New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
www.neiwpcc.org/lustline
116 John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
LUS.T.UNE
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking: Underground Storage Tanks
Bulletin 61
May
2OO9
When Reality Gets in the Way of Good Intentions
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Bio fuels
\ en years ago, USEPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Panel on Oxygenate Use in Gasoline, better
known as the Blue Ribbon Panel, announced its findings and recommendations. In its report the panel
noted that the introduction of reformulated gasoline (RFC) "has had substantial air quality benefits,
but has also raised significant questions that should be answered before the widespread use of any
new, broadly used product. The unanticipated effects of RFG [specifically, MtE3E] on groundwater high-
light the importance of exploring the potential for adverse effects in all media (air, soil, and water), and on
human and ecosystem health, before the launch of any such product." The report urged us to "build on existing
public health surveillance systems to measure the broader impact (both beneficial and adverse) of changes in
gasoline formulations on public health and the environment."
Well here we are in 2009, scrambling to deal with transformative new
Congressional fuel mandates for the increased use of renewable fuels. While
the move to renewable fuels is laudable in the name of weaning ourselves from
petroleum and gaining self-sufficiency, the synchronization
with regard to our goals and the hurdles in the path of
carrying out those goals may from time to time be, shall
we say, disappointing. Our new renewable fuels marching
orders are already having an impact on many sectors of
our economy, not the least of which is the storage
of these fuels. Yet, these marching orders do not
specifically mandate that we take the steps needed
to anticipate the effects of these fuels on our UST
infrastructures in orderto protect our ground water.
USEPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST) is coordinating with other USEPA offices, states,
industry, standard-making organizations, and
other federal agencies to work through the
myriad of biofuel-related issues. Collabora-
tion with these groups will help OUST better under-
stand the impact of new fuels and new fuel blends on
existing UST infrastructure and how releases of these
fuels will affect remediation efforts.
As you will see in the following articles by our
UST/LUST-related industry and regulatory friends,
thejob of characterizing and anticipating the ramifica-
tions of these mandates and the associated new and
emerging fuels is, to say the least, complex and daunt-
ing. While much of the discussion centers on ethanols, the
concerns and issues raised apply to any new biofuel that may
be stored in an underground storage tank system.
We thank all who have helped us pull this overview together
and we welcome your thoughts and comments.
Tangled Web of New-Fuel Mandates
CA Multimedia Review for New Fueis
9(
Til
Environmental Impacts of Future Fuels
-A Petroleum Equipment Perspective
Challenges for Petroleum Marketers
State UST/LUST Program New-Fuel Dilemmas
Screening Criteria for Vapor Intrusion Pathway
Primer for Next Generation of Tank People - Part II
Outdated Equipment on NWGLDE List
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 • May 2009
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Biofuels
The Tangled Web of New-Fuel Mandates
by Patricia Ellis
Under the Renewable Fuels
Standard (RFS) adopted in
2005 (Energy Policy Act of
2005, aka EPACT 2005) and updated
in 2007 (Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, aka EISA 2007),
Congress committed the U.S. to a
substantial (five-fold) increase in its
use of biofuels by 2022. So, begin-
ning in 2005, ethanol refineries began
springing up in cornfields all over the
Midwest. Demand for ethanol was
particularly great while crude prices
were high—ethanol was cheaper so
it made sense to blend it in gasoline.
More recently, however, demand
for gasoline has decreased due to high
prices and a declining economy. As
crude and gasoline prices dropped,
ethanol prices didn't. Demand for
ethanol, particularly when it costs
more per gallon than gasoline, didn't
keep up with all that new ethanol
production, and as a result, about
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
Deb Steckley, USEPA Project Officer
LUSTLine is a product of the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion (NEIWPCC). It is produced through
cooperative agreements (US-83384301 and
US-83384401) 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
20 percent of U.S. ethanol refineries
are currently idle and many compa-
nies have filed for bankruptcy.
A new report, issued in April
by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), details the plight of the etha-
nol industry and suggests that the
current economic environment has
put all ethanol producers in dire
straits. (See report at http-./lwww.
cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/docl0057/04-
08-Ethanol.pdf) The profitability of
corn-based ethanol sits at the inter-
section of corn and gasoline prices.
Oh, and one other thing, EISA 2007
has a quota of 100 million gallons of
cellulosic ethanol by 2010. We're not
on target to meet that goal (not even
close).. .and at what cost per gallon?
Watch Out for that Blend Wall!
EISA 2007 mandates that increasing
amounts of ethanol be used in gaso-
line in the future. But we're about to
crash up against what is known as
the ethanol "blend wall" or "blend
barrier." That's when the market for
gasoline other than E85 has absorbed
all the ethanol it can at the 10 per-
cent-volume blending level.
We currently use about 140 bil-
lion gallons of gasoline each year in
the U.S. Thus we only need about 14
billion gallons of ethanol to convert
the entire nation to E10. To reach the
mandated 36 billion gallons of etha-
nol in the fuel supply by 2022, we
will either need to triple our gasoline
consumption in the next 13 years (not
likely or desirable) or else increase
the percentage of ethanol in each gal-
lon of gasoline that we use to some-
thing like E30.
Furthermore, according to the
Department of Energy, there are cur-
rently about seven million flex-fuel
vehicles (FFVs) on U.S. highways,
most of which have never used a gal-
lon of E85. (FFVs are alternative-fuel
vehicles with an internal combustion
engine designed to run on more than
one fuel, usually gasoline blended
with either ethanol or methanol fuel;
both fuels are stored in a common
tank.)
U.S. automakers have commit-
ted to increasing production of FFVs,
but it will take a long time to get
enough of them on the road to reach
the 90-110 million of them needed
to achieve renewable fuel objectives,
not to mention increasing the num-
ber of E85 fueling facilities from the
current 2,000 facilities to the esti-
mated 60,000 facilities that will be
required.
Without storage tanks and dis-
pensers capable of withstanding the
higher concentrations of ethanol and
cars capable of running on higher eth-
anol fuel, the blend wall will prevent
our meeting the ethanol-blending
requirements of EISA 2007. Quoting
then-presidential candidate Barack
Obama in January 2007, "We've done
a better job of focusing on production
than we have on distribution" (Busi-
ness Week, January 29,2007).
The Ethanol Industry's
Waiver Application
Barring using ethanol as E85, the
other way to avoid hitting the blend
wall is to increase the volume of eth-
anol that is allowed in conventional
gasoline. Currently, up to 10 percent
by volume is allowed in gasoline
(EPA issued a waiver for 10 percent
by volume ethanol blends in 1976).
Growth Energy, on behalf of about
52 U.S. ethanol manufacturers, sub-
mitted a request on March 6, 2009 to
the USEPA Administrator to grant
a waiver pursuant to Section 211 (f)
(4) of the Clean Air Act, to allow the
use of a blend of 15 percent ethanol
in gasoline. This section of the CAA
allows the USEPA Administrator
to grant a waiver allowing the use
of a fuel additive upon application
that establishes that the use of the
fuel additive "will not cause or con-
tribute to the failure of any emis-
sion-control device or system." The
Waiver Application and supporting
documentation can be accessed at
http://growthenergy.org/2009/el5/learn-
more.asp.
According to the Waiver Request,
federal case law indicates that waiver
decisions are to be made "based on
one criterion: a fuel additive's effect
on emission standards," and that
USEPA's role is "to assess whether the
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
additive's emission products 'causes
or contributes' to an emission control
device's ability to comply with the
Act's emission standards."
On April 15, 2009, USEPA issued
a request for comments on the pro-
posed waiver request. The request
for comments includes the following
statement: "Although it is not a spe-
cific criterion by which to evaluate a
waiver request under section 211(f),
any approved waiver request could
require new program changes to
accommodate this new fuel. USEPA
seeks comments on the effect of a
potential waiver for ethanol blends
above 10 percent and up to 15 per-
cent on the existing fuel programs
(e.g., gasoline detergent certifica-
tion, impact on underground stor-
age tanks, etc.) and on the gasoline
production, distribution and market-
ing infrastructure." At last, someone
there in D.C. is thinking of us tank
people! The public comment period
ends on July 21, 2009. (For more on
the Notice of Receipt of a Clean Air
Act Waiver Application to Increase
the Allowable Ethanol Content of
Gasoline to 15 Percent: Request for
Comment, go to http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/April/Day-21/
a9115.pdf.)
Note that the Waiver Application
does not seek to mandate the use of
E15, but rather seeks to remove the
barrier to its use. The applicants do
not object to the continued avail-
ability of EO and E10 for use in small
engines or other applications. How-
ever, not all facilities contain blend-
ing pumps, and few retailers would
want to have to install separate fuel
tanks for each of these separate fuels.
New Biofuels Infrastructure
Report
On April 16, the National Commis-
sion of Energy Policy released a report
by the Task Force on Biofuels Infra-
structure (http:llwww.bipartisanpolicy.
org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/10238).
The report outlines what changes
are needed to accommodate the RFS
mandates, from transportation needs
right down to the gas stations. Certi-
fied equipment needs to be available
that can withstand storage of bio-
fuels, and adequate lead-time (and
financial assistance?) is essential to
allow these upgrades. Given the aver-
age expected lifespan of 20 years for
underground equipment and 12 years
for dispensers, we might be ready to
start dispensing higher ethanol con-
centration blends of gasoline in 10 to
15 years! Heck, in Delaware we still
have somewhere around 100 pre-1985
fiberglass tanks in use, which may not
even be compatible with E10. We may
just be waiting for these tanks to get
all squishy and soft, or for the glue
joints holding the piping together to
fail. Or will it be some 10-cent plastic
part that wasn't able to stand up to
increasingly higher amounts of etha-
nol, causing a major release? Who's
going to pay? Legacy tank systems
can't be ignored. •
Patricia Ellis, Ph.D., is a hydrologist
with the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environment
Control, Tank Management Branch.
She writes the LUSTLine column
"WanderLUST," and can be reached at
Patricia.Ellis@state. de.us.
California Approves a New Low-
Carbon Fuel Standard
On April 24, 2009, the California Air Resources Board
approved the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The goal
of the standard is to lower the "carbon intensity" of fuels
sold in California 10 percent by 2020. It does this by using
complex formulas to score each type of fuel based on its
life-cycle emissions. Carbon intensity is calculated by
comparing the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emit-
ted by a fuel over its life cycle with the amount of energy
that it produces. At issue for ethanol and other biofuels is
the inclusion of indirect land-use effects in calculating a
given fuel's total GHG emissions—growing fuel on exist-
ing farmland, plus the effect of deforestation caused by
the need to bring additional land under cultivation as fuel
crops displace food crops. The more sustainable fuels are
referred to as "advanced biofuels," which must have a 50
percent improvement over fossil fuels in terms of GHG
contributions. Once indirect land-use effects are included,
food-based fuels may no longer make the cut.
Growing food-or-fuel will have a significant land-use
effect for corn ethanol, while having little effect for cellu-
losic ethanol. Corn ethanol may not survive the analysis
and qualify for California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard,
and could potentially be "banned" from California. A
working group charged with studying indirect land-use
change must make a report by January 2011.The Califor-
nia LCFS regulations will take effect in 2011. It is expected
that a large group of Eastern states will adopt California's
standard.
USEPA Issues Notice of RFS2
Proposed Rulemaking
On May 5, 2009, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-
making for the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2), as
required by EISA 2007. The revised statutory require-
ments specify the volumes of various types of renewable
fuels that must be used in transportation fuel each year
with the volumes increasing over time. The proposed
standard will also address greenhouse gas emission
thresholds for various classes of renewable fuels. The
greenhouse gas emission assessments must evaluate
the full life-cycle emission impacts of fuel production,
including both direct and indirect emissions and signifi-
cant emissions from land-use changes.
Mention is made of the potential for leaks from USTs
way in the back of the proposed rule. It states: "With the
increasing use of ethanol in the fuel supply nationwide, it
is important to understand the impact of ethanol on the
existing tank infrastructure. Given the corrosivity of etha-
nol, there is concern regarding the increased potential for
leaks from existing gas stations and subsequent impacts
on drinking water supplies. In 2007, there were 7,500
reported releases from underground storage tanks. There-
fore, EPA is undertaking analyses designed to assess the
potential impacts of ethanol blends on tank infrastructure
and leak-detection systems and determine the resulting
water quality impacts."
Documents relating to the proposed rulemaking
may be found at http://www.epa.gov/otacj/renewablefuels/
#regulations. •
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 • May 2009
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Biofuels
Never Again!
California's Multimedia Review Process for New
Motor-Vehicle Fuels
by Robert Hodam
In 1999, the California Legislature
recognized the need for a mul-
timedia environmental impacts
review of all new motor-vehicle fuels
(additives to gasoline and diesel as
well as new "low-carbon" fuels) and
directed the California Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (CalEPA) to
establish a multimedia evaluation
process to meet that need.
Key goals of that multimedia
process include:
• A streamlined, one-stop, compre-
hensive environmental review
and assessment of significant risks
posed by new fuels and fuel addi-
tives; a process designed to reduce
risks to human health and the
environment potentially resulting
from a single media review.
• A consistent, well-defined, staged
process with continuous feed-
back loops designed to reduce
both short-term evaluation costs
to the applicant (they may exit
the process at any point based on
feedback from the multimedia
working group on projected costs
and likelihood of success), as well
as a process designed to reduce
long-term costs of potential policy
reversals resulting from impacts
discovered after commercializa-
tion (e.g., MtBE).
To manage the evaluation pro-
cess a multimedia working group
(MMWG) was formed to assist an
applicant with the requirements of
the process and to ensure the ade-
quacy of data submitted, and on the
basis of those data make recommen-
dations to the Environmental Policy
Council of CalEPA regarding any
"significant adverse impact on public
health or the environment including air,
water, [and] soil that may result from
the production, use, [and] disposal of
the motor vehicle fuel." The MMWG is
chaired by the Air Resources Board
and comprised of engineers and
scientists representing the Water
Resources Control Board, Integrated
Waste Management Board, Office
of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, Department of Toxic
Substances Control, and the Depart-
ment of Pesticide Regulation.
One of the MMWG's first tasks
was to develop a detailed guidance
document, first drafted in 2006 and
revised in 2008, to inform applicants
about the process. The latest version
may be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/
fuelslmultimedialQ8Q6Q8guidance.pdf.
The applicant is responsible for
all costs of the evaluation process, as
well as for collecting and presenting
data to the MMWG for review and
comment. Tier I of the three-tier eval-
uation is a literature search, which at
a minimum must consider:
• Emissions of air pollutants, includ-
ing ozone, "criteria pollutants,"
and greenhouse gases
• Contamination of surface water,
groundwater, and soil
• Disposal or use of the byproducts
and waste materials from the pro-
duction of fuel.
Evaluations related to UST stor-
age of a new fuel include:
• Material compatibility
• Marine and freshwater aquatic
toxicity
• Fate and transport in soil
• Effects on cleanup of unauthor-
ized releases
• Fuel production water consump-
tion and wastewater discharge
• Disposal of contaminated fuels
and soils.
• Others as required (e.g., one of
our current applicants may utilize
a genetically modified organism in
the fuel-production process. Exper-
imental protocols for evaluation
of potential adverse effects related
to genetically modified organisms
have not yet been developed, as
this is our first such case).
The Evaluation Process
The MMWG uses the following
three-tier, six-step process in making
its evaluations:
1. Tier I: The applicant must submit
a literature search report to the
MMWG for comment and identi-
fication of data gaps of significant
concern to one or more MMWG
members.
2. Tier II: Based on MMWG com-
ments, the applicant must develop
and execute experimental designs
to fill those data gaps.
3. Tier III: The applicant must pre-
pare a comprehensive risk assess-
ment evaluation of the proposed
fuel, based on data from both the
Tier I literature search and the Tier
II experiments.
4. The MMWG prepares recom-
mendations based on the Tier III
report.
5. The MMWG recommendations
are subjected to an external peer
review.
6. For a final determination the
MMWG submits their recommen-
dations and the peer review com-
ments to the Environmental Policy
Council, which consists of the Sec-
retary for Environmental Protec-
tion and the Chairpersons of all
member boards, directorates, and
offices represented in the MMWG.
The MMWG provides con-
tinuous feedback to the applicant
throughout the process. At each step
the MMWG meets with the applicant
to discuss issues and provide writ-
ten comments on the adequacy of the
applicant's approach, methodology,
and data.
Fuels currently undergoing
review and in the pipeline for review
include biodiesel, butanol, E10, E85,
and LNG/CNG, as well as several
diesel additives. The process is still
evolving; however, the typical review
time line is two to three years. The
biodiesel evaluation, for example,
is near the midpoint of Tier II; some
aquatic toxicity tests are underway,
and the air-emissions testing is near-
ing completion. The completed lit-
erature search on biodiesel's adverse
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
impacts, California Biodiesel Multime-
dia Evaluation Tier I, January 16, 2009
Report, may be downloaded as a PDF
file at http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/mul-
timedia/multimedia.htm.
In the next issue of LUSTLine, I
will discuss the testing (experimental
plan) to which biodiesel is being sub-
jected. Biodiesel is the furthest along
of all the applicants and the candi-
date fuel that poses the most elabo-
rate challenges to the process and to
the experimental plan research.
For further detail on California's
multimedia process, timeline, and
fuels being evaluated, download an
excellent presentation at www.arb.
ca.gov/diesel/verdev/wn/asideco.pdf.
Can We Afford Not to
Do This?
Increasing numbers of new low-car-
bon and reduced-emission motor-
vehicle fuels and additives are being
developed and introduced that must
meet ever-stricter air-emission stan-
dards. Yet without a comprehensive
risk assessment of these new fuels
before their commercial introduction,
the chances of repeating another MtBE
debacle increase. Can we really afford
not to conduct a multimedia envi-
ronmental risk assessment of all fuels
before they are introduced into the
environment and stored in USTs? •
Robert Hodam is a chemical engineer
with the UST Section of the California
Water Resources Control Board. He is
currently responsible for alternative
fuels issues and represents the board
on the CalLPA Multimedia Working
Group. He can be reached at
rhodam @waterb oards.ca. gov.
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Biofuels
Anticipating Environmental Impacts of Future Fuels
by Jim Weaver
Automotive fuels are composed of
hundreds of compounds and the
formulations aren't uniform;
they vary geographically and seasonally
and sometimes specifically in response
to regulatory requirements. As a result,
very few state underground storage tank
(UST) regulators know what is in the
fuel stream at a service station or bulk
plant in their state. Consequently, dif-
ficulties abound in anticipating which
compounds to sample, choosing ana-
lytical methods, and eventually select-
ing technologies for effective remediation
in the case of a release. We face the new
challenge of determining the correct
approach to protecting human health and
the environment that includes prioritiza-
tion of chemicals based on toxicity,fate,
and transport in the subsurface. This
article touches on some basic new fuel-
related concerns in leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) site assessment and
remediation, particularly those associ-
ated with ethanol in gasoline.
Multicomponent Compounds
For the most part, our liquid fuels
are multicomponent mixtures that
can include hundreds of compounds.
Some are natural components of
crude oil, some are produced from
the crude during refining, and some
are introduced as additives. On the
petroleum supply side, there are
numerous benefits from this situ-
ation—the availability of variable
sources of crude oil, the ability to
make adjustments with respect to
engine performance under vary-
ing operating conditions, and the
flexibility to boost octane ratings to
match modern engine requirements,
to name a few.
On the regulatory side, we are
concerned with how the components
of these fuels enter the environment
and behave when there is a release
from the fuel-storage system. Once
released into the environment, fuel
constituents partition into different
environmental compartments—air,
water, and soil. We can predict some
behavior of a multicomponent fuel,
based on its chemical properties
and our knowledge of how much of
each is present. We have learned a
lot about how fuels interact with the
environment over the last 30 years,
but this knowledge has limits. In
addition to the examples mentioned
above, ethanol has shown some char-
acteristics that were predicted and
others that were not.
What Determines Fuel
Behavior in the Subsurface?
The major properties that influence
fuel-component behavior are solubil-
ity, volatility, sorptivity, and biode-
gradability. Along with the amount
of each chemical present in the fuel,
these properties determine how the
chemical interacts with the envi-
ronment, including its persistence.
As such, the properties can act as a
screen for behavior.
For example, if the solubility
of a compound is low, so that it is
immiscible (i.e., cannot be mixed
or blended) with water, there is
a major distinction in its behav-
ior. The chemical forms a separate
phase from water that persists in the
environment. This phase forms our
familiar light nonaqueous-phase
liquid (LNAPL), a characteristic of
petroleum contamination from leak-
ing UST systems.
Recent recognition of lead scav-
engers such as ethylene dibromide
(EDB) as persistent pollutants illus-
trates this point. EDB is immiscible
with water and has physical-chemi-
cal properties that are roughly simi-
lar to benzene. Thus it partitions
from gasoline much like benzene,
another water-immiscible chemical.
EDB differs from benzene because
of its biotransformation pathway. In
essence, the bromium in the com-
pound causes it to degrade under
reductive conditions, as opposed to
the oxidative conditions required for
benzene. Much of this can be pre-
dicted in a general way. Specific field
and laboratory studies are needed,
however, to determine the rates of
transformation and the potential for
widespread plume persistence.
Likewise, our historic interest in
BTEX contamination arises because
benzene is a carcinogen. BTEX has a
relatively high water solubility and
volatility and is present in a signifi-
cant amount in gasoline. Biodegra-
dation, in many cases, reduces its
extent, but the combination of these
factors: water immiscibility, solubility,
• continued on page 6
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 • May 2009
• Environmental Impacts
from page 5
presence in fuel, and toxicity make it
a candidate for our concern.
In these examples the com-
pounds are all immiscible with water
and, therefore, contribute in a simi-
lar way to the separate phase NAPL
(gasoline). In contrast compounds
such as ethanol, that are miscible
(i.e., can mix) with water, interrupt
this paradigm and force us to con-
sider phase separation and its impact
on releases.
So, What About Those
Alcohols?
Based on our knowledge, it was
anticipated that the approximately
10 percent ethanol in E10 gasoline
could cause BTEX plumes to extend
farther out as microorganisms pref-
erentially chowed down on the etha-
nol and ignored the BTEX. In essence
we have one component interfer-
ing with our expected behavior of
another. Our previous focus on indi-
vidual components of fuel did not,
however, provide all the information
needed to assess the impacts from
the newly added ethanol. Ultimately
our understanding of this behavior
required modeling and laboratory
and field studies.
At high concentration, ethanol,
in particular, causes a qualitative
change in the behavior of a fuel. Field
studies are beginning to show that
the aqueous/ethanol phase associ-
ated with an E95 spill hangs around
in the vadose zone. Groundwater
impacts, when they appear, are hap-
pening months or years after the
release. Some of this behavior may
be predictable from knowledge of the
composition and the chemical prop-
erties. But would this entire scenario
have been anticipated? Likely not.
So how would these scenarios
change if we switched from ethanol
to propanol or butanol? There are
published phase-separation data for
gasoline containing propanol and
butanol. So far so good. Those data
show that the alcohol tends to remain
held in the phase-separated organic
phase rather than the water, as does
ethanol. From available information,
can we predict the impact on vadose-
zone transport, materials compatibil-
ity, vapor releases, effectiveness of
remedial technologies, and biotrans-
formation pathways and rates?
Our 30 years of experience in
dealing with these problems gives
us some ability to predict some of
the behavior of new fuels, but there
are properties that aren't predictable,
such as the biodegradation rates in
groundwater. This means that as a
regulatory and scientific community
we need to take a proactive look at
the coming composition of fuels and
their potential impacts. This work is
partially underway in various places.
Some states are looking more closely
at their gasoline supply as is the
USEPA. (See USEPA's ongoing gaso-
line composition study at: http://www.
epa.gov/athens/research/regsupport/gas-
oline.html). Transport and transfor-
mation studies are being supported
by USEPA, the American Petroleum
Institute (API), and some states, and
are being conducted by USEPA ORD
and universities. Take home mes-
sage? As fuel compositions continue
to change in the coming years, we
need to be moving quickly to supply
the needed and unpredicted scien-
tific information. •
Jim Weaver, Ph.D., is a hydrologist
with USEPA's Office of Research and
Development. He can be reached at
weaver, jim @epa.gov.
This paper has been reviewed in accor-
dance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's peer and adminis-
trative review policies and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Biofuels
Fuels of the Future Are Here Today and, Again, We're
Not Ready—A Petroleum Equipment Perspective
by Robert Renkes
Year after year, decade after
decade, legislators and regula-
tors pass new laws and regu-
lations that impact the petroleum
marketing equipment industry. The
trouble is, they seldom tell us what
they have in mind until the very last
minute. But that's okay, we in the
petroleum equipment industry are
used to it.
Go back with me and think about
what we have experienced over the
last two generations. Fuel with lead.
Unleaded fuel. Half-pricing. Pricing
over $1 a gallon. Vapor recovery. Pric-
ing over $2 a gallon. Metrification.
Demetrification. Unattended fueling
open to the public. Gasohol. Refor-
mulated fuels. Underground storage
tank regulation. Aboveground storage
tanks at retail sites. Pricing over $3 per
gallon. Gasoline with MtBE. Onboard
canisters. Low-sulfur diesel. Ultra-low
sulfur diesel. Back to ethanol. Biodie-
sel. E85. Enhanced vapor recovery.
Pricing over $4 a gallon. Renewable
fuel mandates. Diesel-exhaust fluid.
Except for the unattended fueling,
most of this stuff was not the equip-
ment industry's idea!
Now we are on the verge of add-
ing more stuff to the fuel. It looks cer-
tain that E10 will turn into E12 or E15
or something else. Biodiesel B3 turns
into B5 and now we are looking at
BIO, B15, B20, or better. One problem
solved, another problem, perhaps,
created.
Sometimes political and regu-
latory decision makers think to ask
folks in the petroleum equipment
industry whether or not their prod-
ucts can store, meter, and/or dis-
pense these fuels before they are
introduced in the market. But most
of the time these questions are not
asked. For instance, USEPA's E15
waiver decision cannot include con-
sideration of equipment compat-
ibility, although they say they are
allowed to think about it. (See "The
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
Tangled Web of New Fuel Mandates"
on page 2). But usually it really
doesn't matter because the legislators
or regulators are calling the shots. We
can take some solace that we aren't
alone; not many people ask weight
and measures, listing agencies, work
groups, product producers, or state
regulators what they think either.
So that's the nature of the beast.
We do the best we can and move on.
We still don't have a listed E85 dis-
penser, but we dispense E85 anyway,
and one day we'll have a standard.
We'll make some mistakes along the
way, but that's not (hopefully) fatal.
We aren't ready with listed equip-
ment for E12 or E15, but we will be
someday. Same thing with biodiesel;
we don't know all we should about
biodiesel, but we're learning.
Not everything comes tied up
in a nice, neat package. Fuels of the
future, like so many other things in
our industry, will be upon us before
we are ready for them. But that's okay,
it's simply the way it is. We're used to
it. We'll catch up. We'll get there.
In the meantime, as the industry
experiments with these new fuels in
the field, we need to keep an extra-
close eye on things. We will get
things right sooner or later, learning
some lessons the hard way as we
travel that path, but we'll get there.
Like I said, it's the best we can do. •
Robert N. Renkes is Executive Vice
President with the Petroleum
Equipment Institute (PEI). He can be
reached at rrenkes@pei.org.
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Biofuels
New-Fuels Challenges for Petroleum Marketers
by Brian T. Knapp
As our government attempts
to wean the country off tra-
ditional sources of energy
in favor of renewable sources, it is
necessary to consider the potential
effects of this transition on our exist-
ing infrastructure. Just as vehicle
technology will need to be updated
to run on different fuel sources, the
retail motor-fuel infrastructure may
also need to be updated to safely pro-
vide the new fuels to these vehicles.
Unfortunately, replacing a fuel
that has served as the backbone of
the American economy for over 100
years will not be easy. Infrastructure
has been developed and engineered
to near-perfection for use with two
particular fuels (gasoline and diesel),
and determining this infrastructure's
compatibility with a new fuel is not
something that can happen over-
night. In fact, most if not all of this
infrastructure has been redesigned
many times over to be consistent
with exacting codes and regulations
in the interests of public safety and
groundwater protection. Significant
work is required to ensure that new
fuels can be stored and dispensed
with the same level of protections as
are gasoline and diesel today.
In 2005 and 2007, energy bills
were signed into law mandating that
increasing volumes of ethanol and
biodiesel be part of the U.S. transpor-
tation fuel supply. The 2007 energy
bill, the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA), mandated that
the country use 36 billion gallons of
renewable fuels by 2022. Corn-based
ethanol may be used to make up 15
billion gallons of this requirement, 21
billion gallons must come from non-
corn-based ethanol, and the remain-
ing one billion gallons must come
from bio-based diesel.
Thus, in the not-so-distant
future, we expect to see more types
of transportation fuels, including
those derived from non-ethanol
sources, entering the marketplace as
replacements for fossil fuels. As that
happens, the most likely future sce-
nario involves the establishment of
retail transportation fuel stations that
dispense numerous different types of
fuel. Some of these fuels are already
in the proverbial pipeline and have
been anticipated by manufactur-
ers of retail petroleum equipment.
Others are still in the development
stages, rendering it impossible at this
point for manufacturers to accurately
anticipate future needs.
Take Ethanol, for Example
Currently, in the U.S., no gasoline
mixed with more than 10 percent
ethanol can be dispensed to a non-
flex-fuel vehicle, in accordance with
Clean Air Act restrictions, because
emission-control devices on these
vehicles were designed to handle
only up to 10 percent ethanol fuel
blends. Additionally, a complete
fuel-dispensing system listed for use
with fuel containing ethanol at lev-
els greater than 10 percent does not
currently exist. This is potentially
problematic because the U.S. Occu-
pational Health and Safety Admin-
istration (OSHA) requires that all
equipment used to dispense flam-
mable liquids, including gasoline, be
listed by a nationally recognized test-
ing laboratory, such as Underwriters
Laboratories (UL).
To meet the EISA renewable-
fuel mandate, ethanol will have to
surpass 10 percent of every gallon
of gasoline dispensed. Therefore,
either non-flex-fuel vehicles must
be allowed to use greater than 10
percent ethanol or flex-fuel vehicles
must make up a much greater per-
centage of the nation's vehicle fleet.
If either of these scenarios does not
happen to the extent necessary, there
will be a greater supply of ethanol
than can be accommodated by the
gasoline market, which is colloqui-
ally called the E10 blend wall.
The mandates in EISA for non-
corn-based ethanol will be met pri-
marily with cellulosic ethanol, which
is, from a storage and dispensing
infrastructure perspective, the same
as corn-based ethanol, except derived
from a different source. These man-
dates call for 100 million gallons of
cellulosic ethanol to be produced by
the end of 2010. However, increas-
ing production of cellulosic ethanol
coming to market will only serve to
hasten our encounter with the blend
• continued on page 8
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 • May 2009
• New-Fuel Challenges
from page 7
wall and bolster the need for ethanol
blends greater than E10.
Ethanol producers are well aware
of the impending E10 blend wall and
have recently submitted a request to
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) to waive the restric-
tion on distributing ethanol blends
greater than E10 to allow up to E15
(gasoline mixed with up to 15 percent
ethanol) with non-flex-fuel vehicles.
This waiver would push the ethanol
blend wall a few years further into
the future but would not eliminate
the problem.
Impacts on the Motor-Vehicle
Fuel-Storage Infrastructure
Often left out of these discussions are
the impacts to the fuel-storage infra-
structure that result from storing and
dispensing ethanol-blended gasoline
at levels greater than E10. Extensive
testing has been done to show ElO's
compatibility with existing infra-
structure, but similar testing has not
yet been done for levels above E10.
Therefore, the potential infrastruc-
ture issue that begins to emerge is a
mandate to dispense a certain biofuel
while being uncertain about whether
our existing infrastructure can store
or dispense this fuel safely and in
compliance with applicable federal
and state rules.
Owners and operators of motor-
fuel retail stations are on the front
lines of this fuel conversion and must
have the appropriate storage systems
for the fuels they need to dispense.
According to USEPA regulations,
USTs and connected underground
piping must be compatible with the
liquid being stored.
Some states choose to enforce
compatibility by requiring a list-
ing for the tank and piping from a
nationally recognized testing labo-
ratory. Other states require that a
manufacturer's warranty or certifica-
tion accompany the UST and piping
system, certifying compatibility with
the substance stored. Nonetheless,
storing fuels in UST systems that
are not compatible with the fuel is
a potential violation of federal rules
and could lead to product releases.
Proponents of increased levels of
ethanol in gasoline might argue that
tanks and piping compatible with
8
all levels of ethanol up to 100 per-
cent are currently available. While
that may or may not be true, there
is still the fundamental question of
whether new fuels are compatible
with the tank and piping infrastruc-
ture in the ground now. USTs can be
over 30 years old and still function
effectively. But when that 30-year-old
tank was manufactured, it is unlikely
that the manufacturer anticipated its
use with any level of ethanol over 10
percent. Most USTs manufactured
even 20 years ago were only made to
accommodate up to 10 percent etha-
nol in the gasoline. These tanks are
ubiquitous in our existing UST infra-
structure and may pose a problem
when it comes to storing higher per-
centages of ethanol in gasoline.
The potential infrastructure issue
that hegins to emerge is a mandate
to dispense a certain biofuel while
being uncertain about whether our
existing infrastructure can store
or dispense this fuel safely and
in compliance with applicable
federal and state rules.
And What About Leak
Detection?
Existing leak-detection methods for
UST systems may also prove a chal-
lenging obstacle to reconcile with
increased ethanol blends, largely
because ethanol blends behave very
differently in the presence of water
than traditional gasoline. With E10
blends, phase separation occurs with
0.5 percent water, allowing a signifi-
cant ingress of water to be detected
relatively quickly. A slow leak of
water into the tank, however, can
be absorbed into the gasoline. With
higher levels of ethanol, increas-
ing quantities of water are required
to induce phase separation, which
appears to challenge the ability of
existing automatic tank gauges (ATG)
to detect water in short time frames.
With E85 especially, concentrations
of water can reach approximately 15
percent of the product volume before
phase separation occurs, rendering
the water-detection abilities of an
ATG in these circumstances useless.
[In the next issue of LUSTLine we
will cover this issue in more detail.
Also, see LUSTLine #58: FAQs from
the NWGLDE, "ATG Probe Perfor-
mance with Ethanol Fuels."]
Stakeholders Join Forces to
Find Solutions
The bottom line of this discussion
is that the biofuel mandates in EISA
may implicitly call for an infrastruc-
ture overhaul in order to store and
dispense the fuels. An UST-system
replacement is a very expensive pro-
cess many owners and operators can-
not afford to take on. Research efforts
are currently underway to determine
the viability of existing equipment
with regard to increased ethanol lev-
els. However, UL has stated they will
not retroactively certify products for
fuels that have not been tested and
certified.
In an effort to work through
all the issues discussed above, API
recently hosted a workshop attended
by federal and state government
agencies, national laboratories, code
and standard organizations, and
industry representatives. This work-
shop is the first of many meetings
between these stakeholder groups
as we work toward solutions agree-
able to all parties involved. The
relationships cultivated during this
workshop will serve an even greater
purpose in the future as new fuels
become reality. As companies evalu-
ate and invest in biobutanol, renew-
able diesel, and many other potential
transportation fuels, this exercise
with ethanol will surely not be the
last of this kind.
There are a variety of remedies
to the issues discussed above, but
none are quick and certainly none
are cheap. We must promote the use
of sound science and good engineer-
ing principles to determine how to
proceed without creating issues for
consumers or the environment. A
presumption that existing equipment
will not be compatible with blends
over 10 percent would indeed be pre-
mature, as would a presumption that
existing equipment will be compat-
ible with increased ethanol blends. •
Brian T. Knapp is the Marketing Policy
Advisor with the American Petro-
leum Institute. He can be reached at
:,org.
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
UST/LUST Stakeholders Weigh In on Biofuels
State UST/LUST Program New-Fuel Dilemmas
by Patricia Ellis
We can't take a narrow
approach to regulating gas-
oline composition, looking
only at air issues. A narrow approach
to regulating gasoline composition
doesn't take into account any other
factors, such as compatibility with
gasoline dispensing and storage
equipment, compatibility with small
engines, the possibility that auto-
mobile warranties may be voided,
and environmental issues related to
releases of higher concentrations of
ethanol in gasoline. Beyond these
industry concerns are issues with
sustainability of production, green-
house gases, carbon footprints, water
demands, nutrient demands, and the
food-versus-fuel issue. But, for the
purposes of this discussion, let's stick
to the narrower issues relating to the
tank program.
Federal regulations state that the
UST system must be made of or lined
with materials that are compatible
with the substance stored, and that
tanks and pipes must be properly
designed and constructed in accor-
dance with a code of practice devel-
oped by a nationally recognized
association or independent testing
laboratory (e.g., Underwriters Labo-
ratories, ASTM, NACE). In addition,
owners and operators must install,
operate, and maintain all equipment
such that manufacturer's warranties
are not voided.
If you void the warranty on any
portion of a tank system, I think you
can be fairly certain that your insur-
ance company will deny any claims.
This might shift cleanup costs to
state cleanup programs, which are
used to meet financial responsibil-
ity requirements in lieu of insurance
policies. Many of these programs
can't or won't pay if you are out of
compliance with regulations. Void-
ing the warranty on a tank system
due to storage of product that is not
listed as compatible would be a com-
pliance violation.
It would be years before all of
the equipment at gasoline stations is
replaced by equipment that carries a
warranty for higher concentrations of
ethanol. And even if automobile man-
ufacturers would be willing to extend
warranties for higher ethanol concen-
trations for newer vehicles, there will
still be older vehicles that shouldn't
run on higher concentrations and
small engines and boats that would
need E10 or less, so facilities need to
be able to meet that demand as well.
Retailers are not going to want to
spend the money to upgrade their
facilities to be compatible with higher
concentrations of ethanol unless they
are confident that the demand for
the newer fuels is there. If people are
scared to put E15 in their cars because
of the potential for voiding the war-
ranty, they won't want to buy it.
If You Build It, Will They
Come?
We have one E85 station in Dela-
ware. The tank installation was pri-
marily covered by a federal grant, so
the dealer didn't have a huge cash
outlay, but he hasn't managed to sell
3,000 gallons of E85 in the short time
that tank has been in service—less
than 100 gallons per month. He's not
a happy camper.
Beside the fact that higher etha-
nol blends may rot out or corrode
parts of the tank system, certain leak-
detection methods and tank-testing
methods may not work with higher
blends, due to the high conductivity
of ethanol. Several papers were pre-
sented at this year's Tanks Confer-
ence relating to leak detection and
tank-tightness testing as related to
alternative fuels.
Before any new fuel formula-
tions are considered, thorough stud-
ies should be conducted to determine
behavior of the fuel in the environ-
ment, because that is where the fuel
will end up when the tank system
leaks, or when there are transpor-
tation accidents, and so on. In this
issue of LUSTLine, we have primar-
ily discussed ethanol, but many of
the same ideas apply to the other
alternative fuels, such as biodiesel
and another potential biofuel, biobu-
tanol. We've got to have lead time to
get equipment certified and to allow
dealers a reasonable timeframe to get
the equipment installed.
On April 1, the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Clean Air and Nuclear
Safety held a hearing on "Over-
sight—The Environmental Protection
Agency's Renewable Fuel Standard."
Senator Thomas Carper, the Subcom-
mittee Chairman, stated in his open-
ing remarks: "In the new Renewable
Fuels Standard, we provide clear
directions to the EPA to make sure
environmental protections are
included—such as reducing our car-
bon footprint and moving away from
biofuel made from corn."
"Gasoline consumption is down
two million gallons per day," con-
tinues Carper. "As consumption
decreases, our biofuel standard
increases. Are we moving too fast
for our infrastructure and engines
to handle the biofuels safely? The
lack of capital has made it difficult
to make the investments needed for
a new second-generation biofuel
market. Will we be able to meet our
advanced biofuel marks in a capital-
starved world? And EPA has still not
proposed a rule on how to move for-
ward on the environmental protec-
tions we put in place in 2007. How
will that impact the market?"
Remember the 1998 deadlines?
Tank owners were given ten years to
get those old bare steel tanks out of
the ground and ten years to add spill
and overfill protection, and many of
them still didn't meet the deadlines.
Growth Energy, the group that sub-
mitted the E15 Waiver Application,
proposes immediately raising the
ethanol blend limit to 15 percent and
the introduction of E20 by 2015 and
E30 by 2019, if necessary, to comply
with the Renewable Fuels Standard. I
hate to tell them, but we're probably
going to need more time, because
testing hasn't been done to certify
equipment, and once certified, it will
take years to get it into the ground.
Until then, don't even think of stor-
ing it in our tanks! •
-------
A
President Obama Establishes a Biofuels Interagency
Working Group
On May 5, just as we were
wrapping up this series of
LUSTLine articles on alter-
native fuels, President Obama
announced steps he is taking "to sup-
port sustainable energy options." As
part of this announcement, he signed
a Presidential Directive establishing a
Biofuels Interagency Working Group
to be co-chaired by the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Energy and the
Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. This Working
Group will proceed in association
with the National Science and Tech-
nology Council's Biomass Research
and Development Board. The Work-
ing Group will:
• Develop the nation's first com-
prehensive biofuel market devel-
opment program, which will use
existing authorities and identify
new policies to support the devel-
opment of next-generation bio-
fuels, increase flex-fuel-vehicle
use, and assist in retail marketing
efforts;
Coordinate infrastructure poli-
cies impacting the supply, secure
transport, and distribution of bio-
fuels; and
Identify new policy options to
promote the environmental sus-
tainability of biofuels feedstock
production, taking into consider-
ation land use, habitat conserva-
tion, crop management practices,
water efficiency and water quality,
as well as lifecycle assessments of
greenhouse gas emissions.
In his directive, the President
called on Secretary of Agriculture
Tom Vilsack to immediately begin
restructuring existing investments
in renewable fuels as needed to pre-
serve industry employment; and
develop a comprehensive approach
to accelerating the investment in and
production of American biofuels and
reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels.
We can only hope that this
Working Group will take into con-
sideration the many logistical and
complex concerns discussed in this
issue of LUSTLine associated with
the introduction of new fuels into
our nation's motor-fuel-storage infra-
structure. •
From OUST
UST Program's 25th Anniversary
Booklet & 2008 Annual Report
The USEPA UST program's 25th anniversary
booklet, Underground Storage Tank Program:
25 Years of Protecting Our Land and Water
(EPA-510-B-09-001, March 2009) provides UST
stakeholders with information about the accomplish-
ments of the tanks program over the past quarter
century. This 20-page booklet celebrates the work
USEPA and its state, territorial, and tribal partners
have done to protect our environment from releases
at UST facilities, such as gas stations. The book-
let includes a program overview and presents five
experiences that describe how USEPA and its tank
partners are making a difference through conduct-
ing inspections; reusing abandoned gas stations;
adapting to new fuels; updating UST regulations;
and promoting green UST operations and cleanups.
The booklet is available at www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/
25annrpt.htm.
USEPA's UST program 2008 annual report,
FY 2008 Annual Report on the Underground Stor-
age Tank Program (EPA-510-R-09-001, March
2009), provides a snapshot of national UST program
activities during fiscal year 2008. This 7-page report
contains information on tank program highlights in
2008; advances in preventing releases; progress in
cleaning up leaks; efforts to enhance communication
and information sharing; and a look ahead for next
year and the future. The report is available at www.
epa.gov/oust/pubs/2008annrpt.htm. •
Robin Davis Receives the; Third Annual LUST
Poster Session Lifetime Achievement Award at the
National Tanks Conference in Sacramento, CA
Robin Davis, Utah DEQ LUST program, receives the 2009 LUST Poster Ses-
sion Lifetime Achievement Award. She is shown with Jim Weaver, USEPA ORD
(left), John Menatti, Utah DEQ, and John Wilson, USEPA ORD, who received the
award in 2007.
Robin Davis is a leader in efforts to better understand the risks associ-
ated with vapor intrusion at leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
sites. As a state regulator she has undertaken vapor intrusion field inves-
tigations, evaluated soil vapor data from sites nationwide, and worked to
develop screening criteria for vapors associated with dissolved petroleum
hydrocarbons. The Third Annual LUST Poster Session Lifetime Achieve-
ment Award was presented to Robin from her friends and colleagues
with thanks for her years of dedication and significant contributions to
the science of site assessment, risk evaluation, and vapor intrusion for
LUST sites. Previous award recipients include John Wilson, USEPA Kerr
Laboratory, and Bruce Bauman, American Petroleum Institute. •
10
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
Bioattenuation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Vapors in the Subsurface
Update on Recent Studies and Proposed Screening
Criteria for the Vapor-Intrusion Pathway
by Robin V. Davis
Subsurface sources of petroleum hydrocarbons emanating from leaking underground storage tank (LUST) systems typically
do not result in the intrusion of associated vapors into overlying buildings. However, under certain circumstances, this type
of vapor intrusion can occur. To better understand the conditions under which vapor intrusion may or may not occur, I have
compiled data from well-characterized sites and studied bioattenuation of petroleum hydrocarbon vapors in the subsurface. I got
started on this when regulators from USEPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and several state LUST programs
formed a Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Work Group that met from 2003 to 2005. Since then, I have independently expanded on the
findings I reported in LUSTLine #49 and #52. In this article, I summarize my findings and recommend screening criteria for both
vapor-phase and dissolve d-phase hydrocarbon contamination sources at well-characterized sites. I hope this will help my fellow
LUST project managers make decisions about when to investigate the vapor-intrusion pathway at sites with petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination.
Background
The objectives of the Petroleum
Vapor Intrusion Work Group were
to study the behavior of soil vapors
associated with subsurface petro-
leum sources, determine when the
vapor-intrusion pathway may be
complete, and develop petroleum-
specific criteria to screen out sites
where the pathway is not likely to be
complete. We amassed peer-reviewed
data from well-studied sites. As part
of this team, I constructed a database
that contained 29 benzene and 22
total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)
subsurface soil-vapor sample events
from 16 geographic locations in the
United States and Canada.
The work group determined that
more data were needed, and although
the group was dissolved in 2005,
I have continued to compile data
from additional published literature
and studies from contributing states.
My findings, which are presented in
this article, are my own, made inde-
pendently of USEPA and the State of
Utah, and based on my own analysis
of my larger 2009 database.
In the two LUSTLine articles
mentioned above, I reported on the
earlier database contents and some
key findings: (1) a few feet of clean
soil overlying contaminant sources
and an adequate subsurface oxygen
supply are critical for attenuating
petroleum vapors, and (2) a greater
than ten-fold attenuation of contami-
nant vapor concentration was typical
of sites with sufficient thickness of
clean overlying soil and oxygen lev-
els greater than four percent.
My expanded 2009 database
contains peer-reviewed data for 259
benzene and 210 TPH vapor-sample
events from 53 geographic locations
in the United States and Canada. This
database contains site-specific infor-
mation including soil type, depth to
groundwater, presence of free prod-
uct, and concentrations of benzene
and TPH in both the dissolved phase
and the soil-vapor phase. This data-
base reveals more definitive screen-
ing criteria for subsurface soil-vapor
hydrocarbons and for hydrocarbon
contaminants dissolved in ground-
water.
• continued on page 12
Figure 1:
Soil Vapor Profile Showing Signature
Characteristics of Aerobic Biodegradation
Beaufort, SC NJ-VW2
(Lahvis,etal.,1999)
0 5
0
02&C02(%V/V)
10 15
15
1.E+00
1.E+02
1.E+04
Benzene (ug/m3)
1.E+06
1.E+08
11
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 • May 2009
• Vapor-lntrustion Pathway
Screening from page 11
Causes of Vapor Intrusion by
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Vapor intrusion from subsurface
petroleum sources occurs when free-
phase product or very high dissolved
sources (i.e., much greater than 1,000
fig/L benzene and 10,000 ]Ug/LTPH)
are in direct contact with, or very
near, building foundations. The thou-
sands of petroleum-contaminated
sites that I and fellow project man-
agers throughout the nation have
supervised prove this fact, not to
mention at least one published study
(Sanders and Hers, 2006). There are
no reported or published cases where
vapor intrusion has occurred at low-
dissolved sources (< 1,000 jUg/L ben-
zene; < 10,000 ]Ug/LTPH) when clean
soil and oxygen are present between
the source and the receptor.
Bioattenuation of Subsurface
Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Vapors
Bacteria capable of degrading petro-
leum hydrocarbons are everywhere
in the environment (USEPA, 1999),
and a century of research and pub-
lished studies shows that the subsur-
face is a highly efficient bioreactor
that is capable of biodegrading petro-
leum sources, given adequate clean
soil, moisture, and oxygen.
Aerobic biodegradation of
petroleum hydrocarbon vapors is
recognizable by the signature char-
acteristics shown in Figure 1, where
vapor concentrations are high near
the source of contamination, accom-
panied by oxygen depletion and car-
bon-dioxide enrichment. Above the
contaminated zone, oxygen and car-
bon dioxide rebound to near-atmo-
spheric conditions. This example
shows that benzene vapors associ-
ated with very high dissolved-con-
taminant concentrations, or "source
strength," (benzene in groundwater
16,000 |Ug/L) are attenuated by a fac-
tor of about one million with seven
feet of clean overlying soil.
Subsurface Attenuation
Factors: Screening Criteria
for Petroleum Vapors
The work group found that the mag-
nitude of contaminant concentration
reduction could be expressed as a
subsurface vapor-attenuation factor
12
(AF), which is simply the ratio of the
shallow subsurface soil-vapor con-
centration divided by the deep-soil
vapor concentration. Low AFs equate
to significant attenuation. In LUST-
Line #49 and #52,1 reported that sig-
nificant attenuation is represented by
AFs between <0.05 and <0.1.
My larger 2009 database shows
the same trend as my earlier analyses
(>0.1 represents insignificant AFs),
but I now have a much clearer under-
standing of what this distribution of
AFs means. Figure 2 shows the dis-
tribution of the magnitude of subsur-
face attenuation of benzene and TPH
vapors from data in my 2009 data-
base. This distribution shows that
insignificant AFs >0.1 constitute the
majority of events and that a nearly
equal number of events exhibit sig-
nificant attenuation with AFs <0.01.
To better understand why so
many events exhibit insignificant
AFs, I studied the data from each
event line-by-line and depth-by-
depth. My findings, shown in Figure
3, indicate three reasons for insignifi-
cant AFs: (1) insufficient clean soil,
(2) low source strength, and (3) rapid
attenuation near the source. My anal-
ysis of the data also show that high
AFs do not necessarily mean that
vapors are not attenuating.
Figure 2:
Magnitude of Subsurface Soil Vapor Attenuation
Benzene
DTPH
100
80,
60
E
TO
CO
^
o
a.
>
= 40!
CO
o
CD
.Q
20
3 Reasons for
Insignificant AFs
1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03
Subsurface Vapor Attenuation Factors
<1.E-04
Figured:
Sample Events from Figure 2 with AFs >0.1
Showing Three Reasons for Insignificant Attenuation
Benzene
DTPH
TO
CO
I
5
'o
CO
•5
CD
.Q
Reason 1: No Clean
Overlying Soil
Reason 2: Low
Source Strength
Reason 3: Rapid
Attenuation Near Source
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
Conditions characteristic of rea-
son #1 should definitely be known at
the earliest stages of site investigation
and characterization, and cleanup or
mitigation should generally be the
first course of action. As for reason
#2 (and the primary reason why I
am writing this article), many vapor-
intrusion investigations have taken
place at sites where source strengths
are so low that vapors are barely
detectable, much less a potential
vapor-intrusion problem. Reason #3
sites are generally characterized by
very high dissolved-contaminant
concentrations and should therefore
be subject to vapor-intrusion investi-
gations as a matter of course.
Figure 4 shows the distribution
of vapor-sample events that exhibit
significant attenuation. The cases are
characterized by the presence of suf-
ficient thickness of clean overlying
soil. While most of the sites exhibit
AFs greater than 10,000-fold contam-
inant reduction (AF<1E-04), 100-fold
attenuation is a safe and reasonable
assumption and in my opinion, a rea-
sonable screening criterion to apply
to subsurface petroleum vapors, and
an accurate but conservative repre-
sentation of subsurface bioattenua-
tion of soil vapors.
Screening Criteria for
Dissolved Petroleum Sources
My 2009 database contains a subset
of 127 events where dissolved- and
vapor-phase benzene and TPH were
measured at about the same location
at about the same time. I performed a
line-by-line evaluation of this subset
Figure 5: Thickness of Clean Overlying Soil Required to Attenuate Benzene
Soil Vapors Associated with Various Dissolved Source Strengths (all soil types)
Benzene: Soil Vapor & Dissolved Paired Measurements
I
20
15
Five feet of clean overlying
soil attenuates vapors
associated with benzene
1,OOOug/L
* *
100 1,000
Benzene in Groundwater, ug/L
10,000
100,000
to determine how much clean soil is
required to attenuate vapors associ-
ated with various dissolved-source
strengths and in different soil types.
My review followed strict evaluation
criteria: (1) dissolved sources only
with no known vadose-zone contam-
ination, and (2) subsurface vapors
attenuate completely.
Figures 5 and 6 are plots of ben-
zene and TPH data for all soil types.
Figure 5 shows that although five
feet of clean overlying soil attenuates
vapors associated with dissolved
benzene sources up to approximately
6,000 |Ug/L, a more cautious screen-
ing criterion to use would be 1,000
Figure 4:
Distribution of Significant Attenuation
Benzene
DTPH
E
TO
CO
o
CO
1.E-02 1.E-03 <1.E-04
Subsurface Vapor Attenuation Factors
as the maximum concentra-
tion. Figure 6 shows that about five
feet of clean overlying soil attenuates
vapors associated with dissolved
TPH sources up to approximately
10,000 ng/ L.
Due to space constraints in this
article, I cannot show my data anal-
ysis according to soil type, but I did
categorize and analyze these data
according to their respective soil
types. The data show that for ben-
zene, five feet of clean sand/gravel;
fine sand/silty sand/silt; and silty
clay/clay attenuate vapors associ-
ated with 6,000 ng/L; 3,000 ug/L;
and 2,000 ug/L, respectively. TPH
data show a similar trend of vapor
attenuation according to soil type,
where 10,000 jUg/L TPH is a conser-
vative maximum concentration in a
silty clay/clay soil type.
Figures 5 and 6 show some
interesting features where many
paired measurements line up along
the 5,000 to 7,000 ng/L benzene con-
centration and the 70,000 ug/L TPH
concentration. My database shows
that these are measurements from
sites dominated by silty clay/clay,
soil types that are likely to have thick
zones of soil contamination near the
water table. These zones are com-
monly referred to as "smear-zone
soils" and should be identified and
characterized during initial, routine
site investigations.
• continued on page 14
13
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 • May 2009
Figure 6: Thickness of Clean Overlying Soil Required to Attenuate
TPH Soil Vapors Associated with Various Dissolved Source Strengths
I TPH: Soil Vapor & Dissolved Paired Measurements
30
s
•a
ii
ra
=
25-
20-
15
_>.
Q) rf
s«
c 5
TO 3
» S 10
o g
•s <
•s
i£
ll
43 Benzene Events from Six Free Product Sites
• Vapor-lntrustion Pathway
Screening from page 13
Smear-zone soils can be notori-
ous for releasing high dissolved-con-
taminant concentrations, depending
on the relative position of the ground-
water level. Therefore, regardless of
soil type, the data indicate that five
feet of any type of clean soil attenu-
ates vapors associated with dissolved
concentrations of 1,000 jiig/L benzene
and 10,000 fig/LTPH.
Figure 7 shows data from 43
benzene events where free product
is reported. The data indicate that
14
vapors associated with free product
are fully attenuated with approxi-
mately 30 feet of clean overlying soil.
Absent emergency conditions
such as reports of petroleum odors
in buildings that must be abated and
mitigated, I propose the following
methods for evaluating sites to deter-
mine if vapor-intrusion investiga-
tions are necessary:
• Fully characterize sites by deter-
mining the full extent and degree
of contamination.
• Fully characterize and understand
dissolved-contaminant concentra-
tions and presence of free product
in response to temporal fluctua-
tions of depth to ground water.
• If five feet of clean soil consistently
overlie dissolved sources where
benzene is <1,000 ug/L and TPH
is <10,000 fig/L, a vapor-intrusion
investigation is not necessary.
• If 30 feet of clean soil overlie free-
product sources, a vapor-intrusion
investigation is not necessary.
In my opinion, these are reason-
able methods and criteria to use to
screen out sites with groundwater
contaminated by petroleum hydro-
carbons in the assessment of the
vapor-intrusion pathway.
I Hope This Helps
A hard look at the data in my 2009
database has helped me better man-
age my petroleum cases by ensuring
that vapor-intrusion investigations
take place where they need to—at
sites with free-phase petroleum
and high-dissolved sources in close
proximity to buildings. I hope this
information helps others who are
developing or rethinking their
screening criteria for the vapor-intru-
sion pathway. •
Robin Davis is Project Manager for the
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Leaking Underground Storage
Tank program. She specializes in fate
and transport of petroleum hydrocar-
bons and data acquisition and analysis,
most recently for the vapor-intru-
sion exposure pathway. Robin can be
reached at rvdavis@utah.gov.
Disclaimer: Any opinion expressed herein is
that of the author and does not represent the
State of Utah, USEPA, or the authors cited.
References:
Davis, R., 2005, Making sense of subsurface vapor
attenuation in petroleum hydrocarbon sources.
LUSTLine Bulletin 49, March 2005.
Davis, R., 2006, Vapor attenuation in the subsurface
from petroleum hydrocarbon sources. LUSTLine
Bulletin 52, May 2006.
Lahvis, M. A., A. L. Baehr, and R. J. Baker, 1999, Quan-
tification of aerobic biodegradation and volatiliza-
tion rates of gasoline hydrocarbons near the water
table under natural attenuation conditions, Water
Resources Research, 35, No. 3, 753-765.
Sanders, P.P. and I. Hers. 2006. Vapor intrusion in
homes over gasoline-contaminated ground water
in Stafford, New Jersey. Ground Water Monitoring &
Remediation, 26(1): p. 63-72.
USEPA. 1999. Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons. U.S. EPA Remedial Tech-
nology Fact Sheet, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Washington D.C. EPA/600/F-98/021. May
1999.
-------
-jnically Speaking
by Marcel Moreau
Marcel Moreau is a nationally
recognized petroleum storage specialist
whose column, Tank-nically Speaking,
is a regular feature o/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@j uno.com.
A for the
Part 2 -
UST Ancillary Equipment
Jn LUSTLine #60,1 began a review of Tank and Piping
Technology for today's new generation of tank workers and
inspectors in order to give them a sense of where we are and
how far we have come with regard to tank-related technology. This
discussion may also be of interest to experienced tank folk who may
have thoughts or comments they would like to share. So now, in
Part 2, let's take a look at the other ancillary stuff (pumping and
dispensing systems, fill pipes, and vapor and vent piping) that is
so much a part of the life and times ofUST-dom.
Galvanized-pipe installation from days of yore.
Pumping and Dispensing
Systems
In the very early years of under-
ground petroleum storage, fuel was
moved from the tank to the fuel dis-
penser by means of a hand-operated
pump located in the base of the dis-
penser. Fuel was drawn out of the
tank via suction, much the same way
as a drink is sipped through a straw,
and the pump was known as a suc-
tion pump. Hand pumps were later
replaced by electrically operated
pumps, but the principle of opera-
tion and the location of the pump at
the bottom of the dispenser did not
change for several decades.
Beginning in the mid-1950s a
new type of pump was introduced
whereby the pump mechanism was
located near the bottom of the under-
ground tank and thus submerged in
the fuel. This type of pump pushes the
fuel under a pressure of approximately
30 pounds per square inch through the
piping and is variously known as a
pressure pump, turbine pump, or STP
(submerged turbine pump). This type
of pumping system is the predominant
pumping method utilized at today's
retail motor-fuel locations.
Leaks from suction-pumping
systems are often self-limiting. If
the piping is not tight, the prob-
lem is generally noticed because
air is drawn into the piping and
the pump functions erratically. The
advent of the submersible pump
however, changed this picture dra-
matically. With the pump inside the
tank instead of inside the dispenser,
and the piping operating under posi-
tive rather than negative pressure,
even large leaks in the piping did not
affect the operation of the dispensing
system. To this day, leaks in pressur-
ized pumping systems account for
the great majority of substantial sub-
surface product releases.
The Fill Pipe
The fill pipe is a vertical length of
steel pipe, typically four inches in
diameter, that is screwed into a fit-
ting at the top of the tank, extend-
ing upward to just below the ground
surface. The top end of the pipe is fit-
ted with a special adapter that mates
with a special fitting that is carried
on delivery trucks so delivery per-
sonnel can quickly and easily clamp
the delivery hose to the fill pipe.
In most of today's gasoline USTs,
a drop tube is inserted inside the fill
pipe. The drop tube extends from
the top of the fill pipe to within six
inches or so of the bottom of the
tank. Delivering fuel through a drop
tube reduces the amount of vapors
that are generated inside the tank,
because the incoming fuel does not
free-fall and splash into the product
already in the tank. In addition, drop
tubes accelerate the flow of fuel into
the tank so that the delivery time is
shortened.
In today's storage systems, the
fill pipe is surrounded by a below-
grade container designed to be liq-
uid tight so it can capture leaks from
loose delivery fittings or any minor
spills that may occur when the deliv-
ery hose is detached. This container is
normally covered by a lid that protects
the top of the fill pipe and is designed
to prevent water from entering the
spill container. These spill containers
have been required for nearly all oper-
ating storage systems since December
1998, but they are a relatively recent
addition to storage tanks, having been
first introduced in the mid-1980s.
• continued on page 16
15
-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 61 'May 2009
m Tank-nically Speaking
from page 15
Fill pipes themselves are not
often a source of releases, but loose
delivery fittings and the delivery
process, especially the frequent dis-
connection of large cumbersome
delivery hoses that have been incom-
pletely drained, frequently result
in the spillage of small quantities of
fuel. If a spill-containment manhole
is not present, or if the spill-con-
tainment manhole leaks, this fuel is
spilled into the soil surrounding the
fill pipe.
Due to miscalculations in order-
ing and mistakes in delivering fuel,
delivery drivers can sometimes bring
too much fuel to a site. This can
result in a situation where a tank is
overfilled, and anywhere from a few
gallons to a few hundred gallons can
be spilled onto the ground. During
the 1990s, overfill-prevention devices
were added to motor-fuel storage
systems to help reduce the frequency
of these incidents, but despite these
devices, overfill incidents resulting
in significant releases still occur. (See
"What Every Tank Owner Should
Know About Overfill Prevention,"
LUSTline #21, December 1994, for a
detailed discussion of the workings
of overfill-prevention devices.)
Vapor and Vent Piping
In areas of the country that suffer
from air pollution, measures are
taken to prevent the escape of gaso-
line vapors to the atmosphere. Gaso-
line vapor-control systems originated
in California in the 1970s and spread
to many other urban areas of the
United States during the 1980s and
1990s. These measures are commonly
referred to as Stage I and Stage II
vapor recovery. USEPA rules enacted
in January 2008 require more exten-
sive use of Stage I vapor recovery
to help reduce atmospheric concen-
trations of hazardous air pollutants
such as benzene.
Stage I Vapor Recovery
In Stage I vapor recovery (Figure 1),
two hoses are connected between
the tank truck and the UST in order
to accomplish the fuel delivery. Liq-
uid gasoline flows through one hose
from the truck to the underground
tank, while at the same time, vapors
present in the tank flow upward to
16
Figure 1: Diagram of Stage I Two-Point Vapor Recovery
Fuel •
Vapor
Fuel In
Figure 2: Diagram of Coaxial
Stage I Vapor Recovery
Vapor Hose
Coaxtal_
Drop Tube
4 to 6 Inches
1
the tanker truck. The fuel in the truck
and the vapors in the underground
tank are simply changing places. In
the absence of Stage I vapor recovery,
fuel vapors present in the tank would
be exhausted through the vent pipe
into the atmosphere as the fuel enters
the UST.
There are two types of Stage I
vapor recovery. The type illustrated
in Figure 1 is called "two-point"
because it uses two separate connec-
tions to the underground tank, one
for fuel and one for vapor. The other
type is called "coaxial" Stage I vapor
recovery (see Figure 2). The coaxial
system modifies the fill pipe so that
fuel can enter and vapors can exit
from the same tank opening. This is
usually accomplished by installing
a 3-inch diameter drop tube inside
the 4-inch fill pipe, creating a gap
between the drop tube and the fill
riser through which vapors can pass.
The delivery driver uses a special fit-
ting to connect to the tank fill pipe
that allows the fluid-delivery hose
from the truck to connect to the drop
tube while the vapor-recovery hose
from the truck connects to the space
between the drop tube and the fill
pipe-
Stage II Vapor Recovery
In Stage II vapor recovery (Figure 3),
vapors are transferred from a vehi-
cle fuel tank into the UST when fuel
is dispensed into the vehicle. This
requires the installation of vapor pip-
ing from the dispensing nozzle all
the way back to the UST. This vapor
piping generally consists of a special
nozzle that includes a vapor path
as well as a fuel path, a vapor-car-
rying hose between the nozzle and
the dispenser, vapor piping within
the dispenser, and a separate, below-
ground vapor-piping run between
the dispenser and the tanks.
There are two main types of
Stage II vapor-recovery systems: bal-
ance and vacuum assist.
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
Figured:
Diagram of Stage II Vapor Recovery
Balance vapor-recovery systems
have been in use since the 1970s.
In the balance system, no motors
or pumps are used to move the
gasoline vapors from the automo-
bile tank to the underground tank.
Instead, a bellows-type device
surrounds the nozzle spout and
creates an airtight seal around the
automobile fill pipe. As fuel enters
the vehicle tank, vapors in the tank
are forced out and flow through
the bellows, the nozzle, and the
vapor piping to reach the VST.
Vacuum-assist vapor-recovery
systems did not come into com-
mon use until the mid-1990s. In
the vacuum-assist type of Stage
II vapor recovery, a special vapor
pump, typically located inside the
dispenser cabinet, pumps the gas-
oline vapors out of the vehicle gas
tank and into the UST. Nozzles
used with vacuum-assist systems
do not have a bellows and look
very much like a conventional gas-
oline-dispensing nozzle. Because
vacuum-assist systems forcibly
push vapors into the UST, they can
build up slight pressures inside
the tank if the volume of vapors
returned to the tank is greater
than the volume of liquid gasoline
removed from
the tank.
The meth-
odology for
capturing gas-
oline vapors
generated dur-
ing vehicle
fueling is pres-
ently in a tran-
sition phase.
Stage II vapor
recovery is
being replaced
by onboard
refueling va-
por recovery
(ORVR). Rather
than capturing
gasoline vapors
at the fuel inlet
of the vehicle
and bringing
them to the
underground
storage tank,
ORVR uses a
carbon canis-
ter to capture
the vapors as
they leave the vehicle gas tank and
retain them in the vehicle. Vehicles
equipped with onboard canisters
were first produced in the 1998
model year in the United States.
Since 2006, all cars as well as light
and medium duty trucks sold in the
United States have been equipped
for ORVR. Federal regulations state
that once ORVR is in "widespread
use" Stage II vapor recovery will no
longer be required.
The USEPA has been tasked with
determining when ORVR will be in
"widespread use." Once this deter-
mination has been made, state and
local air quality control agencies may
permit gasoline-dispensing facili-
ties to discontinue the use of Stage II
vapor-recovery systems.
Vent Pipes
Underground tanks are not designed
to withstand any great pressure or
vacuum; they must constantly remain
at or near normal atmospheric pres-
sure. To ensure that underground
tanks can "breathe" as fuel is added
or removed, they are equipped with
vent pipes that connect the inside
of the tank to the atmosphere. The
vent pipe is connected to the top of
the UST and typically runs below
the ground surface to an out-of-the-
way location where it can be brought
above ground.
Most aboveground portions of
vent pipes are constructed of galva-
nized steel pipe and extend 12 feet
or more above the ground surface.
Vent piping belowground is usually
constructed of fiberglass, though it
may be constructed of galvanized
steel. Galvanized steel is acceptable
for vent piping because it does not
routinely contain liquid product and
so is not subject to the federal regula-
tions regarding corrosion protection
or leak detection.
Vent piping must slope uni-
formly back to the tank so that any
liquid that enters the vent piping
does not get trapped in any low
spots. Flexible piping is difficult to
install with a uniform slope and is
not often used for below-grade vent
piping. Most aboveground portions
of vent pipes are constructed of gal-
vanized steel and extend 12 feet or
more above the ground surface.
When fuel is added to the tank,
vapors inside the tank are either
expelled through the vent pipe into
the atmosphere, or, if Stage I vapor
recovery is present, returned to the
tank truck. When fuel is removed
from the tank, ambient air can enter
the tank via the vent pipe to prevent
the creation of a vacuum in the tank.
Alternatively, if Stage II vapor recov-
ery is present, vapors removed from
the automobile gas tank are returned
to the underground tank, and there
is little or no need for air to flow into
the tank from the vent pipe.
To further contain vapors in the
UST, vent pipes associated with tanks
where vapor recovery is installed are
often fitted with special caps that seal
the vent-pipe opening. These vent
caps will only open when there is a
small pressure imbalance between
the tank and the atmosphere that
causes the vent cap to open to relieve
the pressure or vacuum inside the
storage tank.
Comments?
Well, that ends my very short course
on tanks, piping, and other ancillary
UST stuff. If you have any historical
footnotes or anecdotes you would
like to add, please send me an e-mail
at marcel.moreau@juno.com. •
17
-------
A
Acting Director, USEPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks
U-S-T-s Get Some
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
in the Recovery Act
The LUSTLine#58 cover story in September 2008 asked if
ground water will ever get some respect and talked about
why underground storage tanks matter. Someone took
the message in that cover story to heart, because the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 gave the underground
storage tank (UST) program a whole lot of respect, in the form
of $200 million to assess and clean up UST-system leaks.
In reporting to USEPA for the National Water Quality
Inventory 2000 Report (EPA-841-R-02-001; August 2002),
states, territories, and tribes said that petroleum released from
UST systems is one of the leading threats to our country's
groundwater. Because groundwater supplies drinking water
for about half of the nation's overall population and 99 percent
of the population in rural areas, the health of our groundwater
is extremely important. The $200 million Recovery Act money
to assess and clean up leaking underground storage tanks
(LUSTs) reinforces the value of groundwater to our country.
This one-time infusion of money, which is approximately
three times the amount of LUST money the national UST pro-
gram typically receives each year, shows an acknowledgment
that USTs continue to affect our nation's groundwater. It also
shows recognition of the role tank work plays in the economy;
people will be put to work assessing and cleaning up releases
from UST systems. This is a boost to our environment and our
economy.
Although the LUST Recovery Act money is a welcome
addition to the national UST program, it comes with unprece-
dented requirements for transparency, oversight, and account-
ability to help ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely
and that Americans will see results for their investments. Even
though USEPA, as well as state and territorial UST programs,
will be carefully reporting on how and where we are spending
LUST Recovery Act money, I believe these additional manage-
ment efforts are well worth it because we will be documenting
that:
• LUST sites have been cleaned up,
• thousands of jobs were created or retained, and
• our soil and groundwater have greatly benefitted.
How USEPA Divided $200 Million
USEPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) worked
with USEPA regional tank program managers to strategically
plan how to best distribute the LUST Recovery Act money.
Keeping in mind that state and territorial tank programs are
primarily responsible for implementing the UST program, we
devised the following distribution plan:
$190.7 million to all states and territories (except
North Dakota and American Samoa who declined
LUST Recovery Act money) in the form of coopera-
tive agreements to address shovel-ready sites within
their jurisdictions. We used the existing LUST Trust
Fund allocation formula to divide the $190.7 million
among the 54 states and territories receiving LUST
Recovery Act money. In spring 2009, USEPA regional
UST programs will enter into cooperative agreements
with their states and territories. These cooperative
agreements will include more detailed descriptions of
states' spending plans.
$6.3 million managed by USEPA regional tank pro-
grams using existing USEPA in-house contracts to do
LUST-eligible work (e.g., site assessment and cleanup
activities) in Indian country.
$3 million retained by USEPA, shared by headquarters
and regions, to manage, oversee, and report on appro-
priate spending of the $197 million going to states and
territories and for cleanups in Indian country.
What's Next?
Before entering into cooperative agreements with states and
territories, USEPA regional UST programs need to receive
guidance on the terms and conditions that apply to the LUST
Recovery Act money. With that in mind, USEPA-OUST
developed LUST Recovery Act program guidance, which will
assist USEPA regions in negotiating and approving state and
territorial cooperative agreements. In early June, USEPA-
OUST will be able to share the final program guidance with
USEPA regional UST programs so they can enter into coop-
erative agreements with their states and territories.
We are on the cusp of summer, with months of con-
struction-friendly weather ahead, so the timing of the LUST
Recovery Act money is ideal. States and territories will be
able to use LUST Recovery Act money to assess and clean
up UST leaks, which will protect our land and groundwater
as well as help create jobs. Now that's a whole lot of R-E-S-
P-E-C-T.
For more about LUST Recovery Act money, see
www.epa.gov/oust/eparecovery. •
18
-------
May 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 61
FAQs from the NWGLDE
...All you ever wanted to know about leak detection, but were afraid to ask.
Finding Outdated Equipment on the NWGLDE List
In this FAQs from the National WorkGroup on Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE) we discuss cross-referencing leak-detection
equipment and systems that have been sold to a different vendor or rebranded. (Please note: the views expressed in this column
represent those of the work group and not necessarily those of any implementing agency.)
Q
A.
0
. Does the NWGLDE track vendor equipment infor-
mation on the List of Leak Detection Evaluations
for Storage Tank Systems (the List) after it is sold or
transferred to a different vendor?
Yes. Since 2002 over 25 percent of the equipment ref-
erenced in the List has been sold or rebranded. (See
NWGLDE.org.) Because of the high turnover per-
centage, and at the request of the vendors involved,
the work group does track this information. Vendors
need to be aware that when leak-detection equipment
or systems have been sold or transferred, the work
group requires a letter from both the former and the
new vendors confirming the sale in order to update
the vendor information.
How might an inspector find equipment on the List
if only outdated vendor information is available at
the time of an UST inspection?
The individual equipment-listing data sheets always
display the current vendor information in the lower
left corner along with a revision date in the upper left
corner. In addition to the current vendor information,
the List cross-references vendors in the "Vendor by
Alpha" indices pages.
Former vendors continue to be listed with cross-ref-
erenced links to the new vendor(s) and equipment.
Current vendors that have made simple name-only
changes reference the original vendor in parentheses
(e.g., see Coggins Systems, Inc. whose equipment is
now listed under Varec, Inc.). For larger acquisitions,
each acquisition and its associated equipment are
listed under the vendor that acquired the equipment
from a previous vendor (e.g., see OPW or Veeder-
Root).
Once equipment is listed under a vendor or brand
name, that vendor or brand name is forever on the
"Vendor by Alpha" list. No matter what name you
use to look up something (if it was a valid name at
any point in time), you will find this name in the
Alpha List, but you may be redirected to the current
vendor or brand name to find the actual listing.
If all else fails, the website search engine, located at
the top right corner of the work group home page,
can always be used to find specific leak-detection
equipment and/or vendor information.
About the NWGLDE
The NWGLDE is an independent work group comprising ten members,
including nine state and one 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
evaluation 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 perfor-
mance 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.
L.U.S.T.
Subscription Form
Name
Company/Agency
Mailing Address
E-mail Address
"-a^S5S2g&«a
»™ «*££!%£•*«*.
ro down!**?**! 4.1
nd then click on
LUSTLine Index
_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
19
-------
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Presentations from the
2009 National Tanks Conference
are available online!
to acc
UST Insurance Matters
Endorsed Insurance Coverage
by Chris Montgomery
When evaluating storage
tank insurance coverage,
tank owners should exam-
ine their quotes, including the sam-
ple policy form and all endorsements
that will be included with the pro-
posed coverage, as these may further
restrict coverage by modifying the
definition of a covered storage tank,
or tanks used for specific purposes
in certain stages of use. Examples of
this include the "Marina Exclusion
Endorsement" and the "Out of Ser-
vice" exclusionary endorsement.
Marina Exclusion:
This insurance does not apply to
claims caused by a release from a
storage-tank system at a covered
facility from any piping, dispens-
ers, or nozzles located over any
body of water.
Out-of-Service Tank
It is hereby agreed that the Stor-
age Tank Policy Form, Section III.
Exclusions, has been amended to
include the following: The term
Out of Service means any under-
ground storage tank that is no
longer used for the dispensing
of petroleum or regulated sub-
stances.
Although the policy definition of
a "covered storage tank" may include
all piping and ancillary equip-
ment attached thereto, if the policy
includes a marina exclusion endorse-
ment, losses caused by releases from
the lines/dispensers over any body
of water would not be eligible for
coverage.
Similarly, with the Out-of-Ser-
vice exclusion, if any "covered stor-
age tank" is temporarily closed or
taken "out of service" for mainte-
nance, repair, or upgrade, coverage
immediately ceases and does not
continue until that tank is put back
into service. So, any contamination
discovered in the course of the main-
tenance or upgrade is not covered by
the policy.
While some policies may provide
coverage for tanks being taken out of
service, they may also contain spe-
cific notification requirements that
must be met to trigger coverage. For
example, certain policies require that
the tank owner/operator notify the
insurance company of their intention
to remove or replace underground
storage tank(s), lest coverage will not
be provided. One policy contains this
language:
Notice of Voluntary Scheduled
Storage Tank System Removal or
Replacement - You (the insured)
shall provide notice to us (the
insurance company) of your inten-
tion to perform a voluntary, sched-
uled storage-tank system removal
or replacement at least 48 hours
prior to the voluntary scheduled
storage-tank system removal or
replacement. Notice shall be pro-
vided consistent with CLAIM
PROVISIONS, Notice of Potential
Claim.
A knowledgeable insurance
agent or broker who is familiar with
"the fine print" in storage tank poli-
cies can help owners, operators, and
regulators understand what each
policy covers and, more importantly,
does not cover. •
Chris Montgomery is a principal with
Custom Environmental Insurance.
He can be reached at 877-TANKCOV
(826-5268) or Chris@tankcov.com.
------- |