Burns & McDonnell 5 TECHBriefs 2012 No. 2

EPA’sProposaltoReviseUndergroundStorageTankRegulationsA Summary of the Proposed Revisions and Analysis of Impact on US Businesses

By Lawrence L. Fieber, PG, and Grant Smith, RG

On Nov. 18, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposal to revise existing requirements applicable to owners and operators of underground storage tank (UST) systems. EPA’s primary objectives for the proposed revisions are to implement the required operator training elements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and strengthen existing regulations by requiring proper operations and maintenance of USTs. In summary, EPA’s proposed UST rules impose new regulatory burdens on all UST owners/operators and eliminate long-standing deferrals applicable to owners/operators of field constructed tanks, airport hydrant systems, emergency generation USTs, and certain wastewater treatment tanks. The commercial aviation industry generally believes that EPA has significantly underestimated the regulatory burden and financial impact of the proposed UST rules.

Previously Deferred SystemsAlthough EPA downplays the burden and economic impact on owners and operators of systems that were previously deferred from UST regulations, the aviation industry believes these newly regulated communities will bear a significant financial burden, if the proposed UST rules become final.

AnalysisAirport Hydrant SystemsEPA proposes to require owners/operators of certain airport hydrant systems to meet most of the technical and financial responsibility requirements applicable to UST owners/operators. EPA studied airport hydrant systems at military airports to arrive at a conclusion that few, if any, commercial airports would be impacted by its proposal to lift the deferral on airport hydrant systems. After the announcement of the proposed rule, Airlines for America1 (A4A) performed a limited study of commercial airports and identified numerous airports that could be affected. The study concluded that an additional eight airport fuel systems would be affected by this regulation.

Two of these airports have no UST systems. They fall into the rule by having more than 10% of fuel volume in transfer piping and hydrant system lines. Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport would be subject to the proposed rule and “a rough estimate” of the cost to implement one part of the proposed UST rule would range from $150 million to $200 million. Similarly, the Chicago Department of Aviation2 concluded, “…to meet EPA’s proposed rule, significant capital upgrades would be required.” Airline companies and airport ownersboth seem to support a process for making a separate rule, outside of the UST regulations, that might better address the complexities inherent in airport hydrant systems.

Emergency Generation USTsEPA proposes to require owners, operators of previously deferred emergency generation USTs to meet all technical and financial responsibility requirements applicable to UST owners/operators. EPA concluded that technical advances for remote monitoring have advanced such that deferral of emergency generation USTs is no longer warranted. Member companies of the Environmental, Health & Safety Communications Panel (EHSCP), AT&T3, Verizon4 and numerous utility companies submitted comments to EPA urging that the deferral not be removed. According to EHSCP5, “some locations … are so remote and/or subject to challenges of severe weather (mountaintops, Alaskan wilderness, islands) that accessing them during certain seasons and in certain weather conditions would be unreasonably burdensome.” In reality, many of these remote facilities are not manned, are rarely visited and may not be equipped with the required appurtenances to enable remote monitoring. If upgrades are required to bring them into compliance, these upgrades would take longer to accomplish than the one year allowed in the proposed rule.

1 Airlines for America, April 16, 2012, letter to EPA Docket Center in reference to EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Underground Storage Tank Regulations.

2 Chicago Department of Aviation City of Chicago, April 16, 2012, letter to EPA Docket Center in reference to EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Underground Storage Tank Regulations.

3 AT&T, April 16, 2012, letter to EPA Docket Center in reference to EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Underground Storage Tank Regulations.

4 Verizon, April 16, 2012, letter to EPA Docket Center in reference to EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Underground Storage Tank Regulations.

5 EHSCP, April 16, 2012, letter to EPA Docket Center in reference to EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Underground Storage Tank Regulations.

TECHBriefs 2012 No. 2 6 Burns & McDonnell

Figure 2: The fuel tank farm at the Indianapolis International Airport would be impacted by the proposed regulation.

Figure 1: Jet fuel underground storage tanks are removed at Ontario (Calif.) International Airport.

Wastewater Treatment TanksEPA’s proposal also eliminates the deferral on certain wastewater treatment tanks. EPA’s study showed that few, if any, facilities would be impacted by removing this deferral; however, several public comments posted on the EPA Docket Center show concern about the potential that oil water separators, clarifiers, triple traps and some above-ground tanks might be subject to UST rules that were written for systems that bear little resemblance to these wastewater treatment tanks.

Field Constructed Tanks — and Phase Out of Vapor and Groundwater Release Detection MethodsSome large USTs (typically greater than 50,000 gallons) must be constructed in the field. Because EPA believes there are no active systems to which this regulatory requirement will apply, it is proposing to lift the deferral on these field-constructed tanks, making them subject to the UST rules. Field-constructed USTs are typically too large to use automatic tank gauging release detection methods. Owners of larger tanks commonly accomplish release detection using vapor monitoring or groundwater monitoring methods. EPA proposes to phase out vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring release detection methods within five years of rule implementation. We believe further study is necessary to identify the population of field-constructed tanks that may be impacted by the deferral and phase out of vapor and groundwater release detection methods.

New Regulatory BurdensThe proposed UST rules include new obligations in four primary areas:

• Operator training• Secondary containment• Operations and maintenance• New requirements to report alarms from

automatic monitoring systems

Brief descriptions of each new obligation, and some of the complications caused by them, are presented in the following paragraphs.

Operator TrainingEPA incorporated many of the elements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires that UST owners/operators identify and train personnel to satisfy three categories of UST operators:

• Class A Operator, an individual who is required to possess a broad knowledge of regulatory requirements pertaining to USTs. The environmental affairs manager at a company is likely to serve as a Class A Operator.

•ClassBOperator, an individual who is typically responsible for day-to-day management of UST systems.

•ClassCOperator, an individual who is typically the first to respond in an emergency or alarm situation.

Burns & McDonnell 7 TECHBriefs 2012 No. 2

For more information, please email lfieber@burnsmcd.com or gsmith@burnsmcd.com.

Grant Smith, PG is the director of commercial aviation fueling system design and construction at Burns & McDonnell. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Geology from the University of Iowa.

Lawrence L. Fieber, PG is Burns & McDonnell’s Environmental department manager in our Chicago regional office. He earned his bachelor’s degree in geology from the University of Illinois and master’s degree from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

In its current form, the EPA proposal seems to require these operators be UST owner/operator employees. This seems problematic because many UST owners/operators use contractors, not employees, to accomplish various tasks at their UST facilities. Additionally, EPA seems to require third-party trainers, which could be problematic for larger companies that use in-house training facilitators.

Secondary ContainmentEPA will require owners/operators to install secondary containment and interstitial monitoring for most new and replaced tanks and piping, and new dispensers will be required to have under-dispenser containment. Replacement projects involving 50% or more of piping will trigger removal and replacement of all piping with the new secondary containment and interstitial monitoring appurtenances. These revisions are also driven by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Operations and MaintenanceAt the date of rule implementation, EPA will require owners/operators to immediately begin walk-through inspections every 30 days at UST facilities. These walk-through inspections would be intended to confirm the condition and function of spill-prevention equipment, sumps and dispenser cabinets, monitoring/observation wells, and cathodic-protection and release-detection equipment. Within one year after implementation of the rule, UST owners/operators would be required to tightness test certain spill-prevention equipment and confirm function of release-detection equipment. EPA would require UST owners/operators to phase in testing of overfill prevention equipment and the integrity testing of secondary containment devices over a three-year period benchmarked on the installation date of USTs.

When drafting these requirements, EPA’s focus appears to have been on petroleum retailers and other fuel-dispensing facilities, where performing periodic inspections might not be overly burdensome. Performing these operations and maintenance inspections would be problematic

for UST owners/operators whose USTs are located in remote locations that are neither easy to reach nor typically occupied. Also, some of the appurtenances that EPA proposes to inspect cannot be readily viewed or accessed. One example is a piping sump pit that is watertight and submerged by design. Such pits should not be opened unless an alarm condition exists.

Regulatory Reporting for AlarmsEPA’s proposal significantly broadens release reporting obligations to include such things as alarms from interstitial monitoring devices. As written, EPA’s proposal appears to require reporting of alarm conditions prior to confirmation of a product release from a UST. Several EPA Docket Center commenters expressed concern that 24-hour reporting of suspected releases would be required when any alarm condition exists, when false alarms are common, and would rarely conclude that product has been released.

Other Regulatory ObligationsEPA’s UST proposal includes several additional provisions:

• Immediate elimination of ball float valve flow restrictors in vent lines as an overfill prevention option

• Requirement to permanently close tanks using internal lining as the sole method of corrosion protection when the internal lining fails the periodic inspection and cannot be repaired

• Notifications required to the implementing agency rather than the state or local agency

• Notify the implementing agency within 30 days of UST system ownership change

The commercial aviation community believes EPA has significantly underestimated the regulatory burden and financial impact of the proposed UST rules.

TECHBriefs

• Requires owners/operators of previously deferred UST systems to notify within 30 days of the effective date of the rule

• Requires owners/operators to demonstrate compatibility for USTs storing various biofuel formulations (e.g., ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels)

• Requires owners/operators to test a repair to spill or overfill equipment and secondary containment areas within 30 days of the repair

• Incorporates other editorial changes

EPA’s proposed UST rules significantly broaden regulatory obligations of current UST owners/operators and impose significant regulatory burdens on previously unregulated USTs that were deferred in the 1988 rules.

The training and operations and maintenance obligations proposed by EPA stem from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Many states are in process or have already adopted these Energy Policy Act requirements. Other aspects of EPA’s proposed rule are intended to strengthen the UST rules; however, many adjustments will be needed to fashion implementable rules. EPA should delay proposed changes to UST deferrals so that detailed studies can be completed to understand the true regulatory burden and cost impact to owners of commercial airports, remote emergency generation USTs, field constructed tanks, and wastewater treatment tanks. The aviation community believes the EPA has significantly underestimated the regulatory burden and financial impact of the proposed UST rules.