[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71708-71796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29293]
[[Page 71707]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 223
November 18, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 280 and 281
Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations--Revisions to Existing
Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and
Operator Training; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71708]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 280 and 281
[EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301; FRL-9485-5]
RIN 2050-AG46
Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations--Revisions to
Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment
and Operator Training
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make certain revisions to the 1988
underground storage tank (UST) technical, financial responsibility, and
state program approval regulations. These changes establish federal
requirements that are similar to key portions of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005; they also update certain 1988 UST regulations. Proposed
changes include: Adding secondary containment requirements for new and
replaced tanks and piping; adding operator training requirements;
adding periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems;
removing certain deferrals; adding new release prevention and detection
technologies; updating codes of practice; making editorial and
technical corrections; and updating state program approval requirements
to incorporate these new changes. These changes will likely protect
human health and the environment by increasing the number of prevented
UST releases and quickly detecting them, if they occur.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2012. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before December 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
UST-2011-0301, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov; Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
UST-2011-0301, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-
2011-0301. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) is (202) 566-0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth McDermott, OSWER/OUST
(5401P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 603-7175; email address:
[email protected].
Table of Contents
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Authority
III. Background
Why is EPA changing the UST regulations?
What is the history of the UST laws and regulations?
What is the impact of this proposal?
What was EPA's process in deciding which changes to incorporate
in the regulations?
IV. Proposed Revisions to the Requirements for Owners and Operators
of Underground Storage Tanks
A. Changes To Establish Federal Requirements for Operator
Training and Secondary Containment
1. Operator Training
2. Secondary Containment
B. Additional Requirements for Operation and Maintenance
1. Walkthrough Inspections
2. Spill Prevention Equipment Tests
3. Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests
4. Secondary Containment Tests
5. Operation and Maintenance Requirements for Release Detection
Equipment
C. Addressing Deferrals
1. Emergency Power Generator UST Systems
2. Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems
3. UST Systems With Field-Constructed Tanks
4. Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems
5. Maintain Deferral for USTs Containing Radioactive Material
and Emergency Generator UST Systems at Nuclear Power Generation
Facilities Regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
D. Other Changes
1. Changes to Overfill Prevention Equipment Requirements
2. Internal Linings That Fail the Periodic Lining Inspection and
Cannot Be Repaired
3. Notification Requirements
4. Alternative Fuels and Compatibility
5. Improving Repairs
[[Page 71709]]
6. Phase Out Vapor Monitoring and Groundwater Monitoring as
Release Detection Methods
7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, Including Interstitial
Alarms, Under Subpart E
E. General Updates
1. Incorporate Newer Technologies
2. Updates to Codes of Practice Listed in the UST Regulation
3. Updates To Remove Old Upgrade and Implementation Deadlines
4. Editorial and Technical Corrections
F. Alternative Options EPA Considered
V. Updates to State Program Approval Requirements
VI. Overview of Estimated Costs and Benefits
VII. Statutory and Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Overview and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
In the table below, EPA is providing a list of potentially affected
entities. However, this proposed action may affect other entities not
listed below. The Agency's goal with this section is to provide a guide
for readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be
affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Industry Sectors Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry sector NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Motor Fuel Sales......... 447.
Commercial (wholesale trade, 42, 44-45, 72 (excluding 447).
retail trade, accommodation,
and food services).
Institutional (hospitals only).. 622.
Manufacturing................... 31-33.
Transportation (air, water, 481, 483-486, 48811.
truck, transit, pipeline, and
airport operations).
Communications and Utilities 5171, 2211.
(wired telecommunications
carriers; and electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution).
Agriculture (crop and animal 111, 112.
production).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Authority
EPA is proposing these regulations under the authority of sections
2002, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, 9005, 9006, 9007, and 9009 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended [42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a),
6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 6991(h), 6991(i), and
6991(k)].
III. Background
EPA is proposing certain changes to the 1988 underground storage
tank (UST) regulations in 40 CFR part 280. In addition, EPA is planning
to implement the delivery prohibition provision of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (hereafter called Energy Policy Act) for EPA-led
inspections, but will address that independent of today's proposal.
Finally, EPA is proposing to revise its state program approval (SPA)
requirements in 40 CFR part 281 to incorporate the changes in 40 CFR
part 280. While EPA's proposed changes to the 1988 UST regulations will
improve environmental protection, we are sensitive to future costs for
UST owners and operators and, as a result, minimized required
retrofits.
This proposal strengthens the 1988 UST regulation by increasing the
emphasis on properly operating and maintaining equipment. The 1988 UST
regulation required owners and operators have spill, overfill, and
release detection equipment in place, but did not require proper
operation and maintenance for some of that equipment. For example, EPA
required spill prevention equipment to capture drips and spills when
the delivery hose is disconnected from the fill pipe but did not
require periodic testing of that equipment. Today's proposed revisions
will require that UST equipment is operated and maintained properly,
which will improve environmental protection. These changes also
acknowledge improvements in technology over the last 20 years,
including the ability to detect releases from deferred UST systems.
[[Page 71710]]
Why is EPA changing the UST regulations?
EPA is proposing to revise the 1988 UST regulations to:
Establish federal requirements that are similar to certain
key provisions of the Energy Policy Act;
Ensure owners and operators properly operate and maintain
their UST systems;
Include updates to current technology and codes of
practices;
Make technical and editorial corrections; and
Update SPA regulation to address the proposed changes
listed above.
In 1988, EPA first promulgated the UST regulations (40 CFR part
280) to prevent, detect, and clean up petroleum releases into the
environment. The 1988 UST regulations required new UST systems to be
designed, constructed, and installed to prevent releases; existing UST
systems had to be upgraded to prevent releases. In addition, owners and
operators were required to perform release detection, demonstrate
financial responsibility, and clean up releases.
The Energy Policy Act amended Subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), the statute that authorized the UST program. Key
Energy Policy Act provisions (such as secondary containment and
operator training) apply to all states receiving federal Subtitle I
money under SWDA, regardless of their state program approval status,
but do not apply in Indian country (or in states and U.S. territories
that do not meet EPA's operator training or secondary containment grant
guidelines). The U.S. has a unique legal relationship with federally
recognized Indian Tribes. This government to government relationship
includes recognizing the rights of Tribes as sovereign governments to
self-determination and acknowledging the federal government's trust
responsibility to Tribes. As a result, EPA directly implements the UST
program in Indian country.
In order to establish federal UST requirements that are similar to
the UST secondary containment and operator training requirements of the
Energy Policy Act, EPA decided to revise the 1988 UST regulations. EPA
also decided to revise the 1988 UST regulations in order to achieve
better release prevention and compliance results (see section IV.B.
Additional Requirements for Operation and Maintenance for additional
information). Today's proposed revisions also fulfill objectives in
EPA's UST Tribal Strategy (August 2006), where both EPA and Tribes
recognized the importance of requirements that ensure parity in program
implementation among states and in Indian country. Requiring secondary
containment will reduce releases to the environment by containing them
within a secondary area and detecting them before they reach the
environment. Operator training will educate UST system operators and
help them prevent releases by complying with the regulation and
performing better operation and maintenance of their UST systems.
Since the beginning of the UST program, preventing petroleum and
hazardous substance releases from UST systems into the environment has
been one of the primary goals of the program. Although EPA and our
partners have made significant progress in reducing the number of new
releases, approximately 7,000 releases are discovered each year as of
FY 2009.\1\ Lack of proper operation and maintenance of UST systems is
a main cause of new releases. Information on sources and causes of
releases shows that releases from tanks are less common than they once
were. However, releases from piping and spills and overfills associated
with deliveries have emerged as more common problems. In addition,
releases at the dispenser are one of the leading sources of releases.
Finally, data show that release detection equipment is only detecting
approximately 50 percent of releases it is designed to detect. These
problems are partly due to improper operation and maintenance (see
section IV.B. Additional Requirements for Operation and Maintenance for
a more detailed discussion of problems).2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures, End Of
Fiscal Year 2009, http://epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
\2\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In
Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\3\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA relies on two draft causes of release studies to help support
this proposed rule. Petroleum Releases at Underground Storage Tank
Facilities in Florida contains release data on 512 releases from new
and upgraded tanks in Florida.\4\ The second draft study, Evaluation of
Releases from New and Upgraded Underground Storage Tank Systems,
contains release data on 580 releases from new and upgraded tanks in 23
states across the Northeast, South, and Central parts of the United
States.\5\ Taken together, these draft studies provide information
about 1092 releases in 24 of the 50 states. The data in the two
studies, when taken as a whole, generally provide a representative
sampling of releases across the United States because nearly half of
the states contributed to the studies. Both drafts were peer reviewed
but never finalized because the passage of Energy Policy Act of 2005
required a reallocation of personnel and resources. Even though these
studies were never finalized, the underlying data and calculations can
be used to support this proposed rule because that information did not
change as a result of the peer review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In
Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\5\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many USTs currently in the ground were upgraded to meet the spill,
overfill, corrosion protection, and release detection requirements in
the 1988 UST regulation. As these USTs continue to age, it is vital
that we improve UST operation and maintenance and test components to
ensure they are still working as intended. Today's proposed revisions
to the 1988 UST regulation focus on ensuring equipment is working,
rather than requiring UST owners and operators to replace or upgrade
equipment already in place. The 1988 UST regulation require owners and
operators to use equipment that could help prevent releases; today's
proposed revisions highlight the importance of operating and
maintaining UST equipment so releases are prevented and detected early
in order to avoid or minimize potential soil and groundwater
contamination.
EPA is proposing changes to the SPA regulation (40 CFR part 281) to
address today's proposed changes to 40 CFR part 280. By doing so, EPA
will require states to generally adopt the 40 CFR part 280 changes
proposed today in order to obtain or retain SPA.
What is the history of the UST laws and regulations?
In 1984, Congress responded to the increasing threat to groundwater
posed from leaking USTs by adding Subtitle I to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA). Subtitle I of SWDA required EPA to develop a
comprehensive regulatory program for USTs storing petroleum or certain
hazardous substances, ensuring that the environment and human health
are protected from UST releases. In 1986, Congress amended Subtitle I
of SWDA and created the Leaking Underground
[[Page 71711]]
Storage Tank Trust Fund to implement a cleanup program and pay for
cleanups at sites where the owner or operator is unknown, unwilling, or
unable to respond, or which require emergency action.
In 1988, EPA promulgated the UST regulation (40 CFR part 280),
which set minimum standards for new tanks and required owners and
operators of existing tanks to upgrade, replace, or close them. In
addition, after 1988 owners and operators were required to report and
clean up releases from their USTs. The 1988 UST regulation set
deadlines for owners and operators to meet those requirements by
December 22, 1998. Owners and operators who chose to upgrade or replace
had to ensure their UST systems included spill and overfill prevention
equipment and were protected from corrosion. In addition, owners and
operators were required to monitor their UST systems for releases using
release detection (phased in during the 1990s, depending on when their
UST systems were installed). Finally, owners and operators were
required to have financial responsibility (phased in through 1998),
which ensured they have financial resources to pay for cleaning up
releases. EPA has not significantly changed the UST regulation since
1988.
In 1988, EPA also promulgated a regulation for state program
approval (40 CFR part 281). Since states are the primary implementers
of the UST program, EPA established a process where state programs
could operate in lieu of the federal program if states met certain
requirements and obtained state program approval from EPA. The state
program approval regulation describes minimum requirements states must
meet so their programs can be approved and operate in lieu of the
federal program.
In 2005, the Energy Policy Act further amended Subtitle I of SWDA.
The Energy Policy Act required states receiving Subtitle I money from
EPA meet certain requirements. EPA developed grant guidelines for
states regarding operator training, inspections, delivery prohibition,
secondary containment, financial responsibility for manufacturers and
installers, public record, and state compliance reports on government
USTs. The operator training and secondary containment requirements are
two major pieces of the Energy Policy Act that currently do not apply
in Indian country, but will apply when EPA finalizes today's proposed
regulation.
What is the impact of this proposal?
This proposal will ensure parity in program implementation among
states and in Indian country. This proposal will achieve parity by
adding certain requirements to the federal UST regulation (that would
apply in Indian country) that are similar to the operator training and
secondary containment requirements in the Energy Policy Act. This
action will also further strengthen protection of human health and the
environment from UST releases by increasing the emphasis on proper
operation and maintenance of release prevention and detection
equipment. Today's proposed revisions also reflect improvements in
technology that allow for the ability to prevent and quickly detect
releases for many tank systems that are currently deferred. The
regulatory changes proposed today impose costs to owners and operators
of existing regulated UST systems, owners and operators of certain
deferred USTs, as well as costs associated with state review of the
regulatory changes. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
incremental costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis is contained in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) titled
Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The
Proposed Revisions To EPA's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, which
is available in the docket for this proposal. A summary of these
impacts is provided under the Statutory Review section of this preamble
and in the table below.
Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
[2008$ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Compliance Costs..... $210 $210
Total Annual Avoided Costs........ $300-$740 $330-$770
Net Cost (Savings) to Society..... ($530-$90) ($560-$120)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also prepared a risk assessment titled Risk Analysis to Support
Potential Revisions to Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulations,
associated with the regulatory changes. The risk assessment examines
potential impacts to groundwater and subsequent chemical transport,
exposure and risk. It is available for review in the docket for this
proposal.
What was EPA's process in deciding which changes to incorporate in the
regulations?
After the Energy Policy Act became law, EPA recognized a need to
revise the 1988 UST regulations. The Energy Policy Act required
additional measures to protect groundwater (either with secondary
containment or financial responsibility for manufacturers and
installers) and operator training requirements in states receiving
federal Subtitle I money from EPA. However, no similar requirements
would apply in Indian country until EPA promulgates a regulation. Both
EPA and Tribes are committed to ensuring program parity between states
and in Indian country, and today's proposed regulation, when final,
will achieve this parity.
For over 20 years, the 1988 UST regulations worked well. However,
two decades of experience implementing the UST program have shown there
are a number of areas where EPA can improve the UST program and
increase environmental protection. For example, updating the regulation
to reflect current technologies and ensuring release prevention and
release detection equipment are properly operated and maintained have
surfaced as important regulatory changes.
From the start, EPA embraced an open, inclusive, and transparent
process so all UST stakeholders had an opportunity to share their ideas
and concerns. EPA recognizes concerns about costs to owners and
operators and the importance of limiting requirements for retrofits. In
developing this rule, we reached out to stakeholders involved in all
aspects of the tank program, provided multiple opportunities for
sharing ideas, and kept stakeholders informed of progress.
Using information from our extensive outreach, EPA compiled
potential proposed changes to the 1988 UST regulations. We added or
deleted items to the list of changes based on data, analysis, costs and
benefits resulting from the proposed changes, and EPA discretion.
Ultimately, EPA identified
[[Page 71712]]
the items in today's proposal as most appropriate.
IV. Proposed Revisions to the Requirements for Owners and Operators of
Underground Storage Tanks
The following sections describe EPA's proposal, starting with
requirements for operator training and secondary containment. The next
four sections address changes to the existing regulation in 40 CFR part
280, organized by topic: Additional requirements for operation and
maintenance; proposed approach for currently deferred tanks; other
changes to improve release prevention and release detection; and
general updates to the 1988 UST regulation. Finally, there is a section
describing alternative options considered.
After each proposed regulatory change, EPA poses some questions to
which readers may wish to respond. In addition to these specific
questions, readers may provide comments to any other area of the
proposal on which they wish to comment.
A. Changes To Establish Federal Requirements for Operator Training and
Secondary Containment
1. Operator Training
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to add a new subpart, subpart J--Operator
Training, to 40 CFR part 280. Through subpart J, EPA is proposing the
following training requirements for three UST system operator classes.
New Definitions
EPA is proposing the following new terms and definitions:
Class A operator--individual with primary responsibility
for operating and maintaining an UST system according to applicable
requirements established by the implementing agency. The Class A
operator typically manages resources and personnel, such as
establishing work assignments, to achieve and maintain compliance with
regulatory requirements.
Class B operator--individual with day-to-day
responsibility for implementing applicable regulatory requirements
established by the implementing agency. The Class B operator typically
implements in the field aspects of operation, maintenance, and
associated recordkeeping for an UST system.
Class C operator--employee responsible for initially
addressing emergencies presented by a spill or release from an UST
system. The Class C operator typically controls or monitors dispensing
or sale of regulated substances.
Training program--any program established by the
implementing agency that provides information to and evaluates the
knowledge of a Class A, Class B, or Class C operator regarding
requirements for UST systems.
Training Requirements
How operators are designated--UST owners and operators
must designate individuals for each of the three operator classes. UST
owners and operators must designate at least one Class A and one Class
B operator for each UST or group of USTs at a facility. UST owners and
operators must designate all of their employees who meet the Class C
operator definition as Class C operators.
Who must be trained--This proposed training requirement
covers all UST systems storing regulated substances. UST owners and
operators must ensure designated individuals meet specific training
requirements according to the operator class in which they are
designated.
Requirements for operator training--UST owners and
operators must ensure operators in each class successfully complete
training programs or comparable examinations that, at a minimum, cover
these areas:
[cir] Class A operator--spill and overfill prevention; release
detection; corrosion protection; emergency response; product and
equipment compatibility; financial responsibility; notification and
storage tank registration; temporary and permanent closure; related
reporting and recordkeeping; environmental and regulatory consequences
of releases; and training requirements for Class B and C operators.
Training for Class A operators is general on all listed areas.
[cir] Class B operator--operation and maintenance; spill and
overfill prevention; release detection and related reporting; corrosion
protection and related testing; emergency response; product and
equipment compatibility; reporting and recordkeeping; environmental and
regulatory consequences of releases; and training requirements for
Class C operator. Training for Class B operators may be general or
specific to a Class B operator's site.
[cir] Class C operator--appropriate action to take in response to
emergencies (including situations posing an immediate danger or threat
to the public or environment and that require immediate action) or
alarms caused by spills or releases from an UST system. Training for
Class C operators may be general or specific to a Class C operator's
site.
Training programs for Class A and B operators must, at a
minimum, teach and evaluate their knowledge on the purpose, methods,
and functions of items listed in the minimum training areas above.
Training programs for Class C operators must teach and evaluate their
knowledge of the items listed in the minimum training areas above.
A training program must meet the minimum requirements
discussed above and evaluate knowledge through a test, practical
demonstration, or another approach acceptable to the implementing
agency. In lieu of a training program, all three operator classes must
pass comparable examinations that assess their knowledge in the minimum
training areas above.
The evaluation component of training programs and
comparable examinations must be developed and administered by an
independent organization, the implementing agency, or delegated
authority.
When designated operators must complete operator
training--UST owners and operators must ensure all designated Class A,
B, and C operators are trained or successfully complete a comparable
examination according to criteria and within time frames in the
schedule below. Phase in is based on when USTs were installed because
newer UST systems tend to have fewer releases than older UST
systems.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
[[Page 71713]]
Phase-In Schedule for Operator Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Date when operator training or comparable examination is required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One or more USTs at the facility were One year after effective date of rule.
installed on or before 12/22/1988.
No USTs at the facility were installed on Two years after effective date of rule.
or before 12/22/1988 and at least one
UST at the facility was installed on or
before 12/22/1998.
All USTs at the facility were installed Three years after effective date of rule.
after 12/22/1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the last date in the table above, UST owners and operators
must ensure designated Class A and B operators are trained within 30
days of assuming duties. Designated Class C operators must be trained
before assuming their duties.
Retraining--Class A and B operators of UST systems
determined by the implementing agency to be out of compliance must
complete a training program or comparable examination in accordance
with requirements in Sec. 280.242. At a minimum, training must cover
the area(s) determined to be out of compliance. Retraining must occur
within 30 days from the date an implementing agency determines an UST
system is out of compliance. Retraining is not required if:
[cir] Class A and B operators take annual refresher training which
covers all applicable training requirements for their operator class;
or
[cir] The implementing agency, at its discretion, grants a waiver
relinquishing the Class A and B operators from meeting the retraining
requirement.
Documentation--UST owners and operators must maintain
documents that identify all operators by class and demonstrate that
training or retraining, if necessary, was completed. These documents
must contain:
[cir] A list of designated Class A, B, and C operators for each UST
facility--Include names, operator class trained, date assumed duties,
date completed initial training, and date of any retraining. These
records must be maintained for all Class A, B, and C operators at the
facility for the previous three years.
[cir] Proof of training or retraining--A paper or electronic record
that, at a minimum, includes name of trainee, date trained, and
operator class. In addition, records from classroom or field training
programs or a comparable examination, must be signed by the trainer or
examiner and include the printed name of the trainer or examiner,
company name, address, and phone number. Records from computer-based
training, at a minimum, must include the name of the training program
and web address, if Internet-based. Records of retraining must include
those areas on which the Class A or B operator was retrained. Records
of training or retraining must be maintained as long as the Class A,
Class B, and Class C operators are designated at the facility.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing operator training requirements to ensure that all
regulated UST systems are operated by properly trained individuals. The
operator training provision of the Energy Policy Act requires state
implementing agencies, as a condition of receiving federal Subtitle I
money, develop state-specific training requirements for three classes
of UST system operators. EPA issued grant guidelines that provide
minimum requirements state operator training programs must include in
order for states to continue receiving federal Subtitle I money.\7\ The
operator training grant guidelines apply to most UST systems in the
United States; however, not all are covered. UST systems not covered
include those in Indian country where EPA is the primary implementing
agency, and in states and territories that do not meet the requirements
of EPA's operator training grant guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Grant Guidelines To States For Implementing The Operator
Training Provision Of The Energy Policy Act Of 2005: http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/optraing.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through today's proposal, EPA is closing the gap in coverage and
ensuring all operators are trained according to their level of
responsibility, as designated as Class A, B, or C. Sufficiently
training UST operators will increase compliance with regulatory
requirements. In addition, operator training may decrease UST system
releases by educating Class A, B, and C operators about their UST
system requirements, and may result in greater protection of human
health and the environment.
Today's proposed operator training regulation for UST owners and
operators is consistent with the requirements in EPA's operator
training grant guidelines for states. In both, EPA establishes minimum
operator training requirements, yet allows flexibility to tailor
training programs for specific needs. This means that although there
may be variations among operator training programs, all Class A, B, and
C operators will be trained to meet minimum requirements.
Definitions--EPA is proposing specific definitions of the three
operator classes to distinguish them from the term operator defined in
the 1988 UST regulation. Only if a Class A, B, or C operator meets the
definition of operator in the 1988 UST regulation will he or she then
be subject to the same responsibilities and liabilities as an operator.
EPA's proposed definitions of Class A, B, and C operators do not
relieve owners and operators, as defined in the 1988 UST regulation,
from any legal responsibility. EPA based the proposed three operator
class definitions on duties each typically performs at UST facilities.
EPA is proposing a definition for training program. It is important
that training programs for Class A, B, and C operators include both
sharing information and evaluating knowledge.
How operators are designated--EPA is proposing how UST owners and
operators designate the three operator classes for their facilities.
EPA is taking the position that designating at least one Class A and B
operator at each facility is sufficient. Class A and B operators can
provide adequate training to Class C operators, which should ease UST
owners' and operators' ability to comply with this requirement. Because
a Class C operator's duties typically place him or her in a position of
providing initial response to an emergency, any UST owner's and
operator's employee who meets the Class C operator definition must be
designated as such and trained in emergency response.
EPA will allow UST owners and operators to designate contractors as
their Class A and B operators as long as they are responsible for all
areas required in the training for the class of operator designated.
UST owners and operators must maintain documentation containing
individual names of Class A and B contractors who complete operator
training. It will be easier for implementing agencies to verify
training, retraining, and refresher training using individual names
rather
[[Page 71714]]
than company names. All Class C operators must be employees of the UST
system owner and operator.
EPA wants to ensure Class A and B operator training addresses all
components and encompasses the entire UST system. If an UST system is
out of compliance and the implementing agency determines retraining is
required, Class A or B operators must either be retrained or take
annual refresher training. EPA cautions UST owners and operators to
consider whether contractors serving as Class A or B operators can be
designated. Because some contractors specialize in UST services, they
might not be eligible to be Class A or B operators. For example, if a
contractor is only responsible for release detection compliance, that
contractor would not be eligible to be a Class A or B operator because
he or she is not responsible for all required training areas.
EPA realizes many UST owners and operators may want to designate
one person at an UST facility as responsible for all Class A, B, and C
operator duties. EPA will allow one person to serve in multiple
operator classes; however, that person must be trained for each class
designated.
Who must be trained--When final, today's proposal will require
training for designated Class A, B, and C operators at UST systems
regulated under Subtitle I. This includes UST systems of all attended
and unattended facilities. An unattended UST facility means a Class A,
B, or C operator may not be present during times when a facility is
operating. Nonetheless, even at unattended UST facilities, designated
Class A, B, and C operators must still meet the operator training
requirement.
Requirements for operator training--EPA based the three operator
classes on duties each typically performs at UST facilities. Building
on that, EPA is proposing each person designated in an operator class
pass an examination comparable to the training program, or meet a
specific training program, which will:
For Class A operator, teach and evaluate his or her
knowledge to make informed decisions regarding compliance and determine
whether appropriate people are fulfilling the operation, maintenance,
and recordkeeping requirements for UST systems.
For Class B operator, teach and evaluate his or her
knowledge and skills to implement UST regulatory requirements on
typical UST system components or site-specific equipment at the UST
facility.
For Class C operator, teach and evaluate his or her
knowledge to take appropriate action in response to emergencies
(including situations posing an immediate danger or threat to the
public or environment and that require immediate action) or alarms
caused by spills or releases from an UST system.
For each class of operator, EPA considered developing specific
training curricula that would prescribe length of training, areas to
cover, and trainer qualifications. EPA decided that providing the
general criteria requirements presented in today's proposal is the best
approach because they provide flexibility while being comparable to
EPA's operator training grant guidelines for states and ensuring each
class of operator is trained.
EPA proposes not to restrict who may develop and administer the
training component of a training program. However, to avoid potential
conflicts of interest, EPA proposes to only allow independent
organizations to develop and administer the evaluation component
training programs and comparable examinations, as long as they meet the
minimum requirements in today's proposal. EPA considers independent
organizations to include a wide array of program providers who are not
affiliated with the Class A, B, or C operators they are training. For
example, Class A or B operators can train other Class A or B operators
at the same UST facility, but they cannot develop or conduct the
evaluation component of the training program for those operators.
However, as discussed earlier, Class A or B operators can train and
evaluate Class C operators. In addition, the implementing agency may
develop and administer a training program or comparable examination.
Although not specifically listed in the regulation, EPA will allow
a variety of ways to train operators. These include classroom,
computer-based, hands on, and any combination of these.
Accepted in lieu of completing a training program, Class A, B, or C
operators can pass a comparable examination (for example, via
classroom, Internet, or computer program) that meets the requirements
for operator training criteria described in today's proposal.
When designated operators must complete operator training--EPA is
proposing that UST owners and operators ensure all Class A, B, and C
operators successfully complete a training program or a comparable
examination over three years, based on UST installation dates. This
phased-in approach will stagger the need for operator training and
reduce a rush at the end of the initial three year period. Since older
USTs potentially pose a greater risk to the environment, EPA decided
Class A, B, and C operators of those systems should be trained first.
After the initial three year phase-in period and for consistency
with EPA's operator training grant guidelines for states, EPA is
proposing new Class A, B, and C operators be trained as follows:
Class A and B operators must be trained within 30 days of
assuming duties. 30 days are sufficient for Class A and B operators to
receive operator training.
Class C operators must be trained before they assume their
duties; it is critical that they are trained immediately in order to
respond to emergencies.
Retraining--UST system noncompliance can be an indication that
Class A and B operators are not doing what is necessary to maintain
compliance. If an UST system is out of compliance, then generally,
Class A and B operators designated for that UST system need to be
retrained. Retraining must, at a minimum, cover those areas determined
by the implementing agency to be out of compliance. Retraining must be
completed within 30 days of the implementing agency making a final
determination of noncompliance. EPA is proposing to allow annual
refresher training in lieu of retraining as long as all training areas
required by regulation are covered. Refresher training must have been
in place at the time the implementing agency determined the UST system
was out of compliance.
EPA is also proposing to allow implementing agencies, at their
discretion, to waive the retraining requirement. EPA recommends that
such a waiver be in writing. In granting a waiver, EPA expects the
implementing agency to consider factors such as the severity and areas
of noncompliance. In those instances where UST system noncompliance
violations do not warrant retraining, EPA encourages implementing
agencies to provide information to Class A and B operators so they are
able to return their facilities to compliance. These allowances will
provide greater flexibility for UST owners and operators to meet the
retraining requirement. This proposal is consistent with EPA's
retraining requirement for noncompliance with significant operational
compliance requirements and an annual refresher training allowance
provided in our operator training grant guidelines for states.
EPA considered requiring retraining when UST facilities change
equipment,
[[Page 71715]]
but decided this would be an unnecessary burden on both the regulated
community and implementing agencies. If an UST system is out of
compliance because of an equipment change, EPA is proposing that the
implementing agency require that UST owners and operators ensure Class
A and B operators are retrained as proposed above.
Documentation--EPA is proposing UST owners and operators maintain a
list of Class A, B, and C operators at each UST facility for the
previous three years. Keeping this list for three years is adequate
because it is consistent with the inspection frequency provided by the
Energy Policy Act. Owners and operators must have a list of trained
operators for the past three years each time they are inspected. In
addition, UST owners and operators must also document verification of
training or retraining, as appropriate, for each class of operator. EPA
will require basic information to document Class A, B, and C operators
and confirm they are appropriately trained. For example, classroom
training must be signed by the trainer; computer based training does
not require a signature but must indicate the name of the training.
Records verifying training or retraining must be maintained as long as
the Class A, B, and C operators are designated at the facility. This
time frame will allow owners and operators to demonstrate Class A, B,
and C operators are trained as long as they are designated at the
facility.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Should EPA impose a limit on the number of USTs or
facilities a Class A or B operator is responsible for? If so, what
should the limit be and why?
EPA is seeking information about the number of unattended
regulated UST facilities in the United States. How many regulated UST
facilities are unattended in the United States?
EPA is basing the initial period for meeting the training
requirement on the UST installation date. Should we consider other
criteria? If so, what and why?
Is there a need for a phased-in schedule for operator
training? If so, is EPA's proposed schedule reasonable?
Does EPA's proposal prohibit training approaches currently
available? If so, which ones and why?
Should EPA prohibit particular training approaches? If so,
which ones and why?
Although operators can access any available information
source to obtain necessary knowledge of UST systems, in order to
address potential conflicts of interest concerns, only independent
organizations are allowed to develop and administer the evaluation
component of training programs and comparable examinations. Are there
cases where EPA should consider exceptions to this proposed
requirement?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
2. Secondary Containment
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to add in 40 CFR part 280 secondary containment
and interstitial monitoring requirements for new and replaced tanks and
piping. In addition, UST systems must have under-dispenser containment
for new dispenser systems.
New Definitions
EPA is proposing the following new terms and definitions:
Dispenser system--Equipment located above ground that
meters the amount of regulated substances transferred to a point of use
outside the UST system, such as a motor vehicle. This system includes
equipment necessary to connect the dispenser to the UST system.
Replaced--
[cir] For a tank: To remove a tank and install another tank.
[cir] For piping: To remove 50 percent or more of piping and
install other piping, excluding connectors, connected to a single tank.
For tanks with multiple piping runs, this definition applies
independently to each piping run.
Secondary containment or secondarily contained--A release
prevention and release detection system for a tank and/or piping. This
system has an inner and outer barrier with an interstitial space that
is monitored for leaks.
Under-dispenser containment (UDC)--Containment underneath
a dispenser system designed to prevent dispenser system leaks from
reaching soil or groundwater.
Secondary Containment
EPA is proposing owners and operators install secondary containment
(including interstitial monitoring) for new or replaced tanks and
piping installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation.
EPA is not proposing secondary containment for the following types of
piping:
Suction piping that meets the requirements of Sec.
280.41(b)(2)(i) through (v), sometimes called safe suction piping; and
Piping associated with field-constructed tanks and airport
hydrant fuel distribution systems.
EPA is proposing secondarily contained tanks and piping be:
Able to contain regulated substances leaked from the
primary containment until they are detected and removed;
Able to prevent release of regulated substances to the
environment at any time during the operational life of the UST system;
and
Monitored for a leak at least once every 30 days using
interstitial monitoring according to Sec. 280.43(g).
In addition to the requirements above, pressurized piping must have
an automatic line leak detector according to Sec. 280.44(a).
EPA is proposing to remove the option in Sec. 280.42 for owners
and operators to use a release detection method other than interstitial
monitoring for hazardous substance USTs installed after the effective
date of the final UST regulation.
Under-Dispenser Containment
EPA is proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser
containment beneath new dispenser systems at UST systems. EPA will
incorporate this new requirement by adding a new subsection (f) to
Sec. 280.20, which will require under-dispenser containment beneath
each new dispenser system at an UST system.
EPA is proposing a dispenser system be considered new when both the
dispenser system and equipment needed to connect the dispenser system
to the UST system are installed at an UST facility. The equipment
connecting the dispenser system to the UST system includes check
valves, shear valves, unburied risers or flexible connectors, or other
transitional components beneath the dispenser that connect it to
underground piping. Finally, under-dispenser containment must be liquid
tight on its sides, bottom, and at any penetrations and allow for
visual inspection and access to the components in the containment
system, or must be continuously monitored for leaks from the dispenser
system.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing this change to prevent regulated substances from
reaching the environment and ensure a consistent level of environmental
protection for regulated UST systems across the United States. Data
from
[[Page 71716]]
release sites show a higher number of releases from single-walled tanks
and piping when compared to secondarily contained systems.\8 9\
Releases could be reduced for tanks and piping if they are secondarily
contained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In
Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\9\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Energy Policy Act requires state implementing agencies, as a
condition of receiving federal Subtitle I money, implement additional
measures to protect groundwater. Under the law, state implementing
agencies' choices to protect groundwater were secondary containment
(including under-dispenser containment) or financial responsibility for
manufacturers and installers (and installer certification). 54 of 56
state implementing agencies chose secondary containment. The Energy
Policy Act did not specifically require additional measures to protect
groundwater in Indian country. As the primary implementer for more than
2,600 UST systems in Indian country, \10\ EPA is proposing secondary
containment for new and replaced tanks and piping along with under-
dispenser containment beneath all new dispenser systems at UST systems.
Over the last seven years, approximately 25 new UST systems per year
were installed in Indian country.\11\ The final UST regulation will
bring UST systems in Indian country to the same level of environmental
protection as those regulated by states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures, End Of
Fiscal Year 2009, http://epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
\11\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Energy Policy Act requires states that receive federal Subtitle
I money (and that choose the secondary containment option) to have
secondary containment and under-dispenser containment for tanks,
piping, and dispensers only if they are installed or replaced within
1,000 feet of an existing community water system or potable drinking
water well.\12\ However, EPA is proposing all new and replaced tanks
and piping have secondary containment and UST systems have under-
dispenser containment beneath all new dispenser systems for the
following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Title XV, subtitle B, Section 1530 of Energy Policy Act of
2005, 109th Congress Public Law 58, August 8, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly all new and replaced tanks and piping are installed
within 1,000 feet of an existing community water system or potable
drinking water well. We assume that any UST listed with a commercial
ownership type (i.e., gas station) is located within 1,000 feet of an
on-site well or public water line because nearly all commercially-owned
facilities with USTs require water utilities in order to operate and
all privately owned facilities (i.e., fleet fueling for non-marketers)
are also assumed to be in close proximity to some type of water supply
given that these sites are typically combined with other functional
operations (office, maintenance, manufacturing, etc.) and require water
for restrooms, water fountains, shops, etc.;\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some state implementing agencies that require secondary
containment only within 1,000 feet of one of these water sources have
informed EPA that installations of single-walled tanks or piping are
not occurring; and
Secondary containment and under-dispenser containment will
help protect other sensitive areas, such as designated source water
protection areas, natural springs, and surface waters.
EPA is not proposing secondary containment for piping that meets
the requirements of 280.41(b)(2)(i) through (v), sometimes called safe
suction piping because it is currently not required to meet release
detection requirements. This type of piping uses a suction pump to
deliver regulated substances from the UST to the dispenser. Safe
suction piping operates at less than atmospheric pressure, slopes back
towards the UST so regulated substances drain to the UST if suction is
lost, and has only one check valve located close to the suction pump.
As discussed in the 1988 UST regulation preamble, these characteristics
ensure that little, if any, regulated substances will be released if a
break occurs in the line.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Preamble to 40 CFR part 280, FR Vol. 53, No. 185, Friday,
September 23, 1988, p. 37154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is not proposing secondary containment for piping associated
with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution
systems. EPA understands this piping typically is larger diameter and
runs for long distances, making it difficult to slope the piping back
to an interstitial monitoring area. In addition, EPA understands it is
difficult to keep water out of the interstitial area of these long
piping runs. Since nearly all this piping is steel, corrosion can occur
in the interstitial area when an electrolyte, such as water, is in the
interstitial area. This corrosion can significantly shorten the
piping's life. Corrosion protection safeguards piping in contact with
the ground, but does not protect the inside part of piping from
corrosion. To prevent corrosion caused by water in the interstitial
area, owners and operators would need to add corrosion protection
inside the interstitial area of piping, which EPA realizes would be
difficult, if not impossible, to do. Given all of these issues,
secondary containment for these piping runs could potentially reduce
environmental protection.
EPA is proposing owners and operators install tank and piping
secondary containment that: will contain regulated substances leaked
from the primary containment until they are detected and removed; is
able to prevent the release of regulated substances to the environment
at any time during the operational life of the UST system; and is
monitored for a leak at least once every 30 days using interstitial
monitoring. These requirements are consistent with the 1988 UST
regulation for secondarily contained hazardous substance tanks (Sec.
280.42) and are necessary to help prevent releases to the environment.
The secondary containment requirement applies to new or replaced
underground tanks and piping regulated under Subtitle I except those
excluded by regulation at 40 CFR 280.10(b) and those deferred by
regulation at 40 CFR 280.10(c). All petroleum and hazardous USTs are
intended to meet the secondary containment requirement with the
corresponding use of interstitial monitoring. EPA's current regulation
allows variances to the use of interstitial monitoring as the method of
release detection for hazardous substance USTs. Since these variances
are no longer an option, EPA is eliminating this language to avoid
confusion.
EPA is not proposing secondary containment and/or under-dispenser
containment for UST systems where installation began on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation. Similar to the definition
of existing tank system in the 1988 UST regulation, EPA considers an
installation to have begun after the owner or operator has obtained all
federal, state, and local approvals or permits and:
[[Page 71717]]
Physical construction or installation began; or
The owner or operator entered into a contractual agreement
that cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss and
physical construction or installation will commence within a reasonable
time frame.
Requiring retrofits would be a significant financial burden for
owners and operators. EPA anticipates owners and operators will replace
single-walled UST systems as they age. When owners and operators
replace singled-walled UST systems after the effective date of the
final UST regulation, new tanks and piping will need to be secondarily
contained and new dispensers will have under-dispenser containment.
To implement secondary containment and under-dispenser containment,
EPA is proposing to add new terms and definitions: Dispenser system;
replaced; secondary containment or secondarily contained; and under-
dispenser containment. EPA defined these terms so they are no less
stringent than the definitions contained in EPA's secondary containment
grant guidelines to state implementing agencies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Grant Guidelines To States For Implementing The Secondary
Containment Provision Of The Energy Policy Act Of 2005: http://epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/secondco.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's secondary containment grant guidelines provide states with
significant flexibility to define ``replaced'' as it applies to piping.
The guidelines require that states, at a minimum, consider replacing
piping when 100 percent of piping, excluding connectors, connected to a
single UST is removed and other piping is installed. When deciding how
to best define replaced as it applies to piping, EPA analyzed state UST
regulations for approximately 40 states that currently require
secondary containment and interstitial monitoring.\16\ About 75 percent
of these states have requirements as stringent as, or more stringent
than, the 50 percent threshold EPA proposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA performed a screening analysis using limited,
readily-available data to determine when repair cost approached
replacement cost (and at what point owners and operators were most
likely to replace the entire piping run rather than repair it).\17\ The
screening analysis suggested replacement cost of an entire piping run
became equal to repair cost when about 60 percent of a piping run is
repaired. Based on this information, EPA is proposing owners and
operators secondarily contain an entire piping run when 50 percent or
more of a piping run is replaced. This is consistent with most state
implementing agency decisions and existing economic incentives. This
will also prevent owners and operators from leaving small pipe sections
in the ground to avoid this proposed secondary containment requirement.
If an UST has multiple piping runs, the secondary containment
requirement will only apply to those where 50 percent or more of piping
is replaced. Currently installed piping runs, and piping runs where
less than 50 percent of the piping is repaired, will not require
secondary containment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IEc Incorporated, Work Assignment 1-19,
``Methodology and Calculator for Secondary Containment for Piping,''
October 3, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For pressurized piping, EPA considers a piping run to be the piping
that connects the submersible turbine pump (STP) to all of the
dispensers fed by that pump. For example, if a tank has two STPs, the
piping associated with each STP would be considered separate piping
runs. For suction piping, a piping run is the piping that runs between
the tank and the suction pump.
Consistent with EPA's current policy, if an owner or operator
chooses to reinstall a secondarily contained tank or piping that was
previously installed, that tank or piping must meet new tank and piping
standards in Sec. 280.20 at the time of installation.
The Energy Policy Act defined secondary containment as a release
detection and prevention system that meets the interstitial monitoring
requirement in Sec. 280.43(g). Based on this definition, EPA is
proposing to include interstitial monitoring as part of the secondary
containment definition. Therefore, secondary containment means having
an interstitial space to monitor and monitoring that space for a leak.
Consistent with the 1988 UST regulation release detection requirements,
EPA is proposing interstitial monitoring of new and replaced
secondarily contained tanks and piping at least once every 30 days.
EPA is proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser
containment beneath new dispenser systems at UST systems. Data from
release sites show dispensers are one of the leading release
sources.18 19 Under-dispenser containment is located
underground and will prevent some releases by containing small releases
that occur inside and beneath the dispenser. EPA considers a dispenser
system new when both the dispenser and equipment needed to connect the
dispenser to an UST system are installed at an UST facility. EPA is
proposing check valves, shear valves, unburied risers or flexible
connectors, and other transitional components be included as equipment
that connects a dispenser to an UST system. This equipment is located
beneath the dispenser and typically connects underground piping to a
dispenser. If an owner or operator replaces a dispenser but uses
existing equipment to connect a dispenser to the UST system, then
under-dispenser containment is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities
In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\19\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To contain small releases from the dispenser, piping, and other
equipment, the under-dispenser containment must be liquid tight. EPA is
proposing under-dispenser containment be liquid tight on its sides,
bottom, and at any penetrations through the containment. EPA is
proposing periodic testing of under-dispenser containment in the
secondary containment tests section (see section B-4). In addition, an
owner or operator must have access to and be able to visually inspect
the containment. If visual inspection and access are not available,
then under-dispenser containment must be continuously monitored to
ensure containment is intact and free of liquids. Continuous monitoring
and visual inspections (required in the proposed walkthrough
inspections discussed in section B-1) will ensure problems with the
under-dispenser containment will be detected before a release to the
environment occurs.
The Energy Policy Act requires under-dispenser containment beneath
new motor fuel dispenser systems at UST systems. However, EPA is aware
of a small number of dispenser systems which do not dispense motor fuel
(for example, kerosene dispensers). Small releases can occur at these
dispensers in the same manner as they occur at motor fuel
dispensers.20 21 22 Therefore, EPA is
[[Page 71718]]
proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser containment
beneath new dispenser systems at UST systems, irrespective of whether
they dispense motor fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities
In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\21\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
\22\ Frequency And Extent Of Dispenser Releases At Underground
Storage Tank Facilities In South Carolina (EPA-510-R-04-004,
September 2004). http://epa.gov/oust/pubs/dispenser.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
If you have any of the following data, please provide the:
[cir] Number of UST systems not installed within 1,000 feet of any
existing community water system or potable drinking water well.
[cir] Number of non-motor fuel dispensers connected to UST systems
in the United States.
[cir] Typical length or percentage of piping repaired during a
typical repair.
[cir] Costs, types and frequency of piping repairs and
replacements.
Are there regulatory incentives that EPA should consider
to encourage owners and operators to move toward secondary containment?
If yes, what are those incentives?
In addition to the three types of piping identified for
exclusion by EPA, are there other types of piping for which secondary
containment is impractical or unnecessary? If yes, what are those types
and why is secondary containment impractical or unnecessary?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
B. Additional Requirements for Operation and Maintenance
The 1988 UST regulation required owners and operators to install
improved UST system equipment to detect and prevent releases; however,
it did not require operation and maintenance for all of that equipment.
Owners and operators need to properly operate and maintain their UST
system equipment in order to prevent and quickly detect releases.
Therefore, we propose to add requirements for periodic spill, overfill,
secondary containment, and release detection testing along with
periodic walkthrough inspections to prevent and quickly detect
releases.
When a test or inspection occurs, owners and operators may find
problems with the UST system. When a test or inspection indicates a
problem, owners and operators must repair the problem to remain in
compliance with the 1988 UST regulation. Section 280.33 of the 1988
regulation describes repair requirements for UST systems.
1. Walkthrough Inspections
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.37, EPA is proposing owners and operators perform
walkthrough inspections of their UST systems at least once every 30
days and meet one of these three options:
Option 1: Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough
inspections that, at a minimum and as appropriate to the facility,
check the following equipment:
[cir] Spill prevention equipment
[dec222] Open and visually check for any damage;
[dec222] Remove any liquid or debris;
[dec222] Check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on the
fill pipe; and
[dec222] If secondarily contained with continuous interstitial
monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area.
[cir] Sumps and dispenser cabinets
[dec222] Open and visually check for any damage, leaks to the
containment area, or releases to the environment;
[dec222] Remove any liquid (in contained areas) or debris; and
[dec222] If contained areas are secondarily contained with
continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the
interstitial area.
[cir] Monitoring/observation wells
[dec222] Check covers to make sure they are secured.
[cir] Cathodic protection
[dec222] Check to make sure impressed current cathodic protection
rectifiers are on and operating; and
[dec222] Ensure records of three year cathodic protection testing
and 60 day impressed current system inspections are reviewed and
current.
[cir] Release detection
[dec222] Check to make sure the release detection system is on and
operating with no alarm conditions or other unusual operating
conditions present;
[dec222] Check any devices such as tank gauge sticks, groundwater
bailers, and hand-held vapor monitoring devices for operability and
serviceability; and
[dec222] Ensure records of release detection testing are reviewed
monthly and current.
Option 2--Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough
inspections according to a standard code of practice developed by a
nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory
that are comparable to the specific requirements listed above.
Option 3--Conduct operation and maintenance walkthrough
inspections developed by the implementing agency that are comparable to
the specific requirements listed above.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain walkthrough
inspection records for one year. Each record must include a listing of
each area checked, whether each area checked was acceptable or needed
to have some action taken, and a description of actions taken to
correct an issue.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
The 1988 UST regulation focused on owners and operators installing
improved UST equipment, but did not require significant equipment
operation and maintenance activities. After more than 20 years of
experience with UST requirements, EPA finds both using improved
equipment and operating and maintaining UST equipment are necessary to
protect human health and the environment. 12 states have adopted
monthly walkthrough inspection requirements for their UST facilities.
Of those states, only California has been implementing the requirement
long enough to provide input about the effectiveness of walkthrough
inspections. California indicates that, according to UST inspectors and
industry people, the monthly inspections decreased the number of
violations found, reduced the frequency and duration of release
detection alarms, prompted better record keeping, and resulted in
overall better operations at the UST facility.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Email from Laura Fisher, California State Water Resources
Control Board, April 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of operating and maintaining UST systems, EPA proposes
owners and operators conduct walkthrough inspections at least once
every 30 days. Periodic walkthrough inspections will help owners and
operators detect problems earlier, resulting in fewer releases to the
environment and reduced environmental impacts of releases that reach
the environment.
Walkthrough inspections are designed to verify proper function or
operating condition of easily accessible UST system components and
ensure required records are current. These inspections typically
include reviewing records and checking components to confirm function
or condition. For example, owners and operators will be required to
review current records and ensure equipment is operating properly;
containment sumps are free of liquid and debris; and leaks are not
occurring at dispensers, submersible turbine pumps, and other areas.
EPA used the Petroleum Equipment Institute's Recommended Practice 900,
Recommend Practices for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems,
as a
[[Page 71719]]
guide as we developed the proposed walkthrough inspection requirements.
EPA is proposing allowing owners and operators to hire a third party to
conduct walkthrough inspections instead of performing the inspection
themselves.
EPA is proposing three options for owners and operators to choose
from in conducting walkthrough inspections: follow the specific
requirements (described below) appropriate to the UST facility; use a
code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or
independent testing laboratory; or follow requirements developed by the
implementing agency. At a minimum, walkthrough inspections conducted
according to a code of practice or developed by the implementing agency
need to be comparable to the following requirements. The specific
requirements proposed and reasons for their inclusion in the regulation
are:
For spill prevention equipment--open each spill prevention
area, check for damage, and remove any liquid or debris; check the fill
cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe; and for secondarily
contained spill prevention equipment with continuous interstitial
monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area.
[cir] Damaged spill prevention equipment can release regulated
substances into the environment and liquid or debris can reduce the
equipment's capacity. Fill caps not secure on the fill pipe can result
in vapors exiting the tank and can render overfill prevention
inoperable in tanks that use flow restrictors in the vent line. Some
spill prevention equipment construction materials may not be designed
to contain regulated substances for long periods of time. For spill
prevention equipment with two walls and continuous interstitial area
monitoring, owners and operators need to check the monitoring device or
area to make sure the interstitial monitoring is operating properly and
does not indicate a leak in the interstitial area.
For sumps, including submersible turbine pump sumps and
transition sumps--open and visually check for damage, leaks to the
containment area, or releases to the environment; remove any liquid (in
contained sumps) or debris; and for secondarily contained sumps with
continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the
interstitial area.
[cir] Drips and other small releases from damaged components
contained by the sump can result in regulated substances remaining in
the sump. Damaged sumps can release regulated substances into the
environment. Liquid or debris can reduce the capacity of a contained
sump. Some sump construction materials may not be designed to contain
regulated substances for long periods of time. For sumps with two walls
and continuous interstitial area monitoring, owners and operators need
to check the monitoring device or area to make sure the interstitial
monitoring is operating properly and does not indicate a leak in the
interstitial area.
For dispenser cabinets--open each cabinet; visually check
for damage, leaks to the containment area, or releases to the
environment; remove any liquid (in dispensers with under-dispenser
containment) or debris; and for dispenser sumps with continuous
interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area.
[cir] Visual checks for dispensers are important because the 1988
UST regulation does not require release detection for dispensers. Drips
and other small releases from damaged components in the dispenser
cabinet can result in regulated substances remaining in the dispenser
sump or being released to the environment. Damaged under-dispenser
containment (if present) can release regulated substances into the
environment. If under-dispenser containment is present, liquid or
debris can reduce the capacity of the containment sump. Some under-
dispenser containment construction materials may not be designed to
contain regulated substances for long periods of time. For dispenser
sumps with two walls and continuous interstitial area monitoring,
owners and operators need to check the monitoring device or area to
make sure the interstitial monitoring is operating properly and does
not indicate a leak in the interstitial area.
For monitoring or observation wells--check the covers to
make sure they are secured.
[cir] These wells need to be secured to avoid potential
contamination of wells through the well cover (for example by surface
runoff or accidental fuel delivery to the well).
For cathodic protection--check to make sure impressed
current cathodic protection rectifiers are on and operating; ensure
records of three year cathodic protection testing and 60 day impressed
current system inspections are reviewed and up to date.
[cir] Impressed current cathodic protection systems need to be on
and operating to protect underground metal components of the UST system
that routinely contain regulated substances from corrosion. In
addition, owners and operators need to retain records of the most
recent two cathodic protection tests (required once every three years)
and the most recent three inspections (required once every 60 days) for
impressed current systems. These records show that cathodic protection
systems are on and operating properly to protect UST system components
from corrosion. Owners and operators who record rectifier readings and
compare those readings to the normal operating parameters of the
rectifier during the 30 day walkthrough inspections will meet the 60
day impressed current inspection requirement in Sec. 280.31(c) without
further activity. Failure to operate and maintain cathodic protection
could mean that metal UST system components are corroding and could
result in a release to the environment.
For release detection--check to make sure the release
detection system is on and operating with no alarm conditions or other
unusual operating conditions present; check any devices such as tank
gauge sticks, groundwater bailers, and hand-held vapor monitoring
devices for operability and serviceability; and ensure records of
release detection testing are reviewed monthly and up to date.
[cir] Release detection equipment needs to be operable in order to
detect releases when they occur. Owners and operators must respond to
release detection alarms. Manual release detection equipment needs to
be serviceable and operational so owners and operators can perform
proper release detection. In addition, owners and operators need to
ensure they review the most recent month's release detection
information and retain the most recent year's worth of release
detection records. These records are required for all methods of
release detection, and reviews ensure UST systems are being checked for
a release at least once every 30 days. Failure to perform these checks
could mean release detection equipment is not operating properly and
could result in a release to the environment.
Owners and operators using continuous interstitial monitoring for
double-walled spill prevention devices, sumps, or dispenser containment
areas need to check the interstitial monitoring to make sure it is
operating properly and does not indicate a leak in the interstitial
area. EPA is aware of these continuous interstitial monitoring methods:
vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled interstitial area monitoring and
placing sensors in the interstitial area. For vacuum, pressure, or
liquid-filled interstitial area monitoring using electronic devices and
sensors, owners and operators will need to check the electronic device
to make sure it is not
[[Page 71720]]
in alarm. For interstitial areas monitored using vacuum, pressure, or
liquid-filled interstitial area monitoring not using some type of
electronic monitoring, owners and operators will need to make sure the
vacuum, pressure, or liquid is maintaining its appropriate level.
Owners and operators who do not check the interstitial monitoring of
spill prevention devices must perform periodic spill prevention
equipment testing described in Sec. 280.35(a)(ii) of the proposed UST
regulation. Owners and operators who do not check the interstitial
monitoring of sumps or dispenser containment areas and who use those
areas for interstitial monitoring for their piping must perform the
periodic testing of secondary containment described Sec.
280.36(a)(iii) of the proposed UST regulation.
EPA is proposing walkthrough inspections be conducted at least
every 30 days. 30 days is a reasonable time frame because:
Deliveries occur frequently--often daily or every few
days;
Dispenser filters are changed every few weeks or months;
It is consistent with the 30 day release detection
monitoring requirement; and
Current operation and maintenance industry standards
(Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended Practice 900) recommend
monthly checks as one of the periodic inspection frequencies.
EPA is proposing owners and operators retain the most recent year's
worth of records to demonstrate compliance with the walkthrough
inspection requirement. Owners and operators will be required to
document they performed each of the required activities at least once
every 30 days. Keeping one year's worth of records is consistent with
the current recordkeeping requirement for release detection monitoring.
EPA is proposing owners and operators document each area checked,
whether each area checked was acceptable or needed to have some action
taken, and provide a description of any actions taken to correct an
issue. This information is important to assist implementing agencies in
determining proper operation and maintenance.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is a 30 day inspection frequency an appropriate time frame
for owners and operators to conduct walkthrough inspections?
Is it reasonable for owners and operators to begin
conducting walkthrough inspections immediately after the final UST
regulation becomes effective?
Is specialized training required for individuals
completing walkthrough inspections? If yes, what should EPA establish
as the extent of the training?
Are there other codes of practice that should be included
for conducting walkthrough inspections?
Is requiring owners and operators to keep the most recent
year's worth of records sufficient?
Are the items EPA proposes checking appropriate? Should
EPA add anything? Are there checks EPA is proposing that should not be
required?
Should EPA consider not requiring owners and operators to
remove water from contained sumps when both of the following conditions
exist?
[cir] Owners and operators choose to connect an anode to the metal
components in the sump for corrosion protection and
[cir] The sump is not used for interstitial monitoring.
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
2. Spill Prevention Equipment Tests
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.35, EPA is proposing owners and operators test spill
prevention equipment (such as a catchment basin, spill bucket, or other
spill containment device) at installation and at least once every 12
months. This test must ensure spill prevention equipment is liquid
tight by performing a vacuum, pressure, or liquid test according to one
of the following:
Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note that
owners and operators may use this option only if the manufacturer
developed spill prevention equipment test requirements);
Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized
association or independent testing laboratory; or
Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be
no less protective of human health and the environment than the two
bulleted items above.
Exception: EPA is proposing spill prevention equipment tests not be
required in those situations where spill prevention equipment has two
walls and the space between the walls is monitored continuously
(interstitial monitoring) to ensure the integrity of both the inner and
outer wall.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain the following:
Records of spill prevention equipment tests for three
years; or
Documentation showing the spill prevention equipment has
two walls and is monitored continuously for each spill prevention
device installed at the facility. Owners and operators must maintain
this documentation for as long as the spill prevention equipment is
monitored continuously and for three additional years after continuous
monitoring ends.
EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this requirement within
one year after the effective date of the final UST regulation for
existing UST systems and at installation for UST systems installed
after the effective date of the final regulation.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing this change to help ensure small releases
occurring when the delivery transfer hose is disconnected from the fill
pipe are contained in the spill prevention equipment. Owners and
operators need to properly operate and maintain their spill prevention
equipment in order to prevent releases to the environment. If a small
release occurs at the fill port and the spill prevention equipment is
not liquid tight, then the release can exit the spill prevention
equipment and reach the environment. EPA is aware of various problems
with spill prevention equipment. Examples include damage due to:
Vehicle drive over; ground movement or freeze/thaw cycles; inadequate
installation practices; and normal wear and tear. In addition, the
typical life of spill prevention equipment is about three to seven
years, but the 1988 UST regulation does not have a replacement
requirement. Today's proposed periodic spill prevention equipment test
will minimize problems and ensure spill prevention equipment will
contain small releases from the delivery hose when disconnected from
the fill pipe.
EPA is proposing not to require owners and operators of double-
walled spill prevention equipment with continuous interstitial
monitoring to conduct annual tests because this spill prevention
equipment is continuously checked for tightness through interstitial
monitoring. EPA is proposing owners and operators in the monthly
walkthrough inspections visually check continuous interstitial
monitoring methods that do not alert the owner and operator with an
alarm. Additional
[[Page 71721]]
information on these inspections is available in section B-1.
EPA is proposing to require vacuum, pressure, or liquid methods
when testing spill prevention equipment. We believe these options
provide owners and operators with significant flexibility for testing
this equipment.
EPA is proposing to specifically allow owners and operators to use
manufacturer's requirements or a code of practice developed by a
nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory for
spill prevention equipment tests. The manufacturer's requirement is an
option only when the manufacturer has developed a testing requirement.
In response to today's proposed regulation, EPA anticipates nationally
recognized associations or independent testing laboratories will
develop codes of practice for spill prevention equipment tests and
manufacturers will develop testing requirements. In addition, EPA is
providing implementing agencies flexibility to allow other methods they
determine to be as protective of human health and the environment as
the manufacturer's requirements or a code of practice. This option
allows alternatives in the event codes of practice and manufacturer's
testing requirements are not developed.
EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct spill prevention
equipment tests at least once every 12 months. We propose this
frequency because spill prevention equipment is prone to problems that
can occur over the course of a year and frequent tests will catch
problems earlier. In addition, testing every 12 months is consistent
with other testing requirements, such as annual automatic line leak
detector testing, in the 1988 regulation.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain spill prevention
equipment test records three years for each spill containment device at
a facility. These records will enable implementing agencies to
determine whether owners and operators conducted annual spill
prevention equipment testing during the three year inspections required
by the Energy Policy Act. These records will also demonstrate that
owners and operators tested their spill prevention equipment, ensuring
it will contain small drips and spills that can occur when the transfer
hose is disconnected from the fill pipe. In order for double-walled
spill prevention equipment with continuous interstitial monitoring to
be exempt from spill prevention equipment tests, owners and operators
will need to maintain documentation showing spill prevention equipment
has two walls and uses continuous interstitial monitoring. In addition,
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain this documentation for
three years after continuous interstitial monitoring ends. EPA is
proposing maintaining this documentation so owners and operators can
demonstrate compliance with the spill prevention equipment testing
requirement.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is a 12 month frequency an appropriate time frame for
spill prevention equipment tests? For example, should EPA consider more
frequent tests in sensitive areas, such as source water protection
areas?
Are there other acceptable test methods in addition to
vacuum, pressure, or liquid spill prevention equipment tests?
Is the one year time frame proposed for owners and
operators to begin implementing this requirement reasonable?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
3. Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.35, EPA is proposing owners and operators test proper
operation of overfill prevention equipment (automatic shutoff devices,
flow restrictors, and high level alarms) at installation and at least
once every three years. The test must ensure overfill prevention
equipment is set to activate at the appropriate level in the tank (as
specified in Sec. 280.20(c)) and the equipment will activate when the
regulated substance reaches that height. EPA is proposing owners and
operators test according to one of the following:
Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note that
owners and operators may use this option only if the manufacturer
developed overfill prevention equipment test requirements);
Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized
association or independent testing laboratory; or
Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be
no less protective of human health and the environment than the two
bulleted items above.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records of overfill
prevention equipment tests for three years for each overfill device
installed at a facility.
For UST systems installed after the effective date of the final UST
regulation, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this requirement
at installation. For UST systems installed on or before the final UST
regulation is effective, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet
this requirement within three years and according to the time frames in
the following table:
Phase-In Schedule for Overfill Prevention Equipment Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Date by which first test must be conducted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One or more USTs at the facility were One year after effective date of rule.
installed on or before 12/22/1988.
No USTs at the facility were installed on Two years after effective date of rule.
or before 12/22/1988 and at least one
UST at the facility was installed on or
before 12/22/1998.
All USTs at the facility were installed Three years after effective date of rule.
after 12/22/1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing this change to help ensure overfill prevention
equipment is operating properly and will activate before an UST is
overfilled. Owners and operators need to properly operate and maintain
their overfill prevention equipment in order to prevent releases to the
environment. If overfill prevention equipment is not working properly,
an UST can be overfilled and release product to the environment. EPA is
aware that USTs are being overfilled and there are problems with
overfill prevention equipment. Examples include: Tampering; improper
use; and normal wear and tear. The proposed periodic overfill
prevention equipment tests will minimize problems and ensure overfill
prevention equipment is operating properly.
[[Page 71722]]
Overfill prevention test methods should not overfill the tank to
determine whether overfill prevention equipment is operating properly.
Rather, the equipment should be tested or inspected to determine
whether it will operate or activate properly according to requirements
set forth in the UST regulation. For example, a test or inspection for
an automatic shutoff device in the fill pipe might include removing the
device and checking it for the ability to operate and measuring the
position of the device in the tank to determine whether it will
activate at the correct height.
For overfill prevention equipment tests, EPA is proposing owners
and operators use manufacturer's requirements or a code of practice
developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing
laboratory. The manufacturer's requirement is an option only when the
manufacturer has developed a testing requirement. In response to this
proposed regulation, EPA anticipates nationally recognized associations
or independent testing laboratories will develop codes of practice for
overfill prevention equipment tests, and manufacturers will develop
testing requirements. In addition, EPA is providing implementing
agencies flexibility to allow other methods they determine to be as
protective of human health and the environment as the manufacturer's
requirements or a code of practice. This option allows alternatives in
the event that codes of practice and manufacturer's testing
requirements are not developed.
EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct overfill prevention
equipment tests at least once every three years. We propose this
frequency because overfill prevention equipment is less prone to
problems than spill prevention equipment, but still needs periodic
testing. In addition, a three year time frame is consistent with other
testing requirements, such as cathodic protection testing and the
proposed three year interstitial integrity testing.
EPA is proposing to stagger implementation over a three year period
based on the installation date of the oldest UST at the facility. The
proposed phase-in will require overfill prevention equipment in older
UST systems that pose a greater risk to the environment to be tested
first. The phase-in approach will allow overfill prevention equipment
tests to be spread out and reduce the risk of a last-minute rush of
owners and operators obtaining overfill prevention equipment tests at
the end of the initial three-year period.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain overfill prevention
equipment test records for three years for each overfill device at a
facility. These records will demonstrate to implementing agencies that
the overfill prevention equipment has been tested, is set at the
appropriate height in the tank, and will activate when regulated
substances reach that height. EPA is proposing owners and operators
maintain records for three years to coincide with the three year
inspection frequency required by the Energy Policy Act.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is a three year frequency an appropriate time frame for
overfill prevention equipment tests? For example, should EPA consider
more frequent tests in sensitive areas such as source water protection
areas? Should EPA consider less frequent testing?
Should EPA consider owners and operators retain overfill
prevention equipment test records for a different time frame?
Is the three year time frame and phase-in proposed for
owners and operators to begin implementing this requirement reasonable?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
4. Secondary Containment Tests
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.36, EPA is proposing owners and operators test
secondary containment areas that use interstitial monitoring at least
once every three years. A secondary containment test (also called an
interstitial integrity test) is performed in the space between tank
walls, pipe walls, or in a secondary containment sump area and ensures
the area being tested has integrity and will contain a leak. Secondary
containment areas include tank and piping interstitial areas, as well
as containment sumps used as part of the piping secondary containment
and interstitial monitoring. EPA is proposing owners and operators test
interstitial integrity areas using a vacuum, pressure, or liquid method
according to one of the following:
Requirements developed by the manufacturer (Note that
owners and operators may use this option only if the manufacturer
developed interstitial integrity test requirements);
Code of practice developed by a nationally recognized
association or independent testing laboratory; or
Requirements determined by the implementing agency to be
no less protective of human health and the environment than the two
bulleted items above.
Exceptions: EPA is proposing the following exceptions apply to
interstitial integrity tests:
Tanks--Owners and operators using continuous interstitial
monitoring on their tanks will not be required to perform periodic
interstitial integrity tests.
Piping--Owners and operators using vacuum monitoring,
pressure monitoring, or liquid-filled interstitial space monitoring on
their underground piping will not be required to perform periodic
interstitial integrity tests.
Containment sumps--Owners and operators using containment
sumps which have two walls and continuously monitor the interstitial
space between the walls for releases will not be required to perform
interstitial integrity tests.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain the following:
Records of interstitial integrity tests for three years;
or
Documentation demonstrating that the tanks, piping, or
containment sumps are not required to have a periodic interstitial
integrity test according to the exceptions above. Owners and operators
must maintain this documentation for as long as the tank, piping, or
containment sump uses one of the continuous methods listed in the
exceptions and for three additional years after continuous monitoring
ends.
For UST systems installed after the effective date of the final UST
regulation, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this requirement
at installation. For UST systems installed on or before the final UST
regulation is effective, EPA is proposing owners and operators meet
this requirement within three years and according to the time frames in
the following table:
[[Page 71723]]
Phase-In Schedule for Interstitial Integrity Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Date by which first test must be conducted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One or more USTs at the facility were One year after effective date of rule.
installed on or before 12/22/1988.
No USTs at the facility were installed on Two years after effective date of rule.
or before 12/22/1988 and at least one UST
at the facility was installed on or
before 12/22/1998.
All USTs at the facility were installed Three years after effective date of rule.
after 12/22/1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed requirement only applies to UST systems using
interstitial monitoring. It does not apply to UST systems without
secondary containment or those with secondary containment but not using
interstitial monitoring for release detection.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
The Energy Policy Act requires states that receive federal Subtitle
I money implement additional measures to protect groundwater, either
with secondary containment for new and replaced tanks and piping or
financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers. 54 of 56
states have implemented the secondary containment option. To ensure
secondary containment is working properly, the integrity of the
interstitial space needs to be tested. Therefore, EPA is proposing
periodic interstitial integrity tests of the interstitial space in
secondarily-contained UST systems which use interstitial monitoring for
release detection. These systems need to contain a leak until
interstitial monitoring detects the regulated substance. Currently, EPA
has no requirement for ensuring the integrity of secondary containment
areas.
Since most states implemented the secondary containment
requirements in the Energy Policy Act for most new and replaced tanks
and piping, new and replaced UST systems will be secondarily contained
with interstitial monitoring. This requirement signals a move from non-
secondarily contained UST systems using methods of release detection
that detect a release only after regulated substances have reached the
environment to secondary containment with interstitial monitoring that
identifies a problem before regulated substances reach the environment.
Interstitial integrity tests will confirm for owners and operators that
secondary containment will contain a leak until it is detected and the
problem is repaired.
Some interstitial monitoring methods for tanks, piping, and
containment sumps already continuously ensure the interstitial area's
integrity. When an owner or operator uses one of these methods, EPA
will not require periodic interstitial integrity tests.
Tanks--According to EPA's source and cause of release
information, tanks are not the leading source of releases
24 25 In addition, tanks are nearly always constructed in a
factory under controlled conditions, making it less likely problems
will occur in interstitial areas after installation. For these reasons,
EPA proposes not to require owners and operators to conduct periodic
interstitial integrity tests of tanks using continuous interstitial
monitoring. Methods of continuous interstitial monitoring for tanks
include liquid filled, vacuum, pressure, and sensors in the
interstitial space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities
In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\25\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping--EPA's source and cause of release information
shows that a significant number of releases occur from
piping.26 27 In addition, piping and containment sumps are
assembled in the field during the installation process, potentially
creating increased opportunities for releases. Therefore, unless owners
and operators use continuous liquid-filled, vacuum, or pressure
interstitial monitoring for piping release detection, EPA is proposing
to require periodic interstitial integrity testing for piping. For
example, owners and operators who choose to use sensors in containment
sumps for piping interstitial monitoring must also perform three year
interstitial integrity tests of the piping interstitial space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities
In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
\27\ Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground
Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Containment sumps--Similar to piping, EPA's source and
cause of release information shows that a significant number of
releases occur in containment sump areas. EPA is also aware of issues
with the tightness of containment sumps. Based on this information, EPA
is proposing owners and operators conduct periodic interstitial
integrity tests of containment sumps used for piping interstitial
monitoring, unless the containment sump has two walls and the
interstitial space between the walls in the sump is continuously
monitored. For example, if an owner or operator has a double-walled
containment sump and uses a sensor, vacuum, pressure, or liquid-filled
interstitial area to continuously monitor the space between the two
walls, then periodic interstitial integrity tests of that sump are not
required under this proposal. Owners and operators of double-walled
sumps without continuous interstitial monitoring must perform three
year interstitial integrity tests.
Continuous interstitial monitoring means the secondary containment
space is monitored all the time by a method or device and owners and
operators check the continuous monitoring method or device for a leak
at least once every 30 days. In addition, owners and operators must
immediately respond to any alarms they encounter. Methods of continuous
interstitial monitoring include vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled
interstitial areas along with sensors and probes located in the
interstitial area.
EPA is proposing owners and operators conduct interstitial
integrity tests for tanks, piping, and sumps at least once every three
years. EPA is proposing this frequency because we believe secondarily
contained UST systems are much less prone to releases than single-
walled UST systems. However, since owners and operators are relying on
the interstitial space to detect problems, the interstitial areas still
need periodic tests to ensure proper operation and maintenance. A three
year time frame is consistent with other testing requirements, such as
cathodic protection testing and the proposed overfill prevention
equipment testing.
EPA is proposing to stagger implementation over a three year period
based on the installation date of the oldest UST at the facility. The
proposed phase-in will require older UST systems that may pose a
greater risk to the environment to be tested first. The phase-in
approach will allow interstitial tests to be spread out and reduce the
risk of a last-minute rush of owners and operators obtaining tests at
the end of the initial three-year period.
[[Page 71724]]
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain interstitial
integrity test records for three years for each regulated tank, pipe,
and containment sump at a facility or maintain documentation
demonstrating periodic interstitial integrity tests are not required.
Documentation supporting that periodic interstitial integrity tests are
not required could include: the tank or piping uses vacuum, pressure,
or liquid-filled interstitial monitoring; the tank uses continuous
interstitial sensors for interstitial monitoring; or the containment
sump has two walls and the space between the containment sump walls is
continuously monitored. In addition, EPA is proposing owners and
operators maintain this documentation for three years after continuous
interstitial monitoring ends. EPA is proposing owners and operators
maintain this documentation so they can demonstrate to implementing
agencies compliance with the interstitial integrity test requirement.
This documentation coincides with the three year inspection
requirements in the Energy Policy Act.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is a three year frequency an appropriate time frame for
interstitial integrity tests? For example, should EPA consider more
frequent tests in sensitive areas such as source water protection
areas?
Should EPA consider owners and operators retain records of
interstitial integrity tests for a different time frame?
Should EPA consider interstitial integrity tests for tanks
using continuous interstitial sensors? Should EPA consider limiting
this exclusion to discriminating sensors?
Is there a need for a phased-in schedule to implement this
requirement? Is the three year time frame and phase-in proposed for
owners and operators to begin implementing this requirement reasonable?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
5. Operation and Maintenance Requirements for Release Detection
Equipment
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.40, EPA is proposing UST owners and operators perform
annual operation and maintenance tests on electronic and mechanical
components of their release detection equipment to ensure the equipment
is operating properly. Owners and operators will be required to check
the following equipment:
ATG and other controllers
[cir] Test alarm;
[cir] Verify system configuration; and
[cir] Test battery back-up.
Probes and sensors
[cir] Inspect for residual build-up;
[cir] Ensure floats move freely;
[cir] Ensure shaft is not damaged;
[cir] Ensure cables are free of kinks, bends, and breaks; and
[cir] Test alarm operability and communication with controller.
Line leak detector
[cir] Simulate leak which determines capability to detect a leak;
and
[cir] Inspect leak sensing o-ring.
Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges
[cir] Ensure communication with sensors and controller.
EPA is proposing owners and operators meet this requirement according
to one of the following: manufacturer's instructions; a code of
practice developed by a nationally recognized association or
independent testing laboratory; or requirements developed by the
implementing agency.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records of the
annual operation tests for three years. At a minimum, records must:
list each component tested; indicate whether each component met the
criteria listed above or needed to have action taken; and describe any
action taken to correct an issue.
EPA is proposing owners and operators begin meeting this
requirement no later than one year after the effective date of the
final UST regulation.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is concerned about the performance of release detection
equipment. Inspectors routinely find release detection equipment
installed on UST systems, but that equipment is not properly operated
and maintained. In addition, information from an analysis in Florida
indicates, ``Leak detection successfully detected 26 percent of all
releases. Conversely, leak detection was specifically identified as
failing to detect 23 percent of releases.'' The analysis also says the
exact reason for the leak detection failure could not be determined.
However, the analysis provided these possible reasons, ``* * * faulty
equipment; improper installation; operation or maintenance; or
insufficient performance standards.'' \28\ To increase the
effectiveness of release detection, EPA is targeting operation and
maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities
In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1988 UST regulation in Sec. 280.40(a)(2) requires that release
detection ``Is installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, including routine
maintenance and service checks for operability or running condition;''.
Most owners and operators installed the required release detection
equipment, but some owners and operators are not properly operating and
maintaining their equipment. To achieve optimal performance from
equipment and meet release detection requirements, it is important for
UST system owners and operators to both install the equipment and
properly operate and maintain it. In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA did
not provide specifics on minimum requirements to ensure adequate
operation and maintenance of release detection equipment. As a result,
operation and maintenance requirements vary greatly, even between
similar types of equipment.
Some manufacturers' requirements do not adequately address
operation and maintenance. For example, some manufacturers only
recommend operation and maintenance checks; but EPA is taking the
position that checks should be mandatory instead of optional. In
addition, similar release detection components should be tested in a
similar manner, which will increase the likelihood all release
detection equipment will function at optimal levels for as long as
possible. California's in-field analysis of sensors used for release
detection and anecdotal feedback supports EPA's belief. \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ California's ``Field Evaluation Of Underground Storage Tank
System Leak Detection Sensors,'' August 2002. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/leak_prevention/sensors/index.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing this change to improve and standardize operation
and maintenance for all release detection equipment. This proposed
change will provide owners and operators with an understanding of
equipment tests necessary to ensure equipment is properly operated and
maintained. EPA is proposing a set of minimum operation and maintenance
criteria owners and operators must follow for all electronic- and
mechanical-based release detection equipment. EPA is also addressing
equipment that is neither electronically nor mechanically based (for
example,
[[Page 71725]]
bailers and measuring sticks used for activities such as statistical
inventory reconciliation [SIR]) separately under the walkthrough
inspections section (see section B-1).
EPA based these proposed operation and maintenance minimum
requirements for release detection on common requirements and
recommendations by various equipment manufacturers of similar
equipment. EPA used the National Work Group on Leak Detection
Evaluation's (NWGLDE) list of leak detection equipment to identify
commonly used equipment.\30\ In addition, EPA's publication, Operating
And Maintaining Underground Storage Tanks Systems: Practical Help And
Checklists and Petroleum Equipment Institute's Recommended Practices
for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems (RP 900) also helped
establish proper operation and maintenance activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation's (NWGLDE)
List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding our proposal to use a code of practice developed by a
nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory,
EPA knows of one code of practice currently being developed that may
address operability testing for release detection equipment. After that
code of practice is final, EPA will review it and decide whether to
include it in the final UST regulation.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records of annual
operation tests for three years. Results of tests must include: a list
of each component tested; whether it tested acceptable or needed
action; and a description of any action taken to correct an issue.
Three years worth of records are consistent with the three year
inspection cycle, and content of the records will allow owners and
operators to demonstrate compliance with this operation and maintenance
requirement.
Finally, EPA is allowing owners and operators up to one year from
the effective date of the final UST regulation to meet this
requirement. One year is consistent with the annual test frequency
requirement already in place for automatic line leak detectors, and
many third-party service providers nationwide already perform the
testing.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Are the proposed minimum operation and maintenance
requirements sufficient to cover release detection equipment on
regulated UST systems?
Are there additional performance tests EPA should
consider?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
C. Addressing Deferrals
Note about the overlap of UST regulations and Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations: At the time of the 1988
UST regulation, facilities with an aggregate completely buried storage
capacity greater than 42,000 gallons and located near navigable waters
of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines were subject to both UST rules and
SPCC rules. Since then, SPCC rules have been amended and the rule
exempts completely buried storage tanks, as well as connected
underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment
systems, when subject to the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280.
In today's proposal, EPA proposes to continue to defer the aboveground
components associated with airport hydrant systems and USTs with field-
constructed tanks. Only those deferred aboveground components will be
subject to SPCC requirements. EPA is proposing to regulate the
underground components associated with airport hydrant systems and USTs
with field-constructed tanks. In addition, EPA is proposing to regulate
wastewater treatment tank systems and UST systems that store fuel
solely for use by emergency power generators deferred under the 1988
regulation. Once the proposal becomes final, these UST systems will no
longer be subject to SPCC requirements.
1. Emergency Power Generator UST Systems
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to eliminate the current deferral in Sec.
280.10(d) for UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency
power generators. This means emergency power generator USTs will no
longer be deferred from release detection requirements in 40 CFR part
280, subpart D and will be subject to all UST requirements.
In addition, EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the
effective date of the final UST regulation, owners of UST systems
storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators notify
appropriate implementing agencies that their systems exist.
EPA is proposing owners and operators of UST systems storing fuel
solely for use by emergency power generators begin meeting these
requirements as follows:
For systems installed after the effective date of the
final UST regulation, at the time of installation.
For systems installed on or before the effective date of
the final UST regulation, within one year of the effective date of the
final UST regulation.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing to regulate UST systems storing fuel solely for
use by emergency power generators because our previous rationale for
deferring release detection no longer applies. To allow time for
developing workable release detection requirements, EPA in the 1988 UST
regulation deferred release detection requirements for UST systems
storing fuel solely for use by emergency power generators. The 1988 UST
regulation preamble indicated that monthly monitoring requirements were
unworkable because these tanks often were located at unmanned stations
in remote areas and visited infrequently.
EPA always intended for these systems to meet release detection
requirements when appropriate release detection methods became
available. Since the 1988 UST regulation, release detection
technologies have matured greatly. In addition, technology is now
available to perform release detection at remote sites. Emergency
generator tanks and piping can now be monitored for releases by the
majority of methods listed in Sec. 280.43. EPA estimates about 30
percent of active UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency
power generators already have release detection.
Effective remote monitoring methods for release detection are now
available and used to monitor unmanned UST systems storing fuel solely
for use by emergency power generators. Numerous contractors perform
remote monitoring for releases at these unmanned sites. Remote monitors
transmit visual or audible alarms to a receiving console at a manned
location when there is a suspected or confirmed release. This provides
owners and operators with real-time release detection data for
immediate response to suspected or confirmed releases at sites with
unmanned UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power
generators.
Emergency power generator UST systems are located throughout the
[[Page 71726]]
country. EPA's review of several state databases revealed these systems
are located at hospitals, universities, communication utilities,
military installations, and other locations relying on backup power
sources. EPA estimates UST systems storing fuel solely for use by
emergency power generators now represent approximately 3 percent of the
active tank population.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Industrial Economics, Inc., ``Detailed Assessment of UST
Universe by Tank Use and Industry Sector,'' Work Assignment 1-15,
Task 6, January 23, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, 21 states currently require release detection for
emergency power generator UST systems. Automatic tank gauging and
secondary containment with interstitial monitoring are the most common
release detection methods used for tanks associated with these systems.
Line tightness testing, line leak detectors, or secondary containment
with interstitial monitoring are the most common release detection
methods used for piping. Note that safe suction piping does not require
release detection. With technology now available to detect releases
from emergency power generator UST systems and because these systems
pose the same risk to human health and the environment as any other UST
system, EPA is proposing to remove the deferral from release detection.
EPA is proposing owners and operators of emergency power generator
UST systems installed on or before the effective date of the final UST
regulation begin performing release detection within one year of the
effective date of the final regulation. EPA is taking the position that
one year is reasonable because these USTs are fully regulated except
for release detection, and some are already performing release
detection. After the effective date of the final regulation, all
emergency power generator UST systems must include release detection
when installed.
Notification
To make implementing agencies aware that emergency power generator
UST systems exist, EPA is proposing owners of these systems submit a
one-time notification to the implementing agency. Owners must notify
within 30 days of the effective date of the final regulation. This will
allow implementing agencies to include emergency power generator UST
systems in their inventories.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is EPA's estimate of 3 percent for UST systems storing
fuel solely for use by emergency power generators accurate?
Are there technical concerns EPA should address in
requiring release detection for emergency power generator UST systems?
Is EPA's estimate of 30 percent installed release
detection on UST systems storing fuel solely for use by emergency power
generators accurate?
How many UST facilities have 10 or more emergency power
generator UST systems? Who owns these facilities?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
2. Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to regulate currently deferred airport hydrant
fuel distribution systems (also referred to as airport hydrant
systems). This means airport hydrant systems will no longer be deferred
from the requirements of 40 CFR part 280, subparts B (UST Systems:
Design, Construction, Installation and Notification); C (General
Operating Requirements); D (Release Detection); E (Release Reporting,
Investigation, and Confirmation); G (Out-of-Service UST Systems and
Closure); and H (Financial Responsibility).
Airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date
of the final UST regulation must begin meeting the requirements of
subparts B (except Sec. 280.22) and C within three years of the
effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D according to the
schedule in the table below, and Sec. 280.22 of subpart B along with
subparts E, G, and H on the effective date of the final UST regulation.
Airport hydrant systems installed after the effective date of the final
UST regulation must meet these requirements at the time of
installation. Airport hydrant systems with aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) directly connected to the underground hydrant piping are not
regulated UST systems under 40 CFR part 280, unless 10 percent or more
of the total capacity of the system, including underground piping, is
beneath the surface of the ground.
Schedule for Phase In of Subpart D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time frame
Component and type of release (after [effective Description of
detection used date of rule]) requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping using periodic Within three Conduct one piping
pressurized bulk line years. tightness test
tightness testing. Between years according to the
three and six. bulk line tightness
testing requirement
using the maximum
detectable leak
rates for semiannual
testing. For bulk
piping segments not
capable of meeting
the 3.0 gallon per
hour leak rate,
owners and operators
may use a leak rate
of up to 6.0 gallons
per hour.
Between years six Conduct one piping
and seven. tightness test
according to the
bulk line tightness
testing requirement
using the maximum
detectable leak
rates for semiannual
testing.
-----------------------------------------
After year seven. Begin conducting
piping tightness
testing according to
the bulk line
tightness testing
requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other piping and tank Within three Perform release
release detection methods. years. detection according
to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to define an airport hydrant fuel distribution system
as an UST system that is a combination of one or more tanks directly
connected to underground hydrant piping used to fuel aircraft. These
systems do not have a dispenser at the end of the piping run, but
rather a hydrant (fill stand). If an AST is feeding an intermediary
tank or
[[Page 71727]]
tanks, this proposed definition does not include the AST, but does
include all underground piping entering and leaving intermediary tanks
and the intermediary tank(s). Intermediary tanks are those tanks
directly connected to the hydrant piping.
Release Detection--Tanks
EPA is proposing airport hydrant system tanks installed prior to
the effective date of the final UST regulation meet these requirements:
The following tanks must be monitored using release
detection methods specified in Sec. 280.43.
[cir] Shop fabricated tanks.
[cir] Field-constructed tanks with a capacity less than or equal to
50,000 gallons.
Field-constructed tanks with capacity greater than 50,000
gallons must either be monitored using release detection methods
specified in Sec. 280.43 or use one of the alternatives for tanks
listed in section C-3--UST Systems With Field-Constructed Tanks.
EPA is proposing new or replaced airport hydrant system tanks installed
after the effective date of the final UST regulation be secondarily
contained and perform interstitial monitoring according to Sec.
280.43(g).
Release Detection--Piping
EPA is proposing airport hydrant system piping meet these release
detection requirements:
Piping must be monitored using release detection methods
specified in Sec. 280.44; or
Use one of these alternatives:
Perform a semiannual or annual bulk line tightness test at or above
operating pressure in accordance with the table below. Bulk piping
segments >=100,000 gallons not capable of meeting the maximum 3.0
gallon per hour leak rate for the semiannual test may be tested at a
leak rate up to 6.0 gallons per hour according to the schedule in Sec.
280.40(c):
Maximum Detectable Leak Rate per Test Section Volume
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiannual test
maximum detectable Annual test maximum
Test section volume (gallons) leak rate (gallons detectable leak rate
per hour) (gallons per hour)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<50,000........................................................... 1.0 0.5
>=50,000 to <75,000............................................... 1.5 0.75
>=75,000 to <100,000.............................................. 2.0 1.0
>=100,000......................................................... 3.0 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bulk line tightness test must be capable of detecting the
maximum detectible leak rate listed in the table above with a
probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of
0.05.
[cir] Perform continuous interstitial monitoring designed to detect
a release from any portion of the underground piping that routinely
contains product according to Sec. 280.43(g).
[cir] Use an automatic line leak detector that alerts the presence
of a leak by restricting or shutting off flow of regulated substances
through piping or triggering an audible or visual alarm. This method
may be used only if it can detect a leak of three gallons per hour at
10 pounds per square inch line pressure within one hour or equivalent.
When using this method, also:
-At least every three months, perform interstitial monitoring,
designed to detect a release from any portion of the underground piping
that routinely contains product, according to Sec. 280.43(g); and
-Conduct an annual leak detector operation test according to Sec.
280.40(a)(3).
[cir] The implementing agency may approve another method if the
owner and operator can demonstrate the method can detect a release as
effectively as any of the other three methods. In comparing methods,
the implementing agency shall consider the size of release the method
can detect and frequency and reliability of detection. Owners and
operators must comply with conditions imposed by the implementing
agency.
All recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 280.45 apply to these proposed
release detection methods.
Release Prevention
EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems meet corrosion protection,
spill, and overfill requirements. For corrosion protection, EPA is
proposing airport hydrant systems meet one of these:
The new tank and piping standards described in Sec.
280.20; or
Airport hydrant systems installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation can be constructed of metal
and cathodically protected according to a code of practice developed by
a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory
and meet the following:
[cir] Field installed cathodic protection systems must be: designed
by a corrosion expert; designed to allow for the determination of
current operating status for impressed current systems; and operated
and maintained in accordance with Sec. 280.31 or guidelines
established by the implementing agency; and
[cir] Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection
must be assessed to ensure they are structurally sound and free of
corrosion holes prior to adding cathodic protection. The assessment
must be by internal inspection or another method the implementing
agency determines adequately assesses the tank for structural soundness
and corrosion holes.
EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation that are not upgraded
according to Sec. 280.21 within three years of the effective date of
the final UST regulation be permanently closed according to Sec.
280.70. EPA is proposing internal lining not be allowed for meeting the
corrosion protection upgrade requirement.
EPA is proposing to exclude new and replaced piping in airport
hydrant systems from secondary containment requirements in Sec.
280.20(b).
Notification
EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective
date of the final UST regulation, owners of regulated airport hydrant
systems installed prior to the effective date of final UST regulation
notify appropriate implementing agencies that their systems exist.
Financial Responsibility
EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems no longer be deferred.
This means airport hydrant systems that have not been permanently
closed will be
[[Page 71728]]
subject to financial responsibility requirements in subpart H.
Deferred Components
Aboveground components of airport hydrant systems are currently
regulated by SPCC because they are not fully regulated under the UST
regulations.\32\ EPA is proposing to continue deferring aboveground
tanks associated with airport hydrant systems that meet the UST system
definition from the requirements of subparts B, C, D, E, and G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Spill Prevention, Control, And Countermeasure Rule. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing to regulate airport hydrant systems because a
release from one of these systems may pose a significant threat to
human health and the environment. In addition, technology is now
available for release prevention and adequate release detection
monitoring. In some cases airport hydrant system piping stores millions
of gallons of fuel; airport hydrant systems handle large volumes of
regulated substances on a daily basis. Leaks from underground piping
and other appurtenances can contaminate subsurface soil beneath the
airport apron and runways, groundwater, and nearby surface water. Even
though there is a small universe of these systems, mainly owned by the
Department of Defense (DoD), evidence shows a substantial release can
have a major impact on the environment.
For example, at Pease Air Force Base, jet fuel was delivered to the
runway apron via an underground fueling system. Throughout the life of
the system, releases contaminated soils and groundwater, forming plumes
of regulated substances in the groundwater.\33\ A site release study
identified 60 to 70 release points with varying degrees of severity
along the refueling system line. Free product was found under the apron
when the systems were closed.\34\ There are no available historical
records showing the sources of release or the volumes of regulated
substances released. However, the presence of soil and groundwater
contamination poses a significant threat to public health and the
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air
Resources Division. 2009. Permit Application Review Summary, Former
Pease AFB Remediation Project, 09-0113. 10 March 2010, see: http://www2.des.state.nh.us/OneStopPub/Air/330159094909-0113TypeSummary.pdf.
\34\ Hilton, Scott. Site Summaries Pease Air Force Base
Newington/Portsmouth. 2008. NH Department of Environmental Services.
10 March 2010 see: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/fss/superfund/summaries/pease.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA deferred airport hydrant systems
because release detection and prevention technologies were not readily
available for these unique systems. Given current availability of those
technologies, requiring release prevention equipment and regular
release detection tests are keys to preventing and quickly identifying
releases before they contaminate the surrounding environment.
Additionally, 16 state UST programs which include approximately 40
percent of the existing universe of these UST systems, no longer defer
airport hydrant systems and now regulate them.
EPA is proposing to define airport hydrant system in order to
clarify which components of these systems will be regulated. There is
currently some uncertainty about what an airport hydrant system is
because of the lack of a federal definition and inconsistencies between
different state definitions. Today's proposed definition of airport
hydrant system clarifies which components will be regulated. Examples
of tank and piping configurations for airport hydrant systems can be
found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Example Tank and Piping Configurations for Airport Hydrant
Systems developed by EPA/OUST.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing airport hydrant systems installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation begin meeting the
requirements of subparts B (except Sec. 280.22) and C within three
years of the effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D
according to the phase in schedule in the table above, and Sec. 280.22
of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the effective date of
the final UST regulation. Airport hydrant systems installed after the
effective date of the final UST regulation must meet all requirements
at installation. Three years allows owners and operators enough time to
implement the requirements of subparts B (except Sec. 280.22) and C.
EPA is providing a phase in period for bulk line tightness testing in
subpart D to allow owners and operators ample time to upgrade their
piping systems and meet the leak rate criteria. EPA is proposing to
allow owners and operators for the first six years (two test periods)
to meet a higher threshold of up to 6.0 gallons per hour for those
piping segments that cannot meet the more stringent maximum 3.0 gallons
per hour threshold due to technical reasons. These technical reasons
include exceeding capabilities of currently available pressure-based
methods to achieve the required leak rate. Currently available methods
are capable of testing larger volume test sections to a leak rate of
6.0 gallons. The higher threshold of 6.0 gallons per hour provides for
use of existing test methods during the first six year period. Six
years will provide owners and operators time to upgrade their piping
systems to meet the up to 3.0 gallon per hour threshold for semiannual
testing. Between years six and seven of the phase in, EPA proposes to
allow owners and operators to conduct one additional bulk tightness
test that meets the semiannual testing threshold. Beginning in year
seven, owners and operators must begin meeting the semiannual and
annual bulk line tightness testing requirements described earlier in
this section. For all other tank and piping release detection options,
EPA is proposing a three year phase in because these methods will not
require significant construction or upgrades for implementation.
Finally, owners and operators can implement the requirements of Sec.
280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H beginning on the
effective date of the final UST regulation because upgrades or special
equipment are not needed to meet the requirements in these subparts.
Release Detection
EPA is proposing release detection for airport hydrant systems
because, unlike in the 1980s, release detection technologies are now
available. Airport hydrant systems typically consist of a series of
large diameter shop-fabricated tanks; although some airport hydrant
systems use field-constructed tanks. EPA is proposing release detection
requirements for shop-fabricated tanks and field-constructed tanks in
airport hydrant systems. See section C-3 for proposed release detection
requirements for UST systems with field-constructed tanks.
EPA discussed airport hydrant systems in the 1988 UST regulation
preamble. These systems were very large, contained great volumes of
fuel (capacities in the millions of gallons), and consisted of miles of
piping that was typically eight to 24 inches in diameter. Airport
hydrant systems typically had cathodic protection and were monitored
for releases periodically. Inventory control was often used, but the
sensitivity of this technique was limited due to the large volume
airport hydrant systems typically handled. No single leak test appeared
to be an industry standard.
Between proposing and finalizing the 1988 UST regulation, EPA
became
[[Page 71729]]
aware of several airport hydrant system leaks that harmed the
environment. However, limited information kept EPA from realizing the
extent of airport hydrant system problems. At the time, EPA believed
release detection was not feasible for airport hydrant systems. To
allow more time to gather information, EPA deferred airport hydrant
systems in the 1988 regulation from release detection requirements in
subpart D as well as subparts B, C, E, G, and H requirements.
Over the last 20 years, the petroleum services industry developed
release detection monitoring technologies for airport hydrant systems.
NWGLDE's list in Large Diameter Line Leak Detection Methods (6 Inches
Diameter Or Above) \36\ identifies methods capable of detecting
releases from airport hydrant systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation's (NWGLDE)
List Of Leak Detection Evaluations For Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA contacted several vendors to determine strengths and
limitations of release detection methods for airport hydrant systems.
EPA also talked with DoD's Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy \37\
about their challenges in addressing release detection requirements in
states, such as California, which do not defer airport hydrant systems
from release detection. DLA Energy also monitors airport hydrant
systems in other states, which provides them with significant
information about airport hydrant system release detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Defense Logistics Agency Energy was formerly known as
Defense Energy Support Center (DESC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges airport hydrant systems vary greatly and most of
these systems cannot meet underground piping release detection
requirements in the 1988 UST regulation because of issues such as time
to conduct the test and leak rate thresholds. Nonetheless, other
release detection methods are currently available to monitor airport
hydrant systems. EPA is not proposing release detection methods monitor
at the same leak rate or frequency as pressurized piping systems at
retail service stations. Standard release detection systems can
successfully test and detect releases on USTs and pressurized piping at
retail service stations, but cannot achieve the same accuracy within a
reasonable time frame on underground piping in airport hydrant systems.
The large diameters and varying pipe lengths in airport hydrant systems
introduce variables that prohibit accurate monitoring at leak rates
within a reasonable time frame required in the 1988 UST regulation.
Compared to typical retail service stations, airport hydrant
systems have large product volume throughputs. The 1988 UST regulation
release detection test methods are limited by volume. To produce
accurate test results, underground hydrant system piping needs to be
isolated in appropriately sized segments. Some airport hydrant systems
have numerous isolation points with available connections for release
detection equipment; others have up to one-half mile between
underground piping segments available for accurate testing. The greater
the volume of a segment, the more time it takes to obtain a valid
result at a given leak rate.
Product temperature fluctuations present challenges for release
detection testing of airport hydrant system piping. As temperatures
fluctuate, product expands or contracts, increasing or decreasing
product volume and pressure. Fluctuating line pressure during a release
detection test can mask an existing release or falsely indicate one
occurred. To lessen this, an out of service period when testing large
diameter airport hydrant piping could range from one to several days
after the last product transfer in order to meet maximum leak detection
rates in the 1988 UST regulation. Removing airport hydrant systems from
service for these extended periods will greatly impede their purpose.
In contrast, out of service periods on underground piping at retail
service stations can last up to several hours after the last product
transfer prior to pressure testing.
Although technology is available, it would be cost prohibitive and
require significant facility down time for owners and operators to
monitor airport hydrant systems for releases at the rates and
frequencies required in the 1988 UST regulation.\38\ As a result, EPA
is proposing several options for owners and operators to meet the
release detection requirement. These options provide flexibility for a
wide variety of airport hydrant systems. In those instances where
airport hydrant systems can meet the release detection methods in Sec.
280.43 and Sec. 280.44, owners and operators may use those methods.
EPA is also proposing the following four alternatives to meet the
airport hydrant system release detection requirement for piping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See section F of this preamble and Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule, available as a separate
document in the docket, for information on the cost differences
between meeting conventional release detection requirements and the
proposed alternative requirements for airport hydrant systems and
UST systems with field-constructed tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform semiannual or annual bulk line testing at or above
operating pressure with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a
probability of false alarm of 0.05. EPA thinks this will be the most
frequently used method due to cost and minimal impact on down time for
the piping system. It allows owners and operators to meet a variable
leak rate based on piping test section volume. The leak rate ranges
from one to three gallons \39\ per hour, depending on piping volume for
semiannual testing and from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons per hour for annual
testing. EPA is proposing three gallons per hour as the maximum
threshold because the majority of available bulk line testing methods
are capable of meeting this leak detection rate. To effectively detect
leaks from the pressurized piping systems, industry practice involves
performing pressure-based testing at levels above standard operating
pressure. EPA is proposing requiring a test pressure at or above
operating pressure in consideration of these bulk piping systems
typically operating at pressures much higher than conventional gasoline
stations. Testing at 1.5 times operating pressure may not be practical
or safe for these piping systems. The probabilities of detection and
false alarm are consistent with the line leak detection requirements in
the 1988 UST regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Owners and operators of bulk piping systems with test
section volumes of 100,000 gallons or greater, due to technical
reasons discussed in this section, may test their systems at a
higher threshold of up to 6.0 gallons per hour within the six year
phase-in period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use continuous interstitial monitoring--This monitoring
method is designed to detect a release from any portion of the
underground piping that routinely contains product; it must operate in
an uninterrupted manner. EPA considered requiring an automatic line
leak detector in combination with this alternative method, similar to
conventional pressurized piping requirements in the 1988 UST
regulation. However, conventional line leak detectors today cannot
properly operate on bulk pressurized piping in airport hydrant systems.
Use an automatic line leak detector--Conventional
pressurized piping systems operate at a significantly lower pressure
than airport hydrant systems. In addition, EPA is not aware of a line
leak detector that adequately detects releases on airport hydrant
systems. Yet because some states regulate airport hydrant systems and
industry has experience with these systems, comparable release
detection technology may be developed in the future. With that in mind,
EPA is
[[Page 71730]]
proposing line leak detectors be capable of detecting a release rate of
three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch line pressure
within one hour or equivalent. This is consistent with the 1988 UST
regulation. To detect a release from any portion of the underground
piping that routinely contains product, EPA is proposing to combine
this alternative with interstitial monitoring performed at least once
every three months. This combination will quickly detect catastrophic
releases while checking for much smaller problems on a less frequent--
every three month--basis. Owners and operators will be required to
conduct an annual test of the line leak detector's operation according
to the final UST regulation. See section B-5 for more information on
the annual test.
Approval by the implementing agency of another method if
the owner and operator can demonstrate that the method can detect a
release as effectively as any of the methods listed above--The
implementing agency must consider the size of the release that the
method can detect as well as the frequency and reliability of detection
when comparing methods. Owners and operators must comply with any
conditions imposed by the implementing agency on the method's use.
Release Prevention
In Sec. 280.20, EPA is proposing new or replaced tanks and piping
have secondary containment with interstitial monitoring. Airport
hydrant systems' piping ranges from eight to 24 inches in diameter with
very long lengths, sometimes miles. In contrast, pressurized piping at
a typical retail gas station is two inches in diameter with relatively
short lengths.
EPA discussed with DLA Energy and industry the feasibility of
installing secondary containment on piping associated with airport
hydrant systems. These systems, primarily located on military
installations, are complex and lack similarity. EPA is taking the
position that installing secondary containment on airport hydrant
system piping may be impracticable.
To detect a leak, secondary containment must be a liquid tight
barrier designed to hold the leak between the tank and the barrier.
Piping is sloped in fractions of an inch per foot of piping run to
direct a leak toward the interstitial monitor. Because airport hydrant
system piping lengths can typically be thousands of feet, it would be
very difficult to install a system with enough slope that could
adequately monitor the lowest point of a piping run. In addition,
variable sized fittings are needed to join different diameters of
piping, increasing the complexity of installing secondary containment.
Finally, airport hydrant system piping is normally constructed of
steel. Condensation can accumulate between the inner and outer walls,
promoting corrosion of both pipe walls in the interstitial space and
increasing the likelihood of a release to the environment.
EPA acknowledges engineering and design challenges (that is,
varying piping diameter and length, along with corrosion) that can
occur when providing secondary containment for piping associated with
airport hydrant systems.\40\ Therefore, EPA is proposing not to require
this piping meet secondary containment requirements. However, EPA is
proposing new and replaced underground tanks associated with airport
hydrant systems meet secondary containment requirements. See section A-
2 for more information about proposed secondary containment
requirements for tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ DOD's DLA Energy, ``Response to EPA--Release Detection
Point Paper,'' dated 03/10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing all
airport hydrant systems meet corrosion protection requirements. Because
interim prohibition has been in effect since May 1985, these systems
generally are already equipped with corrosion protection (that is,
constructed of: non-corrodible material; coated and cathodically
protected steel; fiberglass reinforced plastic; or steel tank clad with
fiberglass reinforced plastic).
EPA is proposing not to allow adding internal lining as a means of
corrosion protection for tanks in airport hydrant systems that are not
already upgraded. In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA allowed internal
lining as a corrosion protection upgrade, but stated in the preamble
that internal lining of steel tanks was a temporary upgrade to meet
corrosion protection requirements, only if the lining continued meeting
original design specifications. After 1998, if an inspected lining did
not meet original design specifications and could not be repaired
according to industry codes, it no longer met the upgrade requirements
and had to be replaced. In addition, lining inspections show there are
issues with internal linings.\41\ Reports of premature failures due to
improper installation cause additional concerns about the long-term
integrity of the lining.\42\ A study of lined tanks up to12 years old
concluded that 44 percent of tanks' linings were cracked, discolored,
and flaked from tank walls.\43\ If internal lining fails, the chance of
a leak into the environment is greater when there is no external
corrosion protection on the tank. Because of these concerns, EPA is
proposing internal lining not be an option for meeting the corrosion
protection requirements for tanks in airport hydrant systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ LUSTLINE, Bulletin 38, June 2001. http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/.
\42\ Wisconsin Department Of Commerce Web site: http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/er/pdf/bst/ProgramLetters_PL/ER-BST-PL-LINING.pdf.
\43\ LUSTLINE, Bulletin 30, September 1998. http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing airport
hydrant systems meet spill and overfill requirements to prevent
releases to the environment. After discussion with industry and DLA
Energy, EPA is taking the position that existing airport hydrant
systems are already equipped with spill prevention devices that will
adequately prevent spills and overfills.
Airport hydrant systems installed on or before the effective date
of the final UST regulation that do not meet the upgrade requirements
within three years after the effective date of the rule must be
permanently closed according to Sec. 280.70. EPA is requiring
permanent closure to prevent releases to the environment from airport
hydrant systems that have not been upgraded.
Notification
To make implementing agencies aware airport hydrant systems exist,
EPA is proposing owners of these systems submit a one-time notification
to the implementing agency. Owners must notify within 30 days of the
effective date of the final regulation. This will allow implementing
agencies to include airport hydrant systems in their inventories.
Financial Responsibility
Because EPA is proposing to eliminate the deferral for airport
hydrant systems, they will no longer be exempt from financial
responsibility requirements in subpart H. Owners and operators will be
required to comply by the effective date of the final UST regulation.
The 1988 UST financial responsibility regulation exempts state and
federal entities. Therefore, federal and state owners and operators of
airport hydrant systems will not have to meet the financial
responsibility requirement. Nearly all airport hydrant systems are
owned by the federal government.
[[Page 71731]]
Deferred Components
EPA is proposing to continue deferring aboveground tanks associated
with airport hydrant systems from the requirements of subparts B, C, D,
E, and G. EPA regulates underground storage tanks and piping through 40
CFR part 280 and aboveground tanks through 40 CFR part 112 (Oil
Pollution Prevention). Facilities with 1,320 gallons of aboveground oil
storage capacity that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil
into navigable waters or adjoining shoreline are subject to the SPCC
regulation, under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA).\44\ The
SPCC regulation includes requirements for oil spill prevention,
preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable
waters and adjoining shorelines.\45\ The SPCC regulation requires
periodic integrity testing and inspection of bulk storage containers
and periodic integrity testing and leak testing of valves and piping
associated with containers. The SPCC regulation also requires regulated
facilities prepare and maintain a written plan that includes measures
to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil discharges that threaten
navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. For these reasons, we
believe the SPCC regulation is the most effective means of addressing
aboveground tanks associated with airport hydrant systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Overview Of Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opprover.htm.
\45\ Spill Prevention, Control, And Countermeasure Rule. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Are the release detection options and time frames
appropriate and sufficient?
Is the performance requirement of three gallons per hour
at 10 pounds per square inch line pressure within one hour or
equivalent proposed for line leak detectors for bulk piping
appropriate?
Should EPA consider including specific requirements for
non-pressurized piping tightness testing methods such as chemical
marker methods? If so, what should those requirements be?
Are there other release detection options EPA should
consider?
In order to address potential concerns associated with
over pressurizing bulk piping systems, EPA proposed testing at the
system's operating pressure instead of above it. EPA understands there
are industry standards that recommend testing above operating pressure.
Is testing these systems at operating pressure sufficient? Please
provide specific detail to accompany your answer.
Is the definition of airport hydrant fuel distribution
system clear and appropriate?
Are you aware of any releases from airport hydrant
systems? If so, what were the sources, causes, and impacts to the
environment?
Should EPA consider revising the date in 280.73 for
previously deferred UST systems? Revision of this date would mean that
these UST systems closed prior to the effective date of the final rule
would not have to meet Subpart G unless the implementing agency directs
otherwise based on a current or potential threat to human health and
the environment. How many of these UST systems have been closed since
December 22, 1988?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
3. UST Systems With Field-Constructed Tanks
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to regulate currently deferred UST systems with
field-constructed tanks. This means field-constructed tanks will no
longer be deferred from the requirements of 40 CFR part 280, subparts B
(UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification), C
(General Operating Requirements), D (Release Detection), E (Release
Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation), G (Out-of-Service UST
Systems and Closure), and H (Financial Responsibility).
UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation must begin meeting the
requirements of subparts B (except Sec. 280.22) and C within three
years of the effective date of the final UST regulation, subpart D
according to the schedule in the table below, and Sec. 280.22 of
subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the effective date of the
final UST regulation. UST systems with field-constructed tanks
installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation must
meet these requirements at the time of installation.
Schedule for Phase In of Subpart D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time frame (after
Component and type of release [effective date Description of
detection used of rule ]) requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping using periodic Within three Conduct one piping
pressurized bulk line years. tightness test
tightness testing. Between years according to the
three and six.. bulk line tightness
testing requirement
using the maximum
detectable leak
rates for semiannual
testing. For bulk
piping segments not
capable of meeting
the 3.0 gallon per
hour leak rate,
owners and operators
may use a leak rate
of up to 6.0 gallons
per hour.
-----------------------------------------
Between years six Conduct one piping
and seven. tightness test
according to the
bulk line tightness
testing requirement
using the maximum
detectable leak
rates for semiannual
testing.
-----------------------------------------
After year seven. Begin conducting
piping tightness
testing according to
the bulk line
tightness testing
requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other piping and tank Within three Perform release
release detection methods. years. detection according
to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71732]]
Release Detection--Tanks
EPA is proposing that UST systems with field-constructed tanks
installed prior to the effective date of the final UST regulation meet
these release detection requirements:
Field-constructed tanks with capacity less than or equal
to 50,000 gallons must be monitored using the release detection methods
in Sec. 280.43.
Field-constructed tanks with a capacity greater than
50,000 gallons must either be monitored using release detection methods
in Sec. 280.43 or use one of these alternatives:
[cir] Conduct an annual bulk tank tightness test that can detect a
0.5 gallon per hour leak rate;
[cir] At least once every 30 days, use an automatic tank gauging
system to perform release detection, which can detect a leak rate of
one gallon per hour or less. At least every three years, this method
must be combined with a bulk tank tightness test that can detect a 0.2
gallon per hour leak rate;
[cir] At least once every 30 days, use an automatic tank gauging
system to perform release detection, which can detect a leak rate of
two gallons per hour or less. At least every two years, this method
must be combined with a bulk tank tightness test that can detect a 0.2
gallon per hour leak rate; or
[cir] The implementing agency may approve another method if the
owner and operators can demonstrate the method can detect a release as
effectively as any of the other three methods. In comparing methods,
the implementing agency shall consider the size of release the method
can detect and frequency and reliability of detection. Owners and
operators must comply with conditions imposed by the implementing
agency.
All bulk tank tightness testing must be capable of detecting leak rates
with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false
alarm of 0.05.
All recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 280.45 apply to these
proposed release detection methods.
Tanks associated with new or replaced UST systems with field-
constructed tanks installed after the effective date of the final UST
regulation must be secondarily contained and perform interstitial
monitoring according to Sec. 280.43(g).
Release Detection--Piping
EPA is proposing underground piping of UST systems with field-
constructed tanks meet the release detection requirements for hydrant
piping described in C-2--Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems.
Release Prevention
EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks meet
corrosion protection, spill, and overfill requirements. For corrosion
protection, EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks
meet one of these:
The new tank and piping standards described in Sec.
280.20; or
UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or
before the effective date of the final UST regulation can be
constructed of metal and cathodically protected according to a code of
practice developed by a nationally recognized association or
independent testing laboratory and meet the following:
[cir] Field installed cathodic protection systems must be: designed
by a corrosion expert; designed to allow for the determination of
current operating status for impressed current systems; and operated
and maintained in accordance with Sec. 280.31 or guidelines
established by the implementing agency; and
[cir] Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection
must be assessed to ensure they are structurally sound and free of
corrosion holes prior to adding cathodic protection. The assessment
must be by internal inspection or another method the implementing
agency determines adequately assesses the tank for structural soundness
and corrosion holes.
EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on
or before the effective date of the final UST regulation that are not
upgraded according to Sec. 280.21 within three years of the effective
date of the final UST regulation must be permanently closed according
to Sec. 280.70. EPA is proposing internal lining not be allowed for
meeting the corrosion protection upgrade requirement.
EPA is proposing to exclude new and replaced piping of UST systems
with field-constructed tanks from secondary containment requirements in
Sec. 280.20(b).
Notification
EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective
date of the final UST regulation, owners of regulated UST systems with
field-constructed tanks notify appropriate implementing agencies that
their systems exist.
Financial Responsibility
EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks no longer
be deferred. This means UST systems with field-constructed tanks that
have not been permanently closed will be subject to financial
responsibility requirements in subpart H.
Deferred Components
EPA is proposing to continue deferring aboveground tanks associated
with UST systems with field-constructed tanks from the requirements of
subparts B, C, D, E, and G.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing to regulate UST systems with field-constructed
tanks because they are very large and pose a substantial threat to
human health and the environment. Typical tank sizes range from 20,000
gallons to greater than two million gallons. The total universe of UST
systems with field-constructed tanks is small. There are approximately
239 UST systems with field-constructed tanks.
Several releases from bulk field-constructed tanks have been
recorded at the Craney Island Fuel Terminal in Portsmouth, VA.\46\ For
example, a 2.1 million gallon field-constructed UST system that
operated from the 1950s to the mid 1980s released an estimated 300,000
to 500,000 gallons of product into the environment. Free product was
found within 20 feet of a nearby creek, and the resulting plume covered
more than five acres. Remediation efforts have been on-going since
1986. The release was attributed to tank and/or piping failures and
possibly from a nearby tank that had a 127,000 gallon overfill in 1986.
Another 2.1 million gallon field-constructed tank system that operated
from the 1950s until 2000 released an estimated 175,000 to 250,000
gallons of jet fuel into the environment. The release was attributed to
piping failures. The resulting plume covered three acres and threatened
a nearby creek. In both of these examples, release prevention and
release detection requirements could have reduced the severity of these
releases and may well have prevented these releases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also proposing this change because design and construction
standards for UST systems with field-constructed tanks are now
available. In the 1988 UST regulation preamble, EPA indicated tank
design and construction methods for field-constructed tanks differed
from factory-built tanks; we did not have sufficient time to develop an
appropriate regulation related to design and construction for those
tanks. Although design standards are now
[[Page 71733]]
available for aboveground field-constructed tanks, EPA is not aware of
standards written according to a national code of practice developed by
a nationally recognized or independent testing laboratory. However,
military construction standards, written as guidance for aboveground
and underground storage tank construction projects on military
installations, are available.\47\ EPA considers current military
construction standards appropriate to sufficiently address field-
constructed tank design and construction. Implementing agencies may use
military design and construction standards to address the site specific
nature of field-constructed tank systems on military installations.
Note that more stringent standards will prevail if a field-constructed
tank is installed in a locale with more stringent design standards. EPA
expects owners and operators to use these existing standards and
specifications for design and construction of UST systems with field-
constructed tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-460-01, ``Petroleum Fuel
Facilities,'' prescribes basic specifications and guidance for
designing fueling systems on military installations. Unless
otherwise noted, the handbook uses nationally recognized association
and institute standards in accordance with the appropriate service
policy. For the purposes of this preamble, a ``field-constructed
tank'' is analogous to a ``cut and cover'' tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed
on or before the effective date of the final UST regulation begin
meeting the requirements of subparts B (except Sec. 280.22) and C
within three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation,
subpart D according to the phase in schedule in the table above, and
Sec. 280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the
effective date of the final UST regulation. UST systems with field-
constructed tanks installed after the effective date of the final UST
regulation must meet all requirements at installation. Three years
allows owners and operators enough time to implement the requirements
of subparts B (except Sec. 280.22) and C. EPA is providing a phase in
period for bulk line tightness testing in subpart D to allow owners and
operators ample time to upgrade their piping systems and meet the leak
rate criteria. EPA is proposing to allow owners and operators for the
first six years (two test periods) to meet a higher threshold of up to
6.0 gallons per hour for those piping segments that cannot meet the
more stringent maximum 3.0 gallons per hour threshold, due to technical
reasons. These technical reasons include exceeding capabilities of
currently available pressure-based methods to achieve the required leak
rate. Currently available methods are capable of testing larger volume
test sections to a leak rate of 6.0 gallons. The higher threshold of
6.0 gallons per hour provides for use of existing test methods during
the first six year period. Six years will provide owners and operators
time to upgrade their piping systems to meet the up to 3.0 gallon per
hour threshold for semiannual testing. Between years six and seven of
the phase in, EPA proposes to allow owners and operators to conduct one
additional bulk tightness test that meets the semiannual testing
threshold. Beginning in year seven, owners and operators must begin
meeting the semiannual and annual bulk line tightness testing
requirements described earlier in this section. For all other tank and
piping release detection options, EPA is proposing a three year phase
in because these methods will not require significant construction or
upgrades for implementation. Finally, owners and operators can
implement the requirements of Sec. 280.22 of subpart B along with
subparts E, G, and H beginning on the effective date of the final UST
regulation because upgrades or special equipment are not needed to meet
the requirements in these subparts.
Release Detection
In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA deferred UST systems with field-
constructed tanks in part due to lack of appropriate release detection
methods. At that time, EPA believed the majority of release detection
methods applied to factory-built tank systems and did not adequately
work for UST systems with field-constructed tanks. Over the last 20
years, effective release detection methods for UST systems with field-
constructed tanks have evolved. However, prescribed leak rates for
field-constructed tanks differ from those in Sec. 280.43 of the 1988
UST regulation, which generally apply to factory-built tanks.
Additionally, 19 state UST programs, which include approximately 60
percent of the existing universe of these UST systems, now regulate UST
systems with field-constructed tanks.
NWGLDE's list in Bulk Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection
Methods (50,000 Gallons or Greater) \48\ identifies several methods
applicable to field-constructed tanks. Third party evaluators verified
those release detection methods achieve a variety of performance
standards. EPA contacted several vendors and DLA Energy to find out
about their experiences with release detection methods for field-
constructed tanks in states, such as California, which require UST
systems with field-constructed tanks meet release detection
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluation's (NWGLDE)
List of Leak Detection Evaluations for Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that most release detection methods for factory-
built tanks are capable of monitoring UST systems with field-
constructed tanks up to 50,000 gallons. After evaluating current
methods, EPA realized existing release detection options for tanks in
Sec. 280.41 of the 1988 UST regulation are generally not applicable to
UST systems greater than 50,000 gallons because most methods are
limited by tank capacity. As a result, EPA is proposing alternative
release detection monitoring methods at different leak rates and
frequencies for UST systems with field-constructed tanks greater than
50,000 gallons than for factory-built tanks.
Based on limited data about leaks from field-constructed tanks, EPA
is proposing two release detection requirements depending on tank size.
UST systems with field-constructed tanks up to 50,000 gallons will be
required to meet requirements in Sec. 280.41(a). UST systems with
field-constructed tanks greater than 50,000 gallons will be required
either to meet requirements in Sec. 280.41(a) or use an alternative
release detection method described below. EPA estimates a subset of
larger size tanks will be able to use automatic tank gauging systems
set to achieve leak rates in 280.43(d). NWGLDE's list identifies
numerous automatic tank gauging systems capable of detecting leaks on
tanks up to 100,000 gallons.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ National Work Group on Leak Detection Evaluation's (NWGLDE)
List of Leak Detection Evaluations for Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners and operators of UST systems with field-constructed tanks
greater than 50,000 gallons will be allowed to choose several
alternative release detection methods. They must either perform annual
bulk underground tank tightness testing that can detect a 0.5 gallon
per hour leak rate or use an automatic tank gauging system that can
detect up to a two gallon per hour leak rate. Depending on the
automatic tank gauging system's leak rate, a bulk underground tank
tightness test at a rate of 0.2 gallon per hour will be required at
least every two or three years. This proposed automatic tank gauging
requirement is different from the 1988 release detection requirement
for factory-built tanks. These proposed leak
[[Page 71734]]
rates and time frames for release detection testing are appropriate
because they will detect releases within a reasonable time frame given
the large tank sizes and time needed to perform testing on these tanks.
In addition, implementing agencies may approve another method of
release detection for UST systems with field-constructed tanks if the
owner and operator can demonstrate the method can detect a release as
effectively as any of the methods listed above. The implementing agency
must consider the size of release the method can detect as well as
frequency and reliability of detection when comparing methods. Owners
and operators must comply with any conditions imposed by the
implementing agency on the method's use.
EPA acknowledges the complexities in performing release detection
on tanks significantly larger than 50,000 gallons. Perhaps the most
critical aspect is allowing sufficient time for a tank to reach a state
of equilibrium. As tank size increases, the time for a tank to reach an
equilibrium state increases significantly. Based on discussions with
release detection vendors, many larger tanks require multiple inactive
days to yield an accurate test result.
Most UST systems with field-constructed tanks are owned by DoD.
Taking these tanks out of service for multiple days to meet the 1988
release detection requirement would impede DoD's mission, be
impractical to sustain, and result in significant costs.\50\ Our
proposed alternatives for release detection provide appropriate
environmental protection without substantially compromising DoD's
mission. DoD can choose to combine an automatic tank gauge, at leak
rates achievable by automatic tank gauges on the market for monthly
tank monitoring, with precision bulk tank tightness testing. The
probabilities of detection and false alarm EPA proposes for bulk tank
tightness testing are consistent with the line leak detection
requirements in the 1988 UST regulation. DoD can also choose to perform
bulk tank tightness testing as a stand-alone method of release
detection. Staggering the test frequency will allow DoD to take tanks
out of service at different intervals without hindering its mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See section F of this preamble and Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule, available as a separate
document in the docket, for information on the cost differences
between meeting conventional release detection requirements and the
proposed alternative requirements for airport hydrant systems and
UST systems with field-constructed tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although current release detection methods can successfully perform
tests and detect leaks on pressurized piping at retail service
stations, these systems cannot achieve the same level of accuracy on
large diameter underground piping of UST systems with field-constructed
tanks. EPA is proposing piping of UST systems with field-constructed
tanks meet the same requirements proposed for airport hydrant system
piping. See section C-2 for proposed release detection requirements for
airport hydrant system piping.
Release Prevention
In Sec. 280.20, EPA is proposing new or replaced tanks and piping
have secondary containment. Secondary containment poses a much smaller
risk to the environment by providing an additional measure for
containing released regulated substances in the interstitial space
between the two walls of the UST system. Secondary containment must be:
Able to contain regulated substances released from the UST system until
they are detected and removed; able to prevent the release of regulated
substances to the environment at any time during the operational life
of the UST system; and checked for evidence of a leak at least once
every 30 days using interstitial monitoring that meets the requirements
of 280.43(g) for tanks. For UST systems with field-constructed tanks,
EPA is proposing only new and replaced tanks meet the secondary
containment requirement.
EPA discussed with DLA Energy and other vendors the feasibility of
installing secondary containment on piping of UST systems with field-
constructed tanks. Field-constructed tank system pipes range from four
to 20 inches in diameter, with lengths normally greater than 30,000
feet.\51\ Due to complex configurations and varying pipe lengths, we
believe installing secondary containment on piping of UST systems with
field-constructed tanks may be impractical. It would be difficult to
design a liquid tight barrier that could accommodate varying diameters
of underground piping. Because leaks occur at fittings and valves,
installing fittings and valves to join pipes with various diameters
along the piping run increases the likelihood of a release. Because
field-constructed tank system pipe lengths are normally significantly
greater than lengths of piping at a typical retail gasoline station, it
would be very difficult to install a system with enough sloping that
could adequately monitor the lowest point of a piping run. Finally,
condensation can accumulate in the interstice between the inner and
outer steel pipe walls, promoting corrosion of both pipe walls in the
interstitial space and increasing the likelihood of a release to the
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ DOD's DLA Energy, ``Response to EPA--Release Detection
Point Paper,'' dated 03/10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges there are engineering and design challenges (that
is, varying pipe diameter and length, along with water accumulation in
the interstitial space) when secondarily containing piping of UST
systems with field-constructed tanks.\52\ Therefore, EPA is proposing
not to require secondary containment for piping of UST systems with
field-constructed tanks. However, EPA is proposing new and replaced
field-constructed tanks meet secondary containment requirements. See
section A-2 for more information about the proposed secondary
containment requirements for tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ DOD's DLA Energy, ``Response to EPA--Release Detection
Point Paper,'' dated 03/10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing UST
systems with field-constructed tanks meet corrosion protection
requirements. Because interim prohibition has been in effect since May
1985, UST systems with field-constructed tanks generally are already
equipped with corrosion protection (that is, constructed of: Non-
corrodible material; coated and cathodically protected steel;
fiberglass reinforced plastic; or steel tank clad with fiberglass
reinforced plastic). Field-constructed UST systems made of concrete
would meet the corrosion protection requirement because they are
constructed of a non-corrodible material.
As with airport hydrant systems, EPA is proposing not to allow
adding an internal lining as a means of corrosion protection for UST
systems with field-constructed tanks that are not already upgraded. See
section C-2 for an explanation of why EPA is not allowing these USTs to
be upgraded with internal lining.
As with all other regulated UST systems, EPA is proposing UST
systems with field-constructed tanks meet spill and overfill
requirements to prevent releases to the environment. After discussion
with industry and DoD's DLA Energy, EPA is taking the position that
existing UST systems with field-constructed tanks are already equipped
with spill and overfill prevention devices that will adequately prevent
spills and overfills.
[[Page 71735]]
UST systems with field-constructed tanks installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation that do not meet the upgrade
requirements within three years after the effective date of the rule
must be permanently closed according to Sec. 280.70. EPA is requiring
permanent closure to prevent releases to the environment from UST
systems with field-constructed tanks that have not been upgraded.
Notification
To make implementing agencies aware that UST systems with field-
constructed tanks exist, EPA is proposing owners of these systems
submit a one-time notification to the implementing agency. Owners must
notify within 30 days of the effective date of the final regulation.
This will allow implementing agencies to include UST systems with
field-constructed tanks in their inventories.
Financial Responsibility
Because EPA is proposing to eliminate the deferral for UST systems
with field-constructed tanks, they will no longer be exempt from
financial responsibility requirements in subpart H. Owners and
operators will be required to comply by the effective date of the final
UST regulation. The 1988 UST financial responsibility regulation
exempts state and federal entities. Therefore, federal and state owners
and operators of UST systems with field-constructed tanks will not have
to meet the financial responsibility requirement. Nearly all UST
systems with field-constructed tanks are owned by the federal
government.
Deferred Components
As with airport hydrant systems, EPA is proposing to continue
deferring the aboveground tanks associated with UST systems with field-
constructed tanks from subparts B, C, D, E, and G. See section C-2 for
an explanation of why EPA proposes to continue deferring these
aboveground components.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Are the release detection options and time frames
appropriate and sufficient?
Are there other release detection options EPA should
consider?
Are you aware of any releases from UST systems with field-
constructed tanks? If so, what were the sources, causes, and impacts to
the environment?
Is the proposed time frame for implementing the
requirements for UST systems with field-constructed tanks reasonable?
If not, please explain why.
Should EPA consider alternative options for closing very
large UST systems in place? For example, should EPA consider requiring
removal or allowing closure in place without filling the UST?
Should EPA consider revising the date in 280.73 for
previously deferred UST systems? Revision of this date would mean that
these UST systems closed prior to the effective date of the final rule
would not have to meet Subpart G unless the implementing agency directs
otherwise based on a current or potential threat to human health and
the environment. How many of these UST systems have been closed since
December 22, 1988?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
4. Wastewater Treatment Tank Systems
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to regulate wastewater treatment tank systems that
are not part of a wastewater treatment facility regulated under Sec.
402 or 307(b) of the CWA.
This means wastewater treatment tank systems that are currently
deferred in Sec. 280.10(c)(1) will no longer be deferred from the
requirements of 40 CFR part 280 subparts B (UST Systems: Design,
Construction, Installation and Notification), C (General Operating
Requirements), D (Release Detection), E (Release Reporting,
Investigation, and Confirmation), G (Out-of-Service UST Systems and
Closure), and H (Financial Responsibility). These wastewater treatment
tanks that are currently deferred in Sec. 280.10(c)(1) will be
referred to as ``wastewater treatment tanks'' in the discussion below.
Wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation must begin meeting the
requirements of subparts B (except Sec. 280.22), C, and D within three
years of the effective date of the final UST regulation and Sec.
280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H on the effective
date of the final UST regulation. Wastewater treatment tank systems
installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation must
meet these requirements at the time of installation.
Release Detection
EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems no longer be
deferred from release detection. This means wastewater treatment tank
systems must meet the release detection requirements in 40 CFR part
280, subpart D.
Release Prevention
EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems meet corrosion
protection, spill, and overfill requirements. For corrosion protection,
EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems meet one of these:
The new tank and piping standards described in Sec.
280.20; or
Wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before
the effective date of the final UST regulation can be constructed of
metal and cathodically protected according to a code of practice
developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing
laboratory and meet the following:
[cir] Field installed cathodic protection systems must be: Designed
by a corrosion expert; designed to allow for the determination of
current operating status for impressed current systems; and operated
and maintained in accordance with Sec. 280.31 or guidelines
established by the implementing agency; and
[cir] Tanks greater than 10 years old without cathodic protection
must be assessed to ensure they are structurally sound and free of
corrosion holes prior to adding cathodic protection. The assessment
must be by internal inspection or another method the implementing
agency determines adequately assesses the tank for structural soundness
and corrosion holes.
EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or
before the effective date of the final UST regulation that are not
upgraded according to Sec. 280.21 within three years of the effective
date of the final UST regulation be permanently closed according to
Sec. 280.70. EPA is proposing internal lining not be allowed for
meeting the corrosion protection upgrade requirement.
Notification
EPA is proposing that, no later than 30 days after the effective
date of the final UST regulation, wastewater treatment tank system
owners notify appropriate implementing agencies that their systems
exist.
Financial Responsibility
EPA is proposing wastewater treatment tank systems no longer be
deferred. This means wastewater treatment tank systems that have not
been permanently closed will be subject to financial responsibility
requirements in subpart H.
[[Page 71736]]
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing to regulate wastewater treatment tank systems
(including oil-water separators) containing regulated substances in 40
CFR part 280 if they are not part of a wastewater treatment facility
regulated under Sec. 402 or 307(b) of the CWA. In the 1988 UST
regulation, EPA deferred these systems because we were uncertain about
how many of these UST systems exist and the appropriateness of some
release detection systems for these systems. EPA still is uncertain
about how many wastewater treatment tank systems exist. Removing the
deferral will allow us to determine how many are subject to 40 CFR part
280;. In addition, release detection methods are available to detect
releases from these systems. EPA is proposing to regulate these types
of UST systems to protect human health and the environment from
discharges of regulated substances contained in these systems. When
wastewater treatment tank systems are not part of a wastewater
treatment facility regulated under Sec. 402 or 307(b) of the CWA, they
must meet all requirements in 40 CFR part 280, including requirements
for design, construction, installation, and notification; general
operating; release detection; and closure.
To help determine the universe of wastewater treatment tank systems
we are proposing to regulate, EPA queried several field experts. They
were not aware of any wastewater treatment tank systems that are part
of a wastewater treatment facility not regulated under Sec. 402 or
307(b) of the CWA. Based on the experts' information, all wastewater
treatment tanks, including those at most publicly-owned treatment works
and many private treatment facilities, are all part of a wastewater
treatment facility regulated by either Sec. 402 or Sec. 307(b) of the
CWA and, therefore, are excluded from 40 CFR part 280. As a result, it
appears there are no wastewater treatment tank systems currently
deferred. However, in the event such tanks exist, they present the same
risks as other UST systems currently regulated and need to meet the
requirements in 40 CFR part 280 in order to protect human health and
the environment.
EPA is proposing that wastewater treatment tank systems installed
on or before the effective date of the final UST regulation begin
meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 280 subparts B (except Sec.
280.22), C, and D within three years of the effective date of the final
UST regulation and Sec. 280.22 of subpart B along with subparts E, G,
and H on the effective date of the final UST regulation. This includes
requirements for design, construction, and installation (including
spill, overfill, and corrosion protection); release detection;
notification; operation and maintenance; recordkeeping; and closure. In
the 1988 UST regulation, deferred wastewater treatment tank systems
were required to meet the interim prohibition requirements of Sec.
280.11 (that is, corrosion protected, made of non-corrodible materials,
or otherwise designed and constructed to prevent releases during the
operating life of the facility due to corrosion or structural failure).
Therefore, wastewater treatment tank systems are already equipped with
corrosion protection. Wastewater treatment tank systems installed after
the effective date of the final UST regulation must meet all 40 CFR
part 280 requirements at installation. Three years allows owners and
operators enough time to implement the requirements of subparts B
(except Sec. 280.22), C, and D. EPA also is taking the position that
owners and operators can implement the requirements of Sec. 280.22 of
subpart B along with subparts E, G, and H beginning on the effective
date of the final UST regulation because upgrades or special equipment
are not needed to meet the requirements in these subparts.
As with airport hydrant systems and UST systems with field-
constructed tanks, EPA is proposing not to allow adding an internal
lining as a means of corrosion protection for wastewater treatment tank
systems that are not already upgraded. See section C-2 for an
explanation of why EPA is not allowing these USTs to be upgraded with
internal lining.
Wastewater treatment tank systems installed on or before the
effective date of the final UST regulation that do not meet the upgrade
requirements within three years after the effective date of the rule
must be permanently closed according to Sec. 280.70. EPA is requiring
permanent closure to prevent releases to the environment from
wastewater treatment tank systems that have not been upgraded.
Notification
EPA is proposing owners submit a one-time notification to
implementing agencies for wastewater treatment tank systems not
regulated by the CWA. Owners must notify within 30 days of the
effective date of the final regulation. EPA is proposing this to ensure
implementing agencies are aware these systems exist.
Financial Responsibility
Because wastewater treatment tank systems will no longer be
deferred, those systems not permanently closed will need to meet
financial responsibility requirements as described in 40 CFR part 280,
subpart H. Federal- and state-owned facilities are exempt from this
requirement. Therefore, federal and state owners and operators of
wastewater treatment tank systems will not have to meet this
requirement.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
EPA is taking the position that there are no wastewater
treatment tank systems affected by this proposal. Are you aware of
systems that would be subject to this proposed change? If yes, please
provide information about the number and location of wastewater
treatment tank systems that would be regulated. For instance are there
units associated with natural gas drilling that are not regulated by
402 or 307(b)?
If there are wastewater tank systems, is it most
appropriate to regulate, exempt, or continue to defer these systems?
Please explain why.
Should EPA consider revising the date in 280.73 for
previously deferred UST systems? Revision of this date would mean that
these UST systems closed prior to the effective date of the final rule
would not have to meet Subpart G unless the implementing agency directs
otherwise based on a current or potential threat to human health and
the environment. How many of these UST systems have been closed since
December 22, 1988?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
5. Maintain Deferral for USTs Containing Radioactive Material and
Emergency Generator UST Systems at Nuclear Power Generation Facilities
Regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
EPA is not proposing changes to the 1988 UST regulation deferral in
Sec. 280.10(c)(2) and (3) for USTs containing radioactive material and
for emergency generator UST systems at nuclear power generation
facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Currently, these types of UST systems are deferred from most UST
requirements but are subject to requirements for interim prohibition,
release response and corrective action, and where applicable, lender
liability (40 CFR part 280, subparts A, F, and I,
[[Page 71737]]
respectively). EPA has decided to keep the deferral in order to retain
EPA's requirements for cleaning up releases from these USTs.
EPA compared Department of Energy (DOE) Orders \53\ and NRC
requirements to the 1988 UST regulation. This assessment revealed DOE
and NRC requirements are comparable to EPA requirements for new and
existing USTs regarding spill and overfill control (Sec. 280.30);
operation and maintenance of corrosion protection (Sec. 280.31);
compatibility (Sec. 280.32); and release detection (40 CFR part 280,
subpart D). However, there is no independent regulatory authority for
DOE and NRC to remediate releases. With that in mind, EPA is taking the
position that it is appropriate to maintain the deferral for these USTs
as it currently exists in order for EPA to continue requiring release
response and corrective action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ DOE Orders establish management objectives, identify
performance requirements and assign responsibilities consistent with
policy and regulations. See: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/types-of-directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Other Changes
1. Changes To Overfill Prevention Equipment Requirements
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.20, EPA is proposing to eliminate flow restrictors
(also called ball float valves) in vent lines as an overfill prevention
option either when an UST system is installed or when an UST system's
overfill prevention equipment is replaced.
Owners and operators using a vent line flow restrictor before the
final UST regulation becomes effective may continue using a flow
restrictor to meet the overfill prevention requirements, as long as it
restricts the flow of regulated substances into the UST when the device
activates.
Owners and operators may continue to use flow restrictors not in
vent lines (such as flow restrictors in fill pipes), automatic shutoff
devices, and high level alarms as overfill prevention for all UST
systems.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
Spills and overfills are a common cause of UST system releases (see
sections B-2 and B-3 for additional discussion). Through extensive
stakeholder outreach, EPA identified vent line flow restrictors as a
significant concern for operability and safety. To reduce the frequency
of UST releases due to operability and to address system safety and
personnel safety concerns, EPA is proposing to eliminate vent line flow
restrictors for new installations and replacements.
Operability--For a vent line flow restrictor to operate
properly, the device must restrict the flow of regulated substance into
the UST when the flow restrictor engages. If the tank top is not liquid
or vapor tight, flow into the UST is not restricted because vapors
continue to escape through these non-tight areas. If vapors continue to
escape the UST, there is no pressure buildup in the vapor area of the
tank, resulting in no reduced flow rate into the UST. Examples where
non-tight tank tops may result in ineffective flow restrictors include:
Loose tank bungs or other tank top components; tanks with coaxial stage
I vapor recovery installed; and tanks with both tank top and remote
fill areas.
System safety--Vent line flow restrictors can create
safety concerns when they activate. USTs can become over pressurized
and damaged during a pressurized delivery. The 2005 version of the
Petroleum Equipment Institute's installation standard, RP100,
recommends against using vent restriction devices because the vent line
flow restrictor pressurizes the UST, creating a hazardous condition
when the device operates as designed.
Personnel safety--Delivery personnel can be sprayed with
regulated substances when they disconnect the delivery hose from the
fill pipe and the vent line flow restrictor activates.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
EPA considered eliminating or phasing out vent line flow
restrictors for currently installed UST systems, but finds the cost
burden for owners and operators could be high. Please provide input and
information in support of or against eliminating or phasing out vent
line flow restrictors.
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
2. Internal Linings That Fail the Periodic Lining Inspection and Cannot
Be Repaired
What is EPA proposing?
In Sec. 280.21, EPA is proposing owners and operators permanently
close an UST that uses internal lining as the sole method of corrosion
protection when both of these conditions exist:
A lining inspection determines the internal lining is no
longer performing according to original design specifications; and
The internal lining cannot be repaired according to a code
of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or
independent testing laboratory.
For tanks with both internal lining and cathodic protection, EPA is
proposing to allow owners and operators continue operating an UST if it
fails the lining inspection and cannot be repaired if both of these
criteria are met:
The cathodic protection is operated and maintained
according to Sec. 280.31; and
The tank was assessed and found to be structurally sound
and free of corrosion holes when the cathodic protection was added to
the tank.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
About 3 percent of tanks today rely on internal lining as the sole
method of corrosion protection to meet the 1988 UST regulation.\54\
Tanks that are internally lined to meet the 1988 UST regulation
corrosion protection requirement at Sec. 280.21 are typically older,
bare steel tanks installed before 1986. The 1988 UST regulation
preamble says that internal lining, when used as the sole method for
corrosion protection, is not regarded as a permanent upgrade. However,
it is adequate if the lining continues to meet original design
specifications. If the internal lining no longer meets original design
specifications and cannot be repaired according to industry codes, then
the lined tank is subject to unprotected tank requirements and must be
replaced after 1998. However, the language from the 1988 preamble was
not included in Sec. 280.21(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to revise the internal lining requirements to
match EPA's intent of replacing internally lined tanks that fail a
lining inspection and cannot be repaired according to a code of
practice. EPA is proposing that a lined tank must be permanently closed
if, when inspected, it cannot be repaired according to a code of
practice.
Owners and operators may continue using internal lining to meet the
corrosion protection requirement, as long as:
[[Page 71738]]
The internal lining is periodically inspected according to
Sec. 280.21(b)(1)(ii); and
The internal lining passes the inspection or is repaired
so it meets original design specifications according to a code of
practice developed by a nationally recognized association or
independent testing laboratory.
Consistent with current EPA policy,\55\ tanks using the combination
of cathodic protection and internal lining for corrosion protection are
not required to be closed if the internal lining fails and cannot be
repaired as long as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ EPA UST Technical Compendium Question and Answer
14: http://epa.gov/oust/compend/nus.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cathodic protection is operated and maintained
according to Sec. 280.31; and
The tank was assessed and found to be structurally sound
and free of corrosion holes when the cathodic protection was added to
the tank.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Should EPA consider requiring lined tanks be closed when
they fail a lining inspection independent of whether the lining can be
repaired? If yes, please provide information to support your answer.
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
3. Notification Requirements
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing these notification requirement changes in Sec.
280.22:
Notify implementing agencies within 30 days of assuming
ownership of an UST system. A new owner is required to submit a form
which provides the new owner's name, mailing address, physical location
of USTs, and name of previous owner;
Require owners who bring new UST systems into service
notify implementing agencies of USTs, rather than state or local
agencies designated by EPA;
Merge the paragraph about minimum information with the
paragraph explaining what forms to use for notification and delete the
minimum information paragraph;
Require owners of deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to
require a one-time notification to implementing agencies within 30 days
of the effective date of the final UST regulation.
EPA is proposing changes to the ``Notification For Underground
Storage Tanks'' form in Appendix I.
EPA is proposing changes to the form as a result of today's
proposal, and to change ``State'' to ``Implementing Agency'' throughout
the form.
EPA is proposing a new form titled ``Notification of Ownership
Change for Underground Storage Tanks'' under Appendix II.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing the new ownership change notification to more
effectively administer the UST program. EPA required a one-time
notification of regulated USTs by May 8, 1986,\56\ and owners who
purchased newly installed UST systems completed and submitted
notification forms to implementing agencies. However, EPA did not
require people notify implementing agencies when acquiring a regulated
UST, such as when purchasing an existing service station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Solid Waste Disposal Act Sec. 9002(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a requirement to notify when persons assume ownership of
UST systems, implementing agencies have difficulty administering the
UST program. Persons can assume ownership through purchase,
inheritance, acquisition of property, or other means. EPA estimates on
average 10 percent of retail UST facilities change ownership in a given
year.\57\ Any communication or outreach is impaired if implementing
agencies do not know the correct owners of a large proportion of
regulated USTs. When final, this change will ensure implementing
agencies know the current ownership of regulated UST systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least 48 of 56 states and territories realized this need and
instituted some form of ownership change notification. EPA is following
the example of these states and will require an ownership change
notification to more effectively administer the UST program.
EPA is proposing to include a form in Appendix II titled
``Notification of Ownership Change for Underground Storage Tanks.'' The
new form specifies the information persons need to submit to the
implementing agency after they become owners of underground storage
tanks. EPA is proposing these owners provide their name, address, phone
number, name of the facility, location of USTs, as well as the name,
address, and phone number of the previous owner.
EPA is also proposing owners who bring UST systems into service
notify implementing agencies, rather than state and local agencies
identified by EPA. This change is needed for two reasons. First, an
unintended result of the existing requirement is owners in Indian
country submitted notification forms to state or local agencies, not to
EPA, even though EPA is the implementing agency in Indian country. When
final, this change will greatly assist EPA in implementing the UST
program in these areas. Second, many of the agency names and addresses
EPA identified in 1988 are no longer accurate. When final, this change
will provide owners with clarity about where to send notification forms
and better accommodate changes of implementing agencies.
EPA is proposing to merge the paragraphs discussing the minimum
information owners and operators need to submit and the form to be
submitted to implementing agencies. This will reduce redundancy and
ease understanding of this requirement. As a result, a separate
paragraph explaining what minimum information to submit for
notification will be unnecessary.
EPA is proposing owners of previously deferred UST systems notify
implementing agencies within 30 days of the effective date of the final
UST regulation. EPA is proposing this one-time notification because
owners of previously deferred UST systems brought into service after
May 8, 1986 were not required to notify implementing agencies. Because
EPA is proposing to regulate previously deferred UST systems and to
ensure they meet requirements of the final UST regulation, it is
imperative implementing agencies receive notice about these UST
systems.
Due to EPA's proposed changes to the UST regulation, we are
proposing changes to the notification form under Appendix I. This will
make the form request appropriate information according to today's
proposal. For instance, the release detection section of the 1988 UST
regulation form did not include statistical inventory reconciliation or
bulk tightness testing. The proposed form includes these methods.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is a one-time notification for all UST owners also
necessary to effectively administer the UST program in jurisdictions
(eight states and
[[Page 71739]]
territories and Indian country) where implementing agencies do not
currently require ownership change notification? EPA is posing this
question because of the high rate of UST ownership changes and
resulting likelihood implementing agencies do not know who owns
numerous UST systems.
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
4. Alternative Fuels And Compatibility
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing changes to two definitions in Sec. 280.12 of the
1988 UST regulation.
Regulated substance--delete ``* * * derived from crude oil
though \58\ [sic] processes of separation, conversion, upgrading, and
finishing * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ This is an error in 40 CFR 280; ``though'' should be
``through.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor fuel--include explanatory language that a petroleum
or petroleum-based substance is typically used to operate a motor
engine and provide example products (motor gasoline, aviation gasoline,
No. 1 or No. 2 diesel fuel, or any blend containing one or more of
these substances, such as motor gasoline blended with alcohol) meeting
the definition.
In addition, EPA is proposing changes to the compatibility
requirement in Sec. 280.32 of the 1988 UST regulation. These changes
explain how owners and operators storing certain regulated substances
must demonstrate that their UST systems are compatible with substances
stored. Specifically, EPA is proposing:
Owners and operators storing any regulated substance
blended with greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent
biodiesel, or any other regulated substance identified by the
implementing agency, must use one or more of the following methods to
demonstrate UST system compatibility with these regulated substances:
[cir] Certification or listing of UST system components by a
nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory for use with the
fuel stored;
[cir] Equipment or component manufacturer approval. The
manufacturer's approval must be in writing; indicate an affirmative
statement of compatibility; specify the range of ethanol or biodiesel
blends the component is compatible with; and be from the equipment or
component manufacturer; or
[cir] Another method determined by the implementing agency to be no
less protective of human health and the environment than the previously
listed methods.
Owners and operators must maintain the following records
(according to Sec. 280.34) for the life of the equipment or component:
[cir] Documentation of compliance with the above section as
applicable; and
[cir] Records of all equipment or components installed or replaced
after the effective date of the final UST regulation. At a minimum,
each record must include the date of installation or replacement,
manufacturer, and model.
EPA is also proposing to delete these codes of practice.
American Petroleum Institute Publication 1626, ``Storing
and Handling Ethanol and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at Distribution
Terminals and Service Stations''
American Petroleum Institute Publication 1627, ``Storage
and Handling of Gasoline-Methanol/Cosolvent Blends at Distribution
Terminals and Service Stations''
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
Regulated Substance and Motor Fuel Definitions
EPA is proposing a change in the regulated substance definition to
clarify that petroleum does not need to be derived from crude oil in
order to be regulated when stored in USTs. The preamble to the
supplement to the proposal for the original UST regulation indicates
that petroleum products can be derived from other materials, such as
biomass, plant material, organic waste, coal, and shale oil.\59\
Petroleum is comprised of a complex blend of hydrocarbons regardless of
its source material; therefore, all petroleum poses risks to human
health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 USTs; Supplement to Proposed
Rule,'' 52 Federal Register 246 (23 December 1987), pg. 48640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people interpreted the 1988 UST regulation definition of
regulated substance as applying to petroleum USTs only if the petroleum
was derived from crude oil. Over time, this misinterpretation may
become more problematic as the amount of petroleum derived from non-
crude oil based products, such as natural gasoline, increases as a
result of requirements in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. Today's regulated substance clarification will eliminate
uncertainty about the regulatory status of tanks storing petroleum
products derived from sources other than crude oil.
EPA is proposing a change in the motor fuel definition to better
accommodate new motor fuels that may be marketed and stored in the
future. The 1988 UST regulation definition listed motor fuel products,
leading to confusion as to whether new fuels, such as petroleum blended
with ethanol or biodiesel, are motor fuels. Today's proposal clarifies
the motor fuel definition to explain that it is any fuel typically used
to operate a motor engine.
Compatibility
EPA understands that the chemical and physical properties of
ethanol and biodiesel can be more degrading to certain UST system
materials than petroleum alone. As the use of ethanol- and biodiesel-
blended fuels increases, EPA is concerned that not all UST system
components are compatible with these fuel blends.
Gasoline containing 10 percent or less ethanol (known as E10) has
been used in parts of the United States for many years, and UST
equipment manufacturers accommodated the E10 market by producing
compatible equipment. According to the Renewable Fuels Association,
ethanol is blended into over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the
country,\60\ predominantly as E10. Recently, there has been a movement
toward higher blends of ethanol, due in part to federal and state laws
encouraging the increased use of biofuels. While most UST system
equipment and components are compatible with E10, blends greater than
10 percent ethanol do not have a long history of storage and may not be
compatible with certain materials used in UST systems. According to a
2011 report published by U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National
Laboratory,\61\ some elastomeric materials are particularly affected by
intermediate ethanol blends and certain sealants may not be suitable
for any ethanol-blended fuels. A 2007 report from Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) \62\
[[Page 71740]]
evaluated the effect of 85 percent ethanol and 25 percent ethanol
blends on dispenser components. Results indicated some materials used
in the manufacture of seals were degraded more when exposed to the 25
percent ethanol test fluid than when exposed to the 85 percent ethanol
test fluid. Other literature suggests ethanol fuel blends can be more
aggressive toward certain materials than independent fuel constituents,
with maximum polymer swelling observed at approximately 15 percent
ethanol by volume.\63\ Therefore, EPA is clarifying the compatibility
requirements for owners and operators who choose to store regulated
substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Renewable Fuels Association, ``Building Bridges to a More
Sustainable Future: 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook.'' http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1.
\61\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``Intermediate Ethanol
Blends Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: Elastomers,
Metals, and Sealants'' (March 2011).
\62\ Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., ``Underwriters
Laboratories Research Program on Material Compatibility and Test
Protocols for E85 Dispensing Equipment'' (December 2007). Available
in the UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
\63\ Westbrook, P.A., ``Compatibility and Permeability of
Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in Underground Storage and Dispensing
Equipment'' (January 1999). Available in the UST Docket under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also clarifying the compatibility requirements for owners
and operators who choose to store regulated substances containing
greater than 20 percent biodiesel. Although the total use of biodiesel
is significantly less than that of ethanol, it has become increasingly
available across the United States and may also be incompatible with
certain materials used in UST systems. Pure biodiesel (B100), for
example, has known compatibility issues with certain materials.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition,\64\
``B100 will degrade, soften, or seep through some hoses, gaskets,
seals, elastomers, glues, and plastics with prolonged exposure * * *
Nitrile rubber compounds, polypropylene, polyvinyl, and Tygon[supreg]
materials are particularly vulnerable to B100.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ``Biodiesel Handling
and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.'' (2009). Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the properties of very low blends of biodiesel (B5 or
less) are so similar to those of petroleum diesel that ASTM
International (ASTM) considers conventional diesel that contains up to
5 percent biodiesel to meet its ``Standard Specification for Diesel
Fuel Oils'' \65\. For biodiesel blends between 5 and 100 percent, there
is very little compatibility information; however, NREL's handling and
use guide concludes that biodiesel blends of B20 or less have less of
an effect on materials and very low blends of biodiesel (for example,
B5 and B2) `` * * * have no noticeable effect on materials
compatibility.'' \66\ In addition, fleet service sites have stored B20
in USTs for years, and EPA is not aware of compatibility-related
releases associated with those USTs storing B20. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to require tank owners and operators who store greater than
20 percent biodiesel in their UST systems demonstrate compatibility of
UST equipment by one of the methods proposed in Sec. 280.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ ASTM Standard D975, 2010c ``Standard Specification for
Diesel Fuel Oils,'' ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010,
DOI: 10.1520/D0975-10C, http://www.astm.org.
\66\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ``Biodiesel Handling
and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.'' (2009). Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid risk of increased releases due to incompatibility of
ethanol or biodiesel blends with UST system components, EPA is
proposing several options for owners and operators to demonstrate that
their UST systems are compatible with regulated substances containing
greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel.
These options provide owners and operators with flexibility in
demonstrating compatibility, yet still protect human health and the
environment. In the past, tank owners typically demonstrated
compatibility by using equipment certified or listed by a nationally
recognized, independent testing laboratory, such as Underwriters
Laboratories (UL). Many UST components in the ground today were
manufactured before regulated substances containing ethanol or
biodiesel existed and are not approved by nationally recognized,
independent testing laboratories for use with these fuel blends.
Currently, certain tanks and piping have been tested and are listed by
UL for use with higher-level ethanol blends. Many other components of
the UST system, such as leak detection devices, sealants, and
containment sumps, may not be listed by UL or another nationally
recognized, independent testing laboratory for use with these blends.
In addition, EPA is not aware of any nationally recognized,
independent testing laboratory that has performed testing on UST system
components with biodiesel-blended fuels. Absent certification or
listing from a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory,
or other verification that components may be used with anything beyond
conventional fuels, the suitability of these components for use with
ethanol or biodiesel blends comes into question. As a result, EPA is
providing options for demonstrating compatibility to reduce the risk of
releases due to material incompatibility. Owners and operators choosing
to store regulated substances blended with greater than 10 percent
ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel must demonstrate
compatibility of the UST system before storing those regulated
substances.
EPA is proposing owners and operators use one of these two methods
for demonstrating compatibility of UST equipment or components with
regulated substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or
greater than 20 percent biodiesel: using equipment or components that
are certified or listed by a nationally recognized, independent testing
laboratory for use with the fuel stored; or using equipment or
components approved by the manufacturer to be compatible with the fuel
stored. In addition, implementing agencies will have the flexibility to
evaluate and allow other methods, if they are no less protective of
human health and the environment than those EPA is proposing today.
For those components tested and approved by a nationally
recognized, independent testing laboratory, owners and operators will
be able to demonstrate compatibility solely by keeping records of these
components. In this instance, the testing laboratory's listing,
labeling, or approval demonstrates the equipment or component's
suitability to be used with the regulated substance stored, which means
owners and operators will be able to demonstrate compatibility by
retaining equipment or component records.
Owners and operators will also be able to demonstrate compatibility
by obtaining manufacturer's approval of components' compatibility with
the regulated substance to be stored. The manufacturer's approval must
be in writing and include an affirmative statement that the component
is compatible with the fuel blend stored. To add clarity for tank
owners and operators, the manufacturer's approval must also specify the
range of fuel blends for which the component is compatible. Finally,
the manufacturer's approval must be issued from the equipment or
component manufacturer, not another entity (such as the installer or
distributor). A manufacturer's approval will enable owners and
operators to demonstrate compatibility for components not approved for
use by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory. It will
also provide confidence for implementing agencies that the component is
compatible with the fuel stored.
EPA is proposing an additional option which would allow
implementing
[[Page 71741]]
agencies to approve other methods for demonstrating compatibility with
regulated substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or
greater than 20 percent biodiesel. Implementing agencies will be able
to approve methods they consider no less protective of human health and
the environment in addition to the manufacturer's approval or the
listing, labeling, or approval by a nationally recognized, independent
testing laboratory. This will provide owners and operators with
additional flexibility when new methods to determine UST system
component compatibility are developed.
Although these methods for demonstrating compatibility will apply
to UST systems storing regulated substances containing greater than 10
percent ethanol and greater than 20 percent biodiesel, EPA is proposing
to extend the methods to other regulated substances identified by
implementing agencies. This will provide implementing agencies with
flexibility when new regulated substances (for example, biobutanol)
enter the fuel market and allow implementing agencies to apply these
methods for determining UST system compatibility to other regulated
substances.
EPA is proposing owners and operators maintain records for the life
of UST systems, if the UST system stores regulated substances
containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent
biodiesel or another regulated substance identified by implementing
agencies. Owners and operators will be required to retain equipment or
component records in order to demonstrate their systems are compatible
with these regulated substances. Without records of the equipment or
components, owners and operators will not be allowed to store regulated
substances containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than
20 percent biodiesel in their UST systems.
To demonstrate compatibility with regulated substances stored in
UST systems, owners and operators of new and replaced equipment or
components must retain records for the life of the equipment or
component. This will ensure new and replaced equipment and components
are compatible with the regulated substances stored. As equipment or
components are replaced, records will be available for all UST system
equipment or components, making it easier for owners and operators to
demonstrate compatibility with new regulated substances.
Owners and operators must demonstrate compatibility for the
following UST system equipment or components: Tank or internal tank
lining; piping; line leak detector; flexible connectors; drop tube;
spill and overfill prevention equipment and components; submersible
turbine pump equipment and components; sealants (including pipe dope
and thread sealant); fittings; gaskets; bushings; couplings; boots;
containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and under
dispenser containment); release detection floats, sensors, and probes;
fill and riser caps; and the product shear valve. These equipment or
components are a subset of an UST system, as defined by Sec. 280.12,
which, if incompatible, would lead to a liquid release to the
environment.
EPA is clarifying that the requirements in this section also apply
to both newly installed equipment or components and equipment where one
or more components are replaced. For newly installed equipment
comprised of multiple individual, smaller components and assembled by
the manufacturer, some manufacturers provide a compatibility
certification for the equipment as a whole. For example, a manufacturer
may certify the entire submersible turbine pump as being compatible.
The submersible turbine pump certification would include all components
(gaskets, sealants, bushings, etc.) of the equipment assembled by the
manufacturer. Therefore, an owner may obtain one certification for
newly installed manufacturer-assembled equipment, as long as the
manufacturer certifies the entire piece of equipment as compatible.
However, over the lifetime of a typical UST system, equipment is likely
to require maintenance, which may involve replacing components such as
gaskets, sealants, and bushings. It is important for tank owners to use
compatible replacement components, especially since these components
are sometimes constructed of materials that are not compatible with
biofuel blends. Therefore, components (such as gaskets, sealants,
bushings, etc.) replaced after the equipment was originally installed
will not be covered by the original manufacturer's approval. Owners and
operators will need to obtain manufacturer's certification indicating
the replaced component is compatible with the regulated substance
stored in the UST system.
These proposed changes will protect human health and the
environment from potential additional releases as a result of
incompatible UST systems. Also, the changes are not overly burdensome,
nor do they require costly retrofits. These changes will give owners
and operators flexibility, yet provide EPA with confidence that UST
systems will be compatible with new fuel blends when owners and
operators use one or more of the proposed methods to determine
compatibility. The additional language also provides owners and
operators with certainty on what is acceptable in demonstrating UST
system compatibility with the substances stored.
EPA is also proposing to delete two codes of practice listed in the
1988 UST regulation. EPA included codes of practice to help owners and
operators demonstrate compliance with the compatibility requirement.
EPA is now proposing methods for determining compatibility, so
referencing codes of practice is unnecessary.
In August 2010, American Petroleum Institute (API) published an
updated version of API Recommended Practice 1626. Today's proposal
incorporates several methods API recommends owners and operators
storing blends of greater than 10 percent ethanol use to demonstrate
UST system compatibility. If owners and operators follow API
Recommended Practice 1626, Section 7 requirements, for regulated
substances blended with ethanol, they will meet today's proposed Sec.
280.32(b) changes.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
How many UST systems currently store petroleum not derived
from crude oil (such as natural gasoline)?
Should EPA consider allowing professional engineers to
make compatibility determinations?
Are there additional methods for effectively demonstrating
compatibility? If yes, please provide details.
Are there other alternatives to demonstrating
compatibility (such as using secondarily contained USTs) that tank
owners and operators should be allowed to use, that are no less
protective of human health and the environment?
Are the proposed criteria for manufacturer's approval
reasonable?
Should EPA consider tiering methods? For example, if an
approval or listing from a nationally recognized, independent third
party is available, then the manufacturer approval is not an option for
that component?
Should EPA waive the compatibility requirement for UST
systems with secondary containment and interstitial monitoring? Why or
why not?
While this proposal requires owners and operators maintain
records to demonstrate compatibility, we are not requiring owners and
operators transfer
[[Page 71742]]
records to new owners and operators. Should EPA consider requiring
records transfer?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
5. Improving Repairs
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to revise the definition of repair in Sec. 280.12
to:
Clarify that all UST system components, including piping,
spill prevention equipment, overfill prevention equipment, corrosion
protection equipment, and release detection equipment are included
under the repairs allowed section of the regulation, and
Remove the link that repairs are only associated with a
release from an UST system by adding to the definition suspected
release and equipment that has failed to function properly.
For repairs to secondary containment areas of UST systems, overfill
prevention equipment, and spill prevention equipment, EPA is proposing
to add tests after a repair to the repairs allowed section (Sec.
280.33). The tests after repair requirements for these areas are the
same as those for periodic spill and overfill tests discussed in
sections B-2 and B-3. The tests for interstitial areas after a repair
and periodic interstitial integrity (in section B-4) are the same,
except tanks with continuous interstitial sensors must perform a
vacuum, pressure, or liquid test following the repair. These tests must
be conducted within 30 days of a repair.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
Clarification of UST system components in the definition of
repair--EPA is proposing to add the following UST system components to
the definition of repair: Piping; spill prevention equipment; overfill
prevention equipment; corrosion protection equipment; and release
detection equipment. By adding these UST system components, EPA is
making it clear that these specific components are subject to the
repairs allowed section of the regulation. This means owners and
operators performing repairs on these UST system components must follow
the repairs allowed section (Sec. 280.33). The 1988 UST regulation
definition of repair uses the generic term UST system component and
provides less detail about what an UST system component is.
Including repairs not associated with a confirmed release or
suspected release from the UST system--It is common practice for owners
and operators to fix UST components that have not caused a release or
suspected release of product from the UST system. However, the repair
definition in the 1988 UST regulation does not consider these non-
release fixes as repairs. EPA is proposing to modify the repair
definition to include the concept of repairing equipment that failed to
function properly, delinking a repair with a release from the UST
system. This proposed change will ensure repair activities not
associated with a release are conducted properly. For example, under
the 1988 UST regulation, fixing a cathodic protection system would not
be considered a repair because the UST component likely has not yet
caused a release of product from the UST system. In addition, EPA is
proposing to include a suspected release as part of the definition, so
repairs associated with suspected releases are covered under the repair
definition.
By removing the link between repair and release, EPA is proposing
owners and operators meet the repairs allowed section (Sec. 280.33)
when fixing UST system components that have not caused a release of
product from the UST system. This means owners and operators will need
to have repairs performed in accordance with a code of practice
developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing
laboratory and test the equipment after the repair is completed.
Tests after repairs--To ensure equipment is operating as intended
after a repair, EPA is proposing to require tests within 30 days of
repairing spill, overfill, and secondary containment equipment. Except
for interstitial integrity tests in USTs with continuous interstitial
sensors, the tests after repairs proposal uses periodic tests described
in sections B-2, B-3, and B-4. For USTs with continuous interstitial
sensors, owners and operators must conduct vacuum, pressure, or liquid
tests to ensure the secondary containment area is operating as
intended. EPA is proposing to require tests because sensors alone
cannot immediately determine whether repairs were completed properly.
Vacuum, pressure, and liquid tests will be able to ensure the adequacy
of the repair by evaluating the interstitial area. Tests after repairs
will only apply to those UST components being repaired and not to all
components at the UST site.
EPA is proposing that tests of spill, overfill, and interstitial
areas after a repair occur within 30 days of the repair. EPA chose 30
days to be consistent with the time frame for the tightness testing
requirement after repairing tanks and piping in Sec. 280.33.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Should EPA consider changing the time frame for conducting
an interstitial, spill, or overfill test from 30 days to before
returning the UST system to service?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
6. Phase Out Vapor Monitoring and Groundwater Monitoring as Release
Detection Methods
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to phase out vapor monitoring and groundwater
monitoring as methods of release detection for tanks and piping in
Sec. 280.43.
Owners and operators of UST systems installed before the effective
date of the final UST regulation will have five years to comply with
another release detection monitoring method in 40 CFR 280, subpart D.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
Although EPA is proposing new and replaced tanks and piping use
interstitial monitoring (see section A-2), UST systems installed before
the effective date of the final UST regulation may continue to use
internal or interstitial release detection methods listed in subpart D
of the 1988 UST regulation. Automatic tank gauging and statistical
inventory reconciliation are internal monitoring methods and are
characterized by activities within the tank or piping to monitor any
discrepancies. Groundwater monitoring and vapor monitoring are external
monitoring methods and are characterized by monitoring external areas
(specifically groundwater or soil-vapor) that surround an UST system.
An interstitial method monitors the space between tank or piping walls
and detects a release before it reaches the environment.
EPA is proposing to phase out the two external release detection
methods--vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring--because these
methods detect releases well after they enter the environment. In
addition, there are inherent problems with installing and confirming
proper use of these methods. As methods of release detection, they
[[Page 71743]]
are less protective of the environment than others. Regulators
inspecting UST systems report common problems they encounter when
inspecting UST systems using vapor or groundwater monitoring methods,
such as an insufficient number of wells or wells improperly located to
sufficiently monitor for potential releases.
Vapor monitoring problems pertain to confirming whether certain
site conditions exist. In particular, surrounding soil should be
sufficiently porous to readily allow diffusion into the excavation
area; the ability to measure vapors should not be affected by
groundwater, rainfall, or soil moisture; and background contamination
should not interfere with monitoring methods.
A commonly encountered groundwater monitoring problem is that
groundwater, at times, can be more than 20 feet from the ground
surface, due to seasonal water table variations. According to the 1988
UST regulation, groundwater must never be more than 20 feet from the
ground surface and well slotting must be designed to allow entry of
regulated substances on the water table into the well under both high
and low groundwater conditions. Unfortunately, many wells are not
installed appropriately resulting in the depth of groundwater
requirement not being met.
Many UST facilities do not have site assessments that confirm
whether site conditions support use of vapor monitoring and groundwater
monitoring release detection. In instances when site assessments are
available, they are often not thorough enough to verify whether
regulatory requirements are met. Without site assessments, regulators
are unable to determine whether site conditions are met. Reassessing
sites to verify if site conditions support use of vapor monitoring or
groundwater monitoring is intrusive and costly. Some UST facilities
switch between vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring, depending
on seasonal variations. This practice further complicates using these
methods, such as whether groundwater rendered the vapor monitoring
inoperable or whether the wells are designed for both methods. Even if
optimal operating conditions are met in both of these external methods,
by the time a release is detected, contamination has already
significantly impacted the environment.
In contrast, internal release detection methods have an advantage
over external monitoring methods. Internal methods provide an early
warning to owners and operators because they indicate unusual operating
conditions, such as water in the tank or incremental loss of product.
An early warning alerts owners and operators to take action and
minimize releases to the environment.
EPA estimates approximately 5 percent of all active UST systems are
using vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring to comply with release
monitoring requirements.\67\ Because of the time it may take for owners
and operators to convert to another method of release detection, five
years will allow sufficient time for UST system owners and operators to
begin using another method of release detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Is five years for owners and operators using vapor
monitoring and groundwater monitoring to switch to another method too
short, too long, or an appropriate length?
Are there circumstances at existing facilities that would
warrant a subset of UST systems to use vapor monitoring or groundwater
monitoring beyond the proposed period of five years. If so, what are
the circumstances?
Is EPA's assumption of 5 percent accurate for the number
of active UST systems using vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring
to comply with release detection requirements?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
7. Interstitial Monitoring Results, Including Interstitial Alarms,
Under Subpart E
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing clarifications of UST owners' and operators'
responsibilities regarding interstitial monitoring results, including
alarms, under 40 CFR part 280, subpart E. Specifically, EPA is
proposing these changes:
Section 280.50(b)--add interstitial spaces of secondarily
contained UST systems and provide examples of unusual operating
conditions.
Section 280.50(c)--clarify that an alarm during release
detection monitoring is subject to the reporting requirement.
Section 280.52(a)--require owners and operators of UST
systems with secondary containment using interstitial monitoring follow
integrity test requirements (proposed in section B-4) to confirm a
suspected release, and clarify actions UST owners and operators must
take if a test confirms a leak or indicates a release exists.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
The 1988 UST regulation adequately covers interstitial monitoring.
Nonetheless, EPA is proposing these changes to reinforce that a leak
into an interstitial space of a secondarily contained UST system is
also a potential threat to the environment and must be investigated,
addressed, and as necessary, reported.
In section A-2, EPA is proposing interstitial monitoring for all
new or replaced tanks and piping. As new systems are installed,
interstitial monitoring will become more widely used as a method of
release detection. With this in mind, EPA wants UST owners and
operators to clearly understand how interstitial monitoring results,
including interstitial alarms (and alarms associated with other types
of release detection monitoring if interstitial monitoring is not
used), must be handled.
In the 1988 UST regulation, EPA intended that product or water in
the interstice, and alarms signifying the presence of those conditions,
are unusual operating conditions and must be investigated
appropriately. However, EPA did not indicate how UST owners and
operators were to address discrepancies with interstitial spaces. As a
result, some UST owners and operators were uncertain about how best to
respond to interstitial monitoring results and alarms associated with
interstitial monitoring that indicate a release may have occurred. This
section provides specific information to alleviate uncertainty for
owners and operators.
Add interstitial spaces of secondarily contained UST
systems and provide examples of unusual operating conditions
[cir] Two unusual operating condition examples--water in the
interstitial space (presumably from a breach in the secondary wall) and
product in the interstitial space (presumably from a breach in the
primary wall)--are important along with other suspected release
conditions listed in the 1988 UST regulation. Water or product in the
interstitial space indicates there is a problem with the UST system
that needs to be resolved. As a result, EPA is specifying these
conditions as unusual operating conditions and will
[[Page 71744]]
require UST owners and operators investigate and address them.
Clarify that an alarm during release detection monitoring,
which indicates a potential release or compromise of the interstitial
space, is subject to the reporting requirement
[cir] UST owners and operators must appropriately address release
detection monitoring alarms. For example, continuously monitored
systems will trigger an alarm indicating a potential release or that
the interstitial space has been compromised. UST owners and operators
must appropriately address all alarms in the same manner. EPA is adding
interstitial monitoring in subpart E to emphasize its importance
because the proposed secondary containment requirement for new and
replaced system discussed in section A-2 will increase the use of
interstitial monitoring. UST owners and operators will not be required
to report alarms from defective equipment or false alarms as suspected
releases. Also, UST owners and operators will not have to report leaks
that are contained in the interstitial space, but they must investigate
and repair the problems. However, as required in Sec. 280.43(g),
groundwater, soil moisture, or rainfall must not render the testing or
sampling method inoperative so that a release could go undetected for
more than 30 days. Finally, regulated substance in the interstitial
space poses safety concerns and can also affect testing and sampling
methods. For safety reasons, owners and operators must ensure the
method of interstitial monitoring continues to operate and should
always remove any regulated substance from the interstitial area.
Require owners and operators of UST systems with secondary
containment using interstitial monitoring follow integrity test
requirements (proposed in section B-4) to confirm a suspected release
and clarify actions UST owners and operators must take if a test
confirms a leak or indicates a release exists
[cir] Requiring UST owners and operators to follow integrity test
requirements of the interstitial area will ensure both inner and outer
walls are checked when investigating a suspected release. EPA also is
taking the position that it is important to clarify actions UST owners
and operators must take if a test confirms a leak or indicates a
release exists. If a leak is confirmed, UST owners and operators must
correct or address the problem. In addition to options listed in the
1988 UST regulation, EPA is proposing to include closure as another
option. Nothing in this proposal changes the requirement in subpart F
for UST owners and operators to take corrective action if a release
occurred.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
EPA did not identify specific issues for comment.
E. General Updates
1. Incorporate Newer Technologies
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to include technologies developed since issuing
the 1988 UST regulation and clarify the use of those technologies. EPA
is proposing these changes:
Tanks--revise steel-fiberglass-reinforced-plastic
composite in Sec. 280.20(a)(3) to steel tank clad or jacketed with a
non-corrodible material. UST owners and operators will be able to use
jacketed tanks to meet EPA's proposed requirement for secondary
containment and interstitial monitoring described in section A-2.
Piping--revise fiberglass-reinforced plastic in Sec.
280.20(b)(1) to non-corrodible material. This will allow UST owners and
operators to install other piping, such as flexible plastic, that does
not corrode.
Release detection--add two release detection options:
Continuous in-tank leak detection (CITLD) and statistical inventory
reconciliation (SIR). UST owners and operators will be able to use
these additional options to meet release detection requirements in
Sec. 280.40, as long as the methods meet the following:
[cir] CITLD--automatic tank gauge operating on an uninterrupted
basis or operating within a process that allows the system to gather
incremental measurements to determine the leak status of the tank at
least once every 30 days.
[cir] SIR--quantitative analysis with a calculated leak rate
capable of detecting a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate within 30 days
with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false
alarm of 0.05 is required, based on a threshold that does not exceed
one-half the minimum leak rate.
EPA is proposing to list three additional continuous interstitial
monitoring methods in Sec. 280.43(g): Liquid-filled, pressure, and
vacuum interstitial monitoring. These methods must be capable of
detecting a breach in both the inner and outer walls of the tank and
piping.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
Since EPA promulgated the 1988 UST regulation, newer tank, piping,
and release detection technologies have been developed and are being
used. EPA is proposing this change to acknowledge newer UST related
technologies and clarify the use of these technologies.
Clad and Jacketed Tanks
The 1988 UST regulation allows these tank technologies: Coated and
cathodically protected steel; fiberglass reinforced plastic; steel-
fiberglass-reinforced-plastic composite; and metal without additional
corrosion protection, provided that a corrosion expert determines the
site is not corrosive enough to cause a release from corrosion during
the tank's life. The 1988 regulation also allows use of other tank
technologies that implementing agencies determine are no less
protective of human health and the environment than those listed above.
Additional non-corrodible materials are now used as claddings for steel
tanks, and they are as effective at preventing corrosion as
technologies in the 1988 regulation. EPA considers a cladding to be a
non-corrosive dielectric material, bonded to the steel tank with
sufficient durability to prevent corrosion during the tank's life. EPA
did not include jacketed tanks in the 1988 regulation, even though they
are no less protective of human health and the environment than
technologies listed in the regulation. EPA considers jacketed to be a
non-corrosive dielectric material that: Is constructed as secondary
containment (jacketed) around a steel tank; has sufficient durability
to prevent corrosion during the tank's life; and prevents a regulated
substance released from the primary steel tank wall from reaching the
environment. EPA estimates 10 percent of regulated tanks today are
jacketed with a non-corrodible material and 18 percent are clad with a
non-corrodible material.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Corrodible Piping
The 1988 UST regulation allows fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping
as a non-corrodible piping option, as well as other piping technologies
that implementing agencies determine are no less protective of human
health and the environment than those in the
[[Page 71745]]
regulation. Non-corrodible piping not made of fiberglass-reinforced
plastic (in particular, flexible plastic piping) was installed
beginning in the 1990s and has evolved over the past 20 years. Flexible
plastic piping is made of various non-corrodible materials, such as
polyethylene and polyurethane. EPA estimates at least 13 percent of
regulated piping currently installed is made of non-corrodible
materials that are not fiberglass-reinforced plastic.\69\ Revising
fiberglass-reinforced piping to non-corrodible piping will allow UST
owners and operators to install other types of non-corrodible piping,
such as flexible plastic, without requiring implementing agencies to
make a determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical And Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release Detection Technologies
The 1988 UST regulation allows UST owners and operators to use
other methods that meet release detection performance criteria listed
at Sec. 280.43(h). Although CITLD and SIR are allowed under Sec.
280.43(h), it is important to specify both by name.
CITLD
The 1988 UST regulation allows ATG systems as a recognized method
of release detection. However, it is generally listed with performance
requirements consistent with the method being used to perform a static
test. ATG relies on system down time, absent product delivery or
dispensing activities. In static testing mode, the ATG system analyzes
product level and determines whether or not a leak is present during
that down time. Yet for years, UST owners and operators used ATG
systems as a means of continually monitoring tanks for potential
releases. Continuous in-tank leak detection has evolved as a reliable
means of providing release detection equivalent to other methods
specified in Sec. 280.41. Within this category of methods, EPA will
also allow continuous in-tank methods where the system incrementally
gathers measurements to determine the tank's leak status within the 30-
day monitoring period. Today's proposal formally recognizes CITLD as a
release detection method in Sec. 280.43(d). Per Sec. 280.41, a
conclusive pass or fail result must be obtained within the 30-day
monitoring period. All monitoring records must be maintained according
to Sec. 280.45. Another method of release detection is required in the
event of an inconclusive result. UST owners and operators may perform
an in-tank static test using the ATG system or another method in
subpart D.
SIR
Today's proposal adds SIR by name to the final UST regulation and
clarifies its use. SIR must:
Report a quantitative result with calculated leak rate;
Be capable of detecting a leak rate of at least 0.2 gallon
per hour with a probability of detection of not less than 0.95 and a
probability of false alarm of no greater than 0.05; and
Use a threshold that does not exceed one-half the minimum
detectable leak rate.
A quantitative result with a calculated leak rate is necessary to
effectively perform release detection using SIR. Some SIR methods are
qualitative based methods that simply provide a result of pass or fail
without any additional information for UST owners and operators to
gauge the validity of the reported results. Based on information in
NWGLDE's list,\70\ approximately 15 percent of SIR methods listed are
qualitative-based methods. Many state UST implementing agencies already
only allow the use of quantitative methods. Today's proposal will no
longer allow qualitative SIR as an option for meeting the release
detection requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ National Work Group On Leak Detection Evaluation's (NWGLDE)
List Of Leak Detection Evaluations for Storage Tank Systems: http://www.nwglde.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with some of the release detection methods described in
Sec. 280.43(h), EPA maintained the performance standard of 0.2 gallon
per hour with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of
false alarm of 0.05. However, we are not requiring the additional
standard of 150 gallons within a month per Sec. 280.43(h). EPA
included this additional standard in the 1988 UST regulation to
primarily address external methods. EPA added the standard because it
is more difficult to demonstrate that external methods meet a small
hourly leak rate than a larger, though equivalent, volume. SIR is an
in-tank monitoring method and the 0.2 gallon per hour standard with a
probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm
(Pfa) of 0.05 is the applicable standard to use.
SIR must also meet EPA's established requirement for probability of
detection and probability of false alarm. In a normal probability
distribution, SIR data typically analyzed through the calculation of
the reportable values of minimum detectable leak rate (MDL) and the
leak declaration threshold (T) are related as follows:
MDL is always greater than T
Pd = (1-Pfa), then MDL = 2 times T (i.e., T = \1/2\ MDL).
Any analysis of data indicating a threshold value greater than one-
half minimum detectable leak rate should be appropriately investigated
as a suspected release.
In this proposal, EPA is addressing the following issues associated
with using SIR:
SIR is not the same as inventory control
[cir] For years, users, vendors, and regulators incorrectly linked
SIR to the inventory control method described in Sec. 280.43(a). SIR
is more sophisticated than inventory control and not subject to the
same requirement to combine it with tank tightness testing and limit
its use to 10 years. Note Sec. 280.50(c)(2) states, ``In the case of
inventory control, a second month of data does not confirm the initial
result.'' This language allowed owners and operators to use a second
month of inventory control data to confirm initial possible failure
results. However, this allowance does not apply to SIR.
Results for release detection, including SIR, are required
within the 30-day monitoring period
[cir] EPA considered including a requirement that UST owners and
operators obtain a record of SIR results within 30 days. However, we
believe this requirement is adequately covered in 40 CFR part 280,
subpart D of the 1988 UST regulation. As Sec. 280.41 states, ``Tanks *
* * must be monitored for releases at least every 30 days using one of
the methods listed in Sec. 280.43(d) through (h) * * *''. In today's
proposal, EPA is adding a subsection to formally recognize SIR. A
definitive result of pass or fail that identifies the tank's leak
status is required within the 30-day monitoring period for all release
detection methods, including SIR.
Owners and operators must use another method of release
detection if SIR results are inconclusive results
[cir] For years, implementing agencies have been concerned about
inconclusive results when using SIR for release detection. In 1993, EPA
issued a policy regarding inconclusive SIR results,\71\ which says all
methods used to meet release detection requirements in Sec. 280.41
must obtain a conclusive result of pass or fail within the 30-day
[[Page 71746]]
monitoring period. All monitoring records must be maintained according
to Sec. 280.45. For SIR, this means UST owners and operators must
obtain a report determining release status within the 30-day monitoring
period. Another method of release detection is required: when results
are inconclusive; prior to sufficient data being gathered to generate
an initial report at startup; or when a report is not available for any
month of monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ UST Technical compendium, question and answer number 21:
http://epa.gov/oust/compend/rd.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial SIR report at startup
[cir] SIR methods need to gather data over a period of time in
order to determine whether the tank is leaking. In some cases,
regulatory agencies have addressed significant lag times between when
data is collected to when a tank status determination is available to
owners and operators. NWGLDE's list of third-party evaluated methods
indicates the data collection period required for SIR methods ranges
from 15 to 90 days. However, most methods require between 23 to 30 days
to gather sufficient measurements that provide an accurate result. Any
method that goes beyond a 30-day monitoring period is inconsistent with
the established requirement and does not protect human health and the
environment. It is imperative that UST owners and operators determine
the status of their tanks within the established monitoring period to
avoid increased risk of contamination.
[cir] EPA recognizes that a rolling collection of data may be used
to analyze the leak status of the tank. For example, data from the
previous 30-day monitoring period may be added to measurements taken
within the current 30-day monitoring period to determine whether or not
the tank is leaking. However, the majority of data must come from the
current 30-day period and another method of release detection must be
used to monitor the tank during this startup period. Subsequent
monitoring continuously rolls data forward and provides sufficient data
in a timely manner to determine pass or fail.
Interstitial Monitoring
EPA is proposing to add three methods of interstitial monitoring--
vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled methods--in Sec. 280.43(g)(4).
Although these interstitial methods are covered under the general
description provided in Sec. 280.43(g), These methods should be
included as distinct interstitial monitoring options. Each of these
methods must be capable of detecting breaches in both the inner and
outer walls of secondarily contained tanks and secondarily contained
piping.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Should EPA require specific performance standards for
vacuum, pressure, and liquid-filled interstitial monitoring? If so,
what should the performance standards be and why?
Are there performance standards for release detection
methods that should be added or removed?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
2. Updates to Codes of Practice Listed in the UST Regulation
What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to update the codes of practice (also called
standards or recommended practices) listed in the 1988 UST regulation
to reflect new codes, changes to code names, and new nationally
recognized associations and independent testing laboratories. EPA
proposes to update, add, or remove codes of practice to the following
specific areas of the 1988 UST regulation:
Section 280.11--Interim Prohibition for Deferred UST Systems
Updated Codes:
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
Added Codes:
--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic
Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice
for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with
Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems
Section 280.20(a)(1)--Fiberglass Tanks
Updated Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and
Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S615, Standard for Reinforced
Plastic Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Removed Codes:
--American Society of Testing and Materials Standard D4021-86, Standard
Specification for Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polyester Underground
Petroleum Storage Tanks
Section 280.20(a)(2)--Steel Tanks With Cathodic Protection
Updated Codes:
--Steel Tank Institute Specification sti-P3[supreg] Specification and
Manual for External Corrosion Protection of Underground Steel Storage
Tanks
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603, Standard for Steel
Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S603.1, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable
and Combustible Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada S631, Standard for Isolating
Bushings for Steel Underground Tanks Protected with External Corrosion
Protection Systems
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of
Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground
Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Added Codes:
--Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall
Underground Steel Storage Tanks
Section 280.20(a)(3)--Clad or Jacketed Steel Tanks
Updated Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
Added Codes:
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F894, ACT-100[supreg]
Specification for External Corrosion Protection of FRP Composite Steel
USTs
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F961, ACT-100-U[supreg]
Specification for External Corrosion Protection of Composite Steel
Underground Storage Tanks
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute
Specification for Permatank[supreg]
Removed Codes:
--Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100, Specification for the
[[Page 71747]]
Fabrication of FRP Clad Underground Storage Tanks
Section 280.20(a)(6)--Secondary Containment Tanks (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section A-2)
Added Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 58, Standard for Steel Underground
Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1316, Glass-Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and
Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1746, Standard for External
Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks
--Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall
Underground Steel Storage Tanks
--Steel Tank Institute Specification F922, Steel Tank Institute
Specification for Permatank[supreg]
Section 280.20(b)(1)--Non-corrodible Piping
Updated Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic
Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard S660, Standard for Non-
Metallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
Removed Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 567, Pipe Connectors for Flammable
and Combustible and LP Gas
--Underwriters Laboratories of Canada Standard CAN 4-S633-M81, Flexible
Underground Hose Connectors
Section 280.20(b)(2)--Steel Piping With Cathodic Protection
Updated Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1632, Cathodic
Protection of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Piping Systems
--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
Added Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for
Metallic Underground Fuel Pipe
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R892, Recommended Practice
for Corrosion Protection of Underground Piping Networks Associated with
Liquid Petroleum Storage and Dispensing Systems
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Corrosion Control of
Underground Storage Systems by Cathodic Protection
Removed Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage Systems
Section 280.20(b)(3)--Metal Piping Without Additional Corrosion
Protection
Removed Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-01-69,
Control of External Corrosion on Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
Section 280.20(b)(5)--Secondary Containment Piping (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section A-2)
Added Codes:
--Underwriters Laboratories Standard 971, Standard for Non-Metallic
Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids
--Underwriters Laboratories Subject 971A, Outline of Investigation for
Metallic Underground Fuel Pipe
Section 280.20(d)--Installation
Updated Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1615, Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage System
--Petroleum Equipment Institute Publication RP100, Recommended
Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems
Added Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30A, Code for Motor
Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages
Removed Codes:
--American National Standards Institute Standard B31.3, Petroleum
Refinery Piping
--American National Standards Institute Standard B31.4, Liquid
Petroleum Transportation Piping System
Section 280.21--Lining Inspection Standards (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section E-3)
Added Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1631, Interior
Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
--National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning,
Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
--Ken Wilcox Associates Recommended Practice, Recommended Practice for
Inspecting Buried Lined Steel Tanks Using a Video Camera
Section 280.21(e)--Upgrade Requirements for Previously Deferred UST
Systems (New Addition to the Regulation--See Section C)
Added Codes:
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
--National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning,
Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
--American Society for Testing and Materials Standard G158, Standard
Guide for Three Methods of Assessing Buried Steel Tanks
Section 280.30--Spill and Overfill Control
Updated Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 385, Standard for Tank
Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1621, Bulk Liquid
Stock Control at Retail Outlets
Added Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1007, Loading and
Unloading of MC 306/DOT 406 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles
Removed Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
Section 280.31--Operation and Maintenance of Corrosion Protection
Updated Codes:
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
Added Codes:
--NACE International Standard Practice SP 0169, Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
--NACE International Test Method TM 0101, Measurement Techniques
[[Page 71748]]
Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Tank Systems
--NACE International Test Method TM0497, Measurement Techniques Related
to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Piping Systems
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R051, Cathodic Protection
Testing Procedures for sti-P3 USTs
Section 280.32--Compatibility
Removed Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1626, Storing and Handling
Ethanol and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends at Distribution Terminals and
Service Stations
--American Petroleum Institute Publication 1627, Storage and Handling
of Gasoline-Methanol/Cosolvent Blends at Distribution Terminals and
Service Stations
Section 280.33--Repairs
Updated Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 2200, Repairing
Crude Oil, Liquified Petroleum Gas, and Product Pipelines
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior
Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
--National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631, Entry, Cleaning,
Interior Inspection, Repair, and Lining of Underground Storage Tanks
Added Codes:
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of
Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R972, Recommended Practice
for the Addition of Supplemental Anodes to sti-P3[supreg] Tanks
--NACE International Recommended Practice RP 0285, Control of
Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
--Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Recommended Practice T-95-02,
Remanufacturing of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Underground
Storage Tanks
Section 280.36--Secondary Containment Testing (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section B-4)
Added Codes:
--Steel Tank Institute Recommended Practice R012, Recommended Practice
for Interstitial Tightness Testing of Existing Underground Double Wall
Steel Tanks
--Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute Protocol, Field Test Protocol for
Testing the Annular Space of Installed Underground Fiberglass Double
and Triple-Wall Tanks with Dry Annular Space
Section 280.37--Walkthrough Inspections (New Addition to the
Regulation--See Section B-1)
Added Codes:
--Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended Practice RP 900,
Recommended Practices for the Inspection and Maintenance of UST Systems
Section 280.43(a)--Inventory Control
Updated Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1621, Bulk
Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets
Section 280.43(g)--Interstitial Monitoring
Removed Codes:
--Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard for Dual Wall
Underground Steel Storage Tanks (moved to new section 280.20(a)(6))
Section 280.71--Permanent Closure
Updated Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1604, Closure of
Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice RP 1631, Interior
Lining and Periodic Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks
--The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication
80-106, Criteria for a Recommended Standard * * * Working in Confined
Space
Added Codes:
--American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 2016, Guidelines
and Procedures for Entering and Cleaning Petroleum Storage Tanks
--National Fire Protection Association Standard 326, Safeguarding of
Tanks and Containers for Entry, Cleaning, or Repair
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing this change to update the codes of practice
associated with regulated UST systems. The 1988 UST regulation relies
heavily on codes of practice developed by nationally recognized
associations or independent testing laboratories.
EPA reviewed information on more than 200 codes of practice from
more than 25 code-making groups that have been developed or revised
since the 1988 regulation.\72\ As a result of this review, EPA proposes
to add 18 codes of practice not previously listed in the 1988
regulation, remove or move 12, and update all codes of practice in the
1988 UST regulation (see the specific additions, updates, and removals
listed above). EPA is proposing to add the 18 codes of practice that
were previously not listed because they are applicable to the UST
regulation and did not exist when EPA originally promulgated the 1988
UST regulation. EPA is proposing to remove or move the 12 codes of
practice in the 1988 UST regulation for one of the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ E2, Incorporated, memoranda and analyses submitted under
Contract EP-W-05-018, ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Analytical and Technical Support.'' These supporting materials can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The code of practice is out of date, no longer available,
was withdrawn, or rescinded;
The code of practice did not provide any information
appropriate to the section of the regulation where it was referenced;
The information in the code of practice did not adequately
address the part of the regulation where it was referenced; or
The code of practice is no longer needed.
For example, the Association for Composite Tanks ACT-100 tank
standard was listed in Sec. 280.20(a)(3) as a code of practice for
meeting the clad tank requirement. EPA is removing this code of
practice because both the association and code of practice no longer
exist.
In several cases, EPA is proposing to move a code of practice from
one section of the 1988 UST regulation to another section. For example,
EPA is proposing to move Steel Tank Institute Standard F841, Standard
for Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks from Sec. 280.43(g)--
interstitial monitoring to Sec. 280.20(a)(6)--secondary containment
tanks. EPA is proposing this because we are adding secondary
containment requirements to the performance standards for new UST
systems portion of this proposed UST regulation.
Note: EPA is aware of at least one code of practice (Petroleum
Equipment Institute standard for testing of spill, overfill,
interstitial areas, and release detection)
[[Page 71749]]
currently being developed that could be potentially relevant to this
proposed UST regulation. Other standards may be developed before EPA
publishes a final UST regulation. If so, EPA will consider including
them in the final UST regulation.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Should other codes of practice be added to or removed from
the UST regulation? If so, please provide EPA with information about
the code and the specific location in the UST regulation where the code
should be included or removed.
The regulations at Sec. 280.20(d) require that all tanks
and piping be properly installed in accordance with a code of practice
developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing
laboratory and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Since
the installation codes of practice also address other UST system
components such as spill and overfill, should EPA consider revising
Sec. 280.20(d) such that all portions of the UST system must be
installed according to a code of practice and according to
manufacturer's instructions?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
3. Updates to Remove Old Upgrade and Implementation Deadlines
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to revise the UST regulation to remove references
to the 1998 deadline and old phase-in schedules, while continuing to
allow testing of corrosion protection and release detection. For those
deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate, we are proposing
those systems be allowed to upgrade with spill, overfill, and corrosion
protection. EPA is proposing the following specific revisions:
Revise upgrading of existing UST systems in the 1988 UST regulation
(Sec. 280.21).
Remove the 1998 upgrade deadline references, but continue
to allow:
[cir] Testing of internally-lined USTs;
[cir] Tanks and piping with cathodic protection; and
[cir] Upgrades of deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to
regulate, including wastewater treatment tank systems, airport hydrant
systems, UST systems with field-constructed tanks, and UST systems that
store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators. See section C
for additional information on deferred UST systems.
Require UST systems not upgraded with corrosion
protection, spill, or overfill prevention be permanently closed
according to subpart G, unless the implementing agency determines an
upgrade is appropriate or the UST system was deferred in the 1988 UST
regulation.
Revise release detection requirements in the 1988 UST regulation.
Section 280.40
[cir] Remove phase-in schedule for release detection probabilities;
[cir] Remove phase-in schedule for release detection monitoring;
[cir] Remove references to upgrade deadlines;
[cir] Remove references to existing USTs; and
[cir] Address deferred UST systems EPA is proposing to regulate,
add language about implementing release detection monitoring for these
systems in Sec. 280.40(c).
Section 280.41
[cir] Remove inventory control and annual tightness testing as a
regulatory option;
[cir] Remove reference to upgrade deadlines; and
[cir] Make the inventory control and five year tightness testing
language historical by putting language in this section in the past
tense.
Section 280.42
[cir] Remove 1998 references and upgrade language for existing
hazardous substance UST systems.
EPA is proposing to remove the phase-in schedule in Sec. 280.91 of
subpart H to acknowledge that financial responsibility implementation
deadlines are passed and remove references to Sec. 280.91 and the
deadlines in Sec. 280.90. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise
Sec. 280.91 to reference the phase-in schedule for deferred UST
systems EPA is proposing to regulate at Sec. 280.10.
Why is EPA proposing this change? What background information is
available about this change?
EPA is proposing these changes to acknowledge that the 1998
deadline for upgrading UST systems with release prevention and the
1990s release detection and financial responsibility deadlines passed
more than a decade ago. Owners and operators had more than two decades
to upgrade their UST systems and meet the 1988 UST regulation. In
addition, all UST facilities have been inspected at least once and are
required to meet release detection, release prevention, and financial
responsibility requirements. EPA is proposing owners and operators of
upgraded UST systems continue conducting cathodic protection and
internal lining testing consistent with how they previously performed
these tests.
For release detection, EPA is proposing to eliminate the phase-in
for both release detection probabilities and release detection
monitoring. EPA is proposing to eliminate these two phase-in parts
because the deadlines for implementing these requirements have passed.
Owners and operators have been implementing these requirements for more
than two decades. The last phase-in period applied to systems installed
between 1980 and 1988, giving owners and operators until 1993 to meet
the subpart D requirements. Any new UST installed after 1993 had to
meet release detection requirements when installed.
To meet the release detection requirement, Sec. 280.41 allows
owners and operators of USTs less than 10 years old to use a
combination of monthly inventory control with tank tightness testing
every five years, until the UST has been installed for 10 years. When
the UST is 10 years old, owners and operators must use another release
detection method listed in subpart D. For new and replaced UST systems
installed after the effective date of the final UST regulation,
interstitial monitoring will be required. The new interstitial
monitoring requirement will make inventory control and tank tightness
testing obsolete as a release detection method 10 years after the UST
regulation is finalized.
For hazardous substance UST systems release detection, EPA is
proposing to remove 1998 deadline and upgrade references. The 1988 UST
regulation in Sec. 280.41 required existing UST systems meet the
requirements for petroleum UST systems until 1998. After 1998, all new
and existing hazardous substance UST systems must meet requirements for
new hazardous substance UST systems. Since the 1998 deadline has
passed, these changes will clarify the hazardous substance UST system
requirements.
For financial responsibility, EPA is proposing to remove the phase-
in dates in Sec. 280.91. These phase-in dates passed more than a
decade ago and are no longer needed. In addition, Sec. 280.90(b) and
(e) contain references to Sec. 280.91 and compliance dates that need
to be removed.
UST systems with field constructed tanks, airport hydrant systems,
and wastewater treatment tank systems may be upgraded according to
Sec. 280.21. However, EPA is proposing to no longer allow UST systems
regulated under the 1988 UST regulation to be upgraded if they have
never met the upgrade requirements. Unless the implementing
[[Page 71750]]
agency determines that an UST system is acceptable to upgrade, non-
upgraded UST systems must be permanently closed according to the
closure requirements in subpart G. UST systems that have not been
upgraded are older and have been in the ground for more than two
decades. In addition, metal USTs and piping without corrosion
protection pose a significant risk to human health and the environment
because the metal in contact with soil corrodes. EPA is proposing that
implementing agencies make case-by-case determinations on when to allow
upgrades. EPA does not expect implementing agencies to allow continued
use of USTs or piping not upgraded with corrosion protection. However,
some implementing agencies may decide to allow owners and operators of
UST systems with corrosion protection, but without spill or overfill
prevention, to add spill or overfill prevention instead of requiring
permanent closure.
The proposed requirements in Sec. 280.21 will allow UST systems
EPA is proposing to no longer defer to be upgraded. See section C for
additional information on upgrading these UST systems.
What issues related to this change does EPA request comment or
additional data on?
Does removing the deadlines and making upgrades historical
cause any unintended regulatory consequences?
Should EPA consider not allowing the implementing agency
the flexibility of making a determination to allow an upgrade?
Please provide reasoning or justification if you disagree with or
propose something different from EPA's proposal.
4. Editorial and Technical Corrections
What is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing these editorial corrections to the 1988 UST
regulation:
Where ``industry codes'' and ``codes and standards'' are
used, replace with ``codes of practice''
Revise to appropriately use the terms: part, subpart,
section, and paragraph
Section 280.10(c)(3)--change ``10 CFR part 50 Appendix A''
to ``10 CFR part 50''
Section 280.20(a)(2), paragraph (C) in the note--change
``G03.1'' to ``603.1''
Section 280.21(b)(2)(iii)--change ``by conducting two (2)
tightness tests that meet the requirements of Sec. 280.43(c). The
first tightness test must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic
protection system. The second tightness test must be conducted between
three (3) and six (6) months following the first operation of the
cathodic protection system; or'' to ``by conducting two tightness tests
that meet the requirements of Sec. 280.43(c). The first tightness test
must be conducted prior to installing the cathodic protection system.
The second tightness test must be conducted between three and six
months following the first operation of the cathodic protection system;
or''
Section 280.20(c)(1)(ii)(C)--change ``operator'' to
``transfer operator''
Section 280.22(a)--change ``Any owner who brings an
underground storage tank system into use after May 8, 1986, must within
30 days of bringing such tank into use, submit, in the form prescribed
in Appendix I of this part, a notice of existence of such tank system
to the state or local agency or department designated in Appendix II of
this part to receive such notice.'' to ``After May 8, 1986, an owner
must submit notice of a tank system's existence to the implementing
agency within 30 days of bringing the underground storage tank system
into use. Owners must use the form in Appendix I of this part.''
Section 280.22(g)--change ``The form provided in Appendix
III of this part may be used to comply with this requirement.'' to
``The statement provided in Appendix III of this part, when used on
shipping tickets and invoices, may be used to comply with this
requirement.''
Section 280.31--change ``for as long as the UST system is
used to store regulated substances'' to ``until the UST system is
permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to Sec.
280.71.''
Section 280.31--change ``steel'' to ``metal''
Section 280.33(c)--change ``fiberglass pipes'' to ``non-
corrodible pipes''
Section 280.33(g)--change ``for the remaining operating
life of the UST system'' to ``until the UST system is permanently
closed or undergoes a change-in-service pursuant to Sec. 280.71.''
Section 280.34--change ``Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act'' to ``Solid Waste Disposal Act''
Section 280.34(b)(2)--change cite from ``280.31'' to
``280.31(d)''
Section 280.40(a)(3)--change ``probability of detection
(Pd) of 0.95 and probability of false alarm (Pfa) of 0.05.'' to
``probability of detection of 0.95 and probability of false alarm of
0.05.''
Section 280.41(b)(2)--change ``conduct'' to ``conducted''
Section 280.42(a)(1)(ii)--change ``released from the tank
system'' to ``leaked from the primary containment''
Section 280.42(d)--delete ``jacketing of'' from ``* * *
jacketing of double-walled pipe)* * *''
Section 280.43(b)(4)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
Section 280.43(b)(5)--delete ``manual'' from ``manual
inventory control''
Section 280.52(a)(1)--change ``repair, replace, or upgrade
the UST system'' to ``repair, replace, upgrade, or close the UST
system''
Section 280.52(a)(1)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
Section 280.52(a)(2)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
Section 280.52(a)(3)--change ``leak'' to ``release''
Section 280.92--definition for provider of financial
assurance--change ``Sec. Sec. 280.95-280.103'' to ``Sec. Sec. 280.95-
280.107''
Section 280.92, Sec. 280.95(b)(1)(iii), Sec.
280.95(c)(5), and Sec. 280.95(d)--change ``Rural Electrification
Administration'' to ``Rural Utilities Service''
Section 280.94(a)(1)--change ``Sec. Sec. 280.95-280.103''
to ``Sec. Sec. 280.95-280.107''