Out
of Sight, Out of Mind?
Underground
storage tank owners and operators may have taken USTs for granted in the
past. However, harsh and detailed EPA rules governing UST corrosion,
leaks, spills, as well as the financial ability of an owner/operator to
cover damages, are bringing USTs out into the open.
During
the early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency and some
environmentalists became concerned about the millions of underground tanks
installed across the country that contain petroleum products or hazardous
chemicals. Based on a few surveys, EPA estimated that tens of thousands of
these tanks were leaking. Gasoline and other flammable substance leaks
present a clear threat of fire or explosion and, equally important, leaks
from USTs could contaminate nearby groundwater. Since millions of people
depend on groundwater as their major source of drinking water, possible
contamination of water supplies represents a potentially serious problem.
When
discussions of the stringent new regulation of USTs began, many in
industry objected that the potential threat of leaking underground tanks
had been severely overstated. Nevertheless, Congress decided to address
this issue in the RCRA reauthorization of 1984, directing EPA to develop
new regulations to protect the environment from the potential threat of
leaking USTS.
As
a result of the RCRA amendments and following years of preparation, EPA
issued the new underground tank regulations in late 1988. These rules will
have a profound impact on any business that uses underground tanks to
store potentially hazardous substances. In brief, the law requires
registration of any UST containing a "regulated substance" and
imposes new standards for constructing and installing UST systems.
Existing USTs must be upgraded to meet these new technical requirements
during a 10-year phase-in period. In addition, all USTs must comply with
new requirements for spill prevention and leak detection, and UST
operators must demonstrate financial responsibility for any leaks from an
UST.
As
is the case with most environmental regulations, the EPA rules establish
minimum requirements that must be met by those subject to the regulations;
states are free to impose more stringent requirements. This situation is
especially relevant to the UST program, because EPA intentionally has
strived to delegate responsibility for UST regulation to the states. For
this reason, UST operators must be familiar not only with the federal
requirements, but also with any specific state laws or regulations.
What's
Covered by the Rules
Under
the federal regulations, the term "UST" applies not only to
underground tanks, but also to any underground pipes connected to the
tanks. Any tank system, including attached piping, with 10 percent or more
of its volume underground is subject to the rules if it contains a
"regulated substance"--defined as any petroleum product (such as
gasoline, diesel fuel, or used oil) or a "hazardous substance"
regulated under Superfund (such as certain nonpetroleum solvents or other
chemicals).
Since
most recyclers use USTs for storing petroleum products only, this article
discusses requirements applicable to petroleum tanks. Recyclers who store
other materials, such as hazardous wastes or "hazardous"
chemicals, should review the relevant regulations to ensure compliance.
The
EPA rules apply to both "owners" and "operators" of
USTS. Although one party can assume responsibility for compliance, EPA can
take enforcement action against both parties in the event of a violation.
Thus, if a tank installed on a scrap recycler's property is actually owned
by another party, the recycler should verify that the UST is in
compliance. The recycler should attempt to reach a voluntary agreement
with the owner to ensure the owner has complied with the rules. If
compliance is not verified, the recycler (as "operator" of the
UST) could conceivably be held fully responsible for all compliance
requirements, as well as for any possible damages from leaks.
In
addition to technical requirements regarding tank construction and
operation, tank owners also must meet strict rules for demonstrating
financial responsibility for any damage resulting from tank leaks. For
most recyclers, these financial responsibility requirements will take effect in
October.
The
combination of these new requirements raises many questions for tank
owners and operators. The rules have now been in effect for more than a
year, and some important deadlines have already passed or are impending.
For these reasons, any scrap recycler who uses underground tanks should
promptly develop an action plan.
The
"Heating Oil" Exclusion
Despite
the broad scope of the underground tank rules, some UST systems are
excluded from these regulations. One potentially important exclusion
applies to any "tank used for storing heating oil for consumptive use
on the premises where stored." The regulations define "heating
oil" as follows: "petroleum that is No. 1, No. 2, No. 4-light,
No. 4-heavy, No. 5-light, No. 5-heavy, and No. 6 technical grades of fuel
oil; other residual fuel oils (including Navy Special Fuel Oil and Bunker
C); and other fuels when used as substitutes for one of these fuel
oils." The key section of this definition is the last phrase.
Interpreted broadly, this exclusion could have great importance to scrap
processors.
If
a listed grade of fuel
oil is used to heat the premises and is also used to power some
equipment, the UST holding the fuel oil would be
exempt from the regulations. The exemption also would apply to USTs
holding used oil that is collected and burned onsite in space heaters as a
substitute for fuel oil. In addition, the exemption apparently would apply
to any fuel used for "heating" purposes. Thus, an operation
using an oil-fired melting furnace could claim an exemption for the
storage tank, regardless of whether the oil is on the exemption list.
This
exemption would apply only narrowly to tanks containing diesel fuel. EPA
considers diesel fuel to be a motor fuel, not a substitute heating oil.
Thus, diesel fuel tanks would be exempt from the regulation only if the fuel is used solely for
heating purposes.
The
heating oil exclusion is somewhat ambiguous and could be subject to
differing interpretations. Some states have moved to narrow the exemption
considerably. For these reasons, scrap recyclers should be cautious in
claiming the exemption. However, under appropriate circumstances, the
heating oil exclusion can provide significant relief from regulatory
burdens.
Rigid
Specifications for New Tanks
The
regulations impose stringent requirements on any new UST systems installed
after the December 22, 1988, effective date. New tanks must be protected
against corrosion, must incorporate means to prevent spills or overfills,
and must be monitored for leaks.
Tanks
are required to be constructed of fiberglass-reinforced plastic,
cathodically protected steel, or a steel-and-fiberglass-reinforced plastic
composite. Any other construction is permissible only if specifically
approved by EPA. Similar requirements apply to any underground piping used
in conjunction with a storage tank.
Any
recycler considering installing a new UST should ensure that the equipment fully
complies with these requirements. In addition, the tank owner must verify
that in installation of the equipment is performed in compliance with
designated codes. To ensure compliance and help protect against unforeseen
complications, prospective tank owners should require installers to
certify compliance on the tank notification form that must be submitted
for all new USTs.
In
addition to corrosion protection, new USTs must be designed to prevent
spills and overfills. At a minimum, the system must include a catchment
basin or equivalent device to collect any product released when the
transfer hose is disconnected from the fill pipe. The system also must be
equipped with a device to prevent overfilling, such as an automatic
shutoff valve, an overfill alarm, or a flow restrictor.
Upgrading
Existing USTs
By
December 22, 1998, all USTs either must be upgraded to comply with the new
UST requirements, or must be replaced. For tanks that already meet the
requirements for corrosion protection, this requirement may not be too
burdensome. The addition of spill and overfill prevention equipment may be
sufficient to permit continued use of these tanks, as long as required
leak detection measures are in place.
However,
for old tanks constructed of bare steel, the upgrading provisions could
require a significant investment. Steel tanks can be upgraded by applying
an interior lining, cathodic protection, or both. Any method used must
meeting rigid requirements.
In
addition to upgrading the tank, any existing metal piping also must be
upgraded to meet the new system criteria. Piping may be upgraded only by
applying cathodic protection in compliance with recognized codes.
For
old tanks, the threshold question for recyclers is whether the necessary
investment can be justified. Bare metal USTs more than approximately 10
years old already may be too corroded to warrant upgrading. In such
situations, the tank owner should weigh the costs of upgrading against the
cost of a new system. Upgrading costs may include required tank tests and
an internal inspection. In some situations the company performing the work
may offer a guarantee or warranty for the upgraded tank. All these factors
should be investigated before deciding whether to replace or upgrade an
UST.
Look
Detection
Perhaps
the most significant requirement of the new UST rules is the provision for
periodic leak testing. Conceptually, it makes great sense to check a tank
for leaks. Rapid identification of leaking tanks can permit quick response
actions and the extent of any environmental damage. However, the stringent
leak detection requirements in the UST regulations carry some potential
problems of their own.
The
rules require that leak detection be provided on all USTs installed after
December 1988. For tanks installed prior to that date, leak detection must
be phased in (older tanks first) no later than December 1993. A tank owner
or operator must know when a tank was installed in order to meet the
deadline for compliance with the leak detection requirements.
Several
methods of leak detection are discussed in the regulations. Unfortunately,
problems may arise because leak detection technology is in its formative
stages. Few devices on the market today can meet the stringent
requirements the rules mandate for leak detection accuracy. In recognition
of these technological problems, EPA prescribed "interim" leak
detection methods that can be used while more advanced technology is being
developed. The "interim" period ends in December 1998.
Ultimately, all tanks will have to be equipped with very sensitive systems
designed to detect leaks of as little as 0.2 gallon per hour with a high
degree of accuracy. Such systems may consist of automatic tank gauges or
may be based on out-of-tank detectors such as vapor monitors or
groundwater monitors.
During
the "interim" period, tank owners can use a combination of
monthly inventory controls and periodic tank tightness tests to comply
with the leak detection requirements. Inventory control programs require
precise measurements of product inputs and withdrawals on a daily basis,
as well as compliance with other procedural techniques.
In
conjunction with the inventory control method, tank owners must have their
USTs tested periodically for leaks during the "interim" period.
These tests are required every year for tanks that have not been upgraded,
and every five years for tanks that meet the requirements for corrosion
protection and spill/overfill prevention.
The
tightness test used must be capable of detecting a leak of 0.1 gallon per
hour from any portion of the tank. After December 1990, any method used
must meet this criterion with a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately,
evaluations conducted by EPA Indicate that few methods available today can
meet this rigid criterion. The accuracy of tightness tests can be affected
by several factors, such as temperature changes or vapor pockets within
the tank.
Owners
of older tanks could be severely affected by the shortcomings of these
tightness tests. Since older tanks must be tested before December 1990,
initial tests are subject to the inherent inaccuracies of the testing
technology selected. Because the tests do not yet have to meet stringent
criteria for accuracy, a failed test does not necessarily prove that a
tank is leaking. However, a "possible" leak discovered by a tank
tightness test requires the owner to report the situation and undertake a
potentially expensive investigation. In addition, a test indicating leaks
could lead some to consider unnecessary tank replacement.
Tank
owners should be aware of these potential problems with leak detection
technology and should be sure results are verified before any significant
steps are taken based on test results. False alarms may remain a problem
with leak detection technology for some time to come.
Less
stringent leak detection requirements apply to certain small tanks. For
tanks with capacities of 550 gallons or less, a system of manual tank
gauging may be used as the sole leak detection method. For tanks with
capacities between 550 and 2,000 gallons, manual tank gauging is an
acceptable interim leak detection method when used in conjunction with
periodic tightness tests.
Serious
Consequences for Leaks
The
UST regulations specify situations in which a tank owner/operator must
assume a tank is leaking. They include unusual operating conditions (such
as erratic behavior of dispensing equipment, loss of product, or
unexplained presence of water in the tank), discovery of the stored
product on- or off-site (such as in a basement or sewer), or a failed leak
detection test. In any of these situations, the tank owner or operator
must notify the appropriate government agency within 24 hours.
Upon
discovery of a potential leak, the owner/operator is required to undertake
a comprehensive investigation to verify whether the tank is leaking. If
there is no evidence of environmental contamination, the investigation can
consist of a tightness test. However, as noted previously, the problems
associated with these tests may not provide an accurate assessment of a
potential leak. Regardless, if the tightness test indicates a tank is
leaking, the UST must immediately be repaired or removed. In addition, the
owner/operator must commence specified corrective actions.
If
a leak is suspected based on apparent contamination of the surrounding
site, the owner/operator is required to perform a detailed site
investigation to identify the scope of the contamination. Most likely, the
services of an experienced environmental consultant will be required in
such a situation.
Corrective
measures required as a result of a leak may include complete removal of
product from the tank, removal of contaminated soil from the premises, and
other engineering controls. The owner/operator may also be required to
develop a detailed, long-term action plan to correct any contamination of
the soil or groundwater. The ramifications of a leaking underground tank
can be serious and long lasting.
Removing
Tanks From Service
Previously,
little control was exercised by government agencies over the removal or
abandonment of underground With the new regulations enacted in 1988,
however, EPA has imposed stringent new controls on UST system closure.
Before a tank can be taken out of operation, the appropriate government
agency must be notified at least 30 days in advance.
In
order to close a tank, the owner/operator must first empty the tank
completely and clean it by removing all liquids and sludges. Once emptied
and cleaned, the tank can be taken out of the ground and discarded or can
be filled with an inert material and abandoned in place. In either
situation, a site assessment must be performed to determine whether the
tank has leaked. If evidence of leakage exists, the owner/operator must
perform additional tests, such as soil sampling, to evaluate the scope of
the leak.
Financial
Responsibility Rules: A Serious Hurdle
A
key component of the new UST regulations is the requirement that owners or
operators of tanks demonstrate adequate financial capability to pay for
any damage caused by leaks.
The
typical tank owner must demonstrate minimum financial responsibility in
the amount of $500,000 per occurrence and $1 million annual aggregate.
However, these amounts do not limit the potential liability of an owner or
operator. If cleanup costs or injury or property damage claims exceed
these prescribed levels, an injured party (including EPA) can seek to
collect additional amounts from the owner or operator.
The
regulations prescribe nine methods, which can be used singly or in
combination, to meet the financial responsibility obligations.
Unfortunately, for typical recyclers none of these methods is likely to be
feasible. Few of the self-funding mechanisms are likely to be available to
small businesses. In addition, the potential insurance markets thus far
are inadequate to handle the demand for coverage. As a practical matter,
the most likely sources of coverage are the state funded
"insurance" programs that have been initiated since the
regulations were released. However, the typical state fund may not provide
all the required protection and serious questions exist about the adequacy
of some state funds to cover anticipated leaks.
For
all these reasons, tank owners or operators seeking coverage for their
USTs should begin investigating available options well in advance of the
October 1990 deadline.
Detailed
Records Required
Anyone
installing a new UST system must register the system with the appropriate
state government using its required notification form. The person
installing the UST must certify that the installation was performed
correctly. Existing tanks were to be registered by May 1986.
In
addition to the notification requirement, tank owners/operators must show
evidence of financial responsibility and must maintain detailed records of
leak detection results, operation of corrosion protection equipment, any
repairs to the UST system, and any site investigations performed.
An
Unjustifiable Luxury?
Considering
the potentially burdensome impact of the new UST regulations, scrap
recyclers should seriously consider whether underground tanks are an
operational necessity or simply a convenience. Before the bulk of the new
requirements become effective, individual tank owners should perform at
least a cursory cost-benefit analysis to determine whether continued use
of underground tanks is warranted. If removal of USTs would not pose
insurmountable operational problems, it may be wise to close the tanks now. If, on the other hand, use of
underground tanks is a necessity, begin planning now to meet the impending
deadlines for compliance.
[SIDEBAR]
Exclusions
From UST Requirements
Several
types of tank systems are excluded from EPAs UST regulations. The
following exclusions may be relevant for scrap recyclers:
Tanks
with capacities of 110 gallons or less,
Tanks
storing heating oil for use on the premises,
Tanks
situated in basements (that is, underground, but above the floor), and
Equipment
and machinery containing regulated substances for operational purposes,
such as hydraulic lifts and electrical equipment.
[SIDEBAR]
Prescribed
Financial Responsibility Mechanisms
Tank
owners and operators must demonstrate adequate financial responsibility,
no later than October 1990, by using the following methods, singly or in
combination:
Self-insurance,
Liability
insurance,
Guarantees,
Surety
bonds,
Letters
of credit,
State-required
financial responsibility program,
State
fund or other state assurance system,
Trust
fund, and
Standby
trust fund.
Specific
criteria for each of these methods are included in the financial
responsibility regulations.
[SIDEBAR]
Inventory
Control Programs
To
comply with interim requirements for leak detection, an inventory
control program must include the following:
Measures
of inputs, withdrawals, and product remaining in the tank on a daily
basis;
Measurement
accuracy to the nearest 1/8 inch (that is, the dipstick used to measure
tank contents must be scaled in 1/8-inch intervals);
Measured
of product in the tank before and after delivery of additional product,
and reconciliation with delivery receipts;
Delivery
of product through a drop tube extending to within 1 foot of the tank
bottom; and
Metering
of product when dispensed.
Details
of these and other requirements are included in the publication, Recommended
Practice for Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets, available
from the American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St. NW, Washington, DC
20005.
[SIDEBAR]
Manual
Tank Gauging Acceptable for Certain Tanks
Qualifying
tanks can meet the leak detection requirements by following this program:
Tank
contents must be measured at least weekly.
Each
test must include beginning and ending measurements take at least 36 hours
apart. No product can be added or removed during the 36-hour period.
Beginning
and ending measurements must be based on the average of two consecutive
stick readings.
The
dipstick must be calibrated in 1/8-inch intervals.
A
leak must be assumed if discrepancies between readings exceed standards
specified in the regulations.
Out
of Sight, Out of Mind?
Underground
storage tank owners and operators may have taken USTs for granted in the
past. However, harsh and detailed EPA rules governing UST corrosion,
leaks, spills, as well as the financial ability of an owner/operator to
cover damages, are bringing USTs out into the open.
During
the early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency and some
environmentalists became concerned about the millions of underground tanks
installed across the country that contain petroleum products or hazardous
chemicals. Based on a few surveys, EPA estimated that tens of thousands of
these tanks were leaking. Gasoline and other flammable substance leaks
present a clear threat of fire or explosion and, equally important, leaks
from USTs could contaminate nearby groundwater. Since millions of people
depend on groundwater as their major source of drinking water, possible
contamination of water supplies represents a potentially serious problem.
When
discussions of the stringent new regulation of USTs began, many in
industry objected that the potential threat of leaking underground tanks
had been severely overstated. Nevertheless, Congress decided to address
this issue in the RCRA reauthorization of 1984, directing EPA to develop
new regulations to protect the environment from the potential threat of
leaking USTS.
As
a result of the RCRA amendments and following years of preparation, EPA
issued the new underground tank regulations in late 1988. These rules will
have a profound impact on any business that uses underground tanks to
store potentially hazardous substances. In brief, the law requires
registration of any UST containing a "regulated substance" and
imposes new standards for constructing and installing UST systems.
Existing USTs must be upgraded to meet these new technical requirements
during a 10-year phase-in period. In addition, all USTs must comply with
new requirements for spill prevention and leak detection, and UST
operators must demonstrate financial responsibility for any leaks from an
UST.
As
is the case with most environmental regulations, the EPA rules establish
minimum requirements that must be met by those subject to the regulations;
states are free to impose more stringent requirements. This situation is
especially relevant to the UST program, because EPA intentionally has
strived to delegate responsibility for UST regulation to the states. For
this reason, UST operators must be familiar not only with the federal
requirements, but also with any specific state laws or regulations.
What's
Covered by the Rules
Under
the federal regulations, the term "UST" applies not only to
underground tanks, but also to any underground pipes connected to the
tanks. Any tank system, including attached piping, with 10 percent or more
of its volume underground is subject to the rules if it contains a
"regulated substance"--defined as any petroleum product (such as
gasoline, diesel fuel, or used oil) or a "hazardous substance"
regulated under Superfund (such as certain nonpetroleum solvents or other
chemicals).
Since
most recyclers use USTs for storing petroleum products only, this article
discusses requirements applicable to petroleum tanks. Recyclers who store
other materials, such as hazardous wastes or "hazardous"
chemicals, should review the relevant regulations to ensure compliance.
The
EPA rules apply to both "owners" and "operators" of
USTS. Although one party can assume responsibility for compliance, EPA can
take enforcement action against both parties in the event of a violation.
Thus, if a tank installed on a scrap recycler's property is actually owned
by another party, the recycler should verify that the UST is in
compliance. The recycler should attempt to reach a voluntary agreement
with the owner to ensure the owner has complied with the rules. If
compliance is not verified, the recycler (as "operator" of the
UST) could conceivably be held fully responsible for all compliance
requirements, as well as for any possible damages from leaks.
In
addition to technical requirements regarding tank construction and
operation, tank owners also must meet strict rules for demonstrating
financial responsibility for any damage resulting from tank leaks. For
most recyclers, these financial responsibility requirements will take effect in
October.
The
combination of these new requirements raises many questions for tank
owners and operators. The rules have now been in effect for more than a
year, and some important deadlines have already passed or are impending.
For these reasons, any scrap recycler who uses underground tanks should
promptly develop an action plan.
The
"Heating Oil" Exclusion
Despite
the broad scope of the underground tank rules, some UST systems are
excluded from these regulations. One potentially important exclusion
applies to any "tank used for storing heating oil for consumptive use
on the premises where stored." The regulations define "heating
oil" as follows: "petroleum that is No. 1, No. 2, No. 4-light,
No. 4-heavy, No. 5-light, No. 5-heavy, and No. 6 technical grades of fuel
oil; other residual fuel oils (including Navy Special Fuel Oil and Bunker
C); and other fuels when used as substitutes for one of these fuel
oils." The key section of this definition is the last phrase.
Interpreted broadly, this exclusion could have great importance to scrap
processors.
If
a listed grade of fuel
oil is used to heat the premises and is also used to power some
equipment, the UST holding the fuel oil would be
exempt from the regulations. The exemption also would apply to USTs
holding used oil that is collected and burned onsite in space heaters as a
substitute for fuel oil. In addition, the exemption apparently would apply
to any fuel used for "heating" purposes. Thus, an operation
using an oil-fired melting furnace could claim an exemption for the
storage tank, regardless of whether the oil is on the exemption list.
This
exemption would apply only narrowly to tanks containing diesel fuel. EPA
considers diesel fuel to be a motor fuel, not a substitute heating oil.
Thus, diesel fuel tanks would be exempt from the regulation only if the fuel is used solely for
heating purposes.
The
heating oil exclusion is somewhat ambiguous and could be subject to
differing interpretations. Some states have moved to narrow the exemption
considerably. For these reasons, scrap recyclers should be cautious in
claiming the exemption. However, under appropriate circumstances, the
heating oil exclusion can provide significant relief from regulatory
burdens.
Rigid
Specifications for New Tanks
The
regulations impose stringent requirements on any new UST systems installed
after the December 22, 1988, effective date. New tanks must be protected
against corrosion, must incorporate means to prevent spills or overfills,
and must be monitored for leaks.
Tanks
are required to be constructed of fiberglass-reinforced plastic,
cathodically protected steel, or a steel-and-fiberglass-reinforced plastic
composite. Any other construction is permissible only if specifically
approved by EPA. Similar requirements apply to any underground piping used
in conjunction with a storage tank.
Any
recycler considering installing a new UST should ensure that the equipment fully
complies with these requirements. In addition, the tank owner must verify
that in installation of the equipment is performed in compliance with
designated codes. To ensure compliance and help protect against unforeseen
complications, prospective tank owners should require installers to
certify compliance on the tank notification form that must be submitted
for all new USTs.
In
addition to corrosion protection, new USTs must be designed to prevent
spills and overfills. At a minimum, the system must include a catchment
basin or equivalent device to collect any product released when the
transfer hose is disconnected from the fill pipe. The system also must be
equipped with a device to prevent overfilling, such as an automatic
shutoff valve, an overfill alarm, or a flow restrictor.
Upgrading
Existing USTs
By
December 22, 1998, all USTs either must be upgraded to comply with the new
UST requirements, or must be replaced. For tanks that already meet the
requirements for corrosion protection, this requirement may not be too
burdensome. The addition of spill and overfill prevention equipment may be
sufficient to permit continued use of these tanks, as long as required
leak detection measures are in place.
However,
for old tanks constructed of bare steel, the upgrading provisions could
require a significant investment. Steel tanks can be upgraded by applying
an interior lining, cathodic protection, or both. Any method used must
meeting rigid requirements.
In
addition to upgrading the tank, any existing metal piping also must be
upgraded to meet the new system criteria. Piping may be upgraded only by
applying cathodic protection in compliance with recognized codes.
For
old tanks, the threshold question for recyclers is whether the necessary
investment can be justified. Bare metal USTs more than approximately 10
years old already may be too corroded to warrant upgrading. In such
situations, the tank owner should weigh the costs of upgrading against the
cost of a new system. Upgrading costs may include required tank tests and
an internal inspection. In some situations the company performing the work
may offer a guarantee or warranty for the upgraded tank. All these factors
should be investigated before deciding whether to replace or upgrade an
UST.
Look
Detection
Perhaps
the most significant requirement of the new UST rules is the provision for
periodic leak testing. Conceptually, it makes great sense to check a tank
for leaks. Rapid identification of leaking tanks can permit quick response
actions and the extent of any environmental damage. However, the stringent
leak detection requirements in the UST regulations carry some potential
problems of their own.
The
rules require that leak detection be provided on all USTs installed after
December 1988. For tanks installed prior to that date, leak detection must
be phased in (older tanks first) no later than December 1993. A tank owner
or operator must know when a tank was installed in order to meet the
deadline for compliance with the leak detection requirements.
Several
methods of leak detection are discussed in the regulations. Unfortunately,
problems may arise because leak detection technology is in its formative
stages. Few devices on the market today can meet the stringent
requirements the rules mandate for leak detection accuracy. In recognition
of these technological problems, EPA prescribed "interim" leak
detection methods that can be used while more advanced technology is being
developed. The "interim" period ends in December 1998.
Ultimately, all tanks will have to be equipped with very sensitive systems
designed to detect leaks of as little as 0.2 gallon per hour with a high
degree of accuracy. Such systems may consist of automatic tank gauges or
may be based on out-of-tank detectors such as vapor monitors or
groundwater monitors.
During
the "interim" period, tank owners can use a combination of
monthly inventory controls and periodic tank tightness tests to comply
with the leak detection requirements. Inventory control programs require
precise measurements of product inputs and withdrawals on a daily basis,
as well as compliance with other procedural techniques.
In
conjunction with the inventory control method, tank owners must have their
USTs tested periodically for leaks during the "interim" period.
These tests are required every year for tanks that have not been upgraded,
and every five years for tanks that meet the requirements for corrosion
protection and spill/overfill prevention.
The
tightness test used must be capable of detecting a leak of 0.1 gallon per
hour from any portion of the tank. After December 1990, any method used
must meet this criterion with a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately,
evaluations conducted by EPA Indicate that few methods available today can
meet this rigid criterion. The accuracy of tightness tests can be affected
by several factors, such as temperature changes or vapor pockets within
the tank.
Owners
of older tanks could be severely affected by the shortcomings of these
tightness tests. Since older tanks must be tested before December 1990,
initial tests are subject to the inherent inaccuracies of the testing
technology selected. Because the tests do not yet have to meet stringent
criteria for accuracy, a failed test does not necessarily prove that a
tank is leaking. However, a "possible" leak discovered by a tank
tightness test requires the owner to report the situation and undertake a
potentially expensive investigation. In addition, a test indicating leaks
could lead some to consider unnecessary tank replacement.
Tank
owners should be aware of these potential problems with leak detection
technology and should be sure results are verified before any significant
steps are taken based on test results. False alarms may remain a problem
with leak detection technology for some time to come.
Less
stringent leak detection requirements apply to certain small tanks. For
tanks with capacities of 550 gallons or less, a system of manual tank
gauging may be used as the sole leak detection method. For tanks with
capacities between 550 and 2,000 gallons, manual tank gauging is an
acceptable interim leak detection method when used in conjunction with
periodic tightness tests.
Serious
Consequences for Leaks
The
UST regulations specify situations in which a tank owner/operator must
assume a tank is leaking. They include unusual operating conditions (such
as erratic behavior of dispensing equipment, loss of product, or
unexplained presence of water in the tank), discovery of the stored
product on- or off-site (such as in a basement or sewer), or a failed leak
detection test. In any of these situations, the tank owner or operator
must notify the appropriate government agency within 24 hours.
Upon
discovery of a potential leak, the owner/operator is required to undertake
a comprehensive investigation to verify whether the tank is leaking. If
there is no evidence of environmental contamination, the investigation can
consist of a tightness test. However, as noted previously, the problems
associated with these tests may not provide an accurate assessment of a
potential leak. Regardless, if the tightness test indicates a tank is
leaking, the UST must immediately be repaired or removed. In addition, the
owner/operator must commence specified corrective actions.
If
a leak is suspected based on apparent contamination of the surrounding
site, the owner/operator is required to perform a detailed site
investigation to identify the scope of the contamination. Most likely, the
services of an experienced environmental consultant will be required in
such a situation.
Corrective
measures required as a result of a leak may include complete removal of
product from the tank, removal of contaminated soil from the premises, and
other engineering controls. The owner/operator may also be required to
develop a detailed, long-term action plan to correct any contamination of
the soil or groundwater. The ramifications of a leaking underground tank
can be serious and long lasting.
Removing
Tanks From Service
Previously,
little control was exercised by government agencies over the removal or
abandonment of underground With the new regulations enacted in 1988,
however, EPA has imposed stringent new controls on UST system closure.
Before a tank can be taken out of operation, the appropriate government
agency must be notified at least 30 days in advance.
In
order to close a tank, the owner/operator must first empty the tank
completely and clean it by removing all liquids and sludges. Once emptied
and cleaned, the tank can be taken out of the ground and discarded or can
be filled with an inert material and abandoned in place. In either
situation, a site assessment must be performed to determine whether the
tank has leaked. If evidence of leakage exists, the owner/operator must
perform additional tests, such as soil sampling, to evaluate the scope of
the leak.
Financial
Responsibility Rules: A Serious Hurdle
A
key component of the new UST regulations is the requirement that owners or
operators of tanks demonstrate adequate financial capability to pay for
any damage caused by leaks.
The
typical tank owner must demonstrate minimum financial responsibility in
the amount of $500,000 per occurrence and $1 million annual aggregate.
However, these amounts do not limit the potential liability of an owner or
operator. If cleanup costs or injury or property damage claims exceed
these prescribed levels, an injured party (including EPA) can seek to
collect additional amounts from the owner or operator.
The
regulations prescribe nine methods, which can be used singly or in
combination, to meet the financial responsibility obligations.
Unfortunately, for typical recyclers none of these methods is likely to be
feasible. Few of the self-funding mechanisms are likely to be available to
small businesses. In addition, the potential insurance markets thus far
are inadequate to handle the demand for coverage. As a practical matter,
the most likely sources of coverage are the state funded
"insurance" programs that have been initiated since the
regulations were released. However, the typical state fund may not provide
all the required protection and serious questions exist about the adequacy
of some state funds to cover anticipated leaks.
For
all these reasons, tank owners or operators seeking coverage for their
USTs should begin investigating available options well in advance of the
October 1990 deadline.
Detailed
Records Required
Anyone
installing a new UST system must register the system with the appropriate
state government using its required notification form. The person
installing the UST must certify that the installation was performed
correctly. Existing tanks were to be registered by May 1986.
In
addition to the notification requirement, tank owners/operators must show
evidence of financial responsibility and must maintain detailed records of
leak detection results, operation of corrosion protection equipment, any
repairs to the UST system, and any site investigations performed.
An
Unjustifiable Luxury?
Considering
the potentially burdensome impact of the new UST regulations, scrap
recyclers should seriously consider whether underground tanks are an
operational necessity or simply a convenience. Before the bulk of the new
requirements become effective, individual tank owners should perform at
least a cursory cost-benefit analysis to determine whether continued use
of underground tanks is warranted. If removal of USTs would not pose
insurmountable operational problems, it may be wise to close the tanks now. If, on the other hand, use of
underground tanks is a necessity, begin planning now to meet the impending
deadlines for compliance.
[SIDEBAR]
Exclusions
From UST Requirements
Several
types of tank systems are excluded from EPAs UST regulations. The
following exclusions may be relevant for scrap recyclers:
Tanks
with capacities of 110 gallons or less,
Tanks
storing heating oil for use on the premises,
Tanks
situated in basements (that is, underground, but above the floor), and
Equipment
and machinery containing regulated substances for operational purposes,
such as hydraulic lifts and electrical equipment.
[SIDEBAR]
Prescribed
Financial Responsibility Mechanisms
Tank
owners and operators must demonstrate adequate financial responsibility,
no later than October 1990, by using the following methods, singly or in
combination:
Self-insurance,
Liability
insurance,
Guarantees,
Surety
bonds,
Letters
of credit,
State-required
financial responsibility program,
State
fund or other state assurance system,
Trust
fund, and
Standby
trust fund.
Specific
criteria for each of these methods are included in the financial
responsibility regulations.
[SIDEBAR]
Inventory
Control Programs
To
comply with interim requirements for leak detection, an inventory
control program must include the following:
Measures
of inputs, withdrawals, and product remaining in the tank on a daily
basis;
Measurement
accuracy to the nearest 1/8 inch (that is, the dipstick used to measure
tank contents must be scaled in 1/8-inch intervals);
Measured
of product in the tank before and after delivery of additional product,
and reconciliation with delivery receipts;
Delivery
of product through a drop tube extending to within 1 foot of the tank
bottom; and
Metering
of product when dispensed.
Details
of these and other requirements are included in the publication, Recommended
Practice for Bulk Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets, available
from the American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St. NW, Washington, DC
20005.
[SIDEBAR]
Manual
Tank Gauging Acceptable for Certain Tanks
Qualifying
tanks can meet the leak detection requirements by following this program:
Tank
contents must be measured at least weekly.
Each
test must include beginning and ending measurements take at least 36 hours
apart. No product can be added or removed during the 36-hour period.
Beginning
and ending measurements must be based on the average of two consecutive
stick readings.
The
dipstick must be calibrated in 1/8-inch intervals.
A
leak must be assumed if discrepancies between readings exceed standards
specified in the regulations.