would need  to pass an internal
                 • continued on page 28
1 The procedure for  noninvasive   assessment
 described in ASTM ES 40-94 did require the deter-
 mination of the presence and extent of internal cor-
 rosion, but only immediately below the fill riser


LUSTI.iik' Bii/d-fin 51 • Dt'u'uiix'i 20(15
• Michigan UST Assessment
from page 27

inspection  to ensure  its structural
integrity prior to upgrade. MDEQ
did  not approve  the use of  the
"unconditional" probability of local-
ized corrosion. MDEQ reasoned that
if the tanks had no perforations or
leaks when the CPL was determined
to be high  (>0.05), then one would
conclude that the "unconditional"
probability of localized corrosion was
very small, and therefore assume that
uniform corrosion was taking place.
MDEQ  did not want to make this
    In July 1995, MDEQ issued condi-
tional approval of  this noninvasive
methodology. In its approval, MDEQ
did not make any reference to the
ASTM ES 40-94 standard or any other
standard, since  the approval was
based exclusively on the company's
    It is noteworthy that upon notifi-
cation  of MDEQ's  conditional  ap-
proval of the noninvasive assessment
method, the company did not request
clarification, reconsideration, or mod-
ification of the terminology used or
the conditions imposed by MDEQ.

The Beginning of the End
While the company was not required
to submit  noninvasive assessment
reports  directly  to  MDEQ,  we
acquired several reports from owners
as part of our regulatory function.
Upon  review of these  reports,  it
became clear that the company was
recommending cathodic-protection
upgrades of tanks that had failed the
CPL and was basing its recommen-
dation on the "unconditional" proba-
bility of pitting corrosion, a part of
the  procedure  that Michigan had
specifically NOT approved.
    Late in 1997, MDEQ notified the
cathodic-protection company that its
conclusions and recommendations
were in direct contradiction with the
conditions on our  approval of the
methodology. Negotiations between
the company and MDEQ intensified
as the company tried to convince us
that we did not understand the terms
or the statistical process used in its
method and  requested that  we
approve the full assessment method-
    MDEQ claimed all along that we
fully understood  the terminology

and statistical process used and that
we intentionally sought to limit the
process so that it was, we believed,
no less protective of human health
and the environment than Michigan's
UST regulations required.
    Meanwhile, it appears the com-
pany altered its reporting format in a
manner that made it difficult for us to
determine the statistical probability
basis for the recommendation that an
UST was suitable for upgrade. Based
on these reports, USTs continued to
be upgraded.
    During  the period of negotia-
tions, MDEQ received at least three
reports of  tank failure at facilities
where the USTs  were assessed and
recommended for cathodic-protec-
tion upgrade, based on the use of this
noninvasive assessment methodol-
ogy. The tanks at two of these facili-
ties were found to be severely pitted
and perforated (Figure 4). The UST at
the third facility had a split weld
seam; however, there was no deter-
mination as to  whether the weld
seam failed as a result of corrosion or
some other  structural deficiency.
    Once extensive negotiations had
failed to yield an  agreement and
MDEQ recognized  that  numerous
existing USTs could present an unac-
ceptable risk to public health and the
environment, MDEQ issued  a Janu-
ary 2000 final decision to reaffirm its
original conditional approval and
deny  the  company's  request for
approval to use the full methodology.
Litigation and Due Process
Once MDEQ issued its final decision,
the company appealed. In November
2000, Michigan's circuit court issued
an order affirming MDEQ's decision.
The order was  appealed through
Michigan's judicial system until, in
August 2001, the Michigan Supreme
Court denied the company's applica-
tion for leave to appeal.
   Late in 2001, the company volun-
tarily  provided MDEQ with records
for over 400 facilities in Michigan for
review to determine whether the vio-
lations and the potential risks to pub-
lic health, safety, welfare, and the
environment  were  of  substance
rather than form. After reviewing
these  records, MDEQ  determined
that USTs in use at approximately
253 facilities had been assessed and
upgraded with cathodic protection
contrary  to  MDEQ's  conditional
approval of the method.
   As a result of this review, in July
2002, we provided notice to the own-
ers of these facilities informing them
of our findings and advising them of
the corrective actions they needed to
undertake to bring the affected UST
systems  into compliance.   While
MDEQ did not establish a deadline
for compliance, a one-year deadline
was conveyed verbally to owners,
industry representatives, and the
    In light of the courts' findings
and the realization that they would
be facing  potential  enforcement

 FIGURE 4. Perforation in end cap.
 •i^	1
 [Editor's note: To view more MDEQ photographs of various causes of tank failure,
             visit the NEIWPCC website at www.neiwpcc.orgj
actions, such as red-tagging to pro-
hibit delivery of product to substan-
dard USTs, the owners of affected
USTs filed suit against the cathodic-
protection  company and MDEQ in
July 2002. The suit sought to establish
a class action against the company
and prevent MDEQ from taking
enforcement actions.
    In  September 2002,  the court
denied the motion to prevent MDEQ
from taking enforcement actions and
ordered the parties in litigation to
establish a schedule that would allow
the affected owners to perform the
corrective actions required to return
their USTs to compliance.  In Novem-
ber  2002,  the  court granted  the
motion to certify the class of affected
    One of the primary concerns of
the affected class and the court was
that MDEQ would  take  actions
against the affected parties without
giving  adequate notice and  the
opportunity to  show compliance.
MDEQ was concerned  about  due
process because of the potential that
the enforcement actions could result
in many separate instances of litiga-
    With  these  concerns in mind,
MDEQ outlined for the court the
administrative process it would fol-
low in taking action against an owner
of a facility with noncompliant USTs.
The process entailed a series of three
notices,  whereby the owner  was
given  deadlines  for bringing USTs
into compliance and an opportunity
to prove, by the submittal of substan-
tiating documentation, that the USTs
were  in compliance.  In July 2003,
MDEQ initiated the first step in this
administrative enforcement process.
    In October   2003,  the  court
granted and approved a settlement
between the tank owners/operators
and the company. By this settlement,
the owners/opera tors agreed to fully
and forever release and discharge the
company from any and all claims and
causes of action of every kind, nature,
and description which they, collec-
tively and individually, may  have
had, or may now have, or possibly
could have against the company  in
return for payment from  the  com-
    Finally, in December  2003, the
court granted MDEQ's motion  to
have the affected class's claim against
MDEQ in  the original suit dismissed.
With  this  dismissal, MDEQ was free
to fully implement the  administrative
enforcement process outlined for the

Process Results and Findings
The initiative that was undertaken to
enforce the upgrade requirements of
Michigan's UST rules began with the
identification of 253  facilities and
includes information about 260 facili-
ties. This amounts to approximately
900 USTs that MDEQ determined
were  assessed and upgraded with the
installation of cathodic protection in
a manner  contrary to MDEQ's condi-
tional approval  of  the noninvasive
assessment methodology. The data
described here  were obtained by
MDEQ as a result of internal inspec-
tions or observations made during
excavation of these USTs at the time
of closure.
    Since the beginning of the initia-
tive, MDEQ has achieved a 97 per-
cent facility compliance rate with the
internal inspection and permanent
closure requirements. The remaining
3 percent of noncompliant  facilities
have been abandoned or are other-
wise not currently in use, and the
USTs were  red-tagged to  prohibit
product delivery.
    Of the approximately 900 tanks
involved, a  total of 340 USTs were
excavated. Of those, MDEQ staff con-
ducted  172  external inspections  to
determine the  type  of corrosion
process that was taking place. Based
on  these inspections,  pitting corro-
sion was determined to be the opera-
tive corrosion process on 79 percent
of the USTs, and uniform corrosion
was the operative corrosion process
on the remaining 21 percent.
    Of the facilities where pitting cor-
rosion was observed to be the opera-
tive process on one or more of the
USTs, MDEQ determined that at  72
percent of these facilities the site con-
ditions did not justify the company's
assumption that uniform corrosion
was the operative corrosion process.
    To date, a total of 509 USTs have
been inspected internally to deter-
mine  structural  integrity—visual
inspection and  gauging ultrasonic
thickness of the tank shell  in accor-
dance   with  the  requirements  of
National  Leak Prevention  Associa-
tion, Standard 631 (NLPA 631) enti-
tled   Entry,   Cleaning,    Internal
Inspection, Repair and Lining of Under-
ground Storage Tanks - with Appen-
dix MI (1991). It should be noted that
because of the obvious limitations of
internal inspections,  the corrosion
process that is operative on the out-
side surface  of an UST and the degree
to  which that process is occurring
cannot be determined with  complete
certainty or accuracy.
    Of the USTs inspected internally,
approximately 8 percent failed the
internal inspection due to  pitting
corrosion or  perforations, and less
than 1 percent failed due to uniform
corrosion. Nearly 5 percent of the
USTs failed the structural integrity
requirements of NLPA 631, because
the UST was more than 2 percent out
of  round, had a split weld seam, or

                 • continued on page 30


• Michigan UST Assessment
from page 29

had dents or flat spots exceeding the
criteria for tank repair.
    Of the 252 facilities (out of the
total of 260) where corrective actions
were performed to remove or inter-
nally inspect USTs, 19 percent were
found to have one or more perforated
USTs. Of the 681 USTs that were
externally or internally inspected, 10
percent were found to be perforated
due to pitting corrosion.
    It is important to note that the
main objective of an internal inspec-
tion  is  to assess  the  structural
integrity of an  UST, and  not just
whether or not the UST has perfora-
tions. In examining the causes and
frequency of tank failure, we deter-
mined that 94 out of 681 USTs that
were visually or  internally inspected
failed because of a structural defi-
ciency.  Of these USTs, 71 percent
failed due to pitting compared to a 3
percent failure rate due to uniform
corrosion. UST failure due to other
structural deficiencies, such  as the
tank being out of round, occurred in
26 percent of the failed USTs.
         Uniform Corrosion 3%
                      Structural 26%
    Pitting Corrosion 71%
Other Findings
It should come as no surprise to the
seasoned tank regulator that as a
result of our close scrutiny of this
population of  facilities  and USTs,
MDEQ found other deficiencies that
were affecting  the  operation  and
maintenance of the UST systems and
our ability to regulate them.
    During inspections of excavated
USTs, we found that damage to the
asphaltic or dielectric coating on the
outer surface of an UST that occurred
during installation could cause pref-

erential corrosion to occur where the
bare metal was exposed to the corro-
sion processes.
    Of facilities performing corrective
actions, 33  percent reported con-
firmed releases. MDEQ was unable to
determine  the  exact  number  of
releases that were attributable to the
improper  assessment of the UST's
suitability  for  cathodic-protection
upgrade or to historic releases from
other USTs at the facility, piping, or
overfills.  However, a  review  of
MDEQ records from prior to this ini-
tiative showed that there were a num-
ber of facilities that reported releases
within six months, or shortly there-
after, following cathodic-protection
upgrades  that MDEQ believes are
attributable to the dissolution of "rust
    During our  initiative,  nearly 8
percent of the USTs inspected inter-
nally failed due to pitting corrosion
or perforations; however, when we
reviewed tank-tightness testing, leak
detection, and monthly  monitoring
records, there was no evidence that
the USTs  were  leaking   at  rates
detectable by the release-detection
methodology being used. This find-
ing   coincides    with    concerns
expressed by EPA in the preamble to
the federal rules that as many as 7
percent of existing USTs are corroded
through  but not  leaking  because
"rust plugs," backfill,  or interior
sludge seal the hole.
    We also found that  the vast
majority of  the owners/operators
were not  performing the  required
three-year cathodic-protection sys-
tem testing or inspecting  their
impressed-current cathodic-protec-
tion systems every  60  days,  as
required by state and federal regula-
tions.  In addition, many owners/
operators had performed repairs to
their facilities or other UST system
components  that   severed buried
cables or otherwise caused damage to
the impressed-current cathodic-pro-
tection systems, rendering the sys-
tems   incapable   of   providing
adequate cathodic protection to the
    MDEQ also questioned  the accu-
racy of some  information on the con-
struction  of USTs  reported  on
registration forms. This tended to be
the  case  where  UST  ownership
changed numerous times, and the
subsequent owners apparently did
not verify tank construction prior to
purchase. Nearly 8 percent of the
USTs targeted during this initiative
that were reported to be cathodically
protected steel were either fiberglass,
steel with fiberglass coating (compos-
ite tank), or sti-P3® tanks. Unfortu-
nately,  several  sti-P3  tanks that
appeared  to be  in good condition
were excavated.
    In instances of discovery or claim
of an sti-P3 tank, MDEQ required fur-
ther cathodic-protection testing or
documentation to prove the  UST was
adequately protected by the sacrifi-
cial anode at the time of installation
of the impressed-current cathodic-
protection system. If  a sti-P3 tank
was found to be inadequatley pro-
tected, an internal inspection was
required by MDEQ.
    The   problem  of   accurately
reporting  information on UST regis-
tration forms only highlighted the
need for  owners to  verify  tank
construction prior to  purchasing
facilities  and   the  complications
implementing agencies  encounter
that hinder effective implementation
of the UST program.

How Many More Out There?
The continued use of noninvasive
assessment methodologies to predict
the suitability of USTs for cathodic-
protection upgrade is unlikely with
the passing of U.S. EPA's 1998 dead-
line for upgrading bare-steel USTs of
a  certain  age.  However,  these
methodologies could be used to eval-
uate bare-steel USTs in other coun-
tries, bare-steel USTs  not regulated
by federal and state UST  rules, as
well as other buried metal structures,
such as pipelines.
    I will let you  draw your own con-
clusions regarding the effectiveness
of noninvasive assessment method-
ologies to predict UST failure due to
corrosion as  the sole means of assess-
ing  the suitability of an  UST  for
cathodic-protection upgrade. Regula-
tors should consider  our findings,
together with the means by which
they regulate their UST programs,
when evaluating  whether or not
there exists  a population  of USTs
whose cathodic-protection upgrade,
based on the use  of noninvasive
assessment methodologies, is suspect
and should  be subjected to further
scrutiny. •
                • continued on page 39

                                                                                  by W. David McCaskill

                                        David McCaskill is an Environmental Engineer with the Maine Department of
                                               Environmental Protection. "Tanks Down East" is a regular feature of
                                                LUSTLine. David can be reached at
                                                                      As always, we welcome your comments.
 Maine's Comprehensive Annual Third-Party USTInspection Program
      Penobscot Bay is a stunning place, studded with spruce-trimmed granite islands, the exposed tops of drowned mountains left
      over when the glaciers completed sculpting their masterpiece some 13,000 years ago. Plying these cold, bold waters are elegant
      two- and three-masted schooners that look more organic than mechanic. In this real-life Earth Sea, all creatures and crafts
 must be well built and well maintained to withstand the rigors of winter, wind, and wave. Here in Maine, we have a tradition of mak-
 ing sure that all things—200-year-old farmhouses, 125-year-old schooners, or 15-year-old USTs—are shipshape from stem to stern.
    In this installment of "Tanks Down East," we'll take a look at how Maine's annual third-party inspection program has fared the
 rigors of ensuring that our UST systems are performing their dual duties of providing for our energy needs and protecting precious
 groundwater resources.
Our Inspection Law
Annual UST inspections have been
required in Maine since 1991, but the
inspection results were not required
to be reported to the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP). In
1995, we started sending out letters to
our petroleum-containment captains
(owners/operators) to remind them
of their sacred inspection duties. But
a study conducted in 2000 found that
only 25 percent of our UST systems
were being inspected,  and  of  the
facilities inspected, 35 percent had
deficiencies that remained unfixed
year after  year.  (See LUSTLine #38,
"There Ought to Be a Law!")
    In 2000, our inspection law was
amended to require all UST owners
to submit annual UST inspection
results  to DEP on or before July 1,
2003, and on or before July 1 annually
thereafter. In Maine, we regulate all
underground    petroleum   tanks,
including those used to heat homes,
schools, and  businesses. So this
inspection requirement touches a
bunch of different folks besides your
typical  gas station  operator. The
inspections are  paid  for  by the
owner/operator  and cost between
$250 and  $500,  depending on the
number of tanks at the facility and
the kind of equipment on the site.

The Inspection Report
Failure to submit a passing inspec-
tion report can result in the ultimate
penalty—a  shutdown order. The
inspection must be performed by a
certified inspector or tank installer.
The inspection report  form, which
was developed  by our crack DEP
UST  staff,  summarizes all  the
required annual inspection criteria in
Maine's UST rules. The goal of the
new law is to ensure that the inspec-
tions are undertaken and that any
deficiencies discovered are corrected.
   The items to be inspected include
the oft-repeated litany of the prac-
ticed UST regulator—leak detection,
corrosion protection, and spill- and
overfill-prevention equipment. But in
Maine, the inspection consists of see-
ing not only that these components
are present, but that they are, in fact,
in good condition, installed properly,
and operating correctly.
   The inspection includes a func-
tional test of all significant compo-
nents—interstitial  space  probes,
gauge  sticks,  inventory  control
records,  cathodic-protection  read-
ings, spill buckets and their often-
broken lids, and the proper opera-
tions of those fickle flapper valves
and their evil equivalent, the ball-
float valve!
   Prior to the change in the annual
inspection requirement, the reporting
forms were vague, to say the least.
Following the implementation of our
new  inspection form, it was  still
apparent that some inspectors were
simply identifying the type of UST
equipment at a facility and not neces-
sarily  removing  each  item   and
inspecting it for proper operation.
During the first season of the new
inspection requirement, DEP identi-
fied a number of facilities where elec-
tronic sensors and overfill-prevention
devices were inoperable and appar-
ently had been for some time. In other
cases, there  was no access  to  this
equipment provided during the initial
tank installation and therefore no way
to properly inspect the equipment.
   So we've continued to improve
upon  our  inspection form. That's
why it is now eight pages long and
has a 22-page handbook to go with it.
(Go to
ust/annualinspects.htm to see what's
on the form.)
               • continued on page 32


LUSTLme Bulletin 51 • December 2005
 • Maine's Third-Party UST
 Inspection Program from page 31

A New Tank-Inspector Class
With our new inspection program we
had to create a whole  new class of
licensed technician—the certified
tank inspector. We already had about
85 certified installers who were auto-
matically qualified to be tank inspec-
tors, but the industry had concerns
that there would not be enough certi-
fied  tank  installers  to perform all
these inspections. (To become a certi-
fied tank installer, you must appren-
tice under an installer at four UST
installations and take an initial and
final written test.)
    Since few new tanks were being
installed in Maine, it was difficult to
attract people to the business. How-
ever, many tank and pump compa-
nies had pump technicians who were
factory trained to work on various
kinds of UST equipment and who
could potentially fill the inspector
gap. Before the inspector program,
our UST rules allowed only certified
tank installers and manufacturer-cer-
tified persons to perform the annual
equipment inspections.
    The manufacturer-certified per-
sons were not under the jurisdiction
of our tank installer board. This cre-
ated a  somewhat  unlevel playing
field in that certified installers could
be fined or disciplined for improper
behavior, but manufacturer-certified
persons had no one to put them to
the lash!
    There  were  a few  existing
companies that were using  their
manufacturer-certified personnel to
perform inspections, but they were
limited in what they could work on.
For example, to test the cathodic-pro-
tection readings you had to hire a cer-
tified  tank  installer  or NACE-c
ertified cathodic-protection tester (of
which there are very few).
    To deal with all of these issues,
we developed the  certified  tank-
inspector class. To become a certified
tank inspector you must pass a very
comprehensive test. Certified tank
inspectors must still be manufacturer
certified to work on manufacturer-
certified equipment and must be
NACE certified for cathodic-protec-
tion testing if they choose to test that
portion of an UST facility. Currently
there are  about  27 certified tank
inspectors. So  between this new
group of tank inspectors and our 85
installers, we now have about 112
certified tank inspectors out there.

Getting Ready
We knew that such a new and com-
prehensive program would have
some growing pains. So we decided
to commit resources upfront to pro-
vide  several   statewide  training
venues for inspectors and installers
and send mailings to facilities own-
ers. As part of our preparation, we
convened  a  work  group  with
installers to help us develop and cri-
tique our inspection report form. In
2002, we set out on a statewide voy-
age to train the installers and inspec-
tors and to get even more input.

How's It Going?
In 2004, of the 3,180 registered UST
facilities in Maine, 2,276 submitted a
passing inspection report, 205 sub-
mitted only a failed report (i.e., they
didn't  get the  problems fixed in
time), and 699 didn't submit  any
report.  After invoking the whole
suite of our usual regulatory torture
tools—follow-up letters, phone calls,
and compliance inspections—we had
a "shutdown" list with just six facili-
ties located in sensitive groundwater
    The shutdown orders gave facil-
ity owners 30 days to come into com-
pliance with the inspection law (i.e.,
fix  their UST systems  so that they
would pass) or they would have to
shut down their pumps. All six got
their systems shipshape prior to the
30-day compliance deadline.
    Based on our preliminary results
for  this year, the number  of own-
ers/operators that are not sending in
inspection reports has been, roughly,
cut  in half. It's getting better, and we
are  planning to use the same strategy
for  this  round of nonconformers.
After a few more years, using a com-
bination of hand-holding and wrist-
slapping, we'll hopefully reduce the
number of brigands to a minimum.

Checks and Balances
So,  at least once a year,  all the things
you wish the   owners/operators
would pay attention to are examined
by a knowledgeable person. At least
once a year, product and/or water in
sumps is pumped out, the probe is
put back in place where it can do its
job (not hanging a foot above the bot-
tom of the  sump!), and the leak-
detection console alarm is reset. We
also gain all this data for trend analy-
ses on equipment failure and  the
effectiveness of our inspection form
and our rules,  so we  can tweak, as
    Suspicious-minded   regulators
may wonder what will  keep  un-
scrupulous inspectors from passing
their favorite customers year after
year. We have several checks on such
behavior. Our inspectors are certified
by the Maine Board of Underground
Tank Installers, so there is an incen-
tive to "do the right thing." Other-
wise, if they are caught  they will be
referred  to  a  disciplinary  board
where they can be fined  or lose their
licenses. There are several ways to be
caught. Our  staff perform between
400 and 500 compliance inspections a
year where we field truth the inspec-
tion data.
    Competition  also serves as a
check on the  program. In the yearly
mad  dash   to  get   their  tanks
inspected, some owners wait until
late in the inspection season and find
that their usual inspector is booked.
So they hire another inspector, who
may see things in a different light.
    For example,  there have been
flaps over the flapper valve among
inspectors. The flapper valve is an
overfill-prevention device that  sits
down in the drop tube of the tank
and is set to reduce flow at 95 percent
of the tank volume. It shuts off flow
all together at 98 percent. The differ-
ence between 95 percent flow reduc-
tion and 98> percent shut-off gives the
driver room to drain the delivery
    During an inspection, the inspec-
tor is required to pull out the flapper-
valve assembly to check that it is
operating properly and set at  the
correct height. There have been cases
where a facility's regular inspector
has passed the same  flapper valve
year after year, but then a new, hired-
at-the-last-minute inspector finds the
valve set higher than the required 95
percent (allowing more product to be
squeezed into the tank and increas-
ing the risk of an overfill). (See LUST-
Lme #49, "Small Spills Count.")
                • continued on page 37

                                                                         Dcccinbci 2005 • LLlSTiine Kullclin ~,1
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute
 PEI Introduces  Online  Owner/Operator Training;
 Revises  UST Installation  Document
 Online Owner/Operator Training
 Online training designed to assist owners and opera-
 tors in understanding and operating their under-
 ground petroleum storage systems is now available
 through the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI).
    The training, provided through the PEI Learning
 Center at, currently includes courses
 that teach owners and operators:

  • The main features of their Veeder-Root TLS-350
    automatic tank gauges, including inventory, leak
    detection and important alarms

  • The fundamentals of how their  pressurized
    pumping and dispensing systems work, and what
    needs to be done to detect leaks in these systems

  • The basic principles of operation, potential pit-
    falls, and operation and maintenance procedures
    associated with spill-containment and overfill-
    prevention equipment.

    The courses are designed with the audience in
 mind. Students view short video lessons (each about
 two minutes long) that depict authentic characters in
 real-world scenarios who learn from a peer. A friendly
 technician, an experienced brother-in-law, or a knowl-
 edgeable pump and tank contractor explains what stu-
 dents need to know  to operate their storage systems
 knowledgeably, safely, and within the requirements
 of the federal regulations. While a video  window
 provides a  story line and  audio information, an
 accompanying graphics window provides pictures,
 graphics, animation, and summary notes that further
 explain and illustrate the course content.
    The lessons are followed  by multiple-choice
 quizzes that reinforce the information that has just
 been presented. At the end of the course, students
 may download or print course materials for future ref-
 erence. After completing a final exam, students may
 print a certificate of course completion. Courses cost
 $79 and take about an hour to complete. Any com-
 puter  with a high-speed Internet connection and
 sound capabilities can be used to access the courses
    Course content has been carefully researched and
 reviewed by a panel of equipment manufacturers,
 installers, distributors, service companies, tank own-
 ers, and state and federal regulators.  While specifi-
 cally targeted  for UST operators and ownejs, the
courses are ideal for newly hired UST regulators, service
technicians, and sales or customer service personnel
who need to understand the fundamentals of UST oper-
ation and maintenance.
    State UST regulators are encouraged to provide a
link to the PEI Learning Center on their websites so any-
one seeking UST information can easily find the training
they need.
    These courses represent the  first offerings in PEI's
online UST university. Future courses being considered
include fueling safety, dispenser inspection and mainte-
nance, and cathodic protection of tanks and piping. If
you would like to recommend topics for future course
development, contact Bob Renkes at PEI: (918) 494-9696.
The 2005 edition of PEI's Recommended Practices for
Installation  of Underground Liquid  Storage  Systems
(PEI/RP100) is now available. This edition supersedes
the previous recommended practices of the same name
that were published in 2000. PEI revises RP100 when
warranted to ensure that users of its documents receive
the latest guidance on the proper  methods and tech-
niques for installing UST systems.
   PEI's Tank Installation Committee reviewed 118
suggestions  submitted by  various individuals  and
groups to revise the previous edition of PEI/RP100.
Over 50 percent of these comments were accepted in
some manner by the committee. Significant changes in
the 2005 edition include:

 • A recommendation to install monitored contain-
   ment sumps around  submersible  pumps  and
   beneath dispensers

 • A recommendation against the use of ball-float
   valves for overfill prevention

 • An expanded discussion of piping testing require-
   ments during and after installation

 • A requirement that UST owners establish an inspec-
   tion, maintenance, and testing schedule for their
   storage system equipment.

   The 2005 PEI/RP100 is copyrighted and may not be
photocopied or otherwise reproduced.  Order copies
online at or request an order form by
faxing PEI at (918) 491-9895.

 Revitalizing Contaminated Sites:
 by Edward H. Chu

       Over the past three decades,
       we have seen an evolution
       in  the way  our country
 approaches  the  assessment  and
 cleanup  of contaminated sites. As
 we've come to realize the extent and
 magnitude of our environmental
 problems, we've  (appropriately)
 focused  our  attention squarely on
 addressing the immediate threats to
 our health and well-being. During
 the formative years, we struggled to
 better understand  the threats  and
 figure out how best to address them.
 Our more mature land cleanup pro-
 grams now  reflect hard-wrought
 experience in  assessing and cleaning
 up contaminated sites, whether from
 hazardous wastes or petroleum  and
 petroleum-related products.
    With this maturity comes wis-
 dom.  For example, we now better
 understand the social and economic
 context that contaminated sites have
 in their respective communities,  and
 the potential that these sites have to
 improve  the well-being of people in
 those  communities. We also under-
 stand that land is  a valuable  and
 finite resource and that ignoring pre-
 viously developed, and sometimes
 contaminated, land has  profound
 impacts on our quality of life.
   In short,   we  understand  the
 importance of reusing sites with  real
 or perceived  contamination once
 they've been  assessed and cleaned
 up. Communities, too, are seeing the
 opportunities  to reclaim sites follow-
 ing cleanup,  and some developers
 and others with an interest in  the
 land are increasingly eager to meet
 their needs.
   In keeping with this movement,
 those of at U.S. EPA have a very sim-
ple vision and goal for our cleanup
programs—to restore and return all
 contaminated  (and potentially conta-
minated)  properties to  America's
communities so that they can reuse
the land for beneficial and productive
purposes. In creating this new vision
for our cleanup programs, we  are
shifting our focus from cleanup only
to cleanup and reuse.

    To carry out our revitalization
 vision,  EPA established  the  Land
 Revitalization Office to coordinate
 and promote efficient cleanup and
 reuse of  contaminated properties
 across the agency's land  programs
 and to remove or minimize barriers
 that may  be preventing site reuse
 from occurring. Our success requires
 a  cooperative effort among  EPA,
 states, tribes, local governments and
 communities, potential developers,
 and others. We have nothing to lose
 and a whole lot to gain. Let's consider
 the sense  of all of this and find out
 what EPA has to offer, so we can
 really begin to move forward.

 Assets Galore!
 The cleanup and reuse of contami-
 nated sites is a  critical element in
 ensuring the health and well-being of
 communities. This is particularly true
 for former gas stations and other
 properties with idle, abandoned, or
 leaking USTs, where the revitaliza-
 tion opportunities are tremendous.
 There are more than 250,000 of these
 sites across the country! Most of these
 properties  are located in urban areas,
 along business  corridors, and in
 places where people  live or work.
 They tend  to involve small parcels of
 land and are often situated on corner
 lots and other prime real estate loca-
    Because these sites are often sur-
 rounded by other idle or abandoned
 properties, they also tend to be the
 linchpin to area-wide revitalization
 efforts. These points were not lost on
 Congress when it enacted  national
brownfields  legislation three years
ago to support the reuse of the vast
majority of LUST sites, and these
points are not lost on EPA.
    The new law expanded the origi-
nal U.S.  EPA Brownfields Program
by  including  relatively  low-risk
petroleum sites as eligible  sites for
brownfields assessment and cleanup
grant funding. Under the law, EPA
makes 25 percent  of the total brown-
fields grant funds  available each year
for these sites. In 2005, EPA awarded
 approximately $22 million in brown-
 fields grants to petroleum-contami-
 nated   sites.   Recipients  include
 abandoned sites, such as gas stations,
 and industrial and retail properties
 that have,  or are believed to have,
 contamination from petroleum.

 Imagine That!
 Site reuse is an integral and invalu-
 able element in our cleanup pro-
 grams; more importantly, it allows us
 to get our creative juices going and
 use our imaginations. How? Well, for
 one thing, when site reuse is an
 explicit component of the cleanup
 process, we start to see constructive
 community involvement. Members
 of the community have something to
 look forward to—new parks, hous-
 ing, and retail. They have more rea-
 son  to  find   common  areas  of
 agreement.  We begin to see stronger
 partnerships  among government,
 private developers, and community
 organizations because everyone wins
 when a nei ghborhood springs back to
    When you are looking forward to
 something  better,  you begin  to
 develop cleanup plans that are tai-
 lored to future uses while ensuring
 their long-term protectiveness. Pri-
 vate funding is often more available
 because cleanup money is seen as an
 investment with a stream of future
 returns. Because the partnerships,
 planning, and funding are targeted at
 future  potential, not past  failures,
 contamination can be cleaned  up
 more quickly.
    Finally, by encouraging sustain-
 able reuses such  as green spaces,
 energy-efficient buildings,  smart-
 growth community developments,
 and wetlands, we may also be able to
 prevent the recontamination of for-
 mer contaminated sites. Imagine that!

 Making a  Vision a Reality
The Land Revitalization Office has
identified the following 10 actions
that U.S. EPA is (or will be) taking to
make this  revitalization  vision a

 Promote land revitalization as a
 national policy by ensuring that
 reuse  options are  considered
 explicitly in the evaluation of site
 cleanup options.
 Commit the necessary resources
 to address reuse as a top priority
 in cleanup decisions. In addition
 to the brownfields grants that are
 available, we will look for incen-
 tives to encourage private invest-
 ment and explore ways to better
 leverage other federal funding.
 We believe that encouraging pri-
 vate investment  is a means to
 further the public's goal of pro-
 tection in a timely and cost-effec-
 tive manner.

 Develop  new comprehensive
 policies and programs to address
 unintended   cross-jurisdiction
 and cross-program barriers to the
 safe reuse of previously contami-
 nated properties.  Because in the
 past we  have created uninten-
 tional barriers to reuse and rede-
 velopment    activities    that
 contribute  to community well-
 being, EPA is reviewing its poli-
 cies, practices, and guidance to
 reduce and in some cases tear
 down some of these unintended
 barriers to beneficial reuse.

 Promote  safe, long-term reuse of
 sites. When we say a property is
 ready for reuses, we will mean it,
 for now and later. EPA will pro-
 mote long-term stewardship by
 establishing  and maintaining
 appropriate  engineering  and
 institutional controls that protect
 future generations from inappro-
 priate reuse of sites. For example,
 we are working with states and
 local governments to address
 long-term safety issues systemat-

 Promote sustainable reuse to pre-
vent recontamination and mini-
 mize   other  environmental
problems that may result from
 some reuse. Sustainable  reuses
include such things as  green
 spaces managed in environmen-
tally sound ways, energy-effi-
cient buildings,  smart-growth
community developments, and
wildlife habitats.

Develop  and promote a  Land
Revitalization Research Agenda
   that improves our understanding
   of, and ability to reuse, contami-
   nated or  potentially contami-
   nated sites.

   Build partnerships  to leverage
   knowledge,  expertise, and  re-
   sources for revitalizing sites. This
   includes government-to-govern-
   ment partnerships at the local,
   state, tribal, and federal levels, as
   well as partnerships with non-
   governmental, private, and com-
   munity  organizations. EPA is
   going to expand its  use of part-
   nerships that can stimulate pri-
   vate  investment  in  cleanup
   activities, and we're going to do a
   better job of coordinating multi-
   ple federal cleanup programs at
   area-wide clusters of properties.
 By designing cleanups to mesh with
  community-driven redevelopment
 plans, developers are able to avoid
  redundant construction activities,
     minimize public distrust or
  opposition, and increase certainty
  among all principal! stakeholders.
• Expand community capabilities
  by providing improved public
  involvement tools and informa-
  tion systems on contamination,
  cleanup, reuse, and  long-term
  stewardship. We hope to ensure
  early and continuing community
  involvement. EPA  will  work
  with states and tribes to develop
  a web-based tool  so communi-
  ties, investors, and developers
  have a  national  inventory of
  available clean sites.

• Expand and promote educational
  and training programs that pro-
  vide needed tools to achieve land
  revitalization in such areas as
  real estate development of envi-
  ronmental properties, risk-man-
  agement tools (e.g., insurance),
  and financing.

• Promote efforts to measure and
  report the status and impacts of
  our collective efforts to revitalize
  properties.  EPA  is  exploring
  approaches for obtaining a better
    picture of total contamination
    and mechanisms for measuring
    progress in restoring and return-
    ing land back into use.

 Back to Streamlining
 This evolution of thought and clarity
 of focus is beginning to have signifi-
 cant impacts on how we assess and
 clean up sites under our government
 programs. For example, in the past,
 site assessments have been  con-
 ducted to find  contamination and
 determine whether a  cleanup was
 necessary. Now, these assessments
 are also used to identify and docu-
 ment where there is no contamina-
 tion  or  where  cleanup   is  not
    This  information,  when made
 available  on a timely basis and in an
 easy-to-understand format, reduces
 uncertainty for developers and com-
 munities  that want to  use the land.
 EPA recognizes  the importance of
 information in the real  estate market
 and the need to ensure that environ-
 mental stigma, whether real or per-
 ceived, is appropriately managed.
    In the area of cleanup,  we are
 seeing more integrated cleanup and
 reuse activities, which can make revi-
 talization projects happen faster and
 cost less without reducing their pro-
 tectiveness. By designing cleanups to
 mesh with community-driven rede-
 velopment plans, developers are able
 to  avoid redundant  construction
 activities,  minimize public distrust or
 opposition, and  increase certainty
 among all principal stakeholders.
    Providing  information  about
 sites is equally important to lenders,
 mortgage  companies, and others who
 may be in a position to support reuse
 of the sites. Through such informa-
 tion tools as ready-for-reuse determi-
 nations and clarification of liability
 for developers, lenders, and prospec-
 tive purchasers, previous barriers to
 redevelopment of contaminated sites
 are being removed.

 Through the Lens of Reuse
 There are  countless examples of site
reuse that  have  led to increased
employment opportunities, increased
property values, increased tax rev-
enues, and  the potential for addi-
tional  economic  development  on

                • continued on page 39


                                             TRIBRL  L

  This column focuses on the unique logistical and geographic issues, activities, solutions, and successes associated with USTs and
  LUSTs in tribal lands. In this issue, Greg Pashia, U.S. EPA Region 6, discusses two award-winning capacity-building projects
  undertaken by the LIST programs of two Oklahoma tribes—the Choctaiu Nation and the Chickasaw Nation. Jonathan Hook,
  Region 6 Office of Tribal Affairs Director, recognized the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations for "environmental excellence above
  and beyond the call" during the Region's Ninth Annual Environmental Tribal Summit in Oklahoma City. Chuck Tillman
  (Choctaw UST program) and Josh Presley (Chickasaw UST program) accepted the awards for their work and the work of Brian
  McClain, Director, Choctaw Nation Office of Travel Plazas, and Darren Clinton, Regional Manager, Chickasaw Enterprises, in
  the tribal LIST programs.
Kudos for Two Tribal UST
Capacity-Building Projects
The Choctaw Nation has 13 tribally
owned and operated travel plazas
with a total of 43 USTs. The Chicka-
saw Nation had nine tribally owned
and operated travel plazas. Two of
the travel plazas have been closed
and evaluated for release of gasoline
to the environment (no releases were
found).  At present, the Chickasaw
operate seven UST facilities.
    The Choctaw, the  Chickasaw,
and the EPA Region 6 UST program
developed capacity-building grant
projects that started in 2003 and will
conclude in 2006 to train a full-time
staff member for each tribe. This staff
member's main duty is monitoring
the tribally owned active facilities for
compliance with  all applicable fed-
eral UST regulations with regard to
the installation,  upgrade,  repair,
removal, and investigation/remedia-
tion of any releases to the environ-
ment of petroleum  product. UST
monitors  Chuck  Tillman and Josh
Presley  provide  their  tribes  with
advice on and oversight of the com-
pliance and maintenance of the UST
systems. In addition, Chuck and Josh
train the facility staff members who
conduct the day-to-day operation of
the retail fuel facilities on safety and
leak detection.
    Both the Choctaw and the Chick-
asaw have advanced very quickly to
a level of expertise on the operation
and compliance with federal regula-
tions at all of their travel plazas. The
parties involved in the project have
willingly and expeditiously followed
up on all recommendations from the
UST monitors concerning the need

                                   for financial expenditures to have the
                                   UST facilities managers obtain equip-
                                   ment and UST contractors to address
                                   all deficiencies at the UST locations.

                                   A Way of Life
                                   The Choctaw and Chickasaw UST
                                   staff  monitors continue to  acquire
                                   knowledge and experience concern-
                                   ing the operation and maintenance of
                                   UST facilities through various train-
                                   ing opportunities. This knowledge is
                                   effectively being transferred to the
                                   staff  that conducts the  day-to-day
                                   operation of the UST facilities.
                                      "Prior to this  grant," says Josh
                                   Presley, "the USTs within the Chicka-
                                   saw Nation were assessed, but not as
thoroughly  as they are currently.
With the  economic  growth of the
tribe, it is vital that the environment
be considered  and every measure
taken to protect it. The tribe's natural
resources are an essential part of the
Chickasaw culture and are worth the
extra steps required to ensure their
longevity. The UST  program  will
continue to be an important aspect of
tribal envi ronmental protection. We
expect that by the end  of 2005, all
Chickasaw travel plazas will be  in
full compliance with all federal UST
    "We are now paying attention to
our UST facilities," says Chuck Till-
man. "For example, cathodic-protec-
                                   Developing a Low-Cost, Low-Tech Hydrocarbon Sampling Tool. Members of the South-
                                   ern Methodist University (SMU) Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering con-
                                   duct a field test to verify the use of a field-detecting device for hydrocarbons in soil. U.S.
                                   EPA Region 6 gave the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council a grant to develop a tool that
                                   would be portable, low cost, low tech, but accurate (>50 ppm) in detecting the mass of
                                   hydrocarbons in soil samples collected and analyzed in the field. The cooperation of the
                                   Choctaw Nation helped SMU validate its laboratory-developed data on the tool.

 tion testing had not been completed
 since the original installation of tanks
 that  required  CP  at  three  sites
 approximately 10 to 15 years ago.
 This occurred simply due to the lack
 of knowledge of the type of tanks
 present and the lack of knowledge of
 federal compliance requirements.
    "Now," says Tillman, "a full com-
 pliance inspection is completed for
 each facility once a quarter. The pro-
 gram has become more hands-on. As
 UST program monitor, I inspect spill
 buckets, oversee the installation of
 equipment, and track the  required
 testing for LLD and lines, CP, and
 monthly leak detection. The Choctaw
 Nation has identified one facility that
 has had a release. Remediation efforts
 are  currently underway,  and the
 Choctaw Nation expects to be able to
 receive a no further action letter soon
 from EPA in regard to the release."
    In spring 2006, training will  com-
 mence at the  Choctaw Nation travel
 plazas. The managers  will receive
 training regarding the procedure to
 monitor the ATG equipment, record-
 keeping,  and spill response.  Once
 this round of training is completed,
 training will be given to all Choctaw
 Nation travel plaza employees who
 are present for the day-to-day opera-
 tion on the purpose and operation of
 ATG   alarm   systems   and  spill-
 response procedures. The Choctaw
 Nation is currently supplying  each
 travel plaza with a spill-response kit.
 The tribe expects to achieve 100 per-
 cent Significant Operational Compli-
 ance by spring 2006.
    Both   Chuck  and   Josh  have
 attended trainings on tank installa-
 tion, tank  removal, ATG operation,
 and compliance issues. The grant has
 allowed them to obtain UST Tribal
 Inspector Certification from the Inter-
 Tribal Council of Arizona.
    The  capacity-building  projects
 have   allowed the  Choctaw  and
 Chickasaw to develop  a working
 relationship/partnership with  U.S.
 EPA and other tribes throughout the
United States. The partnership with
EPA has been more of a trust-build-
 ing program,  because it has allowed
for better communication among the
organizations. As a result, EPA is not
looked at solely as an enforcement
authority,  but also as a partner of
whom questions can be asked and
with  whom   information  can be
shared freely.  •
 • NAPL Using Imaging
from page 25

The authors would like to acknowledge the Okla-
homa Corporation Commission, Petroleum Storage
Tank Division, and especially Mary O'Kelley and
Joseph Thacker, for funding this work and providing
tremendous support for the project We would also
like to thank the U S  EPA GWERD laboratory and
John Wilson for providing a great intellectual sound-
ing board for portions of this research Thanks also to
Aestus, Inc. and Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc for supporting
innovative methods and approaches to environmen-
tal problems. Finally, we would like to thank OSU
faculty and students in the School of Geology for the
field work and efforts expended to collect the confir-
mation data required of these ERI geophysical
  Todd Hnlilmn is Assistant Professor nt
  Oklahoma State University, Scliool of
    Geology at Oklahoma. He can be
    reached at
   John Billiard is with Aestus, Inc. in
  Centennial, Colorado. Contact linn at
     Stuart McDonald is also with
      Aestus, Inc. Contact him at

Conrad, S.H , Wilson, J L , Mason, W.R. and Peplm-
  ski, W J., 1992 "Visualization of residual organic
  liquid trapped  in aquifers " Water  Resources
  Research, 28(2): 467-478
Hahhan, T., Paxton, S.T., Graham, I, Fenstemaker,
  T.R and Riley, M., 2005a "Post-remediation evalu-
  ation of a LNAPL site using electrical resistivity
  imaging " Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 7:
Hahhan, T., Paxton, S T., McPhail, M L., McSorley,
  J.D and Riley, M., 2005b. final Report for Characteri-
  zation and Monitoring of LNAPL Using Electrical
  Resistivity Tomography (ERT)  and Hydraulic Push
  Techniques Oklahoma Corporation Commission,
  Petroleum Storage Tank Division, Oklahoma City,
Schwartz, F W. and Zhang, H., 2003 Fundamentals of
  Ground Water. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
  583 pp
Walther, E.G , Pitchford, A M  and Olhoeft, G R ,
  1986. "A strategy for detecting subsurface organic
  contaminants," Ground Water Prevention, Detection
  and Restoration. National Water Well Association,
  Dublin, OH, pp. 357-381
  S^avaUab* •>"«"«
  fo download the
  tUSTLine Index, go to
 • Maine's Third-Party UST
 Inspection Program from page 32

 Our Ship Has Sailed
 So our inspection ship has sailed,
 and  we  sure do hope that  these
 third-party inspections count toward
 U.S.  EPA's  three-year inspection
 schedule as per the new Energy Pol-
 icy Act! Without third-party inspec-
 tions, we would be forced to limit
 our DEP inspections to only feder-
 ally mandated tanks, leaving a large
 population of our tanks  adrift on
 uninspected seas.  We  believe that
 annual third-party inspections, cou-
 pled   with  regulatory inspection
 spot-checks, will  go  a long way
 toward taking the wind out of our
 leaking UST problem in Maine. •
 OSRTI Publishes Results
 of Study of Triad at
 Petroleum Sites
 The September 2005 issue of Cleanup
 News II contains the article "Triad Saves
 $109K on Three Petroleum Sites." The
 article describes the results of a study
 undertaken in fall 2004 with the South
 Dakota Petroleum Release Compensa-
 tion Fund, evaluating whether the Triad
 approach could significantly improve the
 management of petroleum release sites.
   South Dakota's  experience showed
 that conventional assessment programs
 were  providing an inadequate under-
 standing of contaminant sources and the
 extent of contamination, which in turn
 led to inappropriately designed remedia-
 tion systems—all of which were driving
 up costs to the Fund.
   Triad is an innovative  approach for
 remedial  decision-making at contami-
 nated sites. The approach was formu-
 lated to produce highly reliable "pictures"
 of contaminant locations and concentra-
 tions, promote efficient remedial actions,
 and lower costs. These  benefits  are
 achieved through integration of three pri-
 mary components: systematic planning,
 dynamic work strategies, and real-time
 measurement systems. Triad  offers  a
technically defensible methodology for
 managing decision uncertainty that lever-
ages innovative characterization tools
and strategies.
   The full  article  can  be   read  at


 A River Runs Through It
 by Lynn A. Woodard

      The New Hampshire Department
      of  Environmental   Services
      (NHDES) requires that UST sys-
 tems have a separation distance of at
 least 75 feet from surface water. But
 what about placing a surface water
 body on top of an existing UST sys-
 tem? This is exactly what happened
 on October  8, 2005, during severe
 flooding in Alstead, New Hampshire.
 The high intensity and long duration
 of the rain event caused extensive ero-
 sion. When a 12-foot culvert plugged
 up with debris, the hydraulic pressure
 built up and punched through, taking
 the road with it and diverting the
 course of Warren Brook, a tributary of
 the Cold River. Suddenly, the KMEC
 Garage was in the middle of the river
 and  being  washed  downstream...
 except for its USTs.
    The facility consisted of a compos-
 ite 6,000-gallon gasoline tank  with
 three 2,000-gallon compartments, and a 2,000-gallon diesel tank. The tanks were installed in September 1997 and closed
 on October 14, 2005. The tanks were pulled by an NHDES contractor, who pumped 1,000 gallons of a diesel/water mix-
 ture and 4,500 gallons of a gas/water mixture prior to removing the tanks. A total of 1,700 gallons of water was recovered
 from the two tanks. No contamination was in evidence. We will have to determine cost recovery later. The river has been
 redirected back to its original course; however, the land may not be recoverable. •

          Lynn A. Woodard, P.L.  is Supervisor of Hie Oil Compliance Section, Waste Management Division, NHDES
                                 He can be reached at lwoodard@cies.stcite.nh us.
The facility iust after the river rerouted through it. Only the tanks remain; the building was washed
away during the flood.
                                                                                On September 22, heavy rains
                                                                                caused three of the four gasoline
                                                                                tanks at Phillips 66/Miller Mart in
                                                                                Lawrence, Kansas to float out of
                                                                                their subterranean home, smashing
                                                                                through the concrete pavement.
                                                                                The tanks were not anchored and
                                                                                contained little fuel, which would
                                                                                have served as ballast.

 i Revitalizing Contaminated Sites from page 35
surrounding properties. Communi-
ties have also benefited from new
recreational  and  ecological  areas
where  the availability of land for
such uses was limited.
    Reused sites  improve the aes-
thetic  quality of the  community
through  the  creation of well-main-
tained  properties, the removal  of
blight,  and the discouragement  of
illegal  waste disposal  and  similar
unwanted activities. Reusing  a site
also  benefits  the  cleanup  itself
through increased day-to-day atten-
tion to the site.
    Through the  lens  of reuse, we
have the  opportunity to rethink how
we  approach sites in  a way that
meets the needs of the public and pri-
vate sectors and, most importantly,
affected communities. The reuse  of
sites represents a move beyond the
singular, essential goal of protecting
human health and the environment,
and embraces the increasing impor-
tance of land as a  source  and  a
resource for community revitaliza-
tion. It reflects the idea that sites can-
not,  and should  not,  be fenced,
abandoned, and unavailable for use
by the community.
    In  the  decades  to  come,  our
cleanup  programs  will view sites
with an understanding  that  these
properties are woven into the fabric
of  their communities.  We  must
approach them with the interests and
needs of future generations in mind.
We've come a long way, and we will
continue to build on this excellent
foundation  to  help communities
become even more vibrant. •

 r.tlii'tiitl H. dm /•; the Acting Directo!
   ofil.S E/Ws Lmid Rental ration
      Office  Hi- cnn Iv i en dial tit
  Trenton, N J, Mayor Acts to Spur Reuse of
  Abandoned Gas Stations
  A news article In the Trenton Times on November 7,2005, described the plans
  of Trenton Mayor Glen Gilmore and the township of Hamilton for contacting
  the owners of abandoned gas stations and involving them in planning for
  reuse of their properties, Trenton has been a leader in the reuse of abandoned
  gas station sites ever since it was awarded one of the first USTfields Pilot
  grants in 2000. The article can be seen at
• Michigan LIST Assessment
from page 30

  Dnn } oniiiiiich /s ii geologist specializ-
  ing in the enfot cement of stom^e hiiik
   regulation*- fot the \\iclngan Depart-
    ///(•/// 011 /ii'iio/iinei/liil Qunlihf'^
  \\'as!e and I la anlou^ Material* I )/;v-
   sion  Dim i/r/r
 FAQs  from  the NWGLDE
I. ..All you ever mated to know about leak detection, but were afraid to ask.
 CITLDS and Throughput
 In this issue of the National Work Group on Leak Detection
 Evaluations' (NWGLDE's) FAQs, we discuss Continuous In-
 Tank Leak Detection Systems (CITLDS) protocol throughput
 limitations. It may help to look back at the last issue's (August
 2005) FAQs concerning CITLDS protocols to better under-
 stand  the following discussion. Please note: The views
 expressed in this column represent those of the workgroup and
 not necessarily those of any implementing agency.

       Why does the CITLDS protocol (1/7/2000 edition)
       include a limitation on throughput?

       Before we can discuss throughput, we must first
       know how it is defined in the protocol. According
       to the CITLDS protocol, throughput is the volume
       of product dispensed from a tank in a month. The
       operation of CITLDS depends on "quiet time" (no
       deliveries and no dispensing operations). Jairus D.
       Flora Jr., author of the protocol, thought it was
       important to limit throughput because CITLDS is
       most commonly used on tank systems at high-
       throughput, 24-hour-operation facilities. Exces-
       sively high throughput could severely limit the
       amount of "quiet time." Without enough "quiet
       time" the CITLDS would be unable to perform a
       valid leak test within the required monthly time
       period. Dr. Flora believed limiting throughput
       was the best way to ensure that enough "quiet
       time" was available for CITLDS to operate prop-
       erly. The throughput limitation of a CITLDS
       should be an important consideration  for a
       prospective purchaser who intends to install a
       CITLDS at a busy location.

       How should the monthy throughput limitation be
       applied to manifolded tank systems?

  A    The throughput limitation applies to manifolded
       tanks as follows. Since the statistical calculations
       in the protocol are based on dataset records from
      tank systems, the monthly throughput limitation
      must also apply to tank systems, including mani-
      folded tank systems. This means that the through-
      put  limit applies to all the tanks manifolded
      together and not each one separately. For exam-
      ple, if you have three 10,000-gallon tanks joined
      by manifolds to each other and are using CITLDS
      equipment where the evaluation limits the use of
      a tank system to a monthly throughput of 200,000
      gallons, then the throughput limit for this storage
      system  is 200,000 gallons, NOT  600,000 (3 x
      200,000) gallons.

NWGLDE is an independent work group comprising 10
members, including eight state and two U.S. EPA mem-
bers. This column provides answers to frequently asked
questions (FAQs) NWGLDE receives from regulators
and people in the industry on leak detection. If you
have questions for the  group, please contact them at

NWGLDE's mission:
 • Review leak-detection system evaluations to deter-
   mine if each evaluation was performed in accor-
   dance with an acceptable leak-detection test method
   protocol and ensure that the leak-detection system
   meets U.S. EPA and/or other applicable regulatory
   performance standards
 • Review only  draft and final leak-detection test
   method protocols submitted to the work group by a
   peer review committee to ensure they meet equiva-
   lency standards stated in the U.S. EPA standard test
 • Make the results of such reviews available to inter-
   ested parties
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
                                       U.S. Postage
                                     Wilmington, MA
                                       Permit No.