March 2 6 , 2009 1



### Task Order No. 3003

– Task 2. Subtask a

– EPAct Key State Decisions

– Secondary Containment Technical Directive No. 13

Summary for EP Act Key State Decisions

– Secondary Containment This report summarizes the methodology and findings of the review of stat e and territory regulatory

decisions for secondary

containment of underground storage tanks (UST s )
. The attached spreadsheet contains two appendices :

 Appendix A

– Detailed State Requirements for Secondary Containment  Appendix B

– State Requirements for S ump Testing, Interstitial Integrity Testing, and Interstitial Monitoring Frequency Methods E 2 

### In c. researched state and territory (hereafter referred to as state) UST program Web sites and online publications of state and territory rules and regulations f or requirements related to secondary containment of USTs . Rules were reviewed for information pertaining to the questions provided by

OUST, as listed in the Results section. Results Where is secondary containment required? Thirty
- three states require , or propose to require, secondary containment for all new and replacement tanks and piping
. New York requires secondary containment for all new tanks onl y. Eleven states require , or propose to require, all tanks within 1,000 feet of a community water s u pply or public drinking water well to be secondarily contained. Alaska, New Jersey , and Ohio only require secondary

containment in sensitive areas and Missouri requires secondary containment on a tank
- by
- tank basis. Requirements for s even states and terr itories were not located online. Table 1. Summary of secondary containment requirements Secondary Containment Requirement Number of States All new and replaced tanks/piping Final 32 Draft 1 Within 1,000 feet of a CWS or PDWW Final 9 Draft 2 New tanks only 1 Only in sensitive areas 3 As determined by the state 1 Requirements not available 7March 2 6 , 2009 2



### When does repair become replace? Twenty states do not specify

a threshold for requiring piping to be replaced. The remaining 3 6 states specify require m ents for replacement with secondaril y contained piping ( Table 2)
. Table 2. States with thresholds for prohibiting repairs and requiring replacement

Repair/Replace Requirement State/Territory Do not allow

repairs to single
- walled piping New Hampshire, New York, Wyoming Repairs require pre
- approval Kansas, Massachusetts , Rhode Island, Tennessee Specif ied length of piping may be repaired ( 5

– 25 feet) Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota Specif ied percentage of pip ing may be repaired (20

– 50 percent) Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin Specify a length and percentage of piping, whichever is less (10

– 50 feet; 10

– 50 percent) Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska Allow repairs up to 100 percent of

piping Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah State must be notified if more than 20 feet of piping is to be replaced Vermont Only the major component replaced will need to meet the rule’s design and installation requirements for new and replacement facilities Maine Each contiguous stretch of piping Oregon 

### Are submersible turbine pump sumps specifically required? Twenty
- two states specifically require submersible turbine pumps to be contained within a sump. Thirty
- four states do not require submersible turbine pump sumps. Is periodic sump testing required? Sixteen states require periodic testing or inspection of sump areas (Table 3 )
. Il linois, Wisconsin, and New Mexico only

specify testing be performed at installation and New Hampshire and New Jersey onl y specify testing be performed within 30 day s of installation. T hirty
- five states do not specify periodic sump testing requirements.March 2 6 , 2009 3 

### Table 3. States that require sump testing Test ing Requirements State/Territory Annually Alabama , Delaware, Georgia, Mississippi, North Dakota, Utah At installation, repair, and every five years

(test not specified) Maryland Manufacturer test at installation, repair, or replacement Pennsylvania Below
- grade piping and dispenser sum ps : every three years S pill containment systems : not exceeding every 12 months

(test not specified) Florida Visual inspection e very 60 days Texas Annual visual inspection; tightness test e very three years North Carolina , Ohio Visual inspection e very two years Iowa Monthly visual inspection; annual sensor test ; quarterly inspection of double wall piping sumps Wyom ing

Monthly visual inspection ; annually if system has a submersible pump sump with liquid
tight containme nt and a liquid sensor alarm Minnesota Quarterly visual inspections of dispenser and under
- dispenser

containment sumps Tennessee 

### Is interstitial integrity testing required? Fort y - three states do not require interstitial integrity testing. South Caro lina, Texas, and Wisconsin specify

testing be performed at installation. Ten states do require periodic interstitial integrit y testing (Table 4 )
.

Table 4. States that require interstitial integrity testing State/Territory Test Frequency Delaware , Mis sissippi , Ohio Annually

Iowa Two years California, Florida, Illinois , North Carolina T hree years Minnesota Monthly visual inspection ; annually with sensor in place Rhode Island Tightness test once the tank has been installed for a period of twenty

year s, and once every two years thereafterMarch 2 6 , 2009 4



### Is monthly or continuous interstitial monitoring required? Fort y - eight states require monthly interstitial monitoring. Six states require continuous interstitial monitoring (Table 5 ). New York and Vermont requir e weekly interstitial monitoring. Table 5. States that require continuous interstitial monitoring State/Territory California Connecticut Massachusetts Montana New Hampshire North Carolina