Meeting Summary: 2001 NGA Aboveground Storage Tank Regulation Workshop

Transcription

1 Meeting Summary: 2001 NGA Aboveground Storage Tank Regulation Workshop On June 7, 2001, the National Governors' Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices sponsored a workshop in Orlando, Florida to discuss aboveground storage tank (AST) regulation. Participants included representatives from seventeen states, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters, and the NGA Center. 1 The key to minimizing the risk of transporting and storing oil and other hazardous materials is prevention taking steps to keep the oil out of the environment is the best way to reduce damages when a spill does occur. States have developed many innovative ways to prevent spills, particularly in the area of aboveground storage tank (AST) regulation. This conference was designed to help state officials share these innovations with their state and federal counterparts from across the country. Key Meeting Outcomes Participants found the meeting to be very useful overall, both in terms of the content and the opportunity to network with their peers. They recommended that a similar meeting be held next year in conjunction with the annual National Institute of Storage Tank Management meeting. Participants would like EPA to seek ways to continue supporting this workgroup following the end of the NGA grant. Because states carry so much of the responsibility for regulating ASTs, it is important for them to have such a forum to exchange information and expertise directly with each other. States are generally satisfied with the STI SP standard for inspecting shopfabricated tanks, and many plan to begin recommending it to their facilities. The process of discussing and commenting on this standard as it developed over the past year is a good example of how this workgroup benefits states officials. Presentations at the meeting showed the importance of technical issues to effective AST regulation. States can benefit from the support of their peers as they handle diverse technical issues, such as developing GIS systems and setting appropriate performance standards for airport hydrant systems. Summary of Meeting Sessions Presentation of State Programs The meeting began with an opportunity for participants to briefly present developments in their programs, particularly any innovations or challenges they have addressed recently. Some of the highlights of this session include the following. Alaska has not made any changes to its AST regulations over the past year, but does have new regulations pending that address tanks on ships. The state has been working to enhance its small AST program, focusing on training programs for tank operators in Alaska s remote villages. The training emphasizes SPCC rule compliance and proper etiquette for relocating and retiring 1 This meeting was funded by a grant with EPA's Oil Program Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. For more information on the project or this meeting, please contact Jim Whitter at 202/ <jwhitter@nga.org>.

2 tanks. They have also been involved in a joint state-federal project known as the Denali Commission to upgrade tank farms and remediate old tank sites in rural areas. California has a law requiring state permits for petroleum AST sites subject to federal SPCC regulations, but has no regulations of its own. The state s AST program manager used the information she obtained at last year s meeting to make a case to the state water quality control board on what makes for a good AST program, and is hoping to get regulations adopted in the future. Delaware does not currently have an AST program, but has regulations in development that should be implemented in Florida. During lunch at the meeting, Marshall Mott-Smith gave a presentation about Florida's AST program that began in The power-point presentation included general information about the scope of the program, the AST rules for shop-fabricated and field-erected tanks, integral piping, and other components, and information about Florida's compliance verification and inspection program. Maine amended its rules on marine oil terminals in March 2001 to require the installation of release prevention barriers on both new and existing tanks. The rules set standards for the location, design, and construction of new terminal facilities and new tanks at existing facilities. The state has also instituted a Home Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program, following a successful pilot test last year. Low income households and residents of certain islands in Maine are eligible to have aging tanks that are about to spill or tip over replaced free of charge. The state believes this will be less expensive in the long run than cleaning up spills from these tanks. Maine has formed an AST Task Force that hold bimonthly meetings to discuss the status of ASTs in the state. The task force is comprised of representatives from the three state agencies with jurisdiction over ASTs, oil trade groups, municipalities, businesses, fire departments, water districts, and environmental groups. Maryland has had an AST program since The state focuses its resources on petroleum tanks of 10,000 gallons or greater. Massachusetts adopted an AST law in response to the Great Molasses Flood of 1919, when a 2 million gallon molasses spill killed several people in Boston. All ASTs in the state of 10,000 gallons or greater storing any fluid but water must have an annual inspection. The state has been trying to update these requirements, and in 1994 was able to require that an API 653 certified inspector perform these inspections. Michigan has had rules covering ASTs under the fire code since They first promulgated AST regulations in 1942, using the Michigan Fire Code as their authority. The rules are generally updated every 10 years; the current set was promulgated in 1992 and are currently under revision. The state is developing a new set of draft AST rules that tries to blend fire code and environmental concerns. One of their major issues has been the illegal use of farm ASTs for motor vehicle fueling; the new regulations will try to address this problem. Some of the other problems they are trying to address include liquid tight secondary containment, site assessment at tank closures, and requirements for roofs over tanks.

3 Minnesota has about 85 major facilities in the state storing 1 million gallons or more. They have issued permits for all but three of these facilities. The state works to include special requirements as appropriate for these permits. For example, the state required secondary containment throughout the facility, including liners in all dike bays, for an oil processing plant located over a highly permeable karst formation. Details of the state s program are available in a PowerPoint presentation at <insert site here>. Minnesota has begun to update and reissue permits for major facilities. They plan to include the Steel Tank Institute s (STI) AST inspection standard in the permit, as well as the American Petroleum Institute s (API) 570 standard for leak testing of underground lines. Missouri has been facing many of the same issues as Michigan. They have had a special problem with failures of riveted tanks, and are trying to take most of them out of service by They have also noticed a pattern where smaller tanks experience more spills during product loading because it is easier to overfill a small tank compared to a larger tank. The state is also developing a GIS system to help them conduct risk-based site assessments so far they have entered maps and data for 109 of the state s 114 counties. New Hampshire has had a good history of compliance from its larger facilities. It s primary challenge has been working with the state s mom and pop operations. The state has placed particular emphasis on home heating oil tanks, and has begun a Safe Tank Program that offers $1000 towards the upgrade or replacement of these tanks. New Jersey has had an AST program since its spill act was amended in Its regulations were last amended in August 2000, and these rules were proposed for readoption in May The state levies a tax upon major facilities (20,000 gallons or more) to ensure compensation for cleanup costs and damages associated with any discharge of hazardous substances. Details of the state s program are available in a PowerPoint presentation at <insert site here>. New York has had a strong AST program for some time now. Its PBS program became effective December 27, 1985, regulating tank facilities of 1,100 gallons or more; the chemical regulations became effective July 15, 1988 and regulate all ASTs of 185 gallons or more. After more than ten years of pursuing an assistance strategy to achieve compliance, the state program has now shifted to enforcement activities. The Bulk Storage Program has recently deployed an inspection tracking database and a computerized Notice of Violation and is designing a corrective action tracking system. GIS data is being collected for all facilities. Pennsylvania has had an AST program since 1997, although full implementation of the program was delayed as the state dealt with the 1998 UST upgrade deadline. Tank size is the major regulatory division in the program, with tanks of 21,000 gallons or greater subject to more stringent requirements. Pennsylvania relies solely on third party tank inspectors and tank handlers in its program, which is not the usual approach for states. One problem they have faced is that all non-distribution heating oil tanks are exempt from state regulations, which means that a million gallon heating oil tank whose product is used solely on site does not have to comply with state requirements. Rhode Island established its AST regulations in 1990 and has made no major changes since. The program has no funding of its own, and is operated through the emergency response section. The regulations cover all tanks of 500 gallons or greater storing petroleum products. The state also has a voluntary tank registration program.

4 South Carolina has been dealing with problems generated by two unusually busy hurricane seasons, and has had to move several initiatives to the back burner because of this. However, they have been able to make significant progress on their GIS project to map the location and attributes of all the state s AST s. Virginia adopted three laws in to regulate ASTs through registration, pollution prevention, and contingency plan requirements. In 1998 these three laws were consolidated, and the regulations implementing the consolidated law are currently under review. The state is currently conducting a pilot test of robotic methods for internal tank inspections and a pilot program for the use of Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) as an alternative leak detection method for ASTs. Wisconsin regulates all tanks in the state with few exceptions. They require annual inspections of all ASTs of 4000 gallons or more and all USTs in the state. The state has been focusing on tanks used for marine craft refueling, and has instituted a setback requirement of 75 feet from the high water mark. Shop-Fabricated Tank Inspection Standards Chris Bashor of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) led a follow up discussion to last year s session on shop-fabricated tank inspection standards. (The PowerPoint presentation for this session is available at <insert website here>.) The Steel Tank Institute (STI) standard SP was finalized this year, incorporating comments from states following the 2000 NGA AST meeting in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Bashor s presentation gives some of the details of the standard, and includes a comparison to the API 653 standard. Paper copies of the STI standard can be ordered for $35 on the STI website at < Minnesota plans to use the STI standard as part of its permit requirements for major facilities beginning this year its current permits do not require inspections of shop-fabricated tanks. The state already has requirements equivalent to STI s periodic inspections for small facilities, but these inspections do not have to be by a certified inspector. A rule change would be needed to require certified inspections. Minnesota will require some enhancements to the SP001 requirements for its permits, including: Walk-around inspection monthly. Periodic records kept for three years, certified report kept for life of tank. Records and reports must document repairs needed and made. Repairs recommended must be made unless waived. Certified report must include ultrasonic thickness testing and other data. Minnesota has not seen any facilities or tank consultants adopting SP001 on their own. Some consultants in the state are API 653 certified and use these requirements for inspections; these consultants should be able to offer SP001 inspections once permits require them. Other states have also been looking at the STI standard. Wisconsin has been working with STI to offer SP001 inspector certification classes. New Jersey will accept the SP001 as an alternative means of integrity testing for double-walled tanks, or tanks with no way for a person to enter and

5 inspect. Massachusetts does its tank inspections in accordance with API 653, but regulations allow the use of standards appropriate to specific tank types. One problem with the standard as it stands is a lack of details on pressure testing requirements. SP001 is not clear on whether this is part of a yearly inspection, or only needs to be done every ten years. Beyond requiring the use of nitrogen or other non-explosive gas for the test, SP001 is also unclear on the mechanics to be used for pressure testing. Airport Tank and Hydrant System Issues Sam Lillard of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) made a presentation about his state s efforts to address fueling systems at two major airports. Both Reagan National and Dulles airports, which serve the Washington, DC area, are located in Virginia. The amount of fuel throughput necessary to run these operations is staggering approximately 1.5 million gallons of jet fuel is used daily at Dulles, and 800,000 gallons a day at National. DEQ had to use a cooperative approach with industry, environmental interests, and the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority to improve the systems at these facilities. One of the major concerns Virginia had was contamination from the fueling hydrant systems and the underground piping that fed them. No leak detection systems were in place for the piping, and the hydrants themselves were in pit with no bottom containment, leaving them a threat to contaminate groundwater. The process of getting these large facilities into compliance with state regulations was difficult. Agreeing on a standard to measure the effectiveness of leak detection equipment took long negotiations. Leak detection is rare on such a large-scale system of small diameter pipes, so a set standard was not readily available. Both industry and environmental interests worked with DEQ to adopt what they considered an acceptable standard. In the end, Virginia compiled a chart of estimates from the various vendors in the field on what their equipment could do, which ranged from 0.2 to greater than 6 gallons per hour. The state settled on accepting the proposed 3 gallons per hour leak rate at.95 accuracy and.05 false alarm as an acceptable performance level. SPCC Rule Revisions Mark Howard of US EPA gave a brief presentation on the status of the revised Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) rule. The rule was signed by former Administrator Browner on January 10, 2001, but was held back from publication in the Federal Register by the new Bush Administration. US EPA has since met with the Office of Management and Budget about the rule, and is determining if an analysis of the rule s effects on the national energy supply is required under Executive Order At this point there is no scheduled release date for the revised rule. A copy of the rule is available in the official docket through EPA, but is not available online. South Carolina AST Mapping Project David Wilkie of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) made a presentation on his agency s efforts to map the state s AST locations. US EPA had done a nationwide survey of ASTs in 1995, but this survey only got responses from 3% of the estimated 438,000 ASTs in the country. DHEC felt that a geographic information system (GIS) that tied information on the location, contents, and other characteristics of ASTs to the surrounding environment would be an incredible resource for planning and disaster preparedness, so they decided to approach EPA for a grant to fund the project.

6 DHEC submitted a proposal to EPA that involved a written survey, similar to the 1995 EPA survey, and the GPS equipment and services necessary to locate the ASTs with sub-meter accuracy. (Details of the hardware and services are available in the PowerPoint presentation for this session, available at <insert site here>.) A lot of preparation and paperwork was required, but DHEC was able to get a $15,000 grant to pursue this work in August As part of the agreement, the state had to document that it would share costs in the project at an estimated $25,000 (for personnel, travel time, etc.) One of the challenges faced by DHEC was the lack of upstate coverage by radio-based GPS signals that could provide sub-meter accuracy. To get GPS coverage in that area, the agency had to contract with a satellite-based provider at significantly greater cost. In order to complete the survey and geo-locating of ASTs in this region as quickly as possible, DHEC decided to take verbal surveys from tank owners as they took the GPS coordinates of the tanks at each site. Time was not as crucial in the other portions of the state, so DHEC mailed surveys to facilities there while collecting data upstate. After the mailed surveys were returned, DHEC then went to the site to take coordinates and visually verify some of the survey information. The survey status of the ASTs was tracked using DeLorme Street Atlas software on a laptop computer, so that an inspector driving through a particular area would know if he needed to visit a particular site. DHEC has completed its survey of ASTs in the petroleum industry. The agency now plans to expand this effort to include large ASTs that store oil for use in other industries, such as chemical, textile, and other manufacturing facilities Regulating Hazardous Substances in ASTs Due to time constraints, this session had to be cancelled. The PowerPoint presentation prepared by Sheldon Schall of the Wisconsin Department of Commerce is available at <insert web site>. Next Steps This meeting was the third such event sponsored by the NGA Center since 1997 under a grant from US EPA. The Center s work on ASTs and spill prevention has provided important opportunities for state officials to learn from each other and to interact with their counterparts at US EPA. Over the past year, the NGA Center management has been reevaluating its mission to determine how it may best serve Governors. As part of this reassessment, the NGA Center has decided to discontinue its work in this area. Meeting participants expressed interest in continuing this forum for state AST program managers. They strongly recommended that US EPA fund a grant for another organization to manage the workgroup. The group suggested a number of areas that the grant should include. Continued annual meetings on AST regulation, preferably in conjunction with the National Institute of Storage Tank Management meeting. Should look into a longer meeting (possible 1½ days), with a chance to include a respected industry representative. Ad-hoc information exchange between states. A focus on technical AST standards for leak/spill prevention and detection, not emergency response or cleanup issues. Promotion of consistency between states on AST regulations. Interim technical meetings, possibly via conference call or online.

7