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 company agreed to pay $22,758 to settle alleged violations of UST regulations designed to prevent, detect, and control fuel leaks from underground tanks. With hundreds of thousands of USTs throughout the country leaking fuel and other hazardous substances, curbing environmental contamination caused by such releases is one of the EPA’s top initiatives.

According to EPA records, more than 3,000 known leaking USTs await cleanup in Pennsylvania alone. The agency has recorded cleanups of more than 11,000 tanks to date.

From May 2006 to Nov. 2007, the 7-Eleven in Cranberry Township failed to perform automatic line leak detector testing annually on four 8,000-gallon tanks holding gasoline and diesel fuel and one 5,000-gallon tank containing kerosene. The same location also failed to perform line tightness tests of underground piping on the 5 tanks for a few months in 2007.

The Pittsburgh location also failed to perform automatic line leak detector tests and line tightness tests on its 5 tanks from Dec. 1, 2003 to Aug. 2007, 3 months in 2006, and 2 months in 2007.

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

“Leaking tanks are a major source of soil and groundwater contamination,” the EPA said in its statement. “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 › EPA settles with Penn company over multiple UST violations

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

“TravelCenters of America has knowingly and repeatedly disregarded California’s underground fuel storage laws for years,” attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. told the Central Valley Business Times.

According to the CVBT, Riverside, California, District Attorney Rod Pacheco filed a similar suit against TravelCenters in July of last year, alleging the company violated multiple state regulations governing the possession of underground storage tanks, which almost always store fuel and other hazardous substances. Whereas the Riverside lawsuit focused on TravelCenters in that county, the latest lawsuit names TravelCenter’s facilities statewide.

Responding to the Riverside County lawsuit last year, TravelCenters called the laws unconstitutional. The company also claimed that federal laws pre-empted California’s laws, and that the state’s regulations violate due process.

According to the CVBT, the Riverside Department of Environmental Health periodically inspected USTs at the TravelCenters facility in Riverside County over a number of years. The officials found numerous violations of California’s underground storage tank laws, yet the company ignored repeated warnings to fix most of the problems.

California has some of the strictest environmental protection standards in the country, which often exceed those established by the federal government. While critics say that California’s laws are too tough on big business, the truth is that stricter regulations compel the automotive, fuel, and other industries to develop better, cleaner technology. Where regulations are too lax, manufacturers often land in court defending their products while people become harmed or killed.

Legal defeats can be extremely costly for defendants, especially if punitive damages are imposed. But money talks. Those costly penalties ultimately persuade big corporations to boost their own standards, which may involve implementing simple and inexpensive modifications or investing in developing entirely new and innovative technologies. As technology evolves and products improve,  the earth benefits. People benefit.

Instead of complying with the same state laws to which other gas stations adhere, TravelCenters now faces paying “the statutory maximum of $25,000 in civil penalties for each day of each violation, which could amount to millions of dollars in penalties,” the CVBT report says.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › California sues truck stop chain for UST violations

Modern gas pumps are fitted with vapor-recovery boots on their nozzles, which help control the amount of vaporized fuel that leaks into the air. A similar device recovers vapors that are released when tankers fill a station’s underground storage tanks. However, faulty recovery devices allow toxic chemicals such as hydrocarbon fumes and benzene to enter the air in substantial amounts.

These airborne chemicals have been linked definitively to a slew of respiratory ailments and cancer by the National Institutes of Health. Not surprisingly, California leads the rest of the country in adopting standards that exceed the federal level. Today the state begins implementing tougher vapor recovery regulations, which require gas stations to equip their nozzles with better vapor recovery devices.

Gas stations with attached auto repair shops are doubly dangerous. Spilled or leaking antifreeze, lead products, and other solvents can contaminate the surrounding air, soil and water over time. The brakes and clutches of certain vehicles contain asbestos, which can be released into the atmosphere. As long as motor vehicles rely on these hazardous substances to run, humans will always be exposed. The key to minimizing the effects of exposure is to support better environmental regulations. Pressuring auto manufacturers and oil companies to develop alternative ways to fuel up is another strategy for a cleaner, safer future.

Source: http://www.emagazine.com/

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › gas stations illustrate need for tougher environmental regulations

Single wall steel tanks are prone to corrosion, especially when they contain highly caustic liquids such as fuel. With hundreds of thousands of leaking storage tanks buried underground throughout the country, identifying and removing the tanks has been a major initiative of the US Environmental Protection Agency and many state environmental agencies.

The cost of replacing the tanks, however, is extremely prohibitive – especially for the mom and pop operations. The average cost of replacing a single underground storage tank is $250,000. Gas stations with multiple tanks can expect a bill of about $400,000. Aside from the expense itself, the trouble for many small and independent gas station owners is acquiring financing for the job.

“Even banks that our stations have had a long relationship with are not going to loan them $250,000 for an asset that nobody can see,” said one gas station owner to the Orlando Sentinel, adding that in the bank’s eyes, the upgrade would not result in greater income.

The requirement has caused the value of older gas stations to plummet. Any new owners would have to replace the tanks before they could sell gas. If they chose not to sell gas, the new owners would still be liable for the old tanks. Federal law requires station owners to have a $1 million insurance policy. At the same time, many underwriters have stopped insuring stations with single-wall tanks, forcing some stations to stop selling gas or close their doors.

According to Mike Ashley of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, gas station owners have had ample time to prepare for the big switch. He reminded all facilities requiring upgrades that the upgrade rules have been in effect since 1991 – ample time to prepare and comply.

Gas station owners hoping there might be a reprieve or extension of the Dec. 31 deadline are likely to be disappointed. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has not granted an extension for upgrades since 1983, when it became one of the first states to establish UST regulations.

Even a very slow leak from a UST is an environmental hazard. Just one gallon of fuel will contaminate one million gallons of water and the surrounding soil, endangering the health of humans and wildlife.

SOURCE: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks › Deadline looms for Florida gas station underground storage tanks

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