New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
www.nejwpcc.org/lustline
116 John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
Bulletin 55
June
2007
LJULS.THNE
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M
Look, A v'Grccnr/ fueling Station
The Future is Here...at a Former Eugene, Oregon, Brownfield Site
Ellen Frye
A "green" fueling station? It's
not an oxymoron. It exists.
Lihe a Phoenix rising from a
fetid cesspool, the founders of
SeQuential Biofuels have given
form (and function) to the most
sustainable fueling station in the
Pacific Northwest, if not the
entire United States. Located on
McVay Highway in Eugene,
Oregon, the station is a
showpiece that takes the whole
business of fuel dispensing to a
new level—and it is a successful
brownfield venture as well.
"It tooh creative thought,
perseverance, and a real desire
on the part of all of the parties
involved to make this project
work," says Tyson Keever, co-
founder of SeQuential Biofuels.
"And it did work, and our customers have been very
positive. We've had customers come into the store with
tears in their eyes, saying they've never had this kind of
choice at a fueling station."
Build it and they will come? Yes, their customer base
is growing, but they've had one key perception issue:
"Right now, our biggest hurdle is letting people know
that every single car on the road can fuel here, " says
Keever. "They see the word 'biofuels' and think they don't
have a car that will take bio fuel."
So, what about the fuels?
• continued on page 2
SeQuential Biofuels'new facility. Note the
"living roof" on the convenience store.
Inside
5() EPA Puts Off Regulating MtBE
6() Montana's Third-Party Inspection and Delivery Prohibition
Programs—the Rocky Road
10() Counting Leaks
11() What's in Your Gasoline?
12() API's New Protocol for Evaluating MtBE Natural Attenuation
13() Goodbye to Stage II Vapor Recovery?
14() FAQs from the NWGLDE - Disclaimer
15() Federal Energy Policy Act Update
'&() Navajo Nation Bioremediation
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
m Green Fueling Station
from page 1
The Fuels
The station offers an assortment of
biofuel blends for all gasoline and
diesel vehicles—E10 for all gasoline
vehicles, B5 diesel for all diesel vehi-
cles, B20 blend and B99 biodiesel for
most diesel vehicles, and E85
bioethanol for flex-fuel vehicles—
currently, one of only three such pub-
lic pumps in Oregon. The fuel is
stored and dispensed in a state-of-
the-art, double-walled system.
More than 50 percent of the
biodiesel sold at the station is made
at the SeQuential-Pacific Biodiesel
plant in Salem, Oregon, a location
that greatly reduces the carbon diox-
ide (CO2) emissions attributed to
shipping fuel into Oregon from great
distances. Most of that biodiesel is a
recycled product made from used
cooking oil collected from restau-
rants and food processors through-
out Oregon and Washington.
During November 2006, the
station also sold the only biodiesel
L.U.S.T.Line
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 (#1-830380-01)
between NEIWPCC and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
LUSTLine is issued as a communication
service for the Subtitle I RCRA
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.
NEIWPCC
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Telephone: (978) 323-7929
Fax: (978) 323-7919
lustline@neiwpcc.org
(£<9 LUSTLine is printed on Recycled Paper
made from Oregon-
grown canola.
To close the
loop even further,
cooking oil can be
dropped off at the
station as a service
for customers and
community mem-
bers. SeQuential
routes the used
cooking oil to its
Salem production
facility for process-
ing into biodiesel.
According to Se-
Quential, from Sep-
tember 2, 2006, to
April 30, 2007, the
mix of biofuels fuels
sold at the Eugene
station reduced CO2
emissions (which
contribute to global
climate change) by
2.5 million pounds.
The station is bordered with grassy bioswales that contain stormwater runoff from the site, reme-
diate contamination biologically before it leaves the site, and slow the flow of stormwater into the
storm-sewer system.
The Energy Savings
The station is powered using 100 per-
cent renewable energy. On an annual
basis, 50 percent of that power is pro-
vided by a 33.6 kw photovoltaic solar
array integrated into the canopies
over the fueling islands. The photo-
voltaic array offsets 2,450 pounds of
CO2 each month. The other 50 per-
cent is purchased as 100 percent wind
power from the Eugene Water and
Electric Board.
The natural foods convenience
store at the station is designed for
energy efficiency. It is well insulated,
and lit during the day by many win-
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
dows and skylights augmented by
high-efficiency, variable mechanical
lighting. Using a passive solar
design, its large high windows on the
south side collect winter warmth
from the sun, and its ground-level
louver windows on the north side
allow a flush of cool air at night dur-
ing the summer.
Other Sustainable Design
Elements
A seasonal organic produce stand
featuring locally harvested fruits and
vegetables is located at the entrance
to the convenience store. Inside, there
is a wide selection of natural snacks
and beverages. SeQuential has hand-
picked each product based on where,
how, when, and by whom it was
made. Every effort has been made to
source local and organic products.
Even the fountain cups and straws
can be composted. The soda fountain
offers Blue Sky All Natural soda in
six flavors.
The station is bordered with
grassy bioswales that contain
stormwater runoff from the site,
remediate contamination biologically
before it leaves the site, and slow the
flow of stormwater into the storm-
sewer system.
The "living roof" on the conve-
nience store also reduces the flow of
stormwater from what would other-
wise be an impervious surface. The
roof contains almost 5,000 plants in
six inches of soil. Many of the plants
are native to Oregon. The living roof
also helps to keep the convenience
store cool in the summer by deflect-
ing the intense summer sun.
Wood products used in the store
were selected for recycled content
and Forest Stewardship Council cer-
tification to the greatest extent possi-
ble. Instead of purchasing new
gondola shelving for the store, the
construction team reconditioned
wood gondolas donated by REI, Inc.
Although more expensive initially,
concrete was chosen over asphalt for
all of the vehicle areas on the site due
to its increased longevity. Fly ash is
recycled in the concrete.
But It Wasn't So Long Ago...
Before its transformation, the site had
been a gas station from 1976 until it
closed in 1991, when Mid Oil Com-
pany and Franko Oil Company filed
Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The property
"The basic formula to any Brownfield
project is not wanting what is there
now, defining what is wanted, and
filling in the gaps. There are many
ways to get there, most of which
require someone with the vision and
drive to make it happen."
Jim Glass, Oregon DEQ
was turned over to the bankruptcy
estate.
In 1991, petroleum-contaminated
soil was observed during utility
trenching just east of the site. Conta-
mination had also migrated to a resi-
dential well west of the site. In 1996, a
speculative Limited Liability Com-
pany (LLC) purchased the property
out of bankruptcy with the intent to
clean up and resell. They removed
the five USTs and excavated a limited
amount of contaminated soil. After
realizing the scope of the cleanup
work, the LLC stopped all work. The
Oregon Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (DEQ) initiated enforce-
ment actions against the LLC for
failure to complete the site cleanup.
In January 1997, under enforce-
ment order, three monitoring wells
were installed, and the dispenser
islands were identified as the pri-
mary source of contamination (33,000
)jg/L benzene). By March 1999, three
additional monitoring wells were
installed downgradient; benzene at
25,000 pg/L was detected at the
southeast corner of the property. The
already derelict site continued its
downward spiral of neglect.
In September 2000, the consul-
tant who had worked on the soil
investigation and monitoring well
installations for the LLC placed a lien
on the property for nonpayment. He
sued and asked for payment or the
property. He got the property. But he
was not financially viable and com-
pleted no further investigations or
cleanup. The property, with no viable
business for over a decade, was
already a dumping ground for
garbage and had also become a
haven for drug use.
"It was a very contaminated gas
station that had been a blight on the
face of the community for way too
long," says DEQ's Western Region
Tanks Manager, Dave Belyea, who
• continued on page 4
Top: The former contaminated gas station
had been a blight on the face of the commu-
nity for many years. The site was a dumping
ground for tires, all manner of garbage,
drums of potentially hazardous wastes, and a
substantial collection of syringes.
Right: Oregon DEQ's Dave Belyea displays a
bailer filled with free-product gasoline pulled
from a monitoring well on the site.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
m Green Fueling Station
from page 3
would bring the site to SeQuential's
attention. "There were hundreds of
tires, syringes, mounds of garbage,
and drums of potentially hazardous
wastes. And that's just on the surface
of the site; below ground there were
feet of free product on the groundwa-
ter that had been there in the clayey
soil for about 20 years."
The Turning Point
With all its problems, the McVay
Highway site had one big asset: easy
access to Interstate 5. Earlier,
SeQuential had approached DEQ
about another out-of-use station they
were considering for a retail biofuels
project near the university in Eugene.
After abandoning that prospect
because of problems with that site,
they learned about the McVay High-
way site.
"This site gave us a unique
opportunity to do a number of things
that we felt were important and to try
out different ideas," explains Tyson
Keever. "We wanted to explore rede-
veloping a brownfield site, incorpo-
rate all the elements of sustainable
design, and offer products that con-
tribute to sustainable living, begin-
ning with the fuel we sell—'pull in,
fill up, feel good,' as we like to say."
The vision for the site was there,
but here's where the hard work and
perseverance kicked in mightily. The
plan was to apply for a federal
Brownfield Cleanup grant. For this to
work, Lane County would have to
tax foreclose on the property and
essentially own it.
"The county was very hesitant
about owning or acquiring contami-
nated property, primarily because of
liability concerns," says Jim Glass,
Environmental Specialist for DEQ's
Western Region Tanks Program.
Under the federal Brownfields pro-
gram, the CERCLA strict liability lan-
guage holds the responsible party
exempt from cleanup liability if it has
not caused or contributed to contami-
nation. At first, Lane County was not
convinced this was true.
Furthermore, the county did not
want to oversee a major cleanup.
"We needed to build confidence
between the county and state as to
how this process would be man-
aged," explains Glass.
"It took several meetings with the
county's legal council and economic
development and property manage-
ment people, and also getting other
folks involved with the development,
for DEQ to convince the county to
move forward with the project,"
recalls Dave Belyea. "Three different
agreements between the county,
DEQ, and SeQuential had to be nego-
tiated simultaneously to get everyone
on board. It took about six months.
Then it was full steam ahead."
The county foreclosed on the
property and applied for a $200,000
Brownfield Cleanup grant in Novem-
ber 2004, and completed surface
cleanup, serving as part of its $40,000
match, in January 2005.
DEQ is managing the ongoing
cleanup, and the county is adminis-
tering the grant. The grant recipient
must maintain ownership of the
property until USEPA closes out the
grant. At that point, SeQuential,
which is currently leasing the prop-
erty from the county, will have the
option to purchase.
Prior to receiving the Brown-
fields cleanup grant, DEQ completed
a site-specific assessment (SSA) in
March 2005 to determine the extent
of contamination and select a remedi-
ation approach. USEPA awarded the
cleanup grant to the county in May
2005. DEQ is using an Orphan Site
cleanup contractor, GeoEngineers,
Inc., and will oversee the cleanup,
coordinating with SeQuential where
needed.
DEQ continues to monitor shal-
low and deeper aquifers, watching
for potential upgradient contamina-
tion coming onto the site. The agency
will use the last of the available fund-
ing to permanently abandon the
monitoring wells.
Commitment...an Essential
Ingredient
"It took a whole lot of work on the
part of many people," says Brooks
Stanfield, USEPA Region 10 Brown-
fields Team, who worked on the pro-
ject. "At several points in the project,
when things became critical, it
always felt like this turned into
everyone's number one priority.
They were all pulling hard in the
same direction."
"The hardest part of the process
was making sure everything moved
forward," recalls Tyson Keever, "and
it did. There were many, many play-
ers and much coordination. I think
the key is having people who really
want to make it work. Sure it was dif-
ficult, but all in all we had a positive
experience that was very powerful.
There was the greater benefit from
the recycling."
DEQ's project team included Jim
Glass as contract coordinator, Bryn
Thorns as project manager, and Char-
lie Landman as intergovernmental
agreement and prospective purchase
agreement (which limits SeQuential's
future liability) negotiator.
"Jim and Bryn were truly the
project champions who got us over
Oregon DEQ's Rural and Economically
Distressed Site Assessment Initiative
Rural and economically distressed areas face unique challenges in promoting
and achieving brownfields redevelopment and other revitalization projects in
their communities. DEQ created the Oregon Rural and Economically Distressed
Site Assessment Initiative to assist rural and economically distressed commu-
nities in assessing specific brownfield sites.
In June 2003, the Initiative was awarded $400,000 in site assessment Brown-
field Grant funding by USEPA; an additional $200,000 was awarded in May
2005. DEQ has completed nine Phase I Environmental Site Assessments at
sites undergoing certification as part of the governor's Industrial Land Initia-
tive, completed seven site assessments at hazardous substance sites, and
completed eleven site assessments at petroleum sites..
For more information on the Oregon Rural and Economically Distressed Site
Assessment Initiative, go to http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/brownfields/
distressed, htm •
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
the hurdles," says Stanfield. "They
kept at it, basically working to get the
site cleaned up and orchestrating
every last thing, from regulatory
issues to budget to project logistics."
"The basic formula to any
Brownfield project," says Jim Glass,
"is not wanting what is there now,
defining what is wanted, and filling
in the gaps. There are many ways to
get there, most of which require
someone with the vision and drive to
make it happen."
As for Sequential?
"SeQuential's reuse vision is special,"
says Brooks Stanfield. "They are tak-
ing land recycling and stewardship to
a whole new level." And, yes, they
are looking to recycle more brown-
field sites.
In addition to incorporating
numerous sustainable design ele-
ments into its construction, the com-
pany has also utilized the Eugene
station as an opportunity to expose
customers to those unique elements
while providing education and refer-
ral for items that interest particular
customers. There are a number of
educational displays on site. Some of
them, like the computer kiosk that
monitors the power generation from
the solar array, are interactive. The
station also has an area used to pro-
mote other Eugene businesses that
incorporate elements of sustainability
into their businesses.
In September 2006, SeQuential
Biofuels received a Eugene Area
Chamber of Commerce Emerald
Award for "innovation." Given the
success of the Eugene station,
SeQuential has plans to replicate the
biofuel station model throughout
Oregon and beyond. Based on the
continued refinement and success of
the business model, SeQuential
intends to roll out more station sites,
including brownfield sites, at an
increasing rate. •
For more information on the Oregon
DEQ 's brownfields program, contact
Jim Glass atglass.jim@deq.state. or.us,
or go to: http://www.deq. state.or.
us/wmc/cleanup/brnO.htm
For more information on
SeQuential Biofuels, go to:
www.sqbiofuels.com
EPA Puts Off Making a CCL
Determination to Regulate Mt
by Ellen Frye
~] or the second time in five years,
H USEPA has declined to list
MtBE as a possible candidate
for a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL,) at least partly because the
health risk assessment is still not
completed—the agency is requesting
more occurrence information.
USEPA's "preliminary determina-
tion" was published in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2007; comments
are due on or before July 2, 2007.
To assess and address risks
posed by unregulated contaminants,
the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), as amended in 1996,
requires USEPA to make regulatory
determinations on at least five unreg-
ulated contaminants and decide
whether to regulate them through a
federal drinking water standard.
SDWA requires that these determina-
tions be made every five years. These
unregulated contaminants are typi-
cally chosen from a list known as the
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL),
which SDWA requires the agency to
publish every five years.
EPA published its second CCL
(CCL 2) in the Federal Register on Feb-
ruary 24, 2005 (70 FR 9071 (USEPA,
2005a)). (MtBE was on the first CCL
list, which was published in 1998.)
The May 2007 notice announced its
preliminary determination that no
regulatory action is appropriate or
necessary for the following 11 conta-
minants: boron, the dacthal mono-
and di-acid degradates, 1,1-dichloro-
2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethylene
(DDE), 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone),
2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene,
s-ethyl propylthiocarbamate (EPTC),
fonofos, terbacil, or 1,1,2,2-tetra-
chloroethane. This preliminary notice
also updates the public on the
agency's evaluation of perchlorate
and MtBE, contaminants of particular
interest to the public.
This action presents the prelimi-
nary regulatory determinations for 11
of the 51 contaminants listed on CCL
2 and describes the supporting ratio-
nale for each. For the time being, at
least, USEPA says that a regulatory
determination is not appropriate
any of the 11 contaminants consi
ered. The agency seeks comment on
its preliminary determination
none of these 11 contaminants nee
to be regulated in drinking water an
is requesting comment from the pub-
lic. In October 2006, USEPA pub-
lished a request for nominations of
compounds for the next CCL list
(CCL3) and will likely publish a draft
CCL3 list for comment later this year.
When making a regulatory deter-
mination, the SDWA requires USEPA
to consider three areas:
• The potential adverse effect the
contaminant may have on the
health of humans
• The extent of contaminant occur-
rence in public drinking water
• Whether regulation of the conta-
minant presents a meaningful
opportunity for reducing health
risks.
In CCL1, USEPA passed on
MtBE because it did not have enough
occurrence information, and because
it was revising the health assessment.
In CCL2 the agency has a substantial
amount of occurrence data, but the
risk assessment is still not done. The
occurrence information listed is
essentially the same as what was
known two years ago, mostly from
separate USGS and USEPA national
surveys (i.e. <0.5% of public water
systems with detects above 5 ppb).
However, while the agency waits for
the final health-risk assessment, it
will continue to collect and evaluate
occurrence information. The latest
notice summarizes some of the avail-
able and relevant occurrence infor-
mation for MtBE and provides an
opportunity for states to voluntarily
submit finished drinking water
occurrence data, information on the
potential impacts of MtBE contami-
nation on public water systems, and
any treatment information.
For more information go to:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/reg_
determine2.html
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
tory from Ivlontana
Down the Rocky Road of Third-Party
Inspections, Delivery Prohibition...
and Stuff
by Bill Rule
In April 1999, the Montana Legisla-
ture handed its UST Program a
time bomb with a short fuse. The
fuse was two years and eight months
long. The bomb was "green-tag"
delivery prohibition based on full
compliance. But while full compli-
ance is a noble goal, and green-tag
delivery prohibition is enormously
practical, together they can be explo-
sive. Then add third-party inspec-
tions, stir, and, well... you get the
picture.
The 1999 legislation privatized
the state's UST inspections, and the
UST program was given three years
to:
• write rules
• provide outreach to the regulated
community
• develop internal compliance and
follow-up processes
• train private inspectors
• create and provide inspection
forms
• develop database tracking proce-
dures
• help all facilities achieve full
compliance and issue operating
permits and tags to the facilities.
Well, it was a bit of a roller
coaster ride. Statute gave our pro-
gram two years and eight months to
develop and complete third-party
compliance inspections. We actually
met this deadline, but hasty concep-
tion kept us flying by the seat of our
pants for six years. In the end, the
bomb was defused two days before it
was to go off.
Our story can provide an advi-
sory tale for states that may follow
our path into third-party UST com-
pliance inspections. This is the story
of how we proceeded, where we
goofed, and what we learned from
our experience. Thus forewarned, an
agency might want to avoid the short
developmental timeframe. It might
want to avoid applying enforcement-
of-last-resort to petty noncompliance.
It might want to keep in mind that it
can gain efficiency but that some-
times this efficiency comes with a
hair-raising dose of mental torment.
It All Seemed So Simple
It all started when our program's 28-
page "State of the Program" docu-
ment happened to mention that
third-party inspections were a
"future consideration." Our five-year
inspection cycle had gaps in cover-
age—in other words, our local gov-
ernment inspectors (e.g., county
sanitarians) were inconsistent. More
often than not, inspections were fol-
lowed by training and compliance
assistance rather than enforcement.
Our Governor at that time was
looking for some government func-
tions to privatize. The Montana
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity's (DEQ's) department director
chaired the Petro Fund board, which
used compliance for eligibility deter-
mination. The petroleum service
industry supported an opportunity
for a new profit center. Owners
believed privatized inspections
would reduce government intrusion.
It all seemed so simple—just
train and field third-party compli-
ance inspectors. If a facility failed the
inspection, make the owner/operator
fix the problem and get a reinspec-
tion. But it did not prove so easy.
Construction permitting, leak-detec-
tion documentation deficiencies,
mobilization in a large state, and the
vagaries indigenous to UST regula-
tion complicated corrective action.
This, in turn, complicated the entire
process.
The Journey
So it came to pass that we had to be
off and running. It was a windier
road than we'd expected. Here is a
"lite" synopsis of our journey:
• Task force -We started with a task
force that included industry and
facility owners to guide the imple-
mentation. The task force gave some
general guidance (and a few inciden-
tal mandates) to the UST Program,
but it was left to the program to
develop procedures and process con-
trols.
• Rules - We wrote rules to establish
our authority and create the process.
We used Alaska's program as a
model, but statutory differences lim-
ited just how much we could imitate.
On these uncharted waters we, of
course, made some errors.
• Outreach - We conducted a lot of
outreach—"Heads up, deadlines a-
coming." We wrote articles in seven
issues of our state newsletter, MUST
News; mailed seven direct mailings;
phoned all owners twice; provided
an Internet presence; sent two press
releases to Montana's seven daily
newspapers; had a booth at the Mon-
tana Petroleum Marketers Conven-
tion; published articles in three other
state agency newsletters; distributed
a brochure; and enlisted the support
of distributors to pass the word. Our
administrative mailings provided
outreach as well (e.g., "You have not
sent in an inspection report. This is
what you need to know.").
• Inspector training, testing, and
licensing - We trained, tested, and
licensed inspectors. From experience
training our own staff, we believe it
takes six months to train new compli-
ance inspectors. The first class was
comprised of professionals in the
UST field, but the 20-hour class pro-
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
vided only marginally adequate
training. Our test included a difficult
200-question written test and a four-
facility field practicum. Though well-
versed in installation and testing,
these inspectors did not naturally
take to applying regulatory conclu-
sions to observations.
In retrospect, however, this ini-
tial training was a fine starting point.
Routine contact to discuss inspection
reports combined with technical
guidelines and continuing education
soon added up to the additional
training needed.
• Inspection forms - We revised
and published inspection forms. By
July 2000, we were ready to field 25
inspectors. At this point, we had a
year and a half (until January 1, 2002)
to conduct all 1,500 inspections. All
facilities were to be in full compliance
by April 1, 2002, or they would not be
able to lawfully receive or dispense
fuel.
• Inspections - Owners were slow
to initiate inspections. They'd never
had to do so before. On top of this,
inspectors were not generally moti-
vated to pursue inspection opportu-
nities. Most inspectors work for
service providers who conduct
inspections as one part of their ser-
vice. None of our inspectors conducts
inspections full time.
While we did get almost all facili-
ties inspected within the statutory
timeframe, there was no way we
were going to get all facilities in full
compliance by April 1, 2002. We were
looking at about 30 percent full com-
pliance. This is not surprising when
you consider that there is 67 percent
significant compliance nationally.
Additionally, we were still inventing
the follow-up processes.
• Process correction Processes
changed as reality replaced theory.
For example, we made an early
assumption that the inspection
reports would adequately inform
owners of violations and corrective
actions. In fact, we found that inspec-
tors often did not understand what
constituted violations; requirements
were not documented as either com-
pliant or noncompliant, and some
reports were hard to decipher. Our
program was compelled to send let-
ters to owners distilling the results of
the inspection and the required cor-
rective action. With about 70 percent
noncompliance (based on the full
compliance standard), this was a
huge unanticipated workload.
• More outreach - We provided
more outreach—"And we really
mean it, no Operating Permit, no
fuel!"
• Data management Our program
contractors modified the UST Access
database to handle the new process.
Our database became ready for input
in November 2001. We could then
process the backlog of inspections.
The inspection deadline was now
coming up in two months.
• Rule and statutory changes We
effected five rule changes and a statu-
tory change to make the program
achievable. One amendment gave
owners another year to comply
(April 1, 2003). Another gave the
department six more months to
review the inspections (July 1, 2002).
We established Compliance Plans,
Conditional and Provisional Operat-
ing Permits, and the definition of
"active tank." We assigned the
authority to interpret inspection
reports to the department, clarified
the scope of inspections, and modi-
fied the consequences of noncompli-
ance. We also authorized significance
criteria.
• Still more outreach We con
ducted still more outreach—new
deadlines, new rules of engagement.
• Enforcement - The statutory stan-
dard of full compliance was in effect
until two days before our amended,
extended deadline of April 1, 2003. A
• continued on page 8
What Do USEPA Guidelines Say about Who May Conduct an UST Inspection?
On April 24, 2007, USEPA issued its final guidelines for inspection grants. EPA developed the guidelines, in conjunction with
states and stakeholders, according to Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The guidelines identify which
USTs require an on-site inspection, the requirements for the on-site inspection, who can perform the on-site inspection, and
what information needs to be reported to USEPA. A key decision that many states will need to make before the guidelines
become effective on August 8, 2007 will be the type of inspection program they will adopt.
The guidelines state that the UST inspection must be conducted by one of the following:
• A USEPA inspector.
• A state UST implementing agency inspector.
• Another state or local agency inspector that the state UST implementing agency has duly designated, in accordance
with state procedures, to conduct UST inspections. For example, this option is used in California and Florida.
• A contractor that USEPA or a state UST implementing agency has duly designated to conduct UST inspections.
For example, the Wisconsin UST program uses this inspection method.
• A private UST inspector operating under a third-party inspection program. For the purposes of the guidelines, a third-
party inspection program is a state program in which a state-authorized private inspector is paid by an UST
owner/operator to perform an inspection. The guidelines provide minimum requirements that a state must meet to
implement a third-party inspection program. This option is currently used in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, and
Montana.
You can view the guidelines at USEPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
m A Story from Montana
from page 7
statutory change was signed into law
on March 28, 2003. We could then
offer an Operating Permit for signifi-
cant operational compliance but only
if we sent the owner to enforcement.
At least facilities could operate. We
had yet to invent our enforcement
mechanisms.
Adding private inspectors to the
usual two-way communication (pro-
gram and tank owner) created an
exponentially greater opportunity for
miscommunication and a need for
absolute accountability. In a perfect
world, regulatory interpretations
would have already been articulated
and posted. But compliance had
taken a back seat to the 1998
upgrades and our compliance assis-
tance focused more on training own-
ers than establishing policy and
enforcing. We had to learn our short-
comings and fix them on the fly.
By injecting a third party into the
communication loop, we added
unverifiable communication and
blame for lost paperwork into the
mix—"But he told me he would
[send, sign, fix, fax, inspect, tell you...,
get back to me, etc]." An important
axiom of civil service—"If two people
can be blamed, no one is at fault."
One needs to make certain that one of
those two is not one's own program.
Further, one needs to ensure that the
owner cannot play the inspector
against you. Our rules pin responsi-
bility for everything other than the
inspection itself onto the owner. The
owner must ensure the facility is
inspected and must ensure the
inspection is sent in (even though the
inspector usually sends it in).
We developed a Violation Table
that detailed more than 250 viola-
tions (failure to...), their significance
(major, moderate or minor), legal
citation (this is a violation of....), and
corrective action (this violation can
be corrected by...). The table was
input to our UST Access database. It
documented our newly authorized
(March 24, 2003) significance criteria,
classified our data input, and gener-
ated compliance letters to facilities.
The Violation Table was an invalu-
able tool to help us make the project
achievable.
• Regulatory duties The program
reviewed reports, input data into our
8
database, sent corrective action plans,
and developed directions for inspec-
tors and the owners on how to nego-
tiate the process.
• Outreach, outreach, outreach
"And we still really mean it, no Oper-
ating Permit, no fuel!"
• More regulatory duties Mean
while, back at the office, we were
tracking inspections and re-inspec-
tions, issuing Compliance Plans,
sending compliant facilities Operat-
ing Permits and Operating Tags, pro-
viding compliance assistance, and
carrying out enforcement. Of 1,500
facilities inspected, DEQ eventually
initiated enforcement on 40 facilities
for failure to be in full compliance (a
year and a half after our initial dead-
line)—2.67 percent of the total num-
ber of facilities inspected.
Phew!
By April 1, 2003 we were done with
the first round. It took us another
year and a half to finish implement-
ing the program. We rewrote our
forms, completed our significance
criteria, made yet another statutory
change (freeing ourselves from
mandatory enforcement on less than
significant operational compliance),
established a reasonable threshold
for delivery prohibition, and final-
ized our enforcement processes. By
December, 2005, we had what we
considered a solid, workable third-
party inspection program. The
process had taken over six years to
develop. We are still fine tuning it.
We try to conduct oversight
inspections on 10 percent of inspec-
tions by each inspector. In the three
years it took us to implement the pri-
vate inspector program we lost two
of our three staff inspectors. It was
hard to train the two new guys to do
oversight on seasoned installers-
turned-inspectors.
I have argued that an inspector
can find a violation at any facility if
he or she probes deeply enough. Sim-
ilarly, two capable inspectors can
find different deficiencies at a facility.
It is important not to make too much
of these differences as we offer course
corrections. Our larger concern is
keeping a pool of inspectors willing
to do inspections at any price. It
would be easy to alienate the whole
bunch if we push too hard.
Finally, we had to decide how to
enforce on violations discovered dur-
ing oversight inspections. They lay
totally outside the processes we had
invented.
What We Learned?
• It takes time to design and
implement a program. Consider
two years to develop a program, then
two or three years to complete the
inspections.
• Full compliance, backed by
mandatory enforcement, is not a
reasonable burden to place on
UST facilities or an UST program.
Establish significance criteria. This
suggestion is incidental to third-party
inspections but applicable to the
package that we were handed.
• No matter how much owner out-
reach you do, it won't be enough,
but lots of it will make your life
simpler. If you document all of your
outreach in a binder, it can cover
your tail when (not if) you are
assailed for not doing enough.
• Industry professionals under-
stand the equipment—a valuable
starting point. However, they are
less inclined than regulators to
understand and apply regulations.
Focus your training here. For exam-
ple, identify exactly what kinds of
compliance recordkeeping you
expect. Montana intends to write
guidance similar to Wisconsin's
"Owner and Operator Compliance
Guidelines" and post it on the Web.
• Make certain that your forms
ask what you need to know in
such a way that you can deter-
mine compliance. Don't ask about
deficiencies you will ignore. Simplify,
simplify, simplify. The forms will still
be too long. If your files or databases
are accurate, don't ask questions you
already have answers to (e.g., materi-
als, capacities, leak-detection meth-
ods). If your files are not accurate,
consider changing forms on the sec-
ond round so inspectors don't have
to gather that information again.
• Compliance assistance saves
staff time; enforcement devours
it. We send out inspection notices six
months before an Operating Permit
expires and a warning letter 80 days
before. We start making phone calls
45 days before an Operating Permit
expires. We hound operators and
inspectors when corrective action
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
deadlines approach. Administrative
expedience alone justifies compliance
assistance, but we've also been
accused of "holding the owners'
hands." We're OK with that.
• Don't put your inspectors in the
position of determining compli-
ance for you. It's legally risky and
it's painful when you disagree with
the inspector's interpretation of your
regulations. If anyone has a set of
UST regulations that are transparent
and free of interpretation, please
share them with the rest of us.
• Remember that inspectors are
working for tank owners/opera-
tors, not for you. Left alone, inter-
pretations charitable to the owner
will implement themselves without
your knowledge. Questions unasked
remain unanswered...so do some that
are asked. We treat relevant, unan-
swered questions as violations until
they are answered to our satisfaction.
• Oversight inspections (audits)
will uncover charitable interpreta-
tions, inspectors' weak points,
and any inklings of fraud. These
become the focus of continuing edu-
cation. A strong oversight program
should eliminate fraud. Fraud is hard
to definitively differentiate from
error or oversight. An upcoming rule
change will give us the authority to
condition or revoke an Inspector
License for any of those shortcom-
ings.
• The tendency for inspectors to
be charitable to owners seems
less motivated by who is paying
them than by resistance to being
perceived as regulators. Regard
less, oversight inspections provide
the mitigation. As most inspectors
work for service providers, there is
also the potential perception that
inspectors are drumming up work
for their employers. Though these
two potential conflicts run counter to
each other, both need attention.
• The Biggie: Processing inspec-
tion reports that others have com-
pleted will cause you to interpret
and articulate every aspect of
your regulations. This is a good
thing. But, unlike us, it would be best
to do it in the design phase. All you
need to do is figure out all your
potential problems before they pre-
sent themselves. Good luck with that.
I could give you a list of the ones we
found, but yours will be different.
How Are Our Third-Party
Inspections Working?
In the plus column, Montana now
has a three-year inspection cycle with
process controls to ensure that all
active facilities are evaluated. Inspec-
tion quality is higher than with local
government inspectors because
industry-savvy inspectors are UST
professionals. Inspectors continue to
improve. Our program was forced to
examine and justify all ramifications
of its regulations, inspections, paper-
work, database processes, and
enforcement tools.
No staff time was saved during
the program development; efficien-
cies are realized later. Now that the
dust has settled, one-and-a-half tech-
nical staff and one administrative
person handle about 500 inspections
per year. The five-year cycle is
improved to three years at a savings
of about half an FTE.
On the negative side, we have
passed costs on to owners without
significantly reducing the depart-
ment's workload. We've reassigned
the .5 FTE; but cost to owners is
roughly five hours of service per
inspection. While the quality of
inspections is improving, the inspec-
tions are not as good as those con-
ducted by experienced program
inspectors—when we had them.
Department inspectors are already
stigmatized as regulators and will get
paid regardless of the outcome.
We now see our regulated com-
munity through the paperwork gen-
erated from third-party observations.
This extra level of abstraction compli-
cates the program's involvement
rather than simplifies it. Oversight
inspections have uncovered a bit of
suspected fraud and quite a bit of
charitable interpretation.
Probably the biggest down side
of third-party inspections is that,
after seven years and significant staff
turnover, our program is staffed with
"theoretical" inspectors. Yes, we
know the regulations, but we no
longer have experienced inspectors
on staff to train our oversight inspec-
tors. Our new inspectors are getting
more experienced, but that they are
learning while conducting oversight
on seasoned inspectors is tough on all
concerned.
The upshot? Now that the pro-
gram has landed, we find third-party
inspections to be a manageable alter-
native to program inspections. Yet,
we are not as tuned into the field as
we would like to be, the inspections
are not as accurate as the ones our old
inspectors used to produce, and the
paper blizzard is incessant.
It is, however, a way to "do more
with less" should the topic ever come
up. •
Bill Rule has managed Montana's UST
Program for seven years. He can be
reached at brule@mt.gov. Montana's
UST Program website can be accessed
at http://www.deq.state.mt.
us/UST/index.asp
John T. Wilson
Receives the First
Annual LUST Poster
Session Achievement
Award at the National
Tanks Conference in
San Antonio, Texas.
John Wilson is a pioneer
in the study of bio-
degradation and the use
of naturally occurring bac-
teria to remediate petro-
leum releases. The award
was presented to John from
his friends and colleagues
with thanks for his many years of dedication, patient mentoring, and
inspired contributions to the science and art of cleaning up leaking
underground storage tanks. •
John Wilson (right) receives award from Matt Small,
USEPA Region 9.
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
Luui i iniO LCnrk
CQ
by Carol Eighmey
It's been twenty-three years since
Congress decided that the owner
of every operating underground
tank in the country had to (a) take
steps to prevent leaks and spills, and
(b) implement a method to detect
leaks when they occur.
In response, USEPA published
rules in 1988, and nearly every state
designed and implemented a pro-
gram to assure that tank owners and
operators comply with these require-
ments. Companies designed, sold,
and installed a variety of devices,
procedures, and methods aimed at
accomplishing leak prevention and
detection objectives. Tank owners
and operators bought and (hope-
fully) learned to operate and main-
tain these devices and systems.
Regulators inspected both the tank
systems and the required records.
So Has the Game
Plan Worked?
Have nineteen years of leak preven-
tion and leak detection efforts borne
the desired fruit? Is the incidence of
leaks from operating underground
tanks declining? We don't really
know. At least, most of us don't.
Here's why.
In most states, a release from an
operating UST system is recorded
and reported in exactly the same way
as newly discovered pollution from
an old, out-of-use tank system. In
other words, if the piping beneath a
dispenser at an operating truck stop
springs a leak, and the owner reports
it to the regulatory agency, it is
recorded as a "new release." If some-
one buys a corner lot that was a gas
station in the 1970s, discovers three
old buried tanks and subsurface
petroleum impact, and then reports it
to the regulatory agency, it too is
recorded as a "new release." And in
most states, the regulator does not
code those two reports any differ-
ently!
So even though states reported
8,361 "new releases" to USEPA last
year, we have no idea how many
were leaks from operating tank sys-
tems. If I may say so, there is some-
10
thing really wrong
with this picture.
Where's My
Soapbox?
Ladies and gentle-
men, we are spend-
ing taxpayers' money
on programs aimed
at reducing the incidence and severity
of leaks, and we ought to be measur-
ing the effectiveness of these efforts.
At the recent National Tanks Confer-
ence, I stood on my soapbox and chal-
lenged states to change their
recordkeeping practices so they can
distinguish between leaks from oper-
ating UST locations and "historical
releases" that are only now being dis-
covered. This is the minimum that we
ought to be doing with our record-
keeping. And it can be done readily .
If you assign a number to each
release—and who doesn't in this age
of computers?—you can readily
change your numbering system to
make this old- versus new-release
distinction. For example, when a
release is reported by someone
whose Phase II assessment found
contamination, but there are no oper-
ating tanks at the site, you could
number that release with a different
first digit or letter than releases
reported by operating tank sites. This
simple technique will give you the
ability to separate the two types of
releases reported at the end of the
year, thus providing the means for
determining the incidence of leaks
from operating, regulated tank sys-
tems and observing, over time,
whether the leak frequency at operat-
ing UST sites is declining.
We've been using different codes
for these two types of releases for
many years. And, as Figure 1 shows,
in Missouri, the frequency of releases
reported from operating UST sys-
tems has, in fact, decreased. In 1998,
when many UST owners chose to
cease operations and remove their
tanks rather than upgrade them, the
incidence of reported releases went
up. But the overall trend is clearly
decreasing.
14.0%
12 0%
10.0%r
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Claim Frequency By Year
Percentage of operating USTs reporting a release
t
— |
,— |
—
1
n
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Mend Your Ways
Now is a good time to think about
how to make this change in your
recordkeeping system. Most states are
contemplating how to implement the
new reporting requirements of the
federal Energy Policy Act on "sources
and causes of leaks." Congress clearly
wants to know more about what is
happening out there at UST sites. If
you will be revising or redesigning
your database codes, you may want to
design a more sophisticated coding
system that will provide even more
useful information about releases. But
if resources are too scarce for major
software changes, you can still make
this one simple change and begin dis-
tinguishing between "new releases"
and "old releases."
I encourage to you to do it. It's
time we stopped reporting all
releases as if they are "leaking under-
ground storage tanks." Most release
reports do not involve leaking tanks
at all. Rather, they're simply newly
discovered examples of why "We
The People" enacted that law twenty-
three years ago. And if you start
counting smarter, I bet you'll find
your trend is similar to ours. I bet it
will show that your UST program is
accomplishing its objectives. It's time
we told that story. •
Carol Eighmey is Executive Director of
the Missouri Petroleum Storage Tanks
Fund. She can be reached at
pstif@sprintmail.com.
This article is based on Carol's presen-
tation at the National Tanks Confer-
ence in March 2007. Her Powerpoint
presentation is posted under the Pre-
vention Track for the Wednesday Leak
Autopsy session at:
http://www.neiwpcc.org/
tanksO?/ agenda.asp
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
What's in Your (rasoliwe?
by Gary Lynn
Understanding what is in gaso-
line is essential to under-
standing contaminated sites.
Regulatory initiatives, supply disrup-
tions, and economics can stir the
winds of change, and your knowl-
edge of what's in gasoline can lag
behind. Hurricane Katrina, for exam-
ple, smashed into the Gulf Coast and
sent it's winds surging through 47
percent of the nation's refining capac-
ity. As America sifted through the
mess Katrina created, it discovered
that about 20 percent of the Gulf
Coast refining capacity was knocked
offline (National Petrochemical and
Refiners Association testimony to
Congress). USEPA responded to this
crisis with regional and national fuel
waivers that, among other things,
temporarily increased fuel volatility
and allowable sulfur content in some
regions. Katrina impacted gasoline
supply, demand, and composition
with breathtaking rapidity.
Hello EtBE
One impact of Katrina was that a sig-
nificantly higher volume of gasoline
was imported from "opportunistic"
foreign refineries. Imports of finished
RFC and gasoline blendstock from
approximately 30 countries helped
make up for the post-Katrina loss in
domestic capacity. However, domes-
tic and overseas refineries produce
slightly different versions of gasoline.
For example, European imports con-
tain more ethyl tertiary-butyl ether
(EtBE) than domestic gasoline. In
Europe EtBE is promoted as a bio-
fuel—"bio EtBE"—because it is man-
ufactured using "bioethanol."
The European Union (EU) has
ambitious targets for increased pro-
duction and use of biofuels, because
biofuels play an important role in
Europe's greenhouse-gas emission-
reduction strategy. Biofuels are
assigned lower carbon-dioxide emis-
sion rates than conventional fuels,
because crops used to generate them
are replanted and subsequently take
up the carbon dioxide. Bottom line,
European gasoline can contain EtBE,
and the EtBE content is likely to
increase in the future.
The Colonial Pipeline
Gasoline composition depends on
many other factors (e.g., regulatory
restrictions, economics, crude com-
position) above and beyond the size
of foreign imports. For example, the
Colonial Pipeline Company, which
(according to Wikipedia) has more
than 5,500 miles of line originating in
Houston Texas and terminating in
New York harbor, delivers a daily
average of 100 million gallons of
gasoline, home heating oil, aviation
fuel, and other refined petroleum
products to locations throughout the
South and Eastern United States. The
company, owned in part by Cono-
coPhillips, Philips Petroleum, and
Shell subsidiaries, ships fuel from all
the major oil companies. It is both a
fuel-composition trendsetter and an
oil-industry consensus builder.
Besides natural disasters and other
similar bumps in the road, gasoline
composition will change over time as
companies try to adapt to
governmental mandates for renewable
fuel content and low air emissions.
When these changes occur, plumes
maybe impacted, and the type of
compounds released from tanks
may change.
Colonial Pipeline's influence
extends beyond the enormous quan-
tities that physically move through
the pipeline. For example, the New
York Mercantile Exchange uses the
company's specifications to set
requirements for the gasoline futures
market—any change in Colonial
Pipeline gasoline specifications sends
ripples throughout the industry.
Oxygenate content in gasoline
has changed dramatically because of
recent oil company and Colonial
Pipeline decisions. The current Colo-
nial Pipeline specifications give clues
about where MtBE may still be in use
and where it is unlikely to be in gaso-
line. In the most recent specification
for conventional gasoline in North
Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland,
MtBE is allowed; however, all ethers
and alcohol are prohibited in refor-
mulated gasoline blendstock.
In other words, MtBE is not
likely to be in significant concentra-
tions in Eastern and mid-Atlantic
reformulated gasoline (RFG) gas, but
based on the specifications, MtBE
may still be present in some areas
that use conventional gasoline. It is
also noteworthy that the RFG blend-
stock ether prohibition is not absolute
and actually specifies a maximum of
0.25% of MtBE at the point of origin
and 0.5% at the point of delivery.
Colonial Pipeline's specifications
for MtBE and other ethers have
changed several times during 2006
and 2007. Specs are also different for
different gasoline grades. MtBE-con-
tent limits imposed by Colonial
Pipeline and by major oil companies
have strongly reinforced state
ether/MtBE bans and effectively
capped the ether content of gasoline
in many states without bans, begin-
ning May 2006. The specifications are
subject to change, however, and are
worth keeping on eye on.
Remediation Program
Observations
Natural events, such as Katrina, can
change the delivery dynamics and
the composition of gasoline, as the
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES)
learned. NHDES collects data on all
fuel oxygenates, and our data pro-
vide a number of relevant case stud-
ies that reflect why it is valuable to
collect data on oxygenates and to
keep on top of changes in fuel com-
position.
Take, for example, a new gas sta-
tion in central New Hampshire that
contaminated a nearby private drink-
• continued on page 12
11
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
m Your Gasoline from page 11
ing water well in 2003. Based on
extensive tank-system testing and the
reduction of contamination levels
after tank-system repairs, the prob-
lem is believed to be a vapor release
from the tank system.
Suddenly, during ongoing
groundwater monitoring, we de-
tected the presence of EtBE at the site
after Hurricane Katrina hit in August
2005 (see the above discussion on the
link between European imports and
EtBE). EtBE was first detected in
November 2005 in both the monitor-
ing well near the tank system (493
ppb vs. 40 ppb groundwater quality
standard) and in the pump-and-treat
system. By the end of 2006 the EtBE
had migrated to the drinking water
well in low concentrations (0.88 ppb).
Why is this useful information?
EtBE showing up in the groundwater
demonstrated that (a) the tanks are
still leaking, (b) the pump-and-treat-
ment system's capture zone is insuffi-
cient to fully protect the nearby
drinking water well, (c) the time of
travel to the drinking water well is
about 1 year, and (d) EtBE can be
released during vapor releases from
tank systems in a similar fashion to
MtBE. Our conceptual model
wouldn't have included this valuable
information, if NHDES did not
understand gasoline composition
changes and require analysis of all
gasoline oxygenates (e.g., MtBE,
TEA, EtBE and DIPE).
Besides natural disasters and
other similar bumps in the road,
gasoline composition will change
over time as companies try to adapt
to governmental mandates for
renewable fuel content and low air
emissions. When these changes
occur, plumes may be impacted, and
the type of compounds released from
tanks may change. It seems obvious
now that New Hampshire gasoline
composition is likely to vary some-
what, depending on whether it
comes from Canada (Irving Oil),
New Jersey refineries, or Europe. The
question then for New Hampshire
and other tank cleanup programs is:
What's in your gasoline? •
Gary Lynn is the Petroleum Remedia-
tion Section Manager for NHDES. He
can be reached at
glynn@des. sta te.nh. us
12
Publicly Available Fuel-Composition Data from Maine
To add to a short list of sources of publicly available fuel-composition
data discussed in LUSTLine #54, the Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) Air Bureau posts data on its website that
gives an analysis of shipments to storage terminals in Maine. Analytes
sampled include typical gasoline oxygenates, aromatics, sulphur, and
benzene. This information is available at
http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/mobile/fuelspage.htm In 2005, 307 ship-
ments were sampled. The complete report for 2005 is also posted at
this website. The 2006 report will be published soon.B
API's New Technical Protocol for
Evaluating the Natural Attenuation of
MtBE
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MtBE) has been produced commercially in
the United States since 1979 and used as an octane enhancer and
oxygenate in gasoline. Releases of MtBE-containing gasoline
have led to the detection of MtBE in soil, surface water, and groundwater.
MtBE may be removed from environmental media by some active or pas-
sive strategies typically employed for gasoline remediation, including
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA).
API's new Technical Protocol for Evaluating the Natural Attenuation of
MtBE (Zeeb, P. and T. H. Wiedemeier. 2007) provides a framework for
incorporating MNA of MtBE (and other oxygenates or degradation
byproducts such as tert-butyl alcohol) into an overall cleanup strategy.
The fundamental approaches for MNA were documented by USEPA and
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) beginning in the
late 1990s. This manual applies these fundamental approaches to help the
user create and implement an MNA strategy that is appropriate for the
unique physical and chemical properties of MtBE .
This technical protocol addresses data collection, evaluation, and
interpretation procedures that consider the properties of MtBE and other
oxygenates and degradation byproducts. A tiered approach is offered that
can be used by stakeholders to interpret several lines of evidence to evalu-
ate natural attenuation on a site-specific basis. A number of resources are
provided to support an MNA evaluation including:
• a review of basic scientific principals relevant to the evaluation of
MtBE natural attenuation, including biodegradation and physico-
chemical attenuation mechanisms
• a discussion of data that can be used to assess MtBE (and other oxy-
genates or degradation byproducts) natural attenuation
• technical references for relevant chemical properties, analytical meth-
ods, and field-sampling techniques
• protocols and guidance for data quality assurance and interpretation,
including statistical analysis
• guidance on the presentation of natural attenuation data/information
to facilitate regulatory and other stakeholder review and acceptance of
MNA remedies.
Even though MtBE-oxygenated gasoline has been phased-out of most
U.S. gasolines, this protocol is a useful tool for evaluating natural attenua-
tion as a potential component of an overall cleanup strategy at sites where
oxygenates were previously released.
API Publication 4761 (186 pp.) is available at: http://www.api.org/mtbe
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)
There a Proper Goodbye for Stage II
Vapor Recovery?
Most LUSTLine readers are familiar with the
studies and fieldwork covering vapor releases
from USTs. Although it is limited to a handful
of sites in a few states, almost all of the literature on the
subject concludes that vapor releases into the environ-
ment are exacerbated by vacuum-assist Stage II vapor-
recovery systems that pressurize tank ullage and force
product vapors out of the storage systems.
With MtBE in gasoline, some researchers con-
cluded that even "small" ongoing vapor releases could
cause a significant groundwater problem. Now that
MtBE has, for the most part, been removed from gaso-
line, the problem identified by some state UST regula-
tors who are still looking at vapor releases seems to be
limited to "larger" releases.
Thanks to the federal government (yes, remember,
they are here to help us), it now appears that we can
foresee a time when Stage II vapor recovery will begin
to disappear in almost all of the 20 states that currently
require Stage II.
The federal law (Section 202 [a] [6] of the Clean Air
Act) says that the USEPA administrator may waive
Stage II gasoline vapor-recovery requirements in mod-
erate ozone nonattainment areas upon standards pro-
mulgation. It is under this provision that the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) pro-
posed rules this spring that would eliminate Stage II
vapor-recovery requirements for new and upgraded
gasoline-dispensing facilities in the moderate nonat-
tainment areas of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm
Beach Counties. The same DEP proposal would phase
out Stage II vapor-recovery requirements for existing
facilities in those counties.
Things become a little more complicated in worse
air-quality regions and the Northeast. In another sec-
tion of the Clean Air Act, the law provides that USEPA
may waive Stage II by rule in more severe ozone nonat-
tainment areas after the administrator determines that
onboard refueling vapor-recovery systems (ORVR) are
in "widespread use" throughout the motor fleet.
States in the Northeast (northern Virginia through
Maine) are in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
These states are required to have either Stage II or com-
parable measures even when widespread ORVR use is
declared. Regulators in those states hope that ORVR
will be declared a "comparable measure" by the fed-
eral EPA so they will not have to jump through more
hoops than necessary to move away from Stage II.
USEPA still has to make the next move by defining
when it would consider ORVR in "widespread use." The
agency has not determined what criterion it will use
(e.g., percent of fleet with ORVR, vehicle miles traveled
with ORVR, gasoline sold to ORVR vehicles). Similarly,
it has not decided the percent penetration of ORVR into
the vehicle fleet that will be required (somewhere
between 80 and 95 percent) to transition from Stage II to
ORVR.
Sometime down the road, state UST regulators
will have to get together with their counterparts
on the air side and figure out how they want to
properly abandon their Stage II systems.
Despite these uncertainties, it appears to me that
Stage II vapor recovery's days are numbered. Here is
how I see it playing out in all states but California, which
has gone on record promising to keep Stage II in effect at
least through 2020:
• USEPA will supply the criterion for "widespread
use."
• Widespread use determinations will be made state
by state or region by region.
• States will determine when the criterion for
widespread use applies to their state. Once that is
determined, states will then submit a state imple-
mentation plan revision removing Stage II.
• Stage II will begin to disappear from the states
between 201 land 2013.
Sometime down the road, state UST regulators will
have to get together with their counterparts on the air
side and figure out how they want to properly abandon
their Stage II systems. Florida DEP's proposed rule
requires that "any gasoline-dispensing facility that
ceases to operate and maintain its Stage II vapor-recov-
ery system pursuant to the rule shall decommission the
system in such a manner as to seal and eliminate all
areas of possible liquid and vapor leakage." Will that
work for you? •
13
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 55 • June 2007
FAQs from the NWGLDE
...All you ever1"
II III (ifHI [I] 11
What Does the Disclaimer on Our Website and List
Mean to Users?
In this issue's FAQ's from the National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE), we discuss the "disclaimer" on our
website— nwglde.org/disclaimer—and also on page ii of the 14th Edition NWGLDE List. (Please Note: the views expressed in this
column represent those of the work group and not necessarily those of any implementing agency.)
In your last FAQ article, you referred to a disclaimer
on your website. What does this disclaimer mean to
those of us who regularly use the NWGLDE List?
,. The purpose of the disclaimer statement is to point
out certain limitations users should be aware of con-
cerning the NWGLDE List of leak-detection equip-
ment. While disclaimers can provide important
information, people typically do not read them. For
example, the disclaimer clearly states that the
NWGLDE List "is not an EPA list," and "appearance
on the List does not constitute approval by the
NWGLDE or EPA," yet equipment that appears on
the NWGLDE List is incorrectly referred to as "EPA
approved" in many leak-detection-equipment ven-
dor brochures.
An example of the importance of the information
contained in the NWGLDE disclaimer was discussed
in our previous FAQ article that appeared in LUST-
Line #54 (February 2007) concerning alternative fuels.
A reference was made to the NWGLDE disclaimer to
make it clear to users that evaluations of leak-detec-
tion equipment do not address "long-term material
compatibility with the product stored." To a regula-
tor, this means that the List is not the correct source to
determine whether or not materials used to manufac-
ture leak-detection equipment are compatible with
alternative fuels.
The disclaimer states: "The NWGLDE makes no rep-
resentations concerning the safe operation of any
method or equipment. Users of any method or equip-
ment appearing on this List assume full responsibility
for the proper and safe operation of said equipment
and assume any and all risks associated with its use."
This should make it clear to the user of the List that
none of the evaluations performed using the leak-
detection protocols shown on the List address safety
issues. Instead, standards such as UL, API, PEI, or
local fire codes should be referenced.
Another portion of the NWGLDE disclaimer warns
the user that the information on each listing is "spe-
cific to the most current third-party evaluations sub-
mitted to the NWGLDE" and that "subsequent
modifications or changes to the method, equipment,
or software may produce parameters and data values
that are significantly different than the listed third-
party evaluation parameters and data values." The
NWGLDE is aware that, at times, manufacturers of
leak-detection equipment make modifications or
changes to equipment after the equipment has been
evaluated. However, the NWGLDE is dependent on
the manufacturer to take the responsibility to reeval-
uate the equipment when modifications or changes
are made that affect the ability of the equipment to
detect a leak. Since it is not possible for the NWGLDE
to be aware all modifications or changes made by the
manufacturers, it therefore becomes "the responsibil-
ity of the implementing agency to accept or reject
those modifications or changes."
Hopefully, this discussion will encourage you to take
a look at the disclaimer the next time you reference
the NWGLDE List.
NWGLDE List Disclaimer
GENERAL
Appearance on this list is not to be construed as an endorsement by any regu-
latory agency nor is it any guarantee of the performance of the method or
equipment. Equipment should be installed and operated in accordance with
all applicable laws and regulations.
This list of Leak Detection Evaluations was prepared by a work group con-
sisting of State and EPA members and is limited to evaluations of leak detec-
tion equipment and procedures or systems, conducted by an "independent
third-party evaluator" (see Appendix "Glossary of Terms") and reviewed by
the work group. This list includes evaluations conducted in accordance with
either EPA Standard Test Procedures for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods
(EPA/530/UST-90/004 through 010) or other test procedures accepted by
the NWGLDE as equivalent to the EPA standard test procedures (see Part III
"Acceptable Test Protocols").
The National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE) does
not guarantee the performance of any leak detection method or equipment
appearing on this List, nor does it warrant the results obtained through the
use of such methods or equipment.
SPECIFIC
• The NWGLDE does not evaluate methods or equipment and appearance
on this List does not mean they are automatically acceptable for use in any
particular state or local jurisdiction.
• The NWGLDE List is not an EPA List, nor does appearance on this list con-
stitute endorsement or approval by the NWGLDE or EPA. Anyone claiming
that a device or method is "EPA approved" because it appears on this list is
making a false claim.
• The NWGLDE makes no representations concerning the safe operation of
any method or equipment. Users of any method or equipment appearing on
this List assume full responsibility for the proper and safe operation of said
equipment and assume any and all risks associated with its use.
• On each data sheet, this List reports parameters and data values for meth-
ods, equipment, and software that are specific to the most current third-party
evaluation submitted to the NWGLDE. Subsequent modifications or changes
to the method, equipment, or software may produce parameters and data
values that are significantly different than the listed third-party evaluation
parameters and data values. It is the responsibility of the local implementing
agency to accept or reject those modifications or changes.
• Since long term material compatibility with the product stored is not
addressed in test procedures and evaluations, the NWGLDE makes no repre-
sentations as to the compatibility of leak detection equipment with the prod-
uct stored.
If you have questions for the group, please contact
them at: questions@nwglde.org
14
-------
June 2007 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
EPAact Undate
At the mid-year point, the USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks is making progress toward finalizing the
requirements under the federal Energy Policy Act. Below is a list of documents that are either final or draft.
Final Documents:
Inspection Grant Guidelines: The
Inspection Grant Guidelines re-
quire states to ensure that USTs not
inspected since December 22, 1998
undergo an on-site inspection
before August 8, 2007 and subse-
quently undergo an on-site inspec-
tion at least once every three years
thereafter. These guidelines iden-
tify: 1) which underground storage
tanks require an on-site inspection;
2) what the requirements are for
the on-site inspection; 3) who can
perform these on-site inspection;
and 4) what information needs to
be reported to USEPA.
State Compliance Reports on
Government Underground Stor-
age Tanks: The grant guidelines
for state compliance reports on gov-
ernment USTs describe what infor-
mation must be included in a state's
compliance report. States must
report to USEPA no later than
August 8, 2007 on the compliance
status of USTs owned or operated
by federal, state, and local govern-
ments.
Public Record: The Public Record
Grant Guidelines discuss: 1) devel-
oping and updating the public
record; 2) making the public record
available; 3) describing the mini-
mum public record content; 4)
ensuring data quality; and 5)
demonstrating and ensuring com-
pliance with the guidelines. States
receiving federal funds must
develop a program for gathering
information and begin gathering
data to meet the public record
requirement by October 1, 2007.
Financial Responsibility and
Installer Certification: The Finan
cial Responsibility and Installer
Certification Grant Guidelines
include definitions, requirements,
criteria, and options for states
choosing to implement the finan-
cial responsibility and installer cer-
tification requirements. States
receiving federal funds must
implement the financial responsi-
bility and installer certification
requirements by February 8, 2007.
Secondary Containment Grant
Guidelines: The Secondary Con-
tainment Grant Guidelines, include
definitions, requirements, and
examples for states choosing to
implement the secondary contain-
ment provision. States receiving
federal funds must implement the
secondary containment require-
ments by February 8, 2007.
Delivery Prohibition: The Deliv
ery Prohibition Grant Guidelines
describe the procedures states must
use for prohibiting delivery to
underground storage tanks that are
ineligible to receive product. States
receiving federal funds must
implement the delivery prohibition
requirements by August 8, 2007.
Tribal Strategy: The tribal strat-
egy identifies key issues and
actions to: 1) strengthen the rela-
tionships between USEPA and
tribes; 2) improve information
sharing; 3) enhance tribal capacity;
and 4) further the cleanup and
compliance of underground stor-
age tanks in Indian Country.
USEPA is working with its tribal
partners to develop a report to
Congress regarding UST/LUST
implementation in Indian Country
by August 8, 2007.
Draft Grant Guidelines Avail-
able For Public Comment:
Operator Training: On May 10,
2007, the public comment period
for the draft operator training grant
guidelines closed. USEPA and
states worked closely with other
stakeholders in developing draft
operator training grant guidelines.
EPA has solicited comments on the
draft guidelines. After considering
public comments, EPA will issue
the final grant guidelines.
To view these documents visit:
www. epa.gov/oust
L.U.S.TLINE Subscription Form
Name
Com pa ny/Age ncy _
Mailing Address _
E-mail Address
U One-year subscription. $18.00.
Q Federal, state, or local government. Exempt from fee. (For home delivery,include request on agency letterhead.)
Please enclose a check or money order (drawn on a U.S. bank) made payable to NEIWPCC.
Send to: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street, Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Phone: (978) 323-7929 • Fax: (978) 323-7919 • lustline@neiwpcc.org • www.neiwpcc.org
iHUUBEEX
15
-------
Atkanta
March 17-19, 2008
Getting Ready
for the 2008
National Tanks
Conference
t \ttiiuNti?
TRNKS CONFERENCE
The 20th Annual National Tanks
Conference & Expo will be held on
March 17-19 in Atlanta, Georgia.
It's time to:
i»> Submit your abstract or idea!
ni'-K Propose a workshop or training session!
"•> Reserve booth space or poster session space!
Send any questions to: NTCinfo@neiwpcc.org
The conference provides learning and networking
opportunities for federal, state, and tribal UST/LUST
regulators. The focus is on building on our progress, set-
ting priorities, and developing plans for reaching our
common goal—to find new and better ways to work
together to protect human health and the environment
by preventing tank releases and quickly and efficiently
cleanup releases that do occur.
ALSO, our new CONFERENCE WEBSITE—
www.neiwpcc.org/tanksconference
—will be active as of July 13, 2007.
Navajo Nation Introduces
Food-Grade Nutrients for
Bioremediation at
Abandoned Gas Stations
!
i he Navajo Na-
tion is using
sugar, coffee
creamer, and ice
cream cone ingredi-
ents to help bioreme-
diate its petroleum-
contaminated aban-
doned gas station
sites. They chose to
begin applying nat-
ural food-grade in-
gredients to these
sites because the use
of harsh chemicals
was not desired.
According to
Henry Haven, a geologist with the Navajo Nation
EPA LUST program, the nontoxic, nonhazardous
food additives are applied to the tank pit or exca-
vated soil as a special nutrient-rich warm water
solution comprised of dipotassium phosphate,
ammonium bicarbonate, and sugar. The phosphate
acts as a detergent which suppresses the volatility
of VOCs in the TPH and also serves as a nutrient
source. The ammonium is used as a nutrient source
to promote bioremediation. The sugar is used as a
co-metabolic co-substrate to speed up the bioreme-
diation process. The warm water is used for heat
and moisture enhancement.
The Navajo Nation EPA LUST program has
treated petroleum-contaminated soil and ground-
water at ten sites and achieved no further action at
eight of them. Typically, soil with PID readings of
100 to 1,000 ppm are treated with the food-grade
ingredients. Soil with higher PID readings are sam-
pled and excavated and then assessed for further
corrective actions. •
LU.ST.LINE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
------- |