Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations-Revisions to Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training

Federal RegisterNov 18, 2011

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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: mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov

•

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:

mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov

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

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, retail trade, accommodation, and food services)

42, 44-45, 72 (excluding 447).

Institutional (hospitals only)

622.

Manufacturing

31-33.

Transportation (air, water, truck, transit, pipeline, and airport operations)

481, 483-486, 48811.

Communications and Utilities (wired telecommunications carriers; and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution)

5171, 2211.

Agriculture (crop and animal production)

111, 112.

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

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.

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.

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.

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

Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2009,

http://epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

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.

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.

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.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

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

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

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

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:

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.

Phase-In Schedule for Operator Training

Criteria

Date when operator training or comparable

examination is required

One or more USTs at the facility were installed on or before 12/22/1988

One year after effective date of rule.

No USTs at the facility were installed on or before 12/22/1988 and at least one UST at the facility was installed on or before 12/22/1998

Two years after effective date of rule.

All USTs at the facility were installed after 12/22/1998

Three years after effective date of rule.

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 § 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:

○ Class A and B operators take annual refresher training which covers all applicable training requirements for their operator class; or

○ 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:

○ 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.

○ 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.

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.

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

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,

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—

○

For a tank:

To remove a tank and install another tank.

○

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 § 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 § 280.43(g).

In addition to the requirements above, pressurized piping must have an automatic line leak detector according to § 280.44(a).

EPA is proposing to remove the option in § 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 § 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

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.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

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,

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.

The final UST regulation will bring UST systems in Indian country to the same level of environmental protection as those regulated by states.

Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year 2009,

http://epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.

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.

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:

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.;

• 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.

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 (§ 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:

• 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.

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.

About 75 percent of these states have requirements as stringent as, or more stringent than, the 50 percent threshold EPA proposes.

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).

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.

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 § 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 § 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.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

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

proposing owners and operators install under-dispenser containment beneath new dispenser systems at UST systems, irrespective of whether they dispense motor fuel.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

Evaluation Of Releases From New And Upgraded Underground Storage Tanks, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, August 2004.

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:

○ Number of UST systems not installed within 1,000 feet of any existing community water system or potable drinking water well.

○ Number of non-motor fuel dispensers connected to UST systems in the United States.

○ Typical length or percentage of piping repaired during a typical repair.

○ 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 § 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:

○ Spill prevention equipment

■ Open and visually check for any damage;

■ Remove any liquid or debris;

■ Check each fill cap to make sure it is securely on the fill pipe; and

■ If secondarily contained with continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area.

○ Sumps and dispenser cabinets

■ Open and visually check for any damage, leaks to the containment area, or releases to the environment;

■ Remove any liquid (in contained areas) or debris; and

■ If contained areas are secondarily contained with continuous interstitial monitoring, check for a leak in the interstitial area.

○ Monitoring/observation wells

■ Check covers to make sure they are secured.

○ Cathodic protection

■ Check to make sure impressed current cathodic protection rectifiers are on and operating; and

■ Ensure records of three year cathodic protection testing and 60 day impressed current system inspections are reviewed and current.

○ 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 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.

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

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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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 § 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.

○ 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

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 § 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 § 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?

○ Owners and operators choose to connect an anode to the metal components in the sump for corrosion protection and

○ 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 § 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

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 § 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 § 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 installed on or before 12/22/1988

One year after effective date of rule.

No USTs at the facility were installed on or before 12/22/1988 and at least one UST at the facility was installed on or before 12/22/1998

Two years after effective date of rule.

All USTs at the facility were installed after 12/22/1998

Three years after effective date of rule.

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.

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 § 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:

Phase-In Schedule for Interstitial Integrity Tests

Criteria

Date by which first test must be conducted

One or more USTs at the facility were installed on or before 12/22/1988

One year after effective date of rule.

No USTs at the facility were installed on or before 12/22/1988 and at least one UST at the facility was installed on or before 12/22/1998

Two years after effective date of rule.

All USTs at the facility were installed after 12/22/1998

Three years after effective date of rule.

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.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

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.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

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.

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 § 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

○ Test alarm;

○ Verify system configuration; and

○ Test battery back-up.

• Probes and sensors

○ Inspect for residual build-up;

○ Ensure floats move freely;

○ Ensure shaft is not damaged;

○ Ensure cables are free of kinks, bends, and breaks; and

○ Test alarm operability and communication with controller.

• Line leak detector

○ Simulate leak which determines capability to detect a leak; and

○ Inspect leak sensing o-ring.

• Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges

○ 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.”

To increase the effectiveness of release detection, EPA is targeting operation and maintenance.

Petroleum Releases At Underground Storage Tank Facilities In Florida, Peer Review Draft, U.S. EPA/OUST, March 2005.

The 1988 UST regulation in § 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.

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,

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.

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.

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 § 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 § 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

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.

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 § 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 § 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

Component and type of release detection used

Time frame

(after [effective date of rule])

Description of requirement

Piping using periodic pressurized bulk line tightness testing

Within three years.

Between years three and six

Conduct one piping tightness test according to the 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 and seven.

Conduct one piping 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 release detection methods

Within three years.

Perform release 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

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 § 280.43.

○ Shop fabricated tanks.

○ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 280.40(c):

Maximum Detectable Leak Rate per Test Section Volume

Test section volume

(gallons)

Semiannual test

maximum detectable

leak rate

(gallons per hour)

Annual test maximum detectable leak rate

(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.

○ Perform continuous interstitial monitoring designed to detect a release from any portion of the underground piping that routinely contains product according to § 280.43(g).

○ 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 § 280.43(g); and

-Conduct an annual leak detector operation test according to § 280.40(a)(3).

○ 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 § 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 § 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:

○ 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 § 280.31 or guidelines established by the implementing agency; and

○ 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 § 280.21 within three years of the effective date of the final UST regulation be permanently closed according to § 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 § 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

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)

identifies methods capable of detecting releases from airport hydrant systems.

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

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.

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.

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 § 280.43 and § 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.

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

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.

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

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 § 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.

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.

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.

Reports of premature failures due to improper installation cause additional concerns about the long-term integrity of the lining.

A study of lined tanks up to12 years old concluded that 44 percent of tanks' linings were cracked, discolored, and flaked from tank walls.

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.

LUSTLINE, Bulletin 38, June 2001.

http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/.

Wisconsin Department Of Commerce Web site:

http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/er/pdf/bst/ProgramLetters_PL/ER-BST-PL-LINING.pdf.

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 § 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.

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).

The SPCC regulation includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines.

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.

Overview Of Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations.

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opprover.htm.

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 perfo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.