New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
www.neiwpcc.org/lustline.htm
116 John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
LU.S.T.UNE
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Bulletin 58
September
2OO8
Will Groundwater
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Why Underground
Storage Tanks Matter
by Ellen Frye
Madison County, Alabama - In October 2006, a
release was reported from a corrosion-protected
10,000-gallon steel tank. About 8,000 gallons of
gasoline flowed through a corrosion hole in the tank into a
nearby karst wellhead protection area. Minor concentrations of
gasoline were detected in water supply wells in the area. As of
summer 2008, about $700,000 had been spent on cleaning up
the site, with more work to be done.
Along with water supply well concerns, a lot of people who
had spent years trying to protect the Alabama Cave Shrimp, a
tiny creature that is nearly transparent and less than an inch
long, became very concerned. This federally listed endangered
species (since 1988) lives in floodwaters and pools in under-
ground caverns and eats small bits of organic matter. It is found
in just two cave systems in Madison County, one of which is
within the boundaries of the U.S. Army's Redstone Arsenal.
According to the Cooperative Conservation America website,
the main threats to the cave shrimp's survival are a low repro-
duction rate and groundwater contamination.
The Redstone Arsenal's environmental office has worked
closely with other federal, state, and local authorities, scientists,
local educators, homeowners, and the surrounding community
to protect the cave shrimp populations on the Army installation,
on private lands, and in potential habitat for populations that
might yet be discovered. When the 8,000-gallon gasoline release
occurred, there was a flurry of activity on the part of many peo-
ple to make sure the Alabama Cave Shrimp was not impacted. It
appears it wasn 't... this time.
They say that water is the oil of the twenty-first cen-
tury. In the words of the WorldWatch Institute: "Water
scarcity may be the most underappreciated global envi-
ronmental challenge of our time." And if you've checked
out the gusto with which corporate giants are buying up
water rights (i.e., groundwater rights) worldwide, it's
clear that water has gained precious commodity status, to
be bought and sold in the marketplace. Water speculators
know full well that we need fresh water to live. We can't
drink oil.
But, as a society, we're still several cucumbers short
of "getting the religion" where water is concerned. Mind
• continued on page 2
Inside
5U GWPC Groundwater Report: "A Call to Action"
6() Operator Training: Oregon Experience
8() Parting Thoughts from a Veteran Tank Regulator
10U Changes Coming to UST Regulations
11( ] Tribute to Arlene Luther
12() As Rudy Used to Say..."I Dunno"
16( J Making Sense of Sensors
20() UST Inspection and Maintenance RP900
21() Insurance Matters
22 Q FAQs from NWGLDE: ATG Probes/Ethanol Fuel
-------
• • Groundwater and USTs
from page 1
you, there are plenty of people in
this world who do have the religion
and recognize the value of clean,
fresh water—and on a very personal
level—because their fresh water sup-
ply is teetering, tainted, or just plain
dried up. But many of us seem to
need a water crisis—that frenetic time
when "the fix" is often shortsighted
and parochial—to call attention to
something as relevant as water.
These days, it seems like there is
a smorgasbord of unsettling water
stories, almost on a daily basis—
droughts, depleted water tables,
floods, water wars, overpumped
groundwater, dismantled riparian
ecosystems, wetlands destruction,
failing levees, desertification of some
areas of the country, oil spills from
river barges, pharmaceuticals, per-
sonal care products, landfill leachate,
paints, household cleaners, fertiliz-
ers, pesticides, hazardous substances,
stormwater, and other stuff that is
washed, dumped, or percolated into
our surface waters and groundwa-
L.U.S.T.Line
Ellen Frye, Editor
Ricki Pappo, Layout
Marcel Moreau, Technical Adviser
Patricia Ellis, PhD, Technical Adviser
Ronald Poltak, NEIWPCC Executive Director
Amanda Driggers, USEPA Project Officer
LUST Line is a product of the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion (NEIWPCC). It is produced through a
cooperative agreement 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 old-
est 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
LoweU, MA 01852-1124
Telephone: (978) 323-7929
Fax: (978) 323-7919
lustline@neiwpcc.org
os.
^v/ LUSTLine is printed on Recycled Paper
ters. And there are still those nagging
gasoline leaks from UST systems, as
well.
Hydrologic systems and their
corresponding ecosystems are under
assault. Furthermore, there are often
overlooked and even more insidious
cumulative aspects—incremental
effects that can have a greater impact
than the sum of their parts. As irony
would have it, groundwater, the
resource humans rely on more and
more for so many, and often compet-
ing, uses, including energy and fuel
production, turns out to be the poor
stepchild in this water miasma—it
just doesn't seem to get much R-E-S-
P-E-C-T!
The Ground Water Protection
Council, a group representing state
environmental regulators across the
country, is very concerned about this
lack of respect for groundwater and
has produced a highly informative,
tell-it-like-it-is Ground Water Report to
the Nation: A Call to Action in an effort
to call attention to the seriousness of
groundwater's plight. (http:llwww.
gwpc.org/calltoaction) (See story on
page 5.) Chapter 7 of this report is
dedicated to USTs, which were con-
sidered a priority topic for this call
to action. As the report points out,
when a groundwater supply is no
longer available because of overdraft
or contamination, it is usually very
difficult and expensive to replace.
So, the question that follows is: Why
wouldn't we, as a nation, want to
bend over backward to maintain the
health and availability of our fresh
water and keep substances that can
degrade the quality of the water, like
gasoline, out of it?
Polls show that people care
about water. But caring isn't enough,
we need to be active water stew-
ards, working to sustain the water
resources that help sustain us—not to
mention the critters and natural sys-
tems that co-inhabit the earth with
us. Okay, I run the risk of sound-
ing disgustingly "touchy feely," but
where water abuse is concerned, I get
all choked up.
Twenty Years and Counting
So what about our USTs? It's been 20
years since the federal rules for the
nation's UST systems hit the streets.
(40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 was pub-
lished on September 23, 1988.) In
December, it will be the 10-year
anniversary of the 1998 deadline,
requiring existing tank systems to be
removed, closed, or upgraded to fed-
eral/state standards (spelled out in
the federal rules). No question about
it, since 1988, the federal, state, and
tribal tank programs have accom-
plished much. Nearly 1.7 million
substandard USTs have been closed.
As of March 2008, 371,880 LUST
cleanups—out of 478,457 confirmed
releases—have been completed, with
more than 100,000 still to go.
Sometimes Its Not Just One Thing
56,000 Gallons of Gasoline Escape in Alabama
It was holiday season in December 2007, when 56,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline leaked
from an UST system at a gas station in Alex City, Alabama, and flowed toward the drain-
age area of a nearby recreational lake. The owner had taken some time off, and person-
nel working at the facility were not trained to recognize abnormalities—like the frequent
need for fuel deliveries, for one thing. The facility had leak detection. The sump sensor
had been recording normal readings, but the sump sensor was not functioning, and no
one was aware of it. In fact, a frayed flex connector in the piping sump was continuously
spraying product under pressure. Finally, the fuel delivery company brought the need for
frequent deliveries to the owner's attention. Also, a customer had complained about strong
a fuel smell from behind the facility. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
undertook a massive and expensive emergency response effort to prevent the gasoline from
entering the lake. Cleanup is ongoing.
As luck would have it, in August 2007 DEM had adopted a new regulation that would
require positive shutoff in the event of detection of a leak, effective August 2008—too late
for the Alex City event. Owner/operators are also now required to check sensors once a
year to see if they are operational and to keep records.
-------
But make no mistake; the work
isn't over, and it won't be over any
time soon—even if the fat lady ever
gets around to singing. As of March,
only 65 percent of federally regulated
USTs were in significant operational
compliance with both release-pre-
vention and leak-detection require-
ments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
requirements for three-year inspec-
tions cycles, owner/ operator training,
secondary containment, and delivery
prohibition for noncompliant UST
systems should help improve these
numbers. (High gas prices could
also encourage owners and opera-
tors to pay more attention to keeping
gasoline in their tanks rather than in
their groundwater.) But nothing will
help if our programs are hamstrung
owing to staffing shortages, legisla-
tively reappropriated cleanup funds,
and an institutional lack of commit-
ment to groundwater protection.
USTs and their contents really
matter to the well-being of our
groundwater, and because USTs
tend to be in locations close to where
people live and work, the groundwa-
ter that we use for drinking water is
frequently at risk. This is a big rea-
son that, as long as stored petroleum
products threaten our groundwa-
ter environs, not to mention human
health and safety, it is irresponsible of
us as a society to let down our guard.
Yes, Virginia, sometimes federal and
state governments kind of let impor-
tant programs slip to the back seat,
and it would be an abdication of
responsibility to let this happen to
any of our nation's tank programs.
The thousands of USTs scattered all
over our nation are a water-qual-
ity threat and should not fall from
regulatory grace, because preventing
groundwater degradation really mat-
ters...doesn't it?
Tanks in Today's Roiling World
In this crazy mixed-up world, there
are some things we can still depend
on, and of course there are some situ-
ations that, when brought together,
have the potential to create the UST
version of the "perfect storm." For
example, we still have plenty of UST
systems that store gasoline; except
that some of the fuel constituents
have changed...and continue to
change. Is there another MtBE wait-
ing in the wings? Are these fuels
going to be compatible with those
Hello? Anyone Notice Anything Unusual?
During the summer of 2007, the weld seam of a single-walled steel tank installed in
1981 failed, releasing about 21,000 gallons of gasoline in Gunnison, Utah. Statistical
Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) was the leak-detection method being used. The monthly
data had been collected and turned over to the SIR provider, but because the release
started on the first day of the month and the data was submitted after the last day of
the month, the leak was detected 40 days after it began. The 12,000-gallon tank leaked
throughout the month of July and was refilled several times. There were no drinking
water impacts, but because the highly mobile gasoline plume followed a depression in a
hardpan layer lying 10-13 feet below the ground surface, there was serious vapor intru-
sion in a three-city-block area, particularly at the far downgradient end of the plume.
Fifteen businesses and 15 homes are undergoing continuous air monitoring. The $1
million in state fund coverage was spent in six months. The responsible party has spent
about the same amount of money, and the cleanup is far from over.
systems? What chemical and fate and
transport behaviors take place when
they leak into the environment? And,
by the way, what compounds are we
dealing with...and should we be con-
cerned?
Also, just as many of the major
oil companies shed their retail opera-
tions in 1980s and 1990s, it's happen-
ing again. Many single-site owners
now operate facilities that were, up
until recently, owned by and under
the seasoned umbrella of one oil
company. We are now seeing a new
generation of tank owners who may
be new to the business and who may
be more focused on convenience
store profits than on UST system
operation and maintenance or leak
prevention.
State tank program managers
face the task of educating a whole
new generation of tank owners and
operators, sometimes with a lan-
guage barrier. Not only do these new
owners need to know about the new
requirements of the Energy Policy
Act, which includes owner/opera-
tor training, they need to know the
whole regulatory ball of wax that
we've been carefully instilling in the
regulated community for the past 20
years. The 56,000-gallon release men-
tioned above is a good example of
how tank owner/operator education
required by the Energy Policy Act of
2005 might have made the situation
less catastrophic.
And just as many UST systems
were buried time bombs waiting to
discharge between 1988 and 1998,
we have another generation of tanks
that have outstayed their welcome.
How about all of those single-walled
1998-deadline tanks that squeezed
through with linings and cathodic
protection? What's going on there?
According to our rules, they all will
be allowed to leak before they can be
required to be replaced.
And just as we had federally
exempt tanks then, we still have
both USTs and aboveground stor-
age tanks (ASTs) that store a variety
of substances that aren't on any fed-
eral lists of chemicals or substances
of concern. "We have many sites that
would fall through the regulatory
cracks if the state didn't have a stat-
ute that required a responsible party
to take corrective action," says Sonja
Massey, Chief of the Alabama DEM
Groundwater Branch. "These are
gaps between the federal programs
that are only filled if a state has cov-
ered that base. It's not just a drinking
water exposure, it's other exposures,
like vapor intrusion into physical
structures." Heating oil is one such
substance that is stored on the prem-
ises of many homes and businesses,
especially in the New England states.
These tanks are federally exempt and
regulated on a state-by-state basis.
Yet heating oil tanks leak, contami-
nate groundwater and/or surface
water, and require somebody to pay
the piper.
And, of course, there are the
many regulated and unregulated,
rivately and publicly owned USTs
that continue to lie in wait until we
discover them or at least pay atten-
• continued on page 4
-------
• Groundwater and USTs
from page 3
tion to them—the abandoned and
out-of-service tanks that may or may
not be leaking. Abandoned tanks
made headlines in August, when the
Associated Press (AP) reported on its
investigation of underground fuel
tanks that "could be leaking hazard-
ous materials into drinking water."
AP zeroed in on buried steel tanks
left over from the Cold War era, say-
ing that the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency (FEMA) has known
about the buried tanks under its man-
agement since at least the 1990s, but
has done little in the way of inves-
tigation and remediation. Accord-
ing to the AP, at present, FEMA
knows of at least 150 LUSTs and "is
trying to determine by September
whether an additional 124 tanks are
underground or above ground and
whether they are leaking." But why
pick on FEMA? There are probably
lots more federally, state, and locally
owned USTs awaiting their day in
the sun.
Finally, just as we've had LUST
sites since way back when, we still
have LUST sites. Technologies for
site assessment and cleanup at LUST
sites have improved enormously.
But cleanups still take time and lots
of money, and once they have closed
out sites that are essentially the low-
hanging fruits, states still struggle to
meet USEPA cleanup goals. It is not
made any easier when state cleanup
funds struggle to make good on the
original reason for the funds—get-
ting to and cleaning up sites faster.
In a world where irony rules,
reduced fuel consumption (which is
good) has reduced fund revenues,
which in turn reduces the states' abil-
ity to clean up sites. In addition, as
revenues go down, costs just seem
to keep going up. It is not made eas-
ier when state legislatures see the
funds as revenue sources. The State
of Rhode Island, for example, lost
$2 million from its fund in 2008. The
fund in Oklahoma was diverted on
an unparalleled scale. From 2002 to
2004, $38 million from the fund was
rerouted to higher education. The
fund will also lose $6 million per
year for the next nine years to the
Oklahoma Department of Transpor-
tation. Meanwhile, the fund's claims
increased from $14 million to $24
million during FY- 2007/2008, and
revenues have gone down.
Having seen the evolutions of
state tank programs over the past
ests of groundwater protection be
preempted because we "can't afford"
to be too tough on tank owners, par-
ticularly the "mom and pops"?
Ghost Tanks Have a Way of Haunting
On January 10,2008, more than 4,000 gallons of fuel oil leaked from a 30-feet-long by
9-feet-diameter (about 15,000 gallons) former railroad tanker car buried in an alley at
the rear of the Littlefield Building in Austin, Texas. The tank, buried sometime around
1910, was originally used to power a generator that provided electricity for the building.
In January, the long-abandoned and forgotten tank got some notoriety when a ruptured
water line forced water into the tank through both existing surface corrosion holes (square
feet in size) and the fill port, displacing the stored fuel. The fuel went into the stormwa-
ter system through a sump and emerged at the nearby Waller Creek. Booms were used
to contain and abate the release. In addition to the 4,200 gallons of fuel released to the
creek, another 4,000 gallons of sludge were removed from the tank.
The City of Austin conducted the initial cleanup at a cost of $200,000. On May
2008, the owners of Littlefield were accepted into the Texas Commission on Environ-
mental Quality's Voluntary Cleanup Program to close the LIST and assess any remaining
contamination. "The tanker car is entombed in utility lines," says Tom Ennis, Division
Manager of the City's Environmental Resources Management Division, Watershed Protec-
tion," which makes investigation and cleanup tricky. It will be closed in place," he says,
"but there are still many unknowns. When the field tests are completed, we will know bet-
ter whether the tank had already been leaking."
Ennis explains that as a result of an industrial fire in the city in about 1909, from
then until 1963, the burial of tanks needed the approval of the city council; the Littleton
tank had been approved. Because of this release, Ennis' staff went through all of the city
council minutes for that time period and found 800 to 900 locations where the council
approved burials. "Whether or not tanks were actually buried, or how many were buried,
is not known," says Ennis.
20 years, I am always amazed at how
state program staff continue to think
creatively when faced with reduced
staff and funding resources. They
truly do more with less, but there
is a point where the strain of it all
may take its toll on both agency staff
members and the environment.
What Price Water?
In many ways USTs and UST/LUST
programs are caught up in the shift-
ing, and sometimes turbulent, winds
of our times. Since 1988 and 1998 new
realities have emerged—ethanol, a
gasping economy, strained state and
federal budgets, failing infrastruc-
ture, skyrocketing fuel prices, dis-
integrating profit margins for tank
owner/operators, reduced revenues
for state cleanup funds. USEPA is
now beginning the process of revis-
ing the rules, an undertaking that is
very much needed; but will the inter-
As the GWPC's A Call to Action
states: "We are at a groundwater
crossroads that necessitates ingenu-
ity and proaction in order to mini-
mize potentially detrimental and
costly consequences...It is way past
time for us to recognize the signifi-
cance of groundwater to our national
welfare—our public health, quality
of life, and economic well-being."
USTs matter very much to
groundwater, and the tanks program
has a key role in groundwater pro-
tection and giving this vital resource
the respect it deserves. As a new
generation of tank regulators enters
the program, let them not forget the
importance of their jobs. •
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 58
GWPC's Clarion Call for Groundwater
The Ground Water Protection
Council, an Oklahoma-based
group representing state envi-
ronmental regulators across the
country, has produced a watershed
document calling attention to ground-
water and stating the case for the need
to take "swift and decisive action to
ensure that groundwater is meaning-
fully integrated into federal and state
water resource conservation, man-
agement, and protection agendas."
The report, Ground Water Report to the
Nation: A Call to Action (http://iviviv.
givpc.org/calltoaction), seeks to reverse
the negative trends regarding the use,
availability, degradation, and dearth
in characterization and monitoring
of groundwater taking place across
the nation and provides specific rec-
ommended actions with each of its
10 chapters for accomplishing this.
The report is the result of a multiyear
effort in which GWPC enlisted the
expertise of individuals from all over
the country to assess the threats to the
nation's groundwater resources and
hone their findings into an accessible
document.
USTs were one of the chapter
topics chosen for this first edition of
what GWPC considers the beginning
of an ongoing effort to advance the
protection of our vital groundwater
resources. Besides the introductory
Call to Action chapter, the other chap-
ters focus on groundwater Use and
Availability, Characterization and
Monitoring, Source Water Protection,
Land Use Planning and Develop-
ment, Stormwater, Onsite Wastewa-
ter Treatment Systems, Underground
Injection Control, and Abandoned
Mines. A glance through this colorful
and user-friendly document is a quick
but deadly lesson on the seriousness
of the problem and the importance of
getting on with remediative actions at
all levels of government as well as in
other realms, such as businesses, com-
munities, and nonprofits.
According to GWPC, the severe
strain on already overtaxed water
supplies needs to be factored into
energy policy decisions as the nation
seeks to reduce its reliance on oil.
Coal power, which currently accounts
for about 52 percent of U.S. electricity,
requires 25 gallons of water to gen-
erate each kWh. Ethanol production
from corn also draws down the water
budget. It takes about 19 pounds of
corn to produce the equivalent of one
gallon of gasoline. In the High Plains
region, it takes about 1,000 gallons
of water to grow 19 pounds of grain,
and another 400 to 500 gallons to pro-
cess that amount of grain into ethanol.
In 2006, the U.S. consumed roughly 5
billion gallons of biofuels, mostly eth-
anol, which equates to about 7.5 tril-
lion gallons of water pumped largely
from underground aquifers.
It's time to start heeding the
warning signs," says Mike Paque,
GWPC Executive Director. "While
they may present themselves as iso-
lated incidents, the water and quality
issues that are surfacing add up to a
growing national problem with sig-
Ground Water
Report to the Nation:
A Call to Action
*
Ground Water
tiNft:
Protection Council
Courtesy of Ground Water Protection Council. Art by Ricki Pappo and Poshen Wang.
nificant environmental and economic
impacts. Our aquifers are vast and
rich resources, but they are not bot-
tomless. We need to be more aware of
our dependence on groundwater and
the role it plays in nearly everything
we do."
On July 9, a small group of GWPC
members met with the Congressional
Water Caucus to inform them that
current rates of water use are unsus-
tainable and are already leading to
critical shortages in some areas. In
their presentation, they called for
greater national emphasis and better
funding to study and protect under-
ground sources of water. •
24 Defendants Settle Claims Involving over 150 USTs in NYC
Twenty-four defendants in a federal civil environmental case settled claims against them for UST violations involv-
ing over 150 USTs at 25 facilities in New York City, including six facilities on Long Island. The defendants, as own-
ers/operators of the USTs, allegedly failed to comply with requirements for corrosion protection, leak-detection
prevention, closing and/or registering USTs, and financial responsibility and failed to cooperate with USEPA. The
defendants have undertaken measures valued at approximately $750,000 to come into compliance with Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and have also agreed to pay a $650,000 civil monetary penalty to the federal govern-
ment. The U.S. Department of Justice Eastern District Court of New York and EPA Region 2 announced the settlement
in a July 21 press release. •
New UST Legislation Enacted in New York State
At last! On July 24, Governor Paterson signed the legislative package that updates New York's petroleum and chemi-
cal bulk storage programs to achieve consistency with federal UST regulations. Until this new legislation was passed,
New York's authorities did not include the 1988 requirements for tanks to upgrade or close or other key federal
requirements. The legislation also addresses all Energy Policy Act requirements, including delivery prohibition. The
state expects the regulatory development process to take 2-3 years, though delivery prohibition may be fast-tracked.
New York expects to seek UST program delegation after regulations are promulgated. •
-------
Operator Training: The Oregon Experience
by Tracy J. England
Once upon atime in Oregon, U.S.A., motor-fueling station operators were bewildered by underground storagetank
regulations. Although some operators didn't care, most had some questions...Po I have the correct equipment?
Have I done all of the required testing? Po I have all of the records I need? Can I trust my service providers to do
the work right and keep me in compliance? How can I get answers to these questions without tempting PEQto inspect
my facility? All of this confusion led to lengthy inspections, poor compliance, time-consuming enforcement actions,
heavy penalties, and, in some cases, costly modifications to UST systems. The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (PEQ) needed to find a way to remedy these problems, improve compliance, and show operators we weren't "out
to get" them. Oregon decided to try something new-Operator Training. Now, after four years, regulatory compliance
has increased nearly 20 percent...but is operator training the whole story?
The Early Years
Although Oregon UST rules were
in place in May 1988, most opera-
tors had little interaction with DEQ
regarding operation and mainte-
nance compliance. They only vaguely
understood that they needed to do
more, but DEQ had little time to help
operators or inspect operating facili-
ties (we were busy recording leaking
tanks and inspecting decommission-
ings).
After the 1998 upgrade deadline,
DEQ and USEPA began conducting
operations and maintenance inspec-
tions. Compliance, for the most part,
was atrocious. Most operators had
violations—some had major issues.
Several operators had assurances
from their service providers that
the equipment they had purchased
would meet the UST requirements
but not all of it did. The underlying
problem was a lack of understanding
of the rules by both service providers
and operators. DEQ recognized the
problem and opened a dialogue with
operators, service providers, and
industry representatives to find solu-
tions. Together we developed several
strategies to increase compliance that
included an expedited enforcement
(field citation) pilot program and a
proposal for mandatory operator
training.
Operator Training Takes Off
The operator-training proposal
was molded into legislation, and in
February 2003 Oregon became the
first state to require operator train-
ing. As of February 2004, all facili-
ties in Oregon that dispense fuel to
a motor vehicle or container must
have a trained UST-system opera-
tor. Training for the operator must be
Oregon Compliance Rates
•s
*
FY2004
FY2005 FY2006
Year
FY2007
| Inspections
| In Compliance
Compliance Rate
documented by a listed vendor and
include:
• A general overview of Oregon
DEQ administrative require-
ments, including financial
responsibility
• A general overview of other
related regulations (e.g., fire
code, health and safety)
• An overview of spill-prevention
and overfill-protection devices
and UST system operation and
maintenance
• An overview of release-detection
methods and devices, operation,
maintenance, and recordkeeping
• An overview of corrosion-pro-
tection (including internal lining)
methods, operation, mainte-
nance, and recordkeeping.
Success?
By the February 2004 deadline, about
80 percent of our UST facilities had
trained operators, and since 2006
it has remained near 100 percent.
After a paltry 57 percent compliance
rate prior to the training require-
ment, these rates have dramatically
improved. An increase of nearly 19
percent is hard to ignore, especially
a 14 percent jump after the first year.
But can this success be attributed to
operator training alone? We're not
convinced.
Tribulations
In looking at our training program
four years later, we recognize that
there are some shortcomings. For one
thing, Oregon's pre-Energy Act train-
ing requires only a general overview
-------
of topics. There are no requirements
for continuing education or retrain-
ing after violations are cited to an
operator who has completed the
training—and one trained operator
can be responsible for an unlimited
number of facilities.
Fifteen vendors were listed by
DEQ to conduct training; however,
not all instructors are created equal.
To be listed, training vendors needed
only to sign an affidavit stating they
would cover the required elements.
They employed a variety of teaching
methods, and some courses were far
more detailed than others. The most
basic sessions consisted of an instruc-
tor simply standing in front of the
class reading the Oregon UST rules.
These were often large classes, and
many operators who attended felt that
their training was a waste of time.
Other sessions were site-
specifically tailored to the operators
in attendance; overwhelmingly, these
operators felt the training was ben-
eficial. In these small- to medium-
sized sessions, most operators left the
training feeling that they had gained
insight into the regulations and the
operation of their UST systems and
snared a willingness to improve their
operation and maintenance.
Oregon's operator training pro-
gram does not require continuing
education or retraining after vio-
lations; therefore, after the initial
training of operators, most vendors
who had offered training courses
stopped. Now, only one trainer offers
courses on a regular basis, which
makes it difficult for new operators
to complete the required training.
To help offset this problem, Oregon
recognized the International Code
Council's (ICC's) UST System Opera-
tor (national exam) as a partial fulfill-
ment of the training requirements.
In our rules, the term "trained
operator" was broadly defined, and
the number of facilities for which one
person could be the operator was
not limited. The rates of compliance
in situations where a single opera-
tor was trained for several facili-
ties varied. In most cases, operators
regularly monitor the operations of
their facilities, and compliance issues
at one facility are addressed at all
of their other facilities. However, in
several instances, the trained opera-
tor actually has little involvement
with the daily operations of a facility.
Curiously, the same violations tend
to occur at several locations under
these circumstances.
Oregon recently implemented
a rule revision, prompted by the
Energy Act. We have adopted a broad
interpretation of the Energy Act
model for operator training. This will
allow us to tighten control, as needed,
through guidance rather than rule.
Oregon's revised operator training
program starts in August 2009. We
are still drafting our guidance, but
a few of the issues we have encoun-
tered have already been addressed.
For example, vendors will be subject
to a more stringent approval process
prior to offering courses in Oregon.
Also, requirements for retraining of
violators and improved constraints
on the requirements for being the
"designated trained operator" have
been added.
Other Tweaks Toward
Compliance
Before 2004, UST violations found
by DEQ required a lengthy and
time-consuming formal enforce-
ment process. Enforcement was
detracting from the time inspectors
could spend actually conducting
inspections, and it created a finan-
cial burden on businesses because
of the associated penalties. DEQ
recognized the need to streamline
enforcement, so in 2004 we began
an expedited enforcement pilot pro-
gram. As a result, we significantly
cut the level of formal enforcement,
freeing up our inspectors to conduct
inspections. Violations cited at the
conclusion of an inspection result in
less time out of compliance for facil-
ities and may have significantly con-
tributed to increased compliance.
Owing to the success of the pilot
program, DEQ's expedited enforce-
ment program was expanded and
permanently authorized in 2008.
In anther effort to improve com-
pliance, we targeted UST service pro-
viders who are licensed in Oregon
and for the most part play an active
role in assisting their customers in
making equipment and monitoring
decisions. DEQ recognized the value
of informed and knowledgeable ser-
vice providers and provided a series
of free one-day seminars tailored
for this group. The seminars offer
current, pertinent information and
a forum for direct interaction with
DEQ inspectors for rule interpreta-
tion and guidance.
These sessions have opened an
avenue of information exchange
between DEQ and service provid-
ers. As a result, service providers are
better serving their customers, confi-
dently assisting operators by teaching
ways to improve their practices—and
thereby increasing compliance. The
operators are now knowledgeable
about their systems and usually have
the required records readily available
during inspections. Service provider
efforts have led to shorter inspec-
tion times and improved operational
compliance.
Other factors that may have
influenced compliance include an
increase in the number of inspec-
tors (from 3 to 5 FTE) and inspec-
tion frequency (from "eventually" to
an approximate 3-year cycle). Also,
Oregon has a good percentage of
facilities operated by regional dis-
tributors. In most cases, a violation
at one facility leads to corrections
being made at their remaining facili-
ties before additional inspections are
scheduled—one cited violation has
led to improved compliance at sev-
eral facilities.
The Communication Bullet
It's challenging to quantify the suc-
cess of Oregon's operator training
program. One thing we know is that
operator training is not the compli-
ance silver bullet. We believe a cru-
cial missing piece in the compliance
puzzle is communication—with both
the regulated community and service
providers. In our experience, this has
been the most important element in
our compliance success.
Regardless of the reason, we are
happy to say that since 2004 there
has been a significant increase in
the knowledge of the operators in
Oregon, and they no longer dread
receiving an inspection notice.
Inspectors can attest that operators
have an improved understanding of
the requirements, and we have seen
a significant reduction in the time it
takes to conduct an inspection. Most
importantly, compliance rates are up
and continue to improve. •
-------
A Long View
Parting Thoughts from a Veteran/Tank Regulator
by Marshall Mott-SmithCT
On March 31, 2008, I retired
from the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection,
where I worked for 31 years—the
last 22 of those were as administra-
tor of the Storage Tank Regulation
Section. While listening to the lun-
cheon speakers at the recent Annual
Tanks Conference in Atlanta, I got to
thinking that I really ought to say a
few words that reflect on what we've
accomplished and what still needs
doing and also to thank those people
who have helped me along the way.
LUSTLine has been there for all of us
throughout the program and is the
ideal forum for me to pass on some
parting thoughts to my friends, fel-
low regulators, and the many others
in the UST and AST programs around
the country that I had the pleasure to
work with through the years. It's not
that I've become an old geezer with
a compelling desire to tell everyone
what it was like in the "old days,"
but I believe there is some value in
knowing our program history so we
can better appreciate and gauge the
strength of our current effort.
First of all, I'm very grateful
for the knowledge and experience I
gained in my government job. My
regulatory experience was very valu-
able. It started as an apprenticeship
when I was a field inspector making
$7,000 a year in 1977, and the more I
learned, the better I became at my job.
The fieldwork was particularly edu-
cational because it afforded me a true
perspective on the realities that regu-
lators, facility owners, manufacturers,
and consultants face each day in their
efforts to be successful in their work.
I took advantage of the technical and
leadership training opportunities
that were available and soaked up
the wisdom of experts like Maine's
Marcel Moreau and England's Jamie
Thompson. I urge all of you to keep
learning and to be open to new ideas
and technologies. In addition, I really
enjoyed my work as a tanks compli-
ance program administrator because
8
it continually offe
ges, was never boring, and gave me
the opportunity to work with many
different and interesting people and
industries.
Second, if you are a new inspec-
tor and think that the United States
is overly polluted and going to the
depths in a handbasket, you are
wrong! There is always room for
improvement, but I remember when
we really did have dirty air and
water in the 1960s and 1970s, and we
absolutely have made outstanding
progress since then. This is particu-
larly true with our tanks programs.
Looking back to the early days of
Florida's program in 1983, the one
thing that really jumps out at me is
how far we have come.
I remember when Florida only
had six inspectors. Each had over 300
cleanup enforcement cases with lea-
king UST systems, and no one had
any time available to perform com-
pliance inspections. Progress with
remediation at contaminated sites
was at a standstill, and sites with
free product, which was measured in
feet instead of inches, was common-
place. If a site was owned by a major
oil company, we had the lawyers, we
had to delay any cleanup response,
and the contamination remained in
the ground.
If a "mom and pop" owned
the site, there was no action either,
because the owner didn't have the
resources to clean up the contami-
nation and would often just "walk
away." The Florida legislature finally
allocated money for a compliance
program in 1986, along with a well-
funded Trust Fund for cleaning up
sites. From then on, everything went
into high gear. Twenty-two years
later, after more than 500,000 com-
pliance inspections and thousands of
enforcement cases, there truly is an
amazing contrast between the past
and the present.
We've also learned that there is
absolutely no substitute for a pair
of eyes w>rti^nVnis*
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLineBulletin 58
tenance as a high priority. Family
financing for these facilities also
makes agency enforcement actions
difficult. Another transition under-
way involves facilities that chose
lower-cost upgrade technologies for
meeting the 1998 deadline. Instead of
purchasing compliance, these facili-
ties essentially rented
their compliance for a
short time...and with
a short fuse. Inspec-
tors should ensure that
both of these transiti-
onal situations receive
adequate attention and
resources, or they could
face a return to the days
of the early 1980s.
I would like to
recognize the early
pioneers and the pro-
minent leaders of the
program. For example,
Ron Brand, who star-
ted the USEPA program
and had the vision to
give the states an active
role in program deve-
lopment and manage-
ment. I served on a committee in
1986 with Marcel Moreau and many
other state regulators to help USEPA
develop its technical UST rules that
eventually became 40CFR 280. There
were notable USEPA Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks (OUST) Admi-
nistrators in between like David
Ziegele and Lisa Lund, who kept
the program on task toward mee-
ting the 1998 UST upgrade, replace,
or remove deadline. We are cur-
rently well served by Cliff Rothen-
stein and his fine staff, who helped
get the Energy Act of 2005 through
Congress, and who have initiated the
recent work to revise the federal UST
rules—especially Mark Barolo.
As leaders of state programs
today, we need to make sure that
compliance inspectors have the tools
and knowledge they need to be effec-
tive regulators, yet at the same time
make sure they have the "people
skills" needed to be fair and unbia-
sed interpreters of the rules as they
are written. We can't forget that tank
owners are people just like us who are
trying to make a living and that their
taxes help fund our programs. They
also have a multitude of other regu-
lations to comply with in addition to
the UST regulations. And remember,
only countries with viable economies
can afford to have and enforce envi-
ronmental regulations (visit Mexico,
Russia, and a few third-world coun-
tries if you disagree). Tempering
your regulatory decisions with a real-
world outlook and
judgment goes a long way.
commonsense
Marshall Mott-Smith (left) and European tanks expert Jamie Thompson, Associ-
ation for Petroleum and Explosives Administration (APEA), meet up in England.
I also have one word of caution.
We cannot be satisfied with our suc-
cess and become complacent. We
must continue to look for more effi-
cient and effective methods of regula-
tion that are practical and achievable,
yet provide adequate protection for
groundwater. For example, Florida
gets 92 percent of its drinking water
from groundwater sources. While in
some places it's plentiful and clean, in
other areas there is excessive demand
and not enough suitable sources that
meet drinking water standards.
Groundwater protection must
be our prevailing purpose, and we
must remain focused on this mission
without getting sidetracked with
procedures, bean counting, or other
things that divert our attention. This
will not be easy, as many state resour-
ces are strained with lower tax reve-
nues, and state legislators are faced
with difficult funding decisions.
Travel, training, and expense bud-
gets have been slashed, and mana-
gers must prioritize their efforts on
inspecting those facilities that pose
the greatest risk to groundwater.
I have known numerous state
tanks program regulators and mana-
gers through the years who have
made significant contributions for
the good of the national program
and/or who have been influential in
helping Florida's Program. I have a
list of about 100 names of people that
I would like to recognize, and I know
if I mention any names, I risk leaving
someone out. I would, however, like
to mention a few special friends who
have been very helpful
to me. Bill Truman (ex-
Florida, currently with
USEPA Region IV, and
the worthy successor
of another friend, John
Mason); Mississippi's
Kevin Henderson, for his
excellent work with flex-
pipe and UST-system
equipment performance;
Ben Thomas, for all his
training efforts; Steve
Crimaudo, for his sup-
portive work with AST-
SWMO; Stuart Gray, for
his moral support; and
Florida's Ernest Roggelin,
for all that he has done as
Florida's lead trainer.
We've gone from
bare-steel tanks and
piping to single-walled, corrosion-
resistant storage tank systems, and
from a handful of inspectors to a
large successful nationwide program
that probably has provided more
real protection and remediation for
our ground and surface waters than
any other federal program. Together
we have brought thousands of facili-
ties into compliance and cleaned up
hundreds of thousands of contami-
nated sites. The future outlook is also
good as we are well on our way with
the transition of single-walled corro-
sion-resistant storage tank systems
to systems with secondary contain-
ment. So, whenever you think you
are spinning your wheels, mired in
the tedious and routine process of
completing your grant application,
or wondering if what you are doing
is really worth the effort, step back
for a moment and take in the long
view. You were part of the collective
success, and we truly have much to
be proud of. •
Marshall Mott-Smith is currently
president of Mott-Smith Consulting
Group LLC. He can be reached at mar-
shall@motts-smithconsulting.com.
-------
A MESSAGE FROM CLIFF ROTHENSTEIN
Director, U.S. EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Changes Coming to the
Federal UST Regulations
Wi
ith the Olympic
games recently
over and the
baseball playoffs just
around the corner, it
dawned on me that those
of us in the UST program
have a lot more in common with professional athletes than
we might think. We're both at the top of our professions.
We both occasionally make some unforced errors. And like
professional athletes, we too need to keep up with the latest
equipment and technology. Any sports fan knows that Rafael
Nadal didn't win Wimbledon using a wooden tennis racquet,
nor did Tiger Woods win the U.S. Open using a persimmon
driver. And 41-year-old Olympic swimmer Dara Torres didn't
win a silver medal in the 50 meter freestyle wearing a cotton
bathing suit. She wore the new hydro-dynamically advanced
Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit. Tiger used his Nike SasQuatch
Tour 460cc driver, and Rafael used a Babolat Aero Pro Drive
Cortex racquet.
Like these great athletes, we too must replace our old,
worn-out tools of the trade with new equipment. For those
of us who are tank aficionados, it means we must update our
UST regulatory wardrobe so we can continue to perform at
the top of our game.
I think we all agree that for more than 20 years the
UST regulations have served our program and our country
well. We've seen a steady decline in reported releases and
an expanded use of better tank systems. But there is still
room for improvement. It's been almost two decades since
we promulgated our regulations—and like golf clubs, tennis
racquets, and swimsuits—UST systems have also changed
quite a bit. We have seen wooden dipsticks replaced with
automatic tank gauging, and bare-steel tanks replaced with
double-walled tank systems. And now we are even seeing
"green" gas stations being built with energy-efficient and
environmentally friendly equipment.
But one thing that has not changed is the UST regula-
tions. While technology has moved into the 21st century,
our regulations are still stuck in the 1980s. And some of the
requirements are now woefully out-of-date. Fortunately, with
the enactment of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we now have a
great opportunity to take a close and critical look at our UST
regulations—we will update them so that we can fully imple-
ment the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act and take
full advantage of today's new technology.
Implement Energy Policy Act to Ensure
Equity of UST Requirements
In 2005, about 20 years after creating the UST program,
Congress again saw a need to update the law so we would
have more tools to prevent, detect, and clean up releases
from underground tanks. So when Congress passed the
2005 Energy Policy Act, it included several new provisions
that, once fully implemented, will help all of us do our jobs
better. As drafted, however, some key provisions of the Act,
including secondary containment, operator training, and
fuel-delivery prohibition, apply only to UST facilities in states
that receive federal LUST funding. These provisions, how-
ever, do not apply to tank facilities located in Indian Country,
nor do they apply in states that do not receive such federal
funding.
In order to achieve more consistent program results in
preventing releases, we need to revise the tank regulations
and require that these provisions apply throughout the coun-
try. What this means is that after the new regulations are
promulgated, tank owners in Indian Country and in states
that haven't received USEPA UST-program approval will also
need to meet the new secondary-containment requirements,
train their UST facility operators, and be subject to fuel-
delivery prohibition enforcement authority. By doing this,
USEPA will ensure federal enforceability of these release-
prevention requirements nationwide.
Targeted Changes to Existing UST
Regulations
But to take full advantage of today's better technology, we
must look beyond these new Energy Policy Act requirements.
In much the same way that Congress recently amended,
updated, and improved the statute governing underground
tank regulations, we must also take a close look at our exist-
ing 40 CFR, Part 280 regulations to see where they are out of
date and where they can be improved.
Our goal is to quickly, but methodically, identify tar-
geted regulatory changes that will continue to advance and
improve UST technology and that are needed to move the
program forward in a cost-effective manner. Our regulations,
wherever possible, should encourage UST owners to use the
best and latest equipment (like professional athletes) to pre-
vent and detect releases.
While we haven't yet completed our assessment of
what changes are needed, we have identified a few areas
where targeted regulatory changes may be worthwhile. For
example, we know that some standards referenced in our
10
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLineBulletin 58
regulations are outdated or no longer
exist and need to be updated or elim-
inated. We also know that for about
20 years, field-constructed tanks and
other types of UST systems have
been deferred from regulation, and
we may want to regulate or exempt
some or all of these systems. We
know there also may be opportunities
to reduce unnecessary recordkeep-
ing and other regulatory burdens.
And on the flip side, there may be a
need to close significant regulatory
gaps, such as testing requirements
for spill buckets and sumps.
The Real Work Is Just
Beginning
On June 30, we officially kicked off
our new rulemaking process. It's a
process with many steps, but we're
already making progress. We've
begun some of the initial administra-
tive work that USEPA requires for a
rulemaking change such as this. And
we've also started talking with state
and tribal officials, as well as many
UST stakeholders (e.g., industry,
environmental organizations, and
federal agencies) and are actively
eliciting theirthoughts on our plans.
Over the next several months we
expect to continue working our way
through the initial steps of the regula-
tory process. But unlike the Olympic
games, which lasted only two weeks,
developing, proposing, and promul-
gating our new regulations is more
like the years of training all top ath-
letes must endure to even get to the
Olympics. Our regulatory process will
be a long haul, but worth the effort. As
we all know, despite our best efforts,
USTs are still the nation's leading
source of groundwater contamina-
tion. But with your active involvement
and input into our regulatory process,
I am confident we can amend our
rules and lead the way in protecting
our nation's groundwater and drink-
ing water from UST systems. And at
the end of the day, when we get to
stand on our podium and receive our
gold medal, we will be as proud as any
world-class athlete that we can more
effectively run our programs. •
<^T3
Arlene Luther's Legacy
by Ellen Frye
The Navajo Nation, other tribes, USEPA, family, and the environment will
miss Arlene Luther, a longtime advocate for Navajo environmental jus-
tice and a pioneer of what is now the Navajo Environmental Protection
Agency. Arlene died in January 2008 after a long illness complicated with pneu-
monia. According to her friend and coworker Henry Haven Jr., Arlene dedi-
cated most of her life to the protection of land and precious water resources on
the Navajo Nation.
"She lectured in matters of environmental justice across Indian reserva-
tions and captured the audience of both the U.S. EPA and prominent members
of Congress," says Haven. "She provided great guidance and wisdom to the
Navajo UST and LUST program, as well as to other tribes. She will be missed
and will be remembered for her solitary struggle to bring environmental justice
to all Indian Nations."
Luther was program director for USTs, Superfund, Hazardous Waste, and
Waste Management and had been with Navajo EPA for nearly 30 years. She was
a federally credentialed hazardous waste inspector for USEPA and a tribal UST
compliance-monitoring inspector. She participated in many criminal investiga-
tions with USEPA. "She was involved in almost everything—uranium, oil and
gas, groundwater contamination," says Haven. " She brought a lot of stuff up to
the congressional level, especially with uranium and groundwater contamina-
tion. She was always bringing everybody together—BIA, the state, U.S. EPA,
local people, and other tribes—getting them to realize there were problems that
needed attention."
"She was standing on the value of the sacredness of land, water, and air.
That was her whole position," explains Haven. When Henry Haven phoned me
in January to say that Arlene had died, I sensed the enormity of our loss, but it
was also clear that she had left behind a powerful legacy for the Navajo nation
and all others whose lives she had touched. •
Cliff Rothenstein (left), Director of the USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Arlene Luther,
and friend and coworker Henry Haven Jr. at the 2007 Tanks Conference in San Antonio, Texas.
11
-------
As Rudy Used to Say..."I Dunno"
For those of you who aren't Survivor fans from way back (series 1, no less),
Rudy Bosch, a seventy-something, seemingly clueless, ex-Marine who
somehow made it to the final three on the show, frequently uttered the
words "I dunno." I consider myself a little less clueless than Rudy (at least
in certain areas), but I find myself saying, "I dunno" much of the time when
filling out the new Source/Cause reports, developed as a result of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT).
Part of the new public record reporting required by EPACT includes an
accounting of the number, sources, and causes of UST releases in each state.
Two measures were added to the reporting, in addition to the number of con-
firmed releases that have been required for years. The first measure is the
number and percent of releases by source, where the source of the release is
known. The second is the number and percent of causes by source.
While try-
ing to iden-
tify the source
and cause of
releases from
UST systems
is an admi-
rable and use-
ful goal, in
practice, it is
an easier-said-
than-done
task. We are
spared some
of the agony
of this report-
ing because
EPA's "Grant
Guidelines to
States For Implementing the Public Record Provision of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005" does not require states to report this information for releases where
the source is not known.
Okay, maybe I can just invoke Rudy's "I dunno," but I doubt that the pub-
lic would be very happy with 100 confirmed releases, and source/cause infor-
mation for only 5 of them (that's 95 "I dunno's" for source and cause). Figure
1 shows USEPA's suggested reporting format. I'm sure that the agency doesn't
expect the total number under "Source" to equal the "Number of Confirmed
Releases," but how much of a difference is acceptable?
12
Summary Information For Releases
Number Of Confirmed UST Releases:
Re ease Reporting Period Dates: To:
Summary Information For Release Sources And Causes
Source
Tank
Piping
Dispenser
STP
:. i -.•-,
Problem
'"n
Totals
Causa
Spill
# = number % = percent of
Note: Release, source and c
cause data were collected u
compliance and releasas.I
Overfill
•-> •-.••: r.v
Carnage
Corrosion
Install
Problem
Other
Unknown
claTumber
au» information is based on [stale descnce gnu/erse o< tanks). Source and
ing [stale: describe data-gathenftg techniques))
ere on how the public can obtain ntB-specrfic UST information on
Tracking Source/Cause
Information?
What is involved in tracking the
Source/Cause information? USEPA
has provided the states with lists of
sources and causes. Logic would
have it that we should at least be able
to figure out the general area of the
release, because, after all, parts of
a tank system are usually (but not
always) spread out spatially on a site.
Later, I will discuss why this is not
always the case, depending on how
the release might have been identi-
fied.
The following is the minimum
list of these sources, with USEPA's
short description of each:
• Tank - Stores the product and is a
part of the UST system.
•Piping - Includes the piping and
connectors running from the tank
or submersible turbine pump to the
dispenser or other end-use equip-
ment. It does not include vent,
vapor-recovery, or fill lines.
• Dispenser - Includes the dispenser
and equipment used to connect the
dispenser to the piping. For exam-
ple, a release from a suction pump
or components located above a
shear valve would be considered a
release from the dispenser.
•Submersible turbine pump (STP)
area - Includes the submersible tur-
bine pump head (typically located
in the tank sump), the line-leak
detector, and the piping that con-
nects the submersible turbine pump
to the tank.
-------
•Delivery problem - Identifies
releases that occurred during prod-
uct delivery to the tank. Typical
causes associated with this source
are spills and overfills.
•Other - Default option when the
release source does not fit into one
of the above categories. For exam-
ple, releases from vent lines, vapor-
recovery lines, and fill lines would
be included in this category.
I can usually identify a dispenser
leak and a piping leak, but tank, STP,
and delivery problems are all located
in the tank area.
The following is a minimum
list of causes, with USEPA's short
description of each:
• Spill - Use when a spill occurs. For
example, spills may occur when the
delivery hose is disconnected from
the fill pipe of the tank or when the
nozzle is removed from the vehicle
at the dispenser.
•Overfill - Use when an overfill
occurs. For example, overfills may
occur from the fill pipe at the tank
or when the nozzle fails to shut off
at the dispenser.
•Physical or mechanical damage
- Use for all types of physical or
mechanical damage, except cor-
rosion as described below. Some
examples of physical or mechanical
damage include: a puncture of the
tank or piping, loose fittings, bro-
ken components, and components
that have changes in dimension
(e.g., elongation or swelling).
• Corrosion - Use when a metal tank,
piping, or other component has a
release due to corrosion (for steel,
corrosion takes the form of rust).
This is a specific type of physical or
mechanical damage.
•Installation problem - Use this
cause when the problem is deter-
mined to have occurred specifically
because the underground storage
tank system was not installed prop-
erly. Note that these problems may
be difficult to determine.
•Other - Use when the cause is
known but does not fall into one of
the above categories. For example,
accidentally or intentionally put-
ting a regulated substance into a
monitoring well would be included
in this category.
•Unknown - Use only when the
cause is not known.
Spills and overfills may be dif-
ficult to distinguish from each other,
unless they were witnessed and
reported at the time. Contractors
don't always work with the care
and precision of a surgeon, so unless
you're there when they are work-
ing on a tank system, you might not
know that pipes or fittings were dam-
aged before they started digging.
Identification of Release
At the same time that we added the
Source/Cause fields to our Delaware
database, I also added a field called
"Identification of Release." This was
an attempt to start tracking how
sites were identified as release sites
and came to be added to the "LUST
List." At least it gave us the satisfac-
tion of being able to check something
off with a reasonable degree of cer-
tainty. Maybe I can get rid of a few
"dunnos." I know USEPA says we
don't have to provide source and
cause information to the public if we
can't figure out the source, but given
that option, we would be tempted
to always check the "I dunno"
box. I need to know why we so fre-
quently "dunno." I think that part of
the answer lies in the way in which
releases are identified and come into
our system!
Release identification options
include:
• Tank system removal or abandon-
ment observations and samples
• Site investigation
• Equipment failure
• Offsite impact
• Referral from Emergency
Response
• Referral from Public Health (usu-
ally because of a contaminated
well)
• Retrofit sampling
• Tank gauge or line-leak detector
triggered
• Tank or line testing
• Stage II vapor-recovery testing
• Inventory control discrepancies
• Water in tank.
Of the first 70 sites or so that
have been entered into our database,
approximately half were identified as
"leakers" because of tank removals
or abandonments. Approximately 25
percent of the new sites were identi-
fied because site investigation reports
were submitted, usually owing to a
property transfer or potential trans-
fer. (It's a good thing we've had a
lot of property transfers, or I might
run out of things to do.) Around 15
percent of the sites were identified
because of retrofit sampling. The
other 10 percent of sites were iden-
tified due to referrals from our State
Emergency Response Team, the
Office of Drinking Water, or observa-
tions such as staining during facility
inspections. Maybe it's because of the
small sample size, so far, but what is
conspicuously absent is any of the
methods of leak detection giving us
an indication of a release.
For tank removals, we collect one
composite soil sample from the soils
excavated from the top and sides of
the tank, and one soil sample from
two feet below the bottom of the tank.
A sample is also collected from five
feet below a dispenser. These samples
might allow me to check "Dispenser"
as an option, but the composite and
grab tank samples don't always
allow me to know whether the tank
leaked, there was an STP problem, or
there was a delivery problem.
When our inspectors attend a
removal, they try to time their arrival
to when the tank is ready to come
out of the ground. Chances are, the
concrete pad was removed the day
before, the dispensers are already
gone, and all the tank-top piping
and sumps are gone. Many of these
pieces may already be in the dump-
ster. Chances are, when the inspector
arrives on site, the soil is already in a
big heap staged out of the way. That
makes it a little hard to guess where
the problem was when the samples
come back hot.
I went to one tank removal a few
years ago where the product pip-
ing had been repaired by something
that looked like segments of radiator
hose, held together by hose clamps.
Oh, to have had a camera that day!
And since we seldom see any bare-
steel tanks any more, we seldom see
tanks that look like they've been hit
by a load of buckshot.
To have a better chance of
answering the "source" questions,
our inspectors might have to hang
around a site for two or three days,
starting with the minute that concrete
is broken, which would not be very
popular with either our inspectors
• continued on page 14
13
-------
• WanderLust/rom page 13
or (possibly) the contractors. With
our current way of doing removal
inspections, we can probably say that
the release was from the area of the
tanks (top or bottom), or the area of
the dispensers.
When we get a site investigation
report, usually done for a property
transfer, we often get both soil and
groundwater samples, because many
of these investigations are done using
direct-push techniques. Samples
are collected from around the site,
with most investigators attempting
to sample near tanks and dispens-
ers while also trying to avoid hitting
tanks, lines, vapor-recovery lines,
concrete pads, water lines, electric
lines, and all the while dealing with
property boundaries. We may or may
not get groundwater flow directions,
and the investigator may or may not
have managed to collect samples
from locations that are downgradient
of potential release areas.
I received two property transfer
investigations recently, both of which
were previous LUST sites, so flow
direction was known. Even knowing
flow direction in advance, the inves-
tigators managed to collect all of their
samples upgradient and crossgra-
dient of any potential source areas.
Attempts to collect additional sam-
ples downgradient were stymied in
both cases because of access refusal.
If these investigations, done by the
buyer, were to serve as a baseline for
existing contamination...well, based
on what was submitted, they looked
nearly clean to me! Even a well-done
site assessment might let you know
that the problem appeared to come
from the tanks, or appeared to come
from the dispenser, but examination
of station records and testing results
will usually fail to identify a defini-
tive source.
Retrofit sampling, because it is
done in a localized area, is more
definitive in identifying a source. If
you remove a dispenser to install a
sump, you can see the staining. If you
add or replace a tank-top sump, you
can usually see or smell the problem,
although you might be sampling pea
gravel instead of soil. Replacement
of flex connectors with swing joints
also allows you to get up-close and
personal with potential source areas.
At least one release area might be
identified with reasonable certainty
during a retrofit.
Cause of Release
If we can get past determining the
source-of-release problem, identify-
ing the cause might be somewhat
easier, but much of the time, your
ability to determine source and cause
will depend on how the site was
identified as having had a release.
A contractor who is hired to remove
a tank will not be operating with
the care of a coroner conducting an
autopsy to determine cause of death.
He's out there to get the tank out of
the ground as quickly and cheaply as
possible, so he can get on to another
job. If a line-leak detector triggers,
someone has to track down the prob-
lem so that it can be fixed.
Now, when a tank or line fails a
test, the contractor has to tell us what
he had to fix to get the tank or line to
pass the re-test. When we identify a
release by way of things like a Phase
II site investigation, later examination
of station records often fails to give
any indication of a past or ongoing
release. Depending on where sam-
ples are collected, you might have a
pretty good general idea where the
release occurred, but not the cause.
Repairs may have been done years
before, and we're just identifying the
release now.
LUST Autopsy Reports
Sometime around 2001 or 2002, we
were required to fill out a LUST Site
Release Report for every release
where the tanks met the 1998 stan-
dards for submission to EPA Region
III. These reports were three pages
long and included tank and pip-
ing system information (material
and type of tanks, product stored,
age, presence of absence of sumps,
pump types, leak-detection meth-
ods including brands and model
numbers, date of last testing, etc.).
Then the reports continued on to
date release discovered, estimated
date of initial release, source, cause,
how identified, estimated extent in
soil and groundwater, and media
affected. There was also plenty of
space for a long detailed description
of any additional information. What
I remember most about the forms,
other than the sheer joy I got in fill-
ing them out, was having most of
them rejected by USEPA because of
Florida Leak Autopsy Study The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP) has probably collected
more autopsy data than any other state. An article by Marshall Mott-Smith appeared in LUSTLine Bulletin 56 detailing some of the
findings of the study. The Florida report form requires extensive information on the tank system and equipment at the facility, method
of discovery of the release, whether the method of leak detection in use at the facility detected the release, as well as source/cause
i nfo rm ati on (http://www. dep, state, 11. us/waste/quick_topics/publications/pss/tanks/62-761 Workshop/LeakstudyformDraft, doc).
Some of the results of the Florida leak-detection project were presented at a public rule workshop in October 2007. The study
showed that leak detection detected releases 37 percent of the time, failed to detect releases 38 percent of the time, and was unable
to detect releases (or unknown) 25 percent of the time (http://www.dep.state.fi,us/waste/quick_topics/publications/pss/tanks/rule-
making/62-761_RuleWorkshop180ct07.pdf).
ERM, Inc. analyzed data collected by FLDEP with the leak autopsy reports. A large number of their autopsy reports were con-
sidered invalid because either the source or cause was unknown, but 357 reports had enough information for analysis. The main
source of releases was spill-containment buckets, and the main cause was material failure (http://www.ermi.net/Media.nsf/Main/
9870B0314DE33D8C8525729E005F2429/$file/NISTMUST2005PresentationB.pps?open). Where tanks were the source of the
release, the main causes were listed as unknown and overfill. Where pipes were the source, material failure and physical damage or
punctures were the main causes (LUSTLine 56).
The Florida study also included a summary of discovery methods similar in idea to information that I have been tracking with
my "Identification of Release" field. Their "discovery" includes: visual, analytical tests or samples, removal, leak detection, other
tank tightness methods, installation or upgrade, inventory reconciliation, annual tank tightness, and olfactory. Seventy percent of the
releases were identified by visual detection, analytical tests or samples, and removal. Again, "leak detection" methods accounted for
much smaller percentages.
14
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLineBulletin 58
too many "I dunno"s. Eventually, we
were told that we didn't have to fill
them out anymore.
And How About the Stupid
Leaks?
Of the approximately 600 LUST sites
for which I've been the project officer
in the last 18 years, I can give an abso-
lutely certain source and reasonably
certain cause for about 20 of them. A
number of the releases were caused
by sheer stupidity—why would
you dispense product into a clearly
labeled, double-locked tank field well
when the fill pipe is a few feet away
and clearly labeled?
It takes a socket wrench to get this lid off, and
then it's got a locking well cap inside. It's also
labeled Monitoring Well. It's not a fill pipe!
STOP. THINK!
Why wouldn't you take a bet-
ter look at your facility if one tank's
daily inventory record showed four
straight months of daily losses, even
if the inventory passed the 1 per-
cent of throughput plus 130 gallons
threshold? That release was finally
reported when a previously absolu-
tely clean monitoring well that exi-
sted owing to an earlier release from
another tank field all of a sudden had
three feet of free product. Product
was squirting every time someone
dispensed product, but the problem
evidently wasn't where either the
line-leak detector or the automa-
tic tank gauge (ATG) would trigger.
I don't know how much longer it
would have taken to be discovered if
a consultant hadn't been doing quar-
terly monitoring for an earlier release,
and if that monitoring well didn't
happen to be right next to the tank
field. It was really obvious when we
went to the site and popped the man-
hole cover for this tank.
Note the bottomless plywood sump within the
manway—it's 25 feet straight down through
the pea gravel to groundwater. Product squirted
every time the pump kicked on. Our new regu-
lations not only require sumps, we require
double-walled sumps. Operators are also
required to perform a release investigation if in
any month there is an "unexplainable consistent
negative trend" in inventory.
Why would someone drill a
monitoring well within the area of
a long linear patch in the asphalt,
directly in line between the tank
top and the vent lines. Yup, drilled
through the vent lines and even log-
ged the fiberglass in the drillers' log.
Not reported at the time of the acci-
dent. I spotted it when I saw a spike
of MtBE in groundwater during the
next several quarters of groundwater
monitoring and found the fiberglass
logged in the drillers log. Evidently
the geologist logging the well was
not aware that product piping and
vapor-recovery lines could be made
of brown fiberglass.
2-4' Pea gravel and ground fiberglass fragments
4-6' Orange medium Sand with fiberglass chips
6-8' Layered orange pea gravel & sand with fiberglass
8-8.2' Orange C-M SAND (FILL)
Wet and slight pctro odor at 9'
8.2-15.2 Gray clayey SILT
Part of the drilling log from installation of a
monitoring well. Fiberglass is not normally part
of our local lithology.
One of my newer sites has one of
my favorites. The station owner was
installing a concrete pad on which to
place a car vacuum. Several rebars
were driven into the ground before
the concrete form was poured. The
line-leak detector tripped (ama-
zing!) and they started looking for
the problem at the dispensers, wor-
king toward the tanks. The lines
didn't follow the path that I would
have guessed. They doglegged right
alongside the building instead of
coming out the end of the dispensers
and right-angling to the tanks. I guess
they should have used Soft-Dig. Did
anyone ever hear of keeping the sta-
tion As-Builts? They pulled off the
fronts of the dispensers and obser-
ved product, so they started digging
at that end to expose the lines. The
breaks in the pipes were most of the
way toward the tank field. I'm not
sure why they didn't start looking in
the area where there was obviously
some construction taking place.
They couldn't have nailed the fiberglass prod-
uct pipe any better if they'd tried. Two rebars
scored direct hits on one pipe, and the third
rebar nailed a second pipe.
What's the Answer?
During the Blue Ribbon Panel hear-
ings on MtBE, one of the panel-
ists (from a major MtBE producer)
repeatedly stated that when all tanks
came into compliance with the 1998
tank standards, there wouldn't be
any more releases, so the tank pro-
grams should make sure that all
tanks were in compliance, and we
wouldn't have to eliminate MtBE
from gasoline. This was in early 1999,
and we hadn't achieved 100 percent
compliance by then, so we needed to
work harder to remove/retrofit all of
the tanks that were still out of com-
pliance. Get all those old bare steel
tanks out of the ground! Install that
spill and overfill protection! After all,
a 1998-compliant tank couldn't leak!
Fast-forward 10 years, and we're
much closer to compliance but—mir-
acle of miracles—even tanks that are
equipped to comply and being oper-
ated in compliance with the regula-
tions are still leaking without being
detected.
• continued on page 21
15
-------
-inically Speaking
by Marcel Moreau
Marcel Moreau is a nationally
recognized petroleum storage specialist
whose column, Tank-nically Speaking,
is a regular feature of LUSTLine.
As always, we welcome your comments
and cjuestions. If there are technical
issues that you would like to have
Marcel discuss, let him know at
marcel.moreau@juno.com
MAKING SENSE OF SENSORS
Sensors are old hat to regulators in states where secondary containment has been required for a while, but implementation of the
secondary-containment provisions of the 2005 Energy Act will introduce sensors in greater numbers to many more regula-
tors, tank owners, and operators. So this seems like a good time to provide a primer on how the most common kinds of sensors
used in UST systems today work. Along the way, I'll also touch on some the reasons why they may not work as well as they should.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were many different types of UST sensors—dissolving strings, proximity switches,
wires with dissolving insulation, vapor-sensing adsistors, and metal-oxide semiconductors. Most of these have gone the way of the
dodo, although some still survive in isolated pockets of the country. In the interests of brevity and relevance, I'm going to limit this
discussion to the technologies that I believe are most commonly used today.
What Is a Sensor?
In the UST world, sensors are devices
that act as remote eyes to alert us to
conditions of interest in the intersti-
tial spaces of UST systems. These
interstitial spaces include those
between the walls of double-walled
tanks and the insides of tank-top and
under-dispenser sumps. Sensors are
basically switches that are designed
to automatically complete, inter-
rupt, or modify an electrical circuit
when certain conditions are present.
In the UST world, these conditions
most often boil down to the presence
of product or water in the interstitial
space where the sensor is located.
Other conditions, such as the loss of
vacuum in a sealed interstitial space,
can also be monitored.
The change in the circuit pro-
duced by the sensor triggers an audi-
ble and visual alarm that is typically
in a separate location such as an adja-
cent building. These days, the alarm
may also be transmitted to a remote
location that could be the company's
head office, a dedicated 24/7 moni-
toring center, or even a distant land
anywhere else on the planet. Most
often, the alarm is a component of an
automatic tank gauge (ATG).
Sensors are intended to provide
constant, unobtrusive vigilance. Like
obedient bird dogs, their job is to hunt
quietly and point clearly when the
prey is present. In the UST realm, the
16
prey is most often liquid—rainwater,
groundwater, gasoline, diesel, or some
related petroleum product. There are
also a handful of vapor sensors and
vacuum sensors out there, but they
are not included in this article.
A Word About Compatibility
In these days where ethanol in fuel
has become almost as pervasive as
ethanol in taverns, compatibility of
sensors with ethanol fuels is a fac-
tor that must be considered. A brief
and unscientific survey I conducted
of manufacturers' literature indi-
cates that most sensors are compat-
ible with E10 fuels, but only a few
are rated for use with higher levels
of ethanol. For any new facility or
for a facility where a conversion to
ethanol-blended fuels is planned,
owners should verify the compatibil-
ity of any sensors with the product to
be stored.
Types of Sensors
Discriminating Versus Non-
discriminating
The two main categories of liquid
sensors are discriminating and non-
discriminating. Discriminating sen-
sors are able to tell the difference
between product and water and typi-
cally issue different messages on an
ATG display, depending on the liq-
uid that is detected. Non-discrimi-
nating sensors merely indicate the
presence of a liquid, without indicat-
ing whether the liquid is product or
water. Most discriminating sensors
combine two separate sensor tech-
nologies, one that indicates that a
liquid is present and a second tech-
nology that either responds only
to product or can tell the difference
between product and water.
It is important that facility opera-
tors know whether the sensors pres-
ent at their facility are discriminating
or nondiscriminating, because the
alarm messages associated with non-
discriminating sensors often err on
the side of caution and indicate a
"fuel alarm" even when only water
is present. The all-too-frequent intru-
sion of water into tank-top sumps
thus produces "fuel alarms" that turn
out to be "only" water.
Alas, the frequent reoccurrence
of these "nuisance" alarms often
results in a rather nonchalant atti-
tude toward ALL alarms on the part
of facility personnel. Facility opera-
tors with nondiscriminating sensors
must understand that "fuel alarms"
responding to water intrusion are not
happening because of some defect in
the sensor. They must understand
that each "fuel alarm" requires imme-
diate investigation to determine the
real nature of the liquid that is pres-
ent. Operators who are not willing to
do this should invest in discriminat-
ing sensors.
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLineBulletin 58
Discriminating sensors produce
alarm messages that differentiate
between product and water, allow-
ing for a two-tiered response to
an alarm—immediate and urgent
response for product alarms and a
more measured response for water
alarms. While this seems like a very
valuable distinction to me, the great
majority of tank owners have cho-
sen the cheaper nondiscriminating
sensors over the more expensive dis-
criminating ones. The exception to
this is California, where regulations
have encouraged the use of discrimi-
nating sensors.
Float Sensors
By far the most common sensor tech-
nology used in UST systems is the
float sensor, which does not discrimi-
nate between product and water.
This technology is very simple. Two
parallel, flexible strips of metal that
act as switch contacts are encased in
a small, liquid-tight tube. When the
two strips of metal touch, an electri-
cal circuit is completed. When the
two strips do not touch, an electrical
circuit is open or incomplete.
Outside the tube, there is a
donut-shaped float that contains
a magnet. The tube containing the
switch contacts fits loosely inside
the hole of the float/magnet. When
liquid is not present, the magnet is
positioned away from the switch
contacts. The switch contacts are nor-
mally closed (touching) so that when
liquid is not present, the electrical
circuit is complete. When liquid is
present, the float/magnet rises up on
the tube and the magnetic field of the
magnet in the float separates the two
switch contacts, opening the switch.
The opening of the switch is the sig-
nal that liquid is present.
Float sensors can be packaged
in many different ways. One very
common way is in a gray cylinder
about 12 to 22 inches long and about
2 inches in diameter. The float switch
is actually located near the bottom of
this cylinder, and the rest of the cyl-
inder is empty.
There are a couple of variations
on this theme. While the normally
closed sensor described above is
common today, some of the earlier
sensors were normally open, which
means that the switch contacts were
separated when liquid was not pres-
ent and came together (completed
Liquid Sensor - Float
Yes
Liquid Present?
Liquid Present?
Switch
Contacts
Schematic diagram of the operation of a float sensor.
the circuit) when the float/magnet
moved upward to indicate the pres-
ence of liquid. The disadvantage of
this type of circuit is that if a wire is
broken or disconnected, the sensor is
not able to sound an alarm, but there
is no indication at the ATG that any-
thing is wrong.
The normally closed sensor
solves this problem by having the
"normal" condition be that the circuit
is complete. So if a wire is broken or
disconnected, the alarm sounds to
indicate that there is a problem.
Some sensors go a step further
and include a resistor (an electrical
component that has a fixed amount
of electrical resistance to electrical
current) in the circuit near the switch
contacts. Thus, the "normal" condi-
tion is to have very little electrical
resistance in the circuit because the
switch contacts are closed or touch-
ing.
If the float moves and separates
the switch contacts, the circuit will
have a resistance equal to that of the
resistor. This reading is the alarm
condition that indicates to the ATG
that liquid is present. If a wire to the
sensor is disconnected or broken, the
resistance of the circuit will be infi-
nite, and the ATG will interpret this
as a trouble condition rather than a
detection of liquid. This type of sen-
• continued on page 18
A properly installed float sensor.
17
-------
• Tank-nically Speaking
from page 17
sor is sometimes referred to as a
"tri-state" sensor because it can indi-
cate three conditions: normal (very
low resistance), liquid present (when
the resistance of the circuit is equal to
the resistor value), and trouble (open
circuit).
Float Sensor Issues
Float sensors have three big issues:
• They must be properly located
(an issue with all sensors)
• They must be positioned verti-
cally so that the float can move
with minimum friction
• The float must be free of dirt and
debris or anything else that can
prevent the float from moving
freely.
While the ATG can effectively
monitor the integrity of the float-
sensor wiring, this is not sufficient
to verify that the sensor is opera-
tional. Because the sensor has mov-
ing parts, the ability of these parts
to move must be verified to ensure
that the sensor is operating properly.
There is no way that the ATG can
know whether the sensor is prop-
erly located, vertically oriented, or
whether the float is moving freely.
Float sensors must be physically
inspected and tested to verify that
they are operating properly.
Testing the operation of float sen-
sors is typically just a matter of sub-
merging the lower part of the sensor
in a container of water to ensure that
the alarm is triggered at the ATG.
There may be a delay of several min-
utes between the time the sensor
is immersed in water and the time
when the ATG alarm sounds.
Electrical-Resistance Sensors
These sensors consist of a rubberlike
strip of material that has carbon par-
ticles imbedded within it (the tech-
nical term for this rubberlike strip is
"conductive elastomer"). These car-
bon particles conduct electricity, and
there are enough particles imbedded
in the strip that the electrical conduc-
tivity of the strip is relatively low.
The sensor works because the
material swells when it comes in con-
tact with petroleum products. As the
material swells, the carbon particles
18
move farther apart so they do not
touch one another, and the electrical
resistance of the strip increases sub-
stantially. This increase in electrical
resistance is the signal that petroleum
is present. The strip only swells in the
presence of petroleum, not water.
This type of sensor is often pack-
aged in a gray plastic cylinder, very
much like the float sensor. Careful
inspection is often required to dis-
tinguish this type of sensor from a
simple float sensor.
Electrical-resistance technology
is almost always used in conjunction
with float switches so that the sen-
sor is a discriminating sensor. In a
typical configuration, the petroleum-
sensing strip is oriented vertically
inside a gray plastic cylinder with a
float switch located at the bottom of
the cylinder and another float switch
at the top.
The function of the float switch
near the bottom of the sensor is to
indicate that water is present. Even
if water is present, the sensor will
still be able to respond to petroleum
because the strip of elastomer extends
a foot or so vertically (assuming the
sensor is properly oriented) and will
respond to the presence of petroleum
anywhere along its length.
Once the fuel-sensing strip is
completely submerged in water, how-
ever, it cannot be directly exposed to
petroleum and will not swell. To alert
the facility operator of this condition,
the second float switch located at the
top of the sensor sounds an alarm
when the water level is so high that
the presence of petroleum can no
longer be detected.
This combination of float-switch
and electrical-resistance technolo-
gies makes this discriminating sen-
sor capable of multiple alarms and
warnings—water present (but not so
much that the sensor will not detect
fuel), fuel present (anywhere along
the length of the sensor), water too
high (water above the sensor so fuel
will not be detected), and open cir-
cuit (broken wire).
Electrical-Resistance Sensor Issues
The float-switch portions of this type
of sensor share the same issues as the
plain float switches noted above. The
product-sensing portion of the sen-
sor has no moving parts, so it has
few maintenance issues other than
proper location and orientation.
Testing the operation of the
fuel-sensing portion of the sensor
requires exposing the sensing strip
to a petroleum-based liquid that will
cause it to swell. A common com-
plaint is that it then takes a while for
the test liquid to evaporate and the
sensing strip to return to its normal
state. Testing the float switch com-
ponents of these sensors is merely a
matter of submerging the sensor in a
bucket of water.
Optical Sensors
Optical sensors work by having a
small electric eye that changes elec-
trical resistance, depending on the
amount of light it is receiving. The
sensor also includes a small light-
emitting diode (LED) that provides
a source of light. These two compo-
nents are separated so that the light
must travel inside a clear plastic
prism and reflect off the sides of the
prism to reach the electric eye. Most
of the light is reflected at the edge of
the prism because of the large dif-
ference in density between the plas-
tic and the air (remember your high
school physics?).
The normal condition is for the
LED to be on and the light to reach
the electric eye. When liquid is pres-
ent, the difference in density of the
plastic and the liquid at the surface of
the prism is much less, and a substan-
tial portion of the light is refracted
outward into the liquid. The amount
of light now reaching the electric eye
is reduced, and this causes a change
in the electrical resistance of the elec-
tric eye. This change in resistance is
detected and interpreted as the pres-
ence of liquid. This type of sensor
technology will respond to any liquid
and so is nondiscriminating. Failure
of the LED or any broken wires will
also be detected because the light
signal will be lost.
Optical sensors are sometimes
combined with a simple electrical-
resistance sensor to turn them into
discriminating sensors. Note that this
is not the same type of electrical-resis-
tance sensor that is described above.
This resistance sensor works by mea-
suring the electrical resistance across
two electrical contacts that protrude
slightly from the sensor into what-
ever liquid is present. Keep in mind
that water is a pretty decent con-
ductor of electricity but petroleum
products are not. Once the optical
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 58
Liquid Sensor - Optical
Liquid Present?
Liquid Present?
A o L'9ht
w v Detector
Schematic diagram of the operation of an optical sensor.
part of the sensor indicates that liq-
uid is present, the device checks the
resistance across the two electrical
contacts. High resistance indicates
petroleum, and low resistance indi-
cates water.
Optical Sensor Issues
The advantage of this type of sensor
is that there are no moving parts to
become stuck, and the orientation of
the sensor is not critical to its func-
tion. A potential issue in humid cli-
mates is that condensation or frost on
the surface of the prism can cause an
alarm. Testing the sensor is simply a
matter of submerging it in water. This
may require the use of a dark-colored
container to minimize the amount of
ordinary daylight that reaches the
light sensor. If too much daylight is
reaching the sensor, it may not go
into alarm.
Discriminating versions of this
type of sensor can be tested for oper-
ation by submerging the sensor in
both water and product.
General Sensor Issues
In many ways secondary contain-
ment with continuous interstitial
monitoring is the simplest form of
leak detection. It is very much a
black and white method - liquid is
either present in the interstitial space
or it is not. There are no grays as
there are with volumetric methods,
where small volume changes due to
temperature, evaporation, or tank
deflection must be distinguished
from actual leaks. While simple in
concept, however, there are several
factors that confound secondary con-
tainment as well.
While sensors are based on
sound mechanical and electrical
principles, there is no lifetime guar-
antee provided by any manufacturer
stating that their sensor will work
forever. The sump environment is
not pristine. Sumps are most often
dirty, subject to wide swings in tem-
perature, high levels of moisture, and
sometimes high levels of fuel vapors.
As a result, moving parts tend to get
stuck, moisture and dirt can cloud
surfaces that should be clean, and
components tend to degrade over
time.
The "bury it and forget it" men-
tality that is pervasive in the tank
world does not apply to sensors
any more than it does to any other
storage-system component. Unless
sensors are inspected and tested on
a periodic basis, their reliability will
deteriorate over time.
The other issue that vexes sec-
ondary containment is the nuisance
infiltration of water, especially into
tank-top sumps. Many sensors fall
prey to the "crying wolf" syndrome
and end up being ineffective because
they are repositioned, disconnected,
or simply ignored when they sound
an alarm. While keeping water out of
sumps is a challenge, it is a challenge
well worth taking on, otherwise the
effectiveness of sensors and second-
ary containment is severely compro-
mised.
Discriminating sensors that
tolerate a limited amount of water
without compromising the ability
to detect product have some advan-
tages here, as long as facility per-
sonnel know how to distinguish a
fuel alarm from a water alarm and
respond appropriately to each kind
of alarm.
Sumps that are not liquid-tight
pose a somewhat opposite problem.
I personally know of several sub-
stantial releases where the product
escaped into the environment from
a leak in the containment sump
before it could reach a sensor and
be detected. Leaky sump piping
penetrations, electrical conduit pen-
etrations, and the connection point
between the containment sump and
the tank seem to be the prime loca-
tions for these types of leaks. The
solution here is in careful installation
of quality components to begin with,
and periodic evaluation of the integ-
rity of the secondary containment
over time.
Perhaps the most pervasive
sensor issue is the personnel who
ignore alarms. There are many
excuses for this—ignorance of the
significance of the alarm, being too
busy to pay attention, having previ-
ously responded to too many "false"
alarms. Operator training require-
ments may help with this issue some-
what, but my gut feeling is that this
will only be a small improvement.
As big oil leaves the retail arena
and the number of small owners pro-
liferates, each one of these issues is
only likely to grow in magnitude. We
have made great strides in the last 20
years in improving the integrity of
storage systems. We have picked the
low-hanging fruit of bare-steel tanks
and galvanized pipe. As we move
into the era of secondary contain-
ment and sensors, we must keep in
mind that better technology is only
part of the answer. Proper opera-
tion of UST systems and appropriate
response to UST alarms requires the
active participation of tank owners,
operators, and regulators. •
19
-------
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)
Just What the Doctor Ordered — an RP for
Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems
The Petroleum Equipment Institute has published
a new document entitled Recommended Practices
for the Inspection and Maintenance of LIST Systems
(PEI/RP900).
The UST industry has learned that properly instal-
led and maintained UST system equipment is durable
and reliable. However, daily wear and tear can degrade
or damage storage-system components, resulting in
equipment failure and /or product releases. So can
exposure to the corrosive effects of soil, water, and sto-
red product, as well as seasonal extremes of heat and
cold. Constant vigilance with regard to detecting leaks
and anticipating operational problems is required of
all tank owners to ensure that environmental contami-
nation will not occur.
This new publication recommends very specific
periodic inspections to help protect the public, fuel-
ing-facility employees, and the environment from the
hazards posed by the release of flammable or combu-
stible liquids and exposure to toxic motor fuels. RP900
is the only document currently available on a nation-
wide basis that covers those inspection procedures
with such a high degree of specificity.
RP900 provides the UST facility owner with
recommended practices that enhance the longevity
and trouble-free performance of UST equipment. It
also promotes fire prevention and storage system
safety; encourages the protection of human health and
the environment; promotes regulatory compliance;
reduces liability associated with the operation of UST
systems; and promotes early identification of potential
equipment problems.
This recommended practice describes procedures
used to verify the function or condition of easily
Spill-containment manholes should be clean and dry. Drain mecha-
nisms should be in good condition. The rim of coaxial drop tubes
should be smooth and round.
I Spill-Containment Manhole
Drop tubes inside fill pipes accelerate the rate of fuel delivery and min-
imize vapor generation.
accessible components of UST systems located in the
vicinity of the storage tank and at fuel dispensers loca-
ted at vehicle-fueling facilities. The equipment covered
includes all below-grade liquid- and vapor-handling
components accessible from grade over or near the top
of the storage tank and below the emergency shutoff
valve at the fuel dispensers.
While aspects of the recommended practice can be
applied to marinas, aviation-fueling facilities, isolated
construction sites, farms, lube-oil or heating-oil storage
systems, and emergency generators, this document is
not specifically intended for those types of operations.
RP900 tells the reader what to inspect, suggests
when the inspection of different components should
occur, provides guidelines on who should perform the
inspections, and instructs the user of the document on
how to inspect the equipment. Inspection checklists are
included in the document and are also available free of
charge on PEI's website www.pei.org.
This document should be useful to state regulators.
If the state already has an inspection program, it can
serve as a means to compare the state program with the
recommended inspection and maintenance program
developed by industry. If the state is in the process of
developing an inspection program, the recommended
practice could serve as a guide from which to base a pro-
gram. In any case, the recommended practice has been
well received and tank owners are already using it.
The single-copy price for RP900-08 is $40 for PEI
members; $95 for nonmembers. Member pricing is
extended to all regulatory officials. For more informa-
tion of this special pricing for regulators, contact Keith
Wilson at PEI: 918-494-9696 or kwilson@pei.org. •
20
-------
September 2008 • LUSTLineBulletin 58
UST Insurance Matters.
Confirmed Release Policies Versus Suspected Release Policies
by Chris Montgomery
While all UST pollution poli-
cies must provide cover-
age for cleanup of covered
storage tank system releases, many
do not cover me costs of investigat-
ing potential releases (e.g., tank test-
ing, soil sampling) to confirm if an
insured tank is leaking. The expenses
necessary to confirm a release can
add up to tens of thousands of dol-
lars and are expressly excluded in
many tank insurance policies. These
"confirmed release policies" typically
contain exclusionary language such
as: "Any costs, charges, or expenses
incurred by the 'insured' to confirm
the existence of a 'release' shall not
be considered 'cleanup costs'".
For instance, under a confirmed
release policy, suppose a tank owner
is named as a "potentially responsi-
ble party" for contamination found in
a nearby creek and must pay to have
soil/ground water sample analysis to
confirm if the leak is coming from his
site. After spending $15,000 for such
testing, if he learns he has, in fact,
had a release from his tank system,
he must also then pay the deduct-
ible. If the deductible is $25,000, his
out-of-pocket cost is $40,000. This is
enough to put many small tank own-
ers out of business.
If a policy-insuring agreement
has language such as 'This insurance
applies to pay for corrective action
due to confirmed releases," or if the
definition of "cleanup cost" has lan-
guage such as "This insurance does
not apply to claims for any costs,
charges, or expenses incurred to
investigate or verify that a confirmed
release has taken place," then the pol-
icy is a confirmed release policy. The
simplest way to tell if the policy is a
confirmed release policy is to check
the policy definitions to see if "con-
firmed release" is defined or if the
definition of "cleanup cost" includes
any of the aforementioned language.
"Suspected release" policies,
on the other hand, do not have any
definition or language that excludes
such costs and will cover the costs to
investigate whether there has been
a covered release. This can signifi-
cantly reduce the owner/operator's
out-of-pocket expense.
Individual features of these
policies can dramatically affect the
owner/operator's costs. Other cov-
erage areas of concern may include
claims reporting limitations, exclu-
sion of natural resources damages,
and noncompliance exclusions. Look
for more information on these issues
in future Insurance Matters articles. •
Chris Montgomery is a principal with
Custom Environmental Insurance.
He can be reached at 877-TANKCOV
(826-5268) or Chris@tankcov.com .
Check Out NEIWPCC's New Booklet on
Protecting Drinking Water at UST Facilities
Drinking ™,
Water1
The New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC) has produced a book-
let titled Protecting the Drinking Water
You Provide—A Guide for Owners and
Operators of Gas Stations (http://www.
neiwpcc.org/tncguide.asp). The pur-
pose of the booklet is to educate tank
owner/operators who have an onsite
drinking water well about their respon-
sibilities in meeting drinking water
regulations and protecting the health of
those who drink the water or otherwise
come into contact with it. The booklet
is colorful and educational and can be
distributed electronically or as printed
copies. For those who want to train oth-
ers through a presentation, PowerPoint
slides highlighting the major themes of
the piece are available. These can be
incorporated into a larger existing PowerPoint for UST operator training or used
as a general education tool. For more information, contact Rebecca Weidman at
rweidman@neiwpcc.org. •
• WanderLust/rom page 13
What do we need to do to
detect and identify sources and
causes of leaks, since leak detec-
tion doesn't seem to be doing the
job? Do we need to change the
way that we do inspections? We're
looking at station records, test-
ing results, equipment in use, and
so on, but these methods don't
seem to be identifying releases. If
alarms are going off, are we being
notified, or are operators just turn-
ing off those annoying alarms?
Are repairs being made and we're
not being notified? Do we need to
camp out at a site during the entire
tank removal process? Or are all of
our releases miracle releases, com-
ing from systems that are appar-
ently tight, are equipped to comply
with the regulations, and are being
operated in compliance with the
regulations. In the words of Rudy,
I dunno. •
21
-------
AQs from the NWGLD
"
ATG Probe Performance with Ethanol Fuels
In this issue's FAQs from the National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE), the Work Group discusses the ability
of ATG probes to perform leak detection in tanks containing ethanol fuels, (Please Note: the views expressed in this column repre-
sent those of the work group and not necessarily those of any implementing agency.)
U|. Are there any automatic-tank-gauge (ATG) probes
listed by NWGLDE that are suitable for leak-
detection monitoring of USTs containing alterna-
tive gasoline-ethanol blended fuels?
A. The short answers are "no" for ethanol or etha-
nol-gasoline blends with high percentages of etha-
nol, such as E85, and "maybe" for ethanol-gasoline
blends with low percentages of ethanol, such as E10.
There is just not enough information and data avail-
able on the use of ATG probes in ethanol-gasoline
blends with low percentages of ethanol such as E10
to make a call at this time. Stay tuned.
When discussing the performance of ATG probes
in ethanol or in ethanol-gasoline blends with a
high percentage of ethanol, two main issues have
to be addressed—material compatibility and leak-
detection functionality. Unfortunately, the third-party
leak-detection evaluations that NWGLDE mem-
bers review do not address the material compatibility
of any type of leak-detection equipment. Therefore,
NWGLDE is unable to make any representation as to
the compatibility of leak-detection equipment with
the product stored (see the last "specific" NWGLDE
disclaimer statement under "Disclaimer" at mvglde.
01'g/'disclaimer,.html). However, literature distributed
by certain ATG leak-detection equipment manufac-
turers indicates that there are probes available that
have been designed to address material compatibility
issues with regard to fuels containing a high percent-
age of ethanol. For information concerning material
compatibility with alternative fuels containing etha-
nol, please refer to LUSTLine #52 (May 2006). Also
see the Petroleum Equipment Institute's website,
which lists ethanol-compatible equipment based on
manufacturers' claims (http://resource.pei.org/altfuels/
guide.asp).
The leak-detection functionality of ATG probes used in
USTs containing ethanol or ethanol-gasoline blends
with a high percentage of ethanol is something
that could be addressed in third-party evaluations.
NWGLDE has not learned of any such evaluations
conducted, to date. This is probably because USEPA
ATG testing protocol only requires ATG evalua-
tions to be performed with either gasoline or diesel,
although it allows ATG manufacturers to specify
other fuel types in which they believe their equip-
ment will perform equally as well as the fuel type
used during their evaluation.
Currently, NWGLDE lists the fuel that was used dur-
ing the evaluation and other fuels that the manufac-
turer has indicated in the evaluation report (none of
which currently include ethanol or gasoline-ethanol
blends with a high percentage of ethanol). The listing
also states: "Other liquids with known coefficients of
expansion and density may be tested after consulta-
tion with the manufacturer." This means that a man-
ufacturer can specify other liquids that can be used
with the ATG without having to perform another
evaluation.
Based on the limited information that NWGLDE has
been able to gather to date concerning the physical
properties of ethanol-water mixtures, NWGLDE
believes that gasoline-ethanol blends with a high per-
centage of ethanol that come in contact with water
produce a gasoline-ethanol-water blend that is not a
liquid with a known coefficient of expansion and den-
sity. The reason NWGLDE believes this is because it
is well documented that a significant percentage of
water is absorbed into 100 percent ethanol before an
increase in volume of the water-ethanol mixture takes
place. This would affect density as well as thermal
characteristics of the entire gasoline-ethanol-water
blends.
Though NWGLDE has not been able to find any
literature that provides information on the exact
amount of water that will be absorbed by different
gasoline-ethanol blends without a volume increase of
the blends, NWGLDE is concerned that the amount
of volume and density change will be significant
enough to affect an ATG water-detection and/or the
gasoline float's ability to detect a water ingress under
high-water-table conditions.
USEPA ATG testing protocol requires that all ATG
water-detection floats be evaluated to prove that they
can detect water ingress into the tank. Why do regu-
lators care about water ingress (a product-quality
issue) when our goal is protecting the environment
from product leaking out? Because as product and
water-table levels change over time, water ingress
could become product egress. Detecting water
ingress is also very helpful for the UST operator who
wants to keep water out of customers' vehicles.
To date, NWGLDE is not aware of any water-
detection float that has been evaluated in tanks con-
taining any percentage of gasoline-ethanol blends.
Since a blend of water, ethanol, and gasoline has a
lower density and less surface tension than water
22
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 58
alone, the water-detection float may not reliably
detect water in the tank until the blend phase con-
tains enough water to separate from the gasoline,
settle to the bottom of the tank, and accumulate a
high percentage of water versus ethanol.
It appears that some manufacturers have realized
the potential problems associated with water detec-
tion in ethanol-gasoline blends because their litera-
ture indicates that they are marketing ATGs that do
not include water-detection floats for use with etha-
nol-gasoline blends. However, the use of an ATG
without a method to detect water ingress does not
meet the requirements of USEPA ATG testing proto-
col. Whether an ATG that does not meet the USEPA
ATG testing protocol is acceptable for leak detec-
tion or not is an issue for individual implementing
agencies to resolve.
USEPA ATG testing protocol does allow for an
alternative method of water detection. In this case,
the ATG would be evaluated for its ability to detect
a 0.2 gph water ingress rate by measuring the rise
in product level with the product float in the same
manner as if the ATG was measuring a 0.2 gph leak
rate (in this case only the probe would detect a rise
of product instead of fall of product). As discussed
previously, a certain amount of water is absorbed by
the ethanol in the gasoline-ethanol blends without
an increase in volume of the ethanol. Therefore, this
method may also be problematic in detecting water
ingress because the increase in the product volume
may not accurately reflect the volume of water that
has entered the tank
The NWGLDE New Addendum:
In an effort to ensure that all methods of water-ingress detection are
available for evaluation, NWGLDE has developed an addendum to
the current USEPA ATG and NWGLDE CITLDS testing protocols that
will allow an ATG to be evaluated to determine its ability to detect
water ingress into an ethanol-gasoline blends by using only the
ATG's top liquid-level measurements capability. This addendum can
be found on the NWGLDE website at nwglde.org/protocols.html.
Again, the NWGLDE is not aware of any ATG manufacturer that has
performed an evaluation of their equipment in accordance with the
USEPA ATG testing protocol, or the NWGLDE addendum, to address
the leak-detection functionality related to the adequate detection of
water ingress into an UST containing a gasoline-ethanol blend with
a high percentage of ethanol. If such an evaluation is performed,
the ATG listing will be found under "new/revised evaluations" on
the NWGLDE website at nwglde.org/news_and_events.html. The
NWGLDE invites any manufacturers who are contemplating such an
evaluation or studying this issue to share their findings with us.
Until an ATG manufacturer performs an evaluation on its equipment
to determine whether or not an ATG will adequately detect
water ingress into an UST or until there is more research into
the interaction of water in ethanol-gasoline blends with a high
percentage of ethanol, a conclusion cannot be made on whether an
ATG probe is suitable for use in these ethanol-gasoline blends with a
high percentage of ethanol.
About the NWGLDE
The NWGLDE is an independent work group comprising 10 mem-
bers, including 9 state and 1 USEPA member. This column provides
answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) the NWGLDE receives
from regulators and people in the industry on leak detection. If you
have questions for the group, please contact NWGLDE at questions©
nwglde.org.
NWGLDE's Mission:
• Review leak-detection system evaluations to determine if each eval-
uation was performed in accordance with an acceptable leak-detection
test method protocol and ensure that the leak-detection system meets
USEPA 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 equivalency standards stated in the USEPA standard test
procedures.
• Make the results of such reviews available to interested parties.
Name
Company/Agency
Mailing Address _
E-mail Address
L«U«S«T« E Subscription Form
_l One-year subscription. $18.00.
J 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
August lesMuUeLTTw glWCX
' NEW Ve«K^g~^5S3SSTfW
23
-------
March 30
OUST UPDATE
Delivery Prohibition Website
Find out what other states are up to
and more regarding delivery pro-
hibition at OUST's website (http://
www.epa.gavloustldplindex.httn). This
site provides links to state and terri-
tory delivery prohibition programs.
Users will find detailed information
on the topic, including applicable
laws, regulations, and policies. Infor-
mation accessible through this site
can also help fuel-delivery drivers
know how to determine if an UST
is not eligible to receive fuel. Section
1527 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
states that, by August 2007, states
and territories receiving funds under
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act are required to meet delivery
prohibition requirements described
in USEPA grant guidelines. EPA con-
sulted with states and representa-
tives from the UST and fuel-delivery
industries to develop the guidelines.
Biofuels Compendium
USEPA has developed a web-based
compendium that provides UST
stakeholders with information
regarding biofuels. The compendium
is available at http://ivivmepa.gov/'oust/
altfuelslbfcompend.htm. It presents
information USEPA collected from
federal and state agencies, trade asso-
ciations, and industry on biofuels
topics such as equipment compat-
ibility and installation, fate and trans-
port, handling, health and safety,
remediation, UST system conversion,
and state policies.
OUST's FY 2007 Annual
Report Documents UST
Program Progress
The USEPA Office of Underground
Storage Tanks' (OUST's) 7-page FY
2007 Annual Report on the Under-
ground Storage Tank Program, EPA-
510-R-08-001, provides a snapshot of
the activities and progress of the UST
program during fiscal year 2007,
including: UST program highlights
for the year; advances in prevent-
ing releases; progress in cleaning
up leaks; efforts to enhance com-
munication and information shar-
ing; and a look ahead for next year
and beyond. The report documents
the significant progress USEPA and
its tank partners made in advancing
UST leak-prevention and cleanup
efforts during FY 2007. The report
can be accessed at: http:llwww.epa.
govloustlpubsl2007annrpt.htm.
TflNKS CONFERENCE
Guidance from the UK on Ethanol Fuels Available Online
If you are interested in the United Kingdom's (UK's) perspective on ethanol
fuels at UST facilities, the Association for Petroleum and Explosives Admin-
istration (APEA), a UK-based organization, has produced APEA Guidance on
Storage and Dispensing of High Blend Ethanol Fuels Including E85 at Filling Sta-
tions. The guidance is available at the APEA website at www.apea.org.uk. Once
on the home page click on "publications", then click on "Guidance for HBEF"
and this will provide a free download of the guidance.
The 21st Annual National Tanks
Conference & Exposition will be held
on March 30 - April 1, 2009 in Sacra-
mento, California, at the Sacramento
Convention Center Complex.
This 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 pro-
tect human health and the environment.
For the first time, this National Tanks
Conference will integrate the State Fund
Administrators Meeting. This change
should result in an agenda that compre-
hensively addresses issues related to man-
aging your state's underground storage
tank program.
Conference registration opens on
November 7, 2008. Check out the
conference website,
www.neiwpcc.org/tanksconference
at that time. Be sure to view preconfer-
ence workshop information as well as
details on submitting a poster presenta-
tion idea or reserving exhibit booth space!
Send any questions to:
NTCInfo@neiwpcc.org
LU.S.T. JNE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
------- |