New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Commission
Boott Mills South
100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, Massachusetts
01852-1124
LUS.T.UNE
A Report On Federal & State Programs To Control Leaking: Underground Storage Tanks
Bulletin 46
March
2004
FINISHING STRONG
A Glance Back, A Look forward at UST/LUST
IIIIIU
%
m
by Robert Renkes
I run marathons
to stay in shape.
Marathons are
26.2 miles long
and, for most
runners, the
last 6.2 miles
(or 10 kilome-
ters for you
metric fans)
means you're
close but also that the
toughest part is yet to
come. In fact, many runners
consider the marathon tzvo races
in one: the first 20 miles and the last
10-K. That's because during the last 10-K,
you're exerting the most effort. Your legs are
complaining, your body has run out of glycogen,
and your head feels like a typical day in Seattle (i.e.,
cloudy). Some call it "hitting the zvall"; others have
names for it that I can't mention here.
The underground storage tank program is kind
of like a marathon, and zve're nozv at the 20-mile
mark—a lot closer to our destination than some of
us ever dreamed possible back in the mid-1980s. But
the next phase of this LUST-busting endeavor is
going to be difficult, and I'll share my thoughts on
zvhy that is. First, hozvever, I think it's zvorth taking
a glance back to somezvhere just before the starting
line, so zve can gain some perspective on zvhere zve
are today and on zohat it zvill take to finish strong.
¦ continued on page 2
X
Inside
50 Celebrating 20 Years
6Q Using Mass Flux to Improve Cleanup Decisions
Tracking Institutional Controls
"ioQ
no
150
20D
220
230
Enhanced Leak Detection in California—What We've Learned
Keeping Water Out of Mischief
I Don't Train, I Enforce: Compliance or Enforcement?
ICC UST Operator Certification Exam
An Urban Cinderella
25() New Study: Concerns Over the Other Fuel Oxygenates
Rescission Not a Remedy for UST Insurance Providers
250
280
LUSTLine Online

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
¦ Finishing Strong from page 1
Do the Locomotion
We have been storing oil and petro-
leum products for over 140 years.
The locals in Titusville, Pennsylva-
nia, rushed tubs, washbasins and
whiskey barrels into use to collect
and contain crude oil from the first
well in 1859. In those days oil was
used principally as kerosene for
lighting. But when Thomas Edison's
lightbulb hit the scene in 1882 and
the Duryea brothers' gasoline-pow-
ered car hit the streets of Springfield,
Massachusetts, in 1893, a sea change
was about to take place. Gasoline,
which had been a nuisance waste
product of oil refined for kerosene,
was about to set the stage for the 20th
century.
As the automobile industry
grew, so did the number of service
stations. The stations that appeared
on the scene in the early 1900s had
minimal storage capacity. At the turn
of the century, Sylvanus Bowser sold
a "self-measuring gasoline tank" that
L.U.S.T.Line
Ellen Frye, Editor
Ricki Pappo, Layout
Marcel Moreau, Technical Advisor
Patricia Ellis, Ph.D., Technical Advisor
Ronald Poltak, NEIWPCC Executive Director
Lynn DePont, EPA Project Officer
LUSTLine is a product of the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion (NEIWPCC). It is produced through a
cooperative agreement (#CT825782-01-0)
between NEIWPCC and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
LUSTLine is issued as a communication
service for the Subtitle I RCRA
Hazardous & Solid Waste Amendments
rule promulgation process.
LUSTLine is produced to promote
information exchange on UST/LUST issues.
The opinions and information stated herein
are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the opinions of NEIWPCC.
This publication may be copied.
Please give credit to NEIWPCC.
NEIWPCC was established by an Act of
Congress in 1947 and remains the oldest
agency in the Northeast United States
concerned with coordination of the multi-
media environmental activities
of the states of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
NEIWPCC
Boott Mills South, 100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Telephone: (978) 323-7929
Fax: (978) 323-7919
lustline@neiwpcc.org
LUSTLine is printed on Recycled Paper
delivered coal oil from a barrel for
$10. It wasn't long before Bowser
pumps were used to dispense gaso-
line from 50-gallon containers per-
manently placed outside in a
wooden cabinet.
As urban areas became more
congested, underground tanks be-
came a more popular choice for
petroleum storage. The first under-
ground tank was installed in 1902. It
allowed service station owners to use
their real estate for more productive
purposes, kept the service area safe
from vandalism and vehicle collision,
and was more aesthetically pleasing.
In some respects, we're at the point
where we can either hit the wall or
crash through it, and resolve and
stamina will be especially crucial if
we are to have a strong finish.
If the installation and operation of
underground storage tanks (USTs)
were regulated at all, responsibility
usually rested with local fire officials.
Occasionally, communities issued
local fire regulations that defined how
storage tanks should be handled. The
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), a publisher of recommended
codes concerning fire safety, issued
NFPA 30 in 1913. The Inflammable
Liquids Code, as it was known back
then, was incorporated by reference
into local fire codes as the basic regu-
lation for underground tanks.
Early UST Systems
The first steel tanks were small, made
of galvanized steel sheet, and riv-
eted. Arc welding replaced the rivet-
ing process in the 1920s and 1930s.
World War II created a shortage of
galvanized steel and the industry
turned to black carbon steel.
During the 1950s, manufacturers
generally coated steel tanks with red
lead primer or a thin asphaltum-
based paint. Although such coatings
prevented atmospheric corrosion,
they were nearly useless for protec-
tion against corrosion in many
underground environments.
Early entrepreneurs, such as
Roger Wheeler of Tulsa, Oklahoma,
introduced magnesium-anode design
kits into the market in the mid-1950s.
His company, Standard Magnesium,
exhibited at the Petroleum Equip-
ment Institute's (PEI's) trade show
from 1952 to 1955, but stopped sup-
plying the market when not enough
tank owners bought the anodes. Even
back then, tank owners weren't inter-
ested in adding costs to the operation
of their storage systems.
The first fiberglass-reinforced
plastic (FRP) tanks were marketed by
Owens-Corning in 1965. Interest-
ingly, it was the cost to replace lost
product that flowed through the cor-
rosion holes of bare steel tanks—not
environmental protection—that drove
the the development of FRP tanks.
FRP-coated tanks made their first
appearance in 1968. The STI P3
design—which included a dialectic
coating of the outer shell, galvanic
magnesium anodes, and isolation of
the tank from steel piping—was
introduced in 1969. By the end of the
decade the petroleum equipment
industry was able to produce a vari-
ety of tanks that would not corrode in
the ground.
An Industry Problem
The equipment industry knew in the
1970s that it had a problem with cor-
roding tank systems. In a 1975
speech, Howard Upton, my prede-
cessor at PEI, predicted that state and
federal controls related to tank and
piping leaks would proliferate. He
also said that U.S. EPA was here to
stay and that we would have to learn
to work with the regulators. He was
right on target.
At about the same time, the
American Petroleum Institute's
(API's) Operations and Engineering
Committee recognized that UST
leaks presented a growing industry
problem and formed a task force to
recommend procedures for detecting
and dealing with leaks.
API studied the UST problem
from 1977 to 1980 and, in a report
published in February 1981, noted
that its members did not have a sin-
gle leak in a tank protected by sacrifi-
cial anodes and that the only failures
of FRP tanks were installation errors.
In other words, the new state-of-the-
art tanks developed in the mid- and
late 1960s worked. Still, after 15 years
of commercial availability, less than
10 percent of all USTs in the ground
were protected from corrosion.
2

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
Why weren't all the tanks
replaced at that time? Simply stated,
it wasn't required. Many tank owners
are motivated by economic incentive,
and the new generation of tanks cost
more than bare steel. And the thought
of digging up a perfectly good bare-
steel tank to replace it with a new-
technology tank appealed to only a
few tank owners. New tanks
increased costs, didn't increase sales,
and there was no incentive at the
time to be labeled "environmentally
friendly."
Fire officials, whose main concern
was the safe handling of many types
of stored liquids, often had neither
the awareness nor the interest in the
environmental impacts of UST sys-
tems. But tank failure and product
leakage did occur, sometimes result-
ing in serious environmental damage.
Emphasis shifted in the early
1980s from tank regulations for safety
reasons to regulations for protecting
the environment and public health.
Pressure to deal with the impacts of
leaking USTs on groundwater
mounted when 60 Minutes aired a
disturbing segment on leaking
underground service station
tanks. Congress stepped in with
the 1984 Subtitle I RCRA Amend-
ments, directing U.S. EPA to
establish programs to prevent,
detect, and clean up releases from
UST systems containing petro-
leum or hazardous substances.
Federal UST regulations were
promulgated in 1988.
Tanks in the 1980s
There were over two million
underground storage tanks in
1984. Many of them were bare
steel that were corroding and
leaking fuel into the ground. At that
time, over 85 percent of the USTs
were made of unprotected steel. By
1988, somewhere from 10 to 48 per-
cent of existing tanks failed a tank
tightness test, depending on which
study you believed. And when you
consider that from 8 to 20 percent of
all USTs had releases, UST regulators
inherited a real mess.
During the 1980s 73 percent of all
UST systems were owned by small
companies, or what we called "Mom
and Pop" operators. We predicted
they would be hit the hardest, and
we were right. Many of them closed
their refueling facilities or placed
their storage aboveground. We also
had a regulated community with the
attitude that you buried under-
ground tanks and forgot about them.
The 10-K Challenge
So where are we today? For starters,
one and a half million USTs have
been closed and almost 285,000
petroleum leaks have been cleaned
up. Today, we have better equipment
in place, and most of the UST systems
are protected from corrosion and
have leak detection and spill and
overfill prevention devices. There is
much to celebrate. The decisions
made 20 years ago and the efforts of
many people have served the country
well. Our environment is better
because of this work.
But, in some respects, we're at
the point where we can either hit the
wall or crash through it, and resolve
and stamina will be especially crucial
if we are to have a strong finish.
Why?
First, some tank owners don't
necessarily care whether we finish
this race or not. Somehow, we have
to have them on our side.
-v
Second, a number of issues have
come up since we started this race
that were not expected when the reg-
ulations were promulgated. For
example, there is widespread leakage
under dispensers, spill buckets are
not typically liquid-tight, sump-pen-
etration fittings don't seem to age
very well, and hydrocarbon vapor is
sometimes found in the soil outside
newly installed piping systems. We
have to find a way to deal with these
and other technical issues.
Third, we found that our pre-race
strategy of getting operators into
compliance worked pretty well, but
we found that we didn't have a good
method for keeping them there.
Operational compliance is a necessity
if we want to finish strong. Let's
examine these points a little more
closely.
The Tank Owner
Now that we've upgraded our stor-
age systems, it's time to upgrade our
tank owners. We all know the truth
and must face it head-on: For most
tank owners, actively managing their
storage systems is very low on their
priority list. Service station owners
these days are more worried about
turning a profit than they are about
managing their tanks. Fleet owners
only seem to worry about their tanks
when something goes wrong and
they have to don the UST manager
hat that they put away years ago.
And private business owners are
always busy doing something else.
Many tank owners live by the
watchwords that you have heard
time and time again: "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it" and "Out of sight, out of
mind" and "If it's not in the regs, I
don't have to do it" and "Wow, I
didn't know I had to do that" and
"I've spent a fortune upgrad-
ing these tanks and now you
want me to do what?"
On the retail side of the
industry, things are changing
quickly. Major oil companies
are reducing their capital
investments in downstream
operations so they can use
their assets to make more
money upstream. The oil com-
panies are pruning underper-
forming stations that lose
money and are selling them—
often with long-term supply
contracts—to anyone with
some cash. And along with the sta-
tions go most of the retail engineer-
ing personnel that rode herd over the
construction and operation of the
tank systems.
For example, look at Conoco-
Phillips. It owned and operated
around 2,500 retail outlets in the
United States at the start of 2003. The
company expects to have only 300 to
350 by the end of 2005, in addition to
simply supplying product to roughly
13,000 wholesale sites around the
country. That means ConocoPhillips
will own and operate only around
¦ continued on page 4
3

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
¦ Finishing Strong from page 3
1,000 tanks in less than two years.
That's quite a change from 20 years
ago.
Mom and Pop operators—those
that own just one station—now
account for at least 70,000 of the
125,000 convenience stores in the
United States, and that number is
growing. But many of these new
owners did not own the sites when
they were upgraded and some care
more about stocking the shelves with
salty snacks than they do about the
little red light that always glows on
their leak detectors.
I attended a two-day meeting in
February 2004 with leaders in the
petroleum marketing and conve-
nience store industries as they dis-
cussed issues of importance in 2004.
Not once were the words "under-
ground storage tanks," or "opera-
tional compliance" or "UST system
upgrading" used. That's not meant to
knock our customers; it's simply


acknowledging the relatively low pri-
ority UST systems are assigned
today.
Let me make one final comment
about tank owners. For most tank
owners, everything is a business
decision. Because of this, they will
continue to specify the lowest quality
materials that meet the regulations
and give work to the contractor with
the lowest bid. Like it or not, that's
business, and that's reality.
Change the Rules, or It
Won't Happen
The second point I'd like to make
about the future of the tank program
is related to the first and it is this: If
you have a problem with something
and your rules don't require doing
anything about it, change the rules
and require it. Otherwise it won't get
done. That goes for secondary con-
tainment, licensing of contractors,
leak detection standards, equipment-
testing schedules, spill-containment
buckets, dispenser pans, and other
similar issues.
Let me give you an example of
what I mean. Under-dispenser con-
tainment is required in some states;
in others it's not. There have been
several studies and surveys on the
subject, and although none of us are
certain of how pervasive dispenser
leaks are, I think most of us would
agree that under-dispenser contain-
ment (UDC) is necessary to ensure
that a site stays clean. In new installa-
tions, UDC costs about $1,000 per
dispenser, installed—and about
$2,000 per dispenser to retrofit.
Considering that the mar-
keter has about $1 million
Ch invested in each site—or $1.5
JD million with a car wash—
you'd think it would be a no-
brainer to include under-
dispenser containment. Yet a sur-
vey of our members conducted in
2003 indicated that only 64 percent
of new installations would put in
UDC if it were not required by reg-
ulation. The other 36 percent sim-
ply wouldn't spend the money. We
also asked our members what per-
cent of dispensers currently
installed have retrofitted UDCs
i each year in states that do not
I require them by regulation. The
answer was 9 percent.
I understand that adding
new regulations is always a
tough sell politically and that you
always have to weigh the cost of addi-
tional prevention against the price
you are willing to have tank owners
pay for an incremental reduction in
loss ratio. That's the real world, too.
But if it is worth the cost, and if you
can endure the screams from the reg-
ulated community, write the regula-
tion. If you wait for the vast majority
of tank owners to do it on their own,
you might be waiting forever.
Oh Yeah, Operational
Compliance
My third and final point concerns
operational compliance. In my opin-
ion, high operator turnover makes
operator training a necessity. Tank-
owner indifference requires that you
make operational compliance pro-
grams a requirement. And experience
and word from the field suggests that
routine, mandatory inspections need
to be a reality. Why? Because we all
recognize that the best equipment
and systems will not function as they
should unless they are installed prop-
erly, programmed correctly, main-
tained well, and responded to quickly
when an alarm is triggered or some-
thing goes wrong.
Without an ongoing operational
compliance program, those problems
you think were solved a long time ago
will come back and hurt the programs
you have developed and imple-
mented over the last 20 years—and
the ones you implement in the future.
You might as well consider increasing
the fines for noncompliance while
you're at it, because who in their right
mind would want to do anything if
the cost of compliance is higher than
the cost of noncompliance?
Tech-Development Incentives
I recently contacted most of the man-
ufacturers that currently produce
UST-related equipment. I was struck
by how many companies are no
longer in the UST business—
API/Ronan, Amprodux, Armor
Shield, Corespan, Joor Tank, Pol-
lulert, In-Situ, Leak-X, and a host of
others are all gone. Of those remain-
ing, 80 percent have plans for either a
new or enhanced environmental UST
product on the drawing board, in
testing, or at UL awaiting listing. I'm
not at liberty to tell you what they
are, but I can say this about the prod-
ucts in general:
•	Ninety-five percent of them were
developed as the result of regula-
tions—not at the request of a cus-
tomer. Regulators drive new
technology, not tank owners.
•	The products will involve less
human intervention in the installa-
tion process.
•	There will be more electronic
options.
•	Designs will be more robust.
4

-------
•	Materials used in manufacturing
will be more durable.
•	More sophisticated testing will be
involved with testable elements
that California and a few other
states are driving.
Please understand that I'm not
here to tell you that you should pass
new technical regulations, inspect
more sites, train the owner/operator,
put more teeth into enforcement
efforts, and change the way your
state fund programs work. If the sta-
tus quo works for you, or if your state
is not allowed to be more stringent
than the federal rules, it will certainly
work for the tank owners. And that's
okay, we still have fewer problems
than we did 20 years ago.
The Finish?
But I sincerely think we can do better.
Let's go back to my marathon anal-
ogy for a moment. We are in the last
six miles of a 26-mile race. The first
part—in our case, the first 20 years—
has been relatively easy. In marathon
circles, it is known that any distance
runner can run the first 20. But it does
get tougher the closer you get to the
finish line. The last six miles are more
difficult than the first 20.
Some runners can't finish, and
spectators applaud their efforts
nonetheless—at least they tried.
Some—and I speak from personal
experience—finish the race as best
they can, are glad it's over, but know
that they could have done better.
And there are some marathoners
who crash through—not hit—the 20-
mile wall and receive a medal and
recognition from their fellow runners
as being the best in that particular
race. Which do you want to be?
I'm young enough and hopefully
will be around to see who finishes
the last half of the UST program and
how they do it. I assure you, the rest
of the race, including the home-
stretch and the finish, will be inter-
esting to watch. ¦
Robert Renkes is Executive Director of
the Petroleum Equipment Institute in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. He also writes a regu-
lar LUSTLine column called "Field
Notes." This article was adapted for
LUSTLine from Bob's speech at the 16th
Annual UST/LUST National Confer-
ence in Neio Orleans in March 2004.
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
1984-200
20 YEARS OF PROGRESS
Building on the past
TO PROTECT THE FUTURE
A MESSAGE FROM CLIFF ROTHENSTEIN
Director, U.S. EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Celebrating 20 Years
On November 8, 1984, President
Ronald Reagan signed a law that
for the first time created a fed-
eral underground storage tanks (USTs)
program. The Solid Waste Disposal Act
of 1984 established a federal program
that set consistent, minimum standards
for the installation and operation and
maintenance of UST systems, as well as a
requirement to clean up leaking tank sys-
tems. We have certainly come a long way
from those bare steel tanks that were first buried
at the turn of the last century.
In the course of its 20-year history, EPA's Office of Underground Stor-
age Tanks (OUST), with the help of states, tribes, and industry, has dramati-
cally reduced the number of leaking buried tanks throughout the United
States, improved compliance, and cleaned up hundreds of thousands of
petroleum releases.
Formed in 1985, OUST began working with the states, tribes, and indus-
try to effectively and efficiently bring all UST systems into compliance with
new federal leak-prevention and leak-detection standards. The challenges
were great and there was intense pressure as the 1998 deadline approached,
and many small owners and operators were for the first time faced with
having to comply with the regulation of their UST systems. But we worked
in partnership with states, tribes, and the private sector to make sure that all
UST systems in use today meet federal environmental protection standards.
Together with state and local UST programs, EPA and states closed
over 1.5 million substandard tanks that were corroding and leaking petro-
leum into the nation's groundwaters. Today the upgraded UST systems,
when properly monitored and maintained, are much less likely to leak and
cause significant environmental problems. In fact, the number of new leaks
discovered each year has dropped dramatically, from a high of over 66,000
in 1990 to roughly 12,000 last year.
As old tanks were pulled out of the ground and new leak-prevention
technology was installed, more than 400,000 petroleum releases were dis-
covered. The good news is that through our diligent efforts more than 70
percent of these releases have been cleaned up—a huge accomplishment we
can all celebrate.
While we are proud of these accomplishments, we cannot lose sight of
the enormous challenges that still lie ahead. There are more than 136,000
cleanups that still need to be completed and 200,000 or more petroleum
brownfield sites that await cleanup and reuse. We also must strive to more
effectively combat petroleum releases from UST systems. Despite the fact
that UST owners have spent a significant amount of money upgrading their
UST systems, some are not maintaining or operating their systems properly.
Finding new ways to reach these owners/operators to educate them about
their responsibility in overseeing and maintaining these systems will be an
ongoing challenge in the coming years.
This year marks not only the 20th anniversary of OUST, but also 20 years
of innovative and effective underground storage tank initiatives. More impor-
tant, through 20 years of strong partnerships we have developed and imple-
mented programs that have resulted in greater protection of the nation's
drinking water and of human and environmental health. As we begin our
third decade, we will continue to act based on the principles of cooperation
and continuous improvement so that future challenges are met with the same
innovative spirit exemplified throughout the tank program's history. ¦
5

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
Flux Redux
Using Mass Flux to Improve
Cleanup Decisions
by Eric Nichols and Tracy Roth
A consultant for a tank operator with an MtBE groundwater plume
proposes to implement a particular remediation technology based on
evaluation of mass flux. At another site, a consultant proposes a specific
level of flux reduction as a remedial goal. At yet another site, mass flux is used
evaluate the significance of natural atten uation . Detect a common thread in
these decisions? Contaminant mass flux is getting increasing attention these days
So what is mass flux, how is it evaluated, and what can it tell us?
re-dux [ree duks], adj.: revived; brought back, especially in being restored to former importance or prominence
What Is Mass Flux?
Contaminant mass flux is the rate at
which a chemical passes through a
defined cross-sectional area. As used
here, mass flux is the product of the
rate of groundwater discharge and the
concentration of the contaminant. This
definition is actually the rate of dis-
solved-mass discharge, but the terms
mass flux and total mass flux are often
used to describe dissolved-mass dis-
charge, and this convention is used
here. Similar definitions could also be
applied to fluxes of soil gas or mobile
LNAPL.
Flux combines two important
quantities: the concentration of the
chemical and the rate at which the
chemical is migrating within the
plume. Combined in this way, flux
tells us much more than concentra-
tion or flow alone. For example, flux
tells us the rate at which dissolved
mass is leaving (and therefore deplet-
ing) the source zone. This can pro-
vide insights into the nature,
strength, and longevity of the source
zone, and can be used to distinguish
between small and large releases.
Flux can also tell us the rate at
which chemical mass is migrating
towards a receptor, if no further
attenuation occurs. This can provide
a measure of the threat posed by the
plume to a downgradient water sup-
ply well. It can be used to determine
how much treatment (i.e., flux reduc-
tion) is needed to reduce that threat.
It can also provide a measure of mass
loading to an in-situ or ex-situ treat-
ment remedy. If the magnitude of the
flux varies at different locations
within a plume, this may be an indi-
cator of natural attenuation, or it may
be evidence of variations in historical
source conditions, or both.
Once chemical mass leaves the
source zone, the total flux within the
plume should remain constant as
the plume migrates downgradient,
unless mass is removed by natural
attenuation processes. This concept
of flux continuity can be very useful
when developing or testing concep-
tual models of a site. It's similar to the
concept of continuity of flow within a
pipe: the pipe (plume) may get wider
or narrower, and the water may
move faster or slower, but the fluid
discharge (mass flux) within the pipe
(plume) should remain the same, if
everything is at a steady state.
Changes in total mass flux over time
or space may represent unsteady
source conditions, natural attenua-
tion, the effects of remediation, or
errors in measurement and interpre-
tation.
How Is Mass Flux Evaluated?
Several methods can be been used to
estimate contaminant mass flux.
These include:
•	Using transects of monitoring
wells across a plume
•	Capturing a plume by supply
wells or remedial extraction wells
•	Using in-situ, down-hole flux
meters
•	Using solute transport modeling,
in combination with field data col-
lection and interpretation
Each method is described in more
detail in the following paragraphs.
¦ Transects of Monitoring Wells
This method relies on groundwater
samples from single- or multi-level
monitoring well data interpolated
along a transect across the plume,
perpendicular to groundwater flow.
A vertical cross-section across the
transect is divided into any number
of sub-areas, each representing a dis-
crete area of uniform concentration
and groundwater flow (discharge).
The total mass flux is simply the sum
of the fluxes from each of these sub
areas, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows an example of a
transect and vertical cross-section for
a site with a multi-level well net-
work. A similar but lower-resolution
approach can be applied using sin-
gle-level monitoring wells. The
multi-level data allow for a more
refined, detailed concentration and/
or flow profile. Although the figure
shows the monitoring wells to be
evenly spaced, this is not necessary.
Depending on the degree of com-
plexity in the hydrogeologic system,
and the available information, the
groundwater discharge can be esti-
mated for each discrete sub-area, or
averaged over the entire transect.
Discharge is calculated using Darcy's
Law (the product of hydraulic con-
ductivity, hydraulic gradient, and
area).
The accuracy of mass flux esti-
mates across a given plume transect
is sensitive to the sampling-point
density. Typically, monitoring net-
6

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
FIGURE 1. Multi-level monitor well
(3-D) transect mass flux.
Groundwater
Flow Direction
-	54.2
-	118.7
-	28.4
-	9.1
-	6.3
-	ND
90.4
62.8
Mf = 2 C,- * A; * q,.
»=1 III
works at most sites are designed for
plume delineation and quantifying
chemical concentrations along an
apparent plume axis. Consequently,
detailed sampling points across a
plume transect are often not avail-
able. In such cases, it may be more
cost-effective to install temporary
high-resolution monitoring points
for groundwater sampling and
hydraulic testing (e.g., aquifer pump-
ing tests, slug tests) using direct-push
techniques.
Although the transect method
allows for an improved understand-
ing of the concentration distribution
across a plume and is easy to calcu-
late, the underlying assumptions
(e.g., that the monitoring well transect
adequately describes the plume) and
data required may impart an
unknown degree of uncertainty in the
resulting mass-flux estimate. Reduc-
ing uncertainty with this method may
require that many samples be taken in
space and over time, with potentially
higher analytical costs.
¦ Capture of a Plume by Extrac-
tion Wells If an extraction well (or
series of extraction wells) fully cap-
tures a contaminant plume, contami-
nant mass flux can be calculated.
Figure 2 illustrates the concept. The
rate of contaminant mass extracted
can be a reliable estimate of the mass
flux within a plume.
This approach assumes the well
fully captures the horizontal and ver-
tical extent of the contaminant
plume. In addition, the extraction
well must be located far enough
downgradient from the source area
such that it would not significantly
affect groundwater flow conditions
within the source zone, which could
affect contaminant mass flux.
Unsteady pumping rates or unsteady
concentrations may also affect the
reliability of mass-flux estimates .
One advantage of this method is
that extraction wells often yield rela-
tively large volumes of groundwater,
which tends to integrate flow and
concentration data. This inherently
reduces the degree of uncertainty
associated with hydrogeologic com-
plexities.
This method also has relatively
few data requirements, provided that
data exist to verify hydraulic capture.
Performance data from remedial
extraction wells can also be used. Dis-
advantages include the need to dis-
pose of large volumes of extracted
water and address altered contami-
nant distributions that may result
from the extraction of groundwater.
The latter may affect ongoing natural
attenuation processes and confuse
later attempts to monitor mass flux
further along the flow path (if the
FIGURE 2. Hypothetical extraction well capture of a plume
Contaminant
Source
Groundwater
Flow Line
Dissolved
Contaminant
Plume
M.
= C Q
sw sw
altered plume portion is intercepted
by the monitoring network further
downgradient).
¦ In-Situ Flux Meter Method Hat-
field et al. (2001) have developed an
in-situ method that uses a sorptive,
permeable medium ("flux meter")
that is placed in a monitoring well for
a given period of time to intercept
contaminants in groundwater flow-
ing through the well. The flux meter
also releases tracers. By quantifying
the amount of tracer lost and the
mass of the contaminant sorbed, the
groundwater velocity and time-
averaged contaminant mass flux can
be calculated for a portion of the
plume. Although less extensively
used than the previous methods, this
method shows great promise as a
viable tool for estimating local or
small-scale mass flux.
One advantage to this method is
that there are limited data require-
ments other than the analytical costs
associated with evaluating the chemi-
cal and tracer concentrations in the
flux meters. Another advantage of
this method is that it allows for an
integrated mass discharge over time,
which overcomes some problems
associated with temporal variability
in contaminant distribution and
therefore temporal mass-flux esti-
mates.
However, since the method uses
point measurements averaged over a
small volume of the aquifer, flow
paths that are not intersected by the
flux meter are not included in the flux
estimate. Also, since the method relies
on passive flow
of groundwater
through the well
and flux meter, the
method may be
sensitive to partial
or complete clog-
ging of the well
or medium. Addi-
tionally, the method
assumes water
flows horizontally
through the well,
which may not be a
valid assumption
in flow regimes
where even mild
vertical gradients
exist.
¦ continued on page 8
Well
Capture
Zone
7

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
¦ Flux Redux from page 7
¦ Solute Transport Modeling Several
analytical and numerical solute-
transport models are available to
quantify chemical mass flux. BIO-
SCREEN (Newell et al., 1997) and
BIOCHLOR (Aziz et al., 2000) are
two widely used 2-D spreadsheet
analytical models that can be used to
evaluate the natural attenuation of
plumes. Numerical models (e.g.,
MODFLOW/MT3D) can also be
used in situations where sufficient
data are available to develop and cal-
ibrate the model.
A variation on the preceding
methods is the Integral Groundwater
Investigation Method, which has
been proposed by Teutsch (2000) and
Bockelmann et al. (2000). This
method combines the use of extrac-
tion wells and modeling to estimate
mass flux.
Several input parameters are
required to evaluate groundwater
flow and contaminant transport with
both numerical and analytical mod-
els. Groundwater flow velocities,
contaminant-source release rates, and
fate and transport parameters such as
dispersion, retardation, and bio
degradation rates are input by the
user. Numerical models can accom-
modate spatial variations in parame-
ter values to represent more complex
hydrogeologic conditions. The disad-
vantage of such methods is that the
accuracy of the estimates is com-
pletely dependent on the quality and
reliability of the available data.
Can All These Estimates Tell
Us Anything?
Interpolations of concentration...
estimates of discharge ... estimates of
flux. Mass flux has the potential to
assist in several areas, including
development of a site conceptual
model, evaluation of natural attenua-
tion, evaluation of potential receptor
impacts, and remedial design and
system performance evaluation. But
with all this estimating going on, how
useful and reliable are mass-flux esti-
mates?
In October 2002, the American
Petroleum Institute Soil and Ground-
water Technical Task Force con-
ducted a one-day workshop to
discuss the mass-flux estimate issue.
The workshop included presenta-
tions by a panel of experts with direct
experience in the use of mass-flux
estimation techniques. Presentations
included evaluations of field tech-
niques used in mass-flux evaluation,
the application of mass-flux esti-
mates, quantification of uncertainty,
the development of risk-based man-
agement tools using mass-flux tech-
niques, and identification of future
data-collection needs. Some of the
key points from that workshop
include the following:
•	The use of mass flux is not really
new. It is often based on the same
data that have been used in site
characterization and remedial
decision making for many years,
including chemical concentrations,
water levels, and hydraulic con-
ductivity. What may be new is the
combination of all this information,
along with an increasing recogni-
tion of potential benefits and
increased research activity into
various estimation techniques and
applications. The existence of long
MtBE plumes may be partially
responsible for increased interest
in mass flux.
•	Mass-flux estimates have uncer-
tainties, but the degree of
uncertainty is one to which envi-
ronmental professionals have
become accustomed, since it is
based on virtually the same data
that have traditionally been used
to make decisions at LUST sites.
•	Mass-flux estimates, especially
those based on monitoring well
transects, may underestimate or
overestimate flux. The amount of
under- or overestimation depends
on the location of the well screens
relative to the plume (especially
relative to the plume "core,"
which often represents the bulk of
the plume mass) and on the
degree of flow-field heterogeneity
of the groundwater system. The
degree of under- or overestimation
probably decreases as the number
of monitoring points along the
transect increases. There is no gen-
eral consensus on data require-
ments within a given mass-flux
method or application.
•	Although potentially useful for a
range of decisions, mass flux is not
something that is necessary at
every LUST site to make every
site-management decision. It's one
more tool in the tool kit to help
promote better-informed deci-
sions.
•	Mass-flux estimates don't neces-
sarily require highly detailed site
data or computer modeling. Flux
estimates can be the first (or only)
step toward a more detailed
model. Some estimation tech-
niques use simple calculations
based on monitoring-well net-
works and data typical of many
LUST sites.
•	Because mass-flux analyses link
groundwater flow and dissolved
chemical concentration data, they
provide the opportunity for a
more rigorous and internally con-
sistent interpretation of subsurface
conditions.
•	Mass-flux estimates can provide
useful information to decision
makers, even though the accuracy
of specific methods is still being
evaluated. Mass-flux estimation
methods continue to evolve.
•	Guidance is needed for the deter-
mination of cost-effective investi-
gation techniques to evaluate mass
flux appropriately and would help
to broaden and improve the use of
mass-flux techniques. Ideally, a
guidance document would discuss
how to determine monitoring-well
network configuration and spac-
ing, the use of single- versus
multi-level monitoring points,
delineation of sources, and how to
incorporate mass-flux evaluations
in site decisions.
•	A compilation of site data and
mass-flux estimates for decision
makers to use for comparative
purposes is needed. This could
help prevent potentially inappro-
priate uses of mass-flux tech-
niques and results. Preliminary
research suggests low-strength
MtBE plumes may have total mass
fluxes less than a few grams per
day. Such small-magnitude fluxes
may emanate from source zones
resulting from small liquid
releases, vapor-only impacts, or
larger but nearly depleted sources.
Higher-strength MtBE plumes
may have total mass fluxes in the
hundreds of grams per day for
particularly fast-moving plumes
8

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
from high-strength sources. These
higher-flux plumes may pose the
greatest threat to potential recep-
tors of groundwater.
So is mass flux the key to making
better site decisions? It is not the only
tool, nor always the best tool, but it
can certainly help. As with any quan-
titative tool or model, mass-flux esti-
mates should not be used as the sole
basis for making site decisions; rather
they should be considered along with
other lines of evidence, including
additional data, analysis, and inter-
pretations, where each line of evi-
dence fits within the framework of
the site conceptual model. ¦
Eric Nichols is Principal Engineer and
Tracy Roth is Senior Project Hydroge-
ologist with LFR Levine-Fricke. They
can be reached at eric.nichols@lfr.com
and tracy.roth@lfr.com.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
1998. Standard guide for remediation of ground
water by natural attenuation at petroleum release
sites. Designation: E1943 - 98. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
Aziz, C.E., C.J. Newell, J.R. Gonzales, P. Haas, T.P.
Clement, and Y-W. Sun. 2000. BIOCHLOR Version
1.0 user's manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency publication EPA/600/R-00/008.
Bockelmann, A., T. Ptak, and G. Teutsch. 2000. Field
scale quantification of contaminant mass fluxes and
natural attenuation rates using an integral investiga-
tions approach. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Groundwater Research, Copenhagen,
Denmark, June 6-8,2000. A.A. Balkema: 309-301.
Bockelmann, A., T. Ptak, and G. Teutsch,. 2001. An
analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural
attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks
site. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 53,429-453.
Bockelmann, A., D. Zamfirescu, T. Ptak, P. Grath-
wohl, and G. Teutsch. 2003. Quantification of mass
fluxes and natural attenuation rates at an industrial
site with a limited monitoring network: a case
study. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 60,97-121.
Borden, R.C., R.A. Daniel, L.E. LeBrun IV, and C.W.
Davis. 1997. Intrinsic biodegradation of MtBE and
BTEX in a gasoline-contaminated aquifer. Water
Resources Research 38, n. 5, pp. 1105-1115.
Buscheck, T.E. 2002. Mass flux estimates to assist
decision-making: technical bulletin. Version 1.0.
ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology
Company. June.
Buscheck, T.E., N. Nijhawan, and K.T. O'Reilly. 2003.
Mass flux estimates to assist remediation decision-
making. In proceedings of the Seventh Interna-
tional Symposium on In-Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation. Orlando, FL. June 2-5.
Devlin, J.F, M. McMaster, and J.F Barker. 2002.
Hydrogeologic assessment of in-situ natural attenu-
ation in a controlled field experiment. Water
Resources Research 38, n. 1,10.1029/2000WR000148.
Einarson, M.D. and D.M. Mackay. 2001. Predicting
impacts of groundwater contamination. Environ-
mental Science and Technology 35, n. 3, pp. 66A-73A.
Gallagher, M.N., Payne R.E., Perez, E.J., 1995. Mass
based corrective action, In proceedings of the 1995
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals
in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration Conference and Exposition (November
29 - December 1, 1995, Houston, Texas). National
Ground Water Association, pp. 453^465
Hatfield, K., M.D. Annable, S. Kuhn, P.S.C. Rao, and
T. Campbell. 2002. A new method for quantifying
contaminant flux at hazardous waste sites, pp.
25-32, in Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced
Restoration of Groundwater Protection, edited by S.F.
Thornton and S.E. Oswald. IAHS Publication No.
275. IAHS Press: Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, United
Kingdom.
Newell, C.J., R.K. McLeod, J.R. Gonzales, 1997. BIO-
SCREEN natural attenuation decision support sys-
tem. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
publication EPA/600/R-96/087. Version 1.4 Revi-
sions. July.
Newell, C.J., J.A. Connor, D.L. Rowan, 2003. Ground-
water remediation strategies tool. American Petro-
leum Institute, Publication 4730, Washington DC.
Rao, P.S.C., J.W. Jawitz, C.G. Enfield, R.W. Falta, Jr.,
M.D. Annable, and A.L. Wood. 2002. Technology
integration for contaminated site remediation:
cleanup goals & performance criteria, pp. 571-578,
in Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced
Restoration of Groundwater Protection, edited by: S.F.
Thornton and S.E. Oswald. IAHS Publication No.
275. IAHS Press: Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, United
Kingdom.
Teutsch, G. 2000. Development and application of an
integral investigation method for the characteriza-
tion of groundwater contamination. Contaminated
Soil 2000 Vol. 1, Conference proceedings. Consoil,
Leipzig, S. 198-205.
Thuma, J., G. Hinshalwood, V. Kremesec, and R. Kol-
hatkar. 2001. Application of ground water rate and
transport models to evaluate contaminant mass
flux and remedial options for a MtBE plume on
Long Island, NY. In proceedings of the 2001 Petro-
leum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Remedi-
ation Conference & Exposition (November 2001,
Houston, Texas). National Ground Water Associa-
tion. pp. 3-14.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD). 1998.
Technical protocol for evaluating natural attenua-
tion of chlorinated solvents in ground water,
EPA/600/R-98/128, September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
2001. Monitored natural attenuation: USEPA
research program - An EPA Science Advisory
Board Review. Review by the Environmental Engi-
neering Committee (EEC) of the EPA Science Advi-
sory Board. United States Science Advisory Board
(1400A) EPA-SAB-EEC-01-004.Washington, DC.
www.epa.gov/sab. May.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Rifai, H.S., Newell, C.J., Wilson,
J.T., 1999. Natural attenuation of fuels and chlorinated
solvents in the subsurface. Wiley: New York, 615 pp.
New Study Shows MtBE Is Absorbed
Through the Skin
Anew study from U.S. EPA and the Centers for Disease Control shows
that contaminated drinking water can lead to exposure by oral, inhala-
tion, and dermal routes. The study was conducted using 14 adult vol-
unteers, who received low doses of MtBE by the three exposure routes. Blood
and exhale samples were then obtained. For the first time, researchers found
that MtBE could be absorbed through the skin, as well as by the other two
exposure routes.
One metabolite, tertiary butyl ether (TBA), increased slowly in blood and
plateaued but did not return to the preexposure baseline at the 24-hour follow-
up. Oral exposure resulted in a significantly greater MtBE metabolism into
TBA than by other routes, implying "significant first-pass metabolism." The
slower TBA elimination may make it a biomarker of MtBE exposure, but
because it is found in other consumer products and can also be used as a fuel
additive, it is not a definitive marker.
The study, "Dermal, Oral, and Inhalation Pharmacokinetics of Methyl Ter-
tiary Butyl Ether (MtBE) in Human Volunteers," published in the February
2004 issue of Toxicological Sciences, can be found online at http://toxsci.oupjour-
nals.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/2/195. ¦
Administration
Proposes Increased
UST Budget
Funding to states for inspecting
USTs would more than triple
under the FY 2005 U.S. EPA
budget the Bush administration pro-
posed earlier this month. The presi-
dent's budget request includes $37.9
million for UST grants, an increase
of $26 million over FY 2004. EPA
said the 217 percent increase over
the 2004 appropriation level would
strengthen EPA's partnership with
the states to allow more federally
regulated UST system inspections
on a more frequent basis. ¦
9

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
Tracking Institutional Controls
Connecting Exposure-Management Decisions
with Land-Use Decisions
by Matthew Small,
Mike Martinson,
and Jane Bohn
W!
"hat are insti-
tutional con-
trols? Simply
stated, they are proce-
dures, restrictions,
covenants, or engi-
neered systems in-
tended to limit human
activity. In some cases,
institutional controls are
used to help prevent cont-
amination or resource
damage by designating well-
head protection areas, sole-source
aquifers, wetlands, and parks, However,
most people think of institutional con-
trols as a means to reduce the potential
for exposure to chemical contamination
in soil or groundwater at a single site.
Many states maintain a database of
institutional controls used for contami-
nated sites, including off-site deed
restrictions, highway agreements, engi-
neered barriers, and commercial use
restrictions. In this article we will dis-
cuss the use and tracking of institutional
controls to manage exposure to contami-
nation at leaking underground storage
tank (LUST) sites. (See LUSTLine # 28,
"Institutional Controls: A Means to an
End at LUST Sites," February 1998, for
a more complete discussion of the types
of available institutional controls.)
Why Do We Use
Institutional Controls?
Current risk-based approaches to
exposure management at LUST sites
are focused on cleaning up sources of
contamination and controlling the
exposure pathways that might allow
contaminants to migrate from the
source to human or environmental
receptors. However, cleanup to con-
centrations that allow unrestricted
future land use may take many years
or be prohibitively expensive.
In some cases, institutional con-
trols are used to allow active cleanup
efforts to be halted when all current

fOdflBW
!fACK',l+&
a
pfHK
exposure pathways have been con-
trolled or eliminated, even though
contaminant concentrations still
exceed cleanup goals. Though nat-
ural attenuation will continue to
reduce concentrations in the long
term, the presence of residual conta-
mination at these sites makes them
unsuitable for certain uses in the
shorter term. Institutional controls
are imposed to restrict or prevent
activities that could allow receptors
to be exposed to the remaining resid-
ual contamination.
What Are the Benefits of
Institutional Controls?
Institutional controls can allow a con-
taminated site to be returned to pro-
ductive use more quickly. Active
remediation can be discontinued
while site-monitoring activities
continue and some control over
exposure prevention is maintained.
Institutional controls can help
increase the comfort level for regula-
tors and the public when allowing
natural attenuation remedies. Institu-
tional controls can also help to reduce
liability for responsible parties when
selling or reusing a contaminated
property.
Can Institutional Controls
Really Prevent Exposure?
Institutional controls can warn peo-
ple about the presence of residual
contamination. However, for institu-
tional controls to be protective, they
must be communicated, obeyed, and
maintained over time with considera-
tion for changing site conditions. This
is where institutional controls have
the biggest potential to fail. Institu-
tional controls are not suitable for
every site, as land-use changes can
sometimes be hard to control. For
example, in some parts of the country
prior approval for land-use changes
in the form of building and well-
drilling permits is not required.
How Can We Ensure that
Institutional Controls Are as
Protective as Possible?
It is not enough to simply impose
institutional controls. We must have
mechanisms in place for tracking
sites where institutional controls
have been imposed, monitoring com-
pliance with controls, and periodi-
cally re-evaluating or updating
control requirements. Even with our
best efforts, we will probably never
be able to track all sites with institu-
tional controls. Also, we may end up
tracking a large number of sites to
prevent a small number of exposures.
Given that we are going to use
institutional controls to manage
exposure to residual contamination
at LUST sites, we must work to
ensure that restrictions and exposure-
management decisions made by reg-
10

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
ulatory agencies are tracked and
incorporated into the land-use deci-
sion-making process at the local
level. This will require procedural
changes and possibly new regula-
tions. Many states have already been
working on ways to track institu-
tional controls and connect exposure-
management decisions to land-use
decisions. But there is still room for
improvement.
Most States Have the Tools
to Impose Institutional
Controls
State regulatory agencies are usually
responsible for making exposure-
management decisions at LUST sites.
Two surveys of state LUST programs
(Martinson and Small, 1998, 10th
Annual UST/LUST National Confer-
ence, and New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC), 2003) examined options
available to states for long-term man-
agement of petroleum contamina-
tion. The results of these surveys
indicate that approximately 60 per-
cent of states in 1998 and 70 percent
in 2003 have requirements or mecha-
nisms available to impose some form
of use restrictions at LUST sites as a
component of site cleanup and expo-
sure management. The NEIWPCC
survey also found that:
•	Twenty-five states utilize institu-
tional controls.
•	Eleven states employ regional/
local institutional controls (e.g.,
zones with restricted ground-
water use or groundwater use
classifications).
•	Twenty-five states maintain site-
tracking databases of former LUST
sites.
•	Thirty-five states have require-
ments or available mechanisms for
long-term exposure management
for residual contamination. These
typically include institutional con-
trols, engineering controls, or
exposure-management plans.
•	Nine states maintain site-tracking
databases that include listings of
deed restrictions, groundwater
management zones, exposure pre-
vention plans, engineering con-
trols/barriers, notifications to
utility companies (primarily exca-
vation activities) and permitting
agencies (e.g., water supply well
and building permits), periodic
reevaluations of site conditions
(up to five years), or registry of
releases listing all properties
above regulatory action levels.
These surveys suggest that states
have generally improved long-term
management practices over the last
five years. In fact, many states have
well-developed tools for listing
and/or tracking institutional con-
trols. But have these improvements
fundamentally decreased the risk of
someone unknowingly encountering
or being exposed to residual contami-
nation? Is it enough to have the tools?
Are these tools being used appropri-
ately? Are they accessible to the peo-
ple who need to know about
institutional controls?
Communication Is the Key,
But It Ain't Free
Good-quality, easily accessible, reli-
able information on institutional-
control requirements and site status
is essential. We need to establish the
infrastructure and procedures that
allow local land-use agencies and the
public to easily access information on
institutional controls imposed by reg-
ulatory agencies. (Figure 1 on page 12
provides a conceptual flowchart of
how this communication might be
accomplished.) Partnerships and
coordination between all stakehold-
ers will be essential to the success of
any procedures set in place. Failures
in communication can create numer-
ous problems and potential exposure
hazards.
State and local agencies must
find a way to finance the administra-
tive burden associated with both
tracking and accessing information
on institutional controls. This work
can be funded through additional
permit fees incorporated into Phase I
property assessment requirements,
or paid by developers. For example,
the Washington State Department of
Ecology requires financial assurances
(e.g., a trust fund, surety bond, or let-
ter of credit) at sites where institu-
tional controls are applied.
Additional costs may also be
associated with regulatory agency
review of projects that present an
exposure potential. With many state
and local budgets in the red, agencies
may be hesitant to undertake the task
of tracking and reviewing institu-
tional controls in the absence of
regulatory changes, a legislative
requirement, and new funding.
Developing Systems for
Tracking Institutional
Controls
A number of pilot projects and other
initiatives have been undertaken to
evaluate ways to improve communi-
cation of institutional-control data to
stakeholders. Consider the following
examples:
•	To address the issues of data relia-
bility, some states (e.g., MA and
NJ) have implemented audit sys-
tems, which provide requirements
that institutional controls be
inspected on a regular basis to
ensure they effectively remain in
place. Recognizing the large num-
ber of individual databases out
there, the International City/
County Management Association
(ICMA) is seeking to provide a
way to link federal, state, and local
government IC Web sites.
•	EPA is working with state pro-
grams to evaluate the use of two-
dimensional bar codes as on-site
information placards.
•	California and other states have
used GIS data (GeoTracker) to
evaluate LUST-site proximity to
drinking-water wells when setting
cleanup or exposure management
requirements.
•	EPA Headquarters, Region 3, and
Region 5, along with Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania, are working
together to evaluate the use of one-
call systems, already used to locate
underground piping and electric
lines prior to excavation, to notify
stakeholders of potential land-use
restriction issues.
•	Rochester, New York, employs a
computer-based flagging mecha-
nism and GIS system that links
institutional controls to the permit
application process managed by
the city's building and zoning
department. So far the city has
only applied this system to parcels
currently or formerly owned by
the city.
¦ continued on page 12
11

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
Figure 1
Data Suppliers
Federal and State Agencies:
Exposure-Management Decisions
Exposure-Management Decisions
Including No Further Action,
Institutional Controls, etc.
Inspection and Enforcement
for Institutional Controls
Institutional Control Tracking Systems,
Databases, GIS, etc. (Federal/State Maintained)
Data Users
Cities/Municipalities: Land-Use Decisions
Petition for Land-Use Change
Drilling, Excavation, Building
Permit, Zoning, General Public
Information etc.
Agenc
Approval
eeded?.
Restrictions
Proceed with Land-
Use Change
Modify Land-Use
Plans if Needed
¦	Tracking Controls from page 11
•	Emeryville, California, used EPA
grants to develop a GIS Web appli-
cation (OSIRIS) to communicate
information on soil and ground-
water contamination, environmen-
tal status, land use, and zoning at
more than 500 city properties to
interested parties. This system has
facilitated city planning and
brownfields redevelopment.
•	Oakland, California, working with
the State of California and EPA
Region 9, has implemented a simi-
lar system to Emeryville's, using a
flag within the building-permits
database to identify sites with
environmental encumbrances. Pro-
jects that involve excavation or
other activities that may cause
receptor exposure must be
reviewed by the agency that
issued the NFA letter.
•	EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response is currently
developing an institutional-
controls tracking system for all
sites where EPA has responsibility
for overseeing cleanup. In the UST
program, that includes all sites
located in Indian Country.
These examples illustrate the
wide range of solutions that are being
formulated to track and maintain
institutional controls. However, most
of these approaches have limitations
or may not track all aspects of land-
use restrictions. As a result, states
may need to implement some combi-
nation of approaches to fully address
the issues associated with institu-
tional controls.
Room for Improvement
Even in states with well-developed
tracking systems for institutional
controls, there is room for improve-
ment—room to ensure that effective
tools are in place for communicating
land-use restrictions and engineering
controls to the decision makers. The
following examples illustrate poten-
tial problems.
¦	Stakeholders, such as local gov-
ernments, permitting offices, and
real estate/title companies, may not
even be aware that institutional-
controls databases exist. They also
may not be adequately equipped with
the necessary tools to access and track
information. As discussed earlier,
most states have the tools to impose
institutional controls of one type or
another. In addition, property transfer
information disclosure requirements
and Phase I Environmental Assess-
ment requirements exist in most
states. In theory, use restrictions
should be uncovered by Phase I Envi-
ronmental Assessment investigations
or title searches. However, discussions
with oil company representatives and
local agencies indicate that Phase I
investigations do not always uncover
institutional controls. Also, not all
property changes hands prior to rede-
velopment or land-use changes.
In fact, there are instances where
institutional controls have failed or
been ignored during the land-use
decision-making process. One of the
more notable failures occurred at a
site where an UST was scheduled to
be installed in an area where there
was an existing slurry-containment
wall around a former Superfund
facility. The owner proposed in-
stalling the UST system within the
slurry wall for additional release pro-
tection. This proposal was accepted.
However, upon inspection, the regu-
latory agency observed two other
excavation projects that were threat-
ening the integrity of the slurry wall
and had not been reported to the
agency.
¦ Even if stakeholders are aware
of the database, jurisdictions may
have no provisions that require
stakeholders to access or abide by
the information contained in the
databases. Many states maintain a
database of institutional controls for
contaminated sites; however, this
database approach alone does not
always provide adequate protection.
For example, in one state,
although the database is publicly
available, there are no requirements
for municipalities or other stakehold-
ers to query the database prior to
making land-use decisions. In addi-
tion, this database does not provide
any details on the restrictions, such as
the location of an engineered barrier
or limited monitoring required of the
responsible party. Although property-
owner approval and/or notification
are required for imposing restric-
12

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
tions, there is no system to track own-
ership changes.
In another example, a state main-
tains a Web-based database system
that does not require title recording.
The well-drilling community is sup-
posed to access the system prior to
drilling to determine if a water-use
restriction exists, but this step does
not always happen. Property owners
are notified, but the system does not
track ownership changes.
¦	The information provided in
current databases is not necessarily
complete or user friendly for the
untrained stakeholder attempting
to locate information about institu-
tional controls. For example, one
state maintains a GIS-based database
of institutional controls. The state
also requires proof that a land-use
restriction was recorded and/or
implemented and has biannual certi-
fication monitoring requirements.
Property-owner approval is required
for implementing restrictions, and
there are notification requirements
for local governments. The state
modifies restriction information,
including the description, duration,
and conditions, but does not consis-
tently track the changes in the restric-
tion.
Even though some states have
implemented permit-tracking sys-
tems, these systems may address
only a portion of the exposure-man-
agement issues. One main issue is
that permit-tracking systems are
focused on a single site and may
ignore potential receptor exposure at
sites adjacent to contaminated sites.
In addition, not all areas of the coun-
try require building permits or
approvals. In at least some cases,
information on use restrictions is not
getting to the people who need it.
¦	The data must be well main-
tained, up-to-date, complete, and
accurate. Procedures must be in place
for ongoing reporting, inspection,
maintenance, and enforcement of
restrictions to ensure that the informa-
tion is current. It is extremely impor-
tant for the data to be reliable. If the
data are unreliable, people will proba-
bly ignore the tracking system. Con-
sistency in presenting the data
(including key elements) is vital to
ensuring that sufficient information is
available. The American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Inter-
national is currently working on
developing guidance on the minimal
elements that should be included in a
database or tracking system. EPA and
individual states are also working to
develop consistent data structures for
tracking institutional controls.
Is Legislation Needed for
Tracking Institutional
Controls?
As mentioned previously, we need
up-to-date, easily accessible, reliable
data on engineering and institu-
tional-control requirements and site
status. We also need to make sure
that the data are being accessed and
considered by the people who are
making land-use and exposure-man-
agement decisions. In some cases,
states may want to consider using
regulatory or legislative means to
ensure stakeholders are required to
check institutional-control databases
prior to issuing permits or making
land use decisions.
Some potential benefits of legis-
lation include:
•	Improved communication between
the agencies that oversee cleanup
of contaminated sites and the agen-
cies that oversee permitting of
activities that can cause exposure to
residual contamination
•	Improved environmental protec-
tion at sites with residual contami-
nation
•	Encouragement of land revitaliza-
tion
•	Improved local support for envi-
ronmental stewardship
•	Increased comfort level for regula-
tors and the public when institu-
tional controls are employed
Some potential challenges of leg-
islation include:
•	Legal issues associated with classi-
fying sites or areas for Long Term
Exposure Management (the
stigma of being on a list of sites)
•	Increased burden for permitting
agencies
•	Increased requirements and costs
for agencies and RPs
•	Potential for tracking many sites to
prevent just a few problems
•	May facilitate leaving more conta-
mination in place
A state mandate for tracking
land-use restrictions is not a one-size-
fits-all solution, and many states are
pursuing other options, as mentioned
above.
Making the Connection
Institutional controls can help pre-
vent exposure to residual contamina-
tion. A variety of approaches are in
use and in development across the
country. The ultimate goal is to con-
nect land-use restrictions with land-
use decisions to manage and prevent
exposure to residual contamination
over the long term. However, we are
still in the initial phases of develop-
ing the infrastructure and procedures
to fully track and implement institu-
tional controls.
Tracking the large number of
institutional controls that have been
put in place since risk-based cleanups
have been implemented will continue
to remain a challenge, and we may
end up tracking a large number of
sites in an effort to prevent a small
number of problems. However, this
may be the price we pay for allowing
use restrictions to be a part of our risk-
management and exposure-manage-
ment tool box. ¦
For More Information
•	U.S. EPA main institutional
controls site
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/
ic/guid e/ind ex. htm
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/
ic/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/superfmd/
action/ic/survey/index.htm
•	U.S. EPA Office of Underground
Storage Tanks Web Site
http://www. epa.gov/O UST/
rbdm/instctrl.htm
http://www.epa.gov/oust/
20recycl.htm
•	NEIWPCC 2003 Survey Results
http://www. neiwpcc. org/
2003mtbesum.pdf
http://www. neiwpcc. org/
2003mtbecom.pdf
See Section VIII. Long-Term
Management of LUST Sites.
¦ continued on page 14
13

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
Enhanced Leak Detection
in California—What
We've Learned
¦ Tracking Controls from page 13
Matthew Small is a hydrogeologist with
U.S. EPA Office of Underground Stor-
age Tanks, Region 9, in San Francisco,
California. He provides technical sup-
port and training to state UST/LUST
programs as well as direct program
implementation on Native American
lands. He has worked with both EPA
and ASTM to create standards and
guidelines for remediation by natural
attenuation (RNA), monitored natural
attenuation (MNA), and risk-based cor-
rective action (RBCA). He can be con-
tacted at small.matthew@epa.gov
Mike Martinson is a Senior Consultant
for Delta Environmental Consultants,
Inc. He has tracked the emergence and
development of state and U.S. EPA reg-
ulatory issues and regulations over the
past several years, including gasoline
ether and alcohol oxygenates, states' use
of remediation by natural atten uation
(RNA), and long-term management
practices for LUST sites achieving reg-
ulatory risk-based closure or no further
action status. He can be contacted at
mmartinson@deltaenv.com
Jane Bohn is a Senior Specialist with
Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.
She has worked in the UST environ-
mental industry since 1993 with a focus
on risk-based regulatory programs and
institutional-control application since
1997. She can be reached at
jbohn@deltaenv .com
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge
Dave Rice and Zafer Demir of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, along
with Mike Bellott, Hal White, and Joseph
Vescio of U.S. EPA, as well as all the
state regulators who have participated in
our surveys for invaluable discussions
and information exchange on this issue.
Disclaimer
This document was written by the
authors in their private capacity. No offi-
cial support or endorsement by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, fed-
eral government, any state or local gov-
ernment, or any private company is
intended or should be inferred. Mention
of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or rec-
ommendation for use.
by Randy Golding
Being involved in Enhanced
Leak Detection (ELD) since
1998, I have learned some
interesting things about under-
ground storage tank systems and
about leak detection in general. In
fact, during the last few months of
testing newly constructed UST sys-
tems in California, the lessons have
come fast and have been a bit sur-
prising.
Perhaps the most important les-
son for everyone has been that petro-
leum storage systems can be built
tight, but not without a great deal of
scrutiny and effort. With more care
by installers, inspectors, testers, and
owners and operators, these systems
can be constructed with virtually no
allowance for a "significant" release
of product, liquid, or vapor. This can
be accomplished using a variety of
currently available materials. It is the
installation practices that make the
biggest difference.
Traditional leak detection and
inspection methods can find most of
the big leaks before a system is put to
use, but smaller leaks still remain.
Most of these leaks are below the
detection limit of traditional leak-
detection methods. However, just
because these leaks are small doesn't
mean they don't matter. But by care-
fully using more sensitive testing
methods during construction, UST
systems can be built to a higher stan-
dard of tightness.
The cost associated with con-
ducting very sensitive testing (e.g.,
ELD) of a new facility can be small
compared to the long-term costs and
liabilities associated with leaks, even
small leaks. Soil and groundwater
contamination, site remediation, and
associated liabilities can quickly add
up to hundreds of thousands or mil-
lions of dollars. By using state-of-the-
art testing technology, a station
owner can be assured of a tight facil-
ity at the time of construction. Also,
at any future time, the UST owner
can reliably confirm that the system
remains tight.

Why Small Leaks Matter
In the 1990s, methyl, ferf-butyl ether
(MtBE) became widely used in Cali-
fornia after the state set standards
for cleaner-burning gasoline. When
agencies responsible for clean water
programs began looking for MtBE in
soil and groundwater samples from
leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) sites, they started finding it
with disconcerting frequency. Efforts
to identify the source did not always
produce a satisfactory result. The
"smoking gun" remained elusive
often enough that investigators grew
increasingly frustrated.
A random search for MtBE at a
few service stations in the Santa Clara
area, where no leaks were known to
be occurring, detected MtBE at 50
percent of the facilities (Summary
Report: Santa Clara Valley Water Dis-
trict Groundwater Vulnerability Pilot
Study, 1999). An effort was made to
correlate features of the UST facilities
(e.g., double-walled vs. single-walled
construction) with the probability of
finding MtBE. The only feature that
yielded a significant correlation was
the presence of a vacuum-assisted
stage II vapor-recovery system, a
type of vapor recovery that tends to
pressurize the ullage of an UST.
These systems use a pump to
return fuel vapors from the vehicle to
the tank as the fuel is pumped into
the vehicle. Commonly, the vapor-
recovery system pumps a little more
than a gallon of air and fuel vapors
back to the UST for every gallon of
gasoline that is dispensed. This often
causes a slight pressure at the top of
the tank. It appears likely that the
prevalence of MtBE in the environ-
ment around USTs may be due, in
part, to small vapor releases that
have not previously been on the reg-
ulatory radar screen.
14

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
New Regulations
In 1999, the California legislature
required some form of "enhanced
leak detection" for high-risk UST
facilities, including single-walled sys-
tems near public drinking-water
wells. The statute required the State
Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to define ELD and to con-
duct "field-based research" to deter-
mine whether current construction
and testing standards were adequate
to protect groundwater.
What Is ELD?
The California Code of Regulations
(Title 23, Chapter 16, Article 4, Sec-
tion 2544.1(a)) defines enhanced leak
detection as a "test method that
determines the integrity of a UST sys-
tem by the introduction and external
detection of a substance that is not a
component of the fuel formulation
stored in that UST system." The
method needs to be certified by a
third party as able to detect a 0.005
gallon per hour leak with a probabil-
ity of detection of at least 0.95 and a
probability of false alarm no greater
than 0.05. Detection of both liquid
and/or vapor leaks is required.
Currently, the only method avail-
able that is third-party certified to
meet this requirement is the Tracer
Tight method developed by Tracer
Research Corporation, which is now
part of Praxair Services, Inc. (Ken
Wilcox Associates, October 1990; Con-
trol Strategies Engineering, May 1992).
What Did the Field-Based
Research Study Show?
As part of the required field-based
research, 182 UST systems were
tested for tightness using a sensitive
tracer method (Underground Storage
Tank System Field-Based Research Pro-
ject Report, SWRCB, May 31, 2002).
Liquid releases were detected in 5 to
10 percent of the single-walled piping
systems tested. These leaks were
below the threshold of the most com-
monly used release-detection meth-
ods. Vapor releases from the tanks
were detected in a little more than 60
percent of the systems tested.
This research confirmed the ear-
lier findings: There was no correla-
tion with releases and double-walled
or single-walled systems, but there
was a measurable correlation associ-
ated with facilities equipped with
vacuum-assisted vapor-recovery sys-
tems. A significant number of these
vapor releases emanated from fit-
tings within containment sumps and
then migrated to the backfill through
defects in the seals around piping
and fittings entering the sump and by
sneaking under the sump lid.
Individually, on a pound-for-
pound basis, vapors accounted for the
largest releases observed. If the UST
systems involved in the study were
representative, the data suggest that a
greater amount of petroleum may be
released from these systems as vapors
rather than as liquids.
Post-Installation Testing
In 2002, California enacted Assembly
Bill 2481 into law, requiring new con-
struction standards for UST systems.
New systems were also required to
demonstrate vapor and liquid tight-
ness before being put into service.
One way to demonstrate that tight-
ness was to perform ELD (California
Health and Safety Code 25290.1 (j)).
The testing requirement became
effective on July 1,2003.
The installer of the first facility
tested under this new requirement
was not aware of the new level of
sensitivity required. Before the ser-
vice station was scrutinized at this
new level of tightness, the UST sys-
tem had already been paved over
and the facility was ready to open for
business.
Even though the storage system
had been inspected using traditional
pressure tests before it was covered,
the results of the ELD test meant that
some 60 percent of the newly
installed piping had to be excavated
and replaced because of leaks before
the system could be declared tight. A
number of tank-top fittings were also
repaired or replaced because of leaks
detected during the ELD test.
Within a short time, several
other contractors experienced similar
frustrations. It became clear that tra-
ditional methods of testing newly
installed UST systems were not good
enough. Contractors were concerned
about how to know if the UST sys-
tems they were installing were tight
enough to pass an ELD test before
covering them up. The most reliable
solution to this problem proved to be
using ELD methods or other similar
techniques during construction and
installation.
Work Quality and Cost
Adjustments
Because of the significant increase in
leak-detection sensitivity, new ELD
methods find smaller leaks and con-
sequently a greater number of them.
During the first few weeks of the
ELD testing program for newly con-
structed UST systems in California,
the costs associated with the test pro-
duced some sticker shock in the
industry. However, contractors that
have proactively adjusted their
installation practices to meet these
higher tightness standards have also
experienced a 40 percent to 80 per-
cent reduction in ELD costs.
Because the bar of tightness
expected of UST systems has been
raised, construction practices have
improved, and contractors are get-
ting better at inspecting their work at
each stage of construction. A system
that passes a test of equivalent sensi-
tivity to ELD testing, previous to cov-
ering the system, will pass an ELD
test after covering and paving the
facility, so long as the system is not
damaged while being back filled and
covered with pavement.
As a result of these improve-
ments, the cost associated with this
type of testing has every opportunity
to continue to decrease. As high-sensi-
tivity leak detection matures, other
testing methods are developed, and
better construction practices become
widespread, the price of highly sensi-
tive leak detection will continue to fall.
Why Pressure Tests Aren't
Enough
Air pressure tests are commonly
used to inspect the integrity of piping
before covering UST systems, but the
sensitivity of this type of test is not
sufficient to detect leaks on the order
of 0.005 gph. It is typical to test these
systems at 40 to 80 psig for 30 min-
utes or so, use a gauge with a scale of
0 to 100 psig, and ignore small pres-
sure changes during the test—even
up to 2 psig—because they are
deemed to be insignificant and are
difficult to discern with the gauges
that are typically used.
For 100 feet of 2-inch piping, a
change in pressure of 2 psig over a
period of 30 minutes represents an
air leak of 4.4 gph. If this hole were
leaking liquid gasoline, the leak rate
¦ continued on page 16
15

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
¦ ELD in California from page 15
would be approximately 0.2 gph. A
0.2 gph leak would release 1,700 gal-
lons, or over 10,000 pounds, of gaso-
line over the course of a year. Few
people would argue that a release of
this size is acceptable.
Is there any hope that a pressure
test could achieve the accuracy
required of an ELD test? To accom-
plish the 0.005 gph leak-rate sensitiv-
ity of the ELD test, a pressure test
with an action threshold of 1 or 2 psig
would require a minimum test
period of 18 to 36 days. Few UST sys-
tems are so scrutinized and often a
test of this length would be inconve-
nient to schedule.
Where Are the Holes in Our
UST Systems?
Where have most of the leaks been
found? It is probably no surprise that
most of the leaks are associated with
less than perfect installation prac-
tices. The following are some of the
common problems that we have
noted.
• Connections between spill-buckets
and riser pipes seem to present a
challenge for installers. Perhaps
the joints are assembled from the
perspective that these fittings do
not need to be tight. In addition, a
good number of spill-bucket drain
valves present small leaks that
seem to be difficult to repair after
installation. Furthermore, after
use, the drain valve in the fill-riser
spill bucket is prone to develop
vapor leaks.
•	Improperly cleaned, prepared, or
assembled joints are frequent
sources of leaks. Assembling pipe-
threaded joints without pipe dope
is a sure-fire way of causing leaks.
Taking a doped joint apart and
reassembling the joint without
cleaning and reapplying the pipe
dope is unlikely to create a tight
connection. A greater number of
leaks are associated with T fittings
than with elbows. Machine
threads coupled to pipe threads do
not seal. Screwing male steel-pipe
threads into a threaded FRP
female coupling leads to a large
number of problems. Overtight-
ened O-ring seals can be problem-
atic.
•	The use of a pipe wrench on a sec-
tion of FRP piping is a risky proce-
dure. Wrenches designed for steel
pipe do ugly things to FRP pipe.
•	Vapor or liquid leaks within con-
tainment sumps lead to measur-
able levels of vapor in the backfill
in a very short time. Containment
sumps are not vapor-tight. The
space between the lip of the tank-
top sump and the concrete form
ring for the manhole cover is
designed to provide a ready con-
nection to the backfill for water
drainage. Vapor leaks within the
sumps commonly turn into vapor
leaks in the backfill. This includes
small liquid leaks in the primary
piping that migrate as vapor to the
sump. Another problem is that
nonsealed electrical conduits do
not contain vapors within the
sump; they transport the vapors
from the sump to unexpected
places.
•	Careless use of compression fit-
tings at the tops of ATG risers
leads to unnecessary vapor leaks.
•	We have observed that vapors are
transported through the sheath of
an ATG-probe signal cable very
efficiently. If there is a nick in the
coating or a loose connection at the
top of the probe, the slight pres-
sure in an operating tank drives
the vapors up through the sheath-
VAPOR SOURCES IN UST SYSTEMS
16

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
ing and into the electrical junction
box. From there, the vapors can
enter a sump or they can continue
through the electrical conduit.
Vapors can then be released into
the soil at buried joints in the con-
duit or over the upper lip of the
sump.
Effective Pre-Test Practices
What were some of the effective prac-
tices employed by contractors to
make systems tight to the more sensi-
tive ELD test or to facilitate needed
repairs?
•	Have two people carry a piece of
FRP piping to reduce the possibil-
ity of bruising the pipe and fouling
the ends. One person can carry a
20-foot piece of pipe, but not as
carefully as two can. Gentle han-
dling of flexible piping minimizes
the chance of a leak between end
connections.
•	Require manufacturer-certified
assemblers for each type of piping
material. This also reduces the
number of improperly assembled
joints. Of course, certified assem-
blers who do not follow the manu-
facturer's recommendations have
a lower success rate.
•	Properly clean and prepare FRP
joints—this is crucial. After apply-
ing the joint resin, and properly
making up the joint, do not move
the joint until the resin is cured.
After assembling a few joints, the
assembler needs to work on a
completely different part of the
system for a while to avoid mov-
ing a curing joint and thereby
causing very small leaks.
•	An ELD test must be conducted
after every repair to document that
an UST system is tight. Early iden-
tification of leaks can reduce the
number of ELD retests and save
much time and money. Maintain-
ing pressure in the piping for pro-
longed periods before an ELD test
is very helpful in identifying small
leaks without the expense of a full-
fledged ELD test.
•	Put the system under test pressure
as soon as it is assembled and
leave it under pressure until it is
put into service—an inexpensive
but helpful precaution. It also pro-
vides a rapid indicator of any
damage that might have occurred
during further construction activi-
ties. The pressure inside a leak-
free piping system remains stable
indefinitely. Logging the gauge-
registered pressure at least daily
during the construction process is
easy and very valuable. Adjusting
the pressure periodically to com-
pensate for repeated pressure
changes is a bad sign. If the system
must be recharged periodically in
order to maintain pressure, there
is a problem.
•	Compare the pressure behavior of
separate sections of the pipe at the
facility. Any effect of temperature
or barometric pressure on one pipe
should be similar or identical to
that on neighboring pipes. Effects
from relaxation of the pipe materi-
als should also be parallel.
•	Digital gauges offer two important
advantages: (a) it is easy to read
pressure changes on the order of
0.1 psig, and (b) it is more likely
that everyone will read the gauge
the same. When different people
read a typical dial gauge, it isn't
unheard of to get readings as vari-
able as 29, 28, and 24 psi without
any movement in the gauge.
•	Containment sumps or boxes are
not always used at horizontal-to-
vertical transitions. Vent risers, for
example, may be connected to the
vent pipe through a flexible con-
nector. If that fitting needs to be
tight, it is wise to make it as acces-
sible as possible. A joint in the
concrete around the area of pene-
tration minimizes the amount of
concrete that will be broken if a
leak is found in this area during a
final test. An even less disruptive
alternative is to place these joints
in containment sumps. As a gen-
eral rule, minimizing the number
of joints between sumps lowers
the probability of a buried leak.
•	The use of coarse backfill material
(e.g., gravel) shortens the transport
time for tracers through the soil
and allows for a very fast test.
Are Newer Systems Better?
The tank-top fittings for double-
walled tanks tend to look a lot like
tank-top fittings for single-walled
tanks. Therefore it is not surprising
that vapor releases, the most preva-
lent form of releases from tanks, are
just as likely from double-walled
tanks as single-walled tanks. Though
there seems to be some benefit from
double-walled piping in preventing
product leaks, it does not appear to
me that components of newer sys-
tems are more likely to be tight than
old systems. An old system that
didn't leak when it was constructed
could stay tight for a long time. Many
very old systems have passed a
Tracer Tight test. Some of these sys-
tems are more than 50 years old and
in one case the tank was approxi-
mately 100 years old.
Where Do the Limits of Leak
Detection Lie?
High quality, careful installation
practices lead to tighter UST systems.
Careful, more sensitive testing prac-
tices find more leaks and reduce the
potential for unwanted and unde-
tectable releases. Systems can be
made tight to virtually any level of
scrutiny if properly and carefully
installed.
The good news is that virtually
any level of leak-detection sensitivity
that might be desired is now attain-
able. What size leak can reasonably
be ignored? Or in other words, what
leak-rate sensitivity is needed so that
any leak that goes undetected really
doesn't matter? Most would agree
that 5,000 to 10,000 pounds per year
is too much. A 0.005 gph liquid leak
releases 300 pounds per year. This
may also be too much.
Because gasoline is thicker than
air, a 0.005-gph air leak during a
post-installation test will release
approximately 10 to 20 pounds of liq-
uid gasoline per year after the system
starts dispensing the product. Is this
too much? A healthy discussion of
how much leakage can be ignored is
long overdue.
The most cost-effective leak
detection occurs before a system is
put into use. This is also the time to
maximize the sensitivity of a tight-
ness test. Systems that are tight from
the beginning have a greater chance
of staying tight for a long time. Sys-
tems that leak from the beginning
allow small releases that can go
undetected for a long time.
¦ continued on page 26
17

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
Keeping Water Out of Mischief
The Causes and Economic Impacts of Water in Petroleum
Storage Systems—and How to Prevent Them
by Wayne Geyer
Operations and maintenance
procedures for zvater moni-
toring and removal have been
a recommended practice for over 30
years. But despite their simplicity, the
extent to zvhich such procedures have
been put to use has been inconsistent
throughout the tank ozvner/operator
community. Reasons for this lackluster
attention to the details of zvater mainte-
nance may include a general industry
focus on tank upgrades and mainte-
nance procedures specifically mandated
by regulation or code. In other zvords, an
attitude of "If it's not regulated, zvhy
bother?" The anszver to that question
has become increasingly evident.
Industry changes over the past
several years have increased the risk
posed by zvater entry and accumulation
in petroleum storage systems. If zvater
is not removed on a timely and regular
basis, microbial grozvth may occur,
resulting in potential contamination
throughout the entire system, regard-
less of the type of storage or dispensing
materials used. In short, significant
and far-reaching negative impacts are
possible—on the system, on the opera-
tions and profits of the facility, on the
facility's customers or users, and on the
environment.
The Steel Tank Institute has pub-
lished a booklet entitled Water in
Underground and Aboveground
Storage Systems: Causes, Economic
Impact on Business, and Preventive
Operations and Maintenance Prac-
tices for storage-system ozvners and
operators zvhich describes prudent
zvater monitoring and removal proce-
dures and emphasizes the importance of
implementing them as part of routine
storage-system operations and mainte-
nance. The booklet also explains the rel-
atively recent industry changes that
have increased the probability of zvater
entry and accumulation in a storage
system. This article summarizes key
elements of the booklet.
An Urgent Case for Water
Monitoring and Removal
Not monitoring and removing water
from storage systems can lead to a
number of problems, from the degra-
dation of fuel quality and resulting
effects on vehicle performance to
microbial contamination and damage
of the entire storage system. This per-
tains to all storage systems, both
underground and aboveground, con-
structed of any material and storing
nearly any product—gasoline, diesel,
residential and commercial heating
oils, aviation jet fuel, and others.
The entire storage system can be
impacted by water, not just the stor-
age tank. While the tank is the com-
mon collection place where chemical
reactions can brew, it also serves as a
central location and easy means to
monitor for water in the system and
treat the problem. It is crucial that
owners and operators of storage sys-
tems understand that they need to
begin implementing routine opera-
tions and maintenance procedures
for water monitoring and that they
remove any water detected, immedi-
ately.
Recent Industry Changes
Although operations and mainte-
nance procedures for water monitor-
ing and removal have been a
recommended practice for over 30
years, the following changes within
the industry have increased the risk
of water entry and accumulation in
the storage system and subsequent
microbial growth if water is not
removed.
• The distribution infrastructure
Fuel is moving faster through the
distribution/delivery infrastruc-
ture, leaving less time for water to
settle out before the product moves
from one step to the next in the dis-
tribution process. A shift from pro-
prietary to shared delivery
infrastructures (e.g., bulk termi-
nals, pipelines, transports) has
removed much of the control that
individual companies once had
over the distribution process and
product.
•	Gasoline chemistry Over the past
20 years, gasoline chemistry has
undergone many changes: lead is
out, additives such as MtBE and
ethanol are in, and new fuels such
as biodiesel are entering the mar-
ket. These new/altered fuels are
more susceptible to moisture accu-
mulation, separation, and poten-
tial biodegradation, activities that
are accelerated by water. Lead
used to serve as a natural poison
to the microbes that grow in a
moist environment. In today's
lead-free fuels, microbial growth
can occur more readily.
•	Installation procedures Today's
tank systems have a number of
connections to the tank and equip-
ment installed to the tank (e.g.,
spill-box drain valves). For these
reasons the possibility of water
entry into the tank system when
not properly maintained or
installed is greater than ever. (See
Figure 1 on page 19.)
•	Microbial activity As a result of
the above changes within the
industry, microbial activity has
been identified and found to be a
much more common phenomenon
than previously realized.
How Water Enters a
Storage System
In addition to the possibility that
water is in the delivered product,
water can enter a storage system by
way of damaged fill boxes or fill-cap
gaskets, loose fittings or plugs, poor
practices relating to spill buckets, and
condensation caused by fuel tempera-
ture swings or the introduction of air
through vents. Certain fuels attract
moisture readily and then separate
out when they are subject to tempera-
ture swings.
18

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
Preventing Potential Problems
Associated with Water
Major industry groups have devel-
oped recommended operations and
maintenance procedures. Basic prac-
tices include:
•	Monitoring and checking for
water with automatic-tank-gaug-
ing systems and manual gauge
sticks
•	Inspecting fill and vapor caps for
damage and missing gaskets,
replacing if necessary
•	Inspecting product and spill-con-
tainment buckets and properly
disposing of water if found (not
draining it back into the tank)
•	Auditing the fuel-delivery process
and water content
•	Using water-sensitive fuel filters
and watching for any slow-down
during fueling
•	Treating storage tanks with an
antimicrobial pesticide (biocide)
on a regular basis
•	Employing a qualified profes-
sional to periodically examine the
inside of the tank, remove any
water and sludge, and clean the
tank
Locating Water in a Storage
Tank and Removing It
The first point of contact for guidance
on locating water in a petroleum stor-
age system is the petroleum equip-
ment or services contractor and/or
the fuel supplier. Additional guid-
ance is available from organizations
such as the American Petroleum
Institute (API), Petroleum Equipment
Institute (PEI), American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM) Interna-
tional, and the National Oilheat
Research Alliance (NORA).
Manual tank gauging and/or
automatic tank gauging can detect
water, but periodically pulling prod-
uct samples from the tank is a pru-
dent practice. Samples should be
taken from the low end of the tank
and, if possible, from more than one
location in the tank. Hazy or waxy
fuel samples indicate water. Readily
available field-detection kits can be
used to check for microbes and deter-
mine if the fuel meets specifications.
If water is detected at any time, it
FIGURE 1. Water entry points in an UST system.
¦ - . j
'm fcH'lAv
p ill snnin—^
¦ -M tkT

urn r
must be removed by a qualified ser-
vice contractor.
Signs of Microbial Growth
Plugged fuel filters are a common
result of microbial growth. Clogged
filters result from the accumulation
of slime created by a thriving
microorganism colony. Filter life
shorter than six months is a warning
signal (when flow slows to 3-5 gpm,
something is amiss). Other signs
include plugged fuel lines, erratic
gauge readings, a rotten-egg odor,
and frequent replacement of other
components such as valves, rubber
seals, and hoses.
Problems may also surface in
vehicles that have been fueled by
contaminated product, such as
plugged fuel filters and unusual
exhaust smoke. If water levels in a
storage tank are high enough to be
pumped directly into a vehicle,
immediate and major problems can
occur. This is of particular concern
with ethanol-based fuels.
Field-detection
kits can be used to
verify microbial
growth, but it is
suggested that
qualified profes-
sionals with
expertise in micro-
bial contamina-
tion control be
contacted to de-
velop a treatment
plan. This may
include initial
tank cleaning to
remove the slime
and sludge, fol-
lowed by treat-
ment with a
biocide.
For More Information
The publication Water in Underground
and Aboveground Storage Systems:
Causes, Economic Impact on Business
and Preventive Operations and Mainte-
nance Practices is available in print
from the Steel Tank Institute
(info@steeltank.com) or online (www.
steeltank.com/water). For specific infor-
mation on operation and mainte-
nance practices, contact your fuel
supplier and/or a petroleum equip-
ment or service provider. Standards
and informational resources are also
available from organizations such as
the STI, U.S. EPA, API, PEI, ASTM,
PMAA, NORA, DOE and your state
or local authorities. See also LUST-
Line #39, November 2001, "Microbes
and Fuel Systems: The Overlooked
Corrosion Problem," by Fred Pass-
man. ¦
Wayne Geyer is Executive Director of
the Steel Tank Institute.
STI/SPFA to Combine Organizations
The Steel Tank Institute (STI) and Steel Plate Fabricators Association
(SPFA) have agreed to combine organizations. The new trade group will be
known as STI/SPFA and will be based in Lake Zurich, Illinois. Wayne
Geyer, current executive vice president of STI, will lead the new organiza-
tion. The new association will be organized with two divisions operating as
STI and SPFA. SPFA members are involved in manufacturing and market-
ing elevated field-erected water storage tanks, pressure vessels and large-
diameter steel pipe. STI members make shop-fabricated steel underground
and aboveground storage tanks.
Also note that the Steel Tank Institute's Tank Talk publication is now an
online-only publication that can be accessed at www.steeltank.com. ¦
19

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
"I Don't Train,
Our Story Begins ...
It's early Monday morning. Bob, a
state UST inspector, comes whistling
into his office, only to be instantly
sobered by the huge, listing pile of
draft Notice of Noncompliance (NON)
letters. Bob has been meaning to mail
them out but he's understaffed, over-
worked, and, quite frankly, fed up.
Time and time again Bob works
with UST operators who don't
understand anything about their
automatic tank gauges, don't keep
their spill buckets clean, don't do
their required corrosion tests, and
generally don't seem to give a hoot
about the rules Bob is trying to
enforce. "They just don't get it," he
fumes.
Overloaded, he puts off the pile
another day, grabs the state rig, does
a few more inspections (finds more
problems, of course), and, on his way
home at the end of the day, stops by
his favorite bookstore. Walking
down an aisle, he happens upon a
trim little book called Don't Shoot the
Dog: The New Art of Teaching and
Training by Karen Pryor.
Being a dog owner, Bob is curi-
ous about the book, but as he skims
through it he realizes it's not exactly
about dogs, much less shooting them.
(He is relieved to learn the title is
only a metaphor in that "shooting the
dog" is an extreme way to get it to
stop barking, but there are other
ways. Phew). Bob quickly concludes
that the book is about training some-
one to do something.
The author asserts that many
people don't use correct training
techniques to reach a desired out-
come. In fact, trainers will often
blame people (or other creatures) for
Enforce!"
not doing what is being asked of
them. She suggests that instead of
looking at the trainee as the problem,
it might well be better to focus on the
trainer.
Training, she says, is not synony-
mous with training effectively, and the
rules for effective training apply to
more critters than just dogs; they
apply to bosses, spouses, co-workers,
roommates .. . even dolphins. ("And
tank operators?" wonders Bob.
"Nahhhh.") As Bob delves deeper
into the pages of the book, he learns
that there is no single method of
effective training—no silver bullet—
instead, there are eight of them. A
good trainer uses the best method for
the right situation or, even better, a
combination of methods. Trainers
who are frustrated with poor results
are probably using the wrong
method for the application. "Yeah,"
Bob chuckles to himself, "Like my
'they just don't get it' method."
As Bob reads on, he finds himself
admitting that the concept is amus-
ing and that it may even apply to cer-
tain situations ... but to tank owners?
He thinks about the operators who he
just can't seem to get motivated.
"Besides," he fumes, "I don't train, I
enforce!" He buys the book, anyway,
hoping he can use the techniques on
his dog.
The Rude Awakening
That night Bob has a nightmare. He
dreams he is wearing a black leather
hood and a sleeveless tunic and
pushing some hapless peasant into
the stockade in the village square. He
takes the prisoner, shoves him into
the yoke, and secures the lock. He
unfurls a scroll and cries "This man
has failed to an perform an annual
functionality test on an automatic
line-leak detector to ensure the
device can detect a 3 gallon per hour
leak rate! I sentence thee to 40 lash-
ings!"
Before the first swish-crack,
Bob's alarm clock goes off. Back at
the office, he sips his coffee and mulls
over the dream, which has left him
with an uneasy feeling. At his lunch
break, and with his NONs still not
mailed, Bob opens up the book and
reads about the eight methods of
training. To humor himself, or per-
haps driven by pangs of subtle guilt,
Bob jots down the methods and notes
some examples of how each could
apply to his universe of underground
storage tanks. Still thinking hypothet-
ically (and against his better judg-
ment), Bob begins to venture outside
the box of his day-to-day routine.
After a while, with the help of author
Karen Pryor, a new paradigm starts
to take shape.
Bob's Eight Ways of Training
Tank Operators
¦	Method 1: Shoot the dog. Get rid
of the problem behavior. "Penalize
the tank operator by putting him/her
out of business," notes Bob. "This
gets rid of the problem of the opera-
tor not performing leak detection—
no tank operator, no need to worry
about leak detection. Hmmm."
¦	Method 2: Punishment. Punish
wrong behavior after the act has
occurred as a "reminder." A Notice
of Noncompliance letter, thinks Bob.
"Aha, but issuing a penalty repri-
mands the operator for not doing leak
detection. The problem is that is
doesn't make him/her do leak detec-
tion; it only punishes him/her for not
doing it. Hmmm."
¦	Method 3: Negative reinforce-
ment. An unwanted behavior is met
with an undesirable response. In the
book, Pryor cautions that negative
reinforcement only works when the
punishment is swift (i.e., nearly
immediate) and relative to the "bad
behavior." Otherwise, it doesn't
make sense and rarely corrects the
behavior. Bob notes: "Operator does
not do leak detection and we publish
a press release to make him look bad
in the public eye." Visions of stock-
Or, how Bob the UST Inspector had to
choose what was more important:
compliance or enforcement.
by Ben Thomas
Sometimes doing something differently requires the fundamental courage to
admit that what you're currently doing isn't really working. In this article, I use
Bob, a fictional character, to illustrate the predicamen t many UST inspectors
face when stuck trying to enforce tank rules while paradoxically being hamstrung
with the very enforcement tools they use. In this story Bob discovers what really moti-
vates people and by applying this wisdom, he is able to transform his UST program
into a more effective one, using methods he hardly thought applicable.
20

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
ades dance in Bob's head. He also
remembers reading about states that
use "red tag" authority to shut down
a facility until the violation is cor-
rected.
¦	Method 4: Extinction. This is
where you wait for the bad behavior
to go away by itself. This works if the
trainee knows what is good behavior
(the rules) and what is bad behavior
(the violations). Bob wonders if the
mere complexity of tank rules, which
can overwhelm the average operator,
prevents knowing exactly what is
expected. Bob can't think of an
instance when ignoring the problem
led the tank owner to correct it by
him/herself. Bob notes: "Can't train
(change behavior) if they don't know
what I want beforehand." Go Bob go!
¦	Method 5: Train an incompatible
behavior. Train an alternate behavior
that prevents an undesirable behav-
ior. Bob remembers hearing once that
the State of Kansas requires all opera-
tors to submit the last year's worth of
leak detection records for agency
review. Bob scribbles: "No leak detec-
tion reports, no state fund; no state
fund, no permit; no permit, no busi-
ness; no business, no money." The
request for leak detection records is
incompatible with not doing leak
detection, because the state fund is
tied into this request. "Cool," Bob
muses. "Tie in technical requirements
with funding incentives."
¦	Method 6: Put the behavior on
cue. Warn someone that something
is going to happen. Or may happen.
Bob is clicking now and writes: "Send
letters to operators BEFORE I inspect
them and explain that I am coming
and what documents I need to
review." Bob has heard about how
South Carolina does this, and how it
reduces the inspection time at each
site, allowing for more inspections
each year.
¦	Method 7: Shape the absence of
the behavior. Sometimes called Posi-
tive Reinforcement. Bob remembers
hearing how in Alaska a green "atta
boy" tag is issued to indicate that the
operator is in compliance. At the
time, Bob thought this was weird
mostly because he was only familiar
with red "bad boy" tags. Bob scrib-
bles: "Offer praise when something
bad is not happening (e.g., say 'Nice
clean spill bucket you got there!')"
¦ Method 8: Change the motivation.
Pryor says this is the best way. Work
with what motivates operators. Is
someone not doing what you want?
Change the motivation. Bob recently
learned that the State of Washington
provides "pain-free" compliance
inspections for those who request
one. The state does not enforce a vio-
lation on an operator if the operator
initiates the call, as long as the prob-
lem is fixed. The motivation moves
from "better not get caught" to "I can
fix a problem without being pun-
ished if I ask for help."
The Experiment
Bob looks over his notes and decides
it's time to try an experiment. He
weighs his workload outlook, his
chronic state of frustration, and his
morbid dream and concludes he
doesn't have much to lose. He tries
the following.
Ben's Warning—The following
hypothetical situation can be haz-
ardous to initial skepticism. It
involves a simplified world that is nec-
essary to minimize bureaucratic nay-
saying. In order for him bring his
ideas to light, Bob is granted certain
authorities to make things happen
fast. Before you say "no way this can
happen in my state," first indulge in
these generous assumptions and focus
on the outcome, rather than get
bogged down in the mechanics.
•	Bob goes back to his noncompliant
sites and tells the operators they
have 30 days to correct the prob-
lem. (Method 6: Put the behavior
on cue.)
•	For those who complete the work,
as assigned, Bob agrees to tear up
the fine. (Method 7: Shape the
absence of the behavior.)
•	For those who fail to complete the
remedy, Bob issues them a field
citation on the thirtieth day and
collects a penalty. (Method 3: Neg-
ative reinforcement.) Afterward,
Bob pulls their operating permit
and locks their fill pipe. (Method 2:
Punishment.)
•	Using the proper chain of com-
mand, Bob eventually convinces
the head of the state fund to
require that operators submit
proof of leak detection as part of
the annual application process.
(Method 5: Train an incompatible
behavior.)
•	Bob creates an amnesty program
where he tells tank operators that
if they call him and ask for an
inspection, he will not hammer
them with a "NON," as long as the
UST system is not actively leaking.
(Method 8: Change the motiva-
tion.)
•	Bob establishes a "Tank Operator
of the Month" column on his Web
page to highlight a successful busi-
ness person who got out of trouble
by correcting a problem. (Method
7: Shape the absence of a behavior.)
•	Bob changes his inspection proto-
col to notify operators seven to ten
days before an inspection, rather
than just springing on them like he
used to and then being mad that
they weren't more prepared.
(Method 6: Put the behavior on
cue.)
•	Bob drafts rules that go into effect
that provide a compliance tag for
those tank systems that pass
inspection. (Method 7: Shape the
absence of a behavior.) No tag, no
fuel. (Method 5: Train an incom-
patible behavior.)
Six months later, Bob reviews his
enforcement caseload. Something,
indeed, has happened. The number
of NONs facilities have dropped off
while the number of Significant
Operational Compliance facilities
have increased. Sure, he spends more
time on the phone, but that's because
tank operators are starting to initiate
calls. Bob's boss drops by and says
his federal bean count has never
looked better. No longer in his state
of perpetual funk, Bob is able to enjoy
his job more fully. Operators are get-
ting it.
¦ continued on page 22
21

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
ICC UST Operator
Certification Exam Now
Available
¦ "I Don't Train..."from page 21
The Moral of the Story
A well-intended regulator of under-
ground storage tank systems can fail
to understand what motivates people.
What Bob failed to understand is that
he should have been trying to system-
atically change behavior, not catch the
thief with his hand in the proverbial
cookie jar. This reactive type of
enforcement eventually leads to a
quicksand of time and resources. Plus
it doesn't really change how people
do things, and, ultimately fails. Why?
Some regulators think of them-
selves strictly as enforcers. They
think that punishing the offenders of
UST regulations is the only way to
make things better. According to
Pryor, this would be using an exag-
gerated amount of Method #2, pun-
ishment. Method #2 advocates feel
that a strong hand garners respect,
even when doling out punishment.
Does it work? Not really. Not
sure? Just look at how most states
enforce the UST rules (heavy on
Methods 1 and 2), then look at the
national average of EPA's "significant
operational compliance," and you can
see we have a long way to go.
I think the trick is to not to settle
on any one method but to use a blend
of some or all of the methods,
depending on the situation. The fun
part of a regulator's job can be to
decide how much of each method to
use and in what amount.
As an inspector, ask yourself
whether Bob's statement "I don't
train, I enforce!" is in fact correct.
And while Bob thought he knew
what was more important, he ulti-
mately had to decide what was more
effective. If you train operators
through various incentives and
decrease violations, aren't you doing
your job of protecting human health
and the environment? If you facilitate
changing behavior and get a popula-
tion to perform leak detection, isn't
your job a whole lot easier? And isn't
that want you want? ¦
Ben Thomas is former manager of the
Alaska UST leak-prevention program. In
that capacity, he used training methods
5, 6, 7, and 8, which helped decrease
enforcement while increasing significant
operational compliance. He now has his
own consulting firm, Ben Thomas Asso-
ciates. See www.bentanks.com.
by Lynn A. Woodard
Over the past several years the
same theme continues to be
expressed when state regula-
tors get together at meetings and
conferences: UST operators are not
sufficiently trained to know what is
required by the federal regulations.
In response to this concern, the
International Code Council (ICC)
has developed a new Operator
Certification Examination designed
specifically to allow operators to
demonstrate that they possess the
minimum required knowledge of the
regulatory requirements to achieve
and maintain operational compli-
ance.
The process began in 2002, when
the Board of Directors of the Interna-
tional Fire Code Institute (IFCI) voted
to fund the development of an exami-
nation to certify UST operators. This
was done at the recommendation of
IFCI's UST/AST Certification Advi-
sory Committee, which was made up
of representatives of UST state regula-
tory agencies from around the coun-
try. You may recognize that this is the
same organization that was solicited
to develop and provide certification
examinations for UST system installa-
tion/ retrofitting, decommissioning,
tank tightness testing, cathodic pro-
tection testing, and AST system
installation/retrofitting.
As a result of the Board's deci-
sion, a volunteer committee was
established to define the goals and
objectives of the examination, define
the duties of a certified operator, and
develop a bank of test questions,
answers, and appropriate references
for the examination. During 2003, the
Committee convened several times in
multiday sessions to accomplish its
goal.
In case I've caused confusion
about ICC vs. IFCI, let me explain.
During the timeframe that the opera-
tor's exam was being developed,
IFCI's parent company, International
Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO), was merging with Building
Officials and Code Administrators
International, Inc. (BOCA) and
Southern Building Code Congress
International, Inc. (SBCCI) to create
one company called the International
Code Council. This officially took
place on February 1, 2003. Hence, all
of the examinations mentioned above
are now under the auspices of the
ICC.
The ICC Certified Operators
Examination became available on
July 1, 2003. It is administered by a
company called Promissor, which
has a contract with ICC. Promissor
has teamed with Gateway Comput-
ers to use its locations for test centers.
To schedule a time and location
for any of the examinations noted
above as well as the Certified Opera-
tors Examination, contact ICC at
(800) 423-6587 ext. 3419. ICC will pro-
vide applicants with a Candidate Bul-
letin, which contains a wealth of
information about how the examina-
tions are structured and the reference
material from which the examination
questions and answers were derived.
Visit ICC's Web site at http://www.icc-
safe.org.
If you are looking for an inexpen-
sive way to establish an operator cer-
tification program in your state, you
may want to take a look at the ICC
Certified Operators Examination to
satisfy a portion of that program. The
hard work has been done, there is no
cost to the state, it is already available
in each state, test development
experts have certified it, and it is
defendable. Further, if your state's
regulations are more stringent than
the federal regulations, ICC may be
willing to work with you to develop a
separate state-specific examination. ¦
Lynn A. Woodard, P.E., is the Supervi-
sor of the New Hampsh ire Waste Man-
agement Division's UST/AST
Compliance and Initial Response Sec-
tion. He is also the curren t chairman of
the ICC UST/AST Certification
Advisory Committee.
22

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
An Urban Cinderella
The Transformation of a
Former Petroleum-
Contaminated Site in Virginia
by Barbara Howenstine
Across the busy Arlington, Virginia, highway you see the
modern facade of an 11-story yellow brick apartmen t
building—the Clarendon Centre. You see the tidy bal-
conies and the polished-metal framed front door. You step into the
cool, calm lobby with its black walls, taupe divans, beaux-arts crystal vases, and welcoming fireplace. You glance into the clubroom
with its bar and stools, track lighting, pool table, large-screen TV, and sunny windows. You walk along the corridors with their
slightly exotic olive-tinted walls and rust and taupe patterned carpeting. You glance through the door of an unfurnished apartment
and note the large floor-to-ceiling windows. You go up the elevator, through the doors, and out onto the spacious, pebble-strewn bal-
cony on the 9th floor to get a pleasan t and airy panoramic view of the city and the Washington Mon umen t in the distance. Hard to
believe that just a few short years ago, this very site had been shunned by developers and deplored by nearby residen ts. Back then it
was a petroleum-contaminated property with vacant, decades-old dilapidated buildings in a similarly blighted neighborhood.
The Clarendon Centre
A Collaborative Expedition
This is the story of the 1.4-acre Claren-
don Triangle site in Arlington, a close
suburb of Washington, D.C. Since the
1920s, the site had contained several
gasoline stations, a car wash, an auto-
mobile dealership, and an office
building. At least four facilities in the
area had had petroleum leaks, and
some plumes in the area and at the
site were decades old. By the late
1980s the site was rundown, vacant,
and contaminated with petroleum.
The Texas-based JPI Apartment
Development, LP (JPI), became inter-
ested in the site because of its location
in an area already experiencing revi-
talization. JPI specializes in the cre-
ation and management of luxury
residential communities throughout
the United States. JPI acquired the
Clarendon site in 2001 and began the
multi-faceted task of working with
Arlington County and the Common-
wealth of Virginia to clean up and
redevelop the property.
JPI and its consultants, Environ-
mental Consultants and Contractors
(ECC), and lending institution First
Union worked closely with the
Northern Virginia Regional Office of
the Virginia Department of Environ-
mental Quality (VDEQ) to resolve
environmental, regulatory, and
financial issues concerning the site.
Work at the site began in 2001.
Although site assessments had
already been completed, ECC per-
formed its own assessment and pro-
duced a Corrective Action Plan
(CAP) to address the petroleum con-
tamination as well as safety issues at
the site. The CAP was approved by
VDEQ, discharge permits were
issued to handle treated excavation
water, and $1.5 million from the Vir-
ginia Petroleum Storage Tank Fund
was used toward the $3.5 million cost
for water treatment and soil excava-
tion. Contaminated materials were
addressed to VDEQ's requirements
and work at the site progressed on
schedule.
By April 2002, the foundation
and subsurface structure of the resi-
dential and commercial building had
been completed and the environmen-
tal issues successfully resolved with
VDEQ. The trendy Clarendon Centre
opened its 252 residential units to res-
idents just over a year later. Several
commercial ventures occupy the
first-floor retail space (14,000 sq. ft.),
including a coffee shop, video rental
store, dry cleaner, and restaurant. JPI
sold the property to current owner
and manager Equity Residential in
October 2003.
Elements of Success
What contributed to the successful
redevelopment of this formerly run-
down and petroleum-contaminated
site?
• The site was located in an urban
area where job growth was occur-
ring and projected to occur for sev-
eral years in the future. Housing
demand was strong.
•	The site was in an urban area
already undergoing extensive
revitalization in the form of new or
rehabilitated residential and com-
mercial buildings.
•	The site was situated close to pub-
lic transportation systems, specifi-
cally metro-wide subway and bus
systems. These systems allow easy
access to nearby employment and
commercial centers as well as the
cultural attractions of the Wash-
ington, DC, area, such as muse-
ums, historic sites, arenas, and
theaters.
•	The site was located in a county
where county officials were pro-
moting residential and commer-
cial redevelopment. The county
wanted to turn vacant, dilapidated
properties into new sources of eco-
nomic activity and tax revenue.
For example, the county required
mixed development at the site:
new residential buildings in the
area were required to provide
commercial activities on the first
floor. This would encourage peo-
ple not only to live in the area but
also to spend in the area and sup-
port the local economy.
•	The anti-urban sprawl movement
in neighboring counties located
¦ continued on page 24
23

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
i Urban Cinderella from page 23
further from the city encouraged
the redevelopment of formerly
marginal properties in the county.
The Virginia legislature had
recently endorsed the concept of
cleaning up and reusing brown-
fields properties, so the VDEQ had
several procedures and programs
in place to assist developers such
as those at the Clarendon site.
These include:
-The VDEQ Petroleum Program's
"step into the shoes" procedures
that allow another party to vol-
untarily step into the shoes of
the responsible party for a site.
In Virginia, this means that at an
eligible site—after proper docu-
mentation—the party taking on
the responsibility for the petro-
leum cleanup can access the
state's petroleum cleanup fund.
- VDEQ's willingness to issue lim-
ited liability letters to the devel-
opers as well as other partners,
including the lender. This pro-
vided the needed "comfort"
level for the lender and partners
to continue with the project. The
developer had worked with
VDEQ before and knew it could
get the letter if it met the state's
regulatory requirements.
The developer and cleanup con-
tractor both had experience with
cleaning up and redeveloping con-
taminated sites with the Virginia
cleanup program. "Ten years ago
we would not have looked at this
project; we would have run
away," explains the developer.
"As this program has matured in
the state, there is now some cer-
tainty that with a complete CAP
implementation, closure can be
expected by the developer—which
is imperative for a project to
advance through the development
process. Sites like this one require
certainty that if we complete the
cleanups as required, the develop-
ers, lenders, and investors can
legitimately expect a closure letter.
An expectation of closure will pro-
mote cooperation and allow
financing to be completed."
All parties to this project knew
and respected the importance of a
thorough site assessment
the project's success.
to
The Challenges
What were some of the problems
this project had to deal with?
•	The petroleum contamination
was extensive, and so the
cleanup was extensive. Reme-
diation required the onsite
cleanup and control of water
in a 50-foot trench, as well as
soil removal and disposal, all
accomplished in a tight work-
ing space in a busy urban area.
Over 32,000 cubic yards (or
49,000 tons) of soil and 1.4 million
gallons of water were remediated.
Soil was hauled to thermal treat-
ment facilities in Richmond and
Baltimore, where it was baked
in high-temperature ovens. The
physical and environmental safety
of workers at the site and of sur-
rounding neighborhoods had to be
addressed in the work plan.
•	Though the site assessment was
considered complete, a petroleum
seep from under a road and an
underground storage tank were
discovered during work at the site.
These problems had to be ad-
dressed expeditiously for work to
continue on schedule.
•	Potential lenders for the project
were concerned about liability and
wanted documentation from state
regulators before advancing fund-
ing. This is an ongoing impedi-
ment to the redevelopment of
contaminated sites, even sites with
the very favorable attributes of
this property. As a representative
of the developer said, "Lenders are
the last holdout. The environmen-
tal aspect doesn't need to mean
disaster." The VDEQ was ready to
address this issue for this project.
"We are an established program,"
says Randy Chapman, senior geol-
ogist for the VDEQ. "We used to
do a closure letter to the tank
owner—not to the bank. But with
brownfields we will draft an 'aid
and comfort' letter to the lender.
We say, 'If you do this, the state
will not look to you for liability
issues.'"
Obviously, at this site, all major
obstacles were successfully resolved.
1
Clarendon Centre site before construction began
But beyond the issues listed above,
redeveloping brownfields sites may
still face an uphill battle. Chapman
says an obstacle to the further use of
the voluntary cleanup program in
Virginia is the continued suspicion of
regulators by the developers. "They
still hesitate even if we stand there
with checkbook in hand. It is still a
hard sell."
The private participants in this
project think a useful role for the fed-
eral government in the cleanup and
reuse of contaminated sites is to help
get consistency on how sites are han-
dled across the country. Not all pro-
grams are as responsive as Virginia's.
For more information on this project
in Virginia, see the VDEQ Web site at
www.deq.state.va.us/brownfieldweb/
success.html.
Petroleum Brownfields
Nationwide
The story of the Clarendon site is just
one example of the efforts now
underway to clean up and revitalize
petroleum-contaminated properties
across the country. EPA's Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)
is actively working to promote the
cleanup and reuse of other sites like
this, including the estimated 200,000
petroleum-contaminated brownfields
sites nationwide, most of which are
old unused gas stations.
A new law has expanded the use
of EPA Brownfields funds to include
petroleum-contaminated sites, open-
ing up new resources to accomplish
this work. EPA encourages public
and private entities to become part-
ners and address these sites and turn
dilapidated and contaminated prop-
¦ continued on page 26
24

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
New Study Raises Concerns
Over the Other Fuel Oxygenates
by Kara Sergeant
With continuing concern
over MtBE's impact on
groundwater, it makes
sense for state and federal govern-
ments to find an acceptable substi-
tute oxygenate that will provide the
necessary air quality benefits with-
out threatening groundwater—
unless, of course, the federal Clean
Air Act Amendments oxygenate
mandate is removed, altogether.
Currently, 18 states have passed leg-
islation banning MtBE from their
gasoline. Other states may be consid-
ering such a ban and several bills,
including the embattled federal
Energy Bill, have proposed to ban
the contaminant nationwide.
Since the market is shifting its
eye toward an oxygenate replace-
ment for MtBE, industry is also heav-
ily invested in determining an ideal
substitute. While there have been
numerous studies on the environ-
mental impacts of MtBE, we know
very little about the environmental
impact of other oxygenates.
A new California study, "Evalua-
tion of the Impact of Fuel Hydrocar-
bons and Oxygenates on Groundwater
Resources" (Shih et al., 2003) is one
attempt at understanding the impact
of other oxygenates. The authors
examine the occurrence of fuel hydro-
carbons and five oxygenates—tert-
butyl alcohol (TBA), tert-a my I methyl
ether (TAME), diisopropyl ether
(DIPE), ethyl ferf-butyl ether (ETBE),
and MtBE—in groundwater at
approximately 850 LUST sites in the
greater Los Angeles region. The
authors found that MtBE creates the
greatest problem at LUST sites, fol-
lowed by TBA and benzene.
TBA had the greatest maximum
groundwater concentration among
the study analytes. TBA is found as a
fuel oxygenate and as a breakdown
product of MtBE. TBA is also similar
to MtBE in that it is highly mobile in
groundwater, so finding high con-
centrations of MtBE along with TBA
is a likely outcome. Although TBA
and MtBE share many similar char-
acteristics, states do not have a uni-
fied approach to detecting TBA.
The findings in NEIWPCC's
2003 "Survey of State Experiences
with MtBE and Other Oxygenate
Contamination at LUST Sites" show
that only seven states currently have,
or expect to have, TBA oxygenate
action levels, cleanup levels, or
drinking water standards, and three
states were proposing levels or stan-
dards. The authors of the California
study suggest that the presence of
TBA needs to be confirmed at LUST
sites so that specific cleanup strate-
gies can be developed.
The authors of the California
study concluded that alternative
ether oxygenates (i.e., DIPE, TAME,
and ETBE) were less likely to be
detected in groundwater in the sites
studied and when present were in
lower concentrations—mostly be-
cause they are used less. However,
their high solubility and low
biodegradability rates suggest that
these three oxygenates would pose
groundwater contamination threats
similar to MtBE if they were used on
a larger scale.
There are limited data on the
environmental behavior of these
other oxygenates, due primarily to
difficulties in delineating their extent
in the environment, a lack of analyti-
cal procedures, and the lack of regu-
latory requirements. NEIWPCC's
survey shows that six states regulate
DIPE (two proposed), four states
address TAME (one proposed), and
only three states address ETBE (two
proposed). It is clear that additional
information is needed before states
will adopt, regulate, or even analyze
other fuel oxygenates.
The California study emphasizes
the need for increased compliance
and enforcement of underground
storage tanks to prevent contamina-
tion in the first place. This is an ideal
goal for those who work in the UST
program, and many states are work-
ing on creative uses of limited
resources to make that possible.
The California study is available
at: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/
esthag/2004/38/i01/pdf/es0304650.pdfM
Kara Sergeant is an Environmental
Analyst with the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission, which publishes
LUSTLine. She can be reached at
ksergeant@neiwpcc.org.
Court Says Rescission Is Not a Remedy for
UST Insurance Providers
by Ellen Frye
In December 2001, during an envi-
ronmental investigation con-
ducted at a closed Zipmart gas
station in Sterling, Alaska, on the
Kenai Peninsula, nearly a foot of free
gasoline product was found floating
on the groundwater. An estimated
60,000 gallons of gasoline had leaked
from the UST system. The contami-
nation quickly spread to adjacent
properties. The cleanup is expected
to cost in excess of $1,000,000. But
another problem surfaced when the
owner of the gas station, Whittier
Properties, Inc., notified the insur-
ance provider, Zurich American
Insurance Company, of the potential
for claims. The problem had to do
with misrepresentation.
In 1990, Whittier had two 10,000-
gallon USTs at the site. During exca-
vations to replace some pipes
servicing the system, the contractor
discovered some evidence of conta-
mination at the fill pipes and beneath
the dispensers. In August 1995,
Whittier replaced the entire UST sys-
tem with one new three-compart-
ment 20,000-gallon tank. Again, the
contractor discovered contamina-
tion, but this time it was more signifi-
cant. Whittier chose to have the new
tank installed without removing all
the contaminated soil.
¦ continued on page 27
25

-------
LUSTLine Bulletin 46 • March 2004
Energy Bill Update
Anew energy bill (S. 2095) in-
troduced in the Senate earlier
this month by Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-NM) includes language
identical to that contained in the
2003 Energy Policy Act insofar as
how it amends the federal under-
ground storage tank (UST) program.
S. 2095 has a significantly lower cost
than the 2003 Energy Policy Act, and
it removes a provision that protected
MtBE manufacturers under strict lia-
bility defective product theories,
which doomed the bill last year.
Senate leaders are optimistic the
Senate will approve the bill in March.
However, House leaders have indi-
cated they will not support S. 2095, so
another energy conference commit-
tee would need to work out the dif-
ferences between S. 2095 and H.R. 6,
which is the House's energy bill. The
Energy Bill still has a long way to go.
The MtBE liability waiver will likely
continue to plague efforts to reach
agreement between the houses, as the
House is expected to stand firm on
including the waiver. ¦
¦ ELD in California from page 17
For those systems already in the
ground, the best time to test is today.
Now, rather than later, is the better
time to turn off the leak. Sensitive
UST-commissioning tests for new
systems and assurance tests for oper-
ating systems make sense these days
at a time when the tolerance for even
small leaks is waning. II
Randy Golding, Ph. D., is a business
development project manager with
Praxair Services, Inc. He spent 14
years in research and development with
Tracer Research Corporation, recently
acquired by Praxair Services, a sub-
sidiary of Praxair, Inc. He received his
graduate degree in chemistry from the
University of Arizona and has pub-
lished articles on surface chemistry,
separation techniques, soil vapor sur-
vey methods, and applications of chemi-
cal tracers in leak detection. He
co-authored "Underground Storage
Tank System Field-Based Research
Project Report" with Tom Young,
Ph.D, at the University of California at
Davis. Randy can be reached at (800)
394-9929 ext. 204, or at
randy_golding@praxair.com
¦ Urban Cinderella from page 24
erties into new housing, retail
businesses, parks, public buildings,
wetlands, or revitalized riverfronts
that provide both environmental and
economic benefits for surrounding
communities.
OUST wants to hear of other
efforts to clean up and reuse
petroleum-contaminated properties:
please send information to Steven
McNeely, mcneely.steven@epa.gov,
(703)603-7164. For information on
EPA's program for cleaning up and
reusing petroleum-contaminated
tank sites and for more examples of
other reuse projects already under-
way, see the EPA Web site at
wwiv.epa.gov/oust/20 recycl.htm. ¦
Barbara Howenstine works in the EPA
Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
This venture was not an EPA project,
but it is one example of the efforts now
underway to clean up and reuse petro-
leum-contaminated sites across the
country. The views expressed in this
article do not necessarily reflect the
position of the Agency. EPA does not
endorse the commercial ventures men-
tioned in the article.
§
SNAPSHOTS FROM TH€ FKID
a
Florida Worker Killed as Tank Explodes During Cutting
Pete Watson, a
33-year-old
father of three,
was blown into
the air and
killed while
decommission-
ing a 10,000-
gallon tank
outside the
Victory Market
convenience
store in Bran-
don, Florida,
last November.
Another worker
was critically
injured. The market had been closed, and the owner was hav-
ing the tanks removed so the land could be sold or developed
for other uses. The tanks had been removed from the ground
and sitting on the site for several days. On the day of the acci-
dent, nine workers, including the victims, had been flushing
the tanks with water and inerting them with dry ice. The work-
ers then used an electric saw to cut large holes in one end of
I
each tank. As Watson began cutting into the third
tank, it exploded, killing Watson instantly, shooting
flames into the vacated convenience store, and
shaking buildings in the area and blocks away. The
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion conducted an investigation at the site and will
issue a report. Speculation is that not enough dry ice
was added to the third tank and that the oxygen was
not measured prior to cutting the tank.
If you have any UST/LUST-related snapshots from the field that you would like to shire with our readers, please send them to Ellen Frye c/o NEIWPCC.
26

-------
March 2004 • LUSTLine Bulletin 46
m Court Decision/rotfz page 25
A site assessment prepared by an
environmental contractor in October
1995, disclosed the contamination to
the Alaska Department of Conserva-
tion (ADEC). The contractor recom-
mended that Whittier further
investigate the extent of the contami-
nation. Apparently, Whittier failed to
do so and ignored ADEC's frequent
correspondence urging corrective
action.
Misrepresentation
In 1999, Whittier submitted an appli-
cation to Zurich for a "Storage Tank
System Third-Party Liability and
Corrective Action Policy." In
response to a question on the applica-
tion concerning prior contamination
at the site, Whittier's owner indicated
that she was not aware of any. (The
owner purportedly believed that the
question asked only if leakage or con-
tamination had occurred for the new
tank that the policy would cover, not
prior contamination at the site.) Rely-
ing on the owner's answers, Zurich
issued the policy for an annual pre-
mium of $350. This covered any
release of contamination from the
new tank after December 9,1997.
The contamination discovered in
December 2001 was substantially
greater than the levels found in 1995.
Learning of the prior contamination
at the site, Zurich denied its obliga-
tion to indemnify any third-party
claims under the policy and initiated
a lawsuit, demanding rescission of
the policy due to Whittier's alleged
misrepresentation of former contami-
nation on the policy application. The
district court granted summary judg-
ment to Zurich, holding that Whittier
made material misrepresentations
and that rescission was appropriate
under Alaska law. Whittier appealed.
Reversed and Remanded
On appeal, the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals reviewed the dis-
trict court's decision on the assump-
tion that Whittier made a material
misrepresentation on the Zurich
application (Zurich American Ins. Co.
v. Whittier Properties Inc.). Based on
this assumption, it focused on the
district court's holding that Zurich
could rescind the policy in the con-
text of state and federal regulations
governing insurance coverage for
USTs. U.S. EPA regulations, which
Alaska has expressly adopted in its
regulations, require proof of financial
responsibility (FR) for the operation
of a facility with an UST and that an
insurer give notice of cancellation of
insurance to the UST operator prior
to the cancellation. Attention to the
details of cancellation are meant to
alleviate the potential impact that an
UST owner's inability to fund a cont-
amination cleanup could have on the
environment and innocent third par-
ties. FR can be met with a specified
amount of insurance coverage.
EPA made it clear in crafting its
UST regulations that the cancellation
remedy is exclusive of other, poten-
tially inconsistent remedies. In the
event of the insured's misrepresenta-
tion, the remedy would be a cancella-
tion of the existing policy and future
refusal to provide insurance. The
court gave great judicial deference to
EPA's interpretation of its own regu-
lations and held that allowing rescis-
sion would render EPA's efforts to
avoid periods of uninsured UST oper-
ation close to meaningless. The dis-
trict court's decision regarding
rescission was reversed and all
remaining issues were remanded
back to the district court for further
consideration. Zurich may seek con-
tract or tort damages from Whittier if
warranted. ¦
OUST Launches Year-Long
20th Anniversary
UST Program Celebration
The U.S. EPA Office of Under-
ground Storage Tanks (OUST) is
planning activities to celebrate the
20th anniversary of the UST pro-
gram and acknowledge the pro-
gram's achievements as well as
future challenges. See OUST's
Web site (www.epa.gov/oust) for
planned events and milestones. ¦
Total Containment Files
Bankruptcy
On March 4, Total Containment,
Inc., marketers of secondary con-
tainment flexible piping systems,
filed a bankruptcy case with the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania case 04-
13144. The petition can be viewed
at www.paeb.uscourts.gov. ¦
LUST. .IN E Subscription Form
Name	
Company/Agency	
Mailing Address	
E-mail Address	
~	One-year subscription. $18.00.
~	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
Boott Mills South, 100 Foot of John Street, Lowell, MA 01852-1124
Phone: (978) 323-7929 ¦ Fax: (978) 323-7919
lustline@neiwpcc.org ¦ www.neiwpcc.org
Comments	
27

-------
Georgia Woman's
Hair Catches Fire
at Gas Pump
According to a December
5, 2003, Associated
Press report, an Albany,
Georgia hair stylist was pump-
ing gas into her car at a gas sta-
tion when her hair burst into
flames. Her husband, a fire-
fighter, who happened to be
with her at the time, said the
fire was probably caused by sta-
tic electricity from his wife's
hair rubbing against her clothes.
(The static electricity apparently
mixed with gas fumes and
ignited the fire.) While putting
out the fire in his wife's hair, he
saw flames coming out of the
gas tank. The blaze was
quenched with a fire extin-
guisher. The victim had to cut
her hair and get her truck
repaired. Her husband advised
people to ground themselves
before pumping gas by touch-
ing the metal of their cars.
"Once you get out of your
vehicle, don't get back into the
vehicle until you are through,"
he said. ¦
-------