New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
www.neiwpcc.org/lustline.htm
116 John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
LUS.T.UNE
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Bulletin 59
November
2OO8
by Gary Lynn
7
J n New Hampshire, petroleum remediation is a kind of
"McDonald's" of the state environmental programs: high
volume, assembly-line efficiency delivered at a low cost to
the state. We are comfortable enough with our program
that we can laugh at jokes such as: Do you also offer a free
order of fries with every tank pull? It started during the
1990s, when our program was hit by a rapid increase in
new LUST sites. Lo address the onslaught, sites were tri-
age d into two basic categories: high-priority, high-risk sites
permanently assigned to project managers, and all other
lower-priority sites. Low-priority site reports were placed
in a slow-moving, first-in-first-out queue. The unassigned-
site report backlog was kept under control using a cookie-
cutter type process that emphasized making progress at the
site with aminimum of individualized attention.
About five years ago, the backlog stabilized and the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDLS) started to permanently assign project managers for
the low-priority sites. The goal of this initiative was to achieve
adequate progress toward closure for every site. However, as
the remedial assembly line slowed slightly to make sure that all
sites were on it, it became apparent that some sites could not
be managed with a business-as-usual approach. For one rea-
son, project managers learned that some of the owners were
very sick (i.e., brain tumors, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart attacks),
recently deceased, or bankrupt. The properties were sometimes
abandoned, foreclosed, or taken for back taxes. New approaches
were required to address these difficult sites, and our response
evolved over time into New Hampshire's petroleum-brownfields
program.
Bringing Compassion to the Assembly Line
Three key adaptations were made to our existing petro-
leum-remediation program: 1) a system was put in place
to identify and track petroleum-brownfields sites, 2) all
available programs and tools were catalogued and incor-
porated into efforts to address sites, and 3) resources were
allocated to deliver the required services to the sites and
Meadow Road Realty site buildings and rubble.
site owners. The best way to illustrate these changes is by
way of example.
A Dry Cleaning Site and an Owner with
Alzheimer's
NHDES project managers identify petroleum brownfields
sites on a weekly basis. Sites are typically identified as
dormant, a potential enforcement candidate, or inactive.
It is important to have a system that tracks and follows up
• continued on page 2
Inside
Hiding in Plain Sight
Green Energy Gateway Fuel Station—Lawrence, KS
UST Rules for a New Century
Reducing the LUST Backlog
UST Insurance Matters
New Recommended Practices for ASTs
Emerging Fuel Storage Issues
FAQs from NWGLDE: Sensors, Part I
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
• LUST Remediation from page 1
on the site once it is identified. In the
case of Profile Cleaners, there was
no question that the site qualified
as a brownfields site. The owner of
the property was in a nursing home
suffering from Alzheimer's, and her
husband was deceased. The prop-
erty had a Medicaid lien placed on it,
and the children were actively trying
to sell the property. Unfortunately,
contamination was discovered when
two Stoddard solvent (a petroleum
distillate) tanks were removed and
sufficient funds were not available to
pay for the tank-removal contractor,
let alone investigate and clean up the
site.
Once NHDES recognized that
Profile Cleaners was a site requir-
ing brownfields assistance, we initi-
ated efforts to identify partners and
resources that could help. The North
Country Council (NCC), one of nine
New Hampshire Regional Planning
Commissions, has a USEPA petro-
leum-brownfields-assessment grant.
NHDES introduced the children of
the site owner to the NCC brown-
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
LUSTLine 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
*& LUSTLine is printed on recycled paper
Meadow Road Senior Housing project.
fields contact person and worked
with NCC on expediting a site inves-
tigation of the property. After help-
ing to resolve a tricky background
poly cyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbon
(PAH) issue at the site, NHDES was
able to issue a certificate of no fur-
ther action. The property is now in
the process of being sold. Medicaid,
the tank-removal contractor, and the
children's out-of-pocket expenses
will finally be paid off. Also, this idle
commercial property will be rede-
veloped because NHDES properly
identified it as a brownfields site,
assembled resources from other pro-
grams, and then expedited reviews
at a critical juncture in time to move
the site through the closure process.
The site is now closed and about to
be purchased for redevelopment,
much to the family's relief.
HUD, (um) Ladies Underwear,
and LUSTs
The Meadow Road Realty site abuts
the Town of Newport's recreation
complex and the Sugar River. The
property was initially used by the
Peerless Manufacturing Company
for the manufacture of ladies under-
garments starting in the 1890s. After
changes in fashion resulted in the
demise of Peerless, the property was
used by a warehouse and trucking
transportation operation. As the site
experienced a long downward spi-
ral of neglect, its ten mill buildings
became structurally deficient, and
the site was strewn with rubble and
debris. Additionally, in 2005, leaking
underground-diesel-storage tanks
installed as part of the trucking oper-
ation were discovered.
Southwestern Community Ser-
vices (SCS) submitted an application
to the federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for
the construction of elderly housing on
the property. As part of this process,
an initial site characterization report
was submitted to NHDES and HUD
in September 2005. The report docu-
mented the contamination from the
underground-diesel-storage tanks.
HUD's multifamily accelerated pro-
cessing (MAP) guidance requires that
all cleanup activities and monitoring
wells be removed prior to obtaining
HUD assistance. Based on this guid-
ance, HUD rejected the application
for housing assistance.
SCS contacted NHDES to see if
we would be willing to discuss the
contamination problem with HUD.
We did and provided SCS with a let-
ter that committed State Petroleum
Reimbursement Fund resources for
an expedited cleanup of the contami-
nation. Based on NHDES assurances,
HUD accepted the grant application
and SCS was awarded the grant. The
grant approval had one major caveat,
however: the cleanup had to be com-
pleted within 18 months before HUD
would provide any assistance.
NHDES developed an aggressive
remedial approach for the site to meet
the fast-track, 18-month deadline.
The approach consisted of remov-
ing the petroleum-contaminated soil
and then injecting pure oxygen to
accelerate the biodegradation of the
remaining groundwater contamina-
tion. The contaminated soil removal
was complicated by an unstable,
nearby building, and to complete
the soil removal, partial demolition
of the building was required. Delin-
eation of the extent of contaminated
soil was completed by January 2006.
Soil excavation was completed by
-------
November 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 59
July 2006, and a 32-point Matrix pure
oxygen-injection system was opera-
tional by August 2006.
The Matrix system's flexible
operation became very important in
January 2007, when NHDES quickly
shifted injection points to a new
location where groundwater stub-
bornly remained above standards.
By April 2007, the site was closed
and all onsite groundwater-moni-
toring and oxygen-injection wells
were decommissioned. NHDES and
SCS achieved site closure exactly 18
months after the HUD grant was
awarded.
Following completion of cleanup
activities, HUD awarded $3.37 mil-
lion dollars for the project. The Town
of Newport actively supported this
project and contributed $350,000 of
their Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) money. The CDBG
and HUD grant money paid for site
demolition activities and construc-
tion of a new, 24-unit elderly housing
complex. The elderly housing project
is the first in over 15 years for New-
port and will be 100 percent occupied
by low and moderate income seniors.
The project addresses Newport's
urgent need for elderly housing (44
percent of Newport's poor are 65
and older). As part of the project, the
town is upgrading the adjacent park
and streets. On October 15, 2008, the
Meadow Road Senior Housing proj-
ect celebrated its grand opening. All
24 housing units are now occupied.
The non-profit developer has
publicly declared NHDES to be a
"housing hero" and the Town of
Newport is thrilled to have elimi-
nated an unsafe eyesore near their
town recreation complex. Multiple
groups of politicians have toured this
project and have been delighted with
the progress. In this case, NHDES'
understanding of HUD's multifam-
ily housing program and its environ-
mental guidelines was essential for
successfully taking a property that
was virtually abandoned and turn-
ing it into a point of pride for a com-
munity.
From Good to Great
Based on the strides states have
made in cleaning up petroleum-con-
taminated sites and upgrading tank
systems, it is clear that our nation
benefits from the many highly suc-
cessful state petroleum release-pre-
vention and remediation programs.
However, NHDES believes that there
is still room for improvement, and
that it is possible to go from good
to great, even with the frustrating
resource constraints and impedi-
ments cast our way.
An effective petroleum-brown-
fields program raises the profile of
state UST/LUST programs in a way
that our day-to-day competence and
efficiency seems unable to do. Higher
profile programs tend to get more
resources—the currency that must be
available to run a great program. As a
side benefit, we have found that staff
members are energized by finding
solutions for difficult sites and help-
ing people. Difficult sites are actually
opportunities for profiling the many
strengths of state UST/LUST pro-
grams. •
Gary Lynn is Manager of the NHDES
Petroleum Remediation Program.
He can be reached at
Gary.Lynn@des.nh.gov.
A MESSAGE FROM CLIFF ROTHENSTEIN
Director, USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Hiding in Plain Si
In Trenton, New Jer-
sey, the city opened
a newfirehouse a few
years ago. Along Kansas
City, Missouri's Prospect corridor, several ethnic restaurants
line the streets. In eastern Washington's Town of Rosalia,
the Steptoe Battlefield State Park has a new visitor center. On
Fruitvalle Avenue in Oakland, California, residents are now liv-
ing in new Habitat for Humanity homes. In Hammond, Indiana,
the community has a new small neighborhood park. In Sparks,
Nevada, the Reno Sparks Indian Colony is redeveloping an
urban site and will use the tax revenues to support a health
clinic, halfway house, and schools for local children. And every
business day, 1,600 USEPA employees go to work in the new
Potomac Yard Office Complex.
None of these stories is particularly remarkable, except for
one thing. All of this development took place on former brown-
fields sites with petroleum contamination. For too many years,
these properties—vacant land and abandoned buildings—
were hiding in plain sight, attracting crime but not investors.
Fortunately, after much hard work, each of these old vacant
properties is now valuable real estate and a source of revenue
and pride for the community.
There are thousands of other vacant properties just like
these that are hiding in plain sight. Littering our highways and
urban neighborhoods, there may be 200,000 or more aban-
doned gas stations, just waiting to be cleaned up, reclaimed,
and returned to productive use. These abandoned stations
are so commonplace that some people no longer even notice
them—to others, they are too small to worry about.
But to many of us, these old, abandoned corner gas sta-
tions provide communities with an opportunity to clean up and
reinvigorate a neighborhood. It's true that these sites are found
everywhere and may be smaller than a typical brownfields
site, and therefore less appealing to some investors. But as
we have already witnessed, small abandoned gas stations are
often great places for new restaurants, urban parks, and even
homes. And with the nation's shift toward alternative fuels and
hybrid vehicles, these sites may also be ideal for locating new
biofuel filling stations or electric-vehicle recharging stations.
With a little elbow grease and a good plan, we can unlock the
• continued on page 4
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
CLIFF ROTHENSTEIN/romp«ge3
hidden potential at many more of
these sites.
Fortunately, we have a plan.
USEPA's new Petroleum Brownfields
Action Plan, just released in October,
includes four strategic initiatives and
17 specific actions that government
and the private sector can take to
promote revitalization and sustain-
ability of petroleum-contaminated
brownfields properties.
Through the implementation of
this new plan, which is available on
USEPA's website, http://www.epa.
gov/oust/rags/petrobfactionplan.pdf,
we expect to:
• Bolster our communication and
outreach to petroleum-brown-
fields stakeholders;
• Provide targeted support to state,
tribal, and local governments;
• Explore and evaluate policies to
facilitate increased petroleum-
brownfields-site revitalization; and
• Forge partnerships to promote
investment in and the sustainable
reuse of petroleum brownfields.
I am happy to be working
directly with David Lloyd and his staff
in USEPA's Office of Brownfields and
Land Revitalization to unveil and help
execute this plan. Our new action
plan does not reinvent the wheel;
instead, it builds on the progress
we've already made. It gives us a new
updated road map to help us avoid
dead ends and construction zones
that cause delays, and it helps us bet-
ter navigate our way along the petro-
leum-brownfields highway.
Our hope and expectation is
that by expanding our partnerships;
improving our outreach; providing
targeted support to state, local, and
tribal governments; and evaluating
policies to facilitate reuse of petro-
leum brownfields, we can achieve
greater success. Through all of our
efforts, we can seize our opportuni-
ties, return even more abandoned gas
stations that are hiding in plain sight
into productive use, and by doing so,
give neighborhoods new hope. •
First Green Energy Gateway
Fuel Station Opens in Lawrence,
Kansas
by Michael Pomes
The June 30th opening of the
first Green Energy Gateway
Fuel Station in the country,
Zarco 66 Earth Friendly Fuels, in
Lawrence, Kansas was an energetic
event. John B. Askew, USEPA Region
7 Administrator, presented owner
Scott Zaremba with a Blue Skyways
Collaborative Partnership Award
to mark the opening of his facil-
ity, which showcases the blending
of biodiesel and ethanol fuels at the
pumps, demonstrates the generation
of electricity with solar panels and
wind turbines, features a green roof
and rain garden, and allows custom-
ers the opportunity to find out more
about alternative fuels and sources
of energy. Other speakers at the
grand opening included Rep. Dennis
Moore, D-Kan, Adrian Polansky Sec-
retary of the Kansas Department of
Agriculture, and Mike Dever, Mayor
of the City of Lawrence.
During the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment (KDHE)
approval process for the facility, it
became apparent that Zaremba was
doing something special with that
site. KDHE notified USEPA Region
7 about the project from the stand-
point of establishing an educational
partnership. As a result, the Green
Energy Gateway Fuel Station came
into being as a public-private demon-
stration project with USEPA Region
7, other participating agencies, com-
panies, institutions, and organiza-
tions.
In presenting the award to
Zaremba, Askew said, "EPA is here
today to celebrate the innovations
and technology found at this station,
and the collaborative efforts that
made it all happen." Region 7, which
includes the states of Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, and Nebraska, intends to
evaluate the energy and pollution-
reduction benefits of this project to
develop a framework for other fuel
stations that wish to "go green."
xtu if your vuhicle Is
capable of using our highest
htend of renewable fuel
E-85
Thi» dispyrv.*
Btodtead fuel blend*
ALL d"
•; ty u *e BtodteS*! fiml
BIODIESEL FUELS
Biodiesel and ethanol dispenser offering an
array of fueling options. The "Information
Station" (not shown) features a computer
hooked up to the World Wide Web and offers
information on flexible-fuel vehicles. Compact
fluorescent light bulbs above the kiosk provide
lighting. Also not shown is a large sign that indi-
cates which vehicles are compatible with E-85.
Besides EPA Region 7 and KDHE,
other participants in the project
include the Kansas Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Reve-
nue, the University of Kansas, Kansas
Soybean Commission, Kansas Corn
-------
November 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 59
Growers, and Petroleum Marketers
and Convenience Store Association of
Kansas. Each of these agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations has a role in
the regulatory oversight of gas stations
or the promotion of biofuels.
Other participants in the project
include Hydrotech, Inc. (Chicago, IL)
who installed the green roof on top of
what will become a drive-thru coffee
shop. Installation of the wind turbine
(Windterra, Inc., San Ramon, CA)
and solar panels (PowerFilm, Inc.,
Ames, IA) on the gas station canopy
is expected to take place this fall, as
will construction on the rain garden
and sustainable pavilion. Neil Steiner
and Peter Zuroweste, architectural
engineering students at the University
of Kansas, designed the garden and
pavilion and are heading the construc-
tion effort.
Dr. Peter Sam, USEPA project
manager, says the goal of the Green
Energy Gateway Fuel Station is to
demonstrate sustainable practices by
getting as close as possible to zero-
net environmental impacts at the
site. Besides renewable fuels, zero-
net impacts will be demonstrated by
waste reduction and recycling prac-
tices and energy production through
solar and wind power. Roof and rain
gardens will reduce the urban heat-
island effect and stormwater runoff,
as well as filter pollutants and green-
house gases from the air. Pollution-
prevention practices will be put into
place to reduce or eliminate the cre-
ation of pollutants.
Switching from the Old to
the New
The project also marks redevelopment
of the property, the site of a former gas
station that had a gasoline release in
1994. Groundwater at the site is being
sampled semiannually for the next
two years as part of monitoring per-
formed under the Kansas Petroleum
Storage Tank Release Trust Fund.
Zaremba removed the old USTs
and at least three sets of product
pipelines. Concrete was crushed and
reused as backfill for the new instal-
lation. Steel rebar recovered from the
concrete was recycled. Compact fluo-
rescent light bulbs and light-emitting
diode panels for fuel pricing replaced
the sign and light poles.
The new UST system includes
single-walled product lines and five
10,000-gallon single-walled fiberglass
Architectural rendering by Neil Steiner and Peter Zuroweste, University of Kansas, showing the
rain garden and sustainable pavilion that will be built behind Zarco 66 Earth Friendly Fuels. The
rain garden will reduce stormwater runoff from the site.
USTs and product lines rated to be
compatible with petroleum products,
E-100 ethanol, and B-100 biodiesel.
Kansas follows the option provided
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for
manufacturer and installer finan-
cial responsibility—UST owners and
operators in the state are not required
to install double-walled systems.
Instead, KDHE holds current certifi-
cates of pollution-liability insurance
showing coverage for a minimum
of $1 million with an aggregate of $2
million from the manufacturers of the
Zarco tanks and pipes, as well as the
licensed installer of the system.
The E-100 and B-100 USTs are also
equipped with watertight fiberglass
pump sumps and manways. The reg-
ular unleaded gasoline, clear-diesel,
and dyed-diesel USTs also include
pump sumps. Tank and line release
detection is provided by an automatic
tank gauge equipped with magneto-
strictive probes and electronic line-
leak detectors. Dispenser pans were
also installed. Kansas also does not
require the installation of submersible
turbine and dispenser pans. However,
owners and operators of USTs can
install these as an option.
Water is one of the major concerns
with the storage of biofuels. It pro-
motes the degradation of biodiesel. In
tanks with ethanol, the ethanol attracts
water to the gas, causing phase sepa-
ration in the fuel and the potential
for water accumulation in the tank.
Zaremba addresses water issues from
both sides of the UST system. Besides
the watertight sumps and manways,
he uses water-absorbent pads, or
"socks," in the spill buckets for the
tanks containing E-100 ethanol and B-
100 biodiesel. The vent lines of these
tanks are also equipped with desic-
cant-containing canisters that keep
water from entering the tanks.
Customers at Zarco 66 Earth
Friendly Fuels fill their vehicles from
dispensers that are in single-hose and
dual-hose configurations. These first-
of-their-kind fuel dispensers are capa-
ble of blending products at the pump,
allowing for multiple ethanol (E-20, E-
30, E-85) and biodiesel (B-2, B-5, B-10,
B-20, and B-100) blends. E-10 is also
available, but through separate hoses
on the ethanol dispensers, so own-
ers of vehicles that are not designed
for handling higher grades of ethanol
can also patronize the station without
being concerned about receiving fuel
with too much ethanol. Additionally,
the biodiesel dispensers are heated
and have hoses that are warmed with
a hot water system to prevent the fuel
from gelling and allow for dispensing
during colder months.
• continued on page 6
5
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
• Green Energy Fuel Station
from page 5
Learn as You Pump
The new station will also function as
a gateway to environmental educa-
tion. While filling their vehicles, cus-
tomers can watch environmentally
themed public service announce-
ments or view videos on solar and
wind power on fuel-dispenser dis-
plays capable of high-quality video
output. Customers will also be able
to view information on sustainable
practices or visit the websites of
participating agencies and organiza-
tions from a plasma television touch
screen, located on the center island
of the gas station, which is connected
to the Internet.
Zaremba says that customers
normally waiting five or six minutes
to fill their cars can learn about the
benefits of biofuels and roof gardens.
He sees his gas station as a place
where the public can be educated
on these and other topics like pollu-
tion-prevention practices to reduce
or eliminate the creation of pollut-
ants, as well as waste reduction and
recycling.
"If everyone does a little, we can
have a huge impact on the environ-
ment," says Zaremba. "The same
works for the Green Energy Gate-
way Project, as each of the participat-
ing agencies, companies, institutions,
and organizations has contributed
to something that will have a huge
impact on gas stations across the
country." •
The vents for the USTs containing B-100 biodie-
sel and E-100 ethanol have black canisters
filled with a desiccant to prevent water vapor
from reaching the fuel. (Photograph: Michael L
Pomes, KDHE).
Michael L. Pomes is the Chief of the
Preventative UST Unit in the Stor-
age Tank Section at KDHE. He can be
reached at mpomes@kdhe,state.ks.us.
For more information on the project,
contact Stan Walker, Region 7 EPA, at
walker.stanley@epa.gov. Disclaimer:
The use of company names is for iden-
tification purposes only and does not
constitute an endorsement by KDHE
or USEPA.
The North America
Hazardous Materials
Management Association
Honors the Kansas
Department of Health
and Environment and
USEPA Region 7
The Kansas Department of
Health and Environment
(KDHE) and USEPA Region
7 were honored by the North
America Hazardous Materi-
als Management Association
(NAHMMA) at its 23rd Annual
Hazardous Materials Man-
agement Conference House-
hold and Small Business Waste
Award Banquet in Burlington,
Vermont this October. Aboard
a dinner boat cruise on Lake
Champlain, KDHE and USEPA
Region 7 received NAHMMA's
prestigious Outstanding Prod-
uct Award for their work on the
Green Energy Gateway Fuel
Station. "NAHMMA is excited
to honor hard-working agencies
like KDHE and USEPA Region
7," said NAHMMA President,
Kolin Anglin. "They are repre-
sentative of all the stellar house-
hold hazardous waste programs
in our industry." Each year
NAHMMA recognizes orga-
nizations, programs, and indi-
viduals that manage household
hazardous waste and Condi-
tionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generator waste at its annual
conference. •
SNRPSHO
flfter installing a diesel generator UST at
a federal facility in the midwest, the owner
decided to relocate the smoking lounge
directly on top of the tank pad! Recording to
the ever-vigilant man with the camera, Ben
Thomas of Ben Thomas Rssociates, Inc., to
date, no smokers have used the spill bucket
for an ashtray.
-------
November 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 59
nically 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 questions. If there are technical
issues that you would like to have
Marcel discuss, let him know at
marcel.moreau@juno.com.
UST RULES FOR A NEW.CENfTUKY
Do you remember a time when:
• The Web had something to do with the inter-relatedness of life that you
learned about in ecology class?
• Windows were things that you opened to let the breeze in?
• Amazon was a river in South America?
• Google (i.e., googol) was an incredibly large number?
• Mouse was something you caught in a trap?
• Federal UST rules were new?
I write this on the 20th anniver-
sary of the publication of the final
federal UST rules: September 23,
1988. Much has changed in the world
at large and in the UST world too.
Those of us who were in the UST
business then now have a lot more
experience (and a few extra inches)
under our belts. With all of this in
mind, USEPA plans to take a look at
the regulation to see if some targeted
changes are appropriate.
The UST rules have served us
well over these two decades, but it
is time to replace the roof, do some
remodeling, apply some fresh paint,
and perhaps put on a new addition.
For the technology and customs of a
quarter century ago, no matter how
fashionable then, are in some cases
dreadfully out-of-date today.
So here are some of my thoughts
on what I would do differently today
if I were the architect of the UST rule
remodeling process:
• Add a new section to the rule
requiring proper operation and
maintenance of UST systems.
Requirements should include:
• Having a written delivery pro-
cedure for each UST facility.
• Having a written incident-
response plan describing how
to respond to various inci-
dents, such as spills, driveoffs
(vehicle leaving with nozzle
still inserted in gas filler neck),
leak alarms, and suspected
releases.
• Having equipment main-
tained according to manufac-
turer recommendations, but
with required inspection/test-
ing by a qualified person no
less frequently than once a
year.
• Having spill-contain-
ment manholes cleaned,
inspected, and tested for
leaks on a periodic basis
so that these devices can
be replaced when
they fail.
• Having trained per-
sonnel as per the
Energy Policy Act of
2005.
Guidance for comply-
ing with this section of the
rule could be obtained from
industry recommended
practices such as PEIRP500,
Recommended Practices for
Inspection and Maintenance
of Motor Fuel Dispensing
Equipment, and PEI RP900
• continued on page 8
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
• Tank-nically Speaking
from page 7
Recommended Practices for the Inspec-
tion and Maintenance ofUST Systems.
• Remove the deferral of leak-
detection requirements for
emergency-generator tanks.
Why on earth shouldn't genera-
tor tanks have leak detection?
• Remove groundwater and soil-
vapor monitoring as accept-
able methods of leak detection.
These methods are little used,
outdated, and often applied inef-
fectively.
• Redefine inventory control as
a leak-detection method. Get
away from the "1% + 130 gal-
lon" standard and adopt a leak
threshold based on simple trend
lines calculated by Excel or some
other simple, commonly avail-
able trend-analysis program. This
will encourage continued use of
inventory, a fundamental leak-
detection technique, and make it
much more effective by utilizing
today's technology rather than a
methodology that dates back to
the day when pencil and paper
was the only way to do math.
Inventory control can see leaks
that are invisible to most other
methods of leak detection (e.g.,
leaks in fill pipes, submersible-
pump manifolds).
• Revise the rule language to
acknowledge that the 1998
deadline passed a decade ago.
Address today's upgrading
issues, such as:
• How many times can you
repair the lining in a tank?
• Under what circumstances
can CP or lining be added to
a tank that already underwent
one of these upgrading tech-
niques ten years ago?
• How much time is allowed
to repair a CP system that
is not functioning properly
before some type of penalty
(tank must be removed?) is
assessed?
• Set a timetable in the rule for
retiring all upgraded storage
systems and replacing them
with new ones. Otherwise, we
8
have a rule that allows every
tank to leak before it is required
to be replaced. While CP and lin-
ing techniques are measures that
extend tank life, these techniques
do not make tanks immortal.
Require that secondary-con-
tainment systems be tested at
installation and periodically
thereafter. We are headed down
a road where secondary con-
tainment will be the prevailing
method of leak detection, but
this method will prove a disap-
pointment if the containment
systems themselves are not tight.
To ensure that secondary con-
tainment will work, we need to
be sure that it is tight.
Require that secondary-con-
tainment systems (both tank-
top and dispenser sumps) be
continuously monitored. The
current rule allows visual inspec-
tion on a monthly basis, which
is difficult to do well and too
easy to fake. We live in an elec-
tronic world and there is no jus-
tification for allowing a monthly
visual inspection to serve as a
primary means of leak detection.
Require that devices used to
test line-leak detectors be certi-
fied by a third party to ensure
that they can find the size leaks
specified by the rules. Right
now, most devices used to test
line-leak detectors are home-
made and of dubious accuracy
and dependability. Get this
equipment out of the garage
workshop and let's get profes-
sional about it.
Figure out what to do about
line-leak detectors and high-
throughput facilities. The pres-
ent standard for finding leaks
in a one-hour timeframe is not
achievable with today's technol-
ogy at high throughput facilities.
A solution for this is essential so
the rule does not make outlaws
of all high-throughput facility
owners.
Clarify that sensors in second-
ary containment are not the
equivalent of line-leak detec-
tors. Neither PEI nor NFPA
recognizes sensors as line-leak
detectors.
• Revisit the entire tank overfill-
prevention approach. It is clear
that current technology is not
working. The goal would be to
implement overfill-prevention
techniques that are user friendly,
automatic, and not easily
bypassed. At the very least, the
rule should delete "vent restric-
tion" as an overfill-prevention
technique and phase out all exist-
ing ball-float valves. In the ideal,
European approaches to overfill
prevention (e.g., automatic con-
trol of the delivery by devices
that monitor the fuel level in the
tank and control the flow of fuel
from the truck) should be inves-
tigated and similar techniques
written into 40CFR280.
• Establish guidelines for UST-
worker certification programs
and require all states to imple-
ment a tank-worker certification
program. Many states have such
programs now, but they are a
mish-mash of requirements with
some that are more effective than
others. Set a national standard
so that there can be consistency
among state programs. Improving
the quality of tank work is key to
reducing future LUST cleanups.
• Bring statistical inventory rec-
onciliation (SIR) into the regula-
tory fold rather than treating it
as an "other method" stepchild.
Define some terms and meanings
like "pass," "fail," and "incon-
clusive" that would be required
terms when reporting results. Set
limits on the use of SIR, specifi-
cally throughput. Right now SIR
is being applied to truck stops
and other high-volume facilities
when the software has not been
evaluated for anything close to
the throughputs at these facili-
ties. Throughput limits should
be set based on the sales volumes
that were used in the test records
when the evaluations were done.
This is consistent with tight-
ness testing and automatic tank
gauges, where limits are based on
tank size. Require all SIR meth-
ods to be re-evaluated according
to the new protocol.
So that's my list, what's yours?
Send your thoughts to:
marcel.moreau@juno.com. •
-------
November 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 55
A roving column by reporter Patricia Ellis, a hydrologist with the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Tank Management Branch. Pat served as a member
of USEPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on MtBE. She welcomes your
comments and suggestions and can be reached at
Patricia, Ellis@state. de. us.
REDUCING THE LVAT BXCKLOC
DEXLINC WITH THE OLDIE MOLDKS
Blow away the dust. Wipe
away the cobwebs. I am sure
that Delaware is not the only
state dealing with LUST cleanup
backlogs, although being Delaware,
we're probably dealing with it at a
smaller scale. We had a collection of
LUST projects that had been collect-
ing dust for years. All of the projects
involved have had a letter sent to
their responsible parties (RPs) requir-
ing some sort of investigation. Some
of the RPs had gotten some investi-
gation work done, but it wasn't suf-
ficient, while for others, there had
been no response whatsoever to our
original request.
Back in those early days, sites
were coming in so quickly that the
small staff had to keep moving on
to newer sites with higher environ-
mental priorities. Nobody had time
to send a pile of follow-up letters
or make numerous phone calls to
cajole a response. As staff changed
and the number of people that once
knew anything about a site left, the
sites grew older and (yes) moldier.
The older they got, the harder they
became to deal with—tracking down
someone to address the investigation
and cleanup, missing documenta-
tion, problems identifying respon-
sible parties, recalcitrant responsible
parties, lack of recent data that would
support a closure decision, including
MtBE analyses and/or sampling in
former dispenser areas. I think we
were all hoping that natural attenua-
tion would simply work its magic.
The LUST Special Project
Delaware's Tank Management
Branch received about $150,000 in
funding from USEPA to help reduce
this backlog—an initiative we call
our LUST Special Project, or LSP. It
is a short-term project limited to the
life of the funding or the end of FY
2009, whichever comes first. Funds
are used for conducting limited site
assessment activities at selected fed-
erally regulated LUST sites. Nor-
mally, site assessments consist of
sampling any existing monitoring
wells or collecting soil and ground-
water samples using direct-push
methods. Our direct-push rig also
has the capability for running electri-
cal-conductivity logs.
Sites being addressed are typi-
cally 10-15 years old, with little or
no recent activity. File reviews often
indicate that the project may be close
to closure if updated information
could be obtained. In many cases, the
• continued on page 10
9
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
iWanderLUST/rom
current property owner had no idea
that an open LUST case even existed,
if they purchased the property with-
out performing due diligence prior
to purchase. USEPA did attach one
string to the grant funding: we have
the goal of 40 additional site closures
beyond our regular cleanup goal.
Age Breakdown of Sites (in years)
Getting Started
As a start, each project officer con-
ducted file reviews and database
searches of his/her assigned sites
to compile a list of potential target
sites. Letters were first sent out to
property owners in January 2007,
explaining the program. The letters
contained the background of how
the site became a LUST project and
what investigation or remediation
had occurred, if any. The owner was
given two options: hire a consul-
tant to get the work done, or accept
our generous offer and we'll do the
work.
The letter explained that if
accepted into this program, limited
hydrogeologic investigative work
would be performed by both envi-
ronmental consultants and labo-
ratories contracted by the State of
Delaware and state employees utiliz-
ing this LUST Special Project fund-
ing. It explained that the goal of this
program is to gather enough data to
close open LUST projects. However,
the results of any investigation per-
10
formed may suggest that closure is
not an immediate option, in which
case, additional work would be
required. These additional activities
would be paid for at the responsible
party's expense. We do not cost-
recover the costs of our investiga-
tions, based on Delaware's policy
that no cost recovery would be done
on sites where costs were under
$10,000. The introductory letter
included a series of UST ownership
questions, investigation options, and
an access agreement.
Procedurally, once the forms are
received and a site is qualified for
the LUST Special Project program,
the DNREC-Tank Management
Branch (TMB) establishes what data
are necessary for the LUST project
to be considered for closure. Prior to
any work being performed, the RP is
contacted by her TMB project officer
to discuss the required investiga-
tion activities and make the final site
access arrangements. The DNREC-
TMB then acquires any necessary
permits, materials, utility markout
information, and makes the neces-
sary arrangements with laboratories
and/or drillers, as required. We try
to group the sites geographically so
that, in some cases, several investi-
gations can be completed in one day.
Usually the sampling team mobilizes
for a three-day period, completing a
number of sites during one mobiliza-
tion.
Following completion of the
investigation activities, the RP
receives a copy of the laboratory
results along with a letter detailing
the work conducted at the site. If
all results are favorable, a No Fur-
ther Action (NFA) determination
accompanies the laboratory results.
If results are unfavorable for proj-
ect closure, further work will be
required. To assist with this scenario,
we provide recommended next steps
and information on other DNREC-
TMB financial programs, since fund-
ing is limited under this program and
can not be used for activities beyond
the initial reassessment of the site.
During our initial review of
the "oldie moldies," we identified
approximately 80 sites as potential
LSP candidates. Thirty of these sites
are still pending, meaning RPs are
waiting for an invitation from us
to join the program, have received
the invitation but have not yet
responded, or have been accepted
and have field work pending. It took
a lot of convincing to get some of
the people to apply for the program.
Some consulted with their lawyers,
others called their state representa-
tives, but we've had a lot of success
getting participation.
Forty sites have been closed
through the program. A few of these
were accomplished by simply clean-
ing up our database (e.g., NFA let-
ters had been issued but were not
in the database). Some RPs were
issued closures following a review of
their file (e.g., LUST issues had been
addressed but some documentation
had been missing). A number of the
invitation letters resulted in sub-
mission of reports of investigations
that had not been submitted previ-
ously. More than 30 site assessments
were conducted and more than half
of these sites were closed after field
sampling was conducted by the
TMB. One or two "invitees" have
turned down our offer to investigate,
but have conducted the investigation
themselves.
Roughly ten of the sites where
we conducted investigations have
resulted in a determination that addi-
tional sampling and/or corrective
action is necessary. More than half of
these sites have been qualified as eli-
gible for state funding for additional
work, while several others have con-
tracted to complete the additional
investigations recommended. We
may need to go to enforcement on a
few sites to ensure that further inves-
tigation or remediation are com-
pleted.
Our Geoprobe has had more of a
workout in the past year or two than
it did in its previous ten years, since
Delaware is an RP-lead state, and
we're limited in what work we're
allowed to do ourselves. The increase
in field work has been used as train-
ing for our staff, as well as for staff
from several other programs. It's
given a few people a chance to get
rid of that pallor that comes from too
much time spent in the office.
Costs for Investigation
As part of the startup costs for the
project, we purchased two new sam-
pling pumps and a carbon-filtration
system for purging water, bailers,
-------
November 2008 • LUSTLine Bulletin 59
tubing, liners for the core barrels,
bentonite, asphalt patch, expend-
able sampling points, and some
additional tools. These cost approxi-
mately $6,000.
We are required to have a
licensed driller onsite if sampling
involves the collection of groundwa-
ter samples. The costs for a licensed
driller have been $400-$500 per day,
and we have done between one
and four site assessments in a day,
depending on the number and type
of samples and the distance between
sites.
Laboratory analytical costs have
averaged about $1,800 per site, so far.
Assessments are averaging $2,100 per
site, including everything but staff
time. Two to four staff members usu-
ally participate during a sampling
event. One person is the designated
coordinator for each event and has
the responsibility for getting plans
from the project officers on antici-
pated number and type of samples,
coordinating with the lab for glass-
ware and analytical time, getting
utility markouts from "Miss Utility,"
contracting for the driller, and other
planning details. Hydrologist Patrick
Boettcher has ably served as the proj-
ect leader.
Meeting the Goals
The LUST Special Project is doing
what it was designed to do—reduce
our backlog of federally regulated
LUST sites. We've knocked about 40
sites off our backlog of around 250
sites, and we still have time, money,
and sites remaining. Also helping is
the fact that we're nearly at full staff
on the LUST side of the program,
after being at about half staff for the
last two or three years. Without the
available staff time in addition to
the funding, we probably wouldn't
be getting these closures, because
we'd be spending our time on sites
that pose higher environmental risk.
Being understaffed helped get us
into the backlog problem, and it's a
lot easier to work on a site where the
RP actually wants to achieve closure
and is doing the work requested of
him. Without the extra funding and
staffing, the expectation to close 40
additional low-priority sites would
still be a figment of our database and
taking the back seat to sites that war-
rant our attention more highly. •
UST Insurance Matters
The Assurance Is in the Details
All storage tank pollution-
insurance polices report-
edly provide the coverage
necessary to comply with the state
and federal financial responsibility
requirements. However, all policies
do not provide the same level of pro-
tection, given that contract wording
varies. An insurance policy is, in fact,
a contract that is agreed to between
the insurance carrier and the insured.
Coverage is proposed by the insur-
ance company, accepted by the poli-
cyholder, and ratified in the payment
and acceptance of the quoted pre-
mium.
Tank owners using insurance for
financial responsibility must under-
stand certain critical details in their
contracts. Two examples of detail
distinctions in policy language can
be found in the claims reporting
requirements and the noncompliance
exclusion.
Claims Reporting
Requirements
Below are two actual examples of
wording from commonly used tank
insurance polices outlining the duties
of an insured in the event of a release
from a covered storage tank.
Company A
You must see to it that we are noti-
fied promptly of an "underground
storage tank incident" which may
result in a claim, request, demand,
or proceeding to impose an obliga-
tion on the insured for damages
because of "bodily injury" or "prop-
erty damage" or for "corrective
action costs."
Company B
The "insured" must provide the
insurer with immediate notice in the
event of a "storage tank incident."
Such notice shall be provided as
soon as reasonably possible, but in
any event, not less than seven (7)
days after a "responsible insured"
first became aware of, or should have
become aware of, a "storage tank
incident."
In the first example, the policy's
reporting requirements for a storage
tank incident are far less stringent
than those in the second example.
While Company A requires that they
are "notified promptly," Company B's
requirements are "as soon as rea-
sonably possible, but in any event,
not less than seven (7) days after"
the insured first becomes aware "or
should have become aware" of a
storage tank incident.
Many times a tank owner may
have a failing monthly tank test or an
inventory shortage and elect to wait
a few weeks to see if the problem was
some sort of anomaly. Other times,
the test failure may be reported up to
management and the process of get-
ting the proper testing/verification
could take several weeks. In either
of these cases, a tank owner may
find himself well beyond seven days
since first becoming aware of a stor-
age tank incident. Depending on the
insurance policy, a responsible party
could find himself without coverage
due to late reporting.
Noncompliance Exclusion
Most, but not all, tank pollution
policies have an exclusion address-
ing releases from tanks that are not
in compliance. However, like the
previous examples of differences in
reporting requirements, the contract
wording will vary. In the case of non-
compliance, the insurance contract
will read, "This policy will not pay for
claims or loss..." in the following cir-
cumstances:
Company A
Arising from "pollution conditions"
based upon or attributable to any
"responsible insured's" intentional,
willful, or deliberate noncompliance
with any statute, regulation includ-
ing those set forth in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, ordi-
nance, administrative complaint,
notice of violation, notice letter,
executive order, or instruction of
any governmental agency or body.
• continued on page 16
11
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)
PEI Releases ved
Recommended Practices for ASTs
Historically, petroleum products at service sta-
tions and other motor-vehicle-fueling sites
have been stored in underground tanks. But
to avoid the cost of complying with USEPA's under-
ground storage tank requirements and given the
improvements in petroleum storage tank technolo-
gies, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) at motor-vehi-
cle-fueling sites have become much more common. In
fact—although USEPA does not keep records on ASTs
like they do USTs—I wouldn't be surprised if the AST
population in vehicle-refueling service outnumbers
that of the USTs.
The installation of all types of liquid motor-fuel
storage systems is highly complex and requires a wide
range of construction knowledge and experience. In
addition to designing aboveground systems properly,
reliance on tank installers who possess both the expe-
rience and the integrity to insist on following industry-
wide recommended practices constitutes the greatest
protection against tank-system failure and liability
exposure.
PEI has revised its Recommended Practices for Instal-
lation of Aboveground Storage Systems for Motor Vehicle
Refueling (PEI/RP200) document—a concise reference
that describes recommended practices for the installa-
tion of ASTs at service sta-
tions, marinas, and other
mo tor-vehicle-fueling
sites. In this document,
PEI suggests ways to
minimize the possibility
of aboveground storage
system failure and reduce
fire-safety and environ-
mental hazards, while
avoiding practices that
will needlessly increase
installation costs.
The recommendations
contained in PEI/RP200
may be applied to hori-
zontal and vertical tanks,
single- and multi-walled
Mechanical
Anti-Siphon Valve
tanks, as well as protected and fire-resistant tanks. Tanks
covered in these recommended practices are intended
for the storage of liquid motor fuels at or near atmo-
spheric pressure. Product piping associated with these
tanks may be aboveground, underground, or a combi-
nation of both.
The 2008 edition of PEI/RP200 supersedes and
replaces the 2003 edition. Over 100 comments to the 2003
edition were received by PEI's Aboveground Storage
Tank Committee from regulators, installers, manufac-
turers, tank owners, and consultants. Over 60 percent of
those comments were accepted in some manner and are
reflected in the text or diagrams in the document. This
is the third time the original RP200 has been updated,
and each time we go through the process it serves as a
reminder that AST installation practices continue to
evolve and that PEI's recommended practices must
change to reflect current technology and practices.
The manual contains updated information on all
phases of proper AST installation, including site plan-
ning; foundations; support and anchorage; dikes; vaults
and special enclosures; tanks, pumps, and valves; fills,
gauges, and vents; piping and fittings; corrosion pro-
tection; electrical installation, testing, and inspection;
and documentation, maintenance, and training. Three
appendices describe size
calculations for dikes, vent-
ing, and fire-code require-
ments. An appendix of
documents used for refer-
ence is also included.
The single-copy price
forRP200/08is$40forPEI
members and government
officials; $90 for every-
one else. You can place an
order on-line or download
an order form at www.pei.
org/shopping. You can also
request an order form from
PEI by calling (918) 494-
9696 or faxing (918) 491-
9895. •
. Suction
Pump
Pressure-
Relief Valve
Pressure-
Regulating—
Valve
Double-Wall Piping.
(Optional)
Suction System. Typical piping and valve arrangement for product
piping exiting the tank top. Aboveground portions of the piping must
be securely supported. Supports are not shown in the diagram for
clarity.
12
-------
November 2C
LUSTLine Bulletin 59
Emerging Fuel Storage Issues
Noted at PEI Conference
by Ellen Frye
In his opening remarks at the Petro-
leum Equipment Institute (PEI) and
'National Association of Convenience
Stores conference in Chicago in October,
PEI Executive Vice President Robert
Renkes brought up several issues that are
likely to impact his industry members.
Some of these issues are also worth men-
tioning as a heads-up for tank regulators.
Here's the scoop:
• What about That Urea?
New federal emission standards
require diesel engines manufactured
in 2010 and beyond to convert nitrous
oxides to nitrogen and water. Accord-
ing to Renkes, there are two ways you
can do this: one is to recycle vapors
in the engine compartment, which
few manufacturers do. The other is
to inject a substance, like liquid urea,
into the exhaust stream, where it
reacts with the nitrous oxides. Most
engine manufacturers will opt for this
technology.
Urea is a colorless, odorless crys-
talline solid ((NH2)2CO). In solution
it decomposes to ammonia and car-
bon dioxide upon extended exposure
to elevated temperatures, leading to
an odor similar to ammonia-based
household cleaning products. Accord-
ing to Vijay Srinivasan, in his The PEI
Journal article, "Diesel Exhaust Fluid,"
"Urea is the first significant consum-
able non-fuel fluid to be added to any
car or truck in the history of the auto-
motive industry."
Srinivasan says distributors have
the option of bringing in granular
urea, concentrated urea, or a 32.5 per-
cent solution. He says the selection
of the incoming state of urea will be
based on the trade-off among stor-
age capacity, throughput, and conve-
nience. End-users include truck stops,
truck-fleet facilities, truck dealers,
automotive dealers, and automotive
service facilities.
The tank in the truck that holds
the urea will be between 20 and 40
gallons. Urea consumption will vary,
but it is expected that most vehicles
will burn 2 to 4 percent urea for every
gallon of diesel fuel burned. Prac-
tically speaking, at this burn rate
engines will likely require urea refu-
eling during every other diesel refu-
eling. There will be some equipment
issues associated with handling urea.
For instance, urea can't be hauled in
tank trucks that have hauled fuel.
It needs to be stored in either stain-
less-steel or carbon-steel tanks lined
with plastic. Weights and measures
departments will probably have to
approve the dispenser.
Aboveground or underground
storage tanks can be used, but urea
needs to be kept between 20 and 85
degrees F to ensure its integrity, so
tanks and lines will be insulated and,
in some cases, heated. And nozzle
spout diameters will be smaller to fit
the urea tank opening.
Renkes says there are 4,500 travel
plazas and truck stops in the United
States. Those 4,500 sites pump three-
quarters of all diesel fuel sold at
retail. It is estimated that there will
be 108,000 heavy-duty diesel rigs on
the road by the end of 2010 that will
require urea from one end of the
country to the other. There will be
over a half million by the end of 2014.
The prevailing view is that ultimately
urea will be stored in bulk tanks and
sold through a urea dispenser that
stands right alongside the diesel dis-
penser. Although urea is not listed on
the CERCLA Hazardous Substance
List, these tanks and their piping lines
will be side by side with regulated
fuel-storage components. Regulators
need to be aware of this. Why? Well,
it's a bit of a cliffhanger—urea may or
may not present problems. "We don't
know yet, but regulators should at
least be aware," says Renkes.
To find out more on this subject,
see The PEI Journal article, "Diesel
Exhaust Fluid," by Vijay Srinivasan,
Ph.D. at http://iviviv.thepeijournal.org/
content/3a08/dieselexhaust.php.
• Will UL List Biodiesel
Equipment?
Renkes thinks there is a "better
than 50/50 chance" that Underwrit-
ers Laboratories will end up listing
equipment for different blends of
biodiesel fuels, much like they are
doing with ethanol.
• Will Ultra Low-Sulfur Fuel
Have an Impact on UST
Systems?
Some folks in the industry have
noticed that there is something going
on with ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel
that causes seals, gaskets, and other
components in storage and dispens-
ing systems to react with the fuel
and produce a brownish substance
that clogs filters and strainers. Could
corrosion be an issue here? At pres-
ent, neither the cause nor effect has
been identified, but the committee
chair responsible for the ASTM spec-
ification for ultra low-sulfur diesel is
looking into the problem and hopes
to find the cause and suggest a solu-
tion.
• Where Have All the Retailers
Gone?
Now that the large end-user oil com-
panies are out of retail marketing,
62 percent are single-station owners,
says Renkes. Kiplinger predicts the
country will lose 5,000 gas stations
this year, more than twice as many
as last year and the worst dropout
rate since the 2001 recession. The
likely dropouts are the single-station
owners, the companies that are least
able to cope with rising expenses in
the form of skyrocketing credit-card
transaction fees and utility costs and
have trouble getting financing when
money is tight.
Renkes suspects that when con-
fronted with a major capital expense,
a chunk of them will simply give the
keys back to the lender. Using Flor-
ida as an example, he notes that all
USTs owned by the 9,000 petroleum
marketers in Florida must have sec-
ondary containment—at an average
cost of $260,000 to $300,000—by the
end of 2009.
Distributors and installers that
work in the state tell PEI that they
expect between 1,000 and 2,000 retail
petroleum stations that were around
at the turn of the century will cease to
exist come 2010. If that is indicative
of what might happen around the
rest of the country if large expenses
like enhanced vapor recovery are
mandated, regulators need to pre-
pare for the possibility of numerous
closed/abandoned retail facilities. •
13
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 59 • November 2008
AQs from the NWGLD
Questions about Sensors, Part I
~
As the new secondary-containment requirements come into effect across the country, electronic interstitial monitoring will soon
become the norm instead of the exception. Since electronic interstitial monitoring usually involves some type of sensor, in the next
two issues of FAQs from the National WorkGroup on Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE), the workgroup will answer ques-
tions concerning sensors listed on the NWGLDE website at nwglde.org. (Please Note: the views expressed in this column repre-
sent those of the work group and not necessarily those of any implementing agency.)
Q.
How can I find interstitial sensors on the NWGLDE
website?
To find all the listings of interstitial sensors that per-
form a similar function, refer to the "Test Method
Index." This index can be found by clicking on
"Testing Methods" on the left side of the NWGLDE
home page. Once the "Test Method Index" appears,
all NWGLDE leak-detection test-method categories
will appear. These categories are based on evalua-
tions using different standard protocols that can be
found by clicking on "Protocols" at the bottom of the
NWGLDE home page. The NWGLDE leak-detection
test methods categories that contain interstitial sen-
sors are:
• Interstitial Detector (Liquid-Phase)
• Continuous Interstitial Monitoring Method (Liq-
uid-Filled)
• Continuous Interstitial Line-Monitoring Method
(Pressure/Vacuum)
• Continuous Interstitial Tank-System-Monitoring
Method (Pressure/Vacuum)
Once the category of interest is located, click on the
"Testing Methods" link to bring up a list of all the
sensors that fall within that category. To bring up
each sensor listing, click on the "Equipment Name"
link adjacent to the vendor's name. This is a good
procedure for tank owners or installers to use when
they need to look at a group of sensors that can be
considered for use with a particular application.
However, finding the right sensor can be somewhat
confusing because these categories contain sensors
with many different operating principles, and some
sensors may be listed under more than one category.
A better way to locate a listing for a particular sen-
sor found during an inspection is to enter the model
name and/or model number in the search engine
form at the top right corner of any NWGLDE web-
site page and click on "go." This will open a "Search
Results" page with links to any relevant information
based on the search criteria.
Why are some sensors listed with consoles, some
listed without consoles, while others appear to be
listed as part of a complete system?
How the sensor is listed is dependent on how it
was evaluated. Sensors identified in the "Interstitial
Detector (Liquid-Phase)" category have been evalu-
ated either matched with a console or as a "stand-
alone" (a sensor without a specific console identified).
Those that were evaluated with a console have the
console model number under the manufacturer's
name on the NWGLDE listing. Sensors included in
the "Continuous Interstitial Monitoring Method (Liq-
uid-Filled)," "Continuous Interstitial Line-Monitor-
ing Method (Pressure/Vacuum)," and "Continuous
Interstitial Tank-System-Monitoring Method (Pres-
sure/Vacuum)" categories have ben evaluated as part
of a complete interstitial leak-detection system.
Like sensors evaluated with a console, sensors evalu-
ated as part of a complete leak-detection system are
evaluated using a particular console that was vali-
dated by an evaluation meant to receive and display
the signal produced by a particular sensor. Such sys-
tem evaluations specify a particular sensor or sensors
that will work with the system console. The design
of some of these sensors, whether they are stand-
alone or evaluated while paired with a console, may
allow them to work with consoles or systems other
than those that were used during the evaluation. For
example, a sensor that acts like a single-pole, single-
throw (SPST) switch (e.g., like an ordinary home or
office light switch) may have been evaluated with a
specific console but in reality will work as designed
with a variety of consoles.
NWGLDE listings occasionally include information
from the evaluation report stating that (with regard
to the console or system) it is allowable to use other
applicable sensors that appear on the NWGLDE List.
However, before using or accepting the use of a sen-
sor not specifically evaluated with a console or inter-
stitial monitoring system, the sensor manufacturer
should be contacted to make sure the sensor is com-
patible for use with the proposed console or system.
Are sensors and probes the same?
No. Sensors and probes are distinguished by their
specificity of function and location in the UST sys-
tem. Sensors broadly monitor areas outside the pri-
mary tank for the presence or absence of product
and/or water; gross changes in the level of a monitor-
14
-------
November 2C
LUSTLine Bulletin 59
ing fluid; or significant changes in the pressure or
vacuum in an interstitial space. In contrast, probes
measure very small changes in the level of product
inside the primary tank.
U|. How do the different interstitial monitoring
methods shown on the NWGLDE List work?
A. Interstitial Detector (Liquid-Phase) sensors are
used to continuously monitor normally dry-tank
or piping interstices, sumps, and under-dispenser
containment areas for product and/or liquids that
should not be in there. Depending on the type
of sensor, this method may or may not indicate
whether the leak is from the primary or secondary
wall. In rare circumstances, when there is a breach
in the primary and secondary wall of the system,
product leaking from the inner wall could leak out
of the secondary wall without activating a sensor.
Sensors used with the "Continuous Interstitial
Monitoring Method (Liquid-Filled)" method con-
tinuously monitor a liquid-filled tank or piping
interstice for a rise or fall of the liquid. This rise or
fall indicates a problem in either the inner or outer
wall of the interstitial space.
The "Continuous Interstitial Line-Monitoring
Method (Pressure/Vacuum)" and "Continuous
Interstitial Tank-System-Monitoring Method (Pres-
sure/Vacuum)" systems continuously maintain
a pressure or vacuum in the interstitial spaces of
piping and tanks and use sensors to detect a decay
of the pressure or vacuum in the interstitial areas.
These systems have a distinct advantage over other
interstitial-monitoring systems, because they moni-
tor the intgrity of both the primary and the second-
ary walls of a secondary-containment system at the
same time. •
About the NWGLDE
The NWGLDE is an independent work group comprising ten mem-
bers, including nine state and one USEPA member. This column pro-
vides 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 ques-
tions@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.
USEPA Issues Guide for Developing a Third-Party UST Inspection Program
USEPA has provided state and regional UST programs with an electronic version of its new publication, Developing a Third-Party Under-
ground Storage Tank Inspection Program: A Guide to Assist States (EPA-51 0-K-08-001 , September 2008). The guide provides states with
information on how to develop a third-party inspection program or enhance an existing one. It summarizes USEPA's inspection grant guide-
lines and outlines steps states should follow in developing a third-party inspection program. It also includes examples of existing state pro-
grams. To access the guide, go to http://www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/thirdpartyinspection.htm. •
«S«T« E Subscription Form
Name
Company/Agency
Mailing Address
then
LUSTLine Index
E-mail Address.
_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
15
-------
• UST Insurance Matters
from page 11
Company B
Based upon, arising out of, or attrib-
utable, whether directly or indi-
rectly, to intentional disregard of
or knowing, willful, or deliberate
noncompliance with any statute,
regulation, administrative com-
plaint, notice of violation, notice let-
ter, instruction of any governmental
agency or body, or executive, judi-
cial, or administrative order by any
"responsible insured."
With the first example (Company
A), the release must be attributable
to the insured's intentional willful or
deliberate noncompliance; whereas
with the second example (Com-
pany B), the release may be attribut-
able directly or indirectly. These few
words (directly or indirectly) open
up the result of the noncompliance
to a lot of scrutiny. Further, the lan-
guage in the second example goes
beyond deliberate or intentional
disregard, and states that simply
"knowing" of a noncompliance issue
may be grounds for denying a claim.
All things considered, it is best (if
available) to avoid policies with a
noncompliance exclusion. •
Chris Montgomery is a principal with
Custom Environmental Insurance.
He can be reached at 877-TANKCOV
(826-5268) or Chris@tankcov.com.
21st Annual National Tanks
Conference ft Expo
March 30 - April 1,2009 in
Sacramento, California
On behalf of the New England
Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission, USEPA's
Office of Underground
Storage Tanks and Region 9,
the California Environmental
Protection Agency and State
Water Resources Control Board,
and the Association of State
and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials, it is our
pleasure to invite you to join us
in Sacramento, California, for
the 21 st Annual National Tanks
Conference and Exposition.
The conference will be held
March 30-April 1, 2009, at the
Sacramento Convention Center.
March 30 -April 1,2009
27" Annual National
TRNKS CONFERENCE
9NEIWKC SB* A-mnwro O CSj EXPO
The 2009 Annual National Tanks
Conference will be slightly different than historical conferences as we are
integrating the National Tanks Conference and the State Fund Administrators
Meeting. By combining these two annual events, we have been able to create
one conference that comprehensively addresses all the issues related to
managing underground storage tank programs.
Registration for the conference opens November 7, 2008. To register for the
conference and learn more about it, go to the conference website
(www.neiwpcc.org/tanksconference). The conference website will be updated
regularly with the latest information, so please visit it often. For answers
to specific questions about the conference, please contact NEIWPCC at
NTCInfo@neiwpcc.org. •
LUST. .INE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
------- |