New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
www.neiwpcc.org/lustline
116 John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
L.U.S.T.UNE
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking: Underground Storage Tanks
Bulletin 63
December
2OO9
 UNITED WE STAND...PfV?PEC?   VVE  FfllU
 How Geographic Corridors and Petroleum Brownfields Can
 Be a Symbiotic Force
                                  KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
                        & 4k Ik ^ Jfe Tlle   impact zone ^Missouri ^ 4k
 by Steven McNeely


   Jn Kansas City,
   Missouri, area-
   wide approaches
have been shown to
accelerate redevelopment
of urban petroleum-tank
sites and effectively sup-
port community revital-
ization. Among recently
recognized petroleum
brownfields revitaliza-
tion corridor projects
are the city's Troost and
Prospect Corridors. Using USEPA UST field Pilot funds, the State
of Missouri assisted the Department of City Planning and Develop-
ment for the City of Kansas City by hiring a contractor to perform
two "feasibility studies" that identified 47 UST properties along the
Prospect Avenue Corridor and 203 known or suspected tank sites
along the Troost Avenue Corridor in the city's urban core. The initial
focus on these sites was a result of the use of LUST Trust Funds. The
contractor reviewed relevant city department databases, city records
and permits, and fire insurance maps. The contractor also performed
site visits on each block in the targeted area in order to determine if an
UST existed or was previously located on the property.
   The feasibility studies identified properties that might be impacted
with petroleum contaminants, including sites where the presence of an
UST could not be confirmed. The data was put into an electronic data-
base, which included information regarding historical site occupancy-
location and ownership; current land use; UST status; site inspection
information such as property and building square footage and struc-
tural condition; and potential eligibility for the state tank insurance
fund. This information was used for internal management decisions
and has been provided on a timely basis to prospective developers, both
public and private, interested in properties in the study areas.
                            • continued on page 2
                                   Inside
                       7() Message from Carolyn Hoskinson
                       9( ) Stimulus and Brownfields
                      12() Denatured Ethanol, E85 Releases, Methane Gas
                      14() Value Stream Mapping
                      18( ) Ethanol-Blended Fuels and Leak Detection
                      20() MtBE May Be Gone, But...
                      22() DEF, Easy as One Two Three
                      23( j More Questions About Throughput
                      24() USEPA Delays Decision on E15 Waiver

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
• Geographic Corridors from page 1

    As a result, seven key urban  rede-
velopment projects involving some  of the
studied petroleum sites have already been
assisted, including the Satchel Paige
Park, the Citadel Plaza, the Wabash
Village affordable housing project, the
DeLaSalle Education Center expansion
project, the Palestine Commons senior
affordable housing project, and the Ash-
ton Villas affordable housing project. The
Satchel Paige  and DeLaSalle projects
are actively in  the process of assessing,
cleaning up, and redeveloping UST sites
in the study areas.
    The studies have given  the city
another important tool to focus redevel-
opment efforts on key properties in the
Prospect Avenue and Troost Avenue
corridors. Information regarding  Kan-
sas City's Brownfields Program can
be found on the Internet at  http://
www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/
City PI arming andDevelopment/
PropertyRelocationandEconomicDe-
velopment / Brownsf ield sRed evelop-
ments/ index.htm.
          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
    These initial area-wide assessment
and planning efforts are also providing
invaluable support for a current initia-
tive known as Kansas  City's "Green
Impact Zone," a national, "place-based"
model strategy designed to concen-
trate federal stimulus funds and other
resources, and integrate multiple federal,
state, and local programs, to transform
a 150-square block area  of Kansas City
that has experienced decades of severe
abandonment and economic decline.
    In this  area,  about 25 percent of
properties are  vacant lots and another
one-sixth contain vacant structures. Less
than half the homes are owner-occupied
and almost 20 percent of all mortgages
were delinquent over the last two years.
The initiative includes  housing reha-
bilitation and weatherization programs,
community policing and services,  job
training, health and wellness programs,
and brownfields redevelopment built
around  a comprehensive neighborhood
outreach program and using sustainabil-
ity as a catalyst for transformation.
    Within and near the Green Impact
Zone, 186 known and suspected brown-
field properties have been identified,
of which 94 are  known or potential
LIST sites identified by  the Troost and
Prospect Corridor Area-Wide surveys.
Already, LISTfield corridor site survey
information is  being coordinated with
major Green Impact Zone initiatives,
such as the $30 million Troost Bus Rapid
Transit  or "MAX" line.  Several known
or suspected LIST sites have been identi-
fied on or near MAX line stops, stations,
park-and-ride  locations, and adjacent
blighted properties, and  present oppor-
tunities to combine transit development
with brownfield reuse.
    The Green Impact  Zone in cen-
tral Kansas City's urban core offers a
unique opportunity to demonstrate how
regional strategies and key partnerships
can reverse decline and create economic
reinvestment.
 For more information, contact Andrew
 Bracker at andrew_bracker@kcmo.org.

Wanted: Some High Priority
Corridors
Kansas City's Troost  and Prospect
Corridors represent  two of many
"high priority corridors" across  the
country that provide opportuni-
ties for public and private partners
to collaborate, leverage available
resources, and refine working rela-
tionships to ultimately enhance com-
munity revitalization efforts. What's
special about all of these geographi-
cally linked, multi-site initiatives
is the level of  synergy that exists
among perspective partners and the
opportunities that become avail-
able to streamline implementation
policies and procedures that can be
transferable to blighted geographic
areas  in other  parts of the coun-
try. These projects are testaments to
the economic challenges facing  our
country and an affirmation of a will-
ingness to collaborate that will inevi-
tably result in successful endeavors.
(See LL #53 for  three stories on suc-
cessful highway-corridor initiatives.)
    USEPA's petroleum brownfields
program continues to promote the
revitalization of corridors as a means
to link site reuse,  broader  stake-
holder coordination, and area-wide
planning.  These geographic  corri-
dors target economic development
areas, enterprise zones, environmen-
tal justice,  and other areas of special
focus that provide opportunities to
enhance the revitalization of multi-
ple petroleum brownfields sites.
    The  agency provides the tech-
nical  assistance needed to help
with site identification, assessment,
cleanup, redevelopment planning,
community outreach, and  other
needs identified by the communities
and organizations impacted by these
sites. By combining our assistance
efforts along these former transpor-
tation corridors, some  of the imple-
mentation nuances  associated with
petroleum brownfields can be nego-
tiated and resolved, and the lessons
learned can be used  to educate other
stakeholders.

That Old Failure to
Communicate
Yet, with all our assistance, the need
to enhance information exchanges
and develop and issue guidance
and clarifications to help stakehold-
ers surmount known implementa-
tion hurdles remains a never-ending
challenge. In other words, the oppor-
tunities offered by the petroleum
brownfields program may not be
well  communicated to those who
could use the resources. The unique
attributes associated with petroleum
contamination can seem overwhelm-
ing to local and tribal governments

-------
                                                                                  December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
 California's  Century  Boulevard  Corridor
      The Village at Century project in Inglewood,  California,
      assembled 16 acres of blighted and vacant properties into
      a 193,000-square-foot commercial development—the
  first of a two-phase, 51-acre redevelopment project to revitalize
  the local neighborhood.  Century Boulevard is a major transpor-
  tation corridor to the Los Angeles International Airport. From
  1950 to the early 1990s, the area was a high-density residen-
  tial development; however, due to the increase in noise pollu-
  tion from the airport and the lack of local investment, the area
  became run-down and underutilized.
     The Inglewood City Council adopted the Century Rede-
  velopment Project Area to eradicate blight and address issues
  related to economic stagnation, dilapidated housing  stock, high
  crime rates, and needed traffic and circulation improvements
  around the Century Corridor. The Council worked in partnership
  with residents, the business community, public agencies, and
  community organizations to revamp the area. Public meetings
  were  held to hear the collective concerns and recommenda-
  tions of the community. In a collaborative effort, the Inglewood
  Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles World Airports, and the
  Federal Aviation Administration worked together with the com-
  munity to improve conditions along the boulevard.
     An assessment of the project area discovered  high levels
  of volatile hydrocarbons from leaking underground storage
  tanks in several  places. The installation of a remediation sys-
  tem substantially reduced the contamination in the soil to levels
  below those established by the California Regional Water Qual-
                   ity Board. The California Orphan Site Cleanup Account (OSCA)
                   program's funding—more than $1 million in assessment and
                   cleanup grants toward the $32 million project—influenced
                   national retailers to contribute to and support the project. The
                   Village at Century includes eight major retail spaces as well as
                   a number of smaller shops. It is estimated that the retail center
                   area has created approximately 500 full- and part-time jobs and
                   generates over $600,000 of tax income to the city annually. The
                   Village at Century has dramatically improved the character of
                   the area and continues to encourage new investment. •
because they require specific techni-
cal expertise.
    In recent years much ado has
been made about the implementa-
tion challenges and the opportunities
associated with the revitalization of
petroleum brownfields. Some of the
challenges are inherent to any collab-
orative effort, but those hurdles are
exacerbated by the unique character-
istics associated with the universe of
petroleum sites and their respective
funding sources.
    Even with the wealth of accom-
plishments and success stories com-
piled over the resulting years, efforts
to target the development of those
lessons to address specific  areas of
need remained elusive. Obviously,
the  definition of a "petroleum brown-
field" exceeds the limited universe of
federally regulated USTs, and those
practitioners who don't work collab-
oratively with their respective imple-
menting  agencies find the whole
prospect extremely perplexing.
    For example, eligibility deter-
minations can be made by either the
state or federal government and in
many cases interested parties do not
know who to contact. This  area of
potential inconsistency is often fur-
ther complicated when the imple-
menting agencies overseeing aspects
of petroleum brownfields and/or
revitalization efforts reside in differ-
ent agencies and interested parties
still expect one-stop answers. These
are not insurmountable  hurdles,
but they do require a higher level of
coordination than usual, which can
be difficult, especially during fiscally
constrained times.

Packaging, Packaging,
Packaging
USEPA's early brownfields revital-
ization efforts were facilitated by col-
laborations in targeted areas known
as "Showcase Communities." These
areas provided a forum for public and
private entities to focus their collec-
tive attention and resources to move
projects to fruition. They helped
diverse stakeholders identify, negoti-
ate, and reach mutual revitalization
goals to surmount  their collective
challenges. Those goals involved the
efficient management of available
resources, which helped optimize site
assessment, cleanup, and ultimately
the reuse of targeted sites.
    Those accomplishments did NOT
occur overnight, but they did leave a
series of lessons for subsequent prac-
titioners to use as a guide. The need to
ensure community involvement and
planning, the optimization and use
of available resources, and the trans-
fer of lessons learned to other proj-
ects are obvious lessons derived from
these earlier target areas. Those same
lessons are applicable to the broader
universe of petroleum brownfields,
especially when packaged into a more
marketable portfolio.
    And this is the beauty, the sheer
economic and social brilliance, of the
geographic corridor. It is based on
the old adage attributed to Aesop:
"United we stand (a chance to secure
a grant), divided  we fall (or shall I
say fail to secure any funds)." We
are preaching coordination, resource
leveraging, and partnerships along
targeted areas where  community
revitalization and petroleum brown-
fields coincide—where other hous-
ing, transportation, and job/business
development needs coincide. They
just need to  be packaged and mar-
keted together!
                 • continued on page 4

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
• Geographic Corridors from page 3

    The current economic stimulus
effort focuses a great deal of atten-
tion on socioeconomically challenged
communities, and by collaborating
on a corridor project, communities,
that might not be able to secure a
nationally competitive grant on their
own could form a coalition or part-
ner to combine their efforts.

Hey States, It's Time to Toot
Your Own Horns
While those of us at USEPA do  our
best to tout the wealth  of publicly
available petroleum brownfields suc-
cess stories and the associated lessons
learned (iuiuiu.epa.gov/oust/petroleum-
brownfields), these are just the tip of
the iceberg. Our stories pale by com-
parison to the universe of sites that
have been assessed, cleaned up, and
ultimately made ready for reuse.
    Just think of it: when the feder-
ally regulated tank program began
in 1988, about 2.1 million tanks
were in operation nationwide. Now
some 650,000 remain. What is  the
story with all of those sites that were
closed? Some are probably just sitting
there, waiting for  someone to notice
them, others, thousands, have been
transformed thanks to the gumption
of various state programs, towns,
individuals, and entrepreneurs.
    In order to maximize our collec-
tive accomplishments, we need to
do a better job of demonstrating the
return on the investment of tax dollars
used to oversee site assessments and
design corrective action plans, which
ultimately prepare sites for reuse,
and convey those accomplishments
in clear terms that others can under-
stand. If states would toot their own
horns, all of us would learn from their
experiences, and it would be a giant
ostrich feather in their own caps.

Perks of the Multi-Site
Approach
When our corrective action projects
complement ongoing community
revitalization efforts, they provide
an excellent opportunity to enhance
community involvement, especially
when properly explained to inter-
ested parties. For years OUST  has
championed the use of "geographi-
cally aligned corridors"  as a means
for state  remediation programs
to identify and evaluate potential
policies and practices in order to
surmount petroleum brownfields
implementation hurdles. Projects
such as Arizona's Route 66 Partner-
ship, Colorado's Historic Byways,
and California's Highway 99 initia-
tives, to name a few publicly avail-
able examples, have become our
mantra.
   Projects that address multiple
sites in a focused geographic area
provide greater opportunities to:

 • Leverage available funds, such as
  advising eligible  entities on how
  to apply for and  secure commu-
  nity-wide assessment and cleanup
  revolving loan funds and  other
  improvement funds that are avail-
  able to larger areas/ greater popu-
  lations. Multiple sources of funds
  can be integrated and applied to
  the revitalization of a targeted area.

• Develop  an inventory of  sites
  along with a better understand-
  ing of how  to use available site
  information. Small sites may not
  interest developers, but assem-
  bling small sites into a larger prop-
  erty portfolio may attract more
  developers and/or enhance larger
  development projects. An inven-
  tory of sites itself may suggest an
  opportunity for area-wide plan-
  ning.

• Benefit from economies of scale,
  allowing for area-wide investi-
  gation, development-incentive
  districts, lower remediation costs
  per site, similar area geology and
  hydrology and area background
  conditions,  one set of partners to
  work with  on several sites, and
  one  area-wide cleanup and revi-
  talization plan to address multiple
  sites.

• Enhance  cross-program coordi-
  natio, to improve and streamline
  planning efforts and maximize the
  use of resources and partnerships
  to help educate a larger portion of
  our constituents.

• Capture  comprehensive infor-
  mation  regarding new jobs and
  investment, higher property val-
  ues, and increased  tax revenues
  returned to the community.

• Provide an outreach forum to help
  educate and motivate other inter-
  ested stakeholders about opportu-
  nities in their areas.
Secrets to Their Success
Corridor-based projects such as those
in Kansas, California, Alabama, and
Florida described in this article and
in Colorado's Historic Byways Initia-
tive (see LL#53) provide a means to
enhance communities, not to mention
our communications and outreach
efforts. They are exciting undertak-
ings that are already reinvigorating
places that really and truly needed a
lift.
   Three key elements that can be
attributed to the success of the Cen-
tury Boulevard Corridor in Califor-
nia are listed below. These elements
apply to the other corridor  projects
mentioned in this article and  are
transferable and customizable to any
serious corridor revitalization under-
taking.
• Community support. The lead-
  ership of and  dedication to out-
  reach by the city council helped
  to ensure community support for
  the project. Having a local cham-
  pion for the project  was a key
  component in driving the project
  forward. Since it is easier to gain
  community support when  the
  project meets  community needs,
  the local community determined
  the most beneficial redevelop-
  ment option. Multiple neighbor-
  hood problems were addressed in
  one renewal package, rather than
  piecemeal and over time, and sev-
  eral needed improvements were
  addressed together—environ-
  mental cleanup, transportation
  improvements,  and commercial
  redevelopment. In the case of Kan-
  sas City, for example, individual
  community interests were cham-
  pioned by the elected officials and
  various community groups. The
  same happened in Alabama along
  the Selma to  Montgomery cor-
  ridor, but only after they focused
  their attention in a collaborative
  manner.
• Public funding and program coor-
  dination. A public and  private
  partnership promotes the coor-
  dination of regulatory programs
  and streamlines administrative
  procedures; it also allows for  a
  multi-stakeholder examination of
  cleanup solutions and risk shar-
  ing. The partnership provided
  a forum for the integration of
  people, ideas,  and resources, and

-------
                                                                                December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
  Alabama's Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail
      Alabama's Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail
      (a portion of US 80) was created by Congress under the
      National Trails System Act of 1968. Like other "historic"
  trails covered in the legislation, the Alabama trail is an original
  route of national significance in American history, including the
  1965 Voting Rights March. The Alabama Department of Envi-
  ronmental Management (ADEM) is working to determine the
  nature and extent of environmental concerns  associated with
  30-45  petroleum brownfield sites along the trail.  These sites
  will be assessed and cleaned up to meet any reuse  options that
  both end users and the community identify and  agree upon. The
  Alabama Department of Revenue (ALDOR) will work with local
  communities to capture and advertise the benefits, such as jobs
  created or increased property values, associated with the revi-
  talization of these underutilized sites. The Alabama Department
  of Transportation (ALDOT) is integrating aspects of its roadway
  improvements as a complement to the project.
     The timing of this project coincides with the release of
  Recovery Act funding. As a result of prior collaborative efforts
  in this area of the country, representatives of  ADEM, ALDOR,
  ALDOT, the U.S. National Park Service, U.S.  Army Corps of
  Engineers, and the other public and private stakeholders are
  positioning themselves to optimize coordination and resource
  leveraging so their economic stimulus projects better comple-
  ment community/local planning efforts. As more federal and
                        ADEM Underground Storage Tanks Inventory Efforts for
                           the Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail
                  state agencies begin to spend their economic stimulus dollars,
                  greater attention should be directed toward readily available
                  opportunities to identify, assess, and clean up these "shovel
                  ready" abandoned sites. The cross-fertilization of public and
                  private resources and assistance can expedite efforts to work
                  through barriers and bring  more public and  private stakehold-
                  ers to the table so more of  these sites are returned to produc-
                  tive use. •
  identified various concerns, part-
  nerships, and resources early in
  the planning and development
  process. The state's Orphan Site
  Cleanup Account program's fund-
  ing influenced national retailers to
  commit to the project.
• Environmental  benefits.  While
  the project was not focused on
  contaminated sites, it did incorpo-
  rate them into the redevelopment
  plans and result in their being
  cleaned up. The  cleaned-up petro-
  leum sites are no longer  in the
  state's LUST cleanup backlog and
  no longer pose a threat to human
  health or the environment.

The Petroleum Brownfields
Action Plan
USEPA's 2008 Petroleum Brownfields
Action Plan: Promoting Revitalization
and Sustainability (www.epa.govy'oust/
rags/petrobfactionplan.pdf) provides
the framework we plan to use to
support petroleum brownfields revi-
talization efforts. (See "A Message
from Carolyn Hoskinson" on page
7.) Again,  not to sound  like a bro-
ken record, we just need more input
and examples from our practitioners
to make the road easier to travel. As
more regions, tribes, states, and com-
munities identify "corridors" and
other opportunities to enhance their
petroleum brownfields revitalization
efforts, we will strive to augment our
communications and outreach efforts
on their behalf.
    When implementation hurdles
are encountered that impede prog-
ress, we will provide targeted sup-
port to  address those impediments
and share  lessons learned. As we
continue to support our petroleum
brownfields revitalization efforts, we
will also explore and evaluate poli-
cies to facilitate the revitalization  of
these sites—again, pending adequate
input from our stakeholders and
available resources. As always, we
look for opportunities to forge part-
nerships that promote investment
in and the sustainable reuse of these
sites.
    Speaking of sustainability, the
petroleum brownfields program pro-
vides USEPA with a perfect oppor-
tunity to explore and promote this
important goal.  Such  opportuni-
ties include supporting sustainabil-
ity  pilots initiated by the agency's
Brownfields office; investigating
pilot programs to extend geographic,
multi-site approaches toward  sus-
tainable objectives; and identifying
Environmentally Responsible Reuse
and Redevelopment (ER3) pilot proj-
ects.
    The recent announcement of the
Partnership in Sustainable Commu-
nities (www. epa.gov/smartgrowth/2009-
0616-epahuddot.htm),  a  federal
cross-agency effort of the USEPA,
the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), and the
U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) to coordinate programs and
resources on five revitalization proj-
ects, provides an excellent opportu-
nity for our program to leverage a
burgeoning public-private partner-
ship that could augment our com-
munity outreach efforts (especially in
underserved and/or disadvantaged
geographic areas that may be more
negatively impacted).
    Each of the resulting  projects
will address environmental con-
tamination and transportation and
affordable  housing needs within a
defined area. The implementation
hurdles associated with these areas
seemingly  represent our latest and
greatest avenue to duplicate lessons
learned from earlier collaborations in
showcase communities as they apply
                 • continued on page 6

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
  Florida's Tamiami Trail  (US Highway  41)
      The Tamiami Trail Petroleum Brownfields Revitalization Ini-
      tiative is designed to remove the environmental compo-
      nent of that investment risk. In other words, it is intended
  to further local economic development projects by enhancing
  technical assistance, environmental assessment, and cleanup
  services for LUST sites in that corridor. The targeted communi-
  ties are those along the  scenic highway route, which extends
  almost 70 miles within Manatee and Sarasota Counties, and
  includes the cities of Palmetto, Bradenton, Sarasota, Venice,
  and North Port. So far, partners in this collaboration include the
  local municipal, county, and economic development agencies;
  USEPA; and the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
  tion (FLDEP). Plans are to expand this partnership to include
  the Florida Department of Transportation, non-profit groups,
  businesses, environmental consultants, UST owners/operators,
  cleanup contractors, site managers, and the people in commu-
  nities along the Tamiami Trail.
     The groundwork for the  Initiative began with a kick-off
  meeting of partners in March 2009. In June, a workshop enti-
  tled "Brownfields 101 & Tamiami Trail Petroleum  Brownfields
  Initiative" was held by USEPA and the FLDEP UST and Brown-
                  fields Program. The
                  development of a
                  strategic plan  and
                  communication  plan
                  will provide a road
                  map for short-term
                  and long-term activi-
                  ties for the initiative.
                  Planning is under-
                  way to begin a com-
                  prehensive inventory
                  of  historic  UST
                  sites, with sponsor-
                  ship from USEPA.
                  Manatee and Sara-
                  sota County jurisdic-
                  tions will apply for
                  a USEPA Coalition
                  Brownfields Community-wide Petroleum and Hazardous Waste
                  Assessment grant to identify and address sites along the trail.
                  Other leveraging of resources is planned for the future. •
• Geographic Corridors from page 5

to petroleum brownfields. What we
hope to accomplish requires addi-
tional work and coordination, but
opportunities abound!

Take the Plunge
For years regulatory programs touted
their efforts to protect human health
and the environment as the sole jus-
tification for their resource expendi-
tures. But over time, such claims lost
their luster and fell on deaf ears; crit-
ics saw these expenditures as waste-
ful because  they were seemingly
unsupported by more tangible ben-
efits. Then, like a phoenix rising from
abject neglect, came the revitalization
of contaminated sites—brownfields
programs—ushering in a new era of
accountability and renewed inter-
est. The notion of protecting human
health and the environment, while
laudable, is now  complemented with
other performance measures, such as
job creation and increased property
values and tax revenues. Those met-
rics have helped  place a new light on
petroleum-brownfield sites, and now
is  the time for states and local gov-
ernments to sieze the moment.
    Every state has a former trans-
portation corridor that once served as
a major transportation route. Some of
these former hubs contained service
station sites that either closed prior
to the development of the tanks pro-
gram or as a result of it. These and
other impacted communities provide
prime sites for economic stimulus
efforts as well as excellent opportuni-
ties to educate others on petroleum
brownfields revitalization projects
that could be supported by various
federal, state, and/or local programs
and funds.
    As a result of government stim-
ulus efforts, other public and pri-
vate stakeholders will be looking for
investment opportunities in  these
newfound revitalization zones. If we
want to highlight our program's role
in the grand revitalization scheme of
things, nothing beats a targeted corri-
dor to help showcase and convey our
expectations and derived benefits. If
the inventory of petroleum brown-
fields  (e.g., grant applications  or
interest) is increasing in your region,
tribe, state, or local community, con-
sider developing a corridor project
to foster your communications, out-
reach, and partnership efforts.
    The road to the revitalization
of petroleum brownfields may ulti-
mately become easier to travel  as
the implementation  hurdles are
addressed and the bumps along
our path become smaller and easier
to navigate. Opportunities abound
along corridors plagued by petro-
leum brownfields. We just need to
take the plunge and identify  those
corridor projects.
We're Here to Help
By their very nature, collaborative
ventures must be supported by inter-
ested stakeholders. It can often take a
while for the stakeholders to identify
the challenges in order to meet the
needs of their constituents, but that
need not be the case with petroleum
brownfields, certainly not now. Now,
with the focus on petroleum brown-
fields and economic stimulus corri-
dors we have a unique opportunity
to enhance change quickly and at a
larger scale. The timing couldn't be
better!
    For example, as mentioned ear-
lier, the Partnership in Sustainable
Communities is looking  for  five
"pilots." This type of public-private
partnership provides an excellent
opportunity to not only enhance com-
munity revitalization efforts but also
to more systematically implement
aspects of our Petroleum Brownfields
Action Plan. From USEPA's perspec-
tive, this is an impetus to enhance
coordination among the respective
tanks, brownfields, land revitaliza-
tion, and  Smart Growth programs
along targeted corridor areas. This is
fertile ground for every eligible entity
to potentially leverage aspects of our
collective implementation assistance.
    Many of our established inter-
nal partners already offer a wealth
of assistance that could be targeted
                • continued on page 21

-------
                                                                                  December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
A MESSAGE FROM CAROLYN HOSKINSON

Director, USEPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Haff 
-------
  LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
    MESSAGE FROM CAROLYN HOSKINSON continued

    Initiative 4- Forge Partnerships to Promote Investment in
    and Sustainable Reuse of Petroleum Sites
    •  Created a sustainability and petroleum brownfields section
    as part of our updated and expanded petroleum brownfields
    website (www.epa.gov/oust/petroleumbrownfields/pbsustain,
    htm).
    •  Showcasing reuse of a former Portland, Oregon, gas sta-
    tion as one of  16 brownfields sustainability pilots.  Oregon
    Tradeswomen,  Inc., a nonprofit and brownfields job-training
    grant  recipient,  is redeveloping the gas station into a commu-
    nity center and using the project as a training ground and model
    for other green  redevelopment projects (www.epa.gov/brown-
    fields/sustain_plts/factsheets/tabor_spfs.pdf).
    •  Working with  DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    on the feasibility of siting  renewable energy projects at a num-
    ber of contaminated land and abandoned mine sites, including
    petroleum-contaminated sites, across the  country.

    Underground Storage Tank  Program's
    25th Anniversary
    November 8,2009, marked 25 years since Congress added Sub-
    title I to the Solid  Waste Disposal Act and created the national
    underground storage tanks  program. Over the past quarter
    century, many people have done  a great deal of work to keep
    our nation's land and  water safe by preventing and cleaning up
    underground storage tank releases.
        Congratulations to our tank partners—states, territories,
    tribes, industry, owners,  and USEPA—for all you've  accom-
    plished.  Over the past 25 years, these partners displayed
    dedication  to the tanks program, enthusiasm  in addressing
    the enormous task of preventing and  cleaning up UST system
    releases, and collaboration in working toward our common goal
    of protecting our land and  groundwater.
        Over the past quarter century, USEPA and our partners
    closed over 1.7 million substandard  tanks that, if they had
    failed, would have leaked petroleum  and other chemicals into
    the nation's environment; cleaned  up more than 388,000 petro-
    leum leaks, approximately 80  percent of  all reported releases;
    and reduced the number of new releases from a high of almost
    67,000 in 1990 to under  7,200 in 2009.  Today,  tank systems
    are much less likely to leak and cause significant environmental
    problems. More than anything else, this  quarter century mile-
    stone  is a testament to the successes that  can be achieved when
    diverse partners come together to  achieve a common goal.
        As we celebrate this 25th anniversary, let's not lose sight of
    the many challenges still ahead for the  national tanks program.
                                          All remaining 611,500 active, federally regulated tanks must be
                                          inspected every three years. All tank operators must be trained
                                          in accordance with newly established standards. The backlog
                                          of just over 100,000 releases yet to be cleaned up needs to be
                                          addressed. We must ensure, in an accountable and transparent
                                          manner, that the $200 million Recovery Act money to assess
                                          and clean up petroleum underground storage tank leaks is used
                                          expeditiously to clean up releases, create jobs, and stimulate
                                          the  economy.  We will continue to  develop strategies to  pro-
                                          mote cleaning up and reusing the  hundreds of  thousands of
                                          abandoned gas stations (petroleum brownfields)  all across the
                                          country.
                                               I know that along with our program challenges, the  UST
                                          program  has often been presented with  unplanned challenges.
                                          Some include unforeseen issues such  as those surrounding
                                          alternative fuels  and diesel exhaust fluid. Others include  our
                                          continuing need to learn new and  better ways to improve  our
                                          awareness and gain knowledge about issues such as ethylene
                                          dibromide (EDB) and vapor intrusion and apply that to our ever-
                                          changing  world of leak detection, assessment, and cleanup
                                          technologies.
                                               Still other unplanned challenges include improving Durabil-
                                          ity to learn from  each other and to  work smarter and greener,
                                          all the while  continuing to achieve our long-standing program
                                          goals through efforts  like green remediation. Finally, we need to
                                          take  better advantage of new tools, such  as webinars and social
                                          networking,  so we can improve communication with our tradi-
                                          tional UST stakeholders and enhance community-engagement
                                          efforts.
                                               If the last  five years are any indication of the level of inter-
                                          est in the UST program, we should be  heartened to see that,
                                          even after 25 years, attention  to the UST program is not wan-
                                          ing.  For proof, we need only look to the Energy Policy Act of
                                          2005, which provided authority to strengthen tank prevention
                                          programs. More recently, the American Recovery  and Reinvest-
                                          ment Act of  2009 shows significant support of the LUST pro-
                                          gram; as one of only six  USEPA programs to receive money,
                                          Congress appropriated an infusion of almost four times  our
                                          annual cleanup appropriations.
                                               I close with my thanks to all of our partners—the diligent
                                          and talented staff in  USEPA headquarters and regions; state,
                                          territorial, and  tribal tank programs; and  those across the regu-
                                          lated community who played an  important part in the tank pro-
                                          gram's achievements over the past  25 years. I  appreciate your
                                          cooperation, your support, and all your efforts. You've made
                                          a significant difference in  the UST  program's ability to prevent
                                          releases,  clean up leaks, and keep us moving toward a greener
                                          America. •
22^ National
TflNKS
  CON re
September 20-22,2010
THE 2010 NATIONAL TANKS CONFERENCE will be held September 19-22, 2010 at the Westin Hotel Boston Waterfront in
Boston, MA. The National Tanks Conference Website (www.neiwpcc.org/tanksconferencejcontims all conference information including
agendas, registration, exhibitors, hotel, and destination information, and much more. Information on the website will continue to be updated
so be sure to stop by often.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS: NOW OPEN! We are currently accepting abstracts for the 22nd National Tanks Conference and Expo. We are
inviting anyone interested in giving an oral presentation, poster, or workshop to visit the conference website and submit an abstract or idea!
The Call For Abstracts will be open until February 12,2010.The conference planning team is particularly interested in presentations, posters,
and workshops that focus on cross-programmatic issues addressing UST, LUST, and State Fund.

EXHIBITING AT THE 22ND NATIONAL TANKS CONFERENCE AND EXPO As in the past, the 2010 National Tanks Conference
and Expo will showcase the latest and greatest in tanks-related products and services. We invite you to join us in Boston to exhibit your
product or service to the 500+ anticipated attendees. Interested in exhibiting? Contact Michele Piazza (mpiazza@neiwpcc.org,
(978) 323-7929) for more information or visit the Exhibitors section of our website!

-------
                                                                         December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
Stimulus and Brownfields
The Perfect Marriage,  a  Messy Divorce, or
Badly in  Need of Counseling?
by Gary Lynn
      At first blush,  funding for
      leaking underground stor-
      age tank (LUST)  cleanups
through the American Reinvestment
and Recovery Act (ARRA) appears
to be an unprecedented  opportu-
nity  to stimulate the  cleanup and
redevelopment of brownfields sites.
There are many reasons for this opti-
mism. First of all, $200 million in
LUST Trust Funds for state stimulus
projects is a  lot of money. Second,
most state and federal brownfields
funding is restricted to assessment
activities, whereas cleanup funds
for brownfields sites are typically in
short supply. The possibility of using
ARRA funds for brownfields clean-
ups would be very good news, and
state agencies, which are good at
spending cleanup money cost-effect-
ively, could happily use  this infu-
sion of money to actually get some
of their brownfields sites cleaned
up. Sounds like a marriage made in
heaven? Well...yes...but...let's not
just jump into it.
   Delving into the details of ARRA,
you quickly realize that this marriage
has the potential for  some money
and  compatibility problems—the
two leading causes of marital strife,
money being  number one.  For exam-
ple, there are restrictions on the type
of sites that can be worked on. Sites
in question must have federally reg-
ulated tank systems (e.g.,  consump-
tive-use heating oil tanks  and small
farm and residential motor fuel tanks
are "out"). The "in" tanks must be
either abandoned or  have known
contamination, and the site must be a
priority for the regulatory agency.
   There are also programmatic
unknowns—how to report, how to
comply with the Davis Bacon Act
of 1931, and how to "buy  Ameri-
can"  when  China makes nearly
everything. Even more chilling, cost
recovery is required. If money is the
number one cause of marital discord,
cost  recovery will certainly force
monetary issues to the forefront.
   But, never inhibited by a chal-
lenge and being a bunch of roman-
tics by  nature, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Ser-
vices (DES) staff have successfully
clambered over the hurdles and still
believe that the brownfields/ARRA
marriage is worth a go. However,
before proceeding with the nuptials,
we must caution all who dare to enter
into this commitment to consider
certain compatibility issues. The best
way for us to impart this cautionary
note is to share stories from a few
ARRA projects at New Hampshire
brownfields sites that eventually
became happy matches.

Who Invited the Sheriff?
The first ARRA project to be com-
pleted in New Hampshire was a fore-
closure site. In New Hampshire there
are two foreclosure options: judicial
and non-judicial. Most foreclosures
go through the non-judicial, power-
of-sale process  (sometimes called
a sheriff's auction). In our state,
the property owner has no right of
redemption after the foreclosure sale;
all rights are foreclosed. At this par-
ticular site, the foreclosure auction
was held and then the site went into
limbo. DES had to sort out a number
of complex issues very quickly.
   The former owner was liable but
not financially viable, and until the
foreclosure sale is consummated at
closing, neither the bank nor the pro-
spective purchaser actually holds title
to the property (financially viable
but not liable). Meanwhile, the "win-
ner" of the foreclosure sale could not
obtain financing for the property
from her bank as long as there was
uncertainty about the status of the
three 20-year-old tanks on the prop-
erty. The bank holding the mortgage
was taking a six-figure loss and was
not willing to assess and clean up the
site. The site was truly in limbo, with
no one on the hook to address the
environmental issues and the closing
scheduled in just 30 days.
   It didn't help that the site was
near a stream and that product had
               • continued on page 10
Tanks being removed during assessment activities, after the foreclosure auction.

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
• Stimulus and Brownfields
from page 9

seeped into the  stream on several
occasions in the past. The tank sys-
tems were at the end of their func-
tional life, and DES was concerned
about the property being vacant and
the tank systems being unattended
for a long period of time. We decided
that taking action at the site was a pri-
ority and that we would use stimulus
money to assess and clean up the site,
and thereby break the impasse.
    Based on our research  on the
foreclosure status of the property,
there was no viable responsible party
subject to cost recovery. Additionally,
the prospective purchaser would be
paying for partial backfill, compac-
tion, and repaving of the site. Cost
recovery was a key issue because
it had the potential to disrupt the
purchase-and-sale agreement, thus
keeping this site in foreclosure and
the business shuttered.
    Thirty days, however, is not  a
lot of time to assess and close a tank
system, develop a  design for the
replacement tanks, and approve the
design plans (design development/
reviews use private sector or state,
not stimulus, funding due to LUST
Trust fund restrictions).  However,
the bank, prospective site owner,
and DES  (tank and remedial sec-
tions) worked closely together for a
common purpose. The tank closure
report was finalized two days before
closing, and the closing went with-
out a hitch. The country store and
gas station reopened in late October,
and new jobs were created through
hiring new employees, inventory
purchases, tank-system closure, and
tank-system replacement.
    This site demonstrates how com-
plex it can be to do the  necessary
research and make cost-recovery
decisions. DES had to understand
the foreclosure status of the site and
financial  viability of the original
owner. Although an outstanding out-
come (i.e., assessment and cleanup of
an UST release, redevelopment of a
contaminated site, and job creation)
was achieved, the margin of error was
small and the timing was critical.

Spooky Honeymoon at a
North Country Hotel
Bethlehem, a small town in the North
Country, took the former Maplehurst


10
The boarded-up Maplehurst Hotel.
Hotel for taxes. For 20 years, this
1876 vintage hotel had been vacant,
structurally challenged, and a favor-
ite haunt for vandals.  Environmen-
tal issues at the property included a
buried 500-gallon gasoline tank, a
drum-full of waste oil, and asbestos
that hung in sheets from piping in
the boiler room. The tank was legally
empty and had been abandoned for
at least 20 years. Some soil staining
was visible  around the top of the
tank.
    An odd wrinkle to the site was
its past use as a golf and  tennis
camp. One of the little-known quirks
of the stimulus funding is that it can-
not be used at any casino, gambling
establishment,  aquarium, zoo, golf
course, or swimming pool. A frantic
search of aerial photos indicated that
the property never had a golf course
or pool; the campers recreated at the
existing municipal or private course
in the town.
    DES removed the contaminated
soil  and the tank;  the  drum was
removed at the same time, using a
different funding source (stimulus
money can only be used for tank-
related work). Our concern prior
to initiating the work was to  ensure
that our cleanup assistance  would
not come with a hidden price tag due
to cost recovery.
    New Hampshire law is  pretty
clear for  tax-deeded  properties.
Municipalities are provided qualify-
ing holder liability protection when
they acquire property via a tax-deed,
and tax liens are given a priority over
corrective action cost-recovery liens.
Nationally, each state has a differ-
ent mix of statutory protections for
municipalities that tax deed prop-
erties. It is important to check your
state-specific requirements.
    Under  the federal UST rules,
however, the municipality would be
liable as an operator of the tank sys-
tem if a tank contains product. In this
case, the tank was historically emp-
tied. So the contaminated soil and
tank were removed, and brownfields
funding will be used to address the
asbestos issue.
    For DES, helping  to set the stage
for demolition of this neglected eye-
sore was very worthwhile, but exam-
ining cost-recovery issues carefully
upfront was extremely important to
obtaining site  access and an agree-
ment with the town on removing the
tank. The town is attempting to find
a developer for this historic property
but may eventually have to resort to
demolition to  address serious site-
safety issues.

Greek  History Lesson...Opa!
An elderly Greek American couple
owned a former service station on
a quarter-acre lot in  Pittsfield. The
tanks had been "temporarily" out

-------
                                                                             December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
of service since 2005, and a wall of
the building had collapsed early last
year under the winter snow load.
The town had condemned the prop-
erty, and the single-walled piping
would need to be upgraded before
the tank system could be reopened.
In a nutshell, the property had been
for sale for more than two years and
was essentially valueless. However,
the Town of Pittsfield placed a high
priority on redevelopment of this
downtown lot.
   The owners were not financially
viable and, in fact, needed to obtain
a reverse mortgage to stay in their
home. The colorful and personable
husband who owned the property
had long ago fled the Greek civil war,
jumped ship in Venezuela, and now
was our stimulus program partner.
   Based on the site's proximity
to a  sensitive receptor (the river)
and presence of abandoned tanks
less than 30 feet from the river, DES
agreed to use stimulus money to
address the environmental contami-
nation. In conjunction with the site
assessment and remediation,  we
removed the underground  storage
tanks and are now expediting the
site-closure review. Closure of the
site following the assessment of the
abandoned tanks for releases will
facilitate efforts by the town and the
regional planning commission to
redevelop the property.
Know Who You Are Marrying
Like all marriages, you have to know
and get along with your partner.
ARRA funding can be a powerful
addition to the arsenal of weapons
available to address petroleum-con-
taminated sites. The sites, however,
have to be selected with great care,
and pertinent  cost-recovery  and
ARRA funding-eligibility require-
ments must be  painstakingly con-
sidered and followed.  If you are
considering such a wedding at any
of your brownfield sites, be sure
you know a few key personality
traits about the site and the funding.
Things like:

•  Is the site eligible (e.g., the work
   must be related to federally regu-
   lated tank releases)? Don't get
   stuck explaining to the law that
   the farm and heating oil tanks just
   slipped by you.

•  Are you consistent with the lat-
   est program guidance? Read your
   e-mails. The guidance is rapidly
   evolving and you don't want  to
   have to explain to the auditors
   why  the  guidance wasn't fol-
   lowed.

• What about cost recovery? It's key
   for LUST sites. Determine who is
   liable for cost recovery and the
   impact of cost recovery on rede-
   velopment of the LUST site.
Condemned Pittsfield, New Hampshire, building.
• What about timing? Very impor-
  tant. Frequently developers or pro-
  spective purchasers of brownfields
  sites need a fast response. How
  fast can you get things done, and
  is it possible to streamline your
  process? For example, the use of
  federal funds for ground-disturb-
  ing tank assessments results in  the
  need for a review by our Division
  of Historical Resources. (Section
  106 of the National Historic Pres-
  ervation Act requires reviews  for
  the potential for federally funding
  activities to disturb "historic prop-
  erties.") The Division of Historical
  Resources is willing, however, to
  grant us a programmatic  approval
  for all ground-disturbing work
  that is confined to the footprint
  of the tank and piping  installa-
  tion. Elimination of site-specific
  reviews saves time.
    It sure would be easier  to elope.
If you plan to go ahead and marry
the brownfields site of your dreams,
plan on prying in-laws (auditors),
a large elaborate wedding (ARRA
requirements), and money  issues
(cost recovery). New Hampshire
believes that love conquers all, but
we are idealistic romantics. •

  Gary Lynn is the Supervisor of the
  Petroleum Remediation Section of
  DES. He is a frequent LUSTLine
   contributor and can be reached at
       Gary.Lynn@des.nh.gov.
                                                                              of LUSTLine we
                                                                              celebrate the work
                                                                               states have done
                                                                              one year after the
                                                                              American Recovery
                                                                              and I	  ^
                                                                                       of 3009.
                                                                                                     11

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
What's That, a Methane Plume?
What Minnesota Is  Learning About Denatured
Ethanol,  E85  Releases,  and  Methane Gas
by Mark Toso

        Minnesota has always been
        at the forefront in using
        ethanol-blended gasoline.
In 1997 we became one of the first
states to mandate a 10 percent blend
(E10). As the state's environmental
regulatory agency, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
didn't consider E10 to be an issue.
After an informal review, the poten-
tial differences between an E10 and
an ethanol-free gasoline release were
deemed minor and covered under
existing investigation and cleanup
policy, which is based on groundwa-
ter plume delineation. No ethanol-
specific issues have arisen from E10
releases since then. But the increased
use of high-percentage ethanol-blend
fuels (e.g., E85) and a state mandate
to ramp  up to  ethanol blends to E20
by 2013 has given us reason for con-
cern.
   Ethanol  use  has  rapidly
expanded nationwide, and especially
in Minnesota.  Currently Minnesota
has about 25 percent of all E85 sta-
tions in  the United States; we rank
fifth in ethanol production, with a
permitted capacity to produce 1 bil-
lion gallons a  year. For this reason,
we have been contacted by other
states seeking  advice on investigat-
ing and remediating releases of high-
percentage ethanol-blended fuels. All
these factors led us to reevaluate our
current policy  to see if it is adequate
for assessing  ethanol-blend fuels
greater thanElO.
   Most studies on  ethanol-blend
fuels have focused on E10, so infor-
mation on higher percentage etha-
nol blends is lacking. Research has
shown that ethanol can extend petro-
leum plumes in groundwater because
of co-solvency  and that it is preferen-
tially degraded  before BTEX com-
pounds.  Ethanol can also alter BTEX
sorption and  retardation and,  at
higher concentrations, it can exhibit
toxicity to microorganisms, resulting
in the potential for longer groundwa-
ter plumes that may put more water


12
supply wells at risk. While we have
not encountered any major issues
with E10 under our current policy,
we recognized that we really didn't
know how higher blends such as E85
would behave. We knew that meth-
ane generation might be an issue
with higher blends, but this scenario
had not been evaluated.

Study Sites Identified
A study by Capiro et al. (2007) really
brought  to light the potential issues
with higher percentage ethanol
blends. In a bench-scale E95 (fuel-
grade denatured ethanol) release into
a continuous-flow sand tank, it was
found that ethanol migrated upward
and spread laterally within the cap-
illary fringe area above the water
table. This significantly retarded the
vertical and horizontal migration of
ethanol. The hydrocarbons phase
separated within the capillary fringe,
resulting in lower-than-expected dis-
solved contamination. Interestingly
enough,  simulated pumping (as in a
pump-and-treat system) recovered
98 percent of the ethanol but only 25
percent of the hydrocarbons. All this
appeared to have possible implica-
tions to release-site investigations.
   While we hadn't had any con-
firmed releases of E85 by late 2006,
spills of denatured ethanol (E95) had
occurred on a fairly regular basis in
Minnesota. Most had been remedi-
ated by  soil excavation, but there
were two large E95 derailment sites
that  the MPCA, along with other
stakeholders, decided could be used
to  investigate the subsurface effects
of  a  high-percentage ethanol fuel
release in more  detail. With funding
from the American Petroleum Insti-
tute, USEPA, MPCA, and our state
Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup
Fund, and working in collaboration
with Dr.  Roy Spalding from the Uni-
versity of Nebraska, we  initiated a
research  project at these sites, located
in Balaton and near the town of Cam-
bria in southern Minnesota.
   The Balaton release (60,000
gallons) occurred in July 2004, and
the Cambria release (28,000 gallons)
occurred in November 2006. Both
releases were excavated to the extent
practicable following the release and
were being monitored under current
closure policy. Groundwater moni-
toring was initially conducted for
BTEX and ethanol.
   During the early phases of the
project it was discovered that there
were no standard laboratory analyti-
cal methods for ethanol and that labs
running ethanol analysis may be sub-
ject to high detection limits. Working
with our Health Department's envi-
ronmental laboratory we developed
a method for quantifying ethanol in
groundwater based on a modified
version of USEPA Method 8260 with
detection limits of approximately
50,ig/L.
   In 2007 we installed  additional
monitoring wells and soil-gas moni-
toring  points at both sites. Well
screens with shorter intervals (5 to
7 feet in length) were used versus a
standard 10-foot screen length, and
we began to collect analytical data
for ethanol, methane, acetate, and
other bioattenuation parameters in
groundwater. Soil gas collected from
soil-gas monitoring points was ana-
lyzed for fixed gases (i.e., methane,
oxygen, carbon dioxide) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), includ-
ing ethanol.

Methane in Groundwater
The results to date seem to confirm
the findings of the Capiro study. At
the more recent Cambria release,
ethanol concentrations of up to 5.5
percent were detected in ground-
water. The ethanol was restricted
to the areas of the original release
and had not migrated. Groundwa-
ter conditions were reduced, with
no dissolved oxygen and very high
dissolved iron. Initially, very little
methane was found in groundwa-
ter and soil gas, but after one year,

-------
                                                                               December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
the methane groundwater plume
had rapidly expanded laterally
and moved downgradient from the
release source. This was believed to
result from the initial toxic effects
from ethanol on microorganisms that
apparently delayed methane produc-
tion. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
    At Balaton, the older of the two
releases, methane production was
already well established.  A large
plume of dissolved methane at satu-
ration limits was present in ground-
water, and this too had migrated with
the natural groundwater gradient.
However, ethanol was last detected
in December 2007 at 78 fig/L. Since
then, the site has maintained a large,
stable plume of dissolved methane
without the presence of ethanol.
    This behavior implies that etha-
nol is degrading  to intermediate
compounds that in turn degrade to
methane via fermentation. This was
verified by acetate concentrations,
which were detected at 33,000 |Ug/L
at Balaton (and up to 107,000 fig/L
at Cambria). In addition, very high
levels of dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) were detected at both sites
(up to 3,000 fig/L at Cambria). Both
of these analytes also migrated away
from the source areas.

Methane in Soil Gas
The soil gas monitoring points were
sampled using one-liter evacuated
canisters for laboratory analysis of
VOCs, including ethanol, by TO-15
and for fixed gases by USEPA 3C.
Methane was detected up to 53.8 per-
cent by volume at Balaton, which is
similar in magnitude to the methane
generated from a municipal solid
waste landfill. The explosive range
for methane is 5-15 percent. Meth-
ane was also detected at 2.7 percent
in a surface soil-gas sampler, which
explains our initial difficulty in zero-
ing our field instruments.
    We  also evaluated the use of
field meters for measuring fixed
gases, including methane, in soil-gas
monitoring points. A good correla-
tion was found between a  Landtec
GEM™ 2000 landfill gas monitor and
USEPA 3C. An in-line carbon filter
was used to remove VOCs from the
air stream that will also be detected
by the GEM™ 2000, thus providing
a more  accurate measurement for
methane. Measured concentrations
of methane in soil gas fluctuated
   FIGURE 1 Cambria Site: Extent of methane in groundwater June 2007
   (groundwater flow direction is northeast)
                                                                 5H
  FIGURE 2 Cambria Site: Extent of methane in groundwater Dec. 2007
  (groundwater flow direction is northeast)

                                           tSUMATEQ COWTOUftS SASED ON WfCA DATA.
between monitoring events, possibly
due to barometric and temperature
effects between sampling events.
Since methane is highly degradable
once aerobic conditions in the soil
column are encountered,  this may
also have played a role in the fluc-
tuation. Concentrations of methane
in groundwater proved to be much
more consistent over time versus lev-
els measured in soil gas.

Risk? Observations?
Questions?
The fieldwork and data analysis at
both sites is ongoing and we haven't
fully evaluated all the data, but some
general conclusions can be drawn.
Most importantly, because explo-
sive levels of methane are present
in soil gas at both sites, it's apparent
that methane is a major risk driver
for releases of high-percentage etha-
nol fuels. This risk continues, even
after ethanol has degraded  (over
two years at Balaton), and as yet, we
don't know for how long. This  obser-
vation implies the need for dissolved
methane analysis at high-percentage
ethanol fuel releases. Other param-
eters such as acetate and DOC  might
also be useful to characterize  bioat-
tenuation, but clearly other param-
eters than just  ethanol need to be
analyzed.
    Methane was also shown  to
migrate with the  groundwater gra-
dient whereas ethanol did not. This
may imply that alternative site char-
acterization methods, such as suc-
tion lysimeters, may need to be used
               • continued on page 21

                              13

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
Revelations of a Value Stream Mapping Project
What  Is  Value  Stream  Mapping,  and  Why
Would Anyone  Want to Do It?
      About two years ago, Dela-
      ware's Tank Management
      Branch (TMB)  Corrective
Action Group participated in train-
ing to "Go Lean." No, none of us
lost weight, but we did manage to
streamline some of the steps in our
corrective action process. Going lean
in government refers to a variation of
techniques applied in Japanese man-
ufacturing systems that seek to elimi-
nate waste and inefficient approaches
to administrative processes (do you
old timers remember TQM?).
   The Title  V permitting group
of the Delaware Natural Resources
and Environmental Conservation's
(DNREC's) Air  Resources pro-
gram was the first in the depart-
ment to undertake the process. Our
LUST Corrective Action Group was
next. The Brownfields Program of
DNREC's Site Investigation and Res-
toration Branch has gone through
the process as well, and now our
TMB compliance inspection group is
working their way through the pro-
cess, specifically for the new tank
installation approval and the vapor
recovery permit processes. Funding
for taking various DNREC programs
through this training was provided
by the Delaware  Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, and training
was conducted by Ultimate Lean,
Inc. of Rockville, Maryland.

14
   The fundamental objective of
going lean is to create the most
value while consuming the fewest
resources, through the tool of Value
Stream Mapping. "Value" is defined
from the customer's perspective.
Mapping the value stream involves
identifying all of the steps, both
value-added and non-value-added,
required to complete a product or
service from beginning to end. The
"value stream map" is the visual rep-
resentation of a value stream; it helps
to reveal waste and problems with
flow and serves as a blueprint for
improvement.
   The process was a collaborative
effort between the Tank  Manage-
ment Branch, stakeholders, and other
DNREC agencies involved in our
value stream (i.e., consultants, owner
representatives, the  Underground
Injection Control Branch, Site Inves-
tigation and Restoration Branch, The
Office of the Secretary, TMB Techni-
cal staff, TMB administrative staff,
and a facilitator).

Mapping the "Current State"
The first step we undertook was
to identify the value stream to be
mapped. Our identified value stream
was to map a project from time of
receipt of sample results,  acknowl-
edging that the site had experienced
a release, all the way through inves-
tigation of the release, corrective
action, if warranted, through to issu-
ance of a closure letter.
    Every single step in the process
was identified, as well as the esti-
mated amount of time to accom-
plish that step and  the amount of
lag time between steps. This process
gives us the "current state" of  the
process, which is the foundation for
the  "future state," which eliminates
waste and improves the flow of the
process. When the leaner future state
has been mapped, an implementa-
tion plan is developed to support the
objectives of the program.
    When we had finished mapping
our current state, we had between
52 and 71 steps. The "steps" include
both the "big" stuff—reviewing the
sample results, researching the site,
drafting letters, reviewing work
plans, reviewing results of investi-
gations, determining whether inves-
tigations are sufficiently complete,
setting up requirements for remedial
action—and also all sorts of "little"
stuff, such as mail coming into  the
building through the receptionist,
being sorted to our branch, being
logged into the mail system, deliv-
ered to the project officer.
    For example, when  you have
reviewed a report, a letter gets
drafted, a work order is prepared for
the  administrative assistant, a letter

-------
                                                                                December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
goes to your manager for review
and then back to the administrative
assistant to make corrections, put
on letterhead, printed, given back
to the project officer for a signature,
returned to the administrative assis-
tant, copies are made, envelopes are
prepared, the letter is logged  out,
and finally put in the mail.
    With every step that we included
on the flow charts, we had to  esti-
mate the process time—how long it
actually took us to do each task (on
the average) and the lag time—how
long the papers sat around waiting
for the next step to happen. We iden-
tified areas where process improve-
ments were  necessary to achieve
our future state. These areas were
then identified  on the flow charts
by "Kaizen Bursts," which are rapid
improvement processes focused on
eliminating waste, improving  pro-
ductivity, and achieving continual
improvement.  Areas for  improve-
ment were prioritized, and an action
plan was developed for what, who,
when, and why.
    We also considered the use of
electronic signatures on our letters, so
that after the manager had reviewed
the letter, the administrative staff
would make any necessary changes,
drop in the electronic signature, and
send out the letter. If there were sub-
stantive changes made by the man-
ager, the letter would return to the
letter-writer before it was  finalized.
We haven't implemented the elec-
tronic signature policy yet, and may
not. Some of us control freaks want
to have a last look at the letter before
it goes out, particularly to see that
any changes were made correctly.
    An additional experiment that
we tried was to  create a series of
project-tracking boards that we
posted in the hallway. It  included
visual tracking of about ten differ-
ent due dates for each of our projects,
as well as all sorts of color-coded
dots and messages. In theory, staff
was to post dates of such items as
reports received, letters written, and
due dates for reports and have peri-
odic group "stand-up" meetings to
review the boards. The boards would
an update about what we are doing
about any item that is 90 days past
due and may need enforcement.
    Another suggestion we tried was
the idea of "time slicing," where you
set aside certain blocks of time each
day to work uninterrupted—hit the
"send calls" button on your phone,
close your office door, and work with
no disruptions. No one is to bother
you during your time slice, except in
an emergency. Some people loved the
idea, but others didn't. If you missed
a call, you could spend the next few
days trying to catch up with the per-
son. We realized that different people
have different work styles, so after a
mandatory trial period, time slicing
became optional.

Other Moves Toward the
Future State
Other projects our group is work-
ing on include the updating of vari-
ous guidance documents to improve
the quality and completeness  of
report submissions.  Our process had
evolved over the years, but our guid-
ance document hadn't. The first guid-
                                                                                Implementation of
                                                                                  Improved Plan
      V   Scope  J
      Mapping the Current State. Each step in the value stream has a process box describing the step in the process. Also included in
      the box is the technology used, personnel involved (e.g., administrative staff, project officers, managers), paper versus electronic
      information flow, when an outside resource is involved (e.g., letter going out to RP or consultant, or a different DNREC group for
      review or approvals), the actual process time for each step, the lag time waiting for processing, and the percentage of the time that the
      work produced is "correct and accurate."
Our Kaizen Bursts
One of the places where we saw room
for improvement was the time it took
for managers to review letters. Part
of the solution for this was the cre-
ation of additional standardized let-
ter templates. Certain language had
always been included in letters, but
individual project officers also used
their own boilerplate letters. Having
additional boilerplate letters to pull
from speeded  up  letter writing and
made the letters more technically
consistent and  easier for managers to
review quickly.
provide a visual tracking mechanism
showing whether the ball was in our
court or had been lobbed back to the
responsible party and consultant.
    This experiment proved to be
too cumbersome, but we have modi-
fied our LUST database to provide us
each with weekly e-mail notifications
of which reports are due that week. It
does require that you actually enter
due dates into the database when you
send out a letter,  so that the database
will know to e-mail  you a nagging
reminder. At corrective action group
meetings, we are required to provide
ance document to be produced is the
Hydrogeologic Investigation Guide, a
detailed description of what material
must be submitted when a hydro-
geologic investigation is required by
DNREC.
    Also in the hopper is a Remedial
Action Guidance document, which
describes what needs to be in a reme-
dial action work plan—establishing
cleanup goals and progress reports
for various types of remedial actions.
The thinking is  if  we describe in
detail our requirements and expec-
                • continued on page 16

                               15

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
• WanderLUST^rom page 15

tations, the quality of work should
improve. Also slated for  develop-
ment are LNAPL and vapor-intru-
sion guidances and a revision to our
RBCA process document to include
these pathways.

And the Most Daring Move...
Eliminating the Investigation
Work Plan
The biggest thing we undertook
as a result of all our Value
Stream Mapping
letter requiring that an investigation
be conducted.
    In this more traditional scenario,
the consultant would do some field-
work and prepare a report for sub-
mission to DNREC. We would review
the report, decide that additional
investigation was needed,
and ask for an addi-
tional work
ticularly large or complex site, addi-
tional investigation may still be
required and a work plan
submitted  for
approval
for
 Project-
 Tracking
 Board Experiment.
 Data tracked includes informa-
 tion on the project name and ID number,
 facility number, hydrologist assigned, date
 samples received, date hydro letter sent, due date
 for work plan, work plan approval date, date hydro report
 received, response letter from branch, along with type of response,
 RP response deadline, status, site decommissioning letter sent, date NFA
 letter sent, and comments. We were running short on wall space that was long
 enough to hold the charts!
and associated soul searching was
the elimination of the requirement
for consultants to submit a work
plan and  obtain approval prior to
conducting the first phases of an
investigation. In fact, preparation
of the Hydrogeologic Investigation
Guide was undertaken because, in
the absence of a work plan, there
should at least be helpful and up-to-
date guidance.
    This move (which is still in pilot-
test mode) is supposed to allow for
the possibility that a consultant can
take several mobilizations to the field
to define  the extent of contamina-
tion, within an allowable timeframe,
without having to submit several
separate work plans for each phase.
In the past, a responsible party (RP)
had 30 days to submit a work plan
for approval, and the final report
would be due within 120 days of our

16
plan. Sometimes  this  step was
repeated several times—one or two
trips to the field to conduct direct-
push sampling, going a little bit
farther each time, followed by instal-
lation of monitoring wells. After each
step, a report would be submitted.
Sometimes the consultant would
propose additional sampling in his
report,  and sometimes  he'd wait
for us to tell him that it was neces-
sary. In  some cases, letters and work
plans would go back and forth for
months...not to mention the neces-
sity of applying for well permits each
time. Not particularly efficient.
    So,  eliminating a  bunch  of
loop-backs has shortened the time
required to conduct a relatively com-
plete investigation. Now, consultants
have 120  days to get us a reason-
ably complete report that defines the
extent of contamination. On a par-
the additional work. In our initial
hydro-investigation letter, we do rec-
ommend that RPs and consultants
give us a call and schedule a tele-
conference to discuss the scope of
the investigation. In practice, most
don't call. If the RP wishes to sub-
mit a work plan for the first phases
of investigation, we will still review
it and issue an approval (or non-
approval letter).
    If given a chance, we are happy
to provide valuable information
to help direct an investigation. For
example, the facility may have  had
previous LUST  issues, so we may
have information available on depth
to groundwater, flow direction, other
potential sources of contamination,
or whether an air rotary drilling rig
may be necessary  due to  concerns
such as depth to bedrock or location
of previous tank systems.

-------
                                                                              December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
Where's the Work Plan When
You Need It?
But the lack of a work plan can
present its own vexing set  of cir-
cumstances and inefficiencies. For
example, I recently reviewed  a facil-
ity report  where  none of the  six
monitoring wells installed were
located downgradient of any of the
probable sources for the site. Every
well installed at the site was located
upgradient or crossgradient of prob-
able sources (e.g., tanks and dispens-
ers). Why no wells downgradient?
Did anyone notice the stream down
there?
    Wonder of wonders, the  upgra-
dient/crossgradient wells looked
pretty clean, with one exception—the
upgradient-most well. That well had
detects of gasoline chemicals-of-con-
cern. Could this contamination have
come from the tank field that  existed
in the 1950s and 1960s, whose loca-
tion we don't know? The consultants
forgot, however, to analyze  for the
lead scavengers, which would have
been required for an old tank field
and even for the current tank field,
based on the age of the tanks, and
would have helped us establish the
source. This contaminated part of the
site was also the previous location of
a dry cleaner, and in their introduc-
tion to the report, the consultants
mentioned analyzing for VOCs  in
this area, but evidently forgot to do
so.
    And to top it off, the wells that
they installed had  25-foot-long
screens, with 15 feet of screen below
the water table. Normally, we prefer
a 10-foot screen, with five feet below
the water table, so the water samples
collected are more representative of
the top of the water table. If I want to
sample deeper to help identify a div-
ing plume, I'll screen a well  deeper
with a short screen. While eliminat-
ing the submittal of a work plan may
move some sites along faster, all of
the problems with this report could
have been avoided if a work plan had
been submitted, or even if a phone
call had been made to discuss the
general scope of the investigation.

Smoothing Out the Lumps
So far, I'd give mixed reviews to the
"No-Work-Plan" idea. Many consul-
tants are perfectly capable of com-
pleting an investigation without a
preapproved work plan, but others
have managed to pick some bizarre
sampling locations, missed analyz-
ing for some of the required analytes,
installed wells with screens that are
too long, or failed to provide suffi-
cient documentation about site con-
ditions. We also get a lot of "That's
how we do it in New Jersey" (or
Pennsylvania, or Maryland). We're
hoping that the new guidance docu-
ment  will help. For example, if the
no-work-plan approach results in
data gaps, we haven't worked out
who will pay for any additional work
that is necessary.
   My  work prioritization scheme
involves turning around a work
plan relatively quickly, while I may
let quarterly monitoring  reports age
gracefully before receiving a com-
plete  review (they get a quick look
when they first come in to see if there
have been drastic changes or requests
for some sort of action by me). Work
plans have typically been high on
our priority list so the consultant can
get started, and unless  the plan is
particularly bad, they don't normally
take that long to review.
   Then there is the approval let-
ter. Getting an approval letter out is
like a "Tag, you're it," and puts the
ball back in the RP/consultant court.
Under our new system, many consul-
tants will now e-mail a map and data
table  with the results of the initial
investigation, along with suggested
additional sampling points. Some-
times there is a follow-up phone call
to discuss additional investigation.
We can provide a quick response,
usually by e-mail, approving the next
steps. This is good;  it can eliminate
several weeks of paper shuffling and
results in the submission of a more
complete investigation  within the
deadline. So we'll see.
   In the past, the  consultant pre-
pared and submitted the "Mother,
May  I?"  (work  plan) and  we
responded  with a "Letter of Okie
Dokie" (work plan approval letter).
We decided that the process could be
streamlined from what we had been
doing, but it works more  smoothly if
the RP and consultant work together
with their project officer  to have the
process go well.
   In my opinion, streamlining the
work plan, rather than eliminating
it, would be a better option. Believe
me, I've gotten work  plans  that
were 30-40 pages long, where every-
thing that is to be done on the site is
described in excruciating detail. We
can eliminate some of that by  pro-
viding detailed guidance  on what
is expected. Detail is required  only
if there are going to be deviations
from the guidance. The details can
go in the final report.  Most consul-
tants have boilerplate language for
things like how wells are going to be
purged or how they decontaminate
equipment.
    By the  way, to  make these
changes go more smoothly, during
the time we were working  on Value
Stream Mapping we migrated our
LUST database from Microsoft Access
to a SQL server, which includes
databases for all DNREC programs
(DEN or the Delaware Environmen-
tal Navigator). At the same time, we
expanded the information that the
LUST database contains, making it
more useful than just a way to  gen-
erate the semi-annual USEPA STARS
report. It now also serves as a project
tracking/management tool.

It's Not Pretty at First
Our honest mapping of the current
state identified some process incon-
sistencies, loop backs resulting in
long lead times, delays in getting let-
ters out, and state employees doing
consulting for the RP, when it's  sup-
posed to be done by the consultant.
But we've seen some improvements
in the time needed to get  a project
through the regulatory hoops. We are
now quicker and, yes,  maybe a  little
bit leaner, with a few more projects
slated  to help us shed a few more
pounds. •
         UNION  PARK
       BAPTIST CHURCH
           ABOUT LUST?
         10-30AM SUNDAY
                                                                                                      17

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
Case  Study:
Ethanol-Blended Fuels  and
Leak  Detection
by Kevin Henderson

 TTtt the  last issue of LUSTLine, I
 I described a scenario in which the
JL ingress of water into a single-walled
UST containing ethanol-blended fuel
may not be detected by non-volumetric
("vacuum") precision tightness-test-
ing methodologies. (See LL #62 "The
Transient Behavior of Water in Ethanol-
Blended Fuels —Implications for Leak
Detection".) Since that article was pub-
lished, the scenario I described occurred
in the State of Mississippi, confirming
my theoretical implications. This inci-
dent involved a large multi-state petro-
leum marketer that, as it turns out, has
also experienced similar incidents within
the last year in Alabama, Georgia, and
North Carolina. So, what happened in
Mississippi? Why is this  occurring?
And what can be done about it?

What Happened?
The USTs at this facility  are 10,000-
gallon single-walled steel tanks that
were installed in 1989. The facility
was acquired by the current owner in
April 2008 and was converted from
conventional gasoline to E10 (10%
ethanol) in June 2008. The present
owner has been conducting statisti-
cal inventory reconciliation (SIR) to
meet the leak-detection requirements
and has received "passing" results
for every month that the UST system
has been in operation. The inventory
data utilized in the SIR analysis was
acquired via an automatic tank gaug-
ing (ATG) system.
    On May 20, 2009,  cars were
reportedly stalling out as they were
leaving the facility after fueling with
premium gasoline. Manual gaug-
ing of the premium tank revealed
that phase separation of the E10 fuel
blend had occurred, given that  sev-
eral inches of mixed water/ethanol
were at the bottom of the tank. The
premium tank was immediately shut
down and efforts initiated to deter-
mine the source of the water. Initially,
it was believed that water was enter-
ing the tank through defective caps
on the tank fill and ATG risers. After
these two items were repaired, all of

18
the existing phase-separated fuel was
removed from the tank and a new
delivery of fuel was made into the
premium tank.

Test One: "Pass"
Three days after the repairs  and
delivery of new  fuel, a precision
tank-tightness test was conducted
with a commonly used non-volu-
metric "vacuum"  test methodology
which relies on a  water sensor that
is installed at the bottom of the tank
to detect water ingress. The tank
was manually gauged through the
fill riser, and it was determined that
27l/2 inches of fuel were in the tank
and no water was  detected. Ground-
water was at a height of 74 inches
above the bottom of the  tank, as
determined from  observation wells
installed within the backfill of the
tank excavation.
   Initially the  tank  tester was
unable to pull the amount of vacuum
in the tank needed  to conduct the test.
It was quickly determined that a gas-
ket on the submersible turbine pump
(STP) housing  was leaking. After
the STP was pulled, the test opera-
tor manually gauged the tank and
detected 3 l/2 inches of "phase sepa-
ration" at the STP end of the tank.
Strangely, no water or phase separa-
tion was detected when the tank was
manually gauged at the ATG riser or
at the fill riser. The operator plugged
the STP riser and was able to achieve
the vacuum needed to conduct the
tightness test.
   The premium tank passed the
tightness test; the operator did not
hear any evidence of a leak and the
water sensor installed in the ATG
riser did not detect any water ingress.
The existing phase-separation fluids
(mixed water/ethanol at the bottom
of the tank) were removed  from the
tank, and it was left out of service after
the test pending repairs to the STP.

Test Two: "Pass"?
Two days after the tank passed the
initial tightness test, a new STP was
installed, and another tightness test
conducted, as is required any time
repairs are conducted. For this test,
the operator pulled the ATG riser so
that he could place the water sen-
sor in the middle of the tank. Man-
ual gauging conducted before the
start of the tightness test revealed
that 22 inches of fuel and  3A inch of
phase separation were present in the
tank (measured through  the tank-
fill riser). Observation wells again
indicated that groundwater was at a
height of 74 inches above the bottom
of the tank.
   After beginning the test, the
water sensor tripped after 20 min-
utes, presumably indicating ingress of
water. As is common practice, the test
operator readjusted the water sensor
and continued the test in an effort to
confirm the initial indication of water
ingress. After continuing the test for
another \l/i hours, no additional
water ingress was detected. There-
fore, the test operator again declared
the test result to be "pass." However,
after  manually gauging the tank
again after the conclusion of the test,
the operator determined that there
was now 7/» inch of phase separation
in the tank, representing a net gain of
l/s inch of phase separation.
   Since the test operator was aware
of the issues involved with detect-
ing water ingress in ethanol-blended
fuels, he noted on the test data sheet
that,  although the tank passed, the
validity of the test was unknown due
to the presence  of phase-separation
fluids at the bottom of the tank prior
to conducting the test.

Test Three: "Fail"
Given this tank owner's prior experi-
ences with similar tank failures over
the past year (i.e., tank failures that
occurred in Alabama, Georgia, and
North Carolina prior to the Missis-
sippi tank failure) and the tightness-
test operator's comments  about the
uncertainty of the test result, this
tank was left out of operation until a
final determination could be made.
   Seven days after the second
"passing" tightness test, another
tightness test was conducted. For this
test, the tank was emptied of all flu-
ids in order to eliminate any uncer-
tainty about whether or not water
was entering the tank. Several hours
elapsed after the tank was emptied
before the test operator arrived at the
facility. Manual gauging of the tank
revealed 13/& inches of water on the

-------
                                                                               December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
fill end of the tank and 17/& inches of
water on the STP end of the tank.
    To conduct this test, the STP was
again removed  and water sensors
were placed at both ends of the tank.
Observation wells again indicated
that groundwater was at a height of
74 inches above the bottom of the
tank. A vacuum of 0.5 psi was pulled
on the tank and the test was con-
ducted for a total of two hours.
    Although there was again  no
acoustic evidence of a leak, the water
sensors did detect ingress. The water
sensor at the fill end of the tank
alarmed twice, and the water sensor
at the STP  end  of the  tank alarmed
three times during the course of the
test. Manual gauging  at the  conclu-
sion of the test revealed 2l/s inches of
water at the fill end of the tank and
2:/2 inches of water at the STP end of
the tank. This represents manually
gauged water ingress of 3/4 inches at
the fill end of the tank and 5/& inches
at the STP  end  of the  tank over the
two hour test period.
    Since there was no acoustic evi-
dence of a leak, the location of the
hole in the tank that allowed the
water ingress is interpreted to be
beneath the level of fluid in the tank.
Therefore, the breach  in the  wall of
the tank must be at  or very near the
bottom. The operator declared the
result of this, the third  tightness test,
to be "fail." (See Table 1 for  a  sum-
mary of events at this site.)

Why Is This Occurring?
Has the  introduction of ethanol-
blended fuels accelerated the inter-
nal corrosion of steel  tanks? Could
it be that these tank failures  are the
result of a misalignment of the striker
plates or improper installation of the
tanks such that the  gauging  stick is
not contacting the striker plate? Is
there some other mechanism  respon-
sible for these tank failures, or is it a
combination of several factors?
    What about fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP) tanks?  Are ethanol-
blended fuels causing  the resins uti-
lized in the manufacture of some FRP
tanks to soften? Manufacturers have
issued various statements concern-
ing the compatibility  of their tanks
with ethanol-blended fuels.  Gener-
ally, FRP tanks currently being pro-
duced are not of concern, but  there
is some evidence that certain older
FRP tanks may be susceptible. While
TABLE 1. Timeline of events at the facility discussed in this article.
DATE EVENT RESULT
June 1,2008
August 20, 2009
August 21, 2009
August 24, 2009
August 26, 2009
September 2, 2009
Tanks converted to E10
Cars stalling after fueling
ATG and fill cap replaced
STP isolated and precision tightness
test conducted
STP repaired and precision tightness
test conducted
Tank emptied and precision tightness
conducted
?
Premium tank shut down
Contaminated fuel removed and
new fuel delivered
Premium tank result = "pass"
Premium tank result = "pass"
but validity of test questioned
Premium tank result = "fail"
we continue to receive anecdotal
reports of FRP failures apparently
associated with the introduction of
ethanol-blended fuels, none of these
have been adequately documented
to draw any definitive conclusions.
    While the failure mechanism(s)
of both steel and  FRP tanks are
unknown at this time, efforts are
underway to get a better idea of what
could be happening. National efforts
to conduct compatibility testing in
ethanol-blended fuels associated
with not only steel and FRP tanks,
but virtually every type of material
utilized in UST systems is just begin-
ning. In addition, thought is being
given to determine the feasibility of
conducting causal analyses of known
UST-system failures (i.e., leak autop-
sies). Hopefully, these  efforts will
help resolve the murky  uncertainty
and result in tangible data rather
than the speculation that is occurring
at this time.

What  Can  Be Done?
Until research  and data needed to
better understand and prevent tank
failures from occurring in the first
place are available, our focus must
necessarily be directed  toward our
leak-detection capabilities. Clearly,
our ability to detect the failure of
a tank containing ethanol-blended
fuels via water  ingress utilizing our
existing leak-detection methodolo-
gies leaves something to be desired.
    Presently, the Mississippi Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality is
evaluating the ability  of existing
leak-detection methodologies to suffi-
ciently  alert the owner/ operator that a
failure of tank integrity should be sus-
pected when ethanol-blended fuels
and high groundwater conditions are
involved. Unfortunately, it seems as
though our ability  to evaluate leak-
detection capabilities is shrouded in
uncertainty and more research and
data are needed before any definitive
conclusions can be made.
    Although these uncertainties
exist, one of the more obvious mea-
sures that can be undertaken at this
time is to require that single-walled
tanks containing ethanol-blended
fuels be emptied  of  all product
prior to conducting non-volumetric
("vacuum") precision tightness test-
ing when groundwater is above the
bottom of  the tank. With this one
simple measure, we can be relatively
certain that the transient behavior of
water in ethanol-blended fuels will
not mask our ability to detect a tank
failure via non-volumetric "vacuum"
tightness testing when groundwater
is above the bottom of the tank.
    However, other  questions
remain. For example,  if the rate
of water ingress (relative to the
throughput volume of the tank) is
not yet great enough to cause phase
separation, do our existing  leak-
detection methodologies sufficiently
alert the owner/operator that a tank
failure should be suspected? If the
owner/operator  does not yet sus-
pect a  problem, how do we get to
the point where a precision tightness
test is conducted to confirm whether
the tank has failed or is tight? How
many tanks have already failed but
the rate of  water ingress is  not yet
great enough  to cause a noticeable
problem? Must we wait until  cars are
stalling out after fueling before we
suspect a tank failure has occurred?
Time will tell. •

 Kevin Henderson is the UST Compli-
 ance & Enforcement Manager with the
  Mississippi Department of Environ-
  mental Quality. He can be reached at
  Kevin_Henderson@decj.state.ms.us.


                              19

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
                                Co«&r
         While methyl tertiary butyl
         ether (MtBE) is all but gone
         from the nation's gasoline,
its legacy lives on in the courts. It also
lives on in the environment—cour-
tesy of LUST releases that occurred
during MtBE's heyday as a gasoline
additive used by refiners as the oxy-
genate of choice to comply with the
requirements of the 1990 Clean  Air
Act amendments. The latest case in
the MtBE litigation orb ended in New
York City on October 19, 2009, when
a federal jury found in favor  of the
city to the tune of $104.7 million in
compensatory damages to be paid by
ExxonMobil for contaminating five
groundwater wells in the Borough of
Queens with MtBE.
    Nationwide, dozens  of similar
cases against oil companies are wait-
ing in the wings and, according to
attorney Scott Summy of Baron &
Budd, P.C. in Dallas, more cases have
recently been filed and more are com-
ing. In 1995,  Summy filed the first
MtBE groundwater case in the U.S.,
representing Wilmington, North Car-
olina, residents against Conoco. He
later teamed up with attorney Victor
Sher of Sher & Leff in San Francisco
to win, in 2002, the first major MtBE
settlement agreement by oil compa-
nies. In that case, the oil companies
paid the South Lake Tahoe Water Dis-
trict $69 million to clean up 18 wells.
Sher was New York City's lawyer on
the ExxonMobil case.
    The pair teamed up again to win,
in 2003, the largest MtBE  settlement
to date: the City of Santa Monica's
water contamination lawsuit, which
could eventually cost oil refiners
hundreds of millions of dollars.
Twenty-two oil companies agreed
to settle for $121 million in cash,
plus pay the full costs of a treatment
facility. In 2008, Summy won a $450
million total cash settlement for  150
water providers from 17 states.

The MDL Framework
The New York City versus Exxon-
Mobil case is part of a larger con-
solidation of MtBE lawsuits. In 2003,
MtBE lawsuits filed in state courts by
20
numerous water providers around
the country and state and local gov-
ernments were transferred to Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin of the United
States District Court for the South-
ern District of New York by the Judi-
cial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL 1358 II) for pretrial informa-
tion-gathering.  These suits remain
pending before Judge Scheindlin.
   Oil  companies  subsequently
sought  to dismiss water-district
claims against  them, arguing that
the lawsuits are unfair and that those
directly responsible for spills should
be held liable, not the makers of the
product. Scheindlin dismissed most
of these claims, stating: "Innocent
water providers—and ultimately
innocent water users—should not be
denied relief from the contamination
of their water supply if defendants
breached a duty to avoid an unrea-
sonable risk of harm from their prod-
ucts." The ruling allowed plaintiffs
to proceed with more than 80 law-
suits seeking  to hold oil companies
responsible for  groundwater pollu-
tion and the significant costs associ-
ated with MtBE cleanup.

New York City v.  ExxonMobil
In 2003, New York City sued 23 major
oil companies over MtBE contamina-
tion from leaking underground stor-
age tanks. Most of the companies
reached out-of-court settlements
totaling $15 million. Only ExxonMo-
bil chose not to settle and was, in fact,
the first of these consolidated cases to
go all the way to trial.
   The ExxonMobil trial, which
accused ExxonMobil of poisoning
five of six groundwater wells, began
in August 2009 and had four phases.
   At issue in the first phase was the
city's plan to build a water-treatment
facility (called Station 6) able to treat
10 million gallons of water a day. The
Queens water supply is a backup to
be used when the upstate reservoir
system that normally provides water
to the city is  out of service during
repairs, droughts, or other emergen-
cies. ExxonMobil argued that this
water-treatment facility was never
going to be built.
The jury decided
against Exxon-
Mobil, conclud-
ing that the city
intends to build
the plant within
15 years and to
use it within the
next 25.
    In phase 2 of
the trial, the jury
had to determine
whether MtBE
will still be in
the wells when
the water-treat-
ment project
is completed,
and  how long
and at what level
the MtBE was going to be present in
the Queens water supply wells. The
city argued that the MtBE would be
present at significant levels for many
years into the future, while Exxon-
Mobil argued that MtBE would soon
be gone from the aquifer or diluted to
minimal levels. The jury agreed with
the city and found that MtBE would
be present in the water for decades.
   The third phase focused on
whether ExxonMobil is liable for
poisoning the water and, if so, how
much it should pay. The jury was
asked to decide whether ExxonMo-
bil knew of the potential  for ground-
water contamination when it added
MtBE to its gasoline and whether
ExxonMobil failed  to warn govern-
ment agencies, gas  station owners,
and the public about the danger. The
jury decided against ExxonMobil and
found that ExxonMobil knew of the
dangers posed by MtBE and failed to
warn anyone about them.
   The city had sought $250.5 mil-
lion in compensatory damages to
finance construction and operation
of its water-treatment facility so the
wells in Queens could be reopened
and brought back on-line. In reach-
ing its award of $104.7 million, the
jury subtracted a percentage based
on ExxonMobil's share of the gaso-
line market, and an additional $70

-------
                                                                                December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
million that represented the cost to
treat other contaminants that were
also present in the Queens aquifer.
    The fourth  phase of the trial
would have determined whether
ExxonMobil should have to pay the
city additional money beyond  the
anticipated cost of the water treat-
ment as punishment for ExxonMo-
bil's bad behavior. This phase was
eliminated on October 15, when
Judge Scheindlin decided that suf-
ficient evidence had not been pre-
sented to merit  punitive damages,
so this phase of the trial never took
place.
    The New York City suit is sig-
nificant because it is the first of the
MtBE MDL cases to go before a jury.
The city's lawyer, Victor Sher, noted:
"This is an important outcome for
public water suppliers dealing with
MtBE throughout the country."

New Hampshire's Statewide
MtBE Lawsuit
In 2003, the State of New Hampshire
sued oil companies that had added
MtBE to gasoline  sold in the state,
seeking full recovery for statewide
contamination of drinking water
supplies. The Attorney General's
Office filed the lawsuit on behalf of
all New Hampshire citizens. The suit
alleges that MtBE escapes easily from
tank systems, spreads quickly and
extensively through underground
aquifers, does not degrade like other
gasoline constituents, and  requires
costly and long-term investigation
and cleanup. The lawsuit is pend-
ing in Merrimack County Superior
Court.
    Adding fuel to the fire, a 2008
study, conducted for the NH Depart-
ment of Environmental Services
(DES) by the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, documents widespread MtBE
contamination throughout the state
in both public and private drinking
water wells. The study documents
how the chemical has  spread and
that it persists. For example, one of
every two private wells tested in
highly populated areas of Rocking-
ham County contains some level of
MtBE. (For more information go to
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3119/.)
    Chances are other states will  fol-
low suit...so to speak. And the mel-
ody lingers on. •
 I Methane from page 13
to sample the  capillary fringe for
ethanol, as the  Capiro study noted.
There were also interesting results
associated with some bioattenua-
tion parameters that we attribute to
well screens spanning several dis-
crete biochemical zones in the aqui-
fer. This may necessitate the use of
smaller, discreet screen intervals or
multi-level wells.
    Perhaps the most important
observation from this project has
been that releases of E85/95 behave
much differently than E10, which will
require changes in how these releases
are investigated. An unanswered
question that remains is: At  what
E-blend do we need to start being
concerned about these different sub-
surface behaviors?  There are  some
indications that the blend might be
as low as E20. Exactly where that is
and why remains unanswered.
    We plan to continue monitor-
ing with emphasis on methane gen-
eration and natural attenuation. We
need to understand at what  point
methane generation will cease and
these sites will no longer present a
risk. We also plan to evaluate acetate
and other degradation products to
better understand the degradation
pathways. In addition, the MPCA
collaborated with  the University
of Minnesota on a bench-scale geo-
chemistry and microbiology column
study using soils collected at Bala-
ton. Results, which have not yet been
written up, have shed more light on
our findings. •

 Mark Toso is a hydrogeologist with the
  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 in St. Paul. He can be reached at mark.
  toso@state.mn.us. Mark would like to
  thank Tom Higgins and Adam Sekely
from the MFC A for help in writing this
  article; and Bruce Bauman, API; Roy
 Spalding, University of Nebraska; MN
  Department of Health Environmental
 Laboratory; DM&E Railroad; and Pin-
  nacle Engineering, Inc. for their assis-
        tance in this project.

References
Capiro, N.L., B.P. Stafford, W.G. Rixey, P.B. Bedient,
 P.J.J. Alvarez. 2007.  Fuel-grade ethanol transport
 and impacts to groundwater in a pilot-scale aquifer
 tank. Water Research 41, no. 3: 656-664.
• Geographic Corridors from page 6

to meet our petroleum brownfields
implementation needs. That targeted
assistance will only occur if appro-
priate opportunities avail themselves
and people seek applicable support.
    The Office of Brownfields and
Land Revitalization (OBLR) provides
a series of "Tools and Technical Infor-
mation" (http://www.epa.gov/brown-
fields/tools/index.htm) that can help
eligible grant recipients better assess
and clean up brownfield sites.
    The OPEI Smart Growth Office
provides a range of resources and
tools to help make smart growth
planning happen (http://www.epa.gov/
smartgrowth/sg_implementation.htm).
    These and other resources  are
being used synergistically to enhance
community revitalization efforts
along  with those  leveraged from
other stakeholders. For example, if
the brownfields revitalization chal-
lenges are technical in nature,  the
Brownfields Technology Support
Center (http://www.brownfieldstsc.org/)
provides direct support to all of  our
revitalization efforts.
    Once again, the key to securing
access to these and other resources
involves the development of targeted
corridor projects that involve all of
our internal peers (http://www.epa.
gov/brownfields/contacts.htm). OUST's
Action Plan provides  a framework
for enhancing ongoing coordination
and our webpage provides a clear-
inghouse for lessons learned. •

   Steven McNeely is an Environmen-
   tal Protection Specialist at USEPA's
  Office of Underground Storage Tanks
     (OUST). He can be reached at
       mcneely.steven@epa.gov.

 Steve gives a special thanks to Andrew
 Bracker,  Kansas City, Missouri's
 Economic Development Coordinator,
 for providing  his introductory
 overview on  the city's petroleum
 brownfields inventory, assessment,
 and cleanup efforts and ongoing
 community revitalization  plans.
 His description  of the integration
 of multiple petroleum brownfields
 aligned along the  Troost and Prospect
 Corridors into ongoing community
 revitalization plans shows the value
 and promise that can and should be
 derived from "corridor projects."
                                                                                                         21

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 63 • December 2009
 from Robert N. Renkes, Executive Vice President, Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)
  DEF,  It's as Easy as One Two  Three,  as  Simple
  as  Do  Re  Mi
    If you have spent any time lately looking around
    truck stops, car dealerships, and diesel-fleet refu-
    eling facilities, you may have noticed some stor-
  age tank and dispensing systems being installed. The
  equipment looks familiar—and you are certainly well
  acquainted with the type of site on which the instal-
  lation is taking place—but you may not know much
  about the new substance that is being stored, metered,
  and dispensed from these new systems. It's called die-
  sel exhaust fluid, or simply DEF, and it's different from
  the substances most of us are used to finding at under-
  ground and aboveground fuel storage facilities.

  Background
  In 2000, the USEPA published Tier 2 emission stan-
  dards for light-duty vehicles and trucks. It set com-
  mon standards for all passenger cars, light trucks, and
  medium-duty passenger vehicles. The Tier 2 standards
  require new diesel vehicles, produced in model years
  2009 and thereafter, to meet an average oxides of nitro-
  gen (NOX) emission level of 0.07 grams per mile.
     In 2001, USEPA published a rule setting require-
  ments for new heavy-duty highway engines and vehi-
  cles produced  after January 1, 2010. The diesel engine
  NOX standard  for 2010 is 0.20 grams per brake horse-
  power-hour.
     Manufacturers plan to meet these requirements
  by optimizing engine designs for low emissions and
  adding high-efficiency after-treatment. Diesel engine
  and  vehicle manufacturers have considered several
  different types of NOx-reduction technologies in order
  to meet these requirements. One technology, selective
  catalytic reduction (SCR) using DEF, has been chosen
  by nearly all diesel-engine manufacturers because
  it can achieve as high as 90 percent NOX conversion
  efficiency. SCR technology adds DEF to the exhaust
  stream to promote these efficiencies.

  DEF Characteristics
  DEF is  a clear, colorless, non-toxic, non-flammable,
  non-combustible liquid. It is made up of 32.5 percent
  urea with the balance distilled or deionized water.
  Urea and water are completely miscible and do not
  separate in storage. For individuals associated with an
  underground and/or aboveground storage tank pro-
  gram, it is important to understand that DEF is NOT:
  • A motor fuel
  • A fuel additive
  • A flammable or combustible liquid
  • A volatile organic compound
• A hydrocarbon liquid
• A liquid that requires Stage I or Stage II vapor recov-
  ery
• A substance that is currently regulated by the federal
  government.

DEF Is Not Regulated Under 40 CFR
Part 280
States have asked USEPA's Office of Underground Stor-
age Tanks whether the agency regulates USTs contain-
ing DEF under the federal regulations in 40  CFR Part
280. The primary issue was that DEF may  contain a
small amount of ammonia, which is a regulated sub-
stance under 40 CFR Part 280. According to a memoran-
dum issued September 22, 2009, by Carolyn Hoskinson,
Director  of USEPA's Office of Underground Storage
Tanks, "since EPA expects that the presence of ammonia
in a DEF UST will be minimal, it is EPA's  view that DEF
USTs meet the de minimis exclusion and thus are not reg-
ulated as hazardous substance USTs under the federal
regulation." A copy of that memorandum is available at
www.epa.gov/oust.
    Hoskinson's memorandum also contains an impor-
tant caveat, noting that "some states may choose to be
more stringent than federal regulations and require
DEF USTs to fully comply with state UST regulations."
While at this writing I have not encountered any state or
local regulator choosing the "more stringent"  approach
toward regulating USTs containing DEF,  it can happen,
so PEI is cautioning contractors and facility owners to
check first with state and local authorities having juris-
diction regarding any special requirements.

PEI's Recommended Practices for the
Storage and  Dispensing of Diesel Exhaust
Fluid (DEF) PEI RP1100-10
PEI has published a  recommended practice  for the
installation and operation of DEF storage and dispens-
ing equipment that will preserve its quality and prevent
releases into the environment. The recommended prac-
tices apply to the storage, handling, and dispensing of
DEF at motor-fuel-dispensing facilities and repair and
maintenance garages. It is limited to storage containers
that use a pump and/or meter to dispense DEF.
    The single-copy price for RP1100-10 is $40  for PEI
members; $95  for nonmembers. Member pricing is
extended to all regulatory officials. For more informa-
tion about this special pricing for regulators,  contact
Keith Wilson at PEI: 918-494-9696 or kwilson@pei.org. •
22

-------
                                                                              December 2009 • LUSTLine Bulletin 63
FAQs  from the  NWGLDE
...All you ever wanted to know about leak detection, but were afraid to ask
More Questions  about Throughput!
 In this LUSTLine FAQs from the National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE), we respond to questions asked at the recent
 LIST Compliance and Prevention Workshop in Denver regarding throughput limits on leak-detection equipment in general and line-leak detector
 (LLD) protocol throughput limitations. It may help to look back at the LUSTLine #51, December 2005, FAQ "CITLDS and Throughput" to better
 understand the following discussion regarding throughput. Please note: the views expressed in this column represent those of the work group
 and not necessarily those of any implementing agency.

                                                     U. Why doesn't the NWGLDE put a throughput limit
                                                     on systems using LLDs? [This question pertains to the prob-
                                                     lem of achieving workable leak detection at high throughput
                                                     facilities where submersible pumps operate for extended periods
                                                     without an interruption that would allow time for LLD opera-
                                                     tion.]
                                                     A. The quick answer to this question is that the USEPA
                                                     protocol used to evaluate LLDs does not require the estab-
                                                     lishment of a throughput limit. But does this protocol
                                                     really need  a throughput limit? The CITLDS test protocol
                                                     requires a monthly throughput limit in an attempt to create
                                                     enough "quiet time" to allow conventional CITLDS equip-
                                                     ment (not WRA PetroNetwork) to run a valid monthly test.
                                                     A throughput limit on LLDs would not necessarily create
                                                     frequent enough pump shutdowns to allow them to detect
                                                     a 3.0 gph leak within a reasonable time frame. Instead, the
                                                     NWGLDE believes that the necessary pump shutdowns
                                                     could be more effectively achieved by a state agency mak-
                                                     ing a rule change that stipulates a specific periodic owner -
                                                     initiated pump shutdown sequence to initiate the LLD test.
                                                     This would  seem to be a better option than seeking a LLD
                                                     protocol change to develop a statistical maximum monthly
                                                     throughput that may or may not achieve the desired pump
                                                     shutdown frequency needed for valid LLD tests.
                                                     Alternately, many states have chosen to augment the leak-
                                                     detection capabilities of a LLD by also requiring double-
                                                     walled piping  with  continuously monitored low-point
                                                     sumps. The low-point sump sensor may also be tied into
                                                     the submersible pump circuit to automatically shut off the
Lj. Why do some listings have throughput limits while
    others do not?
A. The LUSTLine article referred to above explains that
the throughput limit requirement in the CITLDS protocol
was established because the use of the CITLDS method
at busy 24-hour-operation facilities lacks the "quiet time"
necessary to obtain enough leak test data to perform a
valid test. This is not a problem with external leak-detec-
tion methods because they look for leaks outside the tank
or in the interstitial space between the inner and  outer
wall of a double-walled tank. This is also not a problem
with most internal methods because they require the tank
to be shut down (no filling and/or dispensing) for certain
time periods prior to beginning the test and during the
test. This shutdown period creates the "quiet time" neces-
sary to allow the tank to become static prior to the test, and
remain static during the test without throughput limits.

Currently, the Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR)
internal methods of leak detection that are certified to
meet the USEPA protocol have similar problems to the
CITLDS method. These methods need enough "quiet
time" to obtain sufficiently accurate tank-level readings
to conclusively find a leak. Again, the busy facilities that
operate 24/7 are the concern. They may dispense prod-
uct on virtually a continuous basis, which creates turbu-
lence in the tank. Also, these facilities receive frequent
deliveries of product, which produces both turbulence
from the delivery and instability after the delivery due to
temperature variations between the delivered and  exist-
ing product. Unfortunately, the current SIR protocol does
not include a throughput limit like the CITLDS protocol.
Because of this, the NWGLDE has included the through-
puts from the data sets used during the third-party eval-
uation of the SIR methods. The NWGLDE provides this
information for state agencies that may want to consider
using this monthly.
                                                     submersible pump if a leak is detected. I

                                                     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 ques-
                                                     tions for the group, please contact NWGLDE at questions@nwglde.org.
          L«U«S«T«LINIE Subscription Form
                                       The LUSTLine Index is ONLY available online. To download the LUSTLine Index,
                                             go to http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/anii then click on LUSTLine.
  Name
                                                     Company/Agency

                                                    	E-mail Address
 Mailing Address	

 J 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
                                                                                                      23

-------
LU.S.T.UNE
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
116 John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
USEPA Delays Decision on E15 Waiver,  Leaving Hope for
the Ethanol Industry and a Trail of Uncertainty in Its Wake
   In a December 1, 2009, letter to
   Growth Energy—a biofuels
   industry association that asked
USEPA to grant  a waiver to allow
gasoline to contain up to 15 percent
ethanol—the agency said that while
not all tests have been completed,
the results of two tests indicate that
engines in newer  cars can likely han-
dle an ethanol blend higher than the
current 10 percent limit. The agen-
cy's decision on whether to raise the
blending limit has been postponed
until more testing data are available,
sometime in mid 2010. The agency
also announced  that it has begun
the process  of crafting the labeling
requirements that will be necessary if
the blending limit is raised.
    USEPA hinted that it is likely to
support raising  the ethanol blend
above the current 10 percent limit.
"Should the test results remain sup-
portive and provide the necessary
basis, we would  be in a position to
approve E15 for 2001  and newer
vehicles in the mid-year timeframe,"
wrote Assistant Administrator Gina
McCarthy. Growth Energy's co-chair-
man, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark,
took the letter as "a strong signal that
we are preparing to move to E15."
    In March 2009, Growth Energy
requested a waiver to allow for the
use of up to  15 percent ethanol in
gasoline. Under the Clean Air Act,
USEPA was required to respond to
the  waiver request by December 1,
2009. The agency has been evaluating
the group's request and has received
a broad range of public comments as
part of the administrative rulemak-
ing process. Automakers, equipment
manufacturers, petroleum refiners
and blenders, and environment and
public health groups have opposed
raising the blend wall, calling for
more testing.

The Uncertainties
The USEPA is basing its deci-
sion primarily on Clean Air Act
not water quality considerations.
Hence, the letter makes no men-
tion of petroleum equipment com-
patibility or potential problems
associated with ethanol in the envi-
ronment, given a release. It men-
tions addressing labeling issues "to
ensure consumers utilize the proper
gasoline for their  vehicles and
equipment (such as lawnmowers,
boats, etc.) should the use of etha-
nol blends greater than 10 percent
be ultimately approved." Vehicular
labeling issues apply to new (2001
and newer  model years) versus
older vehicles (less likely to handle
higher blends). With the potential
for so much change, we need to
be asking some crucial questions,
such as...How will we store, meter,
and dispense all  the fuels the pub-
lic wants? What are the prevention
and cleanup implications for our
tank programs? How will our regu-
lations keep up with such changes?
Stay tuned. •

-------