Underground Storage Tanks (UST)--NEG/CP

L eaking U nderground S torage T anks A negative brief by Allen Scheie

ContentsTopicality:...........................................................................................................2Significance:.......................................................................................................2

Workers die removing UST’s...................................................................................................................................2

Solvency:............................................................................................................41. LUST funds are money pits. Example—Texas. Throwing money at the problem didn’t work...................42. COST problems: UST cleanups always cost more than estimated...............................................................4It would take $12 Billion to remediate half of the known UST leaks......................................................................4

Disadvantages:..................................................................................................5DA1: Masking:..............................................................................................................................................................5

Root Cause 1: The UST standards are very lax........................................................................................................5Root problem 2: Over a third of the owners don’t comply, and that’s why we have leaks.....................................5IMPACT: Problem only made worse:......................................................................................................................5

DA2: Moral Hazard: people act carless when they feel insured...................................................................................6When UST owners feel insured, they act more carelessly than if they aren’t..........................................................6

Counterplan: An ounce of prevention = a pound of cure...................................7EXTENSIONS.......................................................................................................9

INH: EPA focused on cleanups....................................................................................................................................9COST:.........................................................................................................................................................................11Double-walled tanks ROCK.......................................................................................................................................11SIGNIFICANCE.........................................................................................................................................................12

1

Topicality:Standard: Limits. We have to put limits on what the AFF team can and can’t do under the resolution.

Interpretation: The AFF team has to follow the exact wording of the resolution—Specifically, that it has to be a significant reform. And not just a significant reform in law—a significant reform in the overall environmental policy.

Violation: The AFF team simply takes our current policy, and gives more money to it. This is NOT a significant policy reform. Our “policy” is exactly the same—to give money to clean up storage tanks. We’re still doing the same thing with the same policy. There is no way we can call this a “Significant reform.”

Impact: 1. A-priority issue: AFF team fails in its most basic burden. Put simply, the AFF team doesn’t uphold the resolution, while the NEG team is trying to negate the resolution. So vote negative.

2. Fairness. The NCFCA gives us a resolution each year to put bounds on the debate round, so that the negative team can come into the round expecting what’s going to be debated. And they put the word “significant” in there to make sure that the AFF team runs something the negative team can be prepared to argue against. (So that AFF teams don’t run cases like “changing the color of ear-tags of laboratory mice.”) If we throw out this word “significant,” it allows AFF teams to run tiny tweaks in policy for their cases, and the negative team loses what little ground it has. Debate is no longer an even competition between two teams, and it loses its educational value.

Significance:How much of a quantifiable harm can they give us?

Workers die removing UST’s.

Stephen Milroy (adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute) "Toxic Wasteful Superfund" August 8 2004 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2774

Workers have been killed removing and cleaning underground storage tanks. A man was killed and 87 others injured when a backhoe dislodged a gas pipeline and gas flowed into an adjacent senior citizens' home in Allentown, Pa., in 1994.

2

Solvency:1. LUST funds are money pits. Example—Texas. Throwing money at the problem didn’t work.

Jeri Gray, (MALS in environmental studies. Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina) Environmental Finance Center, “North Carolina General Assembly Will Consider the Fate of Cleanup Trust Funds.” August, 2004. http://www.efc.unc.edu/projects/LUSTarticle.htm

Texas has 173,000 registered tanks, with one in four known to have leaked. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission estimated in 1995 that it would cost $1.3 billion-in addition to the $280 million already spent-to clean up all known contamination. By 1995, the Texas legislature had had to bail out the state cleanup fund twice with special appropriations and that year ordered an end to the reimbursement program. Since 1998, Texas has required that tank owners and operators utilize a financial mechanism other than the state fund (principally private insurance) to demonstrate financial responsibility to clean up contamination. The reimbursement program is being phased out and cannot expend funds after September 1, 2006.

2. COST problems: UST cleanups always cost more than estimated: When the government picks up the bill, people always pay for the most expensive cleanup. Up to Half a million dollars


According to Grover Nicholson, Chief of the UST Section in the N.C. Division of Waste Management, throughout most of the life of the two funds, there was no front-end control of costs, and tank owners contracted with cleanup companies for "Cadillac" cleanups when in many cases "Yugo" cleanups would have been sufficient.

"If a half-million dollar cleanup can be his for $20,000 (the usual deductible under the commercial fund rules), a tank owner has no incentive to look for a less expensive cleanup," says Nicholson. He adds that as lending institutions and the general public have become more aware of the liabilities associated with contaminated properties, the incentive to get sites super clean has strengthened.

It would take $12 Billion to remediate half of the known UST leaks—(with an “estimate” of $125,000 per tank.)

Mary Tiemann (Congressional Research Service, Resources, Sciences and Industry division.) “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Prevention and Cleanup.”July 10, 2008. Congressional Research Service. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Aug/RS21201.pdf

Congress has appropriated funds annually from the trust fund to support the LUST response program. EPA roughly estimates that the average cost of cleaning up a leaking tank site is $125,000, and through March 2007, 108,766 releases still needed remediation. Although EPA expects that private parties will pay for most cleanups, states estimate that it will cost $12 billion to remediate at least 54,000 tank sites that lack viable owners.

3

Disadvantages:

DA1: Masking:LINK: The AFF team give more money to these performance standards

LINK: AFF plan ignores (masks) the root of the problem: the standards on tank technology. Root Cause 1: The UST standards are very lax.


Moreover, thousands more releases are being reported every year. Although trust funds were originally established to clean up leaks that occurred before regulatory programs were put into place, recent evidence indicates that tank technical and operating standards have been only partially successful in preventing new leaks.

Root problem 2: EPA doesn’t enforce its (already lax) rules on tank operation. Over a third of the owners don’t comply, and that’s why we have leaks.

Mary Tiemann (Congressional Research Service, Resources, Sciences and Industry division.) “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Prevention and Cleanup.”July 10, 2008. Congressional Research Service. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Aug/RS21201.pdf

However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that because of poor training of tank owners, operators, and other personnel, about 200,000 (29%) USTs were not being operated or maintained properly, thus increasing the risk of leaks and ground water contamination. GAO also reported that only 19 states physically inspected all their tanks every three years (the minimum EPA considered necessary for effective tank monitoring) and that, consequently, EPA and states lacked the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the tank program and take appropriate enforcement actions. Among its initiatives to improve compliance, EPA revised the definition of compliance (“significant operational compliance”) to place greater emphasis on the proper operation and maintenance of tank equipment and systems. In June 2008, EPA reported that, nationwide, 77% of recently inspected UST facilities were in compliance with the release prevention regulations, 73% were in compliance with the leak detection regulations, and 65% of facilities had complied with the combined requirements.

INTERNAL LINK: Washington ignores the root of the problemA. Washington will be thinking they’ve solved the problem, but they really haven’t. Tanks will continue to

leak, and cause environmental damage, because we don’t have the prevention standards we need.

B. Washington has a tendency of passing legislation on a policy, and then leaving it alone for a while. So even if we figure out that our “throwing money” strategy doesn’t work, it will be a while before Washington does something about it.

IMPACT: Problem only made worse: Our Underground Storage tanks continue to age and corrode leading to an increase in leaks, but, since we’re

passing the AFF plan, we think we’ve solved the problem, and these new leaks continue to spring, and continue to plague our environment. No clean-up for a tank will ever stop the environmental damage from being done—(we have to locate the leak, report the leak, request federal money, and by the time that’s all done, the pollution will be out, and the damage will have been done.) And by the time Washington gets around to realizing this, the problem will only have made itself worse. Masking the root cause only makes it fester.

4

Extensions to DA1: US tank regulations are the problem: The EPA needs more stringent tank regulations

Thomas O. McGarity (W. James Kronzer Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law; President, Centerfor Progressive Regulation. Professor McGarity has taught and written in the areas of Administrative Law,

Environmental Law, Occupational Safety and Health Law, Food Safety Law, Science and the Law, and Torts for twenty-five years. While in academia, McGarity has served as a consultant and/or advisor to the Administrative Conference of the United States, the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress (OTA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Texas Department of Agriculture, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.) “MTBE: a Precautionary Tale.” 2004. Harvard Law Review. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol28_2/mcgarity.pdf

As MTBE follows tetra-ethyl lead to the fuel additive junkyard, EPA could go a long way toward preventing the next fuel additive crisis by revising its USTS regulations to require double-walled tanks and upgraded leak detection systems.

Several states are already making a transition to improve tank regulations—wrong time to act.

Kurt Niland (Staff Writer) “Economy, Regulations Create Tough Times for Florida Gas Stations.” June 19, 2009. Beasley Allen Law Firm. http://www.leaking-storage-tank.com/news/2009/06/19/economy-regulations-create-tough-times-for-florida-gas-stations/

In the United States, Florida has some of the toughest state laws governing the ownership and maintenance of underground storage tanks. In just a few months, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection will enforce its Dec. 31, 2009 deadline for all single-wall USTs and piping to be replaced with modern, double-wall tanks and pipes. Then, on Jan. 21, 2010, the agency’s deadline for replacing above-ground tanks without underlying spill containment systems arrives.

DA2: Moral Hazard: people act carless when they feel insured.When UST owners feel insured, they act more carelessly than if they aren’t.

Paul Garret (Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility, Columbia Business School.) Howard Kunreuther (Professor of Decision Sciences and Public Policy at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and serves as Co-Director of the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center. Kunreuther is currently a member of the National Research Council (NRC) Board on Radioactive Waste Management. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis) “Environmental Assets and Liabilities.” National Bureau of Economic Research. February 8, 2007. http://www.execed.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/risk/federal/heal_kunreuther.pdf

Moral Hazard Moral hazard refers to an increase in the probability of loss caused by the behavior of the policyholder. For example, providing insurance protection to a nuclear power plant may lead the utility to behave more carelessly than if it did not have coverage. One way to avoid the problem of moral hazard is to introduce deductibles and coinsurance as part of the insurance contract. A sufficiently large deductible can act as an incentive for the insureds to continue to behave carefully after purchasing coverage because they will be forced to cover a significant portion of their loss themselves. With coinsurance the insurer and the insured share the loss together. As with a deductible, this type of risk-sharing arrangement encourages safer behavior because those insured want to avoid having to pay for some of the losses.

5

http://www.leaking-storage-tank.com/news/2009/06/19/economy-regulations-create-tough-times-for-florida-gas-stations/

http://www.leaking-storage-tank.com/news/2009/06/19/economy-regulations-create-tough-times-for-florida-gas-stations/

[Impact: more leaks are sprung in more tanks. It’s impossible to immediately fix a leak—so the problem of gasoline released into the groundwater will not go away.]

Counterplan: An ounce of prevention = a pound of cureBefore you give the CP, read DA 1, without root problem 2.

The best way to ensure groundwater quality is with prevent pollution from happening in the first place.

European Fuel Oxygenates Association. “Water Quality and Remediation.” 2005 http://www.efoa.org/EFOA_Pages/04_Environ/04c_Water.asp

With any form of pollution, the best defence is to prevent it happening in the first place. Gasoline containing MTBE will not leak into the soil and groundwater if storage tanks and pipelines are built to a high specification, properly installed, operated, inspected and maintained. In Europe, the major oil companies' strong commitment to improving their environmental and safety performance has led them to invest substantial sums in tank upgrading programmes. The introduction and enforcement of stringent safety regulations is the key to ensuring consistently high standards across the industry as a whole.

THE COUNTERPLAN

Mandate: All active UST’s will be required to upgrade their leak-prevention technology to double-walled tanks and pipes.

Agency & Enforcement: This plan shall be enacted by Congress, the President, and the Environmental Protection agency.

Funding: Shall come from the same source of revenue as the AFF __________ (Name funding here), and shall be available to any UST owner who can provide substantial evidence that they do not have the funds to upgrade on their own in five years.

Timing: All tank-owners must have their tanks upgraded by Jan 1, 2015, or face a compound fine of $100,000 per year per-un-upgraded tank.

The Negative team reserves the right to clarify the plan in all future speeches.

Now, let’s look at the solvency of the AFF plan. The negative team achieves all the advantages of the AFF team—only better. Why? Well, for two reasons. 1. This historically has been tried and worked, and 2. Experts recommend this plan.

Historical Precedent: European Tank regulations

Ellen Frye,(Senior editor at Dartmouth College) Patricia Ellis, (PhD, hydrologist with the Deleware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Tank Management Branch and served as a member of EPA’s Blue Ribbon panel on MTBE. Technical advisor and regular contributor to LUSTLine.) Marcel Moreau (Mr. Moreau has worked exclusively in the field of liquid storage systems since 1983. His experience includes four years with Maine Department of Environmental Protection, where he was instrumental in the development of Maine's underground storage system regulatory program, including the establishment of the first tank installer certification program in the country. He then worked for four years with an environmental engineering firm, where his duties included inspecting hundreds of existing storage systems for military and utility clients, and developing conceptual designs for new storage systems.) “Why Underground Storage Tanks Matter.” November, 2001. L.U.S.T.Line (published by New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission) http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/lustline_pdf/LustLine39cvr.pdf

The development of European standards for both FRP and steel USTs effectively provided a choice for the industry. It is a fact, however, that FRP tanks, though widely used in the U.S.

6

without much problem, have not succeeded in Europe. In the U.K., 2,000 FRP tanks were installed over a 15-year period. Now, no major oil company or user is installing these tanks. I can give no reason as to why the technology has not transferred across the Atlantic, as the manufacturers made tanks under licence from U.S. manufacturers.

The preferred UST is a doublewalled steel tank that has dished ends, unlike the flat-ends standard on U.S. counterparts. These tanks have a corrosion-protective coating\ that is applied to the outside, and they are installed with a backfill of gravel or sand. Leak detection in double-walled tanks is accomplished by filling the interstitial space with liquid and monitoring the level of his liquid over time or by establishing a pressure or vacuum in the interstitial space and watching to see whether the pressure or vacuum can be maintained over time.

These types of leak detection systems have the advantage of monitoring both walls of the tank rather than just the inner wall, as is often the case in the U.S. I am not aware of any incident where a leak from such a storage tank has found its way into the environment, and this technology has been in use for over 30 years in parts of Europe.

PLAN ADVOCATE: The EPA needs double-walled tank regulations



As MTBE follows tetra-ethyl lead to the fuel additive junkyard, EPA could go a long way toward preventing the next fuel additive crisis by revising its USTS regulations to require double-walled tanks and upgraded leak detection systems.

7

EXTENSIONS

INH: EPA focused on cleanups.

EPA’s policy is focused on fixing leaks, and not preventing them.

Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Settkes Underground Storage Tank Violations with Washington D.C. Shopping Center.” October 13, 2009. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/f1b28f6e0017cc248525764e0062fe9f?OpenDocument

With millions of gallons of gasoline, oil, and other petroleum products stored in USTs throughout the U.S., leaking tanks are a major source of soil and groundwater contamination. EPA and state UST regulations are designed to reduce the risk of underground leaks and to promptly detect and properly address leaks thus minimizing environmental harm and avoiding the costs of major cleanups.

The EPA doesn’t care about preventing leaks—just cleaning them up where they find them



At about the same time that EPA’s Office of Toxic Substances (“OTS”) was preparing the MTBE testing rule and long after its Office of Mobile Sources (“OMS”) had granted a waiver for MTBE use in gasoline, EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks (“OUST”) was concluding in its USTS rule-making that leaks from USTS could be reduced but never prevented entirely. OUST assumed that the threat of release from USTS would continue, albeit at reduced levels, but did nothing to address the threat that MTBE posed to groundwater. To the contrary, in support of its conclusion that double-walled tanks were not “justified,” the agency confidently predicted that “widely available” technologies for cleaning up “petroleum products” provided “the means to ensure that adverse impacts from such releases (when they occur) can be managed and remediated.” 248 The special difficulties of remediating MTBE contaminated sites, which were well known at least to the industry at that time, apparently did not affect this optimistic assessment.

The EPA refuses to take a precautionary approach.



When EPA finally acted, it did not require information on MTBE’s fate and toxicity in groundwater. The agency had clear authority to take a precautionary approach when it wrote the USTS technical standards, but it declined to do so. It did not require the industry to install the best available technology (double-walled tanks), and it deferred to industry-promulgated standards throughout the regulations.

8

Current federal regulations leave over 100,000 known unfixed leaking tanks.

Ellen Frye,(Senior editor at Dartmouth College) Patricia Ellis, (PhD, hydrologist with the Deleware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Tank Management Branch and served as a member of EPA’s Blue Ribbon panel on MTBE. Technical advisor and regular contributor to LUSTLine.) Marcel Moreau (Mr. Moreau has worked exclusively in the field of liquid storage systems since 1983. His experience includes four years with Maine Department of Environmental Protection, where he was instrumental in the development of Maine's underground storage system regulatory program, including the establishment of the first tank installer certification program in the country. He then worked for four years with an environmental engineering firm, where his duties included inspecting hundreds of existing storage systems for military and utility clients, and developing conceptual designs for new storage systems.) “Why Underground Storage Tanks Matter.” September, 2008. L.U.S.T.Line (published by New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission) http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/lustline_pdf/lustline_58.pdf

It’s been 20 years since the federal rules for the nation’s UST systems hit the streets. (40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 was published on September 23, 1988.) In December, it will be the 10-year anniversary of the 1998 deadline, requiring existing tank systems to be removed, closed, or upgraded to federal/ state standards (spelled out in the federal rules). No question about it, since 1988, the federal, state, and tribal tank programs have accomplished much. Nearly 1.7 million substandard USTs have been closed. As of March 2008, 371,880 LUST cleanups—out of 478,457 confirmed releases—have been completed, with more than 100,000 still to go.

The EPA’s policy fails to stop tank-leaks



As with steel tanks, private standard-setting entities have also suggested specifications for FRP tanks. The safest systems employ double-walled steel or FRP tanks with leak detection systems in the interstitial space.

Because service station owners through the 1960s invariably installed bare steel USTS, the nation began to experience a silent, but very real, leaking USTS problem by the mid-1970s. The industry was replacing approximately 29,000 USTS each year, a great many of which leaked, but about half of the leaking tanks were repaired with an internal lining system rather than replaced. After the problem attracted increasing public attention over the next decade, Congress enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (“HSWA”) on November 9, 1984. EPA’s implementing regulations required owners to upgrade existing systems with systems that complied with EPA’s new requirements. The upgrade program had barely been completed, however, when EPA began to receive reports of releases from some upgraded systems due to “inadequate design, installation, maintenance, and/or operation.” A special Blue Ribbon Panel appointed by EPA in 1999 found it impossible to “demonstrate the effectiveness” of the federal UST upgrade program in preventing releases. In May 2002, the United States General Accounting Office (“GAO”) reported that USTS were continuing to leak throughout the country. 98 Since about one-third of the tanks associated with service stations contain gasoline blended with MTBE, that chemical is continuing to contaminate groundwater sources to this day.

Current federal regulations leave over 100,000 known unfixed leaking tanks.

Ellen Frye,(Senior editor at Dartmouth College) Patricia Ellis, (PhD, hydrologist with the Deleware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Tank Management Branch and served as a member of

9

http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/lustline_pdf/lustline_58.pdf

EPA’s Blue Ribbon panel on MTBE. Technical advisor and regular contributor to LUSTLine.) Marcel Moreau (Mr. Moreau has worked exclusively in the field of liquid storage systems since 1983. His experience includes four years with Maine Department of Environmental Protection, where he was instrumental in the development of Maine's underground storage system regulatory program, including the establishment of the first tank installer certification program in the country. He then worked for four years with an environmental engineering firm, where his duties included inspecting hundreds of existing storage systems for military and utility clients, and developing conceptual designs for new storage systems.) “Why Underground Storage Tanks Matter.” September, 2008. L.U.S.T.Line (published by New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission) http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/lustline_pdf/lustline_58.pdf

USTs and their contents really matter to the well-being of our groundwater, and because USTs tend to be in locations close to where people live and work, the groundwater that we use for drinking water is frequently at risk. This is a big reason that, as long as stored petroleum products threaten our groundwater environs, not to mention human health and safety, it is irresponsible of us as a society to let down our guard. Yes, Virginia, sometimes federal and state governments kind of let important programs slip to the back seat, and it would be an abdication of responsibility to let this happen to any of our nation’s tank programs. The thousands of USTs scattered all over our nation are a water-quality threat and should not fall from regulatory grace, because preventing groundwater degradation really matters… doesn’t it?

Regulations are the problem

Federal requirements on UST’s badly need updating

Cliff Rothenstein (Director, U.S. EPA office of Underground Storage Tanks. holds a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the University of Washington, and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of California at Davis. senior advisor to Senator Baucus on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.) “Why Underground Storage Tanks Matter.” September, 2008. L.U.S.T.Line (published by New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission) http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustline/lustline_pdf/lustline_58.pdf

In order to achieve more consistent program results in preventing releases, we need to revise the tank regulations and require that these provisions apply throughout the country. What this means is that after the new regulations are promulgated, tank owners in Indian Country and in states that haven’t received USEPA UST-program approval will also need to meet the new secondary-containment requirements, train their UST facility operators, and be subject to fuel- delivery prohibition enforcement authority. By doing this, USEPA will ensure federal enforceability of these release prevention requirements nationwide.

Current regulation for USTs: inadequate

E. Blaine Rawson. (J.D., University of Utah, 1995 B.A., University of Utah, 1990. has experience in the CERCLA, RCRA, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act litigation and has represented various clients in environmental matters.) “Are We Properly Controlling our LUSTs?: A Review of the Problems with Underground Storage Tank Regulation.” 2003, University of Idaho Law Review. https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=40+Idaho+L.+Rev.+111&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=650b09c9e307c06324102498e4935864

While the title of this article is obviously tongue-in-cheek, it does playfully address the important question of whether we are doing everything reasonable to prevent the damage and injury caused by leaking underground storage tanks ("LUSTs"). The simple answer is no. Extensive governmental regulation and untold private resources

10



have been directed at this issue and marked improvements have been made in the last fifteen years. Still, LUSTs pose a significant threat to public health and private property.

COST of replacement:

Cost of replacing a tank: $ 300,000

Kurt Niland (Staff Writer) “Economy, Regulations Create Tough Times for Florida Gas Stations.” June 19, 2009. Beasley Allen Law Firm. http://www.leaking-storage-tank.com/news/2009/06/19/economy-regulations-create-tough-times-for-florida-gas-stations/

The cost of replacing the tanks is extremely prohibitive, especially for the mom-and-pop operations. The average cost to replace a single underground storage tank is $250,000 – 300,000. Gas stations with multiple tanks can expect a bill of about $400,000.

Double-walled tanks ROCK

The EPA refuses to require double-walled tanks, even though they will significantly prevent leaks.



For new and replacement tanks, the final regulations required only protected single-walled tanks with release detection.177 The protection could come from (1) cathodic protection of a lined steel tank, (2) fiberglass reinforced plastic construction, or (3) fiberglass and steel reinforced plastic. Although the agency agreed with commenters who suggested that “there will probably be more releases to the environment” from singlewalled tanks than from double-walled tanks with interstitial monitoring, the more protective option was “not believed to be necessary to protect human health and the environment.”

“Better safe than sorry.” We need Double-walled tanks to protect human health and the environment.



If the decision to phase tetra-ethyl lead out of gasoline was a paradigm of precaution, the promulgation of the USTS technical requirements bordered on recklessness. EPA deferred to “nationally applicable” industry codes of practice for many of the critical technical requirements. On the all-important issue of new and replacement tanks, the

11

regulations allowed owners to continue to install single-walled tanks with release detection. In rejecting the easily available double-walled tank option strongly advocated by environmental groups, the agency concluded that greater protection was not necessary to protect human health and the environment because petroleum constituents were easily removed from soil and groundwater with available clean-up technologies. This approach could hardly be less consistent with a precautionary “better safe than sorry” approach to protective regulation.

SIGNIFICANCETen gallons of gasoline can contaminate 12 million gallons of water.

Joe Ryan (Environmental Engineer, university of Colorado.) “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.” 2000. Boulder Area Sustainability Information Network. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/waterworks/lust.html

How much gasoline does it take to contaminate drinking water? Not much. Prior to the EPA's 1988 UST regulations and their final implementation deadline in 1998, a slow leak from a 10,000 gallon gasoline storage tank at the neighborhood service station was virtually undetectable to the station operator but still quite hazardous to nearby groundwater supplies. The hazards of gasoline are mainly attributable to the BTEX compounds -- benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (see below). The benzene content of typical gasoline is 0.76% by mass (gasoline composition). A spill of 10 gallons of gasoline (only 0.1% of the 10,000 gallon tank, a quantity undetectable by manual gauging and inventory control) contains about 230 grams of benzene (using a gasoline density of 0.805 grams per milliliter). The EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for benzene is 5 parts per billion (ppb), or 5 micrograms per liter, in drinking water. The density of gasoline is about 0.8 grams per milliliter, so the benzene in a 10 gallon gasoline leak can contaminate about 46 million liters, or 12 million gallons, of water!

Tanks in the US leak heavily.

John B. Stephenson ( Director of Natural Resources and Environment in the Government Accountability office.)“Environmental Protection: More Complete Data and Continued Emphasis on Leak.” November 30, 2005. Government Accountability Office. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V38gxcE--PIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Inadequate+Regulations+Leaking+Underground+Storage+Tanks&ots=7DCbucSUS5&sig=nhQsQnlUB4zUoslOCx4govzCFfo

Leaking underground tanks that store potentially hazardous products, primarily gasoline at service stations, can contaminate soul as well as groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. Some components of gasoline can pose serious health risks to the individuals exposed to them. For example, one gasoline additive—methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)—is a potential carcinogen that can migrate quickly through the soil into groundwater. Even in small amounts, MTBE can render groundwater undrinkable and is difficult ant costly to clean up. According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, as of March 31, 2005, about 449,000 fuel releases (leaks) had occurred for more than 2.2 million active (currently in use) and closed (no longer in use) federally regulated underground storage tanks nationwide. While progress has been made in cleaning up releases, cleanup efforts had not yet begun to address over 32,000 of them.

Leaking gasoline tanks are a serious public threat.

Joe Ryan (Environmental Engineer, university of Colorado.) “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.” 2000. Boulder Area Sustainability Information Network. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/waterworks/lust.html

Because nearly half of all Americans depend on groundwater for their drinking water, leaking gasoline tanks represent a significant public health hazard. Leaking gasoline tanks can also present the risk of fire and explosion because vapors from leaking tanks can travel through sewer lines into buildings.

States currently have major role, but they’re also already overseen by the govt.

12

Joe Ryan (Environmental Engineer, university of Colorado.) “Underground Storage Tank.” 2000. Pollution Issues.com http://www.pollutionissues.com/Te-Un/Underground-Storage-Tank.html

The primary responsibility for the licensing, operation, and regulation of underground storage tanks (USTs) and the cleanup of LUSTs falls to the state. Most states fund remediation of LUST sites through licensing fees and surcharges on most petroleum products. The EPA oversees the state programs and augments their remediation efforts through grants to support LUST program staffing, and through direct assistance with emergency responses and cleanup.

LUSTs are extremely hard to detect—and pose serious hazards to the public.

Joe Ryan (Environmental Engineer, university of Colorado.) “Underground Storage Tank.” 2000. Pollution Issues.com http://www.pollutionissues.com/Te-Un/Underground-Storage-Tank.html

Corrosion usually causes tanks to leak slowly. Leaks from older tanks are often difficult to detect because inventory control is imprecise. Once released from a tank, gasoline sinks through unsaturated soil and, because gasoline is less dense than water, floats on the surface of the water table. Because most components of gasoline are fairly volatile—they readily become a vapor at a relatively low temperature—leaks often go undetected until the vapors are present at the ground's surface. In addition to the risk to water supplies, leaking gasoline also presents risk of fire and explosion when vapors from leaking tanks can travel through sewer lines and soils into buildings.

Boring Status quo stuff: Energy policy act 2005 included new regulations and inspections.

Mary Tiemann (Congressional Research Service, Resources, Sciences and Industry division.) “Safe drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues.” November 7, 2005. Congressional Research Service. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/05Nov/IB10118.pdf

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), adds new leak prevention provisions to the UST regulatory program and authorizes funding specifically for the remediation of petroleum tank leaks that involve MTBE. Among its provisions, the act adds tank inspection and operator training requirements, and requires EPA or a state, when determining the portion of cleanup costs to recover from a tank owner, to consider the tank owner’s ability to pay for cleanup and still maintain business operations. It authorizes the appropriation of $200 million from the LUST Trust Fund annually for five years for addressing leaks involving MTBE or renewable fuels (e.g., ethanol), and another $200 million annually for five years for EPA and states to administer the general leaking petroleum tank cleanup program.

States are banning chemicals rather than fixing leaks

Mary Tiemann (Congressional Research Service, Resources, Sciences and Industry division.) “Safe drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues.” November 7, 2005. Congressional Research Service. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/05Nov/IB10118.pdf

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). This gasoline additive has been widely used to meet the Clean Air Act requirement that reformulated gasoline (RFG) contain at least 2% oxygen to improve combustion. RFG is required for use in areas that fail to meet the federal ozone standard. However, numerous incidents of water contamination by MTBE have led to calls for restrictions on its use. At least 25 states, including California and New York, have enacted limits or phase-outs of the additive. EPA has not developed a drinking water standard for MTBE; however, at least seven states have set their own MTBE standard.

13

Documents

Underground Storage Tanks (UST)--NEG/CP