Reber noted that once the hydrostatic testing is completed successfully, the contractor will typically loosen the band clamps and slide the test fitting off of the secondary to “open” the system again. Sometimes there isn’t enough space to slide it back and another alternative must be pursued. Options are to remove the valve stem from the test fitting, or order the test fitting with an optional drain valve that can be opened afterwards (Valero specification). In a worst case scenario, they can completely remove the test fitting from the pipe.
Still, all of these costs add up and can be amplified in many scenarios. Garrett noted that in some instances the dispenser might have to be removed from the island to isolate those fittings which could add an extra several thousand dollars to the project. He stated these are part of the one-time cost estimates. “Costs are one thing, and obviously small business owners are really going to get hammered,” he said. “And while you have the annual costs, it’s these upfront costs that are really going to kill people.”
For sump testing itself, Garrett questioned the need for full sump testing up to the pipe level. The sensor activates below the pipe level and simply testing that for function should be all that is required while eliminating the need for more extensive pre-testing work on the sumps.
For the counterpoint, Reber pointed out just using visual inspections [or relying on a sensor indication] won’t necessarily eliminate extra costs. “Frankly, what they are going to find is even the visual inspection on the front end mayidentify some incidental repairs on some entry fittings or something structural to the sump to make sure that is watertight for the test,” he said. “But when they test they will likely uncover some things that are not apparent visually, so it ends up being two-step process anyway. Also, the issue with leaks extends beyond just what’s coming into the sump structure from the bottom. Surface water can be addressed; subterranean leak issues can be as well as fittings and structural issues.”
As touched on, Garrett noted that the rules are currently structured to punish early adopters of secondary containment while letting sites not using secondary containment off the hook until they make an equipment change.
“When you look at the regulations, if you have an underground storage tank that’s been there for a while you’ve got a submersible pump but no sump around it because it wasn’t required at the time,” he said. “And you don’t have dispenser sumps and you don’t have secondarily containment piping and you don’t need to do any kind of inspection around the sump. The guy that replaced the system five or 10 years ago and didn’t spend the extra money that I did to help protect the environment by putting in secondary containment is now being rewarded without additional costs or expenses, and in my opinion they represent a higher threat to the environment. I think EPA really missed the boat on that.”
Garrett noted it creates an incentive to keep current systems without secondary containment operating as long as possible, and he prefers a system like the one recently enacted in Massachusetts. “The new regulations passed in January have a pro technology-based approach,” he said. “Operators without sumps or with sumps that do not have sensors have a more aggressive inspection and testing cycle and only require testing to the level required to determine sensor performance. And they took it a step further, after looking at data that indicated that once a sump is tested it was good for 7 to 10 years after that, so it was basically a one-time test. I think that with just a couple of more tweaks they can make this a win-win for everybody.”
Into the Future
And such tweaks might very well be in the works. PMAA fully appreciates the remaining concerns and plans on exploring any options that are still available. The association would still like to see that required review panel preform an analysis. And, a potential future lawsuit is not off the table. But the goal is a less draconian process.
“We plan to follow up with EPA and we have a list of questions,” said Underwood. “One of the biggest concerns we have, and we went into detail in our regulatory report, is related to the sump testing issue. We’re going to be looking into that and hopefully get some clarification from EPA to make sure it’s okay just fill it up to the sensor. There are also some concerns regarding under dispenser containment.”
The testing protocols potentially provide another avenue for tweaks. Much of the final rule hinges on a PEI recommended practice RP 1200: Recommended Practices for the Testing and Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection and Secondary Containment Equipment at UST Facilities.
“We might also be looking at doing some other testing protocol or working with PEI through its RP 1200 to see if we can get some of the minor changes that will significantly reduce costs for marketers and still achieve an equal result on preventing and detecting releases,” Underwood said.
“I believe we helped EPA in the process in that they didn’t have to figure out how to do tests and what tolerances and all of the processes,” said Renkes. “PEI recommended practices were referenced and the states can elect to follow the recommended practice and incorporate that by reference, or they can be stricter. Our recommended practices were written with regulators and equipment people and service contractors and end-users on the committee.”
According to Renkes, RP1200 will be fully reviewed in the next half-year with an eye on the EPA rule and additional community feedback. “If people have strong feelings they can request us to change our recommended practices. I haven’t had any comments so far that our recommended practices are unfair, and EPA incorporated them because they were fair.”
Renkes noted that some states have already been more onerous in their testing requirements. “As we go through this we will probably have a lot of states do their own thing. The hard work now is at the state level.”
FMN contacted petroleum tank testing and environmental compliance services provider Tanknology for some tips and best practices relative to the new system testing requirements. Brad Hoffman, Tanknology’s vice president engineering and R&D, responded.
1. What should a retailer be aware of with the new testing requirements?
Retailers will need to provide testing of release detection equipment annually, and testing of spill prevention, overfill prevention and containment sumps every three years. They will also need to obtain training for designated Class A, B, and C operators for each of their UST facilities, and implement walk-through inspections to look at spill prevention and release detection equipment every 30 days. There are also additional requirements that may affect some types of UST systems.
2. What are going to be the easiest and the hardest to manage?
There’s a 3-year implementation period and there are many providers of services for compliance testing and operator training, so retailers should have sufficient time and many choices of how to achieve compliance. However, the regulations may be confusing for some retailers, and it may be difficult if they wait until the last minute to implement their programs.
3. What would be some best practices suggestions?
For a retailer with multiple locations, it would be prudent to start early, to allow time to understand the requirements and develop a sound program. It will also allow for the testing and potential repairs or replacement of failed equipment to be completed and budgeted over several years instead of all at once. Even for a smaller retailer, it makes sense to get into compliance early, to avoid potential delays or higher costs that may occur if they wait until the deadline. In addition, compliance with these new regulations will help to prevent releases from their UST systems, which should be a goal of every retailer.
4. You can touch on what a company like Tanknology brings to the table?
It’s beneficial for a retailer to enlist a company that can provide services over the retailer’s entire network of stores, and has a proven history of providing compliance solutions. Tanknology has been providing quality services nationally for over 25 years, and has sufficient knowledge and resources to help any retailer achieve compliance with the new UST regulations.
