Federal environmental records suggest the UST cleanup money will be well spent. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania has 3,368 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in its backlog to be completed.

Pennsylvania spends $1.5 million per year on average for UST removals and cleanups. Federal and state governments made leaking USTs a priority in the 1980s, once they understood the number and scope of  environmental threats posed by hundreds of thousands of individual fuel leaks throughout the country.

Federal and state laws now require that all new USTs have double walls, corrosion resistance, and a leak detection system in place before being buried. All USTs are certified, registered, and regularly monitored by the state – all of which amount to an enormous and expensive undertaking.

Compounding the problem of leaking tanks are the cases in which owners of USTs can’t be located or are either unable or unwilling to foot the costs attached to UST removal, cleanup, and replacement, which can run between $200,000 and $250,000 per tank.

In such cases, the Pennsylvania’s DEP will prioritize tank removal and pay for the cost with public funds, recovering the money with legal action when it can.

The federal government won’t release funds for the remediation of leaking USTs until the state explains how the money will be used. Nearly every state received UST cleanup funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Pennsylvania puts federal dollars to use for UST cleanup, removal

The new regulations leave many Florida gas station owners worrying about the future of their businesses. 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.

Small, independent gas stations that want to stay in business will have a difficult time acquiring the financing for such costly upgrades, especially in the current credit-crunched market. Banks do not regard new underground storage tanks as upgrades that promise to pay off.

Even if gas stations with convenience stores choose to remain open without selling gas, federal and state laws still require them to hold substantial pollution insurance policies.

So why is Florida bullying small businesses with such tough laws, steep fines, and financial hardship?

Nearly all Floridians – 92% — rely on groundwater for everyday purposes, including drinking. With such heavy dependence on groundwater, protecting the natural aquifers from pollution and contamination is absolutely vital. Not protecting Florida’s natural water sources is, quite simply, not protecting the public health.

According to EPA records, some 14,000 USTs in Florida are leaking fuel and other contaminants into the ground. The agency has confirmed nearly 25,000 releases and says the state has already cleaned up about 11,000 leaking tanks.

Industry insiders expect that of the state’s 9,200 gas stations, 800 to 1,500 stores will have to close. 3,156 gas stations and other facilities with underground storage tanks (USTs) in Florida still require the upgrade.

Sources: http://www.leaking-storage-tank.com/news/2009/05/22/familys-water-contaminated-by-leaking-gas-station-tanks/ ; http://www.news-press.com/article/20090614/BUSINESS/906150308/1075

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Economy, regulations create tough times for Florida gas stations

The County agreed to pay penalties of $4,600 for failing to maintain release detection records on three tanks between March and December 2007. The EPA also found that the county never performed automatic leak detection tests on two of the underground tanks between 2004 and 2007. Additionally, the EPA charged that county didn’t perform required line tightness testing on two of the underground storage tanks for 7 months in 2006 and 2007.

As part of its settlement with the EPA, Frederick County also agreed to install a $22,500 leak monitoring system on its above-ground tanks. According to the EPA, Frederick County will install the automatic tank monitoring system on one 12,000-gallon tank and 2 6,000-gallon tanks. The monitoring system will tie into a dedicated computer with software designed to track any fuel releases. Reliable monitoring of tanks, whether above ground or underground, leads to quicker and more efficient responses in the event of an accidental leak.

According to the EPA, the county “neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations, but certified its compliance with applicable UST regulations. The settlement reflects the county’s cooperation with EPA’s investigation, and good faith compliance efforts.”

“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,” the EPA said in a statement about the settlement.

“EPA and state UST regulations are designed to reduce the risk of underground leaks and to promptly detect and properly address leaks which do occur, thus minimizing environmental harm and avoiding the costs of major cleanups,” the agency said.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Maryland county settles UST violations with EPA

At first the Trauds assumed the water’s bad odor and taste came from being unused, so they gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited a couple of weeks. To their surprise, the problem only grew worse.

The only apparent solution was to have the water tested by a lab, which cost the Trauds a few hundred dollars. When the results were in, the lab contacted David Traud and advised him not to use the water because it contained gasoline components. David called Holli, who was staying with family in North Carolina with their newborn son, and told her to remain where she was.

In the following weeks, the Trauds’ neighbors, David and Irene Mullins, also noticed a problem with the water from their well. Tests from Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that both wells were “severely impacted” by fuel that had been leaking from an underground storage tank at the old gas station. Worse, the leak had been detected more than 10 years ago.

DEQ geologist Todd Pitsenberger told News & Arts that his agency tested the land around the buried tanks back in 1998 and concluded that “the release was relatively minor.” The DEQ took no action because there were no springs or wells in the immediate vicinity.

So when the Trauds built their home in 2007, the county health department issued permits for the construction of wells, unaware that the land was contaminated.

The UST leak, which county officials presumed to be small and relatively harmless, damaged the surrounding environment so severely that the Trauds and their neighbors still can’t drink their tap water. The DEQ installed filtration systems that make the water suitable for washing, but it is still not potable. The agency plans to install new wells this summer.

Cleanup of the site is expected to cost approximately $81,000, a small cost compared to the time, money, and aggravation the Trauds and their neighbors have endured, not to mention the health risks that exposure to fuel-contaminated water can cause.

Geologist Pitsenberger told the News & Arts that underground storage tanks are a big problem in this country. “They started putting tanks in the ground back in the ‘40s and ‘50s, and nobody really thought ‘These things are going to leak.’” In the 80s, however, the Environmental Protection Agency realized that the tanks did leak and that hundreds of thousands of them lay buried in the soil throughout the country, compromising both the health of the environment and the humans who consumed the contaminated water.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Family’s water contaminated by leaking gas station tanks

The rule came about after California experienced a series of massive environmental disasters stretching back 30 years – disasters that  involved underground storage tanks releasing tons of hazardous liquids into the land and water. Now, to play it safe, the state wants no doubt that even the newest, double-walled tanks can handle new types of fuel without sprouting leaks.

The decision has caused an outcry among gas stations that sell biodiesel, consumers who buy it, companies that make it, and environmentalists who advocate it – all of whom claim the move represents a step backward for California’s green movement.

One biodiesel dealer in San Jose told the Mercury News that the legislation requiring above-ground tanks kills his biodiesel business. “I’m not going to do that. I have no place to put them. And you are talking about $50,000 or more to buy the tank and put the monitoring system on it,” Bob Brown told the Mercury News. He added that he would continue to sell B5 to B20 biodiesel blends, as they can be stored in the USTs, but that he would discontinue selling B99, B50, and other high-grade bio blends.

Bill Rukeyser, a spokesman for the state water board, defended the state’s decision. Rukeyser told the Mercury News that California had to err on the side of caution. “We learned a real lesson. We’ve not forgotten that lesson. We don’t want to repeat that,” Rukeyser said.

Biodiesel consists of plant oils and recycled animal fats. The fuel’s “B” number indicates its percentage of environmentally friendly oils. The higher the number, the purer the fuel is and the cleaner it is to burn.

Although biodiesel has been available in California for 10 years, federal tax incentives led to a surge in the fuel’s popularity between 2005 and 2008, when demand for it grew ten times.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › New UST law may kill California’s biodiesel business

None of the plaintiffs have appeared in court since the case opened in April of 1999. Montgomery County judge Maurino Rossanese Jr. bifurcated their civil lawsuit, preventing the plaintiffs from appearing before a single jury. An attorney for the plaintiffs has appealed the judge’s decision to split up the case, but the appeal has not been ruled on.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” Christine Fisher, one of the plaintiffs, told The Times Herald. She described her experience a “nightmare.” Fisher and her husband were using the contaminated water, which smelled and tasted like normal water, for everything from drinking and cooking to bathing and swimming. Fisher’s husband grew seriously ill and nearly died. Their horse, goat, and two cats weren’t as fortunate. The animals had been drinking from a contaminated pond and died from poisoning.

The contamination occurred after the owner of the Gulf station installed underground storage tanks. Manufacturer defects allowed fuel to leak through the tank lines, and the leak detection system on the tanks malfunctioned. Estimates on the amount of fuel that leaked before the problem was discovered range from 12,000 gallons to 50,000 gallons. The leakage was so severe that fuel collected in a well across the street caused the well house to explode.

In addition to the lingering health problems many residents of Blue Bell face, residents also worry that their homes and property have become almost worthless. Many communities once affected by an environmental disaster carry a stigma long after the land has been cleaned.

“You can’t sell a house here now,” Fisher told The Times Herald.

Plaintiffs staged a protest outside the Montgomery County Courthouse Monday in an effort to bring attention to the unsettled cases.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Penn community seeks justice years after massive fuel leak

Congress established UST regulations in 1984 as part of a nationwide effort to protect the nation’s soil and natural water supplies from contamination caused by leaking USTs. Hundreds of thousands of tanks holding fuel and other environmentally hazardous substances lay buried throughout the country. Many of the older tanks are constructed with single layer steel walls that are highly corrosive and prone to leaking.

The 28 USTs at the Army’s facility in Aberdeen range in capacity from 600 to 25,000 gallons and are used to store gasoline, fuel oil, diesel, and JP-8 jet fuel. According to the EPA, the Army was cited for its failure to test the tanks’ line leak detection system, failure to keep tank release detection records, failure to install spill and overfill protection equipment, and failure to perform tank release and line lease detection. The EPA strictly regulates all USTs within national boundaries because the environmental risks they pose are so high. Just one leaking UST can contaminate billions of gallons of fresh water and soil.

According to the EPA, the Army has removed the USTs and replaced them with above ground storage tanks. The facility is now in compliance with UST regulations.

The EPA found record numbers of UST violations by government agencies last year. The agency settled nearly 40 cases involving federal facilities  and filed another 3 complaints in 2008. Penalties leveraged against the federal government, combined with the cost of cleanup projects, totaled more than $1.3 million.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › EPA cites Army for UST violations

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency administers the UST Fund, which the agency established in 1989 to help tank owners and operators pay for cleanup of their leaking USTs. Even just the smallest hole in an underground tank can leak up to 400 gallons of fuel in one year, contaminating the surrounding soil and groundwater.

The more extensive the environmental contamination, the more it generally costs to clean the surrounding land. Cleanup costs can be prohibitively expensive for many private tank owners.

The state’s UST fund is sustained by a $0.003 per-gallon fuel tax and an $0.008 per-gallon environmental impact fee, which amounts to $60 per 7,500 gallons of fuel sold by vendors. The fund has paid out more than $800 million since its inception, but became effectively insolvent in recent years when the former governor used $54 million of its funds for other purposes.

Speaking on the House floor, Cavaleto said that sweeping money from the fund had hurt people who deserved compensation from it.

One such person is Jay Koch, the owner of United Science Industries, a company that the state contracted to clean up multiple LUST sites. The state of Illinois owes Koch nearly $20 million for work performed since 2007.

Mr. Koch, who testified to the committee in support of House Bill 770, spoke about how the depleted fund has put a strain on his company.

“It’s forced me to take on their debt,” Koch told the Mt. Vernon Register-News in March. “The state has forced their debts onto the balance sheet of business and small business. It’s very disheartening. Unlike a private party, who, if they fail to pay you, you have some recourse against, the way our state system is set up, we don’t have any recourse against the state. We’re forced to sit on the side and deal with whatever they throw at you. They don’t have to play by the same rules they set up for everyone else.”

Cavaletto’s bill has passed the Illinois House and will go before the Senate.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Bill to protect UST funds passes Illinois House

The report explains that a few old fuel tanks were uncovered beneath the town hall during the construction phase. Workers allegedly punctured at least one of the tanks while they were being removed, spilling oil and other toxic substances all over the property. Plaintiffs claim that construction commenced on the site before anyone investigated the possible presence of USTs or conducted an appropriate environmental assessment of the property.

Construction workers unearthed seven tanks at the site. The tanks are believed to be roughly 70 years old – remnants of an old gas station and car dealership that once occupied the site. One thousand-gallon tank containing groundwater and fuel ruptured after it was hit by a piece of construction equipment. Another tank containing motor oil also spilled into the ground.

A company was called in to remove the contaminated soil after workers discovered the leak. Tons of soil were removed from the site, but cleanup stopped before the structural foundation of the restaurant was threatened.

David and Philip Pontillo, owners of the pizza chain, say that their restaurant has suffered from lost profits because of the contamination. They also claim that their property value has fallen. Negotiations between the two sides are ongoing, MPNnow reports.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › NY pizza chain sues town for pollution caused by leaking USTs

Cleanup efforts

The city is also using $50,000 in voter-approved funds for investigation and cleanup of the property. A hazardous waste disposal company called Clean Harbors is removing about 60 cubic yards of fuel-contaminated soil from around the area where the gas pumps once stood.

The city of Marshfield acquired the property in 2003 when the former owner failed to pay the property taxes.

Lauren Konetznv, an engineer working at the site, said that the groundwater in the area of the old gas station is also contaminated with fuel. The water should clean up quickly, however, once the soil has been removed, she said. Engineers will drill six test wells next week to retest the water, which will be monitored repeatedly for the next several months. Because the polluted land sits in proximity to an old well, it must meet drinking water standards even though the well hasn’t been used for years.

Marshfield’s administrator, Rocco Longo, said that the city can proceed with park plans.

“What’s left now is for us to initiate a planning process for us to turn it into some kind of park or green space for the downtown,” he told the Patriot Ledger. “It might not be bad to have a little green space.”

A local memorial fund says on its website that it will create a park on the land and call it “Dandelion Park,” in memory of Molly Fitzgerald, a 14-year-old who died in June 2006.

“The Molly Fitzgerald Memorial Fund is undertaking our largest project to date in 2008. We will take what is now an ugly vacant lot in the middle of downtown Marshfield and turn it into a beautiful park in honor of Molly and all the other children who have died too early,” the website says.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Massachusetts town converts fuel-contaminated land into park

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that there are 623,319 USTs in the United States and its territories. Of those USTs, there have been 479,817 “confirmed releases” or leaks and 377,019 completed cleanups. That leaves a national total of 102,798 known leaking tanks awaiting removal and cleanup.

Even the slowest dripping tanks can pollute millions of gallons of groundwater. It takes just one gallon of fuel to contaminate one million gallons of water. It doesn’t matter whether you get your water from a municipal reservoir or a well on your property; your water supply could be at risk of contamination by leaking USTs in your area.

Fortunately, there are some telltale signs that an underground tank may be leaking. Business owners with USTs and individuals alike should be aware of these signals. Early detection can help prevent major health and environmental problems.

• You or other people smell escaped product or see anything like an oily sheen on water near the facility
• Your neighbors complain of vapors in their basements or about water that tastes or smells like petroleum.
• Someone reports unusual operating conditions at your facility, such as erratic behavior of the dispensing pump.
• You receive or generate results from leak detection monitoring and testing that indicate a leak.

If you suspect that a UST is leaking, you should immediately notify the appropriate agency for your state or region. Tanks located in Indian Country should be reported to the EPA Regional UST program office.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Do you live near a leaking underground storage tank?

The proposed regulation would apply to storage tank systems owned or operated by federal departments, boards, agencies, and Crown corporations; to storage tank systems operated in connection with port authorities set out in the Schedule to the Canada Marine Act, railways and airports; and to storage tank systems located on federal and Aboriginal lands. The new regulation would also apply to suppliers of petroleum products or allied petroleum products to these storage tank systems.

The new regulation also aims to reduce several toxic substances from entering the environment, among them 1,2-dichloroethane, 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine, benzene, ethylene oxide, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are found in petroleum products and allied petroleum products. Under the proposed regulation, leaking storage tank systems would be required to be temporarily withdrawn from service, repaired, and be leak free before being returned to service. More stringent requirements would apply to singlewalled underground tanks and piping. Leaking single-walled underground tanks and piping must be permanently withdrawn from service and removed within four years after the day on which the proposed regulation takes effect and the day on which the owner or operator becomes aware of the leak.

The following storage tank systems would be considered by Environment Canada to be at high risk for contaminating soil and groundwater, and therefore would have to be permanently withdrawn from service and removed within four years of the new regulation taking effect:

* storage tank systems with tanks designed to be installed aboveground but were installed below grade or in secondary containment surrounded by fill
* storage tank systems with tanks designed to be installed underground but were installed above grade or in unfilled secondary containment
* storage tank systems with partially buried tanks
* single-walled underground storage tank systems that do not have pre-existing corrosion protection and leak detection
* single-walled underground piping that does not have corrosion protection and leak detection. An owner or operator of storage tank systems installed before the proposed regulation takes effect would have to perform prescribed leak-detection testing at a specified frequency on single-walled underground equipment and single-walled aboveground equipment that does not have secondary containment.

Horizontal aboveground tanks without secondary containment would have to be visually inspected once within two years of the coming into effect of the proposed regulation, and once per month thereafter. Vertical aboveground tanks without secondary containment would require a test within two years after the day on which the proposed regulation takes effect, and once every 10 years thereafter. Sumps, regardless of installation date, would also have to be visually inspected once within two years of the proposed regulation taking effect, and once a year thereafter. Suppliers of petroleum products would be prohibited from transferring petroleum products into any storage tank, unless the storage tank system identification number is visible. They would be required to record the storage tank system identification number on their invoice and notify the operator of any spills or leaks that occurred during the transfer process.

Main cause of soil contamination
Spills and leaks of petroleum products from storage tank systems are responsible for some 66% of the soil contamination on contaminated sites on federal and Aboriginal lands in Canada.

Tanks store petroleum products as diverse as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, aviation fuels, kerosene, naphtha, lubricating oils, thinners, solvents, and printing inks. Storage tank systems can be based on a single tank just large enough to provide heating oil to one dwelling, to a multiple large-capacity tank system used for fleet fuelling, product distribution, or fuel supply. The volume stored in the tank system can vary from 230 litres to over 75 million litres. The proposed regulation was published in Canada Gazette Part I, April 7, 2007, for a 60-day

Source: EcoLog Environmental Resources Group

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Feds propose new reg to remove leaking storage tanks from service

There are about 6,200 leaking underground storage tanks in the state — and more than 1,500 are considered ongoing contamination risks. Some of the leaking tanks have been problems for more than 15 years. Almost 820 are labeled high-risk.

State officials say they are trying to devise new rules so that the most hazardous sites, which often take years to clean up because of bureaucratic red tape and legal wrangling, can be addressed faster.
Advertisement

See where they are: Click here to search a map and database to see how many of the state’s 6,200 leaking underground tanks are near you.

The state’s backlog is down about 30 percent from five years ago, according to statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency, but about 20 leaking tanks deemed in need of action are on school property.

“We are taking enforcement action against those who don’t fix (leaks),” said Elaine Douskey, who supervises the underground storage tank program with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. “We are staying after them.” Left undetected, leaking tanks can cause big problems, as residents in Climbing Hill, an unincorporated town of less than 150 people in Woodbury County in northwest Iowa, discovered.

They learned almost 18 years ago that two underground tanks, including one that belonged to a school, contaminated five residential drinking water wells and one public supply well that belonged to a restaurant. State officials provided bottled water for almost nine years and then switched the town to filtration systems before homeowners received new wells around 2004, said Rochelle Cardinale, an environmental coordinator with the DNR.

Routine tests show the new wells are safe, but some residents still question whether lingering contamination will someday taint that water supply, too.

“I’m worried about where that contamination might go,” said Gary Little, who works and lives with his family in the Barn, a local cafe.

Longtime residents are also concerned about developing cancer, he said. “They don’t know how long they’ve been drinking that stuff.”

People who ingest or breathe high concentrations of chemicals released from a tank could wind up with leukemia, kidney damage, nervous system disorders and other ailments, according to state public health officials.

A report by the Iowa Department of Public Health estimates Climbing Hill residents were exposed to chemicals, including benzene, for a year or two before the leak was detected. That wasn’t long enough to put them at greater risk for getting cancer, the report states.

The Climbing Hill leaks are still labeled high-risk; there is still benzene in the soil. In high enough concentrations, benzene can cause leukemia.

The site might be downgraded because the wells have been removed, Cardinale said. The department isn’t sure how much longer it will have to monitor the area, she said.

The high-risk designation means a leak could expose people to dangerous chemicals. It doesn’t mean contamination has already occurred.

Challenges exist in finding, tracking tanks that leak

DNR officials know how many leaks there are, but say they don’t keep track of how many times leaking tanks have tainted drinking water, polluted lakes or streams, or seeped into basements in Iowa.

Douskey said the agency’s data on the leaks have that detail, but the only way to tally up that data is to review each file manually.

However, the agency does respond quickly to reports of suspected contamination – either in the water or the air, which sometimes is the first clue there is a leak nearby, Douskey said.

One example is from February 2006, when employees at a day care in Shelby said tap water smelled like gasoline. The likely culprit was a plastic water line running past a gas station. The day care moved and the lines were replaced.

But without evidence of contamination, it’s not readily apparent to residents whether a leaking underground storage tank near them poses a hazard because each site is different, Douskey said. Soil composition, the size of the tank, the depth of nearby wells, the age and extent of the leak, and the groundwater table all factor into where pollutants are likely to spread and whether they present a risk to the public.

“If I lived right next door to a gas station, I would be curious whether they have a plume under that site,” Douskey said, adding that anyone can view the agency’s records on leaking tanks for more information.

If a leak occurs in clay soil, it could stay on the site forever and never be a problem, but a leak in sandy soil travels farther, she said. But even if it spreads, that doesn’t mean it’s a risk, she added.

Leaking gasoline tanks can also present the risk of fire and explosion because vapors travel.

When a leak is detected, state officials inform residents and businesses within 100 feet of the affected area, and they take soil, water and air samples if they suspect any contamination, Cardinale said.

Cardinale said it’s unusual for a leak to travel much beyond 400 feet, or about a city block. The leak could spread farther if it’s near a municipal well that pumps lots of water and can pull contaminants in.

Tracing contamination, cleanup can take years

It took 14 years for officials to figure out how to handle the Climbing Hill contamination. That case was extreme, but cases sometimes linger several years while agencies and owners decide what to do, Cardinale said.

The agency and the industry admit it often takes far too long to take action, and both sides are trying to implement new methods to speed up detection and cleanup. Aided by new federal laws, state regulators also have more tools to guarantee that tank owners comply.

Some of the changes include:

• Devising a better way to measure the actual potential spread of contamination, which could downgrade some sites where the current risk might be overstated, although industry officials and the DNR are currently at odds over how to do this.

• Using inspectors from third-party companies to check all tanks every two years. State inspectors had such a backlog that some sites went five years without an inspection.

• Shutting down gas stations or fueling facilities that don’t comply by preventing fuel trucks from filling the stations’ tanks, in accordance with a federal law that went into effect last year.

• Requiring all new tanks to have enhanced safety measures, leak detection devices and an extra outer shell. Traditional steel tanks, prone to corrosion, have been replaced with specially coated Fiberglas tanks resistant to gasoline, diesel and ethanol.

• Bringing all parties together at once, especially for high-risk sites that need more attention.

“If we know it’s high-risk, we decided it’d be best to get everybody at the table at the same time,” Douskey said. “That seems to have cut the time down significantly.”

Jeff Hove, regulatory affairs manager of the Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa, agreed. “Especially if it’s a newer release, you’re going to see it move forward immediately,” he said.

But about three-fourths of the remaining cleanup work in Iowa must be funded by taxpayers.

Evaluating a leak requires rounds of monitoring and testing to figure out how far contamination has spread. It’s a problem if pollutants reach private drinking water wells, city water supplies, sewer lines, lakes or streams, or seep into basements as a chemical vapor.

If the current property owners didn’t install the tank — or knew nothing about it when they bought the land — finding out who is responsible adds another hurdle.

Debating whether to excavate the soil, remove the tank, extract vapors or take other action turns into back-and-forth between government agencies and site owners, Hove said.

“It can be a really long process,” Hove said. “Sometimes the regulator will say, ‘Well, industry’s dragging their feet.’ And industry says, ‘We did our report and sent it in 12 months ago and it hasn’t been reviewed by DNR yet.’ ”

Eastern Iowa school district spends thousands on site

In the meantime, some site owners simply watch and wait. Near an elementary school in Lowden, a town of about 800 residents some 40 miles northwest of Davenport, inspectors test six groundwater samples each year.

Leaks from an old fuel oil tank used to heat the school’s boiler are in proximity to a city drinking water well. That means the site has been labeled high-risk, even though the tank was removed in 2004 and the tests show contaminant levels falling within allowable ranges, said Mary Jo Hainstock, superintendent of the North Cedar Community School District.

The district spent about $14,200 in 2004 to have the tank removed and has been paying $1,300 to a private company each year since for the tests.

“It’s thousands of dollars,” she said. “But when you want to do things right, it’s really not an option not to do it.”

The district hopes the state will reclassify the site soon, although Hainstock is prepared to wait up to a year for her district’s application to be reviewed.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Iowa pollution perils lurk among buried fuel tanks