The November incident occurred when oil waste from a Childers Oil facility permeated the Kentucky River just one mile upstream from the city’s water plant. Then, in February, massive amounts of diesel fuel were released from numerous storage tanks belonging to Childers. The diesel leak exposed area residents to contaminated water for a 10-day period, during which time the city could only warn them not to cook, drink, or bathe in the water.

The state’s Energy and Environment Cabinet filed a lawsuit against Childers Oil and a related company, Mountain Rail Properties. Both companies are owned by the same family. The attorneys have also asked the Franklin, Kentucky, Circuit Judge to issue an injunction that would bar Childers Oil from allowing any future petroleum leaks. A violation of the injunction would lead to the company being held in contempt of court.

“It is the personal right of the citizens of Letcher County to live in a safe environment and to have clean drinking water,” state attorneys were quoted as saying in the CSNews Online report.

Many area residents remain suspicious of the oil company after its record of environmental violations was released. According to Lexington Herald-Leader, the company’s violations include “improperly burning debris; improperly dumping construction waste, including construction debris; leaking or improperly registered and upgraded underground fuel storage tanks; sewage station overflow; and not filing correct monitoring reports.”

According to CSNews Online, an employee of Childers told a state inspector in one of the earlier cases that the company owner, Don Childers, instructed him to burn various waste materials with ‘used motor oil from the shop’ behind the Wal-Mart in Whitesburg. Childers told the employee not to make a big fire, and that he would run over the site with a bulldozer later.

The company’s owners, however, say that they are cooperating with the state and that litigation isn’t necessary. They also say they love their city and are proud to serve it.

Ironically, Childers Oil is sponsoring an event called “River Sweep 2009,” an environmental event held by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission to clean up area riverbanks.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Kentucky oil company repeatedly damages environment, sued by state

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

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 old tanks are made of steel, which is highly corrosive. The underground tanks were especially prone to rust, thereby allowing the fuel to leak out into the surrounding earth.

Pat Coyne, director of business development for Environmental Data Resources, Inc. said that steel tanks tend to rot like “Swiss cheese,” according to a report by the Associated Press.

The rusting tanks and other programs once administered by the Civil Defense Preparedness Agency became FEMA’s responsibility after the agency was formed. Decades later, the agency is still trying to inventory the tanks it owns – now numbering more than 2,000. The agency still doesn’t know the exact geographical locations of some of the tanks, whether they are above ground or underground, or whether they are leaking. The paper trail tied to the tanks spans several decades and hands. No evidence to date suggests that these government-owned underground storage tanks (USTs) have created environmental or health problems because of leakage.

But the government tanks, which FEMA and the FCC have tossed back and forth like a hot potato of  responsibility, are just one part of a much more massive problem: the existence of more than half a million USTs holding fuel and oil buried throughout the country. No one knows exactly how many of the tanks could be leaking.

USTs that leak diesel or other fuel can easily contaminate the groundwater. It takes just one gallon of diesel fuel to effectively contaminate one million gallons of water, putting people at risk for cancer, kidney damage, nervous system disorders and a number of other health hazards.

FEMA has worked to repair and or replace some of the tanks since the 1990s. Others have been removed or filled with sand. But many of the tanks, including many suspected leakers, have yet to be removed. More modern tanks must be made of leak-proof polymers and have a leak detection system.

FEMA spokesman Dan Stoneking told the AP that it is working to fix the problem of all the leaking tanks under its jurisdiction. “We are committed to upholding our obligations to remediate, remove or upgrade them as necessary,” he told the AP. “We believe in adhering to any relevant environmental rule or law and will do so.”

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › leaking fuel tanks: a cold war legacy

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